Helping the Poor, the British Way

Helping the Poor, the British Way
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Monday 25 December 2006

It's the season for charitable giving. And far too many Americans, particularly children, need that charity.

Scenes of a devastated New Orleans reminded us that many of our fellow citizens remain poor, four decades after L.B.J. declared war on poverty. But I'm not sure whether people understand how little progress we've made. In 1969, fewer than one in every seven American children lived below the poverty line. Last year, although the country was far wealthier, more than one in every six American children were poor.

And there's no excuse for our lack of progress. Just look at what the British government has accomplished over the last decade.

Although Tony Blair has been President Bush's obedient manservant when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Blair's domestic policies are nothing like Mr. Bush's. Where Mr. Bush has sought to privatize the social safety net, Mr. Blair's Labor government has defended and strengthened it. Where Mr. Bush and his allies accuse anyone who mentions income distribution of "class warfare," the Blair government has made a major effort to reverse the surge in inequality and poverty that took place during the Thatcher years.

And Britain's poverty rate, if measured American-style - that is, in terms of a fixed poverty line, not a moving target that rises as the nation grows richer - has been cut in half since Labor came to power in 1997.

Britain's war on poverty has been led by Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Blair's heir apparent. There's nothing exotic about his policies, many of which are inspired by American models. But in Britain, these policies are carried out with much more determination.

For example, Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1999 - but at current exchange rates Britain's minimum wage rate is now about twice as high as ours. Britain's child benefit is more generous than America's child tax credit, and it's available to everyone, even those too poor to pay income taxes. Britain's tax credit for low-wage workers is similar to the U.S. earned-income tax credit, but substantially larger.

And don't forget that Britain's universal health care system ensures that no one has to fear going without medical care or being bankrupted by doctors' bills.

The Blair government hasn't achieved all its domestic goals. Income inequality has been stabilized but not substantially reduced: as in America, the richest 1 percent have pulled away from everyone else, though not to the same extent. The decline in child poverty, though impressive, has fallen short of the government's ambitious goals. And the government's policies don't seem to have helped a persistent underclass of the very poor.

But there's no denying that the Blair government has done a lot for Britain's have-nots. Modern Britain isn't paradise on earth, but the Blair government has ensured that substantially fewer people are living in economic hell. Providing a strong social safety net requires a higher overall rate of taxation than Americans are accustomed to, but Britain's tax burden hasn't undermined the economy's growth.

What are the lessons to be learned from across the pond?

First, government truly can be a force for good. Decades of propaganda have conditioned many Americans to assume that government is always incompetent - and the current administration has done its best to turn that into a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the Blair years have shown that a government that seriously tries to reduce poverty can achieve a lot.

Second, it really helps to have politicians who are serious about governing, rather than devoting themselves entirely to amassing power and rewarding cronies.

While researching this article, I was startled by the sheer rationality of British policy discussion, as compared with the cynical posturing that passes for policy discourse in George Bush's America. Instead of making grandiose promises that are quickly forgotten - like Mr. Bush's promise of "bold action" to confront poverty after Hurricane Katrina - British Labor politicians propose specific policies with well-defined goals. And when actual results fall short of those goals, they face the facts rather than trying to suppress them and sliming the critics.

The moral of my Christmas story is that fighting poverty isn't easy, but it can be done. Giving in to cynicism and accepting the persistence of widespread poverty even as the rich get ever richer is a choice that our politicians have made. And we should be ashamed of that choice.

And So This Is Christmas

And So This Is Christmas
By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor

Monday 25 December 2006

And so this is Christmas,
And what have you done?
Another year over,
A new one just begun.
- John Lennon

Today is the 21st birthday of my youngest child, Janey. It is the third birthday that she has "celebrated" since her oldest sibling, Casey, was killed in Iraq. My other son, Andy, turned 21 the year Casey was killed. Carly, my oldest daughter, turned 24 the year after Casey was killed ... the same age he was when BushCo sent him to die in their oil war for profit. In the one letter that Casey was writing three days before he was killed in the ambush that took the lives of six other soldiers, he expressed regret that he wouldn't be home for Janey's high school graduation that June. Little did we know that he would be home, buried in his "final resting place," forever.

Christmas 2006 will be the third Christmas that our family has endured since the death of Casey. The holiday season is hard for so many people as evidenced by the skyrocketing number of suicides and suicide attempts. Many people feel lonely and separated from joyous events, and the orgy of consumerism that now is the "reason for the season." Especially since Christmas 2003 was the last time we saw Casey alive, this season is so difficult for our family. Imagine getting out the boxes of Christmas decorations and pulling out your dead child's stocking or "Baby's First Christmas, 1979" ornament. Well, the Sheehan family and almost 3,000 other American families don't have to imagine the pain - we deal with the trauma 24/7; Christmas, birthdays, graduations, weddings, births, anniversaries, will never, ever, be the same for us again.

2006 was a year of ups and downs for our family and for the nation. Despite the facts, the criminal and corrupt occupation of Iraq continues unabated, and in fact - worsens on an hourly basis. Body bags are coming home from the Middle East in the dark of night at a steady clip, and our troops are being grievously wounded for no other reason than to reward the CEOs of the war profiteers with phenomenal holiday bonuses. Our children are being sacrificed like Christmas turkeys so the turkeys in the White House can strut around and posture like dictators of banana republics.

With the transfer of power in the legislative branch of Congress, our nation has a unique opportunity for true change in 2007. But with the Democratic leadership cozying up to the killers who have led our country down a path of destruction in the name of "bipartisanship" - which in this case can only be truthfully called criminal collusion - we have little hope of the change that we the people voted overwhelmingly for this past November.

The best holiday presents for my family, our nation and the world, would be for the troops to speedily and safely exit from Iraq and for BushCo to be held accountable for their crimes against our Constitution and humanity. These gifts, however, will not be realized unless the grassroots community who put the Democrats back in power redouble our efforts for peace and accountability.

A very Merry Christmas,
And a Happy New Year,
Let's hope it's a good one,
Without any fear.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." An out-of-control Executive Branch, threatening to send more troops to Iraq and another battleship group to the Persian Gulf - to intimidate Iran and perhaps incite an attack from that country that would justify another war - is not the only thing the world has to fear. I am also afraid that the recent electoral victory of the Democratic Party will lead to complacency in the grassroots movement. May I remind everyone that the Democrats have started more wars in the last century than the Republicans - and all war is wrong, no matter what political party or which politician starts it. We have to do more than "hope" for a good 2007. We have to stay vigilant and motivated, and constantly remind our employees in DC who they work for and what we expect from them. The Democrats cannot be afraid to end the monstrosity that BushCo has perpetrated on the world. Our nation and the nation of Iraq demand heroes.

