Commentary by James Shott
We have learned more about the standoff in Nevada between a rancher and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and most of the new information comes from the government side. We knew right off the bat that Cliven Bundy has refused to pay fees for about 20 years to graze his cattle on land first grazed on by his grandfather more than 130 years ago, now restricted by the federal government. We knew that the BLM sent approximately 200 heavily armed agents to take Mr. Bundy’s cattle because of his fee debt to the government.
Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is Senate Majority Leader, apparently asserts that the Bundy family are lawbreakers because they have refused to pay grazing fees, and that justifies whatever action the BLM decides to take against the family. But not everyone agrees with the government’s actions, and hundreds of Americans came to the ranch to stand with the Bundy family against what they believe is unacceptable and intolerable action from the BLM. These people Sen. Reid has ridiculously characterized as “domestic terrorists.”
When you apply a little conscious thought to this situation, which Sen. Reid probably didn’t, what the Bundy family and their supporters are doing is participating in the age-old and venerated activity called “civil disobedience.” It’s not different from what occurred during the Civil Rights Movement, or what our ancestors did at the Boston Tea Party in 1773. I wonder if Sen. Reid thinks those folks were domestic terrorists?
Rational folks think the Tsarnaev brothers who killed and injured several people at the Boston Marathon last year are domestic terrorists, and the Army doctor who killed 13 at Fort Hood is a domestic terrorist. Does Sen. Reid?
Declaring that the action against the Bundy family is not over, he told a Reno TV station “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and just walk away from it.”
Apparently, his idea of what constitutes law breaking is as foggy and duplicitous as his idea of domestic terrorism. He wants lowly citizens to obey the laws, but looks the other way when government agencies and officials don’t. President Barack Obama routinely breaks laws, like ignoring and modifying some of the decrees of the Affordable Care Act, which we are endlessly reminded is “the law of the land.” He selectively chooses which immigration laws to enforce, and circumvents the Congress with Executive Orders. But we hear nothing about that from Majority Leader Reid.
Nor does he think it important to follow the real law of the land, the US Constitution, and bring an annual budget up for the Senate to vote on, as the Congress is required to do by Article I. He also sits on his hands when bureaucrats in the Obama administration refuse to respond to requests for documents from Congressional committees charged by the Constitution with oversight of administrative agencies.
And, he has not voiced opposition to the over-the-top behavior of the heavily armed agents of the Bureau of Land Management against citizens of his own state. The Bundy family has been subjected to heavy-handed roundup practices that have injured calves, slaughtered cows and bulls and buried them in mass graves, damaged water system equipment, and torn down fences. That was not a part of the government plan, we are told. And, of course, the foolish and dangerous idea that 200 militarily equipped troops needed to respond to a case of overdue fees, the collection of which is usually assured through a lien on property.
You might also think that Nevada’s Senator would at some point consider standing up for the interests of the people he represents, who inexplicably keep returning him to office, and oppose federal control of a huge majority of the state’s land. According to the Nevada Policy Research Institute, the federal government owns or controls 86 percent of the land in Nevada and 89 percent in Clark County, where the Bundy ranch is located.
“The tight federal grip on this land is causing economic harm — and, in many cases, genuine hardship — to local developers, workers, renters and would-be homeowners,” author Charles F. Barr wrote in the Executive Summary of a 2007 study titled “The Federal Land Stranglehold.” The situation has changed little since then.
Watching the outrageous response of the BLM to the Bundy situation, one wonders if whomever thought up this plan imagined it would be sensible and appropriate to point “assault weapons” at citizens and threaten them for doing no more than protesting a government action; attempt to restrict their free speech to “First Amendment Areas”; seize and kill privately owned cattle, and destroy fencing and watering systems?
That person should first be disciplined, perhaps fired, and even prosecuted, along with the BLM agents who imposed this heavy-handed outrage on citizens of the United States.
We can no longer allow government wrongdoers to indulge in improper and/or criminal behavior with impunity. Unless we begin very soon to hold to account those who abuse their positions and abuse the people they are paid to serve, what once was “the land of the free” will no longer be.
Cross-posted from Observations
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
The Senate Must Demand Answers from Harry Reid and President Obama,. Any that don't will add to their defeat in November
America's outrage grows and well it should! America is a nation built on the principle of due process!
Investigations into last weeks heavy handed actions by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to remove privately owned cattle from government managed range land have lead to allegations that Harry Reid and the Obama administration have conspired to defraud the American public by cutting a secret deal with a Chinese energy company associated with the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone to use the property as an Offset for environmental mitigation purposes.
This Too Must Be Investigated
These are very serious charges, an abuse of power in the highest order, the evidence is substantial.
200 heavily armed Federal agents being dispatched against a citizen is beyond tolerable, bringing these troops against an American in order to facilitate a secret, potentially illegal agreement with a foreign, government controlled, company, it is an act of treachery against Americans in the highest order.
This Chinese company is alleged to have received American Tax Payer stymulious money also.
If true, Reid and the Senators that support him must be held to account. Obama too.
Investigations into last weeks heavy handed actions by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to remove privately owned cattle from government managed range land have lead to allegations that Harry Reid and the Obama administration have conspired to defraud the American public by cutting a secret deal with a Chinese energy company associated with the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone to use the property as an Offset for environmental mitigation purposes.
 |
| Americans Under Siege from a Rouge Government |
These are very serious charges, an abuse of power in the highest order, the evidence is substantial.
200 heavily armed Federal agents being dispatched against a citizen is beyond tolerable, bringing these troops against an American in order to facilitate a secret, potentially illegal agreement with a foreign, government controlled, company, it is an act of treachery against Americans in the highest order.
This Chinese company is alleged to have received American Tax Payer stymulious money also.
If true, Reid and the Senators that support him must be held to account. Obama too.
 |
| Yesterday's Flower Children Became today's Bloomin' idiots |
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Reidin’, Rightin’, and ‘Rithmetic
Commentary by James Shott
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave a speech on the Senate floor last week where he said this about the disastrous implementation of the Affordable Care Act: "Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue."
This abjectly stupid remark ignores the problems millions of the people Harry Reid serves as Majority Leader have encountered at the hands of this Democrat-created nightmare, some of them with life-threatening consequences.
Some say he really was alluding to claims made in ads paid for by the Koch brothers, about which he specifically commented shortly after that major gaffe, claiming the Kochs are trying to “buy America” through Americans for Prosperity, a 501(c)(4) started by David Koch and Richard Fink.
He believes that the Koch brothers are the single greatest threat to liberty, “spending hundreds of millions of dollars telling Americans that Obamacare is bad for them.”
However, Koch Industries donated less than $3 million in the 2012 election cycle, earning 77th place on the Top Donor List of OpenSecrets.org. Americans for Prosperity is reported to have spent $40 million, but does not appear on the Top Donor List.
Top Donor organizations ahead of Koch Industries include: the National Education Association, #5 at $14.7 million; the United Auto Workers, #8 at $13.3 million; the American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, #10 at $11.4 million; the AFL-CIO, #14 at $9 million; and the Service Employees International Union, #18 at $6.6 million. Ten more labor unions beat Koch Industries in spending. Organized labor is “buying America” to a much larger extent than Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity combined.
Harry Reid misleads us on political spending, and lied to us during the 2012 campaign about Mitt Romney having paid no taxes for 10 years. He epitomizes the sordid aspects of partisan politics, and simply cannot be believed.
*****
On May 5, 2010 Latino students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California turned out to celebrate their Mexican heritage on Cinco de Mayo.
When some American students showed up at school wearing American-flag shirts, school officials ordered the American students to turn their shirts inside-out or go home, to avoid a repeat of the unrest that had occurred during past observances of this date.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the action of school officials.
So, when students from Mexico attending American schools want to flaunt their Mexican-ness in the face of the American students by waving Mexican flags on a Mexican holiday, and some American students decide to show their patriotism by wearing American flag shirts, the school authorities believe that the American students are wrong, and the Mexican students are right, and a federal court agrees with them.
Disgusting!
Whacky, radical rulings like this one have earned the Court the nickname, “The 9th Circus.” The Mexican students should not be allowed to stir up sentiments by waving a foreign flag around to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. If they prefer Mexico to the U.S., perhaps they should just go back.
*****
Congressman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, has produced a tax reform plan based upon three years of hearings and discussions with bi-partisan groups.
Hardly anyone who pays taxes will argue against reforming this overly complex system. The last round was in 1986, and at that time the tax code was more than 26,000 pages. Thirty years later, the tax system is a incoherent mess that negatively affects prosperity, job creation and investment, and is regulated by a tax code that has nearly tripled in size to roughly 75,000 pages.
Each year the tax code gets further complicated with more special interest loopholes, credits, and carve-outs.
Rep. Camp would make several changes to the code, like eliminating loopholes, reducing tax rates, whittling down the current seven tax brackets to three, and lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent, the highest in the industrialized world, to 25 percent.
In those 75,000 pages are goodies for numerous interests, and they will scream bloody murder if their special goody is on the chopping block. The Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore notes that we can “expect the White House to lambast this plan as a ‘tax cut for the rich,’ but the evidence from history shows that lower tax rates are usually associated with higher overall tax receipts and more taxes paid by the rich. In the 1980s after two rounds of Reagan tax rate reductions, income tax receipts doubled, and the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent rose as the economy expanded.”
This plan simplifies the tax code by allowing millions of tax filers a larger standard deduction, meaning they don’t need to itemize and can use the EZ form. For those who do itemize, the mortgage and charity deductions remain.
While the Camp plan isn’t perfect, and produced quite a few knee-jerk criticisms, it has many advantages, and is certainly a good start toward finally transforming the current tax code into something that is sensible and easy to understand. Let’s hope Congress has the courage to follow through.
Cross-posted from Observations
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave a speech on the Senate floor last week where he said this about the disastrous implementation of the Affordable Care Act: "Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue."
This abjectly stupid remark ignores the problems millions of the people Harry Reid serves as Majority Leader have encountered at the hands of this Democrat-created nightmare, some of them with life-threatening consequences.
Some say he really was alluding to claims made in ads paid for by the Koch brothers, about which he specifically commented shortly after that major gaffe, claiming the Kochs are trying to “buy America” through Americans for Prosperity, a 501(c)(4) started by David Koch and Richard Fink.
He believes that the Koch brothers are the single greatest threat to liberty, “spending hundreds of millions of dollars telling Americans that Obamacare is bad for them.”
However, Koch Industries donated less than $3 million in the 2012 election cycle, earning 77th place on the Top Donor List of OpenSecrets.org. Americans for Prosperity is reported to have spent $40 million, but does not appear on the Top Donor List.
Top Donor organizations ahead of Koch Industries include: the National Education Association, #5 at $14.7 million; the United Auto Workers, #8 at $13.3 million; the American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, #10 at $11.4 million; the AFL-CIO, #14 at $9 million; and the Service Employees International Union, #18 at $6.6 million. Ten more labor unions beat Koch Industries in spending. Organized labor is “buying America” to a much larger extent than Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity combined.
Harry Reid misleads us on political spending, and lied to us during the 2012 campaign about Mitt Romney having paid no taxes for 10 years. He epitomizes the sordid aspects of partisan politics, and simply cannot be believed.
*****
On May 5, 2010 Latino students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California turned out to celebrate their Mexican heritage on Cinco de Mayo.
When some American students showed up at school wearing American-flag shirts, school officials ordered the American students to turn their shirts inside-out or go home, to avoid a repeat of the unrest that had occurred during past observances of this date.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the action of school officials.
So, when students from Mexico attending American schools want to flaunt their Mexican-ness in the face of the American students by waving Mexican flags on a Mexican holiday, and some American students decide to show their patriotism by wearing American flag shirts, the school authorities believe that the American students are wrong, and the Mexican students are right, and a federal court agrees with them.
Disgusting!
Whacky, radical rulings like this one have earned the Court the nickname, “The 9th Circus.” The Mexican students should not be allowed to stir up sentiments by waving a foreign flag around to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. If they prefer Mexico to the U.S., perhaps they should just go back.
*****
Congressman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, has produced a tax reform plan based upon three years of hearings and discussions with bi-partisan groups.
Hardly anyone who pays taxes will argue against reforming this overly complex system. The last round was in 1986, and at that time the tax code was more than 26,000 pages. Thirty years later, the tax system is a incoherent mess that negatively affects prosperity, job creation and investment, and is regulated by a tax code that has nearly tripled in size to roughly 75,000 pages.
Each year the tax code gets further complicated with more special interest loopholes, credits, and carve-outs.
Rep. Camp would make several changes to the code, like eliminating loopholes, reducing tax rates, whittling down the current seven tax brackets to three, and lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent, the highest in the industrialized world, to 25 percent.
In those 75,000 pages are goodies for numerous interests, and they will scream bloody murder if their special goody is on the chopping block. The Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore notes that we can “expect the White House to lambast this plan as a ‘tax cut for the rich,’ but the evidence from history shows that lower tax rates are usually associated with higher overall tax receipts and more taxes paid by the rich. In the 1980s after two rounds of Reagan tax rate reductions, income tax receipts doubled, and the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent rose as the economy expanded.”
This plan simplifies the tax code by allowing millions of tax filers a larger standard deduction, meaning they don’t need to itemize and can use the EZ form. For those who do itemize, the mortgage and charity deductions remain.
While the Camp plan isn’t perfect, and produced quite a few knee-jerk criticisms, it has many advantages, and is certainly a good start toward finally transforming the current tax code into something that is sensible and easy to understand. Let’s hope Congress has the courage to follow through.
Cross-posted from Observations
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Another important American tradition is under attack by the left
A filibuster is a lengthy speech used in the U.S. Senate to delay or block legislative action, a mechanism with a long history.
The U.S. Senate Website explains that, “In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.”
Senate rules have permitted a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.
The filibuster, thought by some to be an unconstitutional, unfair, historical relic, is thought by others to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And only eight years ago prominent Democrats loudly defended the filibuster and lambasted the Republican majority for suggesting an end to it.
