Bogey Dope, Part 3

We continue from Part 1 and Part 2 considering the race for the special election in Arizona's CD8, which will lead into the race in the newly-redistricted CD2.

First, let's back up to March 6, and consider an article entitled Pima Dems try to keep Green off the CD8 ballot.

Pima County Democratic operatives are working to eliminate all competition in the race for CD8. having shamed all other democrats from challenging Ron Barber, they are now challenging a Dem running as a Green. They are suing to keep the Green Party candidate, Charles Manolakis, off the ballot.

According to the Yellow Sheet, Bill Risner, Tucson attorney and Democrat activist, filed a lawsuit Friday on behalf of Luke Knipe to have Manolakis, who they claim is a registered Democrat, removed from the ballot. The lawsuit includes a request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Manolakis's name from being printed on the ballot. Pima County Superior Court Judge Sarah Simmons was first assigned the case, but, finding a conflict of interest, Simmons transferred the case to the Mohave County Superior Court.

While it appears that the restraining order may have been issued, the ballots have already been printed, the Yellow Sheet reports, and overseas ballots have already been mailed.

Pima County Democratic Chair Jeff Rogers, who is not known for his tolerance of primary challengers, told the Yellow Sheet that, "It is a known fact that in an election, a Green Party candidate can siphon off enough votes to tip the election toward a GOP candidate."

The matter is scheduled for court on March 12, at 1:30 p.m.

At least Chairman Rogers is out in the open about the fact that he wants to eliminate any choices other than the Democrats. His clear agenda is to polarize the election on the Democrat side.

And, this strategy makes sense. If the Republican candidates should harbor any divisiveness or bitterness after the primary - keeping in mind only one of them can win - then that could have an impact in the special election. If all the Democrats support their candidate, Ron Barber, and if the Republicans are a little divided, this could cause the Democrats to win in a district where the Republicans have an advantage in registration, and in an election where the Republicans, who are generally more inveterate as voters, can be expected to turn out in greater proportion.

But, offer the Democrats an option, which a Green Party candidate would be, and that works against the D's.

I guess when it comes to a democratic election, not all Democrats are pro-choice. :)

Ultimately, this was decided in favor of Manolakis. From Green Party congressional candidate remains on ballot, March 12, 2012:

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) - A Pima Superior Court judge threw out a challenge Monday to Green Party candidate Charlie Manolakis' position on the ballot for the special election to replace former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

[snip]

Manolakis, a 72-year-old former teacher who has lived in Arizona since 1974, turned in petition signatures to run for the Green Party nomination. His position on ballot was challenged in civil court on grounds he was not a member of the party.

Manolakis said he registered with the Green Party in Pima County on Feb. 23. He said he formerly was registered as a Democrat.

The former Boston resident is the only Green Party candidate who qualified for the race.

The plaintiff in the case was Tucson political blogger Luke Knipe.

The Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise and Pinal boards of supervisors were also listed as defendants.

Judge Lee F. Jantzen dismissed the action.

But let's not lose sight of the underlying issue: the Pima County Democratic Party sees no advantage in being truly democratic. :)

For more on what's happening on the D side, Tom Danehy at Tucson Weekly had this to say:

The rumors had been swirling for weeks, and that's why I was dismayed that when Gabrielle Giffords announced she was stepping down, her hand-picked successor wasn't standing next to her (and being introduced as such). A big-name local Dem told me, "(That person, whoever it was to be) should have been at Gabby's side, maybe at the Food Bank, handing out food to people. You just can't blow a photo opportunity like that."

And yet they did. Memo to Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Jeff Rogers: What the hell, dude?! I'm still upset at Rogers for taking sides in a Democratic primary election. (He sided with Regina Romero over a Democratic challenger in last year's City Council elections.)

That was a monster no-no, and I've never heard a reasonable explanation from anyone as to why he would do that. That blunder was unforgivable; allowing the Republicans to take Giffords' seat would border on criminally negligent.

Having Giffords' longtime assistant Ron Barber enter the race soothed some people's nerves, especially considering a couple of the possibilities that had been bandied about prior to his announcement. There was the woman who would have had to change parties (!) in order to run in the Democratic primary, and another person absolutely awash in the malodorous essence of Rio Nuevo. By comparison, Barber is a veritable People's Choice.

Still, I wonder about the timing of it all. If he was going to run all along, why not announce it at a more-advantageous time? And if he doesn't want to run in November, then when are we going to find out who is?

I don't know Ron Barber; he seems like a decent guy. Nevertheless, what exactly are his qualifications, other than that he worked for Giffords, and God help me, he got shot? I've always voted for her, and I've been shot, too, but nobody asked me to run. I just hope he's tough enough, because the Republicans, who have always considered Giffords to be a squatter, are going to throw the kitchen sink at him.

Barber's entry in the race did clear things up on the Democratic side. Matt Heinz, who had been in the race, dropped out, leaving the Democratic nomination to Barber. On the other side, the Republican primary should be an absolute bloodbath. I can't wait.

I wonder if it is going to be "an absolute bloodbath" on the Republican side.

In any case, could it be anywhere near as bad as it has long been among the Democrats?

We consider excerpts from Guest Opinion: Is Jeff Rogers Abusing His Office? by Rob Ferrier, January 27, 2012:

While the Pima County Democratic Party might not have a face, it certainly has a voice. I am writing of course of Jeff Rogers, the twice-elected Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party.

The duties of Chair are as follows:

The County Chair shall preside at all meetings; make appointments to committees; make temporary appointments to offices which have been vacated... and generally do all and everything necessary to aid in the election of Democratic candidates, and to promote successful organization and operation of the Pima County Democratic Committee.

In sum, the Chair is to administrate the Party, raise money and groom potential candidates. The Chair is also a member of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is allowed and authorized to express policy position on issues of local, state, and national import. Nowhere, however, in the bylaws, is the Chair authorized to decide who is, and who is not, Democrat enough for the Party's taste. Nowhere in the bylaws do the words "Chair" and "duly appointed demagogue" appear within the same sentence.

Yet in 2011, the Pima County Democratic Party, seemingly at Mr. Rogers' direction, but voted on by the Executive Committee, spent almost $9,000.00 to fund a campaign against Joe Flores in the Ward 1 City Council, primary election. In other words, Jeff Rogers, as the head of the Pima County Democratic Party, picked one Democrat over another during a party primary. While, as the Party was quick to point out, this action is not strictly prohibited, it is undeniably unusual.

Apparently, the Pima County Democratic Party boss, Chairman Rogers, has been "administrating" his party by moving against Democrats that he disagrees with, using party money in the primary.

No wonder no Democrats want to challenge Barber in the primary. They would have enough of a fight on their hands battling a Democrat machine trying to sink them.

After more commentary, including more examples of Chairman Rogers undermining Democrat candidates in primaries, Mr. Ferrier concludes:

He does not have the right, however, to tell me, or anyone else, what we are allowed to think or believe as Democrats. And he does not have the right to tell his fellow Democrats that they are not welcome in my Party.

The Democratic Party does not belong to Mr. Rogers. While it is to his credit that he agreed to serve it, neither I, nor the vast majority of the rank and file asked him to define the contours of its policy, nor granted him the right to use it as his bully pulpit. And it is high past time that when he chooses to express his personal views that he identify himself as Jeff Rogers, local gadfly, and not Jeff Rogers, Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party. Because I, for one, am sick and tired of others assuming that Mr. Rogers speaks for me.

I was born and raised Republican. I chose to be a Democrat. Through the years, I participated in Young Democrats, I volunteered for candidates and once, and only once, allowed myself to be dragooned as a Precinct Committeeman. I admired, and still admire, FDR, Truman, JFK and RFK. I voted for Bill Clinton twice despite my personal distaste for his prurient habits. I have long accepted that the blessing of American privilege comes hand in glove with the responsibility of public service. And I embraced the Democratic Party because, fundamentally as a liberal leaning fellow, I believed in a few core ideals.

First, government is and should be, a force for good. Second, all people, regardless of where they came, what they believed, or what the color of their skin, deserved a fair shake from government. And most of all, I joined the Democratic Party because the Party shared those ideals. Within the Party, I am free to think what I want, and to believe what I want. And to know, to coin a phrase, that while my fellow Democrats might not like what I say, they will die for my right to say it. Above all else, we stand and fall together. We are the Great Coalition. The Big Tent. Come one. Come all.

