Author: XicanoPwr

Found this post on TBogg and I just had to share to demonstrate the constant hypocracy, especially when it deals with family moral values.

From TBogg’s post:

Why does Michelle Malkin hate her children and not want to spend time with them?

Doug TenNapel, artist, musician, and animator extraordinaire (not to mention staunch conservative), has the parenting tip of the day.

The tip:

From time to time I have to play Candy Land with my kids. What was a magical, complicated game of my youth is a form of insipid torture for an adult. The game can last for an eternity. I mean literally an eternity.

My Beloved attends a MOPS (Mothers Of Pre-Schoolers) group at church and she picked up a great trick from one of the other mothers. Put the Queen Frostine card close to the top of the deck and when a child chooses this card they jump ahead nearly to the end of the board…limiting the parenting hell-on-earth known as Candy Land to a tolerable fifteen minute game.

The problem with the right wing in general, they adhere to a bunch of hollow claims on certain values. They claim believe in God – who who looks down on: those worshipping other gods, those who takes God’s name in vain, those who don’t honor thy father and thy mother, killing, adultery, and stealing.

It is bad enough the Shrill Queen is advocating cheating, but a church-based parenting group. Come on people, these are 3 to 6 year children, but nooo they have to justify by whining the game is too long. GROW THE FUCK UP!!!! And people wonder why kids are screaming bloody murder in the of some grocery store.

The problem, we live in a fast-pace, quick-fix society. We get bored way too easily. In short – speed rules.

The subliminal message wingnuts like Malkin, TenNapel, Mothers Of Pre-Schoolers of that church are sending to their zombie followers: Slow and steady does not win the race. Neither does skill acquisition or learning. Doesn’t anybody every consider the social consequences it has for us all? Have we become a shortcut society?

In a pervious post, I mentioned David Callahan’s “The Cheating Culture,” Callahan writes that cheating is having an effect on our society, it has instilled in us a value that greed and ambition rule. And worse we are teaching our future that honesty isn’t truly the best policy.

Callahan writes, “Young people see those who get to the top cut corners. It becomes the norm.”

As long as this administration gets away with the crap they are doing and continue having shrill monsters like Malkin defending them, the fraudulent bar continues to be set higher and with a message of “only pansies plays by the rules.” Way to go Malkin!

From Christianity Today:

If cheating is taking inappropriate shortcuts to achieve a good, even a holy end, much of evangelical Christianity stands guilty. We read one-minute Bibles, pray through five-minute devotions, or wander from one conference to another to get five keys to spiritual success. We expect spiritual maturity in 40 purpose-filled studies. Though such resources are designed as milk for the immature, we fear they are viewed as the meat of discipleship by too many.

But the biggest crime – not wanting to spend your time with your own child.

Recently, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, a former Colorado attorney general, announced her resignation and will be leaving the Interior Department at the of the month (Norton’s resignation letter). Norton will be leaving with a controversial record which includes clashes with environmentalists and American Indian groups. While, at the same time receiving praises from the oil industry.

Ms. Norton, who turns 52 on Saturday, has been on the job for five years and was at the nexus of many controversies, including drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other sensitive areas, administration of the Endangered Species Act, handling of trust money for Indian tribes, and collection of royalties due the federal government for natural gas drilling on public lands.

As interior secretary she was in charge over the department that is currently being investigated for possible ties to the corruption scandal involving Jack Abramoff. Even though her Department is currently being investigated, Norton denies that the investigation played a role in her resignation, claiming that she just wanted “to return to having a private life again.”
Jack Abramoff, Norton and Department of Inferior

Norton’s problems began in 2005 when her name was mentioned during Abramoff’s investigation. And it now looks like the noose is getting tighter for her this year.

Earlier this year, White House officials tried to put some distance themselves from Jack Abramoff. So obvious, Scott McClellan, White House press secretary, said “The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him.” In mid-January, Time dropped a bombshell on the White House when they disclosed they had five photos of Abramoff and Dubya together. There, the White House tried spinning the pictures as a mere coincidence because the pictures in question were taken at a “Christmas-party line, where the President poses with hundreds of people.” And in a press conference held in January, Dudya told reporters “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.”

In February, Time published the pictures in question. McClellan claimed the White House had “no record” told told TIME:

The President has taken countless, tens of thousands of pictures at home and abroad over the last five years. As we’ve said previously a photo like this has no relevance to the Justice Department’s investigation [of Abramoff].

Considering the White House has aggressively downplayed the situation, one has to wonder, how close is the relationship between Dubya and Jack Abramoff? In addition to the photos, it was previously reported in the Texas Observer that Jack Abramoff was member of the Bush Administration’s 2001 Transition Advisory Team. The Observer wrote:

He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove’s personal assistant. He was a close friend, advisor, and high-dollar fundraiser for the most powerful man in Congress, Tom DeLay.

In May 2005, USA Today reported:

…documents show [Abramoff’s] team also had extensive access to Bush administration officials, meeting with Cheney policy advisers Ron Christie and Stephen Ruhlen, Ashcroft at the Justice Department, White House intergovernmental affairs chief Ruben Barrales, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and others.

Most of the contacts were handled by Abramoff’s subordinates, who then reported back to him on the meetings. Abramoff met several times personally with top Interior officials, whose Office of Insular Affairs oversees the Mariana Islands and other U.S. territories.

Recently released e-mails by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee show that Abramoff began his involvement with the Interior Department since day one of the BushCo Administration. Abramoff’s main contact in the Interior Department was Italia Federici, a former political aide to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and current president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA).

On January 30, 2001,- the same day Interior Secretary Gale Norton was confirmed by the Senate – Abramoff wrote Federici (click here for image):

Thanks of much Italia. Please let me know what I can do to help Dennis Stephens, Mark Zachares (Office of Insular Affairs) and Tim Martin (Bureau of Indian Affairs) be placed. Look forward to hearing form you regarding CREA. Regards.

According to USA Today, Coalition of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) was founded in 1999 by Secretary Norton, Federici and Grover Norquist.

Federici helped Norton raise money for an unsuccessful bid for a Senate seat in Colorado and she, Norquist and Norton formed CREA in 1999 as a tax-exempt organization highlighting Republican ideas for the environment.

As expected, Federici denies any wrongdoing, however, her emails between her and Abramoff paint a different picture.

In a March 1, 2001 email, Federici invited Abramoff to a “small cocktail party” so he could meet Secretary Norton. Federici also mentions the outcome of the first meeting between Abramoff and Griles and how Griles was pleased with Abramoff’s “advice” on BIA. She also told Abramoff “You definitely made another friend.” Abramoff replied excited about the invitation and offered to help out on the cost of the party.

According to the Department of Interior, Deputy Secretary Steven Griles oversaw two of the bureaus Abramoff had his eyes on, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Insular Affairs.

The Deputy Secretary is second in command in the Department and has policy and administrative responsibility for assisting the Secretary in managing the Department’s eight bureaus: the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Minerals Management Service, Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of Insular Affairs.

