Home » 2010 » June (Page 3)

Have Liberals Finally Stretched the Constitution Too Far?

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

J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things – Conservative Political T-shirts. His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn.

God In Comparative Religion

CONCEPT OF GOD

All religious books (the original manuscripts) describe God as one without any form, shape or statute. He is a light source which illuminates the universe. A glimpse of this light tore KHOHI TOOR (mountain tur) into pieces and the one who wished to see him was unable to bear that great energy. Whatever is in world, both in skies and earth belong to GOD. He is super and great. He has sent messages to Mohammad (Pbuh) and all other prophets before him. It is God to whom all angles pray. He is to be praised & HE alone is to be worshiped. None else is a partner to his Godliness not even Mohammad (SAW) or any other prophet. Quran emphasizes oneness of God. Most of human beings irrespective of their religious faith believe in one God.

BIBLE IS A GOD SENT BOOK

The Bible, Torah is God’s sent books. They preach oneness of God as Quran. One sees no conflict in the true texts of God via Quran, Torah or Bible in the concept of God. Even Mahatma Gandhi in his experiences with truth writes about one God & says god is a creation of someone alien to the true scripts of Bhaguat Gita. One wonders where a conflict is. Quran testifies that one lac 44 thousand prophets were sent by God in this universe before Prophet Mohammad. All have been sent to different tribes and regions. Thus, anyone believing and preaching to pray one Allah”, God by any names like Brahma, or Parmatma, defines God in his own language to his tribesman or the region he was born. Truly no conflict on the GOD exists, in the religious books. Who creates it is a sinner. It can be one who does not understand God. So let us come & believe in one God. God who created heavens & earths & it is He who is to be worshiped. This is the first principle of peace in this world and means la lahah alahah i.e. THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONLY ONE. ALL ARE EQUAL So the humans of any race or tribe, religion, political group or nationality in this global village have to surrender our might and soul to one who governs us, the GOD. The first principle of new world order has to be a firm faith on one and only God. None else either a prophet or a wise or a powerful can be GOD

CAN A HUMAN WHO IS MORTAL BE A GOD

The human a mortal cannot be God. ONE GOD IN THE UNIVERSE The prayer to accept the oneness of God is open to all. If one agree, he becomes blessed if not we leave him & GOD to decide among themselves at the time of judgment. We are no one to kill or force a man or women or anyone to believe in God. We have to humbly request him to pray or worship to God and none else. If he does not agree leave him alone, yes if he forces you not to believe in God or objects your worshiping GOD, you HAVE to resist. It is clearly written in Quran, (refer Soura, and AY at 1-6) that tell people to believe or worship in one God if they don’t leave the mater there & let GOD and he decide among themselves. Your job is over. QURAN AND GOD One wonders why Quran is misinterpreted or misunderstood. It preaches peace with universal thought & description of GOD. If you are put in jungle, you do think of him or you see his thoughts creeps in silence. God is not in any shape. It has no shape, color or image. GOD is just a source of energy which creates souls and body & governs this & all other worlds. None has refuted the presence of God. Yes his forms are differed.

BELIEF IN ONE GOD

 A human who believe in him is free to see him in any manner but do not make stories of him or his shapes. He is formless, a force, a light source & an illuminating force or source of energy which can create or destroy you and the whole world & the heavens Quran further says if God wished he would have made all to believe him. It has creates tribes, race, believers and non-believers. A prophet’s job was to preach one ness of God. Let you convey this message, if someone believes it, it is for his good if he does not let him not. No one has any right to force anyone into subjugation of God. When God does not want them to believe him & leaves us free to believe or not to believe him. How can anyone big or small, king or soldier, master or salve force anyone to believe or not to believe in him. This is the message of ISLAM the peace. If people force you not to believe GOD, you have to resist the pressure and never to compromise. This is what we call freedom of religion and is in fact the basics of ISLAM.

Concept of life CREATION OF LIFE

Sorah Momneem, AYat 12-15. “Man was first created by God from clay & soul infuses in the clay model, which gave him life. God bestowed him the ADAM knowledge. is knowledge made him distinguished and best among the life forms what we call ISRAFUL MUKHLUKAT.His humble creation from clay or earth need to be remembered by him .Thus his body a mortal dies and does not bestow any virtue to him. His value comes from the knowledge and wisdom bestowed on him by GOD. It is this wisdom and knowledge which excels him from angles. The one who worshiped GOD for years was designated as devil ,abeles because he thought his creation from fire superior and did not bow to ADAM WHEN created .The wisdom diffentiates human from all others in this universe. This gift of wisdom should not make us arrogant like the Satan or devil .In the past the nimrod and his like in this world created wonders but then mislead others to be gods and created means and ways to hurt the noble and pious who preached GOD. All have perished in the hands of those whom God chose.

