Dec. 26, 2008 at 16:16
by BrendaBee
This really is a must read for everyone, but especially those of you who are supporting the so-called Employee Free Choice Act which would take away the free choice and protections of employees by taking away the secret ballot when voting for or against a union. The vote would be an open signature on a card leaving those who don't sign the card to the bad manners of those who want them to sign the card for a union. Funny that back when the unions were being organized in the 1930 to 1950 era it was the companies who wanted the votes for a union to be "open". The workers and the unions demanded a secret ballot so the companies could not "intimidate" workers into not voting for a union. Now the unions are falling out of favor with workers and union membership is very low it is the unions who want the right and privilege of intimidating workers!
The Democrats in Congress who have been generously funded by the hoodlums who own the unions and the workers union dues during their 2006 and 2008 campaigns are backing this bill. The newly Obama appointed Labor Secretary is all for it too having gotten her fair share of union workers dollars. So unless the Republicans can filibuster in Congress it is a sure bet to give the mobsters who control the unions control over the American work force and the largest piggy bank in the country with all the union dues they extract from workers. This article however tells you what this newly appointed Labor Secretary wants for herself when her vote is at stake. A case of good enough for me but too good for you! BB
Busted: Obama's New Labor Secretary Demanded Secret Ballot For Herself, But Wants to Take It Away From Workers
American's for Prosperity Blog Friday, December 19th 2008
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/121908-obamas-new-labor-secretary-secret-ballot-me-not-you
" Like most Congressional Democrats, U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis - President-elect Obama's pick to be the next Labor Secretary - is a co-sponsor of the controversial "card check" bill that would essentially do away with the secret ballot for America's working men and women in union elections.
However, it turns out Congresswoman Solis is a big supporter of the secret ballot - but only for herself! Check out this Washington Post report from February 2007, when Solis and three of her colleagues sent a letter to Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Joe Baca protesting the fact that the Caucus' recent election wasn't conducted with secret ballots:
"When Baca was elected, Solis, Sanchez and her sister, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), disputed the election procedure and unsuccessfully pushed for a new vote by secret ballot. They now say they want the governance to be restructured along the lines of the Blue Dog caucus, which disperses power among three co-chairs instead of a single chairman."
According to this article, Solis signed a letter to Baca saying that a secret ballot was necessary to protect the "integrity" of the Caucus election:
"...in a letter to Baca earlier this month, she, her sister, Solis and Velazquez contended the vote did not follow procedure because secret ballot votes were not taken.
"The letter requested a new vote, by secret ballot.
“While this request is not likely to change the results, and while it may seem like a mere formality, it is important that the integrity of the CHC be unquestioned and above reproach,” it said.
Typical. A secret ballot for me, but not for thee!"
2 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Dec. 23, 2008 at 17:28
by BrendaBee
This article is a must read for everyone; both those who supported Obama and those who opposed him. It is vital that we Americans understand fully what he plans and where he wants to take our nation in its relationship with the world. Outlined in this article are treaties that other Presidents and Congresses turned down or outright fought against that as President Obama wants to push thru and make the law of the land. Treaties that will put Americans and American institutions under the control of the United Nations and other world organizations. Organizations where the United States would have only one vote just the same as all other nations.
These treaties can not be allowed to become the law of our land! They are dangerous and will undermine our national sovereignty. Please pay very close attention to everything you read in this article.
Some excerpts to get you started:
http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/12/23/obamas_plan_to_rejoin_the_world_community
1) "The U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which Ronald Reagan rejected in 1982, is high on Obama's list. LOST has already created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Jamaica and given it total regulatory jurisdiction over all the world's oceans and all the riches on the ocean floor.
Corrupt foreign dictators dominate LOST's global bureaucracy, and the United States would have the same vote as Cuba. Likewise for LOST's International Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany, which has the power to decide all disputes.
Even worse, LOST gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes. The real purpose of the taxing power is to compel the United States to spend billions of private-enterprise dollars to mine the ocean floor and then let ISA bureaucrats transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations"
2) "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999. It would prohibit all nuclear explosive testing and thereby allow our nuclear arsenal to deteriorate until the American people are defenseless against rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea"
3) "U.N. Treaty on Women, known as CEDAW. It was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and persistently promoted by Hillary Clinton, but the Senate has so far had the good judgment to refuse to ratify it. This treaty would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," to follow U.N. dictates about "family education," to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology in order to ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women" and to set up a federal "network of child-care facilities."
4) "Another U.N. Treaty on the list is the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by our Senate. ...........
This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to express their own views "freely in all matters," to receive information of all kinds through "media of the child's choice," to use their "own language," and to have the right to "rest and leisure." This treaty even orders our schools to teach respect for "the Charter of the United Nations."
