Monday, January 11, 2010
Irene Loretta Magel 1921 - 2010
Due to a death in the family the Vigilance Project will be taking a brief hiatus and will return as soon as possible.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Obama: Immunity for Interpol
On December 16 2009, President Obama issued an executive order amending the International Organizations Immunities Act. When I first heard of this, the commentator erroneously stated that the President had issued an order granting immunity to Interpol as they conduct operations within the United States. In fact, Interpol was already recognized as an International Organization in an executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and as such, were already entitled to the immunities enumerated in the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 except for the sections of that act that were detailed in Reagan’s executive order (Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6).
In 1995, President Bill Clinton also issued an executive order amending the act as it pertained to Interpol by deleting section 2 (d). That section related to import taxes and duties on personal items brought into the country by agents of a recognized international organization. The order that Barack Obama signed was for the most part, tax related provisions that would actually require Interpol agents to pay taxes on certain monies earned within the United States. There is one little disturbing part of his order that is most definitely not tax related; Section 2 (c).
Executive Order 13524 of December 16, 2009
Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words ‘‘except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act’’ and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
Barack Obama
In the original act, section 2(c) grants international organizations immunity from search and or confiscation of property and assets as well as declaring the archives of such an organization as inviolable. This immunity was specifically denied to Interpol in the original order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and that denial was not altered by Bill Clinton’s executive order of 1995.
“The International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288)
Section 2 (c)-
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”
Why would Interpol, an international police department, require immunity from search of their properties and assets? Why would they have a need to maintain secrecy of their records from the government of a member nation and why was that important enough to invoke a Presidential Executive Order to reverse the denial of that immunity? Something just isn’t right.
Interpol was founded in Austria in 1923 as the International Criminal Police (ICP). After the annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938, Interpol fell under Nazi control and the headquarters were moved to Berlin. During that period, the Presidents of the ICP included Otto Steinhäusl who was an SS General, chair of the Wannsee Conference and the chief executor of the “Final Solution to the Jewish question”, Arthur Nebe, a general in the SS and Einsatzgruppen leader under whose command at least 46,000 people were killed, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner, a general in the SS, the highest ranking SS officer executed after the Nuremberg Trial.
After the end of World War II in 1945, the organization was revived as the International Criminal Police Organization by European Allies of World War II officials from Belgium, France, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. Its new headquarters were established in Saint-Cloud, a town on the outskirts of Paris. They remained there until 1989, when they were moved to their present location, Lyon. ICPO officially adopted the name “Interpol” in 1956.
In order to maintain as politically neutral a role as possible, Interpol's constitution forbids its involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries, or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes. Its work focuses primarily on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, Piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption.
Hmmm? I still see no reason why they would need the immunities detailed in Obama’s Executive Order; particularly immunities regarding archived information. After all, didn’t a “crotch bomber” just walk on to an international flight bound for the United States because our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to share information?
The fact is that regardless of what Interpol’s constitution says, there can be no verification that they are adhering to their own constitution or that they are not impinging upon the Constitutional rights of our own citizens without the ability to subpoena and examine archived files and information if the need should arise. If one of the activities of interest to Interpol is terrorism, wouldn’t their involvement necessarily revolve around a member nation’s definition of a terrorist? We already know our own head of Homeland Security has some very curious criteria for identifying potential domestic terrorists. In fact, Janet Napolitano may have a hard time using the name “terrorist” in conjunction with Muslim extremists but curiously, she has no problem throwing that title around at American citizens, identifying whole groups (profiling) of Americans that she feels may have the potential to engage in acts of domestic terror. You know…those really suspicious tea party people, people with shaved heads and former members of the military that are not exactly pleased with the direction this nation is taking.
We also know that certain records can be catastrophic to a Presidency. Nixon’s fall centered more on eighteen minutes of missing audio tapes than it did on a third rate burglary. The steps Nixon took to categorize the people that he considered unfriendly to his administration led directly to laws prohibiting the compilation of a Presidential enemies list and resulted in requirement to archive and maintain all White House correspondence in perpetuity. No, the wrong kind of records can be very bad for a President unless you can get someone else to keep them for you….someone that cannot be forced to produce those records; maybe even an international police force that routinely keeps, well, records about people. How convenient!
Now that Hillary Clinton agreed that the US would partner with the United Nations on their small arms initiative, those records (records the United States government is prohibited from keeping) as well as the immunity of Interpol, could be very useful if the UN decided it was time collect privately owned weapons in the United States…you know…just to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. After all, Interpol (ICP) records were very useful to the Nazi’s during World War II for exactly that purpose and millions of lawfully owned weapons were confiscated using those records each time the German Army occupied a new territory.
To continue, each member country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB) staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the Interpol General Secretariat, regional bureau and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. This is especially important in countries with many law-enforcement agencies. This central bureau is a unique point of contact for foreign entities, which may not understand the complexity of the law-enforcement system of the country they attempt to contact. For instance, the NCB for the United States of America is housed at the United States Department of Justice. The NCB then ensures the proper transmission of information to the correct agency.
Well what do you know about that! The Interpol National Central Bureau for the United States is housed in the same building as the Department of Justice. Why, Interpol is neighbors with Eric Holder. Now that is convenient too. But maybe I’m reading too much into this. After all, a reputable organization like Interpol has an entire independent command structure that doesn’t answer to our President. At least I don’t think so?
As it turns out, the current Secretary General of Interpol is Ronald Kenneth Noble. Ronald Noble is an American that was the Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. Wow! What a coincidence! I’ll bet our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, saw him all the time back then; in fact, this must be like one of those high school reunions for them. What fun!
The President of Interpol is Khoo Boon Hui. Hui is from Singapore but believe it or not, he attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard right here in the good old USA. A lot of very liberal, very political people attended that school and you would not believe the connections you can make just by being an alumni and that is really, really, really convenient.
Paul
In 1995, President Bill Clinton also issued an executive order amending the act as it pertained to Interpol by deleting section 2 (d). That section related to import taxes and duties on personal items brought into the country by agents of a recognized international organization. The order that Barack Obama signed was for the most part, tax related provisions that would actually require Interpol agents to pay taxes on certain monies earned within the United States. There is one little disturbing part of his order that is most definitely not tax related; Section 2 (c).
Executive Order 13524 of December 16, 2009
Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words ‘‘except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act’’ and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
Barack Obama
In the original act, section 2(c) grants international organizations immunity from search and or confiscation of property and assets as well as declaring the archives of such an organization as inviolable. This immunity was specifically denied to Interpol in the original order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and that denial was not altered by Bill Clinton’s executive order of 1995.
“The International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288)
Section 2 (c)-
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”
Why would Interpol, an international police department, require immunity from search of their properties and assets? Why would they have a need to maintain secrecy of their records from the government of a member nation and why was that important enough to invoke a Presidential Executive Order to reverse the denial of that immunity? Something just isn’t right.
Interpol was founded in Austria in 1923 as the International Criminal Police (ICP). After the annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938, Interpol fell under Nazi control and the headquarters were moved to Berlin. During that period, the Presidents of the ICP included Otto Steinhäusl who was an SS General, chair of the Wannsee Conference and the chief executor of the “Final Solution to the Jewish question”, Arthur Nebe, a general in the SS and Einsatzgruppen leader under whose command at least 46,000 people were killed, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner, a general in the SS, the highest ranking SS officer executed after the Nuremberg Trial.
After the end of World War II in 1945, the organization was revived as the International Criminal Police Organization by European Allies of World War II officials from Belgium, France, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. Its new headquarters were established in Saint-Cloud, a town on the outskirts of Paris. They remained there until 1989, when they were moved to their present location, Lyon. ICPO officially adopted the name “Interpol” in 1956.
In order to maintain as politically neutral a role as possible, Interpol's constitution forbids its involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries, or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes. Its work focuses primarily on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, Piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption.
Hmmm? I still see no reason why they would need the immunities detailed in Obama’s Executive Order; particularly immunities regarding archived information. After all, didn’t a “crotch bomber” just walk on to an international flight bound for the United States because our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to share information?
The fact is that regardless of what Interpol’s constitution says, there can be no verification that they are adhering to their own constitution or that they are not impinging upon the Constitutional rights of our own citizens without the ability to subpoena and examine archived files and information if the need should arise. If one of the activities of interest to Interpol is terrorism, wouldn’t their involvement necessarily revolve around a member nation’s definition of a terrorist? We already know our own head of Homeland Security has some very curious criteria for identifying potential domestic terrorists. In fact, Janet Napolitano may have a hard time using the name “terrorist” in conjunction with Muslim extremists but curiously, she has no problem throwing that title around at American citizens, identifying whole groups (profiling) of Americans that she feels may have the potential to engage in acts of domestic terror. You know…those really suspicious tea party people, people with shaved heads and former members of the military that are not exactly pleased with the direction this nation is taking.
We also know that certain records can be catastrophic to a Presidency. Nixon’s fall centered more on eighteen minutes of missing audio tapes than it did on a third rate burglary. The steps Nixon took to categorize the people that he considered unfriendly to his administration led directly to laws prohibiting the compilation of a Presidential enemies list and resulted in requirement to archive and maintain all White House correspondence in perpetuity. No, the wrong kind of records can be very bad for a President unless you can get someone else to keep them for you….someone that cannot be forced to produce those records; maybe even an international police force that routinely keeps, well, records about people. How convenient!