I have friends within the Party that are pro-life. That are gun nuts. That are against gay marriage. That wish to build a wall across the Mexican Border. That dream of the day the death penalty is free from the shackles of due process. I share none of these views. But I would never question their right to belong to my party. And I would never, ever question their right to vote their conscience or to speak their mind. As far as I know, there is no litmus test to be a Democrat.

Except, apparently, in Pima County.

There was a time in this country when the two major parties served the interests of the country as they best saw fit. You might disagree with Truman or Eisenhower, but you could feel comfortable that either one of them was trying to do some good for America.

This has changed.

The "Democratic" Party, as an institution, was infiltrated and has largely been taken over by those who seek power for their own ends.

This infiltration is on the part of "Leftist" radicals. Their strategy has been to promote a plethora of issues, but their goal is their own power.

Lenin promised Russians "peace, land, bread", but in the end, it was about the Bolsheviks gaining and keeping power at the expense of the Russian people.

The same is true today in America.

There are a great many decent people who are Democrats, but increasingly, they are being sold out by their leadership.

To be sure, I disagree with many of these Democrats; with some of them, I disagree on nearly everything.

But, I recognize that they have opinions that they have formed, they have courses of action that they wish to implement, and, they have intentions that are good.

They have been sold out.

In Russia, after the Soviet Union was formed and Lenin died, Stalin had to purge his internal enemies, foremost among them being Trotsky who, after having worked to overthrow capitalism beginning in Russia, found himself fleeing to the capitalist world for safety.

And, we see this today in "Democratic" politics: too often, dissent gets crushed and internal enemies are the first casualties. Many Democrats become disgusted, and switch to the Republican Party. Despite all the desperate rhetoric from the Left, it is the Republican tent that is broad and inclusive, generally civil, where dissent is tolerated and often encouraged, where differences of opinion are respected as being American, and where our disagreements make us stronger by burning away lies in the crucible of freethinking debate.

(Source for last two images.)

What is Constant

First, some old news... which often is the best news. :)

Excerpts from Supreme Court declines Pledge of Allegiance case, dated October 5, 2009:

A Florida teenager has lost his bid to have the US Supreme Court decide whether students in public schools have a First Amendment right to refuse to stand and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.

The underlying lawsuit did not challenge the content of the Pledge. Instead, at issue was a Florida law that requires all public-school students, Grades K-12, to stand and repeat the Pledge, unless excused in writing by a parent.

snip

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not hear the case. No reason for the decision was offered.

In seeking high-court review of the case, called Frazier v. Smith, Mr. Frazier's lawyers had asked the justices to decide whether he and other students have a constitutional right to refuse to be compelled by the government to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.

To resolve the case, the justices would have had to clarify a landmark 1943 ruling in which the high court declared schoolchildren in West Virginia may not be required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The issue in the Frazier case was whether the First Amendment right established in the West Virginia decision belongs to the children alone or instead extends to the children through their parents.

A federal judge in Florida agreed that the right belongs to the students and struck down the Florida law. But a federal appeals-court panel later upheld the law on grounds that the First Amendment right belongs to parents of school-age children – not the children themselves.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida took up Frazier's case. In a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, ACLU lawyer Randall Marshall quoted from the 1943 West Virginia decision.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar urged the high court to refuse to hear the case. "The state, of course, recognizes that minors have constitutional rights, albeit more limited ones than adults, especially in the area of education," Mr. Makar wrote in his brief to the court. "The state's clear legal position is simply that minors' rights must be balanced against those of their parents and the interests of the government in the education context."

In a friend-of-the court brief, two advocacy groups, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Public Good, said the appeals-court opinion in the Frazier case is a departure from a long and unbroken line of decisions.

"In upholding a Florida statute that limits students' clearly established right to abstain from reciting the pledge of allegiance in school, the court of appeals created a new parental right to control the exercise of their children's conscience," Seth Mermin wrote in the brief.

So, the government position is that children can be required to stand and recite the Pledge unless their parent/guardian requests in writing that they be excused.

This isn't good enough.

The Left - how else should I describe them? - wants it to be an individual student right to exercise their conscience.

What if a student feels that, as a matter of conscience, he shouldn't be compelled to go to school at all? Does he need someone's permission?

What's at issue here is whether children are children, and whether adults can set any rules at all for them.

Because, if you decide that children have individual rights the same as adults, then

1) Pedophilia will no longer be a crime; it will be open season on kids of any age for any purpose.
2) Children will need to vote. Presidential elections will be decided in favor of whoever promises the most toys. (That's kind of what we have now.)
3) Children will need career opportunities. No more child labor laws. Career opportunities will have to include anything that can help them get ahead. That will include the military; specifically, that will include combat.

Well, perhaps I am taking this too far.

We all know it will never get that far. ;)

Let's focus on one key quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida took up Frazier's case. In a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, ACLU lawyer Randall Marshall quoted from the 1943 West Virginia decision.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

I love it when the Left makes a stand on principle. :)

From Sandra Fluke: Slurs won't silence women, dated March 14, 2012:

Editor's note: Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

snip

Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.

But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.

Georgetown is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.

Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. Drawing upon this legacy, we provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. With our Jesuit values and location in Washington, D.C., Georgetown offers students a distinct opportunity to learn, experience and understand more about the world.

Ms. Fluke clarifies that the topic at hand is the private sector, not the government.

Why does the private sector have to compromise on its core beliefs?

Where is the private sector's right to exercise its conscience without permission from the government? (A principle upon which this country was founded...)

Or, suppose it is a basic economic issue - suppose the insurance company does not cover a certain type of product or service because the company has made the business decision to target a certain part of the market. Suppose the company merely wants to try to keep costs down.

What the Left is trying to do here is force its beliefs on everyone. The Left wants to take the big hammer of government and use it to bludgeon all dissent.

When this goal can be supported by making a plea for freedom, that is what they do - such as when the Left supports a kid's desire to not say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the country that is paying for his education, without having to have a letter from his parent on file.

When this goal can be supported by taking away freedom, that is what they do - such as compelling a business to offer a certain product or service, regardless of economic considerations, and regardless of whether offering that product or service goes against the core beliefs of the founders of that business.

What is constant here is the desire to destroy what is right about this country.

When I say the Pledge, I gladly do so, knowing I am pledging allegiance to a flag and to a nation which is represented by that flag, a nation where Jesuits can be Jesuits and Catholics can be Catholics, and I can agree or disagree with them, as I see fit.

The Left is against this. The Left wants to bludgeon Catholics into being less Catholic, the Left wants to bludgeon the business sector into being less businesslike, and the Left wants to bludgeon anyone who would dare to be American into being less American.

To be sure, there are people on the "Left" who really believe they are working for freedom. But, they need to understand that their movement was long ago hijacked by those who seek to destroy this country... just as those who truly wanted "Peace, Land, Bread" had their movement hijacked nearly a century ago in Russia.

Ms. Fluke, I am not questioning your integrity, I am not questioning your motives, and I am not making slurs about you.

But, I am questioning the wisdom of the position that you have gone out of your way to advocate publicly.

Bogey Dope, Part 2

Prior to reading this, you may wish to be familiar with the contents of my last post, which was Part 1 of this series.

The race for the Congressional seat vacated by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona's 8th Congressional District is ongoing. For many people in the country, it is not even a blip on their radar scopes, and for a few, it is only that. For a very few, however, it is one of the most important things happening right now.

The current race is to replace Congresswoman Giffords, but there will be a follow-on battle for the seat for the redistricted 2nd Congressional District in the regularly scheduled elections in November. The current CD 8, and the redistricted CD 2, are both located in the southeast corner of Arizona, along the border with Mexico, and including all of Cochise County. The current CD 8 includes the eastern and northern parts of Santa Cruz County, as well as eastern parts of Pima County and a part of Pinal County. The redistricted CD 2 will include only the eastern part of Pima County, in addition to Cochise County. Part of the issue in the CD 8 race to replace Giffords is the question of whether the newly-elected Representative will simply hold the place until the new Congress is seated in January, or whether there will be continuity, with the newly-elected Representative continuing on as the CD 2 Representative in January. This will be decided by whether the same candidate registers for and wins both this special election and the regular election in November.

