Third Party & Independents Archives


The Corpocracy has managed to score another one against the taxpayer. Through the exploitation of illegal and cheap labor the Corpocracy has struck a major blow against middle class workers. Beginning with the Regan administration immigrants streamed across the Southern border unimpeded. As their number reached something around 3 to 4 million the public began to push for immigration reform. In the interim period anchor babies were being born and, as with today, the medical expenses were passed along to the taxpayer. The children born during that era are in their 20’s and 30’s now and are competing with other US citizens for work. They are now having children of their own and this cycle will repeat to infinity.

Reform came in the way of amnesty giving citizenship to 3-4 million illegals. Those too, are now competing in the workforce as US citizens. Since the 80’s another 12-20 million illegals, a guestimate at best, have entered the country looking for work. And, they too have produced anchor babies, again paid for by the taxpayer. This will produce another wave of US citizens entering the work force in the 2010-2020 time frame. And, of course you have the 12-20 million that are here now competing for jobs.

That is a sizeable number of people entering the US labor market but right in tune with what the corpocracy fought for and won. Not much of a fight really. The border is still open with no plans to close it to illegal crossing. And, those who are here illegally are in the safe zone where their legal status can’t be questioned. From Napolitano’s latest directive ICE can identify businesses hiring illegals and request they be fired. But, there is no enforcement beyond that, leaving the illegals to go elsewhere and find work.

So, regardless of the future status of the border, the Corpocracy has achieved much of their goal of breaking the back of the middle class worker. With fewer jobs available and many more workers than are needed to fill those jobs the middle class has entered a downward spiral in the race to the bottom. It appears that American workers have accepted their fate and merely pay lip service to the Corpocracy even as they move closer to poverty.

Makes little sense to argue over free trade and globalization. It is what it is. The entire world is involved in this great adventure. A world based on commerce, consumerism and multi-culturalism. The losers are sovereignty, religion, and ethnicity. A vastly different world coming of age.

Posted by Roy Ellis at September 11, 2009 7:55 AM
Comment #287905

Why I will not argue that President Regan and Congress gave amnesty in the 80’s, do you know or are aware that Mexicans have been freely crossing the border for many years before that date? In fact. I do believe that at the time and up to the present it was and has been seen a a why to keep the wages of Unskilled Labor low.

So why I do realize that America needs to get a grip on the growing problem, I still believe the best why to begin is to increase the type of crime and punishment for those caught haboring, employing, or transporting all citizens here illehaly. For why the most harshes is a small fine and told not to get caught again and again. Like David and I disgussed sometime ago IMHO the whole bunch should be charged with Treson to include the person who knowing ly crossed the border.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 11, 2009 7:52 AM
Comment #287910

Hospitals in southern CA, in NM, and AZ are already suffering from the weight of illegals seeking free health care. Sam is correct, the illegal situation will bankrupt any public health care system. But, in all honesty, liberals do not care, the end justifies the means. And the end is to make millions more dependent upon the federal government.

Posted by: propitiation at September 11, 2009 9:17 AM
Comment #287915

Actually all employers are required to verify legal status. They just don’t, and no one prosecutes them…until more recently. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have begun performing raids on known large employers of illegals. Some of them are in jail.

In the eighties and early 90’s I had to fill out INS forms to verify status when hiring someone. That law is still in effect, but many employers don’t even know what it is. Putting a few in jail, gets their attention right away.

Posted by: gergle at September 11, 2009 9:50 AM
Comment #287918

“Obama lied, because there is no way to determine who is a citizen or illegal alien, so anyone can participate.”

Obama didn’t lie. The language of the proposed statute is clear. Illegal aliens cannot receive federal assistance for health insurance.

Simply because the statute itself doesn’t provide a detailed verification procedure doesn’t mean that there will not be one. Indeed, this proposed statute, as well as most federal statutes, instruct the relevant federal agency to prepare rules and regulation for implementation and enforcement of the statute. These regulations and rules are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and have the force of law. They are only adopted after a period of public review and comment.

Legislatures, such as Wilson, are aware or should be aware of the customary practice of implementing federal statutes. Federal statutes are generally broadly written. Otherwise, very little could be accomplished if each statute had to include detailed implementation procedures. If you think that this bill is lengthy, consider the size if each provision had to accompanied with enforcement and regulatory procedures.

This a disingenuous argument by opponents of this bill.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2009 10:09 AM
Comment #287919
Simply because the statute itself doesn’t provide a detailed verification procedure doesn’t mean that there will not be one.