In 2005, then-Senator and now-President of the United States Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said, “What [the American people] don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”
During the same debate then-Minority Leader and current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a ‘procedural gimmick.’ … No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new. The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history. … It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail. … And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government. Separation of Power. Checks and Balances. Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.”
Other notable Democrats also supported the filibuster, which is known as "The Soul of the Senate." Joe Biden, then-Senator and now Vice President of the United States, former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senator Diane Feinstein were part of the opposition. In the end, the idea of changing the rules was abandoned.
But that was then. Last week the Senate Democrat majority changed the very rule it so strongly defended in 2005.
In their assault on this well respected legislative device they strongly defended in 2005, when the majority shoe was on the other foot, the majority party changed it for presidential appointments, which now require only a simple majority. Their excuse: Republicans did not agree with the president’s nominations for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and administrative agency appointments.
The National Center for Policy Analysis opines that in addition to judicial positions “the change will almost certainly result in more confirmations of presidential nominees – for example, the 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board tasked with controlling health care spending.” Which is interesting, given the potential for this issue to have been brought forth to distract the nation’s attention from the Obamacare debacle.
In 1975 the Democrat majority of the Senate reduced the majority vote needed to end a filibuster from two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). Now it’s just 51 votes.
Senate Democrats decided that if they can’t get their way playing by decades-old rules, they could just change them. Yes we can!
It is important for the Senate to debate appointments so that people who are not qualified or whose agenda is narrow and ideological can be identified and defeated. That is precisely why the filibuster exists: to prevent the presidency from becoming a monarchy. Given the performance of the IRS, the NSA, the State Department’s gross failure in Benghazi, and the destructive actions of the EPA, there is more than enough evidence to warrant closely examining and perhaps blocking some of this president’s appointments.
Democrats like this new arrangement with a Democrat in the White House but, God willing, that won’t always be the case. The ability of a president to put questionable and even unqualified people on the federal bench and at the head of federal agencies just became much easier.
The Founders saw the dangers of a tyrannical majority party and built in safeguards to insure that Congress’ activities would be slow and difficult. Senate Democrats substantially gutted those safeguards a second time.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Harry Reid "seriously" hopes Republicans aren't racists
Harry
Reid, the Democrat Senator from Nevada who is the Majority Leader of
the US Senate said this about Congressional Republicans opposition to
President Obama in an interview yesterday:
“It’s been obvious that they’re doing everything they can to make him fail. And I hope, I hope — and I say this seriously — I hope that’s based on substance and not the fact that he’s African-American.”
Republicans are the ones who appointed the first two African-Americans to serve as Secretary of State (Colon Powell and Condoleezza Rice), elected the first African-American to the US Senate (Tim Scott), and appointed an African-American as US Ambassador to the UN (Alan Keyes) and the US Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas), to name a few African-Americans who have served their country as Republicans.
So I say to Harry – and I say this seriously – I hope your idiotic statement is based upon your being severely addled when you said that and not the fact that you are a complete and utter idiot.
“It’s been obvious that they’re doing everything they can to make him fail. And I hope, I hope — and I say this seriously — I hope that’s based on substance and not the fact that he’s African-American.”
Republicans are the ones who appointed the first two African-Americans to serve as Secretary of State (Colon Powell and Condoleezza Rice), elected the first African-American to the US Senate (Tim Scott), and appointed an African-American as US Ambassador to the UN (Alan Keyes) and the US Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas), to name a few African-Americans who have served their country as Republicans.
So I say to Harry – and I say this seriously – I hope your idiotic statement is based upon your being severely addled when you said that and not the fact that you are a complete and utter idiot.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
FOR OUR COUNTRY
By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle
Stolen From Texas Fred
Sent to Texas Fred (One of the finest patriots I have the pleasure to know.) this scared me. It should scare you into action. Feel free to pass it on.
***********************************************************************************
From: John Porter
To: Americans everywhere
This election is too important to ignore, to be complacent, to "forget" to vote. We need everyone to go out to the polls. If you know of a person who needs a ride to the polls, give it to him or her.
Feel free to "Steal" this from me. Pass this warning along.
Monkey in the Middle
Stolen From Texas Fred
Sent to Texas Fred (One of the finest patriots I have the pleasure to know.) this scared me. It should scare you into action. Feel free to pass it on.
***********************************************************************************
From: John Porter
To: Americans everywhere
I was sitting at my keyboard halfway through my writing a letter to you about how Barack Obama was fulfilling his pledge to “Transform America” by “Changing the fundamentals of America”, so that our government would become the plantation, he the owner, and we the slaves, when this article by Steve McCann appeared in my in box. After checking it for accuracy, and finding it so, I put my writing on hold and here present it to you, for I could not say it better.
…Is it already too late?*************************************************************************************
Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans
The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama’s first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of “transforming America ” in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.
The most significant accomplishment of Obama’s first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.
During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama-worshiping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.
For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they “shall” do something and more than 200 times when they “may” take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the “Secretary determines.” In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.
The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation’s financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.
Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.
None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.
It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.
Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago- style political tactics.
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.
The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.
Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g., the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department (DoJ) has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.
Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.
Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term, but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.
The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the Founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.
What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them.
Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships
This election is too important to ignore, to be complacent, to "forget" to vote. We need everyone to go out to the polls. If you know of a person who needs a ride to the polls, give it to him or her.
Feel free to "Steal" this from me. Pass this warning along.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Email from Ramadi and New Veto of Iraq Bill
Cross Posted from Wake up America
[Updates Below]
This email follows the email I just posted about from Dave Thul in Al Asad Iraq concerning Appeal from Courage formally presenting their Appeal for Redress in support of our mission in Iraq, to members of Congress today.
I am starting with words from the frontline by a man who used to think we should cut and run like hell, until he got there. From the Buzz Blog, hat tip to Take Our Country Back via the Victory Caucus Forums.
Also in todays news, directly related to these words of our frontline military members, and Congress and the Senate's complete indiference to our military's words, we have yet another bill being proposed by Congress that will be vetoed, they know this, as they did with the last bill and yet they proceed to waste the time and the money, once again.
Hat Tip to Capatin's Quarters for bringing us Robert Gates, Baghdad Reid's, Carl Levin's and Steny Hoyer's previous words against this new bill that is being proposed.
Gates:
Baghdad Reid:
Levin:
Hoyer:
These political games being played by Congress and the Senate are seriously hindering our efforts and it is clear to anyone watching, here or abroad that the Democrats and the far left are doing everything in their ability to lose this war on terror for America.
Captain Ed doesn't see this latest brainstorm gaining any traction:
I am not sure the Democrats care much about flip flopping but he could be right, we will have to see.
In the meantime Pelosi, our Darling Damascus Diva is threatening to sue Bush:
Although later in the article it points out that this has been tied before with other presidents and has failed.
Probably won't stop her from trying and honestly, I would love to see Pelosi laughed out of court for such an action, further showing the world that she is incompetent and foolish as well as ignorant of how these things work.
In yet another piece we find that Pelosi is also treading on thin ice with one of her beloved "earmarks" or "pork":
Media Bias at work here?
