Your author was pleased to see a recent resignation. No it wasn't the announcement from the Bush camp that chief of staff Karl Rove was exiting but rather a figure your author called to the carpet on numerous occasions to place partial blame on the out of control spending of the previous dominant Republican Congress. This past week while the skewed media machine speculated over Rove's resignation they failed to highlight the Republican Congressman and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's bow out. Hastert has stated he will not seek reelection in 2008.
It was Hastert that allowed out of control spending from his rank and file. When disgraced former Florida Congressman Mark Foley attempted to resign prior to the sex scandal that would end career; it was Hastert that pressured him to stay. Finally it was Dennis Hastert that stepped aside and gave his blessing to allow Tom DeLay to be elected House Speaker. These events, coupled with DeLay's ties to infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the eventual corruption scandal that followed, created a storm that all but guaranteed a defeat in 2006. All the while Hastert stood motionless.
Besides what he failed to squash, because Hastert had the power to curb the inevitable, it was also what he failed to initiate that is often forgotten. Hastert was part of the Republican team that was led by House Speaker New Gingrich in the Republican Revolution of 1994. Their objective was clearly stated in a creed known as Contract with America. This gem of conservative and libertarian philosophy has all but been forgotten. In 1994 America spoke loudly when mid term votes ousted Democrats after a 40 year reign over Congress. While the Contract sliced our welfare state in half, which is what the creed is best known for, it failed to limit Congressional terms. Your author has previously argued that such term limits would curb the influence of lobbyists and ensure that we don't create careeer politicians.
Hastert himself has two serious marks against him, which your author has previously discussed. The first being his son Joshua who is a known lobbyist in the beltway and the second involving land transaction where Hastert benefitted from proposed highway spending.
In 2004 Hastert penned his memoirs in Speaker: Lesson from 40 Years in Coaching and Politics. While the book contains his thoughts and insight at various times during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and the current Bush's terms; he devotes a portion of the text to the fair tax or national sales tax in replace of the current tax structure. Your author along with many other pundits agree that scrapping the current tax code and the IRS while replacing such function with a national sales tax would better serve America; Hastert did little in the way of initializing such legislation. Hastert discussed the idea while making rounds on talk shows and in the news rooms to promote the work but never attempted to act upon it. Failing to act, given the scandals that pushed the Republican Congressional majority out, may best sum up Hastert's political legacy.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
Your author has always tried to differentiate between a genuine Liberal and one that refers to them self as such. A genuine Liberal is often described as an open minded free spirit. They won’t tell the reader they are Liberal but allow their discourse and action to speak for them. A self professed Liberal as we know them in America are anything but open minded and embrace very little in the way of personal freedom. In fact your author has encountered many of them and describes them as hypocritical bigots. You the reader are in good standing if you agree with them and this thought process is applied to free speech and religion or any other civil liberties we as Americans possess.
Unfortunately for America many of these self professed types are entrenched in the political arena. They replaced what was known as being ‘progressive’. The progressive representation was clearly seen in the era of the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations. These were the champions for the underdog or little guy. With the Kennedy Administration, America witness as the Democrat Party was hijacked by Hollywood and elitists of the Ivey League system. Suddenly graduates of Harvard, Dartmouth and Brown were stuffing the Democrat ranks. Hollywood began to influence the thought process of this political party. It is a relationship that still exists today.
As said many modern day Democrats are from the same self professed cloth. Many on this side of the aisle cry for the desire to have bipartisan legislation but rarely has your author seen them actually deliver on such requests and in fact often act in the opposite manner.
Recently in the news there has been haggling over repealing the Fairness Doctrine. This was ancient piece of legislation was originally rooted in the anti-Communist era that could be found in 1949. The law basically stated that if controversial issues were to be aired on the radio or television that there must be equal balance from opposing side. Some critics regarded the measure as a curb on free speech. One other aspect, from a practical side, was that at the time there were a limited number of radio and television stations. Communication technology had barely begun. The legislation was enforced by the FCC (Federal Communication
In 1986 the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and what spun from it was an industry that would greatly impact American politics. In an almost overnight fashion AM talk radio, most of it to the Right, blossomed and was primarily led by Rush Limbaugh. With the advent of the internet nearly a decade later online Conservative publication lit up the airwaves and the information exchange became unbridled. The ancient medians of television and newspapers took a backseat. This was most notably felt with declining viewers for the three major news network (CBS, NBC and ABC) along with the sliding earnings for such historic newspapers as The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times. Over and over again Republicans filled the ranks of Congress following the Reagan landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984 and that of George Bush over Michael Dukakis in 1988. This was followed by the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 followed by another surprise victory during the 2004 Presidential election. Since the late 1960s our country has been striking back and moving to the center-right someone just forgot to tell the modern day Democrats. Many of these victories can be credited to the conclusion of the Fairness Doctrine.
