Transparency Recap: Immigration, Potential Indictments, & Government Oversight
If you’re not familiar with the “open government” community/movement, you better get on board! While much of my work on WilliamHallowell.com is partisan (or seasoned with opinion to say the least), I regularly publish a non-partisan “Transparency Recap” that gets at the heart of the blogosphere’s most relevant transparency and citizen access information. For more information and for other entries, please visit the VoterWatch blog.
Starting off today’s Transparency Recap is a Corruption Chronicles blog entry about a Texas immigration law that was ruled unconstitutional this week. City lawmakers in a Dallas suburb enacted the law, which prevented illegal immigrants from renting apartments. Interestingly, the law had backing from community members in addition to the aforementioned legislative support.
According to CC, the unconstitutionality was determined based on the notion that the federal government is the only legal level at which immigration policy can be set. According to CC, “The Farmers Branch council passed the ordinance in 2006 in an effort to curb the illegal immigration crisis that has devastated the entire state of Texas as well as other border states.”
This is just one example of how local governments can easily find themselves in court spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect localized laws that are intended to curb illegal immigration. The CC piece is definitely worth the read.
And over on the CREW blog, discussion is centered upon Alaska’s two incumbent candidates — Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young and the looming chatter about their potential indictments. While they deny wrongdoing, neither official is willing to discuss details. What the open government community might be interested in, however, is the difficulty associated with charging members of the legislative branch. According to CREW:
And over at TPM Muckraker, Andrew Tilghman takes on earmark in an interesting story about Duncan D. Hunter (son of Rep. Duncan Hunter) who is running for his father’s Congressional seat. According to Tilghman, defense contractors who were assisted by the elder Hunter are now donating to his son’s campaign. Some believe that his father’s earmarking has paid off.
In his most recent All Things Whistleblower entry, Dylan Blaylock focuses his energies on a new global warming report. While the report — prepared by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program — highlights negative effects of global warming, Blaylock claims that its release has not been hampered by White House censorship like past initiatives.
And last but certainly not least comes the most recent Secrecy News post about government oversight and the lack of adequate provisions for the monitoring of U.S. intelligence. To sum it up in a few words, a recent report from the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General indicates that efforts to perform adequate oversight have decreased in recent times. In March, the DoD Inspector General told Congress the following:
We’ll have to monitor this closely, as Secrecy News reports that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee discussed amending some of the oversight responsibility that is currently given to the Government Accountability Office back in February. Such a proposal might be necessary if we want to see the proper/sufficient level of oversight.
Obama Praised by Hamas, Castro and Other Crackpots
Democratic candidates for the U.S. presidency are consistently supported by terrorists and renegades, yet many Americans fail to question these allegiances and their potential ramifications. Barack Obama — the man who is known for his incessant and rampant use of the word “hope” — is the latest candidate to score terrorist support.
Before delving into Obama’s current fan-base, let’s review what occurred back in 2004. Just days before the presidential election, Osama bin Laden issued an October surprise when he attempted to appeal to the American people. Aside from claiming that Bush had misled the public, bin Laden explained away Al Qaeda’s actions on 9/11 as the mere result of U.S. foreign policy:
What bin Laden failed to mention is that he’d like us to all convert or die. Ironically, his perverted perception of God and religion were absent from his rant.
While Osama’s quasi-endorsement of Kerry proves intriguing, Obama’s enthusiasts are more plentiful — and more disconcerting. When considering Obama’s cringe-worthy endorsements one cannot help but wonder why these war-mongers, criminals and racists would want to see Obama win in November. Clearly, something within Obama’s character or proposed policies resonates with them.
FOX News compiled an interesting list of individuals who voiced support for Obama. In mid-April, Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef was quoted as saying: “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections. I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle.” And if that’s not terrifying enough, Fidel Castro is enamored as well, as he has called Obama intelligent, while praising his work ethic.
And let’s not forget about Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s ties to Reverent Wright and company.
Agree or disagree with me — whatever you’d like. But the fact of the matter is that these individuals — persons who hold questionable and often dangerous word views — are endorsing a man who claims to stand for hope and a brighter future. Yet the legacies of the aforementioned individuals are comprised of nothing more than pain and suffering (or in the case of Farrakhan and Wright — societal damage as a result of reverse racism).
I’ll be interested to see who endorses Obama next.
Aid Workers Abusing Those They’re Sent to Help?
This week, Save the Children UK released a disturbing report entitled, “No One To Turn To.” The investigation — its results alleging child abuse in the form of sexual molestation, among other violations — was conducted by researchers who met with 250 children between the ages of 10 and 17 who have had experiences with international aid workers. According to the Associated Press,
Importantly, researchers chose three distinct areas based on a heavy concentration of international aid workers. The children interviewed were from southern Sudan, Haiti, and the Ivory Coast — three areas that have been struck by economic and political dissension and hardship. The most disturbing pieces of the abuse center on the helplessness of those children who were exploited as well as the ability of aid workers to escape oversight and accountability.
However, social stigmas were also powerful enablers that led to secrecy, as the majority of those children interviewed reported that they would, themselves, never report a case; they also reported that they have never heard of a case being reported. According to the report, potential retaliation, social stigmas associated with sexual abuse and other associated detriments were “powerful determinants to coming forward.”
While U.N. workers have allegedly been involved in some of the abuse, the problem is rampant in other governing bodies as well. In fact, the U.N. has taken steps to combat the issue. With this in mind, the Save the Children report is simply a reminder of a lack of sufficient progress. Clearly, the only sufficiency in this case would be an end to these horrific actions.
Concerning remedies, Save the Children makes three distinct recommendations. First, they recommend that adequate local complaint systems be implemented inside each country to allow individuals to report abuses. Secondly, a global watchdog is proposed to assist in regulating and monitoring this issue. Lastly, a strengthened child protection system at the national level is proposed.
It’s unfortunate that such abuses have occurred within organizations that have set out to make waves of change. Only the future holds the answers to preventing such atrocious misconduct.
Edwards and Obama Now Bedfellows?
In the debate over which Democratic candidate he should endorse, John Edwards has finally given in. And in the most predictable fashion, he has chosen Sen. Barack Obama. During his official endorsement speech Edwards said, “…the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I.”
The aforementioned statement is surprisingly thought provoking. If one takes a closer look at it, he or she will notice that Edwards first points out the fact that the Democrats have made a collective choice. He then ventures to say that he has subsequently made his own decision (which appears to be directly in line with the “popular vote” among the Democrats).
It’s not rocket science: Edwards is playing political monopoly. He is erasing his past statements about Obama and positioning himself for a vice-presidential nod. Or — at the least — he is keeping his name alive for future political gain.
After all, what took the former senator so long to endorse a candidate? MLive.com quotes Brent Slay, a retired Plainfield Township businessman (and an Obama supporter), who had some interesting thoughts on the matter:
But, perhaps the most intriguing portion of Slay’s thoughts:
Republican National Committee Chairman Robert Duncan has been the most precise in his criticism of Edwards’ endorsement. Duncan asks, “Why didn’t Edwards endorse sooner?” — a more than valid question. He continues:
Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Edwards was posing serious criticisms of Obama as early as December 2007:
Sounds like a vote of no confidence to me. But suddenly — when Obama appears to have the majority of Democratic support, Edwards thinks he’s undoubtedly the man for the job. Does his description of Obama back in December reflect even a portion of the confidence one should have in a candidate they are endorsing?
And then there’s healthcare — an issue that a great many Americans have a personal stake in:
These are big issues — issues that Edwards has suddenly begun to ignore for the sake of an endorsement.
It’s No Longer Cool to Hang With Racists?
I know that I’m a bit late on this, but I can’t resist commenting. Barack Obama has [finally] separated himself from his former father figure-pastor-confidant-spiritual advisor. In a speech that came approximately two months later than it should have, Obama called Reverend Wright’s media hoopla nothing more than a series of incomprehensible rants. If elected, let’s hope he’s quicker when it comes to addressing national security issues. Considering his vast political experience (cough, cough), I’m sure we have nothing to worry about. After all, Obama’s got more than enough hope and change to go around, right?
If Obama’s recent denunciation isn’t a sure-fire decree that his leadership skills need tailoring, I don’t know what is. Only now, when Obama’s numbers are slipping, has he decided to step forward against his bigoted former pastor. Not only do I find it reprehensible that Obama waited to long to disavow his mentor’s words, but it’s also laughably ironic. His supporters will say one of two things – either “Reverend Wright was right (no pun intended)” or “Obama is finally doing the right thing.” Both statements are shamefully incorrect.
Oh, but I almost forgot the third response – from those individuals who think they’re being fair-minded: “Well what does Wright’s connection to Obama matter anyway?” This response is quite possibly the most ridiculous of the three; I’d rather have someone agree with Wright than openly admit that a candidate’s allegiances don’t matter.
So, to address the latter of the three: Reverend Wright is a racist who preached divisiveness. Obama was directly connected to him, he heard Wright’s racist and anti-American rants and sat unshaken at the Trinity United Church of Christ, Wright married Obama and his wife, he baptized his children – oh, and Wright also inspired one of Obama’s books. That’s more than an allegiance. And it matters.
To address the first response, how can anyone actually believe that Wright was right? Sure, you may agree with the sentiment – that African Americans have had it tough in America, but to actually believe that what this man preached, the manner that it was delivered in, was right is also reprehensible. Don’t get me wrong – America still has her share of racial issues. While I believe that this nation needs to rectify its past skeletons, I also believe that we need to be realistic about our nation’s demographics.
And to address the second statement (that Obama is finally doing the right thing): Why the hell did it take so long? The only logical conclusion centers upon the notion that Obama didn’t necessarily disagree with Wright. Most logical human beings would run fast and far from a pastor who made such ferocious statements — unless of course they agreed. This — to some degree — is indefinitely the case with Obama. He knows that he has no chance of winning in a nation that is around 70% Caucasian if he doesn’t separate himself from Wright’s rants.
Here is a snippet from some of Wright’s hope-filled words:
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people…God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
Race has never been an issue for me; I’ve always befriended individuals without considering their heritage as a deciding factor. I find it ironic that Wright can use those words and actually believe that they are part of the Christian doctrine. Instead of harsh and divisive words, would it not be more effective to share the plight of African Americans and other minorities who are downtrodden by a broken educational system and a history that has led to suppression? Instead, Wright tells white people what trash they are. If his methods are right, then I must be insane.
Was Wright also correct in his assertion that Farrakhan is one of the greatest voices of this century? Let’s hope not.
I’m sure this isn’t the last we’ve heard from the Reverend.