Turns out, we should be mighty concerned:

“I sleep like a baby,” says U.S. Air Force Colonel Randy Larsen (Ret). “Every three hours, I wake up screaming.”

It’s little surprise that Larsen has such trouble getting shuteye. As executive director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, Larsen spends his days and many nights visualizing mushroom clouds over U.S. cities and emergency rooms clogged with victims of biological attacks. Among his many solutions to America’s WMD challenges, this may be the easiest: Let Americans get immunized against smallpox and anthrax.

“Smallpox and anthrax are our two biggest biological threats,” Larsen tells journalists gathered here on November 16 by the Heritage Foundation. “Smallpox and anthrax are the only biological threats for which we have FDA-approved vaccines. We have enough smallpox vaccines for every American, but not enough anthrax vaccines even for 10 percent of our population. Once we increase that supply, we can take these two risks off the table.”

Let’s stop there – why is there only sufficient vaccinations for 10% of the population for a deadly biological threat? Why are we not getting them? Why are they not discussing this as a critical component of ANY health care reform? Just wondering. And for good reason:

Voluntarily immunizing Americans against these two diseases would deter terrorists from plotting such attacks. Even vaccinating some Americans would create “herd immunity,” whereby those who stay healthy would impede an epidemic’s progress, much as firebreaks retard advancing infernos.

Larsen’s commission offered this sobering conclusion last December: “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”

Holy crapoli – that is a most sobering assessment. It gets worse: In an October 21 progress report, this bipartisan board cautioned that “a one- to two-kilogram release of anthrax spores from a crop duster plane could kill more Americans than died in World War II,” specifically, 380,000 (emphasis mine). “Clean up and other economic costs could exceed $1.8 trillion.” “Dark Winter,” a June 2001 high-level simulation exercise, assumed that a covert smallpox attack would infect 3.3 million Americans, one-third fatally.

A biological attack’s psychological impact would be incalculable, especially if healthy Americans saw their smallpox-infected neighbors as contagious “enemies” to be shunned.

That is a staggering number – more people could be killed by a relatively small amount of anthrax than died in WWII. And the idea that smallpox-infected people would be shunned, and viewed as “enemies” is a threat I can see played out in my mind’s eye, unfolding like a Hollywood movie.

There is more, and this will make you sit up straight in your chair:

America’s Islamofascist enemies have stayed busy in this sphere.

“I was directly in charge…[of] the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax,” Khalid Sheik Mohammed told a Guantanamo military tribunal on March 10, 2007. KSM was 9/11’s chief architect and al-Qaeda’s self-described “Military Operational Commander.”

The Commission’s crop-duster scenario was conceived after Americans discovered two Afghan anthrax laboratories. “The 9/11 Commission Report” says Jemaah Islamiah agent Yazid Sufaat “would spend several months attempting to cultivate anthrax for al Qaeda in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport.”

Interestingly enough, Sufaat was captured thanks to information that American interrogators gleaned after waterboarding KSM. Had America not dampened KSM’s nose, US soldiers or civilians already might have had Sufaat’s anthrax up their nostrils.

“Four pounds of anthrax…carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the US, are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour,” laughed Kuwaiti professor and terrorist sympathizer Abdallah Al-Nafisi in a speech broadcast February 2 on Al-Jazeera and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this ‘confetti’ all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real ‘celebration.’”

Four pounds – smaller than a regular size bag of flour – is all it would take to kill 350,000 Americans. It boggles the mind, or at least, mine.

Oh, and yes – THAT KSM. The one who is being provided a civilian trial courtesy of Eric Holder and Barack Obama (h/t to SFIndie for highlighting that important aspect).

With our current border control issues, I think we can all see how this kind of attack could happen. Especially when I tell you that the Obama Administration, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to CUT the number of border patrol agents, by a total of 384. I thought that was ridiculous when it was just a matter of the current stream of illegal immigrants getting into our country as is, much less when the specter is raised of an Anthrax-bearing al Qaeda terrorist is coming through the tunnels.

There are, of course, issues with widespread vaccinations:

Today’s dilatory federal rollout of swine flu shots offers little confidence that government can deliver smallpox and anthrax inoculations with speed and tranquility, especially after a shocking attack turbocharged public anxiety.

Instead, these vaccines should reach thousands of hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices now. Americans calmly could request them during routine medical visits, rather than overwhelm government agencies amid widespread panic after thousands of citizens have fallen ill — or worse.

Al-Qaeda and other vicious killers surely have a “To Do” list of horrors they would love to hurl at us infidels. Let’s deny them at least these two potential murder weapons.

Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

I don’t know about you, but this scares the bejesus out of me. Our borders are already porous, through no fault of the border control guards – there are simply too few of them, and fewer now, thanks to Obama. I cannot even IMAGINE the logic – or lack thereof – that went into that decision, but this very real scenario, by a respected member of the Intelligence Community, should give us all pause.

There is a solution, though, and a relatively painless one at that. Vaccinations would solve the immediate problem, and minimize the potential threat. The time is not soon enough, especially if an attack of Anthrax is imminent. Even still, better to begin now than wait until it is too late.

Now, about those border guards…

Now, this isn’t a new issue – GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right – it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen – BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO – okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that – I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

I covered the aunt situation before, here and here.

I thought Obama was a believer of the roolz? He said he believed that laws were made to be followed. Apparently his aunt is above the law.

In the first post on our nation’s Social Security system I tried to give a brief history of how the program came about and the immediate needs of people suffering from the Depression that caused FDR to propose and the Congress to enact the 1935 Social Security Act.

In this the second installment of the series I want to deal with two things. One, what were the provisions of the 1935 Social Security Act, and two, how has the 1935 Social Security Act program been changed or altered over the years.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created several different, wide-ranging, and separate programs. The Act created unemployment insurance, old-age assistance (essentially welfare), old-age benefits (we now call this Social Security), aid to dependent children, and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care.

Below is a description of all of those programs, or Titles, the 1935 Social Security Act created with a brief description of each program.

Title I – Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance was designed to provide “financial assistance” to “aged needy individuals” immediately. In other words, this program was a welfare program for the aged and was to be administered by the individual states following federal guidelines and paid for out of the General Fund.

Title II – Federal Old Age Benefits.” Title II of the 1935 Social Security Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement beginning in 1942. (First contributions had to be collected and a fund built up before being able to pay benefits.)

The Title II program would be paid for by contributions from both the individual and the employer and put into a Trust Fund (created in 1939) separate from the General Fund and for the express purpose of funding old age benefits. This is the program most of us mean when we say, “Social Security.”

Title III – This was also a grant program that provided financial assistance to the states for Unemployment Compensation and Administration and paid for out of the General Fund.

Title IV – Grants to States for Aid to Dependent Children paid for through the General Fund. In effect this was another welfare program.

Title V – Grants to the States for Maternal and Child Welfare, again paid for through the General Fund.

Title VI – Public Health Work, again paid for through the General Fund.

Title X – Grants to States for Aid to the Blind again paid for through the general Fund.

Titles VII, VIII, IX, and XI are administrative in nature and set up the Social Security Board and detailed how contributions/taxes would be collected especially for Title II.

As you can see, The 1935 Social Security Act was a very broad and all-encompassing program extending a social safety net far and wide for those suffering during the Depression and beyond. And except for Title II, all of these programs would be paid for through the General Fund.

[I can’t help but make a snarky remark here. Look at the specifics of this program and how it is targeted to help people in need and compare it to the Christmas tree approach of the current stimulus package.]

Over the years each of these programs has been referred to as “Social Security” since they were all created by the 1935 Social Security Act. But as you see, they are really separate and distinct programs funded in different ways. I tell you this now because I want you to know this and keep this in mind because the unscrupulous among us have sometimes deliberately misled people regarding some of these programs to try and achieve their own selfish agendas, especially as regards wanting to change the old age insurance benefits, or Title II of the Social Security program.

The Title II program is funded by FICA taxes. In short, the individual contributes into the system and the employer is taxed an equal amount. The self-employed must make both contributions. All of this money goes into a separate account, or Trust Fund, to be used expressly for and exclusively for those who contribute into Title II. None of this money ever goes into the General Fund. NOT EVER. Furthermore, no one can receive benefits under Title II unless they paid into the system for at least 40 quarters. If you did not pay into the system you are not eligible to receive any benefits. Therefore, no illegal alien can, and more importantly does not receive any monies from Title II, the Social Security old age insurance program – not one dime! (This is true even if they paid into the system under a phony or even stolen Social Security number, as some do.)

It is a different matter with the other programs that the 1935 Social Security Act created, as you will read a bit later.

Changes Made to 1935 Social Security Act
Now let’s look at how The 1935 Social Security Act has changed over the years. As I researched this I was amazed at how stable the program has been since its inception. It has occasionally been slightly tinkered with here and there, but by and large it is remarkable how few changes there have been. The main changes have tended to be in one of two categories. The first category increases benefits going to recipients, and the second is continually making the program more financially sound.

I am not going to list each and every minute change to this act. If you are interested in minutia you can go to Social Security History and the Social Security Administration has listed them all. I will only hit the highlights.

1935-1939

The original Social Security Act was mostly a white male program. According to Wikipedia most women and minorities were excluded from receiving benefits from all of the various programs through how employment was defined and through specific listing of the job categories that were or were not covered. Certain jobs were just plain and explicitly excluded from the program. For example, most agricultural workers were excluded, as well as nurses, teachers, hospital workers, librarians, and domestic workers to name just a few.

Since many of the programs were also administered by the states, even more discrimination crept into the programs at that level. Fortunately, the practice of discrimination began to change in the late 1930’s as shifting gender roles and positions of minorities in society began to change. By the 1950’s the debate changed from which occupations should be covered by Social Security to achieving universal coverage.

1939

Before Title II even paid out any benefits retirees there were changes made to the program in 1939. Originally benefits were to be paid only to the worker. The 1939 Amendments added two new categories of benefits. Payments could now be made to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker, and second, in the event of a premature death a survivor’s benefit was added.

The 1939 Amendments also increased Title II benefit amounts and moved up the start of the program from 1942 to 1940.

The taxing provisions of Title VIII [see above] were also removed in 1939 (would not have been constitutional) and authority to tax was placed with the IRS (constitutional) and renamed Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or as we affectionately know it today, FICA.

However, the most significant change in 1939 was the creation of a Trust Fund managed by the Secretary of the Treasury for any surplus monies collected. These excess funds could be invested in both marketable and non-marketable securities. I could do an entire post on the Trust Fund and how it operates; it is that all-encompassing. There is not enough room in this post to detail its inner workings.

1940-1950

For ten years between 1940 and 1950 only one significant change was made to any of the programs. The Social Security Board was abolished in 1946 and replaced by the Social Security Administration (SSA) headed by a single Commissioner. The SSA still exists today.

Benefit levels however, remained very low. According to the official Social Security History web pages, “……. until 1951, the average value of the welfare benefits received under the old-age assistance provisions of the Act [Title I] were higher than the retirement benefits received under Social Security [Title II] provision. And there were more elderly Americans receiving old-age assistance than were receiving Social Security.”

So several amendments to the Act were made in 1950. Again, from the official history page of the Social Security website, “These amendments increased benefits for existing beneficiaries for the first time …….and they dramatically increased the value of the program to future beneficiaries. By February 1951 there were more Social Security retirees than welfare pensioners, and by August of that year, the average Social Security retirement benefit exceeded the average old-age welfare assistance grant for the first time.”

Today most people know that the Title II program has an annual cost-of-living (COLA) clause. This was not always the case. The first retirees received the same monthly benefit for the remainder of their life. But that also changed in 1950 when a COLA was enacted by Congress. At that time these increases were not automatic and were enacted by Congress periodically as necessary. It was not until 1972 that Congress enacted legislation providing for an annual automatic COLA based on the average increase in consumer prices.

Also in the 1950’sthe disability provisions were strengthened.

1960’s and 1970’s

The decade of the 60’s brought several significant and major changes to the Social Security Act. Retirees were given a choice of early retirement with a reduced annual benefit.

But by far the biggest change in the decade of the 1960’s was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 30, 1965. The Medicare program extended health coverage to retirees by helping them pay for hospital and medical expenses.

Like Title II of the 1935 Act, Medicare is a social insurance plan for people aged 65 or older. It operates as a single-payer heath care plan. This program consists of two parts. Part A is for hospital insurance, and Part B is for medical insurance. The 1965 amendment did not provide for prescriptions in most instances. It would be 30 more years before prescription drugs would be added to the program. Medicare is paid for by additional FICA taxes and is administered by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). [Snarky comment #2, for those keeping count- which thankfully Tom Daschle will not be heading.]

Above is video of President Johnson signing the Medicare Bill and Former President Harry Truman signing up for Medicare.

As mentioned earlier, another major change in the 1970’s was the introduction of the permanent COLA.

There were a series of Amendments made in 1977 to deal with projected shortfalls due to the bad economy of the 70’s. And for the first time the issue of a projected shortfall due to the baby boom is mentioned and a slight FICA increase was made.

Supplemental Security Income
If you remember, The 1935 Social Security Act created several different programs. Except for title II, the other programs were administered by the states with partial funding from the federal government.

Over the years the programs varied tremendously from state to state with payments to recipients varying by as much as 300% between the states. There were also over 1000 agencies administering these programs. It was a bureaucratic nightmare rife with confusion and inequalities.

In 1969 President Richard Nixon changed that. He initiated reforms that would “bring reason, order, and purpose into a tangle of overlapping programs.” At Nixon’s instance Congress federalized Title I, Title X, and the disabled category (created in the fifties) by creating the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) in the Social Security Amendments of 1972.

The Social Security Administration, created in 1946 to administer Title II, was chosen to administer this new SSI program because of its reputation for successful administration of the Title II program and because of its nationwide field offices and data-processing and record keeping skills.

However, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues, not with Social Security or FICA taxes.

In keeping with the original Titles and the disability amendment SSI is designed to help the aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income, and provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

I am going to include this next part here, even though it is out of chronological order because it deals with SSI benefits to illegal aliens. This is often the source of the misunderstanding, urban legends, myths, or downright lies about illegals getting Social Security Title II benefits.

During President Clinton’s administration a balanced budget bill was passed and a Welfare Reform bill was passed. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 among other provisions restored SSI eligibility to some non-citizens whose eligibility would have been terminated under the Welfare Reform Act.

