That’s a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.

“When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario,” said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.

“Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.

“In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President’s concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority.”

Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for “marine spatial planning” by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.

Led by NOAA’s Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.

Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled “Transition Green” shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.

Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced “Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy.” This document makes repeated references to “overfishing,” but doesn’t once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias by playing fast and loose with “facts,” in attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.

That same tunnel vision, in which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource, has persisted with the task force, despite protests by the angling industry.

As more evidence of collusion, the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force’s recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February. Fishing advocates had no idea that this was coming.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, the New York Times reported on Feb. 12 that “President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.”
Anglering for access
Click here for archive
Morlock fears that “what we’re seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There’s no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.

“Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It’s all just an excuse to put us off the water.”

In the wake of the task force’s framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition against voiced their concerns to the administration.

“Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic,” said CSF President Jeff Crane.

Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, “There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.

“Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable.”

This is not the only access issue threatening the public’s right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.

“With what’s being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans,” he said. “Under the guise of ‘marine spatial planning’ entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.

“Every angler needs to be aware because if it’s not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.

“We have one of the largest voting blocks in the country and we need to use it. We must not sit idly by.”

My entire adult life I’ve felt the injustices imposed upon honest, hard-working individuals in our society: frivolous traffic tickets, lying politicians, extorted taxes for things we neither want nor need, abusive law enforcement and the like. I’ve always been passionate about these injustices but not actively so.

After spending nearly a decade abroad living and working in Europe I found myself returning to a country I didn’t recognize. I found it difficult to acclimate and integrate into this politically correct, socially abusive, statist society; a society that seemed to be desensitized to police abuse of all magnitudes. The prevailing attitude seems to be: if the cops have someone in custody then they must deserve it.

Almost immediately I was confronted with the abusive nature of the new state order: driving to get a cup of coffee on a Sunday morning in Syracuse, NY, I was pulled over for talking on my cell phone. Having only been in Syracuse for 3 months I had no reason to believe that such a law existed. Regardless the doughnut feeder pulled me from my car, patted me down in the street, and put me in his car while he ran my license and wrote out the citation. It was humiliating and I felt like a common criminal.

I was determined to fight the citation, but my contract ended and I left Syracuse. Eventually I paid the $100 fine.

Just recently I moved to Princeton, NJ, to begin a new short-term contract. This past Saturday evening I rode my bicycle to the Princeton University campus where there are a number of pubs and restaurants. My intent was to get Chinese takeout and go back to my room off campus.

As I rode down the sidewalk on famed Nassau Street on this clear, cool March evening, myself and others were startled by a Mercer county patrol car blazing its siren and lights and darting into the sidewalk ahead of me. My first thought, of course, was: what could be going on? It wasn’t more than a few seconds until I got the answer to that question. The short, well-armed female officer exited her cruiser and with a firm right hand, outstretched arm and condescending look in her eyes, she looked dead in my eyes as I approached her and exclaimed: “Stop!” I kid you not.

Of course, this is one of those situations where anyone still in possession of a fully functional frontal lobe thinks to themselves: what could I possibly have done? The responsible answer is, of course: nothing. Reason and responsibility, unfortunately, rarely seem to figure into a tax-feeder’s thought process. As it turns out, it is illegal to ride your bicycle on the sidewalk. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it’s only illegal in a 4–5 block section of Nassau street AND only on my side of the street. At least that’s what she told me.

Given my survival training learned from LRC and other sites, I immediately knew how to handle the situation. The first thing I said was: I do not consent to any searches of my person. Of course, this riled her; she immediately replied: “why, do you have something to hide? When you say that you seem suspicious.” Of course this would be her response since in her mind, as she sees herself as anointed by God herself, and anyone not wanting to cooperate with a servant of the almighty must be immoral and hiding something. Actually, I saw myself as being accosted by a total stranger imposing on my freedom of movement, and was no more willing to consent to an invasion of privacy by her anymore than I would any other stranger accosting me on the street. I told her that I didn’t trust her and was simply exercising my constitutional rights. That made her even angrier. Cops hate it when mundanes say things like that.

I couldn’t help but think that this whole situation could have been avoided if only her father had loved her more. But I digress. Continuing with her irresponsible and abusive activities, she called for backup. Backup for a guy riding his bicycle. When she did that it instantly became clear to me that we were on the other side of the looking glass and tea was about to be served.

If you like this site, please help keep it going and growing.

When her colleague arrived, he approached me and said that the law was the law and they were just doing their job. Of course at that point my first instinct was to pull his underwear up over his head and smack him for being stupid. But I didn’t. Instead I pointed out how the German officers at the Nuremberg trials also used the defense that they were just doing what they were told to which he rolled his eyes as if to say: where did this nut-job come from?

