A Cut Above the Rest

Courtesy of Mark Lennihan/AP/File

The U.S. debt crisis; according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a combination of many things have contributed to it - including, but not limited to: the sub-prime mortgage crisis, lack of regulatory oversight in the financial sector, excessive borrowing on both Main Street and Wall Street, the concept that specific institutions were too-big-to-fail, the "tax treatment of financial products and investments" and a "global imbalance of savings".

Right now the U.S. National debt is upwards of a staggering $14 trillion. More than $1 trillion make up the U.S. federal budget deficit, or the amount of money Congress spends in relation to how much it actually receives from the IRS. Congressional "spending" makes up about $3.5 trillion.

What complicates things, is that the U.S. currently has an established debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion. According to Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, either the U.S. raises the already stifling debt limit or it should be prepared to default on its debt, both domestic and abroad. Of course, the epic scenario has not escaped the political merry-go-round in Washington. While Democrats argue that raising the debt limit would keep the U.S. from reneging on its global financial responsibilities and halt a  government shut down; Republicans argue that there are other ways to bring down the debt before we actually have to "go there". The GOP now proposes deep spending "cuts" in exchange for raising the country's ever-mounting ceiling of debt.

"Cuts"; a word that conjures up visions of sacrifice, lessening, or even doing without. For all intents and purposes, its been a word that has been thrown around Capitol Hill quite a bit lately, and one that, at least, symbolically, seems to be easier said than done. Everyone knows its something that needs to happen, but it seems an unsolvable mystery in determining where to begin. Whether its Medicare or Social Security, education or research and development, in order to get our fiscal house in order, something's gotta give. Question is-what are we as Americans, willing to sacrifice by doing without? Or better yet; what can we AFFORD to sacrifice by doing without? According to a recent Gallop poll, most Americans are definitely OPPOSED to cuts being made to Social Security, Education, and Defense.

Last February, President Obama organized a "deficit commission", more formally known as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  The commission is made up of a Congressional bi-partisan committee that has the responsibility of "identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run."  In addition "... the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015." In laymen terms, its doing a job that is neither popular or, in some cases, palatable, but that needs to be done; reduce spending.

So, just what are the spending "cuts" Congress is looking to make? As expected, Social Security will most likely be one of the entitlement programs that will undergo a major face lift.  In a disturbing new report published by the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will begin running deficits 5 years earlier than the original 2016 projected date. It will pay out $45 billion more than it collects in payroll taxes in 2011 alone. As the government fishes for a strategy, one idea that has been tossed around by President Obama's deficit commission, has been the possibility of gradually raising the age of Social Security retirement to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075. The committee's proposal also includes a decrease in the program's cost-of-living adjustment and an increased cap on any income subject to Social Security taxes.

Another plan submitted by the commission, is a 15-cent a gallon increase on gasoline. Although this particular proposal would not require Americans to actually relinquish anything (at least, not technically), we would be required to pay higher prices at the pump in exchange for, say, lower income taxes.  But with the possibility of gas prices rising in light of the protests in Egypt, and the fiscal pinch already felt on many taxpayer's wallets; would this be another "grin and bear it" type of burden?

Other committee proposals include reconstructing the tax code. According to FoxNews.com, "... taxpayers would face three tax brackets of 12 percent, 21 percent and 28 percent." This would call for the elimination of special tax provisions, more efficient tax rates across income classes, and dissolving the Alternative Minimum tax.

Still, another idea that seems quite popular among Republicans, is the elimination of earmarks. Some Democrats oppose the idea, but in the President's State of the Union address, he said he would veto any bill that came across his desk containing earmarks. This comes as both a response to last year's midterm elections to do away with earmarks and as a transparent effort to let voters know that special interest groups aren't receiving money that goes to benefit these groups exclusively. According to Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, decisions like this, are just one of many tough choices that we face as a country in order to curb U.S. waste.

Republicans just recently announced that they look to slash spending, about 17%, in areas such as transportation, energy, commerce, water and agriculture. According to  Bloomberg's latest report, "labor, health-care and education programs would shrink by 4 percent, as would foreign aid and international programs. Congress’ budget would see a 2 percent cut. Defense would grow by $8 billion, or 2 percent, from 2010 levels while homeland security funding would be frozen."

As an additional measure, in his address, The President called for a five-year, governmental spending freeze on non-security discretionary spending, in efforts to reduce the deficit by $400 billion over 10 years. But the GOP wants to go deeper.



Courtesy of Mark Wilson/Getty Images N.A.

In his response to President Obama's State of the Union Speech,  Republican Congressman and Chairman of the House Budget Committee,  Paul Ryan, warned Americans that the debt our nation has incurred will "... soon eclipse our entire economy," and that if we don't act now, "America's best century will be considered our past century." In an effort to convey, what many on the Right view as our nation's sobering reality, Ryan provides statistics on government spending and how it is crippling the economy, reiterating that incessant borrowing will only grow the debt to catastrophic levels.