[Update] Other good news coming from Iraq:
Read the rest!!!! Perhaps someone should hand deliver these reports to Pelosi and her merry band of surrenderers.
.
[Updates Below]
This email follows the email I just posted about from Dave Thul in Al Asad Iraq concerning Appeal from Courage formally presenting their Appeal for Redress in support of our mission in Iraq, to members of Congress today.
I am starting with words from the frontline by a man who used to think we should cut and run like hell, until he got there. From the Buzz Blog, hat tip to Take Our Country Back via the Victory Caucus Forums.
A friend of mine sent this to me. It’s from his brother Major Michael Rountree, M.D. who is currently stationed in Ramadi, Iraq. Oh by the way, Major Rountree voted for Al Gore in 2000.
“Back from seeing patients- thought you might be interested in my war thoughts-
This war IS winnable irrelevant of what the ridiculous media say. I have not met one person here who thought otherwise, though I’ve met a lot disgruntled people because it is all on us in the Army. This war is more like fighting crime in New York- you don’t wake up one day and say “hey- its over!’. You gradually reduce the numbers to a livable level. We are fighting criminals here, not soldiers.
When I volunteered I came to treat Americans in what I thought would be similar to the last days of Vietnam. But since living here 4 months, I have completely changed my mind. I dont believe we should pull out, and I don’t think we need to. We can win, and will, given time and enough men to act as police do in the cities.
Anyway- thought youd be interested in a surprising opinion from the front lines, one I never expected to have. Tell anyone who claims differently that they are just plain wrong.
Mike
Also in todays news, directly related to these words of our frontline military members, and Congress and the Senate's complete indiference to our military's words, we have yet another bill being proposed by Congress that will be vetoed, they know this, as they did with the last bill and yet they proceed to waste the time and the money, once again.
MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, Kan., May 9 -- President Bush would veto the new Iraq spending bill being developed by House Democrats because it includes unacceptable language restricting funding, White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday morning.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Snow said of the bill: "There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill."
Hat Tip to Capatin's Quarters for bringing us Robert Gates, Baghdad Reid's, Carl Levin's and Steny Hoyer's previous words against this new bill that is being proposed.
Gates:
And Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate committee that such short-term funding would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to repair and replace equipment. The Defense Department, he said, just doesn't "have the agility to manage a two month appropriation."
Gates also told the Senate Defense Appropriations panel that if the military begins to see progress in Iraq later this fall, including political reconciliation within the Iraqi government, the U.S. could begin withdrawing troops.
Baghdad Reid:
Asked if he would back a proposal floating around the House of Representatives to fund the war for just three months as a compromise to the war funding dispute, Reid said, "I personally don't support that."
Levin:
“I don’t think that’s the best approach,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) said Friday. “I think it’s too close to the end of the fiscal year for that.”
Senate Democratic aides also downplayed the chances that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would agree to try to pass short-term funding bills for the war, noting that it likely would tie the Senate floor in knots and prevent Reid from bringing up other Democratic legislative priorities...
Hoyer:
Many senators, as well as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), say they’re not inclined to support a two-month supplemental.
“There are a lot of ideas being discussed, and Mr. Hoyer personally feels that at this time he doesn't see that particular option moving forward,” said Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Farnen Bernards.
These political games being played by Congress and the Senate are seriously hindering our efforts and it is clear to anyone watching, here or abroad that the Democrats and the far left are doing everything in their ability to lose this war on terror for America.
Captain Ed doesn't see this latest brainstorm gaining any traction:
I don't see this option gaining too much traction, not without these Democrats having to publicly reverse themselves within a few weeks of these statements. The sure way to look weak and vacillating is to start flip-flopping all over the place while our troops run out of money on the front lines, and they certainly can't afford to do that while making Bush look even stronger through another veto.
I am not sure the Democrats care much about flip flopping but he could be right, we will have to see.
In the meantime Pelosi, our Darling Damascus Diva is threatening to sue Bush:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.
Although later in the article it points out that this has been tied before with other presidents and has failed.
In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.
In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.
The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.
Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits.
Probably won't stop her from trying and honestly, I would love to see Pelosi laughed out of court for such an action, further showing the world that she is incompetent and foolish as well as ignorant of how these things work.
In yet another piece we find that Pelosi is also treading on thin ice with one of her beloved "earmarks" or "pork":
When Dennis Hastert was accused of profiting from congressional earmarks last year, media went into a front-page frenzy over "corruption." With Nancy Pelosi now in the same spot, it's a back-page story.
In case you haven't heard, and maybe you haven't, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. It's pork barrel spending, yes, but more than that.
Republicans are crying foul because the federal cash for port improvements and the bill's provision for Pier 35 cruise ship dockage all benefit a toney area of San Francisco — one where Pelosi's husband just happens to own real estate about a mile away.
His properties are close enough to benefit from the inflow of federal cash to the area — and from the added business the new development will bring. At the very least, the question should be raised because he definitely has friends in high places.
To be fair, Pelosi's earmark is going to a touristy area near Coit Tower, where plenty of San Francisco's movers and shakers could potentially benefit from the trough's offerings, too. Given the small size of San Francisco, maybe it's impossible to avoid conflicts.
But that's just it. When the last House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, made a $2 million profit from selling land almost six miles from a highway project he secured a $200 million earmark for in 2005, the outcry was loud about how he might have served himself.
The media ran front-page stories on it for days and television commentators harrumphed about public corruption — the GOP kind.
Now that Democrat Pelosi has secured an earmark for some land a mere 5,400 feet from her husband's property, there are no front-page stories. But there should be, because this isn't the first time she's been noticeably helpful to her own interests.
A few months ago, Pelosi wrote a provision into a minimum wage law that exempted American Samoa from its costs to businesses. The exemption benefited Starkist, whose Del Monte headquarters is in Pelosi's district. Like this pork issue, that story dropped from the news like a dead fish.
As far as we can tell, only the Associated Press and New York Post have reported the story, and local papers are asleep. Much of the media has tucked the lonely AP story onto their back pages for appearances' sake. But in practical terms, this story will drop from the pier fast and sink without notice.
Maybe Pelosi did something wrong and maybe she didn't. Were phone calls made from Union Street lobbyists, or were deals cut at The Palm? Is there something about the law that makes it impossible to follow? We don't know because the media aren't on it.
The one thing we do know is that the media shows one standard of coverage for charges made against Republicans and another standard for Democrats.
With Pelosi on the hot seat this time, this news probably will get deep-sixed. It shouldn't.
Media Bias at work here?
[Update] Other good news coming from Iraq:
Sheiks sign peace agreement[Update #2] The Good News From Iraq just got better, thanks to Bill Roggio:
TIKRIT — In an effort to end tribal conflicts that have been occurring for decades, the paramount sheiks from the Karki and Shimouri tribes signed a peace agreement at the home of the Mujema tribal leader in Diyala province, Monday.
Sheik Thaer Ghadban Ibrahim, Karki paramount sheik, and Sheik Ahmad Abdullah Hassooni, Shimouri paramount sheik, have been meeting for the past three months to work out grievances between tribes.