We have to be the ones who give our leaders the courage to do the right thing.

War is over, if you want it,
War is over, if you want it.
War is over, war is over,
If YOU work for peace.

War Profits Trump the Rule of Law

War Profits Trump the Rule of Law
By Chris Floyd
t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent

Friday 22 December 2006

I. The Wings of the Dove

Slush funds, oil sheiks, prostitutes, Swiss banks, kickbacks, blackmail, bagmen, arms deals, war plans, climbdowns, big lies and Dick Cheney - it's a scandal that has it all, corruption and cowardice at the highest levels, a festering canker at the very heart of world politics, where the War on Terror meets the slaughter in Iraq. Yet chances are you've never heard about it - even though it happened just a few days ago. The fog of war profiteering, it seems, is just as thick as the fog of war.

But here's how the deal went down. On December 14, the UK attorney general, Lord Goldsmith (Pete Goldsmith as was, before his longtime crony Tony Blair raised him to the peerage), peremptorily shut down a two-year investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into a massive corruption case involving Britain's biggest military contractor and members of the Saudi royal family. SFO bulldogs had just forced their way into the holy of holies of the great global back room - Swiss bank accounts - when Pete pulled the plug. Continuing with the investigation, said His Lordship, "would not be in the national interest."

It certainly wasn't in the interest of BAE Systems, the British arms merchant that has become one of the top 10 US military firms as well, through its voracious acquisitions during the profitable War on Terror - including some juicy hook-ups with the Carlyle Group, the former corporate crib of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and still current home of the family fixer, James Baker. BAE director Phillip Carroll is also quite at home in the White House inner circle: a former chairman of Shell Oil, he was tapped by George II to be the first "Senior Adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Oil" in those heady "Mission Accomplished" days of 2003. BAE has allegedly managed to "disappear" approximately $2 billion in shavings from one of the largest and longest-running arms deals in history - the UK-Saudi warplane program known as "al-Yamanah" (Arabic for "The Dove"). Al-Yamanah has been flying for 18 years now, with periodic augmentations, pumping almost $80 billion into BAE's coffers, with negotiations for $12 billion in additional planes now nearing completion. SFO investigators had followed the missing money from the deal into a network of Swiss bank accounts and the usual Enronian web of offshore front companies.

Nor was continuing the investigation in the interest of the Saudi royals, whose princely principals in the arms deal were embarrassed by allegations that a BAE-administered slush fund had supplied the fiercely ascetic fundamentalists with wine, women and song - not to mention lush apartments, ritzy holidays, cold hard cash, Jags, Ferraris and at least one gold-plated Rolls-Royce, as The Times reported. One scam - uncovered by the Guardian in a batch of accidentally released government documents - involved inflating the price of the warplanes by 32 percent. The rakeoff was then presumably siphoned into BAE's secret accounts, with some of it kicking back to the Saudi royals and their retainers.

The Saudis were said to be incensed by the continuing revelations spinning out of the investigation, which had begun in 2004 after the Guardian first got wind of the alleged slush fund. Last month, with talks on the new $12 billion extension in the final stages, the Saudis lowered the boom, threatening to ashcan al-Yamanah and buy their warplanes from - gasp! - the French instead. For a week or two, the Blair government played chicken with the Saudis, hoping the threat was just a hardball bluff for better terms (or maybe bigger slush).

Then came a curious intervention. Last month, Dick Cheney traveled to Riyadh for talks with Saudi King Abdullah. There he beseeched the king to step in and help pull America's fat out of the wildfire of Iraq by using Saudi influence on Iraq's volatile Sunni minority, the Scotland Sunday Herald reported. It's also thought that Cheney asked the Saudis to stump up more cash to replace some of the billions of dollars in missing "reconstruction money" that White House cronies and local operators have somehow "misplaced" into their own pockets during the war.

It is widely believed in top UK political circles that among the many considerations the Saudis asked for in return for the possibility of helping out in Iraq was the application of White House pressure on Tony Blair to quash the BAE investigation. The king apparently put this more in the form of a demand than a request: senior sources in the Blair government told the Observer that the Saudis threatened to stop sharing its extensive intelligence on terrorism and kick all British intelligence and military personnel out of the kingdom if Blair didn't kill the probe.

But if Cheney and Abdullah did do a strongarm number on Blair, they probably didn't have to break a sweat to convince him. In this case, Blair no doubt could echo the words of Macbeth when he saw the ghostly dagger drawing him on to dirty deeds: "Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going." For certainly, Blair had no desire to see the fraud probe of BAE progress any further. He has been one of the arms peddler's biggest cheerleaders - and most assiduous shills - throughout his long term in office. For example, in January 2002, as India and Pakistan teetered on the edge of a nuclear exchange over Kashmir, Blair made a lightning trip to both countries to preach peace - and to hawk a $1.4 billion deal for BAE jet fighters with India. This move, of course, only made the already outgunned Pakistanis even more likely to use their nukes to stave off any attack. It seems not even the greatest threat of nuclear war that the world had ever seen was enough to stop Blair from throwing gasoline on the fire in the service of BAE's bottom line.

Yet although the Saudis certainly weren't pleased with the investigation and wanted it to go away, as the SFO moved forward it became increasingly clear that BAE itself had more to fear from the probe than did the gilded guardians of Mecca. In 2002, the UK adopted a set of stringent anti-bribery laws that criminalized the use of old-fashioned baksheesh to grease a deal with foreign powers. As the Guardian reported, the SFO were pursuing three key questions: Were members of the Saudi royal family getting secret UK payoffs? Were the financial transactions crimes under UK law? And had BAE lied to government agencies in its claims to have reformed its past practices and dispensed with the "confidential Saudi agents" who served as bagmen for the bribes?

They believed the answers were waiting in Berne, Switzerland, in a box of files being kept for them by the Swiss federal prosecutor's office, the Guardian reported. This box "was the hottest potato of all. The Swiss dossier contained print-outs of BAE's recent offshore banking transactions with key Saudi middlemen. The normally highly-secret bank records had recently been secured by the authorities at the British investigators' request."

But just before they were to fly down to claim the Swiss bank trove, Goldsmith ordered the SFO to stop the probe and turn over all their existing files for his examination. After two days of poring through the material (or perhaps not poring through it), Goldsmith suddenly announced that, upon consultation with the cabinet and the prime minister, he was quashing the entire investigation in the name of "the UK's security and foreign policy interests."

Legal experts told UK papers they could find no precedent for such a move. Oddly enough, Her Majesty's Attorney General - a certain Lord Goldsmith - had been of a similar mind just 10 days before, when, in response to a ferocious PR campaign against the SFO probe launched by BAE's friends among the great and good, he declared that he had "no intention of interfering with the investigation," as the Guardian reports. What a difference 10 days, Dick Cheney and Saudi blackmail makes!

