From United States Corespondent Gibbs Burke…

Almost two months after the signing of the health care reform plan the economic repercussions have already started to surface. We were told all these wonderful facts about how the bill would reduce the deficit, cost less, and cover more Americans. This facade was just a hypocritical ploy to convince Americans the bill would benefit them. Like most legislation however, the backlash seems to be harming more Americans then the bill is helping. 

The corporate healthcare plans that have dominated American coverage since World War II are in jeopardy of becoming extinct. Immediately after the bill was passed, major US corporations declared large losses. In retaliation, the Democrats threatened the CEO’s by summoning them to Washington to grill them on their actions. It was also demanded they turn over all internal documents regarding the new health care bill. AT&Tand Verizon were among these corporations that declared as much as a one billion dollar loss due to the new health care bill.

After reviewing the documents and understanding that these corporations were only following the letter of the law (a corporation must make public to its share holders profits and expenses), the Democratic committee revoked its threat, and quietly walked away from the situation. It has now resurfaced stronger and more powerful then ever.

Recent documents turned over to the Democratic committee from AT&T reveal the ultimate consequences of the bill. AT&T by denying coverage to its employees can post a profit of 4.1 billion dollars. AT&T is not the only corporation thinking about denying health care coverage. Many corporations will be considering the cost to profit ratio, and come September do not be surprised if you find yourself shopping for health care.

So while the Democrats admit that the projected numbers were wrong, our phone bills are doubling we’re shopping for health insurance. Who will take the responsibility for it? I’m sure it won’t be Obama, because things just slip off him like a Louisiana Oil Spill. Just remember… I told you so.

Immigration reform in the United States is a hot topic after Arizona’s legislation, legislative addendum, subsequent boycotts and protests, and the promise of the Obama Administration to address the topic, but there are some salient points of interest being ignored in this debate, or at least being marginalized. Illegal immigration and illegal aliens are two very different subjects, although they’re being treated as the same, and must be differentiated before solutions can be proposed.

Illegal immigration refers to the illegal entry of individuals into the country, with those individuals intending to live within America’s borders, and illegal aliens are those that are in the country illegally; note that illegal aliens do not have a method of entry attached to their illegal status. This is an important distinction, as a large number of illegal aliens within the country begin their stay legally through visas or other means and overstay their welcome. Since they enter legally, defensive devices such as stricter Border Patrol, a giant wall, or others have no affect on this group of people – only the enforcement of the terms of their entry and stay will determine their ability to remain within the country.

While non-immigration illegal aliens are a problem, the fact remains that illegal immigration is commonplace, especially from Central and Latin American countries, and it taxes the services and stability of many states both Southern and Western. However, these very same states often depend on illegal immigrants for cheap labor that is also of illegal status, using these individuals to perform manual work most American citizens would rather not perform, and so both the employers and the local enforcement bureaus tend to gloss over the details of workers’ citizenship.

Besides the low wages and poor living conditions that result from illegal immigrant labor, one of the main concerns of these workers is the stability of their family at home, and they often send large portions of their income to their nation of origin, but rarely go home because of the difficulty involved in crossing the border. If these workers, who come to America often simply for work, had a legal ability to bidirectionally cross the border for the purpose of seasonal farm work, it’s highly plausible that the number of permanent illegal residents would sharply decline – in fact, it’s been tried before. The implementation of a Bracero-esque Program would set minimum wages and living conditions for these temporary immigrants, while still maintaining them as cheap labor, and make the border process a more fluid operation, allowing foreign workers to get what they both want and need, while also satisfying farmers’ and manufacturers’ desire for cheap labor en masse.

While the Bracero Program was not perfect, it provides a window of opportunity to solve the needs of both parties in the modern enforcement stalemate, without resulting to violent and racist actions. To address the illegals, regardless of point of entry, who wish to remain in the country, a nationalization process should be implemented, but not without significant cost and time investment by those very same individuals. If, after a certain period of residency in the country, illegals wish to become citizens, they would be required to file paperwork, pay a portion of their backtaxes owed, pay a non-trivial fine, submit to a background check, and be placed in a watchdog program for a specified time period – after clearing these obstacles, these individuals would then be allowed to proceed with the process of naturalization. By providing a pathway for citizenship to those that have entered illegally, the fear of government, and the strain on public services, would substantially decline.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, immigration laws must be better enforced outside of border areas. All public services – schools, hospitals, welfare, and any other government program – should require proof of citizenship, as these services are paid for by taxes that are often not a concern of illegals. Asking for documentation of legal status for opt-in behavior is a far cry from demanding a demonstration of status at random and at will, and would not violate federal or state laws, or the Constitution. Additionally, not only must the border be properly tended to, via either manpower or technology or both, but work visas, and other legal means of entry, must be actively enforced, deporting those who have illegally overstayed their welcome, ensuring they are not evading scrutiny.