Despite the bleak forecast, Ryan says Republicans are willing to meet the President halfway in order to handle the country's debt crisis, "I assure you that we want to work with the president to restrain federal spending." He also admitted that the debt the U.S. faces is one that has occurred over many years, not solely under one administration or another, and that Obama was handed a "severe fiscal and economic situation". 

With the GOP now at the Congressional helm in the House and what is said to be the worst of the economic recession behind us, one can only hope that a better pecuniary destiny awaits us. But we need a plan; we need specifics. We have to make some tough choices; in some areas we will come out ahead, in others, we'd honestly better be ready to just suck it up. According to a recent Reuters Poll, 71% of Americans oppose the idea of raising the debt limit. If it is something both parties actually agree on, which is rarely ever the case, then a debt ceiling increase might actually be worth considering.  Again, we are going to be forced to make some decisions that, frankly, just might leave us scratching our heads in bewilderment. The bright side is that at least both Congress and the White House concede that we can no longer sustain the current trend of spending. One thing we can be sure of, is that Pennsylvania Avenue got the people's message last November at the polls. The nation recognizes that we have a fiscal dilemma on our hands and if nothing else, we should note, that all parties are working together diligently to solve our budgetary woes and to restore America's rightful economic standing.    

Was Steele a Victim of His Own Missteps?

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Michael Steele rode the wave of hope and change right into the position of RNC chairman back in 2009. He was the first African-American male to ever hold the seat within the Republican National Committee. The GOP was desperately seeking to change its image after a crushing defeat in the presidential election of 2008. Two years, numerous gaffes and several alleged spending sprees later, Steele has found himself ousted from the illustrious chairmanship of the "Grand Old Party".

Steele appeared on CNN's "The Situation Room", Wednesday, deliberating over exactly why he got fired from the GOP post. He asserts that establishment Republicans are "relieved" that he's been dismissed, while at the same time, admitting his tone and style of leadership was much different than what many in the party had expected. He also mentions that there were several members, within the GOP, sparring for the same funds from contributors that once offered their financial backing to the committee without batting an eye.

Could it be betrayal rather than culpability that has Steele licking his political wounds in hindsight nowadays? Or perhaps it's just that Steele needs a little perspective and a slight reminder of how his tenure has been marred with allegations of spending sprees and fiscal irresponsibility in the handling of committee funds.

Not long ago, I did a piece titled, "Steele Remains Head of the RNC".  In it, I recounted some of Steele's most notable "situations" that had many on the Right shaking their heads, sometimes in horror and at other times, in disbelief.      

Since Steele took the job in January 2009, he says he has come under a lot of pressure, most notably, within his own party, for what some say has been the mismanagement of funds raised by the committee.  Steele has been criticized for spending money on high-end hotels, limos and private jets in the past; now, he says, the RNC is taking more steps to make sure that in the future, they are more "fiscally conservative".  In addition to this, Neil Albert, hired by Michael Steele as a special finance assistant, was fined $4,000, while he was still chairman for the D.C. Baseball PAC in 2007, for improperly spending money from a political action committee.  Just recently, the RNC has come under fire for picking up a tab for a group of donators that attended a night club in West Hollywood.    

During his interview, Michael Steele also mentioned that his style of leadership is "...very different, much more engaged on the streets of America...".  Steele also says he's not a product of the "old-boy network..." and it's rubbed some...the wrong way".

Of course, the unforgettable shout-out to Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, where Steele said he wanted to offer up "some slum love" and the attention-grabbing blog title on a very Conservative GOP.com website: "What Up", are just a few instances where this "street-wise" way of relating to those inside and outside the Party have brought Steele flack as well.

Still, some in his own party paint Michael Steele as a political outsider; a position, they claim, that Steele has been branded by as a consequence of his own doing. Having run for reelection, critics anticipated that he would call upon the support of the same tea party activists that lobbied against establishment Republicans during the primary elections of 2010.  Others feared that because Steele had not been able to raise the kind of dollars that outside groups were able to garner during the last election cycle, he would not be able to compete against the 2012 reelection machine of Barack Obama. All of this is topped by the fact that as he left, the RNC was $15 million in the hole.   



Courtesy of Alex Wong/Getty Images

Michael Steele lamented on the conservative website FrumForum, that he could relate to the Roman leader Julius Caesar, as his successor, former advisor and friend, Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus, stepped up to the plate last week and won the coveted GOP chairmanship with a record 97 votes.  Steele claims Priebus had been secretly vying for the position for months, while advising him and serving as the RNC's top lawyer. "It is what it is," says Steele, "I trust my friends. Well, I guess the adage is right. In Washington, you should get a dog".  

Last week, Steele withdrew his reelection bid for the chairmanship after initially receiving a mere 44 out of 168 votes by committee members in the first round; his tally then dropped to 28 votes after subsequent rounds. With the number of votes against Steele, Priebus was clearly a shoe-in. 

