In an interview with the Today show’s Matt Lauer recorded on Superbowl Sunday, President Obama said that “Our preferred solution (to the Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon) is diplomatic.” Although he also stated “we’re not taking any options off the table,” it’s hard to imagine the mullahs who rule Iran thinking that military action by the US has ever been on the table during this president’s administration. So it’s hard to believe that Obama thinks he is accomplishing anything of significance with his Monday order to freeze all financial assets (which are under American control) of the Iranian government or Iranian banks. A British attorney quoted in a Bloomberg News article on the policy shift said “It’s a declaration of economic warfare, to the extent that it’s not already been declared.” But do the mullahs actually care about “warfare” that doesn’t include weapons capable of destroying their uranium enrichment or missile production capabilities? Iran might rattle some sabres regarding disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but they probably won’t go far enough to start actual fighting because they know that as long as Obama feels like he’s doing something, or fooling people into believing he’s doing something, they can keep on working full-speed-ahead on a weapon intended to turn a major Israeli city into rubble. Furthermore, everybody talks about how much oil goes through that ocean passageway, but it must also be remembered that Iran is a large importer of gasoline. Thus interrupting shipping through the Strait would not be without major domestic economic and political consequences. The only reason they might pick a fight on the ocean is to rally internal support for their regime, creating the external enemy to blame for the nation’s problems. It’s a time-tested tactic, but one I doubt the mullahs will use. David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council, is also quoted by Bloomberg as saying that Obama’s move “should end any doubt about the president’s singular commitment to ensuring Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.” Actually, Harris has it exactly wrong. Obama’s move, while welcome, coming in the context of his reiteration that he wants and expects a diplomatic solution where it is increasingly obvious that none is possible, ends any doubt that the mullahs are laughing at the reign of Jimmy Carter II. The mullahs reaction will be “Obama just pulled the biggest weapon he’s actually willing to use. He is now toothless. We’ll pretend to be perturbed, but we feel little worse about this than Br’er Rabbit felt about being thrown into the briar patch.” Their view is all the more accurate given this president’s internationalist mindset, wanting to use the UN for every hard decision, now that we have seen Russia and China defend the indefensible Bashar al Assad, the murderous dictator of Syria. Barack Obama is out of his depth, and the world is a much more dangerous place for it. Israel is indeed, as Jed Babbin explained so well yesterday, sadly and perilously alone.
View post:
Jimmy Carter II Plays into Iran’s Hands
Among the other groups Occupy teamed up with was the Stalinist ANSWER Coalition. (PressTV) — Hundreds of demonstrators are gathering in Los Angeles for a “No War on Iran” rally. Activists are calling for an end to intervention, sanctions, and assassinations. The protest is part of a National Day of Action. The call is sponsored by
View original post here:
Occupy LA, Other “Progressive” Groups Defend Ayatollah Khamenei’s Right To Build Nukes, Hold “No War On Iran” Rally…
On March 8, 2011, feminists observed the centenary of International Women’s Day—a day when we remember the struggles of women in the fight against gender discrimination, and celebrate the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. I would like to dedicate this post to the smallest of women: those who have not yet seen the light of day, but for whom Jesus also died. These smallest women, still unborn, have been generated in the heart of God, and have been a part of His perfect plan from the moment of creation. * * * * * In the early 1960s, when the National Organization of Women was just gathering steam and abortion was still illegal in America, being a feminist was a good thing. Those were the years when discrimination was real and often severe. Letter carriers were called “mailmen,” police officers were “policemen,” because those government positions were not available to women. Employment policies decreed that women could not hold certain management-level positions; that women would train men, who would then become their bosses, but that women could not be considered for advancement; that pregnant women would be required to resign by the seventh month of gestation. Many women did not drive automobiles. Few worked outside the home. But change was coming. Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. magazine, popularized the witticism “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” New York’s Bella Abzug led the way for women into the halls of Congress and co-founded the National Women’s Political Caucus. “Equal pay for equal work” became the mantra of the1960s gender feminists. Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Eleanor Smeal and other prominent feminists in the ‘60s and early ‘70s decried the fact that a woman was only considered “valuable” to the extent that she was wanted by a man—either her father or her husband . “No,” the feminists rightly exclaimed, “EVERY woman has an inherent dignity, regardless of her marital status.” The innate value of all women was a battle cry for the women’s movement at its offset. How ironic, then—how unthinkable—that only a few years later they should abandon that line of reasoning for the convenience of the “women’s rights” movement, hitching their wagon to “a woman’s right to choose.” For just as a woman is invaluable because she has been created by God, so, too, is the unborn child—the fetus or, before that, the embryo—precious, because God has crafted it in His likeness, has imbued it with life, has granted it a dignity which remains, regardless whether or not it was “chosen” and is desired by its mother. * * * * * One of the classic defenses of the value of the human person in America is a speech delivered in 1851 by a former slave, Sojourner Truth. She was speaking at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, in 1851, as women were clamoring for equal rights. In honor of Sojourner Truth, and of all persons whom God has created, I reprint her remarks in their entirety. AIN’T I A WOMAN? By Sojourner Truth Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what’s all this here talking about? That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman? Then they talk about this thing in the head; what’s this they call it? [member of audience whispers, “intellect”] That’s it, honey. What’s that got to do with women’s rights or negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full? Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him. If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them. Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.