Now here is where it can sometimes get dicey. Some politicians and some activist who do not like Social Security (Title II) and want to totally get rid of it, and/or who would like to make some money off of the pool of money in the Title II Trust Fund sometimes play fast and loose with the truth.

When people sometimes will say that immigrants and/or illegals are receiving Social Security what is most likely happening is that eligible aliens are receiving SSI monies. Some folks do not distinguish between Title II monies and SSI monies. And because many people do not know the difference between the two programs, and because both programs are run by the same Social Security Administration, many people believe that illegals are dipping into their retirement pot and that they will bankrupt the Title II system. They are not. They are getting SSI monies.

Beware and ask questions when someone tells you illegals are raiding the Social Security system. Ask those who are telling you these things if the immigrants or illegals are getting Title II monies or SSI monies. Now you know the difference between the two and hopefully you won’t be fooled by the games some folks like to play with your emotions.

The 1980’s

Major changes were made to Title II by President Ronald Reagan upon the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission in the 1983 Amendments. These changes were in response to both short term and long term projected shortfalls in the system.

Contributions amounts went up for both individuals and employers, retirement age went up, some benefits were lowered, more federal employees were added into the system, taxed Social Security benefits, among many other provisions.

The original Title II program was a pay-as-you-go program. In other words, current workers paid for benefits for current retirees. This was great for the WW II retirees as 78.2 million baby boom workers could afford to pay to fund increased benefits for many years. The 1983 Amendments changed this formula. For the first time in Social Security’s Title II history the baby boom generation was funding a part of their own retirement simply because there were not enough citizens behind them to afford to continue the same benefit level for them unless they helped to pay for it up front.

1990’s and 2000’s

In addition to the changes already mentioned under SSI President Bill Clinton also made some changes to the disability portions of the act.

However it was left to President George W. Bush to make the biggest and most controversial change to the Medicare portion of Title II in 38 years. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was enacted in 2003. During hearings on the bill the projected cost of the Prescription Bill was estimated to be $400 billion.

I will let Wikipedia take up the story from here: “The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.

“One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during
Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.

“Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this “…probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s… because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.”

One of the strongest organizations lobbying for the bill was AARP. It was during the Prescription drug debacle that I first learned, realized, or finally understood that AARP is not an advocate organization. It is an insurance company first and foremost. It will look out for its corporate interests first. And making money was clearly more important than helping poor people afford life-saving prescription drugs. To this day I refuse to join AARP for that reason alone.

President George W. Bush also attempted to privatize Social Security, but that did not fly. I think W learned an important lesson. Don’t rile up the senior set. One, they are vocal. And two, they vote!!! However, that issue is not dead and there are still many individuals and organizations who would like to privatize Title II.

We will deal with the issue of privatization in the next installment in this series entitled, “Is Social Security Really Broke?”

CAPTION: On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54.

Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Until my next installment, please keep these figures in mind:

In 1940 when the first benefits were paid 222,488 people received benefits totaling $35,000,000.

By 2006 there were 7,235,565 people receiving benefits totaling $41,312,000,000.

Since 1935 – for 74 years -The Social Security Act has literally kept millions of retired and disabled Americans from the poor house during the ups and downs, good and bad times, and the recessions and depressions our country has faced. Not bad for a government program!!!!

Next month in Atlanta, a federal court will hear the high-profile appeal of former Alabama governor Don E. Siegelman, whose conviction on corruption charges in 2006 became one of the most publicly debated cases to emerge from eight years of controversy at the Bush Justice Department. Now new documents highlight alleged misconduct by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney and other prosecutors in the case, including what appears to be extensive and unusual contact between the prosecution and the jury.

2) A paper in NC wonders if Presidential power, which has metastasized over the last few years, will be curbed in an Obama administration. The author sees in Emanuel’s decision to leave Congress to be Obama’s Chief of Staff confirmation that no job in Congress would compare with power in the Executive branch.

Read the rest ->

Presidential power has only further increased since [Andrew] Jackson. The need for government to act quickly in times of crisis, the centering of the president as the icon of national identity in popular culture and the executive branch’s control of information, among other factors, have vested a power in the presidency that far surpasses that of the other branches.

Thus it becomes not surprising to see one of the most powerful members of Congress [Emanuel] agree to become a White House staffer.

THE MORE SERIOUS QUESTION IS WHETHER A TRUE BALANCE OF POWER can be reconstructed. It needs to be. The Framers believed that an imbalance of power among the branches would inevitably lead to abuse and incompetence. The last eight years have proved them right. The Bush administration made constant claims to unlimited power that Congress had neither the will nor the ability to turn back. The resulting morass is history.

Whether an Obama administration will work to restore the constitutional balance is only speculation. The challenge is considerable. Checks and balances are inefficient, and ceding power to a coordinate branch is not easy, particularly when there are so many dire challenges facing the nation. But Emanuel’s choice to accept the chief of staff position rather than continue in Congress vividly demonstrates how much the need to repair the constitutional structure is in order.

I see this question as a moral one in addition to a constitutional one. I wonder if Obama will return any presidential power “to the people.” Hmmmmm.

3) Realclearpolitics has a transcript of Michael Steele announcing his bid for RNC chair. Now THAT would be interesting.

STEELE: I want the gig. I’m ready, I’m ready to lead this party. I think we’ve been kind of wandering and doubting ourselves for far too long. And I think this past election was the culmination of that self-doubt which has to end.

We have a message, I think, of empowerment and ownership and opportunity that resonates United States with Americans. We just need to get back to.

So, we could have an AA RNC chief, and AA president and de facto head of the Democratic party and ???? as DNC chief? Now that should make for some very entertaining racial politics.

4) The WaPo has a piece today about the ever-not-changing work of K Street. Apparently lobbyists see an incoming Obama administration as a reason to re-arrange the deck chairs rather than change how they do business. Out with republican head lobbyists and in with the democratic. Sigh. Oh, yeah, don’t forget the nepotism. Gotta have nepotism.

“Barack Obama campaigned on change. Well, change is good for the lobbying business,” said Ed Rogers, who was an aide to President Ronald Reagan and whose firm has represented such clients as Citigroup, Pfizer and Raytheon. “People will need the expertise and guidance more in the next year than they have in the last five.”

Many of the issues Obama has expressed an interest in tackling early, such as health-care policy, energy and taxes, have broad implications for some of the lobbying world’s most free-spending corporate clients. Patrick Von Bargen, a former chief of staff to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and aide to William Donaldson, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said he joined Quinn Gillespie this month with the expectation that his knowledge of clean energy issues would be a valued commodity.

“People who have labored in Democratic vineyards for years are familiar with the people involved, but also with the substantive issues, and how Democrats approach those issues,” he said.
——————
Ron Kaufman, a Republican lobbyist at Dutko Worldwide who served as a close adviser to President George H.W. Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said he cannot recall a better time to be a Democratic staff member looking for work. But he said his firm has always tried to keep both sides of the aisle covered so it does not have to panic during shifts in political control.

“The only change for us is that the Democrats are now the varsity squad, and I’ve been demoted to the junior varsity,” Kaufman joked.
——————-
Steve Elmendorf, a former top adviser to former House minority leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), said that he understands why Obama took that approach, but that he does not believe lobbyists will be turned away. “I don’t think they’ve said ‘We’re not going to talk to lobbyists,’ ” Elmendorf said. “They are going to talk to stakeholders. The stakeholders are all going to be represented by lobbyists. It’s not going to be a black-and-white thing.”