Well, yes, that is exactly what it means. The provision to have a verification procedure was blocked, voted down, and is not in the bill. How much clearer could it be?

While it’s certainly true that the “corpocracy” as you call it has it’s role here, they could hardly accomplish this alone. You can’t just ignore the roadblocks thrown up by left-wing interest groups and activists, along with their Democratic allies in congress, who don’t want any restrictions at all on illegal immigration and have prevented any time and again.

Posted by: Paul at September 11, 2009 10:46 AM
Comment #287920

People are worried enough about their healthcare to stand up and be heard at some of the town halls. Yet, the big elephant in the tent is whether illegals will be covered. That same issue may have clouded Clinton’s attempt at healthcare in the 90’s. While they may recognize that immigration is the problem they remain passive in the face of it. People are out of work and looking for jobs. Again, much of the problem is brought on by illegal immigration. People are currently attending TEA parties across the countries and some are protesting the lack of jobs. Yet, you want see one sign pointing to immigration. People seem content to demand nothing of the Corpocracy, remaining passive and waiting for the Corpocracy to take some action.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Corpocracy is on the move. Criminal organizations like ACORN, SEIU and Americorps are fanning out across the land conducting grassroots voter registration and working the immigrant vote. Eric Holder was able to stop a federal investigation into ACORN activities. They had been indicted in 12 states for voter fraud. Yesterday Florida brought charges against six ACORN’s for voter fraud. They recently received $6 billion to conduct the 2010 census. In the census taking process every person within US boundaries get counted. These counts are used to allocate the number of representatives a state may have and has to do with the allocation of federal funds for years to come.

The Corpocracy has placed $6 billion in the hands of criminals to do their bidding. Silence from the audience. Nancy Grace is on TV. Meanwhile, the FCC Czar, Mark Lloyd, as Director of Communications, is hard at work to limit the free speech of every American. When the Fairness Doctrine ran into trouble the Corpocracy shifted gears to push ‘diversity’ and ‘localism’ in the media. Same goal, to get control of those rowdy talk radio shows and the likes of FOX media. He will get some help from Cass Sustein, who wants to ‘balance the Internet”.

This week the Corpocracy is the plaintiff in an ongoing Supreme Court hearing involving freedom of speech. The Corpocracy is seeking to further abuse freedom of speech by asking the court to legalize direct funding by corporations for financing campaigns and elections. Even as many of these ‘multinationals’ have foreign board members, foreign managers, Execs, what have you. Not a big deal for the all powerful Corpocracy. I do believe that if the law is changed to allow Corporations to directly donate to electioneering there won’t be one whimper from the taxpayer, no window will be broken at any courthouse across the land. Just more waiting to see what else might the Corpocracy might do.

I believe the people have waited to long on the immigration issue. Enough millions are in place to ensure poverty, or near poverty, for themselves and the middle class. There has been no interest in voting incumbents from office, therefore we should not expect any. There was no support for any third party reform movement and that too, will likely not change. Silence all around. Ellen is going to host a new show. She’s gay you know! Astounding and pitiful. Meanwhile, the Corpocracy is on the move.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 11, 2009 11:48 AM
Comment #287921

Wait wait wait, I’m confused. I thought Obama caused illegal immigration. But you’re saying this started in the Reagen era? I don’t believe it. Everyone knows that Obama started illegal immigration so that he could break the backbone of America and force Americans into socialism by garaunteeing free healthcare to illegal immigrants!

Posted by: Mike Falino at September 11, 2009 12:03 PM
Comment #287922

Roy Ellis

When you bring up the subject of ACORN and the SEIU, you are speaking to deaf ears. The left hates conservatives, hates republicans, and hates Christians. And not necessarily in that order. They will find no fault in ACORN, even though numerous criminal charges have been filed. I posted this site yesterday and today another sting operation has taken place, this time in DC. In both cases, ACORN workers gave the same answers, do you think they have been coached? The question is, will ACORN fire these employees as they did in Maryland? Will they also throw these workers under the bus as they have so many times before and call them rogue employees? Will Obama’s justice department also refuse to investigate?

Posted by: propitiation at September 11, 2009 1:01 PM
Comment #287929

We already have illegal immigrants here and changing that is up to another reform bill, not health care reform. It has a lot to do with labor as Roy points out, but when it comes to health care, let’s say we not only refuse federal money to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, but we refuse care all together.