Only through a multiprong, legal, nondiscriminatory approach will America be able to address the ever-growing problem of illegal immigration and illegal aliens. While the implementation of workstay programs, nationalization paths, and the enforcement of legal access to services will not be universally popular, it is nonetheless important and far more humane than the majority of current practices. The United States is a nation that was built, and continues to thrive, on immigrants, and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise. Perhaps reforming the current laws and practices will require substantial time, money, and the implementation of technology, but America’s future success and stability depends heavily upon the importation of individuals, intelligence, and a strong work ethic.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

The year 2009 was not the beginning of a so-called “post-racial” America, no matter how many people believed this to be true after the election of President Obama. After sixteen months of hatred and opposition couched in racism and the growth of openly racist and supremacy organizations, it should have been obvious to many that Barack Obama has been more of a sticking point in the evolution of America’s racial struggles than many would care to admit. Now, however, what may have been unclear to some should be so obvious as to leave no doubt, thanks to the irreconcilable actions by the State of Arizona.

The last year and a half, or longer depending on when Obama is considered to have become a legitimate Presidential candidate, has put on full display the core problem that the American nation has struggled with over the entirety of its existence: a wish for a homogenous culture by some in a country that is defined by its distinct mixture of various cultures. Unlike most countries, the United States was founded by immigrants, expanded with the help of immigrants, and made continually successful through immigrants – the only true American natives have been subjugated from almost the moment of the arrival of its future inhabitants. It is then disturbingly ironic when groups of individuals, typically white, display such hatred and hostility towards any peoples that are unlike them in any fashion, with an intense focus on race, religion, country of origin, and accent.

America’s 21^st century is the same time period wherein being white will suddenly redefine individuals as part of a minority, and yet these very same people protest against the “takeover” of a country they have not only idealized, but largely imagined. No more evident is this fact in modern society than in immigration laws and attitudes, with particular emphasis on Arizona’s newly signed law that is essentially anti-non-white individuals. If an officer of the law, of any kind, is tasked with seeking out individuals that are perhaps in the country illegally, admittedly an important issue, a question arises: how are these individuals found? The answer, especially in the angry and racist south, is likely to be racial discrimination and profiling.

It’s common knowledge that a non-white person in a sports car speeding is more likely to receive a ticket than a white person in the same situation, and this discriminatory comparison extends to other, more detrimental venues, such as the recent event with Henry Louis Gates. Now, however, a state has legitimized this action with a government mandate to behave in such a manner. The Governor of Arizona, Senator John McCain, the Arizona State Legislature, and two-thirds of the state’s populace all find this piece of legislation to be not only legal, but germane to America’s continued success and security as a nation – this from the state that refused to honor Martin Luther King Day. Asking for proof of citizenship of anyone deemed questionable, essentially being forced to self-identify as a certain group, is a highly recognizable facet of a specific moment in history: Nazi Germany.

The legality of such legislation is highly, ethically questionable at best, even disregarding its potential Unconstitutionality, and the institutionalization of racism at worst. This is not to say that illegal immigration should continue to be ignored for the benefit of low wages and easy labor, but that Arizona’s approach is simply, unequivocally wrong. Immigration is an issue that should have been addressed at least a decade ago by the Federal Government, and Congress, in all its smug superiority, has not deigned to act within this arena – likely due to its inevitable political division and the financing from corporations provided for Congress to simply continue the pattern of ignorance.

If Arizona’s legalization of discrimination and racism is allowed to stand, it marks the beginning of a sad, dark era for the United States of America, as many states will quickly follow suit, most especially in the South. This is not a topic that should be partisan, highly corporate, or demonized, and yet within days of the signing of this legislation there has been an uproar on all sides of the political aisle, screaming and fingerpointing included. The Federal Government must not only strike down this law, via the courts, but also provide nationwide legislation that addresses undocumented and illegal immigrants in a humane, non-racist fashion – failing to do so will result in nothing short of a further resurgence of racism and the retreading of race-related civil issues that were supposedly put to rest long ago. At a time when America has its first sitting black President, it is both sad and disheartening that this has become such a dark mark on the nation’s history.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Goodwin Liu, a federal appeals court nominee of the Obama Administration, has been in the Senate’s spotlight, and the ensuing Senatorial rants by members of the Republican Party have underlined one of the ultimate hypocrisies in modern politics:  while preaching from the pulpit of anti-intellectualism, they claim to support Constitutionalist courts, as do most modern Republicans.  This, however, is a laughable lie.

