Monday, May 10, 2010

Let Them Eat Cake

"And so I've been a little amused over the past couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes, taxes, you would think they'd be saying, 'Thank you!'" President Obama mocks tax protestors in a talk on April 15, 2010 (video)

In 18th century France, the French government nearly bankrupted itself paying for foreign wars. Massive national debt, inflation, high unemployment, onerous taxes, and widespread famine made life a misery for the common people. Aristocrats flaunted their wealth while the poor struggled with malnutrition. Bread prices were so high that the starving couldn’t afford it. The French queen’s response: “Let them eat cake.”

Déjà vu

At an April 15th Miami fundraiser, President Obama (D) ridiculed tax protestors for daring to disagree with him. Wealthy, connected donors laughed along with the President at those silly people who don’t like having their money seized for the President’s vision (video).

The President didn’t even pretend to listen to those he supposedly serves, instead he mocked any who chose to exercise their right to freedom of expression. Obama isn’t the first President to make obvious the disconnection between average people and those who rule over them in America:

  • Bill Clinton (D) had cars towed from “Presidential parking zones” instantly created when police posted temporary “No Parking” signs wherever Clinton traveled in a city. Already parked? You’re still paying for the tow. One night 157 cars were towed when Clinton attended a fundraiser in Brooklyn.[1]
  • While both Rs and Ds favor free speech cages for those who oppose their views, GWB (R) made an institution of the cages.[2]

Our politicians do not hold those they supposedly serve in high esteem.

The Same Old Con

“…government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” From Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

The “government of the people” became the “government over the people” long ago. Misdirected Rs say it happened with Ds in power, while misguided Ds say it happened with Rs at the helm. Whatever your view, there should be no doubt that any who dare disagree with the executive are stepped on, ridiculed, and ultimately not tolerated.[3]

Speaking at the University of Michigan commencement in May, President Obama criticized those who believe government is the problem (video), and his beguiled audience laughed with him at the silly citizens who disagree with his healthcare re-form:

“But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, “Keep Your Government Hands Out Of My Medicare” -- (laughter) -- which is essentially saying “Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care Plan.” (Laughter.)”[4]

Government-Run Healthcare is Always Unhealthy

This past year politicians were so desperate for healthcare re-form because federal involvement in healthcare in the form of Medicare is such a disaster.[5] On August 11, 2009, while in Portsmouth, N.H. to drum up support for healthcare re-form legislation, President Obama acknowledged Medicare's problems:

"Our deficit will continue to grow because Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path. Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to 10 years. I don't know if people are aware of that. If I was a senior citizen, the thing I'd be worried about right now is Medicare starts running out of money because we haven't done anything to make sure that we're getting a good bang for our buck when it comes to health care."[6]

Now with even more federal control of healthcare, President Obama says he has saved America from a great crisis. Yet he never explains why giving even more control to those who put us “on an unsustainable path” is a panacea and not a prescription for an even bigger disaster.

You can hold any view as long as it is pro-government[7]

Our politicians live as modern-day Kings and Queens, yet they perpetuate the lie that we citizens are the government and not merely litter bearers for their royal persons. During his May commencement speech, President Obama reiterated the myth that “government is us”:

“When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us. We, the people -- (applause.) We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders and change our laws, and shape our own destiny.”[8]

“Shape our own destiny”? That’s why Obama’s laughing. We do not shape our own destiny. Our destiny is shaped for us by the federal government. The tea party advocates Obama mocks, don’t want more public healthcare, yet will be forced to pay for it just the same. Meanwhile the President and his tittering supporters can have another slice of cake and enjoy the entertainment.

Turn a Deaf Ear

Obama told graduating students that they should seek out opposing views, something he patronizingly did with the April 15th tax protestors:

"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship."

Listen to other points of view unless the people expressing those views think taxes are too high, the federal government is too big, and those ruling are as out of touch with everyday Americans as the French queen who suggested the poor eat cake.

If others dare to believe government is the problem, first belittle them, then ignore them (video), and finally threaten them.

“The government of the people, by the people, for the people?” Ask yourself: "Which people?"

_______________________

[1] “Cars Get Towed When Clinton Visits,” By Deb Riechmann
Associated Press, Friday, Feb. 11, 2000, (Accessed at http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg35597.html and http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20000212&id=ad0pAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3c8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1660,2115875 on May 9, 2010).

[2] “Bush Zones Go National,” Jim Hightower, The Nation, July 29, 2004, (Accessed at http://www.thenation.com/article/bush-zones-go-national?page=0,0 on May 9, 2010).

[3] “Federal agency warns of radicals on right,” By Audrey Hudson and Eli Lake, April 14, 2009, Washington Times, (Accessed at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/ on May 9, 2010).

[4] “Remarks by the President at University of Michigan Spring Commencement,” Big House, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 01, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-university-michigan-spring-commencement on May 9, 2010).

[5] Medicare, a federal health "insurance" program for all Americans aged 65 and over. Medicare is paid for with payroll taxes of 2.9% on wages and has been around since 1965. It's not really an insurance program as people pay up front with Medicare taxes for 10 or more years and expect to spend the money later after age 65. It should be an excellent indicator of how well federal government health insurance works. How's it doing?

There are currently $89 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities, and the Obama administration is trying to change the types of treatment received by the elderly by cutting Medicare payments for cancer and heart patient doctors and encouraging more preventive care.

[6] “Remarks by the President in Health Insurance Reform Town Hall,” Portsmouth High School, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/ on May 9, 2010).

Later, during the same appearance in N.H., in a reverse bait and switch, when President Obama wanted people who complain about socialism in healthcare to realize that Medicare is government-run health care insurance, Obama tells them it's a good thing:

"And so I do think it's important for particularly seniors who currently receive Medicare to understand that if we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role -- not the dominant role, but a role -- in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."

So in the same talk, one minute President Obama said Medicare is not a good program, but later listeners were not supposed to conclude that the federal government wasn’t doing a good job with it, that the federal government had gotten it right. Instead citizens were supposed to support President Obama's call for even more federal involvement.

Is it any wonder people aren’t convinced?

[7] “Bill Clinton on Violence and Government: A Lethal Hypocrisy,” By James Bovard, (Accessed at http://jimbovard.com/blog/2010/04/20/bill-clintons-lethal-hypocrisy-on-government-violence/ on May 9, 2010).

“Yesterday, on the fifteenth anniversary of the attack on the federal office building in Oklahoma City, former President Bill Clinton had an op-ed in the New York Times headlined: “Violence is Unacceptable in a Democracy.” The article settles any doubts about whether Clinton was one of the most talented demagogues of modern times.