On the same day, Federici sends seris of emails to an unidentified person letting them know Abramoff has requested an invoice. Also on the same day in another email, Abramoff asked Federici for a favor, Abramoff wanted to know if Secretary Norton or Griles could help out one of his clients. One can assume the name crossed out is Secretary Norton because one of those emails Federici notifies the person whos name is crossed out that “Steve” has taken care of the “matter.”

In the same month, a fax was sent from Kathryn Fowler Van Hoof, the LA Coushattas’ attorney, requesting a payment of $50,000 to “pay 1/2 the cost of a poll conducted by the Council for Republican Environmental Advocacy, which is being conducted on behalf of Gayle Norton, Secretary of Interior.” Interestingly, in May 2001, CREA provided the Interior Department the findings from their focus groups. The findings “suggests how to talk about energy issues, emphasizes using rising gas prices to promote increased drilling” – according to documents obtained by the National Resources Defense Council.

The research concludes, “language that . . . emphasizes price increases in gasoline and natural gas and the California situation resonates with voters.” Another finding: “Gasoline price stability is the single most potent argument for opening up ANWR.”

Additional emails provide evidence Norton and Griles were also involved with Abramoff in bilking the Native Americans. Abramoff and his associated often describe Griles as “Our guy.” In an email exchange between Todd Boulanger, of Cassidy and Associates Inc and Abramoff, the emails indicate the funds were used so tribal leaders could meet Norton face-to-face at one of Norton’s “dinner of the trustees.” Abramoff explained to Boulanger that each tribe contributes $50,000 to Norton’s organization CREA, which “she supports still.”

Abramoff Arranged A White House Meeting With Bush And Administration Officials For Indian Leaders. In the summer of 2001, Abramoff arranged a meeting between Bush and top Indian leaders to discuss tax issues. Among the attendees was one of Abramoff’s biggest clients, Lovelin Poncho, chairman of the Coushattas. Abramoff also invited the Coushattas and other tribal clients to a fall 2001 dinner party attended by Interior Secretary Gale Norton. [National Journal, 4/20/02]

So did Norton resign because the Abramoff scandal noose was getting tighter? Maybe so, but that really is besides the point. History is filled with many examples how people can be easily fooled by smooth talking snake-oil salesmen like P.T. Barnum. Barnum is often credited with the quote “There’s a sucker born every minute,” a motto Jack Abramoff evidently lives by. Greed does not even comes close to describing Abramoff’s motive and those who participated this criminal act and this will go down in history as one of sadest period in US history. No matter how much Secretary Norton denies her involvement, the evidence proves otherwise. And like the popular Nigerian email scam, she was as much a part of Abramoff scam that bilked the Native Americas.

[x-posted and an extended version on ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!]

Since coming into office in 2001, the Bush administration has consistently opposed to having the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The court was set up to prosecute individuals accused of the world’s worst atrocities — genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity — in a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nuremberg trials, which tried Nazi leaders after World War II. The Bush argues that the court, could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. troops.

BushCo has aggressively negotiated bilateral agreements with other countries to insure immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. Sadly, BushCo is willingly to play the school yard bully to dozens of other poor countries by cutting off foreign aid, foreign trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) for defying the US because of their support for the International Criminal Court.

Last fall, Mexico became a signatory to the ICC making them the 12th country from the Latin America-Caribbean area to be punished under the U.S. American Service-Members’ Protection Act. This law prohibits US military assistance to countries that have not signed “Article 98” agreements. An “Article 98” agreement is the agreement between the US and those countries who pledge not to seek the prosecution of US citizens in the International Criminal Court.
Countries that refused to sign and ratify Article 98 agreements lost the military aid and those countries who were not willing to stand up to the US were not sanctioned. The following are the types of aid BushCo will cut off: International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), Excess Defense Articles (EDA) and non-drug Emergency Drawdown Authority funds (506(b)). Section 574 of the 2005 Foreign Operations Appropriations law (P.L. 108-447), a provision that adds an economic-aid program, Economic Support Funds (ESF).

U.S. military aid is a key component to Mexican security in combating drug trafficking. The U.S. did warn Mexico that joining the ICC would lead to the cut of an $11.5 million program to help its justice system deal with drug trafficking. According to the Seattle Times, Mexico could lose almost 40% in US economic aid if it decided to defy the US.

It is interesting that last December, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) and his anti-reconquista rough rides of the House passed their fascist “getting tough” immigration policy, HR 4437 – the bill that would build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border – rather quickly. It just proves that ignorance can only be accompanied by bliss. And it is also interesting, Congress voted to give themselves a $3,000-a-year pay raise, which became effective just in time for the holidays.

The obvious question is, how was that possible, if this (un)free nation is in debt? Another question that could be asked, what programs got cut. Since October, when Mexico decided to defy BushCo, the relationship between Mexico and the US have been strained. One possible explanation, the US did cut foreign aid to Mexico. According to the Houston Chronicle, today, “the sanctions have been imposed without an official announcement.” Not only will BushCo take their marbles and go home, but they don’t have to tell anybody when they are going home. Mexico is not the only country try in Latin America that Bush decided to punish.

ICC-related sanctions have cut the roster of trainees from the hemisphere by almost 800 over the past few years, eroding the traditionally deep ties between the U.S. and Latin American militaries.

Worldwide, about two dozen countries have been sanctioned by the U.S.

Despite being cut off and suffering the consequences, Mexico will not back down and sign the “Article 98” agreement. President Vicente Fox’s spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said

“Mexico will be irrefutable in supporting the protocols of the international court, whatever the cost. Nobody in the world should be immune from the action of justice.”

One has to wonder, if the sanctions didn’t force Mexico to sign the agreement, was HR 4437 the next move by BushCo? In July 2004, the House attached an anti-ICC amendment, the Nethercutt Amendment, to the FY05 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818). The Nethercutt Amendment was named after the Congressman who introduced it, the amendment would cut ESFs to all countries that belong to the ICC but have not signed  the “Article 98” agreement with the US. The Nethercutt language has again been included in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, H.R. 3057.

The Nethercutt provision in FY06 provides waivers for NATO Allies, key non-NATO allies, and other countries if the President determines that it is in the national interests of the US. Like the American Servicemembers Protection Act, the Nethercutt threatens to withhold military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. According to the Citizens for Global Solutions, Bush has not invoked any waivers yet.

And according the Chronicle, Bush will be meeting with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox at the end of the month. Once again, the school yard bully is kicking sand, sign the agreement or the wall will be built.

[x-posted on ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!]

Let me put this first warning, it is very radical but it is effective too.
Disclaimer: I am not ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST IT, IT IS UP TO YOU. I AM PASSING ALONG INFORMATION THAT I KNOW ABOUT. THERE IS NO NEED TO HORDE KNOWLEDGE, IT MUST BE SHARE AS A WHOLE FOR A SOCIETY TO LIVE IN HARMONY.

“Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes.”
-Alexander Haig, U.S. Sec. of State, June 12, 1982

It is impossible to conduct warfare without soldiers and weapons. However, before governments can buy weapons and recruit soldiers, they must first raise the necessary money through taxes or borrowing. War tax resistance is refusing to pay some or all of those federal taxes that contribute to military spending.