Please don't take this article's word for what these treaties mean, look them up and really study them yourselves. They are dangerous to us as a nation and to us as individual Americans. Do you really want to give control over your life and things that will affect you and your family to people you have no control over? Ask yourselves this questions and then watch Congress closely and voice your opinion when these treaties come up for discussion. And especially watch for them not to come up for discussion but to be rammed thur under cover of another bill altogether. BB
7 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Nov. 19, 2008 at 14:54
by BrendaBee
Obama's choices for his cabinet are a bafflement to me. I am especially intrigued by his possibly appointing Dear Hillary as Secretary of State. This position demands that each party trust each other completely and are privy to everything the other is doing and thinking. Like: NO WAY! Me thinks it is a marriage made in Hell. Something like Bill and Hill you might say (much animosity but somehow connected at the hip due to politics.)
The other choices for members of his cabinet are almost as "interesting?" See below:
Headlines: Obama Team Anything but Shy and Retiring
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/us/politics/18memo.html?_r=1
Published: November 17, 2008
"His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a take-no-prisoners politician known for his willingness to butt heads with adversaries. Mr. Obama’s top liaison to Congress, Phil Schiliro, is a skilled political infighter. His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is no shrinking violet, as one of the few people who can boast of shouting down Sean Hannity of Fox News on Mr. Hannity’s own show.
And then there’s the consideration that Mr. Obama is giving to Lawrence H. Summers, the outspoken former Harvard president, as Treasury secretary, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, a move so explosively bold that it has sent the Washington press corps into overdrive."
It certainly didn't send me into overdrive (I'm too old for that unless someone pees me off.) but I am going enjoy watching this group of prima donas and ego maniacs, who love hearing themselves talk and accept no opinion but their own, try to put on the stifling overcoat of "group think". BB
"Aides to Mr. Obama say that he intends to run a tight ship, and that an Obama administration would not be a return to the factional fighting of the Clinton White House. They say that his choices of Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Mr. Emanuel — and potentially of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Summers as well — reflect a self-confidence and a willingness to tolerate internal dissent."
So the mild mannered super hero Obama plans wearing a black and white striped shirt and cleats (I'm sure he will need them to fully impress backsides) and carrying a whistle (won't be heard above the riot) in the Oval Office. Well, he did promise "change" didn't he!? BB
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Nov. 6, 2008 at 14:33
by BrendaBee
The Wall Street journal Online Thursday Nov. 6, 2008
Obama's Real Opponent
President's Come and President's go; Congressional barons are forever
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
This is a good article to read for those of us who are not familiar with the members of congress who actually do the governing of our country. As I have said so often, the President since Richard Nixon and Watergate has had so much power taken away from the office that anyone who holds the office must constantly fight with Congress to make any changes he may want to make.
My fear is that Obama is as free spending and irresponsible as some of what this article calls the "Congressional Barons". In this case having both the Congress and the Presidency on the same page could be deadly for our future IMO.
As this article points out however, the last two Democrat Presidents (Carter and Clinton) had to fight their own Congress. President Obama will have to contend with some powerful Democrats with some seriously flawed ideas for our democracy.
David Obey the House Appropriations Committee Chairman and his big spending friend Barney Frank Chairman of the House Banking Committee want to cut defense spending by up to 25% which will cripple our already stretched to the limit military. This will make it difficult for the military to adequately face any threat to our security. The 25% cut will also impact our disabled veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan by cutting back on the medical services they need so badly.
Chuck Schumer (Senate Democrat) and his friends are already threatening banks if they don't lend more money instantly under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. While I agree the bail out was meant so that the banks would have the funds to lend, I don't like the way Schumer is heading. He and some others want to use the bail out funds to buy out and nationalize some large US industries such as the auto industry. They also want to use the money to bail out some states such as New York who have spent their way into debt the resembles the irrational spending of the national government.
Our government has already bought into the ownership of troubled banks and now to go into the production marketplace as well is truly pushing the wall towards Socialism. We have seen examples again and again in other countries what happens when an industry is government owned: they become extremely inefficient and extremely expensive to maintain. What happened to Communist Soviet Union before the failure of the government in the late 1980's should have shown us the fallacy of government ownership of industries. Our own US Postal System is a prime example here at home of an industry owned and operated by the federal government. The Post Office system is always in debt and is always raising prices while private companies like UPS and FedEX are making good profits in the mail delivery business, and doing it much cheaper than the government owned USPS. In fact more companies are coming on line as they see room for growth and profits in the delivery of mail. I can only hope that eventually the private sector will take so much business from the USPS that the USPS ceases to exist. Of course since once a program or department is formed by the legislature it is NEVER disbanded I suppose the inefficient USPS will continue its greedy tax dollar eating ways for nothing more than handling the governments own mail.
