Even moderately observant Americans realize Obama’s policies strongly favor unions. But why? Some believe simply because unions helped deliver his presidency. But, do more basic and sinister motives lurk beneath the surface? In Marxism, great emphasis is placed on use of unions to advance socialism. French historian of labor Michel Collinet claims… “The control of labor unions was, and still remains, the principle objective of Communist parties in industrialized countries.”
Given immense potential for shutdown and sabotage, and for use as vehicles of propaganda and agitation, unions remain indispensable tools of Marxist ambition. Unions contributed an estimated $400 million to Obama’s presidential campaign. Despite comprising only 9% of US workers, labor unions are still key to socialist schemes, and still have potential to badly damage our democracy. This essay argues unions are crucial to Obama’s plans for socializing America.
Clarence B. Carson in “Basic Communism,” says unions have always held a special attraction for Marxists, writing,
Labor unions were of special interest to and targets for Communist penetration and control. After all, Communist ideology has always focused on industrial workers, ie, the ‘proletariat.’ Communist revolutions were wrought in the name of the proletariat, and they were supposed to be the base for rule following a seizure of power. Labor unions, therefore, were instruments at hand for potential use by Communists…More broadly, the modern labor union arose more or less simultaneously with socialism. Nor was the simultaneous rise a coincidence. Socialism provided the intellectual underpinnings of unionism.
Earliest union leaders were socialists, such as Eugene Debs and Samuel Gompers. For takeover, unions don’t need a Marxist majority, says Carson. A few ambitious Marxists will dominate a local union, being willing to do tasks many members avoid.
According to “A Study of Communism,” by J Edgar Hoover,
As a minority group in the US, the Communist party must also extend its influence above and beyond its own membership. As a highly disciplined and inherently conspiratorial group, the party achieved this goal through a variety of means. These include such tactics as propaganda; demonstrations; appeals for sympathy; operating through front groups; infiltrating and gaining control of non-Communist organizations, with special emphasis on labor unions and youth groups.
Russian tyrant Vlad Lenin wrote “Chto Delat?”—What is to Be Done? This outlined Lenin’s claim union members weren’t sophisticated enough to fight off capitalism, but needed professional help. This issue became the defining battle in communism’s history, as Lenin’s desire to impose a harsh disciplined leadership over the world’s dull workers became the model for the party. His Bolsheviks (ie ‘Majority’) dominated future communism, meaning tyranny must be imposed, instead the stateless Utopia promised by Marx. Writes Miller,
When the Russian Revolution came, Lenin’s position would be of critical importance. The crucial issue would be: Would Marxism emulate the democratic procedures of the great labor parties and trade unions of the West, or prepare of armed uprising of a self-chosen, rigidly controlled secret conspiracy? We can see the question in simpler terms: Democracy, or dictatorship?
Lenin was doubtless influenced by Marx’s Communist Manifesto:
The proletariat (workers) goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie…The collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and the form of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form (combinations) trade unions against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks into riots…
One sees here the central importance of unions for true Marxist.
Syndicalism is a socialist method of using unions to launch a coup d’etat against a state via “strikes and sabotage,” by first injecting Marxists into union leadership. Originator of syndicalism, Frenchman Fernand Pelloutier, wanted all labor guilds under a central union, claims Carson. Such a union of unions would have staggering destructive potential.
An example occurred in Barcelona, Spain in July 1909. Protesting government military action, “pacifist” socialists called a general union strike. The city was completely incapacitated. Barriers were erected against police and army, while massive looting occurred, and large scale destruction of religious buildings. Writes Carson, “Workers danced in ecclesiastical vestments, coffins were opened, and the corpses of nuns scattered on the pavement.” Accordingly, 33 convents were burnt, 33 church schools destroyed, and 20 churches immolated. That 50 buildings were torched simultaneously meant great union organization was involved, revealing blatant socialist hatred of Christianity. The result was near civil war.
American unions, after achieving important early concessions, regarding safety and pay, degenerated into a slough of corruption and leftist politics. In fact, there has long been an inverse relationship between union power and worker inefficiency.
American syndicalism, says Theodore Draper in “The Roots of American Communism,” took off in the western states in the Western Federation of Miners. This group was organized by socialist William “Big Bill” Haywood. From these beginnings came the Industrial Workers Party (IWW). Then arose a debate over whether the revolution should occur through political parties (Marxists), or worker’s unions (syndicalists). The battle cries of syndicalists were “direct action,” “sabotage” and “general strike,” writes Draper. And on January 21, 1919 a syndicalist general strike hit Seattle, incapacitating the city for 5 days, writes Carson.
To understand Barack’s unionism, remember that according to friends from earliest college days, he was (or still is) a Marxist-Leninist. (video) This means Obama absolutely understands Marxist communist theory and importance of trade unions, and communist infiltration found therein. So, in promoting unions, Barack desires socialism and Marxist influence in America. This is irrefutable.
Second, Barack openly admits he loves unions. The SEIU site features an Obama quote: “I’ve said this before publicly and I’ll say it again, I make no apologies for it. I am a pro-union guy. ” (video) Third, Obama’s background is almost a miracle of leftist influences, from the very beginning. Barack even worked fighting to build up union membership and power in his community organizer days. Rules for Radicals describes Obama hero Sal Alinsky going after businesses to union-ize them. (Levin expands here).
B. Pro Union Obama Actions
During his campaign, Obama promised unions he’d pass the Employee Free Choice Act in 2009 if he won, featuring “Card Check.” Obama told the AFL-CIO: “We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers. I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States.”
The Heritage Foundation says:
Organized Labor has made the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) its top legislative priority. The act would replace the current system of secret-ballot organizing elections with card checks, in which workers publicly sign union cards to organize and join a union.
