It seems that you can no longer win, for losing. Some people get offended when you say "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings". Others get offended when you say "Merry Christmas".
Therefore, I have decided not to discriminate and to be an equal opportunity offender, with a greeting intended to offend everyone equally.
"BAH! HUMBUG!"
8^)
Uncommon insight into common issues. Constitutional conservative commentary on issues of the day, without the bias of the often less than conservative GOP leadership.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
Citizenship Reform Torpedoes Immigration Bill
Congress is at it again, using a fine, much needed bill, to obscure foul legislation that is designed to further subvert the rights of US citizens. I'm talking about three of the four sections of Title VII (Citizenship Reform) of the "Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005".
Using the guise of patriotism, those sections seek to deny to naturalized US citizens, the right to dual citizenship (that is still allowed to natural born citizens). Let's skip for a moment, the fact that this creates second class citizens and look at just who it targets.
It doesn't target illegal aliens or visitors who have over-stayed their visas, both of whom could likely represent a real threat to our security. It doesn't target permanent residents, who are not likely to pose a threat. It targets people who have come here LEGALLY and gone through the entire rigorous process of naturalization, to LEGALLY become a US citizen. These people are not the problem!
Furthermore, such onerous legislation would create what would essentially be a "Second Class Citizen". As a result, such legislation could not possibly stand up in court. This begs the question, that if it's so obvious that it couldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny, why would any congressman even try to get it passed, if he knew that it would be tossed out by the court, at their first opportunity? The answer can be given in only one word - "incrementalism".
Contrary to what the wording of this proposed legislation would indicate, it cannot possibly be aimed at just naturalized citizens. More likely, it's a red herring, that is meant only to establish precedence, so when the law is eventually tossed out, Congress will use that precedent as an excuse to rewrite that law, to that it applies to all US citizens.
Unfortunately, there are some very adverse economic consequences that would follow such legislation. The result would mean higher taxes for the rest of Americans.
[Read more. Then contact your congressman.]
Using the guise of patriotism, those sections seek to deny to naturalized US citizens, the right to dual citizenship (that is still allowed to natural born citizens). Let's skip for a moment, the fact that this creates second class citizens and look at just who it targets.
It doesn't target illegal aliens or visitors who have over-stayed their visas, both of whom could likely represent a real threat to our security. It doesn't target permanent residents, who are not likely to pose a threat. It targets people who have come here LEGALLY and gone through the entire rigorous process of naturalization, to LEGALLY become a US citizen. These people are not the problem!
Furthermore, such onerous legislation would create what would essentially be a "Second Class Citizen". As a result, such legislation could not possibly stand up in court. This begs the question, that if it's so obvious that it couldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny, why would any congressman even try to get it passed, if he knew that it would be tossed out by the court, at their first opportunity? The answer can be given in only one word - "incrementalism".
Contrary to what the wording of this proposed legislation would indicate, it cannot possibly be aimed at just naturalized citizens. More likely, it's a red herring, that is meant only to establish precedence, so when the law is eventually tossed out, Congress will use that precedent as an excuse to rewrite that law, to that it applies to all US citizens.
Unfortunately, there are some very adverse economic consequences that would follow such legislation. The result would mean higher taxes for the rest of Americans.
[Read more. Then contact your congressman.]
Sunday, November 27, 2005
The Conspiracy Against the Taxpayers
We were recently alerted to this excellent article about how liberal special interests have been effectively conspiring against taxpayers for many years and are running up state and local government deficits. Here are just a few of the things that this article points out.
"Public-employee unions have so successfully used their political muscle that whereas public-sector compensation once lagged the private sector, now the reverse is true. Astonishingly, the average state and local government employee now collects 46 percent more in total compensation (salary plus benefits) than the average private-sector employee, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute."
"Unions have also convinced Americans that teachers are underpaid, when they now take home considerably better pay packages on average than professional workers in the private sector. The federal government’s national compensation survey estimates that local public school districts pay teachers an average of $47.97 per hour in total compensation, including $12.39 per hour in benefits—figures that far outstrip not only what private school teachers earn, but also the average of what all professional workers earn in private business, a category that includes engineers, architects, computer scientists, lawyers, and journalists."
"Equally rapacious are the nominally private social-services and health-care providers who have found a way of diverting some of the torrent of government dollars to their own pockets. With so much money available from Medicaid, one of the original War on Poverty programs, health care has become an increasingly government-financed business and has been transformed unrecognizably in the process...More...
...According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, two-thirds of Medicaid services that states now provide are optional under federal guidelines—from free ambulette rides to doctors’ offices to dental and podiatry services. From 1994 to 2000, when U.S. poverty rates were plunging, spending on Medicaid, originally a program for the poor, grew by 30 percent after accounting for inflation, an American Enterprise Institute study shows."
Friday, November 04, 2005
The Economy Bomb - Ticking Down Faster (2005)
It's that time of year again. The IRS has published another year's worth of collections data and Action America has updated our annual feature article, The Economy Bomb - Ticking Down Faster, dealing with, among other things, the effects of our tax system on the movement of wealth.
Besides the new IRS collections data, there are a lot of other issues addressed in that article. Among the new information available in this year's installment of Economy Bomb, is data that we have compiled from the Forbes Magazine lists of the 400 Wealthiest Americans and the World's Billionaires. Since 1999, the number of billionaires in the US has grown at a rate that is just slightly larger than can be explained by inflation, while the number of billionaires worldwide has grown at a rate six times greater (22% vs. 132%).
That's just one of many pieces of coroborating information that indicates a rather sizable movement of wealth and the wealthy out of the US. Check out the article, to find out more about the consequences of this shift. Then come back here to discuss it.
Besides the new IRS collections data, there are a lot of other issues addressed in that article. Among the new information available in this year's installment of Economy Bomb, is data that we have compiled from the Forbes Magazine lists of the 400 Wealthiest Americans and the World's Billionaires. Since 1999, the number of billionaires in the US has grown at a rate that is just slightly larger than can be explained by inflation, while the number of billionaires worldwide has grown at a rate six times greater (22% vs. 132%).
That's just one of many pieces of coroborating information that indicates a rather sizable movement of wealth and the wealthy out of the US. Check out the article, to find out more about the consequences of this shift. Then come back here to discuss it.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Action America Analyzes New IRS Collections Data
The official IRS Collections Data for 2003 has just become available and Action America has published our annual analysis of that data in an article titled 1985-2003 IRS Collections Data by Income Category
Here is just a sample of what's in that report.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers earned 16.77% of the income.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers paid 34.27% of the tax collected.
• That's more than double their share, based upon income.
If nothing else, this report shows that the Bush tax cuts didn't benefit the rich, as liberals would have us believe. In fact, 2002 and 2003 were the first years since 1996 that the top-earning 1% paid more than double their share of taxes, based upon income. So in fact, the top earners paid a larger percentage of the taxes that were actually collected in the two years after the Bush tax cuts, than in the years leading up to those tax cuts.
But there is a lot more to it than just that. Check out the article for more analysis and a link to the actual data, in spreadsheet format, on the IRS web site. Afterwards, come back here and discuss it.
Here is just a sample of what's in that report.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers earned 16.77% of the income.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers paid 34.27% of the tax collected.
• That's more than double their share, based upon income.
If nothing else, this report shows that the Bush tax cuts didn't benefit the rich, as liberals would have us believe. In fact, 2002 and 2003 were the first years since 1996 that the top-earning 1% paid more than double their share of taxes, based upon income. So in fact, the top earners paid a larger percentage of the taxes that were actually collected in the two years after the Bush tax cuts, than in the years leading up to those tax cuts.
But there is a lot more to it than just that. Check out the article for more analysis and a link to the actual data, in spreadsheet format, on the IRS web site. Afterwards, come back here and discuss it.
Note: Every year, between October and February, the IRS releases their most recent collections data. Because of the time it takes to complete collections and to compile the data, the released data is always about two years old.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Miers fails the acid test
Although many people suggest that Dubya's nomination of Harriet Miers represents an unknown quantity, to replace Justice O'Connor, we at Action America heartily disagree. While there are many qualifications that can be argued for a nominee to the Supreme Court, there is one disqualification that cannot be argued. It is sort of an "acid test" for any Supreme Court nominee and Miers clearly fails that test. That test can easily be expressed in one question and it is a question to which we already know the answer.
"Do you believe that the Constitution of the United States of America is and should be the supreme law of the land, subservient to NO outside law, precedent or legal trends?"
That's a pretty simple question that most people would think a Supreme Court nominee could answer only one way. "YES."
In fact, in 1998, when Miers was chairman of the Select Committee of the House of delegates of the American Bar Association, she supported the creation of the not-to-be-sufficiently-damned International Criminal Court (ICC) which, if recognized by the Supreme Court, would effectively make international law superior to our own Constitution, within our own borders. Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land. Yet, Miers believes that we need the ICC, which would, by definition, take precedence over our own laws.
Six Supreme Court justices have already cited foreign law, international law, international precedent or international legal trends in their written opinions, from the bench. One of those justices was just replaced by Justice Roberts. The retiring Justice O'Connor is another. The last thing that the Supreme Court needs is to replace her with yet another justice, who believes that foreign law should be superior to our Constitution, within our own borders.
Stacking the Court with such ideologues would lead the way to gun bans like those in England and other countries that now suffer increasing violent crime, as a result of the disarming of the public. It would lead to the forced recognition of homosexual marriage and requiring that vitamins become a controlled substance, as they are in many other countries, today. We would see significant loss of private property rights and individual privacy. Those are just a few of the targets of the ICC. In the end, we could kiss the entire Bill of Rights and most of the Constitution goodbye.
How would you like to have to abide by the laws of socialist countries like France and Germany. What about the laws of Botswana or Libya? By recognizing international trends and precedent, in their rulings, the Supreme Court could, in effect, circumvent the President and Congress, making official recognition of the ICC a moot point, as our own Supreme Court would be doing the will of that reprehensible body, in violation of our own Constitution and the will of the American people.
There are very few times that a single issue should be the deciding factor in an election or nomination. But in this case, the single issue is the Constitution of the United States of America and the individual is a nominee to the Supreme Court, whose primary job is to protect and uphold that Constitution. That single issue is not just an issue, but the whole set of issues, rolled into one. A nominee who thinks that any foreign law should be superior to our Constitution, should not be allowed to sit on any court in the US, even traffic court.
During his confirmation hearing, John Roberts said it best when characterizing the cherry-picking of foreign law to interpret the United States Constitution, as "a misuse of precedent." Miers is clearly on the opposite side of that position.
We must contact our US senators and demand that they oppose Miers' nomination. Republican senators, in particular, should be called upon to encourage Dubya to withdraw Miers' nomination. Such a person must not, under any circumstance, be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Note: On the same subject, I encourage you to support the "Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution" (H. Res. 97). Go to:
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=8078481&type=CO
Friday, September 16, 2005
George Delano Bush
Though I've heard the term before, I must admit that I firmly agree with FOXnews judicial analyst, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, who today referred to the president as "George Delano Bush". That says it all.
Should US taxpayers pay to rebuild New Orleans?
Last night, President Bush promised that US taxpayers would shoulder "the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone." What's wrong with this picture? Where is the responsibility?
Dubya promised that US taxpayer funds would go toward rebuilding roads (a small minority of which are federal highways), bridges (a small part of which are on federal roads), schools (which are a state issue) and water systems (which are state and local issues).
If an interstate highway, a US highway or a bridge on one of those highways was damaged, then it is only right and proper that the US government should shoulder the expense of repairing it. But in Louisiana, the way governors build their legacy, is to build bridges. The more bridges you have named after you, the more important a governor you were, seems to be the belief. Of course, if you want to build a bridge, you have to build a road to get to it. Somehow, I just don't see how rebuilding STATE highways and bridges in Louisiana, should be shouldered by US taxpayers.
Now, if Louisiana wants to BORROW the money to repair or rebuild STATE highways and bridges, then it would only be proper for US taxpayers to step up to the plate to provide low-interest LOANS to the state for that purpose, expecting a reasonable payback. The same applies to schools and water systems.
LOAN the state and the city the money to repair or rebuild those state and/or city owned properties and require payback. DON'T GIVE it to them. It is not the responsibility of the US taxpayer to pay for Louisiana's and New Orleans' mistakes. It was more important for them to have a giant domed stadium and more social programs than any other city besides New York City, than it was to build proper levees. That was their CHOICE, not ours. They CHOSE to live below sea level, with a levee system that they knew was not sufficient to withstand any more than a category 3 storm. In fact, the Times Picayune newspaper ran a five part article a few years ago, that predicted almost exactly what has now happened. They KNEW that this would eventually happen and the socialists in New Orleans and Louisiana just let it happen, fully expecting the US taxpayers to come in and bail them out, when it did.
Dubya is just going along with this and once again, showing that he is NOT A CONSERVATIVE, by any stretch of the imagination. That's probably why the Democrats hate him so much. He's stealing all of their issues.
Under the Constitution, the federal government is only supposed to provide an environment that will allow the states to deal with THEIR OWN PROBLEMS, not to solve those problems FOR the states. All that Dubya and the Congress are doing, is using this state disaster, as an excuse to, yet again, expand the federal government far beyond constitutional limits.
Dubya promised that US taxpayer funds would go toward rebuilding roads (a small minority of which are federal highways), bridges (a small part of which are on federal roads), schools (which are a state issue) and water systems (which are state and local issues).
If an interstate highway, a US highway or a bridge on one of those highways was damaged, then it is only right and proper that the US government should shoulder the expense of repairing it. But in Louisiana, the way governors build their legacy, is to build bridges. The more bridges you have named after you, the more important a governor you were, seems to be the belief. Of course, if you want to build a bridge, you have to build a road to get to it. Somehow, I just don't see how rebuilding STATE highways and bridges in Louisiana, should be shouldered by US taxpayers.
Now, if Louisiana wants to BORROW the money to repair or rebuild STATE highways and bridges, then it would only be proper for US taxpayers to step up to the plate to provide low-interest LOANS to the state for that purpose, expecting a reasonable payback. The same applies to schools and water systems.
LOAN the state and the city the money to repair or rebuild those state and/or city owned properties and require payback. DON'T GIVE it to them. It is not the responsibility of the US taxpayer to pay for Louisiana's and New Orleans' mistakes. It was more important for them to have a giant domed stadium and more social programs than any other city besides New York City, than it was to build proper levees. That was their CHOICE, not ours. They CHOSE to live below sea level, with a levee system that they knew was not sufficient to withstand any more than a category 3 storm. In fact, the Times Picayune newspaper ran a five part article a few years ago, that predicted almost exactly what has now happened. They KNEW that this would eventually happen and the socialists in New Orleans and Louisiana just let it happen, fully expecting the US taxpayers to come in and bail them out, when it did.
Dubya is just going along with this and once again, showing that he is NOT A CONSERVATIVE, by any stretch of the imagination. That's probably why the Democrats hate him so much. He's stealing all of their issues.
Under the Constitution, the federal government is only supposed to provide an environment that will allow the states to deal with THEIR OWN PROBLEMS, not to solve those problems FOR the states. All that Dubya and the Congress are doing, is using this state disaster, as an excuse to, yet again, expand the federal government far beyond constitutional limits.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Evacuees go on Spending Sprees
KPRC-TV (2) is now reporting that evacuees are using their FREE debit cards to buy expensive items, like a $250 bracelet, at the Galleria. One of the Dallas TV stations aired a similar story a few days ago, where they cited an evacuee using her FREE debit card to buy an $800 designer purse. I would be very surprised if more than half of the people getting those debit cards have ever had $2000 at one time, in their entire life. Give people more money than they have ever seen and they will almost always waste it. On the other hand, they may just be taking those expensive items to a pawn shop to exchange them for money for drugs.
On a related vein, it's interesting to note that responsible victims of Katrina, who left New Orleans before the storm and who are staying in hotels and were expecting insurance to pay the bill, cannot get help from either FEMA or the Red Cross, since they are insured. Yet, at the same time, the insurance companies are telling the responsible victims that they are unable to pay any claims until they can see the house, but they are not allowed into New Orleans to see the damage. Actually, that's a perfectly reasonable attitude for insurance companies to take, since many homes in New Orleans were not damaged and they don't know which were damaged and which were not. There is also the question of whether or not the homeowners policy covers the cost of housing as a result of government ordered evacuations, when the home is not damaged.
Instead of FEMA and the Red Cross passing out FREE debit cards to the irresponsible victims, who were either too poor or too dumb to evacuate before the storm arrived, they should be checking to see who was on the dole before the storm and getting them only their welfare checks, so money can be allocated to those responsible people, who got out early and were insured, since those are the producers, who we need to get back into the system fast.
What FEMA and the Red Cross are doing is effectively punishing responsibility and rewarding irresponsibility. What's wrong with this picture?
On a related vein, it's interesting to note that responsible victims of Katrina, who left New Orleans before the storm and who are staying in hotels and were expecting insurance to pay the bill, cannot get help from either FEMA or the Red Cross, since they are insured. Yet, at the same time, the insurance companies are telling the responsible victims that they are unable to pay any claims until they can see the house, but they are not allowed into New Orleans to see the damage. Actually, that's a perfectly reasonable attitude for insurance companies to take, since many homes in New Orleans were not damaged and they don't know which were damaged and which were not. There is also the question of whether or not the homeowners policy covers the cost of housing as a result of government ordered evacuations, when the home is not damaged.
Instead of FEMA and the Red Cross passing out FREE debit cards to the irresponsible victims, who were either too poor or too dumb to evacuate before the storm arrived, they should be checking to see who was on the dole before the storm and getting them only their welfare checks, so money can be allocated to those responsible people, who got out early and were insured, since those are the producers, who we need to get back into the system fast.
What FEMA and the Red Cross are doing is effectively punishing responsibility and rewarding irresponsibility. What's wrong with this picture?
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Creating More Victims in New Orleans
Instead of helping those who survived Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent Compass are yet again, adding to the problem. Cybercast News Service reports that many residents of New Orleans, whose homes totally escaped the devastation of both the hurricane and the ensuing flood, don't want to leave, for fear of losing everything that they have, to looters, once they are gone. Interestingly, many of those homeowners are armed and some have even used their guns to defend their property (see article). So, what is the response of this turn of events, by the mayor and police superintendent?
THEY ARE CONFISCATING ALL GUNS FROM LAW-ABIDING HOMEOWNERS, EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE STATE-ISSUED PERMITS FOR THOSE GUNS!
What's wrong with this picture?
The devastation is so vast, that as we have seen, with all of the New Orleans Police, Louisiana State Police, National Guard and other authorities in New Orleans, all of those agencies just cannot keep up with fighting crime, while attempting to evacuate those who still want to leave.
The Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights, to function largely as a last resort, so citizens would be guaranteed that they could protect their property, when all of the efforts of government failed to do that or when government itself, became a threat. Well, guess what? All of the efforts of government have failed to protect hundreds of buildings and homes from looters. We're not talking about a possibility. This has already happened and is still happening. This is one of the primary cases that the Second Amendment was designed to protect citizens against.
Mayor Nagin and Superintendent Compass totally failed in their duty to protect New Orleans most vulnerable residents. So now, because some more self-sufficient residents lived on higher ground and were able to protect what they own, Nagin and Compass want to take away the ability of those self-sufficient residents, to protect themselves and their property, thus insuring that they will lose all of what they have, too. That's typical liberal mindset. "If the poor lose everything, then the government should make sure that the rich and middle class lose everything, too."
The Mayor of New Orleans and the Police Superintendent are making the worst disaster that this nation has ever faced, even worse. If homeowners have food and water for an extended time, there is no reason for them to be forced out of the home that they are protecting or to take away their ability to protect themselves and their property. Having worked in New Orleans on occasion and knowing the temperament of many of their citizens, I would not be surprised to learn of New Orleans citizens being killed by police, who come for their guns and to force them out of their homes, in the near future. Of course, as we all know, the police will be doing this for the citizen's own protection, even though the citizen ends up dead.
I'll close by asking this question. How do the authorities propose to allow people back into New Orleans, when the city is completely evacuated, without creating an enormous looting problem in the still mostly unoccupied homes and businesses? After all, half a million people aren't just going to magically appear back in their homes all at one time. It will take weeks - weeks during which many of the early returnees will have to loot the homes and businesses of those who have not yet returned.
THEY ARE CONFISCATING ALL GUNS FROM LAW-ABIDING HOMEOWNERS, EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE STATE-ISSUED PERMITS FOR THOSE GUNS!
What's wrong with this picture?
The devastation is so vast, that as we have seen, with all of the New Orleans Police, Louisiana State Police, National Guard and other authorities in New Orleans, all of those agencies just cannot keep up with fighting crime, while attempting to evacuate those who still want to leave.
The Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights, to function largely as a last resort, so citizens would be guaranteed that they could protect their property, when all of the efforts of government failed to do that or when government itself, became a threat. Well, guess what? All of the efforts of government have failed to protect hundreds of buildings and homes from looters. We're not talking about a possibility. This has already happened and is still happening. This is one of the primary cases that the Second Amendment was designed to protect citizens against.
Mayor Nagin and Superintendent Compass totally failed in their duty to protect New Orleans most vulnerable residents. So now, because some more self-sufficient residents lived on higher ground and were able to protect what they own, Nagin and Compass want to take away the ability of those self-sufficient residents, to protect themselves and their property, thus insuring that they will lose all of what they have, too. That's typical liberal mindset. "If the poor lose everything, then the government should make sure that the rich and middle class lose everything, too."
The Mayor of New Orleans and the Police Superintendent are making the worst disaster that this nation has ever faced, even worse. If homeowners have food and water for an extended time, there is no reason for them to be forced out of the home that they are protecting or to take away their ability to protect themselves and their property. Having worked in New Orleans on occasion and knowing the temperament of many of their citizens, I would not be surprised to learn of New Orleans citizens being killed by police, who come for their guns and to force them out of their homes, in the near future. Of course, as we all know, the police will be doing this for the citizen's own protection, even though the citizen ends up dead.
I'll close by asking this question. How do the authorities propose to allow people back into New Orleans, when the city is completely evacuated, without creating an enormous looting problem in the still mostly unoccupied homes and businesses? After all, half a million people aren't just going to magically appear back in their homes all at one time. It will take weeks - weeks during which many of the early returnees will have to loot the homes and businesses of those who have not yet returned.
