Whether you love him or hate him, political newcomer Rand Paul, one of the very few politicians who is not financially beholden to any special interest groups, is energizing the voters.
Paul ( the son of former presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul ) recently defeated Republican Trey Grayson in the party’s primary for U.S. Senate. Some political pundits had closely watched this race, as they considered it to be a harbinger of the tea party movement’s strength.
Sarah Palin explains why she recently endorsed Dr. Rand Paul as the Republican Senate nominee from Kentucky:
..nobody’s ever going to find a perfect candidate. There are things that I don’t agree with Rand Paul and yet his domestic policies, for the most part, I do agree with. He wants limited government. He wants the feds to start taking their hands off states’ issues
And I respect that and I’m proud to support him, again, never finding a perfect candidate,” she said. “No doubt, he disagrees with me on a whole lot of issues, but … proud to support him and others whom I can believe in.
Glen Ford, Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report (BAR) explains how “Rachel Maddow exposed the truth about Rand Paul’s racism and how the Tea Party movement’s hidden agenda is continued ‘white nationalism’:
It was like pulling teeth, but Tea Party star Rand Paul finally blurted out his core, racist ideology in front of national TV cameras. Property rights trump Black rights, every time. “White supremacy is the connective link that holds the ‘Tea Party’ together – that, and relentless media coverage
White people in the aggregate will try to preserve the essential elements of a White Man’s Country in perpetuity unless the state intervenes.
Rand Paul, the Tea Party champion and winner of the Republican senatorial nomination from Kentucky, thinks business owners have the inalienable right to refuse service to Black people. It only took a few minutes for MSNBC’s liberal-minded Rachel Maddow to pry the truth out of Paul – to make him elocute his racist beliefs before a national audience.
Ford explains how Rand Paul is “ now the “Mad Hatter” – for blurting out on Maddow’s show beliefs he and his Texas congressman father, Ron Paul, have always held, and which have served both men well in the white nationalist movement called the Tea Party.
Many wondered why MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had chosen the issue of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 to form the basis of her recent ideological debate (concerning the proper relationship between government and private business and, federal government’s extent of control over state’s rights) with Rand Paul .
Was she trying to ‘out’ Dr Paul, the Republican nominee, who recently won the Kentucky primary, as a ‘closet’ racist?
Was she, perhaps, afraid that Dr Paul would revoke the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he ever got into power in spite of the fact that as of this date, Congress has no plans of ‘revisiting’ this piece of historic legislation.
In an effort to ‘set the record straight on this issue, the Kentucky primary winner issued the followingstatement to the press.
Here is an excerpt:
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
Some viewers got the impression that Maddow was trying to persuade Paul as to the magnitude of the injustice of racial discrimination so that she can change his opinion on the issue.
Those who are familiar with the tenets of Libertarianism understand what Paul is saying. To paraphrase Paul: In his opinion, discrimination is unjust…grossly unjust however…the legislative effort employed to remedy discrimination (especially one particular title-out of 10-from the civil rights act of 1964) does not pass scrutiny when it comes constitutional adherence.
Paul clarified his one objection to the Civil Rights Law of 1964 during a recently-held
Democracy Now interview. Paul explained his position as follows :
“There’s ten different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of ten deal with public institutions and I’m absolutely in favor of. One deals with private institutions. And had I been around, I would have tried to modify that. When you support nine out of ten things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think sometimes those are difficult situations. I do defend and believe that government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all of those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights. If we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about, do you want to abridge the First Amendment, as well? “
American political journalist Alexander Cockburn is rather annoyed with regards to how the interview was conducted-by both of the participants. In a recent article in the muckraking newsletter Counterpunch ( a biweekly publication widely respected for its critical coverage of both Democratic and Republican political leaders, foreign policy etc…) Cockburn wrote:
If Rand Paul hadn’t been so preoccupied with winding up for what he plainly thought was his knock-out punch, concerning Maddow’s posture on the right to bear arms in every restaurant in America from Joe’s Diner to Le Cirque, he could have turned the tables easily enough, just by saying that this ritual flourishing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t have too much to do with what has happened to blacks since that glorious day, from an appalling school system, to blighted housing, constricted employment possibilities, shriveled share of the national income and most recently the greatest transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators, given free rein by Democrats and Republicans
After watching Maddow’s interview , Cockburn continues, CounterPunch’s co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair noted:
“Maddow and Paul agree on probably 90 per cent of the BIG issues confronting us, from ending the drug and Afghan war, to ending bail outs. But because of their own peculiar prejudices, his doctrinaire libertarian, hers PC progressive, neither of them can talk about anything other than a non-issue such as the Civil Rights Act of 19 — SIXTY-FOUR. It’s like a Dadaist play.”
Robert Scheer , a liberal, independent journalist wrote the following in an article he penned for Truthdig (a progressive web magazine containing articles written by people who are considered experts in their respective areas of interest) titled:
”Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul?”.
Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is not very happy with Rand Paul.
Recently, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP-Benjamin Jealous challenged Mr Paul to a debate on the topic of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He wrote:
Mr. Paul says that he supports all efforts to fight government-sponsored discrimination. He has no quibble with the end of segregation in public schools, for example, or in public-sector hiring. His only dispute is with desegregation of the private sector — the local merchants and lunch-counter operators whose speech rights were apparently encroached on by an overzealous federal government. In Mr. Paul’s worldview, the free hand of the marketplace would have eventually forced most of those businesses to serve black folk anyway, because it was in their economic interest to do so.
The problem is that it never quite worked that way. Even after Jim Crow laws were overturned, those business establishments that bucked the system and served an integrated clientele faced threats, coercion and violence from a ruling class — a group made up not merely of local thugs, but of fellow business owners and, far too often, the local police force itself.
This was the point of federal intervention in the first place. The states and municipalities on the front lines of the desegregation movements were themselves the most likely to be institutionally corrupted by the cancer of racism. A relatively more objective outside party — the federal government — would have to serve as a mediating force.
Of course the story went far beyond potential corruption.
Read the rest of this interesting editorial.
What it all boils down to is the fact that, IMO, libertarianism represents a ‘pure’ political ideology that politicians belonging to a variety of political parties- like to ‘borrow ‘ ideas from.
It is imperative that the citizens understand the different aspects of Libertarian thought so that ‘the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater’ when it comes to dismissing too quickly something which may contain great value-provided that it is explained properly to the public.
Will Rand Paul’s recent nomination affect American political discourse?
Only time will tell.
As John F. Kennedy was fond of saying:
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer
Perhaps Rand Paul’s ideas may lead the nation closer to finding the ‘right’ answer.
Stay tuned.
************************ Take Action *************************
Rand Paul’s campaign has ‘opened a window’ into libertarianism and the author of the article discussed below is shining a light through that window…
Libertarians are too focused on individual liberty only as it relates to how much authority government exerts over individuals . What about corporations and the power they exert over individual rights?
The author of this intelligently written commentary
discusses some of the ‘serious intellectual deficiencies’ which are, in his opinion, inherent in doctrinaire libertarian philosophy .
How does individual liberty get affected by corporate wealth and power?
Are libertarians cutting off their noses to spite their faces?
Is Libertarian philosophy ignoring the value (if any) of government serving as a ‘checks and balances’ against too much corporate power over society?
The author, Ernest A. Canning, explains why:
“Libertarians fail to appreciate that, especially in the 21st Century, the removal of government as a check against unfettered corporate wealth and power leads to the tyranny of a corporate controlled economy”.
“The ‘Public/private distinction for civil rights enforcement ignores the omnipotent power of private corporations; anti-government ‘Tea Party’ rhetoric misses the real threat to liberty posed by unchecked corporate wealth and power…”
“Lawyers understand that rights cannot be treated as absolutes; that the rights of one individual often conflict with those of another; that both our legislatures and courts are designed to engage in a balancing of those rights, which, if not fettered by the corruption of special interests, should strive to protect individual rights to the extent possible while enhancing the general welfare. An individual may have a right to inhale carcinogens in cigarette smoke but that does not mean that he or she has the right to expose others to those carcinogens by smoking in a crowded restaurant”
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).
Mr. Canning’s essay appeared in a recent edition of The Brad Blog. The blog’s publisher –Brad Friedman- is an independent investigative journalist, blogger, broadcaster and a highly respected expert on the issue of election integrity.
Here is the latest info on what is happening in Afghanistan-from independent investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill:
Excerpts:
After US Strikes, Afghans Describe “Tractor Trailers Full of Pieces of Human Bodies;” Meanwhile, Obama Readies 21,000 More Troops:
As rage spreads in Afghanistan after US bombing that killed up to 130 people, unnamed Pentagon officials are spinning another cover-up. Defiant Obama moves ahead with troop increase.
According to Scahill’s sources, the Pentagon was seeking to blame the Taliban for “staging” the massacre to blame it on the US.”
A couple of days after this massacre,the House Appropriations Committee approved-by voice vote- the 2009 Supplemental Bill funding ($94 billion) ongoing U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting economic and other needs in Pakistan- without seeking a plan from the president for an exit strategy for the troops (including the 21,000 US force escalation) that will be stationed there.
What exactly is the ‘goal’ to be achieved through the ‘war’ in Afghanistan?
Is the ‘war’ meant to be won or is it meant to be continuous – a ‘perpetual war’ if you will .
If the ‘war’ is meant to be ‘won’ how will the US know if this ‘goal’ has been accomplished?
What is the exit strategy once the ‘goal’ is achieved?
Why the urgency to approve this funding through the use of a ‘vote now, ask questions later’ approach?
It is interesting to note that since a ‘voice vote’ was taken regarding the support for this bill, there is no written record of how individual members of the House Appropriations Committee voted on this issue. So much for government accountability…
While conducting research into the increased US troop surge in Afghanistan, I was surprised to learn the extent of Chinese investment in Afghanistan. I discovered this information in the international media. Our US mainstream media has provided very little, if any, coverage on this important development that had taken place over 18 months ago .
Excerpt:
Beijing has an interest in a stable and secure Afghanistan as it provides a safe environment in which to exploit resources. In the short term, it seems China will free ride on the provision of security by NATO and Kabul. For instance, security for the Aynak mine is provided by the American and Afghan militaries.
End of excerpt.
Let me get this straight now… U.S. troops are guarding a CHINESE enterprise that the CHINESE will benefit from in the future???
And now we find out how rich in natural resources Afghanistan REALLY is (including oil, copper, gemstones etc…). It appears that the world has known this fact since 1974 when Russia supposidly made this geological discovery during the time it was fighting in Afghanistan.
After Sept. 11 we were informed repeatedly that Afghanistan was dirt poor and had no natural resources, the implication being that going to war in Afghanistan was about freedom and democracy, not about stealing resources.
This You Tube video (4:43) discusses the following:
A bi-partisan group of 14 congressmen lead by Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have written to President Obama asking him to reconsider sending extra troops to Afghanistan.
However, before I get back to the main topic (China’s role in Afghanistan) in this article, please watch the following three videos posted on You Tube.
Part 1Afghanistan + More Troops = Catastrophe (11:46)
Part 2 Pakistan: “The Most Dangerous Country” (10:41)
Rethink Afghanistan (Part 3): Cost of War (13:59)
Here are some of the latest euphemisms,metaphors and allegories being used by the Obama Administration in an effort to ‘sell’ a more positive ‘perception’ of war efforts to the public.
Although these terms fail the ‘Duck Test’ miserably when it comes to representing war in its true light, the Mainstream media have obediently accepted the new buzzwords into their Af-Pak vernacular.
The following satire posted in the Wall Street Journal explores how Obama’s use of new terminology has started a trend where this action has plunged us “into an Orwellian world where words have no emotional connection with the horrors they purport to describe”.
Now…back to China’s role.
THE EMERGING CHINA-AFGHANISTAN RELATIONSHIP
Excerpt:
“Some eyebrows were therefore raised when in 2007, China’s Metallurgical group launched a $3.5 billion bid and won the tender to develop Afghanistan’s Aynak copper field in Logar province. The copper field is estimated to be the largest undeveloped field in the world and has been virtually untouched since the Soviet invasion in 1979. The investment is the far largest in Afghanistan’s history and involves not only mining but also the construction of a $500 million electrical plant and a railway from Tajikistan to Pakistan to support exploration. The mine will be in full operation in around six years, lead to the employment of 10,000 Afghans, while $400 million of royalties will accrue the Afghan government yearly – more than half of the present yearly state budget.
Let us see howNewsweek is covering the China angle:
Excerpt:
“Strategically, there are good reasons why China might want to play a role in Afghanistan, with which it shares a small, mountainous frontier. Beijing is battling its own Islamic extremists in the area, and it’s extremely concerned about escalating violence in Pakistan, a close ally. Back in the 1980s, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan prodded nervous Chinese authorities to join up with American, Pakistani and Saudi intelligence agencies to launch an ambitious covert operation to train, fund and arm anti-Soviet Afghan freedom fighters, or mujahedin. In a classic strange-bedfellows arrangement, Chinese authorities provided light weapons and other assistance to joint anti-Russian efforts based in the Afghan-Pakistani border area.”
End of excerpt.
Interesting… not one word mentioned about the Aynak copper field deal.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which connects South and Central Asia, and the Middle east- is a crossroads between the East and the West. During its long history, the land has seen various invaders and conquerors.
In the late 19th century, Afghanistan became a buffer state in “The Great Game” played between the British Indian Empire and the Russian Empire.
On August 19, 1919, following the third Anglo-Afghan war, the country regained full independence from the United Kingdom over its foreign affairs.
Since the late 1970s Afghanistan has suffered continuous and brutal civil war in addition to foreign interventions in the form of the 1979 Soviet invasion and the recent 2001 U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban government.
In late 2001 the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This force is composed of NATO troops that are involved in assisting the government of President Hamid Karzai in establishing the writ of law as well as rebuilding key infrastructures in the nation. In 2005, the United States and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement committing both nations to a long-term relationship. In the meantime, multi-billion US dollars have also been provided by the international community for the reconstruction of the country.”
End of excerpts.
Noam Chomsky recently sat down with Amy Goodman for a Democracy Now! interview in which he discussed, among other things, the US Expansion of Afghan Occupation, and the Uses of NATO (5:56).
Chomsky explains how the original purpose of NATO was to protect the west against a Russian assault. In 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and Germany became unified.The Soviet Union began its collapse.
Chomsky questions what is the NEW purpose of NATO?
He explains how NATO is essentially run by the United States and what happens in Afghanistan is heavily influenced by NATO actions.
Most of the 70,000 troops in Afghanistan are under NATO command. President Obama wants to escalate the war. He has sent 21,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan and is considering deploying 10,000 more.
Chomsky also discusses the growing peace movement by Afghan citizens and Afghan President Karzai’s early attempts to convince President Obama to stop killing Afghans.
In his efforts to promote stability in Afghanistan, Karzai approached a UN delegation in an attempt to obtain a timetable for the removal of foreign forces. Karzai even had the nerve to entertain the thought of inviting the head of the Taliban to engage in discussions to work out a solution to what is going on in Afghanistan.
Since these ‘escapades’, according to Chomsky, Karzai’s popularity in the eyes of the Western press has plummeted. Now he is being labeled as being weak and corrupt by the Western press.
Learn why this is so.
Is Karzai being led ‘up and out’ because the US will seek a more loyal surrogate to run Afghanistan?
Chomsky seems to think that Karzai-who will most likely win the next election (scheduled to take place in August 2009)- will be placed in a ‘symbolic position’ with no real power to implement any changes in his country .
There are some US groups who support the surge in Afghanistan.
“For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new president get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America’s security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today’s announcement, President Obama has shown that he “gets it.” That’s why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here.
************************ Take Action *************************
If you are AGAINST the troop surge in Afghanistan:
2- Follow the actions of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and help in their efforts.
The CPC has more than 75 members and, is considered by many to be the the single largest caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and by far the most loyal to core Democratic values.
3- Contact moveon.org and ask them why ‘Stopping Afghanistan War Escalation’ is not on its Top Priorities List for 2009.
4- Sign the Peace-Action.org petition to indicate your opposition to sending additional troops to Afghanistan.
According to its website, Peace Action is the nation’s largest grassroots peace network, with chapters and affiliates in 30 states. They organize their grassroots network to place pressure on Congress and the Administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, citizen lobbying and direct action.
Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, They play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation, and, as a leading member of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War coalition, they share their expertise and large network to achieving common goals.
6- Sign the following petition in support of legislation that will require exit strategy for Afghanistan. Representative Jim McGovern believes Congress should require Secretary Gates to provide an exit strategy in Afghanistan. He needs your Congress Member to co-sponsor his bill. Sign this petition so a message can be sent to your Representative:
and
Sign the following Lou Dobb’s petition to show that you are opposed to the deployment of US troops stationed throughout the world.
If you support the troop surge in Afghanistan
1- Sign the petition
that is being supported by Vote Vets
No matter what your position on this issue, please pass on a link to this SCVJournal.com article so that citizens can become better informed on the situation in Afghanistan.
President Obama, following his agonizing decision as to how to handle the Afghanistan situation, announced in his much anticipated speech Tuesday evening that he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan with plans to start withdrawing them in July 2011.
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It’s an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.
We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
I suspect that the letter captures the sentiments of millions of voters in this country.
Excerpt:
Dear President Obama,
Do you really want to be the new “war president”?
If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president.
Pure and simple.
And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.
With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics.
You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.
I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do.
The Army is facing a challenge with regards to finding ‘deployable troops’ to send to Afghanistan.
As a result, many soldiers who have already been ‘shattered’ by their experiences in our war zones are being sent to Afghanistan to serve our country…again.
Here are some excerpts from the article’s introduction written by Tom Engelhardt, creator and manager of the Tomdispatch.com website:
”In a grim November 3rd Wall Street Journal piece (buried inside the paper), Yochi Dreazen reported record suicide rates for a stressed-out U.S. Army. Sixteen soldiers killed themselves in October alone, 134 so far this year, essentially ensuring that last year’s “record” of 140 suicides will be broken. This represents a startling 37% jump in suicides since 2006 and, for the first time, puts the suicide rate in the Army above that of the general U.S. population. “
“After eight years of two major counterinsurgency wars (and various minor encounters in what used to be called the Global War on Terror), with many soldiers experiencing multiple tours of duty, with approximately 120,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and almost 70,000 in Afghanistan, with the Afghan War clearly in an escalatory phase, commanders in the field calling for 40,000- 80,000 more American troops, and base construction on the rise, the military’s internal problems are clearly escalating as well.”
“We are, in fact, facing an ongoing disaster not just for the U.S., but for the U.S. military.
Read the following piece and ask yourself: What state would a military have to be in to consider sending such men back into a war zone?”
“A desperate military is, of course, the answer — a military rubbed raw and, as the shocking mass murder spree at already stressed-out Fort Hood may indicate, on edge in a way that perhaps no one has quite grasped. “
End of excerpts.
Don’t forget to check out the fact-filled Wall Street Journal article referenced above in Engelhardt’s introduction.
”Perhaps the most depressing aspect of Thursday’s shoot-out at Fort Hood is that none of the * 12 people who died in the melee will be counted as casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These soldiers – “brave Americans,” President Obama called them – will join an unknown number of American soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines, who are not among the 5,267 the Defense Department counts as having died in our most recent wars, but who have perished nonetheless.”
“It will take days or weeks to learn what really happened at Fort Hood and why, but even at this early moment, we can make one statement for certain. The government’s refusal to accurately count their sacrifice of these young men and women dishonors not only these soldiers’ memories, but also obscures the public’s understanding of the amount of sacrifice required to continue wars in two countries, simultaneously, overseas.”
Click here to learn more about the New American Media organization.
Note: Astute readers will note a discrepancy in the casualty numbers quoted in the two articles. This is due to the fact that Bernd Debusmann’s Reuter article was printed on September 10, 2009. Glantz’s New American Media article is more recent and as a result, the number of casualties listed (5,267) in Glantz’s piece is more accurate.
Excerpts from the Reuter’s article:
”By most counts, the death toll of U.S. soldiers in America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stood at 5,157 in the second week of September. Add at least 1,360 private contractors working for the U.S. and the number tops 6,500.”
“Contractor deaths and injuries (around 30,000 so far) are rarely reported but they highlight the United States’ steadily growing dependence on private enterprise.”
“It’s a dependence some say has slid into incurable addiction. Contractor ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan have swollen to just under a quarter million. They outnumber U.S. troops in Afghanistan and they almost match uniformed soldiers in Iraq.”
“That means the world’s only superpower cannot fight its war nor protect its civilian officials, diplomats and embassies without support from contractors.”
End of excerpts.
* The author (Aaron Glantz) does not include in the count one civilian who was also killed during the killing spree. In total, 13 people perished during this violent rampage.
”KANDAHAR, Afghanistan | U.S. military officials sent a medical team to a remote outpost in southern Afghanistan this week to take blood samples from members of an Army unit after a soldier in the unit died from an Ebola-like virus. “
“Dr. Jim Radike, an expert in internal medicine and infectious diseases at the Role 3 Trauma Hospital at Kandahar Air Field, told The Washington Times that Sgt. Robert David Gordon, 22, from River Falls, Ala., died Sept. 16 from what turned out to be Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever after he was bitten by a tick. The virus is transmitted by infected blood and can be carried by ticks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “
“The news comes as the Pentagon disclosed that it has sent 150,000 doses of vaccine for the H1N1 swine flu virus to Qatar for distribution to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – half of what U.S. Central Command has requested. More than a half dozen Afghans have died of the disease, which apparently was transmitted to the country by foreigners. “
Excerpts:
“While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year — ranging from small-scale power plants to “public latrines” to a meat market — the real construction boom is military in nature.
The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.
In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion — $834 million of it for construction projects.
In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, (“Military Seeks $1.3 Billion For Projects in Afghanistan”) the Pentagon has spent “roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years” in that country and, “if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation.”
End of excerpts.
I ask…does it look like we will be getting out of Afghanistan any time soon?
UPDATE X X
November 2, 2009
In the news today- Afghan elections and U.S/Indo military training exercises…
Karzai challenger resigns from Nov. 7 Afghan runoff election citing that the potential is very high for massive voter fraud.
“Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s main election challenger said Sunday that he will withdraw from a planned Nov. 7 runoff, casting new doubts on the legitimacy of the Afghan government as the Obama administration debates U.S. strategy in the region.”
“Former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah told a news conference in Kabul that he made his decision to pull out of the runoff after Karzai turned down his demands for changes to the Independent Election Commission (IEC) and other measures that he said would prevent massive fraud, the Associated Press reported.”
“I will not participate in the Nov. 7 election,” Abdullah said, because a “transparent election is not possible.”
“The move may effectively hand a new term to Karzai, although the next steps for the runoff vote appeared clouded in uncertainty. It is technically too late for any candidate to formally withdraw from the ballot.”
New Delhi, Oct. 29: An Indo-US wargame that ended today in Uttar Pradesh helped retrain part of an American contingent that went into action in Iraq and will be redeployed in the war-ravaged country, scaling up the bilateral exercise that was originally projected as a peace-keeping drill.
Exercise Yudh Abhyas 09 – the latest in a series of Indo-US drills that began in 2004 – involved the largest deployment of ground forces by the two countries for joint training. When the exercise began, the Indian Army officially stated that the scenario for the drill was that of joint operations for peace keeping under a United Nations’ mandate.
It was more or less expected that the US Army will begin using Indian military facilities and experience to train for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with the wargame.
But the scale of the drill was far deeper than initially thought. Within the first five days of the two-week drill, it quickly morphed into an armoured and infantry exercise involving para-dropping and securing urban settlements simulating environments in Iraq and Afghanistan with live firing.
The trend among US-led coalition forces to use Indian military facilities to train for “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and “Operation Enduring Freedom” (Afghanistan) began in September 2007. But the drills have never involved as many soldiers, so much hardware and such massive firepower.
Just how seriously the Pentagon takes its exercises with the Indian military is indicated by the logistics that have gone into the Babina drill. It deployed 17 Strykers – the largest deployment of the multipurpose armoured vehicles outside Iraq and Afghanistan – that were shipped all the way from Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, where the unit is currently based, to Mumbai.
The Strykers and the US troops will now head back the same way for more training in the Mojave Desert in Southern California.
“This exercise (Yudh Abhyas 09) is a ramp-up in training, as the unit prepares for larger pre-deployment training exercises such as those at the National Training Facility in California ,” a US army statement said.
But beyond the show of power and battlefield skills, there was also a pitch for arms sales to India.
The Stryker vehicle itself was closely watched by the Indian forces. It can be configured for several tasks – offensive, reconnaissance, communications and evacuations apart from troop carrying.
A senior official of the Pentagon’s defence sales branch also escorted executives of defence companies Lockheed Martin and Raytheon to Babina for the exercise.
The sleek shoulder-fired Javelin hones into its target without having to be guided to it. It is made by Raytheon.”
End of excerpts.
For the record, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are both major private U.S. defense contractors. The companies are known for their ‘cozy’ relationships with the U.S. Department of Defense and other U.S government departments and agencies.
These war games will allow Indian military officials to assess some of the American defense equipment being offered for sale to India.
NEW DELHI: India on Wednesday ruled out any possibility of sending troops to fight along with the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, asserting that it was there for extending humanitarian assistance for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country.
“I am categorically saying that there is no question of Indian military involvement in Afghanistan…not now, not in the future…” Defence Minister A.K. Antony said at a news conference after inaugurating a three-day Coast Guard Commanders conference here.
UPDATE X l X
October 31, 2009
Just this week, the msm was all over the ‘news’ that President Obama paid his respects to personnel killed in Afghanistan.
Excerpt: “A top aide to Sen. Barack Obama said Friday that the campaign canceled a visit to an American military base in Germany the day before because the Pentagon expressed concerns that it would be viewed as a campaign trip.”
Maybe the latest Rasmussen Poll results can shed some light on the president’s ‘change of heart’ with regards to personal policy regarding his ‘visiting’ of American personnel stationed overseas in war zones?
President Obama officially enacted the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the first major federal civil rights law protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
“What does this have to do with Afghanistan ” you ask?
Well, in case you missed it, the Hate Crimes bill, which was approved by the Democratically-controlled Congress last week, was attached as a rider to the
$680-billion Defense Bill which includes $130 billion for ongoing military operations (war and occupation) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many people are happy that the Hate Crimes bill passed – however some people wonder what the true cost for this bill’s passage will be.
Here is an excerpt from remarks made by President Obama on 10/28 during the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (aka $680-billion Defense Bill) for Fiscal Year 2010:
“I have often said that meeting our greatest challenges would require not only changing policies in Washington but changing the way business is done in Washington; that it would require a government that’s more efficient and effective and less influenced by lobbyists and parochial politics. And I’m pleased to say that when it comes to the defense bill I’m about to sign into law, we’ve taken some important steps towards that goal.”
End of excerpt.
Judy and Dennis Shepard (parents of victim Matthew-for whom the Hate Crime Bill-that was attached as a rider to the Defense Bill- was named after) were in attendance at the White House during the presidential signing. So were the children of the late Ted Kennedy.
Too bad family and friends of innocent Iraqi and
Afghan victims were not allowed to attend this signing ceremony.
Meanwhile, overseas protests against the war in Afghanistan
continue… and as usual… the US mainstream media continue to ignore them.
UPDATE X V l l
October 25, 2009
Watch Part 1/2 of this thought-provoking discussion recently conducted by journalist and political commentator Tavis Smiley as he interviews author, physician, and congressman Dr. Ron Paul.
In the first five minutes of this Part 1/2 interview, Dr. Paul provides his thoughts on the war in Afghanistan-including the recent controversy over the legitimacy of the recent elections held in that country.
Dr Paul discusses the US monetary system in the last five minutes of Part 1/2.
(10:18)Click here here to access this interview on You Tube.
UPDATE X V l
October 19, 2009
Will Noam Chomsky’s earlier forecast (during a Democracy Now! interview-see above) be proven correct? Will Karzai be ‘led up and out’ because the US will seek a more loyal surrogate to run Afghanistan?”
Read this Guardian article and you decide. “Fraud inquiry slashes Karzai vote to 48%, setting stage for runoff” Excerpts: “Recount by UN-backed watchdog ends with Afghan president’s tally falling below the 50% required for outright victory”. “A UN-backed election watchdog has declared invalid hundreds of thousands of votes for Afghanistan’s president in the disputed August election, apparently stripping Hamid Karzai of outright victory and setting the stage for a second round.” “After nearly two months of investigations, the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) – controlled by a majority of non-Afghans – found Karzai’s total had fallen to 48.3%, according to an independent analysis. He needed 50% to clinch another term in office.”
UPDATE X V
October 13, 2009
Read this short, detail-filled, well-sourced article for a non-US main-stream media- based update as to what is happening in Afghanistan as we speak.
Escalation of US NATO War in Afghanistan: The Risks of Regional Conflagration Excerpts: “On October 7 the United States’ and NATO’s war in Afghanistan entered its ninth year. The escalating conflict has over the past year become indistinguishable from military operations in neighboring Pakistan where the U.S. and NATO have tripled deadly drone missile attacks and the Pakistani army has launched large-scale offensives that have displaced over 3 million civilians in the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, with the province of Baluchistan the next battle zone.”
“Far from the carnage abating any time soon, events of the past week give every indication that the nation scourged by thirty years of war is to be the site of unprecedented Western troop increases and yet more deadly fighting.”
If you are opposed to the deployment of US troops stationed throughout the world, here is a petition sponsored by Lou Dobbs that you can sign.
to show your opposition.
UPDATE X I I I
June 25, 2009
President Barack H. Obama signs $106 billion bill for Iraq, Afghan wars on Wednesday, June 24, 2009.
< style=”text-align: left;”>
UPDATE X I I
June 20, 2009
Can someone please remind me as to why our US Congress and our President want to escalate the war in AFGHANISTAN in 2009?
Warning: Use discretion when viewing this documentary. It contains graphic details of some of the realities of this war. (12:09)
If you have trouble viewing this embedded video, click here Rethink Afghanistan is a 2009 documentary about the ongoing war in Afghanistan. This full-length documentary campaign is being released in real time allowing the producers to keep up with the fast-moving news cycle.
The project’s creator is Robert Greenwald, an American film director, film producer, and political activist.
Check out this link if you are interested in becoming a “Peacemaker”. You will have access to up to the minute information which will allow you to communicate more effectively with our government in an effort to deal with the situation in Afghanistan in a more humanitarian way
Here is short history of the legislation-as per govtrack.us
Excerpt: Jun 16, 2009: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 226 Ayes, 202 Nays, 6 Present/Not Voting. End of excerpt.
On Thursday, June 19 the SENATE passed the “CONFERENCE REPORT” too – which irons out differences between House & Senate versions of H.R. 2346.
What now remains is for President Obama to sign the bill into law.
(The following website linkcontains details on how the individual members of the US SENATE voted on this bill.)
Here are excerpts from Jeromy Pelofsky’s Reuters article posted on 6/19. Excerpts:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) –“ The U.S. Congress on Thursday sent President Barack Obama a $106 billion bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars after political sparring that could foreshadow tougher fights over Obama’s agenda.
The bill, delayed by disputes over quickly closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay and expanding support for the IMF, highlighted the difficulties Obama may face in Congress even though his fellow Democrats control both the Senate and House of Representatives. The bill contains $79.9 billion to continue fighting the two wars, $7.7 billion to address the H1N1 flu pandemic, and $1.4 billion in foreign aid for Pakistan, which is fighting Taliban militants spilling over the border from Afghanistan.”
”The Senate voted 91-5, with most Republicans joining Democrats to support it. Obama is expected to sign it into law. The House approval on Tuesday garnered only five Republican votes and 32 Democrats voted against it.Democrats have a commanding majority in the House, but still need to keep centrist Democrats aboard and win a few Republican votes in the Senate to forestall any procedural roadblocks mounted by the opposition party.”
Tuesday June 16 2009- U.S. House Approves $106 billion war funding, Senate next. Thirty two (32) Democrats opposed the bill and five (5) Republicans supported it.
(This website link contains details on how the individual members of the House of Representatives voted on this bill.) Full story here Excerpts from Yahoo News:
”WASHINGTON – War-funding legislation survived a fierce partisan battle in the House on Tuesday, a major step in providing commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan the money they would need for military operations in the coming months.
The $106 billion measure, in addition to about $80 billion for military operations, provides for an array of other spending priorities, including $7.7 billion to respond to the flu pandemic and more than $10 billion in development and security aid for Pakistan and Iraq as well as countries such as Mexico and the nation of Georgia.
Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama administration had to overcome an unusual alliance. Anti-war Democrats opposed continued war spending and Republicans condemned $5 billion in the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. “Stand up for them,” he said.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, contended that Democrats were endangering troops by shifting money to create room for a “global bailout loan program.” End of excerpts.
President Obama and the Democrats (who control both chambers) had to fight hard for the bill.
Ultimately, the bill was approved by a 226-202 vote , with five Republicans voting for the bill and 32 Democrats opposing it..
The bill is H.R. 2346 OMB Watch provides an excellent overview of discussions and controversy surrounding H.R. 2346 Can someone please help me to understand what the definition of “ANTI-WAR” is?
So many politicians and citizens are classifying themselves as being ‘ANTI-WAR”…
UPDATE I X
June 8, 2009 Bill Moyers And Jeremy Scahill Discuss Obama Foreign Policy (including Afghanistan, Iraq, Private Contractors and more). This segment of “The Bill Moyers Journal”program originally aired on
June 5, 2009
Read the transcript or watch the videos.
Part 1 Of 2 (10:15)
Part 2 of 2 (7:46)
UPDATE V I I I
June 2, 2009
This is a ‘must read’ . Obama Has 250,000 ‘Contractors’ Deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and is Increasing the Use of Mercenaries
By Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports
Posted on June 1, 2009, Printed on June 2, 2009
Excerpt: According to new statistics released by the Pentagon, with Barack Obama as commander in chief, there has been a 23% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which “correlates to the build up of forces” in the country. These numbers relate explicitly to DoD security contractors. Companies like Blackwater and its successor Triple Canopy work on State Department contracts and it is unclear if these contractors are included in the over-all statistics. This means, the number of individual “security” contractors could be quite higher, as could the scope of their expansion.
UPDATE V I I
May 31, 2009
Here is an interesting ‘Special Report’ in the latest edition of The Economist.
The article, titled ”The fragile web of foreign trade” discusses the US/China trade relationship.
Keep facts presented in this article in the back of your mind as you watch events play themselves out in Afghanistan. Excerpt: “A FEW years ago, Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick, two economic historians, coined the term “Chimerica” to describe the symbiosis between the world’s two great powers. Chinese people save, they observed, allowing Americans to borrow and spend more than they earn. American consumers buy gizmos made in China, keeping Chinese workers in jobs. Both countries benefit. But the financial crisis has caused many people to rethink this comfortable arrangement.
Protectionists have long blamed Chinese imports for destroying American jobs. A new gripe is that, by lending America so much money, China helped inflate the asset bubble that has now burst so painfully.
Although no one forced Americans to borrow so much, nor to gamble the money on property, the crisis has fuelled nativist anger. Lawmakers added “Buy American” clauses to this year’s stimulus package, and there are still absurdly tight limits on the number of skilled foreigners who can work in America.
The American and Chinese economies are so entwined, however, that any attempt to separate them will end in calamity.” End of excerpt.
UPDATE V I
May 27, 2009
How do you convince a well-read and informed person to engage in actions that go against his/her conscience?
‘Ignorance is bliss’ for some- because too much knowledge can be dangerous.
For others, ‘knowledge is power’.
It is important to know which category we, as human beings, belong to.
Read this thought-provoking article written by independent journalist Dahr Jamail titled:
Abandon the Battlefield. “There’s No Way I’m Going to Deploy to Afghanistan”
Is Victor Agosto a coward? A traitor? Excerpts:
“It’s a matter of what I’m willing to live with,” Specialist Victor Agosto of the U.S. Army, who is refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan, explained to IPS. “I’m not willing to participate in this occupation, knowing it is completely wrong.”
Agosto, who returned from a 13-month deployment to Iraq in November 2007, is based at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas.
While in Iraq, Agosto never left his base, located in northern Iraq.
“I never had any traumatic experiences, never fired my weapon,” Agosto told IPS in a phone interview. “I mostly worked in information technology, working on computers and keeping the network functioning well. But it was in Iraq that I turned against the occupations. Through my reading, and watching what was going on, I started to feel very guilty.”
Agosto added, “What I did there, I know I contributed to death and human suffering. It’s hard to quantify how much I caused, but I know I contributed to it.” End of excerpts. Conscientious objectors? No draft? What is a military leader to do?
Read this article concerning the growing movement to add more mercenary troops in Afghanistan. This is being done for many reasons-including the fact that there is no military draft in the United States.
A mercenary is a ‘gun for hire’. Anything and everything can be ‘taken care of’ if the price is right. Laws do not necessarily always apply when it comes to prosecuting mercenaries for any illegal actions.
As you read this article, note the fact disclosed by the Associated Press that of the 3,847 security contractors operating in Afghanistan, many protecting our bases and convoys, only nine are U.S firms.Excerpts:
“As President Barack Obama begins winding down the Bush war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. “
“The initial surge will add 17,000 troops to the 36,000 already there. Then, later this year, there is to be a second troop surge of another 17,000 or so.”
What Obama has not mentioned is that, in addition to soldiers and civilians, there is a third surge in his plan: private military contractors.
Yes, another privatized army, such as the one in Iraq. There, the Halliburtons, Blackwaters and other war profiteers ran rampant, shortchanging our troops, ripping off taxpayers, killing civilians and doing deep damage to America’s good name.
“Already, there are 71,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan, and many more are preparing to deploy as Pentagon spending ramps up for Obama’s war. The military is now offering new contracts to security firms to provide armed employees (aka, mercenaries) to guard U.S. bases and convoys. ” End of excerpts.
Read the rest of this informative article.
UPDATE V
May 20, 2009
Here is an interesting tidbit that I ran across on George Stephenopoulos’ abcnews.com blog titled: “Jones: ‘Imprudent’ to End U.S.Airstrikes in Afghanistan Despite Civilian Casualties”
Excerpt:
“President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Gen. Jim Jones told me this morning that it would be “imprudent” to end U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan.
During his visit to the U.S. this past week, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan demanded all U.S. airstrikes end. He said a recent airstrike may have killed as many as 130 civilians.
“I think that we’re going to take a look at trying to make sure that we correct those things we can correct, but certainly to tie the hands of our commanders and say we’re not going to conduct air strikes, it would be imprudent,” Jones said in his first television interview”
End of excerpt.
Okay … noted. Now let’s move on.
I wonder if the General can explain to the public what he did…exactly… to earn the following money from Boeing and Chevron, and the US Chamber of Commerce last year?
Read how at much money Jim Jones made last year- pay particular attention as to who paid him the money…
Excerpt:
“National Security Adviser James Jones reported $900,000 in salary and bonus from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as director fees from a number of corporations. He received, for example, $330,000 from Boeing Corp. and $290,000 from Chevron Corp.”End of excerpt.
The General is key in shaping and carrying out the Obama administrations’ policy decisions as they relate to the war in Afghanistan.
The information was released a few weeks ago as part of a financial disclosure that is required for federal office holders and top aides .
Is it just me…or does anyone else out there think that there is a possible conflict of interest here?
While you are at it, read the entire article to learn what some of the other important advisors to Pres. Obama made in earnings last year.
Here too- note who paid them the money.
Again I ask- are there any possible conflicts of interest here?
UPDATE I V
May 17, 2009
< style=”text-align:left;”>
Hmmm…. NATO has been busy lately.(8:57)
(Note: Here is the weblink to this interview- use in case you experience difficulties playing back this embedded video) The Real News Network interviewed William F. Engdahl, economist and author of Full Spectrum Dominance.Excerpt: Engdahl says that the NATO exercises in Georgia are provocative to Russia because of the uncovered fact that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashviliwas behind the offensive in South Ossetia last August, while he was in the process of applying for NATO membership.(Note: This is an important accusation because NATO members have an agreement to protect each other in case of military conflict. If Saakashvili (as a NATO member-in-process) was trying to covertly instigate a conflict between Georgia and Russia – and as a result, Russia retaliated- then ALL NATO member countries would have to come to Georgia’s perceived ‘defense’)Engdahl also says that the NATO countries are interested in securing alternatives to the Russian stronghold over European oil and explains that the missile defense program NATO wishes to install in Eastern Europe and Georgia has less to do with Iran than Russia.”This is interesting too…“America threatens trade war with China”.
President Barack H. Obama signs $106 billion bill for Iraq, Afghan wars on Wednesday, June 24, 2009.
< style=”text-align: left;”>
UPDATE X I I
June 20, 2009
Can someone please remind me as to why our US Congress and our President want to escalate the war in AFGHANISTAN in 2009?
Warning: Use discretion when viewing this documentary. It contains graphic details of some of the realities of this war. (12:09)
If you have trouble viewing this embedded video, click here Rethink Afghanistan is a 2009 documentary about the ongoing war in Afghanistan. This full-length documentary campaign is being released in real time allowing the producers to keep up with the fast-moving news cycle.
The project’s creator is Robert Greenwald, an American film director, film producer, and political activist.
Check out this link if you are interested in becoming a “Peacemaker”. You will have access to up to the minute information which will allow you to communicate more effectively with our government in an effort to deal with the situation in Afghanistan in a more humanitarian way
Here is short history of the legislation-as per govtrack.us
Excerpt: Jun 16, 2009: “After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 226 Ayes, 202 Nays, 6 Present/Not Voting.
End of excerpt.
On Thursday, June 19 the SENATE passed the “CONFERENCE REPORT” too – which irons out differences between House & Senate versions of H.R. 2346.
What now remains is for President Obama to sign the bill into law.
(The following website linkcontains details on how the individual members of the US SENATE voted on this bill.)
Here are excerpts from Jeromy Pelofsky’s Reuters article posted on 6/19.
Excerpts:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) –“ The U.S. Congress on Thursday sent President Barack Obama a $106 billion bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars after political sparring that could foreshadow tougher fights over Obama’s agenda.
The bill, delayed by disputes over quickly closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay and expanding support for the IMF, highlighted the difficulties Obama may face in Congress even though his fellow Democrats control both the Senate and House of Representatives.
The bill contains $79.9 billion to continue fighting the two wars, $7.7 billion to address the H1N1 flu pandemic, and $1.4 billion in foreign aid for Pakistan, which is fighting Taliban militants spilling over the border from Afghanistan.”
”The Senate voted 91-5, with most Republicans joining Democrats to support it. Obama is expected to sign it into law. The House approval on Tuesday garnered only five Republican votes and 32 Democrats voted against it.
Democrats have a commanding majority in the House, but still need to keep centrist Democrats aboard and win a few Republican votes in the Senate to forestall any procedural roadblocks mounted by the opposition party.”
Tuesday June 16 2009- U.S. House Approves $106 billion war funding, Senate next.
Thirty two (32) Democrats opposed the bill and five (5) Republicans supported it.
(This website link contains details on how the individual members of the House of Representatives voted on this bill.) Full story here Excerpts from Yahoo News: ”WASHINGTON – War-funding legislation survived a fierce partisan battle in the House on Tuesday, a major step in providing commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan the money they would need for military operations in the coming months.
The $106 billion measure, in addition to about $80 billion for military operations, provides for an array of other spending priorities, including $7.7 billion to respond to the flu pandemic and more than $10 billion in development and security aid for Pakistan and Iraq as well as countries such as Mexico and the nation of Georgia. Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama administration had to overcome an unusual alliance. Anti-war Democrats opposed continued war spending and Republicans condemned $5 billion in the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. “Stand up for them,” he said.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, contended that Democrats were endangering troops by shifting money to create room for a “global bailout loan program.” End of excerpts.
President Obama and the Democrats (who control both chambers) had to fight hard for the bill.
Ultimately, the bill was approved by a 226-202 vote , with five Republicans voting for the bill and 32 Democrats opposing it..
The bill is H.R. 2346 OMB Watch provides an excellent overview of discussions and controversy surrounding H.R. 2346
Can someone please help me to understand what the definition of “ANTI-WAR” is?
So many politicians and citizens are classifying themselves as being ‘ANTI-WAR”…
UPDATE I X
June 8, 2009 Bill Moyers And Jeremy Scahill Discuss Obama Foreign Policy (including Afghanistan, Iraq, Private Contractors and more). This segment of “The Bill Moyers Journal”program originally aired on
June 5, 2009
Read the transcript or watch the videos.
Part 1 Of 2 (10:15)
Part 2 of 2 (7:46)
UPDATE V I I I
June 2, 2009
This is a ‘must read’ . Obama Has 250,000 ‘Contractors’ Deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and is Increasing the Use of Mercenaries
By Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports
Posted on June 1, 2009, Printed on June 2, 2009 Excerpt:
According to new statistics released by the Pentagon, with Barack Obama as commander in chief, there has been a 23% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which “correlates to the build up of forces” in the country. These numbers relate explicitly to DoD security contractors. Companies like Blackwater and its successor Triple Canopy work on State Department contracts and it is unclear if these contractors are included in the over-all statistics. This means, the number of individual “security” contractors could be quite higher, as could the scope of their expansion. End of Excerpt. Learn more about Jeremy Scahill
UPDATE V I I
May 31, 2009
Here is an interesting ‘Special Report’ in the latest edition of The Economist.
The article, titled ”The fragile web of foreign trade” discusses the US/China trade relationship.
Keep facts presented in this article in the back of your mind as you watch events play themselves out in Afghanistan. Excerpt:
“A FEW years ago, Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick, two economic historians, coined the term “Chimerica” to describe the symbiosis between the world’s two great powers. Chinese people save, they observed, allowing Americans to borrow and spend more than they earn. American consumers buy gizmos made in China, keeping Chinese workers in jobs. Both countries benefit.
But the financial crisis has caused many people to rethink this comfortable arrangement.
Protectionists have long blamed Chinese imports for destroying American jobs. A new gripe is that, by lending America so much money, China helped inflate the asset bubble that has now burst so painfully.
Although no one forced Americans to borrow so much, nor to gamble the money on property, the crisis has fuelled nativist anger. Lawmakers added “Buy American” clauses to this year’s stimulus package, and there are still absurdly tight limits on the number of skilled foreigners who can work in America.
The American and Chinese economies are so entwined, however, that any attempt to separate them will end in calamity.” End of excerpt.
UPDATE V I
May 27, 2009
How do you convince a well-read and informed person to engage in actions that go against his/her conscience?
‘Ignorance is bliss’ for some- because too much knowledge can be dangerous.
For others, ‘knowledge is power’.
It is important to know which category we, as human beings, belong to.
Read this thought-provoking article written by independent journalist Dahr Jamail titled: Abandon the Battlefield. “There’s No Way I’m Going to Deploy to Afghanistan”
Is Victor Agosto a coward? A traitor?
Excerpts:
“It’s a matter of what I’m willing to live with,” Specialist Victor Agosto of the U.S. Army, who is refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan, explained to IPS. “I’m not willing to participate in this occupation, knowing it is completely wrong.”
Agosto, who returned from a 13-month deployment to Iraq in November 2007, is based at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas.
While in Iraq, Agosto never left his base, located in northern Iraq.
“I never had any traumatic experiences, never fired my weapon,” Agosto told IPS in a phone interview. “I mostly worked in information technology, working on computers and keeping the network functioning well. But it was in Iraq that I turned against the occupations. Through my reading, and watching what was going on, I started to feel very guilty.”
Agosto added, “What I did there, I know I contributed to death and human suffering. It’s hard to quantify how much I caused, but I know I contributed to it.” End of excerpts.
Read this article concerning the growing movement to add more mercenary troops in Afghanistan. This is being done for many reasons-including the fact that there is no military draft in the United States.
A mercenary is a ‘gun for hire’. Anything and everything can be ‘taken care of’ if the price is right. Laws do not necessarily always apply when it comes to prosecuting mercenaries for any illegal actions.
As you read this article, note the fact disclosed by the Associated Press that of the 3,847 security contractors operating in Afghanistan, many protecting our bases and convoys, only nine are U.S firms.
Excerpts: “As President Barack Obama begins winding down the Bush war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. “ “The initial surge will add 17,000 troops to the 36,000 already there. Then, later this year, there is to be a second troop surge of another 17,000 or so.”
What Obama has not mentioned is that, in addition to soldiers and civilians, there is a third surge in his plan: private military contractors.
Yes, another privatized army, such as the one in Iraq. There, the Halliburtons, Blackwaters and other war profiteers ran rampant, shortchanging our troops, ripping off taxpayers, killing civilians and doing deep damage to America’s good name.
“Already, there are 71,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan, and many more are preparing to deploy as Pentagon spending ramps up for Obama’s war. The military is now offering new contracts to security firms to provide armed employees (aka, mercenaries) to guard U.S. bases and convoys. ” End of excerpts.
Here is an interesting tidbit that I ran across on George Stephenopoulos’ abcnews.com blog titled: “Jones: ‘Imprudent’ to End U.S.Airstrikes in Afghanistan Despite Civilian Casualties”
Excerpt:
“President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Gen. Jim Jones told me this morning that it would be “imprudent” to end U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan.
During his visit to the U.S. this past week, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan demanded all U.S. airstrikes end. He said a recent airstrike may have killed as many as 130 civilians.
“I think that we’re going to take a look at trying to make sure that we correct those things we can correct, but certainly to tie the hands of our commanders and say we’re not going to conduct air strikes, it would be imprudent,” Jones said in his first television interview”
End of excerpt.
Okay … noted. Now let’s move on.
I wonder if the General can explain to the public what he did…exactly… to earn the following money from Boeing and Chevron, and the US Chamber of Commerce last year?
Read how at much money Jim Jones made last year- pay particular attention as to who paid him the money…
Excerpt:
“National Security Adviser James Jones reported $900,000 in salary and bonus from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as director fees from a number of corporations. He received, for example, $330,000 from Boeing Corp. and $290,000 from Chevron Corp.”End of excerpt.
The General is key in shaping and carrying out the Obama administrations’ policy decisions as they relate to the war in Afghanistan.
The information was released a few weeks ago as part of a financial disclosure that is required for federal office holders and top aides .
Is it just me…or does anyone else out there think that there is a possible conflict of interest here?
While you are at it, read the entire article to learn what some of the other important advisors to Pres. Obama made in earnings last year.
Here too- note who paid them the money.
Again I ask- are there any possible conflicts of interest here?
UPDATE I V
May 17, 2009
Hmmm…. NATO has been busy lately.(8:57)
(Note: Here is the weblink to this interview- use in case you experience difficulties playing back this embedded video) The Real News Network interviewed William F. Engdahl, economist and author of Full Spectrum Dominance.Excerpt: Engdahl says that the NATO exercises in Georgia are provocative to Russia because of the uncovered fact that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashviliwas behind the offensive in South Ossetia last August, while he was in the process of applying for NATO membership.(Note: This is an important accusation because NATO members have an agreement to protect each other in case of military conflict. If Saakashvili (as a NATO member-in-process) was trying to covertly instigate a conflict between Georgia and Russia – and as a result, Russia retaliated- then ALL NATO member countries would have to come to Georgia’s perceived ‘defense’)Engdahl also says that the NATO countries are interested in securing alternatives to the Russian stronghold over European oil and explains that the missile defense program NATO wishes to install in Eastern Europe and Georgia has less to do with Iran than Russia.”This is interesting too…“America threatens trade war with China”.
According to this article “The United States government is planning to revive a bill that will punish China for artificially boosting its trade through “currency manipulation”.
“The Daily Telegraph” a.k.a “The Telegraph “was founded in 1855. It is the highest selling legitimate British newspaper with a daily circulation exceeding 842,000 readers.
The Telegraph was formerly aligned with the British Liberal Party however in recent years its bond with the Conservative Party has been gaining strength.
UPDATE I I l
May 13, 2009
Here is an informative and thought-provoking article in which the author, Pepe Escobar, claims that the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over pipeline routes and control of the distribution of oil in central Asia-
NOT TERRORISM.
The facts as he presents them are accurate.
You decide as to whether or not you agree with his thesis.
Miscellaneous:
Pepe Escobar was born in Brazil. He is a foreign correspondent who has been based in several major cities around the world during his career. He is the roving correspondent for Asia Times Online and is analyst and correspondent for The Real News Network.. Escobar focuses on writing about ‘geopolitics’ for the layperson.
Since Sept.11 he has focused his energies on covering Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, and the wider middle east.
He is the author of several controversial books. (I am in the process of writing a book review on his latest work “Obama Does Globalistan” for SCVJournal and Amazon.com).
Escobar is also affiliated with the new, Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics.
Here is a ‘quick and dirty’ definition of Geopolitics: the study of how the geography (defined as location, size, natural resources-for example) of a nation plays a role in its history. It is important for one to become familiar with the global application of this term inorder to try to make sense of what is happening on the international scene today.
UPDATE I I
May 12, 2009
Some more insight into the past conflicts in Afghanistan and their implications for the present and future conflicts…
“We are morally no different from the psychopaths within the Taliban, who Afghans remember we empowered, funded and armed during the 10-year war with the Soviet Union. Acid thrown into a girl’s face or beheadings? Death delivered from the air or fields of shiny cluster bombs? This is the language of war. It is what we speak. It is what those we fight speak.”
“The American ground troops are midterm in a history that started roughly in 1984 and 1985 when the State Department decided to assist the Mujahedeen, the resistance fighters, through various programs and military aid. USAID, the humanitarian arm serving political and military purposes, was the seed for having a different kind of interaction with the Afghans,” she (Dr. Juliette Fournot ) told me. “The Afghans were very grateful to receive arms and military equipment from the Americans.”
“But the way USAID distributed its humanitarian assistance was very debatable,” she went on. “It still puzzles me. They gave most of it to the Islamic groups such as the Hezb-e Islami of [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar. And I think it is possibly because they were more interested in the future stability of Pakistan rather than saving Afghanistan. Afghanistan was probably a good ground to hit and drain the blood from the Soviet Union. I did not see a plan to rebuild or bring peace to Afghanistan. It seemed that Afghanistan was a tool to weaken the Soviet Union. It was mostly left to the Pakistani intelligence services to decide what would be best and how to do it and how by doing so they could strengthen themselves.”
Truthdig is a web magazine that presents articles from a progressive perspective. Authors are considered authorities in their fields. Many of the articles posted are considered controversial in nature. The site was co-founded by Zuade Kaufman (Los Angeles entrepreneur) and Robert Scheer (journalist).
Headline: Gates Replaces Top General in Afghanistan
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Monday that he has asked for the resignation of Gen. David McKiernan, the top general in Afghanistan. Gates has nominated Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to replace McKiernan.
By Ann Scott Tyson,Washington Post Staff Writer, May 12, 2009
Wait a minute… is this the same Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who was the ‘de facto’ leader in the ‘failed’ hunt for Osama bin Laden?
Headline: Bin Laden Trail ‘Stone Cold’
U.S. Steps Up Efforts, But Good Intelligence On Ground is Lacking
By Dana Priest and Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writers, September 10, 2006
Okay…This announcement makes me feel ‘warm and fuzzy’…NOT
Watch and listen to Governor Palin as she officially announces her resignation (this past July 4, 2009) from her position as Governor of Alaska.
Part 1 (12:05)
Part 2 (6:55)
Now, read/watch how these various ‘media people’ reported and interpreted the Governor’s resignation speech.
CNN’s Rick Sanchez discusses the possibility that Gov. Palin is resigning because …she is pregnant.
Joan Walsh, the editor-in-chief of Salon,com provided this insight in the following piece she wrote: “In an angry, rambling press conference that will rival Gov. Mark Sanford’s as a stunning example of a bizarre public meltdown, Palin basically blamed her decision on her national critics, who she said were blocking her agenda and costing Alaska taxpayers money.”
Now, watch/listen to this exchange between CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Sarah Palin’s Spokeswomen:
CNN Anderson Cooper (5:49)
What is it about Governor Palin’s decision that Anderson Cooper does not understand. Focus on 3:53 to 4:10. Is it just me…or does Anderson appear to be rambling?
Rumors claiming that Palin is resigning due to ongoing FBI investigations against her have been refuted by both her attorney and an FBI spokesperson.Note: Follow ‘FBI spokesperson’ link-which contains latimes url address- AFTER you complete reading this entire SCV Journal post. Do this because this latimes link DOES NOT allow you to return ‘directly’ to SCV Journal..
Some have said that Palin is resigning because she wants to cash in on her reputation by writing a book but she can’t do this while in office Palin signs deal for memoir to be published in 2010. This is not correct. Palin does not have to resign from office to be allowed to write her book.
Some people speculate that Palin may be preparing for a 2012 run for national office. Some of these individuals believe that perhaps America is ready for a new political party. They feel that the Democrat party is controlled by so-called far left anti-american radical organizations (ACORN, ACLU , NCLR (LA RAZA) and that the Republican Party has forgotten it’s values and has equally sold out the American people.
Oh I don’t know…and I could be wrong…however – It appears that both Democrats and Republicans may be scared of a Palin candidacy in 2012.
Palin and her Alaska government administration have accomplished much while in office however the public (in my opinion) hears very little of it.
Note:
If you are experiencing difficulties opening any of these embedded youtube videos, please use the following links instead. (Part 1) (Part 2) (CNN-Anderson Cooper)
************************ Take Action *************************
Does Sarah Palin have a valid criticism when she questions why 11 AP reporters have been assigned to fact check her book versus assigning some of the AP reporters to “to ‘fact check’ what’s going on with Sheik Mohammed’s trial, Pelosi’s health care takeover costs, Hasan’s associations” ?
Excerpts:
“Sarah Palin is no normal politician, and at the Associated Press, apparently “Going Rogue” is no normal book.When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.
The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin’s motives for writing “Going Rogue: An American Life,” stating as fact that the book “has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto.”
Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled “Really? Still Making Things Up?”
“Imagine that,” the post read. “11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to ‘fact check’ what’s going on with Sheik Mohammed’s trial, Pelosi’s health care takeover costs, Hasan’s associations, etc. Amazing.”
I am speechless…Honest to God…I can’t believe this broadcast.
You must watch this to believe that it really happened.
What a waste of 3 minutes and 25 seconds worth of valuable national news station broadcast time.
Ya gotta love the mainstream media…NOT.
In case you can not access this embedded video, click here
UPDATE I I I
July 22, 2009
Hmmm…This is interesting.
This article provides a nice overview of the growing US federal government resistance movement.
State legislators (including Alaska’s) are sending out the message loud and clear that they expect Congress to uphold the provisions of the US Constitution and US Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal government authority over the states.
Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state
Constitutional rights reasserted in growing resistance to Washington
Excerpts: ”Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing resistance to the federal government.
Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center report.
The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states’ sovereignty resolutions.
The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
End of excerpts.
Stay tuned to this growing movement which has been spearheaded by US State Legislators in an effort to protect their constitutional authority.
Notes:
For more information on this movement, refer to the Tenth Amendment Center website.
According to its website, the Tenth Amendment Center”works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power.”
Worldnet Daily is a daily web publication considered by many as having a conservative slant with regards to its presentation of news, facts and information. It was started in 1997 by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah. The site provides news (original articles published by staff members as well as news sourced from other publications),editorials, forums and polling information.
Although the mainstream media and others consider this publication as being controversial (a few of the articles published in the past were based on news items that were considered ‘speculative’ at the time), it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There are many respected journalists and authors working for WND.
A good rule of thumb for readers is to follow the journalists and writers whose credibility has been proven.
One should keep this in mind before choosing to ignore an article because it appears in a particular publication or news program.
I say this because there are many reputable, credible, highly credentialed journalists and authors who are being prevented from publishing their material in the mainstream press- for a variety of reasons.
To stay well-informed in today’s media environment, it is important to be able to follow credible journalists, authors, broadcasters etc…no matter where they may be disseminating their information from.
UPDATE I I
July 7, 2009
Alaska governor says the state has paid almost $ 2 million fighting ‘trumped up’ ethics complaints against her.
The Palin family has personally shelled out close to $500,000 in personal legal debts.
Was the goal of this smear campaign to bankrupt the Palin family?
Follow these three links to gain some insight as to who some of the players behind complaints and lawsuits against Gov. Palin are/were.
Here is a list of the 18 complaints filed against Palin.
Learn how and why every single complaint (except one minor one which is still pending) against her has been DISMISSED OR THROWN OUT.
This short series represents one of the most comprehensive treatments of this issue (Ethics complaints against Palin) that I have read to date.
The author attempts to provide answers to the ‘Five W’s’ (who, what, where, when, why ) and even the “H” (how)- simple, direct questions which serve as the backbone of a good investigative piece.
The author’s opinions and conclusions (which are, of course, subjective) are included throughout the three part series..
The facts however are objective and easily verifiable .
You decide if you agree with some of the opinions and conclusions.
Wow…what brought on this tirade against Palin in Dowd’s latest (July 5, 2009) NY Times Op-ed piece ?
Excerpts:
“Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy.”
“Usually we don’t find that exquisite battiness in our leaders until they’ve been battered by sordid scandals like Watergate (Nixon), gnawing problems like Vietnam (L.B.J.), or scary threats like biological terrorism (Cheney).”
“When Lyndon Johnson was president, some of his staff began to think of him as “a sick man,” as Bill Moyers told Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Moyers and his fellow Johnson aide Dick Goodwin even began reading up on mental illness — Bill on manic depression and Dick on paranoia.“
“And so it was, Todd Purdum learned, as he traveled Alaska reporting on Palin for Vanity Fair, that the governor’s erratic and egoistic behavior has been a source of concern for people there.”
End of excerpts.
Read the latest (website link follows below) written by Dee Dee Myers’ husband Todd Purdum.As readers may recall, Myers served as President Bill Clinton’s Press Secretary from 1993 to 1994.
Todd Purdum wrote this piece for the August 2009 edition of Vanity Fair titled It Came from Wasilla .
‘Sexiest brand in Republican politics’, ‘dressed all in black; no red Naughty Monkey Double Dare pumps tonight’, ‘the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs’…
This is how Purdum describes Palin in the article-I am not kidding.
Todd Purdum…I have a suggestion for you: TAKE AN ICE COLD SHOWER before you write your next article about Governor Palin.
Did you hear about the Tea Party tax protests being held throughout the nation?
One of the most well-attended took place a few weeks ago in Fullerton, CA. The Orange County Register and San Gabriel Valley Tribune were two of the VERY few institutional media groups that covered the event in any depth.
All is not lost, however. Leave it to a blogger to provide the ‘blow-by-blow’ details. Here is one of the best blogger coverages that I could locate on this event Orange Juice Blog The photographs help tell the story well.
Although these anti-tax ‘Tea Party’ rallies are breaking out across the country, the L.A. Times didn’t even bother to send an intern to cover this event-although it took place very close to its headquarters. Read why
The Fullerton Tea Party attendees (ranging in number from 8-15,000 citizens -depending upon who you ask) are trying to get their legislators to understand that taxpayers are angry and want REAL change.
If you are one of the millions of people who depend solely on the mainstream media’s (MSM) print and broadcast giants for your news, then most likely you know little or nothing about this protest.
You are also most likely clueless about the growing trend of Tea Party Tax Protest ‘flash crowds’ spreading across the nation.
Since February 2009, at least 150 protests have been organized and/or staged in this movement born out of outrage and concern.
Evidently, the MSM believes that thousands of disgruntled taxpayers gathering throughout the USA to protest isn’t newsworthy.
Perhaps the MSM is concerned that if the media spreads the news of how middle class citizens are voicing their discontent, this will encourage others to stage similar acts of resistance of their own.
Background on The Tea Party Tax Protest Movement:
The mainstream media is –with few notable exceptions
ignoring the coast to coast tax revolt movement taking place in this country.
There is much irony…and danger…in this development.
Some people are trying to dismiss the movement in a number of ways including defining it as a public relations astro-turfing movement meant to give the impression that it has been organized on a grass roots level but in reality they say the Tea Party movement is well – financed and managed (more like the controversial A.C.O.R.N or Moveon.org. organizations).
Some are attempting to paint the movement as a partisan effort organized by ultra conservatives.
This is only an attempt to marginalize the movement’s significance.
The US Tea Party Tax Protest movement is an important contemporary social phenomenon for a number of reasons including:
1- Protestor characteristics: diverse middle class citizens (race, ethnic background, age, political party membership)
2- Method of Organizing: The digital age phenomenon of email, Twitter, cell phones, social networking facilitate the formation of ‘flash crowds’
3- Goals: depending upon which state the protests are taking place in, citizens may be seeking any or all of these objectives involving the placement of constitutional or statutory constraints on a government’s (local, state or federal-level):
a. expenditure levels (how much government spending is okay)
b. revenue generation capabilities (taxes, borrowing and investing of public funds etc…)
c. fiscal policy-making process-who decides a & b (debate, approvals, what is role of the public etc…)
The Irony: The MSM and the Taxpayers are Both Protected by the First Amendment…provided that the MSM does its Job Properly….
The First Amendment contained in our Bill of Rights states that people have freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press. They have the right to gather in a peaceful way. They have the right to appeal to the Government if they feel something wrong is happening.
Freedom of the press is contained in the very First Amendment because of its importance in protecting our newly formed republic.
The press was hailed by our Founding Fathers as ‘The Fourth Estate’ in a system of checks and balances against potential governmental abuse of power and authority. As a result, we have the three branches of government plus the press-keeping each other ‘in check’ .
In addition, the MSM has a responsibility to the citizens to bring to the peoples’ attention information regarding significant news events. This information will help the citizens to make informed decisions including –decisions regarding how to remain free and self-governing and when/how to hold government accountable for its actions.
If the MSM chooses to focus on sensational stories instead of covering events that will impact the citizens, then both the press and the citizens are at great risk of losing their First Amendment rights.
Therein lies the irony surrounding the MSM’s decision to make this huge movement into a ‘non-event’ by choosing not to cover it properly.
The Danger: Threat to Democracy Due to MSM Blowback
I realize that reporting capabilities do indeed come down to availability of resources however, why is the MSM choosing to allocate resources to cover the Octomom story at the expense of ignoring The Tea Party tax protest phenomenon?
Freedom of expression provides a framework in which the conflict necessary to the progress of a society can take place without destroying the society.
It is an essential mechanism for maintaining the balance between stability and change in a society.
What happens if the media chooses to ignore citizens’ protests?
How can civil discourse take place?
How can conflicts be resolved?
Are we witnessing the engineering of a massive protest movement that will have to turn to violence to capture the attention of the msm.
I hope not.
Expect the MSM to yawn
Stay tuned. Get involved.
************************ Take Action *************************
Search the Internet for “Tea Party Protests” to locate the many centralized websites that serve as clearinghouses for tea party locations. Make contact with the organizers to verify details.
Note: If you have the opportunity to attend one of these protests, do your community a favor and put on your ‘Citizen Journalist’ hat and take photographs/videos. Try to get an idea of how many people attended this event. Then, locate websites on the Internet that are seeking photos, videos, and details about the protests. Pass on your information.
Posting the pictures and videos give more of a real-life feel to the events and the viewer can see some of the essence of the events.
For those of you who are not the ‘protestor’ type or who want to but can not attend any of the rallies, consider doing what many activists throughout the country are planning to do:
All Americans are being asked to send a TEABAG (photos, drawings okay) to Washington , D.C. by April 15th. You do not have to enclose a note or any other information unless you choose to do so.
Send it to:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington , D.C. 20500 …
MORE ACTION:
Contact your senators and your representative right now by phone or email.
It should take less than five minutes of your valuable time.
If you don’t know who your senators or representatives are,
Program these numbers into your cell phones so you can contact your legislators 24 / 7 / 365.
Save the Senate and House websites on your desktop for quick reference.
”A Florida conservative has registered an official “Tea Party” with the office of the Secretary of State, and is promising to run candidates against Republicans and Democrats in state and national races.”
“The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.”
End of Excerpts.
Do you think that now – MAYBE…just MAYBE - the mainstream media will start paying more attention to the Tea Party movement?
Check out what some Ron Paul supporters (including many unaffiliated-independent voters who strongly support the Tea Party Tax Protest movement) have been up to lately:
Note:
Click here if you have trouble accessing this embedded video.
UPDATE X l X
October 21, 2009
Language warning.
This voter is…putting it as mildly as I can…A N G R Y.
How many more people are there out there that share her sentiments?
Can this help to shed more light as to why the Tea Party movement is continuing to grow in the USA?
Language warning.
UPDATE X V I I l
October 16, 2009
The San Francisco Chronicle posted this little tid bit about President Obama’s recent fundraising trip to San Francisco to collect $ 2 million for the Democratic Party.
Included in this post are some reasons why the President changed his mind at the last moment and did not make any public appearances during his visit.
(Hint: Tea anyone? )
UPDATE X V I I
August 7 2009
The protests evolve as they continue…
The reporter questioned Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi – the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives- about the mass citizen protests going on in our country.
He asked: “Do you think there is legitimate grassroots opposition going on out there?” (0:21)
Watch and listen to Nancy Pelosi’s response…
Note: In case you can’t access this embedded youtube video,Click here
Nancy Pelosi has formed an opinion about the entire protest movement (and has resorted to name-calling and ridiculing participants) based upon the actions of a few ‘animated’ protesters?
Where did these few ‘animated protesters’ come from?
What about the rest of the hundreds of thousands of peaceful middle class Americans who are protesting the state of health insurance in the US?
Are they part of an astro-turf movement too?
Are they members of the NAZI party?
Is it possible that someone is ‘playing both ends against the middle”?
Are we seeing citizens being divided so they can be conquered?
Read the following two articles (see below) for yourselves and decide.
Excerpt: ”The nation’s largest federation of labor organizations has promised to directly engage with boisterous conservative protesters at Democratic town halls during the August recess. In a memo sent out on Thursday, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney outlined the blueprint for how the union conglomerate would step up recess activities on health care reform and other topics pertinent to the labor community. The document makes clear that Obama allies view the town hall forums as ground zero of the health care debate.”
Read the rest of this article that identifies – right at the start- the protesters as being
BOISTEROUS C O N S E RV A T I V E S .
I could be wrong but from what I have seen and read (non msm sources) , it appears to me that the protesters (including many Tea Party Tax protesters) may just be average US citizens….members of the dirt poor, poor, middle class, rich socio-economic levels…
Article 2- Source: BusinessWeek
Now, read the following Businessweek ( 8/6/09 edition) cover story titled: The Health Insurers Have Already Won-
How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit
Excerpt: ”As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP).
The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate
to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers.
But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.”
Again, I ask…
Is it possible that someone is ‘playing both ends against the middle”?
Are we seeing citizens being divided so they can be conquered?
UPDATE X V I
July 1, 2009
Thousands of Tea Party protests –organized by various groups around the country-are scheduled to take place this Fourth of July weekend.
Refer to here, here , and ,here for details on the various activities being planned.
Many Tea Party organizers were forced to cancel at the last moment when city officials got wind of the number of anticipated participants.
Check out what happened in Atlanta recently. Atlanta has the distinction of holding one of the largest ‘April 15’ tea party protests in the country (over 20,000 people participated in this event).
Here is an excerpt of an article written in The American Thinker- a daily conservative website which is referenced frequently on The Rush Limbaugh Show as well as the New York Times, Le Monde, and The Guardian newspapers.
Excerpt:
With as many as 20,000 people in attendance, the Atlanta Tea Party on April 15 was one of the largest and most successful Tea Parties in the country. The Atlanta Tea Party on July 4, 2009 had been expected to be just as large. Unfortunately, plans have changed. Simon Property Group has forced the cancellation of the Atlanta Tea Party.
The Atlanta Tea Party was forced to cancel its Independence Day celebration in Gwinnett, after losing its location due to the objection of Gwinnett Place Mall (a Simon company.) The Tea Party had been scheduled to take place in the parking lot of the old Macy’s building at Gwinnett Place since March.
“It is unfortunate the event had to be canceled,” said Julianne Thompson, event co-organizer. She continued, “The old Macy’s building is on private property, and not owned by Simon Malls, however the mall manager asked the property owner and I to come in the office on Thursday of this week [June 18], and told us Simon does not want political events on its property. They were also concerned about the fact we were using the term ‘protest.’ Although the event was on private property, the mall was able to assert authority on the matter due to reciprocal property easement agreements.”
End of excerpt.
Read the rest of this interesting article –in which the author follows the money trail and connects the dots.
UPDATE X V
June 19, 2009
Perhaps this may help explain just some of the reasons as to why some people feel so strongly about supporting the Tea Party Tax Protest movement.
Perhaps this may also help to explain why the media REFUSES to focus attention on it other than to deride its significance:
There are very few movements more threatening to dishonest political leaders than a revolt led by the middle class.
In case you have difficulty retrieving this embedded youtube video, click on the following direct link
Hat tip to RG in PA for sending me link to this video!
UPDATE X I V
4/20/09
Who really started the Tea Party Tax Protest Movement in our country?
This is just idle curiousity on my part – prompted by an interesting editorial that appeared in today’s online edition of SCV’s hometown newspaper- The Signal .
The editorial, written by Steve Lunetta is titled The SCV ‘Tea Party’
Is this really an ‘astro-turf’ movement started by the Republican Party leadership or by rich people who want to get out of paying higher taxes?
Listen to what U.S House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has to say about this.
What role-if any- did the Libertarian Party members have in growing this movement? (Refer to The Signal article-bloggers’ comments-for excellent weblinks.)
What about the citizens who participated in the protests but don’t belong to either of these two parties-what does this mean?
Does it matter who started it-why or why not ?
And lastly, what happens next with regards to the nurturing and growth of this movement? Steve has an excellent suggestion on this point.
As the various diverse leaders (diverse with respects to party affiliation, education and/or socio-economic levels etc…) of the Tea Party Tax Protest movement proceed to their next stages, I would advise them to pay notice to blogger Brad’s warning:
“There are people out there who would love to weaken and ultimately get rid of this Tea Party Tax Protest movement and the first way to do this is to get people arguing with each other about who should get credit for starting it. The easiest way to conquer a group is to divide it first…”
UPDATE X I I I
4/19/09
Are we witnessing the start of a nasty distortion campaign?
Is someone trying to make the Tea Party Tax Protest movement appear toxic?
Is this nothing more than defamatory propaganda?
For those of you who attended these Tea Party Tax Protests- what do you think? Does what Garofalo say have any validity?
Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought that a major reason for this movement was economic-based
Follow the link to: When Did Your County’s Jobs Disappear? An interactive map of vanishing employment across the country By Chris Wilson, Slate
(Data source: local area unemployment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Note:Slate is a current affairs and culture web magazine (updated daily) created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley and initially owned by Microsoft ( MSN). In 2004, it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. It is now managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.The magazine covers politics, arts, culture, sports and news. Slate is viewed by many as having a politically liberal focus and editorial slant.
UPDATE X I I
4/16/09
This short Associated Press article (reprinted in the Santa Fe New Mexican) provides one of the best summaries that I have read which discusses the variety of reasons people participated in Tea Parties in New Mexico-and by extension- throughout the country. Note the reasons given, socio-economic levels of some of the respondents, their political party affiliations etc…
I am thinking out loud here but…
Could the Tea Party phenomenon help fuel the SERIOUS growth of a MAJOR ‘Third Party’ movement in this country ?
But wait…maybe I am wrong???
Here is Los Angeles Times’ totally differenttake on the April 15 Tea Party Protests:
“Republicans stage ‘tea party’ protests against Obama” By Michael Finnegan and Janet Hook
April 16, 2009
Honestly…this is the actual headline.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
“Republicans sought to ignite a popular revolt against President Obama on Wednesday by staging “tea party” protests across the nation to demand lower taxes and less government spending — but the tactic carried risk for the party.”
At least they covered some of the Tea Party protests this time…
Enough said.
Read the article.
UPDATE X I
4/15/09
WARNING: Satire Alert!
This is real professional journalism-at its best. Thanks CNN!
Is ‘getting less funding for the government ‘ the only objective of the Tea Party Tax Movement?
The people planning to ‘crash’ the Santa Monica Tea Party appear to think so….
This ‘party-crashing’ group of citizens (see below) supports the end of funding for wars and Wall Street and… the beginning of funding the needs of the people ???”
Wait…did I read this correctly?
Has everyone completely stopped listening to each other?
There is a great miscommunication / misunderstanding going on here between these two groups.
There are many Tea Party participants who want the same thing as the ‘party crashers’ and vice-a-versa.
The two groups share some complimentary objectives in their mission statements so I ask-why is the group below planning to C R A S H the Tea Party? The two groups’ objectives ARE NOT mutually exclusive.
Santa Monica Tea Party
Wednesday, April 15th 2009 4:00–5:00 PM
Santa Monica, CA
The Santa Monica Tea Party of 2009 and Tea Parties all across America are being organized by friends of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, all about getting less funding for government. Let’s show up with a better message: STOP funding wars and Wall Street, and start funding the needs of the people– health care, education, and a green economy. Join us as we crash their party.
Location:
Santa Monica Pier
100 Colorado Ave.
Santa Monica, CA
90401
“Tomorrow, my husband and I will be venturing into the wilds disguised as a news crew to do some in person interviewers with teabaggers here in [State Redacted] (if we can find any). We’ve got some questions lined up to ask, but I’d love to get suggestions!
The great thing about owning professional video equipment is that armed with it, you can pass yourself off as being a professional news crew pretty easily.
So tomorrow, [Fake Station Name Redacted] is going to send a cameraman and on air news personality out into the field to cover this “teabagging” phenomenon.
We’re going to ask open ended questions that seem to have a slight conservative bent to (hopefully) get them to open up and just start ranting. Then, we take any examples of racism, hatred, ignorance, and stupidity that we catch on camera and make a little movie out of it. Probably a YouTube special. “
Read the rest of that post.
UPDATE I X
4/12/09
It seems that HuffPo has finally started paying attention (in a non-derisive sort of way) to the Tea Party Tax Protest.
From the article:
“Tea party protests won’t be limited to the rightward-leaning, anti-spending, anti-tax crowd come April 15. In Massachusetts, the LGBT community is planning to reenact the Boston Tea Party to protest the tax code’s unequal treatment of same-sex couples. Similar protests are also planned for post offices across the country.
Note:The Huffington Post (a.k.a. Huffpost or HuffPo) is a liberal website (daily) founded by Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington and Kenneth Lerer. The site covers a wide range of topics (in the form of news stories, editorials and actual original news coverage) including politics, entertainment, media, living, business, and environmental protection. It serves as a counterpoint to conservative news collection websites.
UPDATE V I I I
4/11/09
I like Rachel Maddow. Is she misinformed, completely ignorant, or is she being paid to say this?
Watch this You tube video and decide for yourself.
“First they ignore you” Check
“Then they ridicule you” Check
“Then they fight you“
“Then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
UPDATE V I I
4/08/09
ACORN, Huffington Post Plan to Disrupt Tax Day Tea Parties
Source: By Jeff Poor – The Business and Media Institute which is connected with
The Media Research Center (MRC)- a conservative content analysis organization founded in 1987.
The group’s mission statement, according to its website, is “to bring balance and responsibility to the news media”. It does this by cataloging and reporting on what it asserts to be widespread liberal media bias in the United States press. It provides a counterpoint to what Factcheck.org (impartial) and Mediamatters.org (liberal/progressive) come up with.
Note: Although these three organizations profess to conduct content analysis, fact checking, monitoring etc…the readers should verify information they present to you. During the campaign season I found several errors in information presented by Media Matters For America and Fact Check. I e-mailed my findings to these organizations and they never retracted their information nor did they respond to what I wrote. To this day, I remain firm in the integrity of my findings. I never contacted The Business and Media Institute because…I had no reason to.
BY JASON CLAYWORTH MARCH 31, 2009
Excerpt:
“More than 500 people who are upset with a plan to change Iowa’s tax laws were cleared from a hearing tonight at the Iowa House after they interrupted multiple times.
House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, cleared the crowd at about 8:30 p.m. The decision brought about loud protests as the crowd was escorted from the chambers by Iowa State Patrol officers.”
End of excerpt
Another Tea Party Tax Protest group in the making?
Stay tuned…
Cape “tea party” canceled; City fears too many attendees
Citizens belonging to a variety of political parties are questioning if the Cape Coral City (FLA) Council members are familiar with the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights. This news item is spreading like a wildfire throughout the blogosphere- Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals- makes no difference.
The Constitution does not allow ANY modification, changes, conditions, or cost associated with the right (not privilege) to gather, complain, or seek redress of grievances we have with our government.
So…what is happening in Cape Coral City Florida?
Read this web article posted on the CBS-affiliated WINK-TV’s .
By WINK News
Story Updated: Mar 29, 2009 at 8:24 AM EDT
CAPE CORAL, Fla. – A tea party to protest government spending and taxing is canceled. Canceled by the government
UPDATE I I I
3/22/09
Check out this amendment
that was ‘hidden’ in the crevices of the GIVE Act wording (see below for OpenCongress summary) which was passed by the House this past Wednesday (3/18).
Read closely the wording on H Amdt. 49 os HB 1388. revoking your right to assemble or protest…
“Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing.”
I could be wrong B U T…wouldn’t that make Tea Parties illegal???
If HB 1388 passes with Amendment 49 included- I guess we can pretty much ‘kiss our First Amendment rights goodbye…
The senate is due to vote on this bill this Monday 3/23. Stay tuned…
Follow this bill’s status through the RSS feed link provided on the main page of SCV Journal.
UPDATE I I
3/21/09
You have to read this reprint from the Huffington Post to believe it.
At least they are not ignoring the movement.
Enough said…
Hilarious Hypocrisy of the GOP’s So-Called ‘Tea Bag Revolution’ By Bob Cesca, Huffington Post. Posted March 20, 2009.
OpenCongress Summary:
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps, with a goal of expanding from 75,000 volunteers to 250,000. The bill also would increase education funding and establish a summer service program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school student who participate. The bill would also expand service options for seniors and veterans.
Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton served as a judge in last weeks Miss USA pageant.
He asked Miss California (prop 8 state) whether or not all states should follow Vermont’s recent decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
Miss California (Carrie Prejean) voiced her personal view on the issue. This evidently, was not the politically correct thing to do.
Some say this may have cost her the pageant crown.
Watch the videos-see what you think about the issue…
From MSNBCPrejean and Hilton- interviewed after the fact. (5:02)
How would you rate Miss California USA 2009 Carrie Prejean’s response to his question?
Did this ‘politically incorrect’ response cost Prejean the crown?
Fox- Sean Hannity interviews Prejean and leads panel discussion on the pageant incident. (10:48)
Has Hilton unwittingly set back nationwide outreach efforts to educate and inform voters about why the legalization of gay marriage is important?
Will Hilton’s outburst reinforce the perception that ANTI- Prop 8 supporters (people who support legalizing gay marriage) are harassing those who supported Prop 8 (against gay marriage legalization).
Did the competition’s management handle the situation properly?
“Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, released a statement condemning Ms Prejean’s comments. As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman.”
(Note: The British Broadcasting Corporation BBC is the largest broadcaster in the world.
It is funded by a television license fee charged to UK television owners. This allows the corporation to operate in a somewhat independent manner.)
Did Hilton miss an excellent opportunity to promote CIVIL discourse on this subject matter?
Hilton shares his thoughts about Miss California USA 2009 (2:25)
“Should Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton Resign “Miss USA’ Title in Protest?”
Answer the survey question AND post any additional comments you may have on this issue.
For our readers who are following the ‘Carrie Prejean’ situation:
Note: I am staying on top of this story because the outcome of any lawsuit may serve as a precedent for future beauty pageant contestants and their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of reprisal.
“The franchise that operates the Miss California Organization countersued former Miss California Carrie Prejean on Monday, alleging in Los Angeles Superior Court that the lawsuit she has filed against it is merely an attempt “to extend her notoriety.”
“Prejean was stripped of her crown in August for breaching her contract and refusing to make appearances. The 22-year-old beauty then sued the state organization, claiming it engaged in slander and discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs, causing severe emotional distress.
“On Monday, K2 Productions filed a demurrer and cross-complaint, claiming that after Prejean sparked a media firestorm with her answer to a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant, she had “an inflated sense of self,” turned further against her state team, abandoned her obligation as the titleholder, and violated multiple provisions of her contract.”
UPDATE I I I
June 10, 2009
Miss California USA Prejean dethroned
Story Highlights from CNN
NEW: Attorney says Prejean didn’t breach contract, did do speaking engagements
“Better late than never,” Perez Hilton says of Carrie Prejean’s firing
Prejean was Miss California USA, controversial due to statements, topless photos
Runner-up Tami Farrell will take over as Miss California USA
UPDATE I I
04/30/09
Miss CA: ‘I’m Going To Do Whatever It Takes To Protect Marriage.’ Lauer: Some Compare You To Palin (6:11)
According to its website,NOM is a nonprofit organization (founded in 2007) with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Its focus is to serve as a clearinghouse/resource center for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level.
Ask yourself these questions as you watch and listen to this You Tube posting of a segment from the Today Show (aired on Thursday 4/30).
Should people be confronting the biased judge or the opinionated pageant contestant?
Who had an agenda to carry through in this pageant? The judge or the contestant?
Did Hilton produce a similar tirade (in any media format) against President Obama when the president (as a presidential candidate) voiced an almost identical opinion as Miss California regarding his statement that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
Why was Governor Sarah Palin’s name injected into Matt Lauer’s comments?
Anyone heard anything from the Donald (aka Donald Trump) or any pageant officials?
Can US beauty pageant contestants expect to be evaluated by biased pageant judges in future pageants?
Should we care?
Note: I refer to Hilton as ‘biased’ based upon his post-pageant statements and actions-not necessarily because of the question he asked Miss California (although some people feel that this was a ‘loaded’ question-and did not belong in a publicly or privately-held Miss USA Beauty Pageant interview).
Prejean is very opinionated concerning this issue however, no one would have known what her private opinion was IF Hilton had not asked her this question regarding gay marriage.
UPDATE I
04/24/09
A satirical video produced by actor/comedian Steven Crowder in response to Perez Hilton’s You Tube rants against Miss California.(3:30)
This is good.
California voters are bracing themselves for what has become a campaigning ritual in our country. They will soon be wading through a flood of emotionally-charged sound bites to reach a decision as to how they should vote with regards to the six budget-related measures that are being decided upon in the May 2009 Special Election-an election necessitated by the state’s near catastrophic fiscal condition.
As soon as the ink was dry on both the Sacramento deal to close the $42 billion budget deficit, and the Washington DC deal allowing California to receive about $17.5 billion from federal fiscal stimulus aid, California voters were informed that the state could be facing an additional $14 billion budget deficit if Prop 1A and other budget-related measures on the May 19 ballot fail to pass.
The problem is that, the way many informed voters see it, not one of the six budget-related propositions being voted on during the May 19 Special Election offers any long-term solutions on how to avoid fiscal fiascos like the one California is presently facing. These six propositions are merely stop gap measures. None of the propositions address the structural deficit in the state budget and the flawed budget process.
How did California get to this point?
Many blame California legislators’ arguably reckless attitude when it comes to relying on the use of bond financing to fund some of its critical infrastructure needs (including transportation, water, education).
California has increasingly used borrowing through state general obligation bonds to finance infrastructure projects. But the need for infrastructure investment—an estimated $500 billion over the next 20 years (approximately $25 billion per year) far exceeds what these bonds can bring in, according to the Public Policy Institute of California report, Paying for Infrastructure: California’s Choices.
California needs a long–term solution with regards to how infrastructure investments are financed in the future. None of the ballot propositions being presented to the voters offers any such solutions for consideration.
The Governor and the legislative leaders want us to believe that if the citizens vote against some of the six budget-related measures , this will lead the state into a fiscal meltdown.
That’s a pretty hefty responsibility to lay on the shoulders of the citizens. The citizens, however, can rise to the occaision and do the right thing provided they have access to accurate, unbiased, truthful information.
It”s tough enough that these propositions contain fiscal-related language (which many voters may not be familiar with) but now we find out that wordings in some of the propositions are misleading.
Former LA mayor Richard Riordan ( a liberal Republican who voted for President Obama) is absolutely livid. Read what he has to say about the fraud he claims is being perpetrated on the California voters- a fraud he refers to as a ’scam’ in his editorial titled California’s May ballot scam.
How did California get to the point that necessitated this special election?
Read this informative and easy to follow summary of the situation and issues.
The information presented below includes excellent sources to consider when deciding which ballot propositions to support.
(A) The California Secretary of State (SOS)
I always start hereSOS.
After reviewing the SOS website, I continue my research as follows :
(B) The Legislative Analysts Office (LAO)
I am a big fan of The LAO reports.The LAO is the California government’s non – partisan fiscal and policy advisor..
The group presents its reviews in a very clear, concise and interesting manner.
The analysts however do not offer endorsements.They leave that up to you.
(C) California League of Women Voters(CA LWV)
After reading the LAO reports, I like to review the non-partisan California League of Women Voters’ website. This website is very valuable to me during election time. It contains a lot of information and the people who maintain the site respect the citizen’s time. These people call it like they see it-no holds barred-no fluff.
Their opinions are backed by solid facts. Although I may not always agree with them on every issue, I do place great importance on their recommendations and endorsements..
These writers/editors help to put the icing on the cake when it comes to getting a well-rounded overview of certain issues or propositions. They keep their ears low to the ground and write about political nuances that the LAO and CA LWV do not/will not/can not cover for a variety of reasons. Here again, I do not always agree with the positions that some of the editors or writers take however, I always hear them out.I appreciate their clarity of thinking, and their collection and presentation of information to the public.
Lastly, I like to surf the internet to see what other tidbit of information I can come up with that will help me to better understand the issues that I am being asked to vote for or against. For example, check out these interesting articles/editorials (all ‘MUST READS’ before you vote on May 19).
From The San Francisco Chronicle’s blog site “Money seals the deal between Schwarzenegger and CTA” editorial written by John Wildermuth 3/25/09
From The Modesto Bee-. This is an excellent editorial containing some VERY interesting observations concerning ‘deals’ surrounding some of the ballot props . I learned about ‘poison pills’ in my investment banking classes but this is the first time I have seen the concept applied in state government politics. Written by Dan Walters 3/1/09 : “California budget election is the next step”
This news article helps to put some of the Governor’s actions into historical perspective. Anybody notice a trend in the Gov’s actions?
I have chosen as to how I will vote on each of the propositions however I will not release my choices on this website for another few weeks until we get closer to the election.
I will include my choices (and explanations) on an UPDATE to be included in this article.
************************ Take Action *************************
Refer to the websites I have provided links to in this blog. Conduct further research if you can make the time.
Weigh the pros and cons for each proposition.
Discuss the propositions and your thoughts and questions with people in your sphere of life-your family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, local media outlets etc…
Decide your position on each prop and let’s all compare notes with each other in a few weeks before we cast our official votes!
1- Most importantly, make sure that you are
registered to vote. You must be registered to vote by May 4, 2009 to take part in the May 19 Special Election. You can register by mail.
Are your family (including spouse, significant other, children), friends neighbors, or co-workers registered to vote? Ask them and help them register if they have not done so.
You can register by mail-it is VERY EASY to do.
(Note: When you are registering to vote, you do not have to sign up to join any particular political party-unless… you want to vote in the primary elections of that particular party. The May 19 Special Election in California is OPEN TO ALL registered voters-no matter what their political party membership is. )
2- Volunteer to serve as a POLLWORKER
• Requirements: at least 18 years old; U.S. Citizen; registered voter; and able to speak, read, and write the English language (or bilingual).
• For more information, (including locating your polling location) contact your local City Clerk. For Los Angeles, check out LAVote
3- Review Smart Voter website for answers to excellent questions that voters like you have asked in the pass about the voting process.The information on this website is maintained by the League of Women Voters.
This article is important, once again, because of the country-wide ramifications stemming from this trend on the west coast.
The voters’ voices were heard and now…California politicians and the media are implying-in so many words- that the voters are uninformed and stupid and are operating under a ‘mob rule’ mentality???
Read this article posted in the latest edition of Reason magazine:
“California Screaming-The Golden State’s political class comes unglued in the face of a citizens’ revolt.”
Excerpts:
On May 19, California voters went to the polls to decide whether to pass a package of six tax-and-gimmick ballot propositions. Its supporters—Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic legislative leaders, the California Teachers Association, and the overwhelming majority of the state’s major newspapers—billed it as the last best hope to plug Sacramento’s $24 billion budget deficit. “Either pass it,” warned the Los Angeles Times editorial board, “or risk fiscal disaster.”
Those who believe that either money or the media determine political outcomes should pay close heed to what happened next: Although opponents were outspent by more than 7 to 1, they trounced the state’s political class, rejecting five of the six measures by an average of 30 percentage points. The only proposition to pass was an anger-driven new law that limits elected officials’ salaries.
Sacramento columnist George Skelton argued that “voters helped get themselves into this fix” by “passing feel-good ‘ballot box budgeting’ initiatives” and sanctioning “heavy borrowing” for “infrastructure projects.”
Business columnist Michael Hiltzik averred that “far more blame for the deficit belongs to California voters” because “year in, year out, they enact spending mandates at the polls, often without endowing a revenue source.” Missing from any of these critiques was the fact that the Times’ own editorial board endorsed more than 90 percent of the very same ballot-box bond measures during the last decade. No matter: A perpetrator had been located.
“Good morning, California voters,” The Sacramento Bee’s post-election editorial began. “Do you feel better, now that you’ve gotten that out of your system?” The Bee, which (like the Times) had endorsed four of the five losing measures, came under immediate attack for its heavy-handed, citizen-blaming sarcasm.
Rarely has the chasm between elite political discourse and grubby popular opinion been displayed in such sharp relief. The implications of this citizen revolt—and the hostile reactions to it—stretch far beyond Nevada’s western border. California is the Ghost of Federal Government Future.
End of excerpts.
Read the rest of this interesting article.
Note: Reason is a monthly political journal which discusses a variety of issues (political, cultural, intellectual) from a libertarian point of view. It bills itself as providing a “refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity.”
UPDATE X V I
June 18, 2009
California: Failed State June 11, 2009
You Tube Excerpt:
Avi Lewis, a Canadian documentary filmmaker and host of the Al Jazeera English show “Fault Lines” travels to South Central Los Angeles to learn about the political causes and human impact of ‘Shock Therapy’ California Style and get a glimpse of how the next chapter of the global economic crisis is likely to unfold…
This program is very informative and disturbing.
Note: In case you experience difficulties accessing these embedded youtube videos, then use the following links:
The Schwarzenegger administration says it wants to encourage state workers to report government waste through a new feature on its Reporting Transparency in Government Web site, called “Waste Watchers.”.
The site allows anonymous online reporting of government waste, although submitters can leave their name and e-mail address if they’d like.
An administration official will monitor the site, said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear, “and we’ll investigate every submission.”
End of excerpt
In an effort to promote a system of ‘checks and balances’- do not forget to review this citizen-run website also.
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is, according to its website description, “ a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide.
Since its founding in 1984, CAGW has earned a reputation as America’s premier taxpayer watchdog organization for exposing countless examples of government waste and safeguarding the interests of taxpayers in Washington.”
UPDATE X I V
June 2, 2009
Here is one story that can be filed under the “WHAT THE HECK WAS HE THINKING???” category.
According to this article in the McClatchy Company-owned Mercury News titled “Billions in new cuts loom for California — including eliminating welfare and closing most state parks”, Medi-Cal coverage for dialysis and for breast and cervical cancer treatment for those over age 65 would be cut.
When times are tough, we have to swallow some bitter medicine however…I almost choked when I read about this.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Can I infer from this article that anyone over 65 years of age who has been receiving Medi-Cal coverage for dialysis and for breast and cervical cancer treatment will be left to financially fend for themselves to continue treatment… or possibly die if the illness becomes terminal?
Excerpts:
Schwarzenegger had warned before last week’s special election that if voters did not approve a host of tax and budget-reform measures, stunning cuts to social services, education and other vital state programs would be necessary.
So, in the wake of the resounding “no” that came from a disillusioned electorate, he has held true to his promise and then some:
The budget proposal would eliminate vast swaths of programs, including CalWORKs — the welfare program serving more than 521,000 families who now receive $526 average monthly grants — and Healthy Families, which subsidizes health care for low-income children whose families don’t qualify for Medi-Cal (Medi-Cal website). Those cuts would also cost the state billions in federal matching funds.
End of excerpts.
Medi-Cal coverage (overview of program) for dialysis and for breast and cervical cancer treatment for those over age 65 would be cut.
Is the Gov trying to encourage more personal bankruptcies in California?
Does the Gov own shares of stock in the publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation- Merck & Co which produces The Guardasil vaccine that supposedly can prevent several types of cervical cancer-causing viruses? I am seeing increased efforts to market this vaccine.
Is he trying to promote a culture of euthanasia. Last year, the Governor (with the state assembly’s blessing) signed into effect Bill AB 2747 known as The Right to Know End-of-Life Options Act. Take a look at who has the right to define terminal illness (Section 442.5). How will the removal of Medi-Cal coverage for certain patients (who may become terminally ill without proper follow up treatment) influence these patients’ ‘end of life’ choices? Read these two perspectives here and here on the passage of AB 2747. Is it now too much of a financial drain on the health care system to provide certain health care benefits to people over 65 who suffer from certain illnesses? What does this say about the values of our society with respects to how we look out for the welfare of our elderly citizens? Will this ‘indirect encouragement’ of euthanasia or assisted suicide (for people over 65 years of age who have certain illnesses which may/may not evolve into a ‘terminal’ status) be extolled as a humanitarian act in our society – since many will no longer be able to receive medical help which may save their lives or at least ease the pain of their remaining days on this earth???
Stay tuned…
UPDATE X I I I
May 24, 2009
In spite of what I may think about some of his past actions, I have to give credit where credit is due.Newt Gingrich is very intelligent.
This is one of the best editorials that I have read (translation: I agree with most of what this author says) regarding how to interpret the results of the May 19 Special Election.
Gingrich looks at the election from a ‘macro’ perspective. He ‘gets’ the ‘big picture’.
The only thing that I do not agree with in this editorial is the fact that Gingrich makes too many ‘excuses’ for Governor Schwarzenegger’s actions.
Excerpt:
Americans should look carefully at the anti-politician, anti-government mood exhibited in California last week. Just as Proposition 13 and the anti-tax movement of 1978 were the forerunners of the Reagan presidential victory, so the results of Tuesday’s vote are a harbinger of things to come.
The repudiation of the California establishment in the series of initiative defeats could hardly have been more decisive. Five taxing and spending measures were rejected by 62.6 to 66.4 percent of the voters.
That is a consistent majority of enormous potential. An even larger majority, 73.9 percent, approved the proposition limiting elected officials’ salaries when there is a deficit.
This vote is the second great signal that the American people are getting fed up with corrupt politicians, arrogant bureaucrats, greedy interests and incompetent, destructive government.
The elites ridiculed or ignored the first harbinger of rebellion, the recent tea parties. While it will be harder to ignore this massive anti-tax, anti-spending vote, they will attempt to do just that.
SCV Journal will continue to keep both of these important issues (short-term loan guarantee and California’s state constitution) under our radar.
UPDATE X I
May 21, 2009
California House Speaker Karen Bass (D – Los Angeles) Infers California Voters Rejected Props 1a-e Because They Are Too Dumb To Understand The Budget Proposals (3:12)
UPDATE X
May 12, 2009
Check out these two ‘blips’ that appeared in the Orange County Register…
“Schwarzenegger initially talked about extending the sales tax to cover tickets to sporting events and amusement parks. It’s not entirely clear how that would have worked and who would have paid; the idea never made it to the ballot.”
“And if the propositions do pass, the money they raise might give state lawmakers a little budgetary breathing room – enough to keep the idea of new amusement-park taxes at bay.”
“Disney is not the only entertainment colossus to see the wisdom of the ballot propositions sometime after Schwarzenegger backed away from taxing its tickets. A number of sports teams have gotten behind the pro-propositions effort as well.”
According to this article, most of the contributions were donated to Budget Reform Now – a coalition supporting California Propositions 1A through 1F.
UPDATE I X
05/05/09
The Governor is using fear tactics to get voters to approve ballot propositions.
Excerpt:
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to seek the elimination of more than 1,700 state firefighting positions and closure of scores of fire stations if voters reject key ballot measures in the May 19 special election, according to documents obtained by The Chronicle on Monday.”
End of excerpt.
The Governor is blackmailing the voters into supporting the ballot measures or else he threatens to slash $80.8 million from Cal Fire’s budget.
Cal Fire is the state’s fire agency and includes about 5,000 full-time firefighters.
Wait, didn’t the Gov praise CalFire last year for saving the state of California from burning down yet now this year he threatens to cut their jobs right before fire season starts???
What’s next if this doesn’t work- sending kids home from school or allowing older people to eat only one meal a day?
Don’t be surprised if within the next week or so you will hear a litany of public servants whose jobs will disappear if the voters don’t support the ballet props.
Here are some more excellent glimpses into the ‘inside world’ of politics. These two articles are ‘must reads’ before the May 19 election.
Article 1 California ballot package caters to special interests
Excerpts: “Any time you do a ballot measure – any ballot measure – you always sit around and say, ‘Who could be the potential opposition?’ ” said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, a Los Angeles Democrat and one of four lawmakers at the negotiating table. “You also always sit around and say, ‘How do I get that opposition on board or neutral at best?’ ”
“The entire architecture of the ballot pact that emerged was heavily shaped by leaders’ desire to please –or at least neutralize – the state’s most powerful political players.”
End of excerpts.
“The Assembly today defeated a bill that aimed to put into state law the terms of the Schwarzenegger administration’s contract agreement with members of the SEIU, Local 1000, California’s largest state workers’ union.”
End of excerpt.
The legislators have agreed to vote on the bill AFTER the May 19 Special Election takes place.
Learn why.
Notes:
The Service Employees International Union SEIU is a labor union that represents over 2 million workers in the US, Canada and Puerto Rico.
Local 1000 is a local union of the SEIU and is the exclusive legal representative for 90,000 California state employees.
UPDATE V I I I
04/28/09
Last week, a committee supported by Governor Schwarzenegger (and advised by political consultants) officially kicked off the campaign advertising effort that will have voters’ heads spinning by May 19.
The effort involves the formulation of newspaper, radio and television ads that will shape how you think and feel about the May 19th ballot propositions.
These ads have one goal in mind: to get you to ‘Vote Yes’ on all propositions.
In some ads, you will find the selective presentation of facts (lying by omission) and/or loaded messages which are meant to get you to “STOP THINKING” and instead to “START FEELING” with respects to the information that is being ‘sold’ to you.
Let’s face it, feeling ‘warm and fuzzy’ or ’scared to death’ can short-circuit your brain’s neuron transmissions quite easily. As a result, you might accidentally leave your brain home on election day as you go to vote.
Some of these campaign advertising techniques are so subliminal in nature that many voters will never know what hit them before they go to the polls.
So…what’s a voter to do? How does one make sense of all these ads?
Enter center stage The Sac Bee’s Ad Watch column.
Periodically, various Sac Bee journalists write articles in which they discuss a new ad.
Let’s have some fun here.
1- Watch this ad (:30)
2- Answer the following :
What emotional response(s) is the ad trying to solicit from the voters?
How is the ad doing this?
How is the ad packaging the ballot propositions i.e. ‘single issues’ versus lumping them all together ?
Are there any facts ‘missing’ from this ad that an informed voter needs to know before they go to the polls?
3- Read this:
What follows on this web link is the text of this ad and its analysis by Kevin Yamamura of The Sac Bee Capitol Bureau: …
4- Compare your responses to Kevin’s.
UPDATE V I I
04/17/09
The SacBee has set up a special Elections Question Forum.
In my opinion, this is a great source for information about California politics and issues surrounding the May 19 Special Election.
If you can set aside five minutes per day, peruse this site to see what questions citizens like yourself are asking.
Also, do not be shy about submitting your own question to the SacBee!
Here is the first question posed in the SacBee Elections Question Forum:
Excerpt:
Unions usually stand together. Why are some supporting Proposition 1A and some opposing it or staying neutral?
A: Labor unions have long opposed spending limits for fear that restraining growth of state spending would mean fewer public services and jobs for the people they represent. But unions have split over Proposition 1A because they believe its effects will impact them in different ways due to the way in which it was crafted.
This VERY SHORT article attempts to provide an explanation as to how these two groups are urging their members to vote on Props 1A and 1B on May 19 and why the groups have taken these positions..
Note: The CTA is the largest teachers’ union in California-representing over 295,000 members in the state’s more than 1000 school districts. It is quite possibly the most powerful union in the state for a number of reasons-including the fact that it that where the union decides to invest its pension plan assets can literally make or break an industry. That is how well-funded the the CTA’s pension plan is.
The CFT is an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). According to its website, CFT is made up of 135 local unions representing over 120,000 educational employees working at every level of the education system in California, from Head Start to the University of California.
UPDATE V
04/15/09
Dan Walters: Tax policy reflects state’s wacky politics
This interesting political editorial written by SacBee State Columnist Dan Walters provides a clear and concise ‘bird’s eye view’ of the tax situation in the state of California.
-Is the tax system faulty?
-Does it need repair?
-Why do some people strongly support doing away with the two thirds legislative vote requirement on tax increases?
These are just a few of the issues he discusses in his editorial- which serves as good background for the May 19 Special Election in CA.
Note: I appreciate Dan Walter’s writing style. He writes in a way so as to be understood (Ernest Hemingway-style).
This is an important quality in a journalist or writer-especially when the individual is writing about highly technical, financial, political etc… matters.
UPDATE 1 V
04/15/09
An excerpt from an interesting SacBee update:
Gambling vendor GTECH on Monday gave $750,000 toward Proposition 1C, a ballot measure that would expand California Lottery marketing and payouts while allowing the state to borrow $5 billion against the game’s future revenues. GTECH previously gave the committee $250,000.
Oh, by the way….
According to this LA Times article GTECH, the firm that provides the lottery with its operating hardware will gain huge profits if Prop 1C passes.
UPDATE 111
04/14/09
The Service Employees International Union and the California Faculty Association and the California Federation of Teachers have formed a committee OPPOSING Proposition 1A. One of several reasons given for going against 1 A is that they believe that passage of this Prop will “give extraordinary new and unrestricted power to the governor and his political appointees, with no checks and balances”.
However, the California Teachers Association SUPPORTS Proposition 1 A.
From The San Francisco Chronicle’s blog site “Money seals the deal between Schwarzenegger and CTA” editorial written by John Wildermuth 3/25/09
What is going on here?
This is another “Must Read” article.
” SEIU, teachers group join against Prop. 1A”
Short, sweet, and straight to the point on the issues. It is published in today’s net edition of the
SacBee.. The article’s author- Kevin Yamamura- provides important facts which may assist voters with understanding more clearly the ramifications of their votes on some of the specific ballot measures.
UPDATE 11
4/14/09
Here is another inside glimpse as to how ‘the system’ works.
Learn what one California legislator negotiated in return for providing the 27th vote needed to meet the two-thirds vote requirement for passage of the Governor’s budget plan in the Senate.
What makes the situation particularly sensitive for Maldonado (career-wise) is the fact that his vote was considered the ‘swing vote’
Sen. Abel Maldonado’s one vote literally broke the budget impasse.
(Note: I have little doubt that other legislators (Republicans AND Democrats) engaged in similar negotiation scenarios so that the budget would be passed however their deals are not under the microscope-as yet…)
Learn how this legislator’s support of the Governor’s budget plan influenced what ballot propositions are appearing on the May 19 Special election ballot.
Continue to investigate as to why some legislators (and organizations) may support or oppose specific propositions. You might learn that- for some of them-their choice has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the specific proposition.
UPDATE 1
4/11/09
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa , Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce endorse May 19 budget measures.
I changed my mind however and wrote this as a separate article so as to be able to include recent information that may influence voters on how to cast their votes tomorrow, May 19 in California’s Special Election.
“In coming weeks, Congress is expected to debate whether to take the unprecedented step of guaranteeing the state’s emergency borrowing on a short-term basis.”
“Proponents say they’re not asking Washington for a bailout, merely trying to lower the state’s borrowing costs by having the federal government back its loans. Critics say, however, that it would be a drastic mistake that would jeopardize the federal government’s AAA credit rating, noting that California ranks as the worst credit risk among the 50 states. “
End of excerpts.
There is a saying that “as California goes, so goes the nation”. For many years our state has served as a ‘bellwether state’ with respects to fiscal and social policies that have ultimately been replicated into laws and/or national referendums. in other states throughout the country.
Could California’s request for guarantees on its ‘short-term’ emergency borrowing start off a ‘copycat trend’ across the nation?
Is short-term borrowing any way to fund the infrastructure of a state? What happens if California defaults on its borrowing?
What happens to this country if other states follow suit? Who will lend America the money to stay afloat?
As much as I love my adopted state of California, I love my entire country more. This may help to explain my choice to VOTE NO on ALL six ballot propositions being presented to California voters tomorrow, Tuesday, May 19.
I do not believe in “ballot-box budgeting”.
We need a major revamping of our State Constitution including how the budget process operates.
We don’t have time to keep applying ‘band-aids’ to the problem-year after year.
In addition, it is despicable as to how certain legislators are implying that if California ‘crashes’ it is the voters’ fault because we rejected the propositions.
Good God- how stupid or how desperate do our legislators think we are?
Passing these propositions instead of sending legislators back to the ‘drawing board’ will-in my opinion- cause our state citizens more harm in the long run- NO MATTER WHAT SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP our citizens belong to-rich, middle class, poor or dirt-poor.
In addition, why should the rest of the nation take an economic hit because California has not been managed in a sound fiscal manner?
I included various sources in my previously written articlethat explain the pros and cons of each proposition.
I weighed these pros and cons and came to a conclusion. However after I thought that I had reached my conclusion, I came across additional facts (sources are included in various sections of this article) that helped me to better understand our situation from a ‘macro’ perspective.
I won’t waste your time rehashing any specific proposition however, I will state that I am furious that our state government has such low respect for the intelligence of California voters so as to include the ‘feel good’ Proposition 1F ( Freezing legislator salaries when the budget is off which would ban lawmakers from giving themselves raises in deficit years) on the ballot.
What does this action tell the rest of the nation about the ethics and motivations of our state legislators that we have to blackmail them (while using a pretty weak incentive to boot!) into agreeing on a budget in a timely fashion.
If voters don’t like the ‘speed’ with which our legislators make budget-related decisions- then we have to go to the source of the problem –we need to amend the State Constitution. Enough with the BS slapping of the wrists so that we voters can feel ‘warm and fuzzy’ to the point of distraction from the real causes of our financial problems.
This is why I will VOTE NO on ALL the ballot measures.
Here is an interesting article that appeared recently in ”The Economist” .
The title “The Ungovernable State” pretty much says it all.
How sad that California is now being held up as a ‘warning’ to other states in our country of how NOT TO RUN A STATE GOVERNMENT.
The author discusses the implications of California’s May 19 election and why it may be time to devise a new state constitution.
Excerpts:
“The occasion has thus become an ugly summary of all that is wrong with California’s governance, and that list is long. This special election, the sixth in 36 years, came about because the state’s elected politicians once again—for the system virtually assures as much—could not agree on a budget in time and had to cobble together a compromise in February to fill a $42 billion gap between revenue and spending. But that compromise required extending some temporary taxes, shifting spending around and borrowing against future lottery profits. These are among the steps that voters must now approve, thanks to California’s brand of direct democracy, which is unique in extent, complexity and misuse.”
“A good outcome is no longer possible. California now has the worst bond rating among the 50 states. Income-tax receipts are coming in far below expectations.”
I ran across this very interesting blog-posted by Brad (?) in our local newspaper’s website:
The blogger (Brad- who remains anonymous) was responding to an excellent editorial that was written by a local SoCal columnist named Roger Gitlin.
Here is the link to Roger’s well-written editorial and Brad’s response:
I liked Roger’s editorial for several reasons including the points he raised PLUS the fact that he included information regarding who in government to contact to voice your opinions to.
I have taken the liberty of reprinting Brad’s blog comment below:
The E-Verify Program, on which businesses across the country rely to screen
employment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6.
Congress is ‘hoping’ We the People won’t notice that they removed the extension of this crucial service from the “Stimulus Plan” and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media news coverage.
An observant citizen might note that there are “Millions for pay-offs and pork, but nothing to
support LEGAL EMPLOYMENT”
Would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why Congress has chosen to leave renewal of this program out (with no public discussion) of the stimulus plan?
This O V E R S I G H T was caught by people who actually reviewed the wording of the Stimulus Plan.
Yes…some people actually did go through the Stimulus Plan (they were forced to do so AFTER it was passed by Congress because they were not given the opportunity to do so before its rubber stamp passage took place)
Today’s illegal immigrants will (most likely) be tomorrow’s legal DNC constituents if and when they become citizens. Once they become citizens, they will be informed over and over as to how the Democratic Party helped them gain their citizenship and will be told by groups such as ACORN that these new citizens owe their citizenship and freedom and lastly, their loyalty to the DNC and labor unions.
This possibile scenario makes certain that Democrats can win every national election from this point forward.
President Obama won the 2008 election by approximately 7 million votes.
Under the ‘doublespeak’ title of “immigration reform”, is Congress, perhaps, attempting to bring in more than ten million new constituents into their fold(based upon the estimate that 13 to 25 million illegal immigrants now live and work in the USA).
Are certain people in Congress trying to win favor with illegal aliens now so they can gain their loyalty, and once t hese new citizens start working-ultiumately force them to join the labor unions (I say ‘force’ because the Employee Free Choice Act -EFCA- DOES NOT ALLOW the use of secret ballots by employees when they vote on union issues so the potential for ‘payback ‘ in the form of losing your job if you dont support Unions-is great)
I support the idea of giving illegal aliens a PATH to EARN their way into american citizenship-legally.
I DO NOT support forcing illegal aliens to be beholden to the Democratic Party -and labor unions-for the rest of their lives once they obtain citizenship.
EFCA will prmote the forcing of new citizens into servitude to the labor unions.
Letting E Verify program expire will win favor for the DNC among illegal immigrants.
Promotion of EFCA (as it is currently written) will make sure that he or she who controls the labor unions will be able to continue to do so indefinetely.”
Stay tuned. Get involved.
************************ Take Action *************************
E-Verify is operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Stay informed on program updates through this website
Contact your senators and your representative right now by phone or email. Let them know if you support or oppose the E Verify program.
It should take less than five minutes of your valuable time.
If you don’t know who your senators or representatives are,
Congress stripped language from the Omnibus Bill that would have continued funding for the E-Verify program.
No language inclusion- no funding – no program.
Learn how your senators voted with regards to allowing discussion of the program to see if funding for it should be included in the Omnibus Bill.
Clarification:
The vote was whether to table –refuse to discuss- the amendment to see if it should be included in the Omnibus Bill.
A YES vote (signifying ‘Yes, I refuse to discuss E Verify Amendment ’ for possible inclusion in the Omnibus Bill) is against E-Verify.
A NO vote (signifying ‘No I don’t want to ignore the E Verify Amendment-I want to discuss it-in effort to try to include it in Omnibus Bill) is supporting E-Verify.
The E Verify program will remain enforced however, for the time being, at least until Thursday, May 21 2009.
On that date, a final ruling will take place ( H.R. 1105- Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 ) MANDATING (requiring) certain federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify.
UPDATE I
3/27/09
Several groups throughout the country do not support the E-Verify program for a number of reasons.
Reasons for opposition include questions about the perceived reliability of the system (data error rates)
and fraud/ identity theft.
The opposition arguments sometimes distinguish between
1-who the program will pertain to-all employers/federal contractors/ subcontractors- and
2- will the program be applied on a mandatory or volunteer basis?
This website provides more background on the program