Elmendorf is one of several who foresee a boon for the industry. A new Democratic administration and an increasing Democratic tilt in Congress means more activist government, he said. “That means businesses will have the potential for more things to happen to them. If they think that’s coming, they will be hiring people to figure out how to contend with that.”

BO has said he doesn’t want lobbyists to have unfettered access. But I think this stand is likely to quietly die a “death of 1000 cuts” as the collective power of all these lobbyists and their industries / interest groups do everything they can to preserve their influence. This could be very interesting to watch. Get out your hypocrisy-meters. And get out the hip-waders.

5) Newser has a story about the MLK family wanting its piece of the action from MLK / Obama merchandising. Now, as controllers of the MLK estate, etc, it is within the family’s rights to look after its interests. But scurrying after merchandising dollars strikes me as tacky. Of course, it is understandable that the family wants to protect its brand Of course, I don’t personally think of MLK as a BRAND, but I guess that’s a matter of perspective?

The family of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is demanding a share of the proceeds from the sudden wave of T-shirts, posters and other merchandise depicting the slain civil rights leader alongside Barack Obama.

Isaac Newton Farris Jr., King’s nephew and head of the nonprofit King Center in Atlanta, said the estate is entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees _ maybe even millions.

“Some of this is probably putting food on people’s plates. We’re not trying to stop anybody from legitimately supporting themselves,” he said, “but we cannot allow our brand to be abused.”

MLK Brand??

6) One of the justifications for “undocumented workers” has long been that those people do the jobs “American’s don’t want to do.” Does that include teaching? Perhaps so, because the Dallas public schools have been hiring people without SSNs and arbitrarily assigning one to them “until they receive a valid number.” Of course, there’s a chance those SSN numbers might be REAL to someone else. The Dallas News has the story:

Years after being advised by a state agency to stop, the Dallas Independent School District continued to provide foreign citizens with fake Social Security numbers to get them on the payroll quickly.

Some of the numbers were real Social Security numbers already assigned to people elsewhere. And in some cases, the state’s educator certification office unknowingly used the bogus numbers to run criminal background checks on the new hires, most of whom were brought in to teach bilingual classes.
—————
The investigative report, obtained by The News through a records request, found “that the inappropriate procedure of assigning false SSNs has been systemic for several years” within DISD’s alternative certification program, which prepares new teachers for state certification when they don’t have traditional credentials.

A call Thursday to DISD’s alternative certification office was not returned. In recent years, DISD has hired people from various countries, including Mexico and Spain, to deal with a shortage of bilingual teachers.
—————-
In July, the district discovered that 26 of the false numbers were in use after matching DISD employee Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration database. The numbers were already being used in Pennsylvania. DISD officials did not know Thursday whether the practice had caused problems for anyone holding the legitimate numbers.

Anyone out there having received an IRS notice of unpaid taxes on undeclared income might want to keep an eye on this story.

7) Still don’t see how the damaged economy will touch you? This article in the Christian Science Monitor should help clear THAT up somewhat.

If the states had their way, they would like Congress to give them help in four areas: help with the growing number of people applying for Medicaid, more funding for the rising unemployed, help with the growing number on food stamps, and an injection of funds to jump-start infrastructure projects that are ready to go.

In my area, the local schools have requested and gotten substantial increases each year. Since I live in a “progressive” area, increases are regularly sought for a variety of things: sidewalks (good), artwork around a remote public works building (?), community gardens (are you kidding me?), stormwater run-off infrastructure, another municipal pool (we only have 3) with glass pebbles inlaid on the floor, and more money for roads (well, . . . ) even as development in the form of housing continues unabated, with taller and taller and “greener and greener” condos going up

Oh, and we don’t allow “big box” stores in my community. They’re so, so, tacky and cheap, you know. So everyone drives over the county line to shop at Target and the brain trust here loses out on what remaining retail sales taxes are available. Even as more housing is built, property taxes increase because new housing does not pay for itself in terms of schools, sewer, water, and other city services – at least not here.
And the local university (isn’t there always one in a “progressive” town?) often buys up tracts of land, taking it off the tax rolls. So, as the university uses more services, it also cuts available tax funds to the town. And the university has a multi-billion dollar endowment. . .

Sigh.

See also my essay entitled “Obama Relegated Aunt Who Resides Illegally in US to the Shadows While Taking Her Campaign Contributions”

Obama, according to the Associated Press, did not know his Aunt Zeituni, the child of Obama’s paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was residing in the United States illegally while he was accepting her campaign contributions. I quote the AP:

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Saturday he didn’t know his aunt was living in the United States illegally and believes that laws covering the situation should be followed.

The Associated Press found that Obama’s aunt had been instructed to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge who rejected her request for asylum from her native Kenya. The woman, Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUHN on-YANG-oh), is living in public housing in Boston and is the half-sister of Obama’s late father.

A statement given to the AP by Obama’s campaign said, “Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed.”

The campaign said it was returning $260 that Onyango had contributed in small increments to Obama’s presidential bid over several months. Federal election law prohibits foreigners from making political donations. Onyango listed her employer as the Boston Housing Authority and last gave $5 on Sept. 19.

One would think Obama would know the immigration status of his aunt after he rendered her into a textual spectacle in his 1996 memoir entitled Dreams of My Father. One would also think a relative would have contacted him in 2004 in order to inform the aspiring US Senator and Illinois political official that auntie needed assistance with her asylum petition. After all, auntie attended Obama’s swearing-in to the US Senate the same year her asylum petition was unfavorably adjudicated. Moreover, one would think that Obama would have been informed by someone related to his aunt that she donated tainted money to his campaign. And furthermore, the Obama campaign must have asked Obama a question or two after an article on Obama’s aunt surfaced a few days ago in the London Times. Surely they would have asked about the aunt’s immigration status after it was revealed she fraudulently donated $260 to the campaign from her public housing address in South Boston.

Also pertinent to this line of questioning is Auntie Zeituni’s claim that she could not speak to reporters until November 5. “’I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,’ she said, adding: ‘After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.’” Who asked her to remain silent? Did she receive a directive from David Axelrod?

But Obama claims he had “no knowledge” about his aunt’s willful violation of this country’s immigration laws. Are we surprised? Obama, it seems, knows nothing about anything. Similar to Alberto Gonzales, he “does not recall” anything whenever he is confronted about his lack of judgment or about his record of problematic affiliations with convicted felons and known terrorists. Let us review:

1. Obama had no knowledge of the deportation order submitted against his paternal aunt.

“Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed.”

2. Obama did not know Bill Ayers was a terrorist when he raised campaign funds in Ayers’s home and worked with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge in inner city Chicago.

On Monday, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod said Obama was not aware of Ayers’ terrorist background when he attended a political coffee at Ayers Hyde Park home at the beginning of his state senate race sometime in the fall of 1995. Ayers and Obama first crossed paths in 1995 while involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation dealing with urban education issues.

3. Obama did not know convicted slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the man who provided the seed donations to Obama’s first political race in 1995, the man who chaired the Finance Committee of his US Senate bid in 2004, and the man who helped Obama purchase the mansion he and Michelle could not afford, was mismanaging the funds Obama secured at his behest for his slum landlord empire while defrauding investment firms seeking to do business with Illinois’s various pensions funds.

