Assigning Blame in Mexico’s Failed War: A President’s Ideology Meets Reality

18 Saturday May 2013

Posted by maryramirez in The Obama Presidency, Capitalism, Mexico, Economy

Tags

Barack Obama, Mexico, Ronald Reagan, Glenn Beck, Los Zetas, Border Patrol, Gun Control, Hugo Chavez, Margaret Thatcher, Enrique Pena Nieto, Merida Iniative, PRI, PAN, El Chapo, Pablo Escobar, La Familia, Censo 2010, Securing Borders, Jaime Zapata, Brian Terry, Fast and Furious, Fox News, Megyn Kelly, Simon Rosenberg, Mexico City, Mikhail Gorbachev

In the popular flick Marley & Me, the protagonist’s friend—a fellow journalist—is sent to Colombia for to write a piece on the drug trafficking, because he’s got a guy that can “put him next to Pablo Escobar.” Pablo Escobar, as you may know, was the infamously violent Colombian drug warlord that put his nation on the map for all the wrong reasons. That was the eighties, and the distance between the nearest U.S. border and Bogota is over a thousand miles. Fast-forward a generation, and you’ve got men like Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman—now worth billions; possibly even more than Escobar—running the country with which we share a border in the same ruthless, violent, terroristic manner that once made Escobar infamous.

The Mexican drug war has raged on now for over 6 years, with a price tag of over 60,000 human lives. A few days ago, President Obama went to Mexico to meet with newly-inaugurated president Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI Party to discuss economic and safety issues, especially as it pertains to the ongoing fight against the powerful cartels. They held a joint press conference during which our president managed to refer to Peña Nieto by his first name, praise a non-existent “new prosperity” (a comment which even had Mexicans scratching their heads), and blamed the U.S. for Mexico’s violent woes. In sum: we’ve got the guns and we smoke the pot.

In his own words (emphasis mine):

“ In the United States, we recognize our responsibilities as well. We understand that the root cause of much of the violence here—and so much suffering for many Mexicans— is the demand for illegal drugs, including in the United States. Now, I do not believe that legalizing drugs is the answer; instead, I believe in a comprehensive approach—not just law enforcement, but education, prevention and treatment. And we’re going to keep at it—because the lives of our children and the future of our nations depend on it.

We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States. In America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms, and as President I swore an oath to uphold that right—and I always will. At the same time, as I’ve said back home, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common sense gun reforms that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people—reforms that will save lives in both our countries. Meanwhile, we’ll keep increasing the pressure on the gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico, and we’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong—behind bars.”

Are we responsible for the violence in Mexico? Maybe- but not in the manner one might think, and certainly not in the way the president meant.

“We understand that the root cause of much of the violence here—and so much suffering for many Mexicans— is the demand for illegal drugs, including in the United States.”

Do Americans consume Marijuana? Absolutely. In fact, despite the reality that we aren’t the highest per capita consumer (that honor goes to Palau, according the U.N.’s World Drug Report 2012), the cost of the drugs is what really drives the violence. No human being in his or her right mind would plug into such a violent world if the take-away wasn’t lucrative enough. The cartels have a monopoly on the price because they have a monopoly on the goods. Joe American pays top dollar for a bag of weed in exchange for a reduction in his overall risk. By acting only as a consumer, his risk is reduced to the possibility of getting caught consuming the illicit drug, and not also producing and selling it. Plus, he’s not running the drugs through the violent deserts of northern Mexico to his home. The cartels take on that burden . . . at quite the cost. Mexico, like so many of its Central and South American counterparts—has been for generations deeply mired down by the corruption of despotic leaders, which has destroyed free enterprise and collapsed any possible chance at real economies. Is it any wonder that so many Mexicans have balked at the idea of their nation’s paltry average annual income and instead have joined ranks with the highly-profitable drug trade made possible by the open borders this president refuses to address and by the weapons his administration ran? The attractiveness of the drug trade will remain as such—in part—as long as the economic situation for so much of Mexico’s population remains the same, and this situation will remain the same as long as there is no commitment to dealing with the wholesale corruption that ravages Mexican politics, and in turn stifles opportunity in the private sector. Do all Mexicans live in poverty? Hardly. But consider this- one’s chances of making it past the income averages are sparse. Maintaining a decent standard of living depends heavily on the level of education that one has. According to the 2010 Mexican census, the percentage of Mexico’s emerging adult generation (ages 25-29) that has some level of higher education is just slightly over 24%–which means that 66% of the next generation will approach their adult lives with only a high school degree or lower. It’s easy to understand why the drug trade is so deliciously attractive for those who will otherwise scrape by with little more than a grade school education. When one must choose between eating and attending school, the choice is obvious.

To be blunt, there is absolutely no reason why Mexico shouldn’t be a first world country. The people are bright and hardworking, the natural resources are plentiful, and the opportunities for growth and innovation are certainly not absent. As noted, few people can afford to attend college, and those who graduate face limited options in a stagnate market. Corrupt, despotic government stifles growth, and by default it makes highly lucrative drug trade exceptionally enticing. The market for it IS there, and the prices are high. Why not?

This brings up a tumultuous topic—the legalization of marijuana. Be it duly noted that this blog does not necessarily support the concept, particularly on moral grounds; however, the idea that legalization could reduce the cost of the drugs (thus reduce the lucrative nature of the trade) is certainly enticing. Needless to see our education campaigns haven’t worked. Something’s got to change somehow—that something remains to be discovered.

Regardless of our current approach to drug consumption, what should enrage the president is not just that his people consume marijuana (what country doesn’t have drug consumption problem at some level?), but that the cartels to the south all but run his border and introduce the drugs en masse into his country. Drug running certainly wouldn’t stop entirely with the onset of a highly-secured border, but it would certainly make the lives of those trying to do it quite a bit more difficult. And, with each drug-runner caught a message is sent to Latin America: We will not tolerate these practices. Today, our borders are porous, illegal aliens are welcomed with open arms, and nary more than a slap on the wrist is given to those caught.

Moreover, Barack Obama and other world leaders continue to prop up—either by openly supporting or refusing to denounce them— Latin American leaders who do nothing but destroy economies with the very same collectivist approach the President so embraces. (To be certain, when one sends a 4 person delegation to Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez’s funeral and sends no one to our long-standing ally Margaret Thatcher’s . . . what does that say to the world?) He has spent his professional career applauding the very policies that put Mexico’s people in the precise financial straits in which they currently reside.

Consider this for a moment: many believe that the primary difference between the United States’ history and that of Central and South America lies in the kind of founding each place had. The United States was founded primarily by people who wished to live freely; people who wished to escape some form of oppression in their home countries. Central and South America were founded primarily by people in search of gold, and other valuable resources. To be certain, many came to North America on similar ventures, but this wasn’t the core driving force behind the founding. In sum, one nation was founded upon the quest for freedom; the others were founded on a quest for money. The quest bred terrible corruption, which continued to expand and unfold in many forms throughout the years. Mexico is certainly not excluded in this. It may not be Venezuela, but its leadership is highly corrupt. Understand this- the drug trade did not start 6 years ago. It was challenged for the first time 6 years ago. For years, corrupt politicians turned their backs to the problem, while subtlety extending their hands to receive payment for their silence. Felipe Calderon of the PAN party was the first to ever do anything about it. In 2008, the Merida Initiative was launched by the U.S. government to aid Calderon’s efforts against the cartels . . . and while this multi-pronged approach (training, weapons, etc.) sounds noble, its 1.6 billion dollar price tag has done precious little to curb the activities. Mexico’s corruption runs deep, and it’s hardly something that can be changed overnight . . . especially by an administration that demotes at every turn the very founding that sets us apart from Latin America, and applauds leadership that continues to dig into more of the same. We can throw all the weapons we want at Mexico, but as long as Mexico’s government remains wholly corrupt, this aid will do little good.

We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States . . . Meanwhile, we’ll keep increasing the pressure on the gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico, and we’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong—behind bars.”

There’s exactly one obvious, glaring response to this statement: Operation Fast and Furious. For those unaware, Fast and Furious was a gun-running operation propagated by the Obama administration in an effort to allow guns to fall into the hands of Mexicans to then be smuggled across the border into Mexico. The guns were to be tracked; some assume for purposes of propping up the need for gun control legislation. Many of the guns ended up at horrendously bloody crime scenes south of the border. In addition to a surge in cartel violence while the operation was in play, some of the guns were used to kill Americans—Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, respectively. Thanks to an incurious media, this operation’s handlers would have gone largely ignored, save for the inquisitive questions posed by some at Fox News and radio host-turned television channel entrepreneur Glenn Beck. Despite the president’s stern words to Mexico’s press about “putting criminals were they belong,” he’s still president, and Attorney General Eric Holder & company has yet to be prosecuted.

The Monday following the Mexico City speech, Simon Rosenberg, founder of the think tank The New Democratic Network, went on Fox News with Megyn Kelly to discuss the point the president made about guns in Mexico. In that interview, he claimed that all guns are illegal in Mexico. While this statement was categorically false, nonetheless the reality of gun acquisition in Mexico is vital to understand. Private, legal acquisition of guns in Mexico is EXTREMELY difficult. One can purchase guns from the military, and in Mexico City only. As the Washington Post puts it, “a citizen who wants a permit for a weapon must apply to the Mexican military — a process that can cost upward of $10,000. Then they pay to have the permit renewed annually. The military further regulates the caliber of weapon, how many guns a person can own, how much ammunition they can buy each month, and where in the country they can take the weapon.”

In effect, there is but ONE gun store in the entire country. Keep in mind that the average household income in Mexico is approximately $139,740 pesos, or around $11,000 USD. This amounts to some pretty serious gun control. Despite this, gun related deaths in Mexico are some of the highest in the world. The cartels certainly aren’t fighting with air rifles. From where do the guns come, you ask? The black market. Whether it’s a Fast and Furious facilitation or other underground, under-the-radar sources, the guns are getting in, and they are being used in crimes. I don’t believe the president meant to draw such a comparison, but it is there nonetheless. Gun control doesn’t work . . . the criminals get the guns anyway . . . and the populous is left unarmed and defenseless. And oh yes, Barack Obama and his administration helped run some of those guns, and he thinks fairly highly of ultra-restrictive gun control.

Let’s recap.

The president claimed it was the demand for illegal drugs in the U.S. that drives the drug war. The reality? We smoke no more pot here in the U.S. than anywhere else, but the president’s lax approach to illegal immigration and the porous border certainly make for an easy sale; far easier a sale than to any of the top marijuana consumers worldwide. So, yes . . . one could say that the U.S. plays a role in the drug war. And it’s the president’s fault.

The president unequivocally stated that the U.S. is responsible for the flow of illegal guns into Mexico. For the first time—ever—this blog will agree with the president. After all, he did practically gift wrap them via Fast and Furious. What’s more, his reference to his gun control efforts sheds light on policies that—as Mexico’s tight gun control aptly illustrates—are abject failures. He stood in front of a populous which is essentially and out rightly denied the right to own a gun privately; a populous which has suffered under the violence of the cartels and their illegal guns . . . and told them he wants our country’s gun ownership just as restricted. In this sense the president is once again correct in placing blame on the United States. He supports the very same strict policies that Mexico has embrace, and these policies have led to uncontrollable violence. Thus, one could conclude, that this too is the United States’ fault, is it not?

Power respects power. Why did Reagan win the Cold War? Because he leaned over Mikhail Gorbachev’s shoulder at the Reykjavik Summit and stealthily whispered in his ear: “NYET.”

“NO.”

We cannot always positively influence what happens in other countries, and we certainly cannot control how other countries deal with their own corruption. What CAN be done, however, is two-fold. If you happen to be politically inclined, and blessed with the gift of public speaking and wise leadership, take up the calling and run within the Republican Party. Ascend the ranks to the point where your voice is a real influence in policy and make waves. If you are not so inclined, work for people who are. Work to get them elected, and support them while in office. Work to support leadership that is serious about our borders, and bold enough to stand up to any nation that has taken advantage of weakness like that of this President for far too long. Support leadership that’s willing to stand up in a joint press conference at the Palacio Nacional and be firm with Mexican leadership, even when it’s not easy. Support leadership that will lean over the shoulder of El Chapo; of La Familia; of Los Zetas . . . and firmly whisper, “NO MORE.” Only then will our nation—and frankly Mexico as well—see the violence slink away in the shadow of a strong America.

The North Metro Tea Party Patriots: A New Home

16 Thursday May 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Founding Principles, Freedom, The Tea Party

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Benghazi, Boston, Brad Brandon, Dave Benner, Jake Duesenberg, Jake Rogers, Mason Landborg, Michele Bachmann, North Metro Tea Party Patriots, Obamacare Repeal, OCE, Senator Dave Thompson, Ted Cruz, The East Metro Tea Party Patriots, The Mermaid

Just over a month ago, the North Metro Tea Party Patriots (NMTPP) found themselves quite homeless, when the restaurant which had graciously served as their gathering place had to sell to new ownership.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and Jack Rogers, the NMTPP President soon found his group taken in by the equally patriotic ownership at The Mermaid of Mounds View. As the old saying goes, “when one door closes, another opens;” this “door” happens to be a much bigger, more ample room with space enough for twice as many NMTPP attendees. As it would happen, that’s precisely how many people showed up for a re-launch night filled with speakers of all ages and backgrounds, with a keynote given by a dear friend of the NMTPP—none other than Representative Michele Bachmann herself. While the NMTPP expected 200, over 400 people arrived at The Mermaid that evening to learn, be encouraged, and get excited all over again about this great nation.

Photo Courtesy of NMTPP

Launched by a rousing invocation given by Pastor Brad Brandon, the room then heard from a representative of the newly-formed East Metro Tea Party Patriots—Jake Duesenberg—who shared with the room Conservatism’s answer to Nancy Pelosi’s election strategy war rooms: The Traveling Tea Party Toolkit. This toolkit, which consists of a trailer, microphones, a podium, and other basic presentation material, is meant to be easily portable from town to town, to facilitate the sharing the common-sense message of small government and fiscal responsibility in towns where formal meeting rooms may not be an option.

Jake Duesenberg (Photo Courtesy of NMTPP)

Bucking the notion that the Tea Party sends young people packing, the group was graced by the message of two young men—Dave Benner and Mason Landborg, respectively. Benner debunked the myth that Thomas Jefferson’s reiteration of the separation of church and state was meant to keep the church out of the state. In minutes, he explained several hundred years of English and American history leading up to the real separation; that is, that the state was to stay out of the church. Landborg, a high school student from Blaine, bravely stood in front of several hundred people and shared his frustrations with the one-sidedness he experiences daily from those meant to be educating young minds, not brainwashing them. His favorite president? Ronald Reagan—a leader he says is wrongly remembered by his teachers as someone who cared only for the rich. This young man’s understanding of Reagan’s philosophy is far more inspirational and certainly more truthful. “We’re not supposed to be jealous,” said the young Landborg, “We’re supposed to strive!”

Mason Landborg (Photo Courtesy of NMTPP)

As unpretentious as ever, Representative Bachmann sat with the crowd as she listened to the speakers who came before her, beaming with pride at the group of patriots with which she was surrounded. This is a women who just months ago was running for the highest office in the nation; in reality, the highest office in the world, yet the experience left her untouched. This was no more apparent as she sat among friends at this local gathering. She is a little over five feet of pure enthusiasm and excitement about this country; all of which she took on stage when she came to speak about the Tea Party, news from Washington (which she jokingly refers to as “that town”) and encouraging words about the future.

(Photo Courtesy of NMTPP)

On Benghazi- Bachmann sits on the intelligence committee, and is privy to information most Americans will live a lifetime without knowing. Sharing what she could, Bachmann pointed out one simple fact: Despite what this administration has tried to tell us about its role in the military operations (or really, a lack thereof) in response to the terrorist attack, only ONE person can order the military across borders. This is a responsibility which cannot be delegate. Our Commander-in-Chief did nothing to help the doomed men in Benghazi.

On Boston- There’s a new change in the mindset of the FBI and the CIA. As Bachmann put it, there’s a sort of “willful blindness” to the reality of Islamic terror. So much so, that the FBI—in response to a letter from Muslim groups—removed all references to Islam and Islamic terror from its training manuals and from the vernacular of its instructors. After weeks of fighting to see a list of the references in question, Bachmann finally obtained them. To her surprise, the list contained nothing more than passages from the Koran, the Hadith, and other sources from which jihadists derive their inspiration . . . nothing more. Our intelligence departments are being coerced into blindfolding themselves against the terror that stares them right in the face—it’s no wonder that the Islamic Society of Boston (whose board members serve as the spiritual leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood) wasn’t investigated; that Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s overseas field trips were given little more than a passing glance; that such great lengths were taken to avoid labeling this attack as Islamic terror. Bachmann referenced Sun Tzu’s The Art of War when she asked, “How are we to know our enemy if we’re not allowed to NAME our enemy?”

On Elections- “Let’s get over it!” Bachmann encouraged when speaking of the “royal funk” we’ve all found ourselves after the reelection of the president who has overseen the worst decline since the Great Depression. As she pointed out, unemployment among Americans ages 18-34 is a whopping 45%; “how can we NOT have the youth vote?” Bachmann implored. We have a message of common sense principles that works, not because it sounds good, but because history shows us that it is successful. We simply must persevere, especially in the face of the back-door OCE (Office of Congressional Ethics) tactics manipulated by the puppet strings of Nancy Pelosi and George Soros, meant to bog down the efforts of champions for liberty like Bachmann. As Bachmann stood on that stage, she assured the crowd that she was there to stay, and there to fight for the fate of the nation.

On Obamacare- The repeal bill that Bachmann authored the night that the Affordable Care Act was passed is finally coming up for a vote. With increasing costs and difficulty sparking a mounting discontent with the law on both sides of the aisle, Bachmann is confident that the House can pass the bill. Ted Cruz, the rising-star first term Senator from Texas, holds the other half of the bill in the Senate. Referencing her favorite childhood book—The Little Engine That Could—Bachmann is optimistic.

Senator Dave Thompson (Photo Courtesy of NMTPP)

Senator Dave Thompson of the State Legislature soon took the stage, where he jokingly made reference to the difficulty of following a political superstar like Bachmann. Nonetheless, his message was equally inspiring. “I don’t see victims,” said Thompson, “I see people who have within them the seeds of greatness.” He highlighted an inherent characteristic in left-wing governing style; that is, that citizens are seen as incapable of making it on their own. We all remember well the now-infamous flippant comment from our President, “you didn’t build that!” Thompson refuted such an idea, pointing out that we all hear about our rights often, yet we hear so little about our responsibilities. It’s up to the people to make something of themselves, and to preserve a society which allows such perseverance. “This is a battle of the soul of the people,” said Thompson, a man who later revealed is considering a run for the state’s highest office. “Do you remember the movie The Music Man?” he asked, making reference to the scene in the 1962 flick where the young boy asks the protagonist whether or not there really was a band, to which the man answered, “There’s always a band, kid.” Thompson’s point? Things are tough right now. To be certain, we’ve seen grave losses at both the federal and state levels, with the ideals that once made this nation great being trampled underfoot. Despite this, however, there’s “always a band.” There’s always the ideal . . . and for that we fight.

Thatcherism Onward: A Road Map For Our Future

17 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Capitalism, Freedom, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, The Obama Presidency

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Barack Obama, Cold War, Great Britain, Jimmy Hoffa Jr., John Blundell, Labour Party, Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher Foundation, Mike Lee, Mona Charen, New Labour, Progressivism, Pter M. Vessenes, Rand Paul, Ronald Reagan, Sir John Banham, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Thatcherism, The Golden Rules of Capitalism, The Iron Lady

Just a few days ago, the world lost one of the foremost champions of conservative principles. She was a champion of personal liberty and real freedom—working to reverse decades of economic oppression and suffocating progressivism in her country—yet the attacks on her work were unrelenting. Despite countless efforts to curtail her work, she never gave up, and ultimately turned around the terrible consequences that were destroying her country. Today, there are some who rejoice in her death, and tirelessly work to reverse her accomplishments.

This is the story of a real feminist— this is Margaret Thatcher. Her achievements are lauded by the successes they produced. The conservative principles she espoused made real differences that brought her nation out of the doldrums, and saved her people from a collision course with utter failure. Under Thatcher’s watchful eye and discerning leadership:

Oppressive, stifling taxes were dramatically reduced, enticing the best and brightest to once again thrive in Great Britain.
Government-run industries were returned to private hands
Union thuggary was swiftly dealt with through common-sense reforms, lifting yet another dead weight around the neck of the British economy
Alongside Ronald Reagan, Communism was beaten back, ending a decades-long Cold War

As Thatcher neared the pinnacle of her career, Great Britain was stagnant and struggling following decades of big government through socialist Labour party rule. This same Labour party had dug the nation into one of its deepest holes. It was, as the Margaret Thatcher Foundation puts it, “one of the most crisis-prone in British history, leading the country to a state of virtual bankruptcy in 1976 when a collapse in the value of the currency on the foreign exchanges forced the government to negotiate credit from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).” Sir John Banham, the first controller of the Audit Commission that was put into place by Thatcher, recalls that “inflation was running riot, the unions were running the country and the only real question was how fast we were going to decline both economically and socially.”

Does this sound familiar? It should. Our current predicament also comes from years of liberal economic policies topped with a president farther to the left than any leader preceding him. Like Thatcher, who faced her own party of status-quo adherents unwilling to rock the boat, does our situation here not also stem from unprincipled politicians ungrounded in the bedrock of a successful philosophy? Mona Charen, in describing pre-Thatcher England puts it well, “Successive Labour (and spineless Tory) governments had delivered an economy close to collapse.”