While the Left cultivated Air America, a self-professed Liberal’s version of talk radio, it was met with failure and bankruptcy. More people tune in the Drudge Report rather than reading The New York Times and the only print newspaper still churning out strong profits can be found in The Wall Street Journal. There is always National Public Radio, funded by a portion of your tax dollars and considered by many as left leaning; they too are forced to act in a fundraiser mode several times a month.
Denying the cultural shift in America and showing once again that many of the players are out of sync with the American culture, lefty Democrats are coming out attempting to bring back the Doctrine. Some of the most notable proponents are Democrat Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, your author’s favorite New England blue blood gigolo and failed 2004 Presidential nominee. Others include Democrats Maurice Hinchey (Representative from New York), Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter from New York, ultra left Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and the even further lefty Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont. Senator Whip Leader Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois also chimed in with, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision". Once again a condescending self professed Liberal telling his fellow Americans what is best for them.
Self professed Liberal Democrats can’t admit defeat. They still are caught in the 1960s attitude of collectivism that has all but wrecked the party of Truman and Roosevelt. Additionally this plays right into their plans of repealing American advancement as they refuse to recognize their past failures. Freedom of speech they cry except when they disagree as your author has previously pointed out and they are anything but fair.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
When the Democrats won Congress in 2006, which as your author has previously discussed was as much to do with Republicans giving it to them, incoming Speaker Democrat Nancy Pelosi vowed to make Congress the most ethical it has ever been. Your author quickly expressed doubts that the House Speaker would be able to get much accomplished and as it relates to ethics one must consider that the participants are on par with teenagers vying to be the most popular. Elections are in some part a popularity contest while the most ethical receives the second place red ribbon.
Thus far Speaker Pelosi has made little if any headway in cleaning up the shenanigans of Congress. She has introduced the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which is currently somewhere in the House. While this bill addresses lobbyists and former Congressional members and staffers ability to become lobbyists (i.e a cooling off period before a former elected officials is allowed to engage in lobbying efforts) it at least appears to be a good start. However it lackins a vital piece of enforcement and that being conflict of interest statements. In short a conflict of interest statement signed by members of Congress on an annual basis would stop what has become an embarrassing trend your author has previously noted. A conflict of interest statement would prevent legislators in voting on proposed legislation where they, a member of their family or close associate would benefit. As much as Democrats have enjoyed railing against the perceived evils of corporate America, you know those guys that supply the majority of jobs in this country; these same entities in particular if they are publicly traded companies employ such measures as conflict of interest acknowledgments.
Your author has received email from the past that accuses him of being a Republican hack. Your author is not afraid to call both sides of the political aisle to the carpet.
The trend setters:
Former House Speaker and Congressional heavyweight Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois-in 2006 it was revealed he failed to disclose property he owned through a trust that was located along Illinois Prairie Parkway. In 2005 Hastert intervened over a Congressional bill to secure $152 million in highway funding and improvements, which greatly increased the value of his holdings. Upon the sale Hastert reaped a cool $2 million. Additionally there is his son Joshua who is a lobbyist for biotech and defense companies.
Former Senate leader and current Minority Whip Senator Trent Lott, Republican Mississippi, who has previously campaigned on tort reform and stifling frivolous lawsuits that damage corporate America and make ambulance chasers such as John Edwards rich. While Lott gave lip service to combating the detriment of lawsuits he had no problem in suing State Farm following the damage to his Pascagoula home caused by Hurricane Katrina. It wasn’t until the lawsuit made news that it was revealed his brother in law, Richard Scruggs, is a famous and rich trial lawyer who won a windfall case against the tobacco industry. How on earth can Lott be expected to govern over any legislation that would curb the influence of trial lawyers?
The loveable ‘war hero’ for the American Left-Democrat Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania-who favors immediate withdraw from the Iraq War (admitting defeat) as his way of showing he supports the troops. His brother just happens to be Kip Murtha, a veteran lobbyist on behalf of the defense industry.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein whose sudden resignation from the MILCON (Military Construction Appropriation subcommittee) brought little attention if any from the big mainstream media machine. Feinstein herself has been tight lipped but prior to her resignation her billionaire husband Richard Blum made plenty of coin when time and time again Feinstein undoubtedly was able to swing federal funds for the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration to engage in businesses where Blum owned sizeable amount of stock. Blum also owns the controlling interest in the real estate firm CB Ellis, which plays a key role in managing properties used by the two government outfits.
Another baffling case involves Democrat Congressman Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. The heir apparent to the Senator Robert Byrd throne has hit a bit of a snag. It wasn’t until the Wall Street Journal, quite possibly the best American newspaper, that t he public became of aware of Mollohan’s efforts at getting rich at the expense of the beltway. In February 2006 the National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page complaint stating that Mollohan had hit the lottery. His assets swelled from $562,000 in 2000 to $6.3 million by 2004. Mollohan repeatedly failed to fully disclose assets owned by him and his wife. Surprisingly the New York Times noted in April 2006 that Mollohan was able to earmark $250 million in federal funds for five non profit groups in his home state. Several of these non profit groups were headed by a former staff member who just so happened to be involved in co-ownership of properties held by Mollohan and his wife. The irony was that at the time the story broke Mollohan was the highest ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee. However this expose of questionable business relations and federal funds did nothing to impede his constituents as he was reelected in 2006.
Senator Hillary Clinton, carpetbagger Democrat from New York and currently vying for her party’s Presidential nomination, has survived one ethical curve ball. No not White Water but rather ports and the United Arab Emirates. In early 2006 she publicly stated that she was against a proposed contract that would allow a Dubai based company to manage US ports. Meanwhile her husband of sorts and your former President, Bill Clinton, was busy taking big speaking fees to counsel UAE on how to go about in securing the contract. Is this or is this not a case of conflict of interest?
One of the more cantankerous members of Congress, Senate Leader Harry Reid Democrat from Nevada, has found himself in a bit of a quagmire. Reid likes land and he likes to get rich off selling it. While Reid knows the value of giving lip service because he was able to pass bipartisan legislation that addressed the issue of Congressional members flying on planes furnished by lobbyists, Reid can always drive to his dirt. In 2005 Reid proclaimed ‘good news’ for his Nevada voters when a transportation bill was passed that allowed for a bridge to be built connecting his home state and Arizona. Reid forgot to tell them that several miles away he owned 160 acres that would all likelihood appreciate in value.
More recently there is the case of Democrat Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. This July Nelson was able to earmark, which is a fancy way of saying he shoved money into a bill, federal funds in defense spending bill that would have sent millions to his son’s employer. When asked about this transaction Nelson sent out a spokesperson to state he did nothing wrong.
Now with all these issues of personal and professional interest being questioned by your author has Speaker Pelosi lived up to her campaign pledge? No in fact she is just as guilty. While just the other day the Congress passed a minimum wage hike this was not the case at the beginning of 2007 when Pelosi stated she supported such proposal but wanted to reprieve the impact of it on America Samoa. In other words it was good enough for the 50 states but wasn’t needed for the island country, which is an American territory. In Samoa according to the Department of Labor canneries and specifically those who can tuna employ 55-60% of the country’s citizens. Madam Speaker’s husband Paul, who your author has genuine sympathy for, owns a $17 million investment in the H..J. Heinz company. Besides bankrolling the lifestyle of Theresa Heinz Kerry and that of Massachusetts Democrat Senator, failed 2004 Democrat Presidential nominee, New England gigolo and playing the part of second fiddle to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry; the company owns nearly 75% of the outstanding Del Monte foods corporation stock who in turn owns Starkist tuna. Pelosi had no problem that cannery workers would still make $3.60 per hour as long as the company continued to ring the cash register.
There you have it ladies and gentlemen, this is Nancy Pelosi’s promise and her reality. So far she is sitting on a goose egg and we are worse off for it. When will she start addressing the key issues? Something tells your author when historians write about her it only recognize as being the first woman Speaker and little else.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
This past week your author was saddened to read about the high speed chase Albert Gore III, son of former Vice President and failed 2000 Presidential Democrat nominee Al Gore, that involved the San Diego police department. The chase went in excess of 100 MPH, Albert Jr was found to be reeking of marijuana and a collection of prescription medications that were not prescribed to him. The most amazing facet of this incident was that Gore was driving a Honda Prius Hybrid and the fact he got his eco-friendly car to actually get up to that high rate of speed! This isn’t Gore Jr’s first brush with the law and he quickly checked himself into rehab after his sister posted bail. .
His father may have been disturbed by his son’s actions and his callous regard from others who could have been put in harm’s way but the former Vice President was not perturbed enough to slow his own plans. No Gore lived by the mantra ‘the show must go on’ and proceeded to host a multi continent simultaneous concerts known as Live Earth: The Concert’s For A Climate In Crisis. The concerts were to ‘raise awareness’ about pollution and global warming . The star studded ensemble obviously were not aware of the pollutants admitted into the atmosphere as they proceeded to be flown in from all parts of the globe. With trash spewing over cans and cigarettes lit up the crowds lip synced songs from their favorite artists. Concert goers were asked to sign a seven point pledge for committing to reducing carbon emissions. Your author feels certain that once the beer buzz has worn off that many will have forgotten.
Your author has previously argued that Al Gore stands to profit from global warming legislation. His hedge fund, the London based Generation Investment Management, specializes in investment where companies are seen as eco-friendly and tackling the doom and gloom of global warming. With this series of concerts ticket prices in London were originally 55 pounds or nearly $100. A portion of the profits from the concerts went to the Alliance for Climate Protection, while your author feels quite comfortable stating that another portion will go into Gore’s pocket, just like his hit film An Inconvenient Truth.
Al Gore will say and do anything to make a buck. Strangely enough when he was a Senator from Tennessee Gore wasn’t quick to embrace rock and roll stars and would have shuttered to think he would have signed off for rapper Snoop Dogg to perform at Live Earth in Hamburg, when his wife Tipper started Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) in 1985. Gore would later testify before the Senate’s Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee regarding the ill effects of many popular music stars of the day. He would then attempt to introduce legislation that would have banned stores from selling music deemed controversial without proper labeling. Later it was determined that Tipper Gore had suffered mental illness. Al Gore has swapped the high horse of going after music stars in favor of promoting them and instead of being concerned about what teens will hear on the radio, he now is satisfied in making sure they are carbon neutral. Tipper is nowhere to be found these days.
Meanwhile Professor Timothy Patterson from Canada’s Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University doesn’t buy Gore’s claims. He also doesn’t stand to profit either. According to Dr. Patterson the earth should get ready for a cooling cycle. Dr. Patterson has what is being thought of as legitimate evidence, not what one claims in an inconvenient film or by the likes of Bruce Springsteen, that suggest that the earth’s climate is impacted by the sun’s rays. In other words the brightness from the sun is the contributing factor and not whether or not we drive hybrid automobiles. Professor Patterson forecasts a changing cycle where the atmosphere is expected to become cooler. Maybe Gore is available to host concerts that espouse the virtues of firewood and heavy coats?
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
Democrat New York Senator and front runner for the Democrat Party Presidential nomination recently spoke at the Manchester School of Technology in Manchester, NH. Her vision for America was typical for those who but into the fallacy of collectivism preached in the 1960s and 70s. Senator Clinton was critical of President Bush’s view of ownership. Instead she embraces a philosophy of ‘we are all in it together’. While what she says may sound nice and rosy, essentially bypassing the failures of previous attempts to employ such thought process, it in all actuality bad for society and sounds very much like socialism.
Collectivism is at the heart of progressive liberal political and economic thought. The roots of such are found in John Locke’s Social Contract writings. In short Locke’s philosophy, which was later expounded on by other philosophers, describes a society where few rights are given up in order for a government to maintain social order. The definition of social order and its interpretation varies as wide as the colors of the rainbow. The term’s description has lent itself to the works of Karl Marx, father of communism to noted French socialist philosopher Emile Durkheim and American sociologist Talcott Patterson. While Ayn Rand’s objectivism (sometimes referred to as individualism) values one’s pursuit and mankind’s pursuit for one’s self is absolute. Her philosophy would jumpstart the Libertarian Party political thought whereby the government at any level should be maintained at a minimum. One of Rayn’s contemporaries and devoted practitioners is former Federal Reserve chairman Allan Greenspan. The economic application of objectivism is found in the Laissez-fare theory of capitalism, which in short calls for little if any government intervention and markets are always self- correcting.
Those who are fully saturated with objectivism may find their legitimization in our American Constitution and in particular with the use of the word ‘we’.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The idea of ‘general welfare’ has often been expounded upon and interpreted liberally by many on the American Left, while securing blessings of liberty has often been ignored. Senator Clinton later said the following, "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." Is this to say that the eight years of the Bush Administration mitigated that of her husband’s?
America is still the opportunity for all. Isn’t that why we have an illegal immigration problem? Isn’t that many are fleeing lands of no opportunity for a greater chance?
Now Senator Clinton was addressing a college, an assumed institution of higher learning but she has the audacity to state the following, "We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this." No the problem is that our country doesn’t have enough skilled labor and instead would be successful plumbers have bachelor of art degrees in subjects that cannot elevate them to an occupation that doesn’t provide economic advancement. We need more plumbers and electricians and fewer college graduates holding down two part time jobs because there is no market for their chosen major.
Who will be paying for these future college students? Currently we have student loan programs that have seen their usage grow at substantial rates. These mechanisms were not previously available decades ago. Are we now asked to dip in our wallets to foot an additional bill?
Other items not mentioned by Clinton but is often employed by her camp is a higher taxation on oil companies and national healthcare. In fact Clinton stokes and basks in class warfare-the tension (genuine or otherwise) that supposedly exists between the haves and have nots-assuring her constituency that Washington DC has the answer. Yes the same group of elected officials who failed to uphold the enforcement of current immigration laws only to substitute them for a new set of laws can save the day.
Sadly Senator Clinton chooses to ignore the words of the great legendary economist Adam Smith. Unlike Clinton, Smith knew a thing or two about economies. From Smith’s Wealth of Nations It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. ... (Kings and ministers) are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."
It is also even sadder that she chooses to ignore the Tenth Commandment ‘Thou shall not covet your neighbor’ and instead bases her reasoning on the very idea.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
Today we honour our servicemen and women from the past to today. We remember those who lived and died defending our way of life and our freedoms. From World War I, which caused the United States to become an international power to the present day Iraq War. Your author expresses a genuine and generous token of appreciation, which is probably not even enough for what has been given.
Your author has had the good fortune to have many of his relatives serve in various battles, from a great great uncle who was a private first class and WWI MIA to World War II and Vietnam. Several friends of your author are serving or have served, with some even returning to Iraq. It is indeed a good fortune because it makes these events much more personal. These events bring it home to your author as it does for many Americans.
In this day and age of what has become confusion for many, your author needs no explanation. It does sadden your author that many use this moment in our time to exploit the troops and the need for a strong military force. In the past our country has always had objectors to military conflicts. During World War I Eugene Debs, American Socialist Party presidential candidate was a vocal critic. When World War II occurred such anti war sentiment was expressed in the literary classic of the day as with Catch 22 by Joseph Heller. The Vietnam War presented a legendary anti war protest movement that allowed pop culture, particular in music, to profit. We have seen the Iraq War produce a long list of anti war protestors.
Your author certainly agrees with their right to protest or express their thoughts. That is a tenant of our country that makes us unique and rich. Sadly, at least with this most recent round of anti war expression, if one does not agree with them then they must be ‘pro war’, which is ludicrous. Additionally consider that supporting the troops and the military as a whole, standing firm against the very real threat of radical Islam, is not for profit. However can the same be said for the other side of the coin when one considers the likes of DailyKos.com, Michael Moore, moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan and others? Right now Democrat Presidential nominee John Edwards is reinventing his campaign to include support your troops, end the war movement. Former Senator Edwards stands to win the White House.
Many from this profitable anti war movement, often referring to themselves as patriots, have already concluded that the Iraq War is lost. What does this do to troop morale? What does this say about some of our fellow citizens? Will we ever be able to win a war as long as these figures can be heard so loudly? With that kind of grim spinning, why have a military? Why even have a country? Why not shred The Constitution and call it a day? Maybe find some other place to set up camp and start over? This is what the profitable anti war movement would cause in the end.
The misuse of words is common with the profitable anti war movement. Two that stand out for your author are patriot and hero. We first must define these two words before we can critique what is being said.
From Merrian Webster Dictionary:
Hero-one that shows great courage.
Patriot-one who loves their country and supports its authority and interests.
US National Guard Staff Sargent Camilo Mejia is described by the profitable anti war group as being a hero. Mejia decided he did not want go to Iraq. Instead he opted to become AWOL. In 2004 Mejia was sentenced to a military prison for six months.
US Army Specialist Jeremy Hinzman fought in Afghanistan and upon hearing he would be shipped to Iraq fled to Canada with his wife and daughter. He is currently living in Vancouver and attempting to obtain refugee status. His contention with the Iraq War-it would be benefit Haliburton.
What is so heroic about these individuals? Nothing. Six months in a military prison would pale in comparison to risking your life in a war. And despite Hinzman’s claims, Haliburton has not profited from the Iraq War.
Unlike Mejia and Hinzman, Casey Sheehan was a patriot. In May 2000 Sheehan, following graduating from a community college, enrolled in the US Army. Originally desiring to be a chaplain’s assistant, Sheehan became a light wheeled mechanic. Nearing the end of his tour, the Allied Forces invaded Iraq and this drove Sheehan to reenlist. He knew full well his First Calvary Division would be shipped to Iraq. Despite the obvious dangers, Sheehan believed in the cause. Sheehan became a hero when he volunteered to be a member of the Quick Action Response Force to rescue troops and was killed on April 4, 2004.
Sheehan’s mother Cindy Sheehan would become an important figure in the profitable anti war movement. She would author a book, engage in numerous anti war demonstrations and profit from speaking tours. Her book entitled Peace Mom was about her son and plenty on her anti war stance. In the past several years she embraced both Socialist leader Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Communist leader Fidel Castro of Cuba. Her son was a brave and heroic patriot. Cindy Sheehan, obviously struck with grief that your author can only imagine, became a member and ultimately a tool for the profitable anti war movement crowd. It has concluded, she has been spent and today she threw in the towel.
It is because of soldiers such as Sheehan and thousands of others that the profitable anti war movement can even exist. It is because of these brave men and women, those who gave their time and the ones who sacrifice their lives that allows your author to express such support for them. We remember you-the true patriots and heros.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
This week your author noted two incidents where members of the Hollywood elite have made profound statements by their words and/or actions. This is at least what they would like for the reader to believe. Of course like their industry, which produces fiction on film, these very same proponents literally live in a fantasyland.
At one time, long before your author entered this world, Hollywood was known as a hodgepodge of different types varying on their personal political thought. In 1947 Congress’s House On Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began an investigation looking into the leanings of film actors and producers who were deemed to be supporting the American Communist Party. Congress called such Hollywood notables as future President and then head of the Screen Actors Guild Union Ronald Reagan, Walt Disney and Gary Cooper to give their assessment of the then current state of Hollywood.
At the end of the day a group known as the Hollywood Ten, which consisted primarily of directors and screenwriters, were deemed undesirable and eventually blacklisted. Others who protested the Committee, most notably the actor Humphrey Bogart, were marked as a sympathizer.
Before and after the Hollywood Ten investigation the film industry was literally controlled by Conservatives. Producers such as Jack Warner of Warner Brothers fame and Sam Goldwyn co-owner of MGM Studios, were hard right in their political beliefs.
The actions against the Hollywood Ten led by the HUAC have since been referred to as senseless. Often times this investigation has been labeled as being part of the ‘McCarthyism’ era, which is a complete falsehood since at the time of the trial Senator Joe McCarthy was just beginning his first Senate term.
Unlike today, the 1940s-50s actors, actresses, producers and writers who may have had controversial political beliefs weren’t publicly known until events such as Hollywood Ten case. In other words these figures did not advertise such or at least not inform the masses of their thought. While they may have had such sympathies they certainly would not venture to the former USSR and embrace communist society. They were not so bold.
This week your author read reports on actor Danny Glover and his acceptance of $18 million from Venezuela President Hugo Chavez. Your author has previously discussed President Chavez and how the future of his country will be a bleak one. The leader, elected by a criticized vote, has already nationalized their fuel industry and has made overtures to do the same with banking. In the end, as it always happens, this will fail and fail miserably but not before Chavez has safely made off with some of the loot. This has always been the scenario when hard left Socialist policies are implemented.
Chavez gave Glover the funding to produce a movie about the Venezuelan born Latin American independence leader Simon Bolivar. The freedom fighter or ‘El Libertador’ as he was known, who died in 1830, envisioned an American Revolutionary style war for Latin America. The primary enemy was Spain and their colonization of South America. A series of battles would become collectively known as the ‘Bolivar Wars’ and the country of Bolivia was named after him, one of the few to have an actual country named for their legacy. Bolivia was said to have espoused individual freedom above all else.
Your author must wonder if Chavez sees himself in the same light as Bolivar. This in itself would walk inline with many hard left Socialist and Communist leaders who build their legacy long before they are out of office. This cult of personality description is usually reserved for those who have passed away.
Latin American has had a long flirtation with hard left politics and multiple South and Central American countries have attempted to embrace such thought only to see it turn into chaos, civil war and poverty. Bolivar, much like Chavez, saw various republic countries coming together and having himself as their president. At the end of the day Bolivar was ousted.
Why would Glover accept such an offer? In no short order much of it stems from 2006 when Chavez was given center stage at the United Nations General Assembly and referred to President Bush as the devil. Other rogue leaders gave a loud applause in approval. Chavez is currently making plans to edit his country’s constitution in order to campaign again in 2012. His critics and Venezuelan dissidents describe his government as a ‘gigantic fraud’, if and when the price oil depreciates Chavez’s time will probably conclude as this has been a driving factor in his rule.
Anyone with scant knowledge of political science and economics knows that Chavez’s reign will throw Venezuela back several decades. We now know Glover’s reasons why and the fact that someone else is flipping the bill.
Then this week we were reminded by the big media machine of the on air bitch fest between Rosie O’Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the television talk show The View. Your author wouldn’t even acknowledge this event except for O’Donnell’s previous statements that border on insanity.
In 1999, before her debut on The View, O’Donnell previously stated the following relating to her pro gun control philosophy, "You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison". Then in 2000 O’Donnell’s personal bodyguard applied for a concealed weapons permit in Connecticut.
Just like a typical self-professed Liberal, O’Donnell believes in freedom of religion but not when it comes to Christianity. Following the Supreme Court decision that overruled the legality of partial birth abortion, O’Donnell said the following, "You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?" Prior to this proclamation, in November 2006, O’Donnell expressed hypersensitivity for gays when on the television program Live With Regis And Kelly, the show’s host Kelly Ripa protested having the hand of co-host Clay Aiken placed over her mouth. Ripa explained that she had not known where his hand had been. O’Donnell suggested it was a homophobic gesture.
Following the events surrounding Iran’s capture of British Royal Naval personnel in March of this year, O’Donnell compared the event to the Gulf of Tonkin, telling viewers to "google it!". O’Donnell would later further explain that the British officers purposely allowed themselves to be taken hostage in order to justify a war with Iran. O’Donnell also showed contempt of the US Military personnel when in a May 2007 episode of The View she expressed her ‘love’ for the military but later said the following, "655,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Who are the terrorists? If you were in Iraq and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?" She certainly didn’t imply that the US Military were terrorists but she used the word enough in her discussion that would make one wonder.
Finally to add further insult, regarding Tower 7 of the World Trade Center that collapsed during the 9-11 attacks, she stated the following, "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 — building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade Center 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school — [the collapse] defies reason".
Hollywood is allowed to act foolish. They are often a part of the elite rich class-the exact wealth achievement obtained by others they demonize. They don’t shop at Wal-Mart, therefore that business is evil too and usually live safely behind mansion like compounds. Many in the field of the film and television industry are aging baby boomers so desperately wanting to make the rest of us believe that their time in the 1960s should be relived. It isn’t so much that your author spats at the 1960s, the Age of Aquarius and protest, just that it appears to have accomplished very little and filled with many pop culture icons made of paper. Although many who were politically active in that era would like one to believe that something of substance was achieved. Others such as O’Donnell push an agenda that is often littered with hypocrisy and lies, which your author provided evidence of such. Additionally individuals such as O’Donnell seem desperately obsessed with their own smug popularity but basically not producing anything of tangible substance. Either way Hollywood is best left to the big screen and television, sparing them entry into political thought, preventing an embarrassment and removing all doubt about their ignorance.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
Today the reader should have taken note on what is being described by many as successful immigration reform. As we all know US justice has been asleep at the wheel in patrolling the borders and over the past 20 years have allowed an estimated 11-12 million illegal aliens to currently reside and work in our country. Of course the language has been doctored up and refers to such individuals as undocumented workers.
When Senators from both sides of the political aisle announced they have reached a compromise, look out and the voter should remember such action when it is time to step up to the sacred ballot box. Here is a breakdown of what is being heralded as successful legislation.
1. The 11-12 million illegal aliens, oops workers, must come forward to obtain a probationary card that would allow them to live and work legally in the United States. Additionally for those who come forward they must pay a $5,000 fine.2. The legislation would call for an assessment in determining an illegal worker’s education and skill level. This would be part of a temporary work program separate from agriculture workers.
3. The legislation would call for 18,000 more border patrol agents.
4. The addition of over 300 miles in fence between the US and Mexico.
5. The time frame for American citizenship will be 8 years.
First what will happen if only half the estimated illegal workers come forward? What if some of these who don’t come forward are fathers or mothers? Will they be swooped up and sent back presumably south of our border? This is exactly what Congress is trying to avoid. This has been the new battle cry from the American Left. It has been said by proponents of immigration reform that many of these workers fill jobs that Americans won’t take. This implies they are of the low wage nature. How will the illegal worker be able to pay this fine assuming they are working in a low wage job?
Secondly at what scope will an agency go, assuming that a government agency will conduct such action, to verify a worker’s education and skill level? While your author does support the thought process, that having one less unskilled worker in our country, he cannot help to consider that this gives government yet one more excuse to grow. This will also make a good self-professed Liberal cry ‘unfair’. And as far as the fence and beefing up border security-don’t hold your breath.
The common thread in immigration policy for the past 40 years has been Democrat Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy. He echoed this sentiment after the Senate’s agreement:
"The agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America,"
Senator Kennedy it isn’t an issue of whether or not illegal workers are hiding and none of them are hugging shadows. They are on our streets, tapping into our social programs and creating a burden on law enforcement. What Kennedy, Senator Arlen Specter Republican from Pennsylvania, who is not a conservative and maverick Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona along with the other supporters have done is managed give themselves a pass for not enforcing current federal laws.
Senator Kennedy in particular has assisted more than any other elected official in creating this catastrophe. Rewind to 1965 when then the youthful Senator supported the Hart-Celler Act, which greatly altered immigration laws. In short the legislation curbed visas accessible to European immigrants to 170,000 with 120,000 for eastern hemisphere countries but the legislation contained a kicker. The kicker was that it allowed for unlimited family reunification visas. In other words bring your wife, kids, mother in law, cousin, etc. At the time of the vote Senator Kennedy said the following:
"...our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset...."
This may have well been true except for in 1968 when Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society introduced the Bilingual Education Act. The bill was introduced by then Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough. It called for federal funding devoted to bilingual teaching classrooms. This was later amended in 1974 with a claim that civil rights were being violated because schools were conducting such on a voluntary basis. The amendment would make way for what we see now and that being entire areas in our cities were English is rarely spoken. As your author has stated he wishes for our country not to have an official language because this will only be challenged in courts and will be forced to recognize more than one language. Not speaking English is encouraged from pressing 1 for English and 2 for Spanish to government agencies that contain instruction signs in both languages.
Then in 1986 Kennedy once again stepped up to the plate by supporting the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The legislation resulted in what amounted to amnesty for illegal aliens working in the United States. The bill called for intensifying the border patrol, which eventually fell by the wayside and at the end of the day 2.7 million illegal aliens were legalized.
Your author calls such current bipartisan legislation a fantasy. It didn’t work before so why will it work now? What is wrong with the notion of enforcing current laws? America is indeed the land of immigrants but in 1900 items such as social welfare and national security were not an issue. The federal government was only a miniscule size then as compared to now.
Currently House Speaker Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has expressed the following:
"We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process." She no doubt knows that if such legislation, as it is written today, passes it will assure that her term as Speaker will be one of the shortest.
Now a constant theme your author has had to repeat is why the Democrats won in 2006. Their victory was because of a few things most notably the Republican scandals involving Jack Abramoff and former Congressman Mark Foley. Another issue that voters felt strongly on was the problem with the number of illegal aliens perusing our countryside. Voters flocked to the polls and voted for what they perceived as conservative Democrats, also known as ‘blue dogs’. The victory had nothing to do with the Iraq War yet Pelosi and others would have you believe otherwise. Your author cites the victory of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman over anti-war candidate Ned Lamont as proof.
If Congress is unable to successfully cut and edit this bill so that it effectively addresses the problems with our southern border, then we have lost. Additionally many of these elected officials may be finding themselves looking for another job. The giddy Senators are referring to this legislation as reform. In the case of Kennedy and others reform means chaos, which neither claim responsibility. There will be no sunshine at the end of this journey.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
Today as many of you know Reverend Jerry Falwell passed away. Your author will spare the reader a rehash of his account from a humble Virginia Baptist who would become an influential figure in American politics with his Moral Majority and later founding Liberty University. The reader can read his background in dozens of newspapers and much of it is common knowledge.