Now that Hillary Clinton agreed that the US would partner with the United Nations on their small arms initiative, those records (records the United States government is prohibited from keeping) as well as the immunity of Interpol, could be very useful if the UN decided it was time collect privately owned weapons in the United States…you know…just to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. After all, Interpol (ICP) records were very useful to the Nazi’s during World War II for exactly that purpose and millions of lawfully owned weapons were confiscated using those records each time the German Army occupied a new territory.
To continue, each member country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB) staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the Interpol General Secretariat, regional bureau and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. This is especially important in countries with many law-enforcement agencies. This central bureau is a unique point of contact for foreign entities, which may not understand the complexity of the law-enforcement system of the country they attempt to contact. For instance, the NCB for the United States of America is housed at the United States Department of Justice. The NCB then ensures the proper transmission of information to the correct agency.
Well what do you know about that! The Interpol National Central Bureau for the United States is housed in the same building as the Department of Justice. Why, Interpol is neighbors with Eric Holder. Now that is convenient too. But maybe I’m reading too much into this. After all, a reputable organization like Interpol has an entire independent command structure that doesn’t answer to our President. At least I don’t think so?
As it turns out, the current Secretary General of Interpol is Ronald Kenneth Noble. Ronald Noble is an American that was the Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. Wow! What a coincidence! I’ll bet our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, saw him all the time back then; in fact, this must be like one of those high school reunions for them. What fun!
The President of Interpol is Khoo Boon Hui. Hui is from Singapore but believe it or not, he attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard right here in the good old USA. A lot of very liberal, very political people attended that school and you would not believe the connections you can make just by being an alumni and that is really, really, really convenient.
Paul
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Governor Paterson Battles Progressives in New York
There are moments in life that are just memorable like your first love, your wedding day or baby’s first step. Those things are indelibly etched into your brain because they are so very, very rare. Yesterday the New York Times published a story about New York Governor David Paterson lambasting the State legislature because they are spending New York into ruin. Wow!
Actually, this represents three very, very rare occasions. The first is seeing a career tax and spend Democrat actually facing the reality of a fiscal nightmare instead of trying to spend his way out of it; the second is that he laid the blame at the feet of other tax and spend Democrats instead of blaming Bush, Reagan or some new age planetary alignment and the third, the New York Times actually reported the story as news instead of lacing it with their usual brand of liberal spin. Weird huh?
New York is facing a fiscal crisis that took decades to create and is anticipating a seven billion shortfall for the coming year. Last year, New York barely escaped catastrophe, in part by federal stimulus aid, and yet state officials increased total spending by nearly nine percent, even as the economy continued to stall and State tax revenues plummeted. New York is the home to some of the highest taxes in the nation and that has cost them dearly. Businesses are relocating to areas where they are welcome instead of penalized and there has been a continuing exodus of the affluent as tax rates climb higher; a trend that began years ago because the State and City view New York taxpayers as an inexhaustible source of ready cash.
Paterson could adopt the usual liberal stance, throwing his hands in the air and reminding everyone that he inherited this mess from his predecessor. In fact, in his case it would be easy to do since he replaced a Governor that resigned in disgrace over a prostitution scandal. Even though Paterson is blind, he has displayed better vision in recent months than many of his associates at the State capitol. Hey, maybe he’s been “born again” and will be the next convert to the Republican Party but I doubt it. It’s just like the old saying that there are no atheists on a battlefield, if financial balance were miraculously restored to New York tomorrow; I would bet that he would start signing blank checks again.
Paterson is not popular but with a State budget in crisis, no governor would be. First, Paterson decried the need to bring State spending under control and urged the legislature to cut taxes or risk losing their biggest taxpayers to other states. Then he bucked pressure from the White House urging him not to run for reelection as the White House strategists claimed that it would be easier to retain Democratic control of the State with a new candidate running than it would be to try to get an incumbent reelected in the anti-incumbent climate of 2010. Now Paterson is taking the fight directly to the legislature and this time there were no niceties. There was no fluff or flourish as Paterson laid it on the line. He blamed the State’s financial crisis squarely where it belongs, with the legislature that writes the spending bills. The same legislature that refused to consider budget cuts when the piggy bank was found to be empty, and in fact, increased State spending while they “passed the hat around” in Washington hoping some sympathetic Senator would drop some loose change in it.
Washington apparently possesses the same fiscal common sense that the New York legislature does. As the national debt approached twelve trillion dollars, one would expect that the Federal government would have spent nights and weekends trying to find ways to reduce the weight of the Federal budget so we could begin to pay down our debt. That is what the American people must do when they are faced with a financial crisis. But no, our government nearly tripled the Federal budget, adding a record one point seven trillion dollars to the national debt in just one year. Instead of trying to reduce the debt, they spent their nights and weekends crafting a brand new entitlement bill under the guise of healthcare reform that will cost the American taxpayer an additional two point seven trillion dollars over ten years and that is only if the Medicare cuts in the legislation actually take place - which is something that Congress has never done no matter how many times they pledged that they would.
Thanks to the Socialist programs created under Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, we now have a mandatory spending burden of over two point two trillion dollars before we even get to discretionary spending for things like national defense and just turning the lights on in the capitol building. In fact, the largest portion under mandatory spending is for Social Security which now costs more than defense spending. Now before the seniors start yelling I know that you’ve paid into Social Security all of your life and that money is yours; well at least it used to be. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The first time this nation needed “healthcare reform” marked the 1965 birth of Medicare and Medicaid under Lyndon Johnson. By 1968, both of those programs had swollen exponentially and vastly surpassed CBO estimates. As the threat of insolvency loomed on the horizon, the Federal Government emptied the cash out of the Social Security trust fund to save the “Great Society” and stuffed Social Security with IOU’s. Social Security was then made a part of the Federal budget with the thought that they will fix the problem later.
Well later never came and this new “fix” of healthcare reform can only guarantee that Medicare and Medicaid will survive until 2019 even though we are preparing to gut our entire healthcare system and the economic vitality of American business to pay for it. Only one thing is certain. Just as Governor Paterson warns New York, if we cannot restore balance to the government, this nation will cease to exist as we know it. President Bush tried to privatize Social Security during his administration and was castrated for it. Why?
If the Federal government had left Social Security alone back in 1968 it would have plenty of money to meet its obligations. It was a government run retirement plan and under a fiduciary, would have generated the same gains that private retirement plans enjoy; growing through a diverse portfolio of investments. To re-privatize Social Security would mean that the U.S. government would have to repay the IOU’s with interest and that would break the hearts of Progressive Democrats. If people were allowed to pay directly into their Social Security accounts again instead of into the general treasury, where would Progressives get the money they need to fund all of those really important projects like the Napa Valley wine train in Nancy Pelosi’s district, Marijuana and Malt liquor journals or my favorite, politically correct puppet shows in Minnesota? No I am not kidding, these were all pet projects hidden in the stimulus bill.
Congress is spending like they are on a drunken binge and now that we have a professor of “Saul Alinsky Theory” for a President; his twisted view of “social justice” has all but eliminated the need to even discuss fiscal responsibility. There are only two differences between New York and Washington right now. The first is that New York cannot print its own money and the second is that there is no one in Washington trying to stop this runaway train before it runs out of track. The Republican Congressmen can say what they want about the Obama administration but where were they when Bush was on his spending spree? Republicans lost control of Congress for the same reasons that Democrats are in trouble now. America has had enough and we will have no more. If the anti-incumbent fervor can maintain direction and focus, we may be looking at the first major overhaul of Congress and the direction of the nation since the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.
What can we do with more than five-hundred unemployed members of Congress? While I would love to see every one of them living in cardboard boxes under a highway overpass; I suppose the humane thing to do is to put them in rehab and enroll them in a twelve step program for shopaholics before they go home and do to their families what they did to America.
Paul
Actually, this represents three very, very rare occasions. The first is seeing a career tax and spend Democrat actually facing the reality of a fiscal nightmare instead of trying to spend his way out of it; the second is that he laid the blame at the feet of other tax and spend Democrats instead of blaming Bush, Reagan or some new age planetary alignment and the third, the New York Times actually reported the story as news instead of lacing it with their usual brand of liberal spin. Weird huh?
New York is facing a fiscal crisis that took decades to create and is anticipating a seven billion shortfall for the coming year. Last year, New York barely escaped catastrophe, in part by federal stimulus aid, and yet state officials increased total spending by nearly nine percent, even as the economy continued to stall and State tax revenues plummeted. New York is the home to some of the highest taxes in the nation and that has cost them dearly. Businesses are relocating to areas where they are welcome instead of penalized and there has been a continuing exodus of the affluent as tax rates climb higher; a trend that began years ago because the State and City view New York taxpayers as an inexhaustible source of ready cash.