Right now, anybody gets treated in an ER, illegal or not and we all end up paying for that, but what would happen if we refused to do this?
I think we’d need to treat people for communicable diseases regardless, yes? No need to let someone with TB wander around population centers.

No sane person should disagree with that, but then what happens to our tourist industry. Millions of Euros and RMB coming in would be limited by people fearful of overstaying their welcome a week or maybe a paperwork mistake and they can’t get a broken arm set for less than ten thousand dollars. Or how would it feel to refuse some child bleeding from a cracked skull treatment as a disincentive to illegals taking their chances in the US.

This is still America, people shouldn’t feel like they’re effectively in a third world nation if they visit for business or pleasure; whether they’re citizens or not.

As for the corpocracy, Roy, help us out by providing some links to examples of your corpocracy and it’s actions and perhaps list some lobbying groups or even the top five corporations that make up its membership. You have grabbed this subject by the horns, but I’m curious about some of the specific examples you’ve seen that have formed your strong opinions on this subject.

Posted by: Fred at September 11, 2009 2:45 PM
Comment #287930

It would be nice if we stop pretending that corporations don’t know when they are hiring illegals. They know, the supervisors know, the employees know.

Why is it that Republicans never, ever complain about these criminal employers?

Posted by: gergle at September 11, 2009 3:00 PM
Comment #287934

Propitiation, Perhaps there is room for some kind of a deal here. Liberals can demand that the Obama Administration perform a no whitewash investigation of Acorn and conservatives can demand a similar investigation of the Bush Administration.

Paul, contrary to popular belief, there is a group of would be immigrants that the liberals want nothing to do with and they maintain the laws that restrict these people from immigrating to this country.

Liberals willingly support the Corpocracy but, they draw the line when it comes to protecting the jobs of their primary group of constituents, the college educated, white collar middleclass and upper middleclass.

Why don’t we draw a line here and end this particular debate. It does not matter one iota if the Obama health care proposal covers illegal immigrants or not. Illegal immigrants are going to get treatment for injuries and illinesses and much of the cost will be collected from taxpayers.

Both the conservative and liberal politicians support illegal immigration of low wage workers and the exportation of blue collar middle class jobs. Both political parties support the corpocracy and the corpocracy supports both political parties.

Our corpocracy is more than a half century old. It started out slow but since the 80’s it has been shifting into higher gears. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe, the vast majority of us support and defend the corpocracy. Take a look at our public and personel debt and tell me we don’t.

Posted by: jlw at September 11, 2009 3:17 PM
Comment #287941

Chamber of Commerce is one, Business Roundtable, and every corporation or business entity that has given a dollar to a political organization since corporations came into existence in this country. Has a lot to do with perspective. I’m of the bent that Corporations are not human and that money is not speech. Once you get on that side of the fence there is a lot of grazing ground. The plantiff, in this ongoing SCJ case involving free speech, Citizens for (something) is one. All the majors that hire illegal workers, I would count them.
From my perspective there are just to many to mention. Don’t won’t to crash the servers, etc. I would suggest as one source for my perspective on things. It is difficult to know who to believe these days. I often wonder why a Corporation would feel the need to fund anything political. Why wouldn’t they save that money and pay their employees better? Now, I’ve heard of late that the lobbiest are putting out $1M/day re healthcare. So far this year I’ve not put out any. And, I’ve no idea where my reps stand on healthcare or even if they are in the country at the moment. But, from my perspective, I do believe the lobbiest will get closer to the ear of the Corpocracy.
I think you should give the problem of taking care of the tourist to the Corpocracy. They might find a solution in closing the border and passing a healthcare bill. From my perspective, I think it is blackmail, in the first degree, to hold out healthcare for the people, but only if they include illegals in the deal. Now, I don’t know what the plans are for a healthcare bill, as its so difficult to know whom to trust or what to believe. But, from my perspective, based on my 30-40 years of observation I suspect the Corpocracy is lieing.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 11, 2009 4:08 PM
Comment #287948

propitiation, you’re claim that the “left” hates Christians is not only irrelevant to this discussion, but way off base. Obviously you think there are no Christians on the left, or I’m guessing you wouldn’t call them “real Christians”. What the left does, is not want religion—any religion, and so often it does tend to be Christianity—to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

I know we’re supposed to keep the religion talk to a bare minimum, but this is one of my most passionate topics and so I just had to say something.

Posted by: Mike Falino at September 11, 2009 5:39 PM
Comment #287949

Mike, appropriate retort.

When folks make such generalized statements as “The Left” hates whatever, or “The Right” hates whatever, they are simply reflecting their own biases to categorize whole groups of individuals by the actions of a few or even many, but, by no means all. That is the birthplace of prejudice and bigotry.

That said, we can all do better in being more specific with our labels of human groups, especially political labels. I find, upon review of some of my own comments, myself referring to Republicans and Democrats without the requisite specificity I advocate here. I will endeavor to be more specific in such references going forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2009 5:49 PM
Comment #287954


How about just doing what is right without constantly bringing up the previous 8 years. You know absolutly nothing about me or my political views. But I will tell you this much, I was against almost everything bush did. But I was not so brainwashed as to continually defend him even when I thought he was wrong.

Posted by: propitiation at September 11, 2009 7:51 PM
Comment #287957

Roy, I still think you’re neglecting a very big cause of the very thing you’re railing against—the major influence of left wing groups in thwarting immigration reform.

This happens to be an issue that the great majority of Americans still agree on, left, center and right, but we have the corporations on one side and the extreme left on the other working their will.

Corporations could not pull this off by themselves, especially since it’s only one small slice of corporate America that stands to benefit from cheap undocumented labor—agriculture, construction, and certain service industries. The majority of the rest of coporate America is in the same boat with the rest of us—their taxes are increased by the many costs of having non-tax paying citizens who utilize social services, healthcare, and our schools, and who increase the burden on law enforcement.

One group whose role here is pretty interesting is that of labor unions. The rank-and-file workers who they supposedly represent, especially blue collar workers, have the most to lose from competition to cheap illegal labor. But what does big labor rail against? The kind of globalization represented by trade deals like NAFTA which forces workers to compete against labor overseas. But in the meantime, our very own workforce is “globalizing” right inside our borders with barely a peep from the unions. Ever asked yourself why? It’s because of the extent to which the unions are in bed with hard left groups and liberal politicians who they don’t dare cross. Blaming all of this on corporations is only half the story.

Posted by: Paul at September 11, 2009 8:49 PM
Comment #287958


The fact that the committee voted down a specific verification procedure proposed by Republicans doesn’t mean that there will be no procedures to assure compliance with the prohibitions on illegal aliens receiving health insurance subsidies. The proposed bill doesn’t prohibit or limit enforcement. It simply leaves the decision as to procedures to the federal entity responsible for its implementation. Sec. 241(b)(1) mandates that the Commissioner shall establish a procedure for determination of affordable credit eligible individuals.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2009 8:53 PM
Comment #287960

Watch the demographics. Birth rates in Mexico and Central America are dropping. The era of big Hispanic immigration is coming to an end. Soon there will be a shortage of Mexican workers and we will all be sorry we didn’t get them while we could.Pretty soon the sons and daughters of Mexican immigrants will complain about those immigrants from Asia or Africa who refuse to become Americans, like they did.

Remember that the biggest ethnic group in America is the same group that the first English only laws were directed against. Those are the Germans. 58 million Americans claim German ancestry. Who knew? Hot dogs(frankfurters,)apple pie, milk chocolate bars, hamburgers, decent beer, kindergartens, Bayer aspirin and potato salad are just American, right?

Posted by: Christine at September 11, 2009 9:45 PM
Comment #287961

Rich, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t buy it for a second.

The healthcare bill is certainly one that is far less “broadly written” than most, and if you’ve tried to wade though the 1000+ pages of it as I have, you know what I mean.

You can read in some detail about the application process that a pharmacy will have to follow if they want to sell canes and crutches under this plan, for crying out loud.

Rejecting the Republican proposal is one thing, but not replacing it with some specific alternative of their own is extremely telling, especially considering that this is politically loaded issue, and one which has the possibility of adding billions to the bottom line.

Simply saying that there “shall” be some undefined “procedure” to determine “eligible individuls” does not address in the slightest the question of whether or not illegals will end up being considered eligible. If we leave such a question to the discretion of whoever will be responsible for implementing the plan, how do we know what they’ll decide that language means? Do we really believe that somebody down the road is going to take the political heat for interpreting such vague language to deny healthcare to illegel aliens? I would not want to be that person, and nobody else would either, which is why such important issues need to be spelled out precisely before a law passes. Some blanks can be filled in later, but not one as important and potentially expensive as this.

At the very least, not spelling out in clear language that illegal aliens are not eligible opens the door for lawsuits and litigation until the cows come home, which in itself is going to cost additional millions of dollars.

No, the fact is that it is not in the bill now because it is not WANTED in the bill by those who wrote it. Saying that it was left out because the bill would too long otherwise is simply not believable, considering how many things of far less importance are spelled out in excruciating detail.