I met this woman during a rally, ever since then she has been one of the few people I really admire. Some of you may know her and some of you may not. The person I am talking about is Kathy Kelly
Here is some info on her:

In 1988 she was sentenced to one year in prison for planting corn on nuclear missile silo sites. Kelly served nine months of the sentence in Lexington KY maximum security prison.
…
Kelly helped organize and participated in nonviolent direct action teams in Haiti (summer of 1994), Bosnia (August, 1993, December, 1992) and Iraq (Gulf Peace Team, 1991). In April of 2002, she was among the first internationals to visit the Jenin camp in the Occupied West Bank.

In the spring of 2004, she served three months at Pekin federal prison for crossing the line as part of an ongoing effort to close an army military combat training school at Fort Benning, GA.

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee with Denis Halliday 2000

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee 2001

Nobel Peace prize Nominee, with Voices in the Wilderness 2003

One of the things she has done for 25 years, she is a war tax refuser, she has refused payment of all Federal income tax.

Since there isn’t a specific tax that goes directly to the military, war taxes generally mean individual federal income taxes and as well as some excise taxes (e.g., the 3% federal excise tax on telephone service). Though a case can be made to include Social Security, state, and local taxes, these are generally not considered “war taxes.”

The following information comes from the 2007 United States Budget – “Analytical Perspectives.”  

BUDGETTED: Current Military = $563 billion:

• Military Personnel $110 billion
• Operation & Maint. $162 billion
• Procurement $90 billion
• Research & Dev. $72 billion
• Construction $8 billion
• Family Housing $4 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• Retired Pay $49 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $8 billion
• International Security $8 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $27 billion
• Exec. Office of President $2 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $2 billion

UNBUDGETTED: Iraq & Afghanistan Wars = $100 billion:
Most of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not included in the President’s Budget but the Administration will seek supplemental appropriations later this year as it has in the past three years. This is likely an underestimate.

Past Military = $439 billion:

• Veterans’ Benefits $76 billion
• Interest on national debt $353 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending)

That information is from our government. Remember Orwell and the Ministry of Truth. Depending on how a watchdog group presents the budget figures, the number will differ from the governments.
Center for Defense Information (CDI) 51% of our federal income tax goes to the war machine.
Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 42%.

Like I said, it is radical way to protest and it can be done. Once again, this is my disclaimer: I am not ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST IT, IT IS UP TO YOU. I AM PASSING ALONG INFORMATION THAT I KNOW ABOUT. THERE IS NO NEED TO HORDE KNOWLEDGE, IT MUST BE SHARE AS A WHOLE FOR A SOCIETY TO LIVE IN HARMONY.

If you want more, you can email.

“If a thousand men [and women] were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.”
-Henry David Thoreau

Who should this country blame for the higher cost of living, rising gas prices, higher insurance premiums, global warming and this Administration corruptions? Ah yes, its those damn border crossers. Send them hell back!

It always seems like whenever something goes wrong in the United States, immigrants are the first to be blamed or suspected. Basta!

Beginning last year, the wing-nut experiment in extralegal policing by the xenophobic dumbfuck version of the Nazi stormtroopers – Minutemen – began “patrolling” the borders from lazy, shiftless, drug smuggling South-of-the-Border varmints. If that is not bad enough, they are now found “other ways” to take care of the immigration problems, they have taken to chasing day laborers at pickup sites.
The muscle for outright oppression of anyone who hasn’t savored the wingnut kool-aid is already being rehearsed in the form of racist paramilitary groups like the Minutemen. To show that the US is “getting tough,” last December, the anti-reconquista brigades in the House passed their draconian legislation, H.R. 4437. If passed by the Senate, the new law will now make felons of all undocumented immigrants as well as persons who assist them. Pat Buchanan’s wet dream come true.

Worst yet, these fascist assholes, wrap themselves around the American flag, crying foul if anyone dares to call the racists. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado), the Lou Dobbs of the House, wrote one of his fascist op-ed propaganda pieces in the L.A. Times:

People who say it’s racist to want secure borders are insulting the intelligence of the American people, and such charges betray an empty arsenal of serious arguments.

Tancredo and his rag-tag trigger happy white, jack-booted, skinhead army continue to beat the drum that securing the borders isn’t racist. But it is wingnuts lunitics like Tancredo that treat assholes running around with guns as real patriots. Is it a coincidence that racist-affiliated right wing groups like the Minutemen are being mainstreamed at the same time that time that other members of the racist-affiliated right wing are trying to restore the reputation of Joe McCarthy? Some pundits have argued that internment camps were and are a good idea while pieces of race-baiting, academic jihadist shit like David Horowitz have constructed an entire bogus database, DiscoverTheNetwork.org, connecting anyone left to terrorism. That is just the tip of the “race-baiting iceberg,” there are subtle messages being spread widely and effectively distributed by think tanks, academics, radio pundits and right-wing politicians, who have created an industry that interprets whiteness in an unprecedented context – in which many whites feel uncomfortably surrounded by “minorities.” Take the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR), on there website one can find propaganda bullshit trying to insight fear with their faux public-policy observations, such as their xenophobic view on Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa – Meet the Mechista Weasel who Wants to Be L.A’s Next Mayorista. Or on AmericanPatrol.com, where they urged people “Help keep this Mexican nationalist out of the L.A. mayor’s office,” in last year’s mayoral race. As I stated before, the anti-illegal-immigration movement is sweeping the country like wildfire. Some of the more asinine comments about groups like the Minutemen have been compared as a Neighborhood Watch program.

Over twenty years ago, a researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston coined the phrase the “Hispanic paradox” – the tendency for Hispanic people to have lower than average rates of some chronic illnesses despite the fact that many of them live in relatively poor social or economic conditions. At the heart of the anti-immigration debate resides a distinct paradox. As Merriam-Webster defines it a paradox is an idea, thought, or accepted notion that may be contrary to the truth.

The “Hispanic Paradox” is that the country’s political culture cannot function without scapegoating migrant laborers either. America’s fear of immigrants is not new. In the 1920s, Congress passed Immigration Act of 1924, which placed immigration quotas that barred Asians, Italians, Greeks, and Jews. These quota laws, passed after lobbying by the Ku Klux Klan, Immigration Restriction League and others, codified the eugenics theories of Madison Grant, whose work focused on the supposedly inferior skull sizes of Jews and other immigrants.

To begin with, immigrants have contributed to the United States experience of its last economic boom and this country can continue to recover from its current crisis thanks in part to their contributions as well. There is a tendency to argue that immigrants take from this country much more than they give. This is myth created by many neo-cons to create anti-immigrants sentiments. Here are some facts about the jobs we are stealing:

• 162,000 work in nation’s miscellaneous agricultural industry;
• 161,000 are maids and housekeepers;
• 132,000 are grounds keepers;
• 174,000 are construction workers;
• 114,000 are production workers;
• 194,000 of the nation’s cooks, and
• 153,000 of the nation’s janitors.

 It is easy to marginalize and demonize them economically and socially. The most comprehensive study on this subject has been done by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS clearly establishes that legal and illegal immigrants combined contribute more than 10 billion dollars to the U.S. economy annually. They also found that immigrants are necessary to avoid inflation and to keep prices low. Without immigrants, a tomato might cost $5; a hamburger $20; a filet mignon $50; and Americans would have to pay two or three times more to rent or buy a house. The NAS also have suggested the United States needs more immigrants – who of course pay taxes and create jobs – to support the rapidly aging baby-boomers.

