Free Speech on Campus

My wife was taken aback and so am I with a recent op-ed in the Boston Globe advocating a return to free speech codes at colleges and universities ... surprisingly written by none other than Janet Napolitano, the current president of the California University System ... see: Boston Globe Story. Our former head of Homeland Security and a clear Liberal, Ms. Napolitano is to be commended for her bold stance ... even though she is not the first recently to return to this long-held American principle. That nod goes to the University of Chicago ... see: New York Times Story for a thoughtful and well-stated avowal of kicking all this current silly Liberal newspeak to the curb.

My question therefore is: Where are all our so-called bastions of liberal thought and learning, the Ivy League schools, on this critical pedagogical issue?

[Sound of crickets] ...

Unconscionable

When Barack Obama took his oath of office as President, he swore to protect the American people “from all enemies both foreign and domestic.”  So, once more our Mr. Wimple has wimped out of this primary pledge for clearly political reasons.  He has allowed (probably encouraged) his former head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano to release tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who also are criminals of another sort back into our society to commit their crimes of choice once more. See: A Sad Breitbart Story 

His “so there” attitude (I can think of a stronger term) is meant to both display his autocratic mien and punish those who won’t support his push for illegal-alien amnesty.  I think that this heinous act on his part constitutes an unconscionable abandonment of his sacred oath of office. He is clearly not now protecting us from our domestic enemies. I only wish that Americans could be made to appreciate this indictment.

As people who can tie their shoes can clearly see, if the Obama administration won’t enforce existing statues and deport 68,000 foreign criminals, how could we possibly depend upon it to uphold any other immigration reforms … particularly those that that villainous Cheshire cat, Chuck Schumer, is trying to peddle with all of his amnesty hand-wringing?

Politicians

I thought of titling this blog “Corrupt Politicians” but then that would be a redundant appellation.  Judicial Watch has just named the ten most corrupt U.S. politicians … and it has a couple of surprises.  Here is the reference: Breitbart Story ... and then here is the list:

1 - Barack Obama (no surprise here)

2 – Hillary Clinton (the American public seems oblivious)

3 – Eric Holder (nice to have an Attorney General on the list)

4 – Harry Reid (just look at how he pulled off his last election victory)

5 – John Brennan (see my previous comments at Acolytes)

6 – John Boehner (finally a Republican!)

7 – Janet Napolitano (perhaps corruption was a gating item for the original Obama cabinet)

8 – Stephen Miller (former IRS chief … isn’t that special?)

9 – Saxby Chambliss (another Republican and … gasp! … also a Senator)

10 – Kathleen Sebelius (corrupt? … or just stunningly incompetent?)

Go back and read the Breitbart story above to see the litany of sins that these bozos have committed … and I’m sure that this is just scratching the surface.  Judicial Watch also includes an interesting list of dishonorable mentions … such as former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (another Republican), new Democrat Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (Virginians having traded a headache for an upset stomach), former Republican congressman Rick Renzi (now in prison), and finally Susan Rice (remember Benghazi?). 

Why, for heaven’s sake, is Nancy Pelosi not on this list … or even a dishonorable mention?  Oh hell, why not just do a roll call of most of Congress (paying particular attention to the Massachusetts delegation) and pretty much  the whole Obama administration?

Breaking News

Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor, Tim "Crash" Murray, is to resign his post today (see: NECN Story).  It is not known who will replace him, but this move is clearly meant to pave the way for Mass. Governor, Deval Patrick, also to leave his post for bigger and better things in Washington, DC ... perhaps as Attorney General or head of Homeland Security.  This presages the resignation of Obama's current crippled AJ, Eric Holder, who will be replaced by Deval Patrick or the current head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.

It should be interesting to see who's the next Democrat hack that Deval Patrick anoints to replace him as this will be our new Governor for the next millennium.

Crossing the Rubio-con

I listened to Senator Marco Rubio on Fox News Sunday today pitching the new immigration bill that is being brought forward by the “Gang of Eight” in the Senate.  And what he was saying sounds reasonable (see: Fox News Story) except for three glaring problems:

1) Marco Rubio has previously stated that, in order to get the American people to buy into this bill, there needs to be extensive Senate hearings over the summer … vetting all the provisions therein.  The Senate has to date scheduled only one such hearing.  This is an obvious travesty and a dissing of the American people. Marco Rubio needs to live up to his previous commitments on this matter (see: Mr. Pushy).

.

2) Most of the provisions of this bill rely on the Obama (and later) administrations to enforce its terms.  We have had a twenty-five year history of non- and lax enforcement of existing immigration statutes.  Why should anyone believe that this pattern is going to change with a more rigorous set of requirements, fines, taxes, and penalties?  Janet Napolitano has proven herself to be utterly untrustworthy in such matters.  I don’t expect things to change with a new law.

 3) As I have previously stated I also don’t feel that many “illegal immigrants” will come forward to sign up for this program (again see: Mr. Pushy).  Any of them with criminal backgrounds, suspect work records, or other documentation problems will just stay in the shadows.  Why give the feds any visibility into your existence when you can continue to take advantage of the status quo under which many of them are thriving?

Please, can our Congress be realistic and deal effectively with such obvious and serious concerns? Else we will find that the illegal immigration problem will continue to fester and spiral out of control.  And … please Marco Rubio … cross back over that northern Italian river ... and fix these three problems first.

Afterward: Valid points critical of the foreshortened hearings on the Gang of Eight's immigration bill ... see: Powerline Blog

We’re Buying This Round

Mini-Urban Tanks (from the Forbes Story)

Why is Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security buying 1.6 billion (with a "b") rounds of ammunition (including hollow-points) and 2,717 mini-urban tanks?  Are they expecting an invasion from Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea simultaneously?  Or, perhaps, something more sinister?  Forbes Magazine details and comments on this quite disturbing bit of news: here

Maybe we need to rename Napolitano’s group the Department of Homeland Insecurity?

Screw Job #3

This blog entry started out as a recognition of another screw job on the American public as a result of the $43 billion spending sequestration that took effect on March 1^st.  Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano seems to be in the vanguard of sticking it to the U.S. public … first by releasing thousands of illegal immigrant criminals (see: Screw Job #1) and now by cutting back on TSA agents at key airports (see: Nattering Napolitano).  As I read this article, I thought to myself, “Wait a minute, furloughing TSA agents won’t do anything to save money.  Furloughed workers will still be paid their lost salaries when they return to work.”  In other words, accrued expenses should still be counted against what the government spends … no?

This led me to the bigger question … and the much, much bigger screw job when I researched the subject of whether our government accounting is run on an accrual or cash basis.  As it turns out, like many other things in our dysfunctional Washington, it depends … see the following reference on this subject: Accounting Smart Pros.  When asked this question our ever-alert government bureaucrat responded,

"I don't think there's a way to answer that question in such a broad sense of the term," she said. "For any given report, it depends. There are reports that refer to obligations made or funds that have actually been paid out. The question depends on which line (of the budget) you're referring to, basically."

What?  Are we nuts?  If any company or individual mixed accounting methods, the IRS would put them on the CPA rack and then send them to Leavenworth for the rest of their natural lives.  See this comment from the previous reference:

It's the kind of answer that seems to upset many economists and politicians. Just last March, Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., and chairman of the House's Government Organization Subcommittee, held hearings to see why the real 2010 federal deficit was possibly $800 billion more than the $1.3 trillion reported. One reason they investigated: The government still mixes the two accounting methods, which may produce a rosier bottom line.

So, now we see that even the officially published numbers for the deficits we have been running up are suspect.  Depending on the trustworthiness of our various government agencies, we may be much further under financial water than we have been led to believe.  So now I ask the $64 trillion question … do we trust our government agencies not to cook the books?  I think I smell some acrid smoke and hear the alarm bells going off ...

Mad [Wo]men

Jon Hamm and friend

Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security are being sued for sexual descrimination ... the kind that is entertainingly portrayed in that popular TV series "Mad Men."  Having lived in New York City during the early sixties and having had many Madison Avenue friends, I can attest that this show has it pretty much dead on.  However, this time around, it is alleged that the top female executives at Homeland Security are treating their male underlings with equivalent condescension (see: NY Daily News Story).

I guess, if one lives long enough, one sees most of the cycles of social intercourese (if you will excuse the expression.)  In a very real way this suit might be characterized as "the roosters coming home to chick."

Are We Nuts?

Whilst perusing the Homeland Security website here, I came across the fact that, in 2009, the United States granted permanent residency status to these numbers of immigrants from the following countries:

Pakistan         21,555
Iran                 18,553
Somalia          13,390
Iraq                  12,111
Venezuela      11,154
Afghanistan     3,165
Yemen               3.134
Syria                   2,442
Saudi Arabia    1,418
North Korea          67

We even granted permanent residency status to 1,366 people whose former country was unknown.  I don't know about you, but this doesn't make me feel very homeland secure. And given what has happened recently with the Times Square bomber being a recently naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, the obvious question comes to mind for Janet Napolitano: Are we cuckoo-pie nuts?

P.S., for those who believe that we are not doing enough to help our impoverished southern neighbor, we issued 164,920 green cards to Mexicans in 2009.

Head(s) Should Roll

President Obama recently called it a "screwup" in the U.S. intelligence community over the Nigerian Islamic terrorist's attempted crotch-bombing of an airliner over Detroit. Now our President is pointing his finger at these same intelligence agencies for their inability to connect the dots. But as the old canard goes: "When you point your finger outward, three more fingers point back at you." By this I mean that Obama's National Security Czar, John Brennan, after a dismal performance on Fox News this past Sunday (see: Dodge and Weave), has, up until now, evaded any culpability for these "systemic failures" (also Obama's words).

But, what hasn't been generally reported is that John Brennan was the primary person responsible for the software and database that was built to connect these dots, see: the Rest of the Story. He,"having designed and built our multi-agency terrorist threat integration center", now is charged by our empty-suit (but stuffed-shirt) of a President to fix things. From 2005 to 2008 he was the CEO of Analysis Corp. (see: The Analysis Corporation) which spent $50 million of taxpayers funds to build the terrorist-screening system that was supposed to be the ultimate in dot-connectors. Oops.

May I humbly suggest that John Brennan's head clearly should be the first to roll ... closely followed by Janet Napolitano's.