MAN CANNOT BE GOD

Thus man cannot be God who so ever he may be .Any one claiming GODHOOD is to be condemned .This the message of peace preached by prophets and last among them Hazarat MOHAMAAD (saw) practiced and perfected the concept of GOD. Truth of human creation Humans were created from clay as described and then from the sperm preserved in safe place .He created humans first as a clot of blood, then a mass of flesh . The constitution of bones & later on muscles on bones gave the shape.” This is what fetal biologists know now in 21 century. Quran further says God created life in mother’s womb in three dark chambers. Does it mean the three phases early, mid or late? One wonders how could a man like prophet Mohamed (pbuh) knew fetal biology in 687 or 1422 years before, when modern biologist argue the sperm was recognized 180 year before. This proves Quran as Gods narration . Further, the rate of involution as said in Quran is when you are in the womb of mother, mother’s womb grows and when a baby is born it involutes. There is a fixed rate of involution for which portraits are there for knowledge seeks. Till date the rate is not known, let someone discover it .I am sure a momin of tomorrow will. We as modern fetal biologist know there are three enveloping fatal membranes, the chorionic, amnion & allantois.

SCEINCE AND QURAN

The relevation on involution of uterus a back so 1422 years ago was unknown to us and was known only recently as it fetched 1984 noble prize. Its narration in Quran insists on use of modern science to interpret the truth of God inscribed in QURAN. SCIENCE NOT LANGUAGE ALONE CAN INTERPRET QURAN I am afraid people who only have knowledge of Arabic & not of modern science cannot but interpret science in a limited way, thus there is urgent need of reformation of all theological schools and centers with modern science and Technology’s back up laboratory & knowledge centre is necessary to understand QURAN in its proper prospective. I strongly plead for a modern Islamic schools and universities which shall interpret the Quran in its true form otherwise we are led astray and none of the translation I read was complete or perfect. One should trust God, he is one who has power to create you from dead & your all differences in his form shall he appear to reward you for your good deeds and punish you eternally for your bad deeds. This dooms day is what is “vanish” in Hindu or Vedic scriptures and “kayamah’ in Quran. Similarly, all scriptures in world the Bible, the Torah do refer to the Day of Judgment. There has been adulteration or misinterpretation of old scriptures. Even the Holy Quran, which is preserved in its original form, has been differently interpreted so much so that we have 72 different versions of Islamic faith existing even today. The books of Gods are so mystic and full of knowledge that it will take years to translate a verse. Even modern scientific knowledge of your subject becomes too little to explain a verse. I shall quote her a verse of Quran which describe the fetal growth and development.

THE FOETAL GROWTH

This has been my subject study since 1968. I believe, after Moric young of England & death of Dr Srivastava of India, I am the only scientist in the world who has written and researched the topic in detail. From creation of a young morcular (6 day fig 2) young lamb from ovaries of dead sheep (fig 2) to a fully grown facts maternal interactions I find none other publications as accurate and descriptive as ours. Even a Google research shall reveal our work cited by none else than the walnut encyclopedia. Wilmuk is the father of modern cloning and the scientific co-coordinator of “Dolly the sheep” which astonished the world with the assembling a sheep (female lamb) from somatic cells and not the sperms. Even with our knowledge of 40 years, we are not assure as to how exactly the fetal growth ensues within the womb. There are many it & buts within our scientific investigation that one is unable to describe his own 40 years research in definitive terms. Al we the scientists speak is in comparative analytic mode. If our four observations among 6 repeat it we call it significant and cost our views in favor or our hypotheses. To explain further, even if a drug gives good response in four of 6 respondents only, we recommend it for use, although we know it failed to raise a response among the test of the two. Therefore, even the birth of dolly has been the result of thousand of manipulated acolytes & other cell nuclei if not millions. My point to explain here is the narration of a verse in Quran in Surah Mominon clearly says the development of foetus which even after our 40 years of research is not exactly what is precisely written in the following quoted verses. I believe only one with supreme knowledge alone could give such annunciations as in Quran. I believe such may be thecae of other scriptures too. Thus, the Prophet Mohamed Pbuh an otherwise illiterate man could not reveal the secrets of modern fetal biology in an era when sperm and acolyte were unknown. So as is said, the book of Gods are divine & not from the prophets. They are mystic. I on the bases of my 40 years study firmly believe that it could be someone the supreme knowledgeable alone who could narrate or faze Quran & not Mohammad. Thus the divinity of scripture is in my view Gods word, and not of human. Quran acknowledges that the religions art same from times immemorial to data when it was revealed. There is mention of Noah, Abraham, Mesa, Essa & many others which may include even Ram & Krishna in there number of one lakh & 40 thousand till Mohammad come. Thus the spirit of Quran is to unite the mankind & not to disintegrate as some elements misinterpret it. I do not try to interpret “Quran” alas I do have very little knowledge of Arabic & its grammar.

