Jump to content
One thing that I have yet to see in any reports from any media outlet are questions about why Congress apparently chose to allow this profiling to take place. LoneCycler is correct in respect to the Treasury and Cabinet connection to the President, but authority over the IRS is actually more complicated because in 1998 Congress created a 9 person Independent Oversight Board for the IRS. While 7 members are chosen by the President (the original terms were 5 years but may have changed), the Senate must confirm each nomination and that Board reports to committee in the Senate. The 1998 Act also created the National Taxpayer Advocate office which submits annual reports to Congress. In previous years, those reports have emphasized the complexity of the tax code and the ever increasing chances of fraud and corruption whether intentional or unintentional. The Executive Branch may take action through the Treasury or via the Government Accountability Office reports which are conducted for every federal agency. The Senate would have to be the lead with anything from the Oversight Board. Both Chambers, however, would have the initial reports from the NTA, and Congress is the only branch of the federal government with the authority to enact the NTA recommendations to lessen the possibility or in this case the probability of profiling fraud. NTA reports to Congress are public record, and they have contained information on loopholes and frauds for years, and while the Executive Branch can take action regarding guilty individuals Congress is the branch who must and probably already should have addressed the issue years ago.
I’ll leave with 2 links of my own in asking who is really protecting rights versus protecting their own monetary interests by keeping the people between the extremes from seeing how much more they have in common with each other versus either extreme side.
Again, I agree with Mr. Colson. I’m just not sure if it is the government or the special interests lobby who are actually trying to control or dictate both your freedom and mine. Other acts signed into law have actually controlled more guns than anything proposed today. Common sense, on the other hand, of allowing criminals to be prosecuted and promoting personal responsibility seem to be lacking.
I’m not disagreeing with Mr. Colson about the 2nd Amendment, and for the record I have purchased and own many types of firearms. My broad statement is that I support responsible handling and usage, and feel that when we separate the rhetoric of “gun advocates” versus “gun control” tossed out by the extremes on both sides many are in agreement. In a modern sense, gun control legislation goes back to 1968. Ronald Reagan in 1986 signed legislation which became Public Law 99-408 prohibiting what was termed “cop-killer bullets.” The vagueness in what constituted as having the ability to pierce soft body armor led to many loopholes as the 10 year “Assault Weapons Ban” mentioned by Mr. Colson.
Enforcing existing laws on the books would be great, and I agree that too few illegal or straw purchasers are prosecuted. The question though is why? How many people are aware of the Tiahrt Amendments which have been attached to appropriations bills as riders before being made permanent in 2006 in the 2007 fiscal appropriations bill? Essentially provisions such as having to destroy certain documents within 24 hours and allowing Federal Firearms Licensees to not have to keep inventories severely hamper anyone’s ability to prosecute. Would there ever be a legitimate reason for a business to not maintain an inventory of stock? If I were a legitimate business, I would want to know what I had on hand simply to have adequate supplies to maximize my profits. According to the NRA and other “gun advocate” groups keeping an inventory of stock is an infringement on personal rights.
As to individual rights and history, my former colleague when I was still teaching at Darton wrote some interesting pieces. I recommend reviewing the citations via the links provided in the respective pieces.
Agirl_25, from reading some of your comments, I would put you in the category of having manners and intelligence. I suspect that you possessed the same in younger years as well and most likely because you had some fine role models to imitate. From personal experience, I would argue that women who are respected and admired simply increase their accumulation of those qualities with age so neither “geezer nor geezerette” is applicable. Guys like me, on the other hand, just become more direct with age since we know that it’s pointless trying to impress people. We still work like when we were younger because we’re too hard headed to do other things so goats and mules certainly apply to me and many peers. Strange though that my wife still puts up with me and so do the wives of many friends who are just as stubborn as me. Thankfully for guys like me women of class sometimes have that vision flaw of mistaking a mule for a mustang, but even then they still know which animal is best suited for the type of work needed.