As the campaign progresses - and early voting in the primary of this special election starts March 22 - we are going to hear from the candidates as they address potential voters and debate each other. I link to some Arizona news sources in the sidebar, which will give you good information as you follow the election. One key link is the Arizona Daily Star's elections page. Regarding upcoming primary debates, we are informed in GOP candidates in CD8 to appear at many events of the currently-scheduled debates:

• On March 14, the SaddleBrooke Republican Club is hosting a candidate panel discussion at 4:15 p.m. at the Mountain View Country Club. Seating is limited.

• The next day, the Sabino High School Republicans are hosting a 90-minute debate at 6:30 p.m. at Sabino High School, 5000 N. Bowes Road.

• On March 26, the Pima County Young Republican Club and Legislative District 26 Republican Party are co-sponsoring a debate that starts at 7 p.m. at Canyon Del Oro High School, 25 W. Calle Concordia, Oro Valley.

• On March 29, the Southern Arizona Chamber Alliance, which includes eight chambers of commerce, will host a candidate mixer from 5:30 to 7 p.m. at El Charro, 6310 E. Broadway.

• On April 12, the candidates meet in Green Valley in what figures to be the final debate. It starts at 6:30 p.m. at Madera Clubhouse, 2055 E. Quail Crossing Blvd., hosted by the Republican Club of Green Valley-Sahuarita and the Quail Creek Republican Club and Tea Party of Green Valley.

The winner of the GOP primary will face Democrat Ron Barber (Giffords' district manager) and Green Party candidate Charlie Manolakis in the special general election on June 12th.

I am interested in the special election in general, but especially in the candidacy of retired Colonel Martha McSally - the reasons for this interest will become apparent.

One aspect of McSally's campaign was an internet chat with the public. (Other GOP Candidates have also had similar chats: Dave Sitton's transcript is from February 24, Frank Antenori's transcript is from February 29, and John Lervold's transcript is from March 2.) In the chat, McSally asked people to call her Martha, rather than refer to her as Col. McSally or call her "ma'am".

A comment: People will call you "Colonel McSally" out of respect and appreciation for your service to our country. They will call you "ma'am" for the same reason, and out of respect for the office you seek, even though many of those who hold elected office in Washington DC (and elsewhere in this country) bring the office into disrepute through their actions. Finally, people will also call you "Martha" out of warmth and a genuine desire to see you do well, even if they support another candidate in this particular race. Expect some people to refer to you in all three manners, depending on the circumstances - as I am about to do. :)

Local concerns will be significant in any Congressional election. However, for a piece of Arizona along the border with Mexico, many local concerns are national issues.

For example, campaigning in Sierra Vista this past weekend, McSally addressed a variety of these issues. From McSally aims for spot vacated by Giffords, dated March 11:

Calling the federal government atmosphere toxic, McSally said the American public want new leadership and ideas.

"The toxicity in the political sphere has a lot of people turned off," she said.

The United States is at a crossroads and there is a need to have people in Washington, D.C., who can pull the country out of the crisis, McSally said.

"The federal government is a little out of control. We need to rein the federal government in," she said.

"The federal government is a little out of control."

Colonel McSally, do you have a knack for understatement, or is there a "buzzer" between the clue bird on your shoulder and your ear? :)

You also mention "toxicity".

Also, in another article entitled CD8 candidate McSally says porous borders are national security threat, dated February 28 and referencing that chat, your views are described thusly (links from the excerpt have been reproduced):

Former Air Force fighter pilot Martha McSally said the country's porous borders are a national security threat that need to be met with an intelligence-driven strategy.

During a 1 1/2 hour online chat Tuesday on the Arizona Daily Star's website, www.azstarnet.com, the Republican candidate in the special election to complete Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' Congressional term also said it's vital to work with Mexico to address the root causes of the trans-national criminal organizations.

"Our porous borders are a national security threat that impacts this community more than any other in the nation," McSally wrote. "We need to have the political will to secure the border with available technology. I have been in leadership positions for critical security operations all over the world and believe we need to execute intelligence driven operations to thwart the transnational criminal organizations."

Some very astute comments, and these issues are interrelated.

If you recall from your history, decades ago, both New York and Chicago were major centers for organized crime. When we elected a President from New York, FDR, pressure was put on federal authorities and on authorities from New York state to clean up New York City; some progress was made.

However, in Illinois, the situation has been very different. In Chicago, organized crime essentially took over the city, and went on to take over the state.

Our current President is far from being an honest man; the guy we have in the White House now is a frontman and a puppet for organized crime, specifically for factions from Chicago.

Of course, organized crime is not constrained by jurisdictional boundaries; increasingly, with global trade and global communications, organized crime has developed global assets and global interests, and much of it is becoming very transnational in nature.

Why is the Obama Administration involved in a dubious plan to let firearms get purchased by straw buyers and move across the border into Mexico into the hands of drug cartels?

In Mexico, the military-grade weapons that the cartels use - fully-automatic weapons, grenades, rocket-launchers - are not being supplied by gun dealers on the US side of the border. Let's get real. On the US side of the border, most of these weapons are illegal for civilians to have, while some of them can only be owned with special licensing. They are not getting sold by respectable gun dealers to relatively unknown clients.

The military-grade weapons in the hands of the cartels are procured the same way the drugs that they traffic are procured: illegally, on the international black market. To be sure, many military and law enforcement personnel work for the cartels, stealing weapons from the Mexican government, or deserting and taking their weapons with them. But, much of this weaponry makes its way in from China, from former Eastern Block countries, from various dealers in Africa, Asia and Europe.

So, why is the Obama Administration helping arm the cartels?

One superficial answer is that by allowing weapons to walk across the border, the Obama Administration creates evidence to support the ridiculous liberal claim that US weapons fuel the violence.

But, scratch the surface a little deeper.

Another answer - less superficial - is that some of the Mexican cartels are so powerful, so well-organized, so well-trained, that we run the risk of them taking over the country. If we support the rivals and maintain a balance of power, we perpetuate the violence, but we also perpetuate a corrupt Mexican government from falling to a cartel in a blatant example of what is known as "state capture". Do an internet search on that expression, and see what you come up with.

But, let's dig down further.

The Obama Administration is backed by organized crime which obviously has ties to certain Mexican organized crime interests, and thus backs them against their rivals.

The real reason for the Fast and Furious scandal is blatant Chicago-style corruption.

Not everyone knows the real reason; different people support, or at least tolerate, the Fast and Furious scandal for different reasons. It just so happens that those different reasons provide different levels of cover stories, and different motivations for people who might otherwise have nothing to do with the operation.

Martha, you need to understand that the transnational organized crime activities, which you decry and which threaten your district and this country, have ties all the way to Washington. For example, should you win the election, you will be in Congress with a colleague named Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California's 30th District.

A few years back, when the Sibel Edmonds scandal was not breaking, Waxman promised that, if the Democrats could regain control of the House, Waxman would make sure that the Sibel Edmonds case got some attention because, after all, it was an example of how Republican President George W. Bush's Administration was abusing "state secrets privelege" for nefarious purposes.

Many people naively trusted a Democrat to break a scandal that would make the Republicans look dirty. After all, Waxman had been behind the 2004 report by the Committee on Government Reform Minority Office catching the Bush Administration with all their misleading information on Iraq. Later, in 2006, about the time Waxman was offering these hearings into the Sibel Edmonds case in the event the Democrats retook Congress, he received the Good Government Award from the Project On Government Oversight for his contributions to transparency and oversight.

Of course, what really happened was that Waxman cut his own deal with the Turkish Deep State, which was a key player in the Sibel Edmonds case. Waxman suddenly became intimate with the Turkish lobby, and the Sibel Edmonds case, which dealt with infiltration by Turkish organized crime into Congress and the FBI, was tabled.

This is not surprising.

The guy listed right above Congressman Waxman at POGO's award page is war hero and Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain also got an award, but his connections to ethnic Albanian organized crime remain relatively unknown and uninvestigated.

You see, these guys will gladly have an investigation that makes them look good, and that makes the other party look bad, but since transnational organized crime corrupts both parties, and corrupts both elected and appointed officials, transnational organized crime is not something that will get seriously investigated.

Besides which, investigating transnational organized crime can be hazardous to one's health. In Mexico, officials are presented with the choice of plata o plomo: "silver or lead" - in other words, take payments and be corrupt, or take a bullet.

This is part of why there is the toxicity that you mention.

To be sure, the left is hypocritical - any means are justified by their ends, which is their own power. The left doesn't care about the environment, or immigrants, or women's rights or reproductive choice or anything else, crap or not. The left wants its own power for its own purposes.

Consequently, when Congresswoman Giffords was shot on that terrible day, and when so many people were killed or hurt, the left saw an opportunity to silence its opposition by blaming "rhetoric". The left does not back down from its calls, whether real or figurative, for violence.

Similarly, when Rush Limbaugh made a comment about Sandra Fluke, and then sincerely apologized, the matter did not end. However, the left says whatever it wants about conservative political leaders and conservative commentators, and that is okay.

So, the toxicity is deliberate - it was designed by those who seek to destroy this country.

But, again, scratch the surface, and it is backed up by professional thugs.

Martha, in the internet chat, you wrote:

I pledged an oath as an officer to support and defend the Constitution and I have shown that I take that oath seriously, even when doing so endangered my career.

I do not doubt your willingness to risk your career, nor do I doubt your willingness to risk your life.

But, understand what you are up against.

To properly address border security and the Fast and Furious scandal, we need real investigations.

These will connect drug cartels to serving and past Presidents, these will connect trafficking in nuclear secrets to foreign intelligence services and to serving and past government officials, these will connect the trafficking of women for forced prostitution to Washington lobby groups and to officials from your own state.

To keep this from happening, these people will pick up a phone and make a call. The result can be anything from an IRS audit of your taxes, to a suddenly-appearing record that you are in collections due to a debt for $100,000 for internet gambling (no one cares if you have ever done that or not - a debt can still magically appear), to people close to you suddenly becoming victims of street crime or getting addicted to drugs.

As a newly-elected Representative in Congress, you will be told what to do and how to get along. If you play ball, then you will be on C-Span, and so on. Asking questions about dirty government officials, including guys sitting across the aisle from you, and including one Senator from your state who is connected to ethnic Albanian organized crime, and another who made Sibel Edmonds' Dirty Dozen list (NSWBC Letter to Senator Kyl)... well, this may not endear you to the establishment. :)

Thankfully, this country has never had a shortage of people willing to give their lives in its defense - especially when those people know they will be remembered as heroes.

The problem is a shortage of people willing to live for this country, even though they will slandered and libeled, and attacked (legally and otherwise), and painted as criminals by the people who themselves are criminals but who happen to have the protection of a facade of respectability.

If you do not understand that this is what you are up against, and then, if you are not ready to face it, then you are just another candidate for political office.

This is part of the reason why I am following your campaign, ma'am. I wonder if perhaps you are the right candidate to bring this whole topic to light...

Bogey Dope, Part 1

A combination of new districts for 2012 in Arizona, and Congresswoman Giffords resignation from District 8 - now becoming District 2 - has resulted in an interesting situation on the Arizona political scene. First, there is a special election to fill Giffords' seat. The primary is on April 12, then the general election is on June 12. However, a question then comes up as to who will win in November. Part of the reason this is interesting is because the existing CD 8, where the special election will be held, offers a Republican advantage, but the new CD 2, where the election will be this fall, shows a rough parity.

However, the election is interesting for other reasons, as well.

We begin by considering excerpts from McSally, 1st female AF pilot to fly in combat, joins GOP race in Dist. 8, dated February 9, 2012 (see also here):

The first woman to fly fighters in combat for the Air Force, and first to command a fighter squadron in combat, is entering the special election to fill U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' vacated congressional seat.

Martha McSally confirmed her intentions Wednesday to join the Republican primary. She made her decision after analyzing three factors: was it feasible, was she electable, and did she feel called to run.

Skipping down in the article, McSally explained part of why she should be considered a serious candidate.

"I've got a record of standing up for constitutional rights, of doing the right thing regardless of the personal cost," McSally said.

In 2001, McSally sued the Pentagon over its requirement that military women serving in Saudi Arabia wear abayas, or traditional black Muslim cloaks, off base. She said the practice was offensive to her as a Christian.

After the Supreme Court agreed, McSally said the military retaliated against her by giving her poor performance reviews and deeming her unfit for leadership positions. She vowed to continue a legal battle against the Air Force until her career prospects were restored.

Then in 2004, she was named commander of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base's 354th Fighter Squadron, a position she held until 2006. She dropped her suit at the time.

More background on McSally can be found in Fighter pilot McSally aims at GOP CD8 race. Of course, her campaign website may be of interest, as well.

McSally brought this particular Congressional race to national attention when she was interviewed in Fox News. Though McSally did a great job, the interview really turned into a homerun when McSally was asked about Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum's concerns about easing the restrictions on women in combat. Her response went viral, and may have earned her a new nickname.



From McSally about Santorum: 'I wanted to kick him in the jimmy', February 17, 2012:

In an interview Santorum said that move could compromise the interests of mission because of "other types of emotions that are involved."

"I agree with many of the things that Rick Santorum says," McSally said. "But when I heard this I really just wanted to go kick him in the jimmy."

When the announcer repeated her phrase, "Kick him in the jimmy?" McSally continued:

"Yeah, he's totally out of touch. I mean, completely out of touch," McSally said. "These are the kind of arguments we heard 20-25 years ago as to why women couldn't be fighter pilots. It's an insult to the men and women who are serving overseas, putting their lives on the line and focusing on the mission right now."

Colonel McSally, at this point I find no reason not to take you at face value, so I will offer my input: perhaps the reason you agree with many of the things Rick Santorum says, but have this urge to "kick him in the jimmy", is because Santorum is really just a 'rider'.

Specifically, my question for you - and this may take some research on your part - what did Santorum do to be named to Sibel Edmonds' Dirty Dozen list?

You might be surprised to find out that you worked in the office of another US Senator who made that list.

Assuming I can take you at face value, perhaps you are aiming too low: maybe you are the one who should be running for the center seat, not Santorum.

But, then again, who knows? The Sibel Edmonds case opens the door and sheds some light into a very convoluted underworld, doesn't it?

This will be the first in a new series of posts following this Arizona Congressional race... a race which, I believe, raises many questions, and may have some related topics.

Meanwhile, other Republican contenders for the seat include: school district employee Adam Hansen, who suspended his campaign and endorsed McSally; State Senator Frank Antenori, who is a combat veteran of the US Army Special Forces, having received a Bronze Star for action at Debecka, Iraq; businessman and community activist Dave Sitton, who has no military service but has received honors for advocating on behalf of the military; Army veteran John Lervold, who served as an airborne infantryman and later as an interrogator, then left the Army and began training Army interrogators at Fort Huachuca; and Marine veteran and businessman Jesse Kelly, who currently works as a project manager for a construction company.

Peace and Progress, Part 1

We introduced the situation in Nigeria in a previous series, entitled "Unity and Faith". In Part 1 we began to examine the situation in Nigeria, suggesting a possible parallel to the violence that had been developing in Côte d'Ivoire. In Part 2 we saw how much of the unrest could be linked to difficulties between Muslims in the northern part of the country and Christians in the southern part, introducing the j-word. In Part 3 we examined the jihad more closely, also considering comments calling for a violent counterjihad and alleged abuses by authorities in the context of an anti-Muslim backlash.

In Part 4 we looked at which Muslims were responsible for the jihad, noticing that they were fairly well-educated Muslims from Nigeria's middle class that sought to embrace a stricter form of Islam and wanted to bring it about in Nigeria violently. These radical Muslims are not part of the downtrodden segment of society, but rather are connected to a corrupt northern Nigerian Muslim elite, and claim Islamic ideology as the motivation for their violence. Also, we considered possible connections to the illegal trafficking of heroin and arms, possibly even leading through the Sahara/Sahel to Burkina Faso and into Côte d'Ivoire. Also in Part 4, we saw how Boko Haram personnel were training in Somalia alongside Al Shabaab terrorists, and anticipated how this could lead to a more violent conflict in Nigeria.

Finally, in Part 5, we considered evidence that some of Nigeria's politicians were connected to Boko Haram, and links between Nigerian organized crime and international criminal operations.

