Securing our Borders to Secure our Economy

First, how crazy are you?

I doubt any sane person believes that sleeping with their home’s front and back door wide open is wise and it is certain they wouldn’t go to work the next morning leaving their garage door open. It’s not only dangerous, the thought process involved for someone to deliberately leave their home unsecured reflects an unhealthy mind. It’s certainly no way to run a home but without adequate borders, this is what we’ve been doing with our country.

A recap of our current effort to secure our home

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was first introduced on September 13 of 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). The bill called for the construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.

Border barrier consisting of double chain link and barbed wire fences with light and infrared camera poles

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 voting “for” with 138 against. Days later, the Senate passed the bill with 80 voting “for” with 19 against. Most Republicans voted in support of the Fence Act while most Democrats voted against it. In October of 2006, President George W. Bush signed The Secure Fence Act of 2006 into law.

In January of 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border. The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.

By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.

In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced for the second time his “Finish the Fence” amendment which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.

Growing State Budget Deficits

The left continues to fail to understand that if our country does not get our borders secured, state budget deficits will continue to grow, threatening our economy and our ability to recover from the recession by further burdening taxpayers with more taxes.

For information regarding state costs of illegal immigrants and state education budget short-falls, see Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red.

The IRS is an Enabler of Illegal Immigrants

As for the left’s argument that illegal immigrants pay taxes, a recent audit by the Treasury Department found that $4.2 billion per year is handed out to illegal aliens from a program called the Child Tax Credit/Additional Child Tax Credit. The study found that the IRS did not require citizenship documentation for this tax credit. This study and others also pointed to widespread fraud involving other ‘refundable tax credits’ such as the ‘First Time Homebuyer Credit’ and the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’ which is available to low income parents, as well as identity theft involving stolen Social Security numbers.

Illegal aliens use the IRS to collect additional money from the federal government, in additional to other programs they collect from including Obamacare. The IRS should not double as a welfare program and the ‘refundable tax credit’ program should be ended entirely, but it is even more absurd for the normally strict IRS to turn a blind eye to illegal aliens collecting welfare through this system.

Governor Perry’s view on a Border Fence for America

From Julia Preston, “Some Cheer Border Fence as Others Ponder the Cost”, “The New York Times”, October 18, 2011

Perry said that building a border-length fence would take “10 to 15 years and $30 billion” and would not be cost-effective.

In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line.

The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.

Imagine, 22.4 billion to secure America. Contrasting this against the $787 billion Stimulus bill, which analysts are saying (as predicted) hasn’t stimulated squat, we then see we could have built a border around America just over 40 times. We don’t hear much of an outrage about the wasteful failure of the so-called “stimulus” but you will always hear the left whine over 22 billion because it’s too much money to spend to protect America.

Political Views Are Reflected in Brain Structure

New scientific information show liberals are able to take conflicting information and “cope” with it better than conservatives. According to the study, liberals are likely to see threatening and conflicting sets of data as opportunities to explore.

For this reader, the study sheds some light on how liberals tend to make decisions which can lead to trouble. A current case illustrating this is represented by the nation’s astronomical debt level and the inability of liberals to recognize these fiscal conditions as a threat to our nation’s well-being. For them these conditions are viewed as an opportunity to explore further, a tack that does not lead to the correct actions required by these conditions. This is further represented by their willingness to continue to spend money which exacerbates the situation further.

On the other side, conservatives recognize the situation for what it is. It is viewed as threatening or upsetting to a desired and sound state, which is fiscal responsibility sans exploratory policies (liberal adventurism) that are dangerous to the country’s well being.

The irony here which is often repeated where liberals are involved, is that while liberals see the demise of their social programs as destructive to the country, the pursuit of such policies will actually deliver to everyone what they hope to avoid.

On the contrary, following sound fiscal policies, i.e. less spending, lowered tax rates, lowered federal debt ceilings and the reduction of entitlement programs (unsustainable access to the treasury), will actually give them what we all want, which is a healthy country whose populace are not enslaved by its government. With such an environment, everyone is in a better position to realize their own potential to succeed.

Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.

Based upon the findings, it suggests liberals need to employ conservative thinking to save them from themselves. But it also sheds some light on why liberals are fond of viewing conservatives as unwilling to “progress” as they would want and why they generally view the Republican Party as the party of “No!”.

The other message here is that liberals cannot be reasoned with because they are inherently incapable of seeing the other side which is often pointing them to the error of their thinking.

The full story can be read here.

Some Elected Democrats are Abandoning their Party

Hard Lessons from Mid-Terms and National Census

The Democrat’s devastating mid-term defeat resulted in the Republicans gaining more than 60 seats in the House. The 2010 census shows that Americans also voted with their feet by abandoning Democrat controlled states in favor of states governed by Republicans or embracing more conservative policies.

What is clearly apparent is what drove voters in the mid-term election cycle. By and large their votes showed anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat attitudes. In addition, they were motivated further by concerns about the jobless recovery, lingering recession, a perceived lack of focus on job creation and preservation, as well as the perception of government overreaching (health care reform) and wasteful spending (bailouts, stimulus). While the Republican Party leadership was lacking in its conviction that it shared the same conservative viewpoint the abandonment of which angered so many conservative Americans, the Tea Party movement embraced these themes and when one looks at the incoming Republican freshman class, although not homogenous, it will generally be large, eager, and opposed to the size and intrusiveness of government.

The over-arching message given to the Democrats by the mid-terms and the census is that America in general is rejecting liberal policies which are being understood and judged as the reasons behind the bulk of the nation’s problems. The other message is that if you’re a Democrat seeking reelection, you had better find a way to distance yourself from the policies embraced by the Democrat Party to which you belong.

Conservatives in Democrat Clothing, Switching Ideology or Subverting their Enemy?

In the South, a number of Democrats elected to state offices have switched parties. At least 18 Democratic state legislators have jumped to the Republican Party and officials from both parties say more defections are likely in coming months.

While Democrats in other states are abandoning their party, most of the defections are occurring in Southern states. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas have already seen cross-overs with more being anticipated.

In Georgia, where Republicans control all state offices as well as the legislature, nine Democratic legislators—eight representatives and one senator—have changed sides, strengthening solid GOP majorities. On the local level, even a black county commissioner who was once national president of the College Democrats of America has switched.

In Texas, where officials aren’t allowed to formally change parties until January, Republicans expect to pick up two state representatives and “around a dozen” county officials, judges and commissioners, state party spokesman Chris Elam said.

With the continuing shift away from the failed ideology of the left as shown by the mid-terms and census, the exodus of elected officials who abandon their party’s policies to embrace more conservative policies of their opposition creates a new set of questions regarding their loyalty to their beliefs and about their true intentions. If we can take the outcry from the left over Bush’s Patriot Act and the silence they observe about the intrusive policies of Obama’s TSA and policies which are exacerbating economic recovery it is apparent liberals generally do not like to stick to their own principles. Movements seen by their leadership only serve to enforce that view. On the other hand, perhaps the simple explanation is that defecting Democrats are beginning to recognize the failure of their policies and are abandoning their political belief system, but I really doubt that point of view.

There is yet another point of view; the population making their way out out of the rust belt’s liberal states and into the sun belt’s conservative states may represent the very voting base causing the rust belt in the first place. After all, they’ve crapped in their bed, now they’re looking for a new place to stay.

Voting with their feet – 2010 Census shows failure of Democrat Party Policies

What the 2010 Census Is Telling Us

The results of the U.S. 2010 census have been published and it shows the growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The declining U.S. growth rate since 2000 is due partly to the economic meltdown in 2008, which brought U.S. births and illegal immigration to a near standstill compared with previous years.

The 2010 census also shows the population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states.

Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.

Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The 2010 census results are used to distribute more than $400 billion in annual federal aid and will change each state’s Electoral College votes beginning in the 2012 presidential election. The population shift will affect 18 states when the 113th Congress takes office in 2013.

For the first time in its history, Democratic-leaning California will not gain a House seat after a census.

States carried by Barack Obama VS states carried by John McCain

In 2008, President Barack Obama lost in Texas and most of the other states that are gaining House seats. He carried most of the states that are losing House seats, including Ohio and New York. In all, those that voted for Barack Obama will get half a dozen less. States that voted for John McCain in 2008 will get 6 more electoral votes in 2012 .

Looking back to the previous election, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.

Big Gains For Texas and More Lessons About Taxes

Texas’ population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

Growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

The Biggest Loser, Detroit Michigan – the showcase for leftist policies

The 2010 census shows Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade having lost .06% of its population since 2000. This report helps to explain why.

The loss means that in 2012 there will be one less lawmaker fighting for the state. It also means less money for statewide federal programs like cash assistance, education, childcare, and health care. It is without doubt that a liberal will tell you it is a time when they need the handouts the most.

Nevada gains but may lose

The state with the largest population growth was Nevada with just over 35%. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped author and then ram-rod the Health Care bill through congress, hails from Nevada. It will be interesting to see what the 2020 census will show for this state.

States with net gain in congressional seats:

* Texas, plus 4 (from 32 to 36)
* Florida, plus 2 (from 25 to 27)
* Arizona, plus 1 (from 8 to 9)
* Georgia, plus 1 (from 13 to 14)
* Nevada, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* South Carolina, plus 1 (from 6 to 7)
* Utah, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* Washington, plus 1 (from 9 to 10)

States with net loss in congressional seats:

* New York, minus 2 (from 29 to 27)
* Ohio, minus 2 (from 18 to 16)
* Illinois, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)
* Iowa, minus 1 (from 5 to 4)
* Louisiana, minus 1 (from 7 to 6)
* Massachusetts, minus 1 (from 10 to 9)
* Michigan, minus 1 (from 15 to 14)
* Missouri, minus 1 (from 9 to 8 )
* New Jersey, minus 1 (from 13 to 12)
* Pennsylvania, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)

Scientists Find ‘Liberal Gene’

Scientists at UCSD, Harvard have determined what I have suspected for a long, long, time. A given individual’s tendency to adopt liberal values with the accompanying mindset is based upon a genetic predisposition.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, ideology is affected by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.

The researchers determined that people “with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults.” However, the subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.

“It is the crucial interaction of two factors — the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence — that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.

The study was led by UCSD’s James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

“These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.

The conclusion is that without this gene, a person’s tendency to adopt conservative thinking and the accompanying values are not predisposed by genetics; they are based solely upon life experiences, observation and education. By extension, a liberal’s reasons for becoming a Democrat is based less upon these reasons, driven by their genetic predisposition.

In short, liberals can’t help themselves. In addition, there is no use in trying to reason with them as their genetic makeup prohibit them from changing their minds, which is not totally their own to change.

While this study is only the latest, there have been others, some even conducted by clinical psychiatrists who describe them as having “strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.”

Dr. Rossiter compares liberals to “spoiled, angry children,” who are rebelling against “the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

You can read about Dr. Rossiter’s research and evaluation of the liberal mind here.

The French pension system. A right or a privilege?

French Citizens take to streets to protest Sarkozy’s pension reform bill

In May and June of 2010, France’s public sector unions demonstrated against proposed legislation for pension reform.

On October 22, 2010, riot police moved in to break up a strike at an oil refinery outside Paris less that 24 hours after President Nicolas Sarkozy employed combative language in a pledge to see his pension revision to term.

French take to streets to protest pension reform... sometimes violently.

One of France’s wealthiest cities and more commonly associated with fine-dining than riots, Lyon has seen the worst violence of this week’s street protests as clashes injured two dozen people and scores more were arrested.

On Wednesday, police in the southeastern city tear-gassed about 300 youths in groups around the central Bellecour square after calling in 800 extra officers to put down what one local official called “urban guerrilla warfare.”

Youths booed and insulted Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux who visited the city to back up police trying to contain the violence that first erupted last Thursday.

Disturbances in the Paris suburb of Nanterre have also marred otherwise peaceful street protests against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plan to raise the ages for minimum and full retirement to 62 and 67 respectively, something he says is vital to rein in a soaring pension shortfall

Property damaged during protests

The need for reform threatens citizens

Martine Durand from the OECD Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Directorate to explains the basic reasons for the reforms and the protests.

Like most other OECD countries, France is facing rapid population ageing because of low fertility and longer life expectancy. This means the dependency ratio of older people – those aged 65 and over as a proportion of those aged 20-64 – will rise from 25% at present to 50% by 2050. In other words, there will be more older people, but fewer people of working age to support them.

These demographic trends are putting tremendous pressure on the French pension system, which is based on what we call a Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) distributive principle; people who are currently working pay the pensions of those in retirement. Everybody agrees that reform is necessary; if nothing is done soon, public deficits could rise by some 5% of GDP over the next 30 years. And public debt could more than double. So, without reform now, our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

There are two ways to put the PAYG system on a sounder financial footing. The first is to increase total contributions; the second is to reduce pensions. Virtually no one in France favours cuts, so we are left with raising contributions. This in turn can be achieved in two ways: by increasing the number of people at work or by raising the rate of contributions currently levied on labour, and perhaps taxes on capital too. The disagreement in France has mainly been on which path to take: the government’s reform plan puts the emphasis on extending working lives (which is one way of raising employment), while some unions have argued in favour of paying higher contributions.

France already has a high tax burden by international standards. Raising taxes or social contributions further would have a negative effect on job creation and growth, which in the end would be unhelpful to solving the pension problem. An overall strategy is needed to get more people into work. France is rather unique in the OECD as it combines both very low youth and older worker employment rates, with above average rates for prime age workers. Raising youth employment rates would help relieve the pensions burden. But a longer working life must be part of the solution. This means introducing both later retirement and reducing early retirement.

Fortunately, there is room to manoeuvre on both fronts. The current official retirement age is 60, which is one of the OECD’s lowest, yet, France also has one of the OECD’s highest life expectancies. And at 36%, France’s employment rate for 55 to 64 year olds is also one of the lowest in the OECD, whose average is 48%. Abolishing financial disincentives towards retirement beyond the legal age, while aligning the mandatory contribution periods of public servants to (the longer) private sector period, seems to me a sensible way of raising the employment rate of older workers.

The most urgent step is progressively to eliminate provisions that subsidise early withdrawal from active life – first and foremost, early retirement schemes. Too often in the past, these schemes have been used to make people redundant, while at the same time helping to reduce unemployment figures. A number of OECD countries have already taken this step, but experience shows that it is not enough. In many cases, the actual retirement age still remains two or three years below the official retirement age, because there are other provisions, such as disability benefits, that also encourage people to stop working early.

Older workers cannot be expected to hang on in the labour market if they can’t find work. Moreover, those jobs would have to be of high enough quality to encourage them to stay on. This requires a real change in attitudes all round: governments must adapt their employment policies; public employment services must meet the specific needs of older workers; measures that reduce benefit dependency and facilitate the integration of older workers in the labour market should be taken.

Employers, both private and public, must learn to view older workers as a genuine asset. They will need to eliminate discrimination against them, invest in their training, and adapt working hours and conditions to fit their needs.

But workers must also understand that early retirement is not a right, and that, unless they can afford otherwise, they must get used to working a longer career.

She had this to say about realistic expectations regarding change in their attitudes about early retirement “rights”. This change in expectations is the root of the final solution to unsustainable social programs such as government pensions.

Yes, there are some interesting recent experiences out there. Finland’s National Programme for Ageing Workers is one attempt to improve the status of older workers, with encouraging early results. More time will be needed to assess it properly, though.

In the meantime, businesses are taking initiatives of their own, with companies in Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK starting to recruit and train older workers. Even in France, a number of large firms have introduced major changes in their production processes to adapt working conditions to the particular needs of older people, making production lines more ergonomic and so on. As it turns out, these workplace improvements have also made these jobs more attractive to young people too.

How Great Britain sees it

In England, analysts look on with interest as they assess the reasons and impact of the protests. The UK’s Guardian had this to say about France’s pension system.

There is a broad consensus, and has been for at least seven years, that the French pension system is bust. In a pay-as-you-go system, too few active workers are paying for too many pensioners.

As the number of pensioners is set to increase from 15 million in 2008 to nearly 23 million in 2050, the ratio of active workers to pensioners will reduce still further. Depending on both the rate of long-term unemployment and labour productivity, the deficit in the state pension system, currently running at €32bn or 1.7% of GDP, could explode in the next decade to reach something more like 3% of GDP. That is a lot for any state to pay on pensions.

The issue is not whether this system should be reformed but how. Who is to share the pension burden? Do low-paid manual workers, women, and the disabled take an extra hit as they would under Sarkozy’s formula, or should employers and big business pay more? Why does someone who starts work at 18 have to work for longer – 44 years – before reaching the full entitlement than someone who enters the labour market at 22 with higher qualifications? The age that matters is not 62, when retirees can start drawing their pensions, but 67, when the benefit reaches its maximum. Why should poorer workers, who have shorter life expectancies, lose a higher proportion of their retirement years? Whether you are a refinery worker from Grandpuit or a dinner lady in a Marseille primary school, this is an issue worth coming out on to the streets for. Nor should this debate be wholly alien to anyone who has been following events in Britain this week. It, too, is about fairness and social justice.

President Sarkozy is hoping that a combination of a swift vote in the senate and the forthcoming All Saints’ Day national holiday will douse passions more effectively than the water cannons of his riot police. But thus far he is losing the battle for public opinion. Public support has curiously risen after a week in which fuel refineries and ports were blockaded, with 70% backing industrial action. Unions who have resisted calls for a general strike have vowed that there will be two more days of national action. And their chief demand, that the government must negotiate the reform rather than ram it through on to the statute books, is a reasonable one. With riot police yesterday behaving ever more violently with union pickets, the risk of death or serious injury on the picket lines rises by the day. Both sides could lose control, which would both weaken the unions’ case and be catastrophic for the government.

The French are not just being French. France has a lower level of inequality than most OECD countries, and is one out of only five which saw inequality decrease over the two decades to the mid-2000s. As the basic provisions of the welfare state are being rolled back all over Europe, in the name of protecting triple-A credit ratings, a cause is being fought in France which we in Britain would do well to watch carefully. The same fight could be coming here soon.

Is France heading for ruin?

International media headlines often give the impression of a country wracked by industrial conflict, driven by people complaining about threats of lost privileges who already have more privileges than those in other countries. The view is these people are going to bring France’s economy to its knees which causes some to question whether France – a world champion in strikes – is heading for ruin.

Here’s what the figures show:

Strikes: The world leader in days lost in strikes in 2009 was … Canada. Its score was 2.2 million, according to the UK journal The Economist. Next came South Africa with 1.5 million. France came third with 1.4 million. France comes top of the European league table for the period 2005-2009, according to the European Foundation for the improvement of Living and Working Conditions. But in 2008 its efforts were dwarfed by Denmark, thanks to a strike wave, one of whose demands was a 35-hour working week. The damage to the economy is not as high as might be expected, judging by statistics from 2005 when a three-week strike cut 0.05 of a point from the growth rate, according to the Finance Ministry.

