Monthly Archives: December 2010

Fed Audit Finds Obama Administration Not Enforcing Border Laws

The San Antonio Express-News printed a front-page article today highlighting an audit that was done by the Homeland Security Department’s Office of the Inspector General.

U.S. Border agents are failing to fully enforce laws requiring U.S., Mexican, and Canadian citizens to present passports or other documents to enter the United States.

Basically, people are entering the United States without any identification whatsoever.  Not only is this an illegal immigration issue, but it is an issue of National Security.  In May of this year, FoxNews.com reported that Federal officials were issuing warnings of terrorist crossing our southern border:

The warning follows an indictment unsealed this month in Texas federal court that accuses a Somali man in Texas of running a “large-scale smuggling enterprise” responsible for bringing hundreds of Somalis from Brazil through South America and eventually across the Mexican border. Many of the illegal immigrants, who court records say were given fake IDs, are alleged to have ties to other now-defunct Somalian terror organizations that have merged with active organizations like Al Shabaab, al-Barakat and Al-Ittihad Al-Islami
The federal government warned itself of terrorists crossing from Mexico and then failed to enforce its own document and identification regulations.
The failure of Obama’s administration to enforce the laws of the United States is well documented.  Especially when those laws would hurt Democrat party objectives.  You can pile this federal audit finding right on top of the report on the actions taken on the New Black Panther voter intimidation case.  It would appear that no law will be enforced that does not match Obama’s ideology.

U.S. Manufacturing Strongest in the World – For Now

For decades Americans have been battered with messages around the demise of the United States manufacturing sector.  Some state concerns of too much of a shift to services, which is said to produce nothing.  Is goods manufacturing really fading in the U.S.?

IHS Global Insight, an economics consulting firm, has published a ranking of the manufacturing output of the leading economies, and to my surprise, the U.S. still manufactures more stuff than anyone else — $1.7 trillion in manufacturing value added in 2009, compared to $1.3 trillion from China.

Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP

The IHS report makes two assertions.  First that the American Manufacturing sector is in decline from the perspective of portion of GDP and total economic output.  And second, that China is increasing it’s economic output from  both of those perspectives.

In 2009, the United States economy was held up, in part, by $1.7 Trillion (with a T) in manufacturing output.  By comparison, China’s economy was supported by $1.3 Trillion in ouput.   What may be more important is to understand what percentage of the  Chinese economy is based on just building cute trinkets for Americans and Europeans to buy.

While manufacturing makes up only 25% of the U.S. economy, the Chinese economy is largely based upon non-technical manufacturing – raw materials and dolls, cups, trinkets and other junk.  According to Wikipedia:

Industry and construction account for 46.8% of China’s GDP. Around 8% of the total manufacturing output in the world comes from China itself.  Major industries include mining and ore processing; iron and steel; aluminium; coal; machinery; armaments; textiles and apparel; petroleum; cement; chemical; fertilizers; food processing; automobiles and other transportation equipment including rail cars and locomotives, ships, and aircraft; consumer products including footwear, toys, and electronics; telecommunications and information technology. China has become a preferred destination for the relocation of global manufacturing facilities. Its strength as an export platform has contributed to incomes and employment in China. The state-owned sector still accounts for about 30% of GDP.

Why is Chinese goods production so low-tech?  Perhaps it’s the lack of a mature service sector.  The same service sector that many bemoan within the U.S. economy.  A healthy service sector is absolutely required to produce highly complicated and technologically advanced goods.  Stryfoam cups and plastic dolls do not require the sophisticated machinery nor the complicated logistics required to produce a Caterpillar earth mover, jet aircraft or other advanced goods.  Where are the Chinese competitors to Caterpillar, Airbus and Boeing?  These high-tech goodies have far higher price points and margins than drink coasters and cheap pens.

There is also the problem of accurately understanding the Chinese economy.  True profits from up to 30% of the manufacturing sector are raked in by the government, not the private sector.  Considering the government control of the Yuan, how true are the numbers reported from State Owned Enterprises (SOE’s).