Paterson could adopt the usual liberal stance, throwing his hands in the air and reminding everyone that he inherited this mess from his predecessor. In fact, in his case it would be easy to do since he replaced a Governor that resigned in disgrace over a prostitution scandal. Even though Paterson is blind, he has displayed better vision in recent months than many of his associates at the State capitol. Hey, maybe he’s been “born again” and will be the next convert to the Republican Party but I doubt it. It’s just like the old saying that there are no atheists on a battlefield, if financial balance were miraculously restored to New York tomorrow; I would bet that he would start signing blank checks again.
Paterson is not popular but with a State budget in crisis, no governor would be. First, Paterson decried the need to bring State spending under control and urged the legislature to cut taxes or risk losing their biggest taxpayers to other states. Then he bucked pressure from the White House urging him not to run for reelection as the White House strategists claimed that it would be easier to retain Democratic control of the State with a new candidate running than it would be to try to get an incumbent reelected in the anti-incumbent climate of 2010. Now Paterson is taking the fight directly to the legislature and this time there were no niceties. There was no fluff or flourish as Paterson laid it on the line. He blamed the State’s financial crisis squarely where it belongs, with the legislature that writes the spending bills. The same legislature that refused to consider budget cuts when the piggy bank was found to be empty, and in fact, increased State spending while they “passed the hat around” in Washington hoping some sympathetic Senator would drop some loose change in it.
Washington apparently possesses the same fiscal common sense that the New York legislature does. As the national debt approached twelve trillion dollars, one would expect that the Federal government would have spent nights and weekends trying to find ways to reduce the weight of the Federal budget so we could begin to pay down our debt. That is what the American people must do when they are faced with a financial crisis. But no, our government nearly tripled the Federal budget, adding a record one point seven trillion dollars to the national debt in just one year. Instead of trying to reduce the debt, they spent their nights and weekends crafting a brand new entitlement bill under the guise of healthcare reform that will cost the American taxpayer an additional two point seven trillion dollars over ten years and that is only if the Medicare cuts in the legislation actually take place - which is something that Congress has never done no matter how many times they pledged that they would.
Thanks to the Socialist programs created under Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, we now have a mandatory spending burden of over two point two trillion dollars before we even get to discretionary spending for things like national defense and just turning the lights on in the capitol building. In fact, the largest portion under mandatory spending is for Social Security which now costs more than defense spending. Now before the seniors start yelling I know that you’ve paid into Social Security all of your life and that money is yours; well at least it used to be. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The first time this nation needed “healthcare reform” marked the 1965 birth of Medicare and Medicaid under Lyndon Johnson. By 1968, both of those programs had swollen exponentially and vastly surpassed CBO estimates. As the threat of insolvency loomed on the horizon, the Federal Government emptied the cash out of the Social Security trust fund to save the “Great Society” and stuffed Social Security with IOU’s. Social Security was then made a part of the Federal budget with the thought that they will fix the problem later.
Well later never came and this new “fix” of healthcare reform can only guarantee that Medicare and Medicaid will survive until 2019 even though we are preparing to gut our entire healthcare system and the economic vitality of American business to pay for it. Only one thing is certain. Just as Governor Paterson warns New York, if we cannot restore balance to the government, this nation will cease to exist as we know it. President Bush tried to privatize Social Security during his administration and was castrated for it. Why?
If the Federal government had left Social Security alone back in 1968 it would have plenty of money to meet its obligations. It was a government run retirement plan and under a fiduciary, would have generated the same gains that private retirement plans enjoy; growing through a diverse portfolio of investments. To re-privatize Social Security would mean that the U.S. government would have to repay the IOU’s with interest and that would break the hearts of Progressive Democrats. If people were allowed to pay directly into their Social Security accounts again instead of into the general treasury, where would Progressives get the money they need to fund all of those really important projects like the Napa Valley wine train in Nancy Pelosi’s district, Marijuana and Malt liquor journals or my favorite, politically correct puppet shows in Minnesota? No I am not kidding, these were all pet projects hidden in the stimulus bill.
Congress is spending like they are on a drunken binge and now that we have a professor of “Saul Alinsky Theory” for a President; his twisted view of “social justice” has all but eliminated the need to even discuss fiscal responsibility. There are only two differences between New York and Washington right now. The first is that New York cannot print its own money and the second is that there is no one in Washington trying to stop this runaway train before it runs out of track. The Republican Congressmen can say what they want about the Obama administration but where were they when Bush was on his spending spree? Republicans lost control of Congress for the same reasons that Democrats are in trouble now. America has had enough and we will have no more. If the anti-incumbent fervor can maintain direction and focus, we may be looking at the first major overhaul of Congress and the direction of the nation since the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.
What can we do with more than five-hundred unemployed members of Congress? While I would love to see every one of them living in cardboard boxes under a highway overpass; I suppose the humane thing to do is to put them in rehab and enroll them in a twelve step program for shopaholics before they go home and do to their families what they did to America.
Paul
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Healthcare on C-Span? Not in this lifetime.
For a little comic relief, a reporter covering a press conference featuring Nancy Pelosi asked why the Healthcare conference committee is meeting behind closed door when the President promised total transparency during his campaign. He continued that he (Obama) had stated with clarity that the process would be open, involve both Parties and would appear on C-Span for all to see. Nancy chuckled and said “The President said a lot of things during the campaign.”
That tells me two things. Number one: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never had an intention of conducting the conference committee in public no matter what the President said and number two: that Nancy Pelosi is still peeved that Obama is willing to sacrifice the public option, coverage for illegal immigrants and public finding for abortion in order to strike a deal that will allow a bill to pass.
Coming from the Socialist stronghold of San Francisco, Nancy still believes that the healthcare bill will be nothing but an empty shell without these provisions and that the President should persuade if possible but drag if necessary; the Party, the Congress and the nation to accept these extremely liberal policies. Don’t forget, that in the Marxist philosophy, government must care for people for the good of the collective, and that only faithful socialists know what you need whether you like it or not. Nancy really didn’t want the public option; what she wanted was a government run universal care system identical to European models. She would have settled for the public option only because the way it was laced into the House bill it would have crippled the private health insurance industry allowing the public option to morph into a universal care system over time.
What is known is that the President is beginning to learn that D.C. is not Chicago and even though he has surrounded himself with the best political thugs that money can buy, his corrupt little circle of radical community organizers is no match for the real warlords of Washington, career politicians that have spent decades perfecting the art of torpedoing the aspirations of men with one hundred times the experience that the junior Senator from Illinois had. As Nancy Pelosi erupted into schoolgirl giggles at the mention of Obama’s promise to air the healthcare debate on C-Span it occurred to me that the “Big O” doesn’t have the sway over Congress that he thought he had.
Obama is so intent on getting this bill passed that he was willing to surrender key parts of the legislation that were of prime importance to the most liberal of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. He has been under heavy fire from Progressive Democrats for dealing away the public option and may lose moderate Democrats for not strengthening the language to prevent the public funding of abortion. Of course if he insisted on keeping the public option and caved on the abortion issue the Progressives would be sulking over abortion and the moderates would be furious over the public option. Now nearly every other state is angry about the deals that were given to Louisiana and Nebraska to secure the votes of Nelson and Landrieu and many of those states have their Attorneys General looking into the legality of those deals on the grounds that the Constitution requires that taxes are applied equally among the states.
In the end, I am sure that they will pass something if only to avoid the charge of failure in an election year. After all, Obama hung all his meat on this hook to the exclusion of everything else so not to bring this to fruition would cripple the rest of his agenda. Congressional Democrats are following him over the cliff hoping that since the bill prohibits insurance companies from having exclusions for pre-existing conditions or from dropping clients that have contracted a catastrophic illness, that Americans will view this as something positive that the Democrats have brought to the table.
Here lies the problem. The Bill enacts all of the tax increases and service cuts immediately but the most damaging (and expensive) parts of the bill do not begin to come into play before 2014. Those are also the parts of the bill that provide access to coverage through the government exchange or provide subsidies for people that cannot afford coverage so the uninsured will still be uninsured when Election Day comes around. Without the exchange and subsidies, what insurance will the unemployed have when companies begin laying off workers in response to the increased tax liabilities this bill will levy on business? If the business mandates begin with companies that have over fifty employees, companies with fifty-three can and will drop a few people to remain below the minimum. Companies with a hundred employees that do not currently offer health insurance may end up only being able to afford eighty with insurance.
The other problem for Democrats is that they continue to underestimate the real anger that has been fomenting in the general population. Sixty percent of Americans do not want this bill to pass and most believe that if the conversations must be hidden from the people, then the bill must be too horrible to risk making it public. Even more believe that if the Congressional leadership has to resort to outright bribery to buy the votes for passage, then this bill obviously cannot stand on its own merit and deserves to fall. Congresses refusal to deliver on Obama’s promise of transparency may, in the end, prove to be a larger liability than if they fail to deliver healthcare reform at all.
Democratic spokesmen and White House loyalists have a great strategy for combating the public demand that the President keep his promise and force the Congress to hold the conference hearings openly; they lie. Simple huh? They keep repeating that this administration has restored transparency to Washington and has maintained an openness that was totally absent during the Bush administration. Well actually, that was two lies and another stab at the previous administration. The truth is that during the Bush administration, Congress never held hearings on any bill of this magnitude in secret.
