Dear Readers,
I am going to take a different approach to my blog than normal, and talk about my personal ideas for legislation and programs to repair America. As has been suggested to me, I will merely lay out the general ideas for brevity's sake.
1. All entitlement programs will be subject to a five year sunset law. That is, programs like Social Security,Medicare, Medicaid, etc will have to be reviewed every five years to be renewed. If Congress cannot agree on renewal or the terms of renewal, those programs will expire by operation of law. I suggest five years but might consider a slightly higher length of time. I also think that each should be staggered every two years.
My logic? Congress has to air the dirty laundry on the programs and make public how they operate, whether they are efficient, to check for corruption, etc. It also would force Congress to limit their legislative activities and eliminate some overlapping programs.
2. The states should be allowed a no confidence vote for their Congressmen. There would have to be a high percentage of voters to sign a petition such as 60 of the vote for the last election of that Congressman to prevent sour grapes party issues. I believe that 60 per cent would be fair for a general vote, such as consistent poor voting , poor attendance record, etc. I think that 50 per cent should be used for corruption or criminal issues,
My logic? The public's right to checks and balances has been severely limited the legislators themselves. The accountability factor has been non existent during this era of country club politics and elitism in Congress.
3. Enforce the immigration laws. Start with a ruling that birth in the US does not establish citizenship. This law was and has always been used for its original purpose until recently, that is: not to deny voting or other rights to freed slaves. No other country in the world has or interprets its law in such an insane manner.
have a guest worker program that only allows a six month entry in the US and has to be renewed by personal visit of the worker to ICE. The worker would have to pay for this permit each renewal. The worker would have to have an employee sponsor. This was the law for many years in the US for immigration. Worker status does not affect nor create immigration status, but can be used as a factor in application. All workers must pay taxes. All workers must either carry some form of insurance or pay in cash for services rendered. No worker would be able to enter or maintain worker status with a criminal conviction over a class C misdemeanor.
A country that is the point of original will be billed for any worker's health services, incarceration costs, or taxes that a worker cannot pay.
Every country will be given an allotment of workers. If one is arrested or incapacitated, he is still on that allotment. if services are not paid for by the country of origin, that country will have its allotment decreased.
a worker would not be allowed to send more than 10% of his wages back to his homeland. Such transactions would be taxed. If a worker has not paid taxes or for services, his wages would be garnished.
if a worker brings up his family illegally, he loses status. if they come legally, they must be counted under the allotment.
4. The US will withdraw forces from UN peacekeeping duties, and from other peacekeeping duties (such as Bosnia and Kosovo, Korea, and Germany) to fight in Afghanistan. If Europe and other countries will not assist, let them provide troops to those locations if they think it is so important.
Do whatever it takes to win in Afghanistan. Use overwhelming force and get out.
Start a two front offensive with Pakistan to force a hammer -anvil campaign in the common border.
Set up assassination teams like we did in Viet Nam to take out the bad guys. let them sweat with the same terror they inflict.
5. No bill can be passed in Congress if it cannot pay for itself or it cannot be paid for on a pay as you go formula.
6. tax relief. stimulate the economy.
7. Balanced budget. Any surplus will go to reducing the national debt. No legislation gets passed without a balanced budget.
8. Drill now, drill here, drill often. we need to create jobs, we need to reduce the horrendous debt imbalance. we do not need to give unfriendly countries money. we need to be self reliant in case of national crisis.
9. 1 per cent of oil revenues will be used to create new forms of energy or transportation.
10. Nuclear energy. If France can supply 75 % of its needs this way, so can we.
11. huge tax breaks for manufacturing jobs. we need to build things again, not be service oriented. bring in plants from other countries but get those jobs back here.
12. A flat tax. Get rid of the IRS
13. We have all the laws we need for "health care reform" ( what a misnomer.... it is not reform but confiscation). Allow competition, use the Justice Department if there are allegations of corruption or scams. this industry is no different that thousands of others.
14. no supports for failing industries others will replace it. get back to the free market system
15. no czars. All persons exercising power shall be reviewed. as a compromise, the president should be allowed 12 aides and advisers not subject to review.
16. stop mandates on the states. this system is a (expletive) way for the Federal gov't to make itself look good while unfairly burdening the states. If the Feds want it, pay for it.
17. states rights are the primary power in a government. read the constitution.
18. all legislation from the federal government must be made public and cannot be voted on until 14 days after publication.
I believe these ideas would restore our economy, would create a public option to the checks and balances system, reduce corruption and establish more legislative accountability, reduce our debt, and more importantly create more confidence in the American public in their federal government.
I believe that if I were king I would tirelessly and without favoritism until those goals were met.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN THE FT HOOD ATTACK?
I am absolutely aghast at the responses from the Administration and from the liberal press in the Ft Hood terrorist attack.
First of all, I am not inclined to call this merely a terrorist attack. It is a well thought out attack on several levels that no one will analyze.
Al Quaeda has committed a brilliant attack from their standpoint.
1. This terrorist group has accomplished its first goal of attacking on American soil in a well publicised attack that will be on the front pages for a long time.
