Darryl Cherness asked:


As election day draws near, it appears extremely likely that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. In addition, there is a general consensus, even among Republicans, that the Democrats will pickup seats in congress and may even obtain a “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate.

Currently, the Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate. In addition to those 49 seats, there are 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving them a 51 seat majority. However, in order to get anything done in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to break Republican sponsored filibusters, the process of talking a bill to death and preventing action on urgently needed legislation.

There is general agreement, given the state of the economy, that 2008 will be a Democratic year. If Democrats pick up 5 seats in the Senate, the minimum they are projected to win, they will have 56 votes and will only need 4 Republican votes to break a filibuster. However, if the Democrats pick up 9 votes, difficult but not impossible, they will be able to shut off debate without crossover Republican votes.

What will it mean for the labor movement to have a filibuster proof, Democratic majority in the Senate?

First and foremost, it means that the Employee Free Choice Act will be enacted into law. The Democratic congress will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act and send that legislation to President Barack Obama who will sign it into law. Once the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law and management can no longer manipulate company based representation elections, it is a safe bet that there should be a significant increase in the number of union represented employees in the United States.

In addition to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a strong Democratic majority in congress can be counted on to periodically raise the federal minimum wage for the working poor. Hopefully, the days of having to wait nine years for small increases in the minimum wage should become a relic of the past.

Other areas where significant changes can be anticipated include revisions in NAFTA to make it more labor friendly, the elimination of tax incentives to encourage American businesses to relocate overseas, greater regulation of the home loan industry to prevent a reoccurrence of the “subprime” housing debacle, and tax breaks for middle income wage earners.

Another significant change will come in the area of job creation. Unlike George Bush, Senator Obama has made it clear that he intends to spend significant sums of money on promoting renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The expenditure of these funds should create thousands of new jobs for working men and women.

Finally, it is my belief that it is absolutely inevitable that the Democratic congress and the new Democratic president will allocate significant resources for “public works” projects; i.e. repair of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, etc. Rather than rely on the marketplace to generate wealth that will “trickle down” to the masses, Obama and the Democratic congress will take direct action to stimulate our economy and return our nation to prosperity by means of these job creating projects.

I believe that the next four years may very well be recorded by historians as labor’s new “golden age.”

Add A Comment

Logged in as Darryl Cherness. Logout »

J.J. Jackson asked:


Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.

Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.

Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.

Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.

For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.

Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.

So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.

He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.

You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.

But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.

All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?

Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.

God help us if it is that latter

hasan yahya asked:


The Zionist Lobby at work in the USA Congress!

Hasan Yahya, Ph.D

The power of the Zionist Lobby in directing American foreign as well as local policies are debated for a long time, the AIPAC denies its involvement, Today, a Washington Post editorial ‘Blame the Lobby’ (3/12) offered a ridiculous critique of the Charles W. Freeman debacle — which ended on Tuesday with Mr. Freeman withdrawing his nomination for chairman of the National Intelligence Council.  Mr. Freeman, formerly chairman of the Middle East Policy Council,  is known for his strong criticism of Israeli policies against Palestinians — and claims he withdrew his nomination mostly as a result of heavy pressure from supporters of Israeli policies. (the Jewish Lobby)     

The Washington Post editorial page took issue with Mr. Freeman’s claim of the role of an influential Israeli lobby and rejected Freeman’s argument that there is an ‘inability to discuss Middle East policies opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.’    

WRITE! Team issued a report as an activist group  stands For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. In the report  www.writetruth.org describing the “Lobby”and the unsuccessful nomination of former ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. As the chair for Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council.

Who was Mr. Freeman? He was a former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King “Abdullah the Great,” Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask — as numerous members of Congress had begun to do — whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.

What was his fault? He describes “an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman’s appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence.

Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister “Lobby” whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency” and which is “intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.” Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel.

As proof of the vigorous US debate with Israel, the editorial cites examples such as US support for actual Palestinian elections, not providing Israel with weapons to provoke war with Iran, and the idea that the US can negotiate directly with Iran.  The Post editorial fails to acknowledge that the US raced weapons to Israel during the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon, signed a $30 billion agreement to promote Israel’s regional defense — and played a central role in disrupting the previous Palestinian unity government.  More recently, the Obama administration is seeking to tie Gaza aid to a recognition of Israel without reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian state.   

The Post also makes the incredulous statement that two Israeli governments have been forced from power because of disagreement with the US over Israeli settlement policy — even though the settlements doubled during the Clinton administration and continued unimpeded during the Bush II administration. 

For readers anywhere in this world support the cause For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. WRITE! Team and the writer urge all to send this letter to let  the Washington Post editorial page  letters@washpost.com know that while one may disagree with Mr. Freeman’s assessment, its own tirade on this matter, sorely lacking in factual analysis certainly does not pass the credibility test. And the Zionist Lobby role in the unsuccessful nomination of Mr Freeman should be known for Americans. We have the right to ask: For how long American government remains far from justice when it comes to Muslim, Arab and Palestinian human rights? (759 words) 

Alain Tanugi asked:


I think it was the Financier Leo J. Hindery Jr who once said: ‘I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career, who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear.’ But the questions beg HOW much is too much? and Should macroeconomic woes slow CEO pay growth?

I recently read in the Associated Press that even as the economy slowed down in America “CEO pay still chugged to yet more dizzying heights last year.’ The top 10 highest paid CEOs took home a total of more than $500 million, but half of those companies saw huge drops in profitability at their companies.

One of the most exasperating things to shareholders and the public is when a CEO receives millions or tens of millions of dollars of compensation regardless of performance. This practice goes fundamentally against the culture of rewarding on the basis of ability and merit that underpins the free market system. Recent examples include: Marriott International chief J Willard Marriott Jr – his 2007 pay was $44m, up 22%, just six percentage points lower than Marriott’s stock price drop or Stan O’Neal, Merrill Lynch’s former boss, left with $159m after losing $8 billion.

Shareholders and politicians are advocating bringing in rules for companies that would allow shareholders to vote on executive pay. Executives in Europe have home far less compensation than their American counterparts in the past. But with leadership compensation in Europe on the rise, these pay increases have citizens in European nations deeply unsettled. The public indignation on both sides of the Atlantic has contributed to a unique political debate over what to do about excessive executive pay. Executive pay figures in Asia are still not as widely accessible as in Europe and America and it is difficult to compare. A recent study conducted by the CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity said that reporting compensation of executives on an individual basis is the practice in the United States, Britain and Australia and is advocated by institutional investors worldwide. Prevailing regulations and practices in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore however leave much to be desired.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission’s “Eurogroup” of finance ministers, recently called excessive pay a “social scourge” and demanded action. When L’Expansion, a French business magazine, calculated that pay for the country’s bosses went up 58% in 2007, the finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said it was “scandalous” and threatened regulation. Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, and Horst Köhler, president of Germany, have also denounced high pay.

New legislation the Netherlands will see the law setting EU500,000 as the level of annual salary or severance payment at which extra taxes must be paid. Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for legislation to curb pay, though its partner in government, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, has so far resisted. At the same time the European Commission is working on a response to the Eurogroup’s complaint.

Just how extreme IS executive pay in Europe? As European firms compete for global talent it certainly has risen substantially in the last 10 years. Foreign executives now run seven of the firms in France’s CAC 40 index and five of Germany’s DAX 30. American-style bonuses and long-term incentive plans are now commonplace.

However European firms still pay a fraction of what is paid to their counter parts in America. According to Hay Group, a management consultancy, the median European executive earns just 40% as much as his equivalent in America. It’s also notable that both American presidential candidates – John McCain and Barack Obama – have been making compensation a campaign issue.

There is an important difference though companies in Europe seem to be more determined than American ones to link compensation to performance. In America share grants are often not tied to performance, whereas European firms usually attach performance criteria to any share grants, typically depending on a comparison with a peer group. Dan Vasella, boss of Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant, and a favourite target of pay activists, earned SFr17m ($14m) in 2007, down 33% from 2006, because he missed his targets.

The extreme rise in European executive pay has sparked an intense debate in countries that have been characterised by a relatively strong sense of economic solidarity and impartiality in the past several decades. A July 2007 Financial Times/Harris public opinion poll found that over 60 percent of those surveyed in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain would like to see their government set caps on top business executive pay. In Germany, a 47 percent plurality supports pay caps.

In America, only 32 percent of the public supports an outright pay cap on executive earnings a recent poll shows. However 77 percent of Americans say corporate executives ‘earn too much.’ Some members of Congress have responded by introducing legislation to curb excessive pay through tax reform and giving shareholders the right to vote on pay packages.

I recently saw an interview with Sarah Anderson, who compiles the Executive Excess report on CEO pay on a yearly basis. She discusses some of the issues raised in this column in her interview and I recommend that you take some time to view it. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lKfRFhG0M.)

From what I have read and heard in the last year signs point to a strong possibility that meaningful reforms to rein in excessive executive compensation could be a prospect, as many political leaders in Europe and the United States seem to be finally catching up to the public uproar. It has to be said though that compensation is a complex issue. Different circumstances and industries dictate different packages and even severance pay may be justified if a change of control is the end goal. One would hope though that politicians would reject laws about pay, which are too widespread to be useful. Strict legislation might well compel leaders away from listed companies and create compensation packages even more complex-and so much more difficult to monitor.

Carol Forsloff asked:


 

Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.

Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.

At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.

We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.

Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in  Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.

Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the  Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues.  He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.

Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.

J.J. Jackson asked:

Liberals are gushing over, and President Obama is praising endlessly, Sonia Sotomayor. Repeatedly we are being barraged by the left with the personal story of one who could possibly be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. While such tales are always compelling, what is rather annoying is how any time you want to move beyond that superficial and sugary coating to examine her record the left quickly jumps right back to it. In an attempt to keep your attention away from a debate about who should be sitting on the highest court in the nation, people who do not want to examine anything of substance shout, “Look! Up In the sky!” Then they regale you with tales about how Sotomayor can stop a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

President Obama claims that Sotomayor is smart. He even claims that she believes in the Constitution. But when one stops following his pointed finger into the sky where his nominee supposedly soars, we see that there is a plethora of evidence on the ground that contradicts the rhetoric. And for Sotomayor, that evidence littering the ground is damning and destroys any credibility those that call her smart and a defender of the Constitution may have.

There is one case in particular that sums this point up so succinctly and makes it impossible to ignore that Sonia Sotomayor is neither smart nor a believer in our Constitution. That case is Maloney vs. Cuomo in which Sotomayor signed onto an opinion that flies so far in the face of the facts that she should not be elected bubblegum sidewalk scraper much less nominated to the Supreme Court.

The case involved one James Maloney who was trying to assert his second amendment right to keep and bear arms but had been arrested for carrying a pair of nunchucks. The opinion with which Sotomayor agreed stated that the arrest was warranted because, now get this, the second amendment, “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government and not upon that of the state.”

Sotomayor did in this decision what liberals always do. She looked for something that she might be able to use to support her opinion and disregarded anything that actually contradicted it. Things like, oh I don’t know, say the 14th Amendment? You know that one don’t you? It says that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” which makes it clear that the states must, absolutely must, protect the same rights as the Constitution itself protects.

Sotomayor’s opinion does lead to some interesting potential conundrums however. If the second amendment only applies to the federal government as she suggests then what about other rights retained by the people and specifically called out in our Constitution?

Can the states now infringe upon my freedom of religion? How about my freedom of speech? What about my right to petition from redress? After all, unlike the second amendment, the first amendment specifically states that it is Congress that shall make no law regarding such.

Can the states now decide that they do not need a warrant to search my home even though the Constitution forbids such actions? Or can the states now decide to deprive me of a right to due process and a right to jury trial? What about these Constitutional protections written in a similar manner to the second amendment that Sonia Sotomayor believes stops at federal authority only?

Can I now be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment at the whim of the state? Can blacks now be placed back in shackles and shipped off to the plantations again simply for being black? After all, if what is written in the federal constitution only applies to the federal government what is to stop the states from doing any of these things?

Is my right to assemble in jeopardy now because my state legislature might decide that such is not a good idea? Can the state now quarter soldiers in my home without my permission? Can my papers and effects now be seized on the whim of the state alone?

Where does the lunacy of this opinion which Sotomayor agreed with end?

Of course the 14th Amendment renders all of these questions of mine moot. But Sotomayor either never read far enough into the Constitution to find it or is so wedded to ideology that she chose to ignore it. Can we afford to place someone who is obviously a wifty illiterate or dangerous ignoramus at best and a treacherous anti-American radical at worst to a court where such opinions of hers would become the norm and perhaps even the law? Will Americans stop looking to the sky for a super woman that does not exist long enough to ask serious questions and soundly reject her?