Third Party & Independents Archives

George W. Bush Belongs In Prison

Electing Barack Obama president was the first step in redeeming American democracy. The second step must be indicting ex-president George W. Bush, giving him a fair trial, finding him guilty of many criminal acts and putting him in prison. Forget revenge. Think rule of law and justice.

I want President Obama soon after taking office to go on television and announce the formation of a special group of outstanding jurists and attorneys to make a recommendation whether or not the US Justice Department should bring criminal charges against George W. Bush. Based on earlier analyses, including work by the American Bar Association, I have no doubt they will recommend indictment.

If moral honesty and courage have any meaning, then the nation must take seriously the concept that no president can ever be allowed to be above the law. How can President Obama not strongly support this? Surely no president must be allowed to disrespect and dishonor the US Constitution. George W. Bush broke his oath of office. His behavior was treasonous. Instead of defending the Constitution he disgraced it. Instead of protecting constitutional rights, including privacy, he sullied them. He asserted his right to ignore or not enforce laws so he could break them. Respect for the office of the presidency must never be allowed to trump truth and justice.

Millions and millions of Americans and people worldwide know that George W. Bush made 9/11 the trigger for initiating an illegal war in Iraq that has killed and maimed so many thousands of people. What Vincent Bugliosi, author of “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" called “the most serious crime ever committed in American history.” I say convict Bush of myriad counts of criminally negligent homicide related to both Iraq and the Katrina disaster and put him in prison. A former president in prison would not disgrace the presidency. It would restore honor to the office and the Constitution.

Surely millions more people now understand that George W. Bush bears responsibility for creating the conditions that encouraged greed-driven capitalism to rape and murder the middle class and push us into the current global economic meltdown. By removing government oversight and regulation he committed the greatest acts of fraud in the history of mankind. After he made American democracy delusional he made prosperity delusional.

We the people are paying the price for George W. Bush’s criminal acts and so must he. When George W. Bush is sent to prison everyone will see that American democracy has earned the respect of the world. Everyone will better understand that evil comes in many forms and that even an elected president of the United States of America can and must be recognized as a perpetrator of horrendous criminal acts.

Please President-elect Obama, make it so. Be the principled person we want you to be. Make the USA the nation it is supposed to be. Have the courage to do what Congress refused to do when it did not impeach George W. Bush. Change history by showing the world that American justice applies as equally to the president as it does to anyone else. Do not let George W. Bush escape the justice and prison sentence he deserves. Do not let respect for the presidency trump respect for justice. If we do not bring George W. Bush to justice that probably only you can make happen, then surely we do not restore respect for the office that you worked so hard to achieve.

To ensure that no future president behaves like George W. Bush we must punish him. Not merely through the words of historians, but through the physical punishment that he has inflicted on so many millions of people. In previous eras citizens would have demanded “off with his head.” Now we must demand “lock him up.” How poetic for a pro-torture ex-president. As summed up at www.imprisonbush.com: “Bush must be made accountable to the law, to serve as a lesson to all those who would attempt to destroy the American system of laws and liberty for the sake of their own power.” This is a test for both President Obama and American democracy.

If there is any kind of God in the universe, then George W. Bush must go to prison. When he does, then and only then should God bless America.

[Formerly a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of nonfiction books, including Prosperity Without Pollution, Sprawl Kills and Delusional Democracy.]

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at November 29, 2008 10:25 AM
Comments
Comment #271129

Yes he does belong in prison, as does Dick Cheney - but it ain’t gonna happen.

Why? Because of the law of strange bedfellows.

In order to accomplish his agenda, Obama cannot depend on a filibuster-proof Congress even if the Dems get a sixty-seat majority in the Senate because it would require that all Dems vote in lockstep - and that’s not a historical strength of the Dems.

Like it or not, we need to reach out to the Republicans and make deals in order to get things done.

The Rove doctrine was ‘divide and conquer’ - and while it gave the Republicans control, by cutting off the Dems from wielding any influence in policy-making decisions, it also prevented the Bush administration from accomplishing goals like privatizing Social Security, and prevented him from ever funding the one goal he did achieve - the abortive ‘No Child Left Behind’ act.

I say Obama sees the error in the our-way-or-the-highway politics of the Bush administration, and he’ll do his best to build consensus in order to achieve his goals. After all, isn’t that how a democracy is supposed to work?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 29, 2008 11:10 AM
Comment #271135

>I say Obama sees the error in the our-way-or-the-highway politics of the Bush administration, and he’ll do his best to build consensus in order to achieve his goals. After all, isn’t that how a democracy is supposed to work?
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 29, 2008 11:10 AM

Glenn,

You’re much smarter than you need to be…you might add that putting Cheney/Bush in jail would actually accomplish very little, and we have set a precedent with Ford’s pardon of Nixon. It would be difficult to justify putting Cheney/Bush in lock-up, after we allowed Nixon to go free.

Hopefully Obama will be the ‘uniter’ we need. This nation has enough to contend with without the traumas associated with something as divisive as a criminal trial for a president…no matter how justified that trial would be.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 29, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #271138

Islam made 9/11 the trigger. Maybe you need to check out the news from around the world to see who is doing the killing and maiming. Take a look at Mumbai. Reomve the wool from your eyes.

Posted by: Topper at November 29, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #271140


Perhaps the Nixon principle applies to Bush but, the Agnew princple should apply to Cheney. He was illegally doing business with Iraq, Lybia and Iran before he was VP. The evidence against him is more than ample to get a conviction.

What do you charge someone with when he violates laws deemed vital to our national defence?

Posted by: jlw at November 29, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #271141

“Islam made 9/11 the trigger. Maybe you need to check out the news from around the world to see who is doing the killing and maiming. Take a look at Mumbai. Reomve the wool from your eyes.”

Yeah, it’s apparently our buddies in Pakistan.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 29, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #271151

GW Bush lacked the education, the creative thinking ability, and any holistic approach to manage his own presidency as unfolded. GW Bush was a puppet.

If you are going to expend tax payer funds on such an effort, it must be directed at Bush’s puppeteers, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Cheney, and others who sought to discard the law and Constitution in order to get from point A to point B in their agendas.

The people elected GW Bush, the people should shoulder that responsibility. But, it was GW Bush whose arrogance sought the office and perfected the Peter Principle, who appointed these others who ran his Executive Branch and policy agendas in large part, and the people need to send a message and warning to future appointees that such people will not, and cannot be, protected by a failed president after the fact.

The Democrats were smart not to attempt to indict before Bush left office. Bush would simply pardon them. After Jan. 20, somewhere on the priority list but not at the very top, the Obama Justice Dep’t. would do well to pursue investigations and indictments where warranted, which would serve to warn his own appointees and future administrations, that laws of this land are the people’s laws, not the office holder’s to do with as they wish, and the people can and will, from time to time, insist that their laws be enforced against their government officials.

What a truly remarkable hallmark for the Obama presidency that would be, setting a precedent for his own administration as well as those that follow.

Will this happen? I wouldn’t bet on it. Democrats are going to need some Republican support to succeed with solutions to grave issues facing the nation. That support would not likely be forthcoming if justice were sought against the major players of the Bush Administration.

That folks, is politics in reality as opposed to politics in textbooks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2008 4:39 PM
Comment #271153

Joel, I have to object to your wording: “The second step must be indicting ex-president George W. Bush, giving him a fair trial, finding him guilty of many criminal acts and putting him in prison.”

As stated, it presumes guilt and the necessity of imprisonment before investigation and trial have been conducted. One must, under our legal system, leave open the option that GW Bush acted ignorantly and not with intent or design to violate or subvert the law. Unless that option is left open, all fairness and justice are thrown out the window, making such a trial as abhorrent as the criminal acts which took place under the Bush presidency.

Pres. Bush was neither a lawyer nor student of the law. So I ask you, who is more culpable for the crimes committed under the Bush administration, Bush, or the Harvard and Yale lawyers under him who advised him? You will serve no good to go after Bush while leaving the experts in the law who advised him, free to advise others.

One cannot hope to successfully operate outside the law, unless one is very well versed in the law. The real criminals are those versed in the law who used that knowledge to circumvent it and violate it by twisting their interpretations of the law to their own protections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2008 4:52 PM
Comment #271155

The reason this won’t happen is that it’s based on baloney.

It’s getting a bit wearisome to hear about how Bush “shredded the Constitution” when he signed into law measures passed by Congress and then confirmed by court challenges.

This should be become more apparent, even in the leftist fever swamps, as it becomes obvious that Obama is going to keep in place most if not of all Bush’s security measures and initiatives.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 29, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #271156

Joel, A very good post but such a waste of words. David had it partially right when he said you would have to convict the lawyers and advisers as well. The entire government is largely complicit in Bush’s activities.
And what of the civilians that were/are so eager to trample on our sovereignty and Constitution. What about those people that put the words in NAFTA and the WTO that says ‘sovereignty will not be used as an excuse for protectionism’. That says the NAU judicial system will preempt the Constitution.
There are hundreds of feds that attended meetings, established working groups, wrote laws and organized the private sector in fleshing out the NAU. Trillions of dollars have been committed by governments and the private sector to build out the infrastructure for globalization within Central Am, the US and Canada. Work is started on seaports in Mex. The Panama Canal up will cost between $10-25B to modernize. The Trans Texas Corridor will cost $184B and take 500,000 acres by eminent domain. US Interstates built by taxpayer dollars have been leased to foreign entities for toll roads. Spain/Australia have a 99 year lease on the Chicago Skyway toll road, a 75 year lease on an Indiana toll road. Cintra of Spain paid the state of Texas $1.2B to get started and will invest $6B to build out 4K miles of Texas highways over 50 years. The KC Smartport facility is being built for $7.5M (that I know of) by taxpayers but will be turned over to the Mexican government as a customs facility. NASCO received $2.5M in Congressional earmarks to facilitate NAU super transportation corridors. China will control the ports in China, the Panama Canal, Mexican seaports and the technology to track containers from China into Canada. In brief, trillions have been spent and more trillions allocated to reconfigure US infrastructure for world trade. The NAU organizational framework has been completed and is being administered by Bush, Chertoff, Rice, and Gutierrez. The only thing remaining is to make it legal by his signing an Executive agreement. Bush and a cast of thousands of private and government folks have facilitated the build out of the NAU with no debate in Congress or the public. That’s just some of what the NAU is about.
Question is, how can you take one govie to task where basically the entire government is complicit. It would be the complicit that would have to bring charges and the complicit that would have to prosecute, etc.
Joel, you chide Bush as an evil and immoral person. Well, he certainly doesn’t think so. Look at his confidence and glowing personality when he speaks. He sleeps well at night knowing he has accomplished, beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, the globalization of North American and indeed, much of the world. He and his klepto-plutocracy have taken the path of least resistance and did an end run on government and the people in globalizing the world. I had pondered as to why Bush was at least pretending to build a border fence. The fence issue was a ruse. While we were worrying about drugs and illegals crossing the border Bush had implemented ‘fastran’ at border checkpoints whereby preapproved truckdrivers, professionals, etc. can zip right on through using an RFID type technology. Drugs can now be fast tracked, so to speak. And with amnesty people will be issued a safetran card so they too can zip through border checkpoints. Thus, the southern border is simply removed as an issue. Mexican trucks are now crossing the border unimpeded, in fact, the crossing time has been reduced significantly. The NAU defines Mexico’s Southern border as the legal checkpoint for goods and people. The US border has essentially been erased through technology.

With the entire US government complicit in his crimes, who is to try him?


Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 29, 2008 6:52 PM
Comment #271157

Joel,

You should look up the word “crime” in the dictionary. You obviously have no clue as to what it means. You got it right, more or less accidentally, on the Iraq issue. The rest of the stuff you wrote about may be classified as “stupidity” or “mismanagement,” but not “criminality.”

As for Iraq, the problem is that he used the military without a Deceleration of War. Impeachable? Yes. Is impeachment or indictment in the best interest of Obama or the parties? Of course not!
Every president since WWII (and many before) has done this and in some cases the conflicts were far larger and deadlier than the Iraq war. I have no doubt President Obama will do so as well. I’m not defending it, I’m just saying how it is. The parties want that option open, unconstitutional or not.
Oh, and why did you not mention Afghanistan? Are unpopular wars the only illegal ones in your world?

By the way, your article does not call for the indictments of presidents Clinton, Bush, Sr. or Carter. They all used the military without a DoW as well. In fact, all of them left office with declining economies. Why single Bush out? Because this is all about vindictiveness. It’s not about the good of the country or the rule of law, because in your world the rule of law only applies when you want it and to whom you want it to.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 29, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #271166

The sad truth is that nearly half the electorate think Bush had it right.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 29, 2008 11:37 PM
Comment #271168

In order to perpetuate their careers and avoid the heat Congress has abbrogated their oversight responsibility. Thus, by letting the Executive run wild they have done much to facilitate the antics of the Bush administration. When government nor the public finds the capacity to speak out on all perceived wrongdoings it just compounds the problem. Now, we can expect Obama to stretch his Executive powers to the limit as well. Going to be interesting. Will Obama take his que from Bush and continue to run the NAU out of his back pocket or he force Congress to adress the NAU? Will he enforce immigration law or continue in Bush’s footsteps?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 30, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #271169

Roy, I think you will find Obama will go to far greater lengths to secure our borders. He will also go to great lengths to create a path to citizenship for those already here illegally provided they meet criteria assuring they would likely become good citizens in support of the U.S. Constitution.

The question I have is, will he secure the borders first, then open the door to citizenship? We shall see.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2008 1:25 AM
Comment #271172

DR
As I recall ignorance is no excuse.
Glen Contrarian
It is not necessary to impeach a PAST president before indictments can be made.All that is necessary is will of the AG or any federal prosecuter if the alleged crimes fall within federal jurisdiction.

JH
Interesting point. I wonder if Reagan would have sold arms to Iran and used the money to pursue an illegal war in South America if Nixon had gone to prison. BTW There is no Nixon precedent, not in a legal sense at any rate.
Just for my own satisfaction I would like to see congress and the justice dept. investigate not only Bush/Cheny but also the suspect members of the fomer congress of either party. They got Stevens and a few others but you know there are more.I bet if we did that there would be some emergency prison reform legislation adopted in a hurry.
OK,thats personal. I have serious reservations. Is a witch hunt really going to help the country? I am an expat currently,living in the Philippines. It is a democracy/republic with a similar constitution. Here they routinly imprison the outgoing president. It doesn’t seem to help much. Whoever is in the Palace is just as corrupt as their predesessor it appears. Jounalist and whistleblowers also have a habit of disapearing at an alarming rate. There may well be a connection.Nice thought though.

Posted by: bills at November 30, 2008 4:40 AM
Comment #271176

I haven’t been in the Philippines since the late fifties, early sixties, but I sure envy you. All my memories of the citizenry and the countryside are fond ones.

Of course with years the ugly of anyplace I’ve been seems to melt away…leaving nothing but the fond…there is a silver lining to getting old.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 30, 2008 7:02 AM
Comment #271177

So should a lot of other politicians be in jail, both dem and rep, but they’re not. So you all want Bush to be the fall guy for all of them? We need to clean up the whole political system starting from the top.

Posted by: KAP at November 30, 2008 9:09 AM
Comment #271181


I agree with Kap. From Obama on down, the majority of our politicians are guilty of conspiracy against the law and the people of our country.

These politicians have greatly increased the amount of armed conflict, assinations, and terrorism to our country. They have turned their backs and counted their earnings while billions in illegal people, drugs and weapons have poured across our borders, while billions of our dollars exit our country by the same routes.

The leaders of the current and primary drug cartel in Mexico are composed of deserters from the Mexican military. They were trained in special forces and counter insurgency by our Army at Fort Benning. They have been trained in the use of explosives, terrorists acts and assinations. They train their new recruits in these same tactics.

This drug cartel has recruited many Mexican police, mayor’s, judges and other government officials. These people have two choices, join, inform and protect the cartel or die. Many have died.

The Trans-American Highway, up the east coast of Mexico, thru the heart of the U.S., branching off to all points, all the way to Ontario is the drug cartel’s spice highway.

Complacency and indifference by the American people, as well as the scapegoating by the two political parties, one against the other, on this issue and many other issues, have instilled in our politicians a sense of immunity from prosecution for themselves and many in the business community.

Posted by: jlw at November 30, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #271186

There is a concern that if there isn’t some investigation and resolution of the criminal acts — especially the abuse of Presidential powers— that it will set a precedence for future presidents — and it will no longer be seen as an abuse, but merely the extension of Presidential Power that Cheney and his puppet tried to accomplish.
This extension cannot be allowed to stand — and the answer to pass laws to prohibit does not appear to be feasible in that part of the expansion of power was the ability to routinely ignor whatever law they see fit — so that law too would be ignored — legally??
There is also talk of closure and moving on, etc
Sorry, no closure for me after these traiterous acts other than being held accountable — to have ALL these acts brought to the light of day, and the facts behind them
I think if that were to happen, those who supported Bush will see what idiots they were and how they were lied to and manipulated for the personal interests and agenda of the administration, NOT the country, NOR the constitution.

Best line from Judge Roy Bean
“Don’t worry, we’ll make sure you get a fair trial before we hang you”
Applies to Bush and Co.

Actually, since they seem to believe they were right — apply their own justice to them
I say
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rice, et al
Middle of the Night, CIA/FBI, whatever, knocks on the door, hauls them away without explanation, locks them up in Gitmo cells and leaves them there without outside communication for at least 8 years.
Hey, they said that it was legal, right, etc — then they should have no objection to it being applied to them — I, for one, am more than willing to testify that I heard them issuing “terrorist threats”

Posted by: Russ at November 30, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #271193

It is sad and ironic how the perpetrators of the lies, crimes, and/or criminal negligence, on the most massive scales, are so often not only never held unaccountable, but revered and rewarded for it.

Odd how the small lies of little consequence can generate so much outrage, but the majority of the people refuse to believe huge huge lies, crimes, and criminal negligence.

It’s doubtful the guilty will ever be held accountable, but should be for:

  • the invasion of Iraq on flawed (if not trumped-up) intelligence, and intentionally misleading statements (if not outright lies) that tried to implicate Iraq in the 11-SEP-2001 attacks;

  • numerous subsequent blunders

  • trampling of the Constitution: One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm;

  • the massive $10.7 Trillion National Debt (One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#53Trillion), and massive fiscal irresponsibility and corruption (One-Simple-Idea.com/Links1.htm);

  • refusal to enforce existing laws (e.g. immigration laws) and Section 4 of Article 4), and despicably choosing to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits (archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/31/92649.shtml) and votes (One-Simple-Idea.com/VoteDemocrat.gif) disguised as compassion (One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Compassion)

  • regressive and unfair taxation: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes;

  • and allowing (if not perpetuating) numerous other abuses: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm
Similarly, Congress is also revered too, and repeatedly rewarded with re-election, despite their crimes, corruption, greed, incompetence, and dismal approval rating of 9%-to-18%.

Here’s the break-down to date for re-election rates and party-seat retention rates (some results are still pending):

464 members (464 / 535 = 86.7%) of Congress were re-elected (378 (223(D)+155(R)+0(I)) in the House + 86 (46(D)+ 38(R)+2(I))in the Senate).

There were only 71 members ousted from Congress (57 (13(D)+44(R)) in the House + 14 (3(D)+11(R) in the Senate).

NOTE: There are 5 of 6 seats still To Be Determined in the Senate, and 4 of 4 seats still To Be Determined in the House.

  • Start __ End __ Congress _ Re-Election ___ Party Seat-Retention
  • Year ___ Year ___ # _____ Rate ________ Rate
  • 1927 ___ 1929 ___ 070st ___ 68.9% ________ 96.4%
  • 1929 ___ 1931 ___ 071st ___ 79.7% ________ 92.5%
  • 1931 ___ 1933 ___ 072nd ___ 76.8% ________ 88.5%
  • 1933 ___ 1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% ________ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)
  • … … … … … … … …
  • 1989 ___ 1991 ___ 101st ___ 90.1% ________ 99.6%
  • 1991 ___ 1993 ___ 102nd ___ 87.7% ________ 98.3%
  • 1993 ___ 1995 ___ 103rd ___ 73.5% ________ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
  • … … … … … … … …
  • 1999 ___ 2001 ___ 106th ___ 89.2% ________ 99.3%
  • 2001 ___ 2003 ___ 107th ___ 89.2% ________ 98.7%
  • 2003 ___ 2005 ___ 108th ___ 87.9% ________ 98.1%
  • 2005 ___ 2007 ___ 109th ___ 88.6% ________ 98.7%
  • 2007 ___ 2009 ___ 110th ___ 84.9% ________ 93.1% (61 of 535 incumbents ousted)
  • 2009 ___ 2011 ___ 111th ___ 86.7% ________ 93.3% about (464 of 535 incumbents re-elected; 71 not re-elected)

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #271194

CORRECTION: It is sad and ironic how the perpetrators of the lies, crimes, and/or criminal negligence, on the most massive scales, are so often not only never held unaccountable, but revered and rewarded for it.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #271195

Joel, W should be tried by an international war crimes tribunal for violations of the Geneva convention. Under our own laws, he would be subject to the death penalty. He should be the fall guy for all the underlings, not to mention any crimes committed by members of our military, who should be the ones pardonned, not the commander in chief. I oppose the death penalty, so I would be happy if he spent the rest of his days in Leavenworth. This is unlikely to happen, but something needs to be done to insure that a POTUS who thinks he is above all laws doesn’t get away with it. W is the very definition of UnAmerican, exactly what the founding fathers didn’t want for us.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 30, 2008 3:14 PM
Comment #271198

On inauguration day, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Rice, Feith, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Powell and anyone else even peripherally related to okaying the fiasco in Iraq or the fiasco in Guantanamo Bay need to be cuffed, shackled and perp-walked onto an airliner non-stop for the Hague, Netherlands whereupon these international criminals should be booked for trial in the International Court.

Won’t happen though.

Posted by: EJN at November 30, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #271208

Some direct and well worded posts and jlw, you laid it right on the straight line. Beginning with the Regan administration the klepto-plutocracy has worked to globalize the world. By using the Executive branch of government and with the complicity of the legislator’s they have circumvented government oversight and trashed the Constitution and sovereignty of the Republic to achieve their goals. They have established pseudo government trade organizations that portend to have supreme authority in trade relations even over that of the US Supreme Courts. These organizations such as NAFTA, WTO, SPP and IMF can levy fines against private organizations and governments as well. And, neither has recourse to adjudication other than the WTO, NAU, etc.
Globalization was accomplished through stealth and incremental steps that culminated in the development of the NAU. US sovereignty was tossed aside to create a market designed for economic exploitation by multinational corporations and foreign governments. The US citizen be damned. The ‘greatest generation’ be damned. The middle class doesn’t get a play is this game. The plutocracy did intimate that the unemployed would be retrained. Hasn’t happened yet because no-one can figure out what people should be retrained for.
So far as I have been able to ascertain globalization policy has been implemented. Private and government funds for NAU infrastructure have been allocated. The entire thing is being run out of the Executive branch of government. As of yet the President has signed no trade agreement or treaty. He may have signed a memo of understanding. I don’t know.
It matters little in the sense that the further the canoe floats downstream the harder it is to paddle back. Trillions of dollars have been expended and/or allocated to build out the NAU. How do you ever put the genie back in the bottle? What actions could be taken regarding all the fines and punishments rendered by these pseudo government trade organizations? What could be done about the billions of taxpayer dollars committed to infrastructure build out to serve globalized trade?
We are well aware that both the Democrats and Republicans are fully complicit in all this, going back to the Regan administration. Even to the Carter administration if you consider Robert Pastor’s achievement in convincing Carter to give up the Panama Canal which is now controlled by you guessed it, China.

It’s clear that whatever Obama’s intentions are, he can’t undo what’s been done by himself. Indeed, government cannot – will not reform itself. We must have a countervailing force that can take on the klepto-plutocracy and win. We need a new third party or parties, with a different attitude about elected officials. ‘They do work for us.’ A party that targets reform and can put accountability into the political equation. A party that provides for citizens’ oversight of elected and appointed officials. A party that can achieve real reform of government and KEEP IT THAT WAY.
Many of us have watched our government being overtaken by moneyed interest for sixty years or more. Jerome Corsi, in his book “The Late Great USA” says: The Security and Prosperity Partnership is not just unconstitutional but an act of treason committed at the highest levels, one that must be stopped before the U.S.A as a free and sovereign nations fades into history.”

The people must decide, and soon.

Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 30, 2008 9:06 PM
Comment #271210

And the laws that were broken? They weren’t listed in the original article so it makes it hard to look them up and make a judgment call on them myself, the author and commenter apparently want people to just take their word for it.

The only reference I saw to anything was a horribly flawed book.

So, since it is so obvious, please just put the laws broken (their statute numbers, link to them would be nice as well) and the dates and ways that they were broken would help, because that is precisely what would have to occur in any court of law in the US, so it shouldn’t be that hard.

Unfortunately we are going to have to continue listening to this banality for the next several decades since the left is to chicken… well scared to actually do this.

Or, it could be that it will never happen because if Bush and Cheney were to be found not guilty, it would take away a primary tool of the left in their quest for political power…

They have their priorities, you know.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 30, 2008 9:23 PM
Comment #271211

Rhinehold> please just put the laws broken and the dates and ways that they were broken

There are international laws against invasion of a sovereign nation, that occurred starting in (I seem to recall) March 2003. There are also international laws against the torture of humans for any reason, which occurred starting in around May 2003 and continues to present day.

If it’s so important to you to know the statute numbers, you can look them up yourself. All the Bush/Cheney team who vetted the legality of torture and the legality of the invasion of Iraq have to do is to appear at the Hague and I’m sure if they are innocent the whole matter can be quickly dealt with.

