Libya 2011 | Beyond La Belle, and Lockerbie

April 7, 2011August 11, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

~ By: Larry Walker, Jr. ~

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” ~ Matthew 3:2 ~

The long spell of bitterness between Libya and the United States seems to be related to a territorial dispute going back to the 1970’s. Shortly after Gaddafi came to power in 1969, he declared that the Gulf of Sidra belonged to Libya, and that anyone crossing beyond what he termed, “The Line of Death”, without permission, would invite a military response. That seemed to be a reasonable position to me; after all, there is a certain line that you don’t cross on my property without a problem. But to the leaders of the United States, at the time, it presented a challenge, a sort of double-dog-dare. The U.S. would eventually cross that line for no other reason than to see what Gaddafi would do. This fatal flaw in past American foreign policy has led to a countless loss of human life and property.

So just where is the Gulf of Sidra? It’s right smack between Benghazi and Misrata in Northern Libya (see Map below). Does this look like a part of Libyan territory to you? It sure looks like it to me. It’s definitely not United States territory. How many lives have been lost due to the United States insistence on policing Libya, and the rest of the planet for that matter, over trivial matters like this? I would bet that I’m not the only one that could have given a flip about the Gulf of Sidra, then as now. Yet, if Libya were to send a fleet of armed vessels into the Gulf of Mexico, just off of our Southern coastline, I would venture to say, “there would be hell to pay”. Perhaps it’s time we put ourselves in Gaddafi’s shoes for a moment.

The Gulf of Sidra is a body of water in the Mediterranean Sea on the northern coast of Libya; it is also known as Gulf of Sirte. The Gulf of Sidra has been a major centre for tuna fishing in the Mediterranean for centuries. It gives its name to the city of Sirte situated on its western side. The gulf measures 273 miles (439 km) from east to west, and occupies an area of 22,000 square miles.

After the coup d’etat which brought Muammar Gaddafi to power in 1969, there have been a number of international incidents concerning territorial claims of the Gaddafi regime over the waters of the Gulf of Sidra.

1973 – Gaddafi’s Line of Death

In 1973, Gaddafi claimed much of the Gulf of Sidra to be within Libyan territorial waters by drawing a straight line at 32 degrees, 30 minutes north between a point near Benghazi and the western headland of the gulf at Misrata with an exclusive 62 nautical miles (115 km) fishing zone. Gaddafi declared it The Line of Death, the crossing of which would invite a military response. The United States [in accepting the invitation] claimed its rights to conduct naval operations on international waters, a standard of 12-mile (19 km) territorial limit from a country’s shore. Gaddafi claimed it to be a territorial sea, not just a coastal area. In response the United States authorized naval exercises in the Gulf of Sidra to conduct Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations. On several occasions Libyan fighter planes harassed United States military planes maneuvering in the area.

On March 21, 1973, Libyan fighter planes intercepted and fired on a U.S. Air Force C-130 conducting signals intelligence off the Libyan coast. During the encounter, two Libyan Mirage fighters signaled the C-130 to follow them toward Libya and land, prompting the American plane to take evasive action. The C-130 received cannon fire from the Libyan fighters as it fled but was able to escape by using cloud cover. According to U.S. officials, the American plane was never closer than 75 miles from the Libyan coast.

So the U.S. provoked an incident, just to see how Gaddafi would respond, and then when he responded, we backed down. Didn’t we have better things to do in 1973, like perhaps tackling the looming energy crisis, or overcoming some great humanitarian need? Were human lives really worth the price of conducting Freedom of Navigation Operations in Libya?

Freedom of Navigation Operations (source)

Freedom of Navigation is a principle of customary International Law that, apart from the exceptions provided for in international law, ships flying the flag of any state shall not suffer interference from other states. This right is now also codified as article 87(1)a of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, not all UN members (notably the United States of America) have ratified this convention.

The United States’ Freedom of Navigation program challenges territorial claims on the world’s oceans and airspace that are considered excessive by the United States, using diplomatic protests and/or by interference. The United States position is an insistence that all nations must obey the international law of the sea as stated by the UN Law of the Sea Convention, though the United States has yet to ratify the treaty. Some coastal states make claims that the United States sees as inconsistent with international law, which, if unchallenged, would limit navigational freedoms of the vessels and aircraft of the U.S. and other countries.