As the female cop completed the citation, I made a point of letting all folks passing by know that the situation was because I was riding my bike on the sidewalk. The first baby-boomer couple to pass by commented: that’s a shame. The sidewalk is the safest place for a cyclist to ride. Of course I agreed.

Obviously this is just another example of abusive law enforcement in an effort to extort yet more and more money out of the productive people in our society in these hard economic times, in order to keep the non-working class in business.

I have a court date on March 23rd at which time I will plead not guilty and I imagine I’ll receive another court date to plead my case. My position on this issue is simple: I cannot condone this sort of socially irresponsible behavior on the part of the state. It’s been made clear to me that I have no say in anything the state does, so I am forced into a corner from which I shall fight my way out. I won’t contend that I am not guilty of breaking the law but rather that the law itself is immoral and to cite me abusive, period.

I certainly cannot take the position of: let me just pay the citation and go along to get along. By doing so I would be condoning these sorts of reprehensible practices, which I do not. This particular issue is so clearly unjust that I have no problem “going to the mattresses” in fighting it. I can’t think of anything more insulting to me as an American as this sort of affront to my God-given rights of existence.

Those police officers ought to be ashamed of themselves, but I know they are not. Like so many in America – myself included – they no doubt believe in their righteousness. But one has to ask: do you really feel free anymore? Do you find yourself in public constantly wondering if you can cross the street here or there? Whether you can ride your bike on a sidewalk? The shoulder of the road? When you see a cop car in your rearview mirror, do you feel safer or do you get a short shot of adrenaline and start wondering what he could pull you over for? What’s your speed and what’s the speed limit? Did you signal when you changed lanes? I think we all know the answer to that question.

I’ve already arranged for bail on the 23rd when things go badly. Remember, always do what you know is right, even if the government says it’s wrong. And the government will always say it’s wrong. That’s how you can know it’s the right thing to do.

Almost 1,700 people, also including car park attendants and dog wardens, already have powers to hand out a string of fines and even take photographs of low level offenders under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme.

But the Government has quietly announced it plans to review the scheme with chief police officers to see how it can be expanded further.

Rank and file officers warned the move is “blurring the lines” of legitimate law enforcement and is creating a “third tier” of policing.

Even chief constables are now cautious over the scheme following it’s rapid growth, which has seen numbers increase by a fifth in just 12 months.

It will further fuel concerns that, with increasing budget pressures, the Government is keen to push for policing on the cheap.

Under CSAS, a chief constable can give employees of local authorities or private companies limited powers such as the right to hand out on-the-spot fines for offences including disorder, truancy and littering; stopping vehicles for roadside tests and confiscating alcohol.

They have their own uniform and badge and can demand names and addresses as well as take photographs of offenders.

There are 1,667 so-called “accredited persons” in England and Wales with 109 organisations, including 31 private companies, involved across 26 forces.

A further 478 civilians have been given the power to stop vehicles to check for out-of-date tax discs.

But a section buried in a recent Home Office neighbourhood policing strategy document read: “The Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) is a powerful way for the police to work with partners and to make the most out of other people whose job is to keep their neighbourhoods safe by giving them a limited range of powers to tackle ASB (anti-social behaviour).

“The Government and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officer) will review CSAS to see how it can be expanded to more forces and organisations.”

The review is to be carried out this summer but Peter Davies, Nottinghamshire assistant chief constable and ACPO lead on CSAS, said: “Accredited persons do play a part in building safe and secure neighbourhoods.

“However, their role must remain distinct from that of police officers whose task is to uphold and enforce the law, tackling all forms of harm to the public and communities.”

The move also raises fresh fears over the future of policing, especially with chief officers under pressure to cut costs. There are already more than 16,000 police community support officers and now a growing number of accredited civilians.

Simon Reed, the vice-chairman of the Police Federation, said: “It is just growing out of control. The growth rates are phenomenal.

“It is blurring the lines between police as the legitimate law enforcement organisation and these pseudo agencies springing up.

“It is effectively a third tier of policing. We are having all these police powers devolved to anyone and there does not seem to be any boundaries to law enforcement. Where will it end?”

Dylan Sharpe, campaign director of Big Brother Watch, said: “Those empowered by these schemes don’t have anything near the proper training, experience or respect to try and boss around members of the public.”

A leaked document last month suggested one in five police officers could lose their job under cost-cutting measures.

Up to 28,000 officers would be replaced by civilian workers — saving hundreds of millions of pounds — under suggestions put to a Workforce Council meeting chaired by Acpo and involving the National Policing Improvement Agency, the Home Office-funded body responsible for finding efficiencies within the service.

The Daily Telegraph also disclosed that forces are losing thousands of officers by freezing recruitment and replacing them with volunteer special constables.

Three quarters of all forces have stopped taking new recruits meaning that up to 3,200 officers could be lost nationwide over the next three years.

David Hanson, the policing minister, said: “Police are cracking down hard on anti-social behaviour, but beating it is not just a job for them. We are determined to give powers to communities to help tackle the crimes that matter most to them and the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme is part of that drive

“It gives limited powers to people already working in community safety, which was backed by two thirds of the public in a nationwide survey. The scheme is yet another tool to tackle anti-social behaviour and can help free police time to tackle serious crime and protect the public.”

In spite of a gargantuan federal deficit weighing in at $1.5 trillion, one agency clearly didn’t get the belt-tightening memo. The Department of Commerce, which is responsible for the U.S. Census, has just mailed 120 million letters telling people like me that we will receive a Census questionnaire within a week. The cost of that little venture in paper and envelopes alone is a cool $4,200,000–and that’s only if you get a discount on the lowest-end supplies at Staples, including ink for high speed printers. Government agencies are not used to comparative shopping, so this number might be a bit conservative. Still you have to add an additional $2,500,000 for the ad Census Bureau aired on the Super Bowl–an ad that no one can remember 5 weeks later.

But the real cost of this wasteful spending falls to the Post Office, a government operation with negative trend projections that would make die-hard deficit doves fly the coop. The total: $52,000,000, if in fact delivering a first class letter is worth 44¢.

The Post Office expects a $7 billion shortfall this year, and John Potter, the Postmaster General, says it will likely get even worse. The reasons for this financial disaster are obvious: e-mail and fax, to name two. After spending $4.9 million on three different consulting firms, the USPS came up with a plan: drop Saturday delivery and charge more for postage. They’ve tried that strategy before, of course. But whenever first class postage goes up, large numbers of customers drop out–permanently. They make the leap from paying bills by mail to paying bills on line. They send e-cards and e-vites instead of mailing a greeting or an invitation.

And when second class postage is raised, as it has been almost every year for the past two decades, some catalogs convert to e-commerce only. As for magazines, postal increases have been so draconian that many have simply folded.

The Postal Service has trimmed its workforce and created new ancillary businesses in an effort to compete with FedEx and UPS. But the revenue from those ventures can’t keep up with the costs. Maybe what’s needed is a new campaign–an ad or two on the next Super Bowl broadcast, and a mailing to everyone in the country reminding them to watch, sent out 5 weeks in advance.

“I never thought anything would make me feel sympathetic towards Glenn Beck,” Arianna Huffington told Anderson Cooper during an appearance on CNN. “But having to interview Eric Massa for an entire hour made me really feel for him.”

Tuesday’s panel, which included former presidential adviser David Gergen, focused on the Massa saga and his interview on Beck’s program. Arianna gave Beck credit for an apology to his audience for “wasting an hour of their time.” She also said that another chapter could be coming, as America has only heard Massa’s side — or perhaps Massa’s sides.

Gergen used a similar analogy. “People say that Washington politics is a freak show,” he observed. “And Eric Massa is writing a whole new chapter.

Whenever the chapter is complete, it may contain a memorable quote form Gergen about his time in the Navy.

“I don’t remember any tickle fights.”

WATCH HERE

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama’s State of the Union address was “very troubling” and the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.”

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court’s decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

“With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said in January.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true” as Obama continued.

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.

“I’m not sure why we’re there,” said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices “sit there like bumps on a log” in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere. Six of the nine justices attended Obama’s address.

Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students’ questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn’t know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school.

Asked about the Senate’s method of confirming new justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can’t answer because of the limitations of judicial ethic rules.

“I think the process is broken down,” said Roberts.

While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed.

“Maybe it’s because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer,” Roberts said. “I’d hate to think it didn’t matter.”

Women of all races bring home less income and own fewer assets, on average, than men of the same race, but for single black women the disparities are so overwhelmingly great that even in their prime working years their median wealth amounts to only $5.

In a groundbreaking report released Monday by a leading economic research group, social scientists turned a spotlight on the grave financial challenges facing an often overlooked group of women, many of whom could not take an unpaid sick day or repair a major appliance without going into debt.

“It’s rather shocking,” said Meizhu Lui, director of the Closing the Gap Initiative based in Oakland, Calif., who contributed to the report “Lifting as We Climb: Women of Color, Wealth and America’s Future.”

