Serial numbers on bullets – the new plan to ban guns

So, a day after I published my article on the proposed gun ban by the new Congress, I started to receive messages from readers who had no idea that this was a possibility.  They believed that if it were a real threat, the National Rifle Association would be at the front of the crowd beating the drums and rallying the troops against this travesty.

The NRA’s “top story” on their Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) page is about an absurd idea that for some strange reason is gaining support.  Even more shocking, some of the states where it’s beginning to become popular are states that have concealed carry laws and are considered “gun friendly.”

Ammunition Accountability is a company that states they have the solution to gun crime.  By laser micro-etching a serial number on the base of the projectile that matches with the serial number on the inside of the cartridge it’s fired from, they plan to sell ammunition in boxes with unique codes that can be tracked and recorded by law enforcement.  They admit that they won’t be able to identify “who pulled the trigger” but “will provide law enforcement with a valuable lead and a starting point to quickly begin their investigations.”

They also are pressing legislation which would require an ammunition code database.  The database would hold the barcode of each box of ammunition sold along with the state-issued ID of the person who purchased it.  Where will the mainframe that stores all this personal information be located?  Conveniently, they haven’t answered that question yet.

You might be thinking, “But if the bullet will be able to identify where it came from, wouldn’t that be a good thing?  We could finally catch everyone who uses a gun illegally!”  Wrong!!  That’s what they want you to think because they believe you’ll blindly assume that people who commit crimes with guns purchase their own ammunition at retail outlets like law-abiding gun owners do.  If you own some of the newly serialized ammunition, you won’t be able to reload your own ammo; you won’t be able to share with your friends; and you won’t be able to resell your surplus ammunition as you can now.

Ammunition Accountability has done their homework.  They know that ammunition is most typically sold in boxes of 20 or 50 rounds per box.  They know that there are 12 common handgun and assault weapon calibers — and they’ve not said what they plan to do for those “uncommon” calibers.  They’ve shown that even ammunition as small as .22 caliber and 12-gauge shotgun pellets can be etched and will be required as well to carry the marks.  They also know that it will cost each manufacturer between $300,000 and $500,000 for each etching unit set.  You should know where the money to pay for the cost comes from; and I can guarantee the incoming administration isn’t going to offer a stimulus package to fund it.

So instead of eliminating the firearms themselves, they want to eliminate the ammunition.  If the cost becomes prohibitive and the hassle too great, most consumers won’t bother to buy what they need and will go without.  And if you don’t have ammunition, your firearm becomes either an unwieldy club or an expensive paperweight.

Again I hear those saying, “But you don’t get it!  People will just stock-up on ammunition before any legislation takes effect.  And those who reload their own ammunition and blanks will just keep doing it.  So what’s the problem?”

Well, if you look at the sample legislation proposal, you’ll see where they want “all handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after January 1, 2009, to be coded by the manufacturer” along with a list of calibers required to have the codes.  That’s a little hard to enforce at this date if the individual state hasn’t adopted the proposal yet, but what’s some correction fluid and a date change to those who want to oppress gun owners?

But the biggest part that thwarts the stockpiling and reloading theories above is the next section.  “No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.”

So….  No more stockpiling currently made ammunition.  No more reloading.  What ammunition company is going to make projectiles and casings with matching codes that some hobbyist could mix up and have non-matching numbers found at a crime scene?  The liability and threat of lawsuits will quickly squash any idea of them catering to those who’ve been reloading for years.

“And while you’re standing in line to turn over your newly contraband ammunition, you must certainly own a firearm that it fits, so why not surrender that to us as well?” the uber-liberals will chant.  Thousands upon thousands of legal gun owners who are tired of the hassle and can no longer afford to buy the ammunition they need will blindly hand them over just to be rid of the hassle, especially if a monetary “reward” is offered as is currently done in many areas today.

So let’s recap:  You’ll only be allowed to purchase the ammunition that has been coded and you’ll be required by the government to surrender all non-coded ammunition, cases, and projectiles.  Criminals who steal guns will be sure to pilfer longer through your personal belongings looking for every last coded round so they’ll be able to pass blame on you since they (well, most anyway) won’t be stupid enough to purchase their own.