By signing the agreement, the tribes promised to “consolidate and unify to battle all insurgents that penetrate among [their] tribes.”
“The people have no confidence in the terrorists’ ways and ultimate goals for death and destruction,” said Col. David W. Sutherland, 3rd Brigade Combat Team commander and senior U.S. Army officer in Diyala. “This initiative and agreement by the tribes shows their commitment to their people, this country’s stability, and a positive vision for the future.”
Specifics of the agreement include freeing previous kidnapped victims and stopping all kidnapping and killing operations; stopping indirect-fire attacks; providing the Iraqi police any members of their tribes which may be linked to insurgent groups; supporting the Iraqi army and police against terrorists; and resolving farming issues among the tribes.
“We are all with you against the terrorists,” Ahmed said.
After signing the agreement, Thaer and Ahmad placed their hand on the Koran to signify their commitment to the peace agreement.
Within the upcoming months, more paramount sheiks are expected to meet and come to similar agreements toward peace.
The Anbar Salvation Council, the group of tribal leaders and former Sunni insurgents, continues to expand its base of support in the Sunni community both inside Anbar province, and beyond. Sam Dagher of the Christian Science Monitor reports on a major development in Anbar province. The Anbar Salvation Council, led by Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Rishawi, has turned the Albu Fahd tribe against al Qaeda. The Albu Fahd was one of the six original Anbari tribes to support al Qaeda and its Islamic State in Iraq. These six tribes are known in some military intelligence circles as the "Sinister Six". The Albu Fahd [described as the Bu-Fahed] has now joined the Anbar Salvation Council and pledged to throw its weight behind the fight against al Qaeda.
"Winning over the Bu-Fahed tribe was a coup," said Mr. Dagher, who covered the tribal meeting where the Albu Fahd moved into the camp of the Anbar Salvation Council. "It had been one of Al Qaeda's staunchest supporters, and traces its lineage to the birthplace of the puritan form of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism in the Saudi Arabian province of Najd. It formally threw its lot behind Sheikh Abdel-Sattar Abu Risha."
As of last September, the leadership of 25 of the 31 Anbari tribes were cooperating with the government under the aegis of the Anbar Salvation Council, while six folded under the black banner of al Qaeda in Iraq's Islamic State......
Read the rest!!!! Perhaps someone should hand deliver these reports to Pelosi and her merry band of surrenderers.
.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
After Veto, Democrats Still Pitching Defeat and Surrender
Cross Posted with Permission from Right in a Left World
After telling Democrats for months that any bill for funding our Troops containing an artificial deadline would be swiftly vetoed, President Bush did just that.
As if taken by surprise, Democrat party leaders acted surprised and even though they had previously said they wished to desired to negotiate with Republicans, they are lined up with new plans for surrender and defeat in the War on Terror after failing to garner enough votes to override the veto.
Harry Reid (D. Nv), infamous now for his “the war is lost” gaffe, says, "No one wants out of Iraq more than I do," adding, "There is nothing off the table -- including timetables, benchmarks, waivers from the president, waivers from the secretary of defense. ... Nothing." Reid continues to insist on a Troop pullout.
Dick Durbin, (D.Ill), famous for the labeling of our Troops as Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regime fame (since apologized for) says, "If we're not going to hold the overall administration accountable, let's at least hold the Iraqis accountable."
Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.), newly coronated Queen of the House, said, "The goal is obviously to strengthen our military, to support our troops, to honor our promises to our veterans, to hold the Iraqis accountable so that we can end this war, to bring stability to the region, to turn our attention to the War on Terror."
HELLO, Ms. Pelosi, Iraq is the War on Terror. It is but one battle in the over all war and we can expect many more before we crush this radical Jihadist movement threatening world peace. We can expect them especially considering the Democrat party’s irresponsible comments and actions that embolden our enemies by telegraphing a date certain our Troops will be forced to cut and run
John Edwards (D. NC), who would not acknowledge there actually is a War on Terror by raising his hand in response to a question posed to participants in the recent Democrat debates, proposes a unique method of ending any stalemate and funding our Troops now in Harm’s Way. His proposal: “They ought to do another bill, funding the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal and send it back. If he vetoes that one, then they ought to do it again.”
That’s right. Edwards wants to just keep sending the same thing back time and time again!
Even before President Bush vetoed the excessively flawed bill, Jack Murtha (D. Pa) of Marines killed Haditha civilians in cold blood fame and House Defense Appropriations Chairman advocates funding the Troops two months at a time. House Defense appropriator Jim Moran (D. Va.) said a two-month bill is intended to keep troops funded without giving the president too much latitude.
That’s right, tie everybody’s hands behind their backs while fighting for our freedom and facing the most gruesome enemy they have ever had to face.
John Kerry (D. Ma) of "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq" fame says, "By vetoing this bill, the President is ignoring the majority in both the House and Senate who voted to end the disastrous open-ended Bush policy by setting a sensible deadline for the redeployment of troops," adding, “No matter how many times the President vetoes this plan, we will continue to fight for a new policy."
There is no “new policy,” just the same old cut and run, retreat and surrender he advocated during Viet Nam, helping to bring about the disastrous result the world saw there.
Hillary Clinton (D. NY) of ‘vast right winged conspiracy’ fame teams up with Robert Byrd (D. WV) of World War Two Ku Klux Klan heroism fame, jointly are proposing legislation requiring the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the resolution granting authority to reengage Iraq. Says Clinton, "If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him."
Obviously, she has forgotten when she said, “I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security,” on NBC's "Meet The Press," September 15, 2002.
Patty Murray (D. Wa) of ‘Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers’ chimed in with, “I thought that we had given the president an opportunity to have a very strong tool to go back to Iraq and say, ‘You need to stand up and take responsibility for your country.’”
Has she missed the deaths to Iraqis who succumb to suicide bombers outside of Police and Army recruitment offices in Iraq? And yet, they keep coming to sign up. Perhaps she missed the Sunni Muslim sheikhs joining the US in fighting Al Qaeda.
Most telling in all this defeatist rhetoric we have come to see from the Democrat party is Neil Abercrombie (D. Hi), chairman of the Air and Land Forces Armed Services subcommittee recommendation of cutting $867 million from the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Abercrombie said, “The Army is in trouble. This situation requires dramatic action to prevent further decay … over the next two years.”
Somehow, I just fail to grasp the logic of cutting funds for combat systems to prevent further decay of the Army during war.
Lew
UPDATE 1: AS Democrats pitch surrender and defeat, Iraqis align themselves with President Bush. Bottom Line Upfront, Amy Proctors Blog: Iraq Opposes Troop Withdrawal; Parliament Will Not Recess
UPDATE 2: AKI, ADNKRONOSinternational reports IRAQ: NEW CARTEL JOINS ANTI AL-QAEDA FRONT
Tell us again, Senator Reid, how we have lost the war!
A huge Thank you to Lew for permission to cross post this in full.
Please head over to his site and look around, he has some wonderful pieces with great analysis.
.
After telling Democrats for months that any bill for funding our Troops containing an artificial deadline would be swiftly vetoed, President Bush did just that.