In today’s America, we face our fifth straight year of high unemployment, a dwindling job market, a sluggish GDP, rising costs, skyrocketing debt, and burgeoning government. We are, at best, teetering on another recession. At worst, we could soon face a depression. With a projected 20 trillion dollar debt on the horizon, the outlook indeed looks bleak. So bleak, in fact, that many people doubt that this nation can ever recover its status as a world leader in economic and personal liberties. While sad, Thatcher’s death does serve to bring her once again to the forefront of our minds, as we consider that as she herself proved, big government can be quelled! It can be done. Our predicament, while historically unprecedented in its size and scope, isn’t too far removed from the disarray Great Britain faced before Thatcher.

Taxes, Overregulation and Stifling Government Control

The Great Britain that Thatcher confronted was one where taxes and regulations were putting a massive squeeze on the economic engines of society. And, much like our current situation today in the U.S., the tax codes were driving the most affluent to expatriate; taking with them their ability to inject cash flow into the struggling economy. Thatcher addressed this swiftly, putting a plug in the “brain and fame drain” that was so hurting the country’s potential. Under her watch, the top tax rate was reduced from 83% to 40%.

In the U.S. we are all too familiar with the oppressive and burdensome nature of too many regulations over to many aspects of our lives. As of last year alone, the U.S. federal government has approximately 160,000 pages of regulation, including criminal offenses so numerous in detail that “the American Bar Association says it would be futile to even attempt to estimate the total.” By the end of 2012, 76,875 new pages of federal regulations were added. We’re just over 3 months into 2013, and we’ve already seen 19,362 new pages of regulations added to the registry. This, of course, is in addition to any state or local regulations additionally imposed.

Today, the U.S. government is in the business of picking winners and losers in the business world—effectively taking over certain industry sectors. Thatcher faced even more overt government control over businesses and industries, much of which she was able to promptly privatize. As John Blundell puts it, “She returned scores of state enterprises to the private sector; these lumbering, subsidy guzzling embarrassments were transformed into nimble, profit-making, taxpaying, world-class companies so much so her privatization policy was copied around the world.”

Union Strongholds

Thatcher faced stiff opposition from the unions; unions that had moved past their original purpose and instead sucked the life out of growth and innovation. Mona Charen continues, “During the “winter of discontent” in 1978–79, strikes by public employees had crippled public services. Pickets blocked the entrances to hospitals, and only those suffering emergencies were permitted entry. Railway workers and truck drivers disrupted transportation. Trash accumulated on the streets as sanitation workers walked off the job. Bodies accumulated in morgues as gravediggers joined the strikes, prompting officials to discuss burial at sea for the mounting piles of corpses.” Thatcher didn’t budge. It is recorded that when asked about her greatest achievement, Thatcher responded with “New Labour.” Indeed, she made impressive strides in curbing the excessive power that the unions held over the workforce and the economy. Her reforms brought many changes, including requiring ballots to be held before a strike, and a push similar to “right to work” which reined in the concept of the “closed shop.”

Back across the pond in the U.S., the raucous displays in both Wisconsin and Michigan by angered union members unwilling to discuss reform; or the vitriolic howls for unions to “fight a war against Republicans” from Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa Jr. remind us that big union strongholds on this nation’s economy and political process are alive and well.

Foreign Affairs

Unlike our current administration’s often apologetic approach and somewhat timid stance in the face of increasingly bold world bullies, Thatcher was “Iron” abroad as she was at home. She and Ronald Reagan—a man who can easily be described as her ideological twin—were able to guide the world through the Cold War without actual war. She and Reagan won because they stood firm on the principle that communism was inherently evil and terribly destructive to society—this they backed up with an unwavering belief that the military is a vital investment one never hopes to use. Backed up by the Peace through Strength policy of her American counterpart, Thatcher maintained a primed and ready military force pointed straight back at the threats that faced her. Thatcher didn’t bluff—Thatcher was fearless.

Common Sense & Conviction

Thatcher managed her government like a housewife manages the affairs of her household. She employed logical, sound, common sense principles without which any household would doubtless fail. To be sure, the results of her leadership didn’t initially resemble a walk in the park. Nonetheless, Thatcher wasn’t afraid to make her nation take the bitter medicine it so desperately needed to avoid the she knew it would otherwise face. Not surprisingly, the pains that Great Britain went through in her first term pushed even those in her own party to seek a shift in tactic. Her response to those who sought to make her compromise was plain: “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” She was unwavering. And it worked. As the New York Times recalls, “Her policies revitalized British business, spurred industrial growth and swelled the middle class.”

Margaret Thatcher personified the art of statesmanship, which is about more than being able to defy the winds of compromise. She didn’t simply plant her feet in the ground and say “no;” she had a plan based upon proven principles—she moved forward on all fronts. With these values solidly at her side, and with a love of country strong enough to deflect the ensuing criticism, Baroness Thatcher pressed on.

Thatcherism: Today and Into Tomorrow

Sadly, the Great Britain that Thatcher raised up is hardly recognizable today. Much to the chagrin of so many who place blame for its current predicaments on the principles to which Thatcher relentlessly adhered, it is in fact a departure from those principles which has cause its downfall once again. Great Britain and the U.S. alike have gone right back to the old habits of reckless spending, burgeoning government that Thatcher—and her American counterpart Ronald Reagan—worked so hard to defeat.

A few bright spots in an otherwise dim Washington D.C. give us hope that another Margaret Thatcher—perhaps to carry on where Reagan left off—can rise and lead this nation to greatness once again. Names such as Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz come to mind among a few others; both are individuals willing to buck the inside-the-beltway status quo in order to preserve our freedoms. Time and again they’ve proved themselves on this front; most recently, one stood for hours on end defending our Constitutional right to a trial by jury while certain colleagues dined with the President; the other openly berated a fellow member of his party for his concerning lack of understanding surrounding our nation’s enemies. Most importantly, both appear to be unrelentingly in their dedication to the common-sense, limited government principles that Thatcher and Reagan espoused; the very same principles that made us great.

Will it be easy? Hardly . . . especially since this country faces many inside and outside of government that have become quite comfortable with “Washington Inc.” (see “The Golden Rules of Capitalism”) and the “painless life” it claims to offer. Sadly, it’s often those WITHIN Washington Inc. who are living on Easy Street, while regular citizens struggle to stay afloat. Yet despite this obvious discrepancy, our society has been programmed to blame capitalism and the principles of small government, thanks to decades of propagating a false definition of the same; while what they’re really blaming is the very unfair nature of BIG government and collectivist economics that Margaret Thatcher sought to combat in Great Britain.

Margaret Thatcher’s trail blazing leadership proved that the seemingly impossible IS possible, if we—both politicians and voters—hold firmly to tried-and-true common sense ideals. This isn’t rocket science. To be certain, Margaret Thatcher’s ideas weren’t new and improved. In fact, they weren’t extraordinary . . . no more so than the common sense we use to run our daily lives. The results they produced, however, WERE extraordinary in the face of such a dismal state of affairs, and it can happen again. We must simply, as Thatcher so famously did, stand firm, because we KNOW what works, and we certainly know what doesn’t.

While our president openly snubs Baroness Thatcher (and in turn, our greatest ally) by refusing to send an official delegation to her funeral today—never mind that he just sent one to Hugo Chavez’s—we must work to preserve the principles she fought so hard to put in place, both in Great Britain and frankly, around the world. We do this by being educated citizens, fluent in the language of our country and our world´s history, and with our eyes wide open to the content of the character of the leaders we put in office. It can be done . . . we just have to be fearless and unceasing in our efforts to restore America.

For helpful guidelines when vetting a candidate at any level of leadership, see The Golden Barometer as found in The Golden Rules of Economics by Peter M. Vessenes.

Militants, Movies, and Radicalism in America

06 Saturday Apr 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Freedom, Occupy Wall Street, Radicalism, Socialism

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Chicago, Columbia University, Communism, Days of Rage, Fidel Castro, Kathy Boudin, Northwestern University, Rahm Emanuel, right-wing troglodyte, SDS, Socialism, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, Vietnam War, Weather Underground

What do Robert Redford and a couple of big name universities have in common with Domestic Terrorists?

As it so happens, one is hiring them; the other is making movies about them.

The movie, entitled “The Company You Keep,” film stars Robert Redford as a former Weather Underground militant hiding his identity from the FBI. Redford also directed the film.

Weather Underground was the 1960′s version of Occupy Wall Street (OWS), except instead of whining in tents on the streets of New York, causing disruption, and defecating on police cars, this group meant business. Much like OWS, students also launched this group. Similarly, these students hailed primarily from the crème de la crème of American education institutes. With a deep-seeded hatred for the U.S. involvement in Vietnam coupled with a passion for Communism, the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) decided to solve their frustrations . . . with violence. They formed a group–Weather Underground– and not unlike a cult, as The New York Times records, they separated “into collectives of 10 to 20 persons each, they attempted to create what they called a ‘Red Army.’ One Weatherman would later tell me that in order to rid the members of their bourgeois habits, the collectives forced couples to separate, required homosexuality, drug taking and round-the-clock sessions of self-criticism. One time, they skinned and ate an alley cat. My contact, thin, trembling and glassy-eyed, said that the houses were full of dirty dishes, rancid food and stinking toilets. Often rising at dawn, they would practice karate, train at rifle clubs, and enact scenarios to work out how they would grapple with police and where they would kick them.”

Time Magazine continues, “they moved into collectives, practiced forced sexual rotation, took weapons training, and planned attacks on the wealthy and powerful.” And attack, they did. From bombing the Pentagon, Army recruiting stations and the U.S. Capitol among others, to staging the Days of Rage in Chicago, the group was militaristic and guerrilla-like and they meant serious business.

At one point, a group of SDS members traveled to Cuba to learn from one of Communism’s most infamous leaders, Fidel Castro. One member of the SDS group had quite the connection to the Castro regime- her father, a lawyer and a self-proclaimed Marxist, provided legal counsel to the Cuban dictator.

A founding member of the group was William Ayers, a man whose relationship with the president was the subject of great scrutiny during the 2008 election. It was, after all, Mr. Ayers with whom Barack Obama crossed paths many times early on in his political career; even attending a gathering in Ayers’ own home. In addition, Obama sat on several boards that “granted nearly $2 million dollars to Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop.” Whether or not Ayers directly guided Obama’s career is still somewhat unclear, but the societal circles in which the two men found themselves certainly suggests that at minimum the president was sympathetic to his overarching ideology.

Obama understandably tried to distance himself from the former Weather Underground radical, excusing away his actions by virtue of the fact that they happened a long, long time ago. “…somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.” the president is quoted as saying. So, with this we are to understand that Bill Ayers has rejected his radical past?

Not surprisingly, the president lost the support of the wholly unrepentant domestic terrorist, who recently sent the president a fairly stern letter. . . because apparently he’s just not left-wing enough. The mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel (former Obama White House Chief of Staff) received similar criticisms in an interview during which Ayers calls Emanuel a “right-wing troglodyte.” In other words, the very left-wing Rahm is a conservative living out of touch with reality.

Despite Ayers’ violent past, he somehow evaded any significant consequences and instead found himself back in the upper echelon of the education system from whence he came . . . among other things teaching at the University of Illinois in Chicago. His wife, fellow Weather Underground bomber Bernardine Dohrn. is raising the next generation critical thinking American voters over at Northwestern University. Dohrn, as infamous as her husband and their fellow radical friends for their roles in domestic terrorism, was once quoted expressing sheer elation at the thought of Charles Manson’s murder victims: “First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the pig Tate’s stomach! Wild!” Today, Dohrn lectures on—among other things—“international human rights.”

Somehow, despite these and many other such displays of hatred and violence, Robert Redford’s promotional interviews highlight a “more than sympathetic” view of the radicals’ modus operandi. In fact, in one such interview he shares that he empathized with the Weathermen, and that he “was very much for what was going on.” While Robert Redford probably won’t see any consequences for his outspoken beliefs (we do, after all, have 1^st Amendment Rights), how has Bill Ayer’s able to avoid to evade serious consequences in spite of his active role in the terror? Despite this, he did hit a bit of a bump in the road when, after retiring, the University of Illinois refused to grant him emeritus faculty status.

Why? “. . .after trustees Chairman Christopher Kennedy objected to Ayers’ book dedicated to, among others, the man who killed Kennedy’s father, Robert F. Kennedy,” they found it prudent to withhold the honor. Ironically enough though, the university didn’t find it prudent to withhold the job Ayers held in the first place. Not to worry, however, as Ayers will not be without professional gain. The University of Minnesota has recently bestowed upon him the title of “Visiting Scholar.”

A few hundred miles away, another Weather Underground terrorist—Kathy Boudin—recently scored a job at one of the nation’s more prestigious schools, Columbia University. Boudin happened to appreciate Bernadine Dohrn’s Manson commentary so well that she and another Weatherman began referring to themselves as “The Fork.”

Columbia seems to possess an affinity for hiring proponents of terror; students there were once treated to a speech by none other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While despicable, at least the students (and the parents paying their way) knew what they were getting when the university presented Ahmadinejad as a speaker. With Dr. Kathy Boudin, however, the information available to current and prospective students is a little fuzzier. Ms. Boudin, who was convicted of the 1981 Brinks Truck robbery which resulted in three deaths, is described as follows:

“Dr. Kathy Boudin has been an educator and counselor with experience in program development since 1964, working within communities with limited resources to solve social problems, and supporting individuals to overcome their own odds and develop a sense of strength and direction. Dr. Boudin has focused her work on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and criminal justice issues including women in prison; mother-child relationships and parenting from a distance; adolescent relationships with incarcerated parents; restorative justice, and higher education and basic literacy inside correctional institutions.

Dr. Boudin is employed by the Center for Comprehensive Care, HIV AIDS Center, at St. Lukes Roosevelt Hospital where she is developing programs related to health care for people who are HIV Positive and counseling patients individually and in groups. She is currently a consultant to the Osborne Association in the development of a Longtermers Responsibility Project taking place in the New York State Correctional Facilities utilizing a restorative practice approach. Dr. Boudin also has been a consultant for Vermont Corrections, the Women’s Prison Association, and Family Justice. She has provided training and supervision to social workers as they work with individual people in prison. She received her Ed.D. from Columbia University, Teachers College.”

It seems that Columbia has found it acceptable to refer to a violent past as “working within communities with limited resources to solve social problems, and supporting individuals to overcome their own odds and develop a sense of strength and direction” these days.

Ms. Boudin, pictured here with Ayers and Dohrn, will be working as an assistant professor at the Columbia School of Social Work:

It just so happens that yesterday, Robert Redford’s “The Company You Keep” was released in select theaters across the country. While preserving history is certainly part of an admirable purpose cinema can serve; Redford’s personal sentiments certainly indicate far more than a desire to bring history to the silver screen. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Redford expands upon his admitted personal admiration for the Weather Underground terrorists:

ROBERT REDFORD: … When I was younger, I was very much aware of the movement. I was more than sympathetic, I was probably empathetic because I believed it was time for a change. Whether that change was a revolution or not, I don’t know. But I was very much for what was going on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even when you read about bombings?

REDFORD: All of it. I knew that it was extreme and I guess movements have to be extreme to some degree. Years later I thought this is an interesting story but we’re too close to it and I thought, when this gets– when we get some distance from this so that we can look back on it as a piece of American history then I might be interested and now that’s the time. So that’s why I decided to make it now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you come out of the experience with the same kinds of empathy that you had going in?

REDFORD: Yeah, I’ve bled a little for those that look back and realize what they did in their youth when they were full of passion and intensity that subsides over time. But the only thing that sticks is the thrill of that moment, the thrill of that movement when they were committing all of themselves to something they believed in.

“Empathetic” towards the actions of people who kept company with Fidel Castro, praised Charles Manson, and bombed the Pentagon? The “thrill” of the movement in which innocent people died at the hands of still-unrepentant murderers? While Redford brushes off this behavior as nothing more than the fiery passions of youth, remember- the members discussed here today have yet to repent for their deadly actions, and instead continue to propagate the same radical ideals in America’s education system.

Have we become so numb as culture that the actions of domestic terrorists have become nothing more than nostalgic “freedom-fighting” lore of days gone by? Have we become so deadened to radicalism that the fact that our now-president openly worked with and supported the work of none other than Bill Ayers?

Rather than gracing Redford’s quasi-tribute to Weather Underground with your presence, spend the ninety minutes to research the professors at the universities and colleges where your children plan to or currently attend.

To be sure, freedom of speech and the freedom to believe as one chooses is part of who we are. Despite this, ideologies that call for the death of fellow Americans and the violent destruction of our institutions simply cannot be tolerated, and their eradication is imperative if our nation’s future is to remain secure.

We must raise the next generation of Americans to recognize people like Bill Ayers, Bernandine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin for the unrepentant terrorists they are; only then can the quiet spread of their violent radicalism be staved off for good.

Correcting the Debate: Civil Rights and Homosexuality in America

29 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Freedom

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Civil Rights, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Jim Crow, LGBT, Mildred Jeter, Richard Loving, SCOTUS

It’s been called the “Civil Rights” debate of our generation. The Supreme Court’s nine members are once again at the heart of the news, as they discuss two laws that could forever impact the country. Both address gay marriage. At present the Court is hearing arguments on two major cases dealing with this critical issue.

The first case addresses Proposition 8, a provision to the California State Constitution which dealt with an activist state court’s decision legislate from the bench. The court had ruled that gay marriage would be recognized as “marriage” in the state; Prop 8 struck that down and added the phrase “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to the state constitution. The question before the Supreme Court today is whether or not this violated the state constitution; and because of this premise it’s possible that the Supreme Court may choose to throw it out and send it back to the states.

The second case deals with DOMA, or the “Defense of Marriage Act” signed into law under President Bill Clinton in 1996. This law defines marriage as between a man and a woman and as such disallows same-sex couples from receiving certain federal benefits (i.e. taxes) afforded to heterosexual married couples. This was solidified primarily in the interest of societal structure, and the rearing of children who psychologically need male and female parental figures. Doug Mainwaring, a political activist and a homosexual man himself, comments “Has it occurred to anyone that ‘deprivation” might be applied to children raised in same-sex marriages who are denied the love and upbringing of both their biological parents? They are reduced to being parented by only one gender, and the deliberate deprivation of children here is, frankly, evil. They desperately need both.”

I believe redefining marriage in this country to be of monumental detriment to the basic building blocks of society, and I take this stance not only on moral grounds, but on basic societal precepts as well. Similarly I worry about the dangers of letting the courts decide something meant to be left to the voters in each individual state. While both these aspects concern me greatly, I instead want to introduce and focus on a different facet to this debate; something that hadn’t dawned on me until just recently.

Yesterday I happened to overhear the comments of a person (unknown to me) sharing feelings about these cases. I heard this person equate the outcome of these cases–should SCOTUS rule in favor of striking down Prop 8 and DOMA–as a sign that this person finally had the same rights as this person’s straight friends. This person continued in detail; however, suffice to say that as the conversation continued, it became clear that this person viewed their plight as equivalent to that of the Civil Rights Era.

This person’s commentary fell in line with the platform I’d so often seen used in this debate- that is, that the push for gay marriage is no more outrageous a request than it was for people in that day to demand that the different races–particularly black and white–could marry; that the defense of gay marriage is the same as saying that interracial couples should be able to marry freely, and live devoid of any fear of retribution. The recognition that this was the platform from which so many have argued this debate made me think of this whole discussion in an entirely different light.

I sat and thought seriously about this comparison to Civil Rights– what all it is that gay Americans “face” today in this country.

Before going further on this train, let’s direct our thoughts to a very dark part of our nation’s history.

For those of you who love old Hollywood as much as I do, you likely remember one of Sydney Poitier’s most famous performances in his role as Dr. John Prentice, an African American who has fallen in love with Joanna Drayton, a young white girl in the film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. In sum, they must face both sets of parents and deal with their reactions. They are told that they will undoubtedly face prejudice if they move forward. They marry anyway, ready to face come what may.

For others like the fictitious John Prentice and Joanna Drayton who wanted to do the same thing, things were sometimes far worse than dealing with the potential of societal shunning. People living in Jim Crow south were flatly PROHIBITED from marrying interracially; and those who did so faced not only rejection,but true injustices such as violence and even jail time.

Take, for example, the case of Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter. Loving, a white man, and Jeter, a woman of both African American AND Native American descent, married despite the risks. Late one night thereafter, Loving was pulled from his own bed and taken into custody. He was eventually sentenced to 5 years in jail (a sentence that thankfully was never carried out).

Theirs is just one story, propagated by the atrocious Jim Crow laws that defined the pre-Civil Rights American south.

Some examples of the terrible laws include:

Cohabitation Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) dollars. (Florida)

Jim Crow not only prohibit those wishing to marry another of a different race; it prohibited ANYONE from supporting it. Those of you familiar with the movie The Help remember this:

Promotion of Equality Any person…who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. (Mississippi)

While Jim Crow ran the south, Nazi Germany was running Europe in the 1930s and 40s. Some forget that aside from the extermination of millions of Europe’s Jews, other groups were specifically targeted as well. The crippled, the mentally ill, the gypsies . . . and the homosexuals.

Even in today’s world, extermination on similar grounds continues. In theocratic nations in which Shar’ia (Islamic religious law) law reigns, many people die at the hands of the state for crimes such as apostasy (leaving the faith), adultery, and homosexuality. They are often hanged, beheaded, or stoned.

Readers, I ask you simply this: in light of stories like Richard and Miranda Loving; in light of the horrendous persecution that homosexuals faced in Germany and still face today across the Islamic world . . . does America’s LGBT community and their supporters really have the right to compare themselves to such suffering simply because they haven’t been able to change the definition of the institution of “marriage” to include same sex couples? Remember, it is an effort to redefine it, not to make it permissible for the first time. It is ALREADY permissible (meaning-not banned as a practice) in this nation! I contend that this comparison does a deep, deep disservice to the men and women who suffered under horrible Jim Crow interracial marriage laws, and the men and women who are tortured and killed at the hands of their dictatorial governments. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is real suffering, and it seems utterly shameful to even make the comparison.

The young man speaking with the acquaintance of mine dealt with taunting and teasing as a teenager. He felt rejected by his peers. His case isn’t the only one- and though I am staunchly pro-traditional marriage, my belief to that end would never excuse such behavior. Let me be clear: those who mistreat their homosexual peers through taunting, teasing, disassociation and the like are wrong, and YES, sadly, it does happen from time to time in our country.

Still, when I hear people like that young man speak as though his freedom is about to be won should the Supreme Court rule in favor of his beliefs, I cringe . . . especially when I think of the REAL lack of freedom others have faced and still face today.

We live in what is arguably the most tolerant nation on planet earth. I happen to disagree with homosexuality on moral grounds, but I speak for most who share this belief when I say that this doesn’t change how I treat my fellow coworkers, neighbors, community members, etc. Frankly, I’m tired of being told that my moral beliefs, and my conviction that an ancient institution shouldn’t be redefined, makes me a “hater,” a “bigot,” and countless other terrible things. In fact, per the gay man I spoke of earlier, my beliefs are actually “evil.” No, dear readers, “hater,” “bigot” and the like are reserved for those who arrested Richard Loving; for those who wrote Jim Crow laws; for those who bash in the heads of homosexuals across the Middle East.

Readers, I ask you this:

When they refer to these cases as the “Civil Rights” debate of our generation, it insinuates that homosexuals are lacking fundamental human rights and that this situation must be remedied. What is it that homosexuals in this nation lack, that everyone else has?

Let’s consider the following: Across this nation, regardless of whether “gay marriage” is recognized in any particular state or at the federal level, gay couples can marry as they please. No one and nothing stops them from doing so. (Incidentally, when a state is spoken of as having “banned” gay marriage, that’s not entirely truthful. To be certain, that state has decided that the word “marriage” will not be redefined to include additional unions such as same-sex relationships, but it does not ban homosexuals from holding a marriage ceremony if they so choose. No homosexual in a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage will be hauled off to jail, or fined, or persecuted in any way for doing so. In fact, several states that do not officially sanction gay marriage will recognize the marriage license from a state that does.) They can buy homes together. They can build a life together. They can adopt children. They can have children through surrogacy or implantation. A person’s health insurance can include their “life partner.” Power of attorney can be granted to whomever one wants, included one’s gay partner. One can leave his or her earthly possessions to their life partner in their wills. Hospitals across the nation have come up with ways of dealing with the issue of recognizing one’s partner as a “family member” in the event of a medical emergency. The list goes on. Virtually the only things that homosexual couples–married or in a civil union– cannot obtain are certain federal benefits.

Most importantly, however . . . they are protected by the same laws that protect us all, and they are guaranteed freedom by the same Constitution under which we all live. While certain individuals may choose to (and wrongly so) treat homosexuals badly, or heaven forbid- even carry out acts of violence against them—the state certainly doesn’t sanction such behavior and in fact charges those who do so with a hate crime. The perpetrators are punished accordingly.

In sum- “freedom of association;” in other words, one’s right to choose with whom they spend their lives . . . is not missing in this nation. Homosexuals lack no basic civil right. They share in the very same freedom and safety as everyone else. What do they truly lack? I contend that in the context of a “human right,” they lack nothing.

While so many have tried to paint this as the so-called last cornerstone in the Civil Rights legacy; while so many have gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court as if this decision would somehow release them from years of chains and hiding; while so many have tried to equate the whole gay marriage debate to Jim Crow south . . . I contend that it’s shameful to position themselves and this debate in this way. While cases of discrimination and mistreatment (beyond teenage taunting and teasing) DO exist, it is not the norm, it is not state sanctioned, and to act as though it is cheapens the memory of those who did and continue to truly suffer.

With these, and any other marriage-related debates taking place across the country, the question isn’t whether or not homosexuals are a free people in this country, because they are; it’s whether or not an age-old societal institution should be redefined.

If (or rather, when) you find yourself having this conversation with someone—and you more than likely will in the current political climate—never forget to remain true to history. False comparisons are just as bad as forgetting history’s chapters entirely. And, when we forget history, we’re doomed to repeat it . . . same song, different verse. Challenge those who misuse history to further an agenda (any agenda!) by arming yourselves with history’s guiding light- only then can you be effective protectors of the true freedom this nation affords its people.

The Global Entry Program: Step Right Up, Saudi Arabia!

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Immigration, Mexico, Radical Islam, The Middle East, The Obama Presidency

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Canada, Hannelore Romeike, immigration, Mexico, President Obama, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, The Global Entry Program, The Netherlands, TSA, USCIS, Uwe Romeike

A few years ago I was in the process of planning my wedding, which unlike most, included an international component. In order for members of my husband’s family to join us, it not only meant packing a suitcase, but securing a tourist visa to enter the United States. For one member of the family–smooth sailing it was not.

She is a graduate of a respected university in Mexico; she holds a fantastic position within her company, with many ties to keep her right where she was. You see, one of the supposed components in the decision to grant or deny a visa is the requester’s ability to prove that he or she isn’t planning to skip town once the visa is granted, and thus disappear into the vast fabric of illegal aliens across the country. In other words, do you have a degree? Do you have a decent job? Do you have car loans? A mortgage? What ties you to your country?

My relative, wedding invitation in hand, with AMPLE ties to her home country, and yet she was denied a tourist visa to enter the country for less than a week to attend our wedding. Thankfully, weeks, another visit and ANOTHER fee later, she was finally able to secure her visa.

Many of those who know me know what my husband and I went through to obtain the correct papers for him to stay here with me, his own wife.

These stories are legion, as anyone who has ever tried to enter, and/or stay here legally can attest. Even for a U.S. citizen without even so much as a parking ticket on her record, just getting back into the country can be arduous. It’s a thoroughly mangled, wholly inefficient system. So clearly, the solution to this backlog is a no-brainer: grant the customs equivalent of a toll road E-Z Pass to citizens of a country that spawned Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists; a country which “remains the world’s leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks.”

While this president looks the other way as thousands of illegal aliens are released from prison; while he actively pushes for legislation to allow illegal aliens to pass up their fellow legal immigrants in line; the ones who have been waiting patiently for months and even years. . . I supposed he figures the cherry on top of his “we are the world” approach to immigration is Saudi Arabia’s recent admission into The Global Entry Program. This program, which as mentioned is tantamount to an E-Z pass, grants “trusted travelers” the ability to “bypass normal passport controls at major U.S. airports.” For those who gain this privilege, they enjoy this platinum access for FIVE years.

Who knows, maybe this is an “I’m sorry” to the Saudi Ambassador who narrowly avoided losing his life at the hands of an Iranian assassination plot, nearly facilitated by none other than the Mexican cartels this administration has been so “actively” trying to thwart. Oh shoot, except for Fast & Furious.

Now, to be fair- my inlaws’ home country IS on the very VERY short list of nations whose occupants can apply for the program. The point in sharing their story, naturally, is the highlight the fact that we’ve got an immense backlog of the GOOD guys, and priorities as they pertain to entry to this country are immensely skewed.

Eligible applicants must hail from the U.S., The Netherlands, South Korea, Mexico, Canada, and as of January 2013, Saudi Arabia. Each applicant must pass through a “rigorous” background check. Let’s be real about this for a moment though: While my law-abiding, do-it-by-the-books relative is denied for a simple TOURIST visa, USCIS (United States Customs & Immigration Services) routinely glazes over sham marriages and other immigration scams. The TSA puts pocket knives back on the list of allowable items yet can’t even seem to bother itself with the (fake) bomb that made its way through two checkpoints and on to a plane. (Incidentally, this fake bomb was meant to simulate the very attempts which now force us to practically strip in the security line at the airport. Oops.) The Obama administration is currently contesting the asylum granted to the German family fleeing their country for simply homeschooling their children, yet can’t seem to find time to deal with our porous border.

My experience with the government’s definition of “rigorous” is denying respectable citizens the right to enter this country and making the lives of those trying to do it legally a living hell. Call me crazy, but “rigorous” in this sense is quite selective. I’m not holding my breath.

Meanwhile, conspicuously missing from the “approved” list are key world allies like the United Kingdom and Israel. Ironically enough a deal with Israel as it pertains to this program has been reached, but not “yet implemented.” So let me get this straight- our only TRUE ally in the Middle East is still waiting in line; meanwhile Al-Qaeda’s Sugar Daddy sails through? Again, this is a country that just FOUR short years ago was on another list; “a list of countries whose U.S.-bound travelers would face higher scrutiny, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt in 2009.”

Don’t get me wrong- I’m all for thorough background checks PRIOR to the airport in order to help safely reduce wait times at the airport. If I ran the world, hehe, I’d tell the airlines that THEY would be responsible for their own security, and suggest that as a condition of purchasing an airline ticket, the buyer automatically enters into an agreement with that airline, and that airline (not the epic failure otherwise known as the TSA) runs a TRULY “rigorous” background check on that person.

There’s a problem (and I’d venture to say most Americans would agree), however, when we facilitate this option to a country with absolutely ZERO interest in quelling its Niagara-like flow of funds into the hands of international terrorists seeking the demise of the very country now granting them such ease of access.

Ah yes- this will end well.

Once an Arafat Man

16 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Religion, The Middle East

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Cyprus, Gaza, Hope for Ishmael, Israel, Jordan, Luke 23:32-43, PLO, Qatar, Seeds of Hope, Taysir Saada, Yasser Arafat

I thought I’d take a momentary break from regularly scheduled programming to share with you a book that deeply touched my life; one that I’d encourage you all to read.

Before I discuss it, however, I want you to stop and think about something for a moment. Of my Christian readers out there, how many of you regularly pass up opportunities to share your faith with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow gym-goers, or anyone else who happens to cross your path in life, simply because you’re afraid of what “might” happen? I’d be a bold-faced liar if I didn’t sheepishly raise my hand right along with the rest of you. Let’s be real- we all worry about what our coworker might think of us; what our neighbors might say, or the fact that the guy next to you at the gym happens to be holding a 50 pound dumbbell and might not be particularly pleased about having someone point out that he needs a Savior to rescue him from his sins. . . you get the point.

You think you’ve got it rough.

Try being a former Muslim sharing his beliefs in a part of the world that has no qualms about killing an apostate (one who leaves the Muslim faith).

Did I mention he was witnessing to Yasser Arafat?

Now that’s guts.

The man’s name is Tass Saada, and Once an Arafat Man is his story.

(Courtesy of Tyndale Publishers)

It’s the autobiography of a rebellious young boy named Taysir whose family eventually left their homeland in Palestine for better times in Qatar, where he caused more than his fair share of teenage shenanigans. From destroying cars to attacking a teacher who happened to cross him, Taysir, later called Tass, was anything but peaceful. Burning inside him was a rage instilled by those who surrounded him and faith he practiced- a rage against what he perceived to be the cause of all ills in his world- the Jews. Having once met the man leading the movement against Israel at the time, Tass was deeply affected by Yasser Arafat; so much so that Tass ran away from home in his late teens to join Fatah, later known as the PLO. He quickly moved through the ranks and became one of Arafat’s deadliest snipers; and even served at one point as Arafat’s personal driver.

