Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

Actually, that question can be asked of all of the media.  You may or may not have heard about this incident.  It occurred at the New Orleans Airport over the weekend.  We all know that if a Muslim had done the attacking, it would be headlined around the country as an “act of terrorism.”  But, the attacker wasn’t a Muslim, so we haven’t heard the term used even once.

Last Friday night, Richard White, a 63-year-old former Army serviceman carried a duffel bag holding six homemade explosives, a machete, and poison spray into the airport. He approached the TSA security checkpoint, and then sprayed two TSA officers with the poison. He then grabbed his machete and chased another TSA officer with it.

He was then shot and killed by the police. After the incident, a search of Mr. White’s car by the police revealed it contained acetylene and oxygen tanks, two substances that, when mixed together, will yield a powerful explosive.

I have read several pieces on this attack, and no one ever mentioned it as an “act of terror.”  It certainly looks on the surface as an act of terrorism.  But, no one ever called it that.  As a matter of fact, within hours of the attack law enforcement was quick to chalk this incident up to the attacker’s alleged “mental health issues.”

Mr. White has been retired for some time and living on social security and disability checks.  Further, he was reportedly a devout Jehovah’s Witness.  Interviews with his neighbors, however, don’t even give a hint that he had mental problems. They described White as a “meek” and “kind” man who a few had spoken to just days before the incident and everything seemed fine.

Now, maybe Mr. White does suffer from some “mental issues.”  But, I still find it funny that no Muslim involved in something like this can possibly suffer from “mental issues.”  If Mr. White was a Muslim, you would be certain Fox News would have plastered their headlines with “Terrorism” for weeks on end.  But, since it wasn’t committed by a Muslin, Fox News is somewhat quiet about the incident.

Furthermore, the police never even looked into whether or not Mr. White had some sort of grudge against the government.  Nor, did they investigate whether or not he expressed any anti-government sentiments prior to the attack.  After all, he did only attack TSA officers.  He did not attack any of the passengers waiting in line with him.

We have seen conservatives attack the TSA in the past.  They have argued that the TSA is only interested in taking away our liberties.  For example, Alex Jones’ Infowars website is filled with anti-TSA articles claiming that the TSA’s goal is not to prevent terrorism but to “harass” travelers and get into “our pants.”  Glen Beck warned in the past  that the TSA was potentially becoming President Obama’s “private army” with the goal being to take away our liberties.

Then, in 2012, Senator Rand Paul lashed out against the TSA for what he viewed as the agency’s improper treatment of him. In fact after the incident, Paul penned an op-ed denouncing the TSA, writing that “it is infuriating that this agency feels entitled to revoke our civil liberties while doing little to keep us safe.”

Ted Cruz who announced his candidacy for president yesterday is famous for saying that the President can’t make himself to say the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”  Well here is an example of what some would call “radical Christian terrorism,” and Mr. Cruz is silent on the issue.

Conservatives, trying to show some concern for Muslims often say that “every Muslim is not a terrorist,” but “every terrorist is a Muslim.”  Considering that this story received no coverage about it being even possibly an “act of terrorism,” makes it easy to understand why the average person may believe that nonsense.

Mr. White’s attack is not the first attack on TSA either.  In October 2012, Paul Ciancia traveled to LAX, where he took out a rifle from his bag and shot two TSA officers, killing one. Ciancia had written anti-government tracts in the past and was—to little media fanfare, and none from the right-wing media—actually charged months later with an “act of terrorism.

Because of this twisted mindset, we are more unsafe today than we were ten years ago.  The fact that we will only use the word “terrorism” if a Muslim commits an attack, and refuse to recognize “terrorism” committed by Christians who are U.S. citizens makes homegrown terrorists even more dangerous.

As I wrote before, terrorism is terrorism.  It doesn’t matter who the terrorist is.  We need to recognize that fact and stop apologizing for the non-Muslims who commit “acts of terrorism.”  But, that will take away the right-wing’s us against them narrative.  Maybe that is why none of them covered this incident as an “act of terrorism.”