QURAN

Whatever has been my understanding is from translation of Quran in English & other languages of India. Therefore, all the religious priests may forgave me for any misinterpretation, but my print is vivid & clear, no man who so he be, perfect in Arabic or Islamic theology cannot interpret Quran truly unless he consults modern biologists, biochemists, physiologist, geologists, space scientists & all modern art & science subjects. It need supreme understanding of all available subjects in modern education & knowledge wonder world to interpret true meaning of superman’s wisdom (God’s) and knowledge The author is not a theologist but a biologist and wishes to have comments from the learned to improve his knowledge and those who read it.Thanks, send comments

PROF GHULAM MOHYUDDIN  WANI IS Ph.D (Animal Reproduction / Gynaecology), Dr. Med. Vet (Animal Reproduction/ Production)

History of the National Security State with Gore Vidal


Donate at therealnews.com Gore Vidal, Ray McGovern, Lawrence Wilkerson and Antonia Juhasz. The legendary author discusses his thesis on the construction of the national security state and a retired CIA officer responds. 2 additional interviews provide in-depth analysis from inside the halls of power.

VIDEOS: Funeral begins for state police sergeant in Brockton

VIDEOS: Funeral begins for state police sergeant in Brockton
The funeral for state police Sgt. Douglas A. Weddleton began shortly before 11:30 a.m., one half hour later than expected.  The church is packed with mourners, and police officers in full-dress uniform are lined up 14 rows deep on West Street outside the church and more are lined up on nearby Torrey Street. Troopers from Weddleton’s Foxboro barracks and the ballistics unit where he worked for …

Read more on Easton Journal

Latest Freedom Of Information Auctions

Hey, check out these auctions:
[eba kw=”Freedom of Information” num=”2″ ebcat=”all”]
Cool, arent they?

The Concept of Corporate Citizenship in a Global Environment

1.         Introduction

Over the past two decades, the forces of economic globalization, political transformation and technological innovation have increased the global reach and influence of the private sector. The number of transnational corporations has almost doubled from 37,000 in 1990 to over 60,000 today, with some 800,000 foreign affiliates and millions of suppliers and distributors operating along their global value chains. This process has conferred new rights and created new business opportunities for global corporations and large national companies, while also exposing weaknesses in national and global governance structures. It has also resulted in new competitive pressures and risks, and led to increased demands for greater corporate responsibility, transparency and accountability.

As a result, today’s business leaders face a complex and often contradictory set of stakeholder expectations. They are being called on to engage with activists as well as analysts, to manage social and environmental risks as well as market risks, to be accountable for their non-financial as well as their financial performance, and to cooperate as well as to compete, often with non-traditional partners, focused on unfamiliar issues. They are under pressure from governments, consumers, trade unions, non-governmental organizations and a small but growing number of their investors, to demonstrate outstanding performance not only in terms of competitiveness and market growth, but also in their corporate governance and corporate citizenship.

In short, corporate executives are faced with a complex, unprecedented challenge: How can they continue to deliver shareholder value while also delivering, and demonstrating that they are delivering, societal value?

2.         What is corporate citizenship?

The term ‘corporate citizenship’runs the risk of being all things to all people. But it does have some easily identifiable elements too. The basic idea is to understand business as part of society, contributing directly to the welfare of society, rather than somehow separate from it. Whereas in the past the baseline of good behaviour was ‘acting within the law’across the company’s operations, newer aspirations range from the maxim ‘do no harm’through to assessing ‘overall net impacts’. Companies need to go beyond simply obeying the law and making a competitive return for their shareholders if they are to respond to the challenge of citizenship.

