With all the attention by the media on the economy, the corruption, the spendulous, budget crisis, Obama, Turbo Tax Cheat Geithner, and billions of taxpayer money being wasted, there is very little time to absorb much more of the information that we are all bombarded with daily.  However, behind the scenes much is always going on that Obama does not want you to hear about.  It is patently obvious that Obama’s plan is to dazzle you with his television appearances rather than you actually think about what is going on.  This post is about one more of Obama’s Executive Orders.  I expect he will provide me many more topics.  Trust me, when you read through this you will likely be upset.  Again, at the end of the post I will strongly encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives and ask them to do something about it.  They can, if they’re forced to by you.

Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects.

On February 9, 2009 Obama gave us his Executive Order (EO) concerning “labor agreements” in Federal Construction Agreements.  Not a topic on the surface that sounds real exciting or sexy I admit.  However, there are plenty of stinking fish laying around to offend your nose and draw your  attention if you’re looking.  At first you might think it doesn’t matter to the average taxpayer but I say you should pay attention here and I think you will care.   No matter what it looks like on the surface, the overall goal of this EO is to quietly mandate that companies involved with federal construction projects use union labor.  For whom did the Union members vote for in the last Presidential election?  It may have been Obama.  This EO is Obama’s way of saying, “Hey, Unions, thank you for your support!”  I’ll do my best to lay it out for you.  There are some large differences between the typical wages a union worker makes and the same trade worker who is not a member of a union.  Take for example, a union glass worker in Las Vegas earns $57.00 per hour (including caulking some windows) but a non-union worker would typically do the job for $15.00 per hour.1 If a construction company has to use a union for any particular construction project or for an individual component of the project, that company is necessarily going to have to pay a substantial premium for the labor compared to the non-union wages it would otherwise pay.   The obvious effect of this is that the client/customer will have to pay more for the overall cost of the project.  If you own the construction company and your customer is the federal government then you necessarily may conclude that the customer will be able to complete fewer projects with a limited amount of construction funds available.  On the other hand, if your construction company can use non-union labor the overall construction costs will be less and thus the federal government can do more projects with the same amount of taxpayer funds available.  Are you beginning to see where this is going?

The Pre-Obama Free Market History:

In February 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order No. 13202 which was entitled: Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors’ Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects The purpose of this EO was to make sure that federal agencies maintained a neutrality towards union and non-union workers on federally funded construction projects and the private enterprises that bid on federally funded or assisted construction projects.  This EO mandated that:

neither the awarding Government authority nor any construction manager acting on behalf of the Government shall, in its bid specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents:

(a)  Require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other related construction project(s); or

(b)  Otherwise discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors for becoming or refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise to adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other related construction project(s).

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit contractors or subcontractors from voluntarily entering into agreements described in subsection (a).1

The effect of this EO was to allow federally funded construction projects to move forward with or without burdensome labor agreements between a construction company and a labor union.  From an economic prospective, and thus very important for us to take note today is that construction projects involving federal taxpayer funds during the last eight years likely cost far less than under the requirements of the Obama EO, notwithstanding inflation indices or other market influences.  I will explain further.  In any event, there is also no doubt that there was an opportunity for the federal government to fund more infrastructure construction projects than it otherwise could have without the Bush EO.   From a political perspective, Bush made no friends within Union leadership by signing EO 13202.  Good for taxpayers but not good for union construction workers.