Read Full Post »

Well it is official, sort of.  Ted Cruz has announced that he is running for President in 2016.  At least he tweeted that he is running in 2016.  It is probably appropriate that he is the first to officially announce his candidacy.  I just wonder how many “birthers” are going to come out of the closet about his citizenship.  If one truly believes that you must be born inside the U.S. to run for President, they now have someone who was definitely not born inside the U.S. or even one of its territories.

But, that is not what this article is all about.  I said it is appropriate that he be the first to announce because he is the one who shouts the most about “liberty.”  Especially about “religious liberty.”  But of course, when he talks about “liberty” he doesn’t really mean personal liberty to be enjoyed by everyone.  He means only those “liberties” that fall into his definition of what “liberty” is all about.

Unfortunately, “religious liberty” has become the rallying cry for bigots of all shapes and sizes.  I am even going to go so far as to say the terrorists have picked up the rallying cry of “religious liberty.”  People like Ted Cruz who constantly cry about “religious liberty” continuously prove my point.  They are not interested in real liberty.  They are interested only in the parts of “liberty” that allow them to hate, disrespect, and discriminate against anyone who doesn’t agree with their twisted view of society.

Last week this came more to light when Jeb Bush said that we should “respect” those who wish to be involved in a lifetime same-sex marriage, but we should also have to the right to discriminate against them if we “hold religious beliefs” that do not agree with same-sex marriage.  That is the real issue here.

I would love for someone to logically explain to me how we can “respect” others all the while we are allowed to discriminate against them.  You won’t hear a logical explanation because there isn’t one.  Oh, people will talk about how if you own a business it is your right to not serve anyone based on your “religious beliefs.”  However, that is a fallacy, too.  Once you open your doors to the “public” you must serve all of the “public.”  You cannot pick-and-choose who you are going to serve.  The Supreme Court has already ruled many times that is discrimination, and that is illegal!

This “religious liberty” fantasy that Cruz and his followers are trying to inflict on society is all based on a lie.  The right to believe what you wish does not allow you to discriminate against a fellow citizen in the conduct of normal daily business or life.  This lie has grown out of the absolute hatred of the Cult towards same-sex marriage.

Since recognizing same-sex marriage is becoming more mainstream, the Cult is trying to make it legal to discriminate against same-sex couples in the name of “religious liberty.”  If this is allowed to continue, who will be the next group that “religious liberty” will go after.

Will we return to the days when it was illegal for a black to marry a white because someone’s “religious belief” doesn’t recognize it?  Are we going to base our immigration laws on what religion is allowed to immigrate into the country?  Will County Clerks be allowed to discriminate against people of different faiths getting a marriage license because that clerk doesn’t believe in inter-faith marriage?

The right and the cult want you to believe that religious beliefs trump the constitution.  They want you to believe that if their beliefs say you can discriminate against someone, you have that right.  They want to impose their “religious beliefs” on you as the law of the land.

But, I remember when Catholics were discriminated against in this country.  I remember the outcry that the right and the cult had when John F. Kennedy first ran for office.  I remember his speech about religion and politics.  I remember how he had to assure the country that his religion would not interfere with his responsibility to “defend the constitution.”

Now, the same things that the right and the cult were so worried about when JFK ran for office is their rallying cry.  Religion trumps the Constitution as long as it is “their” religion.  The same people, and groups of people who were so worried about JFK instituting Catholicism on the country, now want to institute “evangelicalism” on the country.

“Religious liberty” can be very dangerous buzz words.  Just for the sake of argument.  Let us assume that someone from ISIS is a citizen in this country.  That person kidnaps a “Christian” and kills him because he won’t convert to Islam.  That same person says he is acting under the banner of “religious liberty” to justify his killing.

I don’t think that anyone would try to argue that this killing falls under the guise of “religious liberty.”  Some of you will argue that this is an absurd comparison.  But is it?  Where do you draw the line when you talk about “religious liberty” being the basis for discrimination.  Murder is one of the most horrific examples of discrimination and intolerance.  Our history is rife with murder for the sake of discrimination.  Religious murder is just as horrific.