The Bush administration attempted to privatize Social Security and even though many recognized that as a sound move to help control the budget deficit, it was a very controversial subject. As heated as the debates were and as passionate as both sides of the argument were; it was widely recognized that is was an important issue with serious ramifications and that demanded a complete and very public debate. The measure failed in the end but what is the measure of success? Doing something at any cost just to say we’ve done it or doing it right?
No, the Obama administration does not want these hearings held in public because the American people would openly revolt not only if they knew the dirty details of the legislation but at the criminally corrupt Chicago style bribery that they are using to obtain the votes for passage. Those that are surprised that Obama would lie so boldly during the campaign had obviously read only the books written by Obama himself and not the ones written about him.
This administration is transparent? Obama has three dozen Czars holding positions of power that answer to no one; not even Congress. Not only have they refused to speak with Congress about their actions citing executive privilege but the most damaging bits of information about them is being sought out and expunged from the internet whenever it is found. Obama’s campaign spent over nine-hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to seal any personal information about him including school transcripts, thesis papers, business dealings, legal records and of course, the long form of his Hawaii birth certificate….you know, the one that would actually have a doctor’s signature and a state seal on it.
I suppose the case could be made that this administration is very transparent. After all, what is more transparent than the total absence of substance?
Paul
That tells me two things. Number one: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never had an intention of conducting the conference committee in public no matter what the President said and number two: that Nancy Pelosi is still peeved that Obama is willing to sacrifice the public option, coverage for illegal immigrants and public finding for abortion in order to strike a deal that will allow a bill to pass.
Coming from the Socialist stronghold of San Francisco, Nancy still believes that the healthcare bill will be nothing but an empty shell without these provisions and that the President should persuade if possible but drag if necessary; the Party, the Congress and the nation to accept these extremely liberal policies. Don’t forget, that in the Marxist philosophy, government must care for people for the good of the collective, and that only faithful socialists know what you need whether you like it or not. Nancy really didn’t want the public option; what she wanted was a government run universal care system identical to European models. She would have settled for the public option only because the way it was laced into the House bill it would have crippled the private health insurance industry allowing the public option to morph into a universal care system over time.
What is known is that the President is beginning to learn that D.C. is not Chicago and even though he has surrounded himself with the best political thugs that money can buy, his corrupt little circle of radical community organizers is no match for the real warlords of Washington, career politicians that have spent decades perfecting the art of torpedoing the aspirations of men with one hundred times the experience that the junior Senator from Illinois had. As Nancy Pelosi erupted into schoolgirl giggles at the mention of Obama’s promise to air the healthcare debate on C-Span it occurred to me that the “Big O” doesn’t have the sway over Congress that he thought he had.
Obama is so intent on getting this bill passed that he was willing to surrender key parts of the legislation that were of prime importance to the most liberal of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. He has been under heavy fire from Progressive Democrats for dealing away the public option and may lose moderate Democrats for not strengthening the language to prevent the public funding of abortion. Of course if he insisted on keeping the public option and caved on the abortion issue the Progressives would be sulking over abortion and the moderates would be furious over the public option. Now nearly every other state is angry about the deals that were given to Louisiana and Nebraska to secure the votes of Nelson and Landrieu and many of those states have their Attorneys General looking into the legality of those deals on the grounds that the Constitution requires that taxes are applied equally among the states.
In the end, I am sure that they will pass something if only to avoid the charge of failure in an election year. After all, Obama hung all his meat on this hook to the exclusion of everything else so not to bring this to fruition would cripple the rest of his agenda. Congressional Democrats are following him over the cliff hoping that since the bill prohibits insurance companies from having exclusions for pre-existing conditions or from dropping clients that have contracted a catastrophic illness, that Americans will view this as something positive that the Democrats have brought to the table.
Here lies the problem. The Bill enacts all of the tax increases and service cuts immediately but the most damaging (and expensive) parts of the bill do not begin to come into play before 2014. Those are also the parts of the bill that provide access to coverage through the government exchange or provide subsidies for people that cannot afford coverage so the uninsured will still be uninsured when Election Day comes around. Without the exchange and subsidies, what insurance will the unemployed have when companies begin laying off workers in response to the increased tax liabilities this bill will levy on business? If the business mandates begin with companies that have over fifty employees, companies with fifty-three can and will drop a few people to remain below the minimum. Companies with a hundred employees that do not currently offer health insurance may end up only being able to afford eighty with insurance.
The other problem for Democrats is that they continue to underestimate the real anger that has been fomenting in the general population. Sixty percent of Americans do not want this bill to pass and most believe that if the conversations must be hidden from the people, then the bill must be too horrible to risk making it public. Even more believe that if the Congressional leadership has to resort to outright bribery to buy the votes for passage, then this bill obviously cannot stand on its own merit and deserves to fall. Congresses refusal to deliver on Obama’s promise of transparency may, in the end, prove to be a larger liability than if they fail to deliver healthcare reform at all.
Democratic spokesmen and White House loyalists have a great strategy for combating the public demand that the President keep his promise and force the Congress to hold the conference hearings openly; they lie. Simple huh? They keep repeating that this administration has restored transparency to Washington and has maintained an openness that was totally absent during the Bush administration. Well actually, that was two lies and another stab at the previous administration. The truth is that during the Bush administration, Congress never held hearings on any bill of this magnitude in secret.
The Bush administration attempted to privatize Social Security and even though many recognized that as a sound move to help control the budget deficit, it was a very controversial subject. As heated as the debates were and as passionate as both sides of the argument were; it was widely recognized that is was an important issue with serious ramifications and that demanded a complete and very public debate. The measure failed in the end but what is the measure of success? Doing something at any cost just to say we’ve done it or doing it right?
No, the Obama administration does not want these hearings held in public because the American people would openly revolt not only if they knew the dirty details of the legislation but at the criminally corrupt Chicago style bribery that they are using to obtain the votes for passage. Those that are surprised that Obama would lie so boldly during the campaign had obviously read only the books written by Obama himself and not the ones written about him.
This administration is transparent? Obama has three dozen Czars holding positions of power that answer to no one; not even Congress. Not only have they refused to speak with Congress about their actions citing executive privilege but the most damaging bits of information about them is being sought out and expunged from the internet whenever it is found. Obama’s campaign spent over nine-hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to seal any personal information about him including school transcripts, thesis papers, business dealings, legal records and of course, the long form of his Hawaii birth certificate….you know, the one that would actually have a doctor’s signature and a state seal on it.
I suppose the case could be made that this administration is very transparent. After all, what is more transparent than the total absence of substance?
Paul
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Old Politicians Never Die, They Just Smell Like it.
Do you remember the good old days when ex-Presidents would build their libraries, make a few stops on a speaking tour and write their memoirs? Now it seems that not only ex-President’s like Jimmy Carter have no idea when to keep their mouths shut but even those that ran for President and lost just have to put their two cents in as well.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the current date because there are large gaps between the Presidents that left office determined to allow the next President to shape policy and the course of the nation as they see fit and then there are those that must emanate an irritating buzz from the sidelines just to remain in the fringe of the spotlight. In fact, it seems that the proclivity of pestilence seems to be a product of ideology with liberals displaying a general inability to afford any measure of courtesy to future administrations; the same courtesy that they would have demanded for themselves had they actually stayed in office.
Former Presidents understand the searing responsibility of holding the highest office in the land even though none of them knew the depth of that responsibility when they began their race to become President. As such, there has always been a certain amount of sympathy that is afforded the next President because of the demands associated with that job. Even George Washington commented to John Addams that he felt sorry for him as he took the oath of office as the nation’s second President. While some serving President’s have invited criticism by blaming every failure of their administration on the previous one, it is a very rare occasion when a former President responds in kind but it still happens.
What is different as of the late twentieth and continuing into the early twenty first century is that for the first time, the losers are twice as vocal as the former Presidents. Most Americans know that Truman ascended to the Presidency after Franklin Roosevelt’s death in 1945 but how many know that Truman was FDR’s third Vice President. The first, John Garner, resigned at the beginning of FDR’s second term and the second, Henry Wallace, was too liberal even for Roosevelt. In fact, Wallace believed that the Russian Revolution was on par with the American Revolution and both represented equal and important parts of man’s march to freedom. Truman was selected as the Vice Presidential nominee for the 1944 election as Roosevelt’s health wavered and Wallace was believed to be too radical to chance his elevation to President should Roosevelt die in office.
How many know that Truman had no Vice President in his first term and that the Vice President in his second term, Alben Barkley, was not his running mate in the general election? Most know very little about former Vice Presidents that did not attain the Presidency and even less about those that lost elections for President or Vice President because there was still some measure of decorum back then. Now, the losers take the stage, still striving for the fame they feel they were cheated from attaining. Al Gore, unlike his predecessors, refused to call for unity behind the new President and instead, fanned the flames of the left’s outright hatred of George Bush after the election of 2000.
