Our President is a Dictator

dic⋅ta⋅tor 

–noun
1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Its official our new US president is a dictator. Time and time again BHO and his capos have circumvented the constitution thereby making it invalid. The constitution was after all primarily a rule set put in place to control elected officials. If the elected officials decide that they no longer have to adhere to it then the only governance they have to follow is their own will and interests. Factor in the natural character flaws inherent in every human being and you've got yourself a brand spanking new dictator. In a massively bold action President Obama fired a private CEO! He then, for comic relief I think, issued a guarantee on warranties of GM and Chrysler vehicles on live television. My president personally backed my car warranty? In a related scene; last week congresswoman Michelle Bachmann asked treasury secretary Tim Geithner and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, under what provision in the constitution, were they acting in accordance with. After several attempts at double talk and after repeating the simple question a few times the two men eventually cited the necessity of the Congress or something like that. Of course they didn't have constitutional basis for anything they are doing. This is so startling to me because the precedent has been set and states that public officials can do what ever they want as long as they deem it the best interest of the people. They can commandeer private entities, brake laws, create policy based on fake science, invalidate contracts, create czars (czars? I thought we rejected czars) bypass state governments, bully private citizens, create quasi-federal companies and all other things strictly prohibited by the constitution. Our president is a modern day dictator according to definition and his actions.

Workers of America Unite? (Labor Unions)

I don't pretend to know the plight of every man in the country.  I have difficulties figuring out my own dilemmas.  That's being said I don't know the trials or concerns that would drive people to join unions but I certainly can understand them.   I grew up in Metro-Detroit and 3 of my uncles worked at the big car production plants.  I know that they were involved with the UAW and such.  I remember that they stated concerns for their employment and basically praised the union.  That is pretty much the attitude for most of the Detroit area laborers.  These days I have a expanded point of view on the issue.  I have had an opportunity to work for a company and work closely with the owner and I see the stuff high level personnel have to deal with.  I've also done some souls searching and came to the conclusion that unions are not for me.  Why?... because it is a stab in the back!  Due to the current recession people have come to realize just how much of a privilege a job is.  I mean when you get that interview for employment and the you get the job, that employer has just done you a favor.  He has provided you with an opportunity to have some kind of standard of life, some kind of income.  Now you decide its not enough for whatever reason and you decide to form a union.  In doing so you have just told that employer that he owes you something more.  You have just joined in on federal and state actions to legislate your success.  The way I see it, the employee should be happy he has a job!  Not taking legal action to ensure you have the things you want from that employer who did you that favor so long ago.  Its equivalent to a child filling suits against his parents to get the law to allow them to stay up a couple extra hours.  Its ludicrous!   I have heard many of the arguments from the side of unions, here are 2:

1) "employees just want to have a say in their industry"

Now you always have a say under the constitution of the United States, but your say does not have to be adhered by employers.  Always remeber you were done a favor and you are employed "At-Will" that means you and the employer must both agree if you are to continue work there.

2) "executives have contracts, Rush Limbaugh has a $100 million dollar contract, why shouldn't the labor have contracts?"

Not to crush feelings but realistically you just aren' that important.  The truth is that those executives have rationing devices in the form of something that the company is willing to pay for and is usually not easily replaced.  A guy who puts attaches a door to a frame 8 hours a day is expendable, you can find one anytime anywhere.  Now finding someone to run a multi-billion dollar company is not an easy task so when you find one, you are willing to deal with his demands and his lawyers that are trying to maximize his compensation.   Additionally, companies don't have to accept the contracts of the high level executives they can always say "no thanks".  With Unions, they have the law saying "I don't care if you don't want them you must sign!"  That is TYRANNY!!!  Forcing someone into signing a contract is on the level of various dictators and mob bosses that we have all seen and know the history of.  Rush gets a $100 mil because he generates far more than that for his industry.  A assembly line man does not do anything that no-one else can do.  If they leave the company won't go under.  They won't loose tens of millions of dollars so they are NOT as important as the higher level execs.  I have also heard people say that unions help in the event of a down cycle in retaining employment.  I heard a major union rep say on the radio last night that, "when things are good the labor doesn't get the bonuses but in a down cycle they are the first to get pay cuts or layed off"......DUH!!!  Why would I fire myself or reduce my paycheck.  I created this empire.  I am the reason me and others (my employees) have a standard of life, I am important to this organization.  Now of course all workers are important in a way, but not in the bottom line kind of way.  If you want to be one of "those guys" you have to increase your skills, education and experience.  These are all things that the individual person controls.  

Some say, "well you dont know the history....unions gave us the 8 hour work day.... minimum wage...the weekend...etc"  That's true but who would sacrifice liberty to control their lives and businesses just to secure a government mandated 2 day weekend.  I'd argue that in true capitalism, some form of weekend, wage, reasonable working hours etc, would of emerged on its own as people who all wanted these things continued to quit working for the guys who make you work 7 days a week for minor duckets.  Eventually that guy would say "Hmmm.. no one wants to work here, thus I can't generate a profit.... maybe I should see what it is they want to work here"  Then that guy would sit down with some potential employees and they would come to an agreement, BUT it wouldn't be mandatory and enforced by Big Government.  If the employee decided to renege on anything he promised then laborers would just quit again.

The deal is if you don't like that conditions that your employer provides.... QUIT!  go elsewhere, move around.  Don't attempt to infringe on your employers liberty by massing courts and lawyers against them.  No-one made you start working there and no one is making you stay.  Its whats called liberty.  Freedom to make it and freedom to fail.