At this point, the picture was complete. Ideology - not poverty - drives the front-line leadership of Boko Haram to jihad, but at the top, the connections to organized crime are clear, and organized criminal activities supply the money and the weapons for the jihad; this pattern is typical among Islamic terrorists today.

In this series, we examine the increasing violence in Nigeria.

We begin with excerpts from Soldiers Blow Up Suicide Bomber In Kaduna, February 8, 2012:

Residents of Kaduna metropolis scampered for safety yesterday as bombs exploded at military formations and on a bridge. Boko Haram claimed responsibility, saying that Sokoto is the next target. A lone suicide bomber who forced his way into the 1 Mechanized headquarters of Nigerian Army, Kaduna, at 11.45 am was shot dead following which the explosives went off shattering windows and injuring soldiers on duty.

[snip]

Confirming the incident, the Assistant Director, Army Public Relations, 1 Division, Lt. Col. Abubakar Edun, said in a statement that a suicide bomb attempt was made on the headquarters complex of 1 Mechanized Division. According to the statement titled, 'Failed suicide attack on headquarters complex of 1 Division Nigerian Army', he said, "at about 12.18pm on Tuesday, 7th February, 2012, a failed suicide bomb attempt was made on the headquarters complex of 1 Division Nigerian Army, Kawo, Kaduna.["]

[snip]

Musa Ilallah, an official with the National Emergency Management Agency in Kaduna who confirmed the explosion near the bridge, said rescue workers had been deployed in the affected areas but were being refused access by soldiers. "From all indications, they gate-crashed into the military barracks," said Ilallah. One resident said he saw soldiers being taken out of the barracks with cuts thought to be from the shattered glasses. "Virtually all the glasses had been shattered," the resident said. "I saw soldiers with glass cuts on their bodies being taken out, but it's difficult to say if there were any (more serious) casualties."

Boko Haram has been blamed for scores of bomb attacks in northern Nigeria, including Kaduna. It claimed responsibility for January 20 co-ordinated bombings and shootings in Kano that left at least 185 people dead. It was Boko Haram's deadliest attack yet.

Presumably, the increased tempo of violence including suicide attacks on military installations might be tied to the recent training Boko Haram militants received while in Somalia.

Elsewhere in Nigeria, other bombings have the clear goal to inflict casualties among innocent passers-by. From Two bomb blasts rock flashpoint Maiduguri, February 10, 2012

Two explosions went off Friday outside a customs building in Nigeria's flashpoint city of Maiduguri, the base of Boko Haram Islamists blamed for a series of attacks, residents said.

[snip]

The explosions went off near a station where locals board rickshaw taxis, located outside the customs building, witnesses said.

"The first bomb was planted at the foot of the wall of the customs office when commuters were waiting for rickshaws," said Halilu Adam.

"The second one went off some meters away... The whole area has now been cordoned off by soldiers and it is very difficult to have an idea of casualties."

Boko Haram now seeks to implement a targeted assassination program, as well. From Wole Soyinka On Boko Haram's Hit List, dated February 6:

Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka has disclosed that he is one of the prominent Nigerians on the list of Boko Haram sect marked for assassination.

[snip]

He said: "The reason for this programme (elimination) which I know is very much their third phase, is that those pushing this agenda know very well that this could be the last straw that will break the camel's back. And they would rather this country broke up and possibly in an inferno than continue to accept the loss, even though temporal loss of power in this country. For these people, government is the only business around."

Professor Soyinka

Also targeted for assassination now is the US Ambassador there. From Boko Haram threatens U.S. - Security tightened at American Embassy in Abuja, February 10:

FOLLOWING the recent Bi-National Commission meeting between Nigeria and the United States, the Boko Haram sect is reported to have issued terrorist threats against American targets within Nigeria, including the assassination of the US ambassador in Nigeria, Terence P. McCulley.

The Bi-National Commission had recently concluded a wide range of anti-terrorism plans and agreements in Abuja with a further move to embody the conclusions in a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by the governments of Nigeria and the United States.

Findings by the Nigerian Tribune revealed that the sect is threatening multiple suicide attacks on American targets if the United States get involved in the sect`s battle with the Federal Government through the signing of the MoU.

It was learnt that the sect believed that the intervention of the United States will internationalise the conflicts and destroy all hopes of a dialogue with the Federal Government.

The report even went as far as threatening to kill the American ambassador while unleashing what the group called international jihadist on the country.

Of course, Professor Soyinka's comments regarding Boko Haram's sincerity in negotiations are very telling. Returning to Wole Soyinka On Boko Haram's Hit List, from February 6:

He added that dialogue does not require a group to constitute itself into a terror, stating that PRONACO which he joined during former President Obasanjo's administration successful organised its conference, amended the constitution of Nigeria and presented the document to the government without violence.

Soyinka said he cannot be cowed into submission by the Boko Haram or any other violent group, stressing, "I believe that one should not beg for existence. If the price of not coming to table is that you want to eliminate me, and you can do so, please do so. I am 77.

"Please, come to the debating table, but you will not persuade me simply because you have the capacity to blow me and my family up. You can simply go ahead, blow us up if you think that is the way you can do your conversation. But you will not bomb me to sit with you at table," he insisted.

Soyinka said President Jonathan is underestimating the desperation of the forces behind the Boko Haram sect not considering the Islamic struggle in countries like Iraq where fundamentalist Islamic groups attack one another even in their sanctuary of worship and they retaliate with higher casualty figure.

Boko Haram's desire to target a Nobel Laureate who decries the violence and wants to negotiate peace telescopes the terrorist organization's goal of eliminating peaceful negotiation as a means to end the violence there: by eliminating anyone who advocates and is willing to work for peace, military options are all that remain to deal with the Islamic terrorist jihad.

Politically-correct defenders of the Religion of Peace should take note of that.

Elsewhere, the governor of Adamawa State has presented checks to the widows of those killed by alleged Boko Haram militants.

From Boko Haram: Peter Obi gives 14 widows N1 million each, February 6:

No fewer than 14 widows whose husbands were murdered by suspected Boko Haram members in Mubi, Adamawa State yesterday, received N1 million each as compensation from Anambra State Governor, Mr. Peter Obi.

Of course, on the other side, it is common for Islamic terrorist groups to provide financial rewards for the families of suicide bombers. Still, even after the monetary compensation, the families of suicide bombers live nowhere near as lavishly as the leaders of the terrorist organizations, who make real money via the organized crime that funds the terrorist operations and which provides a pool of money to subsidize suicide bombings.

Issues, Part 4: Border Security and Immigration

Immigration and border security go hand-in-hand.

First, we need to address border security. Immigration laws are meaningless if they are easily circumvented by crossing the border illegally.

The southern border needs to be secured. People are crossing the border illegaly not just to find work, but organized crime cartels are moving drugs and other contraband across the border. Mexico is in a state of civil war, though no one wants to call it that, and that civil war will increasingly spill across our border unless we take decisive action. Another grave concern is that Mexican government authorities, including the Mexican Army, are being targeted by the cartels for subversion. One result is that significant groups of corrupted Mexican military personnel have been observed escorting drug shipments on the US side of the border. If it were a potentially hostile country, like Iran, doing this, there would be a temptation in some circles to declare war and deal with the situation decisively. In Mexico's case, however, it is very obvious that, while there is corruption in the Mexican government, it is not a deliberate policy on the part of anyone in Mexico, except for the cartels and their allies, to violate US territory in order to do harm to the United States. (In fact, despite the problems down there, Mexico is a good friend of the United States, perhaps a better friend to us than we are to Mexico.) However, the illegal activities along our southern border are out of control, and are disrupting American communities not just near the border, but across the country.

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution very clearly spells out that it is the purview of the federal government to punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and to call forth the militia to enforce federal law, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. Narcotics trafficking touches on all of these responsibilities. A 500-kg package of cocaine dropped in one of our communities probably does more damage to America than a 500-kg bomb dropped in the same place. In the process of smuggling narcotics and other contraband into our country, foreign powers (the cartels) commit piracy and felonies on the high seas, they cross our border illegally, they damage American communities and kill Americans. As these foreign forces cross our border, this is an invasion, and as they establish allies within the United States who break our laws and defy just and proper government authority that is legally established and exercised, this will eventually develop into an insurrection, just like it has happened in Mexico. Furthermore, it is too easy for terrorists to mix in with the flow of those who cross our frontier illegally, and if tons of drugs can be brought in, what is preventing nuclear and other very powerful weapons from being brought in? The federal government must act to deal with this, or the federal government will be in such obvious violation of its Constitutional mandates as to render itself irrelevant and replaceable according to the standards established in our Declaration of Independence.

Let me state that more clearly. Either the federal government does its job, or we have a duty as established in our Declaration of Independence to overthrow government authority by any means necessary (peaceful, legal means preferably, via lawsuits, political action, and elections) and replace certain government officials with people who know what the Constitution requires them to do and who will do it. Those who cynically foment the unrest leaking up from Mexico need to understand that as this unrest spreads from Mexico across the border and destroys our communities, there will inevitably come a time when it will not be just innocent, law-abiding Americans who will suffer.

We need to immediately deploy military forces along the southern border and in contiguous waters near our coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico to deal with what has become a clear and present danger to national security.

This will have the inevitable effect of causing smugglers to move contraband and illegal immigrants into our country crossing our coastlines, via our ports and airports, and across our northern border. We need to immediately begin moving in the direction of more adequately protecting these areas, and more thoroughly inspecting cargo, freight and passengers that enter US territory in places other than along our southern border.

If our government were doing what it is supposed to be doing under our Constitution, we would not have such a big bureaucracy dealing with social services, education, health care, and so on, at the national level. If our economy were functioning the way it should, we could easily get by with a smaller bureaucracy working tax issues.

It would be wrong to simply downsize the government and throw all these people, who have invested years as public servants in government service, out in the street, especially when we do not have adequate numbers of people monitoring immigration, customs and our borders and ports. As we downsize some federal agencies and departments, we should offer the affected employees an opportunity to transfer into expanded immigration, customs and border patrol functions. Not all of these jobs are badge-and-gun-carrying enforcement jobs; there needs to be improved office and clerical support to keep track of immigrants who are in the country legally, and other such functions, so there is room for some of our people to be more effectively utilized in jobs not unlike ones they now have. In the long run, control of our border should be a civilian function, so ultimately, the military would need to be withdrawn and the baton passed to better-manned and -equipped civilian agencies that can do this job.

Another approach that needs to be taken simultaneously is to decentralize the decision regarding legality of some substances to the states and their political subdivisions, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. If a state wants to use certain substances, such a marijuana, for medical purposes, the matter should not be a federal issue. Movement of those substances across state lines becomes a federal issue, and it is appropriate for federal resources to be made available to states that are having difficulties enforcing state laws. However, I can make an argument that a decision to use some drugs is a Ninth Amendment issue, I can make an argument that the decision to legalize or prohibit use of some drugs is a Tenth Amendment issue.

The illegal movement of marijuana or cocaine across our borders into our communities is a federal issue that must be addressed decisively for reasons previously outlined, but a stricter reading of the Constitution would mean states would have more authority to decide if buying, selling or consuming such drugs within the state is a crime, and as some states decide that it will not be a crime, that will greatly ease the burden of federal enforcement regarding illegal trafficking. Some states will become havens for legal drug use, and others will be more drug-free. This is how our federal system was intended to function. People can vote with their feet, and move to a state that suits their needs and desires.

Regarding immigration, immigration laws should be revised.

People who seek to enter the country legally should have more attention paid to their cases and situations, so as to ensure that we are letting the right people in, and to ensure prompt attention is given to applications for visas, renewals, citizenship, and so on, and to ensure prompt attention is given to people whose permission to be in our country is expiring. This is not a coded message for a heavy-handed "round 'em up and kick 'em out" approach. Some immigrants have tried to do the right thing the right way, and get caught up in the bureaucracy. They should be dealt with using common sense and compassion. However, there are also people here in this country legally, but with nefarious purposes. Their activities and files should be monitored adequately, in a manner prescribed by law.

People who have entered the country illegally deserve no amnesty. Rather, I would propose that US consulates in foreign countries - especially in Mexico - be adequately staffed to deal with applications from people who seek to enter the country to work. Such applications should cost a minimal amount, and if the applicants meet certain basic criteria, they should be allowed in the country. While here, they need to keep authorities apprised of their location and activities. If they work, they will pay the same taxes as US citizens, but they will not be eligible to collect Social Security, unemployement insurance, or certain other "entitlements", and they must stay out of trouble and obey our laws. If they get into minor trouble, their permission to be in our country can be revoked, and if they are found in the country without permission, they should be penalized by imprisonment in a minimum security facility for a period of time, and then transported, at their expense, to the country of their citizenship and denied the opportunity to apply for re-entry into the United States for a period of time.

Thus, I would propose that an announcement be made that, effective on a certain date, applications will be accepted at consulates in foreign countries. The illegal immigrants must leave the country and apply at a consulate in a foreign country for permission to be in the US legally. After that certain date, anyone found in the country who has entered the country illegally will be handled as outlined in the paragraph immediately above. From the time the announcement is made until the given date, there should be stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws to encourage people who entered illegally to leave immediately, though care should be taken not to obstruct their departure with this stepped-up enforcement.

If the economy is handled as I suggest in a previous post, America will be booming, and there will be plenty of work for US citizens, and people who seek to enter our country legally, obey our laws, and work productively for a period of time will have jobs available to them as well. Also, they will be contributing tax dollars, but will not be a burden on some of our entitlement programs. Currently, illegal aliens are often driven into an underground economy, and become a burden on some of our entitlement programs, without contributing to our tax base, because their earnings are illegal and thus not taxed; my suggestion would help reverse that.

Furthermore, by allowing a streamlined process for people to enter the country and work here legally, we will ease the pressure exerted by the hordes who seek to enter the country illegally, making our border security job easier.

Regarding who is allowed into our country, we need to recognize Islamic law for what it is - a political agenda that is in sharp conflict with our Constitution - and limit immigration of people who advocate this political agenda. However, we should consider easing restrictions on people who face religious persecution in countries subject to Islamic law. Political Islam is very much akin to Nazism or communism, and we should not allow it to destroy our country amid cries of religious freedom. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact. There will be difficulties discerning which Muslims are peaceful and could constructively add to American society, and separating them from those who seek to destroy our country and make it a part of some caliphate. It is the fault of Muslims, not the fault of America, that there exists a tenet of Islam known as taqiyya, making it acceptable to deceive infidels as to the true nature of their intentions. To be sure, not all Muslims practice taqiyya, but how can we know which ones intend us no harm, and which ones merely say they intend us no harm in order to get inside our gates? We need to err on the side of caution and on the side of preservation of our Republic, and that means erring on the side of keeping people that we have doubts about outside our borders.

In this same context, we should consider which people we allow in from countries that are experiencing an influx of Muslim immigrants who seek to take over rather than assimilate into their host country. For example, many European countries are getting quite intolerable for decent, law-abiding, non-Muslim people. Increasingly, non-Muslims are discriminated against, targeted by violent crime, and persecuted by government authorities if they decry what is being done to them and their countries. Non-Muslims who seek to escape what many European and certain other countries are becoming should be accepted eagerly, but regarding Muslims, again, it is the fault of Islam, with its tenets of jihad and taqiyya, that we should be cautious about them.

I will undoubtedly be called racist for my concerns about Islam.

Muslims will be the first to tell you that a fellow Muslim is a fellow Muslim. Only infidels are categorized as Serbs, Croats, Russians, Germans, Chinese, Thai, or whatever. But submission to Allah is open to anyone who honestly recites the shahada in Arabic (this act is known as the kalima). Consequently, Islam is not a race nor is it, theoretically, racist; Muslims claim it is a religion, and for many it is, but for many, Islam is and has always been a political agenda as well. It is precisely those Muslims who seek to impose this political agenda on us, and replace our Constitution with the Quran, who will call me racist. Fortunately, though, the term racist has been so misused and abused that it has lost its impact. (In a way, though, this is sad, too, because racism still exists in the world.) For the record, I am a Republican, and anyone who knows anything about our Grand Old Party knows that the Party of Lincoln has been at the forefront of fighting against racism ever since the GOP was founded.

Many other immigration concerns center around China. China has a very large and very active espionage network targeting America, and various businesspeople and students form key parts of this network. To be sure, a big part of the reason why the network is successful is because so many of its operatives are innocent of any crime, and unaware they are being used by Chinese intelligence. They take papers and reports that are available to the public, perhaps not realizing that this information becomes pieces of a puzzle being assembled by Communist Chinese intelligence services. While I have a great deal of admiration for China, and I think, in the long run, it is good for both America and China to be on friendly terms with each other, I also believe we should prudently and carefully consider the pros and cons of our interactions with China under the communist government that is in power there.

None of the immigration and border security plans will be able to address our problems if we do not deal effectively with corruption in Washington, DC. Officials, both elected and appointed, on both sides of the aisle, are selling us out to the highest bidder. The high bidders include foreign powers, such as potentially hostile governments and foreign-based and -controlled criminal cartels, which, in turn, are associated with terrorist organizations. This is at the heart of the OKBOMB, it is at the heart of 9/11 and the Sibel Edmonds case, it is at the heart of the scandal surrounding the outing of Valerie Plame, and it is at the heart of the current Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal. (These cases all need to be honestly investigated, by the way, with no obstruction of justice from higher-ups.) Furthermore, many officials are in the habit of doing favors for domestic businesses while on the government payroll, in the expectation that when they leave government service, those businesses will take care of them.

Government officials ask if certain elements of the American people are a threat to the government. Christians and veterans of military service are inevitably among the groups that concern our public servants.

America was founded on the principle that it is government that threatens the law-abiding people, not the other way around. Our Declaration of Independence addressed this matter, and our Constitution was written with this fact in mind.

Our "President" pals around with convicted terrorists and with religious leaders who call for our Creator to damn and destroy our great nation. Other officials peddle influence to and take bribes from foreign criminal cartels which do business with terrorist groups. Yet, hypocritically and cynically, it is they who accuse us of being a threat to America, and of being terrorists.

Our public servants violate their Constitutional oaths of office, they commit treason against our country, and even now they scheme to take our freedoms away and destroy our Republic.

So, are we a threat to our government? Yes, absolutely. Our desire to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, makes us a threat to a government significantly populated and controlled by those who seek to destroy our Constitution.

The American people will get better government, and we will get it out of a box. Hopefully, better government will come out of a mail box, or a ballot box, or possibly a jury box, but if necessary, we will get better government out of a cartidge box.

In the Book of Esther, we hear of Haman's hatred for the Jews, and how Haman had a gallows built to hang Mordecai on. In fact, though, Mordecai had served the king more honorably than had Haman. Ultimately, Haman's plot backfired, and in his righteous anger, the king ordered that Haman be hanged on the gallows which Haman had constructed to hang Mordecai.

Similarly, we hear stories of FEMA camps and of preparations by our government to imprison honest, law-abiding citizens, because those citizens threaten the schemes of the corrupt government officials who treasonously sabotage our nation.

I hope these stories are true, because our Creator, Who knows what is in our hearts and minds, will deliver the victory to the real, honest, decent Americans, and when He does, we will need a place to keep all the crooks. Like Haman's gallows, such FEMA camps might come in useful, but perhaps not useful for the purpose for which they were intended. ;)

Issues, Part 3: America's Economy

The US economy is currently little better than stagnating, with "growth" of approximately 3% or less per year, depending on which statistics one considers. Historically, in the 1890's the US economy became the world's largest economic entity except for colonial empires (the British empire was the largest economic entity until 1941). From 1941 to 2004, the US economy was the world's largest economic entity; in 2004, it was surpassed by the European Union, though the US economy is still much bigger than that of individual European countries.

In contrast to that, the People's Republic of China has been striving for 10% growth per year. Typically, the PRC falls short, but growth of 5% or more per year is common.

In other words, Communist China's economy is growing at least twice as fast as America's, and, at times, it is growing three or even four times as fast.

Growing faster, China's economy will surpass America's. It is possible this has already happened, and it is possible this is happening now; otherwise, it will happen in the future, more likely sooner than later.

This should be of grave concern to Americans, as economic power is the foundation of military and political power. When the US economy outgrew Great Britain's, and later that of the British Empire, America stepped out in front of Great Britain as a world power. In fact, within a decade of surpassing the economic power of the British Empire, the United States was one of two superpowers in the world and, as the Soviet Union collapsed, America was left as the only superpower.

The European Union is nowhere near as united as it could be, and, in any case, the United States is on generally friendly terms with most European Union member nations; in fact, we are in a military alliance with many of them. Consequently, the EU surpassing the US in economic power is not a matter for immediate, grave concern.

However, if China surpasses the US in economic power, this is a matter of very serious concern.

China has a very different view of government power and what rights people have than what America has traditionally had. For example, in an effort to control the growth of China's population, China has implemented a policy of one child per family. A family that has a second child finds the second child being killed by the government (via an injection of alcohol or iodine into the soft part of the baby's head) in order to comply with China's population growth policy. Such post-birth "abortion" is murder, and it is evil; there are no arguments one could make to redeem this policy, but rather, any attempt to do so would call into question the humanity and the sanity of the person trying.

For other examples of Communist China's attitude towards people, one merely has to consider the Tiannanmen Square Massacre of 1989, where Chinese tanks crushed peaceful protestors under their tracks, or China's ongoing oppression of all manner of peaceful dissidents, such the house arrest of Chen Guangcheng - this latter man had attention called to his plight by Batman star Christian Bale, who was roughed up by Chinese security men when he tried to visit Chen recently.

If China's heavy boot ever has the military power to come down on America, it is safe to bet that Chinese authorities will not be as pleasant to Americans as they are to their own people. Assuming China's economy is surpassing that of the United States right now, it will be, in my opinion, at least a decade before China will have the military power to challenge America beyond China and the immediate vicinity of its borders. However, on the trajectory we are now on, our children, who are in school now, will be middle-aged in a world where China controls our debt, dominates us economically, and has the military power to impose its will not only on America, but on a coalition of America plus several nations which are today our key allies.

Our lackluster economic performance presents a danger to our national security.

The danger to our national security goes far beyond our relative economic stagnation.

Our military industrial complex no longer feels that it can survive by selling state-of-the-art weapons to the United States, or even to the US and our closest allies. The MIC lobbies to sell weapons to countries which are frankly one coup or election away from being hostile to our interests. Often times, these countries don't have the money to buy our weapons, so we have to give them special deals so they buy from us, and not from Russia or China or someone else. These deals include financial support in the form of military aid. Often, this still does not sweeten the pot enough for them. So, another aspect of the deal is giving the foreign power the right to produce at least parts of the weapon in their own country. Often, the entire weapon system is produced in that country. These deals offset the cost of the weapon system, allowing the foreign power to "buy American".

After such offsets, though, the reality is that the foriegn power is using US taxpayer money to buy a license from a US corporation. The foreign power gets the technology and the industrial infrastructure to build the weapon system, and the foreign power's people get the jobs to make it. What the American people get is the bill.

In the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States had the industrial infrastructure to make the tanks, planes, ships, trucks, and so on, needed to go across the oceans and defeat some really tough enemies. Today, however, we would either have to build the infrastructure, or fight our way overseas and seize it, not to mention the raw materials and other resources needed for the production of military hardware.

As alarming as all this is, we are really only scratching the surface of US vulnerability to foreign powers. At my blog, I have done posts on Communist Chinese espionage, and Beijing's activity stealing US computer technology. I have not addressed other Chinese espionage activity, wherein key US government and academic officials are on the payroll of China's People's Liberation Army intelligence services. The impact of this activity is far more alarming. The Clinton Administration sold critical US military technology to Communist China. In return, China illegally laundered money into the campaign chests of the Democrats during the 1996 election year. Furthermore, as of the late 1990's, Congressional investigations revealed that China had stolen classified information on every thermonuclear warhead design then in the US arsenal. China is known to share nuclear secrets with Pakistan, whose ISI has close ties to Al Qaeda. Nuclear weapons information from China has been found as far afield as Africa.

So, we have an economic situation here that is a clear and present danger to US national security, and, indeed, to the security of our friends and allies.

There are several factors touched on so far in this post, and some of them I will go into in more detail here at the blog. However, for now, let me refocus on factors that are more economic in nature.