Gore used the notoriety he had gained from the attention surrounding the 2000 election re-count to push his radical (and wrong) agenda to foster awareness of the so-called threat of global warming. This thrust him into the limelight once again and like any other attention starved brat, only served to reinforce his ill behavior. As an irritant to Bush administration climate policy, Gore sought to inculcate the radical environmental movement and eventually, the youth of the western world with a religious fervor about coming disasters that will befall the planet because of global warming. Even now, as the IPCC and the CRU have been caught red-handed manipulating and even suppressing climate data to support their hokey theories; Gore persists, spewing out these outrageous claims while his so-called “irrefutable” evidence crumbles bit by corrupt bit. You know, you almost feel bad for him. He couldn’t handle losing the 2000 election without a tantrum and now, in the absence of real proof, he’s acting like the proverbial madman on the corner shouting “The end is near!” as people cross the street to avoid eye contact with him.
Of course Gore could have avoided this embarrassment if he weren’t so vain and simply accepted his defeat with dignity. In fact, he could probably have lived out the balance of his life as a respected political analyst much as Henry Kissinger has. Even Richard Nixon managed to redeem himself and in the later years of his life, had been in high demand by news programs that were analyzing the, then current, Clinton administration. Nixon became a serious voice in the political discussion again because he displayed the confidence of a serious man and not the dour attitude of a sore loser.
By now, we are all used to the nonsensical drivel that emanates from the mouth of former President, James Carter. Most of what Carter says only serves to remind us why his Presidency marked the low tide stain for the modern Democratic Party and more importantly, why his bid for reelection was rejected by the American people. The naiveté of his recent statements are perfectly consistent with the simplicity that he exhibited during his Presidency. Unlike Gore, Carter isn’t lashing out over sour grapes, he just doesn’t know any better. Truthfully, I had always held that I liked Jimmy Carter personally. I think he is one of the few Presidents that followed his heart. Hid did what he believed was right; however, his idea of right did not serve the nation well and as much as he is an honorable man, he did not possess the necessary qualities that a modern nation demands of a President.
Now we have John Kerry. Kerry is only one of a long list of Massachusetts politicians that is quite popular in the liberal rat’s nest of Massachusetts but has failed miserably on a national level. Kerry comes from a wealthy family (Forbes) and married into a wealthier one (Heinz). Like so many born to wealth, the political scene was alluring to Kerry as he drooled at the thought of testing out all of the Socialist theories he had learned in Yale. After all, the lives of the general population are only pawns for wealthy socialists to play with and if they are wrong and their policies ruin the nation, they still have their fortune to escape with. It is all an exercise in theory for them.
Kerry had served in the United States Navy during Viet Nam. Assigned to a swift boat in what veteran’s call “the brown water navy”, Kerry was reportedly injured in combat several times and was decorated for bravery. Kerry had requested early release in January of 1970, for the purpose of running for Congress that fall and was discharged in March of that year. Rather than running for Congress, Kerry decided to join the anti-war movement after his release from the Navy and had made a number of high profile appearances as a decorated war veteran opposed to the war. Of course Kerry had to go just a bit too far and while speaking out against the war ended up denigrating the President, the nation and even his fellow sailors in the process. This would prove to be a critical mistake later in life.
Kerry did run for Congress in 1972 but that bid would fail as Kerry's younger brother Cameron and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely were found in the basement of the opposition’s campaign headquarters. Charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit grand larceny", the two fenced with the courts for a year with the case being eventually being dismissed a year later but not before Kerry lost the election.
After completing law school and embarking on a brief career in law, Kerry was eventually elected to the position of lieutenant governor of Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis in 1982 and then to the United States Senate in 1985. In 2004, Kerry decided to run for President. During his campaign, a group of swift boat veterans protested his candidacy and brought his service record and military honors under severe criticism citing inconsistencies in the recorded events. Statements Kerry made during earlier “anti-war” interviews resurfaced in which he admitted that he tried to avoid combat by asking for duty with the swift boats which up till then had been used only for coastal patrols. Of course his voting record as one of the most liberal progressives in Congress was too much for main street America and only served to seal his fate. His 2004 bid for the Presidency with running mate John Edwards, ended in a close but failing race with Bush beating Kerry by only 2% of the popular vote at a time when Bush was also wildly unpopular.
Now that Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons and Obama is facing harsh criticisms from other world leaders for vacillating in the face of Iran’s refusal to obey international law, John Kerry is stepping to the foreground for his fifteen minutes of fame again. He is demanding more negotiations with Iran even though negotiations have only proven to allow Iran the time continue the development of nuclear arms without fear of reprisal. In fact, Kerry tried to arrange a visit to Tehran to speak with Iranian officials as if to say that he can do alone, what the current administration in its entirety could not. Apparently, Iran can spot an elitist publicity hound faster than the people of Massachusetts can and denied access to Mr. Kerry.
John Kerry should accept that outside of the “People’s Republic of Massachusetts”, no one really cares what he thinks. For that matter, we really don’t care what any of the political figures that Massachusetts has cursed the nation with has to say about much of anything. If things continue as they are, we are going to see a lot more liberals stamping their feet in the press and on the news shows after the 2010 election send many of them home so I guess we should thank Gore and Kerry for preparing us. It only goes to show that old politicians never die, they just smell like it.
Paul
Actually, it has nothing to do with the current date because there are large gaps between the Presidents that left office determined to allow the next President to shape policy and the course of the nation as they see fit and then there are those that must emanate an irritating buzz from the sidelines just to remain in the fringe of the spotlight. In fact, it seems that the proclivity of pestilence seems to be a product of ideology with liberals displaying a general inability to afford any measure of courtesy to future administrations; the same courtesy that they would have demanded for themselves had they actually stayed in office.
Former Presidents understand the searing responsibility of holding the highest office in the land even though none of them knew the depth of that responsibility when they began their race to become President. As such, there has always been a certain amount of sympathy that is afforded the next President because of the demands associated with that job. Even George Washington commented to John Addams that he felt sorry for him as he took the oath of office as the nation’s second President. While some serving President’s have invited criticism by blaming every failure of their administration on the previous one, it is a very rare occasion when a former President responds in kind but it still happens.
What is different as of the late twentieth and continuing into the early twenty first century is that for the first time, the losers are twice as vocal as the former Presidents. Most Americans know that Truman ascended to the Presidency after Franklin Roosevelt’s death in 1945 but how many know that Truman was FDR’s third Vice President. The first, John Garner, resigned at the beginning of FDR’s second term and the second, Henry Wallace, was too liberal even for Roosevelt. In fact, Wallace believed that the Russian Revolution was on par with the American Revolution and both represented equal and important parts of man’s march to freedom. Truman was selected as the Vice Presidential nominee for the 1944 election as Roosevelt’s health wavered and Wallace was believed to be too radical to chance his elevation to President should Roosevelt die in office.
How many know that Truman had no Vice President in his first term and that the Vice President in his second term, Alben Barkley, was not his running mate in the general election? Most know very little about former Vice Presidents that did not attain the Presidency and even less about those that lost elections for President or Vice President because there was still some measure of decorum back then. Now, the losers take the stage, still striving for the fame they feel they were cheated from attaining. Al Gore, unlike his predecessors, refused to call for unity behind the new President and instead, fanned the flames of the left’s outright hatred of George Bush after the election of 2000.
Gore used the notoriety he had gained from the attention surrounding the 2000 election re-count to push his radical (and wrong) agenda to foster awareness of the so-called threat of global warming. This thrust him into the limelight once again and like any other attention starved brat, only served to reinforce his ill behavior. As an irritant to Bush administration climate policy, Gore sought to inculcate the radical environmental movement and eventually, the youth of the western world with a religious fervor about coming disasters that will befall the planet because of global warming. Even now, as the IPCC and the CRU have been caught red-handed manipulating and even suppressing climate data to support their hokey theories; Gore persists, spewing out these outrageous claims while his so-called “irrefutable” evidence crumbles bit by corrupt bit. You know, you almost feel bad for him. He couldn’t handle losing the 2000 election without a tantrum and now, in the absence of real proof, he’s acting like the proverbial madman on the corner shouting “The end is near!” as people cross the street to avoid eye contact with him.
Of course Gore could have avoided this embarrassment if he weren’t so vain and simply accepted his defeat with dignity. In fact, he could probably have lived out the balance of his life as a respected political analyst much as Henry Kissinger has. Even Richard Nixon managed to redeem himself and in the later years of his life, had been in high demand by news programs that were analyzing the, then current, Clinton administration. Nixon became a serious voice in the political discussion again because he displayed the confidence of a serious man and not the dour attitude of a sore loser.
By now, we are all used to the nonsensical drivel that emanates from the mouth of former President, James Carter. Most of what Carter says only serves to remind us why his Presidency marked the low tide stain for the modern Democratic Party and more importantly, why his bid for reelection was rejected by the American people. The naiveté of his recent statements are perfectly consistent with the simplicity that he exhibited during his Presidency. Unlike Gore, Carter isn’t lashing out over sour grapes, he just doesn’t know any better. Truthfully, I had always held that I liked Jimmy Carter personally. I think he is one of the few Presidents that followed his heart. Hid did what he believed was right; however, his idea of right did not serve the nation well and as much as he is an honorable man, he did not possess the necessary qualities that a modern nation demands of a President.
