It is a “Crying Shame” What the New “Faced” Neocons Are Trying to Pull-Off

The dumber Americans are, the better they suit neocons’ plans for gaining more of America’s resources

The neocons’ goal is to change America into something that their talents and skills  can manage. Only a dumb moron would think that the neocons’ demonstrated talents and skills can manage a thriving America.

The neocons wrecked America’s economy and economies in related parts of the world. Now they are saying America needs to look more like a fascist government. A fascist government would, of course, jettison all it could of “spreading the wealth among 300,000,000 Americans” and concentrate that wealth among the “big people”.

It’s all about who gets what in America’s earnings stream. It’s not about God – although the neocons would use God in their plan. It’s not about “Gravity”. Although the neocons would use “Gravity” if it helped them “live happily ever after”.  It’s all about who gets what of America’s earnings. And they don’t intend to share those earnings with 300,000,000 Americans. That would be more like socialism than fascism.

The neocons crashed America’s and related countries economies. They did it by themselves. But now they are willing to say “BOTH” political parties(Democrats and Republicans) had spending problems. How stupid! That’s like saying both Satan and the “man on the street” have sinned.

The “spending problems” generated by twenty-some-odd years of VOODOO ECONOMICS caused a GREAT RECESSION. Only the GREAT DEPRESSION should be compared with what America’s neocons did to America’s economy during the last twenty-some-odd years. Since both economic disasters occurred on the GOP’s watch, they are the kings of economy crashing.

The worse economic managers in America’s history, wants America’s ombudsmen(voters) permission to change some 200 years of mostly successful  economic practices to a lassie faire type economy so that they can better manage it. If the economy runs itself, that means the neocons don’t have to. That may be an improvement over neocon management but it would put America’s economy in a “shoot the moon” condition.

It is a “Crying Shame” What the New “Faced” Neocons Are Trying to Pull-Off

Rep. Pence calls for flat tax, warns of socialism

THE HILL

By Peter Schroeder – 11/29/10

A top House Republican is touting a flat tax as the future of the American tax system, and suggested the nation is balancing on a wall between free market ideals and “socialism.”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chair of the House Republican Conference, advocated for a simpler tax structure in a speech Monday at the Detroit Economic Club.

“The time has come for Congress and this administration to take bold action to simplify our tax system and lower people’s taxes,” he said. “The best option, the most pro-growth option, is a flat tax. I believe it is time that America adopted a flat tax and scrapped the current system once and for all.”

Pence, who is thought to be contemplating a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, juxtaposed America’s current position with what he saw during a trip to the Berlin Wall in the Cold War era.

“I saw the difference between East and West, between a free market economy and a planned economy run by the state. Freedom and personal responsibility contrasted with socialism and decline,” he said, according to prepared remarks. “The problem with our economy today is that, after years of runaway spending and growth of government under both political parties, America is on that wall between West and East. … I choose the West.”…

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/130953-pence-calls-for-flat-tax-free-market-policies

In this post, Representative Pence reveals what he learned during a trip to the Berlin Wall during the Cold War era. He said:

“I saw the difference between East and West, between a free market economy and a planned economy run by the state. …

The Berlin Wall

… The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the “Anti-Fascist Protection Wall” …

Perhaps one man’s “Anti-Fascism” is another man’s “Anti-Socialism”. The visit to the Berlin Wall had to be a moving experience for Mr. Pence. At the Wall, he said he saw the difference …

… between a free market economy and a planned economy run by the state …

There was no free market economy back then and there is no free market economy now. To get something approaching a free market economy, he would have to venture farther back in time than  the early 60’s. one would have to venture back in time to when a bushel of “farmer Brown’s corn” was traded for two live chickens. There was no substantial government intervention during America’s very early years. At that time, America had the markings of a banana republic.

