JUST MOVED!

Sort of. We are in the process of building a whole new blog. More news to come.

Quick Thought

Right now the headline story on Drudge is "Weiner calls cops on CNBC2..." (something along those lines). It seems like this story just wont die. And that's a shame. I don't know if Rep. Weiner did or did not actually send the picture. It shouldn't matter.

Don't we have more important issues to discuss? Aren't we in the midst of an economic crisis and a budget debate? Don't we need improvements in our education system, an overhaul of Social Security, and a viable long term energy solution? Isn't America in the midst of military "operations" in at least three countries?

My point is that while holding our leaders to high moral standards is nice, we shouldn't be letting an ironically named Representative's ironic scandal distract us from what is really important.

Best Artist Ever

My friend wanted me to link to his portfolio (which is absolutely amazing!). So here it is.

From The Political Wire

Lessons From A Times Square Bomber

Hey so I haven't had much time to write in the past few days, but a lot has happened.  JFK security has proven yet again why more funding must be provided to secure America from terrorism.  In that vein New York officials want to install a security system that will record virtually everyone and everything that goes on and into Manhattan.  This measure will serve the much needed purpose of providing NYPD cops and the FBI with beautiful High-Res images of wrongdoers... AFTER THE FACT!!!!!!!!!!  

I cannot for the life of me figure out what is wrong with America's intelligence community.  Every time there is some kind of threat, be it a car bombing, an anthrax scare, or a crazy shoe bomber local and federal agencies implement "new" security measures that - at best- had they been thought of earlier, could have provided more protection.  Or, worse, the measures are simply reactionary and would in no way act as protection against any real threat.  I mean, can't the FBI, NSA - someone! -  anticipate these not-so-original kinds of attacks.  Any 10 year old kid who has ever picked up XBOX controls can better prepare for a car bomb ("use the M82 with the infrared scope and the paintball MOD).

I've been reading 1000 Years for Revenge by Peter Lance and would highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in understanding American intelligence and more specifically the pre-9/11 War on Terror.  He writes a chilling tale of mismanagement prior to the first World Trade Center bombing and then leading up to the events of September 11, 2001.  Understandably, many might take offense at the picture of ineptitude and gross negligence that he paints, however I think that there is an important message beneath all the criticism: while it may forever be unclear who was at fault in 2001, the same events can happen again if we are not careful to learn form history and to preempt those who wish to harm us.  Let's not wait for something terrible to happen each time before setting up a security measure to prevent it.  

Lady Gaga in Afghanistan - Must Watch!!!

Support Our Troops!! Enjoy :)

Interesting Read

Jonah Goldberg of the Los Angeles Times writes a great opinion piece today about the new Arizona bill.  Read it here.  

Of Interest in the News

• National Association for Businees Economics (NABE) survey shows that economy is slowly (very slowly) improving, but that it is not due to the stimulus package
• Were Port Authority Police correct in not searching a known terrorist's car?
• Obama attempts new strategy in Supreme Court nominees
• In New Jersey, teachers unions continue to fight budget cuts despite outcry from voters
• Good-bye climate bill
• Obama-Sachs partnership; is that what the financial reform is about? 
• Student suspended for shooting teacher.... with her fingers!

Headed Towards A Welfare State?

Arizona - It's S'posed to be Nice There

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 issues the directive that "an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" may be detained, penalized, monitored. etc. as the state officials see fit (read the full bill here). While I am a proponent of stemming illegal immigration, and I believe that those who are in this country illegally should be made to answer to the same laws that the rest of us must obey, this bill sets a dangerous precedent.

Section 2 allows that "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES." Not to beat a (very) dead horse but that phrasing is strangely reminiscent of some of the language from John Adam's Alien and Sedition Acts (1798):

That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time…to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States. (emphasis added)

While the constitutionality of the Acts was never decided in court (due to the fact that they expired upon Adam's leave of office in 1801) most historians and constitutional scholars believe that they would have been found unconstitutional; the reasons being that they appear to violate the First Amendment and - perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson suggested - the Tenth Amendment as well.