Corporate citizenship invites companies to make strategic choices based on an understanding of the total impacts of their business in society. The practice of corporate citizenship involves a

focus on one or more of three main areas:

v     the societal impacts that flow from basic business policy and practice (as managed and measured through various codes of conduct, ‘values statements’and company reports);

v     the impacts that a company has up and down the value chain (e.g. when child labour is employed by its suppliers; or when end consumers dispose of its products in ways likely to harm the environment); and

v     the impacts that come from the voluntary contributions that businesses make to communities affected by their operations (including charitable gifts, community investment and commercial initiatives in the community).

Management and communication tools such as the ‘social audit’, development of key performance indicators on corporate citizenship, ‘benchmarking’best practice across a variety of industries, and best practice on ‘cause-related marketing’have all grown up alongside these core elements of corporate citizenship. Codes of  good conduct for companies abound, as do stamps or standards awarded by third parties, such as the Social Audit stamp of the Brazilian NGO IBASE, or the Social Accountability 8000 standard developed by the Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency. The professionalization of environmental management has had an impact on the ‘new’tools of social management and accounting, accelerating the process of adaptation to the corporate citizenship agenda. But not all companies professing to be good ‘corporate citizens’choose to use all of these tools, and the current state of ‘corporate citizenship’varies from country to country.

3.         What drives Corporate Citizenship in a Global Context?

The emergence of ‘corporate citizenship’as a guiding principle for business strategy has been driven by a number of changes in the business operating environment. The overall process of globalization

affects all businesses one way or another.

Globalization has given rise to unprecedented links between economies, cultures, individuals and groups. Technological advances such as the internet have transformed communications. When multinational corporations apply different standards at home from those in their overseas operations, the gaps are exposed to external scrutiny as never before. The result is that the corporate

citizenship debate has acquired an increasingly significant ‘international’ dimension, raising one of the most difficult sets of questions in the current policy and business agenda: where does the responsibility of companies end and the role of governments begin, and by what (and whose) standards should this be judged?

Economic liberalization and deregulation have seen a massive increase in the flow of capital, goods and services across borders, opening new markets to foreign investment. At the same time the gaps between rich and poor around the world have widened and the world’s population is growing rapidly.

As privatization proceeds apace around the world, companies are increasingly responsible for providing services that were public-sector responsibilities in the past; areas such as healthcare provision by private companies and liberalization of energy markets focus more attention on the role of companies in the place of governments. The role of the private sector in provision of technical assistance around the world has also increased as corporations have become more involved in providing funding for intergovernmental bodies and as contractors in the delivery of donor assistance programmes. The overall balance of public- and private sector responsibilities is changing.

Globalization has given rise to new demands on corporations to exercise their power responsibly. There is a popular perception that in some markets the economic power and influence of corporations is much greater than that of the incumbent government. Some international NGOs have focused in on this, giving rise to new demands that companies investing in politically unstable economies such as the Sudan should use their power to encourage host country governments to spend the revenue that their investments generate for social benefit – not to wage wars or benefit political elites.

It is often pointed out that the turnover of the world’s largest companies is greater than the GNP of all but around 20 members of the United Nations. But individually even large companies account for only a fraction of global economic ouput: BP, Amoco and Arco together produce no more than 0.01%.

Globalization is not an entirely ‘neutral’ driver of corporate citizenship from a business perspective. Indeed, a powerful ‘backlash against globalization’ has now been set in motion, as witnessed by the public demonstrations surrounding recent World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings in Seattle and Washington.

Some proponents of corporate citizenship in the North see it as a way of countering the backlash against globalization – of reinvigorating the notion that trade and investment can bring overall social and environmental welfare gains. Encouragement of global corporate responsibility then becomes part of efforts to put ‘a human face on the global economy’.

One maxim seems to find resonance with all: that with power needs to come responsibility. Globalization, it is said, is transforming corporate responsibility from a choice into an imperative.6 But the extent of that responsibility remains a matter of hot debate.