In a statement, Obama said that he was “saddened” by the verdict. “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” he said, adding that the charges against Rezko “once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform.” Obama has repeatedly said he did no favors for Rezko. He was never a focus of Rezko’s trial.

4. Obama did not hear anything controversial when sitting in the pews of Reverend Wright’s “God Damn AmeriKKKa” Church in inner city Chicago.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

What does Obama know? Does he know anything? Or is he really as vacuous as I and others believe? Diabolically disingenuous when asked to justify his past actions, his affiliations and his complete and utter lack of judgment, Obama is the Democratic Party’s version of Alberto Gonzales. Indeed, he is a thug whose friends and family break laws without apology.

He is also a complete and utter dolt who issues sanctimonious pronouncements when he is caught with his hand in the cookie jar: only now does he believe his aunt should adhere to immigration laws; only now will he return his aunt’s illegal and fraudulent donation; and only now does he believe Illinois politics should be reformed. A thug who portrays himself as a dolt, Obama cannot and should not serve as President of the United States.

Bring People Out of the Shadows

Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Obama also outlines his (laughable) record on immigration reform. Conveniently elided from this list, however, is his aunt from Kenya. On 30 OCT 2008 we learned that Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, the child of Obama’s paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, resides in a dilapidated public housing block in South Boston. Although residents of the same metropolitan area, she and Obama led parallel lives: he edited the Harvard Law Review and gamboled about Harvard Square, while she lived in squalor with other immigrants in an economically depressed area of Boston.

He did describe her affectionately in his memoir entitled Dreams of My Father, however. Recounting his first meeting with Onyango, Obama recalls how she said, “You take good care of Barry now.” “Make sure he doesn’t get lost again,” she admonished Obama’s cousin. But as Obama climbed the political and social ladders of the Ivy League and of inner city Chicago, he became more and more “lost” to the relatives about whom he waxes poetic in a text he wrote for personal and political profit.

“I have been coming to America ever since 1975,” Obama’s aunt boasts when interviewed by a London Times reporter. But there is one problem: Obama’s aunt is not a United States citizen. In fact, she received a deportation order in 2004, when her application for political asylum was rejected. I quote the New York Times:

Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as ”Aunti Zeituni” in Obama’s memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango’s case.

Zeituni Onyango’s status as illegal immigrant begs a few questions.

• How did she contribute a total of $260 to her nephew’s campaign in a series of small donations from her South Boston address if she is not a United States citizen?
• Are many illegal immigrants and foreigners submitting small donations to the Obama campaign in order to avoid scrutiny by the FEC?
• How does she qualify for public housing if she is not a United States citizen?
• How is Obama to be trusted to reform the immigration system if his relatives are breaking immigration laws and living illegally in this country?
• And why did the Senator not file a form I-130, a Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of his aunt after her request for political asylum was rejected? As a United States Senator, he certainly could expedite the adjudication of such a petition.

Obama claims he desires to “bring people [immigrants living illegally in the United States] out of the shadows.” And yet, instead of assisting his aunt with her immigration problems, he swept her aside into the margins of society: not only did he leave her in squalor; he allowed her to stay in the country he desires to represent as President illegally. He did accept her campaign contribution, however. I guess this is what Obama considers “oversight.”

One can only characterize Obama’s treatment of his aunt as heartless. Exploiting her in his memoir while allowing her to live in this country illegally and in poverty, he once again demonstrates that he is nothing more than a careerist who has utter disregard for his family and for the laws of this country. Because he relegated a member of his family to the penumbra instead of assisting her with her problems, one can only assume he can run neither his house nor the White House.

I quote Michelle Obama:

And no, role models do not allow family members to break our country’s immigration laws. They also do not accept campaign contributions from those who are not US citizens.

……..

The image at the top of the story comes from the Fox News story, “Obama’s Aunt Reportedly Living Illegally in Boston.”

UPDATE at 11:20 a.m. ET: This story is featured at the top of Memeorandum.com.

But here’s the thing: the popular vote winner, the one who “would be on anyone’s short list,” according to Obama – just not HIS, apparently, as she was not vetted (then again, Obamarosa hasn’t been either). Huh. I guess he wasn’t all that “sincere” after all.

Add to that the incredibly petty, childish, vindictive, flat out punkish move to release this information at 3:00 a.m.. 3:00 a.m., get it?? As in a 3:00 a.m. phone call?? Yeah. That’s the way to bring the Hillary supporters into the fold, Mr. Hopey Changey Unity Unicorn Man. Never mind those of us with any sense of decency. It is just plain bad form to drive a knife into the back of the one who bested you in votes. Just sayin’.

Read the rest ->

The choice alone, as many have pointed out already, demonstrates Obama’s GLARING weakness – experience. By him picking Biden (ugh), he is saying loud and clear that he does not have enough experience. Heck – BIDEN said he didn’t have enough experience (see this piece at No Quarter).

Funny, that is exactly what the poll done in the South said, too, in this article:
McCain Leads Big In South
Voters say honesty, experience, shared values important

Yep. The voters in the South seem to be taken more with experience, perceived honesty, and demonstrated leadership than “just words.” I’ll let the article speak for itself:

COLUMBIA — Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain enjoys a 16-point lead — 51 percent to 35 percent — among Southern voters over rival Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll by Winthrop University and ETV shows.

And, the further into the South you go, the larger McCain’s lead grows, the poll of likely voters in 11 Southern states shows.

Likely voters in the Deep South — those in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — preferred McCain by a 25-point margin, 56 percent to 31 percent.

Southern voters said what they want most in a president is honesty, experience and shared values. Southern voters rated McCain ahead of Obama in each of those categories.

McCain’s strongest support comes from white working-class Southerners — who favor him by a 34-point margin — and white evangelicals — who favor the Arizonan by 54 percentage points.

The poll, which was conducted Aug. 1-17, has a margin of error of (plus or minus) 2.97 percentage points.

While political pundits have made much of Obama and Democrats trying to win over a Southern state or two from the Republicans in November, the Winthrop/ETV poll shows that will prove difficult.

“It’s about keeping John McCain from sweeping the South. That’s the key,” said Scott Huffmon, associate professor of political science at Winthrop and director of the Winthrop/ETV Poll.

Rather than attempting to contest the presidential race across the South, a wiser strategy for Obama would be to concentrate on the closely contested Southern states, Huffmon said. “You cannot fight a regional battle anymore.”

Individual state-by-state polls have shown Obama within striking distance of McCain in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Those states account for 70 votes that are up for grabs. The 11 Southern states in this poll will award 161 electoral votes, and 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidency.

On the issues, McCain trumped Obama nearly across the board in the poll.

The economy easily was the most important issue to Southern voters in the upcoming presidential election. McCain bested Obama on which candidate would handle energy and gas prices better, and who would do the better job on taxes.

McCain also far out-distanced Obama on who would do a better job of handling the Iraq war and terrorism.

None of that surprised Jeanette Smith of Chapin, S.C., who described McCain as honest and decisive, strong on national security and unlikely to be manipulated by a foreign government.

“The economy and national security are neck and neck for me,” said Smith, a 54-year-old bookkeeper and mother of four. “In fact, I’m not even sure they are separate issues.”

On illegal immigration, sometimes an Achilles’ heel for McCain, and moral values, the four-term senior senator from Arizona again stood taller with Southern voters than Obama.

“Illegal immigration needs to be controlled,” said 76-year-old Evelyn Perry of Fort Mill, S.C., who was among those surveyed. “I just haven’t really understood what (McCain’s position) is on that — but it needs to be controlled.”

Even without those specifics, Perry said she trusts McCain more. “Overall, I just think McCain understands better.”

However, in a glimmer of hope for the Democratic nominee-to-be, more likely Southern voters polled said Obama “understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives” better than McCain does.

However, Deep South and working-class white voters disagreed, saying McCain understands them best.

“Senator Obama has a great deal of work to do if he plans to turn the Southern states in his favor,” said Adolphus Belk Jr., who helped design the poll and teaches political science and African-American Studies at Winthrop.

Belk said Obama has to do a better job at defining himself for voters, moving beyond simply being a new face on the national stage. Obama also has to overcome religious and ethnic misinformation that continues to plague his candidacy, Belk said.

That’s no short order in the South, either, said Obama supporter John Hines Jr. of Effingham, S.C.. “For older Americans, I think color is still an issue,” said the 53-year-old paper maker.

Of those polled, 86 percent said race would not be an important factor in how they choose to vote.

However, a quarter of all likely Southern voters surveyed said that if a candidate had a Muslim parent, it would impact their votes. Obama, who is a Christian, had a Muslim father.

Huh – imagine that. RACE is not that big of a factor down here in the South, despite the numerous attempts to paint us all as racist yahoos. No, not racist, just not willing to back the least qualified candidate ever to grace the national stage. IMHO, that is. Now, if CLINTON was in this mix, I think this story would be completely different. Again, not race, but having TWO qualified candidates from which to choose. (Again, I will say that I am not pro-McCain. I am pro-DEMOCRACY, and that is something the DNC has showed very little of of late.)

The Comments at this article were very interesting too. One said he’d vote for Spongebob before Obama. Others made fun of Obama for talking about McCain’s houses when Obama pulled in $4 mil this year. Uh, yeah. Like I said, people in glass houses…And this was before the BIden choice.

So, once again, picking Biden just shows up Obama’s weaknesses. I don’t think having a Vice President who has the experience is enough. Especially when the inexperienced guy is running against the experienced guy. Huh. I guess the only way to solve this little dilemma is for the Conventioneers to pick the candidate who could actually win against McCain. That’s not Obama. Just sayin’.

* Great thanks to “Jeremiah” and asimon for coming up with this name. There was another great comment last night. “Jill L” said she was hoping for Daniel Akaka, then the bumper sticker would be “Obamakaka”! What clever folks at No Quarter!!

All Americans should have coverage they can afford; employers should have incentives to provide coverage to their workers; insurers and providers should ensure high quality affordable care; and the government should ensure that health insurance is affordable and provides meaningful coverage. As affordable coverage is made available, individuals should purchase health insurance and take steps to lead healthy lives.

Well, no freaking DUH that Americans should “take steps to lead healthy lives,” but HOW does this address one of the most PRESSING issues with healthcare in this country: it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive for MILLIONS of Americans! And MILLIONS of Americans DO NOT HAVE IT!!!!! This is yet another mamby-pamby milquetoast declaration from the DNC. Just HOW is this a “coup” for the Clinton Camp???

THIS is what Hillary Clinton said she wanted:

Her policy concept was UNEQUIVOCAL, and would have covered ALL AMERICANS!!!! And there was this completely assholic comment by the author of the TImes article:

Although the Obama campaign had final say on the language, there was pressure to incorporate the views of Mrs. Clinton as a way of placating her supporters, many of whom still harbor hard feelings from the contentious primary fight. The document also adopts Mrs. Clinton’s language to express the significance of her primary performance. “Our party is proud that we have put 18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling,” it reads, ostensibly referring to her tally of her vote total.

Uh, it wasn’t JUST the horrible way the Obama Camp and the DNC treated Hillary Clinton, along with the MSM. It is the way the DNC has conducted itself during this season: disregarding documented evidence of fixed caucuses (the ONLY way Obama ended up with more delegates – far fewer actual Americans represented, but more delegates awarded.

That’s pretty easy when the candidate breaks election laws like having people INSIDE polling places with literature, or having people ripping down Clinton signs outside polling places, as well as ripping INTO Clinton supporters; or locking out the opponent’s supporters; or stealing packets to get signatures of people NOT in the caucus meeting, etc., etc.); treating states that were more for Clinton disparately from other states in the same situation; and STEALING VOTES FROM ONE CANDIDATE TO GIVE TO ANOTHER NOT ON THE BALLOT are just a FEW of the reasons we are angry.

If Hillary Clinton had lost fair and square, we would accept that. It was that the FIX seemed to be (and SEEMS to be) in for this sham of a candidate. THAT is why we are angry, Ms. Wheaton (of the NY Times). Try actually doing some real journalism next time, will ya??

Anyway, great job, DNC (and NY Times, who used the “coup” word in the first place). Once again, you have managed to take a great idea about Universal Health Care for ALL People, and make it meaningless. (Do these people take classes in how to be the most vague, fence-riding indecisive wimps EVER or something??) And you are proud of yourselves over it! Wow – how DO you people walk around with NO SPINE????? Boggles the mind…

Oh, but there is more, like on Immigration. The platform reads:

We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. They are our neighbors, and we can help them become full tax paying, law-abiding, productive members of society. At the same time, we cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.

Well, okey dokey. What, no we all have to learn Spanish? Huh. I wonder how they missed THAT!!! Anywho – it isn’t anything TOO unexpected, I reckon. That is to say, no major policy shift or stand, for that matter. Same-o, same-o!!

And more will be coming out about the whole caucus concept as the weekend concludes. So, stay tuned!

It was then that the crowd erupted in enthusiastic applause and warm cheers. But not over Obama’s policy proposal.

What ignited that outburst was the mere mention by Obama of the name Hillary Clinton, his vanquished party opponent.

She wasn’t there, of course. But in absentia the Democratic Party’s loser got a noticeably warmer response than the winner, perhaps a reflection of that lingering party unity thing that was taken care of up in Unity.

We trust that Denver delegates and superdelegates are taking note that the passionate support for Hillary Clinton remains as robust and heartfelt as always, and that Mr. Obama does not enjoy the same kind of support.

Perhaps Obama’s failure to DO his job in the U.S. Senate is one of the reasons.

From Katmandu2’s “Obama Pads His Resume on Immigration“:

The bottom line is this: Obama has not been truthful about his accomplishments on immigration legislation. The piece opens with a clout:

WASHINGTON — No matter if you are—or are not — voting for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), he deserves credit for trying to forge a bipartisan deal on immigration in 2005 and 2006 at great personal political risk, a situation unfamiliar to rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

The importance of the piece is that it calls into question Obama’s veracity:

In the meantime, Obama on the campaign trail inflates his leadership role — casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done. Obama “did not absolutely stand out in any way,’’ said Margaret Sands Orchowski, the author of “Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria,” and a close follower of the legislation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain ally and a key player on immigration, said Obama was around for only a “handful” of meetings and helped destroy a 2007 compromise when he voted for making guest worker visa programs temporary. A permanent guest worker program was to be a trade for a legalization program to cover many illegal immigrants.

“When it came time to putting that bill together, he was more of a problem than he was a help. And when it came time to try to get the bill passed, he, in my opinion, broke the agreement we had. He was in the photo op, but he could not execute the hard part of the deal,” Graham said,” Graham said.

It’s worrisome enough that Barack Obama has served such a short time in the U.S. Senate.

It’s deeply troubling that, in that short time, he did not DO THE WORK or LIVE UP TO HIS WORD.

When we criticize Mr. Obama, we often say that he is nothing more than a “typical politician.”

However, even “typical politicians” — at least the focused, smart politicians — understand that they have to SHOW UP and FOLLOW THROUGH in order to develop the trust and credibility necessary to build those vital relationships essential to realizing big ambitions.

How could a President Obama hope to work “across the aisle” as president if he didn’t even bother to do so as a junior senator?

The bottom line is this: Obama has not been truthful about his accomplishments on immigration legislation. The piece opens with a clout:

WASHINGTON — No matter if you are—or are not — voting for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), he deserves credit for trying to forge a bipartisan deal on immigration in 2005 and 2006 at great personal political risk, a situation unfamiliar to rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

The importance of the piece is that it calls into question Obama’s veracity:

In the meantime, Obama on the campaign trail inflates his leadership role — casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done. Obama “did not absolutely stand out in any way,’’ said Margaret Sands Orchowski, the author of “Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria,” and a close follower of the legislation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain ally and a key player on immigration, said Obama was around for only a “handful” of meetings and helped destroy a 2007 compromise when he voted for making guest worker visa programs temporary. A permanent guest worker program was to be a trade for a legalization program to cover many illegal immigrants.

“When it came time to putting that bill together, he was more of a problem than he was a help. And when it came time to try to get the bill passed, he, in my opinion, broke the agreement we had. He was in the photo op, but he could not execute the hard part of the deal,” Graham said,” Graham said.

This is not just the view of Graham and one reporter. The Washington Post noted Obama’s deception on his immigration “accomplishments” back in March:

After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the “President’s Room,” just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators — including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) — headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: “Hey, guys, can I come along?” And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate — a list that included himself.

“I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who’ve actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out,” he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them. [skip]

Immigration is a case in point for Obama, but not the only one. In 2007, after the first comprehensive immigration bill had died, the senators were back at it, and again, Obama was notably absent, staffers and senators said. At one meeting, three key negotiators recalled, he entered late and raised a number of questions about the bill’s employment verification system. Kennedy and Specter both rebuked him, saying that the issue had already been resolved and that he was coming late to the discussion. Kennedy dressed him down, according to witnesses, and Obama left shortly thereafter.

“Senator Obama came in late, brought up issues that had been hashed and rehashed,” Specter recalled. “He didn’t stay long.”

There you have it: Resume padding we can believe in.

Health Policy

Obama

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

See Economic policy and advisors, above.

This one’s been gone over so many times that everyone on the planet probably knows it by heart. Fact is, in May of 2007, HRC put out her plan, complete with all the lessons learned from the 1994 debacle (which I must remind everyone again – was torpedoed by Democrats). HRC’s plan very cleverly included a roadmap to single-payer, the ultimate goal. Exactly one week later, just enough time to plagiarize and re-brand, BHO came out with his copycat plan. Except BHO’s plan dispensed with the single-payer option and places the mandatory membership subscriptions firmly in the hands of the private insurance companies – who is this guy working for again?

McCain

Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance
Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage
Making Insurance More Portable
Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families
Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable
Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan

Bromides from the (R) side of the aisle. It’s glaringly obvious that McCain doesn’t give a rat’s ass about health care except in the context of preventing any public poaching of private party property (alliteration anyone?).

Energy Policy

Obama

Next in the examination chamber is Energy Policy, below are the BHO talking points

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

More valueless drivel on a large scale. First, the chances of us reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050 are vanishingly small (except for the small possibility mentioned below). Even if we did, by 2050 China and India will be producing 2 to 3 times our present CEs. This is not a US problem it is a global problem and must be addressed in that context. BHO utterly fails to address this.

Second, biofuels is a counter-productive deadend as is already becoming painfully apparent: fill your tank, starve a neighbor. BHOs reliance on pop solutions to real problems is emblematic of his incompetence.

Another personal rant: We need to bite the bullet – it’s time to dump petroleum. Take the $150 billion BHO proposes to enable the unsupportable biofuels economy and put it into nailing down hydrogen fuel cell technology. Find better, cheaper ways to crack seawater into its constituent parts. Hydrogen for clean burning fuel, oxygen gets liberated into the atmosphere and BTW we stop pumping thousands of tons of carbon into the sky. I could go on…

McCain

From his Lexington Project:
Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration and Use Domestic Supplies
Clean Car Challenge
Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles Supports Flex fuel and Ethanol
Goes Green, Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies
Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants
Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D
Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power
Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Surprisingly, this looks to be a well thought out program combining accepted concepts such as Cap and Trade and Clean Coal initiatives. I like the tax credit idea and the emphasis on low carbon power. Not so much the expanded domestic oil stuff (can you say ANWAR?) but I want to talk for a moment about nuclear power.

It seems to be an article of faith in the leftie community that nuclear=bad. We need to stop engaging in knee-jerk responses to this. Yes, older nuclear designs were primitive and overly complex, some were even inherently dangerous, Chernobyl is the poster child for that. Yes, there is a problem with disposing of nuclear waste – but not an insoluble one. Yes, fission reactors are really only a way-station on the road to fusion. All stipulated. But. Let’s look at nuclear power with our critical thinking caps on, this is the Red Dirt Talk after all…

Nuclear Myth #1: All those nuclear power plants are creating more and more radioactivity all the time.

No, Johnny, only a very few nuclear reactors actually create new fissile material – fast breeder reactors, and even then they create the plutonium from uranium as it transforms to lead (this transforming takes a very, very long time). Mostly what reactors do is just transfer radioactivity from one place to another (see Nuclear Myth # 2 for more on this) Bad point here, fast breeder reactors are what you want to build when you want to make weapons-grade radioactives. Extended point: there is radioactive material all over the planet with a high concentration in Africa (remember the Niger Yellowcake?). There is even some speculation that high radioactivity levels in Africa are responsible for mutations that led to the development of Homo Sapiens.

Nuclear Myth # 2: That nasty nuclear waste will just sit around forever making everything glow in the dark.

Well, yes and no… if you pick a remote place that is geologically stable (say Yucca Mountain) and sequester the waste in sealed glass containers and then store them several thousand feet underground in salt formations, you will get the glow in the dark scenario, but if you think critically about it there is a handy solution – take a deep breath here, assumptions are about to be challenged: go out into the middle of the ocean and build a floating launch facility, put your nuclear waste in a rocket and shoot it into the Sun. The Sun will know what to do with it. Yes, we’ve actually been sending nuclear materials into space for years. No, it’s not inherently more dangerous than burying it in salt mines. Yes, rockets used to be famously unreliable and would blow up at the drop of a hat. No, that’s no longer the case… did I mention that the launch takes place in the middle of the ocean?

Nuclear Myth # 3: All nuclear plants are unsafe.

They used to be exactly that, especially idiot designs like the open graphite reactors the USSR dotted all over the landscape. The fact is that many countries have relied on nuclear power for a substantial portion of their energy needs for decades (see France). They have developed new, simpler, inherently safe-by-design nuclear reactors, Pebble Bed reactors for instance. We in the US get about 14 percent of our energy from nuclear reactors. They’re here, they’re staying, they’re getting safer all the time – get over it.

Nonetheless, there is a salient point here: fission is inherently dangerous by virtue of the fact that you have to gather relatively large amounts of radioactive material together in order to make it work at all.

So what’s the solution? Glad you asked: fusion. This holy grail of energy production has been pursued by every capable agency on the planet for over fifty years. Why doesn’t it work? Actually it does, the latest Tokamak reactor produces about 102% energy output from energy input – not very impressive. What is even more unimpressive (more unimpressive?) is the paucity of R+D spending on fusion research. In the decade of the ’90s the total R+D investment by all the IEA members (the US, EU and Japan) totaled US $8.9 billion – total – for, essentially, all the countries of the world – combined – for ten years. Plainly we’re not serious yet about energy independence, when we are, we’ll know it because we’ll be putting in about $100 billion per year into R+D and pilot production and ramping up to bringing fusion online to the grid.

Why should you be happy about this? Here’s the interesting thing about fusion: if it breaks, it turns off; if you make a mistake, it turns off; if the bad guys get in and blow something up, it turns off. No muss, no fuss, no lingering evil cloud, no China Syndrome, no cancer down the line – no radioactivity.

It. Just. Turns. Off.

Did I mention that Exxon made US $40 Billion in profits… this year?

Immigration

Obama

Create Secure Borders
Improve Our Immigration System
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Work with Mexico

Once again, BHO doesn’t have strong positions on this, though I must say that cracking down on employers who hire illegals would go a long way to solving the problem outright.

McCain

Secure borders
Welcomes immigrants and guest workers

This is a McCain signature issue, he’s been highly visible out front on this and has garnered the respect of Hispanics in Mexico as well as the US.

Space Program

Obama

Zero, zip, nada on his website, however his previous position (stated multiple times) was idiotic Go here for a deeper look at this)

Essentially BHO’s opinion is that the Constellation program (our next generation space vehicle system) should take a break for, oh, say about 5 years so that he can funnel NASA funding into – education (paging Bill Ayers). Seriously, he’s gonna bring the US$240 billion/year space industry to a grinding halt for 5 years… and then just flip the switch on ‘em and crank it up again!?!

McCain

Strong supporter of NASA, the space industry, exploration, science, truth, justice and the American way – on this one anyway.

Supreme Court

Obama

Nothing on website, vaguely supports Roe v Wade and claims that: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Apparently, BHO – the constitutional scholar, is off eating waffles somewhere.

McCain

Strict Constructionist
Supported Alito and Roberts

Well, he’s a Republican. What you see is what you get here.

From my blog, The Heraclitan Fire.

But after the Obama campaign’s “go-for-broke” Pennsylvania strategy, after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in the state, a fundamental question must be asked: Why shouldn’t Sen. Obama win?

Good question. Obama can’t win because he’s not a candidate of substance; he’s a candidate of style, and “bitter” blue-collar Dems have enormous economic anxiety, they want a candidate who will address their concerns, and they want a winner.

“Hope” is too vague a promise. In addition to Pennsylvania, there’s another canary in the coal mine.

Superdelegates, listen up: The canary that dropped dead is Obama in Massachusetts: in current match-ups, Obama and McCain are tied there. The Boston Herald’s Michael Graham writes about Obama’s weakness in the Bay State:

[John] Adams noted during the Boston Massacre trial that “Facts are stubborn things.” And it appears that, for the moment, the facts have caught up with Obama here in Massachusetts.

How else to explain the amazing, astounding and unthinkable results of the latest SurveyUSA presidential poll: Republican John McCain is tied with Barack Obama in the Bay State.

The last Republican to win Massachusetts? Ronald Reagan. The last Republican before that? Dwight Eisenhower. Even George McGovern managed to carry Massachusetts in 1972, the one Democratic holdout in Richard Nixon’s 49-state landslide.

Let these facts sink in for a moment. At this date, Obama is tied with McCain in one of the most reliable Democratic states in the country. We’re not talking about swing states here, places like Ohio and Pennsylvania where Obama is under-performing. That’s a whole different concern. We’re talking about a state as blue as the water off Nantucket in August. Now close your eyes and imagine the Republican Convention: grainy black-and-white film of McCain The War Hero, the maverick, the smiling friend of Hispanics. Then GOP operatives roll another video: it’s Obama the liberal, the friend of a terrorist, the elitist in San Fransisco with his chardonnay-drinking friends talking about those poor, bitter white folks who love their guns and God too much to vote for a black man named Barack, and then the garish voice of Rev. Wright screaming “No, no, no, God Damn America!”

Graham continues:

Replace “McGovern” with “MoveOn.org” and you’ve seized the essence of the Obama candidacy. He’s the most liberal U.S. senator, advocating tax increases on the “wealthy” and enjoying the support of Gov. Deval Patrick, Sen. Ted Kennedy, The Boston Globe-Democrat and every 9/11 conspiracy kook in the People’s Republic of Cambridge. He’s got all the players in Massachusetts behind him except the ones who actually vote.

And this is the key line:

While Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46percent, well within the margin of error.

Graham believes the reason for Obama’s weakness is Democrats’ desire to win, “What they want is victory – at virtually any cost.” He suggests that Bay Staters see Obama as too weak to take on McCain. There is some truth to this notion, but when you consider that Obama lost to Hillary in Massachusetts even while he had the entire liberal establishment behind him, it must be something else. What’s happening in Massachusetts is what we’re seeing in Pennsylvania: Obama doesn’t connect with blue-collar voters. It’s not his race or Harvard pedigree; the election of Governor Patrick dispels that idea. It’s the fact that Obama mocks the concerns of working people and his policy proposals are milquetoast next to Hillary’s, particularly in regards to the concerns of blue-collar workers.

Obama talks about “change,” but real voters in the real world want health care and jobs. Obama’s mushy rhetoric reminds many Democrats of the Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush in 2000. Harry Truman once said, “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.” It’s no wonder then that 32% of Hillary supporters in PA would vote for The War Hero if Obama gets the nomination. Superdelegates, it’s 3 a.m. and your phone is ringing. It’s Massachusetts: the canary is dead.

North Carolinians can ask that “typical” Hillary a question, and she’ll respond.

Below, in this open thread, here’s the latest on immigration reform:

(Thanks to Other Lisa for sending me that video. See more Screaming Frog videos.)

Sen. Clinton’s response was sincere. The Obama attack was disingenuous.


We are happy to discuss Sen. Clinton’s foreign policy experience and her record overall.  Unfortunately, the Obama campaign doesn’t want to discuss its candidate’s record and prefers personal attacks instead.

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he’d get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He’d have to deal with the fallout from this week’s Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.
 


Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.
 


He’d have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.
 


He’d have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
 


He’d have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

Sen. Obama seems to think disingenuous attacks on Sen. Clinton will address the concerns voters have about his record and readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief and the steward of our economy.  They won’t.
 


In the end, Sen. Obama’s words cannot erase Hillary’s 35-year record of action because when all is said and done, words aren’t action.  They are just words.



###

 

Susan’s Note: See all of Hillary Clinton’s interview — both text and videos — at Pittsburgh Live.