Tass’ father had other intentions, however, and devised a plan to bring his son back to Qatar until he could finish high school. He arranged to have Tass’ passport confiscated by airport authorities in Qatar; thus effectively trapping him there. The once-revered Fatah fighter and deadly sniper was once again stuck behind a desk in high school. . . and Tass was going mad with boredom. He eventually caused so much trouble for his father that his father proposed that he go and attend school in either Egypt or Saudia Arabia. Tass protested, saying he wanted to join a friend in the United States. His father wouldn’t hear of it—no son of HIS was going to grace the great infidel with his presence. Ultimately, the stubborn Tass got his way, and he was soon on a plane to join his friend in Missouri— a far cry from the desert of Qatar.

He began working, first as a busboy at a restaurant, and then a waiter. . . and eventually he decided that he wanted to stay longer in the U.S. than his current papers would allow. He decided that he was going to find someone to marry; thus securing his status indefinitely. He did find a woman; a single mother who probably knew better, but she agreed to marry Tass nonetheless. Tass eventually did come to love his wife and family (they had another daughter together) deeply. . . but that was a few years off yet. Keep reading. . .

At one point, Tass was questioned by U.S. authorities as to the nature of his involvement in the PLO. Curiously they allowed him to stay; convinced it seems that Tass harbored any radical intentions towards the US. They were correct. This miraculous permission to stay in the U.S. would later prove critical in changing his life forever. Had Tass been sent back. . . this book wouldn’t have been written.

As the years moved on, Tass moved up from working as a busboy, to managing restaurants, to eventually partnering with someone to run his own restaurant. At one point, he noticed a change in his business partner. Curious, he begins prodding to find out just what had spawned this change in attitude. Eventually his friend shared his feelings about his new-found faith, and later on talked to Tass directly about his own. His friend’s biggest revelation? The secret to being content. The friend’s answer didn’t please the once-sniper toting Tass. . . “You must learn to love a Jew,” the friend said. Naturally the friend had used this as a reference to Christ’s love for all mankind, but in that moment the friend brought it down to Tass’ level. Shocked- Tass initially wanted nothing to do with such insanity. Miraculously, however, after conversations with his friend, and studying God’s word. . . the former PLO-sniper, Arafat man and unabashed Jew-hater, became a Christian. He speaks of a transformation so incredible, it’s almost difficult to explain. Years of hate melted away. His eyes became opened to his children, his wife, and his relationship with God. Life became utterly and completely different. Ironically enough, as he went to tell his son that he had become a Christian. . . the son couldn’t contain his joy. You see, he himself had recently become a Christian but had done so secretly, in fear of what his father might think or do. The two rejoiced.

Tass later on left the restaurant business and he and his family began partnering once again with the man who changed Tass’ life. The Lord led them both into a life of service. . . eventually helping troubled teens, and later sharing his message of redemption and salvation with churches, synagogues and mosques around the country. His journey took him to Washington D.C. at one point, where he was able to personally apologize to representatives of the Israeli government for the harm he had done to their citizens. His mission to spread his story also took him back to the Middle East, where he had been asked to speak at a conference in Cyprus. Happy to oblige, Tass agreed. . . only to later find out that they’d booked his flight on Jordanian air. . . something that could prove to be a problem for someone who once attempted to assassinate the Jordanian crown prince. Despite the fact that going would mean his imprisonment and possible death, Tass’ prayerful consideration led him to decide that he needed to go. After a tearful goodbye at the airport, Tass was off. Upon arrival in Jordan, Tass experienced what could only be explained as utterly divine intervention. Though his name was more than likely on that country’s terror list. . . he sailed through the airport without so much as a single question. Much like Corrie Ten Boom was able to walk right past prison guards with a Bible and medicine, Tass made it through security unscathed. He was free- free to go on and continue his work.

Tass’ heart ached for his people- people who, under the leadership of men like Arafat, had been placed in incredibly dire straights. Not only that, but spiritually they remained in an even worse predicament than their earthly situation. It was time to go back. Tass’ conversion alone was miraculous, and his decision to go BACK into the lion’s den and work among his people in the Middle East. . . serving them in both a humanitarian and spiritual sense. . . was just as amazing.

Perhaps the most jaw dropping of any moment throughout Tass’ story is an encounter with the man to whom he once swore total allegiance. During one of his several trips to the Middle East, Tass was able to procure an audience with Yasser Arafat. The two talked of the war, their people. . . and eventually, Tass’ faith. Apostasy, a phrase meaning the action of leaving Islam, is a crime punishable by death in that part of the world. Yet there Tass sat in front of Yasser Arafat himself, sharing his story. . . and the Gospel with him. Arafat listened to him for hours until it was deep into the night. Finally Tass had to leave, wondering about the impact his words had had on the old warrior that evening. A few months later, an Egyptian pastor friend of his emailed with incredible news. HE had the chance to speak with Arafat as well. . . and recounts to Tass that Arafat prayed with him, asking God for forgiveness for the sins he had committed those many years. It was this pastor’s understanding that Arafat had become a Christian; something that took place just shortly before his death.

Dear readers- what a thought! If the pastor’s account is true, and Yasser Arafat indeed became a Christian. . . what joyous news! Here’s a man who spent his life in violence and hatred. . . and yet he at this moment may be rejoicing in heaven, fully stripped of his sins by the grace of God alone.

A few weeks ago, I received a phone call. On the other end was the man with the courage to share the gospel with anyone and everyone- including Arafat himself. I had emailed Tass requesting an interview for this very blog, and though current safety concerns didn’t permit him to speak to anything beyond the story in his book, he graciously decided to call me to decline in person. It was an honor to speak with him. Truly, what a blessed, personal reminder of our Lord’s great commission to us all.

Shortly after speaking with Tass, I left to attend church. That evening’s scripture reading was none other than the thief on the cross, who, just moments from death after leading a hideous life of violence and crime, repented of his sins and was promised by Jesus Christ that THAT day, he would be with Him in paradise.

This side of eternity, we won’t know whether or not Arafat became a 21st century thief on the cross. Nevertheless, this book reminds us again of the powerful impact of God’s living, breathing word; able to melt hearts of stone and years of hatred. God, with the grace and love only He can bestow, was able to change a hate-filled sniper named Taysir Saada, and take him from death to life. . . from professional hit man, to once. . .an Arafat man.

To learn more about Tass’ word, please visit Seeds of Hope.

Ding Dong, the Dictator’s Dead

05 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Socialism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

9/11 truther, Bolivarian Republica of Venezuela, Condoleezza Rice, George Bush, Hugo Chavez, Human Rights Violations, Human Rights Watch, Jose Serrano, Juan Carlos I, Moon Landing, Open Veins of Latin America, Sean Pean, Simon Bolivar, Spain, Venezuela

While millions of oppressed Venezuelans are celebrating the death of an oppressor, somewhere Sean Penn is sniveling. And apparently, so is U.S. Representative Jose Serrano. Then again, this is the same guy who introduces legislation every few years to repeal the 22nd Amendment (That’s presidential term limits for you low-information voters out there), so his support of Chavez isn’t surprising.

To the point: after quite a long battle with cancer, the often flamboyant and deeply corrupt Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has finally kicked the bucket. He succumbed to a two-year battle with cancer; a disease his successor claims was given to him by the U.S. government. Uh, ok.

From claiming the room reeked of sulfur after George W. Bush finished speaking at the UN, to claiming that the U.S. was behind the deadly earthquake in Haiti, El Presidente had quite a history of nuttiness:

Martian enthusiasts worldwide: Chavez once claimed that Mars was in fact home to a whole civilization . . . that is, until capitalism came along and destroyed it.

Condoleezza Rice was once reduced to a “little girl” who worked for a drunken donkey whose record would make Hitler look like a “suckling baby.” Truly, you can’t make this stuff up. In a 2006 TV address, Chavez referred to Bush as “donkey” and a “drunkard,” and to a woman he often referred to as “condolence,” he spewed “Remember, little girl, I’m like the thorn tree that flowers on the plain. I waft my scent to passers-by and prick he who shakes me. Don’t mess with me, Condoleezza. Don’t mess with me, girl.” This of course, was routinely topped off with a good old “go to hell.”

Space cadets, I hate to burst your bubble, but per Professor Chavez, Neil Armstrong did not take “one small step for man” 239,900 miles away from earth. His airtight proof? “There is film of the Americans landing on the moon. Does that mean the moon shot really happened? In the film, the Yanqui flag is flying straight out. So, is there wind on the moon?” And for a change, in the same conversation he revealed himself as a 9/11 truther. Gasp.

Though nary a peep was heard about it thanks to a media so dedicated to President Obama’s image, Chavez had a few things to say about him as well. After presenting the new leader with ”Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent,” (you can guess the content), Chavez obviously expected more drastic action from OUR dear leader. Mocking Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, Chavez noted that the room still smelled a little of sulfur once he was finished speaking. Chavez quipped “The Nobel Prize of War just finished saying here that he is here to act. Well, show it sir. Don’t leave by the back door.” In other words. . . “you’re better than Bush . . . but you’re not screwing things up fast enough. Get a move on it.” Obviously still frustrated with Obama’s pace, Chavez referred to his collectivist pal as a “clown” in 2011.

Apparently the Chavez regime had quite the fancy for claiming that the deaths of South American leaders can be tied to foreign rivals. He once had the corpse of Simon Bolivar exhumed to try and prove that the South American rebel had been offed by Colombian poison, and not at the hands of the uber-common tuberculosis. Gross.

More sinister than moronic statements that make even Joe Biden’s foot-in-mouth moments look like Thatcher speeches, Chavez’ non-existent record of freedom and human rights did little to “help the poor” that he so avidly claimed to care about.

The son of two teachers, Chavez (once a teacher himself) rose through the ranks of the Venezuelan military, staged an unsuccessful coup and landed himself in jail with a 30 year prison sentence. President Rafael Caldera later pardoned him just a few years later. . . and the rest is history.

Chavez ascended to the presidency in 1999 promising a “new socialism,” where he swiftly thereafter moved to rewrite the constitution, which resulted in the extension of the presidential term to 6 years at a time (he was in his 3rd term), a change in the the country’s official name to the ”Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” (in honor of the dead man he, in total paranoia, had exhumed for examination) and even changed the country’s time zone.