As if taken by surprise, Democrat party leaders acted surprised and even though they had previously said they wished to desired to negotiate with Republicans, they are lined up with new plans for surrender and defeat in the War on Terror after failing to garner enough votes to override the veto.
Harry Reid (D. Nv), infamous now for his “the war is lost” gaffe, says, "No one wants out of Iraq more than I do," adding, "There is nothing off the table -- including timetables, benchmarks, waivers from the president, waivers from the secretary of defense. ... Nothing." Reid continues to insist on a Troop pullout.
Dick Durbin, (D.Ill), famous for the labeling of our Troops as Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regime fame (since apologized for) says, "If we're not going to hold the overall administration accountable, let's at least hold the Iraqis accountable."
Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.), newly coronated Queen of the House, said, "The goal is obviously to strengthen our military, to support our troops, to honor our promises to our veterans, to hold the Iraqis accountable so that we can end this war, to bring stability to the region, to turn our attention to the War on Terror."
HELLO, Ms. Pelosi, Iraq is the War on Terror. It is but one battle in the over all war and we can expect many more before we crush this radical Jihadist movement threatening world peace. We can expect them especially considering the Democrat party’s irresponsible comments and actions that embolden our enemies by telegraphing a date certain our Troops will be forced to cut and run
John Edwards (D. NC), who would not acknowledge there actually is a War on Terror by raising his hand in response to a question posed to participants in the recent Democrat debates, proposes a unique method of ending any stalemate and funding our Troops now in Harm’s Way. His proposal: “They ought to do another bill, funding the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal and send it back. If he vetoes that one, then they ought to do it again.”
That’s right. Edwards wants to just keep sending the same thing back time and time again!
Even before President Bush vetoed the excessively flawed bill, Jack Murtha (D. Pa) of Marines killed Haditha civilians in cold blood fame and House Defense Appropriations Chairman advocates funding the Troops two months at a time. House Defense appropriator Jim Moran (D. Va.) said a two-month bill is intended to keep troops funded without giving the president too much latitude.
That’s right, tie everybody’s hands behind their backs while fighting for our freedom and facing the most gruesome enemy they have ever had to face.
John Kerry (D. Ma) of "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq" fame says, "By vetoing this bill, the President is ignoring the majority in both the House and Senate who voted to end the disastrous open-ended Bush policy by setting a sensible deadline for the redeployment of troops," adding, “No matter how many times the President vetoes this plan, we will continue to fight for a new policy."
There is no “new policy,” just the same old cut and run, retreat and surrender he advocated during Viet Nam, helping to bring about the disastrous result the world saw there.
Hillary Clinton (D. NY) of ‘vast right winged conspiracy’ fame teams up with Robert Byrd (D. WV) of World War Two Ku Klux Klan heroism fame, jointly are proposing legislation requiring the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the resolution granting authority to reengage Iraq. Says Clinton, "If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him."
Obviously, she has forgotten when she said, “I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security,” on NBC's "Meet The Press," September 15, 2002.
Patty Murray (D. Wa) of ‘Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers’ chimed in with, “I thought that we had given the president an opportunity to have a very strong tool to go back to Iraq and say, ‘You need to stand up and take responsibility for your country.’”
Has she missed the deaths to Iraqis who succumb to suicide bombers outside of Police and Army recruitment offices in Iraq? And yet, they keep coming to sign up. Perhaps she missed the Sunni Muslim sheikhs joining the US in fighting Al Qaeda.
Most telling in all this defeatist rhetoric we have come to see from the Democrat party is Neil Abercrombie (D. Hi), chairman of the Air and Land Forces Armed Services subcommittee recommendation of cutting $867 million from the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Abercrombie said, “The Army is in trouble. This situation requires dramatic action to prevent further decay … over the next two years.”
Somehow, I just fail to grasp the logic of cutting funds for combat systems to prevent further decay of the Army during war.
Lew
UPDATE 1: AS Democrats pitch surrender and defeat, Iraqis align themselves with President Bush. Bottom Line Upfront, Amy Proctors Blog: Iraq Opposes Troop Withdrawal; Parliament Will Not Recess
UPDATE 2: AKI, ADNKRONOSinternational reports IRAQ: NEW CARTEL JOINS ANTI AL-QAEDA FRONT
Tell us again, Senator Reid, how we have lost the war!
A huge Thank you to Lew for permission to cross post this in full.
Please head over to his site and look around, he has some wonderful pieces with great analysis.
.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Public Corruption, What to Do?
By Jim Simpson
New revelations about Republican ties to convicted influence-peddler Jack Abramoff have brought to the fore once again the unfortunate specter of public corruption as two congressmen, John T. Doolittle (R-CA) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) were forced off their respective committees when it came to light they were under FBI investigation. It is a sad and by now all too familiar story. It is also infuriating because as a former White House budget analyst, I know full well that the kind of influence peddling highlighted in the Abramoff scandals is only noteworthy because Mr. Abramoff and his conservative clients got caught.
Congressional Democrats have built this kind of influence-peddling system into a well-oiled machine. It is what keeps them going. With Republicans it is a criminal action. With Democrats it is business-as-usual. Even when caught red-handed, like Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), with $90,000 cash in his freezer, or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with his blatantly corrupt land deal, they routinely slime their way out of it. While these stories did make their way into the media, “investigative” journalists seem to lose their ardor quickly when the target is one of their beloved fellow democrats, and the stories tend to die of neglect, or as with Harry Reid, get spun in the lawmaker’s favor.
In this situation, “investigative” journalism and “aggressive” law enforcement contributes to public corruption rather than preventing it. For if one party can manage to get away with it all the time, as the Democrats do, then going after the other party can only be seen as an exercise in power politics. That is, the law becomes merely a weapon used to eliminate political opponents rather than a standard by which all public officials must live. The Democrats' media and law enforcement friends in effect have become just another extension of the party. That is endemic public corruption defined.
I know what you’re thinking. “We all know about leftist media bias; that’s a given; but federal law enforcement? Come on!” you say.
Think again. As a budgeter for law enforcement agencies in both the elder Bush and Clinton administrations, I saw daily how law enforcement agencies became slavish lap dogs for favored Congressional and Senatorial appropriators. They work hard to please and impress, and love it when one of their operations gets highlighted in the press. For example, as I argued in a 1995 Washington Times article, I believe the Branch Davidian fiasco at Waco, TX was originally caused by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ desire to impress Congress with a big bust and thereby get the budgetary attention they felt they deserved.
In that case they got more than they bargained for. But Congress spendeth and Congress taketh away. Agencies thus develop over time a symbiotic relationship with Congressmen and Senators, helping to deliver votes by hiring agents in needy districts, throwing contracts to favored states and districts, etc. This is the real pork spending and there are few components of the federal budget that are not part of it. “Okay,” you respond. “That sounds plausible. But why should federal law enforcement agencies favor Democrats? Weren’t Republicans in charge of both houses for much of the past twelve years?”
Not really. Two reasons: 1. the sad fact is that all federal agencies are disproportionately peopled by democrats, the vast majority being liberal democrats. I would guess the ratio at the very least is 80% - 20% democrat/republican. If you remove DoD, it is probably closer to 95% democrat.
