The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus/national security package…for Mexico

A reader asked me to check into information that President Bush was pushing a massive foreign-aid package to Mexico to help them secure their southern border against the flow of illegal aliens from Central America.

“We can’t even get our own border straight, and we are going to provide Mexico with funding so they can solve their problem,” the reader fumed. “I doubt the Central Americans are staying very long in Mexico anyway. We know where they are going!”

Too outrageously outrageous to be true?

Well, I checked it out and it’s even worse than the reader described. Far worse.

The plan is called “The Merida Initiative.” Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border.

We can’t finish our own border fence, properly supply our immigration agents and border patrol with all the equipment and resources they need, or get our house in order. Yet, the Bush administration wants to fork over $1.4 billion to Mexico and Central America–with much of it going into the hands of corrupt law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly to undermine our immigration laws. The funding is tucked into the 2008 supplemental budget.

Naturally, the State Department has taken a lead role. They’ve held meetings in secret and cut out members of Congress from discussion. You’ll love the explanation for the secrecy: Mexico is “sensitive,” you see. Also, according to one expert, “Mexico is very protective of its sovereignty and very worried about any incursion of U.S. security forces or private contractors—like Blackwater—coming in to train Mexicans.” Yeah, they’re worried about incursions and sovereignty.

The State Dept. disclosed the first phase of the Merida Initiative last October, involving some $550 million in aid for inspection scanners, helicopters, surveillance tools, and case management software:

This partnership would support coordinated strategies to:

*Produce a safer and more secure hemisphere where criminal organizations no longer threaten governments and regional security; and*Prevent the entry and spread of illicit drugs and transnational threats throughout the region and to the United States.

To achieve these goals, President Bush has requested $550 million as part of a multi-year program to provide:

*Non-intrusive inspection equipment, ion scanners, canine units for Mexican customs, for the new federal police and for the military to interdict trafficked drugs, arms, cash and persons.

*Technologies to improve and secure communications systems to support collecting information as well as ensuring that vital information is accessible for criminal law enforcement.

*Technical advice and training to strengthen the institutions of justice – vetting for the new police force, case management software to track investigations through the system to trial, new offices of citizen complaints and professional responsibility, and establishing witness protection programs.

*Helicopters and surveillance aircraft to support interdiction activities and rapid operational response of law enforcement agencies in Mexico.

*Initial funding for security cooperation with Central America that responds directly to Central American leaders’ concerns over gangs, drugs, and arms articulated during July SICA meetings and the SICA Security Strategy.

*Includes equipment and assets to support counterpart security agencies inspecting and interdicting drugs, trafficked goods, people and other contraband as well as equipment, training and community action programs in Central American countries to implement anti-gang measures and expand the reach of these measures in the region.

The Brookings Institute issued more details and analysis in November:

For the past six months, without input from respective legislatures, government officials have quietly planned this joint endeavor. The newly elected president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, campaigned on a platform of citizen’s security, committed $3 billion of federal funds to this priority and persuaded the Mexican army and navy to lead the fight against the drug cartels and the criminal networks. The cartels and the networks are distinct, but drug money is the juice that feeds both enterprises: together, they have become an international threat to Mexican national security.

In this campaign, President Calderon found a strong ally in President Bush. In March this year, they met in the colonial town of Merida to strategize on combating transnational crime. In the interim, and out of public scrutiny, government officials drew up the technical elements of a plan, known as the Merida Initiative, to avoid any confusion with Plan Colombia.

Under the terms of this Initiative, the United States will commit 41% of the $500 million grant to military equipment, which will include six brand new Bell 412 helicopters and two Casa 245 twin-engine aircraft. Accompanying both is a two year agreement to provide maintenance and spare parts. This represents a significant improvement over the gift of Hueys in the 1990s under the Excess Defense Articles program. Those helicopters soon became inoperable and were cannibalized for spare parts, leaving a bitter taste by the recipients of “hand me downs.” Now, the grant of new equipment, plus the maintenance and spare parts, assures the Mexican armed forces that we take collaboration seriously. However, the planned use of the Casa aircraft needs to be discussed publicly, given its multiple and potential capabilities from medevac to cargo, to intelligence gathering, even to use as a gunship equipped with light cannons.