Yet, under the banner of “religious liberty” it may be considered by some to be justifiable.  If a person truly believes that they are acting in accordance with deep religious beliefs when they murder another person then say is was legal under the banner of  “religious liberty,” how can Cruz or anyone else who discriminates under the same banner argue against it?

Some will argue that this analogy is ridiculous because there are laws against murder.  There are laws against discrimination, too.  Yet under the banner of “religious liberty” you are willing to break those laws.  Even worse, make breaking those laws legal.

It really doesn’t matter how you slice it.  The common thread is that “religious liberty” has become nothing more than a rallying cry for bigoted people to express their hatred for anyone who is different from them.  They have forgotten, and/or want to erase, or at least change the words on the Statue of Liberty.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

With the announcement of Ted Cruz as a presidential candidate, we are going to hear a lot more about “religious liberty” in the coming months.  That will definitely be one of the major planks in his platform. But when you hear him, and others, talking about how it is “religious liberty” that allows you to discriminate, ask them a couple of questions.

How is it possible that people who profess a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ who tells us to “love your neighbor as yourself” can convince themselves that he really didn’t mean “every neighbor?”  How can they justify that the person they claim to be their “savior” said “judge not lest you be judged by the same standard” didn’t mean “don’t judge everyone?”

I am positive that you won’t get a logical response to these questions.  That is because these people who claim “religious liberty” in the name of discrimination aren’t Christians.  They are bigots who have hijacked religion for their own nefarious reasons.  Listener beware!

 

Read Full Post »

It looks to be official.  Bibi will hold on to his power.  The latest from Israel says that the Likud party will have 25-29 seats.  With other right-wing parties in Israel, Bibi will be able to form his government.  Conservatives in this country are gloating over the apparent victory.  I guess they want to take at least some credit for Bibi’s win.

But there remains a question with the outcome of the election.  What does this mean for Israel and the world?  Is this something that should be celebrated, or is it something that should be dreaded?  I guess the answer to that will depend on your views of Netanyahu and his right-wing policies.

Just before the elections, Netanyahu said that there “would be no Palestinian State” as long as he was Prime Minister.  That does not sound good for the prospects of peace.  The Israeli government has been saying for years that they agree to a two-state setup.  One for Israel, and one for the Palestinians.

Netanyahu has made it very clear through his negotiation practices that he did not want a Palestinian State.  That coupled with the fact that almost all of the “settlements” on the West Bank have been completed under his watch, is proof he isn’t interested in allowing the Palestinians to have their own state.

He is against any negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program because he says you “cannot trust your enemy.”  He thinks that the only way to make sure Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons is to invade the country and replace their “regime” with one more favorable to the west.

Of course, he refuses to say whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons.  It has been firmly believed for years that Israel does have nuclear weapons.  To tell you the truth, I am not sure whether Iran or Netanyahu is the more crazy of the two.  I am not convinced that if Netanyahu thinks Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon that he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against Iran to stop them.

Even with that in mind, I rather believe that Netanyahu wants the U.S. to invade Iran rather than Israel.  Why risk killing Israelis if the Republicans are willing to kill Americans instead?  He would rather use his army to wipe out the Gaza Strip, which is supposed to be part of a Palestinian State.

But since Hamas runs the Gaza Strip, that is all of the justification Netanyahu needs to keep a Palestinian State from happening.  Not to mention all those settlements he might have to remove if the West Bank became an independent state.  That, of course would be political suicide for him.

Since Netanyahu won his election, we can assume that “peace in the Middle-East” is not going to happen anytime soon.  Netanyahu is not interested in peace.  He is interested in creating an “Israeli Zone of Influence” so he can justify his actions.  If that means using the U.S. to do his killing for him, all the better.

That was the real reason he was so eager to give his speech to a joint session of Congress.  To make sure the neo-cons here are in support of his war plans.  It will be our young men and women who will face the dangers of a war with Iran.  All Bibi needs to do is muck up any negotiations with Iran and let the American neo-cons start another war in the Middle-East.

