August 17, 2006
Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional
The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear.
Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of "warrantless wiretapping" despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a "police state" and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.
The judge in this case, an appointee of Jimmy Carter, doesn't seem to understand the difference between overseas surveillance and domestic surveillance. Will the CIA start needing warrant the next time the spy on a terrorist overseas?
According to the ruling:
The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.
Let's skip past the FISA court idea, one that is still in dispute publicly and in the courts (other district courts either ruled for the government or declined to rule at all) and discuss the First Amendment issue. Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?
Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the "warrantless wiretapping" programs as an attempt to establish an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights", however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 9, 2006
Book Review: Conservatives Betrayed by Richard Viguerie
The marriage between the Republicans and conservatives has been a loveless and unsatisfying marriage. The Republicans keep "stumbling home after midnight, smelling of booze and cheap perfume." And it is time for the marriage to come to an end.
Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause by Richard Viguerie thoroughly lists, more than any other resource I can think of, the balance of indiscretions the Republicans have visited upon conservatism under the Presidency of George W. Bush (and even before that election). The days of the Contract With America are long gone and replaced with what can only appear to be a very similar spending philosophy of Democrats.
Viguerie systematically dissects the policies of the George W. Bush administration in the key areas of foreign policy, immigration, the right to life, the culture of life, the courts, and taxation. He shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the canard that this is one of the most extreme right-wing administrations in history is absolutely absurd. Sure, Bush has thrown conservatives some carrots, but he has shown that he's more than willing to grow the federal government and not buck the system. He, after all, has only recently cast his first veto and has used no rescissions to block pork barrel spending.
Chart after chart, figure after figure, the book painstakingly reveals what is apparent to most conservatives, George Bush isn't one of them.
This disaffection has been brewing for some time and came to a head with the immigration debate. While the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the UAE ports deal resulted in acquiescing to the grassroots conservatives, immigration showed the GOP literally telling conservatives to go to hell. The argument was that by leaving the Republican plantation, we got eight years of Clinton, so now we had to suck it down. If that statement seems like it is defecating on conservatives, that is because it is exactly what it is doing. Conservatives should shut up and keep sending money to the GOP. We should leave the governing to the elites.
This book is a challenge to that accepted logic and presents a game plan to attempt to bring principles back into politics. The central premise is that conservatives should stop being wedded to the GOP and start being a movement that hopefully brings both parties into line or at least gives us an occasional chance to vote against the GOP candidate without implicitly supporting a repugnant alternative.
The status quo will lead to the situation we have here in Illinois -- party insider Rod Blagojevich running against party insider Judy Baar-Topinka with both having approval ratings on a good day rivaling President Bush. Not even party loyalists like their candidate. The state is on the verge of bankruptcy, in the worst financial shape of any other state, and there is no discernable difference (quite literally) between the policies of either party. Lastly, both are corrupt to the core having fair numbers of high-level staffers in both parties under federal indictment or conviction. That is the future of national politics if we do nothing… a bankrupt government, corrupt politicians, and sham elections between candidates no one likes.
One of the more scandalous, but most insightful, suggestions is dropping support for the death penalty. This stand, more than others, directly contradicts the general conservative support for a culture of life and undermines the moral authority that would otherwise be present if that stand was not there. Controversial, yes, but spot on.
The missing piece of the puzzle, however, is a social justice component (and I don't mean that term in the typical regressive way). Only one sentence of the book makes mention of communities supporting their members but the fact is, there are times where people will need a helping hand from others. Disasters strike, illnesses drain life savings, people die, and so on. A political ideology that does not explicitly have a plan on how to handle those situations is one that leaves a large portion of the population as a captive audience to the left and big government. Big government may not effectively meet people's needs, however many view it as "better than nothing". Arguing against minimum wage laws makes good economic sense, but is politically meaningless when there is no response to the fact some people simply don't earn enough for their families. The argument must seek to address this, and that comes by creating a living wage by reducing the cost of living (most of which comes in the form of taxation or increased cost of regulations passed down to the consumer).
Further, if an effective conservative movement is to be founded and empowered, it will take more than focusing on politics. Liberty is impossible unless it includes both political and economic liberty. Likewise, reform is impossible unless it includes both political and economic aspects. The book mentions Google and Yahoo as regressive-supporting companies. There needs to be conservative equivalents so people can vote with their pocketbooks. Arguing for conservative principles while supporting regressive causes (by using companies that are in the tank with regressive causes) is self-defeating, or at least self-impeding.
The book is exactly what it purports itself to be, a starting point and a moment to reflect. It is a quick read and should have nothing foreign for anyone moderately informed about politics. The disaffection of conservatives is a growing one and now, more than ever, is the opportunity to fight for the principles we believe in. Viguerie includes several steps to take to the field of battle which involves common people to run for office, or at least take effort to support conservatives over Republicans. It won't be until common people run for office that we'll have any real reform, or at least a return to some attempt at representing common people instead of the enfranchised elites.
In 2006, when only Congressional seats are up for grabs, conservatives have the chance to make it clear to Republicans that conservatism will win or lose elections for them, just as MoveOn has just proved that moderate and sensible Democrats like Joe Lieberman are not welcome in the Democratic Party. If conservatives engage the political system now, we can win. If we fall silent, we will become like Illinois, where all the potential leaders and talent flee the state and surrender it to the left. For now, Republicans have won only because of the incompetence of the Democrats; that will not be the case forever.
The question is: can we put principle above partisanship?
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 3, 2006
A Case of Double Standards
Compare and contrast these two cases:
The first, a scandal-ridden New Jersey Senator who was running for reelection abruptly resigns and drops out of the race 35 days before the election. Litigation ensues and the court decides that it should override the law under the concerns to ensure a "full and fair ballot choice" for the voters.
The second, a scandal-ridden Texas Congressman who was running for reelection resigns from office and drops out of the rice 5 months before the general election. Litigation ensures and the court decides that the candidate who no longer has residence in the district must remain on the ballot and there should be no exception to the law.
What is the difference between the two cases? The first was a Democrat, the second a Republican. Both were running for reelection for national office, however, the first was dealt with in state court, and the second, in federal court.
The inherent viewpoint of Democrats (and regressives in general) is that the written law means nothing when it conflicts with what is perceived to be the metaphysical intent of the law or what the law should be. This is why they can say with a straight-face that Bush should be impeached for crimes that amount to little more than not drinking deeply enough of the regressive Kool-aid.
Republicans generally believe the law should be upheld and if changes are needed the legislature (which exists entirely for this task) should be employed to modify those laws.
So when the Democrats ask for an exception, it is not inconsistent with what they believe, that namely, the law should reflect and advantage their policies, even when the written words of that law go clearly against them. When Republicans ask for an exception, they get denied outright.