An important point to understand is this bias of anti-intellectualism, which, for some reason, assumes that smart, educated, intellectually curious individuals are somehow an anathema to the world.  While there may be arguments that certain types or subdivisions of intellectuals are not fit for politics, such as lifelong academics or researchers of an esoteric field, this is obviously not an across-the-board truth.   Intelligent people should be revered for either their innate brilliance or the intense dedication to the discovery of information, not to mention their areas of expertise, as they have been throughout humanity’s history – there would be no modern world without any of the most archaic of thinkers and intelligista, even were they considered to be elite.  This is the sad truth of the generations currently in power that have devalued education and failed, massively, to do their basic duty of preparing the world for those following after them.

Anti-intellectualism, however, is but a prelude to the larger Republican lie:  Constitutionalist courts.  The basic premise of Constitutionalist courts is that the singular role of the courts in America, at any level, is to enforce a strict interpretation of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their original incarnations, entirely ignorant of recent events, rulings, people, technology, or anything else that should be so obviously relevant.  Their core intention is, perhaps, admirable, since the courts do not, or should not, make law, and should only be interpreting it within the realms of other laws, with an eye on precedent – but their fundamentalist viewpoint of this issue leads them astray.

When a document is to be strictly interpreted, as if it was supremely perfect at the time of its creation, there is an immediate and obvious disconnect between its intent, imperfection, and age and the modern era, but, more importantly, it often leads to fights over sociopolitical progress, since those who wrote documents such as the Constitution simply could not foresee the very different future that was approaching – slavery, women’s rights, and certain types of federal regulation have all fallen prey to this blinder-based viewpoint.  No matter the issue at hand, Constitutionalist courts are simply a nonviable approach, and yet Republicans nationwide insist that they not only support this type of a judiciary, but also participate in furthering such an agenda.  The irony, however, is that these very same individuals applaud the overturning of precedent, and, ultimately, conservative activism while preaching about those “outrageous” liberals.

The most damning evidence on this count is the recent Supreme Court case that chose not to address the issue at hand, but instead a much larger and more entangled issue that was only tangentially related, resulting in the overturning of hundreds of years of legal precedent for campaign finance law – the impending inevitability of catastrophic corporate-politics yet to be truly seen.  Almost all Congressional Republicans applauded this decision, with some were even in attendance, claiming that this was a strike against the federal government and their supposed overbearing powers.  What happened to Constitutionalism, since there is no mention of corporations as a part of Free Speech, the very excuse used for this ruling?  The Supreme Court ruled on a very obvious Republican-Democrat dividing line, leaving many to ask whether openly biased conservatives such as Scalia or Roberts are capable of separating personal politics from the rule of law – one of the basic requirements to be a non-activist judge.

With the never-ending conservative dissent on abortion rights, federal regulation, the new healthcare laws, religion-tainted public education, and various other issues, it seems likely that another mammoth case will reach the Supreme Court within the near future that will, once again, prove that Republicans are far more activist than Democrats.  Even if the evidence shows that Democrats are typically more judicially activist than their Republican counterparts, then there is an important distinction:  Democratic judges, much like their legislative counterparts, often stand for progress and the rule of law, whereas Republicans have been in favor, as have conservatives have since prior to the foundation of the nation, of the status quo, the subjugation of people unlike them, and a very obvious, questionably seditious anti-federal government bias.  Worryingly, the Supreme Court is about to become even more conservative, following the most conservative Court since FDR, with the loss of the accidentally-liberal powerhouse found in John Paul Stevens.

It is incumbent upon the Republican members of Congress who do not share this ludicrous view to make clear the hypocrisy of their colleagues, along with Democrats, pundits, and mainstream media who truly care about the future of the United States of America.  If the Senate, and personal politics, continues to influence the courts in a clear slide downward to the right, the very freedoms and stability of America may come into question, as each piece of federal legislation is judged inside a conservative court that is most definitively non-Constitutionalist.  Judicial Republicans, meet your old friend hypocrisy.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

From United States Correspondent Gibbs Burke…

A fundamentalist I might be, but an extremist or terrorist I am not. I see no wrong in being a Fundamental Christian. Fundamentalism is in no way dangerous by definition, but rather it is the extremists who resort to physical actions that are the inherent danger to the public. If I am a fundamental Christian, then who do I side with on the philosophy of the sanctity of life? Do I choose the Democrats, who believe in the right to abortions, but are against the death penalty?  Or the Republicans, who believe in the death penalty, but are anti-abortion? A true fundamentalist would say that neither of these parties represents the Christian view point on life.

“While there are fundamentalist liberals, they restrict themselves to peaceful protests and intellectual pursuits, whereas fundamentalist conservatives choose to behave as if the current instance of government is not only inherently evil, but also requiring of childish behavior.” Fundamentalist liberals are in no way peaceful in nature. Three out of the four assassinated American Presidents were Republicans. For several years the FBI and Government agencies have listed the number one Domestic Terrorist group in the US to be P.E.T.A. In fact they declare that since 1990 Left-Wing Extremist have overtaken the Right-Wing Extremist in regards to Domestic Terror.

It was not too long ago that Fundamental Christians started a war that engulfed America for over a decade, and they weren’t Right-Wing extremist. I am talking about Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy, the only Catholic President, and Lyndon B. Johnson. The Vietnam War sparked tremendous controversy, which included violent and destructive demonstrations from fundamentalist liberals. It is no wonder that the same generation responsible for fundamentalist liberal activities are now the same generation responsible for fundamental Republican beliefs.

I am in no way defending bigotry, racism, or stupidity. You will not find me at a town meeting yelling, “Keep Government out of my Medicaid.” But do not create some Venn diagram that includes fundamental Christians as a sub-set to right-wing nut jobs. And do not make reference to the Constitution, for which fundamentalist liberals enjoyed the freedom of speech some fifty years ago, and then say that people like Glen Beck and others are not privy to it. 

We as American’s constantly play the blame game. We don’t blame the person for their actions we blame the environment, something, or someone else. We choose to make laws hindering rights, liberties, and freedoms for the masses to protect the few. We need not look else-where as a reason for an individual’s actions, but only at the individual themselves. Do not blame the gun, the speaker, the book, the religion, or the party, for the actions of an individual. The individual is solely responsible for their actions, and that is my fundamental point.

The last two weeks have been have been extremely busy for the Obama Administration, especially with regards to nuclear technology:  a nuclear arms agreement with Russia, an updated Nuclear Posture Review, and an international nuclear summit in Washington D.C. have all been the focus of America’s capital.  On each of these events, all overwhelmingly positive, there has been nitpicking criticism from each side of the rhetorical divide, even from laughably uneducated individuals.  The truth, however, is that the new policies on nuclear weapons for America is a major step forward, especially given the growing worldwide appreciation for such efforts by President Obama.

The treaty with Russia is, essentially, an agreement to reduce nuclear arsenals and place a cap on each country’s deployable tactical nukes.  While this treaty, not yet ratified by Congress, will not result in drastic nuclear changes, it points to a more friendly nuclear future between Russia and the United States, with an eye toward eventually reducing each country’s ability to bring about a worldwide apocalypse to more reasonable numbers.  After the international relations disaster that was George W. Bush, it’s astounding that Russian President Medvedev is still willing to speak with American powers, let alone produce a marked effort in US-Russia relations, achieving what should have been accomplished much sooner than today’s decades after the end of the Cold War.

Similarly, the Nuclear Posture Review reforms America’s nuclear weapons policy to show a better face to the world and, perhaps, be less of an international bully.  Statements throughout the NPR indicate that nuclear weapons will not be used as a “first strike” tactic, and that nations compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and those considered non-nuclear, need not fear the threat of nuclear attack from the United States.  Importantly, however, nuclear weaponry may be used against nations that use chemical or biological weapons, or pose a direct, significant threat to America and its allies, leaving room for an appropriate use of these weapons.  While there is much more to the NPR, including changes in the research, development, and maintenance of nuclear weaponry, the point of this document is largely twofold:  expressing the U.S.’ disinterest in bombing nations with nuclear weapons at a whim, and declaring the danger Iran, North Korea, and other similar nations currently find themselves in.  Contained within this document are many veiled threats to nations that are currently, and illegally, pursuing nuclear weaponry, overtly warning them of the potential results of their actions.

The international nuclear summit addresses nuclear materials in general, with close to fifty countries promising more secure environments for these materials, no matter their form or state, in an attempt to prevent them from being usurped for terrorist purposes – terrorists who have no nation and no treaties.  In addition to a general consensus that the security of nuclear materials is extremely important, the largest gathering of international leaders since FDR created the United Nations has taken the time to not only increase funding to the IAEA but to also condemn the actions of nuclear rogue nations, specifically Iran and North Korea.  Some nations, such as the Ukraine, have even agreed to give up their fissile material, entirely, to nations deemed more secure and responsible.

Criticisms, on both sides, fail to see the importance of this confluence of events:  nuclear weapons are finally being given the official respect they’ve long since deserved.  The current number of deployable nuclear weapons is more than enough to destroy the planet many times over, which is a far cry from their existential excuse of “nuclear deterrence”.  More importantly, nuclear weapons no longer play a large role in the overall deterrence of warfare, since there are far more tactically precise and efficient methods of convincing, via force, one nation of another’s superiority; the most pressing issue of the modern era, multi-faceted terrorism, is not an issue that can be bombarded with nuclear weapons.  True, the last few weeks do not reduce the stockpile of any major country to zero, but that is an impossible dream – a slow step-down is required, lest the situation be taken advantage of.  Also true is that these actions will have an effect on the American military industrial complex, but this is simply not be a reason to condemn an overall intelligent approach to international policy.

What detractors, of all kinds, need to understand is that this is simply the first step in a long process that has been decades in the making.  Change does not occur overnight, especially in the international arena, and time will tell whether these initial forays into a non-nuclear world will be as successful as their potential indicates.  Furthermore, a small reduction in a nuclear arsenal that numbers in the thousands is, quite honestly, of no military consequence – it is a far more symbolic action than anything else.  The actions taken by President Obama do not weaken the United States or its allies; in fact, it has visibly strengthened relations between America and the international community, a much-needed notch on the nation’s belt of worldwide confidence.

Welcome to a post-nuclear world.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Change, it seems, may be finally coming to American politics.

After almost a year and a half of political wrangling, fake debates, fingerpointing, namecalling, and almost no obvious or momentous progress, President Obama’s campaign slogan appears to have taken Washington D.C. by storm in just a few short days.  With a final vote looming on healthcare reform, despite its status as actual reform now being questionable, some members of Congress have taken advantage of the Democratic momentum to propose, or put the finishing touches, on other legislation necessary for not only progress, but also stability, within America.

Depending on the individual, agency, or group counting, the Great Recession began somewhere around two years ago, and, until recently, regulation to address the very problems that caused the financial and economic crash has been sorely lacking.  Senator Dodd had expressed interest in passing legislation through the Senate Banking Committee, but his dedication came into question when he announced not running for reelection – it is, therefore, surprising that Dodd announced an upcoming regulatory bill.  Some of the details are still murky, but it has intentions to revitalize banking regulation, provide greater watchdog capabilities to both bank shareholders and government, create a “Consumer Financial Protection Agency”, and more.  This bill has not yet been introduced, much less voted on, but if even half of it is passed into law, the battle will be well fought.

In addition to the political surprise by Senator Dodd, the FCC has revealed that they are highly interested in regulating the telecommunication industry, with a great focus on the Internet, as well as opening it up to true competition – Net Neutrality would inevitably be a part of such regulation.  This action isn’t a surprise to those that have been paying attention to the political climate surrounding ISPs since President Obama entered Office, but it will no doubt surprise, frustrate, and anger Republicans that devoutly oppose what they perceive as unnecessary intervention in the private sector, such as John McCain, despite the multitude of failures by the market to regulate itself.

From Congress itself comes an interest in reforming tax regulation to simplify the tax code to close loopholes, remove deductions, and make understanding it easier – potentially reducing taxes for certain income brackets while increasing tax income from those that weasel out of paying what is simply due to the Federal Government.  This move, while potentially politically painful, would satisfy both Republican interests in cutting taxes and the Democratic wish to have corporations play fairly with others, bringing about a rare moment for bipartisan legislation in an era of extreme partisanship.  Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just produced stern words for the selfsame Republicans that have been stalling any and all attempts at forward progress, a well-timed jab likely intended to scare up legislative support.

What does this signify as a whole?  The underlying message of this may be that the Democratic majority have grown tired of the obstructionist tactics of the minority party full of bravado, not brains, and is preparing to move forward with or without them.  An important part of this decision may include not only the abject legislative failure of 2009, but also the upcoming midterm elections in November:  if Democrats can show that they passed significant and meaningful legislation almost entirely on their own, they have a greater political advantage than if they were to lay claim to thin bipartisanship.  The central strategy of Republicans has been to “break” both President Obama and his Congress by preventing progress, in order to retake the majority come election time – a prospect that seems bleaker for them by the day.

Whether or not these specific instances of Democratic showmanship turn into actual legislation is an entirely different matter, but the words themselves have signified a change from even just a few weeks ago – a change that is more than welcome.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.