Now we have John Kerry. Kerry is only one of a long list of Massachusetts politicians that is quite popular in the liberal rat’s nest of Massachusetts but has failed miserably on a national level. Kerry comes from a wealthy family (Forbes) and married into a wealthier one (Heinz). Like so many born to wealth, the political scene was alluring to Kerry as he drooled at the thought of testing out all of the Socialist theories he had learned in Yale. After all, the lives of the general population are only pawns for wealthy socialists to play with and if they are wrong and their policies ruin the nation, they still have their fortune to escape with. It is all an exercise in theory for them.
Kerry had served in the United States Navy during Viet Nam. Assigned to a swift boat in what veteran’s call “the brown water navy”, Kerry was reportedly injured in combat several times and was decorated for bravery. Kerry had requested early release in January of 1970, for the purpose of running for Congress that fall and was discharged in March of that year. Rather than running for Congress, Kerry decided to join the anti-war movement after his release from the Navy and had made a number of high profile appearances as a decorated war veteran opposed to the war. Of course Kerry had to go just a bit too far and while speaking out against the war ended up denigrating the President, the nation and even his fellow sailors in the process. This would prove to be a critical mistake later in life.
Kerry did run for Congress in 1972 but that bid would fail as Kerry's younger brother Cameron and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely were found in the basement of the opposition’s campaign headquarters. Charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit grand larceny", the two fenced with the courts for a year with the case being eventually being dismissed a year later but not before Kerry lost the election.
After completing law school and embarking on a brief career in law, Kerry was eventually elected to the position of lieutenant governor of Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis in 1982 and then to the United States Senate in 1985. In 2004, Kerry decided to run for President. During his campaign, a group of swift boat veterans protested his candidacy and brought his service record and military honors under severe criticism citing inconsistencies in the recorded events. Statements Kerry made during earlier “anti-war” interviews resurfaced in which he admitted that he tried to avoid combat by asking for duty with the swift boats which up till then had been used only for coastal patrols. Of course his voting record as one of the most liberal progressives in Congress was too much for main street America and only served to seal his fate. His 2004 bid for the Presidency with running mate John Edwards, ended in a close but failing race with Bush beating Kerry by only 2% of the popular vote at a time when Bush was also wildly unpopular.
Now that Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons and Obama is facing harsh criticisms from other world leaders for vacillating in the face of Iran’s refusal to obey international law, John Kerry is stepping to the foreground for his fifteen minutes of fame again. He is demanding more negotiations with Iran even though negotiations have only proven to allow Iran the time continue the development of nuclear arms without fear of reprisal. In fact, Kerry tried to arrange a visit to Tehran to speak with Iranian officials as if to say that he can do alone, what the current administration in its entirety could not. Apparently, Iran can spot an elitist publicity hound faster than the people of Massachusetts can and denied access to Mr. Kerry.
John Kerry should accept that outside of the “People’s Republic of Massachusetts”, no one really cares what he thinks. For that matter, we really don’t care what any of the political figures that Massachusetts has cursed the nation with has to say about much of anything. If things continue as they are, we are going to see a lot more liberals stamping their feet in the press and on the news shows after the 2010 election send many of them home so I guess we should thank Gore and Kerry for preparing us. It only goes to show that old politicians never die, they just smell like it.
Paul
Monday, January 4, 2010
Will the 2010 Elections be Enough?
I wonder if the 2010 elections will be enough. After all, it seems like anyone we have ever sent to Congress have all succumbed to the same disease. It’s as though power is a virus to which there is no immunity or cure. Even those that have been rejected still seek that alluring aroma of power. In addition to the great and near great, there is that whole undercurrent of real power players; the dark overlords that hold the strings of our political puppets. They live in the shadows and create grand strategies for power on a global scale using the greed of our politicians to achieve their nefarious goals. To them, Congress is but a small outpost and the Presidency is a mere pawn in a much larger game.
After all, who benefits from the legislation that this historically liberal administration has passed or proposed? The bank bailout was passed because the banking system appeared to be on the verge of collapse and that would have stalled the Progressive’s agenda for years. In fact, the banks couldn’t have been nearly as damaged as they first appeared since many of them raced to pay back the TARP money as soon as they found out that the executive salaries of companies that received TARP money would be severely curtailed. Instant liquidity…isn’t that amazing! Of course Freddie and Fanny are the exception and in fact, are seeking hundreds of billions more but then again, they have been latched on to the public teat for years.
Then we have healthcare legislation. It’s been changed at a least a half dozen times, the last two times, behind closed doors and hidden from all but a select few. Still, the proponents argue that we don’t have to debate this bill any more since it has already been in debate for months. Well the general issues may have, but the substantive changes made by Harry Reid and the President’s staff haven’t and most of our illustrious Senators had never been granted the courtesy of even seeing the manager’s amendment (Reid’s work) until after they were forced to vote on it.
The biggest winner would be the Federal government. It is no secret that the Progressives in Congress are still pursuing the utopian dreams of FDR through the socialization of America. Medicare and Medicaid were bankrupting the Federal government just as the opponents of these programs said they would back in 1965. Of course there was the “fix” in 1968 that placed Social Security “on budget” then robbed the assets from the trust fund to cover the shortages in Medicare/Medicaid and now all three of these programs are broke. If healthcare does not pass, the government may have to concede failure and admit their gross mismanagement; something that does not help the cause of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party that wants more and more radical social programs, not fewer.
It is clear that Andy Stern and SEIU played a major part in crafting at least some of the provisions in this bill so I would have to say they are also one of the big winners if this and several other major bills pass. Under this bill, the only hospitals that are eligible to receive funds for nurse training are those that are unionized. The President already signed an Executive Order earlier this year giving union contractors preference in government contracts with a value of $25 million or more and that is clearly another bone for Andy boy. At least we know some of the reasons that Andy Stern had visited the White House nearly two dozen times since Obama’s inauguration.
There is also proposed legislation for a brand new amnesty program for illegal immigrants. SEIU has admitted that substantial portions of its membership are so-called “undocumented workers” (illegal immigrants) and “POOF”, Congress proposes legislation to make that all better for our good friend Andy. Why is it that people employing illegal immigrants are subject to fines and/or jail but unions can represent those same illegals with impunity? Andy Stern is clearly one of those people behind the scenes with global aspirations and he is using his membership’s dues to fund the political campaigns of anyone that will help him achieve those goals. Quoting a page from the Communist Manifesto, Stern said in an interview that “Workers of the world unite is no longer a slogan”, it is what Stern and the SEIU believe their future is. A global union poised to represent a global workforce in a world dominated by a global government.
One of the displaced power mongers is Al Gore. Gore was so close to becoming President in 2000 that he still has the taste of inaugural champagne in his mouth. I suspect that is what keeps Al Gore on center stage shouting about climate change while the rest of the world reads how scientists conspired to corrupt the data and hide the proof that there is no such thing as global warming.
Al Gore actually resides in both camps and in addition to his unsatisfied appetite for power, has a mercenary reason for his love of climate change. He is heavily invested in a software company that would become a key provider in greenhouse gas tracking software that would be required under cap and trade. If this draconian legislation passes, Gore and the rest of his investment group would become billionaires. Gore’s investment company is also heavily involved with the Chicago climate exchange; North America’s only private exchange for carbon credits as well as five other so-called, greenhouse gases. Gore is not alone; a certain university professor that preferred to teach Saul Alinsky theory (Barack Obama) was also involved in the creation of the Chicago exchange and so was Maurice Strong. Who is Maurice Strong?
Maurice Strong is a Canadian ex-patriot and petroleum entrepreneur who was president of Power Corporation until 1966. Strong was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the early 1970’s before becoming the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. Strong is also one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations’ involvement in world affairs and most of his recent affairs reflect those beliefs.
Strong also chaired the U.N.’s University for Peace, an international education chartered through the UN and able to grant masters and doctoral degrees. The educational programs are centered around the peace and security objectives of the United Nations so I am sure that there is a great deal of emphasis on global governance. The University of Peace also offers short courses to non-registered students on subjects that include the undeniably Socialist curriculum of Nonprofit Leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility, Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector, and Educating in the 21st Century. We wouldn’t want them to miss the opportunity to co-opt the unfortunate stooges that can’t afford the regular tuition, now would we?
Strong was one of the heads that rolled in 2005 during the U.N.’s “oil for food” scandal. Oil for Food was a program that was ultimately found to be laced with corruption as U.N. officials were accused of taking bribes to mold the program to favor Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. A check for nearly a million dollars was found to have been issued from a Jordanian Bank made out to an “M. Strong” and hand delivered by South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park. The check was ultimately endorsed by Maurice Strong who was then, The U.N. Envoy to South Korea. Amid the scandal, Strong stepped down from his position saying he would sideline himself “until the cloud was lifted” but Strong was never returned to his former position.
Maurice Strong is one of the increasing numbers of people with questionable ties to the United Nations that is considered an environmentalist. Of course! After all, Socialist radicals had already identified the environmental movement as the key vehicle to achieve their goals. He began his involvement during the first Earth Day in 1970 and has been tinkering around with it ever since. In fact, Strong was one of the architects of the first UN climate conferences held in Stockholm. Titled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet”, the conference clearly endorsed the need for a global authority because the threat of man-made climate change is international.
