Is Reading a Bill Is Too Much To Ask of Congress?

It's clear now that no one one on Capitol Hill knows the content of any big, pivotal bills put before Congress.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka Obama's stimulus?  The vast majority on the Hill couldn't have read it.  It was $787 billion in taxpayer money, passed in Obama's first year in office without any specificity about where each million or billion was going.  We later found that $90 billion went to green energy, subsidizing, among other bad investments, windfarms that hack thousands upon thousands of birds to death each year.  "Awesome, save the planet!" said the Eco-sensitive greenies.  The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, aka Obamacare?  Another $900 billion (by the very conservative projections) in federal spending. But everyone gets healthcare even if they don't wanna pay for it?  "Sweet!" said the single-payer morons.  "I want my mom to have to wait two years for an MRI like they do in Canada and the UK!"

Even when Republicans took control of Congress in a November election last year, the CRomnibus bill -- $1.1 trillion in federal spending -- was passed with Republican John Boehner simply promising us that "frankly, it's a good bill."

The legislative process nowadays seems to be something akin to me showing my five-year old son a copy of Moby Dick and having him say, "Whales are cool, that's a great idea, dad.  Let's go with that."  Then five minutes into it he recognizes that it's a slow and boring book, and he realizes that he had no idea what he got himself into.  But he's stuck with it, because if he doesn't sit and endure it, I'll take away his dinner and start him on lawn duty for the rest of his and his children's life.

That's what government does these days.  Take the latest Net Neutrality bill that passed through the halls of Congress.  It was passed under the guise of busting up the digital trusts, destroying the internet monopolies.  What exactly does the bill give the government the power to do?  Who knows?  No one read the bill in its entirety!  But now, here we sit, after the bill has been passed, reading commentary about all the implications inherent in the bill which gives government the kind of power to regulate the substantial commerce via the internet.

In our granting the government such power as taking out a credit card in our grandkids' name, or fundamentally changing our healthcare system, or regulating our intellectual consumption via the internet, wouldn't in make sense, Congress -- as our representatives -- to read the damn bill before it's passed?

William Sullivan

This Week at Congressional U.- Netanyahu Gives Lesson on History and American Values

Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress this week. To say the speech was epic is a brash understatement. I will limit my accolades to a brilliant Netanyahu- but suffice it to say that I lament that we Americans cannot have so strong and respectable a leader.

I would suggest that all read this transcript or watch the video, whatever your pleasure. But in a speech full of gems and pearls, here are a few that stand out.

--"This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It’s paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.

Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different."

Yes, it is nice to be reminded what liberty is all about, and to be reminded that Israel is the beacon of such liberty in the Middle East.

--"Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.

Now, there’s something that makes the outrage even greater. And you know what that is? It’s the lack of outrage. Because in much of the international community the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence.

It’s even worse, because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.

Not you. Not America.

You’ve acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran.

History will salute you, America."

I hope you are right, Mr. Netanyahu.

--"Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem."

Seriously, need any more be said than this?

And finally, Netanyahu explains what the conflict is all about to our lawyers in Congress who could benefit from knowing a thing or two about history.

Enjoy.

William Sullivan

"So now here’s the question -- you’ve got to ask it -- If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us?

Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included. So why has peace not been achieved?

Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.

You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.

In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said “Yes.” The Palestinians said “No.”

In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.

And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And, worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy the Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

My friends, this must come to an end."

-Benjamin Netanyahu

Arrogance Unbound

What is the most handy way for a president to circumvent checks and balances necessary for America to engage in foreign military action? Pretend they don't exist.

Of course, to do this you have to have a propaganda machine deeply within your pocket, champing at the bit to deflect all criticism as right-wing lunacy. And it helps to have formerly anti-war liberals and RINOs of the establishment defect to your cause.

The rationale behind the interjection of American military influence in Libya could be a lengthy discussion. The proposed presence of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood alone should be enough to warrant a detailed debate as to the merits our actions as they pertain to American interests. But like anthropogenic climate change, the left positions the discussion as "over" despite having never taken place. The verdict is in, and it says that Gaddafi must be out.

"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to now be the policy of Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. For the latter to even have an influential opinion on American foreign intervention represents an enduring travesty for Congress, after having accused his fellow soldiers of fabricated crimes as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War organization. But nonetheless, it's curious how quickly these former peaceniks have shifted position on foreign intervention to oust dictators since the Iraq War that had Congressional and international support.

And now Obama is suggesting that he doesn't need Congressional support to intervene in Libya; our efforts is too limited. But the fact is, regardless of how limited our role is in the war, it is costing a tremendous amount of American money and effort, and has now been going on for a substantial amount of time. And as our role in Libya shapes the perception of our nation, America and it's elected officials as a whole should be represented. Many of whom would disagree with his course of action.

Perhaps Barack Obama needs to be reminded that the country's path was never meant to be at his discretion alone. But somehow, I think he knows that. He just doesn't care.

William Sullivan