Enter President Obama:

Almost exactly eight years later to the week, Obama revokes the Bush EO No. 13202.  Why you might ask?  Undoubtedly, Obama thought about the fact that someone outside the government might ask why so he front loaded his EO with several paragraphs of “conclusive arguments” to build his case before slamming the hammer down on free market competition in this arena.   Given the fact that the government is spending billions of dollars on construction projects in the near future under the guise of “stimulus spending,” there is much at stake here for union workers and of course for union leadership as well.  It is absolutely no coincidence that Obama revoked No. 13202 to put his own agenda in place prior to federally funded construction projects being put out for bid or specifically funded.  The timing was designed and perfect.  Obama did not reveal his plan in a blatantly clear manner to the general public but it is certainly clear enough when one takes a little time to read his EO and do a little research.  What caught my eye was that Obama signed an EO so early in his administration that has such a bland “ho-hum” title.   The EO title; Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects, does not scream at you nor tell you anything of substance.   This is why I read it; I wanted to know more about the topic and why this deserved the Obama attention when the state of the union is in such a chaos.  We all know his time is extremely limited especially in light of all the television appearances he has had to make in order to campaign for his completely socialistic agenda.

The Content of the Obama Executive Order.

Now, remember Obama is a lawyer and has hired many.   No one is better at writing “conclusory arguments” than lawyers.  Even good lawyers do it when it might meet their purpose and they are without other more appropriate tools of persuasion.  A conclusory argument is legalese used to describe a lawyer’s attempt to use one, or more, statements of conclusions in order to persuade a trier of fact where there are little or no facts presented to support the position.  Obama has already become a master of the use of “conclusory arguments” as evidenced by his successful campaign and the use of tele-prompters.  So, if you’re trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking and you find yourself short on facts, then just present a series of statements of conclusion in order set up your position.  Here’s how Obama did just that in his EO.  Below is Section 1.  Here’s where he sets up his purpose by cloaking hyperbole and statements of conclusion under the title of “Policy.”  I have placed his conclusions in italics to make them easier to spot.

Section 1. Policy. (a) Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government. Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project. A lack of coordination among various employers, or uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment of various groups of workers, can create frictions and disputes in the absence of an agreed-upon resolution mechanism. These problems threaten the efficient and timely completion of construction projects undertaken by Federal contractors. On larger projects, which are generally more complex and of longer duration, these problems tend to be more pronounced.

(b) The use of a project labor agreement (pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with a union) may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

Who were the fact finders here?

The statements above contained in Section 1 of the Obama EO should be supported by facts.  It is not far fetched to believe that Obama would want to issue EO’s that mirror his politics and agenda but what is crazy is that he would make policy decisions on the basis of what he wants the facts to be as opposed to what the facts actually are.  The basis for any policy decision should be first based upon the results of an unbiased search for truth, i.e., the facts.  This search for truth or that is to say, a determination of the facts should be made by an independent third party qualified panel of folks which are experts in the field.  What Obama did here is simply provide us the conclusion of (the facts that he wishes were true) he wanted to state in order to justify the provisions contained in Section 3.  Does anyone in Congress notice or even care?  Doubtful.  Let’s look a closer look at a couple of the statements Obama makes in Section 1.  You or I could take a critical look at each statement in sub-sections (a) and (b) and the result would be the same.  There are no facts offered to support the basis for a policy change other than the alleged facts that Obama constructed. 1.   ”Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government.”  What are the special challenges?  Who says so?  How was that factual determination made?  Are there in fact “special challenges” that have substantially hindered prior large scale construction projects where non-union labor was used?  Just saying it does not make it so. 2.  ”Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed.”  Talking about someone being the master of the obvious.  Construction companies act as General Contractors and take firm bids from all the required sub-contractors necessary to complete a construction project.  Thousands of construction projects are completed all over the country by general contracting firms that do not have many permanent workers.  These firms do not “predict” costs in the manner in which Obama infers, these companies nail their labor costs down by the bidding process.  General Contractors overcome the difficulty of ensuring the sub-contracting labor is there to do the job by performing due diligence on the potential sub-contracting companies they are considering to enter into a contract with.  This is the same due diligence that the federal government is supposed to use in selecting a construction company in the first place.   Can Obama point to any large-scale federally funded project that has failed because the companies were not using union labor?  We don’t know if there are any facts to support his conclusions because he does offer any.  Also, I am quite sure that there was not a panel of experts appointed to determine whether these alleged problems were in fact real.  The government is supposed to consider conclusions reached by a credible body of factual investigators or finders before it cooks up the policy it wants to feed you.  In this case, Obama simply determined that he wants union labor on all federally funded construction projects over $25 million and served you a truck load of garbage as the basis for changing the government policy of free market competition to a more union friendly socialist set of regulations. After making all of the above statements of conclusion and hyperbole, Obama then serves you the meat you’re  going to pay for and eat in Section 3 of the EO.  It provides as follows:

Sec. 3. (a) In awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project ($25 million or more), or obligating funds pursuant to such a contract, executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis, require the use of a project labor agreement by a contractor where use of such an agreement will (i) advance the Federal Government’s interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters, and (ii) be consistent with law.

(b) If an executive agency determines under subsection (a) that the use of a project labor agreement will satisfy the criteria in clauses (i) and (ii) of that subsection, the agency may, if appropriate, require that every contractor or subcontractor on the project agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations.

Are you reading this?  If any executive agency concludes that a labor agreement will advance the government’s interest in procurement efficiency and economy (because of the conclusory stated dangers outlined in Section 1), the agency may require everyone involved to become a party to a labor agreement with one or more labor unions.  Can you see $57.00 per hour window caulking chewing up a few of your tax dollars?  Do you really believe that any of these executive agencies will not want to “determine” that a labor agreement would not advance the procurement efficiency of the federal government?  Not a chance.  The executive agencies are being directed and controlled by Obama appointees.  Can you imagine the executive in charge of the IRS determining that for a particular subject construction project for that agency that a labor agreement would not advance the interests of the federal procurement process.  Whatever that phrase might mean.   The IRS Commissioner works for Treasury Secretary Geithner, who in turn “serves at the pleasure of’ Obama.  I find it a stretch to believe that the IRS Commissioner for example would have the cojones to determine that labor agreement would not benefit the federal procurement process.  Thus, in my opinion, most if not all of the subject construction projects that the federal government will be involved in will result in a labor agreement covering all parties to the project.  That would necessarily mean that all these projects will cost the tax payer much more than if EO 13202 were still in place because each project will be subject to a union collective bargaining labor agreement.  There will be substantially less projects completed with the billions of stimulus money you’re providing now that King Obama has changed policy to cost you more per project.

A parting thought.

Obama revoked President Bush’s EO 13202 in its entirety.  Bush’s EO mandated that federal agencies not require a labor agreement as a condition of bidding etc. on a federally funded project of any size.  In other words, the IRS Commissioner could not require a contracting company enter into a labor agreement as a pre-condition to receiving the appointment as the general contractor for a federally funded IRS construction project no matter how large or how small.  It was against the law for the IRS Commissioner to do so.  Now, the IRS Commissioner can do that, and will likely do it.  Obama’s EO says that on a construction project costing $25 million or more the agency determines that labor agreement would advance the governments procurement interest on a construction project then all parties must enter into a labor agreement.  What about the federally funded construction projects costing less than $25 million that were heretofore covered by the Bush EO? Under Bush, the agency could not make union labor a requirement–but that EO has been revoked.  May an agency require union labor now on projects costing less than $25 million without having to make a determination that a labor agreement would enhance the efficiency of the federal procurement process.  I think so–and no doubt in my mind that such will happen more so than not.  Obama could have simply amended EO 13202 or otherwise left all of the provisions of EO 13202 in place on all federally funded construction projects costing less than $25 million–but he didn’t!  Hey, taxpayer, how’s it feel to get screwed on the front end and on the back end as well? I love it when I start writing an article and then discover there are other articles out there that support my thinking or are otherwise covering a related topic.  That happened to me today.  For a solid example of how some of this will play out.  Take a look at Union Wage Rule Means Fewer Projects Completed With Stimulus Cash. It’s an article that reveals how the federal agency, the Office of Management and Budget somehow had the authority to include a 1931 law,  the Davis-Bacon provision typically only used on federal highway projects to mandate that union labor be used on all state construction projects using funds from the $787 billion stimulus money you’re providing.  A federal agency has decided that all state contracts will include union labor!  How does this happen?  Where is Congress?  Do they ever show up for work or actually do anything when they do go to work.  We know they don’t have time to read their own bills or amendments to bills but this really sucks as well! Why not get the few email addresses of your federal representatives and ask them a couple of questions. 1.  What is your position on the Obama Executive Order concerning labor agreements on construction projects funded by my money? 2.  What are you going to do about the fact that the OMB has determined to force all state construction contracts to be performed with union labor? Start with those two questions and demand a reply.  Please do me a big favor and send me your Congressional representatives’ responses to me at roland@ballounpost.com.  Also, if you have reached this point in the article then please consider leaving me a comment, a Digg, a Technorati vote, or Kudo.  Any and all of those help this website improve.

CAW President Lewenza — Here we go again with the “I’m angry” thing.

On December 9, 2008, I wrote an article here that quotes the Canadian Auto Workers’ Union President, Ken Lewenza as saying that he was pissed off.  Now, according to an article quoting Lewenza in the Toronto Sun on March 17th, he “. . . went to sleep angry and woke up fuming. . .” In December, Lewenza was mad as hell that Parliament recessed before a “cram down” automotive spendulus stimulus bailout was in place.  In December Lewenza knew if the “urgent” bailout was not in place quickly before the Canadian people had time to think; it would be much harder to obtain it later.  Moreover, and perhaps more importantly to him, Lewenza knew if the government bailout did not come in a hurry in December, the CAW might have to actually grant the Big Three serious labor concessions!  On December 9th, my response to Lewenza being pissed off was simply, “Who cares?”  My response here is; “So, who cares?”   The answer to the question both times is the same.  The only people that might care that Lewenza went to bed angry and woke up “fuming” are the members of the CAW.  Lewenza is mad this time at Chrysler.  In December he was mad at Parliament, the Governor General of Canada, and Harper.  Here’s a guy that is supposed to be a leader of 30,000+ Canadian Auto Workers in negotiation with the auto manufacturing companies, and his strategy is to make headlines by clamoring his alleged anger to the public rather than offer substantive arguments for the CAW’s position.  I’m not impressed.  I say Lewenza is actually hiding a smile in the photo to the left.  What most Canadians do not know is that these alleged painful concessions (wage freeze) granted to GM by the CAW are all subject to GM receiving taxpayer bailout money!  What? In other words, CAW does not agree to cost saving concessions to GM unless the government loans money to GM.  I’m hard pressed to understand that strategy.  You would think that Lewenza would have negotiated a deal with GM regardless of whether GM qualifies for government bailout funds or not.  Maybe I am simply not near as smart as Lewenza but it seems to me that if GM does not get our taxpayer bailout funds, then won’t GM want deeper concessions from the CAW, right?  The wage freeze that Lewenza touts as some big major sacrifice by the CAW members was already in place contractually last year.  The new agreement simply extends the wage freeze an additional year.  We’ve been slimed again by Lewenza.

Chrysler wants to cut labor costs by 25%; are you angry about that?