There is encouraging news in the Initiative that 59% of the grant will be earmarked for civilian agencies responsible for law enforcement. This is much needed, but the number and complexity of Mexico’s security agencies will need more than cash to reform. Multiple Federal agencies have earned a reputation for ineffectiveness and corruption; among them, the Attorney General’s Federal Investigative Agency, the Ministry of Public Security’s Federal Preventive Police Force, the Ministry of Government’s Center for Investigation and National Security and the Ministry of Finance’s Customs Administration. Furthermore, the 32 states within the Mexican Federation hold responsibility for crime control. State security agencies and the courts have not protected the citizenry effectively. According to surveys carried out by Transparencia Mexicana, the police and justice system are perceived as having worse problems of corruption and inefficiency than other public agencies.

If you subsidize it, you’ll get more of it.

Which is exactly what Bush-Calderon Mexican stimulus package will do. Add this to Dick Lamm’s plan to destroy America.

At a little-noticed hearing (finally) on the plan last week, seems there was some opposition.

Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, D-Ariz., questioned whether it was wise to assist Mexico at a time when the U.S. economy appears to be headed toward a recession.

“Unless we have our house in order, putting millions into Central America and Mexico is not the solution,” she said.

But I haven’t read about any opposition from Republicans. Yoo-hoo. Anybody home?

Meantime, Mexico refuses to extradite criminal suspects who’ve fled from the U.S. down to Mexico unless our prosecutors drop death penalty charges against them.

Oh, and just in time to mobilize pro-illegal immigration activists during this heated campaign season, Calderon landed in the U.S. yesterday for a five-day visit:

Officially, the five-day trip is billed as an “encounter” with Mr. Calderón’s compatriots abroad, according to a statement from the president’s office to the Mexican Congress. But the visit could backfire, experts say, by putting the focus back on the hot-potato issue of Mexican migration….The trip allows him to “reach out to Mexican communities in the United States, which he hasn’t been able to do in his first year in office, and support them, and tell them they’re not alone,” said one official speaking on the condition of anonymity. And it will help him to “strengthen the relationship with the U.S. private sector” as he tries to bring more investment to Mexico, the official added.


Mr. Calderón, other officials say, is also trying to reshape the immigration debate in the United States by showcasing the “hard work” and “economic benefits” that his compatriots represent to the U.S. economy and economic integration of the two countries.

“Timing is everything, and the timing of President Calderón’s trip speaks volumes – following Super Tuesday and on the eve of the remaining primaries,” said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, president of Peschard & Associates, an independent consulting firm. “He clearly will capitalize on the timing, plus some of his politically oriented meetings, to make sure he puts Mexico on the next president’s desk and even try to shape the bilateral agenda.

”

Among the U.S. politicians Calderon will meet with: New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He will also meet with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a prominent Hispanic leader who endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No word on whether John McCain is on the schedule. Perhaps Juan Hernandez will stand in.

I ask: Whose sovereignty is in jeopardy?

Bush veto of child health bill sustained

WASHINGTON - House Democrats were unable Thursday to override President Bush's veto of their pre-election year effort to expand a popular government health insurance program to cover 10 million children.

The bill had bipartisan support but the 273-156 roll call was 13 votes short of the two-thirds that majority supporters needed to enact the bill into law over Bush's objections. The bill had passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program now subsidizes health care insurance coverage for about 6 million children at a cost of about $5 billion a year. The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children, most of them from low-income families, to the program at an added cost of $7 billion annually.

To pay for the increase, the bill would have raised the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1.00 a pack.

"This is not about an issue. It's about a value," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said just before the vote. "For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we can provide SCHIP coverage for 10 million children for one year."

Forty-four Republicans voted to override Bush's veto — one fewer than GOP members who voted Sept. 25 to pass the bill. Only two Democrats voted to sustain Bush's veto compared with six who had voted against the bill. The two were Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.

"We won this round on SCHIP," White House press secretary Dana Perino said after the vote. She said a million-dollar lobbying campaign by several labor unions and advocacy groups to turn enough Republican votes for a successful override "didn't work."

Bush, anticipating that his veto would stand, has assigned three top advisers to try to negotiate a new deal with Congress. One of them, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said: "It's now time for us to get to the hard work of finding a solution and get SCHIP reauthorized. We also have a larger task, to provide every American with the means of having an insurance policy."

Republican opponents said the bill would encourage too many middle-income families to substitute government-subsidized insurance for their private insurance. The bill gives states financial incentives to cover families with incomes up to three times the federal poverty level — $61,950 for a family of four.

"That's not low-income. That's a majority of households in America," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.