4.         Commitments to Corporate Citizenship

There are numerous examples of commitments towards corporate citizenship. Many of them involve not only the private sector, but also the public sector and civil society organizations.

v     The Global Compact was proposed by the outgoing UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, at Davos in January 1999. He called on business leaders to embrace and enact within their own corporate activities nine core principles derived from universally accepted agreements on human rights, labour and the environment. Today the Global Compact brings together several hundred companies, with some of the world’s leading trade union bodies, human rights and environmental organizations in a global learning forum, policy dialogues and variety of development projects. Companies engage in the initiative through the written support of their CEOs.

v     Tackling global health issues: The World Economic Forum Global Health Initiative (GHI) is designed to foster greater private sector engagement in the global battle against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In cooperation with the World Health Organization and UNAIDS, the GHI brings together businesses, NGOs, civil society and academic institutions in a partnership, focusing on corporate best practices, resource gaps, partnership opportunities, philanthropy and the role of business in advocacy. The Global Business Council on HIV/AIDS is an international group of business leaders dedicated to advocating for an increased business response to AIDS both in the workplace and in the community. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (www.vaccinealliance.org) was officially launched in January 2000 at Davos, with a mission of combining public and private resources and competencies to support immunization activities. It is a coalition of governments, the WHO, UNICEF and the World Bank; philanthropic foundations; the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA); and technical and research institutes.

v     Overcoming the digital divide: The ICT sector has engaged itself in a variety of policy dialogues and practical initiatives to bridge the ‘digital divide’ both within and between nations. Examples include: the G8 Digital Opportunity Task Force which consisted of leaders from the public, private and not-for-profit sectors; the UN’s multi-stakeholder ICT Task Force and the World Economic Forum’s Global Digital Divide Initiative. Business leaders are also supporting practical projects such as the Digital Partnership and Net Aid; and others such as those listed on the World Economic Forum website.

v     Investing in sustainable development: This has been an area of immense focus. The International Chamber of Commerce and World Business Council for Sustainable Development have established Business Action for Sustainable Development as a network and platform to provide business input and partnership examples to the World Summit for Sustainable Development in 2002.

v     Promoting good corporate governance: Business leaders are playing a role in several initiatives to promote good corporate governance. Examples include: The International Corporate Governance Network, pension funds and financial institutions with over $8 trillion in assets under management working towards global convergence on standards of governance; and business support for Transparency International to tackle corruption. Another aspect of good governance is the efforts to promote sustainability reporting such as the Global Reporting Initiative.

v     Corporate citizenship at the sector level: The World Business Council for Sustainable Development and UNEP have played an important role in promoting sector-based initiatives for sustainable development in industries as diverse as mobility, cement, pulp and paper, information technology, banking and finance. Other examples include the E7 network of electricity companies; the International Hotels Environment Initiative; and the Global Mining Initiative.

v     Supporting national development: At the national level business leaders are supporting initiatives focused on goals such as education, local enterprise and job creation, and rural development. Examples include: Philippine Business for Social Progress; the National Business Initiative in South AfricaInstituto Ethos in BrazilBusiness in the Community in the UK;  and Landcare in Australia.

v     Engaging Tomorrow’s Leaders: Today’s business leaders are supporting networks such as the World Economic Forum’s Global Leaders for Tomorrow, which consists of young leaders from the public and private sectors and civil society, and AIESEC, the world’s largest student-run organization to promote sustainable development and corporate citizenship. A small but growing number of business schools have started to invest in research and teaching in this area supported by some CEOs.

 
5.         Progress of Corporate Citizenship in a Global Context

While the leadership challenge is especially apparent for executives in Europe and North America, it is also becoming a reality for many in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, especially those who aim to be global players – either doing business with or competing against the world’s top multinationals. Business leaders in each region are obviously influenced by different economic, social, cultural and political traditions, and different industry sectors face different types of corporate citizenship challenges. Despite these differences, the following trends in the concepts of corporate citizenship or corporate responsibility are common across geographic and sector boundaries:

1. From the corporate margins to the mainstream

2. From assertion to accountability

3. From paternalistic approaches to partnership

5.1.      From the corporate margins to the mainstream

In leading companies, corporate citizenship is moving beyond the boundaries of legal compliance and traditional philanthropy to become a more central factor in determining corporate success and legitimacy, with implications for corporate strategy, governance and risk management.

There is now growing recognition that global corporate citizenship is essentially about how the company makes its profits, everywhere it operates, not simply what it does with these profits afterwards. It is about how the company operates in three key spheres of corporate influence.

§         First, in its core business operations – in the boardroom, in the workplace, in the marketplace and along the supply chain.

Second, in its community investment and philanthropic activities.
Third, in its engagement in public policy dialogue, advocacy and institution building.

In all three spheres of corporate influence, the challenge for leadership companies is two fold:-

First, aim to ‘do minimal harm’ in terms of minimizing negative economic impacts, bad labour conditions, corruption, human rights abuses and environmental degradation that may result from a company’s operations. This is a goal that calls for management strategies such as compliance – with internationally accepted norms, guidelines and standards, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations and the UN Global Compact, as well as with national laws and regulation – and control of social and environmental risks, liabilities and negative impacts.