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-28.stm#ixzz0hnDDqVaO

Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600 (still only 61 percent of their single white male counterparts), the median wealth for single black women is only $5.

“Even for those of us who have been looking at the wealth gap for a while, we were shocked and amazed at how little women of color have,” Ms. Lui said.

Researchers at the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, based in Oakland, Calif., analyzed data from the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances, a voluminous report the Federal Reserve Board issues every three years that examines household finances in this country.

Wealth, or net worth, measures the total of one’s assets — cash in the bank, stocks, bonds and real estate; minus debts — home mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and student loans. The most recent financial data was collected before the economic downturn, so the current numbers likely are worse now than at the time of the study.

Black women, in general, were more likely to have participated in the subprime loan crisis with upper-income black women being five times more likely to have received a high-cost mortgage than upper-income white men.

“The popular image is they spend too much, which is the reason they are running up credit card and consumer debt, but the cost of living has risen faster than income, and they need to go into debt for basic daily necessities,” Ms. Lui said. “It’s compounded because unemployment is twice as high in the black community than it is in the white community.”

For all working-age black women 18 to 64, the financial picture is bleak. Their median household wealth is only $100. Hispanic women in that age group have a median wealth of $120.

“That means half of [black women] have a net worth of more than $100 and half have a net worth of less than $100,” Ms. Lui said. “So that gives you an idea of how far in debt some women of color are.”

Married or cohabitating white women have a median wealth of $167,500. Married or cohabitating black women have a median net worth of $31,500.

The reasons behind the daunting financial challenges black women face are numerous and complex.

“There are excuses and circumstances that have evolved in society, which put black women where they are,” said Esther Bush, executive director of the Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh, who said in Pittsburgh more than 70 percent of African-American families are headed by single women.

The recession has hit single mothers especially hard.

According to a recent report by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, more than four out of 10 families headed by single mothers in Pittsburgh and more than one in three in Pennsylvania, live in poverty.

In Pittsburgh and across the country, the financial burdens of single parenthood fall mostly on women, but black women are more likely to endure the work and responsibility of raising children on their own. They are more likely to be the backbone of their families and communities, with greater responsibilities to support struggling friends and families.

In a 2008 study of black women and their money, the ING Foundation found that black women — who frequently manage the assets of their households — financially support friends, family and their houses of worship to a much greater degree than the general population.

They also are more likely to be employed in jobs and industries — such as service occupations — with lower pay and less access to health insurance. And when their working days are done, they rely most heavily on Social Security because they are less likely to have personal savings, retirement accounts or company pensions. Their Social Security benefits are likely to be lower, too, because of their low earnings.

Rather than strictly comparing income, researchers in the Insight study looked at the wealth gap. The current economic crisis has shown that a person’s wealth affects not only retirement security, but also a person’s ability to handle financial setbacks such as a job loss or a health emergency.

High unemployment and high incarceration rates for black men also lower the likelihood of single black women finding a partner to help build a more secure financial future.

Ms. Lui said the Insight report would be used to encourage the government to close the wealth gap and improve the outlook for women of color, just as it did for Americans who received land through the Homestead Act, and education through the GI bill.

“If wealth was based on hard work, African-Americans would be the wealthiest people in our nation,” she said. “It’s not about behavior. It’s about government policies. Who does the government help and who is it not helping?

“Our government knows how to build wealth for people. They’ve done it for others and they can do it for all of us. They need to focus some attention on women of color. Look at the situation and see what we need.”

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-28.stm#ixzz0hnDHCf28

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid represent leadership incompetence at its zenith, its peak, its pinnacle. They prove the “Peter Principle” works at all levels in Western society whereby a person continues advancement until he or she reaches his or her highest level of incompetence. Once they ascend to that level, they cannot fulfill their job descriptions because they do not possess the intellectual or physical tools. Pelosi and Reid prove Mark Twain’s famous saying, “Suppose you were an idiot; and suppose you were a member of Congress-ah, but I repeat myself.”

Those two incompetent people continue funding an absurd war in Iraq and Afghanistan while pretending that the ’surge’ worked, or that the current ’surge’ works in the latter country. Come on! The most powerful army in the world cannot stop the suicide bombings in Iraq weekly. They cannot stop ‘insurgents’ from transporting explosives into the country and blowing up Baghdad on a regular basis. They cannot stop the Taliban from maintaining itself in all of Afghanistan. They cannot stop the idea of ‘terror’ because they cannot stop the Islamic religion from flourishing its disciples worldwide.

Yet, we import over 2,000 Muslims from the Middle East every 30 days! How much sense does that make? Our own Muslim immigrants make plans to blow us up in our own country as witnessed by the Denver bomber named Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-born immigrant. Or, the Muslim U.S. Army Major Nadal Hasan. Or the nut cases in an FBI shootout in Detroit, Michigan that want to turn our country toward Sharia Law. Can’t wait for the next incident, can you?!

ALL THE WHILE, US BORDERS AS OPEN AS A 24 HOUR MALL

So far in the Middle East, we suffered 4,000 U.S. soldier deaths and over 35,000 wounded in those two wars. How about the growing suicides of American soldiers? How about the 2.5 million Iraqi refugees? We’ve blown about $1 trillion on death and destruction. What do we have to show for it? Absolutely nothing! Little known to the U.S. public, after we killed 53,300 American troops in the fraudulent and bogus Vietnam War, another 150,000 to 175,000 military vets committed suicide after their service in that inane war. That’s not to mention the twisted minds, divorces, fatherless children, and alcohol and drugs that eased the pains for millions of military veterans-but at a horrific price of addiction. Then, think of the millions of civilians in Vietnam that suffered more bombs than were dropped in WWII on Europe. And, Agent Orange that poisoned all of Vietnam for decades to cause birth defects and worse!

The Nazi Hermann Goering said, “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Lyndon Baines Johnson worked it to a T with his “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution”. George Bush II worked his magic with, “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Barack Obama worked it like enchantment after his Nobel Peace Prize by saying we must keep fighting “bad people.”

Who are we fighting in Afghanistan? A bunch of goat herders and poppy seed farmers! That country doesn’t own a military helicopter, tank or fighter jet! Yet, we find ourselves stuck over there for eight years! Does that mean out U.S. Army can’t fight its way out of a paper bag? You be the judge!

Have you ever heard of the “Military Industrial Complex” that promotes war and, in fact, thrives on war? Why? Money, lots of it! How do you suppose our military continues fighting against two third world countries with no armies for eight friggin’ years and we still haven’t won anything?!

Pelosi and Reid do not stand alone. The other 533 members of Congress may take a bow for egregious incompetence in the areas of health care, immigration, war, poverty, hunger, prisons and failure to represent American workers and interests. Those members, over the years, outsourced, insourced and offshored millions of American jobs. They killed our textiles, our industry, our steel manufacturing and a hundred other productive enterprises-by sending the work and jobs to China, et al.

Result: We stand $12 trillion in debt. Today, we see 15 to 20 million unemployed Americans. Another 35 million Americans subsist on food stamps. Black and Hispanic unemployed run into the millions and 13.4 million minority children live below the poverty level. Schools in big cities run as high as 76 percent flunkout rates such as Detroit, Michigan and Los Angeles, California. An astounding 40 million Americans cannot read. Another 52 million cannot read past the 4thgrade level!

After 39 years and over $1 trillion bequeathed to the War on Drugs, Pelosi and Reid allow over $100 billion of illegal drugs to continue flowing into the USA annually. They allow 900,000 U.S. kids to become dealers and hundreds of our kids have been killed in our streets. How do Reid and Pelosi do that? They command 572,000 military personnel on 120 bases around the world, but they won’t put 50,000 on our borders to stop the drug smuggling or illegal aliens crossing by the millions.

All the while, over 20 million illegal aliens reside, work and leach off our country and its taxpayers. We pay out $346 billion annually (Source: www.thesocialcontract.com) to illegal aliens and their kids-all of that money voted on in Congress to support criminal aliens across 15 different agencies.

With 15 to 20 million unemployed Americans and only 95,000 new jobs being created each month according to Katie Couric at CBS-our Congress imports 100,000 new legal immigrants every 30 days. This year, as last year, our Congress will import another 450,000 immigrant workers with green cards. We cannot possible employ our own citizens let alone the 100,000 new immigrants monthly plus the 450,000 green card holders.

But, when I wrote my U.S. House Rep Mike Coffman to lower legal immigration to 100,000 annually instead of 1.2 million annually, he replied, “I do not believe it is in the best interests of the United States to limit legal immigration to 100,000 individuals annually. It will place America at a competitive disadvantage moving forward. For that reason I do not support eliminating H-1B and H-2B visas.”

Is he crazy or am I crazy? Can he work simple math or not? Does it make sense to import 100,000 people who need jobs every 30 days or is Coffman completely out of his mind?

Nope! He’s a U.S. Congressman and we suffer another 534 just like him. The corruption and incompetence set the benchmark of the 21st century. November 4, 2010 cannot come soon enough. We must elect another batch to displace the current troglodytes in the U.S. Congress.