Friday, September 09, 2005
The National Disaster Plan's Real Weakness
Although it appears that the federal officials, simply acted slowly, in their response to the disaster in New Orleans, it's not that simple. The problem was a missing scenario in the federal disaster plan and it was a scenario that is hard to blame them for missing. You see, nobody in the federal government could have ever imagined a scenario, where there would be a total breakdown at both the state and local levels of government. Nobody in the federal government had envisioned a scenario where both state and local governments would fail to even begin to follow their own disaster plans.
As even the liberal Houston Chronicle reported, New Orleans had a disaster plan in place and the Mayor failed to follow it. Specifically, it called for extra help to be provided in advance to residents with "special needs." That term means, among other things, anyone who has no means of transportation out of town. That help didn't materialize until it was too late to take them anywhere but the "shelter of last resort", the Superdome. Furthermore, the Governor, who by law, must specifically authorize any incursion by US troops into a state, did not call for federal help until Wednesday. The failure at both the state and local level was epic.
The federal disaster plan attempted to take into consideration, all reasonable possibilities. But, what reasonable person could have ever predicted that there would be such a total breakdown of authority at both the state and local levels? Prior to this, such a possibility was unthinkable. The result is that federal officials, who have extensive disaster plans in place for just about every conceivable disaster, were totally blind-sided.
Considering that this is the worst natural disaster that this nation has ever faced and the massive failure at the state and local levels, the federal response has actually been better than should have been expected. Instead of trying to figure out a way to spin the facts to blame Dubya, we need to focus on the recovery. Then, after it's all over, if people want to try to spin the blame, they should go for it.
Dubya has done more than enough for which to be criticized, in other areas. We don't need to be inventing imaginary evils to apply to him, especially now. Tens of thousands of people are probably dead, many others still need rescue and hundreds of thousands of others are displaced. Like it or not, Dubya and the federal government have done a respectable job.
As I have said here before, even a blind pig finds an ear of corn once in a while. Though Dubya has done more damage to our republic than any president in history, I must give credit, when credit is due. Chalk up one to the blind pig.
As even the liberal Houston Chronicle reported, New Orleans had a disaster plan in place and the Mayor failed to follow it. Specifically, it called for extra help to be provided in advance to residents with "special needs." That term means, among other things, anyone who has no means of transportation out of town. That help didn't materialize until it was too late to take them anywhere but the "shelter of last resort", the Superdome. Furthermore, the Governor, who by law, must specifically authorize any incursion by US troops into a state, did not call for federal help until Wednesday. The failure at both the state and local level was epic.
The federal disaster plan attempted to take into consideration, all reasonable possibilities. But, what reasonable person could have ever predicted that there would be such a total breakdown of authority at both the state and local levels? Prior to this, such a possibility was unthinkable. The result is that federal officials, who have extensive disaster plans in place for just about every conceivable disaster, were totally blind-sided.
Considering that this is the worst natural disaster that this nation has ever faced and the massive failure at the state and local levels, the federal response has actually been better than should have been expected. Instead of trying to figure out a way to spin the facts to blame Dubya, we need to focus on the recovery. Then, after it's all over, if people want to try to spin the blame, they should go for it.
Dubya has done more than enough for which to be criticized, in other areas. We don't need to be inventing imaginary evils to apply to him, especially now. Tens of thousands of people are probably dead, many others still need rescue and hundreds of thousands of others are displaced. Like it or not, Dubya and the federal government have done a respectable job.
As I have said here before, even a blind pig finds an ear of corn once in a while. Though Dubya has done more damage to our republic than any president in history, I must give credit, when credit is due. Chalk up one to the blind pig.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
New Orleans Quote of the Day
Our hearts go out to the victims of Katrina and we are glad to know that most are not falling prey to despair, but are actually ready to get on with their lives. One of the best examples of this "get on with life" attitude was provided yesterday, in a remark made by a man who had just lost everything that he had. It's nice to know that amidst all of the destruction left by Katrina, in New Orleans, some people can still smile. This man, who was being interviewed on TV, put the whole New Orleans recovery effort into perspective, with this observation.
"Hey. If we can clean this city up every year after Mardi Gras, cleanin' this up ought'ta be a snap."
Ok, so it's a little overstated. But having been there at the end of Mardi Gras, I have to admit that there is certainly a ring of truth to that statement. It also tells you a lot about the resilience of the people of New Orleans.
"Hey. If we can clean this city up every year after Mardi Gras, cleanin' this up ought'ta be a snap."
Ok, so it's a little overstated. But having been there at the end of Mardi Gras, I have to admit that there is certainly a ring of truth to that statement. It also tells you a lot about the resilience of the people of New Orleans.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
What happened to, "If you're not with us, you're against us"?
President Bush talked a good talk, right after the 9-11 terrorists attacks. But, when it comes right down to making good on his promises, he just makes excuses.
In particular, it was recently uncovered that the Italian Red Cross aided and abetted terrorists, behind the backs of the US and that they did so with the knowledge of the Italian government. Specifically, they hid four terrorists, who had been wounded by US soldiers, smuggled them through US checkpoints to a hospital and treated their injuries, in a deal to secure the return of two Italian aid workers. The Italian government agreed with the decision to keep the US in the dark.
Here we have a country and an organization who both aided and abetted terrorists. This is a perfect example of the "against us" that Dubya spoke of. But, what do we get from his administration, when asked about the situation? A State Department spokesman simply dodged the question and ended by saying that Rome and Washington were "close friends".
Both France and Germany have shown that they are also "against us" and with the terrorrists, but it has been primarily by their words and inaction, rather than their action, that they showed their true colors. In this case, Italy knew what the Italian Red Cross was doing and went along with it.
Italy has now positively demonstrated that they are "against us" and with the terrorists. So, when is Dubya going to make good on his implied threat?
I suggest that you don't hold your breath, while you wait. Dubya will talk the talk, but he won't walk the walk. He stumbled onto doing the right thing, when he attacked Iraq. He is more than willing to hold firm on his promise not to meet with a few leftist war protesters, but when we have a so-called ally, who turns out to be covertly aiding and abetting terrorists, he suddenly forgets his previous statements.
As for me, although I intend to send support to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, I will not send my donation via the Red Cross, (even the American Red Cross). That's because neither the American Red Cross nor the Intenational Red Cross have even issued a letter condemning the shameful actions of the Italian Red Cross. Instead, from now on, when I want to donate to help disaster victims, I will do so through one of the local churches that is sending aid independently. I suggest that you do the same, since the Red Cross has finally lost their last vestage of neutrality. Besides, more of your donation should reach the actual victims, if you donate through a local church.
Just remember that it's not just the Red Cross. It's the Italian government, too. But, don't expect Dubya to hold them accountable. He needs to change his slogan to, "If you're not with us, we don't care".
In particular, it was recently uncovered that the Italian Red Cross aided and abetted terrorists, behind the backs of the US and that they did so with the knowledge of the Italian government. Specifically, they hid four terrorists, who had been wounded by US soldiers, smuggled them through US checkpoints to a hospital and treated their injuries, in a deal to secure the return of two Italian aid workers. The Italian government agreed with the decision to keep the US in the dark.
Here we have a country and an organization who both aided and abetted terrorists. This is a perfect example of the "against us" that Dubya spoke of. But, what do we get from his administration, when asked about the situation? A State Department spokesman simply dodged the question and ended by saying that Rome and Washington were "close friends".
Both France and Germany have shown that they are also "against us" and with the terrorrists, but it has been primarily by their words and inaction, rather than their action, that they showed their true colors. In this case, Italy knew what the Italian Red Cross was doing and went along with it.
Italy has now positively demonstrated that they are "against us" and with the terrorists. So, when is Dubya going to make good on his implied threat?
I suggest that you don't hold your breath, while you wait. Dubya will talk the talk, but he won't walk the walk. He stumbled onto doing the right thing, when he attacked Iraq. He is more than willing to hold firm on his promise not to meet with a few leftist war protesters, but when we have a so-called ally, who turns out to be covertly aiding and abetting terrorists, he suddenly forgets his previous statements.
As for me, although I intend to send support to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, I will not send my donation via the Red Cross, (even the American Red Cross). That's because neither the American Red Cross nor the Intenational Red Cross have even issued a letter condemning the shameful actions of the Italian Red Cross. Instead, from now on, when I want to donate to help disaster victims, I will do so through one of the local churches that is sending aid independently. I suggest that you do the same, since the Red Cross has finally lost their last vestage of neutrality. Besides, more of your donation should reach the actual victims, if you donate through a local church.
Just remember that it's not just the Red Cross. It's the Italian government, too. But, don't expect Dubya to hold them accountable. He needs to change his slogan to, "If you're not with us, we don't care".
Friday, August 26, 2005
The FairTax Book
Last evening, I had the pleasure of meeting Neal Boortz. He was at a local Borders Bookstore, signing copies of his new book, "The FairTax Book". I realized that we had not yet said anything about this great book on either our webzine or on this blog. Well, that is being remedied.
I want to encourage our readers to buy a copy of "The FairTax Book", by Neal Boortz and John Linder and read it through. It clearly lays out the case for replacing the income tax with a National Retail Sales Tax. For the record, this book went to the top of the New York Times Bestseller List in its first full week of publication and stayed there in its second week.