Hours worked: French workers work an average of 1,453 hours a year, well below the OECD group of developed nations’ average of just over 1,700 hours a year but above Germany and Norway (1,337), Sweden (1316) and the Netherlands (1309). South Koreans work the longest hours in the OECD at 2,390 per year.

Retirement: At present French women can retire at the same age as women in Italy, South Korea, Hungary, the UK, Greece and Poland but earlier than Turks and Czechs. Men have the lowest minimum retirement age in the OECD. The government’s proposals will bring them in line with Czechs and Hungarians and raise the age that retirees can claim the full pension to 67, provided they have paid over 40 years of contributions.

GDP: France’s Gross Domestic Product has doubled in the last 20 years. It was over 2000 billion euros in 2009, according to the IMF and the World Bank. That puts it fifth in the world league table, behind the US, Japan, China and Germany and just ahead of the UK. Over the same period, there has been a 10 per cent shift of the share of GDP from salaries to profits.

Productivity: French workers’ productivity has risen five times since 1960. Although it has fallen slightly over the last two years thanks to the recession, it is expected to double again over the next 20 years. GDP per hour worked is lower than in the US and Ireland but higher than in many countries, including the UK, Germany and Japan.

Debt: France has the sixth highest public deficit in Europe in percentage terms, at 8.2 per cent. The US’s deficit reached 12.5 per cent in 2009. The debt of French households was 89.1 per cent of income in 2006, according to the OECD. In Britain and the United States that ratio stood at 168.5 percent and 139.7 percent respectively.

Unemployment: French unemployment stands at 10 per cent, the average for the eurozone. As in other industrialised countries, the figure has been pushed up by the recession but was already relatively high at 8.2 per cent in 2001. US unemployment stood at 9.6 per cent in June 2010.

France’s problem exists in America as well

The Social Security program in America faces many of the same problems facing France. Many so-called “boomers” are heading for retirement as the workforce grows older. These social programs rely upon a continual influx of new participants to pay for the benefit load and correct demographics are probably one of the most important aspects to its sustainability. There should be questions about the wisdom and long term sustainability of social programs such as France’s pension system and America’s social security system.

These systems share characteristics common to any pyramid scheme, which are often called Ponzi schemes. Bernie Madoff was sentenced to prison for 150 years for conducting what has been described as the largest Ponzi scheme in history, but governments who operate systems of their own on behalf of its people are immune to such judgment. Apparently, if you’re open about the nature of the scheme, it’s legal.

The argument for such systems is simple. They are in place to reduce or remove the economic burden an unemployed and aging population would otherwise place upon society. The irony here is that while it is believed an economic bullet can be dodged with such systems, the prospects of creating a fiscal monster are soon realized. In an attempt to avoid one fiscal burden, government creates another and perhaps an even bigger one.

The final solution

Our belief government is here to help us is our bane. In the end, it only works to enslave us to a life of government servitude.

America’s social security system should be phased out and here is how it could happen.

Those in the system would realize a degree of participation and benefits which are conditioned by a sliding schedule.

First, let’s describe what we have today. If the average American works from age 20 up to age 65, they will have been contributing to Social Security (SS) for 45 years. Since it is a pay as you go system, their benefits reflect their degree of participation. If they’ve been unemployed for 10 of those years, their benefits will reflect that.

To phase out this system, existing retirees will continue to get the same benefits they already realize. Those in the system who will retire in 10 years will realize SS benefits from 35 years of involvement. The rest of their retirement benefits will come from 10 years of investing the normally determined amount for SS which is instead applied by the future retiree into private investments similar in nature to 401k’s. The key here is that the citizen is directly (an emotionally) involved in how that money is invested.

Back to the basis for the existence of the system in the first place, in the case of bad times which causes the investment yields to fall below an acceptable level set for the sake of a “healthy society”, the government steps in to shore up the portfolio yield. It’s sort of like a citizen’s FDIC. This satiates the socialists among us and ensures the goal of the system. It is highly likely this scenario represents the exception and not the rule.

In the event the participant dies before retirement, the amount in the participant’s program is passed to the program belonging to the spouse or next of kin. If no spouse or relative, it stays in the system to be applied to other participants who cannot work (prisoners, disabled, etc.) In the event the retired participant dies before the benefits are exhausted (if designed properly, the amounts will be sufficient enough to outlast the participant) the balance is divided among the members of the immediate family.

If you’re incarcerated and therefore cannot participate in the system, well, you’re screwed, just like today. (You should have had the brains to stay out of trouble in the first place.) Seriously, benefits can come from the scenario described in the previous paragraph. I believe prisoners – all of them – should be in an on-going military boot camp environment with the goal of true reform based upon behavior modification, character and skill building after which, sentence permitting, they are released back into “the wild”.

For those who genuinely cannot work, perhaps because of mental health reasons or some other disability, benefits can come from insurance, as they do today. If family exists, it might make sense for portions of their program allocations to be applied to the investment program of the patient or disabled. Amounts can also come from participants who have died before retirement and who have no families, or who have died after retirement and who have no family to which the balance of their retirement funds would otherwise go.

For citizens who have amassed a certain level of wealth or who are just obnoxiously wealthy, well, they forfeit their deposits which are to be used to take care of those who cannot care for themselves.

Over time, government’s participation and the level of dependence upon government by each citizen should decrease. Each participant has sufficient emotional buy-in to maintain due diligence.

The Government is here to help

The belief that government is here to help always and consistently proves to be a mistake. We can look to the current economic situations of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain for evidence to that fact.

After only a few generations of receiving benefits from social programs, a populace will believe it is their birth right to have those benefits. Over time, they will want more and more and will reach a point of engaging in violent protests against the government’s reduction of benefits for any reason, but usually when its in the interest of its citizens.

For evidence to that fact, we only have to look to France, whose citizens already enjoy a 35 hour work week and who took to the streets to riot against their government’s decision to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 to maintain the sustainability of their pension system.

Government never produces wealth. It always uses wealth produced by the private sector and in this case of retirement programs, it redistributes that wealth.

What America needs is a SS system which allows for its citizens to keep the wealth they have created for themselves, with just enough help from the government to take the worry out of retirement .

So take a minute and imagine a country which has the long term goal of building wealth for its citizens who can keep that wealth for themselves and which can be passed on to their future family.

A Mosque at New York’s “Ground Zero”

Today, a New York City panel voted unanimously to reject landmark status for a building in downtown Manhattan, paving the way for its demolition — and for the construction of a 13-story, $100 million mosque near the World Trade Center site.

The Constitution of the United States (COTUS), that double-edged sword of sometimes loosely guaranteed freedoms, is used as the panel’s footing to vote unanimously for the building of the Muslim mosque.

This is a case where the COTUS works against the will of the people and for the spirit of the COTUS as defined by the vision of the document’s architects who wrote it over 200 years ago. The COTUS works to enforce separation of church (Islamic religion) and state (NYC city gov’t ). Mission accomplished.

That said, there comes a time when the definition of religion, in this case Islam, has to be closely examined and judged on its merits and its socially redeeming values to determine whether it truly qualifies as a religion in the classic sense and not a political ideology wrapped up in religious doctrine. In this case of Islam, I see it in the latter category worthy of it being outlawed. Yes, I am on a very slippery slope here but not when Islam is a cloaked political system.

Looking at it another way, the combined effect of the portion of the COTUS which applies in this case, the well established liberalism in this country and the toleration of an opposing political body which has consistently proven over time to be an enemy of democracy and whose Imams have declared a Jihad for the destruction of the West, will evolve toward the eventual destruction of this country.

To think that my great-great-grand kids may have to face Mecca 4 times a day and engage in forced prayer sickens me.

Back in October of last year and amid protests against it, Obama passed the so-called “hate crimes bill”. Eric Holder described the nature of the bill this way:

As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=114305

Now, I’m not rocket scientist and I’m certainly not the sharpest pair of pliers in this box of crayons, and ignoring the context on sexuality and instead focusing on the issue of religion-inspired speech spawning acts of violence directed against a population not sharing views of that religion, it would appear this bill would be a very nice tool to be used to defeat the plans to build the mosque and more importantly, outlaw Islam in America.

I believe Americans need to stop looking at Islam as a religion and start looking at it as a political system. It has its own laws outside of civil law of its host country called sharia law. It’s over arching goal is to usurp local and national government with the intent of replacing it with their own.

Most important, it would be child’s play to show how Islam and their imams, especially the imam who will not describe Hamas as a terrorist organization and who will be presiding over the Mosque in question, are consistent in their message to not only destroy Israel but also the West, meaning mostly America.

Now, again, I’m not the brightest hammer in the swimming pool, but if that’s not describing a hate crime, then sit me down and shut me up.

So what’s so wrong with the left?

This might give a clue.

Massachusetts may be one of the most liberal states in the U.S. today. Some would argue for alifornia and they might be right, but most would agree Massachusetts ranks right up there at or near the most liberal.

So it really is no surprise that a school board in Massachusetts unanimously votes to offer free condoms to all students in the district without parental consent, sparking national outrage.

If that weren’t outrage enough, and to show there are other states vying for that number 1 slot of “Most Liberal”, the Fayetteville, Ark., Gay Pride Parade will be led by a young man who has made a career out of fighting for gay rights. That young man is 10 years old.