China will have to  build a highly-skilled service sector if it wants to compete with the U.S.  There is evidence that they too realize this.  The Chinese produced a three-step plan in the early 1980’s.  The first two steps were to increase GDP by several times.  The first step has been accomplished and the second is on track.  Step three is to increase per-capita income by 1950.  That will require more people to move into more complex manufacturing and services.

So while America is holding an advantage in the sophistication of our manufacturing, it appears China has a plan to build a competitive force in those areas as well.  But, for now, the United States does indeed still the manufacturing leader of the world.

The Clear Vision and Voice of Oriana Fallaci

Oriana Fallaci was a remarkable woman who saw the truth and did not hesitate to speak and write about it.

As I read about her life – as I learn about what she endured to get to the heart of a matter either in an interview or in her writing, I become more and more enamored with her.

I admit it freely;  I have placed her on a pedestal.

Some of the things that she said were in reference to what was going on in Europe, but I am seeing them unfold here in America, and I am incredulous. Taken aback.  Shocked.

And validated. 

I too felt this way.

I am not alone after all.

Oriana has been laid to rest for four years now.

I wonder what she would say to us, American brothers and sisters, as she sees the drama of the Cordoba Project unfold in front of the world…

I have no problem imagining her repeating these words:

The Muslims refuse our culture and try to impose their culture on us. I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture-it is toward my values, my principles, my civilization.

Oriana Fallaci 

 

Or maybe these:

The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period.

Oriana Fallaci

 

Below is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of World Biography Web Page.

When you read it, you will be amazed at how clearly it points out what is going on in our own country.

She retreated from public view somewhat, producing the occasional novel, until the events of 9/11 roused her ire and prompted a new nonfiction book, La Rabbia e l’orgoglio , (The Rage and the Pride), which became a bestseller in Italy.  In it she wrote of Islam’s centuries-long desire to conquer Europe, and asserted that the growing Muslim communities in major European cities were becoming a danger to the continent. The democratic ideals which granted such communities the freedom to practice their religion were, she argued, threatening the stability of the West.

 Voiced Concern about Islam

Muslims in Europe, Fallaci fumed in The Rage and the Pride , “demand, and obtain, the construction of new mosques. They who in their countries don’t even let the Christians build a tiny chapel, and who so often slaughter the nuns or the missionaries.”

Oriana Fallaci was an atheist. She had no religious chip on her shoulder, no self-righteous  bone to pick. She simply saw naked truth, like the child in “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.  Just like the innocent eyes of the child who saw all things clearly and could not fathom why the adults around him would remain silent, she too had clear vision.  And also like the child, she had no problem in allowing her voice to ring out above the din of the crowd. She did not swallow her words in fear, or misguided respect. 

The seductive illusion – the mirage of the “religion of peace”  fades away with just one truthful statement by Oriana.  I can’t help but think of the stubbornness of the men and women behind the New York Cordoba Project, curiously slated to have its Grand Opening on September 11th, 2011, (the selection of the date – mere coincidence, I’m sure.)  Despite repeated attempts to purchase the property and persuade them to move this building project elsewhere, all efforts are deliberately ignored. They even have the unmittigated gall to ask for Federal funding. 

The entire purpose of this project to educate more and more Americans about Islam.  If the furtherance of Islam in America will bring in the practice of Sharia, and if Sharia is not healthy for our country, (and anyone who takes the time to study it will know this is true), then why would we give our finances to bring about our own sorrow?

American brothers and sisters, we may find ourselves listening to reports like this here in America:

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5PEm7w3QcU

There is already one Sharia court in Texas – a Patriot’s state if ever there was one.

Were you aware that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has called America a Sharia compliant State?

What is so tragic is that he thought he was paying us a compliment!

The battle in Oklahoma continues: A people who voted overwhelmingly for Sharia to never gain a foothold have been ignored. A judge, full of their own intellect or frightened to death, I know not which, has put the ruling on hold.

Did you ever think you would see the American Voice silenced in such a way over the issue of whether or not foreign law would be practiced here?

When did our Constitution become “not enough”?

Oriana saw many warning signs and was outspoken. She wrote freely and

“The book caused such a stir that she was even charged under an obscure Italian law prohibiting hate speech against a religion recognized by the state. The controversy continued when she penned a response to her critics, La Forza della ragione (Strength of Reason), which appeared in 2004.”

What? Hate Speech? Do you mean that someone else has used that lame excuse to silence wisdom?

Oriana, like the child who observed the Emperor marching down the street in falsified glory, saw an equally false, yet frighteningly more dangerous movement parading down the streets of her fair country.  In the story, the child’s voice silenced all manner of flattery and false respect toward an unworthy recipient.  Oriana’s voice was used to expose something much more threatening. And she succeeded

She touched a nerve to the point where they tried to silence her, yet she was silenced only by her passing away.

When, I wonder,  will we open our own mouths?

And what will be the results of our voices rising above the din?

Has anyone ever thought of what would have happened if the child in The Emperor’s New Clothes had remained silent?  The results would have been a leader continuing to reign (badly) while being full of his own importance.

Does this remind you of anyone?

The results would have been a country’s citizens living as if they were free, when really they would only have been prisoners – abiding under the shadow of a lie they were afraid to expose.

Let us not be silent when so much is at stake.

The .5% Lie Progressives Need You To Believe

One half of one percent of all government spending is in earmarks.  To quote a famous Congressmen, “You Lie!”, or more correctly, that number hides the real truth of earmark spending.  In a CNSNews article, Chris Johnson demonstrated the math:

The $16.5 billion in earmarks identified by CAGW equaled 0.48 percent of overall federal spending in fiscal 2010 and 1.28 percent of the deficit. The $11.1 billion in earmarks identified by OMB equaled 0.32 percent of overall federal spending and 0.86 percent of the deficit.

So there is corroboration of the pure fact, but it is the veiled truth that is more important.  Earmarks are not a major issue as a pure percentage of federal spending.  Earmarks are an issue because they tend to force a yes vote on larger spending bills even though the larger spending bill may not be in the best interest of the nation.  This is how “no” votes are turned into “yes” votes, the sponsors of the bill give favors to the dissenters in the form of pork barrel spending, pet projects, earmarks, or whatever else you want to call them.

Probably only because he has already lost his seat, Senator Lemieaux makes the point using a colorful addiction analogue:

Outgoing Republican Sen. George LeMieux calls earmarks “the gateway drug to ever-growing spending.”  ..

LeMieux spokesman Ken Lundberg said that while earmarks comprise “maybe 1 percent of federal spending,” they are an “enabler for more government spending.”

The current Omnibus spending bill is an excellent example that may be undone due to voter outrage more than the scruples of our Representatives in the House.  The actual spending bill is gigantic – 1900 pages.  The monstrosity reads like a Christmas wish-list  directly from the progressive left-wing extremist Tides foundation. Here is a some of what is found in H.R. 3288 (House Version of the Omnibus bill):

  • $1 Billion in additional spending for health care reform
  • Renews a federal loan guarantee program for steel companies (Steelworkers union gift)
  • Permits detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be transferred to the U.S. for trial, but not to be released (ACLU gift)
  • Calls for federal worker pay increases averaging 2 percent (SEIU gift – so much for Obama’s deficit reduction panel)
  • $150Million subsidy to airlines (gift to multiple unions)
  • $25Million in the “energy innovation fund”
  • Guarantees for $400Billion in mortgages – why is the government in the business of guaranteeing mortgages?
  • $31Million for minority business development – if the government belongs in this at all, why isn’t this just part of a “small business development” initiative, regardless of race
  • $1.5 Billion for “..expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and clemency petitions and immigration-related activities” – wouldn’t it have been cheaper to stop them at the border?
  • An additional $730Million for the care of illegal immigrant children (that’s more the $2.2 billion for illegal immigrants after they get in the country)
  • $2.2 Billion for Federal Student Loans and grants including:
    • $234Million specifically for Howard University
    • $178Million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
  • Billions of dollars in foreign aid spending including:
    • $394Million in spending for foreign aid to be spent at the discretion of the President
    • $1.2 Billion for international development (foreign business assistance)
    • $300 Million for foreign clean technology development
    • $75 Million for international climate studies (global warming)
    • $4.7 Million to the inter-American development bank (Latin American and Carribean economic and social assistance)
    • $105 Million for Asian development fund
    • $155 Million for African Development fund
    • $30 Million for international agricultural assistance
    • $1.3 Billion for “assistance to Egypt”
    • $238 Million to assist Lebanon
    • $503 Million for the West Bank and Gaza (Palestine)
  • $1.26 billion for Climate Change and Environment (global warming)

The omnibus spending bill also increases discretionary spending by $17Billion.  It increases overall spending by about 10 percent and does so with the above gifts to the progressive left.  While everyone is focused on the pork in this bill, what about the frivolous, discretionary spending?

This bill has one goal: insure that the extreme left-wing agenda is not exposed to spending cuts in the 2010 budget year.  The progressives need to get this bill passed so that when Congress moves to the right in January, their pet programs are not immediately sacrificed.

Ear marks are the hand in front of Americans faces while the other hand is concealing the real aim of this legislation.  This bill should not be killed simply because it has earmarks in it, it should be killed because it is exactly the kind of unnecessary spending that Americans voted against in November.

The ear marks are not dangerous because they are expensive.  They are dangerous because they are intended to bribe an otherwise fiscally-sound no vote into becoming a cajoled “yes” vote.  That is precisely how irresponsible spending bills such as this one get passed.  If ear marks were banned, bills like this would never stand a chance.  The one half of one percent is the truth in front of the lie.

Takers and Makers: Class Division as a Weapon

Those selfish rich people.  They just take and take and take.. when will they have taken enough from America?  If we give credence to progressive leaders like Senator Bernie Sanders, this is the sentiment of America.  During a 8 1/2 hour rant.. er .. filibuster, Senator Sanders tore apart Conservatives and the successful in America.  Here, Bernie is assaulting the tax compromise as he believes that everyone except small businesses and the wealthy should have their tax rates remain the same as in 2010:

The rich have it all right now–the top 1 percent earns 23 1/2 percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent–and it is absurd that we continue to bail out people who do not need any help and who are doing just fine.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not like the tax compromise one bit, but since when is not raising ones taxes a bail out?  This bill does not decrease the amount that anyone will pay, it only says that they will not suffer a tax increase.  These highly-successful  Americans are not asking for a bail out, they are asking to be left alone.  They are asking for you, Senator Sanders, to get your grubby, greedy, selfish mitts off of their personal and private property.  That property protected by the Constitution you so easily disregard when convenient.

The Senator also points to a pillar of progressive philosophy to continue his assault on the biggest investors, job creators and producers in our society.

In 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners made 23.5 percent of all income. Let me repeat that: The top 1 percent earned over 23 percent of all income; that is, more than the bottom 50 percent.

So Senator Sanders remakes the same point (one he uses repeatedly in the filibuster) but here is saying that 50% of Americans haven’t started their own businesses and been highly successful?  Why not?  Are the 50% being held back by the 1%?  Of course not.  Just because one person is savvy enough to create a business plan and execute it does not somehow make it harder for another person to create their own plan.  Why should the effective entrepreneur be held back by the ineffective one?  Sounds a lot like our lowest common denominator education system.  Coincidence?

So while Bernie makes the point that the top 1% make 23% of income (and pay an even higher percentage in income taxes), he then demonstrates the already highly-progressive tax system we have.

Let us be very clear: This tax applies only–only–to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.

If my Republican friends had been successful in doing what they want to do, which is eliminate this estate tax completely, it would have cost our Treasury–raised the national debt by $1 trillion over a 10-year period. Families such as the Walton family, of Wal-Mart fame, would have received, just this one family, about a $30 billion tax break.

That’s right, 3 tenths of one percent of tax payers are responsible for $1 trillion in tax revenue!!   That only takes into account the death tax.  The money used to purchase these assets was possibly once taxed as income and the asset purchase was probably taxed with sales tax (and an unknown number of federal fees, levies, and other taxes).  So this is possibly the third time those dollars were taxed.

So who are progressive liberals like Senator Sanders helping?  Who are those that need so much government because they cannot help themselves?  Oh, who could forget these takers of Obama stimulus money?

Now, how many jobs do you think those people are going to make with that stimulus cash?

Class warfare is a necessity if the liberal philosophy is to survive.  The most productive, the makers, must be constantly assaulted as if their gains have all been made on the backs of the poor.  The takers must be held on-high so that they can continue their dependence, and therefor allegiance, to the almighty government.

As if to add an exclamation point to the Senator’s diatribe, he made the clearly uninformed point that America supports his point-of-view.

The vast majority of people are behind us on this issue, but they have to make their voices heard to their Senators, to their Congressmen. When they do, I believe we can come forward with an agreement which protects the middle-class and working families and is not a boondoggle for the wealthiest people.

Really?  Polling data and the November election suggests otherwise oh tone deaf warrior for the far-left agenda.  This is their weapon.  Takers take more, makers give more.  If the makers won’t give, they must be evil.  If the takers don’t get more, the wealthy are being stingy.  The only winners in this are the political elite whose power arises on the backs of the poor and blaming their troubles on the successful in our society.  They have their weapon – a massive, ever-growing army of takers rushing headlong against the few remaining makers.  50% vs 1%, the numbers look bleak.

For Every Dollar of Tax Increases – Reagan Awaits His Just Deserts

Tax compromise is all win for progressivesThe tax hike vs. spending debate is getting much attention in the media, but the battle is nothing new.  The progressive Democrats are suddenly concerned about the reduction in revenue that keeping tax rates at their current levels represents – yeah, I know .. maintaining the current tax rates doesn’t reduce anything.  True Conservatives are concerned about the spending increases in the Omnibus bill.  Middle-of-the-road Republicans and Democrats aren’t concerned at all and have had a hay-day putting billions of dollars of earmarks in to the $1 trillion spending bill.

The RINO’s and DINO’s are all thrilled with the tax compromise that was made between the GOP and White House.  What compromise?  To figure that out, let’s first show what each side gave in order to mend the tax rate fence:

According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation’s December 10th report, Conservatives gave up:

  • A 35% increase in the “death tax” that will hit family businesses hardest and double-tax money that has already been taxed (increases revenues by an estimated $67 Billion/year)
  • Another 1 year increase in unemployment entitlement spending (increase in spending of an estimated $65 Billion)
  • Biodiesel subsidy continuation – estimated $2 Billion/year in spending
  • Energy efficient home subsidy – about $124 Million/year in spending
  • Alternative fuel subisidy (does not include ethanol) – $202 Million/year in spending
  • Ethanol subsidy – $4.8 Billion/year in spending
  • Energy efficient appliance subsidy – $596 Million/year in spending

Progressives gave up:

  • A tax increase  on everyone, especially on small businesses and the wealthy

What Conservatives picked-up

  • Status quo tax rates (including the marriage penalty)

What Progressives picked-up

  • Massive increase in the “death tax”
  • Status quo on Billions in government subsidies
  • $65 Billion increase in spending on unemployment benefits

Some compromise.  this agreement will cost the citizens of the United States of America an additional $892 Billion/year through 2015 due to run-away spending.  There is a tax increase in this bill and I there are absolutely no spending cuts.  If the left-wing extremists had actually given up something, subsidies on ethanol, biodiesel or other ineffective government spending would have been reduced.  A compromise might have been as simple as a one-for-one spending cut for tax increase.  To put it in historic terms, Reagan once agreed to tax increases only if each dollar of tax increase would be matched by three dollars in spending cuts.

Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 — $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good “70 percent” deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as “the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration,” although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)

Some things never change.  If we strip away the status quos, this “compromise” increases taxes by $67 Billion/year and increases (not decreases) spending by$65 Billion a year.  To be a Conservative win, this compromise should have resulted in $201 Billion in spending reductions ($3 spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases).  Does anyone really think that if we give Washington D.C. more money, it will somehow result in deficit relief?

Reagan would like his $3 dollars now.

ACLU Wages War on Christmas

It’s that “most wonderful time of the year” again. Children eagerly await a visit from jolly Santa Claus, while their parents try to squeeze shopping into a schedule already filled with parties, parades, church programs, and visiting relatives. Grandmothers bake dozens of gingerbread and sugar cookies, while rascally uncles down too much eggnog. Wealthy northerners travel to Florida to escape cold weather, while everyone else yearns for a white Christmas.

And the ACLU—that staunch defender of American traditions and values—threatens to sue public schools for acknowledging what all the excitement is about.

Each Christmas season is marked by a series of spirit-dampening stories of towns forced to disassemble nativity scenes, retail stores intimidated into requiring employees to use generic greetings like “Happy Holidays,” and similar Scroogish travesties. This year, one such story comes from Tennessee, where the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to 137 public school administrators, supposedly in response to complaints from families, reminding them not to focus on any one religious holiday.

In other words, don’t call Christmas parties “Christmas parties.” Call them winter celebrations, holiday galas, solstice shindigs, or any other creative misnomer that obfuscates their true purpose and creates a comfortable non-reality for the handful of unfortunate students whose malcontent parents are offended by the celebration of a holiday that is jointly religious and secular in nature.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 92% of Americans celebrate Christmas, while a mere 6% do not. Of that 6%, only 25% celebrate an alternative holiday. That’s a whopping total of 1.5% of Americans who celebrate a December holiday instead of Christmas. And, apparently, most of them live in Tennessee; how else could that state’s chapter of the ACLU have received so many complaints?

Defending the letter, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, cites U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and hints that acknowledging Christmas could be considered an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

She is alluding, of course, to the oft-misinterpreted establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. It obviously applies to a third-grade teacher planning a classroom Christmas party for the last day before break—or so those on the far left argue, rather unconvincingly.

Could it be that Weinberg is one of the 6% of Americans who do not celebrate Christmas, and is using the ACLU’s legal muscle and financial assets to push a personal agenda? Such Grinch-like behavior would certainly be unprofessional, if not unethical. If there was a Santa, Weinberg would be on the naughty list for sure.

The ACLU expects public schools to stage a pointless charade of pretending that the concerts, parties, and vacations common to this time of year are not specifically scheduled around December 25. This is an unreasonable expectation which deserves no serious consideration.

The correct course of action for public school administrators to take is to ignore the ACLU, which is not a government entity and does not represent the views of a majority of parents. It would be wrong to alter school policy simply to avoid the hassle of a lawsuit; this would be yielding to what is called the “heckler’s veto,” by which an antagonistic group goads the government into restricting another group’s First Amendment rights. In this case, the hecklers are the ACLU and the instigators it claims to represent.

Lawsuits are expensive, true, and no administrator wants to be on the receiving end of one, but what is the cost of a lawsuit compared to the cost of an eroded culture and disunited society, purposely divided by secularist troublemakers who value political correctness over common sense?

Julian Assange is Even More Dangerous Than You Have Heard

Wikileaks founder Julian AssangeWikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange is an obvious security threat to the United States and its allies.  The media is reporting on all the leaked documents on the Iraq/Afgahnistan wars and more recently, the State Department’s diplomatic cables.  What we’re not hearing is the more grave threat Assange represents if he falls into enemy hands.