I am baffled by the thought that Ken Lewenza would believe that the Canadian people would be concerned at all that he is angry at Tom LaSorda, President of Chrysler because LaSorda wants to cut Chrysler’s labor costs.   I’m glad that Chrysler wants to cut labor costs and I believe most Canadians feel the same way.  Here’s the deal.  The CAW negotiated a deal with GM wherein the CAW has agreed to a freeze on wages until 2012; shorter vacations; and more contributions to its members own health benefits.  Lewenza has got to be hiding a smile in the photo (above-left)–these concessions are hardly a major sacrifice by autoworkers.  I am unable to find any report that CAW members agreed to a wage cut–and that is exactly what is needed.  Chrysler has the correct position here.  The CAW must agree to wage cuts–not just a wage freeze–in order for these companies to have a competitive chance of surviving.   Lewenza pretends to be a fair-market capitalist by complaining that Chrysler would have an unfair market advantage over GM if the CAW were to actually cut wages. Give me a break.  Lewenza is a union leader—he hardly cares whether one automaker has an advantage over another.  Besides, the wage cut that Chrysler is demanding might be the only way it can obtain the government’s loan approval.  Lewenza certainly did not offer any hard evidence that Chrysler would have an unfair advantage over GM.  Just saying it does not make it so.  The CAW is only interested in conceding a bare bones minimum (if anything at all) in order for GM and Chrysler to receive taxpayer bailout money!  If the CAW were actually interested in the long-term survival of the Big Three, it would seek solutions that ensure the competitive viability of the companies.  Such solutions undoubtedly call for the CAW members to agree to wage cuts that bring their wages more in line with the rest of the world-wide auto industry.   There is no evidence that the CAW has adopted a different philosophy that in the recent past.   In December, I pointed out the fact that the CAW had adopted a seven point strategy in 2005 for dealing with companies within the auto industry that might seek concessions from the CAW.   Below I have repeated strategy number one because it is far more aprapos today than in 2005.

1. Resist concessions at all costs: We will demonstrate with actions, when words are not enough, that auto parts companies cannot solve their problems on the backs of their workers through concessions in wages, pensions, and benefits. If this requires demonstrations, plant occupations, strikes, or any other non-violent action by CAW members and their community allies, then the CAW will be ready. Parts makers who attempt to solve their problems by forcibly extracting concessions from their workers, will find their ability to effectively do business in Canada severely constrained.

There is no doubt that dialogue between Lewenza and Chrysler will continue to heat up over the next few days.  Chrysler needs to hold firm against the CAW and its hyperbole. According to some internet bloggers, labor unions are less than honest.  See Unions are a cesspool of corruption and crime for a quick swipe at unions.  I’m not quite ready to go as far as other bloggers in my description of labor unions but no doubt the unions continue to leave a trail of slime every where.  I simply hope Chrysler knows this as well.

The Federal Government must hold firm.

Regardless of whether the CAW and the auto companies actually reach agreements, the Federal Government must hold firm as well.  The problem for us, the taxpayers is we do not know what the government’s due diligence is.  Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has said that GM and Chrysler “would have to pass a “survivability test” including negotiating “competitive” compensation packages for workers with counterparts at U.S. unionized and non-union auto plants.”  Notice that the survivability test includes a requirement that the compensation packages for autoworkers must be competitive.  How will the government determine the competitiveness of these packages?  Will it compare the compensation packages to the wages paid Korean workers by Hyundai and Kia?  Will the government require that the compensation packages be competitive to what Toyota and Honda pay their workers?  Our federal government should not simply give GM a wink and a nod while pretending that the agreement ratified last week by the CAW meets the survivability test as articulated by Flaherty.  Industry Minister, Tony Clement recently said, “We will ensure that there is a viable long-term sustainability plan involving all stakeholders in place before we commit any taxpayer dollars.”  The problem I have with both the statements made by Flaherty and Clement is that we are not provided any specifics as to how the government will decide that GM and Chrysler are worthy of your tax dollars.  What is the test?  How will the government decide that there is a plan that ensures long-term sustainability or that the companies have reached or exceeded some nebulous “survivability” test?  No one seems to be sharing any of the specifics.  Is it because the government does not want us to know exactly how it will decide.  I’m concerned that the government might be leaving room to talk out of both sides of its mouth.  What say you?  I strongly encourage you all to contact Jim Flaherty, the Federal Finance Minister and the Industry Minister, Tony Clement to voice your opinions and concerns.  You may email Flaherty at flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca however, it is not as easy to reach Tony Clement.  The Industry Minister’s website provides you an address, phone numbers, and general inquiry email.

We Already Gave $20.3 Million in February!  Executive Memorandums Suck.