War does not always take the form of tanks and bombs. They self-righteously bombarding the airwaves of some faux “invasion” of the United States by undocumented workers, sending fear to the suburbs by evoking images of drug use, crime, and forked-tongues. Americans are “smothered” by their own media. So, how much you want to bet that the suburban wingnut would have a problem with out of state scumbags descending on their neighborhoods fully armed?

Mi gente, this is their war on all of us, and it is a class war that seeks to divide this nation into two classes: Rich and poor. And if you are poor you will also have no rights. Ask yourself this, do you really think things will get better? If you are one of the many just trying to get by, I am sorry my friend you are like many of us Xicanos. You can kick out all the Hispanics, but you will never belong in their demographic. Make no mistake about it, those now in power do not care about you! How much more suffering will we have to endure at the hands of these dirty greedy bastards who have no morals, conscience, or values other than benefiting themselves?

They talk about crime and taking jobs away. It is not the immigrants who are outsourcing American jobs, its the Wal-Mart Republicans. The Republicans continue to succeed in propagandizing to the American public into believing that they and they alone can keep America secure, there’s no reason why the “War on Terror” should ever have to end. In fact, by giving the right-wing a monopoly on “keeping America safe” it would make sense for them, in terms of maintaining power, to allow just enough terrorist attacks against the American civilian population, or at least the perception of its imminence, to keep up a level of hysteria without also making themselves seem incompetent.

While all this happy horseshit is being flung against the wall, almost completely ignored are the atrocities occurring in Iraq.

America is beginning to default on its promissory note insofar as democracy is concerned. We have been given a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds. Now is the time to make real on the promises of democracy! Now is the time to make justice a reality!

[x-posted on ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!]

Regardless of the political season, the issue of immigration is always considered a hot topic. In fact, the topic of immigration brings out every political spectrum when trying to solve the issue. Moreover, the most vocal of the groups most likely are xenophobic hate groups. Frighteningly, their presence have seeped into Congress and are constantly advocating for draconian measures to be included in any type of immigration reform bill. Even more alarmingly, nativism – a movement which is oftentimes fueled by xenophobia and hate – have  already entered into the mainstream media.

Nativism, the hostile reaction towards the flux of immigration, is not really a new phenomenon that currently was spawned within this new century. According to David Bennett, author of The Party Fear, nativist movements usually occur during times of major social, economic, or political disturbances are taking place. Oftentimes, American nativists will project their insecurities on the immigrants, ethnic/religious groups, or anybody different from their own for the troubles that America is experiencing.
It is interesting to note, the Immigration Act of 1965 signed by President Lyndon Johnson is considered to be part of Civil Rights legislation. Along with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the Immigration Act became one the cornerstones to the Civil Rights Movement. The Act, was to rid the nation’s history of racism and discrimination in immigration. It removed barriers based on national origin, and measures favoring immigrants from Western European countries. It also opened the door to more diverse patterns of immigration. Now, those changes and the Civil Rights tradition are once again under attack. The anti-immigrant sentiment is sweeping the country like wildfire.

Inspired by political successes in Arizona, and fanned by national and grassroots anti-immigrant groups, and like the predecessors, nativists continue the tradition of misrepresenting and disguising “their xenophobic and racists beliefs in order to garner favor with the American public.”

One can expect to find groups like “Minutemen,” who are trying to frame themselves as brave souls who are taking it upon themselves to protect our borders from lazy, shiftless, drug smuggling South-of-the-Border immigrants. In fact, they had to armed themselves, just in case they were attacked from violent border runners, particularly in the middle of the desert, at night, when no one else was around.

So it is not surprising a group like The Minutemen are reported to have to racist, White Supremacist groups. In fact, Minutemen found Chris Simcox and Jim Gilchrist are following in the footsteps of other anti-immigrant activists before them. Klansmen were on the Mexican border 28 years before the Minutemen came up with this bright idea. In 1977, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan lead by David Duke and Tom Metzger also hatched the same plan of taking the law into their own hands to keep immigrants at bay. They formed Klan Border Watch, a KKK vigilante border patrol in southern California. The “Klan Border Watch” claimed to stretch from Texas to California, and was part of the “battle to halt the flow of illegal aliens streaming across the border from Mexico.”

The Minutemen may speak of patriotism, and claim they have “no affiliation with, nor will we accept any assistance by or interference from, separatists, racists, or supremacy groups” but the simple truth, it just another public relation bullshit spin. Even more sickening, trigger happy white, jack-booted, skinhead members from the neo-Nazi National Alliance and other sick white supremacist groups are chomping at the bit to participate.

Perhaps most disturbing is Jim Gilchrist’s partnership with Swift Boater Jerome Corsi to write a book about Mexico’s conspiracy to trash America: [Hat tip to Orcinus.]

Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, and Jerome Corsi, Harvard Ph.D. and co-author of the #1 New York Times bestseller “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” have teamed up to write a shocking account of the endless flow of drugs, terrorists, and economic refugees at America’s borders — and to expose the Mexican government’s open complicity in this full-fledged crisis. The to-be-titled book will be published by World Ahead Publishing and available in bookstores nationwide this July.
…
“Illegal immigration is bankrupting states along the border, but this is about more than economics — we’re placing our national security at risk,” says Gilchrist, who along with other Minuteman Project volunteers has come under fire while on patrol and carrying nothing more than binoculars and cell phones. “Drug lords and violent gangs like MS-13 are streaming into the U.S. from Mexico. Terrorists are also walking in unopposed; our southwestern border is littered with Arabic papers and Islamic prayer rugs.”

Sure it is easy to dismiss this book as a “joke,” but this is exactly how propaganda is supposed to work because propaganda can be either blatant or subtle as a joke. Once that stage is completed, they will employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir audience’s emotions to win their approval until their the sick agenda has been met. And what once was considered an “outrageous idea” – the creation of Fortress America

– has now gained acceptance.

The December House vote of 260-159 is the strongest endorsement yet for building a wall, which Rep. Duncan Hunter, a San Diego County Republican, has been pushing for two decades as a tactic against illegal immigration. Support for the wall was even stronger than for the bill it was attached to — a larger plan to curb terrorism and illegal immigration sponsored by Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner that passed 239 to 182.

This movement must be halted before any outrage to stop America’s xenophobia will be easily ignored or we might as well say:

Welcome to Fortress America!

[Crossposted on my ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!]

[Front-paged by susanhu w minor edits. This is a hell of a yarn, and the product of some great research.]

It all started on a weekend hunting trip Dick Cheney took at the Armstrong Ranch in Kenedy County. A ranch rich with Texas history, it was once said that Prince Charles even played polo there in 1977. Others who also visited the Armstrong Ranch to play polo were Anne’s husband, Tobin Armstrong of the Armstrong Ranch; his brother John Armstrong of the neighboring King Ranch; and John’s son Charles Armstrong. These gatherings would build a lifelong cadre of Republicans familiar with power.