Second, aim to ‘do positive good’ in terms of creating new value for both the business and its stakeholders in the countries and communities in which it operates. This can be achieved through strategic philanthropy and community investment, which harnesses the company’s core competencies, products and services, not only its philanthropic cheques. Examples include, ICT companies supporting community projects to tackle the digital divide, financial companies supporting microcredit initiatives, and professional services firms sharing management expertise with local community organizations. More strategic, are efforts by companies to create new business value through developing new products, processes and technologies, and in some cases even transforming their business models, to serve untapped social and environmental needs, or facilitate entry into underserved markets. Examples include developing new markets for carbon emissions trading, creating new environmental technologies, and producing more affordable access to essential services such as clean water, energy, food, housing and medicines for the estimated 3 billion people who live on less than $2 a day.

A taskforce of the World Economic Forum, consisting of a group of over 40 CEOs and chairmen from 16 countries and representing 18 industry sectors signed a joint statement on global corporate citizenship. They agreed that: “The greatest contribution that we can make to development is to do business in a manner that obeys the law, produces safe and cost effective products and services, creates jobs and wealth, supports training and technology cooperation, and reflects international standards and values in areas such as the environment, ethics, labour and human rights. To make every effort to enhance the positive multipliers of our activities and to minimize any negative impacts on people and the environment, everywhere we invest and operate. A key element of this is recognizing that the frameworks we adopt for being a responsible corporate citizen must move beyond philanthropy and be integrated into core business strategy and practice.”

5.2. From assertion to accountability

A second key trend at the heart of the emerging corporate citizenship agenda is the growth in demands by stakeholders, including shareholders, for corporations to demonstrate greater accountability and transparency – and to do so not only in terms of their financial accounts and statements, but also in terms of their wider social, economic and environmental impacts.

Gone are the days when consumers, investors and the general public trusted all the information they received from companies and were relatively undemanding on what this information should cover in terms of corporate performance. In part this trust has been squandered by the recent series of corporate ethics scandals and governance failures. It has also been affected by a combination of increased democratization and press freedom around the world, easier access to more information through the Internet, greater public awareness of global issues through the media, increased consumer choice and sophistication, and higher societal expectations of the private sector.

In response to these trends, leading companies are being called on to be more accountable and more transparent to more stakeholders on more issues and in more places than ever before. In the wake of corporate governance and ethics scandals, there have been demands for greater financial accountability and transparency, resulting in increased shareholder advocacy and new regulations, such as Sarbanes-Oxley in the United States. At the same time, certain governments and stock exchanges are also calling for greater public disclosure on environmental and social performance, in areas such as carbon emissions, product safety, occupational health and safety, training and diversity. There are also growing calls for greater transparency on private sector engagement with governments on issues such as lobbying, financing political campaigns, payment of taxes and receipts of public procurement contracts and incentives.

In all of these areas, business leaders are facing new and challenging questions in terms of what to be accountable for, who to be accountable to, and how to actually measure and report non-financial performance in practice.

A number of global voluntary efforts are underway to develop standards, guidelines and procedures for measuring and reporting on corporate social and environmental performance. These range from multi-sector alliances, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, which is developing guidelines and indicators for public reporting on sustainability performance, to sector-focused efforts such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which focuses on public disclosure of payments to governments by oil and mining companies, the Fair Labour Association in the apparel sector, the Equator Principles for project finance in the banking sector, and global framework agreements being negotiated between certain trade unions and global corporations. Growing numbers of Asian companies are engaging in these and other accountability initiatives.

5.3. From paternalistic approaches to partnerships

The third key trend in global corporate citizenship is a move away from more traditional, paternalistic attitudes that “the company and its senior executives knows best” to more genuine engagement, consultation and cooperation with key groups of stakeholders. There is growing recognition that the challenges we face, both as individual companies and nations and as a global community, are too great and too interdependent, and the resources for addressing these challenges too varied and too dispersed, for any one actor or sector to have all the solutions. New types of alliances between companies and other sectors, built on mutual respect and benefit, are becoming essential to both corporate success and societal progress.