Posted by: Paul at September 11, 2009 10:07 PM
Comment #287966


What we are really debating is the issue of trust. In this instance, will a Democratic administration really enforce a fairly clear prohibition in the proposed law against illegal aliens receiving federal assistance.

I think that we need to take a step back, take a deep breath and examine the consequences of this distrust and polarity. Because if we don’t, we are on our way to becoming a banana republic. No legislation of consequence can be passed under such conditions.

Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2009 6:35 AM
Comment #287973

If it is a matter of trust, the answer is no!

Can we trust this Administration to vigorously enforce the immigration laws? No!

Could we trust the last administration or the one before it or the one before that or the one before that? No!

Trust has become, for the most part, a meaningless word when applied to politicians.

Posted by: jlw at September 12, 2009 12:31 PM
Comment #287977

Rich, I can agree that “trust” is a positive good and that going around filled with distrust about everything and everybody is unhealthy.

But we’re talking about legal documents here, not a friendship or a romance. Would you enter in a legally binding contract with somebody who refused to include specific details about a key provision and just told you to “trust” them? Would you even buy a used car on such a basis, much less an overhaul of such a vast portion of the economy?

You keep saying that there is “clear language” about this in the bill. But there is not. All that is there is a statement to the effect that eventually somebody will get around to deciding who eligible participants are. There’s absolutely nothing to prevent illegals from being declared eligible by the agencies responsible for interpreting the statute. In fact, that language was PREVENTED from inclusion, which at the very least tells us that we have no firm basis from “trusting” them to do anything.

I’m not sure, by the way, why you’d say that distrusting the government (whether it’s currently run by Democrats OR Republicans) puts us on the road to a banana republic. I for one think that not believing everything the government tells us is a healthy attitude for a free citizen. If anything, a banana republic is one in which the citizens are expected to simply and uncritically trust the actions and good intentions of their leaders.

Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2009 2:06 PM
Comment #287984

Yes, this ‘tust’ thing is a biggie. There were 1.5M people at the capitol today and there must have been 1M signs calling Obama a ‘liar’. And, we just recently had a debate on third parties where the main ingredients were accountability and oversight to regain the peoples trust in politics.
Yes, corporations and all big business benefits from exploiting cheap labor. Consider Bill Gates. He has cut positions while at the same time asking the Corpocracy for more temporary worker visas. We know these workers are paid less. Duke U., in coordination with others, recently put out a report that there are more US students being graduated in engineering and science than there are positions for them. Yet, Gates is always complaining that he can’t find enough US high-tech workers. And, yes, if the ag and service industry hires cheap labor then those corporations that don’t receive the benefit of workers in general being paid less.
Loosely writtem, kilo-page bills are nothing new. Here is a gist of an article in todays Wash Post regarding Abramoffs associate. His lawyer said he pushed the envelope where congress purposefully left the lines blurry”. Further, he played by the rules of lobbying in government in a broken and sometimes ridiculous system. The DOJ prosecutor said “they were gifts to reward, gifts to influence”. “In return lawmakers and govt. officials helped King’s clients by awarding them with millions of dollars in grants and by taking other offial acts”. In an email Kin said “the ethics thing is a real turn off - we like amoral pond scum” according to the DOJ Prosecutor. Corpocracy on the move.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 12, 2009 7:07 PM
Comment #287986

Roy, there are over a million people protesting our prison systems too, all residents of it. Does that mean their view should prevail? I don’t think so.

The American people voted, and elected the government that will install the policies that we will live by, as law abiding nation loving Americans. Those who refuse, can protest all they wish as long as they abide by the laws, otherwise, they can join the protests from within the prison system.

The Tea Baggers exercising their right of free speech is a proud example of American ideals being played out. I am enormously pleased to witness the Tea Baggers assemble peaceably and exercise their rights of assembly and speech which this Obama and Democratic majority government defend and protect on their behalf.

There is nothing in our history or founding documents or court precedents however, that allude to a number of people protesting their government requires that government to yield to those protesters. Nothing, whatsoever, save the politics of the next reelection.

With so many examples of hate and the appearance of racism as part of the tea baggers organizing, I doubt seriously that the majority of Americans will be influenced favorably toward the tea baggers. They are singing to their own choir. And that is fine.

There is something telling about a sea of white people ascending upon D.C. to protest a Black president that was entirely predictable. I am just surprised that it took 8 months and the guise of a health care reform issue, which all sides agree must occur, to actually bring them out.

I recognize that many tea baggers are protesting for fiscal responsibility and that is their primary motive for showing up. And I am with them in spirit in their advocacy and protest. Others are there truly believing they are defending capitalism against socialism, which many Americans would value as a protest issue. But, the appearance of that all white crowd interspersed with images of Hitler Obama images, and Signs labeling Obama a communist, taints the message of those aforementioned. And this appearance affords little room for the majority of those watching on TV to identify with the tea baggers as a whole.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2009 7:23 PM
Comment #287989


In our scheme of government, congress makes the law and the executive branch is charged with implementing and enforcing the law. When there comes a time when we can no longer trust that relationship, I believe that we are in serious trouble.

Representative Wilson essentially stated that Obama had no intention of enforcing the prohibition against federal assistance for illegal aliens. To me, that is a serious charge without any evidence to support it. Has the Obama administration failed to enforce any immigration laws against illegal aliens? In fact, the Obama administration has intensified enforcement of such laws. Why would there be an exception in the area of health care?

On the other hand, there can be legitimate differences of opinion as to the nature of the verification processes utilized to assure complete compliance with the law. It is a high profile issue and perhaps the wiser course would be for a compromise and specific language be inserted in the bill and not leave it to the executive branch to determine eligibility procedures.

Its time that we had a rational discussion on the merits of the health care proposals absent bizarre allegations, death panels, the President is a liar, etc.

Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2009 8:47 PM
Comment #287992
Representative Wilson essentially stated that Obama had no intention of enforcing the prohibition against federal assistance for illegal aliens. To me, that is a serious charge without any evidence to support it.

No, that is not what Wilson “essentially” said. As there is no prohibition against federal assistance for illegal aliens in the bill—not to enforce, not to read, not anything—Wilson accused Obama for lying for claiming that there was. This is not to excuse Wilson’s outburst, but there it is.

Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment #287993

“As there is no prohibition against federal assistance for illegal aliens in the bill”

Really! (Sec. 246) titled “NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS,” states: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2009 9:32 PM
Comment #287995


I went to the tea party today in Washington. It had nothing to do with race, unless you think that a mostly white crowd has no right to protest. The crowd was large, mostly white and significantly older than the usual protesters.

The crowd filled the lawn from the Capitol down past 4th St, which makes it one of the biggest I have seen. None of the anti-war marches were as big.

The age was actually the interesting part. It has usually been harder to get a crowd of people over thirty years old. Most of the other protests I seen are staffed by the young and unemployed. This protest included mostly people who probably actually pay taxes.

The other thing interesting about this crowd was its lack of professionalism. Most protests I have seen have their core of experienced protesters, with well constructed signs and organized chants. This one had almost all hand lettered signs with very few the same.

I didn’t see anything that could be considered racist, unless you consider any criticism of Obama as racist (itself a racist proposition). Most of the signs seemed to be focused on smaller government. They clearly don’t trust Obama, but most of the anger seemed directed at congress.

The funniest sign had pictures of Pelosi, Frank, Reid and Murtha and said, “don’t give your cash to these clunkers”

The crowd was very well behaved, but not very well organized. I got the feeling that many would be taking their children or grandchildren to see the monuments in Washington after the protest. The only disturbance was when a couple of young women drove down Independence Avenue and yelled the F-word at the protesters. They seemed to be having fun, but nobody paid much attention.

Posted by: Christine at September 12, 2009 10:06 PM
Comment #288005


Clearly you’ve not been to any “old rocker” events, church revivals in some areas, or a nascar event in a while. Not that hard to get a bunch of old white people to congregate.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2009 9:50 AM
Comment #288009

30K street gangs in 07, or 800,000 people.
Has the Obama administration failed to enforce any immigration laws against illegal aliens?
Here is a blurb on immigration law.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 13, 2009 10:12 AM
Comment #288012


It is hard to get that many to come and protest. No matter if it is easy or hard, there was a really big number gathered in Washington. I remember seeing similar demographic protests, such as the Code Pink, the “million mom march” etc that were much, much smaller but got a lot more coverage and respect.

It is ironic that many people want to ignore this protest because it is made up mostly of people who are generally well-behaved, hard working and tax paying almost BECAUSE of those characteristics.

The press covers small ragged bunches of malcontents and claims that they represent Americans, but they want to ignore those who represent a wide swath of middle America responsible for much of the work that gets done in our country.

Posted by: Christine at September 13, 2009 10:22 AM
Comment #288037


Yep, most Americans hate paying taxes. If there was actually something beyond this empty rallying point, perhaps it might get some respect.

As to he majority of Americans supporting this rally…that’s a bit of a stretch.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2009 6:16 PM
Comment #288038


It is hard to know what the majority want. The majority like the idea of health care but they don’t like the details.

The two sides often talk past each other and each wins the argument in their own minds.

Let’s talk about where most agree. Most agree that health care is too expensive and that the current system cannot be sustained. Most would like cover all Americans, make everybody healthier and lower the costs. So let’s not hear any of those arguments.

Where we disagree is how we will pay for all these things and what is possible. Successful European systems cover all, or most, citizens, but they do that at the cost of de-facto and sometimes de-jure rationing. They also ride free on innovation paid for by higher prices in America. If we remove the big de-facto subsidy that American prices provide the world’s health care, it gets more expensive for others. Not our problem. What is our problem is that no country has done what we are asking (bringing high quality American care to all the population) WITH the U.S. de-facto subsidy.

The realistic option is to admit that most Americans who now have good insurance will lose some of what they have. The payoff is that we might lower overall costs and cover all Americans. I am willing to accept that. If you are, that makes two of us. Let’s try to get everybody else on board. And those old folks ARE going to have a lower quality care after the reforms.

Posted by: Christine at September 13, 2009 6:42 PM
Comment #288039

I concur with Christine’s post relative to 9/12. There were some older folks but also a lot of families. It was a very mixed bag. I’m sure there were plenty of disgruntled Republican’s there as well. And, Fox and the Rep’s are surely trying to gain a new foothold since Bush left the battleground. I actually think this TEA party set the stage for the pendulum to swing back to the Rep’s come 2010-12. The Rep’s need to find a fair haired candidate that can speak w/o a prompter and probably good if he is tied to a Christian base.
As for Republic Semtry: I pushed my sign (Republic Sentry Party in big letters and in smaller letters - accountability, oversight, reform) in front of thousands. Had one comment, “accountability is a good one”. The most political thing that happened to me was a guy from the Constituion Party handed me a flier. It was more like a real tea party, people just having a good time and going off on every topic under the sun but not really interested in a solution, or accountability. Just there to have a good time. Kind of like what I posted in this thread that people aren’t likely to take any action, just wait and see what the Corpocracy does next.
Kay Baily Hutchinson, Corpocratist at large, put an op-ed in todays Wash Post that says ” the deployment of this many czars sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the Constitution’s guarantee of separate powers”. I guess she assumes 99.9% of the voters have forgotten about Bush’s czars. I would say she is 99% right.
It’s like people are really on another planet, or an out of mind experience. Czars, no vetted by Congress and not very by the Executive (Van Jones comes to mind) while making decisions and spending big bucks. Barely got mentioned at the TEA party.
I recently posted on an Albany, GA tire plant laying off and shutting down. The administration has threatened a 60% tax against China’s tire mfctrs. Today, in a Wash Post article, China says they may take the case to the WTO. Tire exec., Vic Delorio, said “by taking this unprecedented action, the Obama administration is now at odds with its own public statements about refraining from increasing tariffs”. Nothing new there. I’ve posted about the US having two governments. One subsidizes commodoties and talks of securing the border, fair trade, etc. The other clings to free trade, NAFTA and open borders. Taxpayer is the only loser, paying to settle lawsuits brought through the WTO. Brazil is ready to tap the till again regarding our government number ones tariff protection for US ethanol production. Government number two will borrow some money from China to pay the fine and keep on trucking (using Mexican trucks of course). Rest assured, the Corpocracy is on the move.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 13, 2009 7:00 PM
Comment #288042

R E, on your list for the corpocracy, just start with Koch Industries and go from there, but don’t forget the mainstream media:

and assorted Sorkinisms from SSFTSS:

Jack: Hollywood isn’t run by liberals, it’s run by companies, and you could look for a pretty long time before finding a liberal on the board of directors of any of those companies.

Jack: I know your politics and I share them, except for the loony irrational stuff.

Matt: Hollywood? Who else are you talking to? You say Hollywood like A you’re not a part of it and B we all get together once a month to decide what we think. I’ve worked in Hollywood for ten years. I’ve never been in a room with three people who agree with each other.

Danny: See, this is my first speed bump. I would think if I were god, I wouldn’t have any ego problems. I wouldn’t need “Oh lord, creator of the universe, most powerful and merciful and handsome of all the deities.”