So what’s so wrong with the left, anyway?

Plenty, and the above events show how sick they’ve become.

Democrat Party racism legacy

Certain liberals of late have worked hard to label Tom Tancredo as a racist. The boneless finger pointing comes as a result of recent comment which he made at a Sarah Palin gathering where he spoke to the audience. The liberals use his comments about the number of uneducated voters who cannot speak English as their evidence.

I do not support Tancredo, but I find it difficult to leap to the same conclusion. While the Dems cry long and hard, getting their panties in a wad and frothing at the mouth while casting this baseless accusation, they have no problems affiliating themselves with a political party whose legacy on racism is appalling.

If liberals actually believed in what they spew, they would distance themselves from it, but they won’t.

So, let’s look back at the Republican Party’s record.

Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments which he made. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.

Being the hypocrites they are, Democrats used the Lott affair to paint Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the Republican Party’s inherent racism. “Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are,” Senator Daschle said. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.

Makes ya wanna puke, doesn’t it?

In both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, historically and enduring even today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.

The Republican Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln who often referred to the Declaration of Independence. It can be said the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. Those principles clearly state that people have rights and that the only role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.

The Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a “positive good.” While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.

In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.

When Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.

Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the “n” word on national TV?

“Ah, but this is all in the past,” say the Democrats. “Now we push a pro-African-American agenda.” But the reality differs significantly from the claim.

Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and “in-kind” support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.

“Affirmative action” has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a “color-blind society” that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as “Uncle Toms” of “Oreos” by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.

John Murtha (D-PA), dead. Good Riddence.

THIS is a Democrat’s idea of democracy in America, 2010.

He will not be missed as his behavior represents just what is wrong with congress today. Indeed, he is a scumbag.

More Bad Science

U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in Report

Another blow is dealt to the credibility of the science community.

The head of a panel of United Nations climate scientists said Saturday he would not resign despite a recent admission that a panel report warning Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off.

The claim, made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s voluminous, Nobel-winning report, came in a paragraph with several errors. Data indicates the ice could melt by 2350. The assertion went virtually unnoticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.

The scientists are investigating how the forecast got into the report and apologized Thursday for the mistakes, adding that they were not intentional. But the errors have opened the door for attacks from climate change skeptics.

But Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the panel, said no action would be taken against the authors of the report and he would not resign.

“I have no intention of resigning from my position,” Pachauri said on Saturday, adding the errors were unintentional and not significant in comparison to the entire report. The mistakes also do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever, he said.

He added that such mistakes must be avoided because effective climate change policy depends on good, credible science. He said he is now working on the fifth IPCC assessment report dealing with sea level rise and ice sheets, oceans, clouds and carbon accounting. The report is expected by 2014.

On Sunday, the environment ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China are scheduled to meet in the Indian capital New Delhi to discuss how they will fight global warming. The four nations, which brokered a political accord with President Obama at last month’s climate summit in Copenhagen, will play a key role in shaping a legally binding climate deal that the U.N. hopes will be completed by the end of 2010 in Mexico.

Pachauri said it was “a practical necessity” to postpone a Jan. 31 deadline set by the Copenhagen accord for developing countries to present their nonbinding carbon-curbing actions, and for rich nations to submit economy-wide emissions targets for 2020.

Unprecedented Warming and Swimming in Cash

Based upon the following information, if we just sit down and shut up, we’ll be in a period of global cooling in no time at all. Cosmologically speaking, of course.

Al Gore should be ashamed of himself, but hey, he’s not a multi-millionaire (did I hear Billion?) for nothing.

I suppose then it is true that fools and their money are soon parted.

It’s not the holiday season. It’s Christmas, dammit!

Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees.

New Year’s Day
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Washington’s Birthday
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Columbus Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day

That last entry should grab everyone’s attention. Nowhere in that list is the term “Winter Holiday” or “Holiday Season”. The Federal Government, through law, has recognized Christmas.

What this means is this; if you take offense to the terms “Winter Holiday” or “Holiday Season” used as a substitute for the proper and legal term “Christmas”, you are well within your right to call it out and to express your concern.

Call it what it is; that’s what words are for. We don’t modify “Happy Hanukkah ” to “Happy Candle-lighting” for our Jewish friends.

It’s “Merry Christmas”. Oh, yea, and it ain’t no “Holiday Tree” or “Family Tree” as Lowes wants to call it a couple of years ago. Nice try, Lowes, but as you found out, trying to rename the beloved “Christmas Tree” comes with consequences.

It’s legal to call it “Christmas” or a “Christmas Tree”.

For those still feeling compelled to change it to suit them, why don’t you leave the wording to those who observe the holiday? After all, if you want to rename it, it probably wasn’t your holiday in the first place.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

NASA hiding climate data

The Washington Times is running a story about a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

Mr. Horner, a noted global warming skeptic and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he’s given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he’ll sue to compel the information’s release.

His fight mirrors one in Europe that has sprung up over the the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the UK after thousands of e-mails from the center were obtained and appear to show researchers shaving their data to make it conform to their expectation, and show efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.

The center’s chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.

The center has also had to acknowledge in response to a freedom of information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind global warming.

Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data-shaving has happened at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), another leading global warming research center.

CNN losing their base

Founded in 1980 by Ted Turner, encompassing international networks and wholesale news reports, mobile device services, a Web site, a wire service to print publications, and radio, CNN has built its business around the notion that it is delivering nonpartisan, straight news reporting.

If you were to take out the nonpartisan part, that statement would be accurate. It might have also have saved them from the dismal ratings and the accompanying future waiting for it.

MSNBC’s move to the left and Fox’s ownership of the right theoretically would give CNN a wide middle to conquer. As if to make my point about the moderate middle, or the independents who waffle between the parties, not sure where their convictions lie, that middle might be more inclined to watch Tom DeLay on “Dancing With the Stars” than on “Larry King Live.” Inreality, CNN’s audience is far from being nonpartisan.

Conservatives began to identify CNN with President Bill Clinton, in part because a president is a natural time-killer for a network on 24 hours a day, he said. They believe conservative voices are weak and outnumbered on CNN.

Liberals are suspicious about CNN because of Lou Dobbs and his anti-immigration efforts, said Karl Frisch of Media Matters. CNN points out that Dobbs’ show has become less opinionated this year. In the meantime, the Fox News Channel and the Obama administration have squabbled publicly.

The Trouble With Main Stream Media

The trouble with the MSM today is similar to what ails the Democrat Party; they don’t know what concerns Americans today. If they do, they’re ignoring it to address their own agenda.

Take the latest scandal, “Climate Gate”. Everyone knows what this is about, but only if you’ve been watching Fox News.

The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, has issued a major response to the Climategate scandal. As a result a rift has developed between the IPCC and a delegate to that organization. Sound like news? You bet, but throw out a guess as to how many MSM reporters were there.

One.

Andrew Revkin, the New York Times environmental reporter covered the story here.

With the lack ability to to determine news worthy items such as ACORN and Van Jones, deciding to not cover the global warming meltdown demonstrates the disconnect between MSM and Americans who seek information affecting their daily lives.

CNN’s Future

Reorganization within 6 months. Format change. Realignment to appeal to broader base. Anchors who throw out offending terms like “Tea Bagger” are out. Larry King is allowed to stay.

Maybe Lou Dobbs saw the writing on the wall.

UN asked to admit climate change errors

A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

The reprint of that letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14 2008, can be read here.

Term Limits For Congress – Is it possible?

The purity and effectiveness of a Congressman diminishes with time.

I believe introducing a bill to advance term limits into law is almost an impossible task. I think of it this way; all of them are up there in Washington riding the gravy train. Why would any of them want to essentially vote themselves out of office?

Don’t get me wrong. There was a time when I did not believe in term limits. Instead, I believed in our ability to get off our collective a**es and go out and vote every two fricking years. When I finally got a clue that America doesn’t care (i.e. Kennedy, the lifer ilk, et. al.), I woke up to the fact term limits are going to be the only way to save America. After all, the voters won’t.

Look at the current occupant in the White House.

Sen. Jim DeMint says Washington politicians are like fruit on the vine: the longer they hang around, the more rotten they get.

On November 10, 2009, the South Carolina Republican introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would limit Senate members to three six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms. His motive is to fix the corrupting influence of “permanent politicians“.

“As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power.” – Senator DeMint

In a grotesque way of proving his point, Senator DeMint is also running for a second term next year. History may also be working on his side. Although changes in the nation’s political mood can bring changes to Congress, incumbent senators have a high probability of reelection. One such example was seen during the opening years of the Reagan era in 1980. However, changes of this scale are very rare.

For U.S. Representatives, the rate of reelection is even better. In the preceding 22 years from 2008, an incumbent representative had a better than 90% chance for reelection for 17 of those years. With large cash reserves and name recognition, they are almost guaranteed reelection.

With the continuous reelection of the majority of incumbents, Congress has become stagnant. In the 2000 Congressional Elections, out of the 435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were considered to be able to remain holding their seats. Historically, congressional elections shift very few seats from one party to another.

The Role of Soft Money and Issue Advocacy Ads
Enacted March 27, 2002, Congressional legislators passed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to combat the growing stagnation of Congress, claiming that it would revitalize elections. The law is an ammedment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which regulates the financing of political campaigns.