There were also violations of US Federal law in the wiretapping of US citizens without FISA warrants.

Posted by: EJN at November 30, 2008 10:05 PM
Comment #271212

EJN,

So why wasn’t Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc all brought up on international charges then?

I’m pretty sure that Clinton bombed the hell out another country to remove their leader from power, or was I sleeping then?

When are we going to bring him and Albright up on charges? I would think we should do that first, before dealing with Bush.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 30, 2008 10:43 PM
Comment #271216

Rhinehold,

You can bring charges against the others just as soon as courts have had their say on Cheney/Bush…it called LIFO. My reasoning is that the others did not lose several thousands of American lives, nor did they kill/maim several hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, nor did they condone or encourage torture, nor the almost total suspension of Habeas Corpus.

I’m not sure I’m actually FOR bringing charges against Cheney/Bush, because I’m still thinking about healing the country…but your argument about previous administrations is wrong in fact and logic.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 1, 2008 2:10 AM
Comment #271221

Rhinehold> So why wasn’t Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc all brought up on international
Rhinehold> charges then?

With the possible exception of the Republicans on your list, none of the above either invaded a sovereign country, ordered torture of humans or wiretapped US citizens without FISA warrants. I’m sure neither Carter nor Clinton did.

As for bombing “hell” out of another country, that was under a UN mandate to try to stop the genocide going on there, which Bush did not have for invading Iraq, torturing humans or wiretapping without FISA warrants.

Bombing “hell” out of Bosnia might not have been the right thing to do or the best thing to do but it was done with the support and approval of the UN.

I think we should deal with the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate first, then we’ll talk about all these other wild allegations of yours.

Posted by: EJN at December 1, 2008 7:53 AM
Comment #271222

EJN,

You might want to recheck, Clinton’s actions were not sanctioned under UN authority. It was a NATO action. Bush had much more UN authority to take action to remove Saddam than Clinton did in bombing Kosovo.

As for wild allegations, since you can’t come up with the laws that were broken, not just decisions you disagree with, then I agree that we should not talk about such things.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 1, 2008 8:44 AM
Comment #271232

Just a little more fodder:

1. Name a charge against someone and then not provide the proofs of the claim…

2. Challenge the claim as not proven, but apply no proofs of its wrongness…

It’s called an impasse…

Posted by: Marysdude at December 1, 2008 10:04 AM
Comment #271234

Not really, I am in no way set in my mind that Bush hasn’t broken any laws and should be tried for those crimes, all I want is for someone to talk specifics not generalities fueled by indignant outrage and the hope of political power.

The mind-numbing attempt (mostly successful) of trying to convince sheeple that ‘Bush is evil’ is wearing thin on those of us who understand and accept the reality of the situation that Bush was doing what he felt was right in his view of the world. Whether it was or not is a different story but that does not make him evil or a criminal by itself. He had the power given to him by congress (otherwise could not have done it legally) and was standing on at least some sense of legal precedent (which maybe should be changed for future cases) along with some backing in the international community.

Again, let’s talk specifics, not generalities or personal feelings for once on this blog. The emotive rhetoric gets so old and at this time when ‘the end is in sight’ for those who have been spilling so much emotion into here it would be a great time to start a new course of reasoned discourse on facts…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 1, 2008 10:15 AM
Comment #271236

There are enough ‘sheeple’ as they are called, who believe criminality exists in these matters, that they cannot fairly be called ‘wild’ accusations. If hyperbole is to be eschewed, then all should participate…

Posted by: Marysdude at December 1, 2008 10:37 AM
Comment #271237
There are enough ‘sheeple’ as they are called, who believe criminality exists in these matters, that they cannot fairly be called ‘wild’ accusations

I think you missed my point. If you tell a bunch of sheeple something, and do it well enough (think used car salesman) they will believe it. That doesn’t make it a fact.

Heck, the majority of people in the US think that the Republicans control congress for Pete’s sake, let’s not try to say that the general public’s ‘accepted view’ on something holds any water. And in the case of the criminality of Bush, the majority do not believe it, or the hearings would have already commenced.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 1, 2008 10:41 AM
Comment #271238

I guess I’m thinking ‘wild’ and ‘sheeple’ to be hyperbolic…to have a sane conversation, we could consider the ‘wild’ terms to be ‘incorrect’ and the ‘sheeple’ to be ‘people who follow the wrong path’, etc.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 1, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #271240

I suggest that Bush will only be chided and harassed because the Dems don’t want to be the recipient of an impeachment process near the end of O’s term. It’s the ping pong thing. And that’s just the way it is.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 1, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #271243

Joel

Congratulations. Singularily, this piece is the biggest piece of malarky in the history of WB.

Complete drivel.

Give Bush a fair trial and then find him guilty?

Nice. You must know Joe Stalin.

I am gonna email David Reemer and ask that he start a fourth column…way over to the left, and call it the loony bin.

That’s where this crap belongs.

You are no more an “independant” that I am the starting quarterback for the Patriots.

Full prof at Wisconsin? They must have an open hiring policy then.

Here’s a number fro you,Joel. ZERO.

That’s how many attacks we had since 9/11.

Everything else is bullshit. Including your post.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 1, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment #271246

Joel,

Got the cart and the horse in separate counties, don’t you?

Jurisdictions- Grand Juries- indictments- trials (fair trials, you say?)

The rule of law does not start with a stripedy tan.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at December 1, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #271249

Sicilianegale, If I recall 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. I recall that the US visa system was totally ‘unregulated’. People came in on all kinds of visas, no questions could be asked, and few returned home. Even today there is no follow up on exit visas to determine if people have left the country or are overstaying their visas. I think O’s granda has been here 3 or 4 years after she was suposed to be self deported or something like that. Today, terrorist have full access to the US through the Southern border. Impossible to know how many since the border has remained open a full 7 years after 9/11. Bush is willing to leave a border completely unprotected to fulfill his legacy of globalization. Not my kind of hero. But not to worry, a hair will not be harmed on Bush. The Dems don’t want any trouble from the Rep’s when Obama retires. Steady as the status quo goes.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 1, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #271250

Roy,

True that 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush’s first term, but remember that all of the terrorists were in the country and planning before he took office. And a majority of them even had valid driver’s licenses.

This isn’t something that just started in 2001, previous administrations have failed at adequately protecting the US *AND* our individual rights at the same time. There must be a way to do both, we just need to look for it, not accept that the rights have to go for protecting us.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 1, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #271256

And the border remains open 7 seven years after 9/11. Rhinehold, why didn’t the US military go in and kick ass and get out in Iraq. Was this guy Rumsfeld not a smart dude? I think he was. I believe we sat back and did nothing for longer than WWII lasted so Cheny would have time to work on the oil fields and work on acquiring rights to the oil and oil and oil and oil.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 1, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #271257

Roy

305,000 illegal aliens were deported this year…a drop in the bucket. Had stricter regulations been in place during the Clinton administration, perhaps 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

This I do know: Bush is not a criminal. Only a loony tune would say that. I am aggreviated at this author and WB in general today becuase there is not one cite listed in his post except his “qualifications” at the end of the piece.

One year ago, I had a piece taken down by David,and his reason back then was that my rant about Jack Murtha had no cites. I refused,and David gave me a choice: no cites,no post. I quit,as it was a matter of principle to me,and I was 100% correct on the Murtha issue.

This piece..especially in the 3rd party column….smacks of a hyper left author who is siimply throwing crap out there to the uneducated.

Baloney.

This post belongs in the scrap heap, and David should hold this guy to the same standards as I.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 1, 2008 1:52 PM
Comment #271261

It’s hard to isolate bad guys crossing the borders when hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) are illegally crossing the borders every year.

Even if we have not had another terrorist attack since 11-SEP-2001, thousands of Americans are murdered every year by illegal aliens, and the following data helps to support estimates of higher crime rates by illegal aliens …

Based on GAO Report 5646 (page 28):
TABLE 1: Selection of Illegal Alien Study Population Used for Analysis:

  • Number of convicted criminal aliens (in federal prison as of 27-DEC-2003; not necessarily convicted in the same year): 46,063

  • Number of convicted criminal aliens (in state and local prisons between 1-JUL-2002 to 30-JUN-2003): 262,105

  • Number of illegal aliens in study group (with arrest records from 1947 to 28-OCT-2004): 55,322

Therefore, the number of convicted criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons in the year of 2003 was: 308,168 (262,105 + 46,063)!

Other sources and facts state:

  • Total U.S. prison population in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 is about 2.2 million. The ratio of convicted criminal aliens to total prison population of 2.2 Million in year 2004 is (308,168 / 2.2 Million) about 14.0% , despite 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens being about 4.0-to-6.7% of the total 300 Million U.S. population (as of about year 2004). Therefore, the conviction rates and numbers of incarcarated appear to be significantly higher for illegal aliens. Also, bear in mind that first time trespass of our borders is only a misdemeanor, for which illegal aliens are not incarcerated. Often, what gets many illegal aliens in trouble is not merely trespassing our borders, but also violating several other laws by using fake documents; fake drivers’ licenses; fake or invalid Social Security numbers; driving without insurance; and receiving Medicaid, Medi-CAL, and/or welfare. Even many of those violations fail to land illegal aliens in jail much of the time, because they simply don’t show up for their court hearing, and even if arrested are not held in custody. In fact, in some instances, illegal aliens are released on bail after being arrested for serious crimes, including murder in some cases. Sources: www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/11/17/illegal-aliens-out-on-bail-commit-another-crime-or-vanish-before-trial/ , www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp , www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=528 , www.dcexaminer.com/local/Home_invasion_murder_suspect_escaped_from_NY_police_in_2000_officials_say.html

  • In year 1995, there were 4,081 illegal aliens sentenced in federal district courts, 11% of the total of 37,100 sentenced (in federal district courts only), despite 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens being about 4.0-to-6.7% of the total 300 Million U.S. population (as of about year 2004).

  • As of year 2002, 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

  • As of 2003, there were 161,173 incarcerated in federal prisons (13% for violent crimes: Source: www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdf)

  • At yearend 2006 correctional facilities in the United States held an estimated 2,385,213 inmates in custody, including inmates in Federal and State prisons, territorial prisons, local jails, facilities operated by or exclusively for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), military facilities, jails in Indian country, and youth in juvenile facilities. During 2006 the total incarcerated population increased by 2.8%, or 64,579 inmates. Source: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p06.txt

  • From 2000 to 2006, … offenses by illegal aliens increased by 43% ; Source: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p06.txt

  • Detainees held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increased 41% from 2005 to 2006. Source: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p06.txt

  • At year end 2006, 27,634 detainees were under the jurisdiction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This represented a 41% increase (or 8,072 detainees) from yearend 2005.

  • Total federal prison population as of 27-NOV-2008: 202,771 ; Notice above that 46,063 convicted criminal aliens as of 27-DEC-2003 were in federal prisons (note: that 46,063 are not necessarily convicted in the year of 2003, but only the number of convicted currently incarcerated as of 27-DEC-2003); Provided the 46,063 of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated as of 27-DEC-2003 did not increase by year 2008, the ratio of convictions of illegal aliens to total incarcerated in federal prison is 22.7%. However GAO Report 05-337R states it was 27% for 3 years from the end of 2001, through to the end of 2004:
    • At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004—a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years—about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens—BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP—totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004. BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminal aliens rose from about $950 million in 2001 to about $1.2 billion in 2004—a 14 percent increase.

  • As of JUN-2003, the National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Fedaration For American Immigration Reform states that 29% of all prisoners in our federal prisons are are illegal aliens.

  • Criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons increased from about 42,000 at year-end 2001 to about 49,000 at year-end 2004.

  • Fiscal year 2002-SCAAP reimbursed all 50 states for incarcerating about 77,000 criminal aliens.

  • A huge statistic is missed, that if quantified would increase the crime numbers and costs of illegal aliens is that many jurisdictions don’t determine the immigration status of a perpetrator of a crime (don’t even ask) and many others are sanctuary cities that are forbidden from asking the immigration status of crime perpetrators.

  • For fiscal year 2002—SCAAP reimbursed 752 local jurisdictions for incarcerating about 138,000 criminal aliens.

  • For fiscal year 2003—SCAAP reimbursed 698 local jurisdictions for about 147,000 criminal aliens.

  • Federal prisons include 112 prisons managed by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), 10
    privately managed facilities, and other contract facilities including community
    correction centers and short-term detention facilities. More than 1,300 state prisons operated by state correctional agencies in all 50
    states, as of 2000. More than 3,300 local jails operated by cities, counties, and municipalities, as of 1999.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at December 1, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #271263
sicilianeagle wrote: 305,000 illegal aliens were deported this year…a drop in the bucket.
“a drop in the bucket” ?

Many Americans , police , and border patrol would probably disagree.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 1, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #271269

Good points Dan. A lot of grief and suffering that could easily have been prevented.
Sicilianeagle, I am way curious about what Murtha has going on in his home state. If anyone knows what the true purpose of the supposedly government facility he is supporting there I’d sure like to hear about it. Maybe it is attached to a super-secret agency but you’d think some investigative reporter could find that out.
Regarding Joel’s article and impeaching Bush. Impeachment has been bantered about in congress. The grey areas are the FISA agreements, going into Iraq for oil, failing to enforce US immigration laws, and facilitating the establishment of pseudo government ‘commissions’ that portend a greater authority than the US Supreme Court.
Well, I can’t site chapter and verse on this but a lot of people way closer to the fire than I tend to believe Bush’s foibles. I know over 160K have signed an impeachment petition. www.democrats.com is selling a file of 35 articles of impeachment relative to Bush/Cheny. I think this is the same information introduced by Dennis Kucinich. From Wiki: “On June 9, 2008, Dennis Kucinich gave official notice of his intention to introduce 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives.[1] On June 10, 2008, as Congressman Robert Wexler joined Kucinich as co-sponsor of the resolution,[2] Kucinich officially introduced his resolution to a near-empty House chamber. The Clerk took just under four hours to read the resolution into the record. As soon as the House Clerk finished reading the resolution in the early morning of June 11, Kucinich himself moved to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25. The resolution stalled. As of November 2008, after the election of Barack Obama, attention focused on bi-partisan efforts to fix the financial crisis and the transition of Executive power; there have been no new impeachment resolutions, nor since have any elected office holders called for impeachment.”
“ Proponents of impeaching Bush assert that one or more of his actions qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors” under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[3][4]
This section collates a list of pro-impeachment advocates’ rationales as suggested by commentators, legal analysts, members of the Democratic Party, the Center for Constitutional Rights[5] and others. However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense (other than treason or bribery). Therefore, this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

According to that information Congress is the only decider for impeachable offenses. Sounds like a work still in progress but don’t expect any progress. As I said earlier, the Dems don’t want to be impeached at the end of Obama’s term. The Status Quo reins.

Many folks certainly feel and believe that Bush committed impeachable offenses. I believe that as well.

I just went back and read every word of Joel’s article and I agree wholeheartedly with every word of it. Doesn’t make me right or doesn’t prove any legal standing against Bush. But, it reflects a lot of what people feel and believe.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #271274

Sort of missed in all this discussion, Bush’s own admission to flagrantly disobeying laws that he decided not to abide by.
He put the Presidency over the law, and admitted to doing it and actually is proud of what he has done.
That is not speculation, rumor, innuendo, whatever — it is a documented fact.

He HAS been responsible for the repealing habeaus corpus for US CITIZENS (not the “others” that the Right Wing doesn’t care about having their rights violated — there are DOCUMENTED CASES —ONE OF WHICH HAPPENED HERE IN PORTLAND!! OF US CITIZENS BEING ARRESTED AND DETAINED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, NOR LEGAL REDRESS — FEDERAL AGENTS UNDER BUSH’S ORDERS)

Posted by: Russ at December 1, 2008 3:39 PM
Comment #271275

and again, if detaining people indefinately in Gitmo cells without access to Due Process is “right” and legal, then I say we submit Bush and his cronies and henchmen to THAT “legal” system.
and throw away the key.(or then give Gitmo back to the Cubans)

Posted by: Russ at December 1, 2008 3:42 PM
Comment #271276


The executive branch is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of this nation. An administration that refuses to enforce the law is a criminal administration.

Illegal entry into this country is a crime that has not been enforced by the Bush administration. Therefor, the Bush administration is a criminial administration and other administrations were as well.

The evidence is overwhelming and guilt is not in doubt. Just as ignorance of the law is not a defence, possible benefits to the economy derived from the lack of enforcement is not a defence either.

Unfortunately, violation of this law is not one that liberals are interested in prosecuting because they would have to prosecute their own as well, including our recently elected leader. Adherence to this law would seriously inhibit their ability to exploit cheap labor and cheap drugs. It would have a negative effect on their cheap investments.

Roy Ellis: You said “The middle class doesn’t get a play in this game.”

That just isn’t true.

That part of the middle class that has been affected negatively by globalization is the blue collar middle class. The professional middle class hasn’t been hurt in any meaningful way and most of them have seen an increase in their wages and or their earnings. There are several million investors among them. It is amazing how much of an effect that double digit returns on investments can have on influencing one’s ability to believe the propaganda of the government and the corporations, and how easy it is to ignore or downplay the negative effects.

IMO, much of the middle class are very much players in this game. They are enablers, both with their investments, their votes and their ignorance or indifference.

Both liberals and conservatives are very much into the game. The only controversy is what type and how much regulation will or will not be imposed on the primary participants.

Posted by: jlw at December 1, 2008 3:43 PM
Comment #271280

Give it a break people…if there was insufficient evidence or will to impeach President Bush while in office why would anyone believe it would be different after he leaves office.

And, just for grins…who would populate “his” jury of peers? Surly few in the senate or congress would qualify to judge anyone holding political office. As for a jury composed of non-office-holders who have formed no opinion one would need to find 12 blind, deaf people who have lived in a cave for the past 8 years with no access to anyone or anything.

Posted by: Jim M at December 1, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #271287
And the border remains open 7 seven years after 9/11. Rhinehold, why didn’t the US military go in and kick ass and get out in Iraq. Was this guy Rumsfeld not a smart dude? I think he was. I believe we sat back and did nothing for longer than WWII lasted so Cheny would have time to work on the oil fields and work on acquiring rights to the oil and oil and oil and oil.

I don’t think much of Rumsfeld, personally. I don’t think he was stupid, just wrong. He thought he could do the job and get out on the cheap and couldn’t recognize the mess he was making.

Once he was asked to resign is when things started turning around in Iraq. Gates saw what needed to be done and put them into action to the point where it looks like we can safely leave the country (mostly) within the next 9 to 18 months. If that had been done 4 years earlier we would have been out by now and everyone getting on with their lives.

I find it odd when people say it was ‘for oil’ without giving any reasonable rational as to why. It would have been so much easier, and cheaper, to just buy the oil from Saddam. I’m sorry but the notion that we did all of this to take the oil, which we have utterly failed to do, btw, is nonsense. I do think we acted differently than we might have because of the oil. I believe had we not been worried about what Saddam was going to do with the oil reserves he had Bush I, Clinton or Bush II would have dealt with his nonsense much earlier, not let it fester for 12 years before someone was finally done.

But the realities don’t usually fit on a bumper sticker…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 1, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #271290

Roy,

www.democrats.com had a petition for Bush’s impeachment on file signed by a large number of people on their website BEFORE HE EVER TOOK OFFICE. You’ll find me hard to convince by citing this group…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 1, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #271300

Rhinehold> Again, let’s talk specifics,

I am talking specifics, three to be exact:

1) Illegal invasion of Iraq
2) Illegal torture of humans in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and other foreign countries
3) Illegal wiretapping of US citizens without a FISA warrant

The war criminals we prosecuted at Nuremburg after WWII were charged with the first two of these among other things. Why is it now OK for the Bush/Cheney criminal syndicate to do the same thing and not be prosecuted in an international court?

It has been a crime since FISA was set up to wiretap US citizens without a FISA warrant. Bush administration officials have already admitted they did this. Why do you think it’s OK for them to flagrantly and admittedly break the law but not be prosecuted?

But you just dismiss these because you are obviously unable or unwilling to talk specifics. I could understand if you were going to be the lawyer defending them that you would demand to see the specific laws they’ve broken but you’re not.

Whatever.

Posted by: EJN at December 1, 2008 6:40 PM
Comment #271301

Rhinehold,

Was that 2001 or 2004? If it was 2001, shame on them, if it was 2004, I agree with them.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 1, 2008 6:42 PM
Comment #271302

Jim> if there was insufficient evidence or will to impeach President Bush while in office why would
Jim> anyone believe it would be different after he leaves office.

In a US court this may be true. It would not necessarily be true in an international court. All I’m saying is if he’s so da-n sure the illegal war in Iraq and the torture is legal and justified, he shouldn’t be afraid to be tried in an international court.

The shifty, spineless US political system is no indicator as to what is right or ethical.

Posted by: EJN at December 1, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #271304

Rhinehold> Bush had much more UN authority to take action to remove Saddam than Clinton did in bombing
Rhinehold> Kosovo.

No, you’re wrong about that. Bush had no UN authority to go into Iraq because he didn’t even try to get UN authorization. Why? He knew he wasn’t going to get it. That’s why the motley crew of a few hungry nations (besides Britain) that went in to Iraq was called the “coalition of the willing”, because they were never anything like a “UN coalition”.

Rhinehold> Clinton’s actions were not sanctioned under UN authority. It was a NATO action.

The US bombing of Kosovo was certainly under UN sanction. NATO was also operating under that same sanction, but it was a UN sanction.

Nevertheless, Bush had no one’s sanction to invade Iraq or to torture.

Rhinehold> As for wild allegations, since you can’t come up with the laws that were broken,

Now this is pretty funny. I said Bush should be tried for illegally invading Iraq, torture and illegally wiretapping US citizens. But you say I “can’t come up with the laws that were broken”. On the other hand, YOU sir, suggest that Clinton and Albright and, by the way, every president since Reagan should be prosecuted if Bush is. Those are some mighty wild allegations and, I noticed, you didn’t name these laws they broke either. Way to call the kettle black, Rhinehold.

Rhinehold> not just decisions you disagree with,

HA, I disagreed with his decision to enact but not fund No Child Left Behind (for example), but I don’t think he should be prosecuted for it. On the other hand, illegal invasion, illegal torture and illegal wiretapping goes way beyond me disagreeing with his bonehead decisions.

Rhinehold> then I agree that we should not talk about such things.

Really, so who died and made you moderator of this board? I didn’t realize I needed the almighty Rhinehold’s permission to discuss things on this board.

Posted by: EJN at December 1, 2008 7:01 PM
Comment #271317

RH
You have again as usual come close to a valid point. Compared to Woodrow Wilson and the run up to WW1 and later the Bush contitutional violations were small. Wilson imprisoned newspaper editors,film makers and labor leaders. He also had purely political mailings he disagreed with siezed by the post office.He did however have the agreement of congress which passed the truly un-American Espionage and Sedition acts.
As for Iraq being an oil war you seem to be avoiding the answer. Yes we could have bought oil from Saddam but the goal was not supply. The goal was and is CONTROL. There is a big difference. It was part of an outmoded destructive global chess game with China ,as a consumer and Russia ,as a seller all over a commdodity that the world needs to stop useing. I do not envy your position as one of the few defenders of the worst administration in American history.

Posted by: bills at December 1, 2008 11:59 PM
Comment #271325
1) Illegal invasion of Iraq

You make an assumption of illegality of the action in Iraq but it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be AND is backed up by precident from the previous administration’s actions in Kosovo a few years earlier. We can have this dicussion but it can’t start with stating something as fact that is not determined yet.

2) Illegal torture of humans in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and other foreign countries

And you are providing those example, correct? Names, dates, places…

3) Illegal wiretapping of US citizens without a FISA warrant

Again, you make an assumption of illegality where there may not have been one, I for one have been trying to get a grasp on this. If the calls are international, do they fall under the FISA court? And are the FISA regulations even constitutional? Again, this is not as clear cut as you wish to make it out to be. I would prefer it not be done and would liked to have seen either the Republican or Democratic congresses put an end to it, but neither did. When making the action legal, did that remove some wind from the argument that the administration shouldn’t have been doing it?

The war criminals we prosecuted at Nuremburg after WWII were charged with the first two of these among other things. Why is it now OK for the Bush/Cheney criminal syndicate to do the same thing and not be prosecuted in an international court?

The same reason that it was ok for Clinton to do the same thing and not be charged as well.

But you just dismiss these because you are obviously unable or unwilling to talk specifics. I could understand if you were going to be the lawyer defending them that you would demand to see the specific laws they’ve broken but you’re not.

So…, you are saying that since I am not a defense laywer I shouldn’t question the charges of criminality?

Whatever.

Whatever indeed…

Was that 2001 or 2004? If it was 2001, shame on them, if it was 2004, I agree with them.

It was December 2000.

Rhinehold> Bush had much more UN authority to take action to remove Saddam than Clinton did in bombing Rhinehold> Kosovo.

No, you’re wrong about that. Bush had no UN authority to go into Iraq because he didn’t even try to get UN authorization. Why? He knew he wasn’t going to get it. That’s why the motley crew of a few hungry nations (besides Britain) that went in to Iraq was called the “coalition of the willing”, because they were never anything like a “UN coalition”.

Or because he already had that authorizatoin under 1441. As for ‘a few hungry nations’ I suppose Australia and Italy are 3rd world countries now?

Rhinehold> Clinton’s actions were not sanctioned under UN authority. It was a NATO action.

The US bombing of Kosovo was certainly under UN sanction. NATO was also operating under that same sanction, but it was a UN sanction.

Nevertheless, Bush had no one’s sanction to invade Iraq or to torture.

No, Clinton never NEVER had UN authority to take the actions that NATO did in Kosovo. The Security Council made it clear that they would veto any action so Clinton never attempted to get authorization. Sound familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Now this is pretty funny. I said Bush should be tried for illegally invading Iraq, torture and illegally wiretapping US citizens. But you say I “can’t come up with the laws that were broken”.

Yes, do you have the statute numbers and the dates, times and places that they were violated? Do you have the statements of jurisdictoin that those laws apply? Are you willing, in your zeal to ‘get Bush’ to assent to international authority of the soveriegnty of the US? Only then can a valid discussion on the legalities take place, unless you aren’t interested in such a discussion. Which I suspect is the case.

On the other hand, YOU sir, suggest that Clinton and Albright and, by the way, every president since Reagan should be prosecuted if Bush is. Those are some mighty wild allegations and, I noticed, you didn’t name these laws they broke either. Way to call the kettle black, Rhinehold.

No, it is the attribution of your argument back on to yourself. I know that people like to be able to say things about their political opponents without having their own side have to stand up to the same scrutiny, but the fact remains that the precident for the action taken in Iraq was set by those before him and if you are going to claim one’s actions as criminal, then you are going to have to accept that those who set the precidents should be held up as criminal as well and since those actions were committed first and are the precidents that later administrations use, then those trials have to be concluded first as well.

Rhinehold> then I agree that we should not talk about such things.

Really, so who died and made you moderator of this board? I didn’t realize I needed the almighty Rhinehold’s permission to discuss things on this board.

You don’t and I never said you didn’t. Are you attributing something I didn’t suggest to me somehow? Seems strange to me to suggest I never said you couldn’t. Agreeing to not talk about something and being told to not talk about something are two different things, but considering your ability to apply logic and reason to current events it is not surprising to me that you get this wrong as well.

I do not envy your position as one of the few defenders of the worst administration in American history.

First, I am not defending the administration en masse, only when accusations are being made that are unfounded as I have been possibly more critical against this administration than many on the left are willing to in some areas and Second, I find it laughabale that people claim this administration as ‘the worst in history’ when you yourself have admitted to the atrocoius things that was done in the run up to WWI…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 2, 2008 8:13 AM
Comment #271333
Rhinehold wrote: 2) Illegal torture of humans in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and other foreign countries … And you are providing those example, correct? Names, dates, places…
  • Name1: Spc. Sean Baker
  • Date1: Jan-2003
  • Place1: Guantanamo
  • Injuries/Violations1: brain damage from beating
  • Name2: Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, .
  • Date2: 25-SEP-2001
  • Place2: Syria
  • Injuries/Violations2: He said he was subjected to beatings.
  • Notes2: Was detained at Kennedy Airport two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks and transported to Syria. A year later he was released without being charged with any crime.
  • Name3: Khaled al-Masri (German, age 41)
  • Date3: 2004
  • Place3: Afghanistan
  • Injuries/Violations3: Mr. Masri says he was beaten, handcuffed, blindfolded, drugged, and flown to a CIA prison in Afghanistan; Says he was beaten frequently, and told he was being held in “a country without laws”.
  • Notes3: Eventually, the Washington Post has reported that the CIA concluded they had simply made a mistake, and Mr Masri was returned to the Balkans, dumped close to where he was found, and eventually made his way back to Germany. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that his case will be investigated by a German parliamentary committee. Scientific hair analysis was used to corroborate Masri’s story that he was abducted while on vacation in Macedonia and taken to a prison cell in Afghanistan. Mr. Masri was released five months later without being charged with a crime.
  • Name4: Mamdouh Habib,
  • Date4: SEP-2001
  • Place4: Egypt, Afghanistan, Guantanamo
  • Injuries/Violations4: During his detention, Mr. Habib said he was beaten, humiliated and subjected to electric shocks.
  • Notes4: He was released after 40 months (3.33 years) without being charged.
  • Name5: numerous
  • Date5: 2003 and after
  • Place5: Abu-Ghraib
  • Injuries5: numerous
  • Notes5: (WARNING: disturbing and graphic content): Based on what we know is true, there’s a very good chance other, more serious, abuses occurred. Many of the photos and images of abuse that were taken by the guards themselves:
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
    • www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560
    • www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
    • www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTavDZnrMk8
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag1.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag2.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag3.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag4.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag5.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag6.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag7.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag11.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag10.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag9.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag8.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag12.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag13.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag14.html
    • ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abu_ghraib_torture_photos/ag15.html
    • rawstory.com/news/2005/Australian_TV_station_releases_new_Abu_0215.html
    • www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/
    • FBI E-Mail says Bush authorized torture? newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1348
    • FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques - The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from “On Scene Commander—Baghdad” to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html
    • www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/14/BL2008041401428.html : President Bush says he was aware that his top aides met in the White House basement to micromanage the application of waterboarding and other widely-condemned interrogation techniques. And he says it was no big deal. “I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved,” Bush told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz on Friday. “I don’t know what’s new about that; I’m not so sure what’s so startling about that.” It’s true that it has been widely assumed and occasionally reported that the CIA’s use of brutal interrogation techniques could be traced back to the White House on a general level. But it was most definitely new last week when ABC News reported that a group of Bush’s top aides, including Vice President Cheney, took part in meetings where they explicitly discussed and approved — literally blow by blow — tactics such as waterboarding. And while Bush has previously defended these tactics — vaguely, and insisting against all evidence that they did not amount to torture — he had not, until now, acknowledged that he personally OK’d them beforehand.
    • Attorney General Mukasey Argues That Torture Authorizers ‘Cannot And Should Not’ Be Prosecuted Or Even Investigated: thinkprogress.org/2008/07/09/durbin-mukasey/
    • Bush admits approval of torture? your-rights.com/files/george_bush_admits_he_approved_torture.jpg
    • Rumsfeld Charged with Torture in French Court: www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/29/4890
    • Rule Change Lets C.I.A. Freely Send Suspects Abroad to Jails: www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/politics/06intel.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1110171600&en=1cc93f4f41f5156b&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    • Proof of Torture - The White House has insisted that torture at Abu Ghraib was an isolated aberration. Official documents prove that’s not true: www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/11/20
    • Watch program and see key documents - Congress grants immunity to officials ordered to torture: torturingdemocracy.org/
    • This episode shows how the U.S. government’s use of torture, kidnapping and unlawful detention in the “war on terror” is undermining the foundations of our democracy: aclu.tv/abuseofpower
    • Abuses of power: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/26684res20060906.html
    • Sending detainees to other countries to allow them do the torture: www.aclu.org/safefree/rendition/index.html
    • Proof of Torture: www.triskele.com/2006/02/16/red-cross-says-new-abu-ghraib-photos-are-proof-of-torture
Leaders and guilty parties may never be held accountable, which is why so many abuses not only exist, but flourish.
  • When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
  • When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
  • When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
  • When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.
  • When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. - Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
  • Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2008 10:42 AM
    Comment #271334

    Come on guys, surly your judgements on Bushs’ crimes are based on facts, so just give Rhinehold the facts he asks for.
    And while your at it, go ahead and send them to Pelosi too, she hasn’t seen such “evidence” either.

    Posted by: kctim at December 2, 2008 10:47 AM
    Comment #271335

    bills, agree with you on the Iraq oil. From Antonia Juhasz’s book The Tyranny of Oil she writes that the US Navy is building a command and control facility top one of Iraq’s offshore oil terminals to monitor and control shipping traffic in the North Persian Gulf. That Congress recently committed nearly $300M just for energy-infrastructure protection in Iraq. The Bush administration has pushed the Iraqis to pass the Iraq Oil Law. This would give the Iraq National Oil Co. control of only currently producing oil fields. All other fields, including all discoveries are to be opened to private companies using production sharing agreements (PSAs). Private companies therefore would have control of 64 percent of Iraqs known reserves. This would give private companies control of over 80% of all Iraq oil
    Under these terms foreign companies would not have to invest in the Iraq economy, hire Iraqis or share technology. All of the oil pumped could be exported. The companies would have production control therein jeopardizing Iraqs membership in OPEC. The law would grant the companies contracts of up to 35 years.
    Don’t know what the status of this effort is but one could assume that since the Iraqis have reached an agreement with the US on how long we maintain a military there this oil thing is a done deal by now.
    I don’t like to push conspiracy theories but I think this one has some merit: The reason Rumsfeld delayed the surge, for longer than WWII lasted, was to give Cheny/Haliburton time to hammer out an oil agreement with the Iraqi government and complete restoration of the oil fields, bring them up to US specs, etc using taxpayer dollars. Where would big oil be now if we had of went in and controlled the country for a couple of years and got out? No oil agreements, oil fields in disarray and somebody would have to pay to repair them, etc. It does sound good don’t it?

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 2, 2008 11:04 AM
    Comment #271340


    In the public domain, Bush has been impeached. In the public domain, Bush has been convicted. The public doesn’t need a unanimous decision, they know what he and his administration have done to this country. He may walk around free but, he will be in prison for the rest of his life and he will be remembered as one of the worst of the worst.

    Posted by: jlw at December 2, 2008 12:42 PM
    Comment #271341

    jlw,

    No, he hasn’t. Finding that someone has a low approval rating is not the same as saying that they feel he broke the law. He has been convicted of nothing either in reality or in the public domain, no matter how much you wish it.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at December 2, 2008 12:46 PM
    Comment #271343

    jlw, You’re right.

    Even if the leaders and guilty are never officially convicted, the truth will not likely be hidden from the public forever, and the public condemnation is well deserved.
    The buck has to stop somewhere.
    Otherwise, there is no accountability.
    Unfortunately, that’s the problem, today, in which (worst case), government officials resign or are fired, but still receive their multi-million dollar pensions.

    What we already know is very damning:


    It’s happened before, and will probably happen again, but none justify it, nor should ever be ignored.

    Congress is culpable too.
    Certain members of Congress had security clearances too.

    110 (43%) of 256 Democrats of 535 Members of Congress voted Yes for authorization to invade Iraq.
    263 (97%) of 271 Republicans of 535 Members of Congress voted Yes for authorization to invade Iraq.
    373 (70%) of 535 Members of Congress voted Yes for authorization to invade Iraq.

    And the voters are culpable too. We are all culpable to varying degress. At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2008 1:15 PM
    Comment #271355

    I expect this turn of the century will become known in history as the era when the greatest hoax in the world was put on the people of America. The country took on a globalized economy without a whimper or a bang. There were a few economist who waved the caution flag and a few books were published such as Joel’s Delusional Democracy and Pat Choate’s Dangerous Business. A few Texan’s are ranting about the taking of 500,000 acres of land by eminent domain. Interesting, now that it’s done some talking heads are coming out of the wood work and suggesting that the government should have informed the people, etc etc. And the folks will suck it up I’m sure. Other than that, a completed project, and pretty much according to schedule. They are going to help with retraining but nobody can figure out what they should be retrained for. The great hoax was accomplished in large part through great secrecy in putting together a shadow regional government, rampant squandering of the country’s wealth with the support of a supposedly conservative element of government, and year over year high inflation which served to weaken the middle class and make them ready for globalization.
    The big three are back in town this week. A 27 year low for the US domestic auto producers. Over 28 years some 20 foreign manufacturers have received more than $3.3B in tax breaks/sudsidies. This year Tenn gave VW $577M. Last year Honda Ohio received $27M and Nissan Tenn received $233M. There is some talk of putting together a national auto industry plan to try and get things on a more level playing field.
    Apparently there is around $10T of bailout money available. And word is we have been in recession since Dec 07. David Cay Johnson thinks unemployment is around 12% rather than the 6.5% being touted by the Fed.
    Personally, I think they are taking the bailout to take care of pensions and benefits and shutter their US plants. If the big three can produce cars in China, ship them to the US and sell them cheaper than they can make cars in the Ohio why would they want to continue making cars here? I really don’t see how it is possible to be profitable here when competing against conglomerates involved in clustered manufacturing, with access to the worlds cheapest labor market. The US workers wage would have to be on the order of $6/hr to compete in that environment. It will take another 10 years to get US workers wages to that level. Just leaves me scratchin my britches.

    People don’t seem to be upset. Just taking a wait and see attitude. 15% or 45M with no health insurance, 4M filing for unemployment compensation, 2M jobs lost just this year, 542,000 in one recent week in November, trust in government at 17% and there seems to be little worry or concern.


    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 2, 2008 7:48 PM
    Comment #271377

    If somebody were to put these jokers in jail over what they did, I wouldn’t complain that it was unjust. Making it a nation priority, though, seems to me to be a distraction from the real problems we’ve got.

    I would rather fix the messes Bush left behind than fix his wagon with a prison sentence.

    If an investigation turns up prosecutable evidence of his illegal behavior, I’m all for somebody pursuing it to the fullest extent of the law, whatever we do. But what I want is that person to be suitably chastened by the thought of the backlash from the right that they make the case airtight, difficult to impossible to fault. I want the prosecution to be as lacking in controversy and drama as it can be.

    And why? Because I don’t want to waste the time and effort required to pull off that prosecution just to have another distracting circus, while the needs of this country go unmet. The thing that lead me to regard the Republican Congressional majorities and the Bush administration with such contempt was their willingness to divert the country from needed concentration on getting policy right just to make their political points or further their electoral fortunes.

    I would love to see an example made out of the Bush Administration, and the criminals in it. But given the choice of making that example out of him, and repairing the damage he did to the justice department, because the former is of largely symbolic value, and and the latter is relevant to the administration of justice across the board. Symbols can be meaningful, but as of late, the system has been burdened with symbolic, well intentioned, and largely ineffective measures of this kind, and I’m inclined that we go cold turkey on that kind of waste of time, money and resources.

    I didn’t back Obama so I could see revenge, retribution, or even mere justice visited on the Bush Administration. I backed him so that we could get out of the policy hole Bush dug us into. I backed him so I could have a leader committed to real reform and policy change. That is where my priorities lie.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 3, 2008 10:33 AM
    Comment #271395

    >Marysdude asked: Was that 2001 or 2004? If it was 2001, shame on them, if it was 2004, I agree with them.

    Rhinehold answered: It was December 2000.

    Rhinehold,

    I went to the site you mentioned (www.democrats.com), and the earliest post I could find was October, 2004. The site copyright was listed as 2006.

    Are you sure they called for a Bush impeachment in December of 2000?

    Posted by: Marysdude at December 3, 2008 2:34 PM
    Comment #271396


    I think a healthy attitude for democrats to have is one of forgive and forget considering the fact that many democrat politicians were enablers of all the Bush Administration has done. The next time, it might be a democrat administration that is the recipient of a desire for revenge and retribution. If that is the case, will the republicans be as forgeting and forgiving?

    Posted by: jlw at December 3, 2008 2:40 PM
    Comment #271407

    jlw-
    Oh, I have no problem in the checks and balances of the rule of law visiting themselves upon errant politicians of either party. If they are Republicans, it’s obviously to my party’s advantage to get rid of them. If they are Democrats, then we are best rid of them, to rid ourselves of the aroma of corruption.

    Either way, I have no use for them. But I want the repair of the damage to come first. I want our administration to be forward looking, and prosecute those things that they inevitably will run into in the course of figuring out the damage. Keep things clean, keep the prosecutions well founded and excruciatingly tight. That way those who are guilty of doing wrong will have less means to worm their way out of their fate.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 3, 2008 6:09 PM
    Comment #271408

    Is there really any credible proof that Barack Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii on 04-AUG-1961:07:24PM , or doesn’t have a valid birth certificate (with certificate # 151 1961 - 010641) ?

    Is it possible that the certificates were planted?
    Some people are easy to buy.
    Documents are so easy to fake.
    Just ask 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens.

    However, if it is a conspiracy, it is a very clever conspiracy, because in late July, 2008, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama (instead) found a 04-AUG-1961 birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961

    Posted by: d.a.n at December 3, 2008 6:12 PM
    Comment #271410

    d.a.n. you have to watch wikipedia once in a while ,”” Paul Volcker, a Democrat[3], was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan.[4] Volcker’s Fed is widely credited with ending the United States’ stagflation crisis of the 1970s by limiting the growth of the money supply, abandoning the previous policy of targeting interest rates. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983. [1]

    However, the change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels “” Inflation peaked in 1980!!!! http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp

    Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 3, 2008 7:19 PM
    Comment #271413
    Rodney Brown wrote: Volcker’s Fed is widely credited with ending the United States’ stagflation crisis of the 1970s by limiting the growth of the money supply, abandoning the previous policy of targeting interest rates. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983.
    Lowered to 3.2% ?

    HHHHhhhhhhm … Yes, reducing the rampant creation of money out of thin air most likely did lower inflation some, but how much?

    After all, the federal government also modified (www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data) the way inflation is calculated in year 1983 and again in year 1998.

    Inflation may actually be much higher today than has been reported.

    The inflation calculations were suspiciously modified in year 1983 and again in year 1998, such that the CPI weightings on some items (of 10,000 items) were lowered on some items rising in price, and increased on some items falling in price.
    The error has been compounded year after year.
    Based on the previous calculation methods, inflation is much higher …

    • _____________ INFLATION RATES (as of 1-NOV-2008)___________

    • 16.0% |———————————————————-

    • 15.5% |——————————————————-3-

    • 15.0% |——————————————————-33

    • 14.5% |——————————————————-33

    • 14.0% |——————————————————-33

    • 13.5% |——————————————————3-3

    • 13.0% |——————————————————3—3 (13.2%)

    • 12.5% |——————————————————3—

    • 12.0% |——————————————————3—

    • 11.5% |——————————-3——————-3—-

    • 11.0% |——————————3-333—————3—-

    • 10.5% |—————————-3——-3————-3—-

    • 10.0% |3————-3———33———3——-33-3——

    • 09.5% |-3———-3 3——3————-3—33—3—-8-

    • 09.0% |—3——-3—-3333—————-3-3———88

    • 08.5% |—-3—-3——————————3————88

    • 08.0% |——333——————————————-8—8 (7.8%)

    • 07.5% |——————————-8——————-8—-

    • 07.0% |——————————8-888—————8—-

    • 06.5% |—————————-8——-8————-8—-

    • 06.0% |8————-8———88———8——-88-8——

    • 05.5% |-8———-8 8——8————-8—88—8—-c-

    • 05.0% |—8——-8—-8888—————-8-8———cc

    • 04.5% |—-8—-8——————-c———8————cc

    • 04.0% |c—-888——————-c-ccc—————-c-c

    • 03.5% |-c————————-c——-c—————c—c (3.7% current method)

    • 03.0% |—c———-c———cc———c————-c—-

    • 02.5% |—c———c-c——c————-c——cc-c——

    • 02.0% |—-c——c—-cccc—————-c-cc—c——-

    • 01.5% |——c—c——————————c—————

    • 01.0% |——-cc————————————————

    • 00.5% |———————————————————-

    • 00.0% |———————————————————-

    • _______2——2——2——2——2——2——2——2—O

    • _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—C

    • _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—T

    • _______1——2——3——4——5——6——7——8—

    • WHERE:

    • 3=Pre-1983 Inflation measurement method

    • 9=Pre-1998 Inflation measurement method

    • c=Current Inflation measurement method

    Therefore, inflation as of 1-NOV-2008 is 13.2% based on the pre-1983 inflation measurement method (instead of the 3.7% based on the current measurement method).
    And inflation as of 1-NOV-2008 is 7.8% based on the pre-1998 inflation measurement method.

    Also, we’ve had positive inflation for 52 consecutive years.
    That’s essentially exponential inflation, since 3% this year is worse than 3% the year before, etc.

    • INFLATION (one-simple-idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Inflation0) CPI (CPI Index=100 for year 1967):
    • 650 |———————————-x (=665 as of JAN-2008)
    • 600 |———————————x
    • 550 |———————————x
    • 500 |——————————-x-
    • 450 |——————————-x-
    • 400 |——————————-x-
    • 350 |——————————x—
    • 300 |—————————-x—-
    • 250 |—————————-x—-
    • 200 |—————————x——
    • 150 |—————————x——
    • 100 |————————x———
    • 050 |x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x————
    • 000 |—————————————
    • YEAR
    • _____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
    • _____ 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 00
    • _____ 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 01
    • _____ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

    Inflation Rate for AUG-2007 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 207.917) / 207.917 = 5.37% (an AUG-2007 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.95 in AUG-2008).
    Inflation Rate for AUG-2000 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 172.8) / 172.8 = 26.79% (an AUG-2000 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.79 in AUG-2008).
    Inflation Rate for AUG-1990 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 131.6) / 131.6 = 66.48% (an AUG-1990 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.60 in AUG-2008).
    Inflation Rate for AUG-1978 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 66.0) / 66.0 = 231.95% (an AUG-1978 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.30 in AUG-2008).
    Inflation Rate for AUG-1950 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 24.3) / 24.3 = 801.59% (an AUG-1950 $1 Dollar is now worth only about $0.11 in AUG-2008).

    Currently, inflation is reported to be about 3.7% as of 1-NOV-2008, and on track to be 4.28% for year 2008 (on average).
    Home and gasoline prices are down, but do you really think inflation is only 3.7% (and 4.28% on average for 2098) ?

    • ____INFLATION RATE_____

    • 4.50%|———————-

    • 4.25%|——————xxx (4.28% average for year 2008)

    • 4.00%|——————x—

    • 3.75%|——————x—

    • 3.50%|——————x—

    • 3.25%|————xxx-x—

    • 3.00%|————x-xxx—

    • 2.75%|——xxx-x———

    • 2.50%|——x-xxx———

    • 2.25%|—xxx—————

    • 2.00%|—x——————

    • 1.75%|—x——————

    • 1.50%|xxx——————

    • 1.25%|__________________YEAR

    • _____ 2_2_2_2_2_2_2

    • _____ 0_0_0_0_0_0_0

    • _____ 0_0_0_0_0_0_0

    • _____ 2_3_4_5_6_7_8

    I think our massive debt pyramid is the result of incessant inflation and our dishonest, usurious, inlationary monetary system that we have, where new money is created out of thin air at a huge 9-to-1 ratio of debt-to-reserves.
    It has created a massive debt pyramid.
    95% of all U.S. money in existence is the Principal portion of all Loans.

    PRINCIPAL OWED
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————|
    |——————| ALL MONEY IN
    |——————| CIRCULATION
    |——————|——————|
    |——————|——————|

    That is, 95% of all money is debt (i.e. Principal).
    Only 5% of all money in existence is in the form of physical money (e.g. paper currency and coinage).
    But there’s also Interest due on much of that Principal Debt.
    Where will the Interest come from, when the bank only creates the Principal portion of debt at a 9-to-1 ratio?
    It’s a vicious circle.
    It’s a pyramid scheme, in which the debt grows and grows and grows, as everyone chases fewer and fewer dollars to pay their ever growing debts (as shown in graph below).
    The debt pyramid will collapse when most people are deep in debt, and unable to borrow and carry more debt.
    The federal government and Federal Reserve know this.
    That is why the federal government and Federal Reserve are now considering giving money to consumers in the form of stimulus checks.
    But it would take massive amounts of money to put a tiny dent in the $54-to-$67 Trillion debt-pyramid.
    They know this too.
    It doesn’t make sense, because if they keep creating massive amounts of money out of thin air, they will make a bad situation worse.

    You know something is fundamentally and seriously wrong when the government is planning to give away trillions of dollars to average tax payers.

    The debt pyramid could collapse at anytime, now.

    The M3 Money Supply was $135 Billion in year 1950.
    The M3 Money Supply grew to $10.15 Trillion by year 2005.
    That is an increase of 7520% ?
    We did not become 75.2 times wealthier since year 1950.
    Especially not since the population doubled since year 1950.
    What is it today?
    Who knows with all of these panicky bail-outs for the banks, corporations, wealthy, and Wall Street?

    And how can Trillions of dollars be pumped into the banks and corporations and inflation only be 3.7% today?
    Something doesn’t seem right.
    Injecting that much money into the economy should be producing more inflation.
    Perhaps that money isn’t getting circulated into the economy very well ?
    Or there’s something wrong with the way inflation is being calculated (since it was modified in 1983 and 1998) ?

    Is inflation (www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data) really only 3.7% (as of 1-NOV-2008 )?

    Is the National Debt really $10.7 Trillion (or much larger), with trillions in bail-outs?

    Is unemployment really 6.5% ?

    And why are we only finding out now that we’ve been in a recession since December 2007 ?

    In November of 2006, I created this web page about a possible recession in year 2007.
    However, I now think we have been in a recession since late 2006, or early 2007 ?
    Why?
    Because, after doing some calculations on GDP (using previous U.S. Dollars adjusted for inflation), GDP has been falling since year 2006 (see graph), and the dip in GDP (one-simple-idea.com/GDPAdjustedForInflation2005and1950Dollars.gif) has never been that large ever since year 1900 (if ever), regardless of whether it is measured in 2005 Dollars or 1950 Dollars.

    The problem with looking at Nominal GDP only in current U.S. Dollars is that inflation can hide a real fall in GDP.
    That is, GDP may be increasing, but inflation is out-pacing it.
    That is why there is a huge dip in GDP (whether viewed in 2005 or 1950 Dollars) since late 2006 -to- early 2007.

    Perhaps that is what compelled someone to come clean about whether we are really in recession (or not)?

    So, what else are we being lied to about ?

    In my opinion, the Federal Reserve and federal government have major conflicts of interest, and a desire to create as much new money as possible out of thin air, as evidenced by positive inflation for every consecutive year of the last 52 years (since 1956).
    Greed is at the root of it.
    The Federal Reserve is a pyramid scheme.
    We have a huge debt pyramd ($54-to-$67 Trillion if nation-wide debt).
    What’s the solution?
    There is no good solution, but that doesn’t mean a bad situation can’t be made much worse.
    No one can say where the money will come from to merely pay the Interest ($429 Billion in 2007) on the $10.7 Trillion National Debt, much less the money to pay down the Principal debt, to keep it from growing ever larger.
    The federal government has been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years.
    Americans are over-spending, and now the nation is swimming in massive debt.

    That is, the glaring flaw in the agument that the federal government and Federal Reserve are not both to blame is a huge debt-pyramid and a nation swimming in debt; debt that has been growing ever larger (in magnitude and as a percentage of GDP) for over 50 years:

    • ____________ Nation-Wide Debt ________________

    • $70.0T |——————————————

    • $67.5T |—————————————-D (Debt=$67 T)

    • $65.0T |—————————————-D

    • $62.5T |—————————————-D

    • $60.0T |—————————————-D

    • $57.5T |—————————————D-

    • $55.0T |—————————————D-

    • $52.5T |—————————————D-

    • $50.0T |—————————————D-

    • $47.5T |—————————————D-

    • $45.0T |—————————————D-

    • $42.5T |—————————————D-

    • $40.0T |————————————-D

    • $37.5T |————————————D—-

    • $35.0T |———————————-D——

    • $32.5T |———————————-D——

    • $30.0T |———————————D——-

    • $27.5T |——————————-D———

    • $25.0T |——————————D———-

    • $22.5T |—————————-D————

    • $20.0T |—————————D————-

    • $17.5T |————————-D—————

    • $15.0T |————————D—————-

    • $12.5T |———————D——————G (GDP=$13.9T year 2007)

    • $10.0T |—————-D—————G
    • ——-
    • $07.5T |———-D————G
    • —————-
    • $05.0T |-D——-G
    • ——————————
    • $02.5T |-G
    • —————————————
    • $00.0T +(1956)————————- (2008)YEAR

      The nation-wide debt has grown from 100% of GDP (in year 1956) to 482% of GDP (in 2008).
      The debt pyramid could collapse at anytime, now.
      It’s not a matter of IF.
      It’s only a matter of WHEN.

      There’s going to be some unavoidable pain.
      There’s going to be a lot of losses.
      However, if the federal government and Federal Reserve try to fix things by massive bail-outs, and creating trillions of dollars out of thin air, it will make a bad situation much worse.
      Again, you know something is very fundamentally and seriously wrong when the government is planning to give away trillions of dollars to average tax payers.

      What will the result of that be?
      Hyperinflation has happened before and it can happen again.
      Today, we have the perfect ingredients for hyperinflation (not only in the U.S., but in numerous nations).
      Hyperinflation has occurred in the following countries in the last 150 years:

      • Weimar Republic of Germany 1920 – 1923 (1/466 billionth of starting value),

      • Zimbabwe 2003 - present (6 quadrillionth of the starting value and continuing to fall),

      • Former Soviet Union 1993 – 2002 (1/14th of starting value),

      • Argentina 1975 – 1983 (1/1,000th of starting value),

      • Austria 1921 – 1923 (about 1/4 of starting value),

      • Bolivia 1984 - 1986 (1/1,000 of starting value);

      • Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992 – 1993 (1/100,000th of starting value),

      • Brazil 1960 – 1994 (1 trillionth of starting value), Chile 1971 – 1973 (1/3rd of starting value),

      • China 1947 – 1955 (1/10,000th of starting value),

      • Greece 1943 – 1953 (1/50 trillionth of starting value),

      • Hungary 1945 – 1946 (100 quintillionth of the starting value),

      • Hungary 1922 – 1923 (1/4 of starting value),

      • Israel 1976 – 1986 (1/16th of starting value),

      • Japan 1934 – 1951 (1/362nd of starting value),

      • Poland 1990 – 94 (1/10,000th of starting value),

      • U.S.A. (Confederate States of America) 1861 – 1865 (1/90th of starting value, and then, by the end of the Civil War, the Confederate Dollar depreciated to zero).

      • It also happened in the ancient Roman Empire, when the silver and gold coinage of that day was progressively debased with base metals, in order to fund wars, giveaways to the Plebeians, and various other adventures. There are many additional examples that I have not bothered to cover here.
      If the federal government and the Federal Reserve crash the currency, then you may need a wheelbarrow full of U.S. currency to merely buy a loaf of bread. There is a fairly strong possibility of this happening, because of a perfect storm of economic problems, and the motive to prevent defaulting on current debt by creating more money out of thin air (www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk&feature=related).

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 3, 2008 10:50 PM
      Comment #271416
      I went to the site you mentioned (www.democrats.com), and the earliest post I could find was October, 2004. The site copyright was listed as 2006.

      Are you sure they called for a Bush impeachment in December of 2000?

      Yes. They asked for him to resign, for Jeb to be impeached and then for him to be impeached, etc.

      Check out the site on the internet archive at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.democrats.com

      The site was started by several disgrunteled Clinton advisors/staffers/supporters upset that Clinton was impeached and they wanted revenge and were not apologetic about it. You can also see on this site in the month after 9/11 they were not being kind to Bush then either, even though we here the rewriting of history recently that everyone gave him a free ride after the attacks, it wasn’t true. Thankfully with the knowledge that the internet has been being archived, we can see those lies for what they are.

      Posted by: Rhinehold at December 4, 2008 12:51 AM
      Comment #271419

      >The site was started by several disgrunteled Clinton advisors/staffers/supporters upset that Clinton was impeached and they wanted revenge and were not apologetic about it.
      Posted by: Rhinehold at December 4, 2008 12:51 AM

      Rhinehold,

      Their reasoning was sound, even then. Look at all the ugly we would have missed if there had been an impeachment in 2001 (of course Cheney would have had to go too). Those guys had a good point…if we are going to impeach over a stain, we should be able to impeach over a vengeful feeling.

      You initially made this sound as if the Democratic party was forming a movement or something…heck, a bunch of revenge seeking, ex-West wingers…shrug…

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2008 1:53 AM
      Comment #271422

      *sigh* Clinton wasn’t impeached because ‘of a stain’, he was impeached for lying under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit to avoid a law that he signed into effect…

      Ah crap, nevermind.

      Posted by: Rhinehold at December 4, 2008 3:21 AM
      Comment #271428

      Oh, Crap! Clinton was impeached after several years and seventy million dollars of bogus investigations into what color boxers he wore when he jogged over to McDonalds, and ended up actually being impeached because he lied about a frikkin STAIN on a blue dress, and a loose cannon of a b…person who thought she could get her 15 minutes of fame.

      *Sigh*, never mind…

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2008 9:52 AM
      Comment #271445

      Good stats d.a.n. But did you read my post?;0) “”“” Per wikipedia Inflation which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983. [1]

      However, the change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels “”” RB Said INFLATION PEAKED IN !(*)!! ***1980*** !!! AND HIS ACTIONS “VOLCKER” LEAD US IN A RECESSION.

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 4, 2008 1:25 PM
      Comment #271448

      I see, so when a woman claims sexual harassment, we should just all ignore it in the future. That’s the lesson I take from how Paula Jones was treated by the left in this case, considering the Judge felt that there was clearly enough evidence for a trial.

      And the ‘bogus investigation’ was from Clinton’s own Attorney General’s office, yet the left wants to make it a right vs left issue…

      Interesting how there are so many fewer sexual harassment cases these days, as if women are now afraid to come forward… Guess I wouldn’t blame them, woh wants to be called a ‘a loose cannon of a b…’ trying to get 15 minutes of fame knowing what she was going to be called.

      BTW, the case was not dismissed because it didn’t happen, only because she failed to show how she was damaged. LOL. Clinton settled the appeal out of court.

      And, again, you want to ignore that before Clinton signed the law into effect, sexual harassment defendants could not be questioned about their past sexual history. Surrounded by the likes of NOW and other feminist groups, he championed and signed into law the statutes that allowed this to occur in sexual harassment lawsuits. It was this law that he attempted to circumvent.

      I know you don’t think that lying under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit (whether you think the claimant is a whore or not) is no big deal, but I daresay had it happened to any republican you would be spitting nails and you know it. The only difference is I wouldn’t care if it was a dem or rep…

      Posted by: Rhinehold at December 4, 2008 1:46 PM
      Comment #271449

      BTW, when I said enough evidence for a trial, I meant the depositions. It was dismissed before trial because of a failure to show damage, not because it didn’t happen.

      After all, she should have been flattered to be propositioned in a hotel room by her boss who was a charismatic governor!

      Posted by: Rhinehold at December 4, 2008 1:50 PM
      Comment #271451


      Dan: you inflated my depression.

      Imagine what the minimum wage would be if it had just kept pace with the inflation rates announced by the government.

      Before Obama was elected, he said that he would raise the minimum wage to a living wage (whatever that means) and index it to inflation. If he was to actually do that, minimum wage workers would immediately start falling behind again. If every wage in the country was indexed to inflation, every wage would fall furthur behind each year.

      Posted by: jlw at December 4, 2008 2:19 PM
      Comment #271453

      jwl,

      Good point.
      I think another reason they modified the inflation calculation was because Social Security benefit increases are linked to the inflation calculation. Therefore, Social Security recipients are getting less too.

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 4, 2008 2:34 PM
      Comment #271454
      Rodney Brown wrote: Good stats d.a.n. But did you read my post?;0) “”“” Per wikipedia Inflation which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983. [1] However, the change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels “”” RB Said INFLATION PEAKED IN !(*)!! ***1980*** !!! AND HIS ACTIONS “VOLCKER” LEAD US IN A RECESSION.

      Yes, I did noticed that. I’m sorry for not acknowledging that.

      Yes, and I completely agree that Volcker was jointly responsible , along with the Federal Reserve with their 9-to-1 debt-to-reserve fractional banking , and the federal government’s complete fiscal irresponsibility and deficit spending for 52 consecutive years.

      I think the federal government and the Federal Reserve are complicit in creating bubble after bubble, due to the economic instability caused by incessant inflation for 52 consecutive years, and everyone running aroud like chickens with their head cut-off looking for someplace to put their money so that it won’t be eroded by incessant inflation.

      And G.W. Bush (43), and his administration has done about as much as any has ever done to make all of it worse.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 4, 2008 2:46 PM
      Comment #271455

      Rhinehold,

      There was enough evidence to take it to trial…not necessarily to convict.

      The B…referred to was the one who taped, without consent conversations between two parties in private conversation…if you can think of a more fitting term, be my guest.

      My problem with the whole thing has always been that the government spent seventy millions of dollars on an investigation that was wired from the start because the primary investigator was in the pocket of a wealthy individual who had a h…on for Clinton and had had it for a couple of decades before his running for national office. I do not think there is an individual on the face of the earth who could pass muster under those conditions. That Clinton only lied about something that could hurt his family, he has been forgiven for by most of us…there are still a few who refuse to face the reality of the situation…for that they will pay with a bitter aspect into the future…I pity them.

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2008 2:46 PM
      Comment #271464

      Just to be clear, I never cared a whit about whether or not Clinton had an affair or not. But lying under oath is just not acceptable. Further, displaying an attitude that you can ignore the very laws that you make is one I would like to see us steer away from.

      I don’t think Clinton was investigated enough, but only on the areas that he should have been investigated on.

      First, he (and his wife and administration) admitted to obstruction of justice in the area of Foster’s suicide. The administration said that they cleaned out Foster’s office before letting in police, had we done that we would have been brought up on charges. Why was he treated special?

      Second, his involvement (and Gore’s) in campaign funds for missle technology for China that they should not have been given (Bush was have been rightfully excoriated for the left for doing the same thing) has never been really investigated either.

      Third, what happened at Waco is a very very low point in our history. I won’t go into all of the details or the coverups but suffice to say that again, had the president at the time been Bush, the screams for immediate arrest would have been deafening.

      Finally, the president never paid any price for his lying under oath. He should have gotten much more than Kwame Kilpatrick and Christine Beatty who pleabargained to lesser jail time for the same thing.

      KILPATRICK’S EX-AIDE/LOVER PLEADS GUILTY: Christine Beatty gets jail time for lying about sex with ex-Detroit mayor.

      *Christine Beatty, the ex-aide to former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, will spend four months in jail after pleading guilty Monday to two obstruction of justice charges stemming from their infamous text-messaging sex scandal.

      “I lied under oath,” a tearful Beatty told the judge, echoing the words her former boss, Kilpatrick, uttered in a courtroom during his own guilty plea three months earlier. Both admitted lying when they claimed they were not romantically involved. They were both married at the time.

      Under the deal with prosecutors, Beatty, 38, will be sentenced next month to serve four months in jail and five years of probation. She will also pay $100,000 in restitution to the city, reports the Associated Press.

      The plea deal also called for Beatty to read aloud a statement saying she lied in the whistle-blowers’ trial, in a deposition and at a 2007 hearing.

      Beatty, who had been charged with perjury, misconduct and obstruction of justice, was initially unable to choke back tears, so Wayne County Circuit Judge Timothy Kenny gave her a moment to compose herself.

      “I lied under oath … ,” Beatty said. “I did so with the intent to mislead the court and jury and to impede and obstruct the fair administration of justice.”

      Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said she was happy with the outcome. “We live in a society where greed is glorified,” she said. “There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand and say, ‘No more.’”

      So twice that I know if Clinton obstructed justice, once we know personally, not just his administration. Yet never was found guilty, committed any jail time.

      And then we have the issue of his illegal bombing of Kosovo (according to the standards set forth in this article), the bombing of the al-Shifa pharmacutical plant because al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together to create chemical weapons there (and he and Richard Clarke still contend that they were), and other incidents I won’t go into here…

      Yet those same people who defend these issues will say that Bush should be put in the Hague when he was given the authority to invade Iraq by a congress almost unanimously, including several Democrats given upper level jobs in the Obama white house…

      It goes without saying that the duplicity that the left is displaying on this issue is astounding.

      Posted by: Rhinehold at December 4, 2008 4:37 PM
      Comment #271465

      Whether Bush could be impeached or not I think it’s a good thing to air it out in a court room. In today’s news noted that a Mexican truck in New York was found to be carrying 155 lbs of Meth with a street value of $11M. There are something like 5M trucks crossing the border annually with very few subject to inspection. In fact, with the fastran RFID border crossing system many trucks are preapproved in Mexico and cross the Southern border unimpeded. About 4500 people have been murdered on the Mexican side this year. Increasingly, bodies are showing unmistakable signs of torture. Videos of executions are posted on the Internet. Bodies are dumped on playgrounds, often with the heads removed. Recently, in Tijuana, 37 bodies people were slain over a weekend including four children. Nine were decapitated, including three police officers whose badges were stuff in their mouths. Quite something that the klepto-plutocracy would bring such violence to the border. Beginning with the amnesty by the Regan administration promises were made relative to controlling the border. After 9/11 people thought it was a slam dunk. But, as the drug trade represents one of the top ten businesses in the US it’s hard for the klepto-plutocracy to give it up.
      A new third party with an agenda targeted specifically at reform could take care of the border problem fast.

      Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 4, 2008 4:41 PM
      Comment #271475

      Politicians are above the law in our kleptocratic plutocracy.

      Even if convicted, most stand a good chance to get a pardon (such as Dan Rostenkowski who pleaded guilty, and 546 others pardoned; 140 pardons on Clinton’s last day in office) or commuted sentence (such as Lewis Libby by G.W. Bush (43)).

      Lying (even under oath) is no big deal anymore, in this era of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

      But, perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic , complacent , and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are deep in debt) , jobless , homeless , and hungry as a result of these 10+ abuses and these 17+ deteriorating economic conditions?

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 4, 2008 10:30 PM
      Comment #271476

      Rhinehold, you’ve been beating that poor, dead horse for a few years now. Let the thing rest.

      Posted by: janedoe at December 4, 2008 11:34 PM
      Comment #271482

      janedoe,

      There is no rest for the righteous…Clinton knew he was innocent of the Whitewater real estate deal, and authorized a special prosecutor to look into the matter. The three judge panel that selected the prosecutor failed to give the proper guidelines for that investigation, and we ended up with an impeachment so far removed from the subject of the initial investigation it was almost humorous. Everything that occurred did so because of one super-vindictive man who had a ton of money, and a willingness to keep the pot boiling. Apparently his influences are still being felt, by the righteous, today. It’s called ‘tilting at windmills’…

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 5, 2008 2:25 AM
      Comment #271486

      janedoe,

      As has the left about Bush, yet they keep on wailing…

      This isn’t about Clinton or Bush, it is about hypocrisy. That the left can’t see it is the biggest part of the problem.

      Posted by: Rhinehold at December 5, 2008 5:31 AM
      Comment #271493
      Rhinehold wrote: That the left can’t see it is the biggest part of the problem.
      Neither of the core believers on either side can see it.

      Clinton lied under oath (a felony), and pardoned 456 felons (140 on his last day in office).

      Bush either lied, or was severely negligent and/or incompetent about WMD and 99+ blunders that followed. Bush commuted Lewis Libby.

      Both despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion (and Obama is no better on that score).

      Take your pick.

      They’re all FOR-SALE, corrupt, irresponsible, and/or incompetent.

      The bar is set so, so, so very low.

      The core left loves Clinton.
      The core right loves Bush.
      Most on both sides don’t get it.
      They are people-centric instead of principle-centric, and can twist, rationalize, contort, and explain-away anything that does not fit into their desired perception, and blind partisan loyalties.
      And anyone that points this out is a perfectionist, unrealistic, and ridiculed for not accepting what is now only worse than mediocrity, but a kleptocratic plutocracy.

      The only thing worse is the majority of voters who repeatedly reward all of them with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite non-stop whining about the kleptocratic plutocracy, corruption, incompetence, and dismal approval ratings for Congress (as low as 9%-to-18%) and the White House administration.

      There’s a lot of optimism lately since the last election (4-NOV-2008).

      Though it will be seen as pessimism, I think (realistically) that many people are going to be disappointed.

      After all,

      • (01) Who voted for the first $700 Billion bail-out that led to $8.5+ Trillion in scheduled bail-outs (perhaps math should be required for all Congress persons, presidents, and vice presidents?): www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-pricetag30-2008nov30,0,7501177.story ?

      • (02) Who lied about taking money from lobbyists (Obama took big money from over 40 lobbyists: www.rollcall.com/issues/54_15/news/27159-1.html?type=printer_friendly )?

      • (03) Who made gargantuan promises of all kinds only to be surprised by an unexpected economic meltdown ?

      • (04) Who taught Constitutional law, but ignores numerous constitutional violations: One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm ?

      • (05) Who admitted that deficit spending will continue for many years ?

      • (06) Who thinks the Federal Reserve and/or U.S. Treasury is doing a fine job ?

      • (07) Who tapped Janet Napalitono (an open-borders queen and shamnesty-wolf in enforcement clothing) for Department of Homeland Security? What a scam ? ! ?

      • (08) Who wants to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses (and amnesty if possible, again, despite the amnesty of 1986 which quintupled or sextupled the problem) ?

      • (09) Who said in a debate with Hillary Clinton that we need to tone down the rhetoric on illegal immigration, because some illegal aliens are being persecuted? Yet, who is despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion? Who is the real villain here ? Who ignores the thousands of Americans murdered every year by illegal aliens (more Americans murdered in the last 3 years by illegal aliens than all U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years)?

      • pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion? Who is the real villain here ?
      • (10) Who said undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive? Yet, who said they want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses?

      • (11) Who said we should give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship (Jun 2007)? Yeah right … like the shamnesty of 1986 ?

      • (12) Who said we should extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants.(Jul 1998)? Already, 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare. Where is Barack Obama’s compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers? Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas, TX reported (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp) that 70% of the women giving birth in the first 3 months of year of 2006 were illegal aliens; hundreds of hospitals have closed (60 to 84 hospitals in California alone) ?

      • (13) Who voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform (Jun 2007; The SHAMNESTY BILL which was defeated) ?

      • (14) Who voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government (Jun 2007) ?

      • (15) Who voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program (May 2006) to keep the inflow of cheap labor to keep wages depressed. Besides, those immigrants will become good little Democrat voters, eh? ?

      • (16) Who voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006). Wonderful. Especially with the 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from the Social Security system. But, it buys votes, and the voters will reward us for all of it anyway with 85% to 90% re-election rates. ?

      • (17) Who voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship (May 2006). Never mind that the U.S. already allows over one million to immigrate legally per year.

      • (18) Who says he owes unions who endorsed him; that’s why he’s in politics (Oct 2006) ?

      • (19) Who voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security (Mar 2007) ?

      • (20) Who voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman (BILL S. 3569 ; vote number 2006-190 on Jun 29, 2006), even though Oman has bad labor laws, and the trade-deal contained some investment provisions even more damaging to the ability of government to act in the public interest than NAFTA or CAFTA. ?

      • (21) Who has a career immigration grade of “D-” (grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162)?

      Oh well. Perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan (86.7% of Congress re-elected; averaging 85% since 1989) when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless (530,000 jobs lost in NOV-2008) , homeless (10,000 foreclosures per day) , and hungry ?

      Perhaps we’ll have to wait for a repeat of years 1927, 1929, 1931, and 1933, when enough voters were finally unhappy enough to vote out 165, 108, 123, and 206 members of Congress (respectively)? Compare that to 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 with a mere 65, 61, 81, and 70 members of Congress voted out (respectively). Clearly, voters aren’t too upset yet, but that’s not likely to last too many more years. We have only started to feel the beginnings of the consequences of several decades of fiscal and moral bankruptcy. There will be consequcnes for $54-to-$67 Trillion of nation-wide debt, which has grown from 100% of GDP (in year 1956) to 483% of GDP (in year 2008): One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#NationWideDebt

      I’m not sure what’s up with Obama’s position on illegal immigration is. Perhaps it is true compassion for illegal aliens (however misplaced)?
      But Obama probably genuinely wants to fix some problems too.
      However, we have dug ourselves a very, very deep hole, and Obama helped dig that hole (evidenced by his voting record: One-Simple-Idea.com/VotingRecordsBarackObama.htm).
      Even if Obama’s administration and Congressdoes everything right, it won’t prevent the painful consequences of 50+ years of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 10:14 AM
      Comment #271499

      Dan, my man, my man. Wish I had a memory like your computer. I was watching CNN last evening and they showed a clip of Christian Amanpor (sic) berating Clinton for not doing something to stop the genocide in Uganda/Rawanda. Brings back memories of why I was so glad to see the Clinton’s move on. And, here we go again. Political dynasties are hard to get rid of. And I’m sure to this day we are ponying up more $$ to the UN than China while they use their veto vote negatively in most every human rights case. Will Obama rush support to Darfur when he takes control? Will he seal off the border to drugs and illegal aliens? Will he denounce the NAU as a treasonous operation? Will he favor fair trade over free trade? Some say the honeymoon will last a little longer with Obama because of the recession.
      Well, I don’t expect significant reform. I’ve watched their actions drag us down the hill for 50 years. It will take a new third party with a different political attitude to reform government and provide a counter force to the klepto-plutocracy. Your are right Dan, the bar is set so low for these folks. It translates to our education system and throughout society. The press is playing it up that Obama raised $745M in campaign donations. How sick is that?

      Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 5, 2008 11:51 AM
      Comment #271500

      Richardson joins Obama team as Commerce chief “Good Choice”

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 5, 2008 12:28 PM
      Comment #271504

      Richardson is another open-borders, pro-amnesty proponent.

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 1:03 PM
      Comment #271505

      It’s sort of obvious where this is all headed.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 1:18 PM
      Comment #271506
      Roy wrote: Well, I don’t expect significant reform.
      Me neither.

      I hope we’re wrong, but any administration and politicians that don’t see open borders and unfair trade as a problem, not only have their head up their bu++s, but are despicable for illegally pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 1:27 PM
      Comment #271507

      d.a.n. yes I don’t care for that aspect of Richardson, He is a very capable person though and with us being in a very bad recession and a low opinion of us throughout the world and being in a world wide economy something that was done in the 1980s and 1990s, I believe his agenda on open boarders will take a backseat for quite a while, Also the people have expressed there opinion on open boarders .

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 5, 2008 1:27 PM
      Comment #271510
      Also the people have expressed there opinion on open boarders.
      Yes, but that won’t stop politicians from pursuing open-borders, amnesty, and more unfair trade for votes, cheap labor, all disguised as compassion, while despicably pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other. Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 2:16 PM
      Comment #271511

      Fidel Castro says Cuba could talk with Obama, A Open dialogue is a better than a stalemate Imagine all the good things that could happen for all for our economy and theirs, societal included Richardson could be the right Man!

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 5, 2008 2:21 PM
      Comment #271515

      Bill Richardson on Illegal Immigration 1;

      Bill Richardson on drivers licenses for illegal aliens, increasing H-1B VISA limits, says sanctuary cities OK, wants to guarantee services to illegal aliens, etc.;

      Bill Richardson’s Immigration Report Card Grade of “F-” (the worst grade there is)

      Bill Richardson said:

      • In fact my state, New Mexico, is the most immigrant friendly state. We have licenses for undocumented workers. We have scholarships for them to go to our university because we want to integrate them; we don’t want them out driving without insurance. But when you have border security that is such a concern in terms of terrorist activities, in terms of drug smuggling, human smuggling, this is why we’re asking for, pleas to both federal governments to just get a little more involved and active.

      • “These are changing political times where our basic and programs are being attacked. Illegal and legal immigration unfairly attacked. We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans - we have to network better - we have to be more politically minded - we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past.”
      That makes Bill Richardson’s position pretty clear.

      First, Janet Napalitono, and now Bill Richardson.

      This was hard to predict.

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 2:45 PM
      Comment #271520

      >As has the left about Bush, yet they keep on wailing…

      This isn’t about Clinton or Bush, it is about hypocrisy. That the left can’t see it is the biggest part of the problem As has the left about Bush, yet they keep on wailing…

      And that’s your (and any other Bush supporter’s) justification , Rhinehold. It’s idiotic and lame to boot. Bush is still serving his term (and happy days if it were to continue in some Fed. pen somewhere), and he is actually being called lame after being lame for so long. He has not been called out for his unlawfulness….he continues to support and agree with the crimes that he initiated, well….with the Rove and Cheney brainworks. It’s beyond perception that you can honestly consider one man’s actions against the other’s with any kind of equality.
      Just to slither away into obscurity by Bush, will in no way be tolerated by a significant percentage of the populace.

      Posted by: janedoe at December 5, 2008 3:10 PM
      Comment #271522

      d.a.n.,

      If you got your way, and we had revolving chairs in Congress, mostly third party, and a third party president…how long before you’d post one of your stat sheets/charts wailing the failures in public office?

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 5, 2008 3:25 PM
      Comment #271523


      This country wears two right shoes. We spit on the left shoe, stomp on it, call it satanic and kick it into the closet. Once every 4 years the right shoe called liberal gets the left shoe out of the closet and says nice things to it till after the election. Then it is kicked back into the closet.

      Posted by: jlw at December 5, 2008 3:29 PM
      Comment #271526
      Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., If you got your way, and we had revolving chairs in Congress, mostly third party, and a third party president…
      That is not what I want.

      You have it all wrong.

      I don’t see parties as the real problem, because there’s not really any significant difference between them (on average) over time.
      The similarities far outnumber the differences of any importance.

      Do you feel so threatened by anything non-Democrat or non-Republican that you must incorrectly assume that I am mostly or strictly a 3rd Party or Independent voter?
      In the last election, I voted for two Indepedents, a couple of non-incumbent Democrats, some non-incumbent Libertarians, and one non-incumbent Republican.

      Thus, your assumptions are flawed (again), and you know what they say when you assume?

      Marysdude wrote: … how long before you’d post one of your stat sheets/charts wailing the failures in public office?
      Would you prefer we all celebrate the abuses and failures and sing Cumbahya ?

      There are inconsistencies in your comments; many that both acknowledge excessive corruption, and many that make excuses for it …

      Marysdude wrote: I wonder…if every incumbent who was up for reelection during the past six years had been replaced, how much better (worse) off we would be right now?
      A little better, probably. But only voting out all bad politicians only once in a while is not likely to change much, or send a loud and clear message to Congress.
      Marysdude wrote: The question is ridiculous on the surface, because such conjectures are too subjective, and not supported by any number, data or fact…but I’d be willing to bet, we’d be in about the same boat we’re sinking in right now.
      Marysdude wrote: My reasoning…incumbency, by itself, can be either good, in the case of someone who puts country above self…or bad, in the case of someone who puts self above country. Granted, most Americans see this glass as half empty, but maybe that’s because most Americans are pessimists? Or because we’ve been sold on pessimism by vociferous nay-sayers.
      Marysdude wrote: Those who have achieved the necessary credentials to be elected to high office are already infused with those properties that make them good or bad people…just replacing all incumbents seems like a horrible waste of time, energy and resources.
      Marysdude wrote: It is too bad we are not better seers when we go into the voting booth.
      Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., You really can’t just change a bad Congress like you do a dirty diaper on a baby…after about two or three changes, we’d run out of qualified people in many of the lesser districts, and some of the lesser states (speaking of population, not importance or intelligence).
      Marysdude wrote: There may be plenty of competent folks out there, but public service requires a special breed.
      Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., We only have two parties…the rest are just in the way.
      Marysdude wrote: Until or unless a third party can be founded that makes sense to at least a third of the country, it will remain a two party nation.
      Marysdude wrote: A solution to the current third party problem is quite simple…all that is needed is for Greens, who are generally liberal leaning, and anarchists, who are generally right leaning, to agree on enough policy to form a platform that a third of the country can sink their teeth into…how hard can that be?
      Marysdude wrote: As far as replacing every Congressman, every four or six years…it is not feasible…it is not necessary, and it is unlikely to ever be done.
      Marysdude wrote: We’d better figure out how to get the ones in office to do their jobs, or we are sunk, and that pain you forever speak of will visit us all.
      Marysdude wrote: It all has to do with attitude. We need a strong figure, with strong beliefs, and enough charisma to change the attitude in Congress.
      Marysdude wrote: If enough Congressman adjust their attitudes…turn on the ones who are too greedy or too stubborn to adjust theirs, and good times will be had by all.
      Marysdude wrote: We must remember though that Jesus wasn’t accepted or popular until after he was dead. We can’t wait for him, we’ll have to support the ones we can elect. Obama is the man right now.
      Marysdude wrote: If we ask of him that he approach his policies with openness and honesty, and he complies, all that is left is the selling. He just has to convince five hundred plus corrupt, egotistic, opinionated jerks to go along with us…how hard can that be?
      Marysdude wrote: David, In many of the areas that strong incumbents are ensconced, there are no opponents running against them. In several areas there is a limited population of qualified seekers.
      Marysdude wrote: Changing a qualified office holder with an unqualified office seeker seems a bit drastic.
      Marysdude wrote: The problem is in the attitudes and philosophies of the ‘ins’ of the moment…if the attitudes of enough ‘ins’ can be changed that it puts pressures on those ‘ins’ that cannot be changed, it will accomplish the same thing you want, without all the turmoil.
      Marysdude wrote: There are some great people out there, but many would have two left feet as candidates, and some would carry their lack of qualification right on into office if elected.
      Marysdude wrote: I agree with you about there having to be changes in Congress if America is to survive, but throwing the baby out with the bath water seems a trifle extreme . .
      Marysdude wrote: …remember how easy it would be for a couple hundred Palins to get into Congress if we started electing replacements every term…:)
      Marysdude wrote: When the corrupt are as rooted in as the bunch in charge now, i.e., in business, in finance and in government, you’re not going to be able to change much without violence…
      Marysdude wrote: … but there are limits as to how many qualified folks are interested enough and dedicated enough to allow it to continue.
      Marysdude wrote: … but my personal belief is that soon qualifieds will lose interest and dedication and you will be left with the Palins.
      Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., If you got your way, and we had revolving chairs in Congress, mostly third party, and a third party president…
      Marysdude wrote: … how long before you’d post one of your stat sheets/charts wailing the failures in public office?
      Marysdude wrote: I wonder…if every incumbent who was up for reelection during the past six years had been replaced, how much better (worse) off we would be right now?
      Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., If you got your way, and we had revolving chairs in Congress, mostly third party, and a third party president … how long before you’d post one of your stat sheets/charts wailing the failures in public office?
      Do you not see the inconsistencies in your comments (above); many that both acknowledge excessive corruption, and many that make excuses for it ?

      Why shouldn’t voters have disdain for government that is FOR-SALE, irresponsibile, incompetent, and/or corrupt?
      Why all of a sudden, since the last election, this sudden disdain for anything anti-Obama or anti-irresponsible-incumbent-politicians (and the constant attempts to portray anti-bad-incumbents as merely anti-incumbent)?

      Of course, if you could attack the statistics and data, and prove some of it false, then you may have a case for defending incumbent politicians.
      Then perhaps your comments above and this comment …

      Marysdude wrote: … just replacing all incumbents seems like a horrible waste of time, energy and resources.

      … might make some sense.
      Especially when no one is able to name 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and/or corrupt.
      Especially despite dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress, but 85%-to-90% re-election rates (due to strong partisan loyalties).

      Otherwise, criticism of the FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and/or corrupt government is all quite justified.

      At any rate, the voters have the re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 4:06 PM
      Comment #271530

      Marysdude wrote: “If you got your way, and we had revolving chairs in Congress, mostly third party, and a third party president…how long before you’d post one of your stat sheets/charts wailing the failures in public office?”

      If my proposed 3rd party became the IN party all party members and about 8 volunteers would be looking for an elected official to stray from the party’s agenda. If one does, and enough complaints arise, the elected official could be rejected from the party. That would serve to keep the politicians going pretty much in a straight line. It would encourage lots of up/down the line communications to make sure members and politicians understand each other. Politicians would endeavor to work on pushing the party (members) agenda with less emphasis on pleasing the klepto-plutocracy.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 5, 2008 4:51 PM
      Comment #271531

      Jefferson’s Capitol has been replaced with capital.

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 5, 2008 5:14 PM
      Comment #271534

      “Jefferson’s Capitol” has been replaced with capital the many manifestations of unchecked greed.

      We were once a nation built and exported to the world.

      Now we are a nation with an economy that is 70% consumer driven.

      We have have more jobs in government than all jobs in manufacturing.

      Too many Americans (especially Wall Street) try to make money by playing with money, rather than producing something of real value.

      We have a dishonest, usurious, inflationary, 9-to-1 fractional-banking system where the nation-wide debt grows, and grows, and grows to nightmare proportions.

      Amortize the $54 Trillion of the current nation-wide debt at only 4.0% interest, paying back $176.670 Billion per month ($2.12 Trillion per year), and it would take 272 years to pay down the $54 Trillion nation-wide debt.

      Amortize the $10.7 Trillion National Debt at only 4.5% interest, paying back $1.32 Billion per day ($482 Billion per year), and it would take 164 years to pay down the $10.7 Trillion National Debt.

      Yet, we’ve been advise that there will be deficit spending for another 4 (or more) years?

      And those debts above do not include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and already spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby boomer bubble approaching.
      Including that $12.8 Trillion, the nation-wide debt is $67 Trillion, and the total federal debt is $23 Trillion.

      D.C. needs a good flush, but most voters seem to be very happy with their Congress persons, since they just rewarded 86.7% of incumbent politicians with re-election, despite most voters polled gave Congress dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings.

      Oh well. That’s the voters’ choice, and they’ll have to suffer the consequences (good or bad).

      There’s a lot of optimism these days, just as there is after every election, but it doesn’t last long as voters start to feel reality again.

      Now, 1 in 10 homes are either in foreclosure, or delinquent (3 or months behind on mortgage payments).
      There were 10,000 foreclosures per day in August-2008.
      Unemployment is at a 34 year high (6.7%).
      The wealth disparity gap has never been larger since the Great Depression.
      Debt has never been larger in size and as a percentage of GDP.
      Real median incomes have been falling for many years.
      Savings rates have been negative for many years.
      Illegal immigration has never been worse.
      Taxation is regressive (perhaps more regressive than ever before).
      We’ve had incessant inflation for 52 consecutive years.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 7:53 PM
      Comment #271535


      Marysdude: If I am not mistaken, a revolving door Congress is what our founding fathers had in mind.

      What are the requirements set forth in our Constitution that qualifies one to serve in Congress? Is the requirement a law degree preferabily from Harvard or Yale?

      Is this why we have laws that the citizens who are supposed to be the deciders can’t read or understand? Is this why the people are ignored by their Congress when they disagree with what their Congress is doing?

      Is this why illegal immigration which the people disagree with wasn’t even an issue in the election? Is this why that issue was ignored by the politicians and the media?

      Is this why the voters of the two parties want to blame the politicians of the other party rather them themselves?

      Posted by: jlw at December 5, 2008 7:54 PM
      Comment #271542

      jlw,

      Good points all…I’ll now have to rethink some of my opinions on that subject. Thanks!

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 5, 2008 10:31 PM
      Comment #271543


      Well, we are reaping the great rewards of the last 28 years of government policy. Guess we just sit back and enjoy the fireworks. 533,000 jobs lost in November. Down 1.2M jobs for the year. 10M people out of work. 10% of mortgages in this country is either delinquent or in default. Thank you Ronnie the Great Communicator, and Bush 1 read my lips no new taxes, Slick Willie and the stain heard round the world, and how’s it goin Brownie. Well, I feel rather globalized this evening, don’t you? Let’s see, what’s new in the Globalized economy today. Why, we have a job shortage. I know it’s hard to believe with 10M people out of work, but it’s true. From a yahoo excerpt: “Struggling to find enough doctors, nurses and linguists for the war effort, the Pentagon will temporarily recruit foreigners who have been living in the United States on student and work visas, or with refugee or political asylum status.” Seems the Pentagon needs 1000 more doctors, dentists, nurses, to achieve their desired level of 24,000. Since dubyah signed and EO in 2002 making foreigners eligible to join the military and apply immediately for fast track citizenship the military has put 29,000 non-citizens in uniform. About 8k enlist each year. Recently the call went out for 60,000 Filipino nurses to fill shortages in the private sector. This while the universities are turning away 40,000 qualified nursing applicants each year because ‘they have no instruction facilities’. Aw, what the heck, those smelly Americans can’t afford college anyway. So much BS. Just the grinding wheels of globalization at work. Following NAU policy guidelines that we can’t know about. Do whatever is necessary to break the back of the middle class in getting them ready for the global economy.

      Guess you’ve noticed how quite Obama is on the automakers bailout. He doesn’t want to get involved. Doesn’t want to be expending his political capital prematurely, etc. Besides he’s pretty busy collecting campaign donations. I think he is up around $750B and counting. Such a war chest should go a long way in preventing any wanna be opponents from running against him in 2012. That’s the good ole American way. Bigger is better. (rant# 869304312)

      Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 5, 2008 10:36 PM
      Comment #271544

      I noticed where Obama is going to create 2M jobs through rebuilding infrastructure, highways and the like. If we have 10-20M illegals, presumably unemployed and willing to do infrastructure work that Americans don’t like to do, I’m not sure that 2M jobs will fill the bill. That leaves about 18M illegals and 10M citizens still looking. Why wouldn’t the government help us out and set up some offices whereby Americans could apply for overseas jobs? Why is it always a one way street? I suspect it has something to do with another one of those NAU regs we can’t know about.

      Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 5, 2008 10:48 PM
      Comment #271546
      Roy Ellis wrote:Thank you Ronnie the Great Communicator, and Bush 1 read my lips no new taxes, Slick Willie and the stain heard round the world, and how’s it goin Brownie. Well, I feel rather globalized this evening, don’t you? Let’s see, what’s new in the Globalized economy today. Why, we have a job shortage. I know it’s hard to believe with 10M people out of work, but it’s true.
        : )

      Funny! Sort of. : (

      “Struggling to find enough doctors, nurses and linguists for the war effort, the Pentagon will temporarily recruit foreigners who have been living in the United States on student and work visas, or with refugee or political asylum status.”
      Right. Don’t dare educate our own citizens.

      There’s just one little problem with all of this sellin’ out fellow Americans. With a 70% consumer driven economy, it all comes crashin’ down when so many of those Americans are either deep in debt, broke, jobless, homeless, uneducated, and hungry.

      You’re right. 2.5 Million jobs doesn’t sound like much when 10+ Million are already unemployed and 250,000 new jobs are needed each month to keep unemployment from growing larger, since the U.S. population which is growing by 417,000 per month (13,699 per day = 5 Million per year).

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2008 11:10 PM
      Comment #271547

      Work draws many. many are leaving. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Illegal-immigrants-volunta-by-John-Martin-080908-158.html

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 5, 2008 11:50 PM
      Comment #271549

      d.a.n, Richardson and Napolitano are not the policy makers, just the policy enforcers. You want the current policy to change, you need to get Congress to change it. Then the White House is obligated to enforce it.

      I think, hope, you will have to eat those words regarding open borders under an Obama administration. Regardless what his appointee’s past positions have been, they will follow Obama’s policies as cabinet heads and Obama may take the Constitution’s sovereignty provisions a lot more seriously than your comment suggests. He has said he will attend the border security issues.

      Why does your comment insist on holding that Obama’s appointees will be making up policy, and according to their previous positions on such policies? Obama is not GW Bush.

      Congress has the power and authority to seal our borders overnight and force the president’s hand on enforcement. Why is your comment looking to the president on this issue and giving Congress a free ride where the true responsibility lies?

      Posted by: David R. Remer at December 6, 2008 5:55 AM
      Comment #271561

      David, you are really backing yourself out on a limb. Even if I tell you it is so, you won’t believe that Obama can’t walk on the water. When you think of the trillions of dollars put into globalization over the last 30 years, the four or so ex-Pres’s, their administrations, the jurist bodies, all the relocated businesses, etc. How could you possibly think that Obama is going to take any position against all that? To do so would be to fast track self immolation.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 6, 2008 12:37 PM
      Comment #271568

      Roy,

      I posted this over on the left, but you may not see it. It is an email I got from the Obama camp because I did some door to door for him this year. You are right about Obama not being able to do many things, but right now we know that he will not hide it, from it, or from us…do you not find this at least a little refreshing?

      Dear David,

      Everyday, we meet with organizations that present ideas for the Transition and the incoming Obama-Biden Administration. In past transitions, meetings like this have been held behind closed doors.

      Not anymore. Today, every Obama-Biden Transition staff member received a memo outlining the “Seat at the Table” Transparency Policy. I’ve included a copy of it below.

      The policy is pretty simple: the people and groups we’re meeting with, the subjects of the meetings, and any documents shared in the meetings will now be made available on Change.gov. Most importantly, the American public can weigh in with comments or their own materials.

      Read the memo and watch our “Seat at the Table” video:

      Watch the Video

      This is our latest step toward a more transparent and accessible Transition. We look forward to benefitting from the many more voices that will now be a part of the decision-making process.

      Thank you,

      John

      John D. Podesta
      Co-chair
      The Obama-Biden Transition Project

      MEMORANDUM
      From: John Podesta
      To: All Obama-Biden Transition Project Staff
      Date: December 4, 2008
      Re: “Seat at the Table” Transparency Policy — EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

      Overview:
      As an extension of the unprecedented ethics guidelines already in place for the Obama-Biden Transition Project, we take another significant step towards transparency of our efforts for the American people. Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing. We want to ensure that we give the American people a “seat at the table” and that we receive the benefit of their feedback.

      Accordingly, any documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be posted on our website for people to review and comment on. In addition to presenting ideas as individuals at www.change.gov, the American people deserve a “seat at the table” as we receive input from organizations and make decisions. In the interest of protecting the personal privacy of individuals, this policy does not apply to personnel matters and hiring recommendations.

      Scope:
      The following information will be posted on our website:
      1. Documents: All policy documents1 and written policy recommendations from official meetings2 with outside organizations.
      2. Meetings: The date and organizations represented at official meetings in the Transition headquarters or agency offices, with any documents presented as noted above.

      This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials. Such materials could include documents (recommendations, press releases, etc.) presented in smaller meetings or materials or made public by the outside organization without a connection to an official meeting.

      If you have any questions as to whether documents should be included, please email [REDACTED].

      Process:
      Prior to an official meeting with an outside organization or organizations, Obama-Biden Transition Project staff members will inform attendees that any documents provided will be posted on our “Seat at the Table” website found at www.change.gov. Suggested language for email invitations is: “By presenting or submitting any document at a meeting with the Obama-Biden Transition Project, you agree to allow the document to be made public and posted on www.change.gov.” At the completion of each meeting or upon receipt of such documents, Transition staff will provide the documents to [REDACTED] with the date of the meeting, a list of the organizations in attendance, and the topic of the meeting.

      Notes:
      1) This policy does not apply to non-public or classified information acquired from the Agency Review Process and internal memorandum.
      2) An “official meeting” is defined as a meeting with outside organizations or representatives of those organizations to which three or more outside participants attend.

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 6, 2008 1:28 PM
      Comment #271569


      David R.: I was jumped on last week for saying that Bush had given Obama a bailout plan. The comment was that it wasn’t the Bush plan it was the Paulson plan. So which is it, the Treasury Secretary’s plan, the Bush plan or the Congressional plan? Did Congress pass the plan with virtually no changes except for another round of Pork?

      If it was the Paulson plan, doesn’t that suggest that cabinet members do make policy?

      Obama will have a choice, play ball by the current rules or lose. The insiders can make or break his presidency.

      Rodney B.: They will be back in time to get their share of those infrastructure jobs that can’t be outsourced.

      The power structure has screwed America and much of the world with their globalization plans, their economic bubbles and their greed. The American people are being forced to bailout our own economy and much of the world economy as well. Can we do it? Or to be more accurate, can our grand childred do it?

      The American people can buy all three of our supposed American car companies for $16 billion, even less if we wait another month. But, that would be a disaster because we could never hire management that could do better than the current management.

      The chief economist at Moody’s testified that $34 billion isn’t even half of what will be needed to save these companies so expect that number to go way up in the next year.

      Posted by: jlw at December 6, 2008 1:30 PM
      Comment #271574

      Marysdude wrote: “You are right about Obama not being able to do many things, but right now we know that he will not hide it, from it, or from us…do you not find this at least a little refreshing?”

      Well, his openness and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee. From whence cometh your naivety in the face of blatant party propaganda.

      Surely you understand that Bush didn’t accomplish globalization in a vacuum. He seems confident, strident, in knowing that he accomplished much for the cast of hundreds of thousands of the klepto-plutocracy supporting him. And now they turn their attention to ‘the man’. He can either play ball or become a Jimmy Carter administration with a severly limited domestic legacy. The klepto-plutocracy will go around him and keep right on truckin. We won’t have to wait long for the answer.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 6, 2008 2:04 PM
      Comment #271575
      David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, Richardson and Napolitano are not the policy makers, just the policy enforcers.
      True. However, this does not bode well when Obama has picked and/or considering Janet Napolitano’s and Bill Richardson’s whose voting records and policy history is as follows
      • Janet Napolitano
      • PHOENIX, ARIZONA — Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill to require city and county police agencies to have programs to confront federal immigration violations. The proposal approved by the Legislature would have allowed local police agencies to meet the requirement to confront immigration violations in several ways. Those ways included getting training for the police.
      • Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill (287(G)) that would have deputized state law enforcement officials to act as immigration officers. Napolitano called the bill impractical and expensive. The New York Times praised Napolitano and also called the bill dangerous because it would make large numbers of citizens afraid to report crimes and cooperate with police in crime investigations.
      • Bill Richardson on illegal immigration: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD1jSir9OOA”>
      • Bill Richardson on drivers licenses for illegal aliens, increasing H-1B VISA limits, says sanctuary cities OK, wants to guarantee services to illegal aliens, etc.;: www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Immigration.htm”>Bill Richardson
      • Bill Richardson’s BetterImmigration Report Card Grade: “F-” grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=NM&VIPID=555&retired=1”F-” (the worst grade there is).
      • Bill Richardson said:
        • In fact my state, New Mexico, is the most immigrant friendly state. We have licenses for undocumented workers. We have scholarships for them to go to our university because we want to integrate them; we don’t want them out driving without insurance. But when you have border security that is such a concern in terms of terrorist activities, in terms of drug smuggling, human smuggling, this is why we’re asking for, pleas to both federal governments to just get a little more involved and active.
        • “These are changing political times where our basic and programs are being attacked. Illegal and legal immigration unfairly attacked. We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans - we have to network better - we have to be more politically minded - we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past.”
      based on Barack Obama’s voting record:
        • Barack said in a debate with Hillary Clinton that we need to tone down the rhetoric on illegal immigration, because some illegal aliens are being persecuted. {That’s not good and most people don’t want to persecute illegal aliens merely looking for work, but where is the compassion for thousands of Americans being murdered and harmed by illegal aliens every year?}
        • Barack Obama says undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007) {Really? Then why are they driving? Has Obama looked at the statistics of illegal aliens arrested for drunk driving and homicide via drunk driving? Visit VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com to see a small sample of the thousands of Americans killed annually by drunk driving illegal aliens.}
        • Yet, Barack Obama supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007) {Nothing like pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, eh? Besides, most Americans will reward Congress with 85% to 90% re-election rates anyway.}
        • Barack Obama says we should give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship. (Jun 2007) {Rigorous? We already allow over 1 million to immigrate legally per year. How will those requirements be enforced, when existing laws are being enforce. Ohhh, right. Tens of millions of new Democrat voters, eh? Duh! Nothing like pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits?}
        • Barack Obama said: “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”. {never mind the there difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants and trade and fair-trade.}
        • Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998) {32% of illegal aliens ALREADY receive welfare.}
        • Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007) {The SHAMNESTY BILL which was defeated.}
        • Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007) {Interesting. So, we must print everything in 50 different languages?}
        • Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006) {You bet! Need to keep the inflow of cheap labor to keep wages depressed. Besides, those immigrants will become good little Democrat voters.}
        • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) {Wonderful. Especially with the 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from the Social Security system. But, it buys votes, and the voters will reward us for all of it anyway with 95% to 99% re-election rates.}
        • Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006) {Yep! Nothing like pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other. }
        • Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman (BILL S. 3569 ; vote number 2006-190 on Jun 29, 2006) {even though Oman has bad labor laws, and the trade-deal contained some investment provisions even more damaging to the ability of government to act in the public interest than NAFTA or CAFTA.
        • Barack Obama’s career immigration grade: “D-“, recent grade: grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162
        • More … www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Immigration
      David R. Remer wrote: You want the current policy to change, you need to get Congress to change it. Then the White House is obligated to enforce it.
      I agree.

      What are the chances of that when 86.7% of incumbent politicians in Congress were recently rewarded with re-election ?

      David R. Remer wrote: I think, hope, you will have to eat those words regarding open borders under an Obama administration.
      I hope I’m wrong too.

      But I have VERY little faith that Obama will secure the borders and enforce existing laws to prosecute illegal employers, despite the massive net losses to American citizens (estimated to $70-to-$327 Billion per year: One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens).
      But track-records above don’t lend much hope. Not when Obama’s , Napolitona’s , and Richardson’s voting records , track records , policies , and statements show the complete opposite of wanting secured borders and existing immigration laws enforced. I’ll believe it when I see it. Congress will never allow it, because Congress also prefers to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion.

      David R. Remer wrote: Regardless what his appointee’s past positions have been, they will follow Obama’s policies as cabinet heads and Obama may take the Constitution’s sovereignty provisions a lot more seriously than your comment suggests. He has said he will attend the border security issues.
      Obama taught Constitutional Law, but refuses to comment on many constitutional violations (One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm), including Section 4 of Article 4, and Article V (FOAVC.ORG/file.php/1/Amendments), and 643+ Article V amendment applications from all 50 states.
      David R. Remer wrote: Why does your comment insist on holding that Obama’s appointees will be making up policy, and according to their previous positions on such policies? Obama is not GW Bush.
      Because when appointees are chosen, it is usually based on some common values. It seems perfectly logical and increasingly obvious what those values are, based on track-records , voting records , and statements by all three: Obama , Napolitano , and Richardson (see above). It remains to be seen what actually will happen, but based on the past , based on track-records , voting records , and statements for all three (Obama , Napolitano , and Richardson), another amnesty like the shamnesty of 1986 (which quintupled or sextupled the problem from 3-to-4 Million to 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens) is very likely, borders will remain wide-open, and unfair-trade (among other manifestations of unchecked greed) will probably continue to sell out Americans.
      David R. Remer wrote: Congress has the power and authority to seal our borders overnight and force the president’s hand on enforcement. Why is your comment looking to the president on this issue and giving Congress a free ride where the true responsibility lies?
      Huh ? ! ?

      But you just said it is Obama’s duty

      David R. Remer wrote: Regardless what his appointee’s past positions have been, they will follow Obama’s policies as cabinet heads and Obama may take the Constitution’s sovereignty provisions a lot more seriously than your comment suggests. He has said he will attend the border security issues.

      Besides, I dedicate many web-pages (for example) to the irresponsibility of Congress on this and numerous other issues, and end almost every post with?:

      • At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      That means ALL branches of government (Congress, Executive Branch, and the (appointed) Judicial Branch).
      All three branches are dysfunctional, and it is unlikely many reforms will suddenly come about now with a new President/VP and appointments, based on their track records , voting records , and history, and the fact that 86.7% of incumbents in Congress were rewarded with re-election (again).

      What’s wrong with that logic.
      It’s not like there are not numerous valid and logical reasons for skepticism about so much optimism.
      Especially based on some of these appointments which appear to coincide with Obama’s voting record (One-Simple-Idea.com/VotingRecordsBarackObama.htm) and policies on illegal immigration.
      Especially based on Obama’s complicity in the $8.5+ Trillion in scheduled bail-out mania.

      Are we all supposed to suspend our skepticism (healthy and valid skepticism in my opinion, if backed up with facts too) even when it is based on a myriad of voting records , track record, statements and policies?

      No, I’m not yet ready to drink from the bowl of Obama Kool-Aid yet, and simply do not see solid reasons to believe Obama will secure the borders and prosecute illegal employers. In fact, it is much more likely Obama will try to push through another amnesty , fail to secure the border , and the problem will simply continue to grow worse and worse. There is no past history , voting records , actions , or policies that would lead me to think otherwise. I seriously doubt Obama will go against his Democrat party, which wants the votes. And Republicans want the profits. So, it seems like quite a leap of logic to suddenly believe that the illegal immigration problem will suddenly be sufficiently addressed. Especially with other serious pressing problems that will most likely (to Congress’ delight) distract from the illegal immigration issue.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 6, 2008 2:34 PM
      Comment #271577

      Marysdude:
      Let’s say the seat at the table gets millions of responses. How will that work? Who will read all the emails and divide the different opinions, a super computer? Will respondents be able to understand all the documents and references if they are written in legalese.

      Oral Roberts once told his listeners to send two dollars and their special prayer to him and he would climb his tower on Easter Sunday and read their prayer directly to God. More than two million listeners took him up on the offer. He is a fast reader.

      I can’t see how the online program will work unless it deals in specific options. Should we do this or not, should we do this or should we do this instead, sort of like a referendum.

      Will issues like energy policy and comprehensive immigration reform be matters of national security?

      I would like to be hopeful that such a program will lead to a more democratic response to the issues but, I have many questions and doubts. Also, millions of Americans especially the under class don’t own computers.

      John Podesta is a ufologist. He believes that our government has UFO’s and has been in contact with extraterrestrials. Ufologists believe their day has come at last. Could this be a subject for on line discussion or will it be a classified national defence issue?

      Posted by: jlw at December 6, 2008 2:47 PM
      Comment #271578
      jlw wrote: I was jumped on last week for saying that Bush had given Obama a bailout plan. The comment was that it wasn’t the Bush plan it was the Paulson plan. So which is it, the Treasury Secretary’s plan, the Bush plan or the Congressional plan? Did Congress pass the plan with virtually no changes except for another round of Pork?
      AAHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhh … who is responsible?

      ANSWER: No one.

      Where does the buck stop?

      ANSWER: No where.

      … no one and now where in this era of near total government dysfunction and incompetence, and fiscal and moral bankruptcy and rescues bail-out mania.

      And, even if some incumbent politicians is ever caught red handed, they may resign, or get fired, but still collect their cu$hy pensions and benefits. Even if ever convicted of a crime, they may get a pardon (like Dan Rostenkowski), or get a commuted sentence (like Lewis Libby), or never be indicted at all (e.g. William Jefferson).

      And for all of this, Congress has given itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007, (while our troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benfits, and do 2, 3, 4, or more tours in Iraq and Afghanistan).

      So, seriously … who is ultimately responsible and where will the buck finally stop?
      Who will ultimately pay the most painful price ?

      ANSWER: The voters.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 6, 2008 2:58 PM
      Comment #271580

      jlw,

      Doubt and negativity are the easy parts…questioning is good, if you don’t let the questioning become the totality.

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 6, 2008 4:34 PM
      Comment #271581
      Marysdude wrote: Doubt and negativity are the easy parts…questioning is good, if you don’t let the questioning become the totality.
      True.

      Offering solutions for problems is more useful.

      But what are we left with when government ignores serious problems and solutions, and allows problems and abuses to grow and grow, until they threaten the future and security of the nation?

      And whose to say the questioning of certain appointments is unjustified, when those appointments appear to be falling perfectly in-line with a certain agenda and set of values (e.g. amnesty , open borders , and more unfair trade)?

      And whose to say the questioning of the bail-out mania is unjustified, when they now total $8.5 Trillion or more?

      And how can money created as debt be pulled out of circulation?

      Unfortunately, Congress is where good ideas go to die, and the White House and administration is where bad ideas get amplified (as perfectly demonstrated by G.W. Bush(43)).

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 6, 2008 6:18 PM
      Comment #271592

      jlw Said,”Rodney B.: They will be back in time to get their share of those infrastructure jobs that can’t be outsourced,” I don’t think so jlw because those Infrastructure jobs will be Most likely From Federal Sources Through the states and will require certification and Documentation, we’re Talking about massive Huge projects To Build and rebuild are ancient infrastructure like Bridge and Road building and rebuilding, interstate freeways and Railroads and many other transportation needs and Water and sewer and Electrical and Hydro, Rebuilding of State and Federal Buildings I’ve just barely scratched the list,These will require Higher Technical Positions like Electricians and masons and iron workers and sheet metal workers and carpenters All craftsmen and women, not to mention the amount of Even Higher skilled engineers and clerical and overseers and Accountants and supervisor’s and project managers, we’re talking about millions of people here and i know for a fact that most all those types of workers and positions that do those jobs through state and federal level are highly paid Union workers and if not they are paid a high prevailing wage ,This is the real deal and not Look the other way and do it half A$$ed.Get ready and get a hard Hat!

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 7, 2008 9:28 AM
      Comment #271593

      Flash. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_el_pr/obama_economy

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 7, 2008 9:55 AM
      Comment #271603

      My sensibility has always been that people need to be given the fewest possible excuses to be passive, not to act. One big problem is a cynical culture that values dropping out in protest over using other means to take back the party.

      I long noticed, as I observed one organization after another losing moderate or liberal members that once respected or balanced organizations were becoming more and more ideological and partisan. I think if more of the moderate Republicans had stayed and fought for their party, the party might not be in the sitution it is in today. I think if more liberals stood up for themselves in organizations, rather than resign in protest, it would have helped things further.

      I think what happened is that people started accepting certain people’s authority and doubting their own strength in opposition. The great irony is, Americans have always had the strength to run their country the way they’ve wanted to. They just were too discouraged.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2008 5:40 PM
      Comment #271605
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: They just were too discouraged.
      Discouragement is only part of it.

      There are numerous causes (with some overlap), which are all rooted in selfishness and laziness:


      • apathy, complacency, sense of futility, negligence, ignorance, and laziness;

      • greed, selfishness, gluttony, lust for power and control, envy, pride, and exploitation of others and things (e.g. lawlessness, wealth, usury, wars, taxation, etc.);

      • irrational fear, fear mongering, anger, intolerance, hatred, prejudice of others and things (e.g. religion, race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.);

      • delusion (deception and self deception), misplaced loyalties, partisan-warfare, misplaced compassion, misplaced priorities;

      Most people, naturally, seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort and pain.

      There is nothing wrong with that, and most people are ethical and law abiding (otherwise, we would have wide-spread chaos, war, lawlessness, and societal disorder).
      However, some people (Cheaters) have surrendered to selfisness and laziness, which breeds greed and Corruption.

      The irony of that selfishness is that it does not lead to long-term prosperity and enlightenment, but actually leads to more pain and misery.
      Unfortunately, not enough voters recognize that the other irony:

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … Americans have always had the strength to run their country the way they’ve wanted to.

      And in failing to recognize it, the voters will have to learn the hard and painful way (again and again).

      However, we may not always have the luxury to learn the hard and painful way.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 7, 2008 6:13 PM
      Comment #271609

      Bill Moyers - 1987

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 7, 2008 7:48 PM
      Comment #271617

      Dan-
      The trick has always been not reducing things, but recovering them. We can say this or that are the reasons for things, but what does that really mean?

      Look, the reason I’ve always found your focus on incumbency a little stifling is because it makes things so much about subjective politics, and not enough about problem solving. I’m not a pragmatist by nature, but rather an idealist. But this idealist has read enough and heard about enough to realize that while ideals are worthy things to fight for, they are not simple things to fight for.

      Take illegal immigration. It’s one thing to say “deport them all”, or “make it so they self deport”. It’s quite another to come up with a plan that actually surmounts all the hurdles and really reduces illegal immigration in a way that works and we can live with as moral beings, humane Americans.

      Sometimes, also, it’s the small problems you’ve got to solve first. The real problem is, you’ve got too many big thinkers in Washington who don’t know how to think things out on the levels necessary to verify their theories, figure out whether they’re wrong or right, much less organize the policy and personnel framework necessary to safely and prudently carry out the changes they desire.

      They are all too willing to inflict needless pain, or allow it to be inflicted in order to get what they want.

      We must realize something here: our object is to improve conditions. We should only allow things to get painful when we both have no other choice and we have a workable plan to get something out of the required sacrifice. Otherwise we’re being unforgiveably irresponsible. When we try to play morality tale with the real world, real people get hurt, and needlessly so.

      It’s not enough for people to be discouraged from bad behavior by pain. All that does, typically, is just make them wary of moral hazards, rather than actively intent on not falling into those traps. People need encouragement and inspiration, goals, reachable goals that they can build the confidence to maintain responsible government upon. Otherwise, self-interests will drag them back into the pit of irresponsibility time and time again. There must be alternatives, and people would be better served by being given such alternatives, rather than being given additional evidence for the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the system and the status quo.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2008 9:58 PM
      Comment #271626
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- The trick has always been not reducing things, but recovering them. We can say this or that are the reasons for things, but what does that really mean?
      Recovering, reducing, retrieving, remembering, etc. Whatever.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Look, the reason I’ve always found your focus on incumbency a little stifling is because it makes things so much about subjective politics, and not enough about problem solving.
      That’s only because of the choice to see it through a very narrow and twisted viewpoint.

      There is no arguing with the logic of voting out irresponsible and corrupt politicians.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not a pragmatist by nature, but rather an idealist. But this idealist has read enough and heard about enough to realize that while ideals are worthy things to fight for, they are not simple things to fight for.
      No one said otherwise.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Take illegal immigration. It’s one thing to say “deport them all”,
      No one said “deport them all”.

      That is the typical and lame EXCUSE #08

      • EXCUSE # 08: Practicality:

      • MYTH: It is not possible to deport 12+ million illegal aliens.

      • TRUTH: There is no need to deport illegal aliens. We can help deport those that volunteer to be deported, but once the magnets are eliminated, illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. They should not be starved out. So, we should be provide $500 (per person) and pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S. That may cost as much as $12 billion, but it is a one-time cost, and it is still miniscule compared to the current annual losses of $70 billion to $326.7 billion (and climbing, year after year).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: or “make it so they self deport”.
      Why not. Many already have, with the economy tanking.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s quite another to come up with a plan that actually surmounts all the hurdles and really reduces illegal immigration in a way that works and we can live with as moral beings, humane Americans.
      It’s simple. Here’s the solution.

      The solutions are not what are so difficult.
      The difficult part is getting government to do what they are supposed to do; to uphold the laws; to stop illegal employers.
      That’s because politicians are FOR-SALE, and they prefer to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Sometimes, also, it’s the small problems you’ve got to solve first. The real problem is, you’ve got too many big thinkers in Washington who don’t know how to think things out on the levels necessary to verify their theories, figure out whether they’re wrong or right, much less organize the policy and personnel framework necessary to safely and prudently carry out the changes they desire. They are all too willing to inflict needless pain, or allow it to be inflicted in order to get what they want.
      No, it’s not that complicated. Those that say it is complicated have ulterior motives.

      The solutions are not that complicated.
      The problem is corrupt government that refuses to enforce existing laws, because politicians are FOR-SALE, and they prefer to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We must realize something here: our object is to improve conditions. We should only allow things to get painful when we both have no other choice and we have a workable plan to get something out of the required sacrifice. Otherwise we’re being unforgiveably irresponsible. When we try to play morality tale with the real world, real people get hurt, and needlessly so.
      Gobbledygook.

      Enforce the existing laws.
      Start with the greedy illegal employers (not deportation).
      Use the E-Verify system (95%+ accurate) to confirm status. E-Verify discrepancies are easily resolved (www.heritage.org/research/immigration/bg2192.cfm).
      Secure the borders.
      Deport all criminal illegal aliens fillin’ up our jails (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not enough for people to be discouraged from bad behavior by pain.
      What do you recommend?

      Rewarding them for bad and/or illegal behavior?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: All that does, typically, is just make them wary of moral hazards, rather than actively intent on not falling into those traps.
      More nonsensical gobbledygook.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: People need encouragement and inspiration, goals, reachable goals that they can build the confidence to maintain responsible government upon.
      There motivation will simple. With no more jobs here, most will self-deport.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Otherwise, self-interests will drag them back into the pit of irresponsibility time and time again. There must be alternatives, and people would be better served by being given such alternatives, rather than being given additional evidence for the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the system and the status quo.
      That sounds a lot like a argument for the status quo.

      While showing compassion for illegal aliens, and making excuses for despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, how about considering fellow Americans too?

      • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers? (www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/178/8693) 84 hospitals closed in California due to illegal aliens; (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp) In Dallas, Tx., 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas, TX., are illegal aliens; same thing for this Florida hospital (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI); border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.

      • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?

      • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-paid, under-class (practically slavery) ?

      • Where is the compassion for displaced American workers and the outrage at the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?

      • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens and tax payers the pay the high costs of incarceration, deportaiton, law enforcement, and trials (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising? Are all illegal immigrants sexual predators or murderers? No, of course not. Most just see better opportunities offered by America. But, per capita, illegals commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. We also shouldn’t fail to mention their contribution to illegal drug and gun trafficking, adding to America’s crime problem.

      • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been?

      • Where is the compassion for the people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)?

      • Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?

      • Where is the compassion or all the victims in South Carolina which had the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens. in fact, South Carolina is submitting a Constitutional (www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/005567.html) amendment with regard to illegal immigration.

      • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?

      • Where is the compassion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?

      • Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S. These are crimes that should have never happened.

      • Where is the compassion for Min Soon Chang, killed by Jorge Hernandez, aka Jorge Soto. He killed Min Soon Chang, an 18-year-old college freshman, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk. He had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported to Mexico 17 times! Don’t you wonder why illegal aliens aren’t deported instantly after being arrested for drunk driving?

      • Where is the compassion for Debbie Thomas, who was the mother of three, was killed in a head-on collision on Christmas Eve 2003 when her car was struck by a car being driven in the wrong direction by illegal alien, Narciso Garcia-Jimenez. He later escaped from his hospital bed and is still at large. The car he drove had no inspection sticker and was registered to another person. When Debbie’s mom learned that her daughter’s killer survived and escaped after being treated at the hospital, she said she felt “angry, bitter and sad, all at once.”

      • Where is the compassion for female victim in Atlanta,GA. who was raped by Miguel Carrasco in front of her four year old child and two minors.?

      • Where is the compassion for a child under age 14 who was a victim of lewd acts by Zacarias Camacho ?

      • Where is the compassion for the 16 year old sodomized and murdered by El Salvadoran Oswaldo Martinez raped?

      • Where is the compassion for every fathers nightmare like illegal alien Jose Ramirez who beat up a 15-year-old girl after whistling at her? He broke her nose, fractured a bone in her face and produced cuts requring 30 stitches. The man worked in construction in Spotsylvania, Virginia, where the attack occurred, and resisted arrest to the point where police had to taser him.

      • Where is the compassion for the child used by illegal alien Jose Raul Pena (earlier deported for cocaine possession), his own daughter, as a human shield in an hours-long Los Angeles shootout with police? Pena and Suzie were both killed. During the incident, Pena used a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol which had been stolen last year in a burglary in Oregon. His office at the car dealership contained a bag of cocaine and a half-drunk bottle of Tequila — consistent with the illegal Pena’s previous deportation for cocaine possession. Videotape captured images of Pena shooting at the police while holding his daughter, yet his relatives are questioning not only whether he used his daughter as a shield, but whether he was even armed at all, according to the Los Angeles Times.

      • Where is the compassion for Esmerelda Nava, age 4, was recently strangled, molested and killed by an illegal alien who had been deported in 2003. The accused killer is Cornelio Rivera Zamites, who had been residing in Gainsville, Georgia. Esmerelda went with her parents to visit the 24-year-old Zamites. At some point late Saturday night, the child’s mother realized the girl was missing. A police officer found her body early the next morning in nearby woods. An article of Zamites clothing was close by and he was gone. Zamites had been deported for driving under the influence, as well as having no license or insurance. At least his illegal status was duly noted.

      • Where is the compassion for victims killed on the nation’s highways every year? Our highways have become far more dangerous since they have been turned into smuggling thruways for criminals.

      • Where is the compassion for 19 year old Travis Smith of Mesa, Arizona, was killed in 2002 by a carload of illegal aliens being smuggled to Pennsylvania? The accident occurred near Monticello in southeastern Utah, as the car driven by illegal alien smuggler Isidro Aranda-Flores plowed head-on into Smith’s 1966 Mustang. The smuggler apparently fell asleep at the wheel.

      • Where is the compassion for the 16 year old girl gang raped by an MS-13 gang member Reinaldo Ramos?

      • Where is the compassion for these American police men and women murdered by illegal aliens?

      • Where is the compassion for all of these thousands of (www.immigrationshumancost.org)victims ? (estimated 3.3 to 12 (or more; up to 25 homicides by some estimates) per day (the estimates keep rising)!). Even if the lowest estimate (3.3) is used, the rate is almost double the norm.

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 7, 2008 11:23 PM
      Comment #271644

      Perhaps it would be wiser to leave this issue be—George W. Bush had many followers who supported him. If he were convicted, there would be a huge amount of opposition to the trial. President Elect Obama would lose a great deal of his supporters, too. Though Bush was by no means innocent, he was also an incompetent person put in a very difficult position. It would not be a wise decision to convict him, since presidential trials are so difficult and controversial. Should President Elect Obama decide to try Bush, he may well be shooting himself in the foot.

      Posted by: Poke at December 8, 2008 10:04 AM
      Comment #271653

      Dan-

      Recovering, reducing, retrieving, remembering, etc. Whatever.

      No need to be rude. I wasn’t talking in terms of memory, but simply phrasing the old maxim “Easier said than done” in another way.

      Think of it this way: You can declare a war on drugs, enact draconian laws, give greater, perhaps unconstitutional powers, but does that mean you’ll reduce the problem? No.

      What will come of a war on illegal immigration that does the same thing? I’m not optimistic. Sometimes when you give police wider powers, broader authority to snoop, you only end up diffusing their attention wider, without getting them more meaningful, useful information. Sometimes when you get tougher on the criminals in a certain enterprise, you only end up weeding out the weaklings.

      What happens when yout throw up the concrete border fence? Will the illegal aliens stop coming across, or flow through and around the openings?

      One reason I advocate reducing the costs of immigration is that I believe the high fees create a perverse incentive for people to go the undocumented root. Many of these people are hard workers just trying to get ahead in the land of opportunity. But when some poor guy can pay a coyote a hundred bucks to get into the country and we charge 900 or more, what do you think that guy will do? I find it positively moronic that we’re trying to make legal immigration tougher and more expensive, at a time when the big problem is that illegal immigration is cheaper, and lucrative for those who facilitate. Yank the plug on that market, for crying out loud. Destroy the incentives for going the illegal route, and helping people cross over the border illegally.

      But of course, some folks are still thinking in terms of that 1920’s Eugenics movement, in terms of the protectionist ideology. Keep the riff-raff out, they say. This was the same justification used for other racist policies, and it’s all unjustified by any kind of real science or studies of the situation

      In the end, the question is not whether we let the riff-raff in, whether we’re letting in an inferior breed of person. No, the question is whether we’re giving people proper incentives to be stakeholders in the legal version of the system.

      I look at your solution, and it just seems like rephrased goals, not a real plan. Take all the things you plan to deny to illegal aliens. Don’t you have to identify them first as illegal aliens for that to work? And if they are illegal aliens, doesn’t it make more sense to deport them right then and there? It’s like legislating that you’ll send people to prison for an offense, then adding a punishment in an amendment forbidding them from interstate travel. If you deport them right on the spot when you find out they’re illegal, all the other measures deal with moot points. Deported kids don’t attend schools in our country. Deported people don’t need healthcare, or laze around on welfare.

      If they aren’t found out, you’re not denying them anything. If they are found out, you’re not denying them anything that will denied them by the deportation. Can you define a more useless measure to punish those who cross over illegally than that?

      As far as biometrics go? As a technology enthusiast, I’ve heard a lot about them. But the one thing that comes about time and time again is that biometrics are good, first and foremost, for authentication of subjects already registered. Or put another way, for a biometric to be useful, you first have to have had something bio presented to you for somebody to make a metric out of.

      Maybe you get a repeat offender off of that, or somebody who’s overstayed their visa, but what about the first time offenders? Logically, they’ll have never been fingerprinted, much less been entered into any of the more advanced systems.

      Who’s in the system, who’s out of it? How secure is the system? Resolving the issues of this kind is not optional. If somebody can break into your system and replace files, then they could create all kinds of false positives and negatives in the system. One person losing a laptop could compromise the whole thing. Or one corrupt person being bribed by the coyotes could make breaking in a moot point. You sneer at me and say its not that complicated. I’ll tell you right back that it is. If it isn’t complicated already, the illegal immigrants and those paid to deliver them over the border will make it that way. Never underestimate the creativity human beings employ in the service of overcoming obstacles.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We must realize something here: our object is to improve conditions. We should only allow things to get painful when we both have no other choice and we have a workable plan to get something out of the required sacrifice. Otherwise we’re being unforgiveably irresponsible. When we try to play morality tale with the real world, real people get hurt, and needlessly so.
      Gobbledygook.

      Slogans are more gobbledygook than anything. You package rhetoric and call it a solution. Real solutions have to deal with a messy real world.

      There are many situations in life where you have to deal with problems while the system is in motion, where you don’t have the luxury of stopping things to re-work them.

      Pain is something people sensibly avoid, because it’s meant to warn us against injury. But there are often two responses to pain: avoidance and confrontation. Sometimes avoidance is exactly what we want: discourage murder by sentencing murderers to life in prison or death in the chamber. But sometimes it simply means people procrastinate on dealing with things.

      We’re use to a certain level of dysfunction in the world around us. Nothing runs perfectly. Sometimes getting that perfection just leads to undesirable complication.

      There’s a concept I’ve encountered in the field of Psychology called learned helplessness. An Elephant bound by a rope when it is young and incapable of breaking it will, as an adult, accept that binding and not attempt to snap it. It will do this because its formative experience convinced it of this fact.

      When people have learned helplessness in the face of a system, it’s not good enough to tell them that things are bad. You have to convince them that there is a workable way to reform things, and do so in a compelling way that gets them off their rear ends.

      Your problem, really, is that you think people are merely dense or obtuse, and need a little more browbeating. The reality is, most people are simply pessimistic, their pessimism informed by years of government failure. It doesn’t help that we’ve had an inherently pessimistic political philosophy guiding this nation for the last two decades. Their native mistrust of government has encouraged lower and lower expectations.

      Lower expectations are the enemy of motivation in a situation like this. What’s the point of putting all that energy into reforming the system if you’ve already decided that won’t happen?

      We do need healthy skepticism here, but we also need confidence and motivation. We also need an approach to politics that is less about sticking barbs in those who disagree with you and more about the needs of the country and getting them fulfilled. The trouble with waiting for pain to change things is that people in America have been feeling low grade aches and sharp pains from the system for years already. Pain is something you can get use to.

      America has been suffering in silence for so long, convinced that it could do no better, that this was simply the ugly reality of today, no fighting it. Americans elected Barack Obama, in part, because he’s appealed to their hidden hope that this is not the case, that the ultimate trajectory of America at this point is not downwards.