The problem is that our neo-cons are falling for his gimmick.  They are all too anxious to get into another fight with the “dreaded Muslims.”  As a result, I am afraid that all we will see in the next few years is another war we don’t want.  More of our service people killed and injured.  And more patriotic speak from the right-wing to justify their insanity.

I am afraid that the world is much more dangerous with Bibi’s victory.  I hope I am wrong, but since we have so many hotheads in this country willing to follow Netanyahu’s lead, the future doesn’t look good.

Read Full Post »

For the first time in recent years, the Republicans have actually dumfounded me today.  I know that I have talked a lot here about their insane ideas before, but what they did today was totally out-of-the-blue and it dumfounded me.  I am talking about that great “open letter” that 47 Senate Republicans, including all of the Republican leadership singed to the Iranian Government.

Apparently, the freshman Senator Tom Cotton decided that the Iranians were too stupid to understand how the American Government works.  Seemingly, Mitch McConnell and the rest of these high thinkers believe the same thing.  So, they decided to give Iran a little American Civics lesson.  I say that in complete sarcasm.

In the letter they said:

“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they wrote, “and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

They went further stating “We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.”

By deliberately undermining the negotiations going with Iran over their nuclear program, the Republicans are really bringing us one step closer to war with Iran.   Senator Cotton has announced that he isn’t interested in a nuclear deal with Iran.  What he really wants is a “regime change.”  That is the only thing that will satisfy him.

The only real way to ensure a “regime change” is with a war against Iran to topple the government like the one President Bush conducted against Iraq.  Is that what the Republican Party really wants?  Do they really want another shooting war with another foreign government just because they don’t like it?

What other reason could there be for these Senators to side with the Iranian hardliners in helping to trash the talks?  Think about for a minute.  These 47 Republican Senators just took the side of the very people they hate the most.  The Iranian hardliners.  Do they hate America that much that they are willing to become allies with their hated enemy?

Ever since the President announced the talks, which the U.S. is not engaged with alone, the Republicans have tried their best to derail them.  Why?  They claim that the President is so willing to make a deal, that he will agree to anything.  But, the President has said time and again that if there is no structure for strong verification he would walk away from the deal.

We have seen this movie before.  President Bush assured us that if we didn’t invade Iraq, the proof of their work on weapons of mass destruction would be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.  The Republicans are trying the same tactic with Iran.  I know that Iran is far more dangerous than Iraq was to world peace.  But since when does the “opposition” party in this country deliberately try to torpedo negotiations with another government?

I cannot think of a single instance when that has happened before.  What happened to the Republican Slogan created by Ronald Reagan of “trust but verify?”  They loved it when their side was doing the negotiating.  They seem to hate it when the President does the negotiating.

This open letter has nothing to do with “teaching” Iran about how our government works.  It has everything to do with starting another foreign war.  Even with negotiations going on and no interference by the Republicans, there has always been the threat of a war with Iran.

However, these 47 Republican Senators just gave Iran the talking points they need to claim that any forthcoming war between the west and Iran is America’s fault.  More importantly, they will brag about how “American Hardliners” forced the war by forcing the collapse of negotiations that Iran was in favor of completing.

We needn’t worry about whether Russia or China would have supported a war with Iran under any circumstances.  But this action could make our European allies think twice about supporting one.

On top of all of this, if you think that terrorists have enough to recruit new terrorists, wait until they start trumpeting the collapse of these talks if it happens.  These Senators just gave the terrorists new ammunition to increase their numbers as well.

Yes, these Republican Senators dumfounded me until I realized that they are trying to start another war.  Either that or they are a lot more stupid than I gave them credit for being.  There can be no other answer to the obvious question of “What the f**k were you thinking?”

Read Full Post »

I just don’t know what the right-wing is thinking.  Or, if they are thinking at all.  We have seen the right-wing go completely off the rails.  This isn’t really anything new, the right-wing goes off the rails quite a lot.  But, things seem to be getting worse rather than better.

The other day at CPAC Gov. Scott Walker said he is ready to take on ISIS as President because he “took on 100,000 union protesters” in Wisconsin.  He also said that Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers who went on strike in the 1980s was “the greatest foreign policy decision in my lifetime.”

I am sure that all workers out there who belong to the dwindling unions are very happy to hear how they are the same as ISIS or that fighting them has something to do with foreign policy.  How could we have ever let unions form in this country since, as Gov. Walker seems to think, they are foreigners trying to damage America?

We also heard all of the so-called “front-runners” for the Republican nomination compare themselves to St. Ronald Reagan.  However, if Ronald Reagan gave a speech at CPAC today, he would be booed out of the place.  All of these wackos seem to forget that Ronald Reagan was not interested in a balanced budget.  He ran very high deficits.

They all seem to forget that Ronald Reagan did not fight against abortion as these radicals have.  Yes, he professed his belief in god, but he was willing to let the Roe v. Wade decision stand.  In many ways, Ronald Reagan was a lot more of a “social liberal” than they seem to remember.  Even some of his past policy advisors agree Ronald Reagan would not stand a chance at CPAC.

Everyone at CPAC railed against ISIS and Sharia Law.  The all espoused how ISIS must be eliminated, and they all seem to think it will be easy, and outlaw Sharia Law everywhere.  Hell, last November, Georgia even had an anti-Sharia law initiative on the ballot.

Yes, the right-wing has gone off the rails again.  The Tea Party and their allies in the Conservative Christian Cult are trying to start another “crusades” against Islam throughout the world.  All the while they are quietly trying to set up their own version of a “theocracy” right here in America.  According to their “agenda” if you are not Christian, you should not have any rights.

In California, this has been taken to one of the most extreme measures you can think of.  See, in 1911, California changed their constitution to allow ballot initiatives.  All you need to do is pay $200 to file your initiative, then get signatures from 5% of the total votes in the last gubernatorial election.

Well, one lawyer in California ponied up his $200 and submitted a really dangerous initiative.  He calls it “The Sodomite Suppression Act.”  Yes, it is exactly what you think it is.  He wants to outlaw all forms of same-sex sex.  But, outlawing it is not enough for this wacko.  His bill says “that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

It also says:

No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

His “law” makes it illegal for a “sodomite” to hold public office or even work for a government agency.  There is a lot of other stupid stuff in it, but one that really stands out, if you aren’t sick enough already, says:

The state has an affirmative duty to defend and enforce this law as written, and every member of the public has standing to seek its enforcement and obtain reimbursement for all costs and attorney’s fees in so doing, and further, should the state persist in inaction over 1 year after due notice, the general public is empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially, immune from any charge and indemnified by the state against any and all liability.

And why does he think this is so important?  Because he believes that if this law is not passed, we are all doomed to follow in the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.  His justification for this idiocy says:

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God…..

He even stipulates that this law must be posted in “all public schools.”

ISIS is a barbaric and cruel group of wackos trying to establish their personal beliefs on a region of the world.  We all know that.  They are dangerous and most people think something needs to be done about them.  The debate is over what and how this “something” should be.

Okay, even if I agree with that, can someone please explain to me how this “initiative” is any different from ISIS and their policies?  Can someone please explain to me how “executing” gays in this country is any different from ISIS killing non-Muslims in Iraq?  The simple answer is you cannot explain the differences because there are none.  Both groups are “terrorists,” as far as I am concerned.

This initiative is just another step in the “theocracy” that the Conservative Christian Cult wants to unleash on America.  The only difference it this goofball isn’t trying to sugar-coat it.  If this type of hate continues, the word “sodomite” will be replaced with “Muslim” or “non-White” or “non-Christian.

I wonder which speaker at CPAC will be the first to say anything against this “initiative.”  I am rather wondering which one will be the first to endorse it.

Read Full Post »

Tomorrow Benjamin Netanyahu will give his speech to a joint session of Congress.  We have heard a lot of talk about the speech.  Boehner, who invited him, is defending his actions even thought he broke protocol in his invitation.  Democrats are furious about the speech with some threatening to boycott it.  Netanyahu’s opponents, and even some Israeli hawks are against the speech.

One has to wonder exactly what John Boehner is trying to accomplish with his invitation.  Some believe he is trying to help Netanyahu win his election that is being held in two weeks.  Some believe that he is just trying to “embarrass” the President.  Others believe it is an attempt to derail the nuclear talks with Iran.

After reading everything from both sides of the spectrum, I have come to the conclusion that John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress because he does want him to win the election in two weeks.  This is important to Boehner and the Republicans because they have one very real fear in common with Netanyahu.  They all fear peace.

I believe that if Netanyahu would actually negotiate with the Palestinians, recognize the Palestinian State, and stop throwing up settlements in the Palestinian territory we might actually see peace break out in the region.  Not only that, but if the Palestinian State was recognized, many of the arguments that other Arab countries in the region have against Israel may also fade away.

Allowing the Palestinians their own self-run state would let Israel stop looking like an aggressor.  It would allow Israel and the Palestinians to work together to maintain peace between the two states and even help the economy of both countries to grow.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu has shown no inclination of accepting the Palestinians right to their own state.  That continues to cause a bigger rift between the two parties and allows the radicals on the Palestinian side to fight against Israel by arguing that Israel is the aggressor.  Whether or not that is a valid argument it works to recruit more fighters to the radical side.

Of course the biggest fear for both the Republicans and Netanyahu is that the nuclear talks with Iran may actually come to a positive end.  The Republicans and Netanyahu claim that any deal with Iran will only mean they will be able to build their bomb.

I would not support any deal with Iran without very strong verification policies in place.  We do have to remember that Iran in the past claimed it wanted to wipe Israel off the map.  But, the Soviet Union also promised to “bury” us too.  It was only through diplomacy with Russia that things finally calmed down, even before the fall of the Soviet Union.

One only needs to remember Netanyahu’s speech at the U.N. with his hastily drawn bomb showing how Iran was so close to building an atomic bomb.  I wonder if he will bring it out for this speech as well.  I am certain he will argue that Iran cannot be trusted.  He will argue that any deal with Iran is against the interests of Israel.  I am also sure that the Republican side will erupt in applause when he does.

You would think that “peace in the middle east” would be a good thing.  You would think that everyone would consider that if all sides agree on creating peace that the radicals would lose their poster points for recruiting.  But since Netanyahu and the Republicans share an absolute hate towards Islam, they don’t want peace in the region.  If there is peace, you don’t have any justification to “wipe out” your enemies.

I am not stupid.  I know that reaching a point of peace in the middle east is not going to be easy.  I also know that steadfastly arguing against any diplomacy that may take a step in that direction is stupid.  Hawks all around the world believe that diplomacy is a form of appeasement.  That is ridiculous.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been as much of an impediment to peace in the region as the radical Palestinians have.  If he wasn’t, we would be seeing talks between Israel and the Palestinians.  He refuses to negotiate with them.  Israel has the right to exist as a country.  I believe that the Palestinian State also has a right to exist.  Mutual recognition of the rights of each state would go a long way towards creating an environment where peace is possible.

However, Netanyahu does not want peace.  If he gets it, he may lose power.  That is something that he is unwilling to risk.  So, he accepted the invitation from Boehner in order to help Republicans stop peace in its tracks.  Republicans don’t want peace either.  They don’t want anything to get in their way of a New Crusades against Islam.

That, I believe is the real reason John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress.  We have already seen too many times that foreign wars take the spotlight off how much you are trying to screw your own people over.  This is just another case of the “tail wagging the dog.”

Read Full Post »

At precisely 0000 hours (midnight) tomorrow night, the Department of Homeland Security is going to run out of money unless Republicans can get their “stuff” together.  The Republicans who want you to believe that they are the only ones interested in protecting our country from terrorists, are about to let the one department charged with protecting us from terrorists run out of money.

I am not overly concerned about terrorists running amuck in the country, however.  We all know that about 200,000 members of the various agencies under DHS will continue working.  They are considered “essential” personnel.  However, they will be working for an IOU from the government instead of actually being paid.

This tragedy is all tied to immigration reform.  Our immigration laws are archaic at best and need to be reformed.  Two years ago the Senate passed a bi-partisan Immigration Reform Bill and sent it to the House.  It has been languishing in John Boehner’s desk drawer ever since.  This was truly a bi-partisan bill.  Even 14 Republican Senators voted for the bill, and several Republicans were involved in its creation.  Should have been an easy task for Boehner to pass it in the House.

But, once again John Boehner proved that he is only interested in having the title of “Speaker of the House” rather than acting like one.  His bellicose comments about immigration reform are just another example of his unwillingness to “govern”.  He is too afraid of the Tea Party wackos in his caucus to try to pass any meaningful legislation.

After over a year of Boehner derailing a vote on the Immigration Reform Bill, the President issued an Executive Order detailing some changes in the deportation policies.  The Republicans went bonkers, as expected.  Whether or not you think the President’s actions was an overreach or not, I do not think so, is irrelevant.  Something has to be done about our Immigration Laws.

The President’s Executive Order does not make it easier for people to cross the border.  It simply lays out a plan for those already here with U.S. Citizen relations to remain without fear of deportation.  It also gives them a pathway to seek “legitimacy” as the Republicans would say.  It is not amnesty as Republicans are telling everyone.

As a result of this “fight” the Republican House passed a funding bill last year that put the DHS on the spot.  They funded every department of the government except DHS for a full year.  They funded DHS only through tomorrow and the Senate went along.  Then they passed a bill funding DHS but only if the Executive Order was withdrawn.

Naturally, the Senate Democrats filibustered the bill in that chamber.  So, now Mitch McConnell wants to pass a clean DHS funding bill and introduce a bill that would withdraw the Executive Order.  But that puts John Boehner in a corner.  He still has to contend with his wacko fringe group.  And, since he is loath to actually lead and fight the wackos, the idea of a clean bill passing the House is up-in-the-air.

The only way Boehner will be able to pass a clean DHS funding bill in the House is to use the Democrats to get the votes needed.  Although he did use them a few times in the past, that is also something that Boehner is loath to do.  He is afraid that if he goes to the Democrats to pass a clean funding bill, he will face another coup in his caucus.

All of this nonsense was avoidable.  If John Boehner had allowed a debate and vote on the bi-partisan Senate Bill, it would have passed the House.  I am sure there would have been amendments added by the fringe group, but those would have been worked out in a joint committee between the House and Senate.  There would have been no need for the President to issue his Executive Order in the first place.

With the Immigration Reform Bill actual law instead of collecting dust in Boehner’s desk drawer, we would not be in this situation right now.  The other day Boehner said about the DHS funding bill they sent to the Senate: “We did our job, now it is time for the Senate to do theirs.  This will pass if the Democrats stop saying “no” to everything.”

That is really rich coming from a man who has been sitting on the “fix” to all of this for two years!  John Boehner is the worst Speaker of the House in my lifetime.  He makes Newt Gingrich look like a reasonable man.  However, the Citizens United case in the Supreme Court added fuel to this flaming issue.

This is the kind of thing that happens when money is allowed to control politics.  These fringe wackos that Boehner is afraid of are financed by the likes of the Koch Brothers and others.  Their money has polluted and corrupted our political process to the point of stagnation.

Even still, it is John Boehner’s job to “govern” in the name of the People of the United States.  Something that, apparently, he is loath to do as well.  This whole dilemma was manufactured because John Boehner is more interested in holding the title rather than being the Speaker of the House.

There is no other reason for us to be in the predicament we are in over DHS funding.  Even big business and the Chamber of Commerce favor the Senate passed Immigration Reform Bill.  To stop this mess, all John Boehner needs to do is dust off the Senate Bill and bring it to floor of the House.  But he won’t.

I don’t use this word lightly, but John Boehner is basically a coward.  That is why we are waiting to see if there will be a partial government shutdown come midnight tomorrow night.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 306 other followers