The Act attempts to address two issues:

• The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
• The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as “electioneering communications” broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

“Soft money” refers to contributions made to political parties for purposes of party building and other activities not directly related to the election of specific candidates. It also refers to unlimited contributions to organizations and committees other than candidate campaigns and political parties. The Act prohibits soft money contributions to national party committees.

“Issue Advocacy Ads” are a type of advertisement that is used in political campaigns. These advertisements get their funding from soft money.

Corruption Can Undermine Incumbency Financial Advantages
With a 22:1 financial advantage over his Republican challenger Michael Flanagan, 18 term incumbent Congressman Dan Rostenkowski was defeated by 52-46 percent.
Rostenkowski spent close to $2.5 million on the election compared to the $133,000 spent by his Republican opponent. The advantage that opponent Michael Flanagan had over Rostenkowski in this case was that Flanagan wasn’t involved in a 17-count federal investigation in “misuse of personal and congressional funds, extortion of gifts and cash, and obstruction of justice.”

This example serves to show that financial advantages aren’t always related to guaranteeing reelection. It also serves to suggest that the longer a Congressman is in office the great the chance there is of becoming corrupted. Sometimes, it only takes a few years to succumb to corrupt ways.

From Hero to Convict
After Randy “Duke” Cunningham enlisted into the U.S. Navy in 1967, Cunningham and his Radar Intercept Officer, (RIO) “Irish” Driscoll became the only Navy aces in the Vietnam War, flying an F-4 Phantom from aboard aircraft carriers, and recording five confirmed kills. He was one of the early graduates of the Navy’s TOPGUN school that taught dogfighting techniques to F-4 Phantom pilots and RIOs.

Cunningham downed a MiG-17 which was supposedly piloted by North Vietnam Air Force fighter ace Col. Nguyen Toon, aka, “Colonel Tomb”. Although “Colonel Toon” was an American-manufactured myth, a North Vietnamese Air Force pilot from the 921st Fighter Regiment named Nguyen Van Coc. “Colonel Toon” was not only skilled but unorthodox, as Cunningham found out, when the Navy pilot made an elementary tactical error engaging him. The resulting dogfight became extended. Cunningham climbed steeply, and the MiG pilot surprised Cunningham by climbing as well. Remembering his TOPGUN training, Cunningham finally forced the MiG out ahead of him and destroyed it with an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile.

In 1990, Cunningham ran for the office of U.S. Representative in 44th District, one of four that divided San Diego. The district had been held for eight years by Democrat Jim Bates, and was considered the most Democratic district in the San Diego area.

Bates had held the office since 1980 and was bogged down in a scandal involving charges of sexual harassment. Cunningham won the Republican nomination in 1990 and hammered Bates about the scandal, promising to be “a congressman we can be proud of.” He won by just one percentage point, meaning that the San Diego area was represented entirely by Republicans for only the second time since the city was split into two districts after the 1960 census.

Not immune from corruption and abuses himself, Cunningham resigned from the House on November 28, 2005, after pleading guilty to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes and under-reporting his income for 2004. He pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion. On March 3, 2006, he received a sentence of eight years and four months in prison and an order to pay $1.8 million in restitution.

Congressional ethics laws prohibit members from accepting any largess over $100 per year from any one source, and only $50 at one time. Sometimes the rules are subtly skirted.

“I think the only defense he could possibly have is stupidity,” said Samuel L. Popkin, a professor of political science at University of California at San Diego, who has followed Cunningham’s career. “But he’s smart enough to know the rules — which he thinks don’t apply to him.”

A friend had another explanation: “I know what happened, and I know how it happened,” Nesby said. “It’s really very simple. In the political arena, what at first seems abnormal becomes normal. . . . It’s very easy in this environment for one to lose their moral compass.”

Weak Support For Term Limits
Obviously, to combat congressional stagnation, we cannot simply wait for a congressman to become corrupt, as inevitable as it may seem.

Term limits can be a useful tool for weeding out corrupt politicians. Judicial Watch does a great job of identifying and publishing a “top 10″ list. Their list for 2008 can be seen here.

Applying term limits to Congressmen was proposed in the “Citizen Legislature Act” (H.J.Res.73) during the 104th Congress as an amendment to the Constitution that would limit Congressmen to 6 two-year terms. This act was defeated in the House by a 227-204 margin (the 227 votes in favor were insufficient, as a proposed Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of 290 votes to be passed).

Washington watchdogs said DeMint’s bill has a zero chance of becoming law, mostly because of a general lack of interest and the high hurdles to amending the Constitution.

“It’s a great issue to talk about, but it’s not going to happen,” – Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic majority’s second-highest ranking leader.

Term limit proposals have seen little support on Capitol Hill since the issue was featured in the “Contract with America” that helped the Republican Party win control of Congress in 1994. House Republicans brought three versions of constitutional amendments for term limits to the floor in 1995 and each failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), disagrees with Mr. DeMint’s premise that politicians get more corrupt the longer they serve.

“There are plenty of bad members who have been there a short time and plenty of bad members who have been there a long time. Length of service just isn’t telling enough. It doesn’t make a great member or a terrible member.” – Melanie Sloan, executive director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics

Mrs. Sloan, a Democrat, said the amendment appeared to be more about Mr. DeMint making a statement than about changing the Constitution.

DeMint's Case For Term Limits

However, DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said the bill will succeed if the American public get behind it and force lawmakers to put it to a vote.

To pass a constitutional amendment, it takes a two-thirds vote of approval in both chambers of Congress. Then it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The last one to succeed – the 27th Amendment that delays pay raises for members of Congress until after the next election – was proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights but was not ratified by the states until 1992.

Mr. DeMint’s bill is cosponsored by two Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who is running for a second term next year and has pledged to not seek a third, and Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, who is in her third full term.

It would appear history is not on their side.

Finally, A GOP Litmus Test

A prominent attorney, Jim Bopp, Jr., has come up with a plan called the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” and it’s being circulated among RNC members in the hopes of generating party support. Mr. Bopp is in the perfect position to advance this idea. You see, James Bopp is the Vice Chairman of Republican National Committee, a position he has held since 2008.

What does this have to do with Reagan? The resolution states,

“President Ronald Reagan believed … that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.”

With that in mind, the resolution establishes a list of party policies which the party member must support to receive party support. If a candidate strays from the list on three or more issues, the RNC resolution, if approved, would block him/her from receiving financial support and/or official endorsements.

The test for Republican candidates includes the following points:

1. Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
2. Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
3. Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
4. Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
5. Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
6. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
7. Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
8. Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
9. Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
10. The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

The resolution also says that the RNC will decide whether a candidate actually agrees with eight out of 10 — merely promising to go along isn’t enough if the party doesn’t like your voting record.

The Republican Party needs teeth in their party oath.

Proving my point that George W. Bush was not a Republican but actually a Democrat, the list indicates Bush would have been deemed ineligible for support from the Republican National Committee. He did, after all, increase the size of government, run enormous deficits, endorsed cap and trade, allowed North Korea and Iran to become more serious security threats, and rejected the right’s line on immigration.

I’ve been a strong advocate for a test to show proof that a Republican office holder was not a R.I.N.O. as some in the party are today. In light of the recent experience in New York’s 23rd, it’s time to root out “Republicans in Name Only” such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine who would easily fail this test, and be made ineligible for support from the GOP.

In fact, on November 2, 2009, after Dede Scozzafava endorsed a Democrat for a vacant congressional seat over a Conservative backed by Republican leaders, I was motivated to write to the GOP to let off some steam. I figured it was a fruitless endeavor but it would let me vent.

By pointing to Scozzafava, I wanted to tell the GOP leadership she represented exactly what is wrong with the GOP. I wrote,

“The GOP is rife with R.I.N.O.s and takes on the characteristics of a box of chocolates…. you never know what you’re going to get.” I continued:

It makes it difficult to vote for GOP candidates when they turn out to be frauds in that they don’t represent party values.

Get serious about yourselves or you will be irrelevant … if not already.

Remember, recent polls show conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 to 1. It would appear the party has miscalculated by trying to align itself with left to moderate leaning party planks.

Poking some fun at myself, as if it would matter, I also decided to tell them about the planks I thought they should adopt. I opened up all the doors for this one. (Yes, I’m certifiable.)

This was the first item on my list:

Loyalty to party values

Ensure members of the party pledge their allegiance to the party’s values. G.W. Bush was a R.I.N.O.; Republican In Name Only. Purge the party of those with left-wing and liberal ideas and who do not support with actions and voting history the core values of the Republican Party. Arlen Specter is another example … good riddance.

We cannot follow a party that is filled with members who are not aligned with the party’s core values. The core values should revolve around these basic concepts; border, language, culture, national defense, support of the Constitution.

I also included these;

Secure our borders
Deport all illegal aliens immediately
Religion and abortion
Clean up our rotted universities (yes, I know. Not likely)
Overhaul America’s education system
Fix America’s media (Again, not likely)
Provide for the common defense
Reduce the size of government
Energy policy
Overhaul Immigration Policies
Amend the U.S. Constitution to include an immigration policy

The details for these are here:

Now, I’m not going to suggest that my email rant to the GOP caused them to adopt the idea for party loyalty, but I will suggest that I am thinking what they are already thinking.

I will also suggest I am not alone. Here, you can read a recent Rasmussen poll which reveals 73 percent of the respondents believe GOP leaders have lost touch with the Republican base.

The full text of the resolution

RNC RESOLUTION ON FINANCIAL
SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefit all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.
Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN
Sponsors:
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR

U.S. Labor Unions: Bane or Benefit?

