The accused stands before the Tribunal as the Chief Inquisitor reads the charges against him.  Finally, the Chief Inquisitor asks:

How you plead in this matter?  Where does your loyalty lie?  With us or our enemy?

The accused stands there, quivering, wondering what his fate will be…

No, gentle reader, I have not been describing a scene from the Spanish Inquisition, led by Friar Tomás de Torquemada in the 1400s.

Rather, I have been painting a scene of a possible future where the United States Government, led by President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), makes federal contractors disclose their political contributions.

The White House has already submitted a draft proposal suggesting this.

According to Federal Procurement Director Daniel Gordon, the proposal isn’t final. He also added that contractors will be protected, regardless of their political preferences:

Agencies may consider only the factors that are set out in the solicitation – nothing more, nothing less.

And if you believe that, I have a flooded-out bridge over the Mississippi River to sell you.

The president’s proposal is not sitting will with either side of the aisle.

Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill joined Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, in sending a cautionary letter to President Obama.

In the letter, Lieberman wrote:

[R]equiring businesses to disclose their political activity when making an offer risks injecting politics into the contracting process.

Per Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who as chairman of the House Oversight committee, has promised to look into a lot of the Obama administration policies this year, hit the president square between the eyes, when he said that contractors are afraid of

…a corrupt Chicago-style spoils system where contracts are tied to partisan political affiliations.

Obama’s newest mouthpiece, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, defended the proposed Inquisition at yesterday’s White House Press Briefing, saying:

Disclosure is a good thing. And I’m not sure when it became a bad word or a bad idea. Disclosure used to be something that Republicans supported very much.

Disclosure, yes. Coercion and Blackmail, no.

According to his minions in the White House, Obama feels as if this abrogation of freedom is warranted because of the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case. This ruling took away limits on corporate political spending more than a year ago.

However, because of the chasm of disagreement which exists between Republicans and Democrats on what exactly the Supreme Court ruling means, the federal election commission hasn’t been unable to create the rules governing its implementation.

The Obama Administration insists that the proposal is in draft form and the president is still looking it over.

According to them, the proposal is all about transparency and openness.

Uh huh. Then why doesn’t it apply to unions?

Per Rep. Darrell Issa:

It exempts unions which do have a limited amount of contracts and a great many grants to the federal government.

In an article written by Michelle Malkin, posted on realclearpolitics.com, 2 years ago today, May 13th, 2009, the Conservative author wrote that:

“We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it,” boasted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, to the Las Vegas Sun this week. The behemoth labor organization’s leadership is getting its money’s worth. Whether rank-and-file workers and ordinary taxpayers are profiting from this ultimate campaign pay-for-play scheme is another matter entirely.

The two-million-member union, which represents both government and private service employees, proudly claimed that its workers “knocked on 1.87 million doors, made 4.4 million phone calls and sent more than 2.5 million pieces of mail in support of Obama.” It dispatched SEIU leaders to seven states in the final weekend before the election to get out the vote for Obama and other Democrats.

Through a series of local chapter takeovers and bully campaigns to destroy the reputation of executives who refuse to submit to their will, Stern and his scandal-plagued lieutenants have consolidated low-skill service workers to create a 21st century labor empire. The ubiquitous Stern now enjoys a prominent seat at the table of every major policy discussion at the White House, including economic recovery and health care radicalization.

That proved to be the tip of the iceberg.  Employees of federal and trade unions gave extraordinary amounts to Obama’s election, as well as to the campaigns of Democats running in the 2010 Midterms.

And, now that Obama has announced his campaign for re-election, union members will be required to give again.

For example, from thehill.com:

The National Education Association (NEA) has asked its members to support President Obama’s bid for a second term in the White House.

The move by the NEA — the country’s largest union, with more than 3 million members — shows that labor, a traditional ally of Democrats, is gearing up for the 2012 election.

Labor support will be critical for Obama and for several Senate Democrats who are expected to face tough reelection campaigns.

NEA’s political action committee approved a recommendation Thursday to support Obama’s reelection bid. The union’s representative assembly will meet in Chicago in July to vote on the PAC’s recommendation.

After all they’ve done and are doing for Obama, we surely can’t expect him to put the unions through the same Inquisition that he will other federal contractors, can we?