On several occasions, U.S. armed forces have conducted operations in areas claimed by other countries, such as naval operations in the Gulf of Sidra in the 1980s. Throughout the years U.S. forces have been performing “Freedom of Navigation” operations in the Straits of Gibraltar, Strait of Hormuz, Straits of Malacca, the Indonesian Archipelago, the Black Sea, and occasionally the Canadian Arctic.

One of the notable operations conducted as part of Freedom of Navigation program was performed by USS Yorktown, during which, on February 12, 1988 she was “nudged” by Soviet frigate Bezzavetny in an attempt to divert the vessel out of Soviet-claimed territorial waters; some observers have called the event “the last incident of the Cold War.”

So let me get this straight, while I was in junior high and high school, the U.S. government was busy establishing a policy to unilaterally enforce UN laws which the Congress has yet to ratify unto this day. This all looks pretty foolish in retrospect; although I’m sure it was serious business at the time, at least for anyone who actually cared. Apparently for those who did care it was worth putting countless lives in harm’s way. One has to wonder if anyone was really hurt by being prohibited from entering the Gulf of Sidra in the first place. If so, who?

1981 – First Gulf of Sidra Incident

In August 1981, during the United States Sixth Fleet FON exercises, Libyan fighter planes were assembled from elsewhere in the country to fly patrols near the American ships. On August 19 two Libyan Su-22 Fitter fighter-bombers were intercepted by two F-14 Tomcat fighters from the aircraft carrier Nimitz. During the engagement, one of the American planes was targeted by an air-to-air Atoll missile. After evading the missile, both Libyan planes were shot down with Sidewinder missiles launched by the Tomcats. According to some reports, the two Libyan pilots managed to eject and were rescued from the sea. According to other reports, one of the Libyan pilot’s parachutes failed to open.

So after a near miss in the 70s, the U.S. decided to send in more ships for another Freedom of Navigation exercise. It would appear that we had no other reason to be in the Gulf of Sidra other than to provoke some kind of response from Libya. When the response came, a Libyan soldier had to die. But even that wasn’t enough. Somebody needed to be taught the lesson of, “do as I say, or else”.

1986 – 3rd American Provocation (source)

In the spring of 1986, the U.S. Navy deployed three aircraft carrier task force groups, USS America, USS Coral Sea and USS Saratoga from the Sixth Fleet with 225 aircraft and some 30 warships across the “Line of Death” and into the disputed Gulf of Sidra. After a day of armed conflict, the operation was terminated after an unknown number of human and materiel losses to the Libyan side and no losses to the American side.

Two weeks later on April 5, 1986, a bomb exploded in a West Berlin disco, La Belle, killing two American servicemen, a Turkish woman and wounding more than 200 others. The United States claimed to have obtained cable transcripts from Libyan agents in East Germany involved in the attack. After several days of diplomatic talks with European and Arab partners, President Ronald Reagan ordered eighteen F-111F strike aircraft of the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing, flying from RAF Lakenheath supported by four EF-111A Ravens of the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing, from RAF Upper Heyford in England to strike targets in Libya in conjunction with fifteen A-6, A-7, F/A-18 attack aircraft and EA-6B Prowler Electronic Warfare Aircraft from the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga, USS America and USS Coral Sea on station in the Gulf of Sidra. The attack lasted about ten minutes, hitting several targets at 0200 on April 15th. Two American airmen were killed when their plane was shot down over the Gulf of Sidra. Forty-five Libyan soldiers and government officials and fifteen civilians were also killed.

Now there was a brilliant idea, “let’s cross Mad Dog’s Line of Death and see what happens. Then if he fights back, we’ll exact an unknown number of human and material losses upon Libyans, and then withdraw.” And later on, “if he so much as lifts a finger, we’ll take him out.” Great plan! You see, just like today, for some it matters whether the lives lost were military or civilian, but not for me. A human life is a human life. Just because one wears a uniform or a badge doesn’t make their life any less valuable. After all, don’t most soldiers have civilian wives, children, parents and siblings? Why do some then discount the loss of military personnel? That one that you killed was somebody’s son, brother, daughter, sister, father, or mother.

Motive behind the 1988 Lockerbie Bombing (source)

The motive that is generally attributed to Libya’s alleged attack on Pan Am Flight 103 can be traced back to the series of military confrontations with the U.S. Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra, which Libya claimed as its territorial waters. First, there was the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) when two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down. Then, two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf of Sidra. Later, on 23 March 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra, followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on 25 March 1986. The Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating to these sinkings by ordering the April 1986 bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers and which killed three and injured 230. [Then came the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.]