In both cases, the misuse and abuse of the court system has lead to a schizophrenic application of the law, largely along partisan lines. The question of whether the law matters or not depends on which would most benefit the Democrats. An interesting thought exercise would be to imagine if George Bush stood accused of perjury in open court for lying about an affair during a lawsuit, and whether or not the Democrats would vote to impeach him on those groups. A fair amount of Republicans surely would.
It is tempting, then, for the Republicans to likewise abandon the written law and rely on tactics of jurisdiction shopping and court stacking to secure favorable outcomes, not based on the law, but on party loyalty. This temptation should be quickly dispatched. A law that means whatever those in power want, is not law, but tyranny projected through a black robe.
Citizens should take note at, yet again, the bipolar nature of the court system, and the routine differing application of the law depending on who is involved. If ever there was a case against judicial activism and reform of the courts, this episode would be it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ending Corporate Welfare
The ACLU is indignant that there are members of Congress pushing to pass a law that would bar awards of attorney fees when groups sue to get religion out of the public square. These award of legal fees are very directly responsible to a vast increase in the body of law that has gone so far to protect against the appearances of government endorsement of religion, that even private individuals have been sanctioned for daring to utter the unutterable name of Jesus Christ in public.
It has been the ACLU's influence that not only is the government (rightly) prevented from taking sides on the matter of religion, but when private individuals happen to be speaking on government property, the First Amendment is brought to bear against them. It is unthinkable in the highest degree that the Founders or anything in the Constitution intended to restrict the free expression rights of citizens. The First Amendment was designed to create institutional separation between the agencies of government and the houses of religion, not to be a pre-regulated restriction on what private people can or cannot say.
The ACLU has used attorney fees to bully schools into submission in questionable cases or in matters where no settled law exists. School budgets are already tight (mostly because of bloated bureaucracy, but that's not the point). Many schools will capitulate to avoid having to fork out money to defend a winning case. As in most areas of law, he who has the most money wins. With the award of legal fees, it only encourages entrepreneurial lawyers to build cases where none may exist. It also prevents the ACLU from browbeating agencies into avoiding situations where those agencies may be right.
However, the money schools have is not their own. The money sitting in government accounts is not their own. They are merely stewards of assets they have been given to perform tasks they have been assigned. Their masters are the citizens who fund those organizations and who elect their leaders.
There is something profoundly wrong when, because of the actions of a politician, the entire society that funds that politician's organization is made to pay. There is much talk about making politicians and bureaucrats accountable, awarding legal fees for cases like this don't make the politicians accountable, it makes society accountable. It is irresponsible in the extreme to make other people pay for someone's "bad" actions. I'd prefer courts punish those people who are actually doing the deeds, not finding someone who has big enough pockets and make them pay, no matter how peripheral they may be. We'll throw them out of office the next election if the case warrants it.
Preventing the default award of legal fees makes good economic sense and it is good policy. The First Amendment is a simple area of constitutional law that does not, nor should not, take millions of dollars to litigate. It is about time this case of corporate welfare comes to an end.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2006
Wictory Wednesday Presents Senator George Allen
This week Wictory Wednesday is supporting the reelection of Senator George Allen of Virginia. Sen. Allen has been a consistent supporter of conservative values in the Senate, earning a place in the ranks of the American Conservative Union's Best and Brightest.
Sen. Allen is a supporter of fiscal conservativism and introduced legislations to require a balanced budget. He also supported a law that would dock congressmen's paychecks if they failed to produce a budget by October 1st. The idea that legislators should be penalized for failure to do the few things they must do is one that should be whole-heartedly supported.
While Senator Allen does support accountability for school systems and supporting programs that succeed, support for school choice is notably lacking. There is no better accountability than allowing people to leave failing schools, taking tax dollars with them.
Illegal immigration is an issue many legislators are running away from while Senator Allen has the courage to take a stand. He understands what should be common-sense, immigrating legally is a good thing, immigrating illegally is a bad thing. It is obvious that decades of not enforcing immigration law hasn't worked and perhaps it's time we give law and order a chance. We don't need to demean the people who came here while the government basically said it wouldn't enforce the law, but that doesn't mean blanket amnesty… or for that matter, lavishing rewards on illegal immigrants.
Lastly, while it has become chic for members of Congress to suggest it's time to surrender to America's enemies and to proclaim that America is the cause of every world problem, Senator Allen understands that no victory came through surrender. The war on terror and Iraq are difficult problems that lesser men run away from by planting their heads in the sand. Winning the War in Iraq takes time and with plans for troop reductions under way, it's clear that "stay the course" is not only a strategy, but a strategy that's working.
Please considering donating to Sen. Allen's reelection campaign or volunteering your time.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2006
Wictory Wednesday Presents Diana Irey for Congress
This week Wictory Wednesday presents Diana Irey for US Congress. Diana is running against ex-Marine Rep. John Murtha from Pennsylvania who needs no explanation as to why he should be replaced. This race began as what seemed to be an uneventful race against an incumbent who not only didn't expect competition, but is planning on making a run to become House Minority Leader.
Diana Irey served for ten years as commissioner of Washington County and served on a number of boards and commissions bring jobs and fiscal discipline to the local government. She supports not only lower taxes but lower government spending. While Murtha's campaign seems to revolve around nothing else but the Iraq War (albeit an important issues), Irey is approaching running for office with a variety of stances on issues including supporting victory in Iraq and treating soldiers with respect, not as criminals.
Most importantly Diana is not a beltway bureaucrat and has served only in local offices until now. She will not only bring a local perspective to a seat that is held by an individual more concerned with his own national profile, she will support balanced budgets and intelligent policy-making to a Congress that has shown itself to be free with the money entrusted to it.
Please consider supporting the campaign of Diana Irey for the House of Representatives for the 12th District of Pennsylvania.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:46 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 16, 2006
A New Direction for America... Backwards.
Today, after months of waiting, the Democrats have come up with an agenda for 2006. First, some noticeably missing items.
Iraq. For as much as the Democrats continue to criticize the President's mishandling of the war, the peace, or whatever you want to call it, their direction does not highlight any meaningful alternative. How do they believe a free and secure Iraq should be created? Well, if Murtha has his way, apparently by surrendering to Al Qaeda.
National security. Apparently terrorism is not a problem because the polar ice caps are melting. Perhaps we were mistaken, it wasn't planes that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11, it was chunks of ice from the North Pole. So while they are ignoring national security, they're stumping for Gore's movie.
Immigration. Millions of immigrants took to the streets in protest in recent months. Millions more legal residents have also made their views known. No matter where you stand, this is one of the most charged and important issues on the minds of the people, and on this issue the Democrats are silent.
Moving on to some of the core items of the Democrats platform from items that simply haven't been on the public radar to making current problems worse…
Raising minimum wage. Despite the fact that every time the minimum wage has been raised unemployment has gone up; they believe that having no job is better than being paid some less than some arbitrary number. There are more intelligent ways to get people earning enough to provide for their families, raising the minimum wage isn't one of them. There is a finite amount of money in circulation, those wage increases need to be paid for somehow. It ends up being either lay offs, cut benefits, higher prices (and cost of living), or a combination of all three.
Price gouging. Who isn't against price gouging? However, for as much as that legal term has been thrown around, there has not been any evidence provided to support that it is happening. After about two years of hearing that companies are breaking the law to stick it to Joe Consumer, I'd expect that someone would be able to prove it to nail their ass to the wall for it. However, after two years of complaining they haven't found any evidence, it is doubtful that giving them a majority will accomplish anything except more hearings with legislators bloviating on TV so it looks like they are "doing something".
Fiscal responsibility. One of the most appealing parts of the platform is restoring fiscal responsibility, however, the likely way of doing this will be to increase income to the treasury, not reducing spending. One of the key items to pay attention is that they specifically reference the fiscal discipline of the 90s… i.e. when Congress was run by Republicans. Cutting taxes is one thing, you have to cut spending along with it. At least on this point the Democrats are intellectually honest. They'll at least raise taxes to pay for their spending. If we want to talk about fiscal responsibility, let's start with earmark reform.
Slash student loan costs. This is pandering at its worst because student loans are almost essentially free. I know, because I have them. My wife's student loans are consolidated for an APR of 1.65%. In other words, I could take the money, put it in a savings account, and use the interest to pay off the loan and still turn a profit on the loan. I know students who take student loans for the express purpose of using that money and investing it earning 8%+. Student loans are an incredible deal. Inflation is about 3%, which makes those loans essentially trivial interest. The only thing that could be done to make those loans cheaper would be to pay students interest for taking them out.
Stop tax giveaways for outsourcing. If by tax-giveaways you mean that other countries don't tax the crap out of companies like we do, than you're right. However, how exactly are you going to start taxing companies that aren't in the US? Tariffs? Bring the entire world under the United States tax structure? No one is paying businesses to leave the US and outsource, it's simply far cheaper to hire labor overseas in some industries.
Stop wasteful subsidies, Support stem-cell research. These two items are directly at odds. If there are wasteful subsidies, by all means eliminate them. However, funding stem-cell research (particularly embryonic which is what they are talking about) is in itself a wasteful subsidy. Adult stem cell research is curing people, it works. Private money is coming in hand over fist for adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research does not work, which is why they have no investors and need a handout. While it might give the Democrats yet another chance to kill millions more babies and start treating people less as human beings and more as crops to be cultivated for parts, it remains that this science doesn't work.
The Democratic platform here doesn't address most of the issues important to Americans. The three top issues are Iraq, gas prices, and immigration for Congress. Health care is low on the list. Social security is absent. Stem cell research is absent. The minimum wage is absent.
Once again, we're faced with a party unwilling to tackle the big issues that Americans care about. It would be nice in 2006 to have a real choice between candidates, and it looks like the Democratic party has deprived us once again.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 14, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: A Really Voluntary Tax Structure
Here's this week's FairTax blogburst.
by Terry of The Right Track
There are many reasons to support the FairTax. I managed to do a little research, and found some rather unique points of view that I had not previously considered, and was reminded of some previously-covered ideas that are still worth mentioning.
- For the most part, the FairTax is voluntary. If you want to pay the tax, purchase a new house, car, motor home, etc. If you want to avoid the tax, purchase a used house, car, motor home, etc. The tax only applies to new items.
- No one will ever need to take out a loan to pay taxes, interest, or penalties again, as can all too often happen under our current system.
- Drug dealers and other criminals, as well as anyone else currently paid "under the table", will pay taxes if they purchase new items. Ever seen a drug dealer driving a used car? Ever seen a pimp shopping at Goodwill? I didn't think so.
- Lower income families working multiple jobs get a fantastic incentive to work now, knowing that zero Federal taxes will be withheld from their paychecks. Most of the money from the second job can be applied to whatever previously unaffordable luxury they wish -- perhaps including, for the first time, a home of their own?
- With the abolition of the death tax, homes, farms, and land which might previously have had to be sold to satisfy the government's unquenchable thirst for money can now be retained and kept in the family. In cases where the property has been in the family for multiple generations, can you imagine the gratitude of the family?
- Friends and family can now actually help each other out with tax-free assistance, since the gift tax will be abolished.
- Businesses can actually lower their cost of doing business since they won't be paying the current 7.65% matching FICA tax for each employee.
- It's even a good deal for the environment -- think of all the paper we'll save by not having to file taxes!
But even with all this, we must remember that the FairTax initiative is a grassroots effort. If your Senator or Representative does not support the FairTax, find out why. Then let them know that you do support it. Make phone calls, write letters. Let your friends and family know the details of the FairTax, and why you believe it is such a good deal for Americans. Only through the diligent and concerned efforts of ordinary citizens will these bills ever make it through to the floors of the House and Senate.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
TD
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 13, 2006
Frog-Marching Fantasies Are Over
Rove will not be charged for anything over the Plame game. So after 2 years investigation they have a shaky indictment on Libby and no one charged with leaking the identity of SooperSekret Special Agent 007 Valerie Plame.
It's shaping up to be a bad summer for the Left. Zarqawi dead, Rove exonerated....
UPDATE:
Apparently the link above no longer works, do this one... but you've heard the news by now anyway.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 6, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: Tax Reform Still Alive
Here's the latest FairTax blogburst.
It's Still Alive! by Ms.Underestimated
Folks, I told you about the good news Congressman John Linder gave us about an impending face-to-face with President Bush about the Fair Tax, and now the word is out! The Gwinnett Daily Post catches us up on this great news:
FairTax still kicking
06/04/2006By: Dave Williams
Many political observers were ready to bury U.S. Rep. John Linder’s FairTax bill last fall when President Bush’s tax reform commission gave the back of its hand to the proposed national sales tax.
The panel chose to recommend tweaking the current income tax system rather than such a dramatic overhaul of the way the federal government collects the revenue it needs to operate.
But the FairTax won’t go away. During a raucous public rally in Gwinnett County last month in support of the legislation, Linder, R-Duluth, announced that he is being offered an opportunity to present the bill to the president and House Republican leaders.
He will meet this week with the House GOP leadership, then head to the White House on a date yet to be set — accompanied by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. — to outline his bill to Bush.
So much for the demise of the FairTax.
“The national sales tax is very much like Freddy,’’ said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, referring to the main character in countless installments of the “Nightmare on Elm Street” horror movie series. “It just refuses to die.’’
See? I TOLD you so! It’s POSSIBLE! And that’s not all - the Gwinnett Rally was just the beginning:
A capacity crowd of 4,500 jammed the Gwinnett Convention Center for last month’s rally, which featured Linder, Atlanta-based syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity of the Fox Television Network.
“We think there were 3,000 people turned away,’’ Linder said. “I was amazed.’’
The event was so successful that Linder and Boortz are talking about following it up with a series of rallies. Linder said they’re looking at Orlando, Fla., as the next stop.
Okay you guys, here’s your next chance. We gotta stick together and make this happen. If you live in the southeast (or anywhere else, for that matter), I urge you to call your local radio talk shows and implore them to get Neal Boortz, John Linder, Sean Hannity, and whoever else is on board with the Fair Tax, to come hold a rally in YOUR area! If we keep up this momentum, this could truly be a present-day Boston Tea Party that we have on our hands. It’s time to get the government out of our lives, and as John Linder said that night “it’s none of the government’s business how much money I make.” YES!
We’ve got to be vigilant, though, as well all know there are those detractors out there who want to stop us:
The FairTax also faces competition from other proposals aimed at overhauling the current system, including the flat tax on incomes once championed on the presidential campaign trail by Republican Steve Forbes.
“The vast majority agree the tax code needs drastic revision,’’ Sabato said. “The problem is nobody agrees on what the revision should be. … There just isn’t a national consensus for it or anything close to it.’’
But Sabato gives Linder high marks for persistence.
“He is trying to plant the seed,’’ Sabato said. “Who knows whether the seed may sprout and even flower? On the other hand, the seed may die in the ground.’’
My friends, we can’t let that seed die in the ground. We must keep nourishing it with our voices. If we can get 1, 2, 4 or 50 more rallies like this going, we will send a loud and clear message to Washington: “I WANT MY FAIR TAX!”
Also, send these radio stations copies of the Fair Tax book. I know it has been previously called for us to send copies to our representatives, but I’m sure they’ve gotten their copies already. It’s the people of this country we need to change - the Congress is hopeless. If your local talk show hosts can believe in this, then this movement will carry forward. You can buy them here. The government cannot ignore an informed country. The time is now!
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Wictory Wednesday: Rep. Mark Kennedy for US Senate
This week, Wictory Wednesday presents US Rep. Mark Kenney for the Senate in Minnesota. Having served 3 terms in the US House of Representatives, he has the advantage of name recognition in the state.
Current the race is to replace retiring Senator Mike Dayton (D) and is considered to be a race where the Republicans stand a chance in picking up a seat in the Senate.
Mark Kennedy spent 20 years as a CPA before entering politics, which brings with it the hope that when he gets to the Senate he might help his fellow Senators on their problem of spending more than they have. He has come out against the spending habits, and the "earmark" process specifically. A particular reform he mentions which is unique is giving the President a line-item veto that allows the President to veto specific clauses in legislation instead of having only an up-or-down say. This increase in the accountablility of the Congress will only help the problem of a tax-and-spend Congress.
Rep. Kennedy understands that the best way to educate children is to put control of the schools in the hands on local officials and parents, not Washington or detached bureaucrats.
Lastly, he realizes that the path to a better health care system is not further detaching patients and doctors from the decision-making process. Our health care system is designed so that insurance companies don't have to meaningfully answer to their customers which results in what every economist would expect, a system that doesn't meet the consumer's needs.
With public opinion of Congress at an all-time low, Rep. Kennedy provides one of the few examples of someone who has some ideas and fights for them. Please see his website and donate or help his campaign.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 30, 2006
Wictory Wednesday: Mike McGavick for United States Senate for the State of Washington
Mike McGavick has been running an insurgent campaign against incumbent Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. Bucking the trend against the GOP nationally, Mike has closed the gap between his Democratic competitor to within 5 percentage points in the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Last November, he was trailing by 15 percentage points.
Mike is a solid conservative who understands the necessity of fighting the war on terror and on regulating the flow of immigration at the border. There is a difference between welcoming immigrants in an orderly way and having a wide-open border that is open to exploitation by those who wish to harm the American way of life.
On health care, Mike realizes that the problem with health care is not that it is run by insurance companies, but that there are too many middlemen that leave the consumer out of the loop. Insurance companies are paid by companies who provide benefits to their employees. Those companies want to keep costs low so they pick one vendor and offer two plans to their employees: lower premium lower benefit plans with vendor A, or higher benefit higher benefit plans with vendor A. The needs of the consumer are only indirectly represented to the insurance company... if at all. The hospitals and doctors are paid by the insurance companies. Hospitals collect less than 30% of bills that are sent to consumers without insurance (or after their insurance has paid only part). Hospitals will therefore cater to the insurance companies that pay the bills. The solution is to put the consumer in the driver seat when dealing with their healthcare, not remove them even farther by having the government run the show.
Lastly, in an uncharacteristic position lately for a Republican, he's for fiscal conservativism. He knows that tax dollars isn't monopoly money, but money to which he is a steward, not an owner. We can count on him to support common-sense reforms to the tax-and-spend habits that have plagued Congress lately.
Please consider taking a look at Mick McGavick's website and supporting his campaign.
This was a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, a weekly posting by bloggers supporting solid Republican candidates for office (national office or governorship. If you are interesting in joining the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, please take a look at this post or e-mail John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog (at) gmail (dot) com.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 29, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: The FairTax Rally
This week's Fair Tax Blogburst is written by fellow blogger and friend Ms. Underestimated.
This is not just an idea anymore…it’s a movement! The Fair Tax movement.
What else do you call an event about something as dull and boring as the U.S. Tax Code that draws almost 7,000 to a rally? About 4,500 people got inside the doors, which had to be closed due to the 50,000 square foot Gwinnett Convention Center being at capacity at SIX THIRTY P.M.! The rally didn’t start for another hour, yet another almost 3,000 had to be turned away. People drove from Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and all over the southeast. Hindsight being 20/20, I’ve heard some of them express disappointment over radio because they only heard the broadcast en route to the rally, and at 6:30 they weren’t even in Georgia yet. They knew they had to turn around and go home, but every single one said that next time, they’ll come a day or two in advance! Some who were turned away simply went to their cars and “tail-gated” with fellow Fair Taxers so they could all listen to the rally as WSB Radio broadcast it live.
After all, who knew there would even be a thousand that would attend? Neal Boortz, the co-author of the Fair Tax Book, certainly didn’t think so himself. In fact, when Neal took the stage at about 8PM, the old curmudgeon was visibly moved. But that’s just where it all begins. Let me take you inside the event in my memory.
I left my office at 3PM, drove 35 miles through horrific Atlanta traffic, and was about the 1,500th person in line. You could feel the passion in the air as attendees clutched their books, displayed their buttons or signs, or signed petitions that were being passed around. We slowly made our way into the Convention Center, and it was packed already. The setup was fantastic, with huge screens dangling from the ceiling above just about every seating section, so everyone was guaranteed a good view of what was going on on the stage. Neal has some fantastic pictures at his site. Here’s a couple of them.
(Photos by Carrie Carden)
Here’s what the inside of the Convention Center looked like, and above is what a portion of the line looked like just to get inside. I am not even a SPECK at the end of this line!
These are just a few of the supporters waving their signs of support inside the center.
Once I got inside, I hunted down a t-shirt, but to no avail - sold out. I did get a signed book, well, two actually, and a “fairtax.org” stamp for money:
What the heck… I figure if I stamp all of my bills, at least ONE of them might prompt someone who knows nothing about HR25/S.25,HR5 to at least look at the bill they’ve just been given from the store clerk, go “what’s fair tax?” and then go to the internet to read about it. Oh, well... back to the rally...
Neal was first up, and spoke to a rousing applause. He told us of how awed he was by the turn-out, and that it spoke volumes to him of just what this had become. He was actually surprised because he thought people wouldn’t come because it was the night of the American Idol finale (oh, please!). He also let us know that not only did the Gwinnett Convention Center DONATE the facility and time, but the stage, lighting, sound equipment, video screens, etc., were also all donated for the cause!
Neal spoke about the Fair Tax, then introduced Congressman John Linder. They both engaged the audience in rapt attention, raucous applause, and cat-calls when the IRS was mentioned. Then, as we’d been promised, Congressman Linder came bearing good news. In the past week, Hastert’s office had been in contact with Linder’s office, and Hastert has set aside a one-hour block of face-to-face time for Congressman Linder to discuss the Fair Tax (HR25) with President Bush! That eclipsed the other good news we would receive by video from Sen. Saxby Chambliss later on, that finally Sen. Johnny Isaakson has signed on to co-sponsor the bill with Sen. Chambliss!
Then Sean joined the fray. Sean came prepared with written questions he’d gotten from his listeners that day as he broadcast from Neal’s studio at WSB Radio. Sean proposed the questions to both Congressman Linder & Neal, and you know that Neal brought the most howls with his wry sense of humor.
As they talked up the Fair Tax, Congressman Linder reminded us that before the Revolutionary War, a clear 2/3 of the people didn’t want to have anything to do with a battle against the British Crown. But due to the hard work and persistent of a few determined people who yearned for their liberty, they fought all rationality and the majority who were okay with the status quo, and forged ahead to secure that very freedom that we have today. If it weren’t for those determined few, who knows what our America would be like today? Many thanks go to them.
Sean had to hurry off to do Hannity & Colmes from the Atlanta Fox affiliate, so he came in specifically to be with us for that 20-minute period of time. Sean really gets it. Next up, former senatorial candidate, Herman Cain.
For those of you who’ve never been blessed enough to hear Herman Cain speak, you have no idea what you’re missing. I am really sorry he lost out that campaign to Johny Isaakson in GA, because Herman Cain is TRULY a dedicated REAGAN conservative Republican, and he is wholly behind the Fair Tax. In fact, he sits in for Neal on his show when Neal’s out. Neal’s affiliates will accept NO OTHER substitute except for Herman Cain. Otherwise, they prefer to just run a “best of” in Neal’s absence.
Herman regaled us with anecdotal stories about his grandfather, who was a poor Georgia dirt farmer. He remembered that going into town, his grandfather used to say to the kids “them that’s goin, get in the truck.. them that’s stayin, GET OUT OF THE WAY!” The audience went WILD! He reminded us that those who want to forge ahead and make change in the world should use that analogy in our lives if we want to affect change. He had the audience, at the appropriate times, shouting “GET OUT OF THE WAY!” A lot of people were yelling “AMEN, REV. CAIN!” I don’t know if he’s a reverend or not, but he definitely moves me. In fact, the gentleman next to me said “Lord, if he keeps this up, I’m gonna start speaking in tongues!” That was not only humorous, it was also true. Herman Cain is riveting. He didn’t stop there.
He continued stories about his grandfather, about when all the potatoes had been pulled from the ground and loaded on his truck, that all the kids would load in the truck with him. He said his grandfather didn’t take the smooth, already-dug grooves in the road.
Rather, his grandfather drove over every bump, rock, rut, etc., and when they came to the market, he asked his grandfather, “why didn’t you just take the regular road instead of making the ride so rough?” He said it was then he noticed that back in the truck bed, all the big potatoes had risen to the top; and all of the little potatoes had settled at the bottom. Then he turned his attention directly forward, and forcefully shouted “.. and YOU people ARE THE BIG POTATOES!”
My God, I though it was the second coming! Would the roof stay on? Or would the trembling of the building turn out to be just be the response of the crowd? Either way, it was absolutely electrifying! And talk about feeling empowered.. WOW! I have goosebumps just remembering it as I write! He definitely had the crowd motivated, and that’s what made us feel so good. That we ARE the ones who want change, and are determined enough to see it through. There was also a tangible sense of camaraderie in the building, as if we have all just been reminded of our mission, and accepted the challenge.
John Stossel of ABC also came to speak for a few minutes, and he gave us this amazing tidbit: 1% of the people of this planet affect change; 9% of the people watch change being affected; and the other 90% wake up one day and say “what happened?” We ARE that One Percent!!!
I’m sick to death of those people who support the Fair Tax, but don’t participate in these events or even sign petitions because of their defeatist attitudes. “Oh, it’s a good idea, but it will never happen,” or “well, it won’t really work because of XYZ.” If our founding fathers had had that attitude, then… well, I don’t even want to ponder that lunacy.
If the patriots of the revolutionary war can do something as monumental as they did, then can’t this bunch of “potatoes” do even less? Let’s do it, everyone… let’s get rid of the IRS, and get the government out of our lives!
Folks, I’m here to tell you; after what I witnessed at the rally, I cannot and will not be defeatist about it. Everything good or bad that exists today in our country was brought about by grassroots movements. And if there’s one thing I learned last Wednesday, it is this: IT’S POSSIBLE!
The Fair Tax Book : Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Buy the book TODAY (click the above link). Heck, buy 2 or 5, and send them to friends! And many thanks to
the Americans for Fair Taxation, who sponsored the event. Group President Ken Hoagland (right) also spoke to a roundly appreciative crowd.
If you have Comcast cable, you may be able to see video of this rally free from Comcast’s On-Demand service. Details are here.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 27, 2006
Good for them
Gonzales, Mueller, and others threatened to resign if they had to give back evidence after raiding Rep. Jefferson's office. I would too. If you can't prosecute members of Congress because they hide all the incriminating evidence in their congressional office, there isn't much point to trying anymore. If there is nothing else that should give hope that there are honest Republicans still about, they should look no farther that Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller, as well as the other fine men and women who made a principled stand here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 26, 2006
Wictory Wednesday has Returned!!
Wictory Wednesday has returned! It is a once-a-week event where hundreds of bloggers ask their readers to support a Republican candidate by donating to their campaign (or at least blogging about them). After over a year break, I've taken the initiative to set it back up and put it together again. 2006 is a big election year and now is the time to assert the influence of the grass roots (or the "connected" will assert it for us).