Upon hearing of his death your author’s first thought was ‘how long until the big media machine begins to credit Falwell with bringing the Republican Party back from the ashes and cinching a win for President Ronald Reagan in 1980'? Your author already began to form his own opinion about how the news machine would spin this assumption. Below is a snippet from today’s The New York Times written by Peter Applebome.
"In the 1980 election, the Moral Majority was credited with playing a role in Mr. Reagan’s election as president, and with affecting the outcome in dozens of Congressional races. The election reflected the potential influence of religious conservatives in politics, which both electrified religious conservatives and alarmed many others, who feared a movement of religious zealots voting en masse for the preachers’ designated candidates."
Now this bit will be written in similar fashion by other newspapers and proclaimed by dozens of pundits. Here is a following quote from Matt Foreman, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America's anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation's appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation."
Your author has previously commented on what really fueled President Reagan’s response to AIDS during the early-mid 1980s. Foreman is not entirely correct but your author has already come to expect such responses.
What the press isn’t stating is the entire truth. Yes Falwell and the Christian Right did play a role in a Conservative political comeback. Yes many evangelical Christians do vote Republican. However in 1980 there were other reasons to vote for Reagan as opposed to the incumbent President Jimmy Carter.
In 1979 America’s inflation was 12.5% and at the end of that year prime interest rate was 15.25%. Economically speaking the mid to late 1970s were described as a period suffering from stagflation. In November of that year Iranian Islamic militants would kidnap 66 US diplomats and American citizens. Eventually 52 of them would be held for 444 days and were released on January 20, 1981, which coincided on the same day when Reagan was sworn in as President. Despite the economic data, many political scientists stand by the argument that it was because of the Iranian hostage crisis Carter would lose his reelection campaign.
Reader what has been just stated is the thrust on why Ronald Reagan won the 1980 Presidential election and the map provided tells the tale. Yes Reverend Falwell did play a hand but to fully credit him for Reagan’s win borders on a lie. It is also indicative of the American Left and the media machine of how they will never own up to the truth of Carter’s Administration
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
A new bill set to be introduced by Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak from Michigan would address the ‘issue’ of current gasoline prices. The bill entitled Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (HR 1252) would penalize any person or corporation that engages in the drilling, brokering or refining of crude oil and/or natural gas while charging what would be considered as being unconscionably excessive. In short this is price ceilings. This is sort of a consumer protective act that will perverse free markets.
The phrase unconscionably excessive may be murky and what the bill describes as such is nothing more than a mere curbing of price increase. The bill states that if gas prices significantly increase from the prior 30 days an investigation is to be launched. The fines levied for those who don’t follow this law-$150 million for a company, $2 million for an individual.
First to believe this initiative will work one must believe that A. there is a conspiracy of collusion between oil drillers and gas producers and B. economic laws of supply and demand are irrelevant. Also the believer must skip the phase of crude oil to gasoline conversion, which is facilitated through refining. Okay now that the reader has dumb down, let’s explore why such legislation is ineffective.
If there was collusion between gas distributors and oil drillers this must be the best kept secret kept from the public since the second gunman on the grassy knoll, providing the reader believes the nonsense of JFK assassination conspiracies. The great statesman Benjamin Franklin once said ‘three can keep a secret if two are dead’. If such a relationship existed an oligopoly economy or at least an oligopoly industry would persevere. If that was the case such examples rarely last a significant amount of time unless you consider when the government is involved as in the case of utilities, water and Ma Bell. When speaking of these one must remember they lasted for decades. It is then the consumer is left paying whatever price and providing top quality is not priority because there is no need to do such a thing.
Two notable examples of price ceilings are rent control apartments commonly found in New York City and some of the economic strategies employed by the Nixon Administration. Each time such techniques are employed the price remains at the top of the ceiling. Another reaction is that those engaged in such industries or services that are forced to adhere to these policies will often cut corners or shut down completely. In the case of rent control the apartment owner could charge the maximum allowed by the ceiling and forego maintenance in order to maintain a profitable asset. In some cases if the government imposes a maximum price to sell, the producer may opt to simply replace the product. Ultimately in the end the consumer, the very person that the government is trying to protect, suffers.
One theory on why gasoline prices were so high during the 1970s was because of the price controls placed on oil and fuel in the earlier part of the decade. Although originating during the Carter Administration, it was in the Reagan Administration that removed price ceilings and effectively ended the fuel crisis.
Consider also what impact these ceilings would have on the working poor. While living in urban areas public transportation may be an alternative means of commuting to work; how many from this group do not have access to such facilities? Furthermore with industries predictably charging the consumer a ceiling price the rich will be able to afford what will ultimately become a pseudo luxury.
If we as consumers know these price ceilings never work then why is there an attempt to revisit them? The Democrats may prefer description Progressive over Liberal but they should be referred to as nostalgic. It is a stroll down memory lane that we cannot afford.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by American Yank at | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
