"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
------------------------------------------------
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell
------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Union-Free Choice to Coerce Workers Act of 2007 - HR 800

I wonder where the NY Times Editorial board is today, yesterday or any other time before its hit piece on the President in which the board opined:

"if Mr. Bush were, as he claims, truly concerned about rising income inequality and truly committed to improving the lives of America’s middle class, he would support the legislation and urge the Senate to approve it."
Captain's Quarters has a link to an NRSC video up that returns the Democrat fire of rhetoric, which should be viewed.

This blatant opportunity for unions to coerce their existence, not upon an employer, but the very workers they claim to work for is getting some play lately. As described by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah this morning at NRO:
"What is card check and why is it so bad? The bill now before Congress would overturn a 72-year law that guarantees workers the right to cast private ballots in union organizing elections. Card check has always been an option, if employers voluntarily choose to recognize a union that way. But this bill mandates the recognition of a labor union as the exclusive employee representative if only 50 percent plus one of the workers signs a card expressing interest in a union. It’s automatic. No discussion, no hearing from both sides on the issue, no election."
The Editorial board of the toilet paper is railing on today about rights of free speech, that the now "new conservative majority" Supreme Courts recent "bad rulings," is supposedly impeding. So one form of "free speech" is ok to the waterboardneeding editorialists and another is not.

I wonder how they would feel with their own belief system applied to them?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1398929444022312328

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

  • Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rightlinx, third world county, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

     

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks