"...but just by looking at faces, I could tell there were some folks who are here not because they were born here, but because they want to be here..."Someone shoulda called ICE.
Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they can't and they have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve the nation's ills, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center that shows public confidence in the federal government at one of the lowest points in a half-century.
I talked about the lack of trust in our government back in early February when I set forth my "manifesto" of sorts on how Americans can become better represented in Washington - The People's Republic Ombudsman Party (PRO).
Thanks, Pew.
The president's top strategist, David Axelrod, says that it's not all Obama's fault. Axelrod accuses the Republicans of trying to de-legitimize government. During an NPR broadcast on the Pew survey, Axlerod stated:"In Chicago, there was an old tradition of throwing a brick through your own campaign office window, and then calling a press conference to say that you've been attacked...I think it's a little bit the same with the Republicans. They meet, they decide we're not going to give the president any bipartisan support, and then they call a press conference to accuse him of not governing in a bipartisan way. And that, I think, grates on people."
Like the Democrats haven't done this in the past? What about "change" and "not politics as usual"...two of Obama's campaign promises? Go ahead, Axelrod - pass the buck, you douch bag. No, it's not all Obama's fault, but it is inherent in politics. And the Obama administration has done nothing to alleviate the public's opinion in government as Obama promised he would do during his presidential campaign.
Which one doesn't belong? Probably Professor Goodwin Liu - he seems the most normal of the lot.
1.) President Obama nominated Professor Liu to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As usual, the right is protesting. Had it been a Republican president doing the nominating, the left would protest.
In May 2008, Liu took part in a discussion of the documentary film Traces of the Trade, which explores the role of New Englanders in the slave trade. The right is saying Liu talked about "reparations" for blacks; the left said he said no such word. And he didn't - but he did say this:...whatever our lineage, whatever our ancestry, whatever our complicity, still have a moral duty to ... make things right.
And I think, to add one more point on top of that, the exercise of that responsibility ... necessarily requires the answer to the question, "What are we willing to give up to make things right?" Because it's gonna require us to give up something, whether it is the seat at Harvard, the seat at Princeton. Or is it gonna require us to give up our segregated neighborhoods, our segregated schools? Is it gonna require us to give up our money?
So Liu did say "to make things right" and he begged the question, "is it gonna require us to give up out money?" . THAT'S REPARATIONS. If Liu asks that question now, he could very well be asked that question while sitting on the bench. Which means he could rule in favor of reparations. And that's why the right is up in arms.
2.) Corporate Accountability International is on a mission to retire Ronald McDonald. It claims that Ronald, who had been the face of McDonald's since 1963, has way too much influence over children and what they eat. Bad influence.
You know what? Where does "responsibility" on the part of the parents of these children come into play? Isn't it the parents who drive their children to McDonald's? And why can't the kids order a salad? Or eat a fish sandwich? Or just take the bun off the hamburger? Better yet, drive your kid somewhere else. This is bullshit. You know it. I know it. Go ahead and blame everyone but the God damn parents.
CAI must've forgotten that for nearly 35 years, the Ronald McDonald House Charities have been "creating, finding and supporting programs that directly improve the health and well being of nearly 4 million children worldwide every year."
3.) Erykah Badu shoots a music video for her song, "Window Seat" at Daley Plaza in Dallas where President Kennedy was murdered. Throughout the video she takes her clothes off until she's totally naked and falls down near where Kennedy was shot, at which time you hear a gunshot during the video.
I understand free speech. I understand artist's need to create. I practice both regularly. I enjoy the sight of a naked woman. But Daley Plaza is a public place, a historical site and there were children present. Badu didn't give a shit. She's an ar-tist. She stated that she attempted to "telepathically" convey her good intentions to the children.
Whack job. Fuck her and her album. And she should've gotten arrested for indecent, fucking exposure.
4.) More whack jobs. Westboro Baptist Church. You know who they are - they picket the funerals (among other events) of servicemen and gays and lesbians and yell out that God killed your son or daughter because they're gay or because homosexuality runs rampant in our country (among other things they protest). One father sued the church for interfering in his son's funeral, a US marine killed overseas. Two courts upheld the suit but the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shot the ruling down AND ordered the father to pay the church's legal bills (around $17,000). He stated he couldn't afford it. The church said, "you get money from your son's death benefits; you can pay".
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Bill O'Reilly of FoxNews agreed to pay the father's $17,000 bill. And people all over the country are donating money to see this thing to the end.
Is it me or is this world getting more and more fucked up each day? Parents of kids my age who used to want a better life for us...these parents, my parents are saying, "I'm glad I'm not you".