Not to mention Blair's desire to peddle even more BAE weaponry on yet another "peace mission" - this time to the Middle East, where he conducted a frantic and utterly fruitless "whirlwind tour" in mid-month. But before jetting off to seek ever-elusive "breakthroughs" on Iraq and Israel-Palestine, Blair wanted the SFO imbroglio wrapped up, so he could proffer BAE planes to the United Arab Emirates without all that folderol about bribes hanging over the company, the Times reported.

In delivering his ruling on BAE, Goldsmith acted with the same bold flip-floppery he had displayed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Then too, there was a small gap of time in which a momentous reversal was made, between his first, detailed private advice to Blair that there were at least six different ways in which the invasion could be considered a war crime and his last-minute, hastily-sketched public declaration that, by gum, he thought the war just might be legal after all. Despite a few minor quibbles on various tactics in the never-ending Terror War - Goldsmith has on occasion voiced a few mild objections to the American concentration camp on Guantanamo Bay - the good Lord has proven himself a worthy counterpart to his comrade across the sea, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in exalting the principles of political expediency and war profiteering above the rule of law.

II. Tony in Wonderland

There is yet another parallel between the fraud probe kibosh and the Iraq warmongering: the official reasons given for the action have been constantly changing. Indeed, in the days following Goldsmith's hugger-mugger announcement - carefully timed to coincide with the release of the final report on Princess Diana's death, which the government knew would consume every ounce of media oxygen that day - Blair and his high ministers of state peddled a dizzying and often contradictory array of justifications for stifling the investigation.

There was the initial "security and foreign policy interests" offered by Goldsmith to Parliament and initially echoed by Blair. The UK-Saudi relationship "is vitally important for our country, in terms of counterterrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel-Palestine, and that strategic interest comes first," Blair said after the ruling, as AP reported.

However, that explanation didn't play very well, for it seemed to confirm the reports that Britain had indeed been blackmailed and bullied by Saudi Arabia into dropping the probe. The underlying implications of Blair's stance were riddled with glaring contradictions: Saudi Arabia is our strong, trusted friend and ally who, er, uh, has threatened to fan the flames of regional conflict and expose us to a much greater risk of terrorist attack if we don't disregard our own laws.

Somehow, the sight of a British Prime Minister declaring "if we don't do what they say, they'll hurt us" did not convey the degree of wisdom and reassurance the government sought to project about the decision. As AP noted, some of those most upset by the ruling came from Blair's own increasingly-fractious Labour Party - which hit another new low in the polls this week, dropping further behind the resurgent Tories. "We appear to be giving businessmen carte blanche to do business with Saudi Arabia, which may involve illegal payments or illegal inducements," said Eric Illsley, a Labour member of Parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee. "We have been leaned on very heavily by the Saudis."

And so this argument was largely supplanted by the economic considerations that BAE's supporters had been trumpeting in the press in the weeks before Goldsmith's ruling. If the Saudis had slaughtered "The Dove" deal because of the SFO probe, Britons were told, it would have cost the nation 100,000 jobs. This figure, first floated by BAE's media and parliamentary front men last month, soon became the standard number touted by government backers after the Goldsmith ruling. The fact that it was flatly contradicted by a University of York study which showed that a cancellation of the impending al-Yamanah extension would have eliminated just 5,000 jobs cut no ice with the panicky spin doctors. (To be sure, even the lesser job loss would have been a heavy blow to the workers involved; but at that smaller level, it was a blow that could have easily been cushioned by government compensation and genuine efforts at retraining or re-employment elsewhere: the kind of action that Blair's government has often promised yet seldom delivered to the many industries that have gone belly-up - and overseas - during his tenure.)

The new line also flatly contradicted Goldsmith's original declaration to Parliament, in which he insisted that economic considerations had "played no part" in his decision. When the rank hypocrisy of this was pointed out, Blair and Goldsmith both came up with a new reason: the case wasn't strong enough to go forward, there was not enough evidence of wrongdoing. Aside from the fact that Goldsmith himself had prevented the SFO from examining the most relevant evidence in the entire case - BAE's own secret bank records - this stance was, again, at odds with his position just days earlier, when he'd declared he would not intervene in the investigation. That declaration had come after he had gone over the case and the evidence for it in a meeting with SFO director Robert Wardle.

SFO officials strongly disputed Blair and Goldsmith's claim that the case was weak. And in any case, the whole point of the probe was not to guarantee a prosecution but to establish the truth. While the Blair government's disinterest in establishing the truth as opposed to pushing a political line is well-established (see the Downing Street Memos), they are vitally interested in information. So much so that they apparently bugged the SFO offices during the probe, the Independent reported. "I was told by detectives that the probe was being bugged. They had reached this conclusion because highly confidential information on the inquiry had been reaching outside parties," a senior figure involved in the investigation told the paper. SFO investigators believe the probe was actually quashed because the Blair spies had learned how very substantial it was, not because the evidence was lacking.

In the end, after the "weak-case" justification turned out to be a weak case itself, Blair and the gang reverted back to a variation of the "security" line: the noble struggle to free the peoples of the Middle East from the clutches of armed Islamic extremism superseded all other considerations. Despite the ever-soaring rhetoric, however, Blair failed to make clear exactly how providing $80 billion worth of advanced arms to perhaps the most repressive Islamic extremist state on earth can be said to advance the cause of freedom and tolerance in the Middle East.

Lord knows - and lords know - that unseemly accommodations sometimes have to be made in this world, especially in geopolitics. A wink here, a little baksheesh there between unsavoury characters are often better than, say, launching a war of aggression and murdering more than half a million innocent people to achieve your political and commercial ends. But in the BAE case, as in so much else in politics, it is the hypocrisy that rankles most. Western governments obviously believe they must give guns and bribes to extremist tyrants in order to obtain the oil that keeps their own nations in such disproportionate clover - but they lack the guts to say so in plain language, dressing up this ugly business with meaningless trumpery about freedom, peace and security.

Are they trying to mask their own cynicism - or protect the tender sensibilities of their electorates, who might prefer sugared lies to acknowledgements of the dirty deals that undergird their way of life?

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

Free Holiday E-Book

I have a nice ebook about holiday traditions that I would like to give to you absolutely FREE of charge. Please email me dottye789@earthlink.net to get your copy.

Protect women in Darfur from abuse. Make sure help arrives by year's end!

As the holidays approach, our thoughts turn to those who are less fortunate than ourselves. This year, we have an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of countless innocent women and their families who are suffering in Darfur, Sudan.