Introduced in March 2009 and then referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions in April, H.R.1409 – Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 Act (aka “card check”) is a bill intended to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. It would make it easier for workers to join unions and would tighten penalties for employers who try to stop them. Supporters such as Human Rights Watch and the NAACP say the bill provides important protections for the middle class. With only 12% of American workers in unions, why should the rest of us care? Experts say a revived labor movement could benefit workers both in and out of unions and cite a need for forces that promote a fairer sharing of wealth. They also note that the gap between America’s rich and poor is the largest it’s been since 1928. Over the last 75 years, unions helped secure benefits like unemployment insurance, Social Security, and the 40-hour workweek.

Under the bill, workers would be able to decide whether to hold a secret ballot vote on union formation after a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards, or to have the union certified based on the cards alone. Under the current rules, employers have the power to make that decision. The bill also designates a time line for first contracts to be drawn up between unions and employees and stipulates that if no deal is reached within 120 days, an arbitration panel will render a decision that will be binding for two years. Finally, it would increase the fines employers must pay if found guilty of violating their employees’ right to unionize.

This bill is organized labor’s number one legislative priority, and it is vigorously opposed by the business lobby. Democratic leader are expected to bring it to a vote in the Senate sometime this summer. The big question regarding its passage is whether or not the Democrats can find 60 votes in favor of breaking an inevitable Republican filibuster. The Senate version is S. 560.

Opponents like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association say it increases labor costs and hurts the bottom line. Both sides have spent millions on lobbyists and advertising to make their case.

Supporters such as Human Rights Watch and the NAACP say the bill provides important protections for the middle class. Opponents like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association say it increases labor costs and hurts the bottom line. Both sides have spent millions on lobbyists and advertising to make their case.

Others contend that unions have outlived their usefulness. “The workplace is much better today,” says Michael Eastman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Employers know they need to offer certain benefits and good wages to keep good workers.”

Professor Daniel says Card Check likely would not increase union membership until the economy improves, since workers are currently more concerned about job security than wages and benefits. “ Today, most workers are too fearful to take a risk for unions,” he adds.

Looking at the numbers

As of March 5, 2007, a UAW represented assembly worker’s wage rate at GM/Ford/DaimlerChrysler are as follows:

Assembler
Hourly rate
    COLA
Total
GM
$26.09
$1.77
$27.86
Ford
$26.10
$1.83
$27.93
DAIMLER-CHRYSLER
$26.86
$1.77
$28.75

When Congress debated the bailout package for Detroit, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans had demanded that wages and benefits for employees of U.S. automakers needed to be renegotiated to match the lesser overall compensation that foreign carmakers like Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay at their U.S. plants.

The Japanese automaker has fewer retirees in the U.S., and its health care benefits and pensions are less generous than those negotiated between Detroit and the UAW. Another key point is that health costs and pensions for auto workers in Japan – worth billions – are subsidized by the Japanese government. Not so in the U.S.

In December 2008, The Detroit Free Press reported that it had obtained an internal Toyota report which said the company should align its hourly wages with the prevailing manufacturing pay in the state rather than those of competitors in the auto sector, with the goal of cutting an expected $900 million increase in worker compensation by 2011 by one-third.

On average, other manufacturing jobs pay less. In Kentucky Toyota workers in Georgetown earn about $30 per hour, while the median wage in the state for manufacturing jobs, according to the Department of Labor, is $12.64.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger points to generous union-negotiated benefits packages as being a burden to America’s auto industry,

“You know, if you pay the auto workers or the benefits and all of those things, are maybe too high. … We have, like, in America, you sell a car, and you have $2,000 of each car just goes to benefits. So I think that there’s a way of reducing all of that, make them more fiscally responsible.”

Sen. Jim DeMint:

“Some auto manufacturers are struggling because of a bad business structure with high unionized labor costs and burdensome federal regulations. Taxpayers did not create these problems and they should not be forced to pay for them.”

Sen. Jon Kyl:

“For years they’ve been sick. They have a bad business model. They have contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose huge costs.The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about $28.48. For these auto makers, it’s $73. And for the Japanese auto companies working here in the United States, it’s $48.”

Liberty Is Not For Sissies

This is not the correct driving behavior.

Recently, I was conversing with The Vermont Farmer about issues he has against the Republican Party. He had made reference to GOP policies he viewed as “extreme”. As the conversation evolved, he mentioned the Patriot Act and said “Liberty is not for sissies”, calling it “risky business”. He’s right, and it got me to thinking.

When I was learning to drive, my dad was in the right seat and I used the horn for some reason I don’t remember. From the reaction of my dad, my reason for using it apparently wasn’t warranted. He simply said to me, “If you’re driving the car correctly, you’ll never need that horn.” It took a few seconds for that to sink in, but it did. He was right.



Here’s another one from my brother. He once got ticked-off when the ATMs started to show up. I asked why and he said, ” ‘They’ can track you. ‘They’ know that at that moment, you are there at that machine pulling money out of your account.” Falling back on my horn-lesson, I retorted with something like “So what? If you’re behaving properly, who cares who knows where you happen to be?” He only said something like “That’s not right. That’s intrusion.” I thought then and today continue to think it’s a very weak argument. The bank and authorities could “intrude” upon my withdrawal habits long before the advent of ATMs.

Smile, you're being surveilled.

Today, we see that ATMs and camera’s have turned out to be a valuable tool for law-enforcement making our society a safer one in that it helps authorities apprehend the perpetrator quicker.



Liberty isn’t for sissies, which is to say we have to be willing to stomach the actions of those who take their rights of liberties too far by robbing, killing and destroying.

The game has changed.


Today we live in a world where we have a stateless enemy we like to call “radical Muslims”. (Which is a joke, but that’s another topic) I won’t go into the reasons, but we know they have avowed to kill Americans from any quarter and in as many numbers as possible. They have demonstrated their mission on numerous occasions in our country and abroad. It is a hard fact.



If we know we have a stateless enemy who is submerged into our society, we would be irresponsible to wait for them to attack a refinery or another high-rise as in the recent case in Dallas (given simulated explosive and detonator which they pushed). That was stopped only because of broad surveillance methodologies. Many lives and millions of dollars in property were saved. They are now in jail.


You and I were never targeted by those surveillance methodologies. Know why?


We behaved properly.



My acceptance of these methodologies isn’t easy. It’s a hard choice for me, but it is also easy to see the price for not choosing this position is very, very high. Too high. Liberty is at stake. I will not tolerate another event on the scale of 9/11 and I am willing to be surveilled to avoid that. As I said, liberty isn’t for sissies and as we see, it’s a double-edged sword. To enjoy our liberty we have to be willing to make some hard choices. It isn’t going to be pretty, either.



In this video, Gingrich classifies America’s anti-terror strategy as weak.

The Selective and Self-Serving Memories of the Left

This idiot can’t determine the difference between “there” and “their”. T-shirt says it all.

Same idiot.

Again.

Is the GOP Irrelevant?

Irrelevancy. That’s the charge many are lobbing at the GOP. The argument is that it has become pointless, peripheral and extraneous to politics in America.

The GOP needs new party planks

Critics say it needs to rebuild a respect for civil debate including self-criticism. It must appeal to the youth in America today and must appeal to generations of the future. They charge that the GOP today seems to be stuck in the newspaper and T.V. era, oblivious to the existence of the internet and hand held devices America’s youth have embraced to interact and communicate. The GOP is completely unaware of what occupies the minds of Americans who have a forward-looking vision for America right now – today. The GOP is occupied by too many who are unwilling, as a condition of admission, to sign an oath of allegiance to a set of talking points or party planks upon which a party platform is to be built.

I think I am at the point where I have to agree. Personally, I find it disturbing that the GOP continues to demonstrate such a narrow minded and two-tone palate of policies coupled with a lackluster set of leaders.

On the issue the recently house-passed HR-3962, the GOP has managed to bring forth a bill to address the “problem” of national health care in response to the Democrat’s mammoth 1.2 trillion dollar band aid. At the end of the day, the GOP’s response is still yet another spending program.

OK, maybe we can call it a good start, but only if at the same time, the GOP had advanced a bill which recalled the unused balance of the $787 billion stimulus bill and another bill which cut taxes on business and broke up these mega-banks we now have.

But it’s wishful thinking to expect any vision from this party which does very little to distinguish itself from the DNC. Today, I believe the GOP should be keeping the Democrats off balance, forcing them to justify their ruinous policies on the economy by authoring bills based upon sound and proven ideas, such as cutting taxes.

The crux of the problem are the GOP planks. What are they? Anyone? Beuller?

Look at the oath of the GOP and compare it to the oath the Democrat takes when they join the party. Not much difference. (To be clear, this is not the same as the oath of office. I’m speaking about the oath of the party.)

I believe we should push for a few sound basics for party planks to distinguish the GOP from Democrat Party.

For starters, let’s try “Border”. America’s borders are so wide open you could literally drive a country through it.

Next, maybe we should push to establish English as our nation’s official language as a basis to prevent our local and federal government from spending our tax dollars printing government multilingual forms and local street signs.

Once that’s done, perhaps we should add another plank to deport all illegal aliens we have in the U.S. today. Let the economic chips fall where they will; she will quickly adjust. America’s education, medical, social security other social systems cannot afford to pay for the welfare of another country’s population.

Once here legal aliens are required to learn to use the English language – the official language of the nation.