"Our approach cuts the deficit by $143 billion over the next decade and is expected to cut $1.2 trillion the following 10 years...we reduce uncompensated care to the tune of $459 million in our area alone and those savings will be passed on to every single person."
- Rep. Gwen Moore (D)"Premiums in the individual market would rise from 10% to 13% for families. Our debt and deficit crisis...would accelerate from the creation of brand new entitlement and increase in the federal deficit by $662 billion over the next decade, according the the president's own actuary, and $2.4 trillion in the decade after the new entitlement is up and running. The legislation will hit our economy with $569 billion in tax increases..."
- Rep. Paul Ryan (R)
House Democrats. Health care. Another big push. Couple things I don't get.
1.) Why is an overhaul of the student loan program included in the health care bill? This has all the makings of "pork" or "earmarks", doesn't it? Dem's add their pork (student loan program) to try and get the health care bill passed. Same thing. I was under the impression that President Obama called for an end to this pork bullshit (even though he signed the stimulus bill choke full of pork). Hypocrites. Lying, bastard hypocrites.
2.) AND, according to a professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, the manner in which the Dem's plan to get this health care bill passed is unconstitutional.
What gives? And don't comment and ask me, "don't you want health care, Jeff?" That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking two very simple questions: why is the student loan program bill included in the health care bill and why are Dem's trying to unconstitutionally pass the health bill?
Every time I see our country's Speaker of the House on television or type or utter her name I wanna throw up in my mouth. So I won't - utter her name. On my drive "Up North" Friday, I heard Madam Speaker quoted Thursday on Rachel Maddow's show:"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."
What does that mean? Is she encouraging people to pursue their dreams and passions and become artists? Or is she referring to established artists - that they may continue in their pursuit of the arts because the Obama health care plan will cover them whether they're working a "day" job or not? Or is she simply saying that any artist will have access to health care coverage whether or not they have a "day" job? (Did I repeat myself? See - I'm confused.)
Here's one conservative's take on Madam Speaker's take on artistry and the health care bill.
I'm an artist, Ms. Speaker, and the economy you described would be wonderful - in Alice's Wonderland. If artists don't need to have a "day" job in order to have health coverage, what would be their incentive to ever find a full-time job, as long as they can cover the monthly premiums? If every Tom, Dick and Jane pursued his or her passions to the extent that they didn't need a day job but had access to health insurance, my brother would be out in the Northwoods tapping maple trees all day, I wouldn't have to pay COBRA and substitute teach, my buddy Nick could pursue his alternative band while his wife stays home from analyzing her psychiatric patients while teaching her 4-month-old to watercolor and the rest of the world could purse reality television careers.
If everyone took to heart what Madam Speaker (it's difficult for me to even refer to her as "madam") said, who would end up bearing the brunt of the financial responsibility for health care coverage? Would anyone have to work full-time? Someone please tell me what Madam Speaker was driving at because I'm confused.
President Obama, I know you've got health care, jobs, our economy, etc. to deal with but the "elephant in the room" isn't going to go away on it's own.
In a post on The Daily Beast, Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of the U S News and World Report and a supporter of Barack Obama during his run for the Presidency, rips President Obama a new one. I mean - rips. Here are a few excerpt's:
"I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately."
"This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically. "
"In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting."
"He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, 'This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.' Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him."
He WAS a supporter of Obama's. Thanks, Justyna, for the email tip.
Rashad Hussain's character has been called into question after only 9 days on the job. This does not bode well for an administration that promised the American people "hope" and "change".
In January of 2009, Rashad Hussain was named deputy associate counsel to President Barack Obama. Before that he served as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. Then President Obama appointed Hussain, an Indian-American Muslim, the United States special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Flashback to 2004. While a Yale law student, Hussain spoke alongside the daughter of Professor Sami al-Arian, who was employed by the University of South Florida in Tampa, at the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference, a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood (see below*). Professor Sami al-Arian was convicted of being a key leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group and later admitted to being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was sentenced to the maximum 57 months in prison, with deportation to follow time served.
At the 2004 conference, Hussain stated, "The case that Laila (al-Arian's daughter) just reminded us of is truly a sad commentary on our legal system. It is a travesty of justice, not just from the perspective of the allegations that are made against Dr. al-Arian. Without passing any comment on those specific allegations or the statements [that] have been made against him, the process that has been used has been atrocious." Hussain went on to say, the treatment of al-Arian fit a "common pattern ... of politically-motivated prosecutions where you have huge Justice Department press conferences announcing that a certain person is a grave threat to American security." You can read the full Politico article here.
Hussain (left) initially said he didn't recall making those statements (and the White House supported him, saying the journalist was wrong). I believe they were first attributed to Professor Sami al-Arian's daughter - not Hussain. However, the statements Hussain said he couldn't recall were caught on audio tape. So NOW Hussain admits he DID make those statements.
Forget, for a moment, all Muslim references. Just forget them. Most Muslims aren't bent on jihad. What kills me is the "not recalling the statements" part. If Hussain honestly didn't recall them and then suddenly remembered them - that's plausible. But Hussain ALSO admitted contacting the magazine where the story first appeared to get the magazine to change its on-line version to erase the fact. "I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated," Hussain said, referring to the 2004 conference. "When I saw the article that attributed comments to me without context, leaving a misimpression, I contacted the publication to raise concerns about it. Eventually, of their own accord, they modified the article." The publication being the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs.
So it didn't just dawn on Hussain that "oh, yeh...I guess I did say that shit." He lied about it. Not only couldn't he recall making the statements, but he couldn't recall contacting the publication about his statements. Terrible memory - and this guy went to Harvard and Yale Law School? Oh yeah - Hussain made that call THREE YEARS LATER. Why? Interesting how not long after contacting the publication, Hussain was hired to fill the trial attorney position (handling civil cases against the government) at the U.S. Department of Justice in 2008? Coincidence?
And yet The White House has expressed its full confidence in Hussain. Discussion over.
Hussain lied to protect his ass. Or he wouldn't have contacted the publication to confirm what he had said three years prior. But what's another liar in Washington, right. Fuck it. Who cares? The liberals don't care 'cause Hussain's Obama's guy. Republicans are the same way. If it were one of their own they'd say, "you're making a bigger issue out of this than needs to be."
*Back to that Muslim shit. Even though the Muslim Brotherhood has stated it eshews violence, several documents linked to the organization say otherwise, including one from 1991 that explained the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is “settlement” , defined by the author as a form of jihad aimed at destroying Western civilization from within and allowing for the victory of Islam over other religions. Hmmm.
I'm reading American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, and I recalled this passage:
In a 1786 joint message to their superiors in Congress, Ambassadors John Adams (Britain) and Thomas Jefferson (France) described the audacity of Barbary pirate terrorist attacks. Adams and Jefferson asked the ambassador from Tripoli on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified. “The Ambassador answered us that is was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners…”
Some things don't change. Rashad Hussain should be booted; better yet, he should resign. NOT for his beliefs or affiliation to any Muslim group (that's a separate issue) - but, first and foremost, because he lied and tried to cover it up. How can Hussain be effective at his job as envoy when he will be forever scrutinized?
Really? "Enjoys"? I suppose it's a question of semantics. The results covered 33 pages, so let's look a few key pollng stats. And remember, you can fudge stats any number of ways to make them look favorable for whatever side of the fence you're on, so here's the poll in its entirety. This way you can derive your own conclusions.
So the President has a 1% lead on approvals versus disapprovals. That must be the edge Obama should be "enjoying", according to the New York Times' lead-in to the poll results. 51% said they are dissatisfied or angry regarding their feelings about the Obama administration. Hmmm...let's look at some other categories:
52% disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy:
And 55% disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care.
58% disapprove of the way Obama is handling the deficit.
81% polled say they do not feel members of Congress deserve re-election. And 46% say the next generation of Americans will be worse off than we are today.
A political cartoon by Thomas Nash.
Gary Cooper in "Meet John Doe" (1941).
My solution – The People’s Republic Ombudsman Party (I’ll call it “PRO” for the sake of this discussion). The plan: replace half of each state’s career politicians in Washington (both in the Senate and the House) with “John Doe’s” – John Doe the housewife, John Doe the Salesman, John Doe the Barber. Representatives from all walks of life. A John Doe grassroots movement (akin to the movie, “Meet John Doe”). Whenever the concept of having an Everyman hold political office is discussed, one of the first arguments brought up by dissenters is that Joe Blow (or John Doe) has no political experience – no budget planning, no public speaking, no agenda setting, no political savvy know-how whatsoever. My rationale for keeping half the number of career politicians per state in Washington is so they’re able to act as mentors to the PRO party members, guiding them through the introduction of bills, voting procedures, Parliamentary Procedure, etc.
Before I proceed, let me clear up a couple definitions. “Republic” refers to a representative democracy (elected officials who represent the people) as termed by our Founding Fathers. In modern political science, “republicanism” refers to a specific ideology based on “civic virtue” – a cultivation of habits of personal living that are claimed to be important for the success of the community. The Boy Scouts of America oath, for example, promotes civic virtue. “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country and to obey the Scout law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.” Sound like a politician’s oath to you? Incidentally, all senators and congressmen swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, yet they break that oath daily.
And “ombudsman” is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency while representing the broad scope of constituent interests. U.S. Congresspersons have long performed the unofficial function of an ombudsman, at the federal level, but the task became time consuming. Its criticism was largely based on the fact that it interfered with a legislator's primary duty – to read and be knowledgeable about a bill before casting his or her vote.
So why not relieve the career politician of these ombudsman duties and have the two work together – the career politician and John Doe, while combining aspects of “republic” and “civic virtue”? This approach establishes an added series of checks and balances so that career politicians aren’t wholly compromised by extraneous motivations (all forms of corruption, monies, political gain) and stay the course of working for their constituents – not for their careers.
Executive secretaries can assist the limited-term PRO party members in the day-to-day running of each candidate’s office (just like they do with career politicians). In the event a state has an odd number of Senators or Representatives, the odd man out is a PRO party member (to keep the career politicians honest). This way, the career politicians can’t gang up and out vote the PRO party members. More specifics:
- PRO party members are limited to 2-year terms, at which time they are replaced with new PRO party members.
- PRO party members are elected by the public, after which they go through a rigorous confirmation hearing headed up by the state governor and other non-political persons selected by the governor. PRO party members do not campaign or spend money on campaigning. The public can go to a Internet site to find information on each prospective PRO party candidate. I’m certainly flexible on how the PRO party members are chosen, as long as the public has a vote in the matter and there’s no campaigning.
- In the case of PRO party members, there must be an equal ratio of members who are polar opposites in political philosophy – a mix of moderates, conservatives and liberals.
- To avoid constituents crying unfair/unbalanced representation in their districts, the career politician and the PRO party member represent the same district.
- PRO party members’ job description reads exactly as their career politician counterparts. They have identical job duties and responsibilities.
- PRO party members get equivalent pay, as well as all other benefits awarded a first-year Congressman or Senator.
- PRO party members are guaranteed to return to their previous job prior to completion of their public service.
- If a PRO party member is guilty of misconduct while in office, they are extricated and face legal action, like their career politician counterpart.
FACT: Most Americans do not trust their politicians. FACT: The vast majority of politicians ARE career politicians.
Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939).
When you consider 400+ varied groups are lobbying for the attention of your elected officials in the hopes of getting votes and making campaign donations, tell me how these career politicians can serve the best interests of their constituency? How can one man serve two masters? Wait – you can. A man can have a wife and a whore. I guess politicians can as well.
It’s a common adage that there are two things in life we can count on: death and taxes. If we as American citizens won’t demand term limitations for politicians; if we as American citizens won’t demand that our politicians work in Washington for the people and not for lobbyists, not for self-serving back-door deals, not for job security and not for perks such as plane travel, liquor and parties, top tier health care and pension plans – then neither “hope” nor “change” brought by the Obama administration or any future administration will change the status quo. Party politics, political red tape and gridlock and corruption will remain the norm. And the John Doe's and Mr. Smith’s of the political arena will do little to affect positive change unless change comes from a unified front.
President Obama recently commented to Washington politicians that if they are going to disagree with his proposed legislation, do it based on PRINCIPLE, not based on partisan politics. With all due respect, Mr. President, I don't think you'll find much principle in Washington. And what you’re asking – it’s never going to happen. Not unless the People’s Republic Ombudsman Party – or something similar – is instituted. Obama promised "hope" and "change" in his presidency. Good stuff - "hope" and "change". Radical thoughts, even.
So is a change in how you and I and generations after us are represented in Washington.
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address last night. There was one line on the illegal immigration issue:
Some pro-immigration folk might contend this amount is inflated. He said. She said. Story of our lives. But no one can deny that illegal aliens - regardless of the amount of money - are taking advantage of the services of our country ILLEGALLY and our President offered nothing in the way of hope that he's seriously dealing with the situation. Only lip service.
Today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Shucks...I thought I was the only one who felt this way.
President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
Consider these past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize going back to 1962:
President Obama's health care bill is causing heating discussions across the country. Town hall meeting is an uproar. Democracy in action ! Or is it?
Fox News reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer(D), stated "Let the facts be heard," they wrote. "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views - but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."
Above: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) seen at Fiesta's equestrian parade Friday in Santa Barbara.
Now this isn't the first time Pablo Pelosi referred to American citizens as "Un-American". She called Immigrations and Custom Enforcement activities in March "Un-American". In the past she's called Republicans unpatriotic when they didn't show up for meetings on the Wall Street bailout package. On the other hand, she had no problem with anti-war hecklers back in 2006. "It's always exciting," she stated, according to a January 2006 account in the San Francisco Chronicle. "This is democracy in action. I'm energized by it, frankly."
I guess you're not "Un-American" if your opinions mirror Pelosi's. I wonder if Pablo Pelosi thinks SHE'S the only real American in this country?
Posts
All Comments