Of course, the intent of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was probably not to prevent slander against herself or her state, but to step in to enforce a law that she sees the federal government to be lax on. However, her decision to sign this bill - a bill which certainly does nothing to reassure civil rights advocates - may very well ensure that Congress, at the behest of the President, grants illegal immigrants some kind of "amnesty" or "guest worker" status. According to The Washington Times, President Obama stated that "the fact that states are taking the immigration issue into their own hands should pressure Congress to act on a broad bill setting out a path for legalizing illegal immigrants at the national level."

While many Civil Libertarians (?) are arguing that the new law "raises fears of racial profiling" they seem to be missing the point. Yes, Mexicans are now in danger of being stopped in the street at random, and true, a car being driven by or with a Latino looking person can be stopped for inspection. However, that is nothing compared to the precedent such a law sets for everyone. What would prevent the law from being read to allow for unwarranted home searches (or if it is impossible for this bill to be interpreted as such, an amendment to the bill that allows for such invasions of privacy).

While I am an advocate of upholding the law, there have to be some limits to the extent that a government can seek to uphold said law. While the argument has been made in the past - and will no doubt be made here as well - that "If I (you) are not breaking the law what do I (you) have to fear?" the concept that the government may simply pick random people off the street and interrogate them is a scary thought. And if the individual doesn't happen to have suitable ID on him can they be detained until such identification is produced? Will people be rounded up and forced to produced papers and if those papers are not readily obtainable what will happen to them? Will their families be notified of their whereabouts?

Not to trivialize the immigration debate, but this bill certainly goes about resolving the issue in the wrong way. It lets the Federal government off the hook ("we don't have to worry about the issue anymore, the states will figure it out") when it is the mandate of the national government to secure our borders. It angers a community that is quickly growing and does - whether people like it or not - contribute greatly to this country's economy. Further, it sets the precedent for detaining, arresting, and simply harassing people with little or no legally substantial legitimacy. Finally, the bill reeks of old-school fear-induced legislation meant to simply keep one ethnicity from growing or attaining political persuasion. I'm not saying that the people who are in this country illegally should be allowed to stay, nor am I saying that they should all be forced to leave. But I am saying that whatever is done must be in accordance with the US Constitution and must account for the livelihood, the welfare, the well-being, as well as the personal privacy and safety of those individuals and families that it may effect.

Bill 1070 simply is not a well thought out piece of legislation and will most likely be shot down by the Courts. However, for the time being, if the state of Arizona wishes to expedite the process of detaining illegal immigrants perhaps those who are in the country legally should simply be given some kind of identifying symbol to wear. An American flag on their shoulder, perhaps?

I'm Baaack (Bringing more HOPE and CHANGE than any one American can handle)

Wow. Feels like it's been years since I last wrote here. When last we met, Obama was still a rookie fresh out of Political-U, now he's all grown up and has made Mom and Pop oh so proud. Okay, Okay, let's not start off hatin' - gotta (re)begin on a positive note.

In that vein I'll write this with an eye to the future. Hopefully this blog will see its way through the upcoming mid-term elections, the 2012 elections - Palin vs. Clinton? (just kidding) - and much, much more.

I hope to focus more on specific areas of politics this time around. Maybe I'll do an article each week about lobbying as that's an area of personal interest. Perhaps I can write some in-depth pieces about lesser noticed legislative actions from both state and federal levels, such as this one from Arizona (proposing that a candidate must prove they were born in the USA in order to be granted a slot on the ballot), while also focusing on more heavily debated issues such as Health Care and Tea Parties (Tea-time is soon to become a GOP standard). Hopefully I can write more about Iran and the Middle East as well.

I hope to see ya'll back here soon and I can't wait to hear your thoughts and opinions no matter what side of the aisle you associate with (just as long as you agree with me). Oh yeah, did I use "Hope" enough? Watch out Mr. President, I too can campaign on platitudes :).

Response to Robert Farley from the FPM

Read his article here

And now for my response:

Being Calm is the Wrong Response

Though this article provides an interesting history of the PRC's pursuit of nuclear weapons, it does not establish a sensible argument as to why the West should "calm down" with regard to Iran's stated goal of creating a nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Farley begins his article with sarcasm and ridicule, clearly mocking the legitimate fears of what could happen should Iran posses the bomb. He follows with a leap of logic to say that because the government controlled by Ahmadinejad has made outlandish statements, therefore all Iranians are "different, weird, and threatening." This could obviously be no farther from the truth.

I would suggest that Mr. Farley read the Preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which it states that America (the representative of the West) plotted against Iran. The Preamble continues to delineate the manner in which the new government will be established - that is to say, the government will practice strict adherence to the laws of the Qu'ran. Now, anyone who has read the Qu'ran (as Farley clearly has NOT) knows that it states numerous times that the unbeliever must be destroyed and that a Jihad (Holy War) must be waged against those who wish to harm the believer.

Obviously, the more modern Muslim understands that the words of the Qu'ran are not to be taken literally; they are metaphorical, just as the Torah and the Bible are mostly metaphorical. However, fundamentalist Muslims - namely Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his lackey President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - interpret the Qu'ran quite literally. As such, they have both stated publicly on numerous occasions their desire to harm both Israel and America.

The concern is not what the government of Iran will do with nukes. It is fair to say that very few people believe that the state of Iran would be stupid enough to employ weapons against America, Great Britain, or pretty much any other country as that would no doubt incite a third world war. However, there is legitimate concern over the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists - such as Usama bin Laden - who may be less hesitant to use such devastating tactics.

The fear of Iran supplying terrorist groups is very real. The 9/11 commission found significant links between Iran and Al Qaeda, and it has been long known that Iran supports other groups such as Hezbollah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC.

So, Mr. Farley, perhaps instead of telling the world to "calm down" through illogical arguments and exaggerations, perhaps it would be wise to educate people as to the real threat and allow countries (such as Israel) to protect themselves from a very real threat.

Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011

From Jake Tapper of ABC
February 26, 2009 12:00 PM

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

-- jpt

The Summit Breakouts: Social Security

The pool report by Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post on the Fiscal Responsibility Summit's breakout session on Social Security follows:

The session was held in room 350 of EEOB, a large conference room in which participants sat around a rectangular table. At the head of the table, with an American flag on each side of them, were the two administration officials who led this breakout: Lawrence Summers, director of the WH's National Economic Council, and Gene Sperling, counselor for domestic policy at Treasury. An ideological eclectic mix of 24 guests participated (a partial list follows), including senators and House members, David Walker (former head of the GAO), representatives of labor and business, and leaders of advocacy groups that work on entitlement reform.

No major news, but Summers and Sperling each conveyed a sense that the administration will try to move on health care before Social Security, although SS will come soon after.

Sperling said in his opening remarks that "Social Security does provide the potential for something that could be done, regardless of whether it is this year or next year. It is a conversation that has gone on this town, often not successfully."

But he said the president believes "there is a new politics out there." In his closing remarks, Sperling said "This is not about getting a commission. It is finding a process of trust, where Democrats and Republicans can come together and present something together, so it is not seen simply as an invitation to partisan attack...Holding hands and jumping together."

Summers said that health care has "overwhelming importance" in achieving "longterm budget control." He said: "But Social Security is also crucial to the nation's longterm fiscal health, and Social Security is our most important government program."

He essentially said - and this is paraphrase here -- that the downturn of the financial markets had diminished the political appetite for converting part of SS to private retirement accounts. Here is a quote: In light of "the events in the market the last couple years, the sense of the need for government to take a core public responsibility for Social Security. . .has been strengthened, at least in many people's minds. Though not perhaps all minds."

Sperling, near the session's end, advocated a change to Social Security that he had touted when he worked as an economics adviser in the Clinton White House: an "add-on" to Social Security, in which workers could set aside money in private accounts beyond their payroll taxes that go into the program itself. He said that politically, that idea - called USA Accounts in the Clinton days - should not be part of Social Security reform itself. But he said, "it doesn't mean it couldn't be part of a package."

Both Summers and Sperling said there would not be consensus in today's session about how to fix the program. They also said the public was more receptive to the government making hard decisions necessary to keep SS from running out of money in the long run, because Americans are anxious about their private retirement savings and the value of their houses.

Sperling said: "I think there may be a lot more openness than we thought in the past for people to have an honest discussion about the shared sacrifice necessary to have Social Security solvency. That this would be a sure thing they could count on, and they could count on for the next 50 to 75 years."

At the end, Sperling also tried to cut through disagreement over whether the program was in a state of crisis. "I really hate the whole argument about, is this a crisis or is this not a crisis? Why do we not want to preempt a crisis. Why do we not want to do something early? It is a shame on our political system that there has never been entitlement reform without a gun to our head. . .Wouldn't it be a tremendous confidence-building thing to act early and smart?"

Those are the highlights from the administration. By far, most of the session, which lasted slightly less than two hours, was devoted to comments from around the table.

Two Republicans, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. Lindsey Graham said they were willing to work with the administration, without saying they supported any specific ideas the WH might propose. Graham said: "To this new administration, if you will push this and make it a priority, I will do everything I can to make you successful. . .I will do everything I can to make sure that demagoguery does not succeed."

Boehner said the government should consider cutting or eliminating SS benefits for older Americans with high retirement incomes. "Why don't we just admit we are broke? If you have $150,000 in non-Social Security retirement income, thanks for your contributions but phase out the benefits or eliminate them. . .I don't have any problem looking people in the eye and saying, 'Thank you for your contributions, but for the good of the country, your benefits are gone.' " He also said increases in SS payments should be pegged to the Consumer Price Index, not wage inflation. And he said "we need to get serious about raising the retirement age."

David Walker, former chief of the GAO, also said the retirement age should increase. "One think that I've heard some controversy about, the retirement age - I know it's difficult, but the simple fact of the matter is, government policy needs to encourage what is in the collective best interest of the country and what is in the collective best interest of all. Government policy needs to encourage people to work longer."

Here are most, if not all, of the participants, in order in which they spoke:
David Walker - former head of GAO.
Sen. Dick Durbin
Sen. Steny Hoyer
Rep. John Boehner
Maya MacGuinneas, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Peter Peterson, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women's Policy
John Sweeney - AFL-CIO
Roger Ferguson - TIAA-CREF
Randi Weingarten - American Federation of Teachers
Rep. John Tanner
Barbara Kennelly - National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Rep. Eric Cantor
Marty Ford - Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Susan Eckerly - NFIB
Ed Coyle - Alliance for Retired Americans
Kevin Hassitt - American Enterprise Institute

from the Washington Post

Pampering The Prisoners

Baghdad Central Prison, previously known as Abu Ghraib, was reopened today as a five-star hotel and resort for terrorists and criminals. The Iraqi government obviously feels that the best method to discourage crime is to reward those who are convicted of it by providing "greenhouses, computer chatroom, a playground, and a sewing room." With such luxuries being served, how can one afford NOT to enter into the obviously profitable and highly prestigious business of terror?

I remark on this laughable treatment of terrorists to highlight the confused mentality the world seems to have adopted towards those who wish to cause us harm; instead of punishing them with the utmost severity, the world has come to believe that it is our duty to pity them. Imagine for a moment that you are risking your life for a cause you obviously believe very deeply in. The ultimate sacrifice for this cause is your life and the honor that will be bestowed upon you after death is something you can only dream of. The enemy against whom you fight is heavily armed and exceedingly wealthy. They have sought you out and persecuted your people for years, and despite your many attempts they continue to persist in their nonreligious ways. Now, they have managed to catch you; you who have spent your entire life trying to kill these people for mocking your god.

It is reasonable that the terrorist, being caught and convicted, should expect to be treated with the utmost harshness, perhaps even being punished by being put to death. However, instead of even slapping these people on the wrist, the Iraqi government has determined to make fools and laughing-stocks out of themselves by investing over $1 million in providing lofty and comfortable accommodations for monsters, murderers and the scum of the earth.