So far, the leaked documents are only a small portion of what Assange holds.  The leaks have also been redacted to remove identifying information.  Assange holds access to the remainder of those stolen State secrets and his versions do not hide the identifying information.  What happens if Iran, China, North Korea or other enemies of the United States manage to actually get their hands on Julian Assange?  There won’t be any trial, they won’t ask politely, they won’t worry about international implications for torturing him – they will get access to all of the information he holds.

Those documents are now in the control of one person with no checks on that person whatsoever.  If he succeeds in defending himself against the sex crimes charges with which he is faced, he goes free.  Free for less-benevolent nations to pursue.

The only solution is for Assange to prove the destruction of all of the documents he holds to the satisfaction of the owner, the United States of America.  By his own admission, he is in possession of stolen U.S. government property.  That, in itself, is a crime.  Then giving that property to the New York Times so that they may profit from it is another, for which the Times should be tried.  They sold more newspapers because of the leaks and therefor profited from the sale of stolen property.  Why has the U.S. Department of Justice not put the Times on notice?

Now a band of hackers under WikiLeaks umbrella have attacked Mastercard in retaliation for the cut-off of funding to Assange.  This is directly related to Julian’s blackmail threat that anyone that got in his way would pay a price.  Certainly, there are a few crimes in those words and actions as well.

WikiLeaks must be stopped.  This is a matter of National security.  The Obama administration must make it too risky for major media outlets to release WikiLeaks documents.  Make a case against the Guardian, New York Times and others that chose to profit from the sale of stolen U.S. property and hunt down the Mastercard hackers.

John Boehner’s ‘Chicken Crap’ Congress

We’ve heard of lame ducks, blue dogs, elephants and donkeys in the American version of Animal Farm – Congress.  According to House Speaker-in-Wait John Boehner (R-OH), now the chickens have come to roost .. and poop.

On Thursday, Boehner was remarking on a political maneuver by Current Speaker Nancy Pelosi to push  through a vote on a bill that would raise taxes on small businesses and families making more than $250,000 per year.  His exact response?

I’m trying to catch my breath so I don’t refer to this maneuver that’s going on today as chicken crap. But this is nonsense, right?  The election was one month ago. We’re 23 months from the next election and the games have already started to set up the next election.

This vote is coming while the President and other Democrats are supposedly working in good faith to find a compromise and is direct conflict with what Americans said at the ballot box just last month.  Even worse, 31 House democrats even signed a letter saying that no one’s taxes should be raised at this point in the recovery

Some liberals are trying to make the case that there is no need to bundle a vote on upper tax brackets with those on the lower rates.  They want to vote on some tax hikes now, and the upper-brackets later. After six years of cramming all sorts of unrelated progressive crap into single bills, now they don’t think it’s the way to go?

The takeover of education loans was stufffed into .. health care reform.  Don’t ask, don’t tell was bundled with .. the defense spending authorization.  Those things clearly should have had separate votes.  Here, it’s all about income tax.  All of it.

Leaving the upper-bracket tax decision until a later date will leave uncertainly in precisely the part of the economy that can not tolerate any more ambiguity – small business owners.  Tax tables are already formulated with everyone experiencing the Obama-Reid-Pelosi tax hike of 2011.  Kicking one bracket of taxes down the road, just to serve the far-left progressive agenda will mean that everyone would be forced to eat the liberal’s tax increase.

To the rescue .. Senate Republicans.  Just a few days ago, 41 Senate GOP members signed a letter saying that legislation such as this would be struck down.  So when Pelosi’s sheeple in the House pass this mess, it will die in the Senate, if not in committee.  Nancy should certainly realize this, so with 435 members all making $174,000 per year.  This waste of a day on Congress cost Americans an estimated $320,000 dollars.  More importantly it cost a Congress with precious few days left – one day.

Thanks for concentrating on what Americans need Speaker Pelosi.  Just Thanks for not only a lame “lame duck” session, but also one quite full of “chicken crap”.