2. They have made the American public aware that the fight is about to be carried to the American shores.
3. They have killed a substantial mount of Americans without having to kill civilians.
4. They have struck at our military and made them seem like bunglers and inept giants.
5. They have created confusion and discord in the public's mind which is the precursor to changing American opinion ( in their minds) against a war making it seem endless and now at our doorsteps
6. They have fulfilled one of their promises to take the fight to America, hoping to change the Arab world's opinion that Al Quaeda was meaningless now
7. They have gathered power through recruiting and funding
8. They have caused the military and our government to have to divert money, time and effort to improve security at home.
9. They have caused doubt in our leadership as to whether to send additional troops overseas, whether the resources are better used at home and whether the effort will show results.
10. they have created the classic diversion causing a refocus of our efforts at home rather than how badly they are being mauled in Pakistan , Iraq, and Afghanistan. Remember that Pakistan for the first time is pushing Al Quaeda and the Taliban out of their strong holds like never before. Pakistan. to its credit, has not been deterred by senseless terrorist bombings. In the long run, what have these attacks accomplished other than get press attention
Please remember what the Al Quaeda manual says about being captured. Blame your captors about inhumane treatment. What have we heard from Hassan? I am a victim....
Now as to the pathetic statements from the Administration and the Liberal Press. They agree that Hassan is an extremist and that his actions are unhinged. All agree that his actions are insupportable, and wrong. All agree that the massacre of these people was a tragedy.
ok. How about this? what about the fact that two countries are harboring and allowing training ( not including covert countries like Iran, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia) of large numbers of these fanatics: Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember that terrorist training camps were knocked out in the first days of the invasion of Iraq. How about the fact that the stated goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia? How about the fact that there are thousands of the same type of men as Hassan? How about the fact that these groups are trying to acquire nukes?
what is the difference between what was espoused by Hassan and the terrorists? why is one deranged and dangerous and the terrorist group? does it even matter? Does it matter whether Hitler was mad or not, whether his henchmen were or not, in terms of fighting them and destroying what they stand for?
where is the logic? whether he was or was not a terrorist is irrelevant. What is tremendously important is that the words, the thoughts and the acts are identical. the results are the same. stop splitting the hairs and wake up. the war is not over because you do not like the term terrorist.
look at the logic. be consistent
First of all, I am not inclined to call this merely a terrorist attack. It is a well thought out attack on several levels that no one will analyze.
Al Quaeda has committed a brilliant attack from their standpoint.
1. This terrorist group has accomplished its first goal of attacking on American soil in a well publicised attack that will be on the front pages for a long time.
2. They have made the American public aware that the fight is about to be carried to the American shores.
3. They have killed a substantial mount of Americans without having to kill civilians.
4. They have struck at our military and made them seem like bunglers and inept giants.
5. They have created confusion and discord in the public's mind which is the precursor to changing American opinion ( in their minds) against a war making it seem endless and now at our doorsteps
6. They have fulfilled one of their promises to take the fight to America, hoping to change the Arab world's opinion that Al Quaeda was meaningless now
7. They have gathered power through recruiting and funding
8. They have caused the military and our government to have to divert money, time and effort to improve security at home.
9. They have caused doubt in our leadership as to whether to send additional troops overseas, whether the resources are better used at home and whether the effort will show results.
10. they have created the classic diversion causing a refocus of our efforts at home rather than how badly they are being mauled in Pakistan , Iraq, and Afghanistan. Remember that Pakistan for the first time is pushing Al Quaeda and the Taliban out of their strong holds like never before. Pakistan. to its credit, has not been deterred by senseless terrorist bombings. In the long run, what have these attacks accomplished other than get press attention
Please remember what the Al Quaeda manual says about being captured. Blame your captors about inhumane treatment. What have we heard from Hassan? I am a victim....
Now as to the pathetic statements from the Administration and the Liberal Press. They agree that Hassan is an extremist and that his actions are unhinged. All agree that his actions are insupportable, and wrong. All agree that the massacre of these people was a tragedy.
ok. How about this? what about the fact that two countries are harboring and allowing training ( not including covert countries like Iran, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia) of large numbers of these fanatics: Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember that terrorist training camps were knocked out in the first days of the invasion of Iraq. How about the fact that the stated goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia? How about the fact that there are thousands of the same type of men as Hassan? How about the fact that these groups are trying to acquire nukes?
what is the difference between what was espoused by Hassan and the terrorists? why is one deranged and dangerous and the terrorist group? does it even matter? Does it matter whether Hitler was mad or not, whether his henchmen were or not, in terms of fighting them and destroying what they stand for?
where is the logic? whether he was or was not a terrorist is irrelevant. What is tremendously important is that the words, the thoughts and the acts are identical. the results are the same. stop splitting the hairs and wake up. the war is not over because you do not like the term terrorist.
look at the logic. be consistent
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What Do Progressives Mean By " Racist"?
WHAT DO PROGRESSIVES MEAN WHEN THEY ACCUSE "RACISM"
Please understand when I write this particular blog, I have not done research as I usually do, and am expressing a purely subjective opinion and a conjecture based on what a compilation of observations. I hope merely to open a debate and dialogue on this question which I do not believe anyone has asked yet...
I have been listening to a lot of accusations being thrown out by the Progressives, Liberals, and Die -Hard Democrat pundits accusing the opposition to President Obama, his policies and the direction of the Democrat controlled Congress of "Racism". I have heard former President Jimmy Carter ( the man personally responsible for destroying any youthful tendencies of liberalism in me) spout off how he believed that the majority of the marchers in DC were motivated by racism and that many did not feel like a black man was qualified to be President of the United States. Let us forget that this man was himself truly not capable of being a president himself, and focus our attention the his claim. I am curious as to what the basis or what evidence that he has. I saw many signs at the rallies I have attended and at the rallies I have not. Not once have I seen a sign with the "N" word in it, or something akin to "see what you get when you put a black man in power" or "have we sunk so low as to reduce our standards of the presidency". No overt or covert suggestions that because we have a black man in office we are offended.
Then it hit me as I was listening to a syndicated talk radio show this afternoon, when two educated black men with diametrically opposite views of the protest were expressing their opinions as to the motivation of the protest march. One man stated that he had voted for President Obama but thought these charges were groundless rhetoric and baseless, even demeaning. The other was a civil rights attorney( with 20 years experience). He could not name persons or instances of what he believed were racism but when pressed he stated that the calling of President Obama a "communist, a socialist , a fascist" and more importantly calling him a "radical was a code word (sic: the "n" word )" was the basis of his opinion.
This conversation solidified the questions into one for me. I no longer was asking " how could they come up with such a charge? what is the evidence? Are they stupid or is this just a political ploy? The question became a search instead, as this relatively young black spokesman represented the debate itself.
What does he mean by racism? Certainly, if he goes back into the 60's several groups of black activists and even black militant groups were labeled "radical" The Black Panthers were often described as radical. Perhaps in the charged environment of the 60's some die hard racists might have hidden behind that accusation. Certainly, they black community itself was awakening as never before and acting ways it had never done.
Yet there is a fact that is overlooked by the left or perhaps deliberately ignored. The Black Panthers were radicals by their own definition, with ties to Marxism ,Black Nationalism, and even anarchy. Yet there were predominately white organizations equally extreme that were also labelled radical. The Weatherman is an example. The SDS another. Each had similar affinities to Marxism and the overthrow of the US government as then existing. What set these groups apart from the many organizations that protested and marched in those days is their fundamental belief that the US government, the system it represented, and the concepts behind our Republic were wrong, evil and in need of destruction. Much of the protesting during the Viet Nam War, from all the camps were expressions of disagreement of policy, not the fundamental nature of the US government itself.
The irony of trying to link the charge of racism to communism or socialism is that these social and political entities are egalitarian. That is, race, sex or nationalism are eliminated. All persons are viewed as equals. These societies in theory are color blind. In fact, history shows that, especially in the case of Communism, Communist countries have existed in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Every color and race have communist representatives. The same can be said of socialism. Fascism would even be more absurd in regards to merely linking it to President Obama's color. The major examples of fascism were the National Socialist Party and Mussolini's National Fascist Party. The Nazis believed to a greater degree than the Italians that blacks were subhuman and an inferior race. To say a black man resembles Hitler because of his race would be absurd to ridiculous.
The sad realization of this belief that "Radical =Racism" belies an unfortunate understanding of not only the very important definitions and connotations of the words, but a sad lacking of the understanding of why the word radical was used in the past in describing a group of black activists and militants. The word radical itself was even used by King George III to describe our founders. Each of the labels is accurate because radical is an abrupt and often unexpected departure from the norm. Even sadder is the sad lack of understanding of the political nature of the other names used. Further adding sadness, is the lack of understanding of why the communism, socialism, fascist and even radical are dangerous to our way of life and the very foundation of our country. I am saddened by the prospect that this young black man's thinking, his conduct, and his spirit is clouded by anger and perhaps his own form of racism.
To be clear on the question, it is important for the progressives to understand that we refer to the type of thinking, tactics, and politics of Saul Alinsky who wrote (strangely enough, the manifesto for these aforementioned groups) "Rules for Radicals" This book is the Bible ( asking forgiveness from the Almighty on the comparison- Alinsky dedicates his book to Lucifer....). It is very familiar to czars within President Obama's inner circle. I believe the President is very familiar with it either directly or through his associations with his friends and devotees such as William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn. Alinski's son praises our President for being a master at it.
I ask the Progressives to look up racism and then come back with examples other than the accusations of disagreement of policies and even the accusations of the President's being a communist et al. Show us the signs like the ones in Alabama in the 60's. Show us the racially provocative slurs. Show us the ethnically biased thought. Otherwise cease the ridiculous accusations of racism and get on the real debate as to whether the other terms are accurate or not. And by the way, you might do some reading on those topics before you open the debate.
Please understand when I write this particular blog, I have not done research as I usually do, and am expressing a purely subjective opinion and a conjecture based on what a compilation of observations. I hope merely to open a debate and dialogue on this question which I do not believe anyone has asked yet...
I have been listening to a lot of accusations being thrown out by the Progressives, Liberals, and Die -Hard Democrat pundits accusing the opposition to President Obama, his policies and the direction of the Democrat controlled Congress of "Racism". I have heard former President Jimmy Carter ( the man personally responsible for destroying any youthful tendencies of liberalism in me) spout off how he believed that the majority of the marchers in DC were motivated by racism and that many did not feel like a black man was qualified to be President of the United States. Let us forget that this man was himself truly not capable of being a president himself, and focus our attention the his claim. I am curious as to what the basis or what evidence that he has. I saw many signs at the rallies I have attended and at the rallies I have not. Not once have I seen a sign with the "N" word in it, or something akin to "see what you get when you put a black man in power" or "have we sunk so low as to reduce our standards of the presidency". No overt or covert suggestions that because we have a black man in office we are offended.
Then it hit me as I was listening to a syndicated talk radio show this afternoon, when two educated black men with diametrically opposite views of the protest were expressing their opinions as to the motivation of the protest march. One man stated that he had voted for President Obama but thought these charges were groundless rhetoric and baseless, even demeaning. The other was a civil rights attorney( with 20 years experience). He could not name persons or instances of what he believed were racism but when pressed he stated that the calling of President Obama a "communist, a socialist , a fascist" and more importantly calling him a "radical was a code word (sic: the "n" word )" was the basis of his opinion.
This conversation solidified the questions into one for me. I no longer was asking " how could they come up with such a charge? what is the evidence? Are they stupid or is this just a political ploy? The question became a search instead, as this relatively young black spokesman represented the debate itself.
What does he mean by racism? Certainly, if he goes back into the 60's several groups of black activists and even black militant groups were labeled "radical" The Black Panthers were often described as radical. Perhaps in the charged environment of the 60's some die hard racists might have hidden behind that accusation. Certainly, they black community itself was awakening as never before and acting ways it had never done.
Yet there is a fact that is overlooked by the left or perhaps deliberately ignored. The Black Panthers were radicals by their own definition, with ties to Marxism ,Black Nationalism, and even anarchy. Yet there were predominately white organizations equally extreme that were also labelled radical. The Weatherman is an example. The SDS another. Each had similar affinities to Marxism and the overthrow of the US government as then existing. What set these groups apart from the many organizations that protested and marched in those days is their fundamental belief that the US government, the system it represented, and the concepts behind our Republic were wrong, evil and in need of destruction. Much of the protesting during the Viet Nam War, from all the camps were expressions of disagreement of policy, not the fundamental nature of the US government itself.
The irony of trying to link the charge of racism to communism or socialism is that these social and political entities are egalitarian. That is, race, sex or nationalism are eliminated. All persons are viewed as equals. These societies in theory are color blind. In fact, history shows that, especially in the case of Communism, Communist countries have existed in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Every color and race have communist representatives. The same can be said of socialism. Fascism would even be more absurd in regards to merely linking it to President Obama's color. The major examples of fascism were the National Socialist Party and Mussolini's National Fascist Party. The Nazis believed to a greater degree than the Italians that blacks were subhuman and an inferior race. To say a black man resembles Hitler because of his race would be absurd to ridiculous.
The sad realization of this belief that "Radical =Racism" belies an unfortunate understanding of not only the very important definitions and connotations of the words, but a sad lacking of the understanding of why the word radical was used in the past in describing a group of black activists and militants. The word radical itself was even used by King George III to describe our founders. Each of the labels is accurate because radical is an abrupt and often unexpected departure from the norm. Even sadder is the sad lack of understanding of the political nature of the other names used. Further adding sadness, is the lack of understanding of why the communism, socialism, fascist and even radical are dangerous to our way of life and the very foundation of our country. I am saddened by the prospect that this young black man's thinking, his conduct, and his spirit is clouded by anger and perhaps his own form of racism.
To be clear on the question, it is important for the progressives to understand that we refer to the type of thinking, tactics, and politics of Saul Alinsky who wrote (strangely enough, the manifesto for these aforementioned groups) "Rules for Radicals" This book is the Bible ( asking forgiveness from the Almighty on the comparison- Alinsky dedicates his book to Lucifer....). It is very familiar to czars within President Obama's inner circle. I believe the President is very familiar with it either directly or through his associations with his friends and devotees such as William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn. Alinski's son praises our President for being a master at it.
I ask the Progressives to look up racism and then come back with examples other than the accusations of disagreement of policies and even the accusations of the President's being a communist et al. Show us the signs like the ones in Alabama in the 60's. Show us the racially provocative slurs. Show us the ethnically biased thought. Otherwise cease the ridiculous accusations of racism and get on the real debate as to whether the other terms are accurate or not. And by the way, you might do some reading on those topics before you open the debate.
What have we learned from Tammany Hall
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM TAMMANY HALL?
With all the revelations about ACORN and peripherally SEIU, it is obvious that the legacy of Tammany Hall is not lost upon those who crave political power.
Tammany Hall, a community organization, was a thinly veiled political arm of the Tweed regime. Tweed used his power as a New York State Senator to gather contracts, projects, and enterprises for its members, often skimming huge sums of money illegally from the same to line the pockets of his cronies. In exchange, these cronies went through a series of various organizations and groups to dole out money to Tweed's constituents mostly in New York City. Many of Tweed's constituents were poor, destitute immigrants fresh from Ireland, escaping famine and the destroyed economy of their homeland. Tweed understood that by creating a welfare state for these immigrants that he could remain in power indefinitely. The more immigrants, the more votes, the bigger the large. The enforcement of his power was done both by the carrot and the stick. Tweed committed his nefarious acts by a slight of hand in the open.
The beauty of this plan is that Tweed could fund and run it without spending a dime of his own money. Public funds were plentiful and oversight was virtually non-existent. Tweed amassed huge personal wealth in a short time, set up a nearly invisible system of total corruption by spreading out his plan through an elaborate network of organizations and subordinates. Projects got completed, the immigrants got fed, housed and clothed, got to the express line of legalization, and Tweed got to stay in office so he could take care of his people. All was right with the world and who really cared?
The lesson we seem to have forgotten is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The poor Irish Immigrants traded one form of fiefdom and slavery for another. Tweed replaced the English land holding aristocracy and the lot of the immigrants was blunted. Instead of the individuals finding their own destinies and improving their lives by exercising their opportunities in the American free market system, most were beholden to a system that deliberately restricted their growth. Tweed knew that keeping them inside his system was key to the survival of his plan. Many of the immigrants were better off than they were in Ireland, and were happy to be in a system that took care of them instead of understanding how they were being cheated of their dreams.
Perhaps the biggest casualty of the system were the dreams of the immigrants. They traded physical security for the chance to live fully and freely in an America that offered much more than they received.
The second casualty was the race card that was played throughout this tragedy. The Irish were seen as a lazy , stupid and dangerous horde that was taking away jobs from native Americans. Both sides played off this image to enhance their own agendas. Tweed used this sentiment to feed on his voters fears to let them know he understood their plight and he was there to protect them. He would guarantee them their rights to a roof over their heads, food, clothing, coal, and jobs.
The final casualty (and there are numerous others that time causes omissions), and perhaps most sadly is the obligation of the press and the government itself to investigate and to instigate oversight. Thomas Nast, a famous cartoonist for the biggest newspaper, lead a furious and detailed charge through the New York papers to have Tweed charged and Tammany Hall dismantled. Eventually he succeeded after having to wade through layers and layers of corruption. The New York legislature was so riddled with the corruption of Tweed, so many had participated, that it took years for the reform to clean house. Yet the public rallied to truth and demanded criminal charges and change. Sadly, Tammany Hall was not fully dismantled until another political machine, FDR ( and Eleanor) took them on, using the power of the Federal government reconstruction programs during the Great Depression to out Tammany Hall Tammany Hall itself....
Have we learned nothing? We have a press corps in bed with the corruption, unwilling to do its job in rallying the public for REAL CHANGE. We have an organization much more damaging and dangerous than Tammany Hall in ACORN, and it surrogate SEIU. It is national in scope, has a much larger web of affiliations and associations, and more dangerous people with different motives, and has billions allocated to it by a government either too blind, too stupid or too corrupt to do the oversight necessary to reign in this cancer. I asked my House Rep Michael Burgess a few months ago why we did not have a select panel to investigate the activities of ACORN and SEIU and he stated that the Democrats controlled the agenda and blocked the efforts.
I ask the Hon. M.Burgess again to renew his efforts. I ask him, the press, and you the reader, HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING FROM TAMMANY HALL?
Do we not have the courage and the moral commitments of our predecessors to clean up this rat's nest of corruption, crime ,and filth?
With all the revelations about ACORN and peripherally SEIU, it is obvious that the legacy of Tammany Hall is not lost upon those who crave political power.
Tammany Hall, a community organization, was a thinly veiled political arm of the Tweed regime. Tweed used his power as a New York State Senator to gather contracts, projects, and enterprises for its members, often skimming huge sums of money illegally from the same to line the pockets of his cronies. In exchange, these cronies went through a series of various organizations and groups to dole out money to Tweed's constituents mostly in New York City. Many of Tweed's constituents were poor, destitute immigrants fresh from Ireland, escaping famine and the destroyed economy of their homeland. Tweed understood that by creating a welfare state for these immigrants that he could remain in power indefinitely. The more immigrants, the more votes, the bigger the large. The enforcement of his power was done both by the carrot and the stick. Tweed committed his nefarious acts by a slight of hand in the open.
The beauty of this plan is that Tweed could fund and run it without spending a dime of his own money. Public funds were plentiful and oversight was virtually non-existent. Tweed amassed huge personal wealth in a short time, set up a nearly invisible system of total corruption by spreading out his plan through an elaborate network of organizations and subordinates. Projects got completed, the immigrants got fed, housed and clothed, got to the express line of legalization, and Tweed got to stay in office so he could take care of his people. All was right with the world and who really cared?
The lesson we seem to have forgotten is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The poor Irish Immigrants traded one form of fiefdom and slavery for another. Tweed replaced the English land holding aristocracy and the lot of the immigrants was blunted. Instead of the individuals finding their own destinies and improving their lives by exercising their opportunities in the American free market system, most were beholden to a system that deliberately restricted their growth. Tweed knew that keeping them inside his system was key to the survival of his plan. Many of the immigrants were better off than they were in Ireland, and were happy to be in a system that took care of them instead of understanding how they were being cheated of their dreams.
Perhaps the biggest casualty of the system were the dreams of the immigrants. They traded physical security for the chance to live fully and freely in an America that offered much more than they received.
The second casualty was the race card that was played throughout this tragedy. The Irish were seen as a lazy , stupid and dangerous horde that was taking away jobs from native Americans. Both sides played off this image to enhance their own agendas. Tweed used this sentiment to feed on his voters fears to let them know he understood their plight and he was there to protect them. He would guarantee them their rights to a roof over their heads, food, clothing, coal, and jobs.
The final casualty (and there are numerous others that time causes omissions), and perhaps most sadly is the obligation of the press and the government itself to investigate and to instigate oversight. Thomas Nast, a famous cartoonist for the biggest newspaper, lead a furious and detailed charge through the New York papers to have Tweed charged and Tammany Hall dismantled. Eventually he succeeded after having to wade through layers and layers of corruption. The New York legislature was so riddled with the corruption of Tweed, so many had participated, that it took years for the reform to clean house. Yet the public rallied to truth and demanded criminal charges and change. Sadly, Tammany Hall was not fully dismantled until another political machine, FDR ( and Eleanor) took them on, using the power of the Federal government reconstruction programs during the Great Depression to out Tammany Hall Tammany Hall itself....
Have we learned nothing? We have a press corps in bed with the corruption, unwilling to do its job in rallying the public for REAL CHANGE. We have an organization much more damaging and dangerous than Tammany Hall in ACORN, and it surrogate SEIU. It is national in scope, has a much larger web of affiliations and associations, and more dangerous people with different motives, and has billions allocated to it by a government either too blind, too stupid or too corrupt to do the oversight necessary to reign in this cancer. I asked my House Rep Michael Burgess a few months ago why we did not have a select panel to investigate the activities of ACORN and SEIU and he stated that the Democrats controlled the agenda and blocked the efforts.
I ask the Hon. M.Burgess again to renew his efforts. I ask him, the press, and you the reader, HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING FROM TAMMANY HALL?
Do we not have the courage and the moral commitments of our predecessors to clean up this rat's nest of corruption, crime ,and filth?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
IS PRESIDENT OBAMA THE NEW "BOSS TWEED"?
IS PRESIDENT OBAMA THE NEW "BOSS" TWEED?
Dear reader , this blog will be a series of blogs due to the background information that I need to help refresh or inform the reader with. I will try to keep the blog down to about three different entries, so please bear with me, and I hope that this one will be informative as well as thought provoking.
I struggled initially with the question above, as I considered "what do community organizers do"? or" have we forgotten the lessons of Tammany Hall?" or closer " Is ACORN the new Tammany Hall?" as alternative question caps. They all are covered in this blog.
Tammany Hall turned out to be a community organization in New York City that was the focus of a series of major scandals over a period of close to one hundred years. The organization itself was a very powerful political machine that tried to present itself as a philanthropic group. This weak veil as a community organization never fooled anyone halfway familiar with its structure or leaders.
The organization itself started off innocently enough, and was founded in 1789.It was named loosely after a Native American leader. I suspect it was one of those many "mysterious" men's semi secret societies that our founders had such a penchant for. Aaron Burr eventually got control of it and it began to assume its political nature.The group eventually is credited with getting him elected Vice President and perhaps even for the defeat of John Adams for a re election bid.
Eventually over time ( trying to just get the highlights here), the group became an affiliate of the Democrat party. The zenith of power came in the late 1840's and 1850's with the huge influx of Irish Catholic Immigrants into New York. During this time a man by the name of William M "Boss " Tweed used its power to get elected to the New York Senate. He was the Grand Sachem and had his ward bosses exercise strick control over the New York City Burroughs and secure the Irish support. At this time NYC was broken down into wards and districts which were tightly regulated. According to Wikipedia, this community organization had three forms of patronage 1. " "to provide the means of of physical existence, in times of emergency: food, coal, rent money, or a job". 2. " it served as a powerful intermediary between the immigrants and an unfamiliar state"3. it "served as a social integrator for immigrants" ... this led to to the questionable practice of "special and accelerated naturalization" ( for voting purposes ). The Irish in exchange always voted ( early and often) in a huge block
Over time, the Irish immigrants ,who tended to be very involved with politics prior to arrival in America, had a "propensity to use violence to control the polls". I guess thuggery and voting irregularities are not a recent happenstance...
"Boss" Tweed exercised control over huge sums of money, contracts, and projects during his tenure.During a criminal investigation laborers were found to have been paid over $30,000 for a days work for example ($30k in those days was an astronomical sum). Needless to say these contracts were awarded to friends, associates and patrons. Boss Tweed of course skimmed off huge sums for real estate, building, transportation, etc contracts. It is estimated that he may have bilked New York for as much as $200 million ( more than a billion in today's money) He eventually was ousted by reformers but the organization continued on
Eventually FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt brought down this community organization to a point it virtually disappeared, by using their own political machines and the power of the Federal Gov't to grant or withhold federal aid to NY during troubled times. Remember the Roosevelt Family was a very powerful political force very similar to the Kennedy family.
Tammany Hall draped itself as a group dedicated to helping the poor, the disenfranchised, the homeless, the immigrant and the working class, and did in fact give large sums of money in doing so. It can be argued that they represented the first welfare organization and made New York the first welfare state in American history. Their leaders stressed how they helped the community and how they were bringing all people together into the American Dream. It can be also argued that they set up a belief system in an "entitlement system" for food, housing, jobs etc.
The catch: they did it not with their money, but with the public's. Moreover, they did so strictly as a power grab and without true regard as to whether the lot of their beneficiaries ever truly improved their lot or station in life. It was a medieval feudal system that the Irish surely would have recognised in Ireland. It was about making Tammany Hall the center of power and structure in New York, circumventing all normal channels and rules of law.
(will add more in the next couple of days)
Dear reader , this blog will be a series of blogs due to the background information that I need to help refresh or inform the reader with. I will try to keep the blog down to about three different entries, so please bear with me, and I hope that this one will be informative as well as thought provoking.
I struggled initially with the question above, as I considered "what do community organizers do"? or" have we forgotten the lessons of Tammany Hall?" or closer " Is ACORN the new Tammany Hall?" as alternative question caps. They all are covered in this blog.
Tammany Hall turned out to be a community organization in New York City that was the focus of a series of major scandals over a period of close to one hundred years. The organization itself was a very powerful political machine that tried to present itself as a philanthropic group. This weak veil as a community organization never fooled anyone halfway familiar with its structure or leaders.
The organization itself started off innocently enough, and was founded in 1789.It was named loosely after a Native American leader. I suspect it was one of those many "mysterious" men's semi secret societies that our founders had such a penchant for. Aaron Burr eventually got control of it and it began to assume its political nature.The group eventually is credited with getting him elected Vice President and perhaps even for the defeat of John Adams for a re election bid.
Eventually over time ( trying to just get the highlights here), the group became an affiliate of the Democrat party. The zenith of power came in the late 1840's and 1850's with the huge influx of Irish Catholic Immigrants into New York. During this time a man by the name of William M "Boss " Tweed used its power to get elected to the New York Senate. He was the Grand Sachem and had his ward bosses exercise strick control over the New York City Burroughs and secure the Irish support. At this time NYC was broken down into wards and districts which were tightly regulated. According to Wikipedia, this community organization had three forms of patronage 1. " "to provide the means of of physical existence, in times of emergency: food, coal, rent money, or a job". 2. " it served as a powerful intermediary between the immigrants and an unfamiliar state"3. it "served as a social integrator for immigrants" ... this led to to the questionable practice of "special and accelerated naturalization" ( for voting purposes ). The Irish in exchange always voted ( early and often) in a huge block
Over time, the Irish immigrants ,who tended to be very involved with politics prior to arrival in America, had a "propensity to use violence to control the polls". I guess thuggery and voting irregularities are not a recent happenstance...
"Boss" Tweed exercised control over huge sums of money, contracts, and projects during his tenure.During a criminal investigation laborers were found to have been paid over $30,000 for a days work for example ($30k in those days was an astronomical sum). Needless to say these contracts were awarded to friends, associates and patrons. Boss Tweed of course skimmed off huge sums for real estate, building, transportation, etc contracts. It is estimated that he may have bilked New York for as much as $200 million ( more than a billion in today's money) He eventually was ousted by reformers but the organization continued on
Eventually FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt brought down this community organization to a point it virtually disappeared, by using their own political machines and the power of the Federal Gov't to grant or withhold federal aid to NY during troubled times. Remember the Roosevelt Family was a very powerful political force very similar to the Kennedy family.
Tammany Hall draped itself as a group dedicated to helping the poor, the disenfranchised, the homeless, the immigrant and the working class, and did in fact give large sums of money in doing so. It can be argued that they represented the first welfare organization and made New York the first welfare state in American history. Their leaders stressed how they helped the community and how they were bringing all people together into the American Dream. It can be also argued that they set up a belief system in an "entitlement system" for food, housing, jobs etc.
The catch: they did it not with their money, but with the public's. Moreover, they did so strictly as a power grab and without true regard as to whether the lot of their beneficiaries ever truly improved their lot or station in life. It was a medieval feudal system that the Irish surely would have recognised in Ireland. It was about making Tammany Hall the center of power and structure in New York, circumventing all normal channels and rules of law.
(will add more in the next couple of days)
Monday, August 24, 2009
when should I respect your right to privacy?
When Should I Respect your Right to Privacy?
An open letter to Presient Obama.
Sir, this week you have taken your family to Martha's Vineyard and you have asked (told) the Press and the Public at Large that you want your privacy and that you have children that deserve to have their vacation uninterrupted.
Sir, who are you to ask for a right to privacy given the privious actions you have taken regarding the American People?:
you have included as part of your Health Care Reform (Insurance Reform ) Plan recording the patient's file within the Government's files and management
you have set up an email site that people could turn in "fishy information" without notifying the person who is being monitored
you are directing ACORN when it conducts the census to have a large questionnaire for the households with numerous personal questions it is not entitled to ask or for the Government to have
you have directed your SEIU partners and other groups to conduct a campaign of harassment by telephone, email or visits to employment or home of those who have spoken out in Townhall meetings
you follow the Saul Alinsky model of isolating , humiliating and destroying people with personal attacks, innuendo and revelations about their personal life
you have strong-armed the banks of Switzerland to reveal personal accounts of people doing banking abroad
this list could go on and on , Sir, and the lack of reciprocity from you is astounding. I have decided not to discuss even the question that you are a public official and chose to put yourself and your family in this position
The answer, Sir, is that we the people shall respect your right to privacy when you understand our right to the same.
An open letter to Presient Obama.
Sir, this week you have taken your family to Martha's Vineyard and you have asked (told) the Press and the Public at Large that you want your privacy and that you have children that deserve to have their vacation uninterrupted.
Sir, who are you to ask for a right to privacy given the privious actions you have taken regarding the American People?:
you have included as part of your Health Care Reform (Insurance Reform ) Plan recording the patient's file within the Government's files and management
you have set up an email site that people could turn in "fishy information" without notifying the person who is being monitored
you are directing ACORN when it conducts the census to have a large questionnaire for the households with numerous personal questions it is not entitled to ask or for the Government to have
you have directed your SEIU partners and other groups to conduct a campaign of harassment by telephone, email or visits to employment or home of those who have spoken out in Townhall meetings
you follow the Saul Alinsky model of isolating , humiliating and destroying people with personal attacks, innuendo and revelations about their personal life
you have strong-armed the banks of Switzerland to reveal personal accounts of people doing banking abroad
this list could go on and on , Sir, and the lack of reciprocity from you is astounding. I have decided not to discuss even the question that you are a public official and chose to put yourself and your family in this position
The answer, Sir, is that we the people shall respect your right to privacy when you understand our right to the same.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
why didn't we have a blue ribbon committe?
why didn't we have a blue ribbon committe?
My thanks to Eloise and Rachel for some great technical hints...If one of my subject gets involved or complex I will write the blog in sections...
This blog question basically one I asked my Congressman The Hon Rep Dr. Michael Burgess, 26th District 8-18-09.
Background: A blue ribbon committe is a bipartisan committe made up of representatives of both parties who may have expertise or experience in a particular field to investigate a problem. Typically, this committee will call in experts, involved parties or interested parties to define the problem in their own terms, express their concerns, and to offer solutions. This committee then drafts up a finding in the form of a summary, which is then presented to a committee for review, debate and vote thereon if needed.
I asked Dr Burgess why there was no blue ribbon committee on the National Health Care Issue ( I do not use the "National Insurance Reform" title), given the self described "emergency" or "crisis" that affected ALL Americans. Why is the only input from non legislative types coming at town hall meetings or alternative means? ( I suspect the lobbysists have been very active, however...) The end result is a very willy nilly hodge podge of 4 House Bills, 2 Senate Bills and who knows what else, which all seem to be failing under the pressure of public outcry.
His response in essence was that there was a blue ribbon back in 1996(?) under Hillary Care that was shelved. He stated that even if requested and followed through on, that it could be shelved or tabled, or never debated. His response merely stated what has happened or what could happen. HE NEVER ANSWERED WHY THERE WAS NOT EVEN A REQUEST FOR ONE.
As an answer, this response dodges the question. IF both the Republics and Democrats represent that there is a crisis of monumental and far reaching consequences, why no request for a blue ribbon committee even? why is Congress wasting incredible amounts of time, capital, and pr merely to be surprised at the public ' response, industry response and individual responses?
the answer is quite simple: both sides do not view this issue as a public crisis but as a means for advancing not only party politics, but individual power needs and a shift in philosophical outlooks. It seems like another case of the politicians are smarter than the JQPublic , the industries involved and the economists evvaluating the consequences. Looks like the public be damned again.
word of advise to Congress, however. If you choose to ignore, ridicule or scoff at the public which is to foot the bill and bear the effects and brunt of these policies , new policies will be presented by new representatives.
My thanks to Eloise and Rachel for some great technical hints...If one of my subject gets involved or complex I will write the blog in sections...
This blog question basically one I asked my Congressman The Hon Rep Dr. Michael Burgess, 26th District 8-18-09.
Background: A blue ribbon committe is a bipartisan committe made up of representatives of both parties who may have expertise or experience in a particular field to investigate a problem. Typically, this committee will call in experts, involved parties or interested parties to define the problem in their own terms, express their concerns, and to offer solutions. This committee then drafts up a finding in the form of a summary, which is then presented to a committee for review, debate and vote thereon if needed.
I asked Dr Burgess why there was no blue ribbon committee on the National Health Care Issue ( I do not use the "National Insurance Reform" title), given the self described "emergency" or "crisis" that affected ALL Americans. Why is the only input from non legislative types coming at town hall meetings or alternative means? ( I suspect the lobbysists have been very active, however...) The end result is a very willy nilly hodge podge of 4 House Bills, 2 Senate Bills and who knows what else, which all seem to be failing under the pressure of public outcry.
His response in essence was that there was a blue ribbon back in 1996(?) under Hillary Care that was shelved. He stated that even if requested and followed through on, that it could be shelved or tabled, or never debated. His response merely stated what has happened or what could happen. HE NEVER ANSWERED WHY THERE WAS NOT EVEN A REQUEST FOR ONE.
As an answer, this response dodges the question. IF both the Republics and Democrats represent that there is a crisis of monumental and far reaching consequences, why no request for a blue ribbon committee even? why is Congress wasting incredible amounts of time, capital, and pr merely to be surprised at the public ' response, industry response and individual responses?
the answer is quite simple: both sides do not view this issue as a public crisis but as a means for advancing not only party politics, but individual power needs and a shift in philosophical outlooks. It seems like another case of the politicians are smarter than the JQPublic , the industries involved and the economists evvaluating the consequences. Looks like the public be damned again.
word of advise to Congress, however. If you choose to ignore, ridicule or scoff at the public which is to foot the bill and bear the effects and brunt of these policies , new policies will be presented by new representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)