The bill specifically states that illegal immigrants would remain ineligible for the children's program, but Republicans seized on a section that would allow families to provide a Social Security number to indicate citizenship. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said it's too easy to get a false number, which would give an opening for thousands of illegal immigrants to enroll.

But Democrats said the bill's original focus remained intact. States would be given bonuses for signing up low-income children already eligible for the program but not enrolled.

"Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. "Continuing to not provide them with coverage is a travesty."

The president said his veto gives him a chance to weigh in on the future of the program.

"Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation and the president can then use the veto to make sure he's a part of the process," Bush said Wednesday.

Leading the discussions for his administration are Mike Leavitt, the health and human services secretary; Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council; and Jim Nussle, the White House budget chief.

Supporters of the bill said they already had compromised in winning passage of the bill last month in both houses. The House originally had proposed a $50 billion increase over five years.

The bill is bipartisan, and the Senate has shown it could override a veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has replied with an emphatic "no" when asked if he would seek a compromise with the administration.

Both the House and Senate have to override a veto for a bill to become law over a president's objection.

Through the program, the government and the states subsidize the cost of health coverage for families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

Bush has recommended a $1 billion annual increase in the program, bringing total spending over five years to $30 billion — half the level called for in the bill that he vetoed.

Proponents emphasized that the program still would focus on low-income families. Dingell said more than 90 percent of families covered have incomes that are below $41,300 for a family of four. That is the range that the program was originally designed to help.

"There will be no wealthy people covered," Dingell said.

Some public opinion polls indicate support for expanding the program. Sixty-one percent said Congress should override Bush's veto of a bill expanding the program, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday. Blacks were more likely than whites to favor overriding Bush's veto.

Should Bush Go to Jail for Flag Desecration?

This one is just too good to pass up. I've long hated this whole notion of laws banning the desecration of the flag, especially passing a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. In general, if the flag needs to be protected by curbing free speech, then that is desecrating the symbol more than any burning of an individual flag can do. Furthermore, what ever happened to private property? Aren't people allowed to do whatever they want with their private property (as long as it doesn't directly harm others)? But, lastly and most importantly, a law banning the desecration of the flag is thought crime, the most insidious type of law possible.

Hear me out. If I have a flag that is old and frayed, and I want to get rid of it, the preferred method (according to whatever US code they have on this subject) is to burn the flag in a proper ceremony (but to burn it nonetheless). So, if I burn a flag and say "I love this flag and all it symbolizes and the government in power right now," then I'm an exalted citizen of this country (a true American in the words of Sean Hannity). If I burn the flag and say "I hate Bush, I think this country is on the wrong track and is becoming a dictatorship," then I have committed a crime (probably so, according to Hannity). See the problem? The determination of whether you have committed a crime is not your actions, but your POLITICAL view while you do it (to be contrasted with typical mental state requirements that may gauge whether you are trying to harm someone - say the difference between a car accident and intentionally running someone down with your car). So, to stick with my parenthetical hypo, a law that says running someone down in your car because they are a Democrat is allowed, while running someone down in your car if they are a Republican is not allowed, would be a thought crime. That is a morally wrong law.

The US Code for the District of Columbia actually prescribes the manner in which you may treat a flag, saying that writing on it is a misdemeanor. So, how many Republicans think that President Bush should go to jail for this?Of course, very few will say that he should, they will point out that the statute is only designed to prevent actual desecration, meaning the intentions of the perpetrator are key. But, what if this was John Kerry doing this? Wouldn't they scream and howl? Couldn't some right wing prosecutor fashion an argument that John Kerry should go to jail for this? Wouldn't a right wing jury be chomping at the bit to put him away for this? What if they charged and tried John Kerry for this in the most conservative southern state, in it's most conservative county, with a right wing jury, in front of a right wing judge? He'd be in jail now.

On the flip side, what if they tried George Bush for this in Berkeley, in front of a left wing judge with all left wing activists as jurors? Or, should he be impeached? This could be considered (under the very liberal standards set by the Congress in 1998) a high crime OR misdemeanor (is desecrating the flag worse than perjury?).

So you see, here in color, the idiocy of these laws. Maybe this will put paid to that stupid notion of passing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the 1st Amendment and carve out an area where you go to jail for having the "wrong" political beliefs.

George W. Bush was photographed wearing a ribbon he did not earn

We can clearly see that in this picture, George W. Bush is wearing an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award and a Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, however, on line 24 of his ARG22 National Guard discharge form, George W. Bush has NO awards listed:
Now, here in another picture where his father is pinning lieutenant bars on his shoulder, George W. Bush is again wearing the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon: So, in fairness we must give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt here. Let's dig further and look at other records released by the Bush campaign team. Our next stop is a a Form AF11 dated May 16, 1971. You will note on this document Bush has already been promoted to First Lieutenant: All that is listed in this document is the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon. The Air Force Outstanding Unit Award is not listed.

Our next stop is the "military biography" released by the Bush Campaign: In this document, the claim is made that Bush was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, BUT NO MENTION OF THE AIR FORCE OUTSTANDING UNIT AWARD!!! This document was clearly prepared after Bush's service ended.

Exhaustive searches for any indication that any unit Bush served with was awarded the AFOUA have, to date, yielded nothing. The ONLY documents released by the Bush administration related to his service that make mention of any awards whatsoever have been included in this report.

The only conclusion that can be made is George W. Bush wore a ribbon he did not earn in the above photograph.

House Democrats defy Bush, approve spy bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying President George W. Bush, Democrats voted on Wednesday to bolster civil liberties safeguards in his anti-terrorism spying program and refused to shield phone companies from pending lawsuits.

Just hours after Bush warned Democrats they would be rolling back efforts to protect the United States, the House of Representatives Judiciary and Intelligence committees approved legislation to ensure congressional and court oversight of the surveillance of suspected enemy targets.

The party-line votes by the two panels were 20-14 and 12-7, respectively.

The full House is to consider the bill next week. The Senate Intelligence Committee plans to begin work on its version next Thursday.

House Democrats rejected a bid by Bush's fellow Republicans to provide retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated in the president's warrantless spying program secretly begun shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Bush insisted the new bill "must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multibillion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation."

Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan replied: "The president's remarks today raise further questions about how the administration might have pressured or induced telecommunications companies to participate."

House Democrats say they will not consider retroactive immunity unless the White House hands over records of detailing what the companies did. The House bill would protect the firms from future lawsuits, but not from pending ones.

It also would revise and replace a temporary surveillance measure, the Protect America Act, that Bush pushed through the Democrat-led Congress in August amid warnings that the United States faced new threats.

That earlier measure expanded the federal warrantless surveillance authority and closed what the administration said was a dangerous legal gap.

The new House bill would require the administration to obtain one-year "blanket warrants" from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor telephone calls or e-mails of suspected terrorists when they involve an American citizen.

It would not require individual warrants to listen in on Americans communicating with suspected terrorists, unless the U.S. citizen is also a specific target of the surveillance. No warrant would be needed to monitor foreign suspects speaking to each other overseas.

"The legislation before us today seeks to once again strike the appropriate balance between needed government authority and our precious rights and liberties," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat.

Bush warned the new measure "would take us backward."

"The Protect America Act is a vital tool in stopping the terrorists, and it would be a grave mistake for Congress to weaken this tool," he said.

Critics say the warrantless surveillance program begun after the September 11 attacks was unlawful. The White House maintains Bush acted within his authority.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group, sued telephone giant AT&T Inc last year and accused it of illegally allowing the government to monitor phone calls and e-mails.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ken Wainstein said the administration is also concerned about restrictions the bill would impose on the type of intelligence that could be collected, and a provision that would have the surveillance authority expire in 2009, the year Bush leaves office.

Bush wants the Protect America Act, set to expire in February, made permanent.

White House: Bush recognizes 1915 events but doesn’t rank them genocide

Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said President Bush "reiterated his opposition to the Armenian Genocide resolution, the passage of which would be harmful to U.S. relations with Turkey." Johndroe said Bush believes the Armenian episode ranks among the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, but the determination whether "the events constitute a genocide should be a matter for historical inquiry, not legislation."

Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I, an event widely viewed by genocide scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide.

At the U.S. State Department, the senior official who deals with Turkish relations said the United States position is not to deny or accept that genocide occurred. Nevertheless, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said, "We do not believe this bill would advance either the cause of historical truth or Turkish-Armenian reconciliation or the interests of the United States."

The Turkish reaction to passage of the bill would be extremely strong, Fried said. It would do "grave harm" to relations with Turkey, a NATO ally, and damage the U.S. war effort in Iraq, Turkey’s neighbor.

The resolution is largely symbolic and would not be binding on foreign policy. Similar measures have been offered before and never passed, but it appears to have a good chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled House if it is brought to a vote, The Associated Press reports.

George.W. Bush Thinks Christians Are Idiots

By William H. Calhoun

David Kuo, the former deputy director of the White House office of faith-based initiatives, implies that George W. Bush is not fond of Christians. He maintains in his new book, Tempting Faith, that Bush and those around him regularly mock and make fun of Christians, especially Evangelicals. For example, he quotes Karl Rove as saying Evangelicals are "nuts." It was quite common, according to Kuo, for Bush and those around him to look upon Christians as useful idiots.

But this should be no surprise. Neoconservatives have a long history of allegedly mocking Christians. It was, after all, the pro-Israel lobby that coined the term "useful idiots" - their term to describe pro-Israel Christians. Christians, they maintain, are good for money, votes and soldiers - but that's about it. Christians are not to be taken seriously. Bush has surrounded himself with such neocons, helping them every step of the way to implement their sinister agenda. Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, and he still utilizes the "useful idiots" (Christians) as canon fodder on the battlefields of Iraq.

Geore W Bush's covert dislike of Christians is old news. Like his neoconservative cabal, he looks upon them as useful idiots, pawns in a global agenda. And despite some empty rhetoric, Bush's domestic policies have harmed working Christian families. Two policies in particular, immigration and free trade, have been devastating.

Bush, through increased immigration, has done more harm to working Christian families than any politician in recent history. The invasion of third-world immigrants has depressed American wages to a historical low. The wages of most Christian Americans (adjusted for inflation) are lower now than they were in 1980 because of both legal and illegal immigration. And immigration has not only harmed Christian wages, but also their neighborhoods, schools, and daily lives. In parts of the Southwest, for example, crime has increased 800%, HIV 700%, and Hispanics have banned "all white authors" from the schools. Bush and his cronies want to convert the US into a third-world wasteland, and thereby have been instrumental in bringing harm to Christian Americans.

Bush's support of free trade has also harmed working Christians. Historically, liberals supported free trade, and conservatives opposed it. Conservatives should oppose it. Free trade undermines national sovereignty, and it places vital economic decisions in the hands of international bureaucrats who are accountable to no one. But many of the non-thinking GOP lapdogs have been "neoconned" on this issue, actually thinking it wise to support national suicide. Our free-trade deficit is now at a historical high. Wages are depressed, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and all the while Bush and his big-business buddies have made money from such suffering. The Christian "useful idiots" have been good canon fodder not only in Iraq but on the economic battlefield as well. And, all the while, the neoconservatives' bank accounts have ballooned.

George W. Bush has betrayed America. He is no Christian himself, which is why he mocks real Christians. Christians should be ashamed for supporting such a Judas.

Bush: 'This government does not torture'

President Bush on Friday defended his administration's methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, insisting, "This government does not torture people."

"When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them and you bet we're going to question them, because the American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence, so we can help them -- help protect them," Bush said.

Bush said his administration sticks to "U.S. law and our international obligations."

He said, "The techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress."

Bush's remarks followed a report Thursday in The New York Times that said a secret Justice Department memo in 2005 amounted to "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."

The 2005 legal opinion was issued after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over Justice, the Times reported, and authorized using a combination of techniques such as head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding.

The Times said the memo was strongly opposed by then-departing Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who had repeatedly clashed with the Bush White House over terror-related policies.

The Times said its investigation over three months had included interviews with more than two dozen current and former officials.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino confirmed the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel wrote a previously undisclosed February 5, 2005 memo, but she insisted the classified document did not undercut or reverse a 2004 memo that rejected torture.

"U.S. policy is not to torture -- and we do not," Perino told reporters. "Regardless of where we are, we do not torture anybody, but getting information from them is critically important to protecting this country."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse issued a statement declaring the December 2004 anti-torture memo remains binding on the executive branch.

"Neither Attorney General [Alberto] Gonzales nor anyone else within the department modified or withdrew that opinion," Roehrkasse said.

CIA spokesman George Little issued a statement saying all interrogations are conducted "in strict accord with U.S. law."

"The agency's terrorist detention and interrogation program has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review, including extensive discussion within the executive branch and oversight from Congress," Little said.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers sharply criticized the Bush administration.

"It appears that under Attorney General Gonzales, they reversed themselves and reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

"I suspect that former Deputy Attorney General Comey will again prove to be right in his prediction that the Department of Justice will be ashamed when we learn more about all that they have done," Leahy said.

Leahy, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned that the "ongoing scandals" at the Justice Department "now encumber" the nomination of retired federal judge Michael Mukasey, selected to replace Gonzales as attorney general.