The area of community investment offers a good example, where leading companies have moved away from traditional philanthropic approaches, focused on one way disbursement of charitable funds, to efforts aimed at engaging the core competencies of the company and building mutually beneficial partnerships between the company and non-profit or community organizations. Cisco Systems, for example, has been able to expand its Cisco Networking Academies program to over 10,000 academies in all 50 U.S. states and over 150 countries, working with partners ranging from the United Nations, the United States Agency for International Development and the Peace Corps, to local schools and nongovernmental organizations. In the Philippines, the Ayala Group has worked with Nokia, one of its key business partners, Pearson Education, the International Youth Foundation, the Department of Education, local authorities and parent-teachers associations to provide science materials to over 80 under-resourced schools. Just two of thousands of examples, through which companies, working in partnership with others, are providing education, training, and other opportunities to millions of young people and low-income communities around the world.

Some of the most interesting partnerships are in the form of strategic global or national alliances aimed at transforming not only individual corporate practices, but also influencing public policy frameworks and the broader enabling environment. National examples in Asia include the pioneering Philippines Business for Social Progress, the Thai Business Initiative for Rural Development and the Asia-Pacific Business Coalition Against HIV/AIDs.

In addition to community-level alliances between individual companies and nonprofit organizations, we are also witnessing the emergence of strategic global or national alliances aimed at transforming not only individual corporate practices, but also influencing public policy frameworks and the broader enabling environment. One example is the United Nations Global Compact, with over 2,000 corporate participants and some 30 national business networks, many of them from developing countries, working with UN agencies, trade unions and non-governmental organizations.

Through the power of collective action, the Global Compact seeks to advance responsible corporate citizenship so that business can be part of the solution to the challenges of globalization. It is a voluntary initiative with two objectives:

• Mainstream ten principles in the areas of environment, human rights, labour, and anti-corruption – all of which are based on international, intergovernmental agreements – into business activities and supply chains around the world;

• Catalyse business actions and partnerships in support of UN goals, especially the Millennium Development Goals.

Asian companies have been among the pioneers in supporting the Global Compact. In countries such as China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, South Korea and Australia, individual companies, stock exchanges, business associations and governments are starting to explore ways to implement the compact’s ten principles as core elements of sound business practice. In November 2005, the Chinese government will host a major Global Compact Summit, taking a vital leadership role at a time when global industrial capacity continues to shift to China and Chinese companies continue to increase their international investment and influence.

Concluding Remarks

Although local business conditions and cultures vary from country to country, the elements of what it takes to be a successful and sustainable business over the longer-term illustrate some common imperatives. Being a profitable, but also responsible corporate citizen is increasingly one of these imperatives. This requires business leaders to be committed to a set of clearly stated and publicly upheld values – underpinned by policies and standards that are applied everywhere the company operates, not only in its home market. It requires companies to have risk management systems and accountability structures in place to protect existing value, by minimizing any negative economic, social or environmental impacts and reputation damage arising from their business operations. It also requires companies to support learning, innovation and partnerships that help to create new value, by delivering new products and services that meet societal needs as well as creating shareholder value. And it calls for ongoing efforts to evaluate and measure progress and performance against each of these three areas.

In summary, regardless of industry sector or country, global corporate citizenship rests on four pillars: values; value protection; value creation; and evaluation. These four pillars not only underpin the long-term success and sustainability of individual companies, but are also a major factor in contributing to broader social and economic progress in the countries and communities in which these companies operate. Along with good governance on the part of governments, they offer one of our greatest hopes for a more prosperous, just and sustainable world.

Surinder Pal Singh is currently Professor at Rai Business School, New Delhi. Prior to joining Rai Business School, he was associated with the corporate world for over a decade. He is a frequent speaker on the topics of B2B Marketing, Retail Marketing, Brand Management, Entrepreneurship, & Corporate Governance. His association with professional bodies include AIMS International, AIMA, DMA, ISTD, ISTE, Strategic Management Forum.

Latest Church And State Auctions

Hey, check out these auctions:
[eba kw=”Church and State” num=”2″ ebcat=”all”]
Cool, arent they?