Once again let’s visit Wikipedia’s definition of Free market:

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. It is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of private ownership. Advocates of a free market traditionally consider the term to imply that the means of production is under private, not state control as well. This is the contemporary use of the term “free market” by economists and in popular culture; the term has had other uses historically.

And a Free Market Economy:

A free-market economy is an economy where all markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market.

Now we get to the good part.

Free-market economics is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy.

And to show how similar the new neocon economics is to the old neocons’ economics we can revisit the website of George’s Bottom LINE to hear comments from former President George W. Bush:

“I Went Against My Free-Market Instincts”

That’s what former President Bush said today in explaining why he signed off on the bailout for Wall Street…calling the decision “one of the most difficult of his presidency.”

So, the new neocons and the old neocons have similar economic motivations. That may mean that America’s ombudsmen(voters) are giving the neocons another chance to wreck America’s economy. So far the GOP has only wrecked America’s economy TWICE. And while no other American political party can “boast” of that “accomplishment”, it may take “THREE STRIKES” before the neocons loose their turn at bat. But by then America may have lost the game.

America is 234 years old and has done nicely except when the GOP practiced its brand of economics on America’s treasury.

A fool and his country are soon parted.

[ The neocons and their right-wing cousins are now talking about a "flat tax". That is supposed to be new. It is a new way to say "tax cuts". There is even a more radical voice out there on America's taxes. It claims that taxes are illegal.

And if  the state does not regulate labor - does that mean ten year olds could be forced into the labor market?

Where will the stupidity stop?]

A Major Player in the Bush Team’s 2003 Attack on Iraq Did Mention the Word “OIL”

President George W. Bush, in 2003, told the world of an Iraqi threat to world peace. President Bush then set out to solve the “peace” problem with the  war tool.

President Bush explained, in part, his concern about Iraq by saying what became known as “16 words” The 16 words linked Niger and Iraq via a uranium connection. The truth of that uranium connection could not be proved. Was Mr. Bush lying?

FactCheck.ORG came up with an interesting response to the statement associating those 16 words with lying. FactCheck.ORG said:

Bush’s “16 Words” on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying

… But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that’s not the same as lying. …

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

So, if you believe you are telling the truth – you are not lying?

Since the Bush team’s reason for the Iraq war did not quite “square” with the world’s common sense and investigative powers, America asked its neocon administration if OIL was the basis for the neocons’ war on  Iraq?

The neocons’ Secretary of Defense suggested something akin to “perish the thought”. The neocons’ Secretary of Defense suggested that America had no designs on Iraq oil.

Iraqi Oil Law

Not long after Iraq’s oil well fires were extinguished the winners and the losers sat down at a table to create an Iraq Hydrocarbon Law. The idea of “to the winner go the spoils” was not violated. The website at: priceofoil.org had this to say:

The Bush/Cheney administration is prioritizing the passage of an Iraqi oil law before it leaves office. This renewed push began with Dick Cheney’s visit to Iraq in March 2008 and the next six months will be key to the future of Iraq’s oil. In the mean time, the Iraqi government plans to sign service contracts for development of the largest oilfields. The first six were due to be signed on June 30 with Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total and four smaller companies, but were not for reasons that are not immediately apparent. …

http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law/

Were all the Iraqi war starters well represented at the Hydrocarbon Law  decision-making table? What does the below sound like?

Australia ‘has Iraq oil interest’

BBC NEWS

5 July 2007

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq.

He said maintaining “resource security” in the Middle East was a priority.

But PM John Howard has played down the comments, saying it was “stretching it a bit” to conclude that Australia’s Iraq involvement was motivated by oil.

The remarks are causing heated debate as the US-led Iraq coalition has avoided linking the war and oil. …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm

Australia was a major player in the attack on Iraq.

Gates Seeking to Contain Military Health Costs

The New York Times

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and THOM SHANKER

November 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — Francis Brady enjoys a six-figure salary and generous benefits at the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, but as a retired Marine lieutenant colonel he and his family remain on the military’s bountiful lifetime health insurance, Tricare, with fees of only $460 a year. He calls the benefit “phenomenal.”

“It is so cheap compared to what Booz Allen has,” Colonel Brady said in a recent interview, acknowledging that premiums called for by private employers can run many times greater.

Of nearly 4.5 million military retirees and their families, about three-quarters are estimated to have access to health insurance through a civilian employer or group. But more than two million of them stay on Tricare. As the costs of private health care continue to climb, their numbers are only expected to grow.

Now, as part of a broad offensive to cut Pentagon spending, that group is once again in the sights of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is seriously considering whether to ask for Tricare fee increases in next year’s budget — and perhaps start one of the last fights of his public career. …

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/us/29tricare.html?_r=1&hp

The health care bubble continues to expand. Health care business, like all business is profit driven. But unlike many businesses, health care keeps its customers out of coffins and hospitals. The customers of health care businesses are self motivated. Customers of health care businesses are afraid to exercise their option “not to buy” .

So, if there ever were captive customers, the health care business has them. And health care prices seems to have no effective natural enemies. So, health care customers must just “ante-up” until the health care bubble burst. One always knows where one is going after one gets there.

Some businesses are already asking employees to share more of the costs of health care. And now America’s military is showing concern for its rising health care costs. A quick, sequential “double bubble” may be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Coming to Grips With Economic Reality?

Reaganomics had all the necessary ingredients(4 pillars of Reaganomics) to crash America’s economy. And three of those four pillars were applied to America’s economy starting in 2003(President Bush’s State of the Union Address).

And as VOODOO ECONOMICS(Reaganomics) started to take its toll on America’s economy, there were some unusual interpretations of what America’s economy was under going.

Bush: Economy On Solid Foundation

By joejolly

Jan 4, 2008

Bush: Economy On Solid Foundation

Mar 7, 2008

Bush: it’s clear our economy has slowed

http://article.wn.com/view/2008/03/07/Bush_Economy_has_slowed_5g/?template=cheetah-article%2Fdisplayarticle.txt

Mar 8, 2008

Bush insists US not in recession

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7283512.stm

Mar 13, 2008

Dollar’s tumble rattles markets

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/13/currencies.marketturmoil

Mar 14, 2008

Bear Stearns gets emergency funds

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7296678.stm

Mar 20, 2008

OECD slashes US growth forecast

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7306791.stm

Mar 20, 2008

Economist says Fed acted too late

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2008/03/20/economist_says_fed_acted_too_late/6714/

August 22, 2008

Buffett says economy’s troubles will continue

OMAHA, Neb. – Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said Friday the economy continues to be in a recession (sic), by his definition, and will continue to be for at least several more months.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26330135/

September 6, 2008

U.S. Nears Rescue Plan For Fannie And Freddie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503351.html

September 15, 2008

Greenspan: This Is The Worst Economy I’ve Ever Seen

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan offered a woeful outlook of America’s economic situation on Sunday, saying the crisis with the country’s financial institutions was as dire as he had ever seen in his long career, and predicting that one or more of those institutions would likely collapse in the near future.

“Oh, by far,” Greenspan said, when asked if the situation was the worst he had seen in his career. “There’s no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I’ve seen and it still is not resolved and still has a way to go and, indeed, it will continue to be a corrosive force until the price of homes in the United States stabilizes. That will induce a series of events around the globe which will stabilize the system.”

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Greenspan would not definitively say whether the government should come to the rescue of Lehman Brothers, which has been forced to consider a possible sale after its stock shares plunged drastically this past week. Instead he called the situation surrounding the investment bank — and the bailout that occurred this past spring of Bear Stearns — as a “once in a half century, probably once in a century type of event.”

The circumstances for Lehman may, as Greenspan noted, be different. Bloomberg News reported on Friday: “Rising speculation that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. may fail is generating less concern among investors than when Bear Stearns Cos. imploded in March.”

Much of the issue, Greenspan added, was the trouble in the housing market, which he predicted would become stabilized by next year. Pressed by host George Stephanopoulos as to whether another major financial institution — such as the struggling Washington Mutual, American International Group, or Merrill Lynch — would fail in the interim, the former Fed chair responded in the affirmative.

“I suspect we will [see one fail],” he said, “but in and of itself that does not need to be a problem. It depends on how it’s handled and how the liquidations take place. And, indeed, we shouldn’t try to protect every single institution. the ordinary cost of financial change has winners and losers…”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/greenspan-this-is-the-wor_n_126274.html

October 8, 2008

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The world economy will slow sharply this year and next, with the United States likely sliding into recession reflecting mounting damage from the most dangerous financial jolt in more than a half-century.

The International Monetary Fund, in a World Economic Outlook released Wednesday, slashed growth projections for the global economy and predicted the United States — the epicenter of the financial meltdown — will continue to lose traction.

“The world economy is now entering a major downturn in the face of the most dangerous shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s,” the IMF said in its report…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27083134/ [updated 10/8/2008]

As is frequently the case today, America’s current event news pool contains a significant mix of propaganda, or to be kind, words that don’t mean what people think they mean.

What looked like information probably should have been perceived as raw data. Much of what made it into America’s “current events” news pool should have been processed as data rather than accepted as information. Today’s news sources are different from the pre-1980 news sources. The liberal press has considerable competition from the neocon press.

America, while observing the destruction of its economy, had no leadership helping to name the economic “thingee” that was killing jobs, businesses and American dreams.

But in that same time-frame along came this article from America’s “current events” news pool:

Sorry, the Fundamentals of the Economy Are Sound. That’s Right!

By James Pethokoukis

Posted: October 8, 2008

One might note that the date of the above post is/was October 8, 2008. One might also note from the below article that America’s recession started in December of 2007.

Determination of the December 2007 Peak in Economic Activity

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession. The expansion lasted 73 months; the previous expansion of the 1990s lasted 120 months.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html

And one could also note this from the above post:

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators.

And it took the neocons almost a year before they finally “got it”. President Obama’s inauguration likely helped the neocons  see clearly that America was in a recession. The neocon’s “recession reality” happened just in time for the Bush recession to be President Obama’s Katrina.

Two Neocon “Achievements” the Neocons Won’t Talk About

World economy and Iraq are two of the neocons’ most far-reaching influences: but they don’t talk about them.

Today’s New York Times tells this news story:

“IRAQ’S TROUBLES DRIVE OUT MANY WHO CAME BACK”

2ND EXODUS UNDER WAY

Persistent Violence and a Lack of Work Are Cited as Causes

By JOHN LELAND

BAGHDAD – A second exodus has begun here, of Iraqis who returned after fleeing the carnage of the height of the war, but now find that violence and the nation’s severe lack of jobs are pulling them away from home once again. …

Some Americans, likely in the “66% group”, were unaware that the approaching Bush team’s “liberation army”  was not met by Iraqis waving American flags. Even so, there was a bright moment that the neocons failed to capitalize on – the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein. Soldiers and citizens co-operated in toppling the statue. But it looks like the cooperation with civilians ended when the statue ended. The neocons may not have carried the necessary resources to focus on “the people” – instead all the focus was on oil and Iraqi politicians.

The Iraqis, to the tune of some 4,000,000 left their Iraqi homes as President Bush’s “liberation army” approached. That was the first exodus. It was basically, publicly ignored by President George W. Bush.

So, while the New York Times talks of a 2nd  Iraqi exodus, many who consume news from the neocons’ “current events” news pool, may see this as the 1st Iraqi exodus. And President Barack Obama is now America’s President. So, perhaps this exodus, the 2nd one, is President Barack Obama’s Katrina?

The Iraqi war is one of the achievements the neocons don’t talk about. And closely following the Iraqi war achievements are the economic achievements of the necons.

The economic framework the neocons used to control America’s economy is called Reaganomics. Reaganomics is a scary economics tool even in the hands of highly trained professionals. In a politicized environment(ideology trumps talent) the use of that tool could be disastrous. And it was!

Wikipedia tells us of the four pillars of Reaganomics:

The four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy were to:^[2]

1. Reduce government spending,
2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. Reduce government regulation,
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Of course boys and girls at home would be admonished not to try the above four pillars, but if they did they would need to:

1. Reduce Household Spending
2. Reduce Household Income
3. Reduce restrictions on allowances
4. But control of the money supply they could ignore. It does not MAP

And then the household would wait for the Great Household Recession or the Great Household Depression.

In the case of a country so managed, wait for the Great Recession. A country, America, waited from 2003 to 2007 for its great recession. President George W. Bush focused on America’s economy during his 2003 State of the Union Address and by December of 2007, America had its Great Recession. However President Bush, the neocon press, mouthpieces and bloggers denied there was a recession. They called it a “downturn”. – until it got close to President Obama’s inauguration. And while the neocons were in denial, we see this from THE HUFFINGTON POST – Bush: Troubled financial system is basically sound

The above HUFFINGTON POST news story was posted July 15, 2008. America went into its recession in December 2007.

And from the same news story joejolly saw this:

Bush said that despite the woes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the recent government takeover of California bank IndyMac, U.S. depositors should not worry because their deposits are insured by the government up to $100,000

“If you’re a depositor, you’re protected by the federal government,” Bush said.

Does the highlighted text sound “out of character” for neocons? The highlighted text referenced something that happened during President Roosevelt’s administration. The “insured deposit” was a response to the 1929 Great Depression. Was the GOP in favor of insuring deposits of the masses?  Wouldn’t insuring deposits outside of those of the wealthy be socialism? Since it was before the neocon era, the GOP might have shown some support. But would today’s neocon America bring-up something that they would likely not have supported?

Current Standards in Political Ethic’s Do Seem to Allow “Stealing another Party’s Thunder” – especially when the party in need has nothing but “train-wrecks” to show for performance.

And finally it was no longer possible to deny the Great Recession. Today we read:

World now in grip of ‘Great Recession’ warns IMF

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4969652/World-now-in-grip-of-Great-Recession-warns-IMF.html

References:

Leland, John. “Iraq’s Troubles Drive Out Many Who Came Back”; New York Times November 27, 2010: Front Page

Do Legacy Admissions Really Boost College Coffers?

New research shows that granting alumni offspring preferential treatment doesn’t necessarily lead to more donations. And, the policy may also face legal challenges.

Newsweek.com

11/23/2010

George W. Bush had mediocre prep-school grades and middle-of-the road SAT scores for a student applying to Yale University. But thanks to his Ivy League lineage—both his father and grandfather went to Yale—an acceptance letter to the storied school was all but written in the cards. …

… What’s more, lawyers are increasingly questioning the legality of the practice altogether, especially when some state institutions have succeeded in banning affirmative action. “It reinforces and duplicates class stratification,” says Steve Shadowen, a Pennsylvania lawyer who has written law-review articles on the topic and contributed a chapter to Affirmative Action for the Rich. …

… Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, edited the book, which is a collaboration of essays from various experts including educators, lawyers, and a judge writing about legacy admissions. “[Some state schools] have no affirmative action for minorities—but they have it for people with the right ancestry,” says Shadowen. …

http://education.newsweek.com/2010/11/23/the-case-against-legacy-admissions-preferences.html

The Two Faces of Legacy College Admissions?

Legacy college admissions apparently have two primary faces – one white and one black. It is easier for one than the other to use the legacy system.

But believe it or not, no matter the color, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

There is no way to tell where the world’s  next Google is coming from. We hope it is America, but at this time it does not look like a “sure thing”. America, sooner or later, may have company at the lofty heights of supercomputers. And the country that is showing supercomputer  competition also showed its competitive spirit at the acmICPC in 2010. Shanghai Jiao tong University placed first.

America is now in a weird educational condition. America does not seem to hold high educational achievement and high educational aspiration in high esteem. Perhaps that may be related to poor political performance not wanting to be judged by highly  educated ombudsmen(voters).

President George W. Bush did speak out against  legacy college admissions during the occasion when he addressed an African-American journalist group. He spoke out against the affirmative action program.

Mr. Bush, himself, enjoyed a legacy program. His admission to Yale, while not “anointed by an oracle”, was likely to and did happen.

Neither Mr. Bush nor his family suffered government denial of learning to read. And neither did anyone in his family, via government sponsorship, have to attend a “separate but equal” grade or high school. And the effects of the American government’s mistreatment of African-Americans is still evident today.

Due to the neocons “management” of America’s educational system for the past twenty-some-odd years, much of America seems to show a deficiency in matters of the intellect. If that be the case, then some Americans are a lot worse off than other Americans.

Colleges and universities need their coffers filled. And the rich and wealthy seems to be a logical choice to help fill those coffers. But everything that is a part of America owes something to America. America should not loose the personality it gained over the many years prior to neocon management.

Jury convicts Tom DeLay in money laundering case

A jury in the US state of Texas has convicted former US House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on charges of illegally funnelling corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

24 November 2010

Jurors deliberated for 19 hours before returning a guilty verdict.

DeLay, who was once one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress, now faces up to life in prison.

Lawyers for the former congressman said he had acted properly and no corporate funds had gone to the candidates.

The jury found DeLay guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

It is illegal in Texas for corporate money to be directly used for political campaigns. …

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11835221

And the BBC also referenced these older news stories:

US press critical of Tom DeLay

Bush ally faces criminal charge

How did America’s House of Representatives, back then,  handle this case? The neocons, like now, had a majority in America’s House of Representatives. How did that neocon majority handle this case involving one of their own? Not too good. Lets look:

… Additionally, Hastings has received criticism from Democrats for inaction as Chair of the House Ethics Committee, particularly in the case of Rep. Tom. DeLay. Hastings fired the existing staff for the committee and attempted to hire his own Chief of Staff, Ed Cassidy as a replacement …

… In 2007, Congressman Hastings was named one of CREW’s Most Corrupt Members of Congress by government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Hastings

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
[The above Los Angeles Times link is no longer available]

DeLay Critic Removed From Ethics Committee
Doc Hastings Replaces Joel Hefley, Who Had Rebuked the Majority Leader Three Times

by Richard Simon

WASHINGTON � The House ethics committee chairman who presided over three rebukes of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was bounced from the job Wednesday and replaced by a Republican congressman from Washington state.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0203-02.htm

And joejolly, back in 2005,   did not hear America ROAR at the goings-on in its House of Representatives. America ROARED louder  at bad calls from umpires at baseball games than it did from all the shenanigans going on in its House of Representatives.

In the Tom DeLay case, how would justice be served? Did “Lady Justice”, after-all, “peek” through her blindfold and give a “pass” to some individuals? Who would stand between Mr. DeLay and the “goal posts”? Not America’s HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. It was being led by neocons. Who?

Texas district attorney, Ronnie Earle.

One man, Ronnie Earle, was left to do what 435 failed to do! And that one man did it. He put America first. He was not willing to trade America’s values and laws for “political reasons”. Ronnie Earle charged Mr. DeLay with a crime.

In 2005, America’s House of Representatives was willing to give a pass to law breaking by neocons. And again, in 2006, America’s House of Representatives was willing to give a pass to war mongering behavior of an American President who should have been investigated. Is not, “plantation politics” a good description of what goes on in America’s House of Representatives?

Updowndownup Responds to my Comments on, Should Obama’s ‘internet kill switch’ power be curbed?”

Thanks for your response Updowndownup.

Updowndownup asks:

Who exactly are you referring to when you say neo-cons?

Joejolly responds:

I refer to the political administration that came into power in 1980. In 1980, America elected Ronald Reagan as President. President George W. Bush was the last of that rein of neocon presidents.  The age of ‘neocons’ gives a view of  neocon philosophy.

Updowndownup said:

… neocons believe in leadership through military strength and intervention(as a premise of strength).

Joejolly responds:

That is, of course, a convenient belief for a neocon leader who commands the strongest military in the world. But that belief is as old as time. From the hordes that over-ran ancient Rome, to the Nazis who plundered Poland to the neocons who over-ran Iraq the world saw,”Might Makes Right”. The next big war, nuclear, is going to have earth’s “population control” written all over it. And 66% of the remaining Americans will likely be walking around in shock while wishing they were dead.

Updowndownup said:

A neocon would want a centralized executive to have the authority to do whatever he needed to do to help the ongoing war effort (meaning a neocon would support this law)

Joejolly responds:

Updowndownup is certainly not describing the current structure of America. America is a country having three equal branches of government – the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. But the neocons have been working on “merging” those three independent branches for twenty-some-odd years and they have made progress toward getting America to look like Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Perhaps the neocons will opt for the title chancellor – like Adolf Hitler.

But updowndownup could have said: “US Prez has authority to launch nuke strike without anyones permission: Cheney” And that statement sounded like a boast. Knowing the neocons love of wars, it was scary to hear this boast coming from the warmongering neocon team.

Thanks for your response updowndownup.

[The law that the neocons are “big mouthing” is really of no consequence. It simply provides a vehicle for the neocon’s personal attack upon President Obama. Their aim is to prevent President Obama from running again for President. Their attacks are personal by way of the President’s performance achievements. President Obama and his Democrats achieved more in two years than the neocons achieved in twenty-some-odd years. And the Democrats did not have to start a war nor sell cocaine to minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California.

The only way the neocons  could appear to be politically viable is to avoid talking about their twenty-some-odd years of train-wreck political performance.You can't MAKE a neocon talk about their past political performance!

The neocons would have trouble earning “man of the year” but that did not stop them from trying to make earning the Nobel Peace Prize look worse than lying about starting a war.

If the neocons, the Tea Party folks, the neocon press, and the neocon bloggers can keep feeding the “66% factor” their propaganda, then America’s standards may be lowered to the point where anybody can serve in high office to the perfect satisfaction of the “66% factor”.]

Should Obama’s ‘internet kill switch’ power be curbed?

Under a World War II-era law, the US president appears to have authority to disconnect computer systems and servers from the internet in the event of a national emergency. But the next US Congress is poised to change that.

By Daniel Nasaw

BBC News, Washington

The law was passed in 1942. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had provoked fear of a foreign invasion of US soil, and Congress responded by giving President Franklin Roosevelt broad power to commandeer or shutter telephone and telegraph networks.

Nearly 70 years later, telegraph networks have disappeared, and the telephone is only one of many means of communication. …

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11736545

“Jumping Jehosaphat”, the New neocons are on the warpath! They intend to “hit the ground running”. They intend to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, They intend to make “much ado about nothing”.

Why not make a Congressional statement on why the Iraq war was started. Wouldn’t the brand-new faces in America’s brand-new Congress want to do something of importance to America’s history? America does not know why it went to war against Iraq! President Bush said he liberated the Iraqis but he has not gone back to Iraq with the stated intention of helping Iraqis celebrate their Bush team liberation.

Some American cities may still have “spitting on the side-walk” laws on their books. Perhaps the new faces of the new neocons could strike down those laws where they exist.

If the new faces of the new neocons attack any of the old problems delivered to America by the old neocons, America will see that the new faces looks just like the old faces.

Good luck America!