Each Wednesday, I will send out the "default" candidate to support for that week. Since we aren't Democrats or liberals, you are free to change the candidate and support someone else of your own choice. We like free-thinkers here. All we ask is that you support some candidate on Wednesday and help advance the ideas we hold dear.
If you wish to participate in Wictory Wednesday which will begin on May 31st, 2006 (incidently my birthday), please send an e-mail to jcb.blog (at) gmail.com with your blog name, blog URL, and add the following blogroll code to your site (optional). If you don't post the full blogroll, a link to this post with some advertisement for Wictory Wednesday is appreciated.
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=cb04198e51db8289c2cfa56593350843"> </script>
The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 25, 2006
StoptheACLU Blogburst: War against a discredited story
Stop the ACLU has the latest on the NSA's litigation against phone companies and their state-by-state effort to hammer those phone companies (and thus drive up the price we pay for telephone service) based on the USA Today story detailing the NSA buying phone records from those companies. Problem is? There doesn't seem to be any evidence it happened, and evidence that it didn't. Read more at Stop the ACLU. Gazoo.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 23, 2006
If Hastert wasn't retiring, I'd say he should be thrown out
Listen, Denny, if a Congressman uses his office to break the law, it isn't unconstitutional for the executive branch to take a look at his office to prosecute him. It wasn't like he was drunk and drove a car into a barrier, or he slapped around a Capitol cop. He took bribes for official action and that makes his office fair game.
UPDATE:
Or maybe he isn't under investigation... mislead by the MSM again...
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 22, 2006
Defending the Right of Congressmen to Break the Law in Private
Over the weekend, the FBI executed a search warrant to search Representative William Jefferson’s congressional office. While it might be amusing to point out that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana is a Democrat, the intent here is not to make partisan jabs (okay, maybe a little). Corruption has been a part of both parties and neither has a lock on it. (Just look at Illinois).
A politician, particularly from Louisiana, being on the take is not a big surprise. Nor is the fact that the same politician was caught on tape taking the money, nor the money having been found neatly wrapped still in his freezer at home. The biggest thing that voters should sit up and take notice is that congressional leaders from both parties are taking offense to the fact an object of a criminal bribery probe had his congressional office searched. That's right. These congressmen have the audacity to complain that searching Rep. Jefferson's office violated separation of powers.
To review, any police department (an executive agency) is required to ask a court before getting a search warrant. They have to lay out what they are searching for and why they want to search where they're requesting to go. A judge (a member of the judiciary) hears them out and either approves or denies the warrant. Odds are, because of the high-profile nature of this warrant, a judge took his time and carefully considered this warrant. At the end of the day, both the executive and judiciary landed on the same page with regards to this legislator's corruption. Or, you could look at it as the two other branches of government are checking the corruption of the third.
The facts are these, Rep. Jefferson is accused of using his legislative office to perform official acts for private pay… he took bribes. The FBI states that they have this bribe-taking on tape and that they found the money in Jefferson's home. While there is "two sides to every story" and he is "innocent until proven guilty" it certainly looks like the FBI might have a pretty solid case here. Perhaps if Jefferson is so concerned about executive and judicial scrutiny of his office, he ought to have considered not being corrupt in the first place.
The party leaders and other congressional members carrying the water for Jefferson, however, is beyond the pale. Instead of being angry with Jefferson for abusing his office or calling for impeachment hearings, they are complaining that the FBI… did their job. The message they are sending is that they demand the right of privacy for congressman who use their office for illegal activities.
If someone was shot in one of their offices, could there be an investigation?
What if one of them was dealing drugs out of their office, could they try to catch the Congressman in the act?
Any right-thinking person can see why a congressional office shouldn't be an impregnable veil against those who investigate and punish criminal activity. Apparently, congressional leaders of both parties thing there are more important things than stopping criminal activity, at least if one of their own is involved.
Voters of both parties need to send a clear message. Not only will we not tolerate corrupt individuals among our elected representatives, but we must not tolerate those who seek to protect them or otherwise prevent investigation and prosecution of them. We cannot let these congressmen… our employees tell us that the Constitution requires that we let them get away with taking bribes.
Any congressman who seeks to defend this activity, or construct absurd walls to investigating congressional misbehavior, need to be thrown out of office regardless of partisan affiliation. It is time that these lawmakers focus more of cleaning their own house instead of protecting the criminals within it.
Tags: jefferson, congress, corruption, bribes, separation of powers, united states, politics, FBI, judiciary, law
Thanks to Mudville Gazette,
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 9, 2006
Read this : The Dummification of Politics
Taking a break from my usual rule of no posting on Sundays to share this because I think it's great.
Joe Klein and I probably don't agree on much in the way of politics, but this is spot on.
Read it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 5, 2006
A Solution to Illegal Immigration?
The immigration debate has exposed a sore issue on all sides. Much of the country is upset that the government is doing nothing about illegal immigration and is simply proposing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in lieu of not enforcing the laws. The illegal immigrants believe this to be a racist attack designed to purge the country of Hispanics. Both sides have a point but there still needs to be a solution before the issue becomes too contentious.
The immigration enforcement position
Those who favor immigration enforcement argue that these people entered the country illegally and should not be rewarded for breaking the law. They state that the porous border makes it easy for the enemies of the United States to enter the country and undermine us from within. There is the argument that illegal immigrants inflate the welfare roles causing taxpayers to pay for people who sneak across the border. Lastly, the situation has led to open armed conflict on the border with Mexico.
The immigrants' position
Living in poverty with no hope of a better life for oneself or one's children isn't a fun thing. If you lived in Mexico and saw the prosperity in the US you'd want to come here too. With the Mexican government and the United States government making it so easy to come here it hardly seems like it is really illegal. Companies are ready and willing to not only hire you, but help you "doctor" the paperwork so it appears legit. If your child is born in the US they'll automatically have US citizenship.
It's a win-win.
Analysis
This problem has been caused by the government of the United States not only spending decades not enforcing the law but broadcasting that we have no intention of enforcing the law. When Mexico started producing pamphlets on how to sneak across the border, our government did nothing. While it is tempting to blame the illegal immigrants, we can hardly blame them for wanting a better life, being told by their government they can come to the US for a good life, and the US saying they won't enforce the laws. Making it a felony to be an illegal immigrant starts to get dangerously close to an ex post facto kind of situation.
One could make the argument that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point to this law. In Illinois, premarital sex is illegal. No one expects the government to enforce this law and it hasn't for a good long time now. If one day they decided to break up the shack-up fest at the nearest meat market people would cry foul. Skipping past the constitutional considerations, something is fundamentally unfair about telling people you aren't going to enforce a criminal statute for decades and then suddenly changing your mind.
A government has the right to and ought to regulate the flow of immigration to that level which is most beneficial to the economy. It has a right to not take another country's poor to only become permanent beneficiaries of the welfare system. Lastly, the transparent lack of enforcement on the border has only emboldened criminal elements to operate there with impunity.
Solution
All immigrants would be required to register with the government and undergo some simple tests including a background check. If they have caused no problems here, they will be required to briefly return home, check-in, and then be allowed to return.
The number of legal immigrants we give visas to should be greatly increased and the process to get here simplified to those steps which are necessary to maintain security. The easier it is for legitimate people to get here (while keeping the bad guys out) will prevent the "black market" immigrant transport problem we have now.
When they return they'll be required to use legitimate information for any job they have and provide that information to the government. The situation of forty million people using the social security number of 000-00-0000 needs to end.
They'll have very limited access to welfare programs. In short, they'll be expected to support themselves like every other immigrant that comes here legally has to do. We should not allow the government of Mexico to treat the US as if it were responsible for its own poverty problem and welfare programs. If Mexico insists on the US providing social services for it, then it is time we consider whether Mexico should become the 51st state.
Because the government has shown that it cannot be trusted to properly enforce the laws, a "qui tam" provision must be included which allows private citizens to sue on behalf of the government those employers who employ illegal immigrants. These laws have worked well in cases of government fraud and Medicare fraud, and this would allow interested private parties to do the enforcing with the help of a court. Take away the jobs and a large incentive to sneak across the border goes away.
Two tracks of legal immigration should be adopted, an irrevocable path to citizenship and a guest worker program. Guest workers will be allowed to work for 10 years and have no eligibility for welfare. The path to citizenship will require a renunciation of Mexican (or other relevant nation's) citizenship and classes in English will be provided. Guest workers cannot be hired if there are willing and capable legal residents or citizens applying to do the work.
Congressional seats will be apportioned by the number of legal residents in the state and not merely the number of people in the state. Having a high proportion of illegal immigrants should not afford a state with extra House seats.
Any illegal immigrants captured or otherwise discovered in the United State will be permanently banned from legal immigration.
A border wall will be constructed to eliminate the flow of people into the United States in an undocumented fashion.
Summary
This should suffice in getting all the legitimate workers documented, isolate the criminal element as they would not likely walk into a government office to get fingerprinted, and create a regime that allows for enforcement (even when government officials want to weasel out). It will stem the incentives that cause people to sneak across the border and the incentives to hire such people. It will also allow for the compassion and fairness of liberal immigration that has been beneficial to our society. Lastly, it will emphasize assimilation by requiring a permanent irrevocable choice to become a US citizen. It is a difficult issue to arrive at a compromise on because of the failure of the government which made this the huge issue it has become.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 30, 2006
DNC to Canvass in all 50 States
Here's the email I got from Mad Howard.
====
Dear John,
Are you ready to make history?
Thanks to the overwhelming support from thousands of Democrats, who donated to get the literature for the canvass printed and shipped, we're on schedule and gearing up for the unprecedented Neighbor-to-Neighbor Organizing Day on April 29th.
On that Saturday, thousands of volunteers will recruit hundreds of thousands more Americans committed to changing the status quo this year during door-knocking events in communities across America.
Democrats have a clear vision for America, and we're going to get the word out by making personal contact with our neighbors. And along the way we will build new relationships among volunteers on the ground, a network that will have an impact beyond a single day.
Whether you've never volunteered or you're a seasoned door-knocking veteran, it is crucial that you take part in this historic organizing push.
Please RSVP for an event near you:
http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass/find
In many states, Democratic Party staff on the ground have already put together staging areas for massive voter contact events on the 29th. Thanks to donations from people like you, hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature are being printed and shipping in bulk to those locations right now.
If there isn't an event near you, don't worry. Some state parties will have canvassing events on alternate dates, or have other important events planned for that weekend.
You can still plan your own canvass in your community. Our online tool makes the planning process easy, and if you create your event before April 10th, we will get doorhangers to you in time for your canvass on the 29th.
You can create your own event here:
http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass/create
Whether you're attending an event or hosting your own, we have also put together materials on the web to help you make your canvass as effective as possible.
The online package includes tips on canvassing, a suggested script for when you get to the door, and the doorhanger itself in various formats for you to print extras on your own.
Here is the online resource center:
http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass
Two-thirds of Americans reject this president and the Republican leadership -- and they are waiting to hear from us.
We are all members of one American community and it's up to us to make sure that our country has a government as good as its people.
Democrats have a big task in November. We will only win if every one of us takes responsibility for the outcome of the election now -- while there is still time to build our operation.
Thank you for being a part of this extraordinary grassroots push.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Stop the ACLU - History of the ACLU Part 1
A History On The ACLU Part 1
I researched the Congressional Record dated Wednesday, September 20, 1961. Very important information relating to the ACLU and it's Communist/Socialist ambitions.
Dr. Fredrick Schwartz, executive director of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade, "Communist Legal Subversion," page 75, House Committee on Un-American Activities: "Any attempt to judge the influence of Communists by their numbers is like trying to determine the validity of the hull of a boat by relating the area of the holes to the area which is sound. One hole can sink a ship. Communism is the theory of the disciplined of few controlling and directing the rest. One person in a sensitive position can control and manipulate thousands of others."
FBI Director, J. Edger Hoover called Communists, "Masters of Deceit". He continues, "Fronts probably represent the party's (communist) most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support. Like mass agitation and infiltration, fronts espouse the deceptive party line (hence the word "front"), while actually advancing the real party line. In this way the party is able to influence thousands of non-Communists, collecting large sums of money, and reach the minds, pens, and tongues of many high-ranking and distinguished individuals. Moreover, fronts are excellent fields for party recruitment." The FBI director, people!
And how does this tie into the ACLU? I'm getting to that. The two co-founders of the American Civil Liberties Union are Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastwood, both confessed socialists. Roger Baldwin was on the record of over 100 Communist front affiliations. In an article that he wrote for "Soviet Russia Today"(September 1934), "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." He goes on to say, "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental." He also wrote in a book commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Harvard graduating class of 1905 (in 1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth: Communism is the goal."
Dr. Harry Ward, the first chairman of the ACLU, was linked to over 200 front affiliations of the Communist Party. And was the chairman of one of the largest front organizations in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy." Which was placed on a list of subversive organizations by the Attorney General of The United States on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward authored two pro-Soviet books, "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit", which garnered him an investigation by the California State Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities. The Committee stated on page 246 of their report, "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympathies of the members and sponsors of the 'Friends of the Soviet Union.'"