Conclusion

The damage that America has inflicted on Libya has been for no good reason. By force, America challenged Libya’s rights to its own territory. The losses suffered by Libya far outweigh any damage done to Americans in retaliation. Yet, some Americans will never be satisfied, because they are unable to see beyond La Belle, and Lockerbie. I mean it’s as if Libya, for no reason whatsoever, allegedly engaged in both of these seeming terrorist acts. Yet there is another view. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who believe that when America plays the role of an aggressive police state, and in so doing provokes, threatens or damages smaller nations, any retaliation is justified. I’m sorry, but you can’t convince me that the U.S. is without guilt in this matter. The U.S. has engaged in numerous attacks on Libya which have resulted in an unknown number of casualties. Instead of offering Gaddafi a noose, perhaps we should be offering him an apology.

Bringing it up to the conflict of the day, what would the United States government do if a large group of armed protestors suddenly rose up and stormed the U.S. Capitol? Does a government have the right to defend itself? Would the U.S. government use force against some of its own citizens, or would its leaders instead step down? If the U.S. government acted in self-defense against even a handful of its own citizens, would it be right for a 3rd party to intervene by launching a type of Odyssey Dawn upon Washington, DC and U.S. military targets?

Get over it. Some of us really do want to work, live and worship in peace. It’s high time that America mind its own business. It’s time to stop playing God. Let Libya resolve its own conflicts. When Libyans break Libyan laws they must pay the price, just as when Americans breach American laws. If there is a way for America to assist Libya diplomatically, then that should be our goal. However a policy of taking lives in the name of saving others is as reckless as attempting to enforce the unratified United Nations position on freedom of navigation.

Shhhhh! They’re watching. Judgment day is coming.

Addendum : The United States doesn’t recognize the 12 mile limit from its own shores, but believes everyone else must. Meanwhile, the U.S. claims up to 200 miles of the continental shelf as its territory. See – What Goes Around Comes Around: How UNCLOS Ratification Will Herald Europe’s Precautionary Principle as U.S. Law. In other words, unratified means unjustified.

Obama’s Unauthorized War in Libya

March 27, 2011August 11, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

How many casualties so far?

~ By: Larry Walker, Jr. ~

So just how many 18-20 year old Libyan soldiers has Obama killed? Or were those tanks, trucks and command centers just empty? Dropping bombs on 18-20 year old Libyan solders, killing them without warning and without a declaration of war is a crime. When our soldiers die in combat, we cringe. Yet when we see young Libyan soldiers die, at our hand, some cheer. CNN even cheered when a rebel suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with explosives into a Libyan army barracks and detonated it, killing hundreds. Libyan soldiers were under the impression that they were protecting their homeland against an internal assault by government protesters in conjunction with foreign terrorists. Libya never declared war on the United States, and no U.S. interests were at risk, so how can this action be justified?

Firing missiles, from miles away, at young Libyan soldiers, who were defending themselves against an internal uprising, killing untold thousands, without authorization, and without a formal declaration of war, is not only cowardly, but in my mind constitutes a war crime punishable by impeachment, if not death.

WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

United States Code: Title 50, CHAPTER 33—(Reference)

§ 1541. Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Operation Odyssey Dawn is an unauthorized use of military force. There was no formal declaration of war. There is no specific statutory authorization. There was not a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, the use of military force was authorized by Congress – AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

No matter what justification you may wish to apply to this action, taken solely by the order of Barack Obama, it is a blatant abuse of power for which he should pay the ultimate price. How dare you even mention the words, “the American people”. Neither the American people, nor their representatives have authorized any such involvement in Libya. Obama has murdered thousands of Libyan soldiers on the ground, without authorization from the American people, thus setting us all up for retaliation, by God knows who, at some future date. When it’s all over, and the number of Libyan casualties have been tallied, somebody needs to be held to account by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Next Libya, then Kenya

March 26, 2011August 11, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

~ By: Larry Walker, Jr. ~

For God’s sake, what are we doing in Libya? In the broadest sense, we are helping a group of armed militia (i.e. unlawful combatants) in the overthrow of a sovereign government. More narrowly, we are destroying the defenses of the legitimate leader of Libya, instructing him that he is not allowed to defend himself, cutting off all of his escape routes, blocking all of his communications, and assisting a mob of criminals in his demise. When these violent protesters catch Gaddafi, they will surely decapitate him, and many Americans will cheer, but not me.