You’ll have to ensure that you pick up every shell casing you arrived with at the gun range and hope some unscrupulous person doesn’t pocket one of yours to use in illegal reloading.  Plastic ammunition casings, such as those used in shotguns, can’t be etched so many crimes will be committed with shotguns, for which the desire will increase and more will be stolen.  Yes, the metal bases of the shotgun cartridges can be etched, but for now the individual pellets can’t — but I’m sure they’re working on that as we speak.

It will take up to three weeks to produce the amount of ammunition made daily when the etching system is added.  No imported ammunition will be allowed because it’s not etched — so there goes firing some of your collectible firearms more inexpensively or if no American companies make that caliber.  You’d be required to keep meticulous records if you buy, sell, or loan ammunition even with friends and family members.  Oh, and they quietly tuck in a five cent-per-round tax for good measure.  It’s not only effective when your originally purchase the rounds but if you transfer them as well, which will be properly documented in your paperwork for every individual serial number registered in the official database, right?

Don’t think you’re safe if you’re a black powder enthusiast/re-enactor/hunter.  It’s only small stretch of the imagination to know that if they won’t allow you to make your own projectiles for cartridge ammunition they won’t allow you to cast your own or even purchase black powder itself.  Besides, they’ll write it under environmental legislation because lead is bad for you anyway and get away with it.

So let’s get back to the question of “Where is the NRA?”  It’s my personal belief that because HR 1022 which would ban several types of firearms isn’t a huge media sensation they’ve decided not to worry about it.  And because Ammunition Accountability is working on a grassroots platform and dealing with the states instead of a national audience, The Ammunition Accountability Act isn’t seen as a national threat and, therefore, not something they can raise big wads of cash with yet.  Oh sure, they’re an organization that is there to help gun owners protect their Second Amendment rights — but they’re in it for the money too.  That’s what runs this country.  If we depended on human love and kindness we’d all be in a lot of trouble these days.

The Democrats, Bradys, and other anti-gun organizations are working feverishly to prevent anyone from privately owning any type of firearm.  They prey on the sheep-like quality of the typical citizen to blindly follow whatever the government says and to give up easily.  It’s up to each individual to decide where they stand on this issue.

So this is how democracy dies? Democrats plan new gun bans.

Here we are a week away from the inauguration of the first African-American president.  While this can be either an exciting or upsetting time, depending on your point of view, the Democrats have already leaked their scheme to keep the general populous down and in submission towards the elite, criminal, and, of course, themselves.

Recently posted on the Internet and passed through emails was the proposed gun ban list created by the Democrats in Congress who knew there was no way they could pass it while a Republican sat in the White House.  Now, the radical left sees its opportunity to take guns from law-abiding owners and collectors in the same way that Australia, Great Britain, and Canada have done.  Oh…and their crime rates spiked after legal guns were surrendered to the government, in case you missed that.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this summer after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s restrictive gun ban:

I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a a law that’s less pervasive.  I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.”

I think we can all agree that guns near schools is a bad idea.  We don’t want our children in danger.  That begins with responsible parents and adults ensuring their guns are secured and that their children are educated in gun safety!  And if she’s grasping at straws to reinstate a law that was clearly struck down by the highest court in the country, you can bet Pelosi is ready to team-up again with Sarah Brady to ensure no private citizen can legally own a firearm within our boundaries.

Notice the emphasison “legally” since most gun crimes are committed with an illegally-owned or stolen firearm….but they don’t want me to tell you that.

As a “bitter, clinger to my guns” type of person, I’m not terribly happy about this.  You would think that the Democrats had learned from past mistakes — losing their majority control during Bill Clinton’s tenure because of the outrage over the assault weapons ban, for example.

Surveys conducted show that between 1.5 and 2.5 million Americans report every year that they have used a firearm for defensive purposes and that 1-in-6 believe that it saved their life.

With the proposal that the Democrats have leaked, the U.S. Attorney General would have the power to add “any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”  Wow — they’re just vague enough to encompass every type of firearm ever designed!  And remember, President-elect Obama’s pick for Attorney General is Eric Holder.  He wrote a brief in the Supreme Court case supporting the position that private citizens have no right to own a working firearm in their home.

