California Senator Barbara Boxer (D) has decided to throw her panties into the ring with a resurrection of the old call to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This little feel-good little international agreement has been (rightly) ignored by the United States and also ignored by Somolia; it has since proven ineffective, in large part due to the U.N. process of allowing reservations, understandings and declarations; in effect lodged protests over viability, that are most often intended to hinder or negate responsibilities under any such agreement.  The U.N. itself admits it is in no position to enforce compliance, and this is certainly proven out by, for example, the continued abuse of children (and women) in the Middle East.

But despite the fact that United States has its own laws that protect minors, Senator Boxer thinks that we should now additionally legislate our treatment of our children, as would be determined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.  This 18-member panel in Geneva is composed of “persons of high moral character” who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention.

As is evidenced by so many examples of U.N. …ummmm…let’s use the weasel words “ethics and morality”, Senator Boxer is barking up the wrong tree.  While sovereignty of the United States should not be used as argument*, what should be argued is the uselessness and waste of Congressional time and effort to pursue this nonsense.  Anything involving the United Nations should, frankly, be tabled; if not permanently, at least until we have our own house in some semblance of order.

What Senator Boxer is doing is sending Americans off on a snipe hunt while the real threat – Congress and the President and their “plans” to steer us through this economic mess created by other presidents and Congress critters by making it worse – is able to make their moves unnoticed.

Her desperate ploy for attention should be seen for what it is and soundly, roundly ignored.

 

 

 

* – Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution:  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):  “This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.”

“There is nothing in [the Constitution] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to [it] do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.”

(Justice Hugo L. Black’s opinion for the United States Supreme Court)

“UNAT” stands for the United Nations Administrative Tribunal.  I think it stands for Unnecessary Acts of Narcissistic Taxation.

I can’t quite figure out just what this little internal judicial body is supposed to do besides look after staff compliance to contracts and such, but one thing is immediately apparent:  it protects its own.  And it does so at the expense of the American (and other global) taxpayers.

Case in point:  Benon Sevan, the former chief of the disastrous $60 billion United Nations Iraq Oil-for-Food Program but currently in hiding in Cypress, was charged with bribery and wire fraud in connection with the program by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in 2007.  He faces up to 50 years in prison. 

His lawyers, however, are requesting $880,000 plus interest from the United Nations.  And the U.N. has agreed to “abide by” the tribunal’s decision to pay them.

In 2004, the Tribunal ordered the United Nations to pay one year’s back pay to a former official with the United Nations Development Program who was accused of killing 32 people during the 1994 Rwanda genocide, including fellow UN employees.

What kind of oversight is this?  Why are these people not allowed to face the music like everyone else?  Why should our hard-earned tax monies go to the defense of those accused of such corruption?

It is but another sign that the United Nations has outlived its usefulness.  If President Obama and the Democratic Congress critters do not understand this, as evidenced by upping our U.N. contributions from $5 billion to $7 billion in the “new” budget, it is up to us, the “little people” to educate them.

Loudly.

Clearly.

And right now.

I’m starting to understand why the average American citizen throws up their hands in dismay and decides to put our process of government on ignore.  Even with an IQ over 150, I’m hard-pressed to follow the spiraling labyrinth that makes up getting anything done.  One bill, one subject up for consideration quickly becomes a spider’s web of amendments intended to address completely unrelated matters.

Here is but one example.  If your head isn’t spinning when you get to the end, do let us know just what drugs you’re on, ok?  (If you’re a Congress critter, don’t bother.  We already know what you’ve been drinking.)

S. 160:  111st Congress

2009-2010 District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009

A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives.

Primary Source:  See S. 160 on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.

Amendments

(1) S.Amdt. 573 by Sen. DeMint [R-SC]
To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Accepted: Feb 26, 2009.
Feb 26, 2009. Amendment SA 573 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 87 – 11. Record Vote Number: 71.

(2) S.Amdt. 574 by Sen. Kyl [R-AZ]
To provide for the expedited judicial review for Members of Congress.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Accepted: Feb 25, 2009.

(3) S.Amdt. 575 by Sen. Ensign [R-NV]
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Accepted: Feb 26, 2009.
Feb 26, 2009. Amendment SA 575 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 – 36. Record Vote Number: 72.

(4) S.Amdt. 576 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK]
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Withdrawn: Feb 26, 2009.

(5) S.Amdt. 577 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(6) S.Amdt. 578 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(7) S.Amdt. 579 by Sen. Thune [R-SD]
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State or the District of Columbia in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State or the District of Columbia that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State or District of Columbia.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Withdrawn: Feb 26, 2009.
 
(8) S.Amdt. 580 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(9) S.Amdt. 581 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK]
In the nature of a substitute.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Rejected: Feb 25, 2009.
Feb 25, 2009. Amendment SA 581 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 7 – 91. Record Vote Number: 68.

(10) S.Amdt. 582 by Sen. Feinstein [D-CA]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(11) S.Amdt. 583 by Sen. Feinstein [D-CA]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(12) S.Amdt. 584 by Sen. Feinstein [D-CA]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(13) S.Amdt. 585 by Sen. Kyl [R-AZ]
To provide for the retrocession of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, and for other purposes.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Rejected: Feb 26, 2009.
Feb 26, 2009. Amendment SA 585 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 30 – 67. Record Vote Number: 69.
 
(14) S.Amdt. 586 by Sen. Durbin [D-IL]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(15) S.Amdt. 587 by Sen. Ensign [R-NV]
To reauthorize the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 for fiscal year 2010.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Withdrawn: Feb 26, 2009.
 
(16) S.Amdt. 588 by Sen. Martinez [R-FL]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(17) S.Amdt. 589 by Sen. Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(18) S.Amdt. 590 by Sen. Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Amendment information not available.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009.

(19) S.Amdt. 591 by Sen. Durbin [D-IL]
To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
Proposed: Feb 26, 2009. Accepted: Feb 26, 2009.
Feb 26, 2009. Amendment SA 591 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 – 41. Record Vote Number: 70.

 

Regardless the Constitutionality of giving the District of Columbia a voting say, why in the world are other matters such as gun control and final elimination of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” baked into this bill? 

I’ll tell you why.  It is using an issue (or few) that has a great deal of support to try to force the hands of Congress to swallow something they would otherwise prefer to not address. 

In the real world, we call it cheating.  The fine print that you are supposed to read before you sign that toxic loan.  And it is one of the big reasons our government is now quite literally dying of clinical obesity.

You want efficiency in government?  Cut out this crap.  Focus, people.  FOCUS.  Quit allowing red herrings and tangents, no matter how much you representatives think it’ll improve your image with the voters back home.  Trust me on this one – the more we see of this waste, the less likely you are to keep your job.

 

UPDATE:  Check here to find out if your Senator played along with the pork-based game shown in the above example.  If they have, take a few minutes to remind them that their participation in this kind of nonsense is being watched.  It’s the least you can do as their employer.

As part of the one-two-three punch delivered to reeling Americans, President Obama today unveiled his version of the $3.6 trillion 2010 budget.  While its 144 pages aren’t quite as intimidating as that porker of a $787 billion 1,073 page stimulus bill, it’s interesting that he needed 43 pages simply to “introduce” it.

Reading the introduction does nothing to give me any warm, fuzzy feeling about the future.  It’s mostly campaign rhetoric, the usual smoke & mirrors.  What I get out of it is that I’m going to see my income – if I have one at all – spared from taxes in dribs and drabs of $13 here, which is $400 there, yet will watch my energy costs go up as producers – farmers included – pass their “cap and trade” costs back to me through increases in utility and food bills, while a “smart grid” is going to eventually control whether or not my home – if I still have one – is sent enough electricity to power lights, appliances, etc.

We’re going to double the amount spent to help those in foreign countries to $50 billion.  It’s not that I don’t want to help others, nor that I do not understand the wisdom of providing aid for basic needs in order to help another country stabilize, but frankly, you have to have something to share in order to be able to share it with others.  What is the difference between me and that foreigner if I can’t afford to put food on my own table either?

There is money for additional nuclear nonproliferation and counter-proliferation funding; though I suppose after Israel bombs Iran for us, we’ll be hearing about how much money we saved in this category.

The icing on this arsenic-laden cake is a whole section devoted to insistence of change in the way Washington does business.  A sad testament to an Ivy League education, it contains this brilliant and profound statement:  “Special interest driven-spending grew out of control.”  It also claims – wrongly – that part of the Administration’s efforts towards creating “fiscal discipline” was to sign “an economic recovery bill that is free of all earmarks and by instituting a system whereby the public will be able to track how and where recovery funds are actually used.”

I’m now beginning to understand why the President spent Valentine’s Day weekend in Chicago instead of actually taking the time to read the stimulus bill.  According to this introductory document, “the Administration has begun an exhaustive line-by-line review of the Federal Budget, the first stage of which will be partially reflected in the spring release of the full Fy 2010 Budget and will continue in subsequent years.”   Apparently if you’re a slow reader it is “exhausting” to have to pay attention to any one thing for any length of time.

There’s an old saying in show business to “always leave ’em laughing”.  This 2010 budget introduction certainly smacks of comedy as you near the end.  “…in his first days in office, the President signed an executive order that…requires that Government hiring be based upon qualifications, competence, and experience—not political connections. The President has ordered every one of his appointees to sign a pledge abiding by these tough new rules as a down payment on the change he has promised to bring to Washington.”

That certainly explains Geithner, Daschle, and Killefer, doesn’t it?

Anyone who does any serious reading will soon discover that it didn’t do squat to lower CO2 in the EU.  So now those wonder boys and girls in our government want to do it here.  This is a real con game; one of biggest companies pushing it way back when was Enron.  Why?  Hey, they already traded in air so how could it not get any better?  We all know how well that worked out.

But to the point.  Our new, wonderful leader says he will NOT raise taxes on the middle class one bit.  But what he will do is allow businesses, utility companies, and anyone else that gets caught in this cap & trade scheme (which is really everyone) to pass their costs back on to us.  The middle class.  The government is the one who will be selling these carbon credits to help pay for another big “plan”, so this is a tax, plain and simple.  But wait!  We will get some of that money back to help defray the cost.

So right off the bat they are admitting this could cause hardship (brilliant deduction there) so some will get help.  Wonder where the cut off on that will be?

The new war cry from the powers that be:  “We will pay for $635 billion in extra heath care spending and lower the deficit at the same time by taxing the rich.”

So, exactly who are those rich folks?  Anyone who makes more than $250,000 a year; nice number to pick. Don’t get excited though; when the “Make Work Pay” thing came out, it was intended to be for everyone making less than $250,000 a year but ended up being set at $150,000 for couples and $75,000 for singles.  Taxes do trickle down.

Let’s take a closer look inside the numbers.  The top 2% in income, those folks making $250,000 and up, currently pay 62% of the taxes.  You have 35% or thereabouts who pay no taxes, and some of them not only get back the money they paid in, but they also get extra money that you and I paid in.  Better yet, even if the nice folks at the IRS took every taxable dime of the top 2%, the total wouldn’t come anywhere close to covering this big, new speeding spree.

So basically what we have here is a nice sop to the class warfare/soak-the-rich trend that seems to be on the upswing.  It is also important to note that many small business owners file as individual tax payers so those folks who provide JOBS are getting hit as well.

Another important note:  with the economy the way it is, there are quite a few folks now earning less than $250,000. The really big money guys have their money nicely socked away where it won’t be touched.  Believe me, you will not see Pelosi’s very wealthy hubby, the Kennedys, the Kerrys, et al paying out one extra dime.  Plenty on the other side of the political aisle won’t be paying anything extra either, but those aren’t the ones who want to raise taxes.  It is sorta like the death tax; Kennedy & Co. yell about it being perks for the rich, yet all their property/money is tied up in trusts so they don’t pay any anyway (and from the way things are going, wouldn’t even if it wasn’t).  So who gets hammered?  Farmers (and I’m not talking about the big agri-guys but the family farmer) who have a chunk of land, or the small business owner.

Now I don’t really care where those folks have their money stashed to protect it, or even that they have the money.  It is the hypocrisy, the sheer gall to insult my intelligence by using this soak-the-rich crap for my “benefit”, when they aren’t getting the least bit damp. 

Cough it up, boys and girls.  You lions for the “little people”.

Position:  Senior counsel, Legal Department, Illinois Housing Development Authority

Salary:  $75,000/year

Candidate selected:  Roland W. Burris II

Date of hire:  September 10, 2008

Qualifications:  

• Prior resolution of 2 personal federal tax liens
• Currently liable for personal federal tax lien covering the years 2004, 2005, 2007 ($34,163 unpaid), applied in July, 2008
• Currently in foreclosure for $372,000 mortgage taken out on July 18, 2006 (filed by lender in August 2008)
  • Less than $3,000 paid
  • Balance due:  $406,685 (including interest and penalties)
  • House bought in 2000 from the City of Chicago for $1.00

According to Rebecca Boykin, “Roland Burris II was hired by the Illinois Housing Development Authority’s Legal Department based on his qualifications in response to a published job posting.  As an employer, it is not IHDA’s practice to request financial information from applicants.”

Why not?  This job is to help counsel people about how to avoid home foreclosure.  Wouldn’t you think it appropriate and – most importantly – beneficial to the citizens of Illinois to hire someone who actually knows how to pay their bills?

Makes you wonder just what kind of other talks never took place between old Daddy and Roddy, doesn’t it?

I can barely stand to read any more of this.

The $410 billion Omnibus bill passed by the House yesterday contains some $7.7 billion “disclosed” earmarks.

The Democrats and mouthpiece, Nancy Pelosi, are defending them by blaming former President Bush for failing to address the country’s priorities last year.

But President Obama continues to continue to campaign on a platform of fiscal responsibility and accountability.

Unbelievable.

And continuingly equally unbelievable that so many Americans actually voted to put these hypocrites in office.

Seems that cheating really is a way of life in Washington.  So deeply ingrained that any attempt to bring accountability into the decision-making processes is met with immediate, blind, stubborn resistence.

President Obama’s continuing “hopey-changey” bipartisan lip service to responsibility and transparency notwithstanding.

Foxnews reports today that the House killed a resolution by Representative Jeff Flake (R-Ariz) that would have set into motion investigation into ties between sources and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and the subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks. 

“Whereas numerous press reports and editorials have alleged several cases of influence peddling between members of Congress and outside interests seeking federal funding, the House of Representatives should respond to such claims and demonstrate integrity in its proceedings.”

This would effectively the skirts of our elected representatives and show the whole world just how dirty is the business of running our government (into the ground).

Though it didn’t single out anyone in particular, it was apparently prompted by an ongoing federal investigation of the PMA Group, a lobbying company accused of making fraudulent donations to lawmakers using names of people who did not exist. 

According to the Fox story, the PMG Group, “which has contributed millions to politicians in the last decade, has close ties to senior Democratic appropriators including Reps. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Pete Visclosky, D-Ind.  The FBI raided PMA’s headquarters in November and is investigating the group’s founder and president, Paul Magliochetti, a former Murtha aide.”

“The vote came just after the House approved a $410 billion spending to fund the government this year, which also contained $8.8 million on projects sought by clients of the PMA lobbying group.”

God bless ya, Jeff.  But apparently the crowd doesn’t want anyone to know the Emperor has no clothes on.

“I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. … For seven years, we have been a nation at war.  No longer will we hide its price.”

So joked President Obama last night in his prime-time televised campaign speech…errrr…in his address to Congress. 

Here’s the punchline.  It was reported today that the top military officers and civilians working on the military’s budget had to sign a letter promising to keep the details secret.  Even though Defense Secretary Robert Gates never required one while serving under President Bush.

Fox News obtained a copy and says the agreement commits those signing it not to divulge “budget-related information” including planning, programming and other aspects. 

It also states that a “significant factor in the successful and proper preparation and completion of the president’s budget is the strict confidentiality that must be observed,” and that a failure to comply with that confidentiality could “compromise” the administration’s ability to draft and submit its spending plan. 

We have, however, been assured by that most gracious (sic) man himself, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, that the president’s budget will be “honest and transparent.”