Watch Prof. Eugene Garver speak on his new book "Spinoza and the Cunning of the imagination"

Energy expert Daniel Fine discusses prospects for U.S. energy 'dominance'

How could these Republicans help Labor Unions to victory?

How could these Republicans help Labor Unions to victory? Legislative Alert:

To all who read this Alert:
Copy and paste it and send it along to your family and friends.

Call your Senator now to stop S.2123. The misnamed and egregious "Public Safety Employer-Employee cooperation act of 2007" was introduced by Senator Gregg on October 1 with enough Republicans (nine Republicans) to invoke cloture and pass the Bill.

The White House said it wanted flexibility on
responding to Homeland security threats and was able to defeat the TSA screener amendment in the Homeland Security-9/11 Bill. The congress with S. 2123 is deciding that not all parts of NIMS under Homeland security can be flexible to meet a terrorist threat. Some parts of NIMS the Policeman and Fireman will be held to the break time and vacations that eliminate the very word "responder" from the American lexicon of our domestic security. Here is what the Bill says "

State and local public safety officers, as first responders, are a component of our Nation's National Incident Management System, developed by the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate response to and recovery from terrorism, major natural disasters, and other major emergencies. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the National interest."

How can the National Incident Management System even work with one of its most vital
components out there in our local towns with its hands tied behind its back?

The bill S.2123 is an unfunded mandate on the states violating the 10th amendment. It is also about the union intimidation that Congressman Lynn Westmoreland saw directed against his own father.

"Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and when I came to the floor today, I didn't come here to speak; but, you know, my father was a fireman for 26 years for the City of Atlanta. In fact, he died in an alarm. I know what it is like for these firefighters to answer the alarms. He suffered a heart attack while turning off an OS&Y valve in a pit. It was 18 degrees that December morning. I know what it is like for those firefighters.

But, you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions. But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side. I don't know what the majority thinks about the 10th amendment, but I believe very strongly in it. This has something to do with States rights. And I am sorry and I am very disappointed that this House will do this under suspension and there won't be any opportunity for amendments or this thing to be looked at.

I hope that the majority of the Members here will realize what is going on, oppose this suspension and bring it up under regular order."

It is a minute past midnight and we should not ever reward the Labor lords for their continued string of defeats in our workplace.

This Bill now stands to be passed by Congress and should be opposed by every free American who believes we should use all our resources in fighting the war to protect our homeland. Not one single Fireman or Policeman should be left behind.

Here are the nine republicans and eleven Democrats who co-sponsored S.2123

Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I-VT]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

Again, call your Senator now and say no to S. 2123

This alert is sponsored by the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
http://www.freeworkplace.org

The summer that shook the American workplace: The new threat and hidden agenda of Labors new Government

The summer that shook the American workplace

The new threat and hidden agenda of Labors new Government

By Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

This summer has been the summer that shook the foundations of the Employee -Employer relationship as no time has in nearly thirty years. While our national security is being defended overseas, our domestic security has become imperiled by governmental transformation at the hands of Labor Union Central Command that has deployed a government it can control. The credibility of Congress is at stake to defend a free workplace.

The summer began when our National Security and the American People were the victors in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Joseph Lieberman caved into Republican and White House opposition to a provision in S.4. The Homeland Security Bill granting collective bargaining rights to TSA screeners. The Bill, without the provision, moved forward on a unanimous consent agreement. Senate Republicans were on guard against the Labor Unions hidden agenda.

For the Pro-labor Democrats the plan was to tie the hands of the Bush Administration through collective bargaining in two ways: (1) -the labor contract would limit the President's flexible response to national emergencies by establishing certain hours and definitions of who could work the emergency contrary to the Presidents assessment and call up of resources for that emergency; (2)-the labor contract above that of the demands of the crises would prevail. What about certain vacation and snack breaks that would happen even in times that potential Terrorists might be getting through our defenses? The snack breaks and vacations would continue and could not be changed. Indeed, collective bargaining is nothing but a dangerous risk in the time of national security crises and war. The defeat of this provision puts the American people first.

Even as the TSA screeners provision defeat was a victory for America's National Security; The House of Representatives votes to imperil states and first responders again.

The House voted with 98 Republicans in tow to reward those who threatened our domestic security by weakening our defenses through the granting of collective bargaining rights to both Firefighters and Police. The House turned its back on the valiant Senate defense of the American people and passed it its own version of the "Pearl Harbor" Bill to support the Labor Lords H.R. 980". Does this vote suggest the first responders of public safety, -- the Police and Firefighters of America, are unlike the TSA Screeners protectors of our domestic security and not as important to Congress? Let those who voted for H.R. 980 know that more workers who protect us will now serve under the shadow of the Union's coercive will.

Nor did the defeat of the TSA screener and Employee Free Choice Act alter the drive of Labor Unions exerting more power to coerce our Government and, through their intimidating version of government, the American People. Unions are transforming themselves into a new form to offset a historic decline. This new form puts the union on a collision course with our Democracy and National-Domestic Security. The recent debate over EFCA reflected the ill- intent of a union- controlled government through the exclusive lens of an EFCA- like world. Like the Orwellian 1984 party slogan "slavery is freedom," the clear illogic of our government under union's control is both broken and good. The method of mind control in Orwell's 1984 was never to connect the past with the present day nobody in "1984" could. In fact, the true past was edited everyday so that nobody could tell the difference between truth and falsehood of history. In the present day of "1984", there is no history at all but the "official" one. The official union history is a long story of how unions "fixed" both a broken and a working government.

Since no one can fix both a broken and good government, today's labor battles clearly show the difference between those who really know the past and those who seek "mind control". Labor Unions have more to loose in their past and far greater desire to control. The greater frequency under this Democratic Congress to improve Labor's position over workers is growing to "1984 proportions by creating an "official" history of those battles that continues to fool even some Republicans into doing the wrong thing.

Why would the Union bosses of today, in turn, mention to the rank and file the continuum of their true historical defeats both on EFCA in 1978 and H.R. 980, which in a previous political cycles is a variation on the postal bill battle of the 1960's-70's? Postal battles that began with unionizing postal workers at a Federal level now are mandated at the state level with fire-fighters and police being compelled today to join the union ranks. Many times have labor unions failed to turn the American workforce into a Gulag of labor bondage. Does this free telling of labor history and conflict not remind the union rank and file of labor's thousand broken promises to them? And that their Labor Boss leadership knows the land of EFCA-- the prelude of Gulag and Socialist Europe-- so well because they already are there.

The Employee Free Choice Act introduced and reiterated the idea that Government ought to perform like an agent for the unions as binding arbitration became synonymous with a rank and file sellout of collective bargaining good faith agreements. If you are a union rank and file member you should be worried that the purpose of binding arbitration and card check is" Big Government" in the form union controlled elections (card check) and special courts (binding arbitration). This form of "Big Government" through third party agents is making decisions at odds with the will of the working man. So why pay dues at all to the unions if the power to make decisions for you are going entirely to the "Big Government" agents themselves?

The establishment of collective bargaining rights for first responders under H.R. 980 is the first advance to a collective government spreading its wings into our lives. As H.R. 980 distorts the time- honored relationship between the state and federal domains by mandating to the states what level collective bargaining rights they should follow. Unmistakably, Labor Unions are doing this to impose TSA collective bargaining amendments and bills to compel government itself into moving their way. This then is the Union's dream of a new form of government. This is labor unions survival, all right, with our American political system in its own image.

If so, what EFCA proved about the new Labor image is that the unions claim the use of "Big Government" in multiple ways with its agents. Their reward for this work, for all of us to see, is paid in forced dues while the government not the unions does for workers what the unions desire. In other words, the unions are getting dues without doing anything for the working man. The government would not split its revenues and taxes with the union: however, through forced dues workers would be paying twice to the government and to the union or they would loose their jobs. None of the union dues money would go to the Government in the end.

Yet, despite this Union threat to our American way of life, some House Republicans completed the Senate EFCA defeat with a major Union victory on H.R. 980. Members, including those Republicans, inexplicably swept this legislation through committee by a 42-1 margin and passage in the House of Representatives. Indeed, one could argue that Speaker Nancy Pelosi who brought up H.R. 980 under suspension of the rules on 7/17/07 did so because of the Republican capitulation in committee. She recognized this collective bargaining bill, with its Republican consent, as no different than all the other non-controversial bills that are normally debated during suspension of the rules.

Now we see how Republicans on the committee capitulated to Pro- Labor Democrats handing the unions a victory for their brand of collective government.

"I am hopeful that this legislation will be modified during the legislative process to strike a more appropriate balance on behalf of public safety officials and the states and local communities they so ably serve. With that in mind, I do not plan to oppose the measure today, as it is marginally better than the bill introduced earlier in this Congress. And should it continue to be improved along the way, I may be able to provide a more vigorous endorsement. I cannot do so right now, however; but in the interest of moving the process forward and in light of the Chairman's willingness to make thoughtful adjustments to the legislation, I will support the measure advancing for consideration by the full House." Congressman Howard Buck McKeon, Press Release ED & Labor 6/20/07

Republicans on the committee should know better than to put their stock in a hope for a better legislative deal with the Unions and Democrats that never came to be. In the end, they should hear and remember these brave words of a man's real struggle than not to make the pernicious deals which shatter hope:

"I know what it is like for those firefighters. But,
you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is
what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions.
But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th
amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the
chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my
heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side."

Floor Statement 7/17/07 Congressman Lynn Westmoreland

Going into autumn and beyond, the collective bargaining Bill for so- called Public-Safety goes to Senate where again it will be Republicans who will likely lead both the fight for and against it. H.R. 980 political appeal is nothing less than another Big government-labor agent strategy not unlike the Employee Free Choice Act's outside calling upon Judges as union agents to settle Labors binding arbitration disputes. Business organizations and other groups who rightly opposed the Employee Free Choice Act with its attack on collective bargaining in favor of EFCA's binding arbitration must ask themselves this question: Is H.R. 980, if passed upon the public sector, really about collective bargaining for the unions or about a new vehicle and unchecked precedent for further Congressional violations of the 10th amendment in Labor's name? If H.R. 980 is an "unchecked agent" for the unions in the states, then the so- called "crises" of collective bargaining and its presumed failure in the private sector might become the next best means for public sector increases in Big Labor's over all appeal to Congress to save the House of Labor from its own demise.

Will Fine is Executive Director of the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

NAWER demands Governor of California save Secret Ballot Elections

Company Information :The National Alliance for Worker and Employer Righ122 C. St suite 220Washington, District of Columbia 20001USA Ph. 202-492-3196
Media Contacts:William Fine, Executive Director wfine@freeworkplace.org202-492-3196
http://www.freeworkplace.org

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights Demands Governor Schwarzenegger Save Secret Ballot Elections for Workers in California urges veto of Senate Bill 180 robbing our workplace freedom

S. 180 is a bill denying civil liberties to the most vulnerable people in California - those who work the farms of the state. Farm workers deserve better than to loose their hard earned rights to the schemes of the labor bosses.

For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON, D.C./EWORLDWIRE/July 25, 2007 --- National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights demands Governor Schwarzenegger save Secret Ballot Elections for workers in California, and it urges veto of Senate Bill 180 robbing the public of workplace freedom that many have died to keep.

S. 180 is a bill denying civil liberties to the most vulnerable people in California - those who work the farms of the state. "Farm workers deserve better than to loose their hard earned rights to the schemes of the labor bosses," says organization Executive Director of the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights Will Fine. "Under this bill, labor bosses would be allowed to unionize through intimidation farmworkers to gain more members and their forced dues. Under threats of job loss these workers would be compelled to sign the 'card checks' in their homes. It does not matter that these workers do not often know what they are signing or that union thugs coerce them untill they get their cards signed."

"It is obvious under these harsh conditions for workers why the United Farm Workers Union looses more than half of all elections through Secret Ballot Elections. There is no doubt that SB 180 is a payoff to the union to save it by increasing membership at the expense of workers rights. Passing S.B. 180 means the State of California would allow more workers to loose their election rights to the labor unions. How long would all Californians be free when every voter did not have the right to a secret ballot election in private and force was used to control the outcome of every vote?"

"Do not listen to the calls and schemes from labor bosses on card check, Governor Schwarzenegger. Close your ears and turn away. Listen instead to the Americans that have sacrificed their lives to come to California to live in freedom. Why should S. 180 be forced on farm workers to make them give up their right to an election that should be private and free? Say no to these union shock troops that hold farmers hostage through Card Check, Governor, and veto S. 180. In vetoing this Bill, you send a message across the country; workers rights can never be compromised to the labor mobs again," said Fine.

S.B. 180 is likely to pass the California Senate soon and move onto to the Governor for a veto. The Governor has not yet stated a position on the Bill.

NAWER urges Right to Work law passage in Missouri

Missouri Right to Work: Thank you Rep. Hunter

By Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

Courageously, Rep. Hunter (R) and like-minded Missouri Representatives who supported him on March 1 passed the first Right to Work Law (H.B. 439) out of committee in recent Missouri History. Rep. Hunter's RTW Bill is now 54th on the Calendar for a full vote. The people have spoken: with pro-worker and employer majorities in the Senate, House and with Governor Blunt there has never been a better time to pass a right to work law in Missouri and pass it they will. The National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights wishes to thank Rep. Hunter for his vision and leadership to improve the lives of working families in Missouri. The people of Missouri are with you as well.

While Rep. Hunter has introduced his three Bills creating a RTW law, Paycheck Protection (H.R. 441), and greater Union accountability (H.R. 440) ; darker forces try to dim the hopeful promise of Missouri having at last a free and fair workplace. "Big Labor" Bosses are making their threats known against Legislators. With the freedom of your workplace at stake these threats can only be called small in promise, small in purpose, and small in compassion. "Big Labor" Bosses in Missouri can always be counted on for one thing: to try and turn away your working rights while embracing their own agenda. Their agenda against Right to Work in Missouri turns your fair choice on its head. You will get a lot for your "Fair Share," namely, the risk of loosing your job if you choose not to join a union. Where is your "fair choice" in that?

How many good workers will be fired because of labor's radical hidden agenda? As many as it took at the Daimler-Chrysler plant in St. Louis County that just recently had to move out of state. You see under the compulsory dues scheme of the unions non-union members still must their pay dues to the union and are the first to be fired. Why? Because for the simple reason that they do not want to join a union. Now that means Daimler Chrysler had to fire every worker who did not want to join a union-how then after all of those firings could Daimler Chrysler even compete with any other Automobile maker in the five surrounding RTW states? It could not and folded its shop and left. For as long as no RTW law is in place large and small Employers of Missouri have felt this deadly union squeeze against them. It is time the Legislators of Missouri stood up against this injustice and protect employers by embracing fair competition and open labor markets with a Right to Work Law in Missouri.

There are many reasons employers and employees should stay in Missouri. You should be proud of the outstanding economic prosperity of Missouri today. There has never been a better time for job growth in Missouri history. The second highest non-farm payroll of 2,788,700 was on record going into this year.

Yet, what does this say about union rank and file members? They are a lot smarter than their Bosses. While the unions have fought the majority of the Missouri workforce from having a RTW law, their own union membership has voted their disgust with their feet. Walking away from the unions, they know what is in their best interest, as more than 59,000 union members have left unions in Missouri over the last 15 years.

Could this have something to do with unions constant coercion of working families freedom? Yes. All Missourians should have their fair share of prosperity without union intimidation. What makes passing a RTW law a good objective? more than anything it is the choice and right of every worker to enjoy more economic freedoms and a better life for his or her family.

We don't hear so much from workers who try to speak out against unions. The unions don't allow any kind of speaking out about them that they don't like. That's how unions keep their power over workers--either they shut up or they loose their job. Realizing there is no protection against such union intimidation, Mr. Hunter's RTW Bill protects your right to work without fear of retribution from the unions. Union retributions continue to silence the people of Missouri from exercising their better judgment: For who knows your workplace better in the end what makes your life a better one? Does Andy Stern or Hoffa even have a clue?

Call Rep. Steve Hunter's office now at (573)-751-5458 and thank him with your vote for his Right to work Bill for all Missourians.

Sincerely,

Will Fine, Executive Director
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

More Colorado snake oil:

Formula for Big Labor coercion to come:

By Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

Have we not been sold a bill of union goods in Colorado?

Governor Ritter, a Democrat, went against his own big labor bosses by vetoing very prudently a pro-union Bill. Yes, a union intimidation Bill that would have driven many businesses from Colorado making it easier for unions to establish so-called "closed shops". "Closed Shops" that would have forced all workers to pay Union dues in designated unionized businesses. To punish Governor Ritter for his action, Labor threatened to remove the 08 Democratic Presidential convention from Colorado: "Unless we can be assured that the governor will support our values and priorities, we will strongly urge the Democratic Party to relocate the (2008 national) convention."

Clearly Unions still don't know how to win fair and square. Unions will do anything to coerce you into being a "yes" man, even to go against themselves. In this case, unions had set up the sweetest deal from the state of Colorado that would bring the Democratic convention to Denver in 08. Howard Dean had worked on the deal with Andy Stern and John Sweeney forcing Colorado to give into more Union demands. The sweet deal the Unions had worked out for themselves was to turn then non-Union Pepsi Center in Denver into a site staffed by the stage hand Union members alone. Even in Howard Dean's words, there is a strong commitment to Denver while he gave up on non-Unionized Coloradoans to close the deal: "Still, Dean said, the choice of Denver reflected his commitment to building the party nationally. It's important, in politics, to put your money where your mouth is, Dean said. I've said consistently we want to have a fifty-state strategy." Mr. Dean, an important question here for you to answer: Are threats to the Governor of Colorado if he is not a "yes" man for paying back the Unions a part of your fifty state strategy?

Are Unions not entitled to be named the match-coercers of the Democrats?
Sure, when Unions give $65,000,000 to Democrats in the last elections. Of the $65,000,000, $850,000 went to the Colorado delegation alone. Yes, in terms of desperation according to union density, Unions in Colorado have kept failing to keep their members unionized. For twenty nine years private sector unions have shrunk from 21.7% of employment in 1977 to today's Union density of only 7.4% Clearly, Unions are good matchmakers for a minority of Colorado Democrats out for their own self -survival.

Curiously,when you think Unions threaten cities like Denver with millions of potential victims to get their way you would think the Democrats would come forward to protect Governor Ritter? Maybe they looked back fondly to the 04 Democratic convention in Boston that brought in $154,000,000 and did nothing. The truth is no Democrat came forward to repudiate the lynching that Labor gave to the Governor for not toeing the party line, and isn't this another sad reflection on the kind of "yes" Democrats the Unions have bred nationwide. While the Democrats want their convention in Denver, they also endorsed a radical Union position that would have caused so much harm to the city. Through their undeniable silence they proved they would never stand up for Democratic rights even if their own Democratic Governor went to his end.

Don't these same national Democrats continue to use their silence to not protect your Democratic rights while hiding their own radical Union positions from you? Does this not hurt all Americans who want to have a say in their future? Have you heard the report from Congress that the Union- driven Democrats voted to end secret ballot elections in every workplace through their Employee Free Choice Act? Yes, when the Union-Democrats, in their vote for EFCA, had a chance to protect your free rights-- like they never did with Governor Ritter-- did they? As "yes men" what could you hear from them but the silence of your rights taken away.

People of Denver, the truth is Labor thinks you owe them. You owe them for just threatening unmitigated economic harm to your city by taking the Democratic convention away. Just talk to New Yorkers during Local 100's strike last year. During that strike, which was in violation of New York's Taylor law, businesses lost billions during Christmas time while chaos reigned. Isn't it clear that whether its New York or in Denver, Labor Unions continue to separate themselves from the harm they do to everyman and every woman when they hold hostage entire cities to get what they want? People of Colorado, ask yourself why should you be the victims of such Union coercion that forces workers to pay these "lords of chaos" for the single purpose and single privilege of having a job.

William Fine is Executive Director of the
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
122 C. St. Suite 220 NW
Washington D.C.
202-393-1185 (OFFICE)
202-492-3196 (CELL)
http://www.freeworkplace.org