News networks like CNN are now praising the martyrdom of a rebel suicide bomber who drove a truck loaded with explosives into a Libyan army barracks and detonated it. But I ask you, “What’s heroic about that?” When a similar group of rebels drove two truck bombs into buildings housing United States and French military forces (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon), were you cheering then? If you weren’t cheering then, why are you so giddy now? For the last three decades, terrorist acts were deemed to be the epitome of evil, but now terrorism seems to be in vogue, at least according to today’s hypocrites.

Obama has in essence sided with terrorists against an ally in the war on terror. When these terrorists take over and murder their former leader, with Obama’s help, what will become of the two million people who support Gaddafi until the end? Will they suddenly have a change of heart and conform to the will of Obama and his rebels? And if they don’t, will they be thrown into gulags, beheaded, or lined up before firing squads? And if this happens, will America come to their defense, thus starting the vicious cycle over again? Will America ever get it?

What we should have done.

We should have exhausted every means of diplomacy. Going to war should have been the last resort. We should not have responded to Gaddafi’s rhetoric. Just because someone says they’re going to do something, doesn’t mean they will. Surely if anyone understands this, it should be the mis-leader of the not so free world, Barack Gbagbo, oops, I mean Obama. After all, by now he’s made hundreds of statements which have turned out to be nothing more than blatant lies.

And speaking of Laurent Gbagbo, the incumbent president of the Ivory Coast was voted out of office in November of 2010, yet remains in power unto this day. Alassane Ouattara is widely recognized as the winner of the election, yet since his victory, the UN says that 462 people have been violently murdered, and about 500,000 forced from their homes in a post-election dispute. In the Ivory Coast you have a democracy which has been violently usurped by a despot whose original mandate expired on October 30, 2005. It’s ironic that when Gbagbo won his election in October of 2000, he faced the same situation, an incumbent who had to be forcibly removed from power. It seems there will be no end to this ongoing scenario in most of Africa, yet in Libya there was relative stability, until Obama.

If Obama, who has foolishly committed us into the disorder of his homeland, succeeds in ousting Gaddafi, he had better make sure that he kills all 2 million of Gaddafi’s supporters as well. Are you prepared to do that? Otherwise Libya will face the same future as the Ivory Coast, coup after coup, revolution after revolution, and murder after murder. The only thing Obama has accomplished by involving the USA in his God-forsaken homeland is to expose why he was unqualified to be president of the United States in the first place. Don’t talk to me about impeachment unless you fully intend to follow through. The sooner we get rid of Obama, the sooner the World will return to relative stability. The problem is Obama, not Gaddafi. Free Gaddafi! And as for Obama, “go back to Kenya”.

References:

Thousands flee Cote d’Ivoire violence (Video)

Ivorian women protesters killed (Video)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12853554

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Gbagbo

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ivory-coast-chaos-20110325,0,1646566.story?page=1

Future of Libya’s investments in Kenya in “doubt” following political unrest

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

PUBLIC-sector Union Fallacy II | Capitalizing on Ignorance

March 23, 2011August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

“Before making a donation to any organization, be sure to review how it spends its money.”

~ By: Larry Walker, Jr. ~

The American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO of Madison, Wisconsin (AFT-WISC) is a tax exempt organization which is primarily funded by union dues paid by its mostly state and local government employee members. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, AFT-WISC took in 91.5% of its revenue or a total of $3,358,143 from membership dues. On its latest Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, while all of the revenue reported was identified as having been related to its exempt purpose, none of its expenditures were reported as such. So just how much of this money was actually used to improve the lives of its members?

According to page 10 of its latest Form 990 tax return, none of the $3,808,451 of expenditures was related to its exempt purpose. In fact, AFT-WISC spent $2,369,114, or 70.5% of member’s dues, on salaries, pensions, other benefits and payroll taxes for its 44 employees. Furthermore, due to reckless management, AFT-WISC posted a net loss of $(137,113) for fiscal year 2009. Union dues will therefore most likely increase in the near future.

In fiscal year 2009, AFT-WISC paid its president, Bryan Kennedy, total compensation of $164,781. The only problem with this is that he was only paid $56,913 in fiscal year 2008, leaving some to wonder what would justify a 190% pay raise in a year when the organization suffered a net loss. While Mr. Kennedy celebrated a $107,868 pay hike, AFT-WISC members were left bloodied by a $(137,113) net loss.

Aside from compensating its own employees, AFT-WISC squandered a total of $535,021 on political campaigns and lobbying activities. Among these activities, $20,000 was contributed to Progressive Wisconsin; $237,021 was spent on mailings containing information about legislative and electoral issues, and get out the vote events such as town hall meetings and phone banks; and the remaining $278,000 was sent to other organizations.

It appears that the difference between this particular union and a political party is very slim. Other than communicating a tiny bit of information to the public about issues affecting its members, AFT-WISC’s main accomplishments appear to be: (1) an ability to collect money from its members, (2) to compensate its own employees, (3) to support progressive organizations, (4) and to persuade people to vote for the candidates of its choosing. AFT-WISC, like most other public-sector employee unions, functions more like a political party than an association dedicated to the needs and concerns of its members. Teachers and public employees are free to join the political party of their choosing, and to direct their money to whomever they choose. So why do they need a middle-man? Public employees should be ashamed. Substituting a middle-man to make political choices for them is the antithesis of freedom and democracy.

Perhaps instead of jumping through hoops whenever the union bell tolls, teachers and other public servants should pay more attention to where their union dues are going. Then and only then will the rest of society believe you are more than just feeble lap dogs. As for the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO of Madison, Wisconsin… it’s “Not Just No, But HELL NO!”

Reference:

http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/39-0963086/american-federation-teachers.aspx#

PUBLIC-sector Union Fallacy I

March 12, 2011August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

Where Solidarity Ends

~ By: Larry Walker, Jr. ~

Thank God for Governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature. Clearly there is a line of demarcation between the rights of public-sector and private-sector workers. Patrick J. Wright, a director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, breaks it down in his latest post, “Public-Sector Bargaining Privileges Are Not Inalienable Rights“.

Mr. Wright concludes with, “the power of government employee unions in collective bargaining necessarily amounts to power over the people themselves, therefore the people’s representatives must periodically scrutinize that power and curb excess”. Why that’s pure natural law, and if you stop to think about it, just plain old common sense. But perhaps public-sector union donors and their supporting dunderheads need a less sophisticated explanation. What follows is an uncomplicated lesson in fiscal logic, just for you:

Point #1 – If you work for a state, local or federal government agency, and your employer’s treasury is tapped, you are most likely a part of the problem. Job security eludes you.

Point #2 – If you’re going around spouting off that a certain governmental entity isn’t broke, and you’re not one of its top executives, then you might not know what in the hell you’re talking about. Your beliefs are based on conspiracy, not facts.

Point #3 – If you have a government job paying 40% more than the private sector, with Cadillac benefits, then you’re not likely one who’s losing their home and going through financial hell. You’ve been brainwashed.

Point #4 – If you’re having $1,000 per year in union dues deducted automatically from your paycheck and sent to your government masters (politicians), and now complain about having to pay more toward pension and health costs, you might be better off dumping that worthless union. Perhaps union dues are a luxury you can ill afford.

Point #5 – If you think that private citizens exercising their right to trim some of the liberties that government workers take with their money is a form of class warfare, then which class are you – government or the people? You’re confused.

Point #6 – If you think that the way to effectively engage in political debate is by marching in mobs and shouting in unison, “shame, shame, shame…,” you might be mentally ill. You need a check up from the neck up.

To summarize, if you are still offended by the law that was just passed in Wisconsin, then :

Job security eludes you,

Your beliefs are based on conspiracy rather than facts,

You’ve been brainwashed,

Union dues are a luxury you can ill afford,

You are confused, and

You need a mental health check up.

Well, if that’s the case, then you better check yourself before you wreck yourself. If the glove fits, you must admit. My recommendation: Quit that cushy government gig and get a real job. And as far as private-sector unions supporting public-sector unions in so-called solidarity; can you say, “brainwashed“. Sorry but I can’t ride with you on that bucket of bolts. Sometimes you just have to surrender and face reality. Public-sector unions are the enemy of both private-sector unions, and of we the people.

Public sector – The area of the nation’s affairs under governmental rather than private control.

Private sector – The area of the nation’s economy under private rather than governmental control.

References:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/431/209/case.html

http://www.mackinac.org/14734

http://www.mackinac.org/13741

Vaporizing PUBLIC Employee Unions

March 8, 2011August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 2 Comments

Hasta La Vista!!!

” Wisconsin is not broke. “ ~ Some Rich Fat Guy ~

Whatever rich fat guy, but who asked you anyway. The election is over. You lose, we win.

~ By: Larry Walker, Jr. ~

While state and local government employee unions (aka. public unions) clutch desperately to what they falsely perceive to be a God-given right to organize, pro football players are planning to de-unionize. You see, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has legal options under federal law, while state and local government workers have none. Public workers exist to serve the public, and are compensated from tax dollars, not from profits earned in the private sector.

“The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act (P.L. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 151–169) is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.”

As for NFL players, decertifying the union means firing the NFLPA as their bargaining agent, which will prevent NFL owners from locking out the players when the existing collective bargaining agreement expires. Any lockout at that point would be a violation of federal antitrust law. Decertifying will also allow individual players to sue the NFL and their respective teams. The tactic has worked before, resulting in NFL players gaining free agent rights.

On the other hand, state and local government servants in Wisconsin and other states don’t have this option or any others. You see, public servants are not covered by federal labor relations laws. They have only been allowed to unionize under state laws granting them make-believe rights. In reality, all it would take to completely do away with public employee unions is a determined state house majority, duly elected by a base of overburdened taxpayers. And that’s where things stand. Hasta la vista!

AFTER HAVING DONE ALL STAND! ~ Eph 6:10-20

BTW: The word fat was directed at Moore in the sense of his reasoning being “practically nonexistent” (i.e. a fat chance).

Public Union Membership in Numbers

February 27, 2011August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

~ By: Larry Walker, Jr. ~

In terms of raw numbers, local government union members stand to be crushed, or perhaps just eaten. There are roughly 14 million unemployed Americans who would love to have local government service jobs, minus collective bargaining. Perhaps the media should poll the unemployed. The bottom line is that it’s better to be gainfully employed than unemployed. Advice to local government employed union members: Work with your duly elected government officials, or kiss your jobs goodbye.

Out of 124 million Americans who are still employed (excluding the incorporated self-employed), only 14.7 million (or 11.9%) are members of unions.

Out of the 14.7 million union members, 7.6 million (or a majority of 51.8%) are government employees.

Out of the 7.6 million government employees who are members of unions, 4.7 million (or a majority of 61.3%) are local government employees, while 1.9 million (or 25.8%) are state government employees.

Out of 124 million Americans who are still employed (excluding the incorporated self-employed), only 4.7 million (or just 3.8%) are local government employed union members.

In terms of numbers, local government employed union members, those who are complaining the most, only represent 3.8% of all American workers (excluding the incorporated self-employed), 3.0% of the roughly 151 million American taxpayers, and 1.5% of the total population. We believe there is more empathy among Americans for the 9.0% of the labor force who are unemployed, and the millions more who have dropped out of the workforce, than there is for local government employed union members. In other words, the pink slips are in the mail.

“Every goodbye makes the next hello closer.” ~ Anonymous Unemployed

Reference: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics –

Table 3. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry (Jan. 21, 2011 Report)

Table 3. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry (Historical Data)

Union Label | Owned by China

February 25, 2011August 11, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

When ‘Made In China’ Isn’t Enough ~

“Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.” ~ Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) ~

Made in China wasn’t enough, now union minions want to be owned by China as well. ~

So far all I see is a bunch of snot-nosed, deficit-financed, government employed, union slugs spewing nonsense, but not one drop of blood. Hey union guys, this isn’t 1945, except maybe in terms of the National Debt. Back in the day, American unions used to fight so-called greedy capitalists for higher pay, greater benefits, and better working conditions, but that was then, and this is now. Today, almost all union members are government employees. What’s up with that? Who are these guys fighting against? Can American taxpayers who pay your salaries really be equated to the so-called ‘robber barons’ of the past? I don’t think so. Most of us are just fighting for survival. By us, I mean the other 88.1% of the workforce who are not union members. When a small minority (11.9% of loud-mouthed, snot-nosed, whiny, union cry babies) can impose its will upon the majority (88.1% of responsible, hard-working, non-union juiced, taxpayers) – that’ll be the day. Good luck with that fight.

Back in 1945, almost 36% of American workers were represented by unions, but according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, that number had dwindled to just 11.9% by the end of 2010. Although there has been a noted increase in the number of public employee unions since the 1960s, the decline in private-sector union membership has been most telling. If union membership was worth its weight in dues, then most of the goods that America purchases today wouldn’t be stamped “Made in China”.

At the height of union popularity in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of government slugs were represented by unions, versus 33.9% of private sector workers. However, by the end of 2010, those proportions had flipped. Today 36.2% of public workers are represented by unions while private sector union membership has plummeted to a mere 6.9%. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent survey indicates that union membership in the U.S. has fallen to just 11.9% of the total workforce.

I’m sorry, but all of you public union slugs need to shut the hell up and accept what we decide. We don’t work for you; you work for us.

References:

Payroll Tax Cut Forsakes the Poor

February 23, 2011September 23, 2024 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

Obama’s Phantom Tax Cut

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

When Barack Obama signed what was touted by the mainstream media as the middle-class cut bill on December 17, 2010, it was praised as a historic measure which would extend tax cuts for families at every income level, renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and enact a new one-year cut in Social Security taxes that would benefit nearly every worker who earns a wage.

But first of all, extending last year’s tax rates actually didn’t do anything for anybody (i.e. nothing gained, nothing lost). Secondly, renewing jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed was simply the price we had to pay for a failed $887 billion economic stimulus program. Thirdly, and to the point of this blog post, as far as the one-year cut in Social Security taxes, exactly what does the term “nearly every worker” mean?

Well, just two months after its enactment, tens of thousands of American’s are beginning to find out. Many are noticing that their paychecks are actually smaller than they were last year, while others are seeing just an extra dollar or two per month. In fact, the only ones actually receiving the full 2% payroll tax cut are those making over $70,000 per year. Those making under $20,000 per year are actually ingesting a tax hike.

In an effort to determine why so many folks are complaining, we compared Internal Revenue Service Publication 15, (Circular E) Employer’s Tax Guide, for tax year 2010 to the 2011 publication. Then we created a spreadsheet to compare the differences. What we discovered is that in 2010 the amount of federal income tax withheld from paychecks was lowered, to compensate for the $400 Make Work Pay Credit. But with the expiration of the credit at the end of 2010, income tax withholding tables have been readjusted back to pre-stimulus levels. This adjustment in income tax withholding rates has completely negated the Social Security tax cut for the poor, and greatly reduced its effect on those with moderate incomes.

On its face, the new law lowers the amount of Social Security tax withheld from all paychecks from 6.2% to 4.2%, however not all paychecks are affected equally. Had this tax cut been implemented on its own, it would have been a good thing for all wage earners; however due to the corresponding expiration of the Make Work Pay Credit, the end result favors those making over $70,000 per year, and discriminates against those who earn less. The word on the street is that Obama’s 2% Social Security tax cut is just one more in a series of lies emanating from the White House. If we could impeach a POTUS for lying (or ignorance), Obama would have been impeached 10 times over.

The following calculations are based on the IRS’s monthly percentage method tables for single taxpayers (Table 4). If you’re not convinced, you may always visit www.irs.gov, search for Publication 15, and make your own assessment. But if you don’t want to go through all of that trouble, you can simply compare your latest payroll tax report, or pay stub, to one from last year.

As the table above displays, rather than receiving a tax cut, those making $15,000 per year, or less, are actually receiving at least a 0.68% payroll tax hike. Although this may not have been the Democrat’s intent, this is what he delivered.

According to the table above, those making exactly $20,000 per year are receiving a mere 0.08% tax cut. Wow, that’s a whole $1.13 in tax savings each and every month, leaving many on Main Street in shock and awe. Since those making under $20,000 all got a tax hike, those whose lives have been improved by a buck a month must be so proud of their Democrat saviors.

The next table (above) reveals that although those making $30,000 per year received a bona fide tax cut, it is effectively only 0.88%, or $17.80 per month. I suppose $17.80 per month, which equals $213.60 per year, will have some impact on the economy, but not likely much.

The table above shows that those making $40,000 per year are receiving a 1.48% tax cut. Although it’s not a full 2.0%, the extra $39.07 per month can at least be banked, or perhaps donated to the poor and needy.

As the table above exhibits, those making $50,000 per year are receiving a 1.74% tax cut. Now we’re talking real money, a whole $55.73 per month, although perhaps this would have been more appropriately directed toward those making less than $20,000.

The table above affirms that those making $60,000 per year are now taking home a 1.92% tax cut. It’s getting there, although it’s not quite 2%, an extra $72.40 per month can at least buy some extra food, or pay a bill. Then again, if you’re lucky enough to still have a job paying $60,000 per year under the present regime, how important is an extra $72.40 per month?

Finally as exposed in the last table (above), those making $70,000 per year are picking up the full 2% tax cut and then some (actually 2.15%), a savings of $92.89 per month. The percentage of taxes saved tops out at about the 2% level with the monthly dollar amount continuing to advance up to the $106,800 cap on Social Security wages.