George Miller (House Education and Labor Committee) along with Jim McDermot ( Ways and Means subcommittee) are looking at taking over the popular 401k and federalizing all pensions on the order of Social Security. Well we all know that Social Security is going bankrupt because the money put into the "trust fund" is taken out and the government then replaces the funds with what will someday be worthless Treasury notes. This is however a way to get funds for the current Social Security shortfall and push a much larger problem into the future. I wonder however how people will feel about having their 401k savings taken away from them? This is however a good way to "spread the wealth around" for those of you who voted for Barrack Obama and the Democrats.
John Conners (House Judiciary committee) is siding with Europeans who want to indict members of the Bush administration for war crimes. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Congress voted to wage the war and continued to fund it and now they want to punish those who were to carry out their instructions because they don't agree with how things were done. We are seeing this being done now with members of the Armed Services being tried for murder. I agree our soldiers must be held accountable for any crimes they commit but it should be left as it always has been, a matter for the military. civilian courts can not possibly understand or stand in judgment of a soldiers whose life is on the line and who is forced to make snap judgments.
These are just a few there are more Congressmen whom we need to become acquainted with and watch, because Congress holds the real power. Read the article. BB
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Sep. 1, 2008 at 14:01
by BrendaBee
McCain and company handed a golden opportunity to "make hay" when Hurricane Gustav decided to make land fall at the beginning of the GOP Convention. Obama's people are kicking themselves for not getting the idea first. but since they came in second place his spokesman said they didn't want to make a contest out of the relief efforts.
Don'tcha just love these politicians and their handlers? BB
GOP to Create Hurricane Relief Center in St. Paul
http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/01/
"Republican Party officials are quickly creating a volunteer center in St. Paul to coordinate hurricane relief efforts to the Gulf Coast region while their national convention is temporarily suspended.
GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s Campaign Manager, Rick Davis, said party organizers were establishing a relief center to assemble and ship more than 80,000 “comfort packages” to the five states affected by Hurricane Gustav.
Davis said the center would “open first thing Wednesday to accommodate volunteers to help pack” packages which would contain essentials like toothpaste, toothbrushes and snacks. State party delegations are currently being scheduled in shifts to assemble the packages as well.
Fundraising efforts to “charities identified in the Gulf States” by the Governors’ offices in each of the five affected states are being coordinated as well. Davis also said they would be soliciting the delegations, corporations and other organizations in the Twin Cities to help drive dollars to those states. He refrained from stating any explicit fundraising goals or saying whether or not their Democratic presidential opponent, Barack Obama, should tap his fundraising network to send money to the Gulf States.
“We don’t want to make a contest out of this,” he said."
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Aug. 15, 2008 at 11:49
by BrendaBee
Let us hope the next Congress man to be taken down for his blatant flaunting of all ethical practices in Congress and in life is Democrat Representative John Murtha from Pennsylvania. He is slim and a disgrace even in a disgraceful Congress. BB
Headlines: Murtha Intervenes for Company That Broke Export Law
Congressman Urges State Dept. to Meet With Pennsylvania Firm, Saying Sanctions Could Sink It
By
Christopher Lee Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 15, 2008; Page A05
" Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat known for delivering federal money to defense contractors in his district, and chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, wrote State Department officials in late June urging them to meet with the president of Electro-Glass Products, a 50-employee company that was convicted in April 2007 of illegally exporting components of night-vision goggles to a company in India. The Mammoth, Pa., firm has been sanctioned by the State Department, and Murtha argues that the action threatens to put the firm out of business.
"Electro-Glass is a highly respected company known for its honesty," Murtha wrote. He said the company, which manufactures small glass rings called "preforms," would not have made the shipments "if they truly believed the shipments were in violation of the law." He added: "It will be genuinely unfortunate if they are forced to close their doors."
__________________________________
** payola n.
- Bribery of an influential person in exchange for the promotion of a product or service, such that of disc jockeys for the promotion of records.
- A bribe or a number of bribes given to an influential person in exchange for a promotion of a product or service: "I do not mean to imply that most Wall Street analysts typically receive payola for touting particular stocks"
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
May. 10, 2008 at 15:18
by BrendaBee
I am always trying to correct misunderstandings about history that crop up more often than they should. This of course is a consequence of the schools beginning in the 1960's to teach "social studies" instead of History. As a result we have two generations who know more about how the local sewage treatment plant operates than how the government operates. A generation who believe there was no intelligent life on Earth before they came on the scene. This is not to put younger people down, it is merely a sad fact that they have been cheated of vital information. Youth has always been arrogant and felt their elders were "behind the times" and "just didn't understand". My Dad could tell you I was absolutely horrid in my arrogance. But aside from that I do think there are those out there who do care what went down in the past and will appreciate a short history lesson.
I had started a post on this same subject, but haven't yet finished. So am passing on a post sent to me by a friend (Dallas W) about the statement Barack Obama made in his NC victory speech that shows his incredible and dangerous lack of knowledge of history. Please read. BB
************************************************************************************
In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy , headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan , headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam , which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece , ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea .
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America 's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
That view was supported by New York Tim es columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs ," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