Top 10 Reasons Why Conservatives Are Weaker On National Security

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” is a quote often attributed to Abraham Lincoln.  Yet, as wise a man as our 16th President was, apparently ex-mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani disputes this saying and believes that all of the people can be fooled all of the time.  Recently in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani said of the December 25, 2009, attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by Nigerian born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab:  “What he [Obama] should be doing is following the right things that Bush did – one of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror.  We had no domestic attacks under Bush.” Perhaps “Mr. 9/11” was not trying to fool all of the people.  Maybe he was genuinely amnesiac (and so too might Stephanopoulos have been since he did not challenge Giuliani’s bizarre statement).  Giuliani apparently forgot that 9/11 and the attempt by Richard Reid – the shoe bomber – to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 both happened on Bush’s watch

I don’t think most people are amnesiac when it comes to the biggest attack ever to have occurred on US soil.  I do believe Giuliani was trying to capitalize on the false idea that most people have that conservatives are strong on national security – and by extension the war on terrorism – and that liberals are weak.  However, it wasn’t the strange omission of 9/11 that most struck me about Rudy’s statement; it was the recommendation that Obama should somehow follow Bush’s example on fighting terrorism.  I decided to examine what some of those right things G.W. Bush and his conservative cohorts did or did not do prior to and after the most calamitous act of terrorism ever to have occurred on American soil.  These are my top ten reasons why Rudy and company should pipe down when trying to portray the failed underwear bomber incident as a sign of Obama’s weakness on terror.  Paul Schaeffer play some delusional background music for us.

1.    The Bush Administration failed to act upon the (PDB) presidential daily briefing of August 6, 2001 which warned of an eminent attack by Al Qaeda upon the US.  Seventeen days later George Tenet, former director of the CIA, was briefed on the report by the FBI that Zacarias Moussaoui had been taking flying lessons – in a 747 trainer.

2.    The Bush Administration ignored warnings in January 2001 from the outgoing Clinton national security team that Al Qaeda and its sleeper cells in the U.S. were the major security threat facing the U.S.

3.    Bush ignored the Hart-Rudman Commission set up by Clinton by Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Gary Hart (D-CO0 and Warren Rudman (R-NH).  The commission’s final report issued in January 2001 warned of large-scale terrorist attacks on American soil, and specifically of “a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building.”

4.    The Bush Administration failed to take action against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan even after determining in February 2001 that Al Qaeda was responsible for the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

5.    Bush announced a New Office of National Preparedness for Terrorism within FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) but cut FEMA’s Budget by $200 million.

6.    The Bush Administration continued to oppose for more than a year any independent investigation of the intelligence failures that preceded 9/11.  President Obama, being “Mr. The Buck Stops Here” that he is, not only ordered such a review, but has accepted full responsibility for security weaknesses that may have lead up to this attempt at a terrorist attack.

7.    In the summer of 2002, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved by 19-0 a bill to tough security standards at chemical plants.  The chemical industry lobbied Republicans to reject it, and the White House let the bill die.

8.    In March 2002 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham asked the Bush Administration for $380 million to protect nuclear weapons facilities.  The White House approved $26 million of Abraham’s request.

9.    During the Bush Administration, The Coast Guard estimated it would cost $4.5 billion to secure U.S. seaports.  In the year and half following 9/11, they received just $318 million.

10.    The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) a year and a half after 9/11 had 14 agents to track down 1,200 illegal immigrants from countries were Al Qaeda was active.  Bush turned down $52 million request to hire more agents.

I wondered as I watched Rudy, and listened to other conservatives, if any of these facts rang a bell.  I wondered where this chorus of conservative voices was in opposing these actions which frustrated the war on terrorism and weakened American’s security under G.W. Bush.  I wonder if they really want Obama to be more Bushian in the strategies he employs in war on terror.  I wonder if they will continue on in defiance of Abraham Lincoln’s aphorism.  They are always boasting that Lincoln was a Republican.  Perhaps they should heed that great Republican’s words about the uselessness of trying to continue to misshape people’s perceptions about reality.

I am a native Missourian with a B.A. in English and minors in creative writing and Journalism. I attended the University of Missouri and edited have several newspapers and newsletters. I have worked in several fields but lately have worked in the legal field (not an attorney). My site is www.myhumbleopinion.org

The Castle Constitution Vibe


The constitution

State Tax Notes Announces ‘Marginal Impact’ – Bimonthly Column by Tax Experts at The American Enterprise Institute

State Tax Notes Announces ‘Marginal Impact’ – Bimonthly Column by Tax Experts at The American Enterprise Institute
FALLS CHURCH, Va., June 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — States’ reliance on retail sales taxes should be good news for those who value efficient taxation, but widespread taxing of business purchases impedes efficiency and hides the true burden of these taxes, according to the inaugural issue of “Marginal Impact,” a new bimonthly column for State Tax Notes by tax experts at the American Enterprise …

Read more on PR Newswire via Yahoo! News