      I know. You’re going to say, like so many others, that Americans are going to go back to trusting govenrment to do everything for them. I think this is a pointless and rather arrogant expectation. No, what people want is a system that doesn’t stumble over its own feet into big pitfalls, where capitalism is insulated from excess of fictional wealth and growth, where the economy and the middle class’s role in it are sustainable and healthy for most involved.

      Americans don’t want to stop playing the game of market economics, they want rules that make sense, where the scorekeeping isn’t arbitrary and chaotic. Who are the winners? Who are the losers? Why, in either case, are they a winner or a loser?

      And will we so narrowmindedly confine ourselves to solutions within the market, or will we use our brains and decide at some point that you don’t need market economics to tell you when you’re putting too much carbon in the air or find some way of reducing it. Government isn’t absolutely wise, but there is a such thing as good government, if we put the right people in charge.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 8, 2008 2:38 PM
      Comment #271656

      Many of the illegals of which we speak come here to work on our corporate farmlands…you know the ones like get government subsidies, then use those subsidies to pay the meager wages with no benefits to the illegals. I don’t suppose Congress would ask ADM and others to forgo those subsidies, quit paying peon wages to the hired help up from Central America?

      Well, we can’t charge Cheney/Bush for the illegal immigration problem, because it’s been going on far too long for it to be considered his fault. So, we may have gotten off track.

      Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2008 3:03 PM
      Comment #271663
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Think of it this way: You can declare a war on drugs, enact draconian laws, give greater, perhaps unconstitutional powers, but does that mean you’ll reduce the problem? No.
      First, prosecute illegal employers.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: What will come of a war on illegal immigration that does the same thing?
      Who said anything about war?

      That sounds a lot like the lame, fear-mongering EXCUSE # 10:

      • EXCUSE # 10: The Risk of War:

      • MYTH: You are risking war by expecting existing laws to be enforce to prosecute illegal employers of illegal aliens.

      • TRUTH: This is more fear-mongering stooping to its lowest levels, and more misplaced compassion (if genuine) at its worst (i.e. more compassion for illegal aliens than fellow Americans).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not optimistic. Sometimes when you give police wider powers, broader authority to snoop, you only end up diffusing their attention wider, without getting them more meaningful, useful information. Sometimes when you get tougher on the criminals in a certain enterprise, you only end up weeding out the weaklings.
      More excuses. But don’t worry. You’ll most likely get get your way, since Obama , Janet Napolitano , Bill Richardson , and the majority of Congress are likely to continue open borders and very likely to pass another amnesty (like the amnesty of 1986, which quintupled the problem from 3-to-4 Million to 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens. Good for votes and profits. Cha-Ching!
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: What happens when yout throw up the concrete border fence? Will the illegal aliens stop coming across, or flow through and around the openings?
      That sounds like the typical lame EXCUSE # 11:
      • EXCUSE # 11: A Wall Won’t Work:
      • MYTH: A wall won’t work.
      • TRUTH: It will if it is also monitored by border patrol. And it doesn’t have to be a wall. A fence is merely a delay mechanism to make trespass more difficult; it is unlikely anything can stop
      • all trespass 100%, but giving up is not the solution; more border patrol is the solution; and where fences and patrols have been implemented, they have proven to be very effective, which is probably at why the pro-open-borders, pro-amnesty, and bleedin’ hearts are so strongly opposed to a fence and more border patrol.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: One reason I advocate reducing the costs of immigration is that I believe the high fees create a perverse incentive for people to go the undocumented root.
      We already allow over 1 million immigrants to immigrate to the U.S. legally every year.

      Ask China and India about all of the advantages of over-population.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Many of these people are hard workers just trying to get ahead in the land of opportunity.
      More compassion for illegal aliens than fellow Americans is a recipe for disaster?

      We already allow over 1 million immigrants to immigrate to the U.S. legally every year.
      Ask China and India about all of the advantages of over-population.
      We can’t let everyone come here.
      The U.S. population has doubled in my lifetime.
      Do you really understand what it will be like when it doubles again?
      I’m glad I won’t be around for it.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But when some poor guy can pay a coyote a hundred bucks to get into the country and we charge 900 or more, what do you think that guy will do? I find it positively moronic that we’re trying to make legal immigration tougher and more expensive, at a time when the big problem is that illegal immigration is cheaper, and lucrative for those who facilitate. Yank the plug on that market, for crying out loud. Destroy the incentives for going the illegal route, and helping people cross over the border illegally.
      We already allow over 1 million immigrants to immigrate to the U.S. legally every year. Ask China and India about all of the advantages of over-population. We can’t let everyone come here.

      The world population is growing by 211,000-to-218,000 per day (all births minus deaths).
      The U.S. population is already growing by 5 Million per year (13,700 per day).
      Wanting more is crazy.
      Again, go ask China and India about all of the advantages of over-population.

      The world population in year 1 A.D. was 250 million people.
      The world population in year 1492 was 500 million people.
      The world population in 1804 was 1.0 billion people.
      The world population in 1922 was 2.0 billion people (doubled in 118 years; increasing on average by about 23,000 per day).
      The world population in 1959 was 3.0 billion people (increased by 1.0 billion in only 37 years; increasing on average by about 74,000 per day).
      The world population in 2006 was 6.68 billion people (more than doubled in 47 years; increasing now by 211,000 persons per day!).
      The world population by 2039 could be 8.0 to 13 billion.

      In 1959, there were 12.16 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 3 billion people).
      In 2006, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
      By 2039, there may be only 2.81 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 13 billion people).
      The U.S. has 3.794 million square miles, of which 3.54 million square miles is land area (for a fast growing U.S. population of 300 million people as of the end of year 2006).
      That is only 8.09 acres per person in the U.S.
      However, only about a quarter of that is arable land.
      That means there are only about 2.02 acres per person of arable land in the U.S.
      However, consider that there is only 12 million square miles (7.68 billion acres) of arable land on the planet.
      And, ignore for a moment that arable land is being lost at a rate of 38,610 square miles per year.
      That is, lets assume no arable land is being lost for the next 33 years. Then …

      In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
      By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).

      However, arable land is being lost at the alarming rate of over 38,610 square miles (24.7 million acres) per year.
      Therefore, by 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 6.865 billion acres / 13 billion people).
      At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn’t grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But of course, some folks are still thinking in terms of that 1920’s Eugenics movement, in terms of the protectionist ideology. Keep the riff-raff out, they say. This was the same justification used for other racist policies, and it’s all unjustified by any kind of real science or studies of the situation
      Nonsense.

      That sounds like the typical lame EXCUSE #09:

      • EXCUSE # 09: Racism and Xenophobia:

      • MYTH: You are a racist and xenophobe if you don’t want wide-open borders and have any problems with unchecked immigration.

      • TRUTH: Racism and xenophobia has nothing to do with it. Massive immigration (legal or not) causes many societal problems. Greedy corporations and illegal employers of illegal aliens use the constant influx of illegal aliens to depress wages and boost their own profits. Pandering politicians do it for votes, despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes. The net losses due to illegal immigration are estimated between $70 billion to $326.7 billion. Also, crime rates by illegal aliens are estimated to be 1.83 times (or more) times higher than the norm.

      Again, we already allow over 1 million immigrants to immigrate to the U.S. legally every year.
      Ask China and India about all of the advantages of over-population.
      We can’t let everyone come here.
      The world population is growing by 211,000-to-218,000 per day (all births minus deaths).
      In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
      By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).

      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: In the end, the question is not whether we let the riff-raff in, whether we’re letting in an inferior breed of person. No, the question is whether we’re giving people proper incentives to be stakeholders in the legal version of the system.
      Nonsense.

      The claims of XENOPHOBIA and RACISM are merely yet another lame tactic, having failed to offer any substantive arguments against another amnesty for illegal aliens.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I look at your solution, and it just seems like rephrased goals, not a real plan. Take all the things you plan to deny to illegal aliens. Don’t you have to identify them first as illegal aliens for that to work? And if they are illegal aliens, doesn’t it make more sense to deport them right then and there?
      No, it doesn’t make sense to deport illegal aliens unless they are already within our prisons (which is a huge number; 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

      The first step is to stop the illegal employers.
      Most illegal aliens will self-deport, as evidenced by many that have already left as the economy tanks.
      As for identification, finger prints and other simple biometrics (facial photo, height, weight, eye color, hair color, etc.) are sufficient.
      The first time an illegal alien is arrested, they are finger printed.
      The E-Verify sytsem can also help identify employed illegal aliens.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s like legislating that you’ll send people to prison for an offense, then adding a punishment in an amendment forbidding them from interstate travel.
      Nonsense.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you deport them right on the spot when you find out they’re illegal, all the other measures deal with moot points. Deported kids don’t attend schools in our country. Deported people don’t need healthcare, or laze around on welfare.
      Mass deportation is unnecessary and unwise. You choose to ignore the self-deportation, once the magnets are eliminated (e.g. illegal employers).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If they aren’t found out, you’re not denying them anything. If they are found out, you’re not denying them anything that will denied them by the deportation. Can you define a more useless measure to punish those who cross over illegally than that?
      Nonsense.

      Stop the illegal employers.
      That denies employment.
      Deport those that comit other crimes, or are already incarcerated in our prisons.
      That denies them of the ability to comit more crimes in our nation.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?
      What is more useless than doing nothing?
      Why do you refuse to state your own solution?
      Or is it because your solution is another shamnesty, give them all drivers licenses, and let everyone come here, despite over 1 million per year already coming here legally per year?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: As far as biometrics go? As a technology enthusiast, I’ve heard a lot about them. But the one thing that comes about time and time again is that biometrics are good, first and foremost, for authentication of subjects already registered. Or put another way, for a biometric to be useful, you first have to have had something bio presented to you for somebody to make a metric out of.
      Fingerprints and other simple biometrics are all that is required.

      Also, there is E-Verify, which is 95% accurate, and discrepancies are easily resolved.
      And the FBI has an Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification database System (IAFIS) which can search a huge database of digitized fingerprints in less than 2 hours.
      Other biometrics would be a good idea too, as soon as they can be implemented (e.g. Iris scan).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Maybe you get a repeat offender off of that, or somebody who’s overstayed their visa, but what about the first time offenders? Logically, they’ll have never been fingerprinted, much less been entered into any of the more advanced systems.
      First-time offenders are unlikely to have a finger-print, photo, or other simple biometrics on file.

      So what?
      The first time they are arrested for a crime, it is justified to fingerprint them, and try to determine if they have a Social Security Number and/or proof of citizenship.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Who’s in the system, who’s out of it?

      What do you want?

      To simply solve the problem with another shamnesty, give them all drivers licenses, and let everyone come here, despite over 1 million per year already coming here legally per year?
      That is what quintupled the problem after the shamnesty of 1986.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: How secure is the system? Resolving the issues of this kind is not optional. If somebody can break into your system and replace files, then they could create all kinds of false positives and negatives in the system.
      And somebody can break into your bank account and steal all your money.

      So what?
      Is giving up and doing nothing your only solution.
      Tell us what you want.
      Another shamnesty, give them all drivers licenses, and let everyone come here, despite over 1 million per year already coming here legally per year?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: One person losing a laptop could compromise the whole thing. Or one corrupt person being bribed by the coyotes could make breaking in a moot point. You sneer at me and say its not that complicated. I’ll tell you right back that it is. If it isn’t complicated already, the illegal immigrants and those paid to deliver them over the border will make it that way. Never underestimate the creativity human beings employ in the service of overcoming obstacles.
      And if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass on the ground.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Slogans are more gobbledygook than anything. You package rhetoric and call it a solution. Real solutions have to deal with a messy real world.
      Nonsense.

      No amount of obfuscation, twisting facts, ignoring incovenient facts, and pretzel imitations will change the facts.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We’re use to a certain level of dysfunction in the world around us. Nothing runs perfectly. Sometimes getting that perfection just leads to undesirable complication.
      Ahhhh … yet another case for accepting mediocrity, eh?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s a concept I’ve encountered in the field of Psychology called learned helplessness. An Elephant bound by a rope when it is young and incapable of breaking it will, as an adult, accept that binding and not attempt to snap it. It will do this because its formative experience convinced it of this fact.
      Interesting. Your rhetoric above is an excellent demonstration of that concept of “learned helplessness”.

      Regardless of the solution, declare it a failure.
      Regardless of the argument, take the opposite side, no matter how ridiculous.
      Regardless of the weakness, stubbornly persist to assert the ridiculous, no matter how painful the pretzel imitation becomes.
      Regardless, argue it into the ground with gobbledygook, non-sequiturs, and circular logic.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your problem, really, is that you think people are merely dense or obtuse, and need a little more browbeating.
      Figures. When all else fails, attack the messenger.

      Also, it’s funny how some people accuse others of the very things they are themselves most guilty of.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The reality is, most people are simply pessimistic, their pessimism informed by years of government failure.
      False. That viewpoint is extremely simplistic and there’s no evidence to back it up.

      People have a wide array of attitudes, some of which are optimistic, pessimistic, realistic, or a mixture that varies from time to time.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It doesn’t help that we’ve had an inherently pessimistic political philosophy guiding this nation for the last two decades. Their native mistrust of government has encouraged lower and lower expectations.
      False. Again, that viewpoint is severely simplistic.

      There are numerous reasons for growing problems in this nation for the past several decades, and it is not solely due to pessimism, or discouragement.

      There are numerous causes (with some overlap), which are all rooted in selfishness and laziness:

      • apathy, complacency, sense of futility, negligence, ignorance, and laziness;

      • greed, selfishness, gluttony, lust for power and control, envy, pride, and exploitation of others and things (e.g. lawlessness, wealth, usury, wars, taxation, etc.);

      • irrational fear, fear mongering, anger, intolerance, hatred, prejudice of others and things (e.g. religion, race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.);

      • delusion (deception and self deception), misplaced loyalties, partisan-warfare, misplaced compassion, misplaced priorities;
      Most people, naturally, seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort and pain.

      Excessive optimism and excessive pessimism are usually both bad traits (in excess), and usually rooted in more fundamental traits (laziness and selfishess).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Lower expectations are the enemy of motivation in a situation like this. What’s the point of putting all that energy into reforming the system if you’ve already decided that won’t happen?
      Good question. You appear to have already decided dealing with illegal immigration is futile. What’s your plan. Another amnesty, driverss licenses, and increased immigration?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We do need healthy skepticism here, but we also need confidence and motivation. We also need an approach to politics that is less about sticking barbs in those who disagree with you and more about the needs of the country and getting them fulfilled. The trouble with waiting for pain to change things is that people in America have been feeling low grade aches and sharp pains from the system for years already. Pain is something you can get use to.
      Who said to wait for pain?

      The constant twisting and contorting is not increasing the credibility of your arguments.
      Skepticism is justified when backed up by facts.
      It’s especially justified when predicitions come true.
      You were so happy and optimistic after the election of 7-NOV-2006 too.
      What happened?
      Nothing.
      Things simply got worse.
      Congress was still asleep at the wheel as the economic melt-down caught them all by surprise (despite the numerous warnings by David Walker).
      But of course, I can hear it now. It’s ALL the Republicans’ fault, despite the fact that Democrats have has a vast majority in Congress for 42 of the last 52 years.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: America has been suffering in silence for so long, convinced that it could do no better, that this was simply the ugly reality of today, no fighting it.
      Nonsense. Another extreme over-simplification.

      The reasons for our going backwards for many decades is rooted in the many manifestations of selfishness and laziness (with some overlap):

      • apathy, complacency, sense of futility, negligence, ignorance, and laziness;

      • greed, selfishness, gluttony, lust for power and control, envy, pride, and exploitation of others and things (e.g. lawlessness, wealth, usury, wars, taxation, etc.);

      • irrational fear, fear mongering, anger, intolerance, hatred, prejudice of others and things (e.g. religion, race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.);

      • delusion (deception and self deception), misplaced loyalties, partisan-warfare, misplaced compassion, misplaced priorities;

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Americans elected Barack Obama, in part, because he’s appealed to their hidden hope that this is not the case, that the ultimate trajectory of America at this point is not downwards.

      Well, even Obama says things “will get worse before they get better”.

      Obama’s probably a better choice than McCain (whose grasp of economics was truly pathetic), but it’s not like we had great choices.
      Obama’s grasp of ecnomics isn’t much better, since he was equally caught by surprise when Bernanke and Paulsen showed up in Congress warning of a melt-down, and both McCain and Obama voted to pass the $700 Billion bail-out, which not only has not been spent wisely, but has been followed by $3.2 Trillion in more lending and spending, and $8.5 Trillion in allocations for more bail-outs. It’s pure lunacy, when 95% of all U.S. money in existence is Principal Debt. None of them seem to understand the math. They should have a serious sit-down with David Walker, Peter Schiff, and a few other economists that understand the mathematical flaw of the fractional banking system that creates debt-to-reserves at a ration of 9-to-1 (which is why over 90% of all U.S. money in existence is Principal Debt).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know. You’re going to say, like so many others, that Americans are going to go back to trusting govenrment to do everything for them.
      There is too much dependency on government. Government fosters that unhealthy dependency. To make matters worse, government very irresponsibly (if not fraudulently) mismanages the systems that Americans have grown dependent on (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think this is a pointless and rather arrogant expectation. No, what people want is a system that doesn’t stumble over its own feet into big pitfalls, where capitalism is insulated from excess of fictional wealth and growth, where the economy and the middle class’s role in it are sustainable and healthy for most involved.
      Good. But they won’t get it by giving Congress dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings, but repeatedly rewarding Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Americans don’t want to stop playing the game of market economics, they want rules that make sense, where the scorekeeping isn’t arbitrary and chaotic. Who are the winners? Who are the losers? Why, in either case, are they a winner or a loser?
      Well, first, most Americans need to understand that they have been playing a rigged game of Monopoly, in which one group of people (banks, corporations, federal reserve) can create all the money they want out of thin air.

      Before too long, most Americans are broke and/or deep in debt, jobless, homeless, and hungry.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: And will we so narrowmindedly confine ourselves to solutions within the market, or will we use our brains and decide at some point that you don’t need market economics to tell you when you’re putting too much carbon in the air or find some way of reducing it. Government isn’t absolutely wise, but there is a such thing as good government, if we put the right people in charge.
      I agree that better government is possible. But we have not had it lately; not for many decades. And BOTH Democrats and Republicans have been the IN-PARTY in the last several decades. In fact, the Democrats were the IN-PARTY for 42 of the last 52 years. Neither party has anything to brag about for the last 50 years.

      It remains to be seen if all the optimism of late is justified.
      I truly hope so
      Voters were obviously let-down after the previous election of 7-NOV-2006.
      Hopefully, they won’t be sorry for rewarding Congress again with 86.9% re-election rates.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 8, 2008 5:31 PM
      Comment #271729

      Dan-
      You seem to have a problem with my skepticism, which you perceive as simple contrarianism. Let me put this plainly: I was advocating for more secure borders before illegal immigration started really becoming a problem. You like to repeat this rhetoric about my wanting open and porous borders, but you seem to be the only one speaking that point of view. I hold no such views.

      You seem to be stuck in this rut of right-wing rhetoric. Everything’s about toughness, about exclusion. What you don’t realize is that many of these suggestions are implemented in the place of meaningful internal enforcement. They’re stalling measures, essentially meaningless.

      I mean, what’s the point of depriving a person of the right to a Driver’s license after you discover they’re illegal aliens? F*** that. Just deport them.

      But ask yourself another question: if I implement this, what is the response?

      To be fair, everybody would have to be fingerprinted, and the fingerprints submitted to the FBI IAFIS database.

      What would constitute a positive? What would be done? What would be the legal recourse of those falsely accused of being illegal?

      What kind of bureacratic backup would we see in terms of the average citizen getting a driver’s license, all to catch a scant few illegals? How long would people put up with the delay? And how diligent will the DMV employees be to enforce such statutes, given the kind of training they will likely get? If you think you can get any kind of workable, much less effective policy without meeting and facing these challenges, which you call nonsense, false, or whatever, your policy’s going nowhere.

      I have learned through the long experience of trying to become a science fiction and fantasy writer along the worldbuilding tradition that the world people imagine in their minds, whether it’s the real world they’re trying to understand or the fictional world they’re trying to author, is often much simpler than the one that actually exists, or in terms of fiction, that would be convincing to those besides the folks who already implicitly believe in the world in question.

      I know, you call that gobbledygook. I call that the truth: the world is bigger and more complicated than any of us, or our knowledge and understanding of it. The smarter we are, the better adapted our picture of the world can be, but that doesn’t mean that because we have intelligence that our point of view is more correct. It could simply be more elaborate, perhaps more persuasive.

      You seem like a smart guy, but I think you underestimate the way the real world defeats our expectations, and brushes aside our demands. What my college experience taught me is that the messages we send do not always reach our audience in a way that guarantees a symmetry of meaning- the audience seeing what we see. The most difficult part of good communication is arranging our arguments and points to deliver our message as intended.

      So I’m always skeptical that left to itself, just stating some truism is enough to convince people. Thus, I try to be conversational, to make my case with supporting premises. As I’m pretty sure that most people who would need convincing to take up my views, probably don’t share my peculiar partisan passions, I tend to leave them by the wayside, instead trying to appeal to emotions that they would be likely to share.

      One can be right, yet fail to argue validly or soundly the point of view you seek to promote.

      I’d say dump the antagonistic attitude. I know what I believe, and you’re not getting anything right. You’re, in the heat of rhetoric, throwing charges, insinuations and other things that are just making me shake my head, and probably would make anybody like me skeptical of your point of view from the start.

      You think anybody except for sympathetic partisans takes your rhetoric seriously? I don’t count on party sentiments swaying people, especially since most Americans don’t call themselves Democrats.

      So for what its worth, here’s my argument on Immigration:

      1) Clear the decks. there’s no point in trying to deport millions of people of whom many have put down roots. But any amnesty (it’s not a dirty word) must be conditioned strongly and strictly. It must be made clear that they will be watched more closely and more diligently than others who have done things the right way.

      The idea is to reduce the number of people we have to focus on.

      2)And then, bring the magnifying glass, and make the rest feel the heat. Toughen our ridiculously weak internal enforcement. Define it, though, so we’re not ending up deporting people who really belong here.

      3)finally, as #2 is carried out, we make it easier to immigrate legally.

      Why? It’s pretty simple: supply and demand. If you make a business simultaneously more costly and less lucrative, then you’re well on your way to putting the folks who profit from and facilitate the illegal entry of hundreds of thousands of people a year out of business. Cripple the market for breaking into America’s back door. Don’t just treat the symptom, kill the disease. Destroy the system that the problem depends upon to be so serious.

      The three parts work together to reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, to remain under the radar. The first part gives us a smaller target, the second part makes it clear that the conditional amnesty represents the beginning of a tougher regime. The third part makes it more pointless to to go the illegal route.

      We could add in some rather devious ancillary parts to this. Encourage those seeking amnesty to give up the coyotes or intelligence on the routes they took, the reward for which would be reduction of the penalties.

      Overall, I don’t want us to expend a whole bunch of energy on symbolic solutions. I want to see real results. You can either take a Rumsfeld approach to these things or a Gates approach, try and force the other side to submit, or use your brain and get them to submit by carrots, sticks, and effective strategy.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 9, 2008 5:44 PM
      Comment #271740
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- You seem to have a problem with my skepticism, which you perceive as simple contrarianism. Let me put this plainly: I was advocating for more secure borders before illegal immigration started really becoming a problem. You like to repeat this rhetoric about my wanting open and porous borders, but you seem to be the only one speaking that point of view. I hold no such views.
      How, when you are against a border fence, want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, want another shamnesty, and want easier immigration, despite 1 Million that are already allowed to immigrate legally per year?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You seem to be stuck in this rut of right-wing rhetoric.
      Is there any wonder why?

      Your comments indicate that you are against a border fence, want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, want another shamnesty, and want easier immigration, despite 1 Million that are already allowed to immigrate legally per year?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Everything’s about toughness, about exclusion. What you don’t realize is that many of these suggestions are implemented in the place of meaningful internal enforcement. They’re stalling measures, essentially meaningless.
      Nonsense.

      Border security and internal inforcement of existing laws are both important are necessary.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I mean, what’s the point of depriving a person of the right to a Driver’s license after you discover they’re illegal aliens? F*** that. Just deport them.
      Make up your minde.

      Which is it?

      Do you want to give them drivers’ licenses, or deport them, or both? You have previously argued many times for giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses. And you have also previously argued against any border barriers. And you have also previously argued for increased and easier immigration (despite 1 Million per year alreadly allowed to immigrate legally). And you have also previously argued for another amnesty.

      If illegal aliens are arrested for a crime, they most certainly should be detained, finger-printed, recorded in the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification database System (IAFIS) system, photographed, and record some other simple biometrics (e.g. height, weight, eye color, hair color, etc.), and then deported, rather than filling up our prisons (e.g. 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens; GAO Report 5646 reports (on page 28) 308,168 illegal aliens that were BOTH convicted and/or incarcerated during year 2003).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But ask yourself another question: if I implement this, what is the response? To be fair, everybody would have to be fingerprinted, and the fingerprints submitted to the FBI IAFIS database.
      Not true. Finger-print people when arrested.

      Illegal aliens without a valid drivers’ license should be arrested and finger-printed.
      Using a fake drivers’ license is a felony.
      All criminal illegal aliens should be deported, rather than filling up our prisons.
      In GAO Report 5646, 55,322 illegal aliens were arrested an average of 8 times per illegal alien.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: What would constitute a positive? What would be done? What would be the legal recourse of those falsely accused of being illegal?
      Legal citizens shouldn’t have any trouble proving their citizenship.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: What kind of bureacratic backup would we see in terms of the average citizen getting a driver’s license, all to catch a scant few illegals? How long would people put up with the delay? And how diligent will the DMV employees be to enforce such statutes, given the kind of training they will likely get? If you think you can get any kind of workable, much less effective policy without meeting and facing these challenges, which you call nonsense, false, or whatever, your policy’s going nowhere. I have learned through the long experience of trying to become a science fiction and fantasy writer along the worldbuilding tradition that the world people imagine in their minds, whether it’s the real world they’re trying to understand or the fictional world they’re trying to author, is often much simpler than the one that actually exists, or in terms of fiction, that would be convincing to those besides the folks who already implicitly believe in the world in question.
      Well, I don’t know.