“Casting a net of collective guilt over much of the 48 contiguous states, Clinton announced that the 1995 bombing was the fault of people who believed ‘that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them.’ People who distrusted government helped echo ideas which somehow persuaded ‘deeply alienated and disconnected Americans’ to carry out the attack.

“In other words, people who harshly criticize the government are guilty of - or at least complicit in - mass murder.”

“Clinton declared that ‘we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way.’

“Unless you’re the government.”

[8] “Remarks by the President at University of Michigan Spring Commencement,” ibid.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Controlling Citizens, Not Borders

He also said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, 'A shower is coming.' And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be scorching heat,' and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time? Luke 12:54-56 ESV

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed a controversial immigration bill (pdf) into law April 23, 2010. The surface debate publicized in the media was between those concerned about the harassment of legal immigrants versus those who want to “control our borders.” Two Arizona Congressmen protested the bill: Raul Grijalva (D) advocated an economic boycott of Arizona, and Ed Pastor (D) insisted the federal government boycott its immigration enforcement agreement with Arizona.[1a] The emotional debate distracts Americans from the deeper issue threatening the freedom of all—and that’s just what those in power want.

All the noise about illegal immigration and the need for the federal government to do something about our borders is designed to keep you distracted from what’s really happening. State actions to “control our borders” and “keep us safe” are part of a long term plan to control everyone inside those borders.

Your Papers Please

Arizona and California already have in-state roadblocks (video). Air travelers throughout the US already are subject to indiscriminate and virtual strip searches. Just as “protection” against terrorists in air travel has resulted in herds of Americans all but mooing as they move unshodden through security checkpoints, the Arizona legislation to protect Arizonans from illegal immigrants is another step to condition us to accept more state control of the “unruly masses.”

The recent Arizona immigration act lets police check the citizenship status of suspected illegal immigrants. Not publicized are the implications for citizens: the need to carry proof of citizenship and the power of police to stop you to check your papers. How do police know you are a citizen if you don’t carry papers?

R or D, State or Fed, They Work Together (and not for you)

During the debate about the immigration bill, lots of noise was also heard about states’ rights. And it was all just noise. Article 8.F of the bill reveals the true goal of the new law: sharing private information of individual citizens with the federal government.[1] Arizona Governor Brewer, protector of the border, is also a “grateful” member of Council of Governors staffed by President Obama’s (D) January 11, 2010 executive order “to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards.”[2]

The Arizona state version of border control goes hand in hand with the federal plan for a national ID card:

  • In 2005, the Bush (R) administration gave us the REAL ID Act, which set federal standards for state-issued driver’s licenses to create a National identity card. States have dragged their feet on implementing the plan only because they want the federal government to pay for it.
  • In 2007, the DHS and the State department issued a joint ruling called the “Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative,” outlining the plan for machine-readable state driver’s licenses as a national ID.[3]
  • Now US Senators Lindsey Graham (R) and Chuck Schumer (D) call for federal border control. Their plan “would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs” to carry “biometric Social Security cards.”

If Graham and Schumer get their way, we’ll all be required to carry biometric identification (video). Free ride advocates Grijalva and Pastor don’t have to worry about police discrimination against Hispanics—it won’t be just immigrants required to show ID, soon we’ll all be stopped at roadblocks to show our state-issued national ID cards. Without them, we won’t be able to travel, work, or purchase firearms.[4]

Rev 13:15-17 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

__________________________

[1a] "Congressman Luis Gutierrez Blames Obama Administration for SB 1070 at Arizona Capitol Rally," By Stephen Lemons, Apr. 25 2010, (Accessed at http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/04/luis_gutierrez_denounces_obama.php on April 26, 2010).

"Pastor repeated this demand, and insisted that the Obama administration suspend all 287(g) agreements and deportations in Arizona until the legislation is enjoined."
The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement site lists several Arizona government entities party to 287(g) agreements.

[1] “Oppose the Revised SB1070 on National ID Concerns,” Posted by Jeff Greenspan on 03/30/10, (Accessed at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34152 on April 25, 2010).

This post identifies the offending section as paragraph E, which changed in the final bill to paragraph F:

S.B. 1070

F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

[2] “Gov. Jan Brewer to serve as Federal Council of Governors member,” Published: February 10, 2010, Coolidge Examiner, (Accessed at http://www.trivalleycentral.com/articles/2010/02/10/coolidge_examiner/top_stories/doc4b71c3c51d62d056256015.txt on April 25, 2010).

“I am grateful for the opportunity the President of the United States has provided me to serve as a member of the Council of Governors,” said Brewer. “I am honored to serve in a bi-partisan effort on a subject that is at the heart of the role of government — the security and defense of our nation.
“This subject is of great interest to all Americans, and I am pleased the President has recognized the role of governors. I am grateful that the invitation to governors is almost assuredly a sign of interest in balancing federal authority with the rights of states, exclusively reserved in the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“I want to be a voice for matters of vital importance to states, such as border security, that are clearly the responsibility of the federal government,” she said.

[3] “Documents Required for Travelers Departing From or Arriving in the United States at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry from within the Western Hemisphere,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security;
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, USCBP 2007-0061, (Accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/whti_landseafinalrule.pdf on April 25, 2010).

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
USCBP 2007-0061
RIN 1651-AA69
8 CFR Parts 212 and 235
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Parts 41 and 53
Documents Required for Travelers Departing From or Arriving in the United States
at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry from within the Western Hemisphere

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the second phase of a joint Department of Homeland Security and Department of State plan, known as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, to implement new documentation requirements for U.S. citizens and certain nonimmigrant aliens entering the United States. This final rule details the documents U.S. citizens' and nonimmigrant citizens of Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico will be required to present when entering the United States from within the Western Hemisphere at sea and land ports-of-entry.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 1,2009.

For the document requirements which went into effect on January 3 1,2008, please see the Notice "Oral
Declarations No Longer Satisfactory as Evidence of Citizenship and Identity" which was published in the Federal Register on December 2 1,2007, at 72 FR 72744.

From pp 10-11:

5. Other Relevant legislation
On August 4,2007, the President signed into law the Implementing Recommendations of the 911 Commission Act of 2007 (911 Commission Act of 2007).18 Section 723 of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 called on the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin to develop pilot programs with states to develop state-issued secure documents that would denote identity and citizenship. Section 724 of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 called on the Secretary of State to examine the feasibility of lowering the execution fee for the proposed passport card.

From p 14:

8. State Enhanced Driver's License Projects.

Certify to agreement for at least one voluntary program with a state to test a state-issued enhanced driver's license and identification document.
On March 23,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Washington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to develop, issue, test, and evaluate an enhanced driver's license and identification card with facilitative technology to be used for border crossing purposes. On September 26,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Vermont signed a similar Memorandum of Agreement for an enhanced driver's license and identification card to be used for border crossing
purposes; on October 27,2007, the Secretary and the Governor of New York also signed a Memorandum of Agreement. On December 6,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Arizona also signed a similar Memorandum of Agreement to develop, issue, test, and evaluate an enhanced driver's license and identification card. The Departments have worked very closely to update the appropriate
congressional committees on the status of these certifications and will continue to do so until final certifications are made. DOS and DHS believe that these certifications will be made well in advance of the June 1,2009, deadline for implementation. In the unlikely event that the Departments are unable to complete all the necessary certifications by June 1,2009, the Departments will provide notice to the public and amend the date(s) for compliance with the document requirements for land and sea border crossings as necessary.

From pp 48-50:

5. State Enhanced Driver's License Projects
Comment: DHS and DOS received two comments to the Air and Sea NPRM stating that the best solution to increasing security at our borders is one that incorporates improved technology in existing documentation, such as a driver's license. Thirty commenters to the Land and Sea NPRM stated that WHTI should not be implemented until all state or provincial enhanced driver's license pilot programs are in place. Six Canadian provinces urged DHS to explicitly recognize their proposed enhanced driver's license in the final rule. Twelve commenters supported proposed state pilot programs. One hundred-eight commenters recommended that DHS recognize an enhanced driver's license denoting identity and citizenship for entry by both Canadian and American citizens. One commenter stated that programs for producing an enhanced driver's license need more time for development and distribution prior to the summer of 2008. Eleven commenters recommended completing an enhanced driver's license pilot project prior to implementation of WHTI. Fifty-six commenters to the Land and Sea NPRM requested
financial and technical assistance from the Federal government so that states could produce enhanced driver's licenses.
Response: DHS encourages U.S. states and Canadian provinces acting through the Canadian Government to undertake enhanced driver's license projects. In a separate notice published concurrently in the Federal Register with this final rule, DHS will designate the Washington State enhanced driver's license as acceptable and notes that additional such documents will be added by notice. DHS will consider documents such as U.S. state and Canadian provincial enhanced driver's licenses that satisfy the WHTI
requirements by denoting identity and citizenship undertaken pursuant to agreements with DHS. These documents also will have compatible facilitative technology and must meet minimum standards of issuance to meet CBP's operational needs. As noted above, the State of Washington has begun a voluntary program to develop an enhanced driver's license and identification card that would denote identity and citizenship. On March 23, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Washington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to develop, issue, test, and evaluate an enhanced driver's
license and identification card with facilitative technology to be used for border crossing purposes. Under this final rule, U.S. citizens arriving from contiguous territory and adjacent islands may present the enhanced driver's license and identification card issued by the State of Washington at land and sea ports-of-entry. To establish an EDL program, each entity individually enters into agreement with DHS based on specific factors such as the entity's level of interest, funding, technology, and other development and implementation factors. As each EDL program is specific to each entity, DHS does not intend to delay the implementation of WHTI until all potential state and provincial enhanced driver's license projects are operational. However, DHS will continue to welcome states and provinces interested in implementing EDL
programs- even those that start after WHTI implementation.
Comment: Two commenters recommended a meeting with all state driver's license directors by January 2008 before the completion of the Washington State pilot program.
Response: DHS appreciates this comment and remains committed to working on a continuing basis with and coordinating efforts among states interested in developing, testing, and implementing pilot programs for enhanced driver's licenses. DHS encourages states interested in developing enhanced driver's licenses to work closely with DHS to that end.

From pp 51-52:

7. REAL ID Driver's Licenses
Comment: Four commenters to the Land and Sea NPRM asked for clarification whether enhanced driver's licenses issued as part of a state pilot program under WHTI would comply with the REAL ID requirements as well. Two commenters cautioned against the action of implementing WHTI using the requirements of REAL ID due to concerns regarding privacy, costs, a complicated verification system, and the issues of
federalism. One commenter stated that DHS must definitively declare that WHTI compliant driver's licenses meet the improved driver's license requirements of the REAL ID Act.
Response: DHS has worked to align REAL ID and EDL requirements. EDLs are being developed consistent with the requirements of REAL ID and, as such, can be used for official purposes such as accessing a Federal facility, boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants. While the REAL ID requirements include proof of legal status in the US., the EDL will require that the cardholder be a U.S. citizen. In addition, the EDL will also include technologies that facilitate electronic verification and travel at ports-of-entry. DHS is extremely cognizant of the need to protect privacy, and as such institutes best practices with regard to the collection and use of personal data for all of its programs.

From pp 86-88:

D. State Enhanced Driver's License Projects
DHS remains committed to considering travel documents developed by the various U.S. states and the Governments of Canada and Mexico in the future that would denote identity and citizenship and would also satisfy section 7209 of IRTPA, as amended by section 723 of the 911 1 Commission Act of 2007.

Under this final rule, DHS will consider as appropriate documents such as state driver's licenses and identification cards that satisfy the WHTI requirements by denoting identity and citizenship. These documents must also have compatible technology, security criteria, and must respond to CBP's operational concerns.

Such acceptable documents will be announced and updated by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A list of such programs and documents will also be maintained on the CBP website. It is still anticipated that the Secretary of Homeland Security will designate documents that satisfy section 7209 and the technology, security, and operational concerns discussed above as documents acceptable for travel under section 7209.
To date, DHS has entered into formal Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with the States of Washington, Vermont, New York, and Arizona which have begun voluntary programs to develop an "enhanced driver's license" and identification card that would denote identity and citizenship.44 Concurrent with this final rule, DHS is also publishing a separate notice in today's Federal Register wherein the Secretary of Homeland Security is designating that the State of Washington enhanced driver's license document
is secure. Therefore, U.S. citizens may present the enhanced driver's licenses and identification cards issued by the State of Washington pursuant to the MOA at land and sea ports-of-entry when arriving from contiguous territory and adjacent islands.

DHS is continuing discussions on the development of enhanced driver's license projects with several other states and the Government of Canada. CBSA and several Canadian provinces are planning and developing EDL projects. DHS remains committed to working with and coordinating efforts among states interested in developing, testing, and implementing programs for enhanced driver's licenses on a continuing basis. DHS encourages states interested in developing enhanced driver's licenses to work closely with DHS to that end.

On January 28,2008, DHS published a final rule in the Federal Register concerning minimum standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards that can be accepted for official purposes in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005.45 DHS has worked to align REAL ID and EDL requirements. EDLs are being developed consistent with the requirements of REAL ID and, as such, can be used for official
purposes such as accessing a Federal facility, boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants The enhanced driver's license will also include technologies that facilitate electronic verification and travel at ports-of-entry. While the proposed REAL ID requirements include proof of legal status in the U.S., the enhanced driver's license will require that the card holder be a U.S. citizen.

___________________________________________

44 On September 26,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Vermont signed a
similar Memorandum of Agreement for an enhanced driver's license and identification card to be used for
border crossing purposes; on October 27,2007, the Secretary and the Governor of New York also signed a
similar Memorandum of Agreement. The state of Arizona has also announced its intention to sign an MOA
with DHS to begin an enhanced driver's license project. For more information on these projects, see
www.dhs.gov.
45 The REAL ID Act of 2005 prohibits Federal agencies, effective May I 1,2008, from accepting a driver's
license or personal identification card for any official purpose unless the license or card has been issued by a State that is meeting the requirements set forth in the Act. See Pub. L. 109-13m 119 Stat. 231,302 (May 1 I, 2005) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30301 note). On March 9,2007, DHS issued a rule proposing to establish minimum standards for State-issued driver's licenses and identification cards that Federal agencies would accept for official purposes after May 1 1,2008. See 72 FR 10820.

[4] “Urgent Action Req: (Arizona) SB1070/HB2632. PLEASE READ,” Posted by Jeff Greenspan on 03/18/10, (Accessed at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=33689 on April 25, 2010).

“They are ostensibly anti-illegal immigration bills. As such, there are good things in there such as elimination of sanctuary cities.

“However, these bills have a sneak provision in them that turns the Arizona Drivers License into a national id. Section 2. 11-1051, subsections F.1-3. specifically require that the state obtain prior clearance from the US Department of Homeland Security before you can obtain or renew your Drivers License. Additionally, it requires data exchange of your domicile information.

“This also creates a backdoor gun purchase registration capability.”

Technorati Tags: ,,

NOTE: Revised April 26, 2010 to clarify the type of boycott of Arizona called for by Ed Pastor. Inserted [1a].

Friday, April 2, 2010

The Loyal Opposition

"...the term loyal opposition is applied to the opposition parties in the legislature to indicate that the non-governing parties may oppose the actions of the sitting cabinet – typically comprising parliamentarians from the party with the most seats in the elected legislative chamber -- while maintaining loyalty to the source of the government's power." Wikipedia

On January 19, 2010, Senator-elect Scott Brown (R) joined the loyal opposition in Washington, D.C. in a Massachusetts special election, Brown rode a groundswell of opposition to increased federal involvement in health care. He thought differently four years earlier as a Massachusetts state senator with Mitt Romney (R) as governor, when Brown voted for government-controlled health care. The federal law Massachusetts voters elected Brown to oppose in 2010 is modeled after the Massachusetts law Brown voted for in 2006 as a state senator--both require individuals to purchase health insurance.[1] Today the Massachusetts pols Brown left behind are fighting to keep out-of-control health care costs from bankrupting their experiment started four years ago.[2]

“Today, our nation faces a growing budget deficit due to out of control federal spending. I absolutely believe that a balanced federal budget is crucial to a healthy economy, and I remain an active and dedicated member of the fiscally conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC). In a few short years, baby boomers, the most productive generation in the history of the world, will begin to retire. Mandatory spending in the federal budget is on a trajectory to be over 100% of projected revenues. Dramatically slowing the rate of federal spending growth, easing the regulatory and tax burden on productivity in this country, and eliminating government waste are all critical if we are to balance this federal budget monster and return this nation to consistent economic prosperity. I am deeply committed to that endeavor.” Trent Franks Congressional site

Today congressman Trent Franks (R) is a member of the loyal opposition. A stalwart opponent of socialism, and a champion of limited government and fiscal responsibility in 2010, Franks thought differently in 2003 when George W. Bush (R) was President and Rs controlled Congress. On November 22, 2003, congressman Franks supplied one of the last minute votes in the early morning hours to pass then-President Bush's (R) Medicare Modernization Act (Medicare part D (pdf)).[3] As of 2009, Medicare suffers from $89 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Socialism is Evil When the Other Guys are In Power

“It seems the fall of socialism across the world has taught many of our politicians nothing. It is hard to envision a plan that would hinder health care excellence and damage the doctor/patient relationship more than government run socialized medicine.” Trent Franks campaign site

Franks and fellow Rs vigorously oppose socialized healthcare proposed by Obama (D) and pushed through Congress by Ds, yet ignore the obvious: Medicare is socialist, too. Tea partiers may convince themselves they've paid for Medicare with their taxes, just like Social Security, but they’re both Ponzi schemes and both broke. Rs helped nationalize the mortgage markets when Bush was President, yet now, as the loyal opposition, decry the Obama administration takeover of banks and the auto industry.

Ds aren’t immune to budget hypocrisy. While part of the loyal opposition, in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit, then-Senator Obama said:

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Obama later joined his D colleagues to vote against raising the debt limit.[4]

After Obama became President, the roles reversed, and Rs assumed the role of the loyal opposition:

Yet during the Bush administration, “fiscally conservative” Rs voted to increase the national debt limit seven times from $5.95 to $11.315 trillion. Rs complain that Ds were in control of Congress for five of those increases totaling $3.68 trillion.

Brought to You by Rs and Ds

Today’s limited government loyal opposition Rs were yesterday’s big government supporters. And yesterday’s loyal opposition Ds are today’s big government supporters. They both pretend to fight the growth of government or the loss of freedom, but in the end, the growth of the federal government is both parties’ long term solution to everything. The following are brought to you courtesy of both the party in power and the loyal opposition:

  • Undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Yemen. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to declare war, and says nothing about delegating that power to the Executive branch. Both the Bush and Obama administrations support these wars.
  • The Patriot Act and its extensions limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens everywhere by allowing searches of telephone, email, medical, financial, and other records; ignoring Fourth Amendment protections by allowing warrantless searches and roving wiretaps, paying telephone providers for access to trillions of phone records; granting broad powers for the Treasury Department to demand private banking information, and collecting vast amounts of electronic data on virtually every American swept up by insider arrangements and purchases from phone companies, airlines, and other businesses afraid to say no to a government “request.” These bills pass through Congress with little scrutiny.
  • A $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage-backed securities,TARP, and other bailouts so investment bankers get multi-million dollar bonuses. Aren’t you glad to know that hedge fund investors have made billions of dollars because of government bailout of the banks “too big to fail”?[5]
  • The Transportation Safety Administration that treats people like cattle at airports.
  • The inept Homeland Security Administration.
  • The Guantanamo detention center.

Democracy: the Opiate of the Masses

We're taught that in a democracy we can change things by voting. Not if you put your faith in the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition is there to let you pretend you have a voice. If the people get angry enough, the loyal opposition tries to channel and divert their anger. Even now, another member of the loyal opposition, part of the sham campaign to pretend there was a choice in the 2008 Presidential election, Sarah Palin is busily trying to co-opt tea partiers. If that fails, the federal government has the tools to control the "disloyal opposition," and is acquiring more:

  • According to this Department of Homeland Security report (pdf), opponents of the Obama administration are racists to be watched.[6] The federal government is creating fusion centers with local authorities to help with the watching. Those in power are afraid of the mob, they alleviate your burden only enough to keep you from revolting.[7][8]
  • The Supreme Court ruled January 25, 2009 that police can frisk you on routine traffic stops to protect themselves. Cops won’t abuse this…. Right?
  • They also want to track your cell phone.

You can't fight city hall by sending Tweedledee to replace Tweedledum. Make no mistake about it: Rs are the loyal opposition for now. They loyally oppose Ds in power--only because they want to be in control. R or D: there's no difference. They all suffer from the same disease; they think Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency.

_________________________________________

[1] "Re-examining Massachusetts Health Care Post-election comments from the MSM miss the boat," By Trudy Lieberman, January 22, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/reexamining_massachusetts_heal.php?page=all on March 29, 2010).

"My own reporting over the past year shows that people in Massachusetts are concerned about affordability. One fifty-four-year-old woman, who lives in a small town south of Boston, told me she is an independent who voted for Brown because he could make a difference in Washington. That difference: stopping the health plan. “I know the plan is all wrong,” she said. What exactly was wrong? It was just like the one in Massachusetts, which makes people buy unaffordable insurance, she explained. “The Connector [the state’s shopping service] wants to determine your affordability. They don’t care if you have past loans or alimony to pay,” she said. Her daughter makes $32,000 working two jobs and can’t afford coverage; she pays the penalty for not having it."

[2] "Deciding Who Will Lead a Health Care Leader," By Kevin Sack, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/health/policy/27massgov.html?th&emc=th on March 28, 2010).

[3] “Republican Deficit Hypocrisy,” Bruce Bartlett, Forbes magazine, 11.20.09, (Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html on April 1, 2010).

Rs complain about D tactics to pass health care reform, forgetting their history from 2003:

“...when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.

“What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

“Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

“Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)”

[4] “Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T,” By Walter Alarkon, 09/07/09, (Accessed at http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-senate-must-raise-debt-ceiling-above-12t on April 1, 2010).

[5] “Pay of Hedge Fund Managers Roared Back Last Year,” By N elson D. Schwartz and Louise Story, NY Times, March 31, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?th&emc=th on April 1, 2010).

[6] US Department of Homeland Security Assessment "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," (Accessed at http://www.wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf on March 28, 2010).

From page 2:

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

[7] "Principal forgiveness program may offer relief for underwater homeowners," Kenneth R. Harney, The Washington Post, March 27, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604817.html on March 28, 2010).

[8] "A Bold U.S. Plan to Help Struggling Homeowners," By David Streitfeld, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/business/27modify.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on March 28, 2010).

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

True Believers


When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Corinthians 13:11











Obama Signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

It was an historic moment, reminiscent of one that took place nearly 45 years earlier on July 30, 1965, when LBJ (D), in his proudest moment, signed legislation into law amending Social Security to create Medicare. This time, surrounded by the faithful, President Obama (D) used 20 signing pens to create mementos of the historic moment for each believer.

On the radio, news reporters spoke in hushed terms, describing exhultant Ds at the ceremony and reactionary Rs determined to overturn the historic measure. As I listened, I wondered what this must all seem like to children today. Do they wonder, as I had 45 years ago as a child, why politicians fight so much if making life better is as easy as passing a bill? Do the children also marvel at the President's magnificent ability to improve life with the stroke of a pen?

Would LBJ have believed when he created Medicare 45 years ago, that its $89 trillion in unfunded liabilities in 2010 would make it the greatest single threat to the financial health of the US government?[1] Now as an adult, I wonder how the believers surrounding President Obama could be so blind to the parallels. Do they really think their efforts will turn out any different than LBJ's Medicare?













__________________________

[1] "Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2009," Thursday, June 11, 2009, by Pamela Villarreal, (Accessed at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662 on March 23, 2010).

One year before Villarreal's article was written, when Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher spoke of Medicare in San Francisco, the bill was $4 trillion less:

"Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy."

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

A Life of Crime

"If, then, taxation is compulsory, and is therefore indistinguishable from theft, it follows that the State, which subsists on taxation, is a vast criminal organization far more formidable and successful than any "private" Mafia in history. Furthermore, it should be considered criminal not only according to the theory of crime and property rights as set forth in this book, but even according to the common apprehension of mankind, which always considers theft to be a crime." Murray Rothbard

In Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, Jean Valjean steals bread for his starving family and is relentlessly pursued by an agent of the state for his crime. In Phoenix, Arizona, the City Council voted for a 2% transaction privilege tax on food, and Phoenicians now prepare to be robbed, starting on April Fools day, every time they buy some bread.

Days before the vote, the City Manager and the Mayor announced upcoming job losses for police and firefighters and the Chicken Littles cried: "Who will protect us?" [1] In Phoenix, the city that repeatedly pushed light rail on unwitting (witless?) voters, and now runs light rail at a loss, the possible layoff of firefighters and police was floated to soften up the masses.

On the day of the vote on Tuesday, firefighters and policemen testified before the City Council that a food tax on milk, meat, vegetables and other food to protect their jobs would be a good thing.[2][3] Hugo himself might have exclaimed: "Quelle surprise!" Did anyone expect the firefighters and police to advocate for layoffs?

The Council voted 6-3 to collect the sales tax on food. Opponents of the tax have 30 days to collect 10,000 signatures for a petition to force a citywide referendum on the tax.

When the Mafia steals, the Mafia calls it "protection," and the state calls it theft. When the state steals, the state calls it a "privilege." Now Phoenix residents have the privilege of paying a 2% "transaction privilege tax," aka sales tax, on food, in addition to paying 8.3% for other purchases.

"...it is precisely the function of the State's ideological minions and allies to explain to the public that the Emperor does indeed have a fine set of clothes. In brief, the ideologists must explain that, while theft by one or more persons or groups is bad and criminal, that when the State engages in such acts, it is not theft but the legitimate and even sanctified act called 'taxation.'" Murray Rothbard

When potential police cuts were announced, Phoenicians quivered in fear, wondering who would protect them from common criminals if police were laid off.

Who will protect them from the criminal organization that is the state?

________________________

[1] "Phoenix OKs 2% sales tax on food items," by Scott Wong, Feb. 3, 2010, The Arizona Republic, (Accessed at http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/02/02/20100202phoenix-food-sales-tax-approved.html on February 3, 2020).

"City Manager David Cavazos proposed eliminating 1,379 citywide positions, including nearly 500 police officers and firefighters. Among the dozens of targeted cuts, libraries and senior centers would be closed, an after-school program would be dismantled, and bus and light-rail service would be significantly reduced."

[2] "Phoenix Passes Food Tax," Sarah Buduson, KPHO.com, February 3, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.kpho.com/news/22417534/detail.html on February 3, 2010).

[3] Wong, ibid.

"But union leaders argued the tax would keep more police officers and firefighters on the streets and emergency response times down.

"Pete Gorraiz, president of the United Phoenix Firefighters Association, said city budget officials told him the food tax could provide a $6.9 million boost to the fire budget, saving nearly 40 firefighters' jobs and up to eight civilian employees. The extra revenue would spare three engine companies and an ambulance.

"'There are services, and there are critical services,' Gorraiz said. 'In our business, if you start taking away our ability to meet response times, it's literally the difference between life and death.'"

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Intelligence Failure










Our Vision
A secure America, a confident public, and a strong and resilient society and economy.
Our Mission
We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the Nation. We will secure our national borders while welcoming lawful immigrants, visitors, and trade.
From Budget-in-Brief for Fiscal Year 2010, Department of Homeland Security[1]

On December 25, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was caught with its pants down when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab set his own pants on fire. Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian traveling from Amsterdam, tried to bring down Northwest Airlines flight 253 and its 278 passengers by igniting an explosive in his underwear as the plane was on approach to Detroit.

This was a failure by the government to do the job it arrogated in 2002 with the creation of the DHS, which includes the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Despite an annual budget of $55 billion, its performance was an intelligence failure in the truest sense. It wasn't a failure to put enough people or money into detecting potential terrorists--the would-be assassin's own father had reported him to US embassy officials in Nigeria six months earlier:

"Nigeria's This Day newspaper cited family members as saying that the suspect's father, Umaru Mutallab, the retired chairman of First Bank in Nigeria, has been uncomfortable with his son's 'extreme religious views' and had reported him to the US embassy and Nigerian security agencies six months ago.

"The US government created a record on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab last month in the intelligence community's central repository of information for known and suspected international terrorists, but there was not enough negative data to place him on a no-fly list, a US official said."[2]

It was a failure of intelligence analysis.[3] The CIA knew about Abdulmutallab, but his name never made it to the no-fly list.[4] The DHS could not have dropped its pants any lower unless DHS agents had driven Abdulmutallab to the airport and stopped to pick up his explosives on the way.

Who actually protected citizens against the terrorist attack? Who responded in a way that "prevented and deterred" a terrorist attack? The passengers on the plane. It was only after passengers subdued the would-be bomber and the danger had passed that the DHS sprang into action, harassing civilian bloggers with a subpoena for revealing "sensitive content" from a leaked TSA security directive. It was "the second time in a month that the TSA has found some of its sensitive airline security documents on the Internet."[5] Apparently the DHS makes a habit of getting caught with its pants down.

What the Department of Homeland Security Does For You

What exactly do Americans get from the DHS for $55 billion? Compared to the $700 billion TARP bailout for bankers, that's not much, so we probably shouldn't expect much.

At the time of the attempted bombing, the DHS was very busy fulfilling its version of its mission to "secure America." On December 25, 2009, "A Sampling of Current Initiatives" on the Homeland Security web site showed the DHS was busy securing the DHS bureaucratic empire. The lead item on its list describes the construction of a $650 million temple for the DHS:

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contains $650 million to support construction of the Department's new headquarters, which will bring together components scattered geographically throughout the Washington area. As part of the same effort, the Department has begun consolidating over 40 leases in the National Capital Region, saving taxpayers $163 million over the next 30 years."

Today businesses operate effectively with multiple locations around the world, staying connected with computers and cell phones, but the DHS needs to "bring together components scattered geographically throughout the Washington area"? Spending $650 million to save exactly 25% of the total over the next 30 years? Who else but the federal government would spend $650 million to save $163 million?

As the DHS pretends to "secure America," the result of its most visible activity is that airplane travelers get to be searched and abused by TSA personnel. Some Americans might imagine that these airport security measures are a necessary part of a well-thought out plan by the DHS to prevent terrorism. They would be wrong. They are in fact, knee jerk responses to incidents in the past where the DHS was habitually caught with its pants down. Consider the past actions of our protectors:

  • Shoe bomber Richard C. Reid tried to detonate PETN explosive in his shoes during an American Airlines flight in December 2001. The federal government now requires all human cattle to take off their shoes before boarding.
  • Next, British authorities said they uncovered a plot to use liquid explosives, so we can't carry liquids onboard.[6]

Now the underwear bomber tries to detonate PETN explosives in his underwear, so our "protectors" are planning full body scans with millimeter-wave and backscatter X-ray scanners so they can see beneath our underwear in a "virtual strip search."[7][8][9][10][11] President Obama directed the DHS to speed the installation of $1 billion in advanced-technology body scanners at American airports and to work with international airports so that they upgrade their own equipment for use on passengers on US-bound flights.[12]

How would the DHS respond if terrorists adopt drug-running mule techniques and a terrorist tries to bring explosives on the plane in his rectal cavity? We may find out: according to CBS News, Abdullah Asiera, an al Qaeda member tried to kill a Saudi Prince in a Saudi palace:

"Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum."[13]

If the DHS continues to respond as it has after every new security incident, and pulling our pants down isn't enough, we might expect arbitrary on-the-spot rectal and vaginal exams.[14] Whatever the DHS response, we can be sure it will involve more abuse by the TSA; America is the "land of the free" only as long as you do what you're told, and only if you adopt the fatuous mindset of James Carville who, if told to jump, would ask: "Off what cliff?"[15]

The Real Intelligence Failure

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable." H. L. Mencken

Since 9-11, most Americans followed in lock step as the Bush (R) administration and Congress used that crisis as an opportunity to pass the Patriot Act, and create the TSA and the DHS to "protect" Americans. The massive increase in government bureaucracy and the resultant loss of American freedoms is Bush's baby. Now that President Obama (D) and secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano (D) are in charge, Bush supporters can look in a mirror for an idea as to how things got this way.

Each time the DHS gets caught off guard, it responds with excuses, and then calls for more "security" measures that treat air travelers like cattle. Americans are becoming conditioned to reflexively relinquish responsibility to our rulers without wondering why people are literally dying to kill them. Could it have anything to do with US foreign policy?

The "candidate for change" not only hasn't closed Guantanamo (they're moving it to Illinois instead), and is maintaining the status quo in Iraq, but he is increasing US military efforts in Pakistan and Yemen. In addition to directing the DHS to speed use of body scanners a week after the underwear bomber incident, President Obama threatened to widen the war in the Middle East by moving the fight to Yemen and "more than doubling" military aid to Yemen.[16]

The real intelligence failure isn't in government; the real intelligence failure is with Americans who relinquish their freedoms and responsibilities, and trust politicians to keep them safe.

____________________________________

[1] "Budget-in-Brief Fiscal Year 2010," US Department of Homeland Security, (Accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib_fy2010.pdf on January 9, 2010).

[2] "Flight terror suspect Abdulmutallab charged with trying to blow up jet," James Sturcke, guardian.co.uk, 27 December 2009, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/27/us-terror-flight-abdulmutallab-charged on January 11, 2010).

The "system" knew about the underwear bomber in advance because they were told about him by the young man's father:

"The cable from the State Department outlining Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father’s warnings about his son was available to the N.C.T.C. officials who maintained the no-fly list, the report said. But the cable alone did not meet the minimum standard for Mr. Abdulmutallab to get on the list."[4]

[3] "Flight 235 (sic): This time, plenty of data but analysis failed," By LYNN SWEET, Chicago Sun-Times, January 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1980054,CST-NWS-sweet08.article on January 12, 2010).

[4] "Obama Details New Policies in Response to Terror Threat," By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER, NY Times, January 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/politics/08terror.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on January 9, 2010).

"Mr. Abdulmutallab, who has been linked to the Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda, came to the attention of the American authorities when his father went to the American Embassy in Nigeria last month to report that his son had expressed radical views before disappearing. The father, a respected retired banker, did not say his son planned to attack Americans but sought help locating him and bringing him home, United States officials said.

"After Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father asked for help, embassy officials from several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, met to discuss the case, officials said.

"Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that was the first time the agency had heard of the young Nigerian. 'We did not have his name before then,' he said.

"The embassy sent a cable to Washington, which resulted in Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name being entered in a database of 550,000 people with possible ties to terrorism. But he was not put on the much smaller no-fly list of 4,000 people or on a list of 14,000 people who are required to undergo additional screening before flying, nor was his multiple-entry visa to the United States revoked.

“'It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect’s name on a no-fly list,' Mr. Obama said of the father’s warning. 'There appears to be other deficiencies as well. Even without this one report, there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together.'"[5]

[5] "TSA subpoenas bloggers, demands names of sources," By Eileen Sullivan, Associated Press, Dec 30, 2009 (Accessed at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_airliner_attack_tsa_subpoenas on December 31, 2009).

[6] "British Authorities Say Plot to Blow Up Airliners Was Foiled," By ALAN COWELL and DEXTER FILKINS, NY Times, Published: August 10, 2006, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/world/europe/11terrorcnd.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all on December 31, 2009).

[7] "Explosive on Flight 253 Is Among Most Powerful," By KENNETH CHANG, NY Times, Published: December 27, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/us/28explosives.html?_r=1&sudsredirect=true on December 31, 2009).

[8] "Debate Over Full-Body Scans vs. Invasion of Privacy Flares Anew After Incident," By JOHN SCHWARTZ, NY Times, Published: December 29, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/us/30privacy.html?th&emc=th on December 31, 2009).

[9] "Underwear Bomber Renews Calls for ‘Naked Scanners’," By Noah Shachtman, Wired Magazine, December 28, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/underwear-bomber-renews-calls-for-naked-scanners/ on December 31, 2009).

[10] "New scanners break child porn laws," by Alan Travis, guardian.co.uk, 4 January 2010, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws January 5, 2010).

"The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children...

"Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to 'virtual strip-searching' and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved."

[11] "Child Porn Fears Block Under 18s From Full Body Scanners," Updated: 01- 5-10, Huffington Post, (Accessed at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/child-porn-fears-limit-fu_n_411769.html on January 5, 2010).

Scans of children under 18 have been banned in Great Britain.

[12] "Obama Details New Policies in Response to Terror Threat," By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER, NY Times, January 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/politics/08terror.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on January 9, 2010).

[13] "Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers," By Sheila MacVicar , CBS News, LONDON, Sept. 28, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml on January 4, 2010).

[14] "Fliers Complain About X-Rated Security Screenings," by Pam Zekman, CBS Chicago, Jul 22, 2008, (Accessed at http://cbs2chicago.com/investigations/xrated.security.screenings.2.777423.html on January 11, 2010).

[15] "Carville: Airport scanners can 'measure my penis'," January 8, 2010, by Christina Wilkie, The Hill, (Accessed at http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/1349-carville-airport-scanners-can-measure-my-penis on January 9, 2010).

[16] "Obama Says Al Qaeda in Yemen Planned Bombing Plot, and He Vows Retribution," By PETER BAKER, NY Times, January 2, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/politics/03address.html?th&emc=th on January 3, 2010).

Eric Margolis points out some of what US military aid to Yemen has already accomplished:

"In December, the Saudis, backed by US air power, CIA and special forces, intervened against Shia Houthi tribesmen along Yemen’s northern desert border. A semisecret US base in Djibouti is being used for attacks on Yemen, Somalia and Kenya.

"Just before the Detroit air incident, US warplanes killed 50–100 Houthi tribesmen fighting the American-backed regime. US Special Forces, warplanes and killer drones have been active since 2001, assassinating Yemeni militants and antigovernment tribal leaders. It was only a matter of time before Yemeni jihadists struck back at the US."[17]

[17] "Welcome, Americans, to Mysterious Yemen," by Eric Margolis, LewRockwell.com, (Accessed at http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis175.html on January 5, 2010).