If you’d like to read the entire proposed bill (HR 1022, 110th Congress) you can find it here.  Oh, sure, many will point out Section 4, the “grandfather provision” to those who legally own or collect these firearms.  However, if memory serves me correctly, she once said she’d have every gun turned-in and no one would privately own a firearm if she could find a way to make it legal.

What happens to veterans’ organizations and reenacting societies if they can’t legally own firearms?  I don’t think funeral services or historical tributes will have the same panache as guys stand around saying, “Bang! Bang!”

What happens when the rogue military member or police officer, who is allowed to have a weapon in their possession by the nature of their career, decides to commit an illegal act with that firearm?  The citizen being threatened would have no recourse to defend himself.  And don’t even try to tell me that military and law enforcement personnel wouldn’t commit a crime like that….read your local news for examples.

Criminals will have weapons regardless of what laws and restrictions the Democrats propose.  They don’t care about laws; that’s why they’re criminals.  Law-abiding citizens will have no way to defend themselves if their Second Amendment rights are infringed.  And don’t suggest that they should call the police to let them deal with it — in December, St. Louis Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe told his constituents to acquire guns and learn how to use them because the city’s police can’t protect them.  Ever wonder why it’s got one of the highest crime rates in the nation?

Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334)

Oh, I’m misinterpreting that you say?  How about this one….

Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms.  History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” (April 11, 1942)

Am I advocating the overthrow of the government?  Hell, no….don’t be stupid.  But even Mao Tse-tung in 1938 said, “Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’”  That’s why they’re not allowed to own any.  However, I strongly believe that my right to legally own and use a firearm has prevented me in the past from becoming a victim instead of being able to be here to excercise my First Amendment rights.

Wal-Mart versus The Wilderness – What’s the big deal?

Returning to the news is the story that Wal-Mart wants to build a new Supercenter near The Wilderness Battlefield near Fredericksburg, Va.  And, of course, both sides have decided to wage the civil war all over again with historic preservationists attacking the “Big Box Mart Capitalists.”

So what’s the big deal?  Why should either side get their dander up?

Let’s review the history of The Wilderness, where U.S. Grant first met Robert E. Lee on the field of battle and the outcome of the Civil War in the east was foretold.  Lt. General Grant arrived from Vicksburg, Ms., and took command of the entire U.S. Army and put himself with the Army of the Potomac.  His orders were to chase down General Lee.  Grant had realized that to win the war he had to defeat Lee and ignored taking Richmond as many had advised and attempted before.

On May 2, 1864, Grant led his men across the Rapidan River at three separate points and converged on the Wilderness Tavern.  It was from there that the Confederates only a day earlier had launched their attack on the right flank of the Union Army at Chancellorsville.  Grant had no desire to fight within the Wilderness.  But, for Lee, it was imperative to bring the Union soldiers into the thick woods where their superior number would prove ineffective as Grant could not bring them all to bear.  Being deep in the woods, Grant’s superior artillery couldn’t be utilized, something that Lee counted on in his tactical maneuvering.

The battle became horrific when part of the woods caught on fire.  Injured soldiers from both sides were trapped.  Hundreds burned to death before their comrades who were defenseless to save them.

Many consider the battle to have ended in a draw, but it became a huge turning point of the war because the Union Army of the Potomac didn’t retreat back across the Rapidan River.  Grant pushed his men farther south and Lee was forced to hurry his troops to Spotsylvania Court House, 10 miles to the southeast.  Although Lee’s troops had been able to inflict serious casualties on the Union, Grant pressed forward in a war of attrition.  This led to the ultimate downfall of Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

So, knowing the history of the battle and what a major turning point it is in American history, why would someone propose building near this “hallowed ground?”

Well, the ground being proposed as the site of the new Wal-Mart isn’t owned by the National Park Service.  The Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park only comprises 2,773 acres (11.22 square-kilometers) of the original battle area.  The Civil War Preservation Trust has a copy of the map of the proposed area here.  The location Wal-Mart wishes to build on is actually across a highway and approximately over a mile from the actual area of battle.

True, it is where MG John Sedgwick mustered his troops (Sedgwick was killed at the battle of Spotsylