Archive for the ‘Government Corruption’ Category
By Thomas E. Brewton
Marxian economic dogma explains why liberal-progressives, the Obama administration in particular, push for restructuring our constitutional government to concentrate more power in the hands of labor unions and the Federal government.
Marxian economic dogma has been emphasized to an increasing degree in our colleges and universities, even in our high schools, since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal imposed state planning upon the United States in the 1930s. That emphasis became dominant in the late 1960s and 1970s. Today so many generations of teachers and students have been so thoroughly and subtly imbued with Marxian concepts that they are unaware of their ideological environment, assuming that such concepts represent exclusive truth.
Marxian doctrine leads to the assertion that private property is power and that such power is used by employers to exploit the workers. To end exploitation, government must restructure society, using progressive income taxes, high death taxes, and punitive regulation of private businesses, coupled with welfare-state entitlements.
What then are the elements of Marxian economic doctrine that underlie the Democrat/Socialist Party's socioeconomic paradigm?
First, the conception of scientific socialism, as opposed to the earlier varieties of utopian socialism. Utopian socialism had propounded broad concepts of social justice, appealing to the reason and benevolence of society. Marx and Engels dismissed this as unscientific and ineffective.
One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that so few Americans understand how our government works in the real world. Since that's the case, most people simply aren't capable of making an informed judgment about whether politicians can deliver on a promise. With that in mind, it seems like a good idea to go back to basics and explain what so many of us have already learned the hard way about the government.
Government can't compete on even footing with the private sector: There's a reason why you get better service at Wal-Mart than at the DMV. It's no coincidence that FedEx makes a profit while the post office loses billions. Moreover, it's no shocker that Enron and Lehman Brothers are gone, but FEMA and ICE are still around. It's because the government can't compete on an even footing with private industry. Unlike businesses, they don't have their own money on the line, most of their employees advance based on seniority, not merit, and government agencies don't pay a big price for failure. To the contrary, if a government agency does a lousy job, it just means it will probably get a bigger budget the next year. What it comes down to is that the only way the government can compete with a business is by outspending it or by rewriting the laws to make the business less competitive with the government.
By Thomas E. Brewton
New Orleanians born and bred in the welfare-state seem honestly believe that they are not required to do anything to help themselves.
A large number of people, most of whom apparently are residents of New Orleans, have favored me with four-letter-word denunciations of The god That Failed New Orleans.
A common allegation was that I had written that New Orleans deserved its fate. No one, however, cited specifics, for good reason: I wrote nothing to that effect.
For example:
And do they want the levees to break? I guess it depends if you are (as a New Orleans blogger commented to a brain-dead Repug at the link) "a f_ckmook" who believes New Orleans deserved it (and there are, sadly, many more like this)…My thought is that they … don't care. We're the last major city port at the mouth of the largest river system in the United States, and they don't give a rat's ass. We have some of the best food, culture, history and characters to be found, and are unique unto ourselves in this world, but they pretty much summed it up with Dennis Hastert's comment: "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed."
In other words, New Orleanians don't need to exert themselves rebuilding the city. They're entitled to have the taxpayers of the nation do it for them, because New Orleans has all sorts of things that cater to sensual appetites.
No emailer advanced a single argument to counter the specific points I made, which were that New Orleans, a once great commercial city, had become after 1927 mired in hedonism and dependence upon the welfare state.
By Thomas E. Brewton
Why does much of New Orleans still look as if the 2005 devastation of Hurricane Katrina had occurred just a few weeks ago?
Huge areas of New Orleans still are wastelands. New Orleans's liberal-progressive-socialist Senator Mary Landrieu has grabbed far more than her share of Congressional pork. Hundreds of millions of Federal dollars spent for rehabilitation have produced far too little beneficial result. People were without electric power for months; the police department contained more thieves than honest law enforcers; drug-dealing and prostitution remain major enterprises; and the city still retains its crown as the nation's murder capital.
One of the city's few "legitimate" businesses is casino gambling.
City and state administrations have yet to coordinate rebuilding plans, as politicians fight over who gets what share of the spoils.
The best that the city's Mayor Nagin can do is to demand that the Democratic-socialist Party presidential candidates pledge to send even more pork to New Orleans.
What accounts for this dismal record?
The answer is simple. New Orleans abandoned God and personal moral responsibility, turning instead to worshipping the atheistic, secular political state. That secular god has failed miserably, notoriously so in the aftermath of Katrina.
By Alan Caruba
There was a Washington Post news report in late March that the United Nations had “presented its top donors with a request for nearly $1.1 billion in additional funds over the next two years—boosting current U.N. expenses by 25 percent and marking the global body’s highest-ever administrative budget, according to internal U.N. memos.”
Since I am no fan of the United Nations, my first thought was to ask why the U.S. and other “top donors” would toss more money at this bloated and morally corrupt international bureaucracy when it is manifestly unable to prevent wars—its primary mission—and remains a platform for belligerence, bigotry, and intolerance?
According to the report, the request for more money is blamed on the Bush administration’s “demands for a more ambitious U.N. role around the world.” That seems a rather convenient explanation given the poor performance of most of the U.N.’s so-called peace-keeping missions, some of which degraded into the rape of the women it was supposed to be protecting; its 60-year support of the Palestinians, making them the oldest refugee group in history; and its deplorable environmental program, a platform for the most appalling lies about the climate.
We have the final years of the Roosevelt administration for the creation of the United Nations as World War Two wound down. The failure of the League of Nations to prevent the war should have been sufficient reason not to go down that path again, but perhaps it was seen as the very reason to create a new, international organization to prevent wars?
By Jim Kouri
(Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton made headlines on Monday with a display of being close to tears while she campaigned in New Hampshire. Her friends in the media especially those on CNN attempted to put a positive spin on her demeanor. Perhaps Americans should refresh their memories of Bill and Hillary Clinton as more state primaries and caucuses occur.)
Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton once again displayed how she can talk out of both sides of her mouth depending on whom she’s addressing. For example, in New York City, Senator Clinton in a blatant her attempt to re-invent herself, told a cheering crowd that the United States had to protect our borders and deal with illegal immigration.
But, according to the Washington Times, Clinton and her fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which would have funded 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.
According to NewsMax, the former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted on her official Senate Web site. NewMax quoted Madam Hillary as saying, "This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security." In the past she has repeatedly claimed to be "adamantly against illegal immigrants."
Yet Senator Clinton and her liberal-left comrades voted against border security enhancements, once again displaying her propensity for double-speak. Meanwhile, Senator Schumer’s explanation — once you cut through all the bull — is that there’s just not enough pork in such a bill for New York, since states such as California, Texas and Arizona stand to gain increased funding to control the borders.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, does what she does best: refuses to comment on her actions. She’s probably once again studying the situation to see how she feels about it, a familiar Democrat Party trick to avoid telling the American people what she really believes.
Clinton, like so many in her party, attempts to appear as if she’s a national-security hawk. The reality is these Democrats are trying once again to pull the wool over American’s eyes. It’s a strategy the Democrats tried when they ran John Kerry for president. They spent a lot of capital to build up Kerry as a war hero who would fight a better terrorism war, when in fact Kerry was nothing more than a recycled war protester and propaganda master.
The mainstream news media tried as best they could to explain the Massachusetts Senator’s inconsistancies by saying his replies were "nuanced." If so, then Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton is the Queen of Nuance.
By Jim Kouri
Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs, are a great asset to the Democrat Party and the news media. The liberals know they have little if any credibility, therefore when they wish to make a point they mention that Republicans also want what they want.
But by Republicans they mean RINOs. Democrats believe Iraq is another Vietnam? Well, so does Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Democrats are fearful that a Justice Alito may overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, so does Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee. The Democrats fear we might be "abusing" terrorists? Well so does Senator John McCain
Another example of RINOism is the breaking news by Matt Drudge and the New York Sun that after 10 years and over $23 million dollars the Independent Counsel investigation into Clinton Administration officials who may have used the IRS to intimidate or investigate threats to the Bill Clinton.
According to the Drudge Report, in Monday’s edition of the New York Sun, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., gave readers a first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett.
The Sun outlines the reports details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involved former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.
The Sun revealed that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration initiated investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington. Also, there were investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel’s evidence.
The full report, more than 400 pages, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am. However, what’s in those 100 pages that we won’t see?
Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day. That’s understandable since they are hypocrites of the first order. However, where are the Republican outcries over this continued cover-up?
Senate Slaps American People in the Face—Again by Sher Zieve
The Democrat-run Senate has provided We-the-People with yet another example of its aversion to the will of US citizens. Despite the fact that the American people, in overwhelming numbers, told both Houses of Congress that they did not and do not want any Amnesty Bill for any illegal aliens—the Senate is determined to pass one. Now Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and his pro-illegal-invasion bunch are working diligently to push through the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act. This is the same bill that provides the receipt of benefits for illegal aliens’ "children" that are either not provided or are far greater than the benefits provided for US citizens’ children.
Note: It now seems almost impossible to count on our elected officials to actually uphold any laws with which they disagree or those that will not promote their political and personal agenda and ambitions. It is also becoming seemingly hopeless to even remotely believe that either Democrats or RINOs are listening any longer to the majority of the US electorate. This is the same US Congress that still patently refuses to build any fence to protect our US southern borders.
by Sher Zieve
Just when we thought Congress could not become more demented—it has. As the Democrat-run Senate and House of Representatives are experiencing their lowest approval rating in recent recorded history (Zogby polling ranks said approval at only 14%), with the stroke of 2 pens Democrat leaders have removed provisions from legislation that would have protected US citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorist activities. This is the latest addition to the ever growing Democrat Death Wish List that its leaders have been preparing since taking Congressional leadership in 2006. In this latest fiasco, leader of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stripped out the provision that would have allowed limited immunity for reports of witnessed suspicious behavior. Reps. Peter King’s (R-NY) and Steve Pearce (R-NM) had drafted the ‘John Doe Protection Amendment’ after the infamous Flying Imams simulated airline hijacking behaviors.
Now that the Democrats have deleted and destroyed any protections for US citizens who would report potential terrorist activities, the terrorists are free to pursue their evil intent and mission with full support from the Democrat Congress. Suffice it to say, we-the-people had no participation in this suicide pact decision. Congressman Steve Pearce commented that the Democrats had to make a choice as to "whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists" and Rep.
King noted: "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward!–more–>, and it caves in to radical Islamists." And, in true Democrat anti-American/anti-we-the-people fashion Congressional Democrats chose the terrorists’ side. As was to be expected, both the ACLU and CAIR (the pro-Hamas Council on American-Islamic Relations) are thrilled by this patently insane decision.
Note: This is what the 2006 Congressional elections have wrought. Instead of only appeasing our enemies, the MoveOn.org Democrat leaders are now actively working for the Islamist terrorist enemies. House and Senate Democrats have now overtly—and with no apologies to the American people—taken another huge step toward effectively handing the United States of America over to the terrorists. Their suicide treaty is almost complete. Is there anyone out there who still remembers when these sorts of behaviors were considered treason?
With the Democrats’ new absence of fear of anyone stopping their treachery, they have now been unleashed to do whatever it takes to end this country. This is not an exaggeration. In fact, considering the dire consequences of the Democrats’ pro-terrorist vote, it is an understatement. Much the same as our US Border Patrol Agents now fear reprisal for doing their jobs—Agents Ramos and Compean are bearing the brunt of pro-illegals obsessive US Attorney prosecutions—the American people must now face lawsuits or even jail if they report suspicious potential terrorist activity! What in the name of any common sense—at all—is going on with our ostensible ‘leaders’? Have they finally, completely and irrevocably lost their minds? Do they believe they have a God-given right to support the enemies of humanity—whoever and whatever they are? Note: I do not believe God condones anti-human behavior. Or is it that our leaders have sunk into some dark abyss and are forcing the American people to join them and participate in their own self-destruction?
As was the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty bill, the John Doe Protection Amendment is a non-partisan issue. All of us—Republican, Democrat and Independent—are impacted by not being allowed to report probable terrorist activities. If we don’t, we and our loved ones could very likely die. If we do, we are now being told by Congressional leaders that if we do so we could face financial ruin, jail time or both. If this doesn’t make sense to you, contact your Senators and House Representatives and advise them that your life is worth at least as much as are theirs. You might also tell them that if they do not resuscitate the John Doe Amendment and continue to vote against your right to self-protection, they will be voted out of office. By the way, has anyone out there considered using the public’s right to recall rogue elected officials?
This latest insane anti-US citizen protection decision badly and possibly irreversibly impacts the American people—directly. Is this any way to run a county? No. But, it is the most flagrant and definitive pronouncement, yet, to end it.
References:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=942668
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
http://www.freeborderagents.com/
Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
(Alexandria, VA) — The persistence of red ink in the federal budget didn't deter most House Members from spending more on red-ink pens, travel, computers, and other items to run their own Capitol Hill and district offices, according to a long-awaited study from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). A comprehensive analysis by NTU, the only one of its kind, provides detailed comparative figures on individual lawmakers and reveals that overall House office expenses exceeded $525 million in 2005 — representing a 20 percent rise from the year 2001.
"Anyone who wonders why Congress can't seem to get a grip on wasteful spending in the federal budget should examine House Members' careless handling of their own office budgets," said NTU Senior Counselor and project manager David Keating. "Not only have House offices largely failed to do any belt-tightening during a time of deficits, their reporting methods are fraught with errors and 'adjustments' made as much as two years after the fact."
It is for the latter reason that NTU's confidence in the reliability of House data could only be extended to calendar years 2005 and prior. In the first half of 2006 alone, every lawmaker reported at least one adjustment to their 2005 office expense data, adding up to $27.4 million for the whole House.
Perhaps more egregious, 36 House Members' records for postage contained errors, most of them for reporting more expenditures on postage for mass mailings than for all postage combined. "This is mathematically impossible," Keating noted, "leaving taxpayers to wonder if the inaccurate reports are being filed to avoid disclosure." Study findings include:
- House Members spent $525.01 million on their offices in 2005, a 4.7 percent rise compared to 2004. However, since 2001, the overall total has risen 19.8 percent (from $438.3 million). The average Representative's office outlay was roughly $1.2 million in 2005, although each office is issued a different "Members' Representational Allowance" (MRA) based on factors such as population within the district, prevailing rents, and the district's distance from Washington, DC.