Skousen calls the proposed act Orwellian.
Immediately upon taking office, Obama signed 3 pro-union executive orders, saying ““I believe we have to reverse many of the policies toward organized labor that we have seen over the past eight years, policies with which I have sharply disagreed. Labor is not part of the problem, it is part of the solution”
The executive orders: 1) “prevent taxpayer funds being used to reimburse federal contractors who spend money “trying to influence the formation of unions;”” 2) “require federal contractors to inform employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act;” and 3) “ensure that qualified workers keep their jobs even when a federal contract changes hands.” Teamster President Jim Hoffa said, “We finally have a White House that is dedicated to working with us to rebuild our middle class. Hope for the American Dream is being restored.” A 4th executive order dictates government projects favor union companies, locking out 80% of workers.
According to Michael Barone, the stimulus was meant for local governments to help unions,
One-third of stimulus money went to state and local governments…propping up the pay and saving jobs of public employee union members. As a result, while 8 million private sector jobs have disappeared, the number of public sector jobs has barely budged. The cynical will see these measures as a political payoff and might venture unions have gotten something like a hundredfold payout for the $400 million they gave to Obama and his co-partisans. Those who insist on looking for purer motives…might see something potentially more sinister…a former community organizer acting out of a sincere conviction that America would be better off with a much, much larger unionized private sector.
Would Mafioso Tony Soprano love this “stimulus” plan?
The Obama administration’s behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors—entitled to first priority payment under the “absolute priority rule”—have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.
Stern, who quit SEIU while scandals raged, was named to Obama’s Debt Commission, the equivalent of the Big Bad Wolf putting a fox in charge of the hen house. SEIU leader Eliseo Medina is also an outed Marxist.
Sammy Benoit provided a startling essay which clearly linked ACORN, the SEIU and Obama, writing:
In the mid 1990s, ACORN and the SEIU partnered with other leftist groups to help form the Marxist New Party, a political coalition. In 1995, Obama sought out their nomination. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement and used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.
The fact that Obama received the New Party’s endorsement in his first run for office cannot be dismissed as insignificant. On the contrary, Obama’s ties to the New Party and the New Party’s backers at ACORN and the SEIU are long-standing, substantial, and reveal a great deal about his personal political allegiances.
Philip Klein reports, “...buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9% cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions.”
The WaPost recently reported before finalizing health care legislation, Obama met union leaders for input, reporting in January 2010: “Obama invited 10 labor leaders to the White House to discuss the negotiations aimed at reconciling the Senate and House bills, which are not heading in organized labor’s direction in the three areas that it had identified as priorities.”
After passage, it was revealed Obamacare unfairly favors unions,
Repeatedly throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama promised that health care negotiations would be carried on C-SPAN precisely to prevent these types of special-interest favors. There is no logical public policy justification for why union workers should be exempt from paying the 40 % tax on individual health insurance plans that cost $8,900 or more until 2018 when everyone else with the same insurance must pay the tax.
The single Obama action most clearly proving his loyalties occurred during the Gulf oil spill. The main reason Barack didn’t accept foreign aid was to avoid angering unions by breaking the Jones Act. That Barack chose politics over people is not merely absurdly selfish, but highlights how dangerous he is.
The Obama administration helped pass a bill taking millions away from food stamp programs, handing it over to teachers. Frederick M. Hess, of the American Enterprise Institute, said “We’re taking money from feeding poor kids so middle class teachers don’t have to look for jobs.”
Are the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama very much pro union? Unquestionably. Do the economic effects of unions on the welfare of workers as a whole justify that union bias? No. Has their pro-union orientation seriously retarded the recovery from the recession? Probably.
Parasites can kill their host. For example, virtually all the economic problems in the Detroit automakers can be traced to unions raising costs via wage, medical, and retirement demands. Or consider, LA is reporting city pensions will soon take 1/3rd of LA’s general fund, overall. This echoes the Cloward-Pivin strategy to call down revolution by destroying budgets.
Pravda, USSR’s former official newspaper recently ran an article titled: American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper, explaining how Obama is socializing America, and no one even cares.
The AFL-CIO executive committee voted unanimously to join One Nation, Working Together, a coalition of labor and civil rights groups demanding to “reorder America’s priorities by investing in the nation’s most valuable resource - its people.” So the official goal of Barack’s unions is working towards a socialist America. Is this reasonable?
Would Obama use syndicalism to further leftist fantasies? Is he supposedly too good for such a stunt? Isn’t he obviously doing so already? How did the DC savior of transparency and moral rectitude fall so far, so fast? Because he’s always been a Marxist, and therefore a sincere opponent of all things American (explaining terminating the “Transparency Czar” position). Marxists believe capitalists are thieves; so to lie, cheat and steal from capitalists is not simply justified, it’s a prerequisite, as crazed as that sounds. Obama supports unions partly for being the horse he rode to victory. But more profoundly, because Marxists have turned unions into communist satellites. And so Obama, in his own lost way, is trying to heal America by making it Marxist.
This is extremely dangerous since Marxists have no code to follow, no law of ethics, or Ten Commandments (exactly like Obama’s “Pragmatism,” coincidentally). For example, it’s claimed when “...anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter,” according to Steven Luke’s book, “Marxism and Morality.” Instead, the only goal is doing whatever acts it takes to achieve Marxism. This means Obama would try the craziest things—as he already has—to secure a socialist future for America. In fact, this writer believes Barack may be on a political suicide mission as an economic jihadist.
For above reasons, Barack Obama must be impeached ASAP (this publication recently argued article 1, article 2, article 3) before a gigantic catastrophe occurs via Obama’s hatred of America, freedom, democracy and capitalism.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement