ILL FITTED TAXATION

Today is another day. The Sun is still shining, no matter where you are, high or low, beneath or above the clouds, it's there. There used to be a time, under that same Sun, when failure was acceptable to talk about, and truth was better investigated. Maybe because failure can mean the end of comfort, we avoid it and therefore avoid what lays before us each day; an opportunity to step ahead of our mistakes made in the past. No, there will be no golden-trumpets-of-truth to hit the fan about where the $3 trillion U.S. dollars went. Now we find ourselves unknowing and quick to punish.

"Daddy Warbucks," in this case the common U.S. citizen, has been busy paying for the bailouts of every failed big business. The money intended to jumpstart the economy has only left the economy in sagging disarray while rewarding bad business practices and political organizations for their ill intended business paths. For instance, ACORN received $5.2 billion USD in bailout money, and while currently under Federal investigation of voter fraud. And now the plan is to tax institutions for our own perpetuation of these horrible practices. These unallocated taxes are the kind of taxes that the founders of the U.S. Constitution fought against, taxation without representation. Is the Obama administration as guilty as the U.S. Congressional House and Senate who opened the gates of financial purgatory? Who dealt it smelt it, or is it who smelt it dealt it?

And still, ironically enough President Obama stated that "While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it is still operating under the exact same rules that led to its near collapse." He is suppose to be the protector of the United States and representitive of the Constitution who tells Congress "You shall not pass" when they try to reward businesses who have spent beyond their ability to produce revenue. Now it seems we live in an age of titles of nobility, and of course not to be confused with real nobility. President Obama now wants to punish the very banks he saved by implementing a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" at a yearly rate of $1,500 for every $1 million borrowed to finance lending and other activities. This could mean that every U.S. citizen will pay higher rates when they borrow money. The said intentions of the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" are to force banks into submission and keep them small, creating "leverage." A controlled market, cannot and will not sustain liberty for long. Anarcho-capitalist free market is what our founders intended to have, but of course with a civil government governed by the common citizens and a set of U.S. laws and bindings listed in the U.S. Constitution. This all leaving room for our posterity and property which may bring forward courageous innovations under freedom, as well as a liberty to fail. Failure is important for a society which wishes to be free and helps it make prolific advances towards a better day.

With all that said, and a half an hour later after devouring a bag of Dorito chips, I must conclude; we live in a nation where punishment is brought on in the form of spanking a dead horse. Obama may have good intentions to punish businesses that were awarded bailout money which was spent on frivolously party-times, but where does the line get drawn? Allowing a person, or business to fail is the best thing to do and accounts as a learning process. As Abraham Lincoln said, "The fiery trials through which we pass will light us down in honour or dishonour to the latest generation." Let us learn from these mistakes and move on.

(Sources: Stossel's Report & Holman Jenkins' opinion)

-M.G.Gonzales with N.S.Soria

IMMIGRATION TALKS

Today’s blog does not come to you from any front-page news headlines, any inspiring words from Obama, or from any recent election results upsetting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Rather tonight, I’m more troubled by the story of a dear friend (and fellow Spanish teacher/co-worker) of mine who has had to endure painstakingly long trials as a result of her attempt to legally navigate the US immigration system with her husband. Three years ago, upon getting married, my friend and her husband decided together they desired to make his status in the U.S. legal. According to their attorney (whom they cannot afford), it was legal for him to remain working in the states while waiting for his Permanent Residency Status to be confirmed. Two years later, the law changed, and with his status still pending, he was sent back to Mexico. One year later, his application for legal admission to the US is still indefinitely pending, and my friend is left here, debating with herself over the ethical merits of working here (away from her husband) to support her child, or moving to Mexico to be with her husband at the risk of them not being able to affording supporting a family. The most disturbing part of this story is the sheer commonality of it all. I’m certain we have all known people who have been affected in similar ways by US Immigration Law.

While it might initially seem outrageous to most of us to be sympathizing with any “illegals”, there are many reasons to believe we are creating harmful popular views of immigration under the current direction of our immigration system. After viewing a brief history of our Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureaucracy, one might observe that, historically, the area of Immigration Law fell under the arm of the Department of Commerce or Labor or Justice. Those seem to flow logically with the general purposes that immigration has served in our country in the past. Devastatingly though, upon the year 2003, when we were busy entering Iraq, the USCIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) was altered in its make-up, and placed under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (also a newly evolved entity of 2003) (SOURCE) . Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who oversees things like “Counterterrorism” and “Preparedness, Response and Recovery”(SOURCE), also has the largest role in “promoting flexible and sound immigration policies and programs” (SOURCE)? We need to shift away from this perception of immigrants as part of “the other” or “potential threat” population, and rather, view them for what they are; future Americans, future us’. This is why efforts to thwart Comprehensive Immigration Reform need to be cautiously examined and avoided if they exist to only instill fear, thereby limiting the potential for greatness that our country really might have.

In the most recent holiday issue of the Economist, one article argues that “a country’s economic prospects depend in large measure on whether it is a place where people want to be”. Essentially, the more desirable a place is to be, the more creative people it will attract. The more creative people it attracts, the more ingenuity it inspires. And the more ingenuity it inspires, the greater its numbers of productivity and prosperity (SOURCE). “No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin in America”. We need to stop viewing this appealing nature of our essential make-up as a burden, and rather view it as an opportunity and a definitive aspect of our country’s founding and development. We have all descended from migrants who have made their way to America over the past couple hundred years, and we have all descended from people who have played a significant role in the development of this nation into an appealing place to live. If we want to be great, let’s not start fearing this pattern now.

