My Top 10 List Things Washington Has Forgot

Oh no he didn't!.... I finally got so fed up with the way things work in Washington that I have devised my own top 10 list. Read carefully and remember it is my list...If you want one go make your own. I wouldn't mind knowing what yours would look like. If you decide to make one you may comment here or on your blog and link back to me with a comment. It would be interesting to see what others think.

Well, here we go.....

• (10) From the presidents oath of office..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
  No where does it state that those powers extend beyond our borders.



• (9) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment...
  He may manage the personnel and their job description. He may get from congress the authority to deploy on RARE occasion.



• (8) The president shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
  He can't take the power and then ask. He must ask first and it must be by their advice not against it. In other words he can't do anything unless the Senate says he can.



• (7) That congress is impotent to do anything unless elected to do so. Such election is by the people they want to represent.
  Unions, Political think tanks, Corporations, TV reporters, Newspapers, Glamour Rags, the United Nations and, Political Action Committees, (though run by people) do not qualify!



• (6) It is not a right to serve. It is a pleasure and it is at OUR pleasure that they do.
  'Nuff said?... alright then.



• (5) Rush Limbaugh believes so little in the values he purports that he rarely takes time to vote.
  Do you really believe he should be the front man for conservative thought?



• (4) Political Parties should be something you attend, at your leisure, not something you attend to, as in "I got your back".
  Try something our forefathers used in designing the constitution.... Free thinking! It'll be less expensive for all of us.



• (3) If it walks like a lobbyist, Talks like a lobbyist, and offers money like a lobbyist....regardless of what they might say, it IS a lobbyist.
  While I want you to work for full employment, it's okay for this job to go away....give us back our country!



• (2) Please rediscover your moral compass.
  Set it on "God-Country-Family" and let it be. Religion guides us to lead moral lives; patriotism gives us a feeling of national unity; and our families are a home base - we can always count on them when in trouble.



• (1) Remember your mission statement! A Government of the people, for the people and by the people.
  All of them, not just your cousin Jake downstate, your "mam maw down in alabamaw" or the Political Action Committee you purchased your seat from. (I wonder if that's where the NFL got the idea for "personal seat licenses"?)

These are, after all, the musings of a mind that wanders.

Glass Houses???

I am and always have leaned toward the Democratic party. Partly because I was raised that way. Partly because I didn't feel that republicans were interested in anything but themselves. But mostly because my heart says it is right. Democrat's have always been the party of the people. The party of Jimmy Carter. I know ...I know.. most think Jimmy Carter was the worst President we have ever had. I disagree... No I strenuously disagree.


I liked who we were when Jimmy Carter was President. I liked who we became when Jimmy Carter was President. We were a caring, inspired, kind people. We were good neighbors. We were peacekeepers. We defended the down-trodden and sought to identify values ...American values and implemented them at home. That was democracy and that was the Democratic party I respected. The problem is we have turned away from what made the Democratic party great. We have listened to the likes of Rush Limbaugh who believes he can define the Democratic Party for us.

I am no fan of George Bush. I believe he and Dick Cheney are liars. In my opinion, they have used the Office of the President to promote their own personal agendas tied to oil, personal profit, and revenge. And I don't like the country we have become through their leadership. We are neither caring nor kind. We are stuck in the grip of a party who clearly views the word as their sandbox and manipulates countries like sandbox toys. It is disconcerting that in the eyes of many around the world, we have become that which we have fought against for so long. It is this President, and his cabinet, which brought us to this point. Regarded as foe not friend, and conqueror not liberator, aggressor not defender.

All that being said, it is this which most disgust me:

Moveon.org on General Petraeus

I have come to expect poor behavior and double standards from republican politics. They are the party of the closed mind after all. But I did not expect it from the party to which I most identify. To rail against a report before you've heard it, call names of the people who are honestly trying to change the course of events and bring honesty back to the table, and argue a counterpoint before a point has actually been made is dishonest, unconscionable, reckless, unpresidential and really does "require the willing suspension of disbelief".

This not the democratic party of the people and I am left wondering in whom I can believe. It seems to me someone is living in Glass Houses. I suggest they put down the rock.

This is, after all, the musings of a mind that wanders.

Dobbs: Mexican President's Blatant Hypocrisy

By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Mexican President Felipe Calderon Sunday demanded the United States surrender its sovereignty, abandon the rule of law and accede to Mexico's inherent supremacy.


Lou Dobbs says Mexican President Felipe Calderon is showing "blatant hypocrisy" on immigration.

In his state of the union address to the Mexican nation, Calderon established his imperialistic imperatives: "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights.

Calderon protested the U.S. government's increased raids on illegal employers of illegal alien employees and work site enforcement. In what is little more than a faint nod to the Bush administration's responsibility to enforce U.S. immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security had planned to send out notices to employers from the Social Security Administration informing them of non-matching records between an employee's name and Social Security number. These employers would then be forced to resolve any discrepancy within 90 days or be required to dismiss the employee or face up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

But then, ethnocentric advocacy groups and some labor unions, trying to bolster their membership, sued to stop the crackdown on hiring illegal alien workers. A federal judge in California last week issued a temporary restraining order blocking the plan, giving a victory to the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, all of which brought the suit alleging DHS exceeded its authority in making the rule.

That U.S. District Court judge ruled as if she were an employee of the Mexican government, rather than the U.S. government. Homeland Security was simply enforcing existing immigration laws. Are we not a nation that follows the rule of law? If not, we're no country at all.

Calderon must have been delighted by the judge's decision. Calderon, like his predecessors, Carlos Salinas and Vicente Fox, has failed miserably to establish policies that would create jobs for the Mexican people and to eliminate shameful, unchecked corruption and incompetence in the Mexican government.

Don't Miss
Previous Lou Dobbs commentaries
Lou's book, 'War on the Middle Class'
Even by Mexico's standards, Calderon's blatant hypocrisy is breathtaking. Calderon told the Washington Post more than a year ago that he believes laws are not a relative concept, nor subject to a personal concept of justice. Calderon declared a big difference between himself and his rival for the Mexican presidency, Manuel Lopez Obrador, was this: "I believe in the rule of law." Obviously he does not believe in the rule of U.S. law on U.S. soil.

Calderon can't have it both ways. He cannot fail his citizens at home and then act as the Great Imperialist Protector of his citizens who are driven by poverty and corruption to enter the United States illegally. The United States provides Mexico with an annual surplus of $65 billion in trade, an estimated $25 billion in remittances from Mexican citizens living and working here illegally, and at least another $25 billion generated by the illegal drug trade across our southern border.

But it is President Bush and this Congress who should be most embarrassed, because they are failing to assert rights for Americans in their own country, rights far short of those demanded by Calderon for his citizens living illegally in our nation.


These are, after all, the musings of a mind that wanders.

I Found This ....Interesting.....

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solveour illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;

have the means to sustain themselves economically;

not destined to be burdens on society;

of economic and social benefit to society;

of good character and have no criminal records; and contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, orGeneral Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent?

If a felony is acrime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121).

Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony.

The General Law on Population says,
"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its Americanimmigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org.

This is, after all, the musings of a mind that wanders.

Terrorist.....Take note!

This message was given to Richard Reid. But to any terrorist, Muslim or not, heed the warning and, if you feel you need to continue, thank God for your day in an American court where freedom and justice are not just some words used to validate a misguided, immoral and violent campaign to force all people to believe what you believe. Rather, your rights are guaranteed in an American court system built on TRUE freedom that gives you the right to say and think whatever you want. When you run a foul of the law you will receive the most vigorous defense against prosecution GUARANTEED! Try getting that in any one of your Muslim nations, in any dictatorship, in any communist system.

Read on and learn.

But be forewarned.

Action and Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.

His response:

After admitting his guilt to the court for the record,Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stating, "I think I will not apologize for my actions,"

and told the court

"I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid.

Judge Young:

"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.
On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)
On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million.
The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment.
The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes.
It is a fair and just sentence.
It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist.
You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist.
To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature.
Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier.

You are not----- you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists.
We do not meet with terrorists.
We do not sign documents with terrorists.
We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow.
But you are not that big. You're no warrior.

I've known warriors. You are a terrorist.
A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: "You're no big deal."You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing?

And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America .That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom and it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer.
Stand him down.

'Nuff said!!

This is , after all. the musings of a mind that wanders.