If you don't know what the FairTax is, then this book will explain it. If you do know what the FairTax is, you should read it anyway, because there is even some confusion among some of its supporters, about exactly how the FairTax works and how US taxpayers benefit. Even if you already know all about it, this book lays it out so clearly that it will make you a better advocate.
Then, after you have read it and understand it, fire up your email and telephone and start leaning on your representative and senators, to co-sponsor the FairTax, if they have not already done so. The next thing to do, is to loan your copy of this book to a friend. Pass it around. The more people who get the chance to read it, the more people there will be contacting their congresscritters and asking them to co-sponsor the FairTax.
The huge popularity of this book proves that this is a battle that we can win.
For more information on why the FairTax is a battle that we must win, see the articles in the Tax & Economy section, on the Action America web site. Pay particular attention to the article, "The Economy Bomb - Ticking Down Faster".
I want to encourage our readers to buy a copy of "The FairTax Book", by Neal Boortz and John Linder and read it through. It clearly lays out the case for replacing the income tax with a National Retail Sales Tax. For the record, this book went to the top of the New York Times Bestseller List in its first full week of publication and stayed there in its second week.
If you don't know what the FairTax is, then this book will explain it. If you do know what the FairTax is, you should read it anyway, because there is even some confusion among some of its supporters, about exactly how the FairTax works and how US taxpayers benefit. Even if you already know all about it, this book lays it out so clearly that it will make you a better advocate.
Then, after you have read it and understand it, fire up your email and telephone and start leaning on your representative and senators, to co-sponsor the FairTax, if they have not already done so. The next thing to do, is to loan your copy of this book to a friend. Pass it around. The more people who get the chance to read it, the more people there will be contacting their congresscritters and asking them to co-sponsor the FairTax.
The huge popularity of this book proves that this is a battle that we can win.
For more information on why the FairTax is a battle that we must win, see the articles in the Tax & Economy section, on the Action America web site. Pay particular attention to the article, "The Economy Bomb - Ticking Down Faster".
Monday, August 22, 2005
No words vile enough...
In the last week or so, we have noticed a lot of press being given to someone who deserves to be ignored more than any person who ever lived. Because of this, we wanted to say something, but since this person deserves to be ignored, we wanted to keep it short, which is why I am posting this statement here, rather than on ActionAmerica.org, where we normally post longer articles. The statement is simply this:
I would never have imagined that a sane person would be able to stoop so low as to, for her own selfish reasons, disgrace the honor and heroism of her own son, who gave his life for the greater good of his country.
The case of which I speak, does however, speak very well for Casey Sheehan's own innate character, that he was able to develop into such a brave and honorable man, in spite of having a mother who is such a total waste of flesh and oxygen. Casey Sheehan was on his second enlistment and had volunteered for the rescue mission on which he was killed and earned the Bronze Star in the process. In every sense of the word, this man deserves the title, "hero". Patriots like myself, will remember him for his bravery and heroism. But, because of his mother's disgraceful actions, it is likely that most people will only remember him for being the son of "one of those anti-war protesters".
There are not words vile enough in the English language to describe his mother. Perhaps, in the future, when people want to curse someone who represents the lowest of the vile and obscene, they will simply call that person a "Cindy Sheehan". For selfishly undermining the great honor that her son so justly earned, having her name become the lowest of insults, is a legacy that she will have justly earned, as well.
Let's hope that the media will soon give her the disregard that she so richly deserves.
I would never have imagined that a sane person would be able to stoop so low as to, for her own selfish reasons, disgrace the honor and heroism of her own son, who gave his life for the greater good of his country.
The case of which I speak, does however, speak very well for Casey Sheehan's own innate character, that he was able to develop into such a brave and honorable man, in spite of having a mother who is such a total waste of flesh and oxygen. Casey Sheehan was on his second enlistment and had volunteered for the rescue mission on which he was killed and earned the Bronze Star in the process. In every sense of the word, this man deserves the title, "hero". Patriots like myself, will remember him for his bravery and heroism. But, because of his mother's disgraceful actions, it is likely that most people will only remember him for being the son of "one of those anti-war protesters".
There are not words vile enough in the English language to describe his mother. Perhaps, in the future, when people want to curse someone who represents the lowest of the vile and obscene, they will simply call that person a "Cindy Sheehan". For selfishly undermining the great honor that her son so justly earned, having her name become the lowest of insults, is a legacy that she will have justly earned, as well.
Let's hope that the media will soon give her the disregard that she so richly deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)