While the strings of his term as GOP chairman have been cut short and in the wake of the all of the controversy and missteps, Michael Steele can unmistakably be linked to major, and in some cases, historic, victories the Party enjoyed under his auspices: 6 freshman Republican Senators, 21 states flipped from Blue to Red; a monumental 63 House seats acquired and $192 million that came through fundraisers. The pivotal nature of him having attained the position may indeed, in some circles, outweigh the politics involved as some look back on Steele's record one day; but the reality is that outside the beltway, a man's character is most certainly judged by his actions and, fortunately, not the other way around.   

The Toxity of Politics at Dangerous Levels

Courtesy of Gabrielle Giffords 

The current atmosphere of politics has become toxic; lethal even. Where and when it all began seems to be a hazy blur, but it would seem that the passage of health care reform has seen a dangerous rise in random acts of violence and ugly symbolism from both within the Washington establishment and beyond. Between January and March of 2010, members of Congress that voted in favor of the health care bill had reportedly seen 42 cases of violence or threats against them; in 2009, only 15 cases were reported within that same quarter.  Between 2000 and 2010 there had been 236 threats to lawmakers; in the beginning of 2010, that same number jumped, dramatically, 300 percent.

Last year, the ranting and protesting had only begun its horrific ascent. In March of 2010, while walking into the Capitol to cast their votes on the seemingly, ever-controversial health care bill, racial epithets were hurled at several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, while one member claims he was even spit upon. Barney Frank, an openly-gay member of the House of Representatives, was beleaguered with anti-gay chants during the Tea Party protest of the bill that same day. Other lawmakers, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Rep. Paul Ryan were both threatened with assassination. Then-Senator Blanche Lincoln, for her vote in favor of health care, was told that her throat would be cut. And in an eerie foreshadowing of events, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, had also been a target of vandalism back in March 2010. More recently, a vandal painted swastikas on the office door of Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina.

Courtesy of Sarah Palin

Strange postings of a target with the cross hairs of gun sights (or as Sarah Palin now refers to it: bulls eyes) over the districts of about 20 different Congressmen/women that voted in favor of health care reform, were touted on the Facebook page of former Governor Sarah Palin, last year. One of those districts, was that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Palin's staff member, Rebecca Mansour maintains that the target and cross hairs on Palin's page were not intended to incite violence and that the "target list" displayed on the site, was purely political. It's clear that imagery like this, in conjunction with weak economic conditions and an angry, fringe element of society, can be stirred up to make an already volatile mixture, perilous.

Extremist and far-right activist, Mike Vanderboegh, capitalized on the situation; only he never failed to mince words. Vanderboegh posted messages of retaliation to other extremists, against Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, in protest of health care reform; he even went so far as to warn of an imminent civil war. "So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows. Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM."

What's more frightening, is that it gets even more extreme than Vanderboegh. Who can forget the Hutaree? The so-called Christian militia group, was comprised of 8 family members and friends who planned to plot war against the U.S. back in March of last year. Hutaree members engaged in their own paramilitary training, by shooting guns and making homemade bombs. They had even plotted to set these bombs off at a police funeral. Authorities quickly moved to bring the group down because not only was it planning to carry out the attack against law enforcement officials, but it believed the group would become a catalyst of similar anti-government movements around the country.

Four days ago, a mysterious envelope that ignited at a D.C. post office, addressed to Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, held a message of angry words.  "Report suspicious activity...You have created a self-fulfilling prophecy." Officials believe the sender was referring to "flashing road signs posted on some Maryland roads". Luckily, the package never made it to its intended destination and no one was injured.


Courtesy of The Charlotte Observer  

Fast forward to last Saturday's horrific incident resulting in the deaths of six people, as well as serious injury to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others. The only thing that seemed to stop Jared Lee Loughner's senseless shooting spree that day, was that the Glock semiautomatic pistol he was touting, ran out of ammunition. By reports, Loughner was mentally ill and according to his postings on YouTube, he makes an argument on being called a terrorist and refers to, quite possibly, his, or someone else's, character being called into question. Loughner believes that the laws in place today are in direct violation of the Constitution. He had an obvious problem with illegal immigration and seemed to be preoccupied with words and their meaning and how he thinks they are used by the government to manipulate people. Loughner took serious issue with the state of our country like many others, but, tragically, chose to take the law into his own hands. The question now becomes: How do we rebuild and rebound from this unfortunate chain of events?



Let's start with a responsible debate. Right now, there seems to be a great deal of disillusionment with how many feel the government should work, as opposed to what it is actually out to accomplish; that it is bent on taking away the freedoms of Americans and dividing the classes, while pitting the classes against each other and controlling the people. Many Americans feel that there is no longer the same reverence for the U.S. Constitution. Some are disillusioned because they feel that our public leaders aren't listening; that promises that were made, were broken and that the Washington establishment vowed reform and hasn't delivered. Many feel that the wars we are fighting are unwinnable. Some people long for the America of long ago; they are nostalgic and unwilling to embrace change. Others see the need for change, but result to violence as a means of solving issues. Still, optimistically speaking, many realize that there is still hope for our country, and perhaps, that sentiment is just enough to help us move things forward.

One thing we must understand and consider, is that Change takes time; it takes courage and sacrifice, victories and challenges, voices and opinions-it takes you and me. Change is an uphill battle; it's not something achieved overnight, but it is something that can be measured over time. It matters how much we are ready and willing to embrace it-but it is also undeniable and inevitable. Change refuses to stay the same; there is no progress or growth without it. It's letting go of the old and ringing in the new. Change is upward-climbing, life-giving and purpose-driven. Change is a conversation, an acknowledgement, an admission.  Change has been here since the beginning and will be here until the end. Change has never exited, never said farewell and never left the building...no, Change is, unequivocally, here to stay.

The Tea Party Quagmire

So, the Tea Party does it again.  Admittedly, looking out for the country's best fiscal interest is admirable.  The thought of the U.S. spending an additional $1.1 trillion for (discretionary government spending) is enough to churn the stomach of most budget-loving Americans.  But, we must also remember that the Tea Party has its own political agenda.

Just to recap; the ideals of most Tea Partiers are proclaimed on many of its websites:  fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, free market and lower taxes.  On its face, these American ideals are used to propagate their position, but under the surface, it seems that there is no room for "compromise" or flexibility in this, mostly conservative, grassroots movement.  There is almost a camouflaged, exclusivity within the Tea Party itself, as well as how Tea Partiers believe the constitution should be applied. Some argue that the Tea Party appears to be comprised of a group bordering closely on nationalism, and to that point, any idea or thought that deviates from the Constitution, as it stands, is implausible.     

Interestingly, there has been a proposition floating around '"T" Party"' circles, to change the name from "Tea Party" to "Independent Patriot Party" and, ultimately, become a third party. A move as simple as this one, begs the question; does the "Patriot" part of the possible new moniker insinuate that anyone other than a Tea Party member is a non-patriot?  Reaching?  Maybe. Consider this: what about a second Tea Party proposal to nationalize English, which according to the Tea Party, will help "...avoid separation or isolation of Americans by ethnic grouping, and so we may continue to communicate properly with each other."  What happens to those people that don't happen to speak English? The Tea Party tries to make its case, here, to make English the "official" language, so that no feels left out or isolated. This is a pretty weak argument. With this proposal, you are essentially, isolating English speaking Americans from non-English speaking Americans; which is the actual reality behind the term (the Tea Party uses) "isolation of groups".

What about repealing health care? What is the Tea Party's plan to insure over 32 million Americans; cover those with pre-exisiting conditions and bring down medical costs? Those that can't afford health care; do they just suffer because the Tea Party advocates the right to chose whether or not you want health coverage (without it being mandated by the government)?  Is having the "right", for some, to choose, ultimately, greater than the majority actually having health care?      

Without going into the vitriolic behavior and speech that erupted when several Democratic House members were in the process of voting on the health care bill back in March; in this particular instance, the democratic principle of these members' right to vote was infringed upon by angry protesters at the Tea Party rally. Although Tea Partiers feel that mandating health care is unconstitutional, it could be argued that hurling threats or epithets, interfere in that right to vote and is equally unconstitutional.     

Proudly waving signs, held high that warn "Don't Tread on Me"; Tea Party Nation news articles that declare: "Real Americans Did Not Sue Arizona"; anti-Muslim rhetoric; a vehement opposition to birthright citizenship (per the Fourteenth Amendment); and many divisive arguments as to why President Obama is not American, are all examples of a widely held, yet, seemingly, inarticulated notion that unless you agree with these same ideals; you can not possibly be an American. 



Courtesy of Tony Avelar/AP



The Tea party has come out and publicly denounced earmarks under any circumstance. Tea Party Express Leader, Amy Kremer says,  "We will go after them. We're not going to accept it." "I mean there are all kinds of pork in there." As a result of this latest Tea Party rant, some House and Senate Republicans are pledging a two year moratorium on earmark spending in Congress. Surprisingly, a few Republicans have not signed on to the pledge, over fears that the White House would actually incur more power to spend the funds.    

In addition to comprising less than one percent of the overall spending in the omnibus spending package, not all earmarks in and of themselves are inherently evil. Many in Congress (Republicans included) and even in the Department of Defense, would attest to that very fact. Recently, Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates, pushed for the bill to be funded by congress, rather than in the continuing resolution that was passed by the House. The Senate version of the bill would allow Defense to pursue critical national security initiatives, such as standing up the new Cyber Command and increasing special operations forces. According to the Government Executive.com, "The Defense Department would receive an additional  $4.9 billion, including $1.56 billion to cover cost increases in its health initiatives. Veterans' programs would see a $3.7 billion boost". Another Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin, says the omnibus bill contained things that pertained to "....homeland security, education, health, energy, and infrastructure...".  Some even argue that "removing selection of local tasks like widening crowded roads, improving harbors, purchase of police, fire and school equipment, from input by representatives and senators who know the area best and transferring that decision-making authority to bureaucrats in Washington is the absolute antithesis of Tea Party objectives."


Whatever the stance on the issue, ironically speaking, the very thing that Tea Partiers and their Republican cohorts are attempting to do away with, may very well be appropriated by federal or state bureaucracy, anyway. What many in the Tea Party may not understand, is that the funds are already approved for spending. Its just now, with the moratorium, someone else will have to do the spending for Congress (at least on the Republican end). In a sense, it may just be the type of back-door politics the GOP pledged to run away from.   

There is never really a black and white remedy for what ails America. In fact, that is what makes this country so great; the foundation of Democracy. We are a diverse nation of people that continues to evolve and change and the proverbially, digging-of-the-heels-in-the-ground way of operating won't cut it in Washington. Not after the mid-term election results. It can't. The American people, outside of the Tea Party, don't want gridlock; they want results. In order to move any piece of legislation, there has to be compromise. That's the reason why we have a two-party system and the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the government that preside. The Founding Fathers knew that we needed some governing document to apply to everyone (perhaps to avoid complete anarchy) and, in turn, came up with the U.S. Constitution. Incidentally, the same Constitution Tea Party members are sworn to defend, was born out of compromise.  The three bodies of government are in place to encompass a rich and varied way of thinking, living, governing and doing business. We have rights and freedoms that are protected and while these are the very same set of ideals the Tea Party so fervently protects, ironically, in some instances, they are the ones that the Tea Party seems to be also be so fervently against. 

Not everything the Tea Party considers "American", embraces an America that is constantly evolving, changing and growing; the danger in that, is to view our country and its future through a narrowly, skewed and conservative lens. Such constitutes the Tea Party quagmire. The Tea Party, whether unconsciously or not, deals in absolutes. The only problem with absolutes, is that you have an almost impossible standard that you have created and are expected to live by and, at the same time, is what you are, ultimately, judged by.  Heaven forbid that those who live by these absolutes, act out or endorse anything other than what is in the constitution. Their fate is inevitable. They will immediately lose their "credibility card" and there will be no more absolutes, no more extremes and no more credibility left for such a "patriotic" movement as the Tea Party.                   

Do you view the Tea Party as an extremist organization or just one that loves its country? 

Here a Leak, There a Leak, Everywhere a Leak, Leak

Courtesy of Fabrice Coffrini/AFP Getty Images

Wikileaks...synonymous with freedom of speech? Or is it too far fetched to say that its recent practices just might do more harm than good? On one hand, there is some validity to the recently leaked docs being considered a byproduct of the Freedom of Information Act.  However, one could also make a similar argument that has been made regarding the constitutional rights of developers in New York to build a Mosque (or, more appropriately, a cultural and community center) near Ground Zero, and the, apparent, lack of "wisdom" in doing so; as President Obama so eloquently put it.  

A self-proclaimed Whistleblower web-site, Wikileaks is in the business of publishing and commenting on leaked corporate and government documents surrounding alleged misconduct within each organization. Since 2006 it has leaked more than 400,000 cables and documents, the most notable disclosure, having thrust its way onto the cyber domain back in July, is that of the 90,000 secret documents on the war in Afghanistan. It then released classified documents related to the Iraq War in October and, more recently, a rather controversial, compilation of more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables was published.

With closely-guarded, confidential sources and a small, yet, international group of technologically, astute operants, Wikileaks has been as much an enigma to those that have attempted to size it up, as its founder, Julian Assange, has been to global authorities who had been (until recently) searching for his whereabouts. It "protects" the information it leaks by using cryptographic information technologies and promises strict anonymity to sources of the leaked material. Due to the highly sensitive and publicly damaging nature of the information that it publishes, Wikileaks has been a journalistic magnet for lawsuits while, ironically, winning numerous awards like: The 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award and the 2009 Amnesty International U.K. Media Award. According to Time Magazine, "... it [Wikileaks] could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act."

With so much dissension and varying degrees of interest behind all of the information that is being divulged over the internet, its natural to wonder who is behind the Wikileaks brand and what is the intent.

   

Jilian Assange, a very strange character, in an even stranger tale, is a native of Townsville, Queensland, Australia. He founded Wikileaks in 2006 with the intent to "To radically shift regime behavior [. We] must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not." Assange claims his mission is to [protect] victims and has ".... tried to create a system which solves the problem of censorship of the press and censorship of whistle-blowers across the whole world."

In another ironic twist, as founder of Wikileaks, Assange strives for complete transparency wherever it concerns global governments, yet we know very little about him or his organization. Former Wikileaks’ spokesman, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, went only by the pseudonym "Schmitt".  Assange and any personal details regarding anything other than his past, are, by design, very sketchy. One of Assange's bank accounts, through Sweden's Postfinance, was closed on the grounds that he “provided false information regarding his place of residence” when opening the account.  Even Assange's cohort in the freedom of information fight, Bradley Manning, describes him as a person of extreme elusiveness and secrecy, "I don't know much more than what he tells me, which is very little," he said. "It took me four months to confirm that the person I was communicating [with] was in fact Assange." Assange publicly refuses to reveal his age; is always relocating from place to place; and as a champion of democratic justice, openness and transparency, he vehemently fights to perserve his "secrets" and has been quoted as saying he wanted to "keep the [expletive] guessing." 

On November 28, Wikileaks began releasing the classified Afghan war docs and since then, many conservative politicians and pundits have called for everything from the extradition of Jilian Assange, to his execution and everything in between. Amazon has ousted wikileaks.org from its servers; it has lost its PayPal, Mastercard and Visa revenue services and has faced condemnation and cyber attacks alike. Most recently, Julian Assange has been arrested in Sweden on charges related to a sex crime. The backfire against the organization has been great, but the decision to reveal the largest set of confidential documents on record, has been even greater.

Recently, several reputable news organizations have partnered with Wikileaks in efforts to determine how to disseminate the information and what information should be redacted from the cables. Each organization made suggestions as to what names and details were too sensitive to publish. Though the New York Times is denying being a "partner" of the whistleblower website, it does admit to having a working relationship with the organization.  New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says they have made suggestions to Wikileaks, but how they plan to disseminate the information, remains to be seen. "We have no way of knowing what WikiLeaks will do, no clear idea what they make of our redactions, but if this to any degree prevents WikiLeaks from carelessly getting someone killed, I'm happy to do it," he said. "I'd be interested to hear the arguments in favor of having WikiLeaks post its material unredacted."

Great Britain Prime Minister, David Cameron, points out that leaking unauthorized classified documents undermines the ability of governments to operate on a confidential basis. Attorney General Eric Holder wouldn't say whether he considers Wikileaks a traditional news organization that could hide behind the first amendment of free speech, and is currently launching a criminal investigation into the release of the cables. Holder believes the published information jeopardizes "...national security[and] diplomatic efforts" and damages U.S. relationships around the world.

The problem is not so much how the information is disseminated and the international aftermath, but how it is obtained, is in question. Assange appealed to the U.S. Ambassador in London by requesting that he aid Wikileaks in determining which cables needed to be redacted before publishing-the Ambassador's response was (as one might imagine), "hand over stolen property". Did Assange think that asking permission before-hand to help edit leaked classified U.S. documents, afforded him the privilege to publish cables the Ambassador referred to as “stolen”? Still, many people criticize the U.S., among other countries, for being so politically sensitive or overly reactive to the information that has been published by Wikileaks, but how much thought have we given to how many of these cables were acquired?    

Pfc. Bradley Manning is now facing a court martial and up to 52 years in prison for downloading the 250,000 diplomatic cables and military logs of incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq. He then sent those documents to Wikileaks and the rest, well….   Manning obtained and transmitted classified information without authorization. On one hand, many describe his actions as treason; on the other, many support and defend Manning’s efforts as heroic, strongly believing that because “he embodies the principles of democracy that would make our founding fathers proud” that “…we owe him our gratitude.”  

To be clear, there seems to be two separate issues in question. The first: the secrecy behind  many of the actions revealed in the war documents on the part of the U.S. government-which is obviously reprehensible, and the second: how that information is obtained.  Plainly, if Manning had permission to access and disseminate classified U.S. Department of State cables; there would not have been a need to secretly download these documents.

    

It would be naive to think that while David Cameron and Eric Holder and other leaders and officials speaking against the recent publishing of information, do not have an axe to grind against the Wikileaks organization; there is still something to be said about diplomatic secrecy.

No one is proposing that the involvement in any criminal activities by the U.S. government, corporate entities or any other government or regime be tolerated or overlooked because of that organization's power or influence.  By the same token, the answer is not to obtain information on criminal activity (or war crimes) through criminal means.

And what about Wikileaks role? Should those that engage in such practices of publishing sensitive, classified information solely on the basis of public knowledge or for any other reason, be heralded as heroes? Many believe so. Nevertheless, diplomatic secrecy is, many times, vital to our integrity as a nation and abroad, as well as to our national security. Which trumps the other?  

When can we agree that an organization like WikiLeaks has gone too far in its quest to free the human soul from the criminal mishaps on the international battlefield and beyond? Some argue that there is a fine line between revealing the truth and spreading global gossip over the internet. In many regards, the leaked cables have led more to embarrassment of domestic and foreign officials, than actual revelations. So what is the aftermath of publishing over 250,000 cables today from events that occured in 2007? That remains to be seen. But just as Wikileaks’ own founder argues, in the case of Julian Assange, Bradley Manning or any government or regime involved in war crimes, no matter who the perpetrator is, justice must, ultimately, be served. 

What do you think? Could Julian Assange be considered a virtual human rights activist? 

Nancy Pelosi - The Woman You Love to Hate

Nancy Pelosi is one of those public figures that you either love or hate. Some say she has been the female force that has moved President Obama's political agenda. Those to the far left, adore her. Others ... not so much. She has been the poster child for much criticism from the right for at least the past 4 years and prior to the mid-term elections, it was reported that Republicans spent the majority of a whopping $65 million + in attack ads against her. Conservatives have stopped at nothing short of painting Nancy Pelosi as the portrait of the Devil in a Blue tailored dress.

We've all heard references made to what Republicans describe as the "infamous" Obama-Pelosi-Reid triune; but, even more recently, Nancy Pelosi has been made the proverbial "whipping boy" for the Left, in the wake of the recent Democratic defeat in the House. Despite all of the odds against her; she has managed to escape the political "shellacking", fairly, or might I say, contestably, unscathed, by being re-elected by a margin of 150-43, as House Minority Leader for 2011.



Courtesy of Alex Wong/Getty Images N.A.


Why is it that Nancy Pelosi, after more than 20 years of public service, is still able to draw the kind of support she has garnered, even now, from the liberal Left, while simultaneously, evoking so much contempt and disdain from the Right?

Pelosi, arguably, has a pretty impressive track record.  A huge advocate of investments in health research, she has doubled the budget for funding for the National Institutes of Health. She's fought for the Housing Opportunities for People with Aids Program; worked to expedite the development of an HIV vaccine; increased access to Medicaid, and expanded funding for the Ryan White Care Act, along with other programs to aid people living with HIV/Aids. She has also helped pass legislation for nonprofits to assist in creating affordable housing. Nancy Pelosi demands timely and accurate intelligence; navigating diplomatic initiatives for the protection of our military forces. She's fought for greater focus on the threat of proliferation associated with the WMD.  She has fought for human rights for individuals in China and Tibet. In addition, Pelosi has a strong voice when it comes to environmental issues. She achieved passage of a provision that requires that the World Bank and all regional multilateral development banks, check the potential environmental impacts of development, while making this information known publicly.

Some of the accomplishments Nancy Pelosi is more commonly noted for are: Health Insurance Reform Legislation; the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act; the Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act and the American Clean Energy and the Security Act.

Nancy Pelosi has dared to "boldly go where no [woman] has gone before".  In 2002, she was the first woman in U.S. history to be elected as House Minority Whip; in 2003, she became House Minority Leader and the 1st woman to lead a major party in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a bit of a bizarre irony, Pelosi actually defeated John Boehner in 2006, for Speaker of the House; again, branding her as the first woman to ever hold the Speakership and 2nd in the line of presidential succession.  She was re-elected again as Speaker in 2009 and prior to the last election, Nancy Pelosi was the highest-ranking female politician in American history.

Courtesy of Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As the saying (sort of) goes; with much power, comes much responsibility (and great criticism); perhaps, explaining why Pelosi has, increasingly, come under such political fire over the years.

Nancy Pelosi has stood steadfast on many issues that, even in the court of public opinion, may not have been the most popular choice.  It's that unrelenting drive, that has been one of the things that has catapulted her to the height at which she stands today. She has courageously moved President Obama's agenda on health care, and as a result, Americans witnessed one of the most historic pieces of healthcare legislation since the 1960's, become a reality. Pelosi has, indeed, displayed uncanny, political prowess.  She has raised millions upon millions of dollars for the Democratic party and, according to President Obama, has "... fought Republican attempts to privatize Social Security, and heroically taken on the powerful special interests".

Sure, if this were a popularity contest-she'd most certainly be one of the biggest losers. But, ultimately, we don't elect our politicians based on whether they'd win a popularity contest; though some would probably come pretty close. They are elected to serve the American people and help create solutions to the issues that matter most to us.

One might suspect, that even though some on the Left and, most obviously, on the Right, believe that in choosing to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader, Democrats may have handed Republicans their heads on a platter. Pelosi's record strongly credits the fact that she is the one that can get the job done; especially in an environment in the House where Dems are now in the political minority.  Love her or hate her-you have to respect her, if not for her stance on the issues, for that inherent tenacity she continues to, so arduously, display.

Republican Pledge To America-Fact or Farse?

The Republican Pledge to America; some social conservatives say it’s an “impressive step beyond the 1994 GOP "Contract with America.” Other conservative commentators call it “light on substance and short on promises…”. The GOP has stepped out of the shadows and, partly, in anticipation of the upcoming mid-term elections, is pledging a “new governing agenda for America”. Sound familiar? It should; because it is a revamped and renewed version of the Republican “Contract With America”. But just how well does the GOP successor stack up to its predecessor counterpart? Is the Republican Pledge a realistic set of conservative goals or just a 21-page document filled with hollow promises and empty rhetoric?

In government–if It sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Even with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President-Obama wasn’t able to easily do a number of the things promised during the 2008 campaign. How do Republicans propose to push their agenda through both the House and the Senate, without any objections? Just the mantra of governing “differently than past congresses of both parties” seems a bit curious. The details regarding the shortcomings of the current healthcare law (and other policies) tell us that the process of creating law is not so cut and dry. One of the messages that the Republicans made clear through their Pledge, is that promises can be made that sound exactly like what we want to hear, but fall short because of the bureaucratic red tape. If this is indeed, the case, how can we expect anything different with a Republican majority? It seems they are campaigning by utilizing the same verbiage that was used by President Obama in 2008. According to the GOP, “Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works, and we are fighting to bring much needed sun-light to the process…” “We now propose changing the way congress works once and for all, so that the will of the people can be heard and the best ideas can trump the most vested interests.” “The top-down way of governing is out-dated and just plain backwards.” “Change begins at home.”

One’s initial reaction to the “Contract With America”, could be that in 1994, “things seemed so much simplier back then”. Upon further scrutiny, the Contract was, in fact, presented in a very detailed and precise manner, addressing many social issues; which made it more palatable than its successor; though a bit lighter on the moral issues.

However, the more mature and politically saavy we became, the more intense and complex the issues became, the more sophisticated (and perhaps even cynical) the rhetoric. On the other hand, there was something eerily similar about the two documents, in regards to the GOP’s intent to turn things around in Washington. The introduction to the Contract claimed that Republican members would transform the way congress works, end big government and respect the values of the people. It also claimed it would “restore accountability to Congress” and put an end to the “...cycle of scandal and disgrace.”

Both the Pledge and the Contract talk about enacting some form of a budget cap and reducing the deficit. In terms of social and entitlement programs, the Contract speaks in great detail about reforming welfare and establishing work programs; about allowing seniors to earn money without affecting their benefits and reducing the percentage of benefits being taxed, while its successor barely touches the subject of social security. The Pledge does mention that it will require more oversight of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Both the Contract and the Pledge call for (restoration of ) funding of an antiballistic missile system to protect against the threat of an (Iranian) ballistic missile attack, greater resources for defense spending and troop funding, and enforcing Illegal immigration laws or strengthening laws that penalize deported aliens upon reentering the U.S.

Both predecessor and successor call for tax deductions for small businesses on a percentage of its business income; some form of congressional or peer review board to assess new federal regulation and regulatory impact analysis, repealing or capping of some small business mandates, medical liability reform, balancing the budget and reducing the federal debt.

The Contract calls for an anti-crime package, which goes into great detail regarding death penalty litigation procedures, mandatory restitution of victims of crimes, abusive prisoner lawsuits, (effective) death penalties, a criminal alien tracking center, etc. It talks about strengthening the rights of parents, tax credits for the in-home care of another person and stronger laws against the prostitution of children and sexual abuse of minors. It proposes providing a child tax credit, repealing the marriage tax penalty and limiting the tenure of federal legislators.

In contrast, The Pledge calls for ending government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the requirement of the government to end to out-dated programs, replacement of the new Healthcare Law, terrorists to be tried in military tribunals, responsibility of any retaliation efforts by foreign terrorists released from Gitmo Bay, to be taken by President Obama; aggressive sanctions against Iran, operational control of the border, ending of “must-pass” legislation and the opportunity for all lawmakers to offer amendments to reduce spending.

It seems that although the GOP has outlined its future plans for America, many questions are left lingering in the minds of the people: with many of the changes they seek to enact, will the GOP look to reach across the isle? What are the long-term affects of their agenda? How will it affect the middle-class? The question then becomes: How much time are Republicans giving themselves to accomplish the things they plan to carry out-like repealing/replacing healthcare?

On the subject of healthcare; if it has taken almost a century for the reformation of healthcare-how does the GOP manage to rewrite the law that has been recently passed? Will it be something that they plan to work with the Dems on or will it also be viewed as the GOP cramming their version of healthcare down the throats of many Americans that don’t agree with their agenda? What will that ACTUALLY look like and will it require bipartisan support to pass? Will we be forced to go back to the same broken system that we had before? On the issue of ensuring access to healthcare for patients with pre-existing conditions – that’s already been done under Obama’s plan. How is that replacing it?

Have we made any concrete decisions about the release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay? If these prisoners were to ever engage in any terrorists activities in the U.S., how would we hold Obama responsible? What would that look like and are there any other real solutions to Gitmo Bay?

How will the GOP force sanctions against the Iranians, when we are a part of a counsel within the U.N., which requires more that just the U.S. to be in agreement on any kind of sanctions against Iran and North Korea?

And for trying terrorists in a military court as opposed to civilian court, statistically, what is the difference and how will it affect the outcome of the trial? If it were that cut and dry, as some conservatives seem to believe, would there even be the need for the discussion/protests we seem to be having in America today?

Courtesy of AP/Charles Dharapak

While the GOP has made an industrious effort to address many of the issues that we face in our country, the reconstructed version of the 1994 “Contract With America”, has brought about more questions than it actually answers. Can we fully trust that the promises put forth in the Pledge, are just that? How successful was the Republican Contract in fulfilling the promises it decreed?

While no one plan will be the solution to all that ails our country; perhaps the answers might just lie in the alliance and strength of the American people standing together as one, to confront the problems that are before us. Until we grasp that concept, we may, very well, do more to divide, than we will to succeed.