Corruption for Dummies

The fundamentals of Tom Delay's unlawful conduct:

1) Texas law prohibits corporations from making donations to candidates for state political office

2) Tom Delay's Political Action Committee (PAC), Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), accepted roughly $155,000 dollars from corporations.

3) That money was placed into one of the PAC's accounts, along with $35,000 dollars from other sources.

4) A check for $190,000 ($155,000+$35,000) was written, from that same account, to a specific arm of the Republican National Committee involved in local elections.

5) That committee was also furnished with a list of Texas state legislature candidates, republicans, and how much money each candidate was to receive.

6) The money was then distributed, as per instructions, from the RNC to the Texas candidates.

----
It is clear by the steps taken that those involved were accutely aware of the laws and took steps to circumvent those laws. Is that criminal? You tell me.


For more see:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050929/ap_on_go_co/delay_investigation;
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/28/delay/index.html; or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170681,00.html

The Thriving Spoils System

The Egregious Actions Involving Women's Health at the FDA
Dr. Norris Alderson was appointed to head Women's Health at the FDA. The FDA quickly removed his name from their list of Directors and denied that he was ever appointed. Why the scramble? Well, some say it is inappropriate to appoint a man to the position when so many qualified women are available - oh yes, and because Dr. Alderson is not an MD but a Veterinarian. WHAT???

The position became vacant on 8.31.05 when Dr. Susan Wood resigned complaining of politically motivated decisionmaking by the Commisioner, Lester Crawford - who thankfully resigned yesterday (9.23.2005). Decisions by the FDA are primarily based on scientific findings, but recently those findings have been completely ignored. Wood explained that "It was very unusual for the Commissioner of the FDA to overrule the recommendation of all of the professional staff" and yet that had become the practice.


Worried about the cost of Oil?
The Bush administration will look into it for you. The Federal Trade Commission will now be investigating oil prices. The man assigned to head the investigation is a former attorney for ChevronTexaco.

FEMA
You all know that Michael Brown was the Head of an International Arabian Horse Association which qualified him for his role as the director of FEMA.

Other Appointments:
A former timber lobbyist was appointed the head of the Forest Service; A former utility lobbyist was appointed to head the Clean Air Division of the EPA; A former lobbyist for an Agricultural Industry giant Monsanto, was appointed as the number 2 person at the EPA; A former lobbysit for the American Petroleum Institute was appointed to the Council on Environmental Quality.

----
For more information see the following sites:
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=202508&pub=1&div=Opinion
http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lbushmonsanto.htm
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050920/fda_shenanigans.php

The Accumulating Troubles for Katrina Victims

Victims of Hurricane Katrina who may have come to believe that they cannot count on the Federal government for help in the days following the disaster may soon have to face another obstacle, this time, one imposed by Congress just months ago - The new Bankruptcy Code.

The newly enacted Code "has been criticized by consumer-rights advocates and finance experts for turning the bankruptcy courts into 'collections agencies' for credit card companies such as MBNA." www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/katrina_bankruptcy03.html. It also expands the definition on non-dischargeable debts, diminshing the potential for relief in filing bankruptcy at all.

The new law has a particularly troubling impact on those who may have lost financial records since the new Code requires that debtors prove that a debt cannot be resolved by a means other than bankruptcy - the Code's so-called "means test." Without records, this burden may be difficult to surmount.

Displaced families are now finding themselves facing increasing credit card balances, continued mortgage payments for houses that may no longer exist, costs for alternate housing and new clothes and other necessities, all while many find themselves without employment, at least for the time being.

They need relief.

Federal Government's Response
In response to this universally acknowledged consequence, representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has refused to even hold a hearing as to whether it would be appropriate to waive the new bankruptcy laws as applied to Katrina victims. Sensenbrenner also holds the proud distinction of being one of 11 Republicans to vote AGAINST the hurricane relief package. www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/katrina_bankruptcy03.html.

Apparently the American public, in times of distress, are left to rely on the kindness and generosity of their fellow man and charitable corporations. To their credit (no pun intended), MBNA has announced that it will waive 2 months of payments and late fees for Katrina victims. VISA has also announced that it will offer more lenient terms to hurricane victims. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/14/katrina.credit.ap/

My Opinion
It is a sad circumstance where Americans are finding more sympathetic and fair treatment from credit card companies than from the officials we have elected to protect our interests.