How about an energy policy unique to the GOP? If we are so willing to spend trillions of dollars to prop up a failing banking system, then we should be equally willing to spend a trillion dollars to

• hasten the development of Polymer exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) technology
• upgrade the country’s infrastructure with the necessary hydrogen fueling stations
• develop fuel cell based postal delivery vehicles for delivery of mail into urban and city areas to hasten arrival of 2nd generation fuel cells to drive down unit costs
• to recover research and development costs, license and then export the technology to other countries. When it comes to the Middle East, attach an up-charge of significant mass that is required to make transportation by camel look not only like a viable alternative but an attractive one.

These are just a few examples which should highlight the need of the GOP to adopt and then publicize future-looking, sovereignty-protecting, building-for-the-future platform planks.

While we’re doing that, we should purge the system of its RINOs.

Barney Frank Proposes New Bank Resolution Authority

After years of Fed policies which allowed mergers of massive banks to form the very mega-banks which have now failed, Barney Frank, after his years of rebuking repeated efforts by Republicans to reform the system, is only now rising up to look the hero.

On October 27, 2009, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) released the latest version of the most complex piece of the financial reform puzzle: solving the “too big to fail” problem by giving the federal government more powers to wind down major financial firms.

Barney Frank blamed others for the mortgage industry meltdown while literally in bed with Fannie Mae.

Frank’s bill seeks to avoid the kinds of massive taxpayer bailouts that characterized last year’s financial crisis by empowering the federal government to wind down any financial firm, no matter how large, complex or interconnected.

“We’re going to have death panels. But they’re going to have death panels that are going to put to death these institutions before they can cause us problems, not old people,” — Frank said in a CNN interview Tuesday.

Back in 2003, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Frank led the government charge that helped create the GSE meltdown (time line here). He made this now infamous quote about new terms to lower lending standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.

Under Frank’s new (I’ve found God) vision, shareholders and unsecured creditors would have to pay for the failure, not taxpayers, according to a summary of the bill. The legislation would require resolution costs to come first from the failed firm’s assets “at the expense of shareholders and creditors,” with any additional cost to be paid from an after-the-fact assessment on the remaining large financial firms.

But as we all know, except for perhaps Frank, the costs of these penalties will ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of bank processing and administration fees.

Frank’s proposal reeks of a “let the bank fail and allow the market to absorb the consequences” tactic which the Feds dismissed earlier in the crisis, preferring to instead follow their “too big to fail” philosophies.

The bill’s proposal for an oversight council to act as the so-called “systemic risk regulator” to keep an eye on the overall health of the financial industry also sounds suspiciously like Bush’s proposals first advanced in 2001. The council would be directed to identify risky firms and financial activities, and have the power to slap tougher rules and standards on those firms.

Frank said Tuesday morning on CNN that the systemic risk council would also have the power to break up a company “if its too big.”

Frank’s use of the term “systemic risk” mirrors comments made in April 2005 when Secretary of the Treasury John Snow repeatedly called for GSE reform, saying

“Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.”

Then house Minority Leader Harry Reid rejected the legislation saying ” we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process.”

Frank’s proposed Council and Fed Board would be banned from publicly releasing a list of “systemically significant” institutions – a major concern in the industry which fears that those singled out would be penalized by the market.

If these institutions were to be publicly singled out, it might have positive results on the market as banks would have a built-in incentive to engage in policies which minimize risk to themselves.

Free Speech vs Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

On October, 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law HR-1913 – Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

The law is designed to help local law enforcement agencies who are operating with small budgets and resources by providing funding “or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of a violent crime, a hate crime, or a crime that constitutes a felony under state, local, or tribal law….at the request of a state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, to provide technical, forensic and prosecutorial assistance” and limits “the amount of any grant to $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any one-year period.”

The law focuses on the term “hate crime” and defines it as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person”.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Conscious of this, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 provides “that any provision of this Act that is held to be unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining provisions of this Act.” (Section 7 of HR-1913) In addition, it declares “that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.” (Section 8 of HR-1913).

Officially Preferred Victims

Liberty University law professor Shawn Akers writes that if H.R. 1913, the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, becomes law, “local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving … preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of less valuable victims.” Membership in the “preferred” category is “based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct… and subjective gender self-identity.”

Following is Akers’s analysis of the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913.

The “Hate Crimes” Bill

H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009″

I. Characteristics

A. “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.

B. The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define. It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.

C. As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).

D. The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

II. Status

A. The version of the bill titled HR 1913 RH passed out of Judiciary committee on a 15-12 vote. It appears that the only change from the prior version, HR 1913 IH, was the dropping of the original section 2 – the findings section which included exaggerated figures of so-called hate crimes and included the interstate commerce language.

B. Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated. One that was particularly interesting was Steve King’s amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on “sexual orientation” – it was voted down 13-10.

III. Major Concerns

While the bill’s supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection. Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act. On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality. The particular concerns with the bill are numerous, but a few of the most troublesome are listed below.

A. Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment

1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens be extended equal protection under the law. HR 1913 in effect creates two classes of victims, i.e. those who are a member of the preferred and protected class created by the bill and those who are not. Inclusion in the preferred class is to a great extent based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct, subjective gender, and subjective gender self-identity.

2. The practical effect of the carrot and the stick of federal funds, federal promotion and federal oversight is the promotion of the preferred class and the neglect of non-class members. Specifically, local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving these preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of “less valuable” victims. Additionally, with federal funds available when the requisite “hate” connection can be alleged, the bill creates a powerful incentive to force cases into the “hate crimes” mold. This heavily incentivized increase in reported “hate crimes” would artificially inflate the number and apparent prevalence of so called “hate crimes.” The natural and very political result of such a perceived increase in “hate crimes” would undoubtedly be an increase in the political influence of the preferred class, and as night follows day, a corresponding increase and expansion of even more intrusive “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation to address the perceived crisis.

B. Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent To Commit a Crime.

1. Ironically hate is not even an element of a “hate crime” in the bill. Rather, the definition of a “hate crime” is borrowed from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – requiring only that the defendant selects a victim because of the membership or perceived membership in one of these proposed protected classes. Proponents of the bill argue that the criminal is being punished for his or her intent to terrorize an entire class of people (i.e. all homosexuals) but no such intent to terrorize is actually required. Indeed, despite the framing of the term “hate crime” the bill does not even require a showing of animus toward the victim or the preferred class. Under existing law, the criminal would be punished if he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the act. The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by HR 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim’s membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim. In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed. As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought.

C. Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.

This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”. This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener. Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence. This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act.

D. Federal Power Grab

The bill, if passed into law, would as a practical matter federalize virtually every sexual crime in the United States. This federalization would occur even in the absence of any evidence of failure by states and municipalities to prosecute. Under the bill, membership in one of the preferred classes does not have to be the impetus for the criminal act but merely a factor in the defendant’s selection of his victim. This is almost always the case. Muggers invariably choose little old ladies as victims precisely because they are little old ladies and unlikely to be able to fend them off. Under the bill, consideration of the gender of the victim effectively creates the potential for federal jurisdiction. Considering both the extreme breadth of the bill and the built-in incentives to bring crimes under the bill, the likely result is the practical federalization of large swaths of state and local criminal law.

E. Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.

1. The recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups. Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.

2. Substance and methods similar to that offered in the DHS report have recently been echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That group provides influential lists of alleged hate groups relied upon by state and federal law enforcement. The reports have begun to blend among its lengthy list of true hate-based groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, other organizations based on little more than their opposition to homosexuality. The effect of listing a pro-family organization along side several neo-Nazi groups is to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association.

3. Additionally the appointment of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department and the rise of acceptability of his stance that international laws should be used to interpret American laws, even among such figures as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, creates the danger and likelihood that judicial activism would further increase the power, reach, and tyrannical effect of HR 1913 by bringing its application in line with its counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, etc.

4. Proponents of HR 1913 argue or imply that the law would provide greater protection for members of all faiths, presumably including Judaism and Christianity. The application of hate crimes laws in the countries they are most prevalent (and the countries to which Harold Koh would likely look for interpretive guidance), produce exactly the opposite result. The application of hate crimes laws in countries like the Netherlands experiencing the increased influence of Shariah – stringent Islamic religious law — is patently and consistently anti-Semitic. The most concrete example of this is the stark contrast in the application of the hate crimes laws in the Netherlands between those who criticize Shariah and those who call for violence against Israel and the Jewish people. For instance, Geert Wilders, who produced a 17-minute film critical of Shariah, is being vigorously prosecuted under the Netherlands’ hate crimes laws — while the blatant and violent anti-Semitism of others such as Dutch MP Harry van Bommel, who called for intifada against Israel earlier this year, and Doekle Terpstra, who sponsored an “Olive Tree Campaign” rally in Amsterdam where the participants chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” are apparently immune from hate crimes prosecution.

5. The same is likely true of the UN Anti-Blasphemy measures which realistically can be seen only to forbid criticism of Shariah while allowing wholesale anti-Semitism.

6. Christians who vocally oppose homosexuality and the state endorsement of homosexuality in Holland, Canada, and Brazil routinely receive similar treatment, finding themselves on the prosecuted and persecuted end of hate crimes legislation while the anti-Christian actions of other groups are ignored.