This is not entirely surprising. Democrats philosophically have much greater faith in government as a vehicle for social progress than republicans. Democrats are also much more ideologically driven, and recognize that packing agencies with their own kind is a strategy in its own right. That is a reason many democrat political appointees try to hang on to executive jobs when administrations change hands. Democrats are also much more likely to use ideological tests when hiring civil servants for key positions, despite the fact that it violates federal law.
Republicans, on the other hand, have a much greater faith in American free enterprise than our democratic counterparts. Despite Howard Dean’s blatantly dishonest slur, most republicans earn their money in private business and are not predisposed in any way toward government service, except perhaps in the military. For the most part such machinations as described above wouldn’t even occur to them, and Republicans are really only just beginning to catch on to the Democrats’ game.
Second, like their agency counterparts, Democrat politicians not only believe in government as a vehicle for change, they believe it is the only vehicle for change. It is all, repeat, ALL about control. They arrogate to themselves the right to use whatever methods necessary to deliver them the power necessary. They place democrat operatives in key agency positions and fight to keep them there.
They create bureaucracies immune from budget cuts, supervision, or even significant policy changes and fight savagely to keep it that way. They send out aggressive prosecutors on witch hunts with the express goal of smearing Republican opponents, especially effective ones, like Tom Delay, for example. They sick sympathetic prosecutors on Republican presidential appointees over frivolous or invented charges, knowing that even when the charges are ultimately dropped, their adversaries have been forced to exhaust time and money resources defending themselves in court.
During the Clinton administration, Hillary even used trumped up charges against completely innocent White House travel office employees, simply so she could stock the office with friends of hers. The Travel Office for God's sake! Lifelong employees of modest incomes were forced to defend themselves against a cabal of professional hatchetmen. Where was Hillary's compassion for the little guy there?
Democrats truly believe they can do anything. They do not believe the word “corruption” can even apply to them, since, according to Marx’s famous dictum, they only recognize that morality which furthers their cause. Thus, despite their blatant cronyism, nepotism and corruption, that I would argue goes right over the border into sedition, both Bill Clinton and more recently Nancy Pelosi, boldly pronounced that they would lead “the most ethical” administration and Congress respectively, in history. I’m sure they still believe it.
Agencies work against Republicans, in sometimes subtle, other times not-so-subtle ways, because having their own party back in power usually appeals to both ideological and self-serving calculations. Even those agency leaders not ideologically predisposed to leftist policies know that Democrats are the party to please because of their organizational skills, penetration in depth of all levels of government and ruthless approach to politics. Bureaucrats know that once firmly back in the saddle, Democrats will open the money spigot in ways that would impress even the most profligate Republican spendthrift. Indeed, with their new PAYGO rules in place, and now muzzling the Congressional Research Service’s reporting on earmarks, the Democrat Congress is set up to do just that.
And while there may be corruption in both Parties today, wait and see how bad things get if the Democrats have their way and Republicans once again become an impotent minority. If you recall, it was largely Democrat corruption that finally lost them Congress the last time. Lest we forget: those corrupt Democrats who missed the axe last time are the ones in charge now.
As I said last November 8th, the 2006 elections were a disaster of epic proportions. While some Republican congressmen allowed themselves to be seduced by the system, the entire national Democrat party is corrupt beyond salvaging. With a Republican majority, we as taxpayers got a temporary reprieve from the destructive, self-serving policies always pursued and once again being prepared for us by the new majority. If the current leadership has not made this fact completely transparent to you, then either you are on drugs, or you come from another planet.
Republicans must grab the initiative and retake Congress. President Bush must come out of his rabbit hole and confront these criminals head on. We are literally tottering at the abyss.
The Democrat majority is today pulling out all the stops to destroy this administration, even if it means endangering our troops and losing a war. Meanwhile they are preparing a destructive socialist agenda to impose on us, while flagrantly engaging in the unethical behavior they so hypocritically accuse Republicans of. They are aided and abetted by a sympathetic bureaucracy, while their media cronies run interference and cover their tails.
Through it all their belligerence makes unmistakably clear that there is no room for debate, compromise or moderation. Either you are with them, or you are an outcast - an alien in your own country. With their arrogant, slanderous slurs and kleptocratic plans they inflame the very divisions their destructive policies initially created and push our entire society closer and closer to anarchy.
In an earlier draft of this article, published prematurely by mistake at New Media Journal, I wistfully suggested that the President exercise his power to declare martial law and arrest the lot of them. But that it were so. While the President does have the constitutional authority to declare martial law during times of war and insurrection, he does not appear to have the legal authority to summarily arrest members of Congress.
Too bad…
But that puts us in a real quandary. For once in his life, Al Gore was correct when he said “there is no controlling legal authority…” Who polices Congress when it runs amuck as it surely has today? Who arrests traitors using the halls of Congress to shield and facilitate their nefarious activities? Who defends us from a nationwide subversive conspiracy, coordinated by powerful politicians and Wall Street billionaires? Are we approaching that point when we will have to take matters into our own hands? To paraphrase Jefferson, will the tree of liberty have to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots? Will the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment finally come to the fore? As early Supreme Court justice Joseph Story succinctly put it (emphasis mine):
Jim Simpson is a businessman, free-lance writer and former White House staff economist and budget analyst who among other duties, oversaw budgets of Treasury Department law enforcement agencies.
New revelations about Republican ties to convicted influence-peddler Jack Abramoff have brought to the fore once again the unfortunate specter of public corruption as two congressmen, John T. Doolittle (R-CA) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) were forced off their respective committees when it came to light they were under FBI investigation. It is a sad and by now all too familiar story. It is also infuriating because as a former White House budget analyst, I know full well that the kind of influence peddling highlighted in the Abramoff scandals is only noteworthy because Mr. Abramoff and his conservative clients got caught.
Congressional Democrats have built this kind of influence-peddling system into a well-oiled machine. It is what keeps them going. With Republicans it is a criminal action. With Democrats it is business-as-usual. Even when caught red-handed, like Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), with $90,000 cash in his freezer, or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with his blatantly corrupt land deal, they routinely slime their way out of it. While these stories did make their way into the media, “investigative” journalists seem to lose their ardor quickly when the target is one of their beloved fellow democrats, and the stories tend to die of neglect, or as with Harry Reid, get spun in the lawmaker’s favor.
In this situation, “investigative” journalism and “aggressive” law enforcement contributes to public corruption rather than preventing it. For if one party can manage to get away with it all the time, as the Democrats do, then going after the other party can only be seen as an exercise in power politics. That is, the law becomes merely a weapon used to eliminate political opponents rather than a standard by which all public officials must live. The Democrats' media and law enforcement friends in effect have become just another extension of the party. That is endemic public corruption defined.
I know what you’re thinking. “We all know about leftist media bias; that’s a given; but federal law enforcement? Come on!” you say.