-E.C.Soria

THE WORLD IS MELTING AND SO IS MY BRAIN

I remember being in 5th grade learning the "3 R's," Recycle, Reduce, Reuse, and thinking that if I don't I could leave a barren wasteland in my wake for my children to suffocate and burn to death in. A horrid thought, I know, and one could blame it on my overactive imagination and/or schooling, but whatever the case the media hasn't detracted that sentiment much. Now we use more complex terminology and an array of advertised Green movements that can leave any American afraid of their own SUV's.

But on the horizon is this strange voice that says the science is wrong, the politicians are wrong, and that we've all been fooled! (The Great Global Warming Swindle) Could we dare question the ordained scientist of the IPCC? With the massive amounts of US money involved (SOURCE), and the Global policies that are quickly moving in to place (SOURCE), we probably should. Let's not pull a Galileo all over again.

A British politician and policy adviser, Chistopher Monckton, spoke openly against these treaties that are in the process of being annexed, and brought to light a dirty word, "Government." In an interview, Monckton states, "The extraordinary thing about the draft treaty which I have now seen is that it goes far further than anything that was planned at any previous session. What they're now going to do is to set up a world government, and the word 'Government' actually appears in the treaty. But you heard it here first. The word 'Election, democracy, vote, or ballot' does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty." (SOURCE) Incredible to think that we've come this far based off of now questionable science that declares the World is melting and it's all our fault. Funny to think that when the IPCC, a source Al Gore used in his Inconvenient Truth documentary, declared that meat production creates large amounts of CO2 emissions that rivals World's transportation system (SOURCE), Al Gore was questioned if he was going to go vegetarian and he said no. (SOURCE) I wonder if this soon-to-be-billionaire flies around to his many guest star appearances and interviews on a private jet? Based on IPCC's science, it doesn't sound like Gore is practicing what he's preaching.

Professor Paul Reither of IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris once said, "This claim that the IPCC is the World's top 1,500-2,500 scientist... you look at the bibliographies of the people and it's simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists." (The Great Global Warming Swindle) And now the meeting of the nations in Copenhagen are working fast to obtain massive global funding and policies for a cause that might be based on questionable science. My suggestion is that if you have an ounce of doubt pay close attention to the Global and National policies that the World is trying to set in place and if you have been reading our blog, I'm sure you're familiar with our feelings about what we think the Constitution and our Forefathers have to say about us meddling too much in International affairs. I think this is a valid concern and we should all beware...

...but still, if you can, keep on Recycling, Reducing and Reusing. I think that's just plain healthy.

-N.S.Soria

A LITTLE THING THE STATE DEPT LIKES TO CALL, FMF

An interesting alliance the United States has maintained since the end of WWII (among many), is that with Israel. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because it defines the understanding of our nation’s character to many ordinary middle eastern citizens. Perhaps it’s interesting because it is the only foreign military that receives billions of dollars in aid while simultaneously receiving the greatest amount of US vetoes against past UN Security Council’s efforts to investigate “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” they may have committed. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because after a two-week long war (between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces), where Israel lost 13 soldiers and Palestine lost over 1,400 people (SOURCE), the US government voiced a disposition of approval by continuing to provide the billions in funds that have propped up the Israeli military to such a position of global prowess.

The more one reads about the relationship between the US federal budget and the finances of the Israeli military, the more one might be more disturbed, than anything, with the general theory behind such foreign policy mechanisms that are so often utilized (in relating to any country) without much question by the American people. The bulk of the money sent annually to the Israeli military comes from what is referred to as the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. It just so happens that the Israeli military has received especially favored attention from this fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, Israel has been granted nearly $3 billion annually since the year 1985, and this number is only promised to increase by $6 billion over the next decade (SOURCE).

But let us return to the concepts behind the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. How could such a discreet portion of the State Department ever be justified in funneling billions of American dollars toward the development of foreign militaries? According to the State Department website, stronger foreign militaries can “contribute to international crisis response operations, including peacekeeping and humanitarian crises.” But what happens when these militaries contribute to ongoing humanitarian crises? (Has anyone ever heard of Gaza?). Furthermore, apparently foreign militaries can help “Maintain support for democratically-elected governments that share values similar to the United States for democracy, human rights, and regional stability.” But what happened to our founding fathers’ original beliefs that America is merely “the champion and vindicator only of her own”?? (John Q. Adams). Furthermore, according to our State Department, the FMF exists to “enhance rationalization, standardization, and interoperability of military forces of friendly countries and allies”. I’m not so sure I want “interoperability”, when our countries freedoms were founded on the rationalization that “enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, [America] would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom” (John Q. Adams). (FMF Quotes from SOURCE).

I’m aware that the relationship we have with Israel is not the only relationship we need to question. I’m also aware that the complications of our “interoperability” in the Middle East are beyond the reach of my understanding at this point. But perhaps that’s the point we need to take away with us. “Enlisting under other banners” will always entrench us in more war, more regional conflict, and more compromise when said conflicts directly contradict the strong principles of “liberty” and “equality under the law” that ought to be the things that shape our international identity. Perhaps the complicated bonds of our state department are beyond the reach of our rationalization at this point, because they negate the simplicity of the foreign policy once wish for our nation. It reminds me of how Thomas Jefferson once profoundly aspired for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliance with none”.

-E.C.Soria