Using one of those highly publicized Presidential memorandums–a simple stroke of his pen, Obama sent $20.3 million of your tax dollars to Hamas!  The February memorandum states that the money is for urgent migration need for the people living in Gaza–which is controlled and governed by the terrorist organization called Hamas.  Using a deceptive set of words, Obama has drawn upon the legal authority of a Congressional Act that was passed in 1962 to waste your money during this American economic crisis.  Obama has manipulated a 1962 Congressional Act for his purposes and to arbitrarily decide that we should support the very people who send rockets into Israel on a regular basis.  Now Obama wants to send more.  

Obama now plans on giving $900,000,00 to Hamas’ Gaza & the Palestinian Authority!

While the rockets continue to be launched into Israel1, the United States leadership wants to send money to Gaza!  On one side of his mouth Obama markets his insane spending programs by claiming that the American economy faces cataclysmic consequences if we don’t raise taxes and spend spend spend; yet out the other side of his mouth Obama wants to initiate ridiculous spending in the Middle East.  One again, I have to ask like a voice in the dessert; “Do you, the American taxpayers care?”  

On March 7, 2009 Fox News released the results of a poll it conducted in which Americans were asked; “Where is the money coming from that the government is planning on spending in the stimulus package and in this year’s budget?”  The result of that poll was that twenty four percent (24%) of the American people in 2009 actually believe that the Government has its own money to spend!  So, we may safely conclude that at least 24% of the American taxpayers do not care what the Government does with its own money.  Unbelievable.  I may safely conclude that twenty-four percent of the American population is ignorant.  The same Fox News poll showed that sixty five percent (65%) of the American people knew that the money the Government was spending was taxpayer’s money.  I guess about eleven percent (11%) do not have a clue.  So, the questions here in this article are addressed to the majority of the taxpayers who know that it is their money or more specifically, their children’s money that is being spent.  Please note, the American folks that do not pay taxes arguably have no credible opinion so the question is not address to them.  

Secretary of State Clinton Pledged $900 million in aid to the PLO and Hamas!

What does it mean when we discover that “on behalf of the Obama government,” Clinton has pledged this massive amount of taxpayer money to “Gaza?”  When Clinton says the U.S. has pledged $900M to Gaza, what she is not telling you is that $300M is supposedly for reconstruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the remaining $600M is simply an American gift to the Palestinian Authority.  I’m sure all of you American taxpayers know who/what the Palestinian Authority is but for the benefit of my Canadian readers, I will comment on that as well.  The Palestinian Authority is:

The Palestinian Authority is a subsidiary agency of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Also, it is the PLO, not the Palestinian National Authority, which enjoys international recognition as the organization representing the Palestinian people. 3

But wait! Congress has to approve it.  State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said all the money is “subject to Congress’ approval.”2  Therefore, it is not too late for you to fill the airways with your comments to your United States Representatives and Senators.  You can call, you can fax, and you can email any member of Congress.  Moreover, a large number of members of Congress are on twitter.  You have no excuse.  You can say, STOP!  Obviously, I join the 14 year old Conservative, Jonathan Krohn who recently spoke at CPAC whom I believe would be against the Government sending money to the Palestinian Authority.  By the way, if you are one of the minority in the U.S. now that approve of Obama’s spendulus package and his record deficit budget for 2009, I just want you to know that the $900,000,000 that you likely will implicitly approve of could have adjusted 45,000 home mortgages downward $20,000.00 each.  Instead, you would rather send the money to the Palestinian Authority to do whatever it wants to with your money.  Can you say; give me an “H”, give me an “A”, give me an “M”, give me an “A,” and give me an “S!” What does that spell: HAMAS!  What is Hamas you ask:

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.  Since June 2007, Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories.

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, an uprising against Israeli rule in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas launched numerous suicide bombings against Israel, the first of them in April, 1993.  Hamas ceased the attacks in 2005 and renounced them in April, 2006.  Hamas has also been responsible for Israel-targeted rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced most of those operations in 2005 and 2006. 