These women and their daughters are struggling to survive in cramped refugee camps where sexual assault is common, food is scarce, and medical help is almost non-existent. But there is hope. Tell our leaders to protect women from abuse and genocide by sending humanitarian aid to Darfur!

Women and girls as young as eight risk being raped and attacked when they leave their homes or refugee camps to gather firewood and food.

Hungry families face a terrible choice each day - do they send out their husbands and sons who may be killed, or their mothers and daughters, who may be raped and beaten? This is a choice no one should ever have to make!

Speak up for the women and girls who have no voice: http://go.care2.com/e/R2Qq/btrH/DmWm

It's been nearly three months since the government of Sudan agreed to send help to those suffering in Darfur. But they have yet to follow through on this promise. The situation in Darfur is shocking, but if we don't send aid now the worst may be yet to come. Ensure that the suffering in Darfur ends today by signing the petition letter to UN Secretary-General Annan and President Bush.

In the three years since the rebel fighting started, over 400,000 women, children, and men have been killed; more than 2 million have been forced from their homes; and over 3.5 million rely completely on international aid for survival. And most recently, the UN Secretary General's special representative was ordered to leave the country. All the while, the number of civilian deaths in this brutal civil war continues to climb.

That's why it's so important that our leaders ramp up the pressure and demand that the peacekeepers are admitted!

This is our chance to reach millions of women who need help right now. Thank you for making a difference today.

George Harrison~hard to believe it's been 5 years...

Hare Krishna George...we miss you, mate!

TELL WALMART: STOP SELLING RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE FOR CHRISTMAS.

What's Wal-Mart promoting this holiday season? The religious right's extreme ideology.

Just in time for Christmas, the religious right has released a violent video game in which born-again Christians aim to convert or kill those who don't adhere to their extreme ideology. The video game, "Left Behind: Eternal Forces," is based on the apocalyptic "Left Behind" novels - written and promoted by religious right leader Tim LaHaye. Despite the violent, intolerant message being marketed to children, Wal-Mart, the nation's #1 video game seller, is selling the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game - just in time for the holidays!

Take action now and urge Wal-Mart to stop selling religious violence this holiday season.

"Left Behind: Eternal Forces" takes place in New York City, shortly after the rapture. Gamers are charged with creating Christian militias who roam the streets of New York City, looking to convert non-believers and killing those who they are unable to draw to their side. In fact, after particularly bloody battles, players must use prayer to recharge their "soul points" that have been diminished by the killing.

Most disturbing is the game's apparent attempt at religious indoctrination - aimed at children and focused on violent, divisive, and hateful scenarios.

The game has outraged progressive and conservative Christians alike, and despite the religious right's typical opposition to violent video games, "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" has not generated any criticism from this group and in fact gained a gleaming review from a Focus on the Family affiliated website this week.

While the religious right apparently has no problem pushing the product this holiday season, America's #1 video game seller should know better.

Click here and urge Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to stop selling our kids religious violence.

You know you’re a diehard conservative when…

Anybody you don’t agree 100% with is a “liberal”.

No matter how much of a jerk and a betrayer of your values the candidate is, ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Any website or source providing whatever data that you don’t like (talk.origins, WikiPedia, RealClimate) has a liberal agenda. (see #1)

Voting machines can always be trusted, but exit polls can’t.

Anybody who doesn’t believe in Biblical Creationism is an atheist “evolutionist”. (see #1)

Failure of the government to endorse your religion and proselytize it equals oppression of your faith.

People who disagree with your stance on the War on Terror are “supporting the terrorists” and are “anti-american”. (see #1)

You think that people who support a secular society want the terrorists to win.

Anybody who wants the state to keep out of the institution of marriage is pro-gay and a “sodomite agitator”. (see #1)

You think Fox News really is “fair and balanced”! (…and the rest of the media is leftist! ALL OF IT!)

You think that there were WMD in Iraq, and they have been found. Anyone who denies that is a liberal (see #1).

Abortion is murder, but capital punishment is A-OK (and so is bombing abortion clinics)!

WE ARE WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ!!! (any day now…)

You know that the USA was founded on christian principles, and should be ruled according to biblical law. Never mind that the founding fathers were strongly skeptical of involving religion in political matters… (hey, they were probably liberals!… see #1)

You think anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by useless scientists who only want government handouts.

You think that atheism is a religion.

President Bush in Denial about Iraq

Now, members of his own party are wanting out of the mess he and Cheney created out of their greed for oil and no-bid government contracts for Halliburton!

"It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said in urging for a planned withdrawal of U.S. troops. "We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," said Hagel, a combat veteran of that war. "Honorable intentions are not policies and plans."

Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, called Iraq the worst U.S. foreign policy decision since Vietnam. He said Democrats do not have a quick answer and any solution must be bipartisan.

"It is time to tell the Iraqis that unless they're willing to disband the militias and the death squads, unless they're willing to stand up and govern their country in a responsible fashion, America is not going to stay there indefinitely," Durbin said.

That theme - pressuring al-Maliki and his government - seemed to unify Republicans and Democrats.

"If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder - one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead," Hagel wrote in Sunday's Washington Post.

We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II!! There is no "Mission Accomplished"- we just keep getting in deeper and deeper, and the country falls into anarchy. Plus, me have made so many enemies worldwide- even the Canadians don't like us!

The Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan 10-member commission led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, is working on a set of strategies for Iraq. The New York Times reported Sunday that the commission's draft report recommends aggressive regional diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria.

Bush, after a NATO summit in Europe, plans to meet with al-Maliki on Wednesday and Thursday in Jordan. That summit, coupled with Vice President Dick Cheney's trip to Saudi Arabia on Saturday, is evidence of the administration's stepped-up effort to bring stability to the region.

Cry for Freedom

Although Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr. are both skilled orators and use similar rhetorical devices to appeal to their audiences, their call for freedom for two totally different kinds of people. Both Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr. show their strengths as speakers through their use of these rhetorical devices. Among these are parallelism, allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions. Both speakers use these devices well. Martin Luther King, Jr. is infamous for using parallelism when he states, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" Martin Luther King, Jr. also alludes to the Declaration of independence many times in his speech. "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." These rhetorical devices help Martin Luther King, Jr. keep his audience attentive and highly interested.

Patrick Henry uses biblical allusion when he states, "It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our Country." Another rhetorical device that Henry uses well is imagery. A good example of Henry's imagery is, "The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!" Henry uses these and many more devices to keep the attention and the open mind of his audience who was mostly opposed to his viewpoint.