We have been told that free trade is in our best interests. The theory is that if two countries each produce two different products, but with different degrees of efficiency for each product, then free trade would allow each country to focus on the one product it produces more efficiently, and trade this product for the other. In theory, both countries would become more wealthy, and have more goods at less cost.

The reality is that as we began to implement free trade policies, foreign products were cheaper, and initially Americans felt an increase in their buying power, as they were able to buy more goods at lower prices. However, this also resulted in jobs making these products going to places where production costs were cheaper. The low monetary price Americans paid for these products on a global market was quickly offset by the fact that the jobs went overseas, as well, leaving Americans increasingly moving from higher-paying manufacturing jobs to lower-paying service-oriented jobs.

American labor, with legal protections against hazardous working conditions (however imperfect those protections are), and with insurance against on-the-job injuries and against unemployment, and in a nation where environmental protection is factored into production costs, cannot compete with labor in many foreign countries, where the workers are essentially slaves and where the corporations and the government do not care about the environment.

Our tax laws hurt us much more. There is a general rule of thumb: what we tax, we tend to get less of, and what we subsidize, we tend to get more of. Currently, we tax work and subsidize unemployment. Politicians in the United States cynically manipulate America's economy for their own political gain. By fanning the flames of class warfare, they blame the rich and successful, and seek to tax them, using the money thereby derived as "walking around" money, giving it to less affluent voters. Those voters, in turn, vote for the politician that is giving them the money. The cynical politicians get exactly what they want.

This system is more sinister than it appears on the surface.

First, by taxing those who work and take risks, there is a disincentive for them to take further risks and work harder. The net result is that these businesspeople cannot hire as many workers as they otherwise would like to, nor can they pay the employees they have as much as they otherwise could. People who foolishly vote for the politician who is trying to buy their vote with government handouts do not realize that it is the fault of this politician that they do not have a job or that the job they do have is not more lucrative than it is.

Furthermore, these politicians write a tax law that is often hundreds of pages long. When implemented by the bureaucracies, the tax code is now thousands of pages long, and has the force of law. In all these pages, the politicians have loopholes that save plenty of money for their friends. If you are rich enough, you can buy access to a politician, and get loopholes put in for your business; or, you can afford to have accountants and lawyers find you existing loopholes.

But, the middle economic class can't afford all this, and so the middle class pays the full brunt of taxes directly, and pays for it indirectly through underemployment. The lower economic classes pay for this through underemployment and unemployment. The middle economic class blames the lower economic class for being leeches (and some of them are), but the reality is that both classes are being played off one against the other. The upper economic class has bought access to politicians on both sides of the aisle, as well as to professional help to navigate the tax laws.

The economy in our country is really quite a mess, the impact of this mess is severe on the typical American, and will become more severe as time goes on.

And, we haven't even gotten to the Federal Reserve system and to Wall Street bailouts!

Key aspects of this problem can be solved quite simply.

First and foremost, we need to implement a low, flat income tax. The personal income tax should be 10%, and the corporate income tax should be 15%.

This tax is on all gross income. This process makes it easy for businesses to project their income, know what percent will be taken off the top and given to the federal government, and to then know that with the rest, they must pay their expenses and have some profits left over. Businesses will be able to focus their attention on producing goods and services, and on making money, rather than on how to keep the money they have away from the federal government.

If you make the tax on net income, then the debate begins about what are legitimate business expenses, and now you need lawyers to argue the matter and accountants to keep track of it all. This stifles small business, and leads us back to where we are now.

The tax should be on all income, not just income over a certain amount. In theory, a bum on the street and a multi-billionaire will each pay ten percent of personal earnings to the federal government. In reality, the bum may be hard to find in order to audit, and, in any case, the tax derived from his income does not justify the effort to find him and audit him.

This would eliminate mandatory personal income tax returns. Most people have jobs, and their income tax is automatically deducted from their paycheck. They would typically have no need to file a return. An exception would be, for example, a person who makes money fixing cars or doing odd jobs on the side. Legally, this person would be required to file a tax return and pay ten percent of the gross earnings that had not otherwise been taxed. In reality, like the bum, below a certain income threshhold, the tax dollars to be gained would not justify the expense of an inquisition by the IRS to go audit the typical household.

Furthermore, in my opinion, tax rates that differ based on income are unfair, and, regardless of how courts may have ruled, are specifically a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just because one person earns more money than another, it is in principle wrong to take a greater percentage of that money. Additionally, it is foolish to do so, because this becomes a disincentive to greater productivity, at a time when America needs to produce wealth; by not penalizing increased profits, people and businesses are not discouraged from growing the economy, which will result in more jobs and better-paying jobs for Americans.

By the way... as the economy grows, there will be more tax dollars available to government entities.

Politicians seem to think that raising taxes gets them more money. Only marginally so is this the case. Beyond a certain point, people who are taxed more produce less. Since they get to keep less of what they make, why should they keep working? Ronald Reagan understood this well. When he was an actor, the marginal tax code for income over a certain threshhold was greater than 90%.

(Source)

With such a confiscatory tax rate, why should someone be productive upon reaching that threshhold? The government did not get 90% of millions of dollars of income; instead, people worked up to that threshhold, and then took a vacation for the rest of the year. With the tax rate on all income low, more people will keep working and producing wealth, and tax dollars will keep flowing to the government. A lower tax rate of 10% or 15% results in more tax dollars in the long run.

In addition to a low, flat income tax, we need to revisit "free trade". It may make sense to have free trade with nations that have similar laws protecting workers and the environment, but "free trade" with nations that have no concern for their people or for the environment places Americans in an impossible situation. Tariffs on imports from such nations could help level the playing field.

Beyond that, we should consider the reality of our opportunity cost. Under ideal circumstances, people are fully employed producing goods and services that they produce more efficiently, and under these circumstances, the free trade theory makes sense. However, circumstances are far from ideal. Instead of full employment, we have significant unemployment, and we provide government subsidies funded by tax dollars for the unemployed. It may be cheaper to pay slave labor in a foreign country a dollar an hour to make shirts, rather than to pay an American ten dollars an hour to make them. But, is it cheaper to pay that same foreign worker a dollar an hour to make shirts, on top of paying the American ten dollars an hour as an unemployment subsidy? In the latter case, the real cost of the shirts produced to Americans is eleven dollars an hour, rather than one. This is only the case to Americans; other countries buying the same shirts may only be paying the dollar an hour for the shirts, not the eleven dollars an for the shirts plus the unemployment subsidy. Consequently, other countries see their standard of living rise relative to America's.

On top of this, we need to look hard at the impact of tax havens, and stop exporting our best high-tech, defense-related jobs (and our defense industry, for that matter). Technology matters in particular need to be addressed, and a significant part of the solution for this is investigating and prosecuting those officials in government and academia who commit treason by selling our intellectual property to the highest bidder.

We need to revisit government regulation in general, eliminating, for example, quotas based on race.

Also, the philosophy of "too big to fail" needs to be recognized for what it is: a cover story, allowing politicians to channel taxpayer dollars to their rich patrons, while oppressing the smaller businesses, which generate the most jobs, innovation, and often the most technological break-throughs. What "too big to fail" does is keep the biggest corporations on top by subsidizing them the moment they start to go under.

We are told stability is nice, but it really isn't for those who are on the bottom. Was stability a nice thing for the Pharoah's slaves who were building the pyramids? Was stability a nice thing for black slaves in the South two hundred years ago? Just as the instability of the Exodus resulted in Hebrew slaves establishing their own country in the Middle East long before anyone call that place "Palestine", and just as the instability of the Civil War resulted in slaves being freed, so would a little instability in the American business sector result in small, innovative businesses growing at the expense of businesses which have lost their competitive edge, and which have come to rely on government bailouts to stay afloat. The executives who run these businesses need to fail and be held accountable for their failure; they should not be getting a bonus to stash in an offshore bank account, funded by the very people whose economy they ruin. Some of them need to be investigated for financial crimes, because some of the "bad" decisions sure seem to go beyond stupidity.

When we implement this policy, America will have more than enough economic growth, as well as technological advancement, to stay competitive in the 21st century - a century otherwise projected to possibly be one where China eclipses America economically, politically and militarily.

Some aspects of this plan will be addressed in more detail or revisited in subsequent posts on issues related to those aspects. We will also consider this country's monetary system in a future post. ;)