Of course in 1971, the climate panels in the UN were screaming “Ice Age” and the impending crisis was that man’s pollution was cooling the globe so much so that much of the northern hemisphere would be under a mile of ice by the end of the century. One would think that the cry of “wolf” back then would have discredited the climate alarmists for good but they apparently have too much invested in this strategy to let something like a failed climate theory stop them now.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Strong never did return to Canada. He now resides in Beijing China and has been orchestrating his climate chaos from there. Another curious thing is that if the United States enacts cap and trade and the other European powers sign on to the U.N.’s treaty on climate; that would leave China in a very strong position to be the next emerging Super Power as the West’s economic situation atrophies. Naw; it’s just a coincidence that Strong lives in China now in a gated community with armed guards protecting the entrances.
Paul
After all, who benefits from the legislation that this historically liberal administration has passed or proposed? The bank bailout was passed because the banking system appeared to be on the verge of collapse and that would have stalled the Progressive’s agenda for years. In fact, the banks couldn’t have been nearly as damaged as they first appeared since many of them raced to pay back the TARP money as soon as they found out that the executive salaries of companies that received TARP money would be severely curtailed. Instant liquidity…isn’t that amazing! Of course Freddie and Fanny are the exception and in fact, are seeking hundreds of billions more but then again, they have been latched on to the public teat for years.
Then we have healthcare legislation. It’s been changed at a least a half dozen times, the last two times, behind closed doors and hidden from all but a select few. Still, the proponents argue that we don’t have to debate this bill any more since it has already been in debate for months. Well the general issues may have, but the substantive changes made by Harry Reid and the President’s staff haven’t and most of our illustrious Senators had never been granted the courtesy of even seeing the manager’s amendment (Reid’s work) until after they were forced to vote on it.
The biggest winner would be the Federal government. It is no secret that the Progressives in Congress are still pursuing the utopian dreams of FDR through the socialization of America. Medicare and Medicaid were bankrupting the Federal government just as the opponents of these programs said they would back in 1965. Of course there was the “fix” in 1968 that placed Social Security “on budget” then robbed the assets from the trust fund to cover the shortages in Medicare/Medicaid and now all three of these programs are broke. If healthcare does not pass, the government may have to concede failure and admit their gross mismanagement; something that does not help the cause of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party that wants more and more radical social programs, not fewer.
It is clear that Andy Stern and SEIU played a major part in crafting at least some of the provisions in this bill so I would have to say they are also one of the big winners if this and several other major bills pass. Under this bill, the only hospitals that are eligible to receive funds for nurse training are those that are unionized. The President already signed an Executive Order earlier this year giving union contractors preference in government contracts with a value of $25 million or more and that is clearly another bone for Andy boy. At least we know some of the reasons that Andy Stern had visited the White House nearly two dozen times since Obama’s inauguration.
There is also proposed legislation for a brand new amnesty program for illegal immigrants. SEIU has admitted that substantial portions of its membership are so-called “undocumented workers” (illegal immigrants) and “POOF”, Congress proposes legislation to make that all better for our good friend Andy. Why is it that people employing illegal immigrants are subject to fines and/or jail but unions can represent those same illegals with impunity? Andy Stern is clearly one of those people behind the scenes with global aspirations and he is using his membership’s dues to fund the political campaigns of anyone that will help him achieve those goals. Quoting a page from the Communist Manifesto, Stern said in an interview that “Workers of the world unite is no longer a slogan”, it is what Stern and the SEIU believe their future is. A global union poised to represent a global workforce in a world dominated by a global government.
One of the displaced power mongers is Al Gore. Gore was so close to becoming President in 2000 that he still has the taste of inaugural champagne in his mouth. I suspect that is what keeps Al Gore on center stage shouting about climate change while the rest of the world reads how scientists conspired to corrupt the data and hide the proof that there is no such thing as global warming.
Al Gore actually resides in both camps and in addition to his unsatisfied appetite for power, has a mercenary reason for his love of climate change. He is heavily invested in a software company that would become a key provider in greenhouse gas tracking software that would be required under cap and trade. If this draconian legislation passes, Gore and the rest of his investment group would become billionaires. Gore’s investment company is also heavily involved with the Chicago climate exchange; North America’s only private exchange for carbon credits as well as five other so-called, greenhouse gases. Gore is not alone; a certain university professor that preferred to teach Saul Alinsky theory (Barack Obama) was also involved in the creation of the Chicago exchange and so was Maurice Strong. Who is Maurice Strong?
Maurice Strong is a Canadian ex-patriot and petroleum entrepreneur who was president of Power Corporation until 1966. Strong was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the early 1970’s before becoming the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. Strong is also one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations’ involvement in world affairs and most of his recent affairs reflect those beliefs.
Strong also chaired the U.N.’s University for Peace, an international education chartered through the UN and able to grant masters and doctoral degrees. The educational programs are centered around the peace and security objectives of the United Nations so I am sure that there is a great deal of emphasis on global governance. The University of Peace also offers short courses to non-registered students on subjects that include the undeniably Socialist curriculum of Nonprofit Leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility, Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector, and Educating in the 21st Century. We wouldn’t want them to miss the opportunity to co-opt the unfortunate stooges that can’t afford the regular tuition, now would we?
Strong was one of the heads that rolled in 2005 during the U.N.’s “oil for food” scandal. Oil for Food was a program that was ultimately found to be laced with corruption as U.N. officials were accused of taking bribes to mold the program to favor Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. A check for nearly a million dollars was found to have been issued from a Jordanian Bank made out to an “M. Strong” and hand delivered by South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park. The check was ultimately endorsed by Maurice Strong who was then, The U.N. Envoy to South Korea. Amid the scandal, Strong stepped down from his position saying he would sideline himself “until the cloud was lifted” but Strong was never returned to his former position.
Maurice Strong is one of the increasing numbers of people with questionable ties to the United Nations that is considered an environmentalist. Of course! After all, Socialist radicals had already identified the environmental movement as the key vehicle to achieve their goals. He began his involvement during the first Earth Day in 1970 and has been tinkering around with it ever since. In fact, Strong was one of the architects of the first UN climate conferences held in Stockholm. Titled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet”, the conference clearly endorsed the need for a global authority because the threat of man-made climate change is international.
Of course in 1971, the climate panels in the UN were screaming “Ice Age” and the impending crisis was that man’s pollution was cooling the globe so much so that much of the northern hemisphere would be under a mile of ice by the end of the century. One would think that the cry of “wolf” back then would have discredited the climate alarmists for good but they apparently have too much invested in this strategy to let something like a failed climate theory stop them now.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Strong never did return to Canada. He now resides in Beijing China and has been orchestrating his climate chaos from there. Another curious thing is that if the United States enacts cap and trade and the other European powers sign on to the U.N.’s treaty on climate; that would leave China in a very strong position to be the next emerging Super Power as the West’s economic situation atrophies. Naw; it’s just a coincidence that Strong lives in China now in a gated community with armed guards protecting the entrances.
Paul
Friday, January 1, 2010
Will we rediscover the tenth amendment in 2010?
2010 is finally here and now the real fun begins. I predict that Congressional Progressives and Barack Obama will engage in a full court press to force as much of their agenda through as possible before the mid-term election throws a roadblock in front of them. Expect even more underhanded, closed door sessions; more legislation crafted in the dark recesses of the Capitol building and passed on weekend nights. Expect Congressman that block Obama’s progress to face more threats and personal attacks and most of all, expect the main stream media and the White House to denigrate and dismiss any public opposition to their relentless march into Socialism.
We already know that once people have become a dependent on the State, they will vote for anyone that promises to keep the benefits coming. As it already stands, only 53% of Americans actually pay taxes leaving 47% that pay no taxes at all and many actually receive money from the government in welfare or earned income credits. As the scale tips and more Americans become recipients instead of tax payers, the prospect of an election that is actually based on what is good for the nation will dwindle as well. If the trend to socialize our nation isn’t stopped now, it will never be stopped and the United States will consume itself with the inevitable debt only to be absorbed into the growing body of formerly great western powers that are embracing Socialist policies just to avoid anarchy.
Europe’s major nations have already created the European Union to try to stave off financial ruin. They have also signed their own death warrants by becoming signatories to a ruinous climate treaty based on the premise of global warming; the same global warming that has been recently been uncovered as a hoax. The IPCC, CRU and extremist environmental groups, all under UN guidance, are apparently partners in this charade to force nations into a global cooperative that will eventually become the governing body of the planet; or at least that is what they had hoped for.
If we fall pray to the fallacy of global warming, we will face the same destructive events within our own economy and industrial base that Europe has. We have already witnessed the real agenda of the global warming crowd. Oh, I almost forgot. They renamed this created crisis “Climate Change” since the predictions of rising planetary temperatures never happened. In fact, the receding ice packs at the polar caps have recovered and the earth has been logging a drop in annual average temperatures since the year 2000. Regardless, the agenda is clear now that the third world has issued its ransom note to the tune of $200 billion a year.