Think again. As a budgeter for law enforcement agencies in both the elder Bush and Clinton administrations, I saw daily how law enforcement agencies became slavish lap dogs for favored Congressional and Senatorial appropriators. They work hard to please and impress, and love it when one of their operations gets highlighted in the press. For example, as I argued in a 1995 Washington Times article, I believe the Branch Davidian fiasco at Waco, TX was originally caused by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ desire to impress Congress with a big bust and thereby get the budgetary attention they felt they deserved.
In that case they got more than they bargained for. But Congress spendeth and Congress taketh away. Agencies thus develop over time a symbiotic relationship with Congressmen and Senators, helping to deliver votes by hiring agents in needy districts, throwing contracts to favored states and districts, etc. This is the real pork spending and there are few components of the federal budget that are not part of it. “Okay,” you respond. “That sounds plausible. But why should federal law enforcement agencies favor Democrats? Weren’t Republicans in charge of both houses for much of the past twelve years?”
Not really. Two reasons: 1. the sad fact is that all federal agencies are disproportionately peopled by democrats, the vast majority being liberal democrats. I would guess the ratio at the very least is 80% - 20% democrat/republican. If you remove DoD, it is probably closer to 95% democrat.
This is not entirely surprising. Democrats philosophically have much greater faith in government as a vehicle for social progress than republicans. Democrats are also much more ideologically driven, and recognize that packing agencies with their own kind is a strategy in its own right. That is a reason many democrat political appointees try to hang on to executive jobs when administrations change hands. Democrats are also much more likely to use ideological tests when hiring civil servants for key positions, despite the fact that it violates federal law.
Republicans, on the other hand, have a much greater faith in American free enterprise than our democratic counterparts. Despite Howard Dean’s blatantly dishonest slur, most republicans earn their money in private business and are not predisposed in any way toward government service, except perhaps in the military. For the most part such machinations as described above wouldn’t even occur to them, and Republicans are really only just beginning to catch on to the Democrats’ game.
Second, like their agency counterparts, Democrat politicians not only believe in government as a vehicle for change, they believe it is the only vehicle for change. It is all, repeat, ALL about control. They arrogate to themselves the right to use whatever methods necessary to deliver them the power necessary. They place democrat operatives in key agency positions and fight to keep them there.
They create bureaucracies immune from budget cuts, supervision, or even significant policy changes and fight savagely to keep it that way. They send out aggressive prosecutors on witch hunts with the express goal of smearing Republican opponents, especially effective ones, like Tom Delay, for example. They sick sympathetic prosecutors on Republican presidential appointees over frivolous or invented charges, knowing that even when the charges are ultimately dropped, their adversaries have been forced to exhaust time and money resources defending themselves in court.
During the Clinton administration, Hillary even used trumped up charges against completely innocent White House travel office employees, simply so she could stock the office with friends of hers. The Travel Office for God's sake! Lifelong employees of modest incomes were forced to defend themselves against a cabal of professional hatchetmen. Where was Hillary's compassion for the little guy there?
Democrats truly believe they can do anything. They do not believe the word “corruption” can even apply to them, since, according to Marx’s famous dictum, they only recognize that morality which furthers their cause. Thus, despite their blatant cronyism, nepotism and corruption, that I would argue goes right over the border into sedition, both Bill Clinton and more recently Nancy Pelosi, boldly pronounced that they would lead “the most ethical” administration and Congress respectively, in history. I’m sure they still believe it.
Agencies work against Republicans, in sometimes subtle, other times not-so-subtle ways, because having their own party back in power usually appeals to both ideological and self-serving calculations. Even those agency leaders not ideologically predisposed to leftist policies know that Democrats are the party to please because of their organizational skills, penetration in depth of all levels of government and ruthless approach to politics. Bureaucrats know that once firmly back in the saddle, Democrats will open the money spigot in ways that would impress even the most profligate Republican spendthrift. Indeed, with their new PAYGO rules in place, and now muzzling the Congressional Research Service’s reporting on earmarks, the Democrat Congress is set up to do just that.
And while there may be corruption in both Parties today, wait and see how bad things get if the Democrats have their way and Republicans once again become an impotent minority. If you recall, it was largely Democrat corruption that finally lost them Congress the last time. Lest we forget: those corrupt Democrats who missed the axe last time are the ones in charge now.
As I said last November 8th, the 2006 elections were a disaster of epic proportions. While some Republican congressmen allowed themselves to be seduced by the system, the entire national Democrat party is corrupt beyond salvaging. With a Republican majority, we as taxpayers got a temporary reprieve from the destructive, self-serving policies always pursued and once again being prepared for us by the new majority. If the current leadership has not made this fact completely transparent to you, then either you are on drugs, or you come from another planet.
Republicans must grab the initiative and retake Congress. President Bush must come out of his rabbit hole and confront these criminals head on. We are literally tottering at the abyss.
The Democrat majority is today pulling out all the stops to destroy this administration, even if it means endangering our troops and losing a war. Meanwhile they are preparing a destructive socialist agenda to impose on us, while flagrantly engaging in the unethical behavior they so hypocritically accuse Republicans of. They are aided and abetted by a sympathetic bureaucracy, while their media cronies run interference and cover their tails.
Through it all their belligerence makes unmistakably clear that there is no room for debate, compromise or moderation. Either you are with them, or you are an outcast - an alien in your own country. With their arrogant, slanderous slurs and kleptocratic plans they inflame the very divisions their destructive policies initially created and push our entire society closer and closer to anarchy.
In an earlier draft of this article, published prematurely by mistake at New Media Journal, I wistfully suggested that the President exercise his power to declare martial law and arrest the lot of them. But that it were so. While the President does have the constitutional authority to declare martial law during times of war and insurrection, he does not appear to have the legal authority to summarily arrest members of Congress.
Too bad…
But that puts us in a real quandary. For once in his life, Al Gore was correct when he said “there is no controlling legal authority…” Who polices Congress when it runs amuck as it surely has today? Who arrests traitors using the halls of Congress to shield and facilitate their nefarious activities? Who defends us from a nationwide subversive conspiracy, coordinated by powerful politicians and Wall Street billionaires? Are we approaching that point when we will have to take matters into our own hands? To paraphrase Jefferson, will the tree of liberty have to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots? Will the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment finally come to the fore? As early Supreme Court justice Joseph Story succinctly put it (emphasis mine):
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them..I hope it doesn’t come to that. But corruption is a deadly disease, and when the body politic is shot through with it, a nation, even a great one like ours, cannot long survive. We will be pushed, pulled and torn apart until one of two things happens. Either a tyrant, homegrown or foreign, will seize the opportunity and take the reins of government, or the people, recognizing at last the danger, will rise up and conclusively demonstrate that an armed republic cannot be so abused.
Jim Simpson is a businessman, free-lance writer and former White House staff economist and budget analyst who among other duties, oversaw budgets of Treasury Department law enforcement agencies.
Permalink:http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/public-corruption-what-to-do.html
Trackback:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/1730080445982950213
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Allie Is Wired, stikNstein... has no mercy, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Technorati tags: politics, political corruption, influence peddling, Jack Abramoff, John T. Doolittle, Rick Renzi, Republicans, Democrats, Harry Reid, journalism, law enforcement, socialist, left, leftist, leftist media bias, bureaucracies congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