Jordan: You know how you win at three card Monte?
Bill: How?
Jordan: Get someone to play.

Danny: Did you have a hard time getting here?
Matt: The San Gabriel mountains have fallen into Beverly Hills
Danny: And the prayers of a grateful nation are answered.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 13, 2009 8:17 PM
Comment #288046


The Obama administration has taken a very vigorous and, thus far, effective approach to enforcement of immigration laws. I know that this is a difficult fact for conservatives to accept. After all, doesn’t Obama want to give free medical care and other federal benefits to illegal aliens.

This is how an advocacy blog (ImmigrationProf Blog, 8/2/2009)describes the Obama administration’s efforts:

“Protests against President Obama’s immigration enforcement policies are beginning to sweep the country.”

“No other presidential administration since 1986 has enforced employer sanctions through the named I-9 audits of personnel files of employers as broadly and efficiently as has the Obama administration. The system of employment verification, short-named eVerify, which allows employers to verify the legal status of their employees against federal government databases, has taken on a new vigorous life under Obama.”

I raised this issue simply to point out that conservative charges that Obama is a liar and will not enforce the prohibitions in HR 3200 against federal insurance subsidies for illegal aliens is vastly overstated and contrary to the evidence.

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2009 9:16 PM
Comment #288047

“There were 1.5M people at the capitol today and there must have been 1M signs calling Obama a ‘liar’.”

Roy where did you get your 1.5M figure? The number I heard was at most 75K! Quite a spread there. Is your figure by chance referring to the total number of people in the capital for the day and not just those attending the rally?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2009 9:49 PM
Comment #288049

We do agree on those basics you cited,
but those who believe there is no rationing of healthcare now, have:

A. Either never had to deal with a major medical problem (which is most of us),

B. Is so wealthy that these issues do not worry them. (which is few of us).

Posted by: gergle at September 14, 2009 1:21 AM
Comment #288057

j2t2, my first, and last political rally. Have no idea as to the count. Seems to range from the tens of thousands to 2M. The link has some good still shots of the surrounding area.

rich, I posted in this thread, I believee, Napolitanos latest directive on how ICE should handle illegals. And, I understand plans are to control a thousand miles or more of the fence with high tech surveillance equipment. We all know that when you turn the power switch off or point your antenna straight up you can’t catch the illegals. I think people realize we have lost the battle on immigration, but they want the fence as a show of force for people power.

Posted by: roy ellis at September 14, 2009 9:25 AM
Comment #288058

Also, should note that 2/3rds of US population growth comes from immigration. The Corpocracy can’t stand for slow growth or no growth so they will be looking to keep immigrants coming. That’s why we need a fence, to impede future immigration based on the economic needs of the Corpocracy. According to the Wash Post, Chuck Schumer is the in-charge man for the next run a amnesty. He is drafting new legislation and Obama has said he will push for immigration reform in the coming year.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 14, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #288060

jlw, physical barriers backed up by detection devices and interdiction forces, will be highly effective in curtailing 90% or more of the illegal traffic across our Southern border.

However, as you right allude to, it is an enormous mistake for politicians to attempt to make the population demographics accommodate the economic desirables. That is turning the world on its head. The economy must be shaped to accommodate the population demographics. This is where a great many in D.C. have their priorities rearbackwards.

No easy task however, I must quickly add, in the context of globalized markets. In certain real economic senses, the demographic is the world population, not just our national, such as export market target consumers, and import market foreign producers. Still, the fundamental principle remains, the economy should be designed to allocate finite resources amidst infinite demand of a nation’s domestic population, while preserving the integrity, civility, and tranquility within that domestic population.

To try to adjust population to meet economic demands inherently results in dehumanizing people to serve the greed interests of those in power. The economy must serve the people’s interests, not the other way around, which is why every modern nation in the world from China to the Netherlands, has or is working to create, universal health care coverage. There is no starker example issue of whether a nation’s government promotes itself as regarding the people as tools to political ends, or, the people as the ends to which the government and economy are to serve.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2009 11:51 AM
Comment #288078

David, excellent post. Been my opinion all along that the better way is not free trade, but fair trade, considering the humanities, etc. Why turn this country into a 3rd world country in order to upward mobilize the rest of the world? Why not keep this country strong but have a super strong effort to assist developing countries develop as they see fit. Instead we rush to China and offer condums to Africa, etc. Nationality, sovereignty, ethics, religion, culture, these are not just words. You are right on with your post, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 14, 2009 5:19 PM
Post a comment