This hunting trip included Harry Whittington, 78, a Republican, chairman of the Texas Funeral Services Commission and served on the state prison board and Texas Public Finance Authority; Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the Texas ranch where Cheney shot his 78-year-old friend, Harry Whittington, on Saturday; and Pamela Pitzer Willeford, U.S. ambassador to Switzerland.

Thanks to Karl Rove, the master of damage control, the news media have been diverted away from Katharine Armstrong, the wealthy ranch heiress, who is also a lobbyist – a lobbyist who are close friends with the president and vice president … continued below …

“I’m going to have lunch with Secretary of State Rice, talk a little business; Mrs. Bush, talk a little business; we’ve got a friend from South Texas here, named Katharine Armstrong; take a little nap. I’m reading an Elmore Leonard book right now, knock off a little Elmore Leonard this afternoon; go fishing with my man, Barney; a light dinner and head to the ballgame. I get to bed about 9:30 p.m., wake up about 5 a.m. So it’s a perfect day.”

Armstrong, the daughter of Anne and the late Tobin Armstrong is definitely following in her parents’ footsteps. Anne Armstrong, who comes from a wealthy New Orleans family, has a long history with the Republican Party. President Ford appointed Anne as ambassador to the United Kingdom, becoming the first woman Ambassador to the UK, to her credit. President Reagan appointed her to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Other positions she held include co-chair of the Republican National Convention; cabinet-level positions for two Republican Presidents, Nixon and Ford; and board member at Halliburton. It is also said that Anne was very instrumental in helping Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison – Anne’s best friend – launch her political career.

Tobin Armstrong, who recently passed away, also has a long history working within the Republican Party and the beef industry. Between 1953 and until his death, Tobin served on the board of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. His career in politics is richly associated with Texas political machinery in Kenedy County. According to his obituary, he “served as Kenedy County commissioner from 1979 until his death.” Tobin also served as an advisor to Texas Republican Gov. William Clements; it was there he met Karl Rove. According to Karl Rove, Tobin was very helpful in bringing down the Texas Democratic Party.

Katharine Armstrong may not have had the rich experience her parents had, but she did gain a lot of insight. Her upbringing gave her the best of both worlds:  from her mother – knowledge regarding foreign policy; and from her father – the lobby experience of the cattle experience and great insight to Texas politics.

Her first governmental experience was given to her when she was appointed to be chair of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission by then Gov. George W. Bush.  Coincidentally, this is the same agency that filed the report on the Cheney shooting.

After serving her term, Katharine soon became a lobbyist for James A. Baker III, the former Secretary of State and his firm, Baker Botts. She also lobbies for Prionics, Trajen, and King Ranch.

Besides having strong Republican connections, Armstrong is linked to two family fortunes — those of Armstrong and King — that include extensive corporate holdings in land, cattle, banking and oil. So it should not be surprising that major corporations are willing to pay a hefty price for Armstrong to lobby the federal government in Washington.

Records reviewed by ePluribusMedia show that Prionics, a pharmaceutical company and the family-owned King Ranch have paid Armstrong – $10,000 and $120,000 respectively – to lobby the White House, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other lawmakers.

Prionics is a pharmaceutical company, which specializes in testing for mad cow disease and related animal diseases. Prionics also happens to have their business headquarters located in Switzerland, the same country as Cheney’s other hunting partner Pamela Willeford, U.S. ambassador to Switzerland, is currently residing.

According to their disclosure form, Armstrong “contacted Sec. Ann Veneman at the Dept. of Agriculture regarding using Prionics testing methods to determine BSE,” referring to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or “mad cow” disease. An April 2004 Prionics News Release announced that the US Department of Agriculture had approved the Prionics BSE tests for the current USDA’s BSE surveillance program and is the current testing method to determine “mad cow” disease.

ZURICH and BASEL, Switzerland, April 8 PRNewswire – Prionics AG, the world leader in testing procedures for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or “mad cow” disease, and Roche Diagnostics, the number one in-vitro diagnostics company in the world, announced today that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved the two Prionics BSE tests, Prionics(R)-Check WESTERN, and Prionics(R)- Check LIA, for use in the United States’ enhanced BSE surveillance program. Both tests will be distributed by Roche Diagnostics in the United States. On a world-wide basis, Roche Diagnostics has distributed the

Prionics tests in most major markets since February 2001.

Considering last month’s discovery of another case of mad cow in Canada, one does have to wonder what Armstrong, Cheney, and Ambassador Willeford were talking about.

Last week Katharine Armstrong insisted that she never lobbied Bush or Cheney directly. However, NBC News’ Aram Rostom reported that Baker Botts and other international clients had paid Armstrong over $160,000 in 2004 to lobby the Bush White House.

The records indicate she was paid the money after she “communicated with the White House on behalf of Baker Botts clients.”

In a phone interview, she told NBC News that in return for the money in one case, she set up a meeting at the White House for a Baker Botts client, although she said she felt she could not release the client’s name.

“A meeting for doing something with one of their clients,” she said, describing the event. “I’m not at liberty to say which.” She says she cannot remember which White House official the meeting was with. She also said that during the inauguration proceedings, she got Karl Rove to speak at a Baker Botts function. “I got them Karl Rove,” she said.

How was she able to get them Rove? Could she have been able to get him by way of Harry Whittington? It was already established that Whittington had been a friend of the Armstrong family.

Jim Francis, a veteran of Texas GOP politics, said Whittington has been a friend with the Armstrong family since the 1950s, “when Republicans were just in a coat closet in Texas.”

Investigations done by ePluribusMedia found state records showing Harry M Whittington served as Secretary and Director for Karl Rove & Company.  The question might be posed: Who exactly was most concerned about Harry. Karl or Dick? How might Karl feel about knowing Dick shot Harry? It certainly does explain why Karl Rove was brought into the Saturday night communications between the White House and Texas, doesn’t it.

Investigations done by ePluribus found state records showing Harry M Whittington currently serving on Karl Rove’s business, Karl Rove & Company, as Secretary and Director.

 

The question might be posed. Who exactly was most concerned about Harry. Karl or Dick? How might Karl feel about knowing Dick shot Harry? It certainly dies explain why Karl Rove was brought into the Saturday night communications between the White House and Texas, doesn’t it.

The degrees of separation are never too far when it comes to the Power Elite.

[Crossposted on ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!]

In America, the saying, “winners never quit, and quitters never win,” has been taken to a new level. Some people have taken on the attitude that it doesn’t matter what you do to succeed: as long as you do succeed. In short, failure is not an option – even if there are factors outside your control.

Over the weekend, Michelle Kwan, had to make the biggest decision of her life, Kwan had withdrawn from the Games. Although this has nothing to do with politics, it does, however, show a glimpese of today’s society  emphasis on achievement and winning.
After Kwan cut short her first practice at the games on Saturday because she aggravated her groin injury, she decided to withdraw. But soon after her decision to withdraw the feeding frenzy began, which happens to be an American past time – we accept athletes as our own when they win, while disowning them when they lose. You see, the fear I have is that sensible people might start taking this type of attitude to heart.