Monday, January 4, 2010

Looking Without Seeing

He said, "Go and tell this people: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"

And he answered: "Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken. Isaiah 6:9-12 NIV

In this most modern of countries, America, a plague ravages the land. Slowly at first, stores close their doors, neighbors lose their jobs, and random houses are emptied, abandoned and lifeless. Not because of any biological plague, instead America's cities suffer from an economic plague, a quiet plague that leaves people robbed and ruined. This is a plague of lies by accounting, numbers on a balance sheet manipulated by the federal government to show whatever it wants, promising people something for nothing, keeping them docile and waiting for the next government vaccine, all while they hope to avoid their neighbor's fate. The plague of lies is spreading, leaving more people unemployed, relying on charity for food and shelter, and losing hope.

How could this happen? We have access to vastly more information than any who have come before us. We see, we hear, yet we do not perceive.

"Accounting fraud at Enron is such a big story because it is so exceptional; only once in a blue moon does a major corporation destroy itself in this way. In contrast, “accounting” fraud is an inherent feature of government." Thomas DiLorenzo, "Real Accounting Fraud" [1]

Enron is synonymous with corporate dishonesty. Enron executives pretended to follow generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), but used special purpose entities to hide liabilities and overstate the company's equity.[2] Investors lost nearly $45 billion in Enron and some executives went to prison for fraudulent accounting practices.[3] Most people won't forget the infamous Enron accounting scandal of 2001.

Why doesn't the news media ever mention a more blatant and worse accounting scandal that has been going on since 1968?

Our federal government, quick to prosecute Enron executives, doesn't even pretend to follow the GAAP standard, and is in a financial hole 1000 times deeper than Enron ever was. Estimates for federal government liabilities are as high as $65 trillion. But unlike the Enron accounting fraud, this time there won't be any trials.

Taxpayers, the "investors" in the US government accounting fraud, will pay with higher taxes, a stagnant economy that jeopardizes their incomes, and inflation that robs their savings. Instead of prosecutions, the federal government bails out wealthy executives, and "chastises" them by limiting their annual compensation to under $10 million.[4][5] Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans will continue to support the federal government as it grinds them into the ground, all the while believing federal government lies that the government makes our lives better. All this is happening now before our eyes. Yet we make our ears dull and close our eyes.

John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics site reports on federal government lies about economic statistics. The federal government misrepresents unemployment and inflation rates, and minimizes the annual budget deficit. As they see their paychecks shrinking, houses abandoned, and businesses closing, most people know things are worse than the government reports. But the media and Americans continue to ignore the truth: federal government profligacy is destroying America. "...the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged..."

Since the Johnson administration, when LBJ created his "Great Society," the biggest "something for nothing" program since the New Deal, the federal government has used an accounting gimmick called "unified budget accounting" to misrepresent the size of the federal budget deficit.[6] For the last 40 years the federal government has consistently spent more money than it takes in, trying to hide the fact by using unified budget accounting rules that ignore off-budget spending.

Today people still believe that the Clinton (D) administration ran a budget surplus from 1998 to 2000. The government tells them so, using its unified budget accounting scheme to define a surplus as the amount by which "on-budget" federal revenues exceed outlays for a given fiscal year. What the government doesn't tell them is that the "on-budget surplus" excludes spending and revenues for the off-budget Social Security Trust Fund, Medicare, Postal Service, and pension funds. But if people looked at historical data available from the government, they would see that it shows the gross federal debt has increased every year since 1969. There has never been a surplus since then, no matter what the news media and then-President Clinton would have people believe.

In this decade, deficits have been so huge that the federal government doesn't even pretend to run a surplus. But it still can lie about the size of the shortfall: the annual deficit is much worse than Congress and the President profess. According to the GAAP standard used by private corporations, the 2008 US treasury report (pdf) for the last year of the Bush (R) administration showed an increased gross debt of $997.7 billion and liabilities of $4.1 trillion for an approximate $5.1 trillion total debt. Yet the unified budget reported a deficit of $454.8 billion. To further insult us, the Obama (D) administration told us we needed a stimulus program of increased federal spending as our latest vaccine.

The unified budget deficit reported for the first year of the Obama administration in 2009 is three times higher than in 2008: $1.417 trillion. The GAAP version of the deficit will be higher still.[7]

For how long can this continue? Until we either see with our eyes, hear with our ears, understand with our hearts, turn, and are healed, or until the land is utterly forsaken.

__________________________________

[1] "Real Accounting Fraud," The Free Market, April 2002; Volume 20, Number 4, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, (Accessed at http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=395 January 3, 2010).

[2] "Causey May Put GAAP On Trial," by Dan Ackman, January 23, 1004, Forbes.com, (Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/2004/01/23/cx_da_0123topnewse.html on January 2, 2010).

[3] "How Enron awards do, or don't, trickle down," By Kris Axtman, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, June 20, 2005, (Accessed at http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/p02s01-usju.html on January 2, 2010).

[4] "Fannie’s Christmas Eve Surprise," by Steven Davidoff, NY Times, January 4, 2010, (Accessed at http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/fannies-christmas-surprise/ on January 4, 2010).

[5] "What’s a Bailed-Out Banker Really Worth?," By STEVEN BRILL, NY Times, Published: December 29, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/magazine/03Compensation-t.html?pagewanted=all on January 4, 2010).

[6] "GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU’VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK! Federal Deficit Reality (Part Three in a Series of Five), by Walter J. "John" Williams, September 7th, 2004, (Accessed at http://www.shadowstats.com/article/federal_deficit_reality on January 3, 2010).

[7] "A Citizen's Guide to the 2008 Financial Report of the US Government," (Accessed at http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/08frusg/08frusg.pdf on January 3, 2010).

Table 1, page 4 of the report compares the budget deficit of $454.8 billion and the net operating cost of $1.009 trillion. "A Snapshot of the Government's Financial Position & Condition" on page 10 shows Social Insurance Liabilities that increased from fiscal year 2007 to 2008 by $4.073 trillion. So a deficit of $454.8 billion is reported, while the national debt increases by $997.7 billion, and total liabilities increase by approximately $5.1 trillion.

According to the annual letter from the commissioner for the US Treasury for the fiscal year ended October 2008 (pdf):

"The financial results for the year include total receipts of $2,523.6 billion, a decrease of $44 billion under 2007 receipts; total outlays of $2,978.4 billion, an increase of $249.2 billion over 2007 outlays; and a $454.8 billion deficit, a decrease of $293.3 billion under the 2007 deficit."

From the letter from the commissioner of the US Treasury for the fiscal year ended October 2009 (pdf):

"The financial results for the year include total receipts of $2,104.6 billion, a decrease of $419 billion from 2008 receipts; total outlays of $3,521.7 billion, an increase of $543.3 billion from 2008 outlays; and a $1,417.1 billion deficit, an increase of $962.3 billion from the 2008 deficit."