You see, the United Nations master plan for climate change involves the West’s industrial nations shutting down entire industries to cap the production of greenhouse gas while simultaneously contributing to a global fund to help developing nations create their own industries. Curiously, this is a recipe for the redistribution of not only the West’s wealth, but the West’s ability to create wealth. They haven’t been able to describe just how this benefits the environment since the ability to pollute and create greenhouse gasses is not actually curbed, but sold to the highest bidder.
Then there is the unwillingness of the Obama administration to accept that the threat of massive new taxes and government regulations is the straight jacket that brought our economy to a halt. They have proposed and passed a so-called stimulus bill to try to jump start the economy but the abject waste of money that the program is accused of has stimulated little except some cushy little projects in the States of favored Congressmen. In fact, the stimulus spending has been distributed to areas represented by faithful Democrats by a factor of three to one over areas of the country that are represented by Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats. Even though those areas are suffering higher unemployment than those of the Party faithful, they are receiving little or no assistance.
Another little surprise we can expect in 2010 is a push to pass yet another amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) proposed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (HR 4321). The bill is sponsored by Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and is co-sponsored by 92 additional Democrats, all of which are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus or both but that really isn’t a surprise, is it?
This bill not only helps with Obama’s little problem that he lied about covering illegal immigrants under the healthcare bill (after all, they aren’t illegal anymore if they have been granted amnesty) but if passed, this bill would make the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country immediately eligible to apply for public education and social service programs previously restricted to American citizens or lawful émigrés. The proponents of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 don’t actually say how this is supposed to provide America with security and prosperity we are already struggling to preserve. In fact, I would bet the rent that granting amnesty to people that have already broken the law just to be illegal immigrants can only bring America additional insecurity and more financial burden.
Consider the eventuality that at least part of those amnestied millions will eventually become registered stooges for the Democratic Party. Add that to the upcoming census that will re-write electoral districts once again in the most blatant display of gerrymandering since the 1960’s and there is a clear movement in progress to stack the political deck for generations to come.
The last opportunity for the people of this nation to seize our Constitutional authority over the civilian government will be the November elections. We must wrest control of at least the House from the hands of this oligarchy or the 2012 elections may be as meaningless as the most recent elections in Afghanistan or Iran. In fact, a divided Congress would restore the intent of the separation of powers and force them to finally work together instead of rolling over each other like steam rollers.
I am not a demagogue nor am I an ideologue. I believe there can be good and beneficial ideas in all political camps of a constitutionally sound America. What I firmly believe is the partisan politics we see now is devastating to the future of our nation and when one Party controls all; nothing of value ever comes out of the monopoly of power. The best recipe to cure our ills is to eliminate the cause of the problem. Let's face it, if the Parties have to win our support to proceed, we all win.
First: career politicians have been corrupted by the D.C. machine and must be retired. We will never have the civilian government the founding fathers envisioned for us if we allow our Representatives and Senators to hold office for decades. There must be term limits imposed on Congress. The power of incumbency is too powerful and the mechanism that ensures unlimited campaign funds for those that are willing to sell their souls to special interests cannot be stopped through the electoral process alone.
Second: meetings and other communication between lobbyists and Congressmen must all be made public. It is the back room discussions and golf course deals that breed corruption and it would be very interesting to see just how much the legislative process can change when the transcripts of those meetings, e-mails and phone calls begin appearing in the Congressional record.
Third: we must elect only those individuals that are willing to prune the Federal tree; cutting away years of public neglect and eliminating the tangled mess of dead branches that have been strangling everything it comes into contact with. Our country cannot recover as long as the Federal government is allowed to grow unchecked and in fact, it must be reduced in size until it fits into the box it came in. The Federal government has exceeding its Constitutional authority in ninety percent of what it has been doing and until the States and the people can reclaim their dominance over our government, nothing good can happen. This is the year we must be clear in our goals and unified in our direction. We cannot divide the vote among factions within our own movement or all will be lost.
Paul
We already know that once people have become a dependent on the State, they will vote for anyone that promises to keep the benefits coming. As it already stands, only 53% of Americans actually pay taxes leaving 47% that pay no taxes at all and many actually receive money from the government in welfare or earned income credits. As the scale tips and more Americans become recipients instead of tax payers, the prospect of an election that is actually based on what is good for the nation will dwindle as well. If the trend to socialize our nation isn’t stopped now, it will never be stopped and the United States will consume itself with the inevitable debt only to be absorbed into the growing body of formerly great western powers that are embracing Socialist policies just to avoid anarchy.
Europe’s major nations have already created the European Union to try to stave off financial ruin. They have also signed their own death warrants by becoming signatories to a ruinous climate treaty based on the premise of global warming; the same global warming that has been recently been uncovered as a hoax. The IPCC, CRU and extremist environmental groups, all under UN guidance, are apparently partners in this charade to force nations into a global cooperative that will eventually become the governing body of the planet; or at least that is what they had hoped for.
If we fall pray to the fallacy of global warming, we will face the same destructive events within our own economy and industrial base that Europe has. We have already witnessed the real agenda of the global warming crowd. Oh, I almost forgot. They renamed this created crisis “Climate Change” since the predictions of rising planetary temperatures never happened. In fact, the receding ice packs at the polar caps have recovered and the earth has been logging a drop in annual average temperatures since the year 2000. Regardless, the agenda is clear now that the third world has issued its ransom note to the tune of $200 billion a year.
You see, the United Nations master plan for climate change involves the West’s industrial nations shutting down entire industries to cap the production of greenhouse gas while simultaneously contributing to a global fund to help developing nations create their own industries. Curiously, this is a recipe for the redistribution of not only the West’s wealth, but the West’s ability to create wealth. They haven’t been able to describe just how this benefits the environment since the ability to pollute and create greenhouse gasses is not actually curbed, but sold to the highest bidder.
Then there is the unwillingness of the Obama administration to accept that the threat of massive new taxes and government regulations is the straight jacket that brought our economy to a halt. They have proposed and passed a so-called stimulus bill to try to jump start the economy but the abject waste of money that the program is accused of has stimulated little except some cushy little projects in the States of favored Congressmen. In fact, the stimulus spending has been distributed to areas represented by faithful Democrats by a factor of three to one over areas of the country that are represented by Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats. Even though those areas are suffering higher unemployment than those of the Party faithful, they are receiving little or no assistance.
Another little surprise we can expect in 2010 is a push to pass yet another amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) proposed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (HR 4321). The bill is sponsored by Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and is co-sponsored by 92 additional Democrats, all of which are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus or both but that really isn’t a surprise, is it?
This bill not only helps with Obama’s little problem that he lied about covering illegal immigrants under the healthcare bill (after all, they aren’t illegal anymore if they have been granted amnesty) but if passed, this bill would make the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country immediately eligible to apply for public education and social service programs previously restricted to American citizens or lawful émigrés. The proponents of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 don’t actually say how this is supposed to provide America with security and prosperity we are already struggling to preserve. In fact, I would bet the rent that granting amnesty to people that have already broken the law just to be illegal immigrants can only bring America additional insecurity and more financial burden.
Consider the eventuality that at least part of those amnestied millions will eventually become registered stooges for the Democratic Party. Add that to the upcoming census that will re-write electoral districts once again in the most blatant display of gerrymandering since the 1960’s and there is a clear movement in progress to stack the political deck for generations to come.
The last opportunity for the people of this nation to seize our Constitutional authority over the civilian government will be the November elections. We must wrest control of at least the House from the hands of this oligarchy or the 2012 elections may be as meaningless as the most recent elections in Afghanistan or Iran. In fact, a divided Congress would restore the intent of the separation of powers and force them to finally work together instead of rolling over each other like steam rollers.
I am not a demagogue nor am I an ideologue. I believe there can be good and beneficial ideas in all political camps of a constitutionally sound America. What I firmly believe is the partisan politics we see now is devastating to the future of our nation and when one Party controls all; nothing of value ever comes out of the monopoly of power. The best recipe to cure our ills is to eliminate the cause of the problem. Let's face it, if the Parties have to win our support to proceed, we all win.
First: career politicians have been corrupted by the D.C. machine and must be retired. We will never have the civilian government the founding fathers envisioned for us if we allow our Representatives and Senators to hold office for decades. There must be term limits imposed on Congress. The power of incumbency is too powerful and the mechanism that ensures unlimited campaign funds for those that are willing to sell their souls to special interests cannot be stopped through the electoral process alone.
Second: meetings and other communication between lobbyists and Congressmen must all be made public. It is the back room discussions and golf course deals that breed corruption and it would be very interesting to see just how much the legislative process can change when the transcripts of those meetings, e-mails and phone calls begin appearing in the Congressional record.
Third: we must elect only those individuals that are willing to prune the Federal tree; cutting away years of public neglect and eliminating the tangled mess of dead branches that have been strangling everything it comes into contact with. Our country cannot recover as long as the Federal government is allowed to grow unchecked and in fact, it must be reduced in size until it fits into the box it came in. The Federal government has exceeding its Constitutional authority in ninety percent of what it has been doing and until the States and the people can reclaim their dominance over our government, nothing good can happen. This is the year we must be clear in our goals and unified in our direction. We cannot divide the vote among factions within our own movement or all will be lost.
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)