Right Wing Judicial Activists

Eighteen states have laws that require minors to get parental consent before they can have an abortion. These states are required to have an override mechanism where minors can get a judicial determination that they may pursue the procedure without parental endorsement.

Judge John McCarroll of Shelby County, Tennessee, and now many others, refuse to hear such petitions from minors arguing that he "could not in good conscience make a finding that would allow the minor to proceed with the abortion." (see Adam Liptak, Some Judges are Ducking Cases of Teenagers Seeking Abortions, California Law Student Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 Sept. 2005.)

What would these same judges say if other judges overturned jury death penalty verdicts saying that they "could not in good conscience make a finding or grant an order that takes a human life."

This practice mirrors efforts by Pharmacists who have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control. Neither professional field however is charged with employing their own moral judgemnt in deciding whether or not to execute their duties. Judges specifically are under oath to uphold the law, not merely uphold those laws with which they agree.

This creates another problem where the workloads of other judges are becoming overwhelming because they are willing to be held to their duties. In a matter where time is of the essence (pregnancy), a clogged court system and the resulting delays could ultimately decide people's rights and access to abortion (in this case).

A judge's strike against a law cannot be used in order to supercede the efforts of the legislature, is a activist effort to avoid enforcement of the laws, and is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine (although in state courts this relies on the separation of powers defined by the state constitutions).

If a judge cannot execute his duty to uphold and enforce the laws enacted by the legislature then he is not fit for the bench and should never have been appointed.

This is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary (and our form of government) I have ever encountered.

Good Ol' Republican Ideals

Up until two years ago I was Republican and I still support the ideals they continue to preach. I want smaller government and less government involvement in our personal lives. I want the federal government to allow states to regulate state issues where the federal government has no place and I want more streamlined and efficient beaurocracies.

Instead we have an unprecedented budget deficit, new and larger federal agencies (Dep't of Homeland Security, Intelligence Czar, etc.), The Partiot Act and other intrusions into our personal lives including Federal government involved in State law issues, and beaurocracies functioning as FEMA, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security do.

FBI admits to having wasted approximately $104 million on a computer system eventually scrapped (worth $170 million) (see http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/fbi.computers/).

I don't need to tell what is wrong with FEMA (nor will I address the matter that more funds are being spent destroying Iraq than rebuilding New Orleans).

Homeland Security has been created, determined to be inefficient and ineffective, and ultimatley restructured all within 3 years (see http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1497). I'll remind you that Bush originally opposed the Dep't of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission, and the Intelligence Czar, only to later take credit for the creation of each. Let's ensure that he gets credit for their management as well.

Is anyone else beginning to question the conventional wisdom that Republicans are the party opposed to red tape and ineffective and inefficient beaurocracy?

And lastly, you have the Federal Government seeking to regulate who can be issued a marriage license as well as who is the next of kin when it comes to making private medical decisions (e.g., the Schiavo case), both unquestionably issues regulated solely by the states.

I still support the ideals I did two years ago, only now, I have come to realize that the Republicans never really did.

What Non-Proliferation Policy?

The current US Administration has pursued the use of military force at great financial expense to the country and with a great loss of American lives. The reason for such a policy, the reason for these severe financial and psychological costs the US must endure, to prevent the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (as well as biological and chemical).

However, this administration somehow fails to follow its own rhetoric.

An AP report, published on Foxnews.com (no less) reports that "The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval" (see "Pentagon Considers Nuclear Deterrent for Terroists, AP, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169052,00.html 9.10.2005).

What is the goal of such a program? The development of a Nuclear Warhead that can penetrate bunkers and fortifications buried deep within rock. Such a warheard does not sound like a means of deterrence against terrorism, but a potential weapon against certain terrorists. Such a weapon is only of value when it is used.

So, although the Bush Administration argues against Nuclear Proliferation and exercises its extensive war powers to promote that end, remember that they are lobbying Congress to spend tax dollars to create more and different Nuclear weapons and with a clear intent that they be used.

If the US had them already, do you trust that Bush would not have used them by now? If not, are you willing to take that risk?

Coming Soon . . .

Why wont the Republicans fight as hard for First Amendment protections as they do for Second Amendment protections?

A thorough consideration of this question is pending.