These two speeches were much more different than they are alike. The main difference between the two speeches, in a general sense was that one calls for a change through violence and war, while the other calls for a peaceful solution. Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses calls for a revolution against Great Britain. This must have been a difficult speech for Henry to deliver because he was speaking to a group of people who were opposed to his ideals. They gave the speech pre-revolution and was an attempt to persuade the Virginia delegates to solve the colonies' problems with the British through war.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech was much different than Henry's. First of all, King was asking for a peaceful solution to the problems between the white Americans and the African- Americans. This speech was also different from Henry's because he was speaking to a crowd that was supportive of what he had to say. They aimed this speech, given on the Lincoln Memorial in the early 1960's, at persuading African-Americans to solve their problems with whites through a peaceful method.

Both Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches had their similarities and differences. Among their similarities are that both were good orators. They displayed this through the good, similar rhetorical devices that they used, and through the way their audience reacted to their speeches. Both men were taking risks by speaking the ways and at the times they did speak. Among the differences between the two speeches are the changes that they are causing, and the way in which the change is to be made.

When Corporations Rule the World

The book "When corporations Rule the World" by David Korten describes the way things will be in the future with multi-national corporations. These large corporations are found all over the world. There are many different problems that are appearing and many of them can be seen to be connected to corporations. We need to look at what is occurring with corporations and see if they are causing more problems or are helping to solve problems of the world. David Korten addresses this question in his book. He points out many of the problems that are being caused by multi-national corporations in the world today. He points out the effects to communities, families, the individual and the environment that are being forgotten about in the ever expanding process of economic globalization. Korten states " the process of economic globalization are not only spreading mass poverty, environmental devastation and social disintegration, they are also weakening our capacity for constructive social and cultural innovation at a time when such innovation is needed as never before" .

Corporations have not always been as big and powerful as the are today. Through economic globalization they have become very powerful. "Corporations have emerged as the dominant governance institutions on the planet, with the largest among them reaching into virtually every country of the world and exceeding most governments in size and power". Prior to the Civil War, owners were personally responsible for any liabilities or debts the company incurred, including wages owed to workers. Early Americans feared corporations as a threat to democracy and freedom. After the Civil War, owners and managers of corporations pressed relentlessly to expand their powers, and the courts gave them what they wanted. Perhaps the most important change occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations the full constitutional protections of individual citizens. By the early 20th century, courts had limited the liability of share holders; corporations had been given perpetual life times; the number of owners was no longer restricted; the capital they could control was infinite. Some corporations were even given the power of eminent domain. In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court bestowed natural rights on unnatural creatures, amoral beasts that were created to serve selfish men. Now corporations had life and liberty, but no morals, and the fears of the early Americans were soon realized.

There are many problems that can be seen being caused by the multi-national corporations that have spread all over the world. One of these problems is the thoughtlessness of these large corporations to abuse the environment that we all have to live in. Corporations have been destroying both the renewable and non-renewable resources of the world. Many of the nonrenewable resources are being used at very excessive rates for profit to the few and nothing for the people where the natural resources are being taken from. "When industrialization caused countries to exceed their national resource limits, they simply reached out to obtain what was needed from beyond their own borders, generally by colonizing the resources of non-industrial people".

Many renewable resources are also being destroyed all over the world and this is having very devastating effects to many people. One of these main resources is the polluting of the fresh water and air in the world and the ability to absorb our wastes. One example of this is the amount of damage that has done by acid rain. "At the global level, each year deserts encroach on another 6 billion hectares of once productive land, the area covered by tropical forests is reduced by 11 million hectares, there is a net loss of 26 billion tons of soil from oxidation and erosion, and 1.5 billion hectares of prime agricultural land are abandoned due to salinization form irrigation projects".

Two of the most important aspects of good health are in the abundance of clean water and proper sanitation. "Countries with high income levels are experiencing increases in rates of cancer, respiratory illness is, stress and cardiovascular disorders, and birth defects, as well as falling sperm counts". This is due mostly to what is left after economic growth, waste and pollution.

One of the other effects is that many of these multi-national corporations have much more power than many governments of the world. "As markets become freer and more global, the power to govern increasingly passes from national governments to global corporations, and the interests of those corporations, and the interests of those corporations diverge ever farther from the human interests". This means that these corporations have the power to influence many decisions that are made by the governments of the world. This can be done in two main ways. The first is in helping to get the people that they feel will help make political decisions that will benefit them. This is done through the many donations that are made to the campaign funds of those individuals. The other way is in the nature of the corporation. This is through the large amounts of capital that the success of the corporation of the is dependent on. In democracies, a person gets one vote. "In the market one dollar is one vote, and you get as many votes as you have dollars. No dollar, no vote. Markets are inherently biased in favor of people of wealth". This means that the market only recognizes money, not people. It gives no voice of the penniless, and when not balanced by constraining political forces can become and instrument of oppression by which the wealthy monopolize society's resources leaving the less fortunate with out land, jobs, technology or other means of livelihood. "Money is its sole measure of value, and its practice is advancing policies that are deepening social and environmental disintegration every where".

These huge corporations are also effecting and changing our lives in another way. These corporations are able to manipulate the cultural values and universal symbols of the societies of the world. "Our cultural symbols provide an important source of identity and meaning; they affirm our worth, our place in society....When control of our cultural symbols passes to corporations, we are essentially yielding to them the power to define who we are...We become simply members of the "Pepsi generation" detached from place and any meaning other than those a corporation finds is profitable to confer on us". The societies of the world, are loosing their heritage and traditions that had separated each of them and made them each unique. As the world grows smaller through technology and we become more dependent on each other many of these important traditions that united a community are being lost and forgotten. The corporations are looking to just make a profit.

There are many other problems that are being caused by multinational corporations that are being over looked because they can not be measured by monetary means. These are the effects that the individual and society are noticing more and are trying to have to deal with. The first of these is in the feeling of job security. "Not so long ago, the firm which a person worked was almost like family. It was primary support system in an otherwise impersonal and transient world. A good job was far more than an income. It was a source of identity and of valued and enduring relationships". With these large corporations we are getting away from this feeling of security. Many people are learning that "no amount of money can buy peace of mind, a strong and loving family, caring friends, and a feeling that one is meaningful and important work". This is becoming true for people with jobs on any level. There is no longer any job security for virtually anyone at any level.

This feeling is also bring on many other problems. These are in the family. With out security stress levels can become very high causing many problems in the family. Is this why the divorce rate in America has climbed to unbelievable heights? "High rates of deprivation, depression, divorce, teenage pregnancy, violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime and suicide are among the more evident consequences in both high and low income countries".