In January 2006, Hamas was successful in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43.  After Hamas’s election victory, violent and non-violent infighting arose between Hamas and Fatah.  Following the Battle of Gaza in June 2007, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and replaced by rival Fatah members and independents. Hamas retained control of Gaza.  On June 18, 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia.  Israel immediately thereafter imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, and Hamas repeatedly launched rocket attacks upon areas of Israel near its border with Gaza.  After the end of a six-month ceasefire the conflict escalated, and Israel invaded Hamas-ruled Gaza in late December, 2008. The Gaza conflict concluded in mid-January, 2009.3

Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Gaza is controlled by Hamas.  Obama plans on sending 300M dollars of your money to Hamas under the lie of “rebuilding the infrastructure” of Gaza.    My question is this, “Why is the American Government spending any money at all to rebuild the infrastructure of Gaza?”  Does the average American taxpayer (mostly the wealthy Obama!) approve of this expenditure?  Let’s put this in the simplest of terms.  It is conceded that Hamas is funded by Russia, Iran, and other anti-American anti-Israel governments.  Hamas sends its rockets to Israel killing innocent people.  Israel responds and bombs Gaza.  Subsequently, Eygpt and other Arab countries call for a Conference on the Reconstruction of Gaza and Obama sends Secretary of State Clinton to the Conference.  Again, I remind you, American taxpayers, you can make a difference.  Contact the members of Congress and scream: STOP!  Wouldn’t it be great to see the people making a difference.  Wouldn’t it be great if the American taxpayer held members of Congress accountable.  Of course, the problem is that members of Congress are, like the President, elected by a large number of citizens that do not even pay income taxes–and apparently do not care where or how the government spends the money it collects in taxes from others.

The U.S. Government is okay with the Palestinian Authority controlling $600, 000, 000 of your money!

At times I simply want to scream; “Americans you are such idiots!”  Why, are you so apathetic?  Obama has also decided to send $600M dollars to the PLO to assist them in whatever they want to do.  Hard times in America, right?  Robert A. Wood, a spokesman for Clinton said, [the $900 million includes] $600 million in budget and development aid to the Palestinian Authority.”  So, in other words America, you are not only paying for your own government’s outrageous deficit budget, you are going to pay for the PLO’s budget as well unless you take immediate action.  Again, it is not too late.  Even the money the Arab nations pledged to Hamas and the PLO has not yet been sent.  Apparently, the terrorist groups Fatah and Hamas are quarreling about who is going to receive these lottery funds.  According to an article posted at the Democratic Underground website, the Arabs are waiting for the disagreement to be worked out between the Palestinian factions.  You can stop this by taking the simple action of contacting your appropriate members of Congress and demand that they not support such a use of your tax dollars.  Do it! You’ll feel good and be glad you did. 

The Several Arab Countries Pledged a Meager  $1 Billion.

By the way, in the event Congress does approve of the expenditure of $900 million take a moment to meditate and compare the amount to what the several Arab countries in the Middle East are going to spend collectively.  If my simple math is correct, while being broke and not a country situated in the Middle East; we have pledged nine-tenths (90%) of the same amount that a bunch of wealthy Arab countries have decided to give away.  Think about it.  Several of the most wealthy countries in the world (and being situated in the same general geographical area as Gaza) have deemed that $1 billion is an adequate contribution.  Yet, the United States, being broke and close to bankruptcy itself, suffering from an economic crisis and spending record deficit funds ostensibly to take care of the American people, is acting like its rich!

What do you think?  Thank you for your support.  Please leave your comment below whether you disagree or agree.

1. See Transcript of Clinton’s Press Conference of March 2, 2009: “. . .But I have to confess I am troubled by the continuing rocket attacks coming out of Gaza, 15 to 18 rockets in the last several days.”
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090301/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ml_clinton_mideast
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas