Category: Politics

This article makes some very good points about the necessity of the tax system in order to enjoy the benefits of a civilized, free society. It drives our education, justice system, and military. It is also far from perfect, and this article’s author does not try to excuse its wrongdoings. But regardless of your personal slant on the tax system, be it more of a socialist or conservative view, the things discussed here are very relevant to all.

Don’t Like Taxes? Consider the Alternative

By PETER L. BERNSTEIN

Published: February 10, 2008

Though people exaggerate many negatives about taxes, I am more concerned about how we ignore the positives. Indeed, taxes buy us the free society we cherish.

If you are registered to vote in one of these states, I would strongly encourage you to vote for these candidates on Tuesday.

Democrats: Barack Obama

The Democratic Party is down to two candidates with almost identical policies. This brings the decision of who deserves the Democratic nomination to one of character, reliability, and electability against the Republican nominee in the general election. Barack Obama demonstrates a commanding lead over Hillary Clinton in his consistency on political views, as well as his chances of winning the general election.

When Hillary Clinton was voting against a resolution that would require George Bush to be held accountable to the United States Congress and the international community, Barack Obama was stating his staunch opposition to a war in Iraq.

Barack Obama is the candidate that stands for reform and transparency in both Congress and the White House. He sponsored legislation that made information on federal spending and campaign donations available to the public. He pledges to make important administration meetings viewable on C-SPAN, as opposed to behind closed doors as the Clintons did with their healthcare policy meetings in 1993.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama has a strong opposition to the influence of special interests in Washington. He does not take federal PAC or lobbyist money, and does not have huge corporations backing his campaign, while Clinton owes much of her current power to several large and wealthy corporate donors.

Obama not only has what it takes to win in November, but he the candidate who can see beyond his own opinions and motives. His perspective of America is not one of “us-against-them” politics, but one of finding solutions that will respect and serve all Americans, including the ones who do not agree with him. He shows more loyalty to his constituents than his own party’s political establishment. A vote for Obama is a vote for integrity, change, and a belief that our country’s best days are still ahead of us.

Republicans: John McCain

John McCain is the only major Republican candidate running who recognizes the meaning of true conservatism and how it contrasts with the Republican party’s actions for the last seven years. His campaign promotes an agenda that seeks to restore our country’s tarnished reputation in the world, while not compromising our values or sacrificing our liberties.

McCain is a Vietnam veteran who lived for over 5 years in a POW camp. He has the best experience to understand the needs of our military and make foreign policy decisions that keep us both safe and free. Unlike Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, John McCain does not seek to build empires and use military action as the first – or only – option, but also knows how to best protect our troops overseas and ensure their success when they must engage in combat.

He is the only major Republican candidate that makes a strong stand against torture. He will close the Guantánamo Bay prisons.

Like Barack Obama, John McCain is one of the few voices in Washington that speaks out against corporate influence in national politics. He also spends a great amount of effort decrying pork barrel legislation and federal money for special projects.

John McCain is the only viable option for an honest and reliable Republican candidate. Both Romney and Huckabee run campaigns reminiscent of the Bush platform – they work hard to sell themselves as “compassionate conservatives” that will treat our citizens with respect and serve us all. But when you examine their track record, it becomes clear that they only work to serve those who conform to their own set of cultural ideals, leaving Americans with different opinions or lifestyles in the dust. John McCain, while firm in his own ideals, conducts his campaign in a matter of decency and respect, regardless of whether or not people support his opinions. On the campaign trail, he encounters opposition and will engage in a respectful and civil discussion of his issue, clearly states his views, allows critique, and does not try to shut off dissident voices.

A vote for John McCain is a vote to restore the Republican party to truly conservative principles and to protect civil liberties for Americans and respect the rest of the world.

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that you haven’t heard about this yet.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=0]

I watched the Democratic debate in Iowa last night. I can’t believe that I’m saying this, but I actually think it made me like Hillary Clinton more.

I still say that Barack Obama is the best to lead America in 2009. But I support him for his ideals, for his youth that separates him from the “Washington establishment”. But last night, especially in her comments about pursuing Al Qaeda in Pakistan, it became obvious that her experience gives her a much more detailed knowledge of issues that she would face in the Presidency. The only other candidate that comes close is McCain.

That said, I directly disagree with her views on abortion, the death penalty, No Child Left Behind, the PATRIOT acts, the Iraq war, and Same-sex marriages. (This table is the ultimate “candidate cheat sheet”)

So I’m still for Kucinich and Obama (Or maybe Obama/Kucinich on the same ticket) in 2009. But I think I’d feel comfortable with any of the Democratic candidates, which is a big change from my views a week ago.

We’re in Iraq for some reason. No WMDs or nuclear weapons turned out to be there, which were a large part of our rationale for going in.

Iran has the beginnings of a nuclear program. They may be making weapons. And it’s pretty sure we’re taking them down next.

North Korea has (or at least had) capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. And they have malicious intent towards us – they would love to start something, and nobody is in doubt of that.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. They are not a member of the non-proliferation treaty. They also have Osama bin Laden. Yet they are considered our ally.

Could somebody tell me why we’re going after the “maybe a threat” nations when there are countries actively threatening us that we are doing nothing about?

I know that my blog has been leaning on the political side the last few days, but it’s getting downright scary out there.

On May 8, George Bush issued a National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51/HSPD-20) giving the president what can only be described as dictatorial power over all levels of government in a “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

A quick read through the document shows that in such an event, the executive branch would have direct power over all branches of the federal government, as well as state, local, and tribal government, the name of mantaining an “enduring constitutional government.” (Totalitarianism, anyone?)

Such a loose definition gives ultimate authority to the President under even the weakest of justifications – surely a terrorist attack like 9/11, but also under a minor emergency in another country, even if it only affects us economically. And regardless of what triggers such power, is dictatorial authority really what we want right after a true catastrophe? A malicious leader could orchestrate a disaster, and gain control of the government after it is carried out.

Like I said, my apologies for the recent political slant. I’m not even that into politics right now, but the news I’m reading is just really creepy.
Maybe tomorrow I’ll post some links to some tinfoil hats up for sale.

Time for another reality check!

The Department of Homeland Security, founded just after 9/11, has the following stated mission:

“We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.”
Source: Department of Homeland Security

The DHS does its best to make sure that its public image is closely associated with combating terrorism. This would make sense, given that the executive branch gives this agency the authority to encroach upon many lower levels of government, interfering  and overriding operations of local police, politicians, and other public servants. This department is in charge of many actions authorized by the PATRIOT Acts, which ignore the Bill of Rights and violate citizens’ civil liberties as long as the administration deems them “enemy combatants.” Given no threat whatsoever, no American would submit to such intrusions. But given counterterrorism as an excuse, some are willing to sacrifice such liberties since they believe they have nothing to hide.

But alas, the DHS is not spending a smidge of time on counterterrorism, beyond the PR rallying cries and color-coded terrorism threat levels that garner continuing support through fear. (I won’t even starton that tragic irony.) TRAC, a non-partisan, independent organization that gathers information on federal spending, staffing, and engorcement, has released a report on the Department of Homeland Security’s actions. The report focuses on immigration courts, which should be a large part of international counterterrorism efforts. But of the 814,073 charges made in the last three years, only twelve were for terrorism. That’s 0.0015% – not even two thousandths of one percent. In other numbers, that is 1.5 people for every 100,000 charged by the DHS.

Now I realize that the DHS is responsible for many duties formerly carried out by the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service, so immigration courts will have to deal with smaller issues. But an organization founded on preventing terrorism is undeniably:

1. Not doing its job
2. Hiding their true actions from Americans.

I dare say that that thousandth of a percent is all that it takes to get a country to blindly give up their rights and accept a police state.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=palbo-ilalU]
13 years can change a lot. I have said in the past that if Hillary got the Democrat nomination, that I would vote McCain. Senator, you’ve just lost my vote.