Oblivious to the fact that most Venezuelans live in the poverty that Chavez’ socialist policies were supposed to remedy, he ran the country with micromanaging precision. Censorship was rampant, with those in disagreement with Chavez finding themselves out of a job as little by little, TV and radio stations were regulated out of existence. Some even found themselves falsely accused of corruption and other bogus charges, something he could easily do as “he concentrated power in the executive branch, turning formerly independent institutions — such as the judiciary, the electoral authorities and the military — into partisan loyalists.” (Anybody want to venture a guess as to how he kept winning election after elections despite his nation’s dire straights?) He brought his nation’s oil production under government control, and “used” it to fund programs for the poor. According to Human Rights Watch, “at times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged his subordinates to engage in discrimination by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators and coup-monger.” Despite the fact that he himself was parked for 2 years in a Venezuelan prison, Chavez did nothing to address to horrific conditions inside the walls of the country’s penitentiaries. According to The Atlantic, “Venezuela may have the worst prisons in Latin America. The country’s 30 or so facilities were built for 12,000 inmates, but hold nearly four times that many. In many institutions, guards have surrendered control to armed gangs headed by prisoner-tyrants called pranes. Inmates exchange drugs and weapons openly. Riots occur frequently. In 2011, there were more than 500 violent deaths in the country’s penitentiaries. At the lowest end of the prison power structure are los anegados – the unwanted ones — prisoners who have angered the pranes or allies of the pranes, on the inside or outside, and fear for their lives. And so, in an act of desperation, they stitch their mouths shut. Within the country’s prisons there is an unspoken, but religiously followed, agreement among inmates: When one sews his lips, no one can kill him.” Outside the prisons, violence at the hands of the authorities is equally as bad. According to Human Rights Watch, “Violent crime is rampant in Venezuela, where extrajudicial killings by security agents remain a problem. The minister of the interior and justice has estimated that police commit one of every five crimes. According to the most recent official statistics, law enforcement agents allegedly killed 7,998 people between January 2000 and the first third of 2009.” Ah yes. . . and it’s Bush who smells of sulfur.

In a brief moment of royal candor, the King of Spain Juan Carlos I once snapped at Chavez in a deliciously rare public display. Watch the exchange here:

“Por que no te callas!” was the phrase uttered by the king, which means “Why can’t you just SHUT UP!” Even better, it was said using the “familiar” form of you (“callas” vs “calla”); which in this instance was meant to put Chavez squarely in his place.

One has to wonder. . . is he hearing that same phrase at this very moment from a slightly warmer place? One can only hope——for his sake——-that he finally got accustomed to the smell of sulfur. . .

Sequestration: Solved. (No Flu Shot Confiscations Required!)

28 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Economy, The Obama Presidency

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Improper Payments, sequestration, Tom Coburn, Wastefull Spending

On the eve of the Armageddon, (Sequestration, for the rest of you) the President continues to run around the country and spread a misleading and wholly untruthful message by land, air, and You Tube. . .and I got to thinking about the billions we spend in any given year on complete and utter frivolities. Downright stupidity, you might say. The way that the president talks, you’d think we run such a tight ship that $85 billion dollars, a mere fraction of a percentage of the federal budget, would break the bank. According to our dear leader, $85 billion dollars in cuts will prevent Junior from getting his flu shot, Grandma from getting her medical care, and Joe Police Officer from getting his paycheck. Are you telling me that in a federal government that spends nearly $11 billion dollars a day, there’s not a single thing outside of the aforementioned sob stories that we could cut to comply with the $85 billion mandated by the law the president signed in 2011?

Actually, we could do even better than $85 billion; $40.4 billion to be precise. Here’s a Kodak moment for you: in FY 2010 alone, $125.4 billion was doled out in “improper payments.” You know, pension payments to dead federal workers; entitlement overpayments, etc. Baddabing, baddaboom. . . an $85 billion dollr problem solved. Naturally, of course, overpayments or improper payments are hardly the end of the story. We spend billions each year on complete and utter silliness, and thanks to the efforts of Senator Tom Coburn, I bring you a list of said silliness. (Please click here for the full booklet with explanations of each item.)

This is a snapshot from 2011 alone, totaling 6.9 billion dollars. Assuming similar levels of spending for each year of Obama’s first term, that’s $27.6 billion dollars. And we haven’t even mentioned his $4 million dollar Christmas vacations to the Land of Aloha, or the multi-trillion dollar debacle that is Obamacare; or the $1.4 billion dollar price tag for Keeping Up with the Obamas. . . I’d better stop, or I’ll literally run out of space.

Let’s take a peek at our trusty list, shall we? (Note: You might want to step away every ten items or so to avoid mental meltdown. You’ve been warned. )

Politicians Partying on the Taxpayer Dime – (Presidential Election Campaign Fund) $35.38 Million
Saving Mango Sales in Pakistan– 30 million
Poor Planning Hobbles Air Force Green Energy Effort – (Department of
Defense) $14 Million
Subsidy Program for Small Airports Fails to Help Most Recipients
Achieve Sustainable Air Service – (Federal Aviation Administration)
$6 Million
Paying for Pancakes – (D.C) $765,828
The Super-Bridge to Nowhere – (AK) $15.3 Million
Dead Federal Employees Continue to Get Benefits Checks – (U.S. Office of Personnel Management) $120 Million
Extreme Home Makeover: Federal Highway Funds to Transform Abandoned “Rock House” into Visitors Center – (OK) $529,689
Video Game Preservation – (NY) $113,277
Millions In Foreign Aid to… China? – (Department of State & U.S. Agency for International Development) $17.80 Million
Drug-Themed “Mellow Mushroom” Pizza Restaurant – (TX) $484,000
Fruit Growers Receive Money for Celebrity Chef Show in Indonesia –(WA) $100,000
Remake of “Sesame Street” for Pakistan – (U.S. Agency for International Development) $10 Million
American Museum of Magic – (MI) $147,138
International Architecture Firm – (CA) $1 Million
Documentary About How Rock and Roll Contributed to the Collapse of the Soviet Union – (CA) $550,000
TVs and Gas Generators for Rural Vietnamese Villages – (PA) $702, 558
The 2nd Annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival – (HI) $48,700
Children, Prisoners, and Others Who Don’t Own Homes Awarded Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credits (Internal Revenue Service) – $1 Billion
Stimulating Online Soap Operas – (Department of Commerce) $936,818
Taxpayer Dollars Go to Promoting Christmas Trees – (MI) $75,000
An International Art Exhibition – (Venice, Italy) $350,000
Study Looks for Connections Between Cocaine and Risky Sex Habits of Quail – (KY) $175,587
Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center – (WA) $2 Million
Program Subsidizes Prosperous Industries – (Department of Agriculture) $200 Million
Surveying Impact of Anti-HIV Videos for L.A. City Buses – (CA) $358,005
Federal Funds Used to Buy iPads for Kindergarteners – (ME) $96,000
$1 Million Ad Campaign Encourages Patients to Visit Government Health Agency’s Website and be More Involved in Their Own Medical Decisions – (Agency for Health Research and Quality) $1.06 Million
Study: Political Candidates Should Adopt “Green” Positions – (CA) $200,000
Federal Transportation Dollars Go to Shipwreck Sites and HorseDrawn Carriage Exhibits – (WI) $916,567
An Eleven Day Veterans Affairs Conference in Arizona – (Department of Veterans Affairs) $221,540
Boosting Alaskan Tourism with Podcasts about NSF Research Projects – (AK) $300,000
Annual Rent for the Storage of Thousands of Pieces of Unused Furniture and Equipment – (Internal Revenue Service) $862,000
Studying the Trustworthiness of Tweets– (MA) $492,005
Failed Energy-Saving Project in Pakistan – (U.S. Agency for International Development) $12 Million
Oregon Cheese Guild – $50,000
Unnecessary Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative Overlaps Other Federal Housing Programs – (Housing and Urban Development) $168 Million
Federal Funds Go Toward Encouraging Bed and Breakfasts to Sell Locally Grown Products – (NY) $73,824
Grant for Museum on the History of Skiing –(NH) $86,014
Wartime Contracting Waste and Fraud Costs Taxpayers Billions –(Iraq and Afghanistan) $4.38 billion
U.S. Hops Industry Travels to China – (WA) $111,413
Mummies in 3-D – (WI) $24,632
Taxpayer Money Pays for “RapidGuppy” Cell Phone Game – (CA) $149,990
Duplicative Program to Help Other Countries Manage Their Forests –(Department of Agriculture) $9.49 Million
Federal Transportation Dollars to Make Las Vegas Highways Beautiful –(NV) $697,006
Taxpayer Money to Study How College Students Use Mobile Devices for Social Networking – (IN) $764,825
Marketing for Farms and Restaurants – (VT) $171,050
Seminar in England Allows Teachers to Retrace Steps of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales – $136,555
Weatherization Program Lets Taxpayer Funds Slip Through the Cracks – (Department of Energy) $231.3 Million
Entrepreneurship Training… in Barbados? – (U.S. Agency for International Development) $1.35 Million
Coast Guard Spends Taxpayer Dollars on Mardi Gras Float – (LA) $24,450
Study Examines Political Websites and Campaign Strategies – (IL) $126,242
Federal Dollars Pays to Renovate a Carriage House – (UT) $150,000
Millions Of Federal Transportation Dollars Pay for Covered Bridge Preservation Program – (Department of Transportation) $8.3 Million
Taxpayer Money Supports Wine Conference, Pavilion, and Education –(CO, SD, and OH) $62,000
The Federal Government’s Own Version of “Farmville” to Combat Obesity, Teach Nutrition – (CA) $206,214
Stimulus Funds for a Tree Census – (NV) $60,000
Duplicative Occupational Safety Program Lacks Long-term Strategic Planning – (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) $22.04 Million
Creating a Smart Phone App for Picking Tennessee Farmers – (TN) $181,966
Study: How Effective Are European Union Parliamentarians at Framing Legislative Debates? – (VA) $300,000
Growing Massachusetts Video Game Industry – (MA) $100,000
Duplicative Engine Program for F-35 Fighter – (Department of Defense) $207 Million
Study on Jordanian Student Hookah Smoking – (VA) $55,382
Taxpayer-Funded Snow Cones for Emergencies (and Promotions) –$6,279
Farmers Market Advertising Campaign – (OK) $93,000
“The Matter of Origins” Educational Dance – (MD) $300,000
US Taxpayer Funds Survey of Well-Being in 120 Countries – (CA) $610,908
Taxpayer Dollars Will Help Create “Farm Art D-Tour” – (WI) $50,000
Duplicative Subsidy Program for High-Risk Research – (Technology Innovation Program) $44.9 Million
New York Dance Troupe Gets Money for Trip to Indonesia – (NY) $30,000
Analyzing the Spread of Political Info on the Web – (VA) $500,000
Energy Program Repeatedly Slated for Termination Continues to get Funding (U.S. Department of Agriculture) $11.976 Million
50th Anniversary Commemoration (in other countries!)– (U.S. Agency of International Development) $156,273
Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program: Program for Repairing Poor Families’ Houses Will Mainly Serve Property Developers – (Department of Agriculture) $14.97 Million
Federal Grant Pays to Package Grass-fed Cow Butter – (NY) $55,660
Taxpayer Money Helps Pay for International Film Festival – (CA) $50,000
Chemistry Theater for Children – (WI) $499,993
Duplicative Grant Programs Available For Retrofitting Or Replacing Diesel Engines Despite Declining Need For the Modifications –(Environmental Protection Agency) $49.9 Million
Air Force Academy Builds “Stonehenge-like Worship Center” – (CO) $51,474
Study to Tell India How to Improve its Local Government – (MA) $425,642
Exhibit on the History of Rivers, Trails, Railroads, and Roads – (MO) $300,000
Sixteen Professors to Attend 5-Week Seminar in Rome – $159,865
Duplicative Rail Line Relocation Program Continues to Receive Taxpayer Money – (Department of Transportation) $10.5 Million
U.S. Taxpayer Money Pays for European Student’s Leadership Skills –(Department of State) $306,000
Study of Online Dating – (NY) $606,000
The Treehouse Museum Spends Taxpayer Dollars to Teach the Art of Puppetry – (UT) $ 74,470
Economic Development Program is Duplicative and Has Unclear Benefits – (Appalachian Regional Commission) $68 Million
Does Tweeting and Friending Make You Happy? – (CA) $198,195
Buruni Ballad– (Maldives) $25,000
Botched Assistance for Families of Afghan War Victims – $15 Million
Feces -Throwing Reveals Communication Skills in Chimps – (GA) $592,527
Federally–funded Dragon Robots – (MA) $130,987
Steamboat Interpretive Center – (LA) $5.18 Million
Federal Grant to Study Women, Weaving and Wool in Iceland, AD 874-1800 – (RI) $338,998
Federal Dollars Goes Toward Cowboy Poetry – (NV) $50,000
Targeted sheep grazing study – (MT) $742,907
Upgrades to Street Median in Shopping District – (DC) $83,000
$1 Bills Literally Costing Taxpayers Millions – (U.S. Treasury Department) – $184 Million
Website Redesign for Jonathan Bird’s Blue World – ( MA) $131,895)
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation – $499,000

Sequestration Nation: A New Round of Fiscal Terrorism

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by maryramirez in Budget Debates, Economy, The 2012 Presidential Election Season

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

85 billion, Baseline budgeting, Bob Woodward, defense spending, GOP, ICE, Max Baucus, President Obama, sequestration, Speaker John Boehner, Tax Cuts, The Price of Politics, Wealthy

Well boys and girls, we’re at it again. We’re at yet another “white-knuckle” fiscal deadline not unlike the fiscal cliff crisis a few weeks ago; the debt ceiling crisis; the debt ceiling crisis AGAIN, and so it goes.

“Sequestration,” as the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it, means “to place (property) in custody especially in sequestration” This word, which has become somewhat of a buzz-phrase these past few weeks, is the name for the automatic spending cuts set in place triggered by the inaction of the budget committee tasked with coming up with a plan. These debates took place in 2011 during the debt ceiling conversation when Republicans demanded a 1-for-1 cut for each dollar that the debt ceiling was raised. The debt ceiling was raised, as we know all too well, to the tune of approximately 2.4 trillion dollars. (By the way, we’re nearing that ceiling once again. In fact the president recently signed into law a bill that essentially suspends the debt ceiling temporarily, averting a so-called default . . . and we continue to spiral further into debt.) Meanwhile we continue to spend at a rate of approximately $12,000 a minute. The spending cuts that comprise the “sequestration” on which the president has based his latest scare campaign? 85 billion. That’s roughly 3.54% of the President’s precious 2.4 trillion dollar debt ceiling hike, and is such a minuscule percentage as compared to our overall national debt that it’s too laughable to even bother with the calculations.

As my husband just quipped, “What a joke.” Truly, what a menial, meager,, meaningless approach to “spending cuts.” When a government spends upwards of 10.5 billion dollars a day–call me crazy– the equivalent of 8.09 days of federal spending in cuts isn’t even a band-aid. It’s not even kind of a cut. Be it duly noted, dear readers, that these cuts aren’t “cuts;” they are simply reductions in future spending increases. Here’s a simplified example:

This year we spent $10 dollars. Next year we will spend $15. We’re going to cut spending by $1.50.

A true cut in spending would be to keep spending at $10, and then cut the $1.50 (or more!) from that amount. Remember baseline budgeting as discussed here? Exactly.

Our eager beaver President has been quick to do two things in this latest self-inflicted budget crisis. First, he’s run around the country outlining quite a few catastrophic “consequences” of the sequester that he himself put into place to get his way in the debt ceiling debate. Secondly, he’s effectively denying that he himself crafted sequestration to get his way in the debt ceiling debate.

Let’s start with the doom-and-gloom predications our dear leader proposed this past week. You can suffer through the whole speech here, but for your mental sanity I’ve selected a few key points:

“In a few days, Congress might allow a series of immediate, painful, arbitrary budget cuts to take place — known in Washington as the sequester. Now, that’s a pretty bad name — sequester. But the effects are even worse than the name. Instead of cutting out the government spending we don’t need — wasteful programs that don’t work, special interest tax loopholes and tax breaks — what the sequester does is it uses a meat cleaver approach to gut critical investments in things like education and national security and lifesaving medical research. “

You’ll note he implicates Congress as the perpetrator of the oh-so-painful cuts. This has become the narrative as the President has time and again blamed Congress, and not himself, for the concept of sequestration itself. Thanks to the wonders of modern amenities like the internet, we know this to be a gross falsehood. (Incidentally, why ANY politician thinks they can get away with saying they didn’t say or do something they clearly did, in the day and age in which everything lives in perpetuity in the vast expanse that is the Internet is wholly beyond me. ) The White House came up with it, the Republicans agreed to it. . . and we’re up to date. Something tells me a certain Senator Max Baucus isn’t going to be on the White House Christmas Card list this year:

For years, the President has whined and complained about how it’s Congress’ fault- in particular- that it’s the GOP’s fault, and that if they’d only go along with his plans. . . things would be just peachy. Well, for once he’s got his wish- Republicans agreed to the White House’s sequestration plan, yet now he’s blaming Republicans for “refusing to compromise” to spare the country from the sequestration. . . that he devised:

It’s funny he should mention “wasteful spending.” He may want to take a gander at a few of the wasteful checks the U.S. government has written under his administration, including but certainly not limited to a $325,000 Robo-Squirrel project aimed at studying the reaction of rattlesnakes to them; an $84.5 million ($833.8 million over the last 10 years) subsidy to Amtrak to fund its snack program; a $200 million Department of Agriculture Media program which has helped fund a reality TV show in India, among many, MANY others. But when your family’s work and living expenses exceed 1.4 billion dollars, who’s keeping track?

The President then goes on to give a laundry list of horrors resulting in the cuts, including but certainly not limited to:

“Federal prosecutors to close cases and potentially let criminals go.” Oh, you mean sort of like how ICE released quite a handful of illegal aliens on Monday, citing “sequestration,” even though the cuts haven’t even yet been put into place?

“Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings, including more than 3,500 children right here in Virginia.” I’d like to know where this concern for the average family’s cost to healthcare was when the fiscally unrealistic healthcare plan of his hit the fan this year. The average family saw their premiums go up $3,000 a year. I know ours certainly did.

Funny thing is, the Republicans presented various and sundry alternative cuts to avoid the “meat cleaver” approach the president now discusses in painful detail; yet, surprise surprise, it was the President and his party who refused to have anything to do with it. He was quite clear, or “simple” about it back in November of 2011:

“My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.” So, should the following excerpt from this week’s message indicate he’s had a change of heart?:

“And what I’ve said is if the Republicans in Congress don’t like every detail of my proposal, which I don’t expect them to, I’ve told them my door is open. I am more than willing to negotiate. I want to compromise. There’s no reason why we can’t come together and find a sensible way to reduce the deficit over the long term without affecting vital services, without hurting families, without impacting outstanding facilities like this one and our national defense. There’s a way of doing this.”

Let’s be real. His door is open alright, as long as John Boehner with the rest of the GOP following suit is willing to crawl in on his hands and knees with his own butt on a silver platter. . .

The President’s apocalyptic message this past week continued:

“Now, the reason that we’re even thinking about the sequester is because people are rightly concerned about the deficit and the debt. But there is a sensible way of doing things and there is a dumb way of doing things. I mean, think about your own family. Let’s say that suddenly you’ve got a little less money coming in. Are you going to say, well, we’ll cut out college tuition for the kid, we’ll stop feeding the little guy over here, we won’t pay our car note even though that means we can’t get to work — that’s not what you do, right? “

I tell ya what us real “families” do when things get a little tight. To be sure, we don’t “stop feeding the little guy over there;” we tighten our belts and do without the finer things in life while we right the fiscal ship. We certainly don’t go on $1 million dollar weekend getaways with the world’s most famous (or infamous, however you happen to look at it) golfer, and we certainly don’t take $4 million dollar Christmas vacations. Somebody needs to upload Michael Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror” on the presidential Ipod. . .he certainly needs a lesson in leading by example.

At the end of the day, the White House crafted these cuts as a scare tactic. They were a scare tactic then, and they are a scare tactic now. We need to cut, and we need to cut back BIG time, but this is nothing more than a symbolic gesture laced with fear mongering meant to scare the low information voter in submission as the media (that is, if and when he lets them in) backs his every move. After all, it’s certainly hard to argue with the president when he’s flanked with first responders while he pitches the horrors of budget cuts to the American public. To be certain, cuts shouldn’t occur like a blind man with an ax (though as I’ve established, 85 billion is hardly going to stop production of the behemoth machine that is the federal government), but should be addressed intelligently. Funding regimes that hate us, for one; outdated military contracts for which our military no longer has a use is another; funding researching to study online dating. . . the list is extensive.

Our president has made it quite clear over the years that he likes to do things HIS way- what with his lengthy list of executive orders skirting Congressional authority so he could simply “get things done.” Operating under this premise I’d assume that when the GOP approached him with the golden scalpel itself- that is, that HE alone could choose who, what, when, and how the $85 billion in cuts would affect, he’d leap at the chance. No such luck. In fact today the President flatly refused such authority, “instead urged Congress to work out a better solution that involves raising revenue through taxes on the wealthy.”

AAAAND there it is. It’s always about the agenda. It’s always been about the agenda. Let’s go back again to 2011 for a moment. July 12, 2011, to be precise. On page 215 of Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics,” we are granted a rare glimpse into a candid Barack Obama moment in which sequestration was being debated behind closed doors at the White House:

“’Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,’ Obama said optimistically.”

It’s not about getting spending under control. It’s not about getting our fiscal house in order. It’s not about the kiddies’ flu shots or whether or not air traffic controllers can keep their jobs. It’s not about national defense and the security of the free world. It’s about sticking it to the rich. It’s been about nothing less throughout his entire presidency- why should this round of budget talks be any different? So while the president goes ’round the nation giving his “the sky is falling” fireside chats, and the GOP is quite frankly “darned-if-they-do,” and “darned-if-they-don’t”, it is once again the American people stuck in limbo while Washington plays Monopoly with our futures.

A Future Free

~ . . .But the Glory of the Present is to make the Future Free. . . - Henry Van Dyke

Assigning Blame in Mexico’s Failed War: A President’s Ideology Meets Reality

The North Metro Tea Party Patriots: A New Home

Thatcherism Onward: A Road Map For Our Future

Taxes, Overregulation and Stifling Government Control

Union Strongholds

Foreign Affairs

Common Sense & Conviction

Thatcherism: Today and Into Tomorrow

Militants, Movies, and Radicalism in America

Correcting the Debate: Civil Rights and Homosexuality in America

The Global Entry Program: Step Right Up, Saudi Arabia!

Once an Arafat Man

Ding Dong, the Dictator’s Dead

Sequestration: Solved. (No Flu Shot Confiscations Required!)

Sequestration Nation: A New Round of Fiscal Terrorism

Follow “A Future Free”