One of the first half-assed and completely disingenuous column came from MSNBC’s Filip Bondy Kwan’s great, but never as an Olympian. It displays one of the wingnuts idiot moral relativism – vendictiveness. This column argues winners are worthy of their greatness, and losers, well, should be forgotten like yesterday’s news.

Michelle Kwan was undone by a botched triple flip at her first Olympic practice, a lousy way for the five-time world champion to exit the biggest of all arenas. She’d marched in the Opening Ceremony, brought her family all this way to watch her skate, and now they wouldn’t witness a single double axel.
…
The world doesn.t concern itself much with Kwan,… And it is not hard to think of a many other U.S. Olympians who have surpassed Kwan’s achievements inside the five-ring circus. You can start with Jesse Owens, Mark Spitz, Eric Heiden, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Michael Phelps, Mary Lou Retton, the 1980 hockey team.

You can keep naming names, all you want, because the U.S. had captured 69 gold medals in the Winter Olympics before Turin, and Kwan won none of them.

Although it is easy not to pay any attention to crap like this, but it is troublesome how heros can be demonized despite the many accomplishment that were made before making the decision that ended their fame. Regardless of Kawn’s  many accolades – winning 9 U.S. championships, 5 world championships, and 2 Olympic medals, she is condemed to be demonized as a quitter. Would she have received the same fate if she didn’t withdraw and did not place?

But the real question is why does everyone have to win at all costs? It gone beyond the “ole college try” to nobody wants to be a loser, and most do whatever it takes to not become one. Worse, the perception of American society has changed from “the land of opportunity,” to “failure is not an option.”

But this is not just about sports, this is the same mentality that wingnuts take to heart. It was evident that Karl Rove undoubtedly played a role in this win at all costs mentality during the last Presidntial election and will most likely do it again this year. This type of thinking is pointed out in David Callahan’s book, The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead, Callahan writes:

Everybody loves a winner, the saying goes, and nowhere is that more true than in America. Winners are seen as virtuous, as people to admire and emulate. Losers get the opposite treatment — for their own good, mind you. As Marvin Olasky, an adviser to President George W. Bush, has said: “An emphasis on freedom should also include a willingness to step away for a time and let those who have dug their own hole ‘suffer the consequences of their misconduct’.”

It is this type of mentality that is becoming inescapable. There are countless news stories about insane parents going ballistic on sports coaches because their kids didn’t get to play time or how members of the Republican party suppressed voters so could win.

Undeniably having the belief that you can achieve something great if you try hard enough is very empowering. And in fact, having both a positive and winning attitude will take a person very far. But it should also be noted, this belief can also be cruel. If  we continue to view success by measuring a person’s determination of “wanting it bad enough” and the only way of achieving it is by any means necessary – then it becomes natural to view a person’s failure of attaining their full goal as a lack on drive for reaching their goal.

And this is where the wingnuts use the power of the media to con people into thinking this is an illogical argument. Not to long ago, Chris Matthews was quick to point how hard work and owning a small business equal success.

When I think of people who have come to this country from other countries where they speak Spanish – Puerto Rico is not another country, but it’s the commonwealth – hardest-working people, they are extremely entrepreneurial. If it’s just owning a flower shop, it’s owning a small business, a bodega, right? Puerto Ricans come to this country to start business. Cubans certainly come here to start businesses. The hardest-working people in the United States are people who just got here from Mexico, the first day they get here. Everybody knows – they don’t want a big social democracy. They want free enterprise and entrepreneurialism, don’t they?

One must keep in mind that the essence of propaganda is not what the propagandist says, but what they leave out. The simple fact is Mathews never mentioned success or achieving the “American Dream.” The truth is he doesn’t have to because each of his viewers has their own idea of success and idea “American Dream,” but everybody associates “hard work” with success. This association has been taught to us in school and been instilled by our parents.

The sad truth, denial of reality doesn’t take any great rhetorical skill. All it requires is completely disregarding the law of identity (A=A), the denial that something is what it is.

So let’s take their argument and say everyone did have the same natural talents, the same drive to succeed, and worked just as hard, however the outright facts are – NOT everyone is admitted to the same colleges, NOT everyone win get the Gold Medal, and NOT everyone will get the same jobs. It’s not logically possible, yet this is what the right wing fringe would have us believe.

Even if someone wanted something bad enough and does work hard enough, there are many factors beyond their control which prevent them from achieving their goals. For Kawn, there were many factors going against her from reaching her Olympic dream of a Gold medal. For minorities, it is the outright dismantling of our civil liberties.

The other big question is how can we possibly ascribe moral qualities to such failure? According to Callahan a lot, as he point out:

All of this has troubling implications for our society’s ethics. Americans reflexively cut slack for those who are successful. We may admire winners whatever their sins. As sociologist Robert Merton wrote fifty years ago, the “sacrosanct goal” of wealth “virtually consecrates the means” — any means. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby is an iconic figure in this regard — he was irresistibly appealing despite the sordid origins of his fortune.

Real-life America as been filled with similar characters, ranging from Joseph P. Kennedy, who made much of his fortune illegally, to Michael Milken, who easily rehabilitated his image following his conviction for insider trading in the late 1980s. Even very nasty people who prevail in ugly mudslinging or backstabbing contests can win grudging respect — as Richard Hatch did when he triumphed on the reality television show Survivor.

The connection is indirect, obviously, however, as Americans, we have the tendency to deny the obvious. This attitude is infecting the some people in Democratic party. In fact, a book recently came out advocating to the idea of letting go of our “single issue” idea so we can “win” again.

Is it really necessary to put up a Republican-lite Johnny-Come-Lately to represent the Democratic Party so we can say we won? If so, then we have to wonder what it really means being a Democrat. But in the end, the question will forever haunt the Democratic Party: Was it all worth it?

[Promoted by susanhu w/ minor formatting changes.]

It was been two months since I was let go from my job. I figured I would write this up, considering I am one of those statistics when we write about unemployment or the uninsured. Most often, we see the numbers without the human side of the story.

I would provide some background on my separation from work, but this is not what this diary is all about. This is not about a boss that was insecure and had poor supervisory experience. Nor is it about how she misinterpreted my easygoing style as laziness, my need to shift from one task to another to maintain interest and motivation as disorganization, and my ideas and suggestions for program improvement as a direct challenge to her authority as a supervisor.

Nor is this about how the only thing that kept my sanity were the wonderful people here at ePM. If it wasn’t for ePM, I think my self-esteem would have continued to deteriorate under the constant tension, lack of support, and frequent criticism from my supervisor.

This diary is broken into two parts. The first part is the inner thoughts on being deprived of one’s livelihood and the second, how this contributes to the continued growth of America’s despair.

Being unemployed is best described as an emotional rollercoaster with emotions that are hard to describe, one is not happy or sad. The feelings of being unemployment are far more complex than a simple response of saying, “I feel sad.” It is anger, anxiety, fear and despair all joined together as one emotion, what I like to call, “The Nothing.”

According to psychologist Martin Seligman, one needs pleasure, engagement, and meaning to find happiness. Seligman defines engagement as “the depth of involvement with one’s family, work, romance, and hobbies,” while meaning is defined as “using personal strengths to serve some larger end.” To be suddenly stripped of both leaves a big void to be filled.

Having a job brings “meaning” in the sense of one’s personal worth and identity. As a society … continued below …

[x-posted on ePluribus Media]

we have been conditioned to go through life by placing labels on every facet of our lives. One of the first questions strangers will ask each other is, “What do you do?” The answer we give becomes the basis for numerous subtle judgments about a person’s worth, financial status, intelligence, education level, ambition, and social position. But if one no longer has that “label,” we have no status. And admitting “I don’t do anything” is the equivalent of saying “I am nothing,” and that is not acceptable to society. Other judgments are made depending how long a person is unemployed, the longer the time, the less value is placed on you. One presumes that, if you are unemployed, you must be either “lazy” or “defective.” We have been taught ever since we were children, if a person lacks something “to do” he or she is therefore also presumed lacks meaning. All of this can lead to feeling vulnerable and eventually hopelessness.

Unemployment not only produces a state of extreme personal vulnerability, but also a financial and health vulnerability. Once an employer stops all benefits, all the lack of financial resources can mean the end of healthcare. As for me, this was the case. Even though COBRA was offered, it did become a financial burden and to purchase a private healthcare plan these days is a budget buster. I have been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since my last year in college and therefore, benefit, from the use of medication and therapy. Besides my current financial obligations, I am left purchasing medications and without health insurance, I’ll be spending a huge chunk of my savings – $375/month. To survive in this country one does need health care insurance. For some there are a couple of possible routes – Medicaid or self-employment.

Medicaid is an individual entitlement program jointly administered by the federal and State governments, however, there are limitations to qualify. There is a reason why Texas has the highest rate of uninsured of any state, while Houston has the highest uninsured rate of any large city in the nation. As an entitlement program, Medicaid is only available to individuals who fall under certain financial and non-financial requirements; other than that, States are given the flexibility to define their own eligibility criteria. States are also States are given the option to expand their Medicaid coverage, but only within six broad categories:

• People age 65 or older,
• Pregnant women,
• Parents and caretaker relatives with children under age 21,
• Children under age 21,
• People who are blind, and
• People with disabilities

In Texas, the Medicaid program is part of the State’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program – Texas Works. To qualify a person is either receiving TANF or meet of these requirements:

• low-income children under age 19,
• pregnant women,
• youths aging out of foster care,
• families that leave TANF for work or whose time limits have expired, and
• families that have high medical bills they can’t pay

Considering, I am a single male with no children, I don’t qualify. Since I did work for an agency who provided social services to low income individuals and families, I have seen and heard the tales from those who did qualify. For them it can mean months of waiting; privacy-probing questions; and constant re-qualifying. Such paperwork can place a heavy burden on people. They are forced to take a day off from their low paying job to once again wait for long hours to see their case managers. The results, they rather not bother going through the bureaucracy and take their chances nothing bad will go wrong. Other complained about the stigma of relying on public assistance.

To seek care within the safety-net institution, people are faced with the long hours of waiting for their local government run hospital, which is often substandard care delivered by harried, underpaid, overworked employees and fresh out of medical school interns. That is just for medical care, for those who can’t pay for their drugs that are prescribed, they once again have to spend time and energy trying to qualify for a pharmaceutical assistance program. Due to the stigma of public assistance, for those who are poor it is hard for them to find someone who cares enough to set up a clinic for the uninsured and charge on a sliding scale fee.

Moreover, attaining health insurance becomes a financial strain. Despite the rapid increase of cost for health insurance premiums, there are also limitations in acquiring health insurance. Private non-group insurance premiums are based on individual health risk and are substantially more expensive than group plans purchased by employers, with cost varying by age and health status. Insurance companies can deny or limit coverage to persons in poor health or with chronic conditions. As a personal account, after being diagnosed having post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a near death auto accident, the short time I did venture into the consulting business, I was denied because the my psychiatrist wrote down the word depression. Regardless of the fact that my doctor also stated that the result of my depression was a result of the undiagnosed PTSD. Due to the idea that depression leads to suicide and other health concerns, the insurance company took it upon itself to view me as a high risk client. In other words, my depression may arise a again, making me a health liability. For others, the high cost of insurance premiums is their reason for not getting insurance. Depending on a person’s situation, the cost of health insurance can range from $300/month to $1,400/month

The consequences of not being insured are plentiful. It must also be noted the constant stress that always arises “Do not develop any chronic health conditions.” Which then lead to other worries, such as the high cost of receiving medical care – some think the save some money or can’t afford their medication, so drug prescription aren’t filled. Some have gone without taking a recommended medical test or treatment. But it also works against you too. Some health clinics have denied patients because families are unable to pay up-front. The list of concerns is endless.

Unemployment and the lack of health insurance for so many Americans is a crisis and it continues to be relatively a quiet crisis at this point. The obvious question that needs to be asked and answered rather quickly is – How long will this crisis stay quiet?

Ever since Exxon and Mobil merged back in 1999, ExxonMobil has become an oil juggernaut by raking in super-profits. As companies release their fourth-quarter earnings, ExxonMobil was trilled to announce their $10.7 billion earnings for the last quarter of 2005, ending year with $36.1 billion, making it the the largest annual reported net income in U.S. history.

ExxonMobil’s merger was a restoration John Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, which was ordered the breakup in 1911. As a result of the landmark 1911 trust-busting case, the U.S. Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil into 30 separate oil companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey, with almost half of the total net value of all Standard Oil, became Exxon and Standard Oil of New York, with 9 percent of the company’s net value, became Mobil, creating the largest companies of the Standard Oil breakup. And now, ExxonMobile is largest single corporation in the world, surpassing General Electric.
However, ExxonMobil is not the only former Standard Oil company to see higher profits this year. Chevron (mergers of former Standard Oil of California and Standard Oil of Kentucky), ConocoPhillips (Conoco an original Standard company, CONtinental Oil COmpany, in the Rocky Mountain states) and BP (mergers of former Standard Oil of Ohio, Standard Oil of Indiana, Atlantic and Richfield) also reported higher earnings than the pervious quarter.

ConocoPhillips 4th qt $3.68bn (up 51%); annual $13.5bn
ChevronTexaco 4th qt $4.1bn (up 20%); annual 14.1bn
BP Expected to report their earnings on Feb. 7.

This all comes, while Americans are forced to pay a gas prices at an all time high through out fall and winter. The question still remains, how did the Oil industry make a profit despite temporary interruptions to refinery and delivery operations after the hurricanes, a surge in crude oil prices and higher prices at the pump?

How is possible for the Oil industry to make a profit when the cost of crude oil is over $60 a barrel?

So, once again, the politicians are calling for new inquiries into the industry. This time, the Big Oil industry is deciding not to go. According to Reuters, from the Big Oil industry have declined to testify at new Senate Committee hearings into the record profits.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is holding the hearing on Wednesday morning, said it asked representatives from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and the U.S. units of BP and Royal Dutch Shell to tell their side of the story.

“All declined the invitation to testify,” the committee said in a statement on Monday, without providing details.

But one has to wonder if it would have made a difference. Back in early November, Senators had their chance to get to the bottom of this oil scandal by forcing the heads of top oil companies to testify. The hearing was held before members of both the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, – ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell – in order for the Big Oil industry to defend their profits. Despite all the ranting and ravings done by Rep Sens. Bill Frist and Judd Gregg in accusing oil companies of “gouging,” the truth is, it was a front. These Senators were never part of the hearings. The sad truth, this is just a dog and pony show put together by the GOP leadership in order to show they really feel their pain when the Republican base go to the pumps. Even sadder, many Republican Senators who serve on those committee were not about to bite the hand supplies them their slush fund. Not in a up coming election year.

The companies that were summoned to testify for the last Congresstional hearing were already giving PAC money to 18 Senators. A large majority of the did go to Repbulicans, but it is interesting that Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein from CA did receive a $10,000 contribution from Chevron.

US Senate Commerce Committee Repub Members & PAC Money
Ted Stevens (AK)
John McCain (AZ) EM = $100
Conrad Burns (MT) BP = $3,000; CV = $8,000; CP = $1,000; EM = $5,000
Trent Lott (MS) BP = $1,000 CV = $5,000; CP = $1,000; EM = $2,000
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) EM = $3,250; SH = $2,000

Olympia Snowe (ME) EM = $2,000
Gordon Smith (OR)
John Ensign (NV) BP = $1,000 CV = $4,000 EM = $3,000
George Allen (VA) BP = $1,000 CV = $3,000; CP = $1,000; EM = $5,000; SH = $2,000
John Sununu (NH)
Jim DeMint (SC) BP = $1,000; CP = $2,000
David Vitter (LA) EM = $2,500

US Senate Commerce Committee Dem members & PAC Money
Daniel K. Inouye – HI
John D. Rockefeller (WV)
John F. Kerry (MA)
Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Ben Nelson (NE) CV = $2,000; EM = $2,000
Mark Pryor (AR)

US Senate Energy committee Repub Members & PAC Money
Pete V. Domenici (NM) BP = $2,500
Larry E. Craig (ID)
Craig Thomas (WY) BP = $3,000; CV = $3,000; CP = $3,000; EM = $4,000; SH = $1,000
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Richard Burr (NC)
Mel Martinez (FL)
James Talent (MO) CV = $1,000 CP = $1,000
Conrad Burns (MT) BP = $3,000; CV = $8,000; CP = $1,000; EM = $5,000
George Allen (VA) BP = $1,000 CV = $3,000; CP = $1,000; EM = $5,000; SH = $2,000
Gordon Smith (OR)
Jim Bunning (KY)

US Senate Energy committee Dem Members & PAC Money
Jeff Bingaman (NM) CV = $2,000
Daniel K. Akaka (HI)
Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Ron Wyden (OR)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA) SH = $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (CA) CV = $10,000
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Jon S. Corzine (NJ)
Ken Salazar (CO)
CV = Chevron; CP = ConocoPhillips; EM = ExxonMobil; and SH = Shell; Data provided by Opencecrets.org

But one does have to wonder why Sen Ted Stevens, rejected calls to have the executives testify under oath. Maybe he knew something. A week after the hearings, the Washington Post reported on a White House document that links executives from Big Oil and the Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

…Chevron was one of several companies that “gave detailed energy policy recommendations” to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP’s chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force’s work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

It really shouldn’t be so surprising to know that Cheney stacked his “secret little task force” team with Big Oil to shape the nation’s energy policy, since this information was already reported in 2003. What is surprising is the continuation to be defiant by both the White House and Big Oil. So did Senator Stevens know they were going to lie? According to the same article reported by the Post:

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making “any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation” to Congress.

One would have to wonder about President Bush’s energy policy he mentioned last night in the State of the Union:

“And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.”

It is easy to come to the conclusion, the President has finally got it. It is commendable to talk about conservation. But this too is another dog and pony show by BushCo. Yes, Bush does seem to be talking, but nothing comes out but just a bunch gibberish. If BushCo was serious about the nation’s “addiction to oil,” why is he refusing to regulate Big Oil. Without regulations, we can continue to expect the price of gas to increase. If BushCo Administration was serious, why not pass a windfall tax, to put an end to the industry’s gain from consumer’s pain due industry rip-offs and profiteering.

There is an explanation for BushCo’s dog and pony show of so-called conservation and their continuation for secrecy, it could be found in the recent energy legislation signed by Dudya back in August. The new energy bill, stems from the report submitted by Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force. As people try to figure out Bush’s so-called new energy idea, the new energy bill will be providing lucrative corporations billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies.

The energy bill calls for repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), a consumer and protection law that is to  govern the power sector. PUHCA prohibited any utility company from becoming an affiliate of another utility unless first obtaining SEC approval. Or as one of the bill’s lobbyist, Greenberg Traurig, put it:

“…with the repeal of PUHCA, it appears that the world of public utilities is moving forward to the past, returning to a regulatory environment that should foster merger and consolidation activity that has been suppressed for nearly 70 years.

Could this explain why Big Oil continues to hide behind Bush’s “executive privilege.” Or putting in another way, how will Big Oil benefit from this new energy bill? According to Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, Big Oil can now savor their victory on a bill they crafted that will not only give them billions in subsidies and providing them with exemptions from current environmental laws, but their wish to continue John Rockefeller’s dream of an oil industry monopoly. According to the consumer advocacy group, here are some major components of the energy legislation:

MORE MONEY FOR OIL & GAS
Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Title IX, Subtitle J
It would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center, as the “program consortium” to dole out taxpayer money to corporations. The Texas Energy Center has strong ties to Tom DeLay, with six different executives – Herbert W. Appel, Jr.; Robert C. Brown, III; Philip E. Lewis, Thomas Moccia, Ronald E. Oligney, and Barry Ashlin Williamson.

CREATING LAWS PROTECTING OIL & GAS
Beware of what you drink
Section 322
It exempts Big Oil from the Safe Drinking Water Act regarding a ban on coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing.” Western ranchers would no longer be able to sue on the grounds that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground.

Section 323
Oil and gas companies are exempt from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Puting Blinders on Watchdog Groups and States

Section 390
Excludes public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act from monitoring oil and gas exploration and drilling activities.

Section 381
Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration.

The relentless drive by Big Oil to drill for more oil and get it to market is a foolish. Besides oil being an exhaustible resource, our oil addiction is seriously damaging the Earth and last years chaotic weather could not be any more clear as an example caused by BushCo and their friends in Big Oil.

Since the new bill happens to be over 1,000 pages, maybe Big Oil is hoping the public will never find out. But then again, how would the public find out, when elected officials refuse to demand an explanation for their profits; or when reporters continue throwing softball accountability questions at Congress and the BushCo White House.

The conservative pundits are correct to call the media a “liberal media.” Lately, the news media has been very liberal, generous, in flooding every media avenue with unnecessary or non-newsworthy information. It should be noted, it is a sad day when the news media regards James Frey lying to Oprah Winfrey as a top rated news item, while profiteers continue to make it hard for those continue to struggle surviving. And it is even sadder when Daily Show’s John Stewart points out the sad state of our current news media regarding the handling of this so-called scandal.

The fight for the public interest has become more urgent than ever.