7. Historically an increase in Shariah influence and/or a rise in economic problems have consistently shown a corresponding rise in anti-Semitism. The growing national and international acceptance and preferential treatment of the pro-homosexual movement has likewise shown a similar increase in anti-Christian activity (such as the threats of violence against Proposition 8 supporters in California and the recent attack launched by homosexual activist Perez Hilton against a contestant in the Miss USA competition). Were the United States under the leadership of Harold Koh, Janet Napolitano, etc., to follow the hate crimes trends and precedents established in the international community, the actual application of HR 1913 and its certain coming hate crimes and hate speech progeny, would likely undermine the rights of Christian and Jewish citizens.

F. Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.

1. All of the above can reasonably be expected to lead to a quickly spawned progeny of hate crime legislation demanding greater and greater control of thought, expression and association. This is the pattern in the international community. HR 1913 would firmly brand one’s thoughts on the issues of human sexuality as potentially criminal activity. The logical next step is to recognize the “harmful impact of hateful speech” on preferred classes and to begin outlawing speech that would communicate what members of preferred classes find offensive. Proponents of HR 1913 have argued that this is preposterous but tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.”

IV. Action Steps
Since the bill was signed into law by President Obama coupled with the fact that Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was confirmed 06/25/2009 as the State Department’s legal advisor in a roll-call vote, 62-35, the relevant items below have been struck.

1. Encourage constituents to participate in immediate, continued, and persistent contact with both personal senators and congressmen and those of other districts and states (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121; or 202-224-3121; www.congress.org).

2. Support, promote and demand a filibuster if the measure reaches the floor of the Senate.

3. Record and hold to account every member of Congress supporting the bill in the coming elections.

4. Actively oppose the confirmation of Harold Koh.

5. Vigorously hold Janet Napolitano responsible for the libelous report issued by the DHS.

Source:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1913&tab=summary

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show

Bush Bashing Media Engine Continues to Support Obama

First, a couple of jokes

President Bush goes into a library. “I would like a cheeseburger and fries,” he says in a loud, clear voice.”
“But sir,” says the assistant, “this is a library.”
“Gee, I’m sorry,” says Bush, and whispers very quietly, “I’d like a cheeseburger and fries.”

Change We Can Believe In

Obama campaigned for the presidency with a sweeping promise of “change we can believe in” and entered office with America in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and with the nation at war on two fronts. It is a time when America is at one of the most challenging junctures in modern American history.

However, since his inauguration, confidence in this president has been fading – and fading fast.

Six months into his term, a July 2009 Rasmussen Poll showed just 30 percent of the nation’s voters “strongly approve” of Mr. Obama’s job performance while 40 percent “strongly disapprove” of the president’s performance.

An October 2009 Gallup Poll recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April. It is worst poll rating drop in 50 years.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.”

Jones continued, “Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

President Obama is also facing criticism from the right for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

In a speech given at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, Vice-President Dick Cheney accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger” .

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.” – Vice-President Dick Cheney

Cheney further criticized Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.” – Vice-President Dick Cheney

Former Bush deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said, “For a guy who campaigned on taking responsibility and looking forward, he spends an awful lot of time pointing fingers and looking backward.”

Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon defends their Bush bashing and believes things are better now than they have been.

“I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since ’07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it? Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months.” – Liz Chadderdon

While he asserts his responsibility for addressing the nation’s problems, Mr. Obama manages to highlight that he was left to deal with others’ missteps.

At a July 2009 town-hall meeting in Michigan — the state with the nation’s highest jobless rate — Mr. Obama said that fixing the economy is “a job I gladly accept.”

But he added, “I love these folks who helped get us in this mess. And then suddenly say, ‘Oh, this is Obama’s economy.’ ”

Wrapped in controversy, Bush’s support of TARP legislation averted a full-blown economic melt-down but Obama wants to take the credit and often claims Bush let the economy burn, despite evidence to the contrary.

While Bush didn’t compel Obama to spend money nearly as fast as it could be printed, or roughly double the projected debt over the next decade, Obama continues to blame Bush for the $1.42 trillion dollar deficit. Obama’s motto: “Stop Bush – before he makes me spend again!”

As expected, the nation’s press levied this list of criticisms over his drunken spending habits.

New Orleans who? What’s a New Orleans?

After Obama’s recent trip to the Gulf Coast regions which are still wrestling with Katrina’s aftermath, a few Gulf Coast newspapers and politicians were a bit miffed about the shortness of his visit.

The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune : “That’s it?”

The Picayune’s Jonathan Tilove : “Say what you will about former President George W. Bush and his administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath — the man knew how to put together a post-Katrina White House visit to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. “They were exhaustive, exhausting, sun-up-to-sundown, sometimes multiday and multistate affairs.”

Mississippi’s Sun Herald : “Why are we invisible?”

Fellow Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu : “If this visit is too brief, it will not afford the president the opportunity to see firsthand the impact that an effective and committed administration can have on rebuilding neighborhoods and communities.”

Obama’s day began with a visit to the Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School in New Orleans’s Lower Ninth Ward. In the afternoon, he held a brief town hall meeting at the University of New Orleans Lakefront campus.

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city. As president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the city, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic National Committee fundraiser. The press had this to say about his disappearing act.

Obama Shirks Meeting with The Dalai Lama – Fears Angering China

When President Barack Obama decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington in the first week of October 2009, analysts are sensing the rebuff is related to the $8 billion U.S. Treasury debt held by the Chinese government, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. Obama clearly sees his ability to continue to finance his deficit spending is tied directly to keeping China as happy as a Panda.

It was the first time since 1991 that the Dalai Lama has come to Washington and not met with the U.S. president.

Co-chairman of the Congressional Tibet Caucus, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), blasted “the administration’s unwillingness to meet with an internationally respected human rights leader in order to placate Chinese tyrants.”

“The U.S. has permitted China to have a one-way free-trade policy for decades, and now we are not only suffering the serious economic damage caused by that policy; we are finding ourselves politically vulnerable to a regime that is the world’s worst human rights abuser,” — Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)

After awarding Obama with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, and in a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought.

Obama’s War with Fox News

There are those on the left who claim that Fox News is operating as a radio show outlet, not a news organization. Several top White House advisers have gone on other channels to criticize Fox News’ coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station.

On October 20, 2009, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said White House officials

“render (that) opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.”

But asked how Fox News was different from other news organizations, Gibbs mentioned the channel’s 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, in an explicit reference to “Beck” and “Hannity” — even though those two shows represent opinion programming.

Informed that those hours are for opinion programming, Gibbs said:

“That is our opinion.”

While the left may rejoice and find Obama’s tactic on target, Obama is going down a slippery slope. He is breaking a bit of new ground by focusing upon negative opinion about the effectiveness of his policies and attempts to marginalize the news outlet by claiming it isn’t a legitimate news organization.

Obama’s tactic removes all moral ground to stand upon which allows the left to complain if the next Republican president attempts to marginalize MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, et. al. simply because they disagree with opinion.

Obama’s behavior is childish, but it is to be expected from an inexperienced, untested, under-qualified yet glorified community organizer clueless about what it means to actually act like a president of the United States. Being president comes with some awesome challenges. So far, Obama demonstrates an inherent inability to meet and rise above those challenges.

Of a larger concern, if Obama cries foul over a little negative opinion and threatens to take his ball and go home like some school child, how will he behave when the going really gets tough with his failing foreign policies?

If the Bush Administration had declared a war upon the Liberal Media, we would never hear the end of it. The Liberal Media would make sure of that.

“If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened? That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.” — Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large, San Francisco Chronicle.

The True Colors of the Nation’s Media

Bush was frequently criticized for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House, the number of executive orders which pale in number compared to the pile already assembled by Obama and spending too much time on his bike.

How does Obama get away unscathed? Simple, while Obama continues with his Bush bashing campaign, the press is more than willing to oblige him. The Liberal Media Machine, aided by George Soros remains “in the tank” for Obama. What used to be Bush’s loudest critics are now Obama’s biggest supporters.

Apparently, the 500 pound gorilla is getting too big to ignore. Media observers have noted the president gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left, such as Media Matters and MoveOn.org.

While Bush was characterized by the press as being a Big Business Republican who “drove daddy’s car the White House”, stories about secret energy meetings and his lack of oratory skills, the press was all too willing to reinforce the image of a backward country bumpkin with ties to evil Halliburton over and over again and the “bots” on the left willingly drank the kool aide.

The press continues to paint Obama with a positive brush despite the fact that Obama is a empty suit, however, Saturday Night Live says what the media won’t.

Obama Defends Himself While The Press Feigns Criticism

President Barack Obama has been in office just nine months and already he is aggressively defending his legacy against criticism of his record on health care, climate change, closing Guantanamo, reforming immigration laws and financial regulations and his mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan.

“There’s an aspect of the campaign that’s all about projecting our hopes and our dreams and it’s full of excitement, and now we’re in governing mode, and governing is always tough because there are conflicting interests. Things take time, people argue. Our problems won’t be solved overnight, especially problems that grew over the course of decades.” — Barack Obama, at October 2009 fundraiser for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

At another fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama said he doesn’t mind cleaning up the mess Republicans left. “But I don’t want the folks who made the mess to sit there and say, you’re not mopping fast enough,” Obama says. “I want them to grab a mop!”

In the last week of October 2009, when Obama appeared at yet another fundraiser (YAFuR) in New York, a crowd of several thousand Obama supporters were chanting “Grab a mop!” a reference to his campaign mantra, “Yes, we can!”.

In spite of the fact that some Democrats are finding the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach, the New York Times’s idea of criticism is to note that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.” This piece of dazzling journalism represents yet another outstanding example of the dynamic and weighty investigative reporting for which the Times is best known.

Read more about the MOP here.