See the article here:
For Black History Month: Sojourner Truth and the Liberation of America’s Smallest Women
Republican Mitt Romney stands by his position that the government should stay out of the national housing mess and let the market “hit the bottom.” But in hard-hit North Las Vegas, Nev., the implications are clear. View post: Romney’s Stance Hits Home
Go here to see the original:
Romney’s Stance Hits Home
Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka “union thug”) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it’s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation. However, since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed Right-to-Work legislation on Wednesday, making the Hoosier State the nation’s 23rd Right-to-Work state and, coincidentally, Ohio’s Attorney General approved language that will allow a Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant to use his “ Ohioans for Workplace Freedom ” to gather signatures to put Right-to-Work legislation on Ohio’s November ballot, perhaps it’s time we explore what’s right and what’s wrong with Right to Work. What is Right-to-Work? First, for those unfamiliar with Right-to-Work laws, it is easy to be misled by the hyperbole often thrown around (mostly by unions and their allies) that Right-to-Work has anything to do with anything other than the collection of union dues. It doesn’t. Very simply, Right-to-Work laws outlaw a union’s ability to require employees to pay union dues (or agency fees) as a condition of employment. In states without Right-to-Work laws (known as Non-Right-to-Work states ), it is legal for a company and a union to agree to a contract that requires every employee in the bargaining unit to pay dues or be fired . For a union, the ability to collect union dues is the lifeblood of the union; it is how unions function, it is how they get paid. Therefore, the inability to require dues for their services (whether good or bad) threatens their very existence which is why, very often, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states will strike over their ability to collect dues . As importantly, it should be noted that, since Right-to-Work laws only came about as a result of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, Right-to-Work laws apply only to companies and employees covered under the NLRA . They do not apply, for example, to airline and railroad companies and employees, since they are covered under the Railway Labor Act. This is why airline workers in Texas (or any other Right-to-Work state) can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Note: Even in Non-Right-to-Work states, it is possible to removed forced dues from a union contract through a ‘ Deauthorization Election .’ The Union Argument. For unions, there is a legitimate issue that arises with Right-to-Work laws and that is the requirement to represent so-called “free loaders”—those employees who pay nothing to the union, but are “entitled” to union representation as well as “enjoy” (or suffer ) the union-negotiated wages and benefits. This, however, is part of the problem with the foundation of the National Labor Relations Act. Since the enactment of both the RLA and NLRA, unions have been granted “ monopoly bargaining power ” privileges, or the ability (or right) to represent entire bargaining units (even those who don’t want the union). However, this fundamental problem cannot be addressed unless federal labor laws are entirely re-written or eliminated. The double-edged sword of monopoly bargaining power is that unions in Right-to-Work states are required to represent non-members as well as well as dues-paying members. To a union representative, it is frustrating to have a “free loader” demand a grievance be filed on his behalf over something as benign as a vending machine continually being broken and taking his money, all the while knowing that this individual will never join the union or pay union dues, not out of ideology, but because he is cheap. [Yes, this actually happened .] The Upside of Right to Work. The economic impact of enacting Right-to-Work laws has been largely beneficial to those states as they do attract more business and incomes do rise. In that regard, because there is less union density in Right-to-Work states, unions decrying the fact that Right-to-Work entices companies to leave Non-Right-to-Work states is accurate. In Indiana’s case, according to one study : …if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, by 2008 per capita income would have been $2,925 higher—equating to $11,700 higher for a family of four. Another way to put it: Indiana’s personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana’s