Topic category:  Government/Politics

MSNBC's Chris Matthews called the Wisconsin State Senate passage of the collective bargaining aspects of the budget bill "the Ash Wednesday ambush."

Wisconsin Democrat State Senator Tim Carpenter said, "The best way to describe this is this is our Pearl Harbor of workers' rights."

Laura Ingraham called that description "the lie of the day."

A Pearl Harbor, it was not. It was NOT an ambush. It had been predictable for weeks that the Wisconsin Republicans would do that, because the Wisconsin Democrat state senators had fled the state to block a quorum and thus a vote on the entire budget bill.

I suspect that the radicals got what they wanted and positioned themselves for recall elections in Wisconsin and initiatives in a number of states aimed at re-electing Obama in 2012.

ACORN founder and chief organizer from 1970 to 2008 Wade Rathke posted this illuminating commentary (http://chieforganizer.org/2011/03/06/initiative-campaigns-could-save-unions-and-obama-in-ohio-in-2012/):

"Initiative Campaigns Could Save Unions and Obama in Ohio in 2012

"New Orleans In a wild case of unintended consequences the current Republican attack on unions in New Jersey, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Ohio could end up insuring the re-election of President Obama and possibly save public sector unionism at the same time though like all political struggles it would be a high stakes gamble.

"How? We could do this by upping the ante and putting protection of collective bargaining on the 2012 ballot with the Presidential election in Ohio, perhaps still the most critical of all battleground states.

"Wisconsin has the right of recall and this is being engaged currently by unions and others in reaction to Governor Scott Walker’s moves to eviscerate public sector worker collective bargaining rights. This was the successful strategy in California several years ago fueled by Congressman Darrell Issa’s resources which dislodged Governor Gray Davis within two years of his election and then replacing him with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Wisconsin does not have a[n] initiative and referendum procedure at the state level, so despite positive opinion polls in the state currently to protect bargaining there is no way to get there from here. Neither New Jersey nor Indiana allow statewide initiatives and referenda, though about 20% of New Jersey’s local jurisdictions do so depending on the map this could be an opportunity to construct a tactical and strategic bulwark against some of the more draconian measures being proposed by Governor Christie there.

"Were protections for union workers on the ballot in Ohio in 2012 there is no question it would energize the low-and-moderate income base, and this was certainly in evidence several years ago when ACORN and allies moved to put an increase in the minimum wage on the ballot there. A revitalized labor movement in Ohio aligned with Obama there could make a huge difference in securing his re-election. Tactical protective initiatives in Missouri, Nevada, Washington, and similar states that are important in the Obama column could also be important, and in several of these states workers are desperate for more protections.

"There are two problems. First, it takes a huge effort to put a measure on the ballot, mount the campaign, and hang on for the victory more than 18 months from now with the same fervor labor is showing today, even though now is the absolute perfect time to be preparing for just such efforts. Secondly, Ohio is one of the few states that allow off-year initiatives, and given the current assault there are undoubtedly many pushing an immediate effort to place the measure on the ballot in Ohio for the fall of 2011.

"A 2011 effort – and victory – might also break well for both labor and Obama if it finally proved again that these were fighting times and we had the will and way to win. The residue of such a struggle and success might embed deeply enough to secure deeper participation in Ohio and still put Ohio in the best place for a union future and an Obama second term.

"Either way these are not times for holding your cards, but demand laying down big bets while it’s still possible and...we are still a player in the game."

The Wisconsin budget bill was the result of the 2010 election results--Republicans won the governorship and control of both houses of the state legislature--and that state's financial condition.

By blocking a vote by leaving the state, the 14 Wisconsin Democrat state senators induced the Wisconsin Republicans to pass the part of the budget bill that they could without the presence of any of the Gang of 14.

For doubters, check out the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing assistance to South Korea that passed while the Soviet Union was absent and Joseph Stalin's August 27, 1950 letter to the Soviet ambassador in Plague, explaining that absence to Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic leader Klement Gottwald (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=230972&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=449316&group_id=449315):

[Source: Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI), fond 558, opis 11, delo 62, listy 71-72. Published in: Andrei Ledovskii, “Stalin, Mao Tsedunh I Koreiskaia Voina 1950-1953 godov,” Novaia I Noveishaia Istoriia, No. 5 (September-October 2005), 79-113. Translated for NKIDP by Gary Goldberg.]

Top Secret

Prague, Soviet Ambassador

Pass Gottwald the following message orally. Put it in writing if he so requests.

“We view the issue of the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from the Security Council on 27 June and the events which unfolded afterwards somewhat differently from Comrade Gottwald.

We left the Security Council for four reasons: first, to demonstrate solidarity of the Soviet Union with the new China.

Second, to underscore the foolishness and idiocy of the United States policy of recognizing the Guomindang puppet in the Security Council as the representative of China and not wanting to admit the genuine representative of China to the Security Council; third, to render decisions of the Security Council illegitimate by virtue of the absence of representatives of two great powers; fourth, to give the American government a free hand and give it an opportunity to commit more foolishness using a majority in the Security Council so that public opinion can see the true face of the American government.

I believe that we have achieved all of these goals.

Following our withdrawal from the Security Council, America became entangled in a military intervention in Korea and is now squandering its military prestige and moral authority. Few honest people can now doubt that America is now acting as an aggressor and tyrant in Korea and that it is not as militarily powerful as it claims to be. In addition, it is clear that the United States of America is presently distracted from Europe in the Far East. Does it not give us an advantage in the global balance of power? It undoubtedly does.

Let us suppose that American government continues to be tied down in the Far East and also pulls China into the struggle for the freedom of Korea and its own independence. What might come of this?

First, America, just like any other country, cannot cope with China, a country with such large armed forces at the ready. It follows that America would overextend itself in this struggle. Second, having overextended itself in this matter, America would be incapable of a third world war in the near future. Therefore, a third world war would be postponed for an indeterminate period, which would provide the time necessary to strengthen socialism in Europe, not to mention that the struggle between America and China would revolutionize the entire Far East. Does all this not give us an advantage from the perspective of the global balance of power? It unquestionably does.

As you can see, the question of whether or not the Soviet Union participates in the Security Council is not as simple as it might appear at first glance.

By virtue of all this, we cannot say that “the democratic camp has no need to leave the Security Council.” Whether we leave or stay depends on the circumstances. We might leave the Security Council again and come back once again, depending on the international situation.

One might ask why we have now returned to the Security Council. We have returned to continue exposing the aggressive policy of the American government and to prevent it from using the flag of the Security Council as a smokescreen for its aggression. Now that America has become aggressively involved in Korea, it will be very easy to achieve this goal while in the Security Council. I think that this is clear and needs no further explanation.

FILIPPOV [Stalin]

27 August 1950

Wisconsin Democrat state senators could not have expected to be permitted to block a vote indefinitely, so they did what they could do: stall as long as stalling was tolerated, then depict themselves as victims instead of irresponsible sore losers and try to set the stage for recall elections as favorably for their side of the political divide as they could.

This is why the whole truth about Obama, ACORN, Project Vote, the stealth socialist agenda and the cooperation of the liberal media establishment led by The New York Times needs to become general knowledge and Republicans afraid to follow the truth wherever it goes are part of the problem instead of part of the solution to the pollution of America's body politic and the reversal of the "fundamental transformation" of America that the Far Left has been assiduously pursuing.

Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.