Since this history is far reaching, I will continue this subject in tomorrow's main posting. I don't wish to overwhelm my readers with too much information. But should you wish to read up on this subject further, you can read the entire Congressional Record for September 20, 1961, by clicking on the title of this post. It is rather eye opening.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 20, 2006
Guard the Borders Blogburst: A Call to Action
On Thursday, March 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee told their staff to meet behind closed doors to construct an immigration bill that would include provisions from the Kennedy-McCain bill. Known as S. 1033, the McCain-Kennedy bill includes an amnesty for illegal aliens, a massive "guest" worker program that leads to citizenship, and an estimated one million additional permanent immigrants each year.
Millions of illegals to become citizens?
Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill likely to pass Senate committee after recess
A bill that would give millions of illegal aliens in the United States the opportunity to earn citizenship is closer to becoming law today as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled likely passage of a proposal by Sens. Edward Kenney, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz.Though a committee vote will not be held until after a week-long congressional recess, likely March 27, committee members appeared ready to back the Kennedy-McCain bill.
"The votes are there," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Congress is working to pass a reform bill that includes enforcement, a policy on dealing with illegals already in the country and a guest-worker program pushed by President Bush.
Under the legislation, illegal aliens in the United States would obtain six-year nonimmigrant visas under which they could work in the country and travel outside the country. The aliens would have to pay a $1,000 fine and undergo background checks.
After six years, the aliens would be able to meet certain requirements and then apply for a green card, or permanent residency.
Besides voting on the bill after the recess, committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the panel also would vote on a bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would give illegal aliens up to five years to leave the U.S. After returning home, they could then apply to return, either as temporary workers or for permanent residency.
"Our intention is not to strand anyone outside the country," Kyl said, according to an AP report. But he asserted the McCain-Kennedy plan would give an illegal alien allowed to stay and work in the country a "huge advantage" over a person having to wait for years in his or her own country for a green card.
The McCain-Kennedy bill would start off with offering 400,000 of the new visas.
To compare the various bills please click here to view a .pdf chart created by NumbersUSA.org. You will be able to see for yourself that what the spin-meisters are telling us about the various bills clearly does NOT match the actual provisions of the bills themselves.
Although Sens. McCain and Kennedy adamantly deny that S. 1033 is an amnesty for illegal aliens, it clearly spells out a path to jobs and residency for illegal aliens. Among the significant immigration-increase provisions of the bill are: a new visa category (H-5A) for 400,000 low-skill foreign workers (this cap can be adjusted upwards); a new temporary 6-year visa category (H-5B) for illegal aliens (and their spouses and children) already in the country; an amnesty for illegal aliens who apply for an H-5B visa and pay a $2,000 fine; a provision for the H-5A temporary workers to apply for permanent resident status after four years; and an exemption of immediate relatives (spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens) from the annual level of 480,000 family-sponsored immigrant visas thereby providing additional visas to the family preference categories.
Supporters claim S. 1033 contains measures to increase border security, yet it contains virtually no such provisions. Aside from creating a Border Security Committee and requiring a few reports, the main "enforcement" provisions are aimed at helping Mexico control its borders!! S. 1033 does, however, require machine-readable immigration documents, and create a new electronic work authorization system that would eventually replace the current "I-9" system. S. 1033 would require the federal government to reimburse states for the cost of providing emergency health care to H-5A and H-5B workers.
Aside from the fact that any guest worker plan would be nothing more than a disastrous amnesty deal tied with a big red bow for lawbreakers, there is another reason to reject it: Our government can’t handle it!
Our government is not capable of handling roughly 13-20 million temporary worker applications when our illegal alien population suddenly becomes eligible through guest worker legislation - USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service) simply cannot handle the administration overload it already has. The only solution would be to massively increase the government. The link above outlines a report from the GAO that shows how the USCIS is already irrevocably buried under a backlog of immigration adjudication. It's a whole other perspective on the various administrative amnesties proposed by the Senate. Mundane? Perhaps. Crucial to the overall scope and size of our bloated and sprawling federal government? Absolutely.
1. If you care about the careless increases in immigration as proposed by our Senate, please send a fax - today. It's fast, it's easy - and it's free. NumbersUSA has an amazing way to help us stay involved, and helps us get our voices heard. Their basic faxes are pre-written, and will take less than one minute to send. But, even better, once you register, the faxes are fully customizable to say what you specifically find important to say, if you so choose. The site is an incredible free resource for immigration issues. You can also opt-in for timely updates on issues coming before Congress, and take action on every single on, if you desire.
2. Email the permalink from this article to others you know who care about the impact of illegal immigration. Together, we can all have a voice. The more Americans that respond - the bigger the impact.
Please take a moment, and send a fax today. The Senate Judiciary Committe is behind closed doors as we speak. The McCain-Kennedy bill will come to a vote by next Monday. They and their staffs are smugly confident that they have the votes - let's convince our Senators otherwise.
Take action! We can still be heard!
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:24 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 26, 2006
Universal Health Care and Euthanasia
There are two events that should give people pause when considering universal health care. First is Hurricane Katrina and several facilities euthanisizing patients not because of terminal illness, but because they didn?t think they could move them. Second is Charlotte Wyatt who doctors want to euthanize (or more accurately let die) because they don?t think she is worth saving. A court has rules that the doctors can make this decision even though it is contrary to the will of the parents. In the first case, it is people making mistaken practical judgments. In the second case, it?s little more than outright eugenics.
It is one thing to let some one commit suicide because they've lived a full life and have little hope of recovery. It is another to mandate death to people because they aren't worth taking care of. The first case can be called "right to die". The second case is more properly called the "right to kill". Confusing the two makes it easier for the "right to die" crowd to be a "right to kill" crowd.
Right now it is particularly difficult for people to be put to death against their stated (or their family members) will in the United States; that is until universal health care is introduced (and hopefully it never will be). To summarize, the government can't be trusted to know which phone calls belong to terrorists and which belong to moms planning on getting their kids to soccer practice. The government can't be trusted to get industry advice and not sell out to the rich. The government can't be trusted even to hold prisoners captured on the field of battle. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE ALL MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MY HEALTH CARE!!!
The problem comes in that the government uses different priorities to make decisions than people do. For instance, the Irish Health Service had other priorities in mind when deciding on health care for the elderly. Or stateside, an Illinois pension fund seems to be operating under different priorities then actually keeping pensions around for teachers. Bureaucrats like wasting money, when they waste too much there isn?t enough to take care of business. Apply this to health care and it means people without money who have come to rely on public health care will get screwed.
What happens when people get screwed by the health care system? Well they'll be euthanized more often than they are now. New Orleans medical professionals decided that it was too much effort to try to keep them alive so they killed them. Not because they were terminally ill. Not because they were in incredible pain. It was because they assessed the situation and didn?t think it worth trying to find a way to help them. The difference is when they aren't the government, they'll be prosecuted. When they are operating with a government imprimatur, they'll get away with it more likely than not. The government will decide who is worth treating and who should die based on some dollar calculation.
If the NSA can't be trusted to listen to some phone calls, what makes people think that this health care calculus will be honest?
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:01 PM |