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.