      Perhaps we should create a Congressional Committee to look into that, and then 10 sub-committees to assist, and perhaps spend a few billion to perform an independent research, and then reconvene after a few years, so that they can start all over again?

      That sort of nonsense reminds me of a joke that goes like this:

      • You and I are walking down a deserted street. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises his knife, and charges. We are both carrying a Smith & Wesson and we are both expert shots. You have mere seconds before he reaches you. What do you do?
        • Stephen Daugherty’s Answer: Well gee, that’s not enough information to answer the question! HMMMmmmm … does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack me? Could we run away? What does d.a.n think? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the gun have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? Perhaps I might live if I go ahead and let him stab me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
        • d.a.n’s Answer: BANG!
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know, you call that gobbledygook.
      It is. But it is very elegant, prolific, and circular gobbledygook.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Thus, I try to be conversational, …
      No kiddin’ ?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … to make my case with supporting premises.
      That’s where your arguements usually fall apart. More often, it turns into a pretzel imitation trying to defend the indefensible, and rationalize the irrational.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: As I’m pretty sure that most people who would need convincing to take up my views, probably don’t share my peculiar partisan passions, I tend to leave them by the wayside, instead trying to appeal to emotions that they would be likely to share.
      Really? Then why bother trying to get me to share your goals of (1) partisanship, (2) to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, (3) reject border barriers, (4) embrace easier and increased immigration, and (5) another amnesty? Because I’m not about to change my opinion on any of those 5 things.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know what I believe, and you’re not getting anything right.
      Nonsense.

      I’m not the one repeatedly doing a pretzel imitation trying to defend the indefensible, and rationalize the irrational.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re, in the heat of rhetoric, throwing charges, insinuations and other things that are just making me shake my head, and probably would make anybody like me skeptical of your point of view from the start.
      More nonsense.

      Again, having failed to prop up weak arguments, you are resorting again to attacks on the messenger instead.
      If I’m wrong about everything, you should have no trouble providing some credible arguments to point out what is wrong.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You think anybody except for sympathetic partisans takes your rhetoric seriously? I don’t count on party sentiments swaying people, especially since most Americans don’t call themselves Democrats.
      Someone must, since they repeatedly respond to it.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: So for what its worth, here’s my argument on Immigration:
      • (1) Clear the decks. there’s no point in trying to deport millions of people of whom many have put down roots. But any amnesty (it’s not a dirty word) must be conditioned strongly and strictly. It must be made clear that they will be watched more closely and more diligently than others who have done things the right way. The idea is to reduce the number of people we have to focus on.
          {We already tried this in 1986, and it didn’t work then, and it sure as hell won’t work now; the solution must first start by prosecting illegal employers, and then many illegal aliens will self deport; then secure the borders; deport all criminal illegal aliens; do not allow illegal aliens access to schools, welfare, or health care, except for emergency health care}
      • (2)And then, bring the magnifying glass, and make the rest feel the heat. Toughen our ridiculously weak internal enforcement. Define it, though, so we’re not ending up deporting people who really belong here.
          {Internal enforcment should be the 1st step; not mass deportation;}
      • (3)finally, as #2 is carried out, we make it easier to immigrate legally. Why? It’s pretty simple: supply and demand. If you make a business simultaneously more costly and less lucrative, then you’re well on your way to putting the folks who profit from and facilitate the illegal entry of hundreds of thousands of people a year out of business. Cripple the market for breaking into America’s back door. Don’t just treat the symptom, kill the disease. Destroy the system that the problem depends upon to be so serious. The three parts work together to reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, to remain under the radar. The first part gives us a smaller target, the second part makes it clear that the conditional amnesty represents the beginning of a tougher regime. The third part makes it more pointless to to go the illegal route. We could add in some rather devious ancillary parts to this. Encourage those seeking amnesty to give up the coyotes or intelligence on the routes they took, the reward for which would be reduction of the penalties. Overall, I don’t want us to expend a whole bunch of energy on symbolic solutions. I want to see real results. You can either take a Rumsfeld approach to these things or a Gates approach, try and force the other side to submit, or use your brain and get them to submit by carrots, sticks, and effective strategy.
          {Nonsense. We don’t need to make legal immigration easier. We already allow 1 Million per year to immigrate legally. Your solution sucks, because an amnesty was alrady tried in 1986, and it did not work then, and it won’t work now. Stopping the illegal employers will stop most illegal immigration, and encourage most illegal aliens to self-deport. Already, many have self-deported since the U.S. economy has tanked. The rest need to go to the back of the legal immigration line. The U.S. already allows 1 Million per year to immigrate legally. The U.S. can’t let everyone come here. We can’t make the pie any bigger. }
      Stephen Daugherty wrote:Overall, I don’t want us to expend a whole bunch of energy on symbolic solutions.
      Really? Like watching 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens will be easy?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But any amnesty (it’s not a dirty word) must be conditioned strongly and strictly. It must be made clear that they will be watched more closely and more diligently than others who have done things the right way. The idea is to reduce the number of people we have to focus on.
      Like watching 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens will be easy?

      That’s truly ridiculous and illogical.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The idea is to reduce the number of people we have to focus on.
      By committing to closely wathing 12-to-20 million illegal aliens?

      That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read.
      It is completely the opposite of not wanting “to expend a whole bunch of energy”.
      Especially when your solution was already tried in 1986, and it quintupled the problem from 3-to-4 million to 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens.
      You are too young to remember it.
      It wasn’t popular then (in 1986) for obvious reasons.
      Do it again, and millions more will flood across the borders to get their amnest too.
      That would be a very dumb thing to do (again).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want to see real results.
      Obviously not.

      The solution to stopping illegal aliens is:

      • (01) Secure the borders immediately;

      • (02) Stop ignoring existing laws now. Immediately begin to enforce the existing laws to prosecute illegal employers.

      • (03) Then pass a BILL to provide a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons, which are some persons that were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parent(s) when young and have lived over N years of their life in the U.S., and are no longer dependent on their parents. This will be a painfully difficult and costly process, but one that will only get more costly and difficult until the borders are secured and the illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens. Another broad amnesty is not the solution. Our politicians already failed to secure the borders and enforce existing laws after the last amnesty of 1986, so they can not be trusted again, and must first secure the borders and enforce existing laws before considering a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons.

      • (04) Require deportation of ALL criminal illegal aliens and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons.

      • (05) Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires. Prosecute violators.

      • (06) Pass an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate automatic citizenship for illegal alien births. Stop the abuse of anchor babies to acquire Blue Passports.

      • (07) Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.

      • (08) Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), except Emergency healthcare.

      • (09) Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

      • (10) Deny ALL illegal aliens college tuition.

      • (11) Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

      • (12) Provide pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

      • (13) With no more magnets (no jobs, welfare, education, etc.), the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. Allow all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.

      • (14) Lastly, voters must recognize that nothing is likely to ever improve as long as voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates and empowering irresponsible incumbent politicians to (despicably) pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 9, 2008 9:48 PM
      Comment #271759
      How, when you are against a border fence, want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, want another shamnesty, and want easier immigration, despite 1 Million that are already allowed to immigrate legally per year?

      The point is to get everybody who wants to be a productive citizen on the right side of being documented and known, and then to make the enforcement so heavy that anybody who tries to follow will be walking into a wood chipper.

      The license thing is pathetic. You claim it shows how hardcore you are, but for it to matter, you have to fail to deport the person. Same goes for any of those oh-so-manly denials of service.

      In the American system of justice, you are innocent until you are proven guilty. In your system, you are non-citizen until you prove yourself otherwise.

      I don’t want more illegal aliens around. I want those who are here, and not going anywhere to register and become known to us. I want those people who are planning to come here to have more reason to do things the legal way, than to do otherwise. I want to take the bottom out from under the business of smuggling illegal aliens in.

      You seem willing to turn America into a police state and burden what is basically a law enforcement fingerprint database with the task of identifying who is a citizen. The trouble is, that to make that distinction, that fingerprint scanner is first going to have to read that fingerprint right, and then that information is going to have to be matched against others in the database. If you’re trying to match that person against known illegal immigrants, you will always be one step behind, and those illegal immigrants who keep their head down, will never show up on your radar screen.

      Or, if you’re trying to make a positive match with a known citizen, then you have to get everybody in American on that database, which is a massive invasion of privacy. Americans are going to rightly ask why they have to prove themselves citizens. The presumption should be that we are citizens, not that we are potential illegal aliens who have to prove our innocence.

      Your answer, as much as you’ve touted your conservative principles seems to be more and more power in the hands of government.

      I think you’re just working harder, not smarter. I think you’re so blinded by your own point of view that you don’t recognize that there are simpler and better ways of doing this.

      The point is to bring about a change in the conditions on the ground. It’s not to make this big display of overblown power. Bluff and bluster are not what’s going to solve this problem.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 10, 2008 9:12 AM
      Comment #271773
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The point is to get everybody who wants to be a productive citizen on the right side of being documented and known, and then to make the enforcement so heavy that anybody who tries to follow will be walking into a wood chipper.
      We already tried that in year 1986, and it not only failed, but quintupled the problem from 3-to-4 Million to 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The license thing is pathetic. You claim it shows how hardcore you are,
      Nonsense. Yet another attack on the messenger, instead of presenting a credible argument, and being frustrated with yet another the pretzel imitation.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The license thing is pathetic. You claim it shows how hardcore you are, but for it to matter, you have to fail to deport the person. Same goes for any of those oh-so-manly denials of service.
      Nonsense.

      What is truly pathetic and asinine is wanting to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses.
      But you are not alone. Obama, Bill Richardson, Janet Napolitian, Hillary Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, etc. all agree with you.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: In the American system of justice, you are innocent until you are proven guilty. In your system, you are non-citizen until you prove yourself otherwise.
      Nonsense.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t want more illegal aliens around.
      Of course not. You want to reward them all with amnesty, in which millions more will flood across the border to get their amnesty too.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want those who are here, and not going anywhere to register and become known to us.
      Of course. And another amnesty will make the problem bigger, as did the shamnesty of 1986, which quintupled the problem from 3-to-4 Million ot 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want those people who are planning to come here to have more reason to do things the legal way, than to do otherwise.
      Of course. And don’t worry. With another shamnesty, rest assured there will be millions more “planning to come here”.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want to take the bottom out from under the business of smuggling illegal aliens in.
      Of course. More good little Democrat voters, eh? Anything for votes, eh?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You seem willing to turn America into a police state and burden what is basically a law enforcement fingerprint database with the task of identifying who is a citizen.
      Nonsense. Finger-printing and photographing people is already done when people are arrested. Proof of citizenship to work and live in the U.S. is already an existing law.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The trouble is, that to make that distinction, that fingerprint scanner is first going to have to read that fingerprint right, and then that information is going to have to be matched against others in the database. If you’re trying to match that person against known illegal immigrants, you will always be one step behind, and those illegal immigrants who keep their head down, will never show up on your radar screen. Or, if you’re trying to make a positive match with a known citizen, then you have to get everybody in American on that database, which is a massive invasion of privacy. Americans are going to rightly ask why they have to prove themselves citizens. The presumption should be that we are citizens, not that we are potential illegal aliens who have to prove our innocence.
      So? Is giving up what you recommend? That sounds a lot like the joke above. Perhaps we should create a Congressional Committee to look into that, and then 10 sub-committees to assist, and perhaps spend a few hundred billion dollars to perform an independent research, and then reconvene after a few years, so that they can start all over again?

      Besides, the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification database System (IAFIS) has proven to be very effective.
      Illegal aliens may get away with the first crime, upon which they will be finger-printed and photographed, and possibly deported.
      If they return and/or create another crime, their record will be available.
      By the way, the first trespass of the U.S. borders is only a misdemeanor, but any subsequent trespass is a felony.
      Illegal aliens can be deported for the first trespass, but since that process costs border states a lot of money, they usually let the illegal aliens go free.
      Still, every year, states request massive reimbursements from the federal government for hundreds of thousands of incarcerated illegal aliens.

      • Total federal prison population as of 27-NOV-2008: 202,771 ; Notice above that 46,063 convicted criminal aliens as of 27-DEC-2003 were in federal prisons (note: that 46,063 are not necessarily convicted in the year of 2003, but only the number of convicted currently incarcerated as of 27-DEC-2003); Provided the 46,063 of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated as of 27-DEC-2003 did not increase by year 2008, the ratio of convictions of illegal aliens to total incarcerated in federal prison is 22.7%. However GAO Report 05-337R states it was 27% for 3 years from the end of 2001, through to the end of 2004:
        • At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004—a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years—about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens—BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP—totaled approximately $5.8 Billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004. BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminal aliens rose from about $950 million in 2001 to about $1.2 billion in 2004—a 14 percent increase.

      • Total U.S. prison population in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 is about (hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/264.html) 2.2 million. The ratio of convicted criminal aliens to total prison population of 2.2 Million in year 2004 is (308,168 / 2.2 Million) about 14.0% , despite 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens being about 4.0-to-6.7% of the total 300 Million U.S. population (as of about year 2004). Therefore, the conviction rates and numbers of incarcarated appear to be significantly higher for illegal aliens. Also, bear in mind that first time trespass of our borders is only a misdemeanor, for which illegal aliens are not incarcerated. Often, what gets many illegal aliens in trouble is not merely trespassing our borders, but also violating several other laws by using fake documents; fake drivers’ licenses; fake or invalid Social Security numbers; driving without insurance; and receiving Medicaid, Medi-CAL, and/or welfare. Even many of those violations fail to land illegal aliens in jail much of the time, because they simply don’t show up for their court hearing, and even if arrested are not held in custody. In fact, in some instances, illegal aliens are released on bail after being arrested for serious crimes, including murder in some cases. Sources: www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/11/17/illegal-aliens-out-on-bail-commit-another-crime-or-vanish-before-trial/ , www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp , www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=528 , www.dcexaminer.com/local/Home_invasion_murder_suspect_escaped_from_NY_police_in_2000_officials_say.html

      • In year 1995, there were 4,081 illegal aliens sentenced in federal district courts, 11% of the total of 37,100 sentenced (in federal district courts only), despite 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens being about 4.0-to-6.7% of the total 300 Million U.S. population (as of about year 2004).

      • As of year 2002, 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

      • As of 2003, there were 161,173 incarcerated in federal prisons (13% for violent crimes: Source: www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdf)

      • At yearend 2006 correctional facilities in the United States held an estimated 2,385,213 inmates in custody, including inmates in Federal and State prisons, territorial prisons, local jails, facilities operated by or exclusively for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), military facilities, jails in Indian country, and youth in juvenile facilities. During 2006 the total incarcerated population increased by 2.8%, or 64,579 inmates. Source: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p06.txt

      • From 2000 to 2006, … offenses by illegal aliens increased by 43% ; Source: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p06.txt

      • Detainees held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increased 41% from 2005 to 2006. Source: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p06.txt

      • At year end 2006, 27,634 detainees were under the jurisdiction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This represented a 41% increase (or 8,072 detainees) from yearend 2005.

      • As of JUN-2003, the National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Fedaration For American Immigration Reform states that (www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c) 29% of all prisoners in our federal prisons are are illegal aliens.

      • Criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons increased from about 42,000 at year-end 2001 to about 49,000 at year-end 2004.

      • Fiscal year 2002-SCAAP reimbursed all 50 states for incarcerating about 77,000 criminal aliens.

      • A huge statistic is missed, that if quantified would increase the crime numbers and costs of illegal aliens is that many jurisdictions don’t determine the immigration status of a perpetrator of a crime (don’t even ask) and many others are sanctuary cities that are forbidden from asking the immigration status of crime perpetrators.

      • For fiscal year 2002—SCAAP reimbursed 752 local jurisdictions for incarcerating about 138,000 criminal aliens.

      • For fiscal year 2003—SCAAP reimbursed 698 local jurisdictions for about 147,000 criminal aliens.

      • Federal prisons include 112 prisons managed by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), 10
        privately managed facilities, and other contract facilities including community
        correction centers and short-term detention facilities. More than 1,300 state prisons operated by state correctional agencies in all 50
        states, as of 2000. More than 3,300 local jails operated by cities, counties, and municipalities, as of 1999.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your answer, as much as you’ve touted your conservative principles seems to be more and more power in the hands of government.
      Nonsense. Expecting existing laws to be enforced does not equate to giving government more power.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re just working harder, not smarter. I think you’re so blinded by your own point of view that you don’t recognize that there are simpler and better ways of doing this.
      Funny how some people accuse others of the very things they are doing themselves.

      Perhaps some people should practice what they preach?

      Again, attacking the messenger instead of the issues is yet another indication of the weakness (if not absurdity) of one’s own arguments, and the frustration of getting all twisted into a pretzel trying to defend the indefensible and rationalize the irrational. How typical, having failed miserably to build a rational case, to then attack the character of the other person.
      For example …

      If anything, someone else is critiquing the messenger instead of the message, as demostrated by these numerous statements:


      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- … You’re not critiquing the message.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Critique the message, not the messenger. {Funny how some people accuse others of the very things they constantly do themselves.}

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You may find my views disgusting, despicable or whatever, …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You did address my arguments, and continued to use ad hominem arguments.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … You had better be prepared …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to badmouth us …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You had better come at us with good evidence …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … we’ve told you no, we aren’t satisfied with facts you‘ve provided.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: For me, that means putting opinions like yours to the test …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n … Your problem, really, is that you think people are merely dense or obtuse, and need a little more browbeating.
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: you‘re trying to win in front of me and everybody else …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You claim it shows how hardcore you are, but for it to matter, you have to fail to deport the person. Same goes for any of those oh-so-manly denials of service.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n - You’re, in the heat of rhetoric, throwing charges, insinuations and other things that are just making me shake my head, and probably would make anybody like me skeptical of your point of view from the start.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can get all patronizing about that, …
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Facts, Dan. Facts. Not your opinions, not your conclusions, not your claims, facts. …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Get out of pundit mode, and start treating this …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You‘re flinging an ad hominem argument at me …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , You‘re wasting your time.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You just want people to bow down to your case, as if they should obligated to think in your terms.
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be frank with you, you‘re no better than the people you criticize.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Jeez man, if that’s respect, I’d hate to get on your bad side!

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your attacks on the fact that I do have some party association, have done little to convince me that I should abandon them.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , First, you don’t respect people’s right to have other opinions… .

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve tried to do you the respect of not merely flatly contradicting you

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be brutally honest, you‘re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You know, you and others have this habit of confusing control with security.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th elected 7-NOV-2006] congress a do-nothing congress …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: So you can say “false” or “nonsense” with all the authority you can muster, but that doesn’t change. It’s not a fact.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I told you that you shouldn’t do it [i.e. call the 110th Congress the “Do-Nothing Congress”], and you‘re free to agree or not to agree with what I’m telling you to do.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: The only nonsense here, in my belief, are your improperly derived results.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims [i.e. of Americans murdered by illegal aliens] …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re just working harder, not smarter. I think you’re so blinded by your own point of view that you don’t recognize that there are simpler and better ways of doing this.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , Now you‘re trying my patience …

      It is merely more proof of weak (if not totally abusrd) and failing arguments, and no amount of obfuscation, rationalization, and circular, twisting, pretzel-logic and gobbledygook can change it.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The point is to bring about a change in the conditions on the ground. It’s not to make this big display of overblown power. Bluff and bluster are not what’s going to solve this problem.
      Another shamnesty will fail as did the shamnesty of 1986.

      Obviously, some people learned nothing from it.

      Common-sense solutions will solve the problem.
      The solution to stopping illegal aliens is:

      • (01) Secure the borders immediately;

      • (02) Stop ignoring existing laws now. Immediately begin to enforce the existing laws to prosecute illegal employers.

      • (03) Then pass a BILL to provide a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons, which are some persons that were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parent(s) when young and have lived over N years of their life in the U.S., and are no longer dependent on their parents. This will be a painfully difficult and costly process, but one that will only get more costly and difficult until the borders are secured and the illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens. Another broad amnesty is not the solution. Our politicians already failed to secure the borders and enforce existing laws after the last amnesty of 1986, so they can not be trusted again, and must first secure the borders and enforce existing laws before considering a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons.

      • (04) Require deportation of ALL criminal illegal aliens and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons.

      • (05) Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires. Prosecute violators.

      • (06) Pass an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate automatic citizenship for illegal alien births. Stop the abuse of anchor babies to acquire Blue Passports.

      • (07) Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.

      • (08) Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), except Emergency healthcare.

      • (09) Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

      • (10) Deny ALL illegal aliens college tuition.

      • (11) Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

      • (12) Provide pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

      • (13) With no more magnets (no jobs, welfare, education, etc.), the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. Allow all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.

      • (14) Lastly, voters must recognize that nothing is likely to ever improve as long as voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates and empowering irresponsible incumbent politicians to (despicably) pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.


      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 10, 2008 12:40 PM
      Comment #271817

      To the author: Such a move would be incredibly disasterous and divisive to this nation.

      Posted by: David M. Huntwork at December 11, 2008 3:44 AM
      Comment #271873

      Geeze. I hate when an article gets danned.

      Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2008 9:55 AM
      Comment #271876

      we need d.a.n and Stephen and David and all we need to be open.

      Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 12, 2008 11:03 AM
      Comment #271879

      Rodney:

      Of course that’s true. But hitting folks over the head with miles of copied and pasted rhetoric repeated over and over doesn’t help the give and take IMHO, which I am entitled to. The shorter, on point posts are so much easier to follow.

      I have given up trying to wade through it, so I skip it and read the other posts. But I do get tired of scrolling so much.

      Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2008 12:09 PM
      Comment #271891

      Rodney Brown, Thanks. You’re right. Most (if not all) of us can be more open minded.

      womanmarine, that’s a good solution: Just scroll past it.

      Or better yet, here are some tips to make it much faster to quickly jump to each next comment, or other places in the thread.

      METHOD (A) - To jump to next comment in thread:
      (1) Press: Ctrl-F
      (2) Type: Comment #
      (3) Press Enter (or click Next , or press Alt-N for Internet Explorer (or Ctrl-G for Firefox)).
      This is very fast, and you don’t even need to know when to stop scrolling.
      And the next time you press Ctrol-F , you do not even need to re-enter the text (e.g. Comment #), if you have “Auto Complete” enabled (in Internet Explorer: via Tools, Internet Options, Content tab, Auto Complete Settings; or Tools, Options, Privacy, Remember what I enter…).

      METHOD (B) - To jump to top of thread:
      (1) Press keys simultaneously: Ctrl-Home

      METHOD (C) - To jump to bottom of thread:
      (1) Press keys simultaneously: Ctrl-End

      METHOD (D) - To jump 1 page at a time (this is very fast):
      (1) Press key: Page-Up or Page-Down
      (2) Or if you have a roller-mouse, that’s pretty fast too (but not as fast as METHOD (A) above).

      How hard is that?

      However, if your real beef isn’t only the terribly dreadful drudgery of scrolling, that suggestion may not help much.

      You made a point to remind us of your right to post your opinion. That goes for others too, whether you agree with others’ opinions, or not.

      By the way, in case you haven’t noticed it, many people here repeat themselves over and over and over, for years and years. I’m no different, except more prolific.

      Also, every one of my comments above are different.
      There was only one comment that repeated one 14-point list (both in comment #271740 and #271773 .
      My apologies for that.
      Aside from that, all posts different.
      Yes, I do draw upon a wealth of information and data to try to support my positions.
      This is a site where much is debated, and sometimes, that requires data too.

      womanmarine wrote: But hitting folks over the head with miles of copied and pasted rhetoric repeated over and over doesn’t help the give and take IMHO, which I am entitled to.
      No one ever said your were not entitled to your opinion. And every one of my comments above are different.
      womanmarine wrote: The shorter, on point posts are so much easier to follow.
      Well, that’s your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but other people might disagree? Especially a few people that seem to want to debate certain issues at great length.

      Also, no one had entered a new comment on this thread for 1 or 2 days, until the time you posted the 137th and only comment in this thread stating …

      womanmarine wrote: Geeze. I hate when an article gets danned.

      Is there anything else you would like to offer to the discussion on whether Bush should go to prison, or the discussion between Stephen, Roy, SicilianEagle, and me on illegal immigration?

      womanmarine wrote: I have given up trying to wade through it, so I skip it and read the other posts. But I do get tired of scrolling so much.
      Is the scroling really that tiring? If so, try METHOD (A) above. It’s very fast. I use it all the time.

      Of course, the real issue may probably be that you simply don’t like what I have to say or how it is said.
      That’s fine.
      You are not alone.

      Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2008 3:54 PM
      Comment #283701

      bush did us wrong and the press knowns this and what they report chris brown thing what about the bush thing he cheated from start 2 finish and his brother 2 should be in front of some guns and fire on what kind of people we r 2 let the rats of the states runed this nation to an new hell and we let it the hell with prison the lives he took the familys lost because we let it bush lose and we let his brother slap our votes like it was an fly the hell with their money but the rats of states took it and jumped aboard the start the war ship and now its on fire and the rats jumped ship now it burns in USA blood waters thank u rats of the states now the doves 4 peace R 4 rats D 4 doves R & D please we don’t need the R back in the house now do we look at what the rats cost us $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

      Posted by: james at June 27, 2009 6:08 PM
      Post a comment