My response is more in reference to the comments than to the squawk, but the people just like you and me need to forget about all the Democrat, Republican, liberal, and so on monikers if we care about the United States of America. I’m old enough to remember when everyone in the South voted Democrat, and by no means did that make every candidate or voter in this region a liberal. You had your political crooks then just as you do now, but I think there are two major differences between then and now. One those who went to Washington actually returned to live in the area they represented post office and two many people knew enough about history to blame the politician responsible. I don’t care for Obama, but regardless of who is in the White House, Congress alone has the power to fund or not fund any program they want. A President’s budget contains only suggestions. No new budget means the one last passed by Congress remains in force.
Yes sequestration came about because Obama asked Congress for it. What sequestration means, however, is that if Congress was unable or unwilling to make the decisions on what to cut, then instead of having a say as to how what gets cut, an across the board cut would take place. Congress failed to do their job and therefore the sequester. I don’t care much for Obama, but I can’t blame him for trying to get Congress to do their job. Any President, whether Obama now, anyone in the past, and unless the Constitution is amended anyone in the future only has the responsibility to make the United States honor its debts. It’s the 535 in the Senate and House who decide how much to give to or to cut from each program. Democrats, Republicans really don’t matter because they both seem able to whine and complain, and we let them get away with doing nothing because we can blame the President. For those old goats like me, can you imagine what people would say and think about IKE if he promoted building interstate highways in today’s climate? The press and the masses would call that the coming of military occupation through mobilization and 100 percent pure socialism.
I agree with everyone here as to government spending and waste. Myself, I find the waste through duplication of services and inefficiency in the usage of funds and resources allocated the most aggravating. Each side in Washington preaches about reforming the tax code, but they prefer to point fingers at who is to blame. These “reforms” do not need to be radical, but make the code consistent where 2 different CPAs are able to look at a particular set of books and individually reach the same figures. I’m old enough to understand the “it’s the President’s fault” position regardless of who is in the office because that person is President.
With budget issues, however, I do not blame the President but Congress because they are the sole branch with Constitutional power regarding spending. When I blame Congress, I also blame me because I’m part of the “We the People” who sent many of these self-serving, intelligence starved, lazy complainers to Washington to represent us. Even though a new budget has not been passed, we still have a budget—the last one passed remains in force. Congress has the power to fund or not to fund the majority of governmental agencies and programs. No Budget, No Pay is merely propaganda because of the 27th Amendment.
Personally, I would like to see one Bill proposed and passed by all representatives (like in the old days when Southern Democrats would team with Northern Republicans and Democrats to do what they thought would benefit their home area and country – I’m old enough to have voted in the Solid South -- or at least by either Democrats in the Senate or Republicans in the House (since Party today seems to mean more than American to so many) to reduce or cut single expenditures without all of the riders and amendments creating all of these variables about the cut. Then, the public will see where representatives stand on specific issues, hold them accountable on actions and not words or party, and finally let the President sign or veto which is the Constitutional power of the Executive Office. Instead, allow sequester, blame each other, and blow smoke in the eyes of everyone so they will not realize the true intent of sequester. My friend and former colleague in Albany recently wrote a basic description on the background of sequester, and the cited links are very helpful in going beyond the MSNBC, FOX, or any other partisan rhetoric. http://lablouisianaboy.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/lazy-egotistical-and-partisanship-the-making-of-a-sequester/
The young man with whom I had the pleasure of teaching a few years before he left Albany so he could increase the prestige of an institution through his work without facing repercussions from "the insecure biding my time till my retirement types" wrote an article with similar ideas to yours Fryar. He takes on both Democrats and Republicans in Washington, and this passage sums it up: "In my opinion, you do not have a mandate from Super PACs and 501(c) special interests to promote their agendas. The pledge I learned and recited as a child was an allegiance to the United States. That one did not begin: 'I pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the ink from the pen of Norquist, yelling of Limbaugh, or spatter of MSNBC'.”
Though rarely acknowledged, one can read Wilson’s own multi volume A History of the American People published in 1902 for what some would regard as racial even for the time-period and not just today. His son-in-law, William McAdoo (born in GA) and Cabinet member of Wilson (McAdoo did offer to resign his post after marrying Wilson’s daughter in the White House, received and welcomed the endorsement of the KKK in his unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1924. Though lacking in some aspects, there is a Journal article by Michael Dennis in the Canadian View of American Studies entitled “Race and the Southern Imagination” from 1999 that chronicles the differences in interpretations on some of Wilson’s beliefs during that era in history to how the same sentiments would be interpreted today. I apologize for the longevity; it is an old professorial habit of giving more info with responses than is often desired (at least desired by the student generation who often prefer to memorize something than to think and articulate their own opinion which they can defend with a multitude of resources).
That type of restoration, however, is about society and not about government. George W. Bush did not destroy the American people and Barack Obama has not destroyed the American people. Those who argue that either of these men had or has that much power are essentially saying that those men are better than they are. If previous generations of Americans overcame greater obstacles and threats, why should I believe that Tea Party person saying that an anti-American such as President Obama can destroy the US? If I believe that Obama supporter, then I’m admitting that a man without any of the experience or qualities of his father put this country to ruin by himself. No, my idea to “restore” America is to look in the mirror for a person to blame, and then to work as hard and as long as I can and to help others as much as I can because that is simply what I feel is right. To quote John Wayne from his final movie: “I won’t be wronged, insulted, or laid a hand upon. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.” In other words, accept denying rights to one, even if that person is a stupid idiot, and you have opened the door for someone to deny those same rights to you. Liberal and Conservative are just terms to create scapegoats. In my opinion, the important question for society is to consider if they want to be Americans first or if they feel it is more important to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Valley Forge? I’ve never seen a percentage, but one of the better sources is Thomas Flemings’ work Washington’s Secret War which does contain information on the First Rhode Island Regiment. Free blacks fought at Lexington and Concord, and George Washington authorized enlistment of Free Men of Color late in 1775. By 1777, both races served side-by-side in many regiments. Now, Caucasians captured by the British were often exchanged for captured Brits. Captured blacks were sold into slavery in the West Indies. Many accounts cite in excess of 5000 Men of Color who received compensation for service during the Revolutionary War. Did racism exist? The obvious argument is the “Peculiar Institution,” to use the term of Kenneth Stamp, in the colonies and US is racist, but since that is an easy argument I’ll take the other. A few of the free men who hoped to better their standings in society as a result of military service did achieve that goal. Others did not. Many works cite numbers, but it is hard to make generalizations since the records which exist are all unique as many variables obviously contribute to success or lack thereof.
As to restoring original ideas and values, my question is the ideas and values of whom? For example, Catholics had few rights in the US at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Women had no rights. Unless you were a white male Protestant of “substantial property” (amount of wealth differed location to location) you were not recognized regardless of how hard or how little you worked. It does reference a later period in the US, but using Jim Cobb of UGA’s income levels for the right to vote and hold political office in Georgia would be the equivalent of earning an annual income in excess of $150,000 today with accumulated property valued above $750,000. That’s an original idea and value, and the Constitution provided safe guards to prevent such low life’s, like those with less than $750,000 today from being able to vote for the President or even a US Senator.
I would like to “restore” America, but my idea of restoration is a child respecting his or her elders. The elders should be setting examples and earning that respect through their actions. Ideas of education and hard work should be embraced in the home, the neighborhood, and the school. Having a high school diploma mean something and allow someone to start working in business at the bottom and with experience and hard work move to higher levels. I remember a time when, at least in theory, people would work to the best of their ability and even overtime without compensation because they felt that when you had difficulties your employer would return the favor. I would like to see a time where many did not take things for granted and that wants and luxuries such as smart phones and power tools are not necessities but a means to become more efficient and productive.
Last login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013