One of the other main problems falls to the poor societies of the world. They end up getting totally neglected by multinational corporations. This is done on all levels. From the taking of natural non-renewable resources to the poor not being able to make any impact on the decisions made because they do not have the capital to make their 'vote'. They are being excluded from land, technology is eliminating jobs faster than it is creating new ones, and public services that were placed there to help them are being dismantled because there is not enough funds. This is all being done to increase the wealth of those who really do not need any more. These large corporations do not have feelings or think of the destructive things that are being caused by their practices.

There are many things that need to be done to turn all of these problems around. Major changes will have to occur. One of these changes is trying to get back to small businesses that this country was started on and still depends on today. Locally owned small businesses are not only the foundation for strong communities; they are the driving force of strong economies. Small businesses are our engines of innovation and job creation. One example of this how small business is better than large corporations, is in the court case where an 81 year old woman, sued the huge multinational corporation of McDonalds for serving her a coffee heated to 180-190 degrees, far above the average temperature of 140 degrees. She was hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin grafts for third degree burns. She was awarded $2.9 million dollars in the case. The jury was told that this had happened to 700 patrons over the past 10 years who had burned themselves on the super heated coffee. Only after the verdict did any fast food changes evaluate this unnecessary practice of subjecting their customers to this potential injury.

If this had occurred at a local neighborhood coffee shop, think of the consequences. How many customers would get burned until a customer talked to the owner and demand that the temperature get turned down. Big corporations require a legal system that allows the average citizen to force them to pay for their mistakes and mend their ways. Local business are able to more easily hear the voice of their customers and remedy the problems more quickly and easily.

Connected with this, since corporations can not be eliminated, they need to at least change their ways. They need to "Think globally, act locally". This means that the need to help out the community. To set up programs for the people of the community. To bring 'community' back into the cities and towns where these businesses are. They also need to make sure that these efforts are working and reaching the people that really would benefit from them.

"We must decide whether the power to govern will be in the hands of living people or will reside with corporate entities driven by a different agenda. To regain control of our future and bring human societies into balance with the planet, we must reclaim the power we have yielded to the corporation". This statement means two main things. That we as individuals must work together to reclaim the power that was given to these corporations and that they are abusing. It also states that societies need to come into balance with the planet, mainly the environment.

Korten states the three main things that have to change in order to come into balance with the environment. These are one the "Rates of use of renewable resources do no exceed the rates at which the ecosystem is able to regenerate them." Second, " Rates of consumption or irretrievable disposal of nonrenewable resources do not exceed the rates at which nonrenewable substitutes are developed and phased into use." Third, "Rates of pollution emission into the environment do not exceed the rates of the ecosystem's natural assimilative capacity.". With out more strict laws that effect corporations world wide it is going to be very difficult to have an impact on improving the environment.

In this book, Korten makes important points to opening the eyes of society to making changes to the free market and the multinational corporations that rule over it. He points out the effects of the threefold of human crisis, the deepening of poverty, the social disintegration and environmental destruction. At the heart of this destruction is the corporations. The are unaccountable for the polluting and driven by an addiction to economic growth, the serve the interests of a very small international elite and are harming the rest of us. He hopes on the co-existence revolution that is bound to come. He also looks to an awakening of civil society and the growth of more social movements.

Was Hurricane Katrina Allowed to Happen?

INDICATIONS THE HURRICANE KATRINA DISASTER WAS PURPOSELY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN

Not much to say here- just watch the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7288762817759323585

and draw your own conclusions!

Freedom of Expression

No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history. Since the Bush administration took office, however, our freedom of expression has been under attack; any derogatory comments aimed at the president or his actions are labeled "unpatriotic", and those making the comments are singled out for punishment.

The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of religion. It also prevents the government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Since the early history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been of the utmost importance to Americans.

In Langston Hughes' poem, "Freedom," he emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his. He reflects the American desire for freedom now when he says, "I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I cannot live on tomorrow's bread." He recognizes the need for freedom in its entirety without compromise or fear.

I think Langston Hughes captures the essence of the American immigrants' quest for freedom in his poem, "Freedom's Plow." He accurately describes American's as arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time. He depicts how people of all backgrounds worked together for one cause: freedom.

What is Fascism and Why does it Emerge?

Fascism is a political ideology that consists of an all powering totalitarian government, which has total control of the people, the nation and the economy. The fascist economic system creates an upper class for the owning/ruling class and leaves the working class in a lower state who in turn produce for the elite. To justify themselves as beneficial to the oppressed lower class, the fascist installs an extreme sense of Nationalisms and organicism. If these method do not work then force is used. Fascism emerges out of economic crisis, a revolutionary promise and reaction to capitalism. It is often allowed to emerge because it is usually easy to get support from the upper class. Some believe that the Bush/Cheney government is borderline facist.

The fascist political structure consists of a totalitarian government with an extreme sense of absolutism. Absolutism is the principle of a absolute power in control with power that transcends even the laws itself, under the control of one main dictator who carries traits of of a geniuses or of a hero. This way the masses can be drawn into him through emotion and appeal. With the totalitarian government the fascist has total control of the nation and the people.

Along with the fascist total ruling over the people and nation came its total ruling over the economy. Although different fascist have had different economic structures, all regimes more or less, have had the same model. The main defining character of the fascist economy is the principle of goverment-buisness relationship. Like the first fascist regime in Italy, its leader created a system where private ownership was allowed but state intervention was issued on management and labour. He did this by creating grouped established syndicates, such as "The National Confederation of Commerce" or the "The National Federation of Credit and Insurgence". The government then controlled these under managing agencies called "Corporations" which in turn would regulate issues and guidelines such as supply and demand, labour disputes or what interest the business is to aim at. Although the system is supposed to function as a partnership, the government is always in control and dominant.

Although the fascists claim this system is in the interest of the nation, it is only in the interest of more empowerment for the government. Due to this system both the states interest and the interest of the owning class are integrated which creates an elite. Therefore the development and technology only serves the interest of the elite and not the working class which is to be convinced to interact with promoting the sense that there dedication is necessary for the wellbeing of the nation.

Nationalism is a force which the fascist uses to eliminate conflict between social classes and restore unity through shared values such as race, language, religion and unifies men through symbols and traditions of a nation. It reduces the risk of liberal individualism and focuses on funnelling aggression into a powerful force and channelling it against outsiders so individuals will not question the state.

Nationalism often relies on the use of a scapegoat. The most blatant example of this was Hitler's scapegoating on the Jews. He would blame them for the defeat of Germany in World War 1, or claim they were the downfall of Germany. Hitler took this idea to an extreme and later went on to ethnic cleansing which resulted in the death of 6 million Jews.

Another method of motivating the masses is to present the concept of organicism. Organicism is the theory of viewing a nation like a growing powerful single body. It focuses on the idea that the body is made up of individual components all having individual functions, but are unimportant, and only important as a whole body. The fascist applies this principle to the notion that the individual is unimportant as a single person but significant in the fact that it's a component of the community and the interest of the state which is the superior element of exisistence. The fascist feels that all means for the state are justifiable and "there is no room for detachment from the cause, for neutrality or for the luxury of being a mere spectator". The fascist also uses this principle in justifying the rationality of the fascist economic system with demoralising the image of the individual as a person producing for himself, and not for the community as he should be.

If nationalism and organicism do not supply enough motivation to create a dominant ideology, the fascist resorts to "tapping deeper levels of motivation" and uses coercive force. They try to achieve a goal of breaking down the individual spirit of liberalism and will resort to violent ways if necessary.

The other use of force that the fascist utilises for conformity is to misinform the masses or not inform them at all. Examples of this can either be the dismissal of civil rights such as freedom of speech or assembly or controlling the means of informative sources such as newspapers television and other sorts of communication. These are tactics the fascist utilises if the population does not consent to the government.

Fascism emerges as a response to capitalism. It is a revolutionary promise to rehabilitate a nation in economic depression or unemployment by uniting and focusing the economic power of all social classes. This in turn is to restabilise a nation economically. It utilises the principle of nationalism to try to unite the social classes and if that does not work it resorts to force, "a coercive method of resolving conflicts within an industrially more advanced society". Usually fascism reinvests economic gain into its military with the hope of trying to mobilise the nation to its full capacity. This system of government usually emerges when other forms of government have failed. Where democracy lacked in a sense of hope and faith, fascism excelled. Post war Germany, Italy and Argentina in 1955 can all exemplify this theory of emergence:
After World War 1, Italy had a poor economy and its national identified diminished. To build the nation and strengthen it economically was to create a state the would take full control to accomplish this, the people were desperate for a solution.

World War I also effected Germany in an economic sense. It left the country bankrupt, millions were jobless and the Treaty of Versailles left the nation with reparations. The national socialists and communists were the two main parties at the time. The Nazis utilised their economic plan to restore the nation winning mass appeal which enabled them to implement their plan of imperialistic conquest which was Hitler's real goal.

Another period in which the economic condition enabled fascism to emerge was Argentina in 1930. It was at this time a predominantly agricultural nation. The conflict was landowners who were a comparison of feudal barons. There was also the trend of world wide depression and the emergence of an anarchist movement that aimed at direct appropriation of farm and land ownership. This attempt at unifying the South American country was overthrown ten years later.

Another factor that helps the fascist come into power is mass support from the owning class. They see fascism as way of securing their wealth and corporations, and see it as protection from labour disputes. They support the fascist into office and then they themselves claim power as an elite.

In conclusion the fascists main concern is power. They take total control over the people and all issues of the nation by totalitarianism. They manipulate and steal elections, or eliminate elections altogether. The economic system is only in the interest of the state, creating an elite class and therefore oppressing the lower classes who are made to believe in the nation while its there blood and sweat that produces for the government, and if they do not they are violently forced. The only reason this type of government emerges is because it appears as a solution to economic crisis in time of despair and gets support from the powerful upper class which benefits from it, while the lower classes are oppressed.

United States v. Richard Nixon

Throughout American history, the fear that our leaders may sometimes think themselves above the law has always been evident. The fear is that power brings corruptness. To prevent this, however, the system of checks and balances has been installed into the Constitution. No one branch of government stands above the law in this setup. This point was reasserted in the the Supreme Court case of 1974, United States v. Nixon. This case involved the President of the United States, at that time Richard Nixon, and the people of the United States. The case was based on the infamous Watergate scandal in which Nixon was said to be involved. The case came about when Nixon refused to deliver subpoenad tapes to the Special Prosecutor that could have possibly incriminated him. Nixon attempted to quash this subpoena by claiming executive privelege. The Special Prosecutor argued this claim successfully. The President then appealed this ruling from the District Court to the Court of Appeals. In the Appeals Court, the Special Prosecutor filed for a writ of certiorari which was petitioned by the President. Both petitions were granted and handed to the Supreme Court.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the basic arguements were as follows. President Nixon's attorneys argued that the District Court was out of its jurisdiction when it issued the subpoena to Nixon, making the case void. They stated that the dispute between the President and the Special Prosecutor was strictly executive, and by mediating them, the court broke the doctrine of seperation of powers. They also argued with executive privilege, the right of the President to withold information from Congress. To this, the District Court said that the judiciary, not the President, was the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege. The Court also argued that the Special Prosecutor was vested power by the Attorney General who had the right under the constitution to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States government.

In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court. They ruled that President Nixon's insubordinance was unjustified. They felt that neither the claim of invalid jurisdiction nor that of executive privilege were applicable. The decision was unanimous. There was concurring opinion by Raoul Berger that stated that he affirmed the Court's decision, but he believed the decision cut too closely the right of executive privilege in the case that the information is irrelevant and the President needs to keep his privacy.

This case was positive proof to the American people that the justice system in our country is indeed working if even the President's wrongdoings can be rectified. It was a statement of equalness among all and set forth the precedent that nobody in this country is above the law.

Now, we have another situation with another Richard, namely Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney has said on national TV that if he is subpoenaed, he will refuse to present himself for questioning. He thinks he is above the law. Never in our history have we had such an arrogant Vice President. It is time for impeachment proceedings to begin.

Are Immigrants a Burden to the US?

Immigrants are not a burden to the U.S. Therefore, we shouldn't stop all immigration . Immigrants are hard workers and are not causing unemployment for legal citizens.

The work ethic of today's immigrants is as strong as that of the Irish, Italians, and Poles of early immigration. According to a 1990 census, foreign born males have a 77% labor force participation. Now, compare that to the 74% participation of native-born Americans and you see that immigrants are not as lazy as some would have you believe. 5.1% of working age immigrants, the majority of which were legally admitted, receive welfare benefits. 5.3% of working age, native born Americans also receive welfare benefits . Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the minority of those receiving welfare and are not the only ones receiving it as the facts show.

Immigrants, even undocumented ones are not causing unemployment for legal citizens. The INS says that there are 1.25% of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Around 1% can't be the cause of the 7% unemployment rate. The loss of jobs and lower wages are primarily aren't the effect of immigration. The loss of jobs and lower wages are primarily an effect of manufacturers moving overseas and federal economic policies. So, what are the jobs that immigrants are supposedly stealing from us? Well, undocumented immigrants typically work in low wage-jobs not filled by U.S. born workers.

Bush's proposed walls on both our Mexican and our Canadian borders will not solve any problems. These projects were probaby designed to put more money into Halliburton and Dick Cheney's pockets.

Arguments for and against Congress

There is a definite need for Congress in the United States. It serves many roles such as making laws, implementing national policy and watching over the other two branches of government. These are just a few of the duties of our U.S. Congress. Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems. People are not always satisfied with the length of time involved in passing a law as well as the deadlock Congress can experience on an issue. Another potential problem people see with Congress is representation. Not all Americans feel that they are equally represented.

The Congress of the United States is viewed by many as the largest branch in government. Some people might even say it is the most important. This is due to the roles Congress pays in our government. Congress is responsible for the lawmaking in our country as well as implementing national policy. The power to make laws was given to Congress by our forefathers when they constructed our constitution. Passing laws is very important to our country because without them we would be living in chaos. Of course, all our laws are not perfect but for the most part our Congress does a good job at keeping this country under control. The problems with lawmaking that most people see is the time involved in getting a law passed. In order for a bill to become a law it must first be "introduced to the House or Senate, or both, then referred to a committee." (Cummings / Wise 479). This can be a very time consuming process. Anyone interested in having a law passed must realize the process involved and be patient. In addition to lawmaking Congress is also involved in passing amendments. Our nation has been able to grow and strengthen due to the amendment process. In order for our government to keep up with the changing times it is crucial that we make adjustments to the constitution. The downfall is that the amendments passed have not always kept up with changing times. Arguments against Congress would be that they taken to long in enforcing the amendments.

The U.S. Congress must also implement national policy. The Congress must regulate commerce in order to create a prosperous economy. It is up to Congress to monitor the growth of the economy and be ready to act if necessary. Congress has the power to implement monetary policy in which they decrease taxes to induce spending during a slow economic period. They can also increase taxes if there is a threat of inflation. The problems with the role of Congress in the economy is again the time factor. It takes time to get the policy going so Congress must be able to detect future economic problems in order for it to be effective.

Congress makes up one of three branches of government. The three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial were designed in a way to prevent any one branch from having absolute power over our nation. Each branch was given the job to check and balance the other two branches. Congress has the job of watching over the president. If Congress detects any corruption by the president, it can bring about changes to impeach the president. Also, if the president becomes incapacitated it is up to Congress to determine him as unfit to continue his duties. Another way Congress checks the president is that it must approve any treaties to ensure that the president does not have too much power when it comes to foreign affairs. "The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online). People will argue that Congress gives the president too much power in the area of foreign affairs. "Bush embarked on major war against Iraq in 1991, without a declaration of war by Congress." (Cummings / Wise 448). Although these checks and balances are necessary they can also cause conflicts between branches. There is always a possibility that the majority in Congress can be of a different party than that of the president. "The disadvantage of the American system is the deadlock that can develop between the president and the Congress over policy when each is in control of a different party." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online)

There is a definite need for Congress in the United States. It serves many roles such as making laws, implementing national policy and watching over the other two branches of government. These are just a few of the duties of our U.S. Congress. Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems. People are not always satisfied with the length of time involved in passing a law as well as the deadlock Congress can experience on an issue. Another potential problem people see with Congress is representation. Not all Americans feel that they are equally represented.

The Congress of the United States is viewed by many as the largest branch in government. Some people might even say it is the most important. This is due to the roles Congress pays in our government. Congress is responsible for the lawmaking in our country as well as implementing national policy. The power to make laws was given to Congress by our forefathers when they constructed our constitution. Passing laws is very important to our country because without them we would be living in chaos. Of course, all our laws are not perfect but for the most part our Congress does a good job at keeping this country under control. The problems with lawmaking that most people see is the time involved in getting a law passed. In order for a bill to become a law it must first be "introduced to the House or Senate, or both, then referred to a committee." (Cummings / Wise 479). This can be a very time consuming process. Anyone interested in having a law passed must realize the process involved and be patient. In addition to lawmaking Congress is also involved in passing amendments. Our nation has been able to grow and strengthen due to the amendment process. In order for our government to keep up with the changing times it is crucial that we make adjustments to the constitution. The downfall is that the amendments passed have not always kept up with changing times. Arguments against Congress would be that they taken to long in enforcing the amendments.

The U.S. Congress must also implement national policy. The Congress must regulate commerce in order to create a prosperous economy. It is up to Congress to monitor the growth of the economy and be ready to act if necessary. Congress has the power to implement monetary policy in which they decrease taxes to induce spending during a slow economic period. They can also increase taxes if there is a threat of inflation. The problems with the role of Congress in the economy is again the time factor. It takes time to get the policy going so Congress must be able to detect future economic problems in order for it to be effective.

Congress makes up one of three branches of government. The three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial were designed in a way to prevent any one branch from having absolute power over our nation. Each branch was given the job to check and balance the other two branches. Congress has the job of watching over the president. If Congress detects any corruption by the president, it can bring about changes to impeach the president. Also, if the president becomes incapacitated it is up to Congress to determine him as unfit to continue his duties. Another way Congress checks the president is that it must approve any treaties to ensure that the president does not have too much power when it comes to foreign affairs. "The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online). People will argue that Congress gives the president too much power in the area of foreign affairs. "Bush embarked on major war against Iraq in 1991, without a declaration of war by Congress." (Cummings / Wise 448). Although these checks and balances are necessary they can also cause conflicts between branches. There is always a possibility that the majority in Congress can be of a different party than that of the president. "The disadvantage of the American system is the deadlock that can develop between the president and the Congress over policy when each is in control of a different party." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online)

Representation was a key issue when the House and Senate were being designed. Many were worried about how the states would receive equal representation in government. It was decided that the Senate would be made up of two senators from each state and the House representatives would be chosen on the basis of population. In general this would seem fair as far as the states are concerned but what about the people. Who is it that makes up our Congress? Are they everyday people you and I? Many will say that our Congress is a representative to what the people want. The fact is that the United States is becoming increasingly diverse as time goes on, but just recently has Congress began to change. "More than half the nations population are women, but the 102nd Congress had only thirty one women members." (Cummings / Wise 453). In addition, our nation is made up of mostly blue collared workers, yet the most predominant occupation of Congress members are lawyers. With this in mind the Congress must strive to understand and represent the needs of the people. Congress cannot ignore the disadvantage groups that feel unrepresented in the system. "Until the enactment of Medicare in 1965, Congress declined to pass health care legislation for the elderly." (Cummings / Wise 446).

There will always be people for and people against any branch in government. The reason being, government is not perfect, nor are the people who run it. Laws take time to create and policies take time to be implemented. You cannot deny the fact that regardless of the time involved these procedures are a major and necessary step. Over all Congress does a good job with the roles and duties it is given. When it comes to representation, the vote lies in our hands. We have the power to vote for who we want to represent us. We can make a difference if we get involved in electing those who share the same ideas of the people to make us a better a better nation.