lack of a right to work law. Related: Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update Just as importantly, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states often use union dues to fund political activities to elect anti-business politicians [mostly Democrats] who, in turn, chase more businesses away by creating more burdensome regulations and higher taxes. Ironically, the more unions are successful in Non-Right-to-Work states, the more it hurts them by making “union states” less attractive to business investment and, as a result, less jobs are created (if not lost). [See California , for example.] The Downside to Right-to-Work. While Right-to-Work laws do have real economic benefits, unionized workplaces in those states are often rife with division between union dues payers and non-members. Very often, non-members in those workplaces are subject to harassment or harangued by union members and, occasionally, a “bounty” is placed upon them by union officials to try to get members to sign up non-members. In the 80s, our union paid between $15 and $25 per new member, although other unions pay more today. Legislative Action Vs. Ballot Initiative With Indiana’s passage of Right-to-Work legislation yesterday, the Hoosier State’s AFL-CIO boss, Nancy Guyott, shouted from the Statehouse steps , “We’ll take our state back, one citizen at a time! You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” It is worthwhile to note this because, in Indiana’s case, the Right-to-Work legislation was passed over and above the tantrums of union-bought Democrats. During the fight inside the Statehouse, union-bought Democrats attempted to have Right-to-Work placed on the ballot in November. The purpose of this effort was simple. Union-bought Democrats like to ignore the fact that the United States is a Republican-form of Democracy. If given the opportunity to have Right-to-Work placed on November’s ballot, unions would spend tens of millions of their members’ money on deceptive advertising to defeat the legislation, as well as to turn out votes for Barack Obama and against “those evil Republicans.” In effect, it is running two campaigns for the price of one. This brings us back to Ohio. Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant Chris Littleton is spearheading an effort to put Right-to-Work on Ohio’s November ballot. If successful in getting enough signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot, Littleton and his compadres will likely do nothing more than ensure an Obama victory in Ohio. With unions collecting more than $8 billion per year in union dues, no amount of money Littleton can raise will be enough to outspend the unions on the issue Right-to-Work—as evidenced by the recent fight over SB5 (Issue 2) in November. In fact, union bosses and Democrats are likely hoping for Littleton to get enough signatures to put Right-to-Work on the ballot. [Don't be too surprised if unions, either directly or indirectly through third-party operatives, quietly encourage people to sign the petitions.] Once Right-to-Work is on the ballot, unions can turn Ohio into World War IV (again). Regardless of the amount of money Littleton and his associates may make from putting Right-to-Work on Ohio’s ballot, his efforts put the rest of the nation at risk of seeing Barack Obama win Ohio and, as a result, likely re-election. This is something that, hopefully, even Littleton’s presidential pick, Ron Paul, would see the practical ramifications of avoiding if it meant putting Obama back in the White House for four more years. Even though Ron Paul has been cagey on stating he would not run as a third-party candidate, his son, Rand Paul, has stated that it would be impractical, knowing that it would ensure an Obama victory. Hopefully, his Ohio supporters are as practical in that regard when it comes to placing Right-to-Work on November’s Ohio ballot. As the saying goes: “Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win.” Or, in the case of Ohio, another way to put this is: Forego the battle for now, if it helps you win the war later. With the nation nearing $16 trillion in debt and owing $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities, despite the legislature in Indiana winning Right to Work, putting a Right-to-Work initiative in Ohio is not worth the risk. Not now. Not this year. Related: Right-to-Work is a Bandaid ‘Collective Bargaining’ is Compulsory Bargaining __________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776 Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com
Read the original:
A Former Union Thug’s Take On Right-to-Work: What’s Right & What’s Not…
