Towards a Green Future

"Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

A Ru Paul, um, I mean,  Ron Paul supporter left a flier in my door today, and I was reading through it, and some things stuck in my head as worth of a little commentary.

The flier presents each bullet point, and I will leave my commentary below:

RP: Will let Americans keep more of their own money.
ME: That's sounds dandy, but Congress writes the tax laws, and the executive branch enforces them via the IRS. Will RP risk impeachment by willfully not enforcing the law? Your guess is as good as mine.

RP: Will end the IRS.
ME: Again, this sounds good on the surface, but Congress is the only body that can 'end' the IRS.

RP: Will stop the central bankers "inflation tax."
ME: What's an inflation tax? Taxes take money out of circulation, and thereby exert a deflationary pressure on prices. Also, the Treasury and Federal Reserve do not set tax rates. They do set certain interest rates, though.

RP: Will stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy.
ME: Really? Last time I read the constitution, that Mr. Paul claims to know so well, Congress has the power to tax and spend - not the President. So, how will he stop spending, unless he has a veto-proof number of allies in Congress (which seems pretty unlikely)?

RP: Will stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign goverments.
ME: Sounds great! But, in reality, we are looking at a mixed bag of countries here. China is arguably more dependent on us than we are on them. If the US put an embargo on Chinese goods, whose economy would be damaged more - I am betting it is China's. Saudi Arabia is a similar story - we buy A LOT of oil from them, but in the end, most of our imported oil comes from Canada, not Saudi Arabia. If we really wanted to end dependence on Saudi Arabia, we could raise fuel economy standards, or mandate that oil can only be imported from some countries and not others.

RP: Will end 'birthright' citizenship.
ME: (sound of needle skidding off record in head) This is the reason RP gets white-supremacist votes. Aside from the near insurmountable task of altering the constitution, exactly what would be the definition of citizenship? That's what the 'no birthright' crowd never seems to talk about. What criterion will citizenship be based on - ancestral country of origin? skin color? being a left-handed red-head? what exactly?  Also, will the millions of Americans descended from slaves have their citizenship revoked? After all, the slaves were imported as property, and were not even considered legal immigrants by the standards of their time, not to mention the standards of today.

Just an FYI: I will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER (did I mention NEVER?) support an end to birthright citizenship.

.....good to see that the allegedly anti-war democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are still managing not to restrict or reverse the failed Bush regime policy in Iraq. Yes Bush is the Commander in Chief, and yes, the office of the President takes the lead on foreign policy, but when the foreign policy is a disaster, and the President is not willing to significantly change course, then you have to step in and take charge. That is what the American people sent democrats to DC to do.

But, democrats manage to selectively blind themselves to effective options to change policy. In this interview on NPR, Pelosi states that she will take such tough measures as "listening to what the President has to say" and "consider his argument for a troop surge." Wow. That's some real opposition to the failed Iraq policy if I ever heard it. Pelosi went on to say, when asked by the interviewer if the democrats would work to cut off funding for the war like congress did in the 1970's regarding Vietnam, that democrats would not leave the troops "high and dry." That's nice, Nancy, but leaving them in a meatgrinder like Iraq is not "supporting the troops." It never was, and it never will be. Leaving our volunteer military in a meatgrinder should be considered a crime against humanity - the President, VP, and any member of Congress who voted in favor of this war should be sent to the Hague for trial. Sound extreme? Maybe. No more extreme then democrats sitting on their hands and lying to the American public that they cannot do anything to stop the President.

School is in session. Take your seats, democrats. No talking, no copying from the republicans. Spines will be passed out prior to phys ed.

Options that a democratically controlled Congress can take to alter the Bush foreign policy/perpetual occupation of Iraq:

1. Cut off funding - worked against Nixon the madman in the 1970's, it will work against Bush the Crusading madman in present day.

Or,

2. Revoke the bill passed by Congress authorizing use of force against Iraq. Democrats acted mighty surprised when Bush used this bill as legal cover to invade Iraq (what did you think he'd use it for - giving them a stern lecture?), so revoke the bill already!

Or,

3. Amend or revoke the War Powers Act - this is the act that defines how/when the President can use the armed forces during a time when Congress has not declared war.

Or, if you are feeling really brave

4. Declare war on Iraq. What? Why do this? Are they not our "allies" again? Technically yes. But, if Congress declared war on Iraq, that means control of the war policy would pass from the President, to the Congress.