In conclusion, those who needed a diminutive tax cut the least are receiving it the most. It all goes to show that in spite of a far left-wing progressive like Obama, “The rich keep on getting richer while the poor get poorer.” While other countries like China directed payroll tax cuts toward employers, you know, the ones who can actually provide jobs and a real boost to an economy, Obama has blown his 3rd and final chance to get it right. Three strikes and you’re out! Perhaps our next POTUS will be one who not only takes the time to read the bills presented for signature, but one who is actually capable of understanding cause and effect. Obviously, the present White House occupant is a wash. Obama is ‘one and done’, but in terms of American jobs, this could be more effectively expressed as ‘none and done’.

References:

(A) – 2010 Publication 15, Table 4, Monthly
(B) – 2011 Publication 15, Table 4, Monthly

Blindsided | White House Fiscal Lunacy

February 18, 2011August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

2016 GDP vs. National Debt

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

“We will not be adding more to the national debt.” ~ Barack Obama ~

Say what? You must mean that you will not be adding more to your national debt, because I know that I certainly won’t be adding to the national debt, so you need to take the we out of that statement buddy. The real question is how are you going to pay back the trillions of dollars that you have already squandered? And here’s another riddle – What will the U.S.A.’s gross domestic product (GDP) need grow to by the year 2016 in order to keep pace with the present White House occupant’s irrationally exuberant spending spree? And based on the answer to that question, at what annual rate must our economy grow?

If we add the inexperienced CEO’s 2011 to 2016 projected annual budget deficits to fiscal year 2010’s ending national debt balance of $13.6 trillion, then the national debt will equal $19.0 trillion by the year 2016. And you call that “not adding more to the national debt”? So is this guy a pathological liar, or what?

At the end of 2010, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that gross domestic product (GDP) for the year was $14.6 trillion. So depending on the rate of economic growth over the next 6 years, the national debt may sooner or later exceed GDP. Although even the present White House occupant once stated that the national debt is unsustainable, the question is – as juxtaposed to what? If we take a look back to the days when our debt was sustainable, when the economy was growing at roughly 5% per year with low unemployment, such as in 2003, we will discover that the debt-to-GDP ratio back then was 60.9%. So the question is what do we need to do in order to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio from its present level of 92.8% back down to 60.9%?

In Scenario #1 (below) we will determine the rate of economic growth necessary in order for GDP to equal our projected debt by the year 2016. In Scenario #2 we will discover the rate of economic growth needed to return to a more healthy debt-to-GDP ratio of 60.9%. Finally, in Scenario #3 we reveal what the debt-to-GDP ratio will be by 2016 if GDP maintains its present growth rate of 3.2% per annum.

Scenario #1 – The budget to nowhere

Gross domestic product must grow from $14.6 to $19.0 trillion in order to equal the National Debt by 2016. In other words, GDP must maintain an average sustained growth rate of 4.5% per year, over the next 6 years, in order to achieve a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100%. This represents ‘the budget to nowhere’. Although, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that GDP grew at the rate of 3.2% in the 4th quarter of 2010, as you can deduce, this will not be sufficient to reach the current White House occupant’s pitiful goal of a 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.

Scenario #2 – Back to sanity

In order to return to the more prosperous 2003 debt-to-GDP ratio of 60.9%, GDP must grow at a sustained annual rate of 13.5% over the next 6 years. How likely is this? In order to achieve such a rate of growth, our economy would need to expand at the pace of an emerging market economy, a feat which is hardly doable. This is precisely why the Debt Commission recently stated that we will never grow our way out of this fiscal disaster.

Scenario #3 – Your new reality

Finally, if GDP maintains the present annual growth rate of 3.2%, then our debt-to-GDP ratio will have reached 107.4% by 2016. Welcome to reality, and to a future of bonded labor. This doesn’t look like winning the future to me, it looks more like a donkey in a quagmire.

Conclusion

The present White House occupant’s budget plan leads to disaster. What most of us wanted to hear was a plan for paying off the debt which he alone has run up over the last two years, not more debt evasion. Face it, there is only one way out of this mess. The first thing we need to do is to derail all of this administration’s reckless spending initiatives. Secondly, government spending must be cut, slashed, and cut again. And finally, we must get this fiscally bankrupt pathological liar out of the White House, by any means necessary. By any means necessary. And as far as who will be the next POTUS; throw a dart. While I am not certain about who it will be, I definitely know who will be packing up at the end of 2012, if not sooner.

Sources:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/xls/gdp4q10_adv.xls

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway