While the reporters and editors at CNN profess to support working men and women, it appears that behind the scenes they've treated their own workers poorly.

The Honorable Arthur J. Amchan, an Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, issued a decision detailing how the Cable News Network, or CNN America, Inc., violated the federally protected rights of more than 250 employees at the network's bureaus in Washington, DC and New York, NY.

The judge found that CNN committed substantial violations of the National Labor Relations Act when it terminated a subcontracting relationship with Team Video Services ("TVS") -- whose employees were represented by NABET-CWA, Local 31 and Local 11 (collectively "NABET-CWA").

CNN also was found to have discriminated against TVS employees who sought to continue their employment at CNN's bureaus.

Judge Amchan found that CNN discriminated against the TVS employees in a blatant attempt to avoid having to recognize and bargain with the employees' collective bargaining representatives. This decision is the culmination of more than five years of struggle by workers and their unions to vindicate their rights at the DC and New York CNN Bureaus.

For more than 20 years, CNN subcontracted the technical work of broadcasting news and programming from its DC and NY Bureaus to a series of subcontractors. The employees of these subcontractors -- who were always represented by the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-CWA -- provided the video and sound for many of CNN's most recognized programs, including Larry King Live and Lou Dobbs Tonight.

However, in 2003 and 2004, CNN terminated its subcontract with the last subcontractor, TVS, and announced that the network would hire its own employees to provide these services. CNN developed and implemented what it called the "Bureau Staffing Project," which was a series of procedures for the recruitment and hiring of these new employees.

In his 169-page decision, Judge Amchan found that CNN was a joint employer with TVS of the subcontractor's employees and, as a joint employer, the network was obligated to recognize and bargain with NABET-CWA over the decision to terminate the subcontracting relationship, as well as the decision to hire new employees.

The judge further found that CNN's Bureau Staffing Project was a sham, used by the network to discriminate against TVS employees in order to limit the hiring of those employees in order to avoid having to recognize and bargain with NABET-CWA. In reaching these conclusions, Judge Amchan thoroughly discredited all of CNN's witnesses and rejected each of CNN's defenses.

The judge's order calls for the following:

1. Reinstatement and full back pay for more than 110 employees. Training for those rehired, if necessary.

2. Recognition of the unions in New York and DC.

3. Dues to be remitted to the unions for those who were on check off at the time the contracts were canceled.

4. Rescind, upon request, any departures from the collective bargaining agreements that occurred when the work was taken in-house.

5. Restore any bargaining work that has been outsourced since the end of the Team video contracts.

6. Posting of a notice at the two bureaus and the mailing of the notices to all employees at last known addresses who were part of the bargaining units when the contract was canceled.

7. A "cease and desist order" to prohibit CNN from infringing on workers' rights under labor law in the future.

Judge Amchan's order is a comprehensive remedy that requires CNN to recognize and bargain with NABET-CWA, as well as reinstate more than 110 employees who were not hired as part of the Bureau Staffing Project, restore the employees' working conditions as set forth in the now expired union contracts except for improvements unless requested by NABET-CWA, and to make whole all employees for any loss of earnings and other benefits.

Ed McEwan, president of NABET-CWA Local 11, said, the decision by the ALJ "is a victory for workers, but one that took far too long to achieve because of our broken labor laws.

"Everyone in America should know that the network management we rely on to bring us the news are not above the illegal practices that they headline on a regular basis. From the very beginning we promised our members that 'we will not forget.' We didn't, and we're keeping up the fight until fairness is fully won," said McEwan.

Source: National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-CWA

When she declared a state of emergency in Arizona in 2006, Governor Janet Napolitano spent millions on her deployment of National Guard troops on the Mexican border.

Illegal Immigration critics complained that Arizona's governor was playing politics when she announced a state of emergency in response to illegal aliens and then she vetoed a new bill that would aid law enforcement in curtailing rampant illegal immigration.

Governor Napolitano vetoed what would have made the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona a felony offense. She claims she was responding to the wishes of local police chiefs and sheriffs who want immigration arrests to remain the responsibility of the federal government. Apparently she never spoke with Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, who became a national hero for his policies fighting illegal immigration.

The bill Napolitano opposed would have expanded the state's trespassing law to let local authorities arrest illegal immigrants anywhere in Arizona, one of the country's busiest illegal entry points. The legislation passed through the state legislature but was summarily blocked by the Democrat governor.

In a letter to lawmakers, Napolitano said she opposes automatically turning all immigrants who sneaked into the state into criminals and that the bill provided no funding for the new duties. But critics say she was being disingenuous with her statements. One police commander claims she failed to mention that entering the US illegally is already a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. In addition, reentry into the US once an alien is deported is already a felony in the US.

Besides illegal aliens, the bill would have put more teeth into Arizona law to deal with human smugglers and de facto slave-traders.

"It is unfortunate that the Legislature has once again ignored the officials who are most directly affected by illegal immigration and instead has passed yet another bill that will have no effect on the problem but that will impose an unfunded burden on law enforcement," Napolitano wrote in a press release.

However, when she declared a state of emergency in Arizona, following the lead of another Democrat governor — Bill Richardson of New Mexico — Governor Napolitano spent millions on her deployment of National Guard troops on the Mexican border. Political analysts believe she declared the emergency in order to criticize the Bush Administration as did Governor Richardson.

In fact, Gov. Richardson declared a state of emergency and then deployed a whopping 54 New Mexico National Guard soldiers to aid the beleaguered local law enforcement officers. One police chief said he's seen more guardsmen deployed for a snowstorm than for Richardson's "state of emergency."

Supporters of tough border security said the new bill would have provided Arizona with an opportunity to start gaining control of its vast border problems by providing a second layer of enforcement to catch the tens of thousands of immigrants who slip past federal agents each year.

Republican Senator Barbara Leff of Paradise Valley, who proposed the bill, said the governor has painted herself as tough on illegal immigration by declaring a state of emergency at Arizona's border, but has taken little action to back up her rhetoric, according to the Washington Examiner.

"I don't think the governor wants to do anything about this problem," Leff said. She said the bill would have been a means to detain illegal immigrants until federal agents can pick them up.

The Democratic governor, accused by her Republican critics of being soft on immigration, has vetoed other immigration bills from the GOP-majority Legislature within the past year, including a proposal to give police the power to enforce federal immigration laws. She's also provided services for illegal aliens and is a proponent of drivers licenses for illegals.

While immigrants provide the economy with cheap labor, Arizona spends tens of millions of dollars each year in health care and education costs for illegal workers and their families. An estimated 500,000 of the state's population of about 6 million are illegal immigrants.

While defenders of illegal immigrants tell the American people that these unlawful workers pay taxes, some immigration experts say illegals are usually paid off the books by their employers so there are no federal or state tax deductions. And because of tax laws passed to help low-paid workers, they aren't taxed even is they declare their wages to the Internal Revenue Service.

Up to 28 percent of the work force in the country is paid in cash, meaning as many as one in four don't have federal and state payroll taxes withheld, which creates the kind of economic unpredictability that potential employers tend to avoid, according to economic experts.

Governor Janet Napolitano's veto of the new bill was an about face considering her past speeches in which she told voters she would have two state police squads focus on alien smuggling cases. Both plans offer millions of dollars to communities to thwart illegal entries, and money for combating gang-related border crime.
   
State police in Arizona already work near the border. An average of 27 state police officers are near the border at any given time, assisting federal authorities in looking for fugitives trying to leave the country and people attempting to bring ill-gotten cash and stolen vehicles into Mexico.
   
Advocates for state and local action said the idea will not fix Arizona's vast immigration problems, but would discourage some people from sneaking across the border.
   
"If the federal government isn't going to do the job and Arizona is footing billions of dollars a year for illegal aliens, it makes sense for the state to get involved," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration.
   
Meanwhile, opponents of tough border security are already harping on racial profiling, saying it would increase if officers unfamiliar with immigration law were to try and enforce it. They also say it could make investigating crime harder in immigrant communities, because fewer aliens would cooperate with police for fear of being sent home.

Whenever cornered during a debate over law enforcement, liberal-left activists will always bring up the "racial profiling" issue whether it's germane to the discussion or not. It puts the proponents of law enforcement on the defensive since the debate then becomes one in which the debater must prove he or she is against racial profiling.

Meanwhile, the invasion of the United States continues and the Democrats (and some Republicans) will actually accelerate it.

The National Legal and Policy Center, an organization that achieved success as a plaintiff in the 1993 lawsuit to open the meetings and records of Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care task force,  criticized President-Elect Barack Obama for selecting Eric Holder as his Attorney General nominee. NLPC promotes ethics in public life, and sponsors the Government Integrity Project.

According to NLPC President Peter Flaherty, "Holder is not ethically qualified to serve as Attorney General. His track record is not one of independence or objectivity. Instead, he has been guided by politics and self-interest."

On December 21, 1994, federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the litigation to open the health care task force, asked Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate Ira Magaziner for possible perjury and criminal contempt of court. He also suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

Reno announced on March 3, 1995 that she would not appoint an independent prosecutor. On August 3, 1995 Eric Holder announced that he, too, would not prosecute Magaziner.

Magaziner, who headed up the task force, asserted to plaintiffs in a March 3, 1993 statement that no outsiders, or non-government employees, were taking part in the task force. When task force documents were later produced, it was obvious that dozens of outsiders had taken part. It was not a small point. The presence of outsiders would trigger the Federal Advisory Committee Act, requiring that task force meetings be opened to the public. Magaziner's claim stood for several months. Magaziner and other participants in the task force took no action to expose it or to correct the record.

An example of an outsider was Lois Quam, a vice-president of United Health Care Corporation, a for-profit managed care provider. United Health Care stood to financially benefit from the decisions of the task force, not to mention the reams of inside information to which she would become privy.

Quam's participation also helped fuel a controversy directly involving Hillary. The Clintons were investors in a closely held limited partnership called ValuePartners 1, which held a block of United Health Care stock. The partnership shorted a number of health-related stocks including United Health Care. At the time of his death, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster was in the process of putting the Clinton's health care stocks into a blind trust, a task not completed until July 26, 1994.

At the time, NLPC accused the Clinton administration of a cover-up. Both Reno and Holder were appointed by Clinton, and Reno owed her job to Hillary. Additionally, the Washington Post reported in January of 1995 that Holder was under consideration by Clinton for appointment to a federal judgeship.

Flaherty concluded, "When Reno said she would not appoint a special prosecutor, it was even more appropriate for the case to be handled by the U.S. Attorney with jurisdiction. That was Holder and he should have acted. Holder's failure to pursue Magaziner made a mockery of the law."

Source: National Legal and Policy Center 

 http://www.nlpc.org/

One complaint voiced by many conservatives regarding the last presidential election is the fact that there was practically no attention paid by either candidate to illegal aliens and immigration enforcement.  In fact, the victory by President-Elect Barack Obama has led to some illegal alien advocates claiming the American people support amnesty for immigration lawbreakers.

However, a nationwide survey of actual voters reveals that Americans strongly support immigration enforcement, and that less than one-third of Obama voters favor granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

The poll conducted by Zogby International on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) on November 5 and 6 -- and obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police -- also found that a decisive majority of voters believe that an illegal alien amnesty would "further harm the interests of struggling American workers."

Among the key findings of the poll are:

--  Only 32% of Obama voters considered his support for amnesty as a
factor in their decisions to vote for him. 67% said it was either not
a factor at all, or they voted for Obama in spite of his stance on
amnesty.

--  60% of voters said reducing illegal immigration and cracking down on
employers who hire them is important to them, while only 21% supported
"legalizing or creating a pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens.

--  57% of voters stated that amnesty would harm American workers and
further strain public resources, while only 26% believe amnesty would
aid economic recovery and ease public burdens.

The findings of the poll commissioned by FAIR of all voters are similar to an unrelated poll conducted of Latino voters by Zogby and Univision on the eve of the election. That poll found that 54% of Latino voters placed concern about the economy as their top voting priority, while only 11% said that immigration was their number one concern.

"Senator Obama received a mandate from the voters to fix our ailing economy, which has shed more than a million jobs so far this year, not to enact a massive amnesty," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Voter turn-out increased across the board as record numbers of all Americans expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Immigration policy was clearly not a decisive factor in the presidential election, as it was not discussed during the campaign, and the records of both candidates were nearly identical."

To the extent that President-elect Obama and the 111th Congress have a mandate on immigration, it is to secure American jobs and get control of the borders. Driving home the concern voters have about the economy and jobs, Arizonans overwhelmingly rejected a deceptive ballot measure which would have made it easier for businesses to hire illegal aliens. Proposition 202 was rejected by 60% of Arizona voters, including 56% of Latino voters in the state.

"All voters, including Latinos, turned to the Democrats last Tuesday in the hope that they will get our economy back on track. Notwithstanding a massive spin effort on the part of the ethnic advocacy network, the electorate, including Latinos, did not vote for amnesty and more immigration. In fact, the polls show that voters believe amnesty would be an impediment to economic recovery and putting American back to work," Stein concluded.

While President-elect Barack Obama's defenders will swear on a stack of Korans that he is not supported by Islamic terrorists, a recent post-election survey shows Obama's tremendous popularity among US Muslims.

Unfortunately the survey doesn't identify how many respondents are -- or support -- Islamic terrorists, nor does it identify the immigration status of the respondents.

The American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) today released the results of a poll indicating that almost 90 percent of American Muslim voters picked Barack Obama in Tuesday's election. That survey of more than 600 American Muslim voters also indicated that just two percent of respondents cast their ballots for Sen. John McCain.

  Poll Findings:
--  Of those who voted, 89 percent cast their ballot for Barack Obama.
 

--  Just two percent of respondents said they voted for John McCain.
 

--  Most of the respondents (78 percent) reside in ten states: Illinois,
      New York, Virginia, Michigan, California, Texas, New Jersey, Maryland,
      Florida, and Pennsylvania.
 

--  Ninety-five percent of respondents said they voted in the presidential
      election, whether at the polls or by absentee ballot. This is the
      highest American Muslim voter turnout ever reported.
 

--  Of those who voted, almost 14 percent said they did so for the first
      time.
 

--  One-fourth of respondents said they volunteered for or donated money
      to a political campaign in this election.
 

--  American Muslim voters are increasingly identifying themselves with
      the Democratic Party. More than two-thirds said they consider
      themselves Democrats. Most of the rest, or 29 percent, still consider
      themselves independent. Only four percent said they are Republicans.
 

--  More than two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents said the economy was
      the most important issue that affected their voting decision. This was
      followed by 16 percent who said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were
      the most important. (In January 2008, a sample of 1000 Muslim voters
      rated education and civil rights as the top issues.)

  For complete poll results, click here: http://tinyurl.com/5fkrfh

At a news conference last week at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, representatives of AMT and partner organizations shared the results of the poll. Speaking at the news conference were AMT Chairman Dr. Agha Saeed, Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society-Freedom Foundation (MAS-FF), and Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

"We are pleased to see such a high turnout by American Muslim voters, particularly in states that helped determine the outcome of the election. This shows that the American Muslim community is fully engaged in civic life," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

Previously, I wrote a column regarding MoveOn.Org's $88 million contribution to Barack Obama's camapign. Now it's time to look at the contributions of a large and powerful labor organization with a history of organized crime affiliations:

The Teamsters, arguably the world's most powerful labor union, unleashed its largest election mobilization in history, helping land Barack Obama in the White House and putting pro-union candidates in key offices at every level in the country.

"Our 1.4 million members demanded change and we marshaled our forces in unprecedented numbers for this historic election," said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa.

"There is no doubt that we made the difference. I congratulate Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden on their well-deserved victory, and our Teamster members who worked tirelessly on their behalf," said the son of notorious labor leader Jimmy Hoffa.

More than 40,000 Teamsters volunteered for the union's massive member mobilization efforts, according to Teamsters officials. Hoffa and General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Keegel barnstormed key battleground states across the country on multiple trips, talking to Teamster members and motivating them to volunteer and go to the polls for Obama.

Additionally, the Teamsters' impressive get-out-the-vote push included:

--  More than 2.6 million direct mail pieces

--  More than 1.6 million phone calls

--  More than 40,000 volunteers

--  More than 1 million Teamster job sites visited

--  54,687 Teamsters signed up for election text messaging

--  4.5 million doors knocked as part of Change to Win

Also, Teamsters conducted precinct walks, canvassed neighborhoods, drove voters to the polls and countless other activities. The union also incorporated new technology, like text messaging, predictive dialer phone banking, national and targeted-state interactive teleforums and microtargeting of swing voters.

"This is a great day -- a historic day," Hoffa said. "Now let's get this country unified and working for regular, middle-class Americans again. We elected a great man, but we can't stop here because our real work starts now."

 

After endorsing President-elect Obama last February, MoveOn.org Political Action's 4.5 million members contributed more than $88 million towards Barack Obama's presidential campaign, the organization announced yesterday. And more than 1 million MoveOn members worked in a trail-blazing field effort in coordination with the Obama campaign.

  In the 2008 presidential campaign, MoveOn and its members admitted they:
--  Contributed more than $58 million directly to Obama's campaign

  --  Raised and spent more than $30 million in independent election efforts

  --  Delivered up to 600,000 battleground state volunteers. 400,000 more
volunteers participated from non-battleground states

 --  Added 1 million young members from June to September 2008, and
mobilized them online and offline

 --  Registered more than 500,000 new young Obama supporters in
battleground states

The executive director of MoveOn, Eli Pariser, said in a statement on Obama's victory, "Our members sense the opportunity to achieve things that seemed improbable if not impossible only a year ago. For our members, this is the culmination of a decade of work to build a progressive, people-driven politics in America."

"President Obama will face daunting challenges from the day he takes office. We look forward, however, to being part of the enormous wave of civic and political engagement that his Presidency has inspired and that will enable him to achieve the things that have been on the top of his agenda and ours. We look forward to the change all of us worked so hard to create," he said.

MoveOn.org Political Action is a political action committee powered by 4.5 million far-left Americans. They claim they believe in the power of small donors and grassroots action to elect progressive leaders to office and to advance a progressive agenda, but have ties to wealthy businessmen such as George Soros who spend millions of dollars undermining the US conservatives and American interests. 

MoveOn officials claim it does not accept any donations over $5,000, and the average donation to MoveOn.org Political Action is under $100.

Source: MoveOn.org

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he's the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund's weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us