The terrorist is not feeling punished and the comfortable conditions will not serve to rehabilitate any of those detained, for these are not ordinary criminals convicted of robbery or grand-theft auto. No, these prisoners are radical fundamentalists who believe in their cause enough to die for it. Providing them with five-star conditions merely eases the difficulty of what should be made an impossible task - the killing and harming of innocent civilians.

"We turned it into something like a resort, not a prison."

- Mohammed al-Zeidi, director of the Iraqi Rehabilitation Department

Backing Away From Burris

DURBIN STATEMENT ON SENATOR ROLAND BURRIS

"When we met with Roland Burris in January, we made it clear that in order for him to be seated in the U.S. Senate he needed to meet two requirements - first, that he submit the proper paperwork certifying his appointment, and second, that he appear before the General Assembly's Impeachment Committee to testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor, his associates and the circumstances surrounding this appointment."

"We asked him to testify in the impeachment proceedings, not to embarrass Roland Burris, but to give him an opportunity to clear the air regarding this appointment from a tainted governor. Our hope was that he would use that opportunity to assure the people of Illinois and the other members of the United States Senate that he was not involved in any wrongdoing."

"Now the accuracy and completeness of his testimony and affidavits have been called into serious question. Every day there are more and more revelations about contacts with Blagojevich advisors, efforts at fundraising and omissions from his list of lobbying clients. This was not the full disclosure under oath that we asked for."

"These news reports and the public statements by Roland Burris himself are troubling and raise serious questions which need to be looked at very carefully."

"The State's Attorney in Sangamon County is reviewing the affidavit and other materials associated with Senator Burris' testimony to see if criminal charges are warranted and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation into this matter."

"This is the appropriate course of action and I await the outcome of those investigations. The people of Illinois deserve nothing less."

John Adams on Religion

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Do We Get To Read It???

Day of the Headless Chickens

The Democrats have successfully passed a bill that, as one House member has commented will "buy doorbells and doorknobs, but won't stimulate the economy." The DNC has supported this bill because they love spending money not theirs and they are eager to be able to exert their new-found control over the American people. Instead of acting rationally and responsibly, seeking areas where a stimulus package of such great costs could have actually helped people and small businesses throughout America, the Democrats pushed for hasty action. The final version of the bill, passed today 246-183, was not available for review until late last night, leaving virtually all representatives little or no tie to review the expanded bill.

As I am writing this, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) is arguing that the package does not address the issues in the economy that really needed to be addressed, and instead throws money into needless, wasteful projects. Being only one of 7 Democrats to vote against the bill, I am sure Mr. DeFazio is enduring much ridicule from his side of the aisle for not voting along the party line.

Anyway, my point is that the Democrats are in such a rush to act that they are not taking sufficient time to think. They are padding their own pockets and throwing money around as though it is water. Well, I don't think the ruling party realizes that there is a draught and during a draught you cannot simply go to your neighbors' garden hoses, fill up your swimming pool and tell them that this pool will provide more water for everyone. No one has money to spare and no one can afford to fill the Democratic pool. Telling the American commuity that they must come together to help each other out is nice, but that's not what is happening here. The Democrats are funding their pet projects, and their uncaring attitude towards the American people should spark an outcry from every single one of us.

Funny

The last line is the best... just in case you don't know who Lincoln is. :)

Record price for Lincoln speech on 200th birthday

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A speech delivered by President Abraham Lincoln two days after his 1864 presidential election victory was sold for a record $3.44 million on Thursday, the 200th anniversary of his birth.

The price paid by an undisclosed buyer set a new auction record for a Lincoln manuscript, auction house Christie's said in a statement.

The handwritten four-page speech had a pre-sale estimated value of $3 million to $4 million.

"Today's auction is a testimony to Americans' and the world's abiding interest in and reverence for President Abraham Lincoln," a Christie's statement said.

The auction house said the price of $3,442,500 was not only an auction record for a Lincoln document but also for any American historical document.

In the letter, Lincoln called upon his fellow Americans to "re-unite in a common effort, to save our common country."

Lincoln successfully led the country through the Civil War, preserving the Union and ending slavery.

(Reporting by Christine Kearney, editing by Alan Elsner)