congress

Earmarks (the reason Congress has continued to fail to function)

Standard

It is no coincidence that when earmarks were done away with Congress ceased to function as legislative body in any way.

Earmarks were the poker chips that allowed negotiations.  Granted that sometimes the earmarks were egregious like the Alaskan “bridge to nowhere”, but those could have been addressed specifically and on their merit.  Instead, earmarks were done away with in their entirety.  Can you imagine trying to trade with someone when neither of you has anything with which to trade or barter?  You would each make your initial offer and that would be it.  No negotiating on price or additional add ons to make the deal acceptable to both sides.

If you want to end Government gridlock, allow earmarks and a way to deal with the most egregious.  In the case of the “bridege to nowhere”,  The publication of the deal was enough to end it.

The bigger question is why aren’t Democrats or Republicans or Independents or the talking heads  looking at this?

 
IMG_1558.jpg

Advertisements

Profiles in Cowardice

Standard

img_1558

The last war that the United States declared was WWII.  Since that time the U.S. Congress has abrogated it’s power to advise and consent and declare war.

The Congress would rather criticize the Executive branch than do its duty.  Therefore, we are on the brink of yet another undeclared war in Syria with no imput from the people’s representatives who have through variolus artifices given that very important duty described in Article I, Section 8 to the Executive branch.

Decades have passed without this gutless branch doing its work.  The number of lives lost during those years, the money that has been wasted is incredulous; and yet, here we are today bombing a sovereign nation without a declaration of war.

It’s time for Congress to screw it’d courage to the sticking point and either declare war or withdraw all troops.

Why The Secret?

Standard

We are educated in our traffic laws.  We must stop at “Stop” signs.  We must stop when a traffic light turns red.  We had to know these aspects of traffic law before we could get a license.

Why then is the public not informed or educated as to when the police may use force or “deadly” force.  Why are these protocols kept secret.  For that matter shouldn’t they be taught as well as traffic laws.

If I know that asking an officer why I am being detained means that he may use force, shouldn’t that be information that would be helpful to both me and the officer trying to do his duty.

Do you as a non law inforcement citizen know the protocol of you local policle, sheriff, and highway patrol for the following:

– a citizen demands to know why he is being detained,

– a citizen asks for an officer’s badge number or name,

– a citizen refuses to get face down on the ground,

– a citizen puts his hand in his pocket while being questioned,

– a citizen runs away,

– a citizen flees the scene in a non-violent incident,

– in which situations may an officer engage in a high speed chase and in what kind of places such as residential neighborhoods, highly congested areas, etc.,

– in which situations may an officer draw his weapon,

– under what circumstances may he fire that weapoon,

– is an officer required to use other means of resolving a conflict before he resorts to physical force?

I remind you that the question was whether you “know” not whether you think, guess, or have heard.

If you don’t know, does government and its law enforcement officers share in the responsibility of keeping you informed?

Please feel free to share your comments.

Torches and Pitchforks continued

Standard

Check out this link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-government-problem_b_6376972.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Can there be any doubt that there is NO branch of this government that represents the middle class, the working poor, or the poor?

Torches and Pitchforks at the Castle Gate

Standard

storming the gate
Why are the federal and state governments facilitating the acquisition of military style weapons and equipment by local police forces?

I suggest that a review of recent legislation and court rulings provides a possibility.  In random order these are:
– Citibank writing the language dismantling of Dodd-Frank law,
– cuts in SNAP,
– refusal to extend unemployment compensation,
– the failure to prosecute those shooting the poor and black,
– 47% comments,
– cutting of educational funding,
– laws which allow major corporations to pay no federal income tax,
– voter suppression of elderly, poor and youth,
– the increase of wealth by the wealthiest compared to the middle class and the poor,
– a military system which uses primarily the poor,
– corporations have the same rights as people,
– money is free speech ergo, Jimie Dimon,
– reduction of retiree’s pensions,
– attacks on unions,
– opposition to a living wage,
ad nauseam.

Basically, there is a movement in which legislation and policy are aimed at aiding the wealthy (like Congress) to increase their riches and power by taking from the poor, the working poor, women, the youth, the aged, and the middle class.

The numbers affected by this sea change in wealth distribution are growing exponentially.

The frustration and anger are growing exponentially.

There will be a point where rage will erupt.

The wealthy and the powerful have been careful not to attack the firefighters, the police and the army.  They have been systematically preparing the national guard and local sheriffs and police departments to “handle” any protest which they will call insurrection.

The one percent will be ready when the torches and pitchforks appear at the castle gate.

 

“blowin” Ferguson, Toledo and New York

Standard

Please request your local radio station to play and replay “Blowin In The Wind” written and sung by Bob Dylan.  It was also sung by Peter Paul & Mary, George Harrison, ZiggyMarley and pretty much every generation of performers with the exception of this generation.

To hopefully inspire you to get the song played and another generation involved, I share with you the lyrics which I obtained from Mr. Dylan’s web site:

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, ’n’ how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, ’n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ’n’ how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, ’n’ how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, ’n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

Copyright © 1962 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1990 by Special Rider Music
Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/blowin-wind#ixzz3LGFAZVwD

If this is in violation of copyright, please delete.  No infraction was intended.

Why I Might Approve SCOTUS Ruling In Favor of Hobby Lobby

Standard

Ok, SCOTUS has already ruled that corporations are people.  Then, people must be corporations.

If the court rules that corporations can not obey the law of the land if it disagrees with their religious freedom, then people are entitled to the same protection under the Constitution.

That means that if it is my belief that war is immoral and I am  opposed to the actions of our military, I will not have to pay my income tax for whatever percentage of the budget that was for the military.

If it is my belief that it is immoral to kill animals for food, then I will not have to pay that percentage of the federal budget that provides benefits or tax benefits to the beef industry.

If it is my belief that the Congress is immoral in the way that they fail to conduct the business of the people, I can deduct the portion of my tax bill that goes to paying their and their aids salaries.

I could certainly the savings in my tax dollars.  What if I believe it is immoral to take form someone that belongs to them without their permission;  I wouldn’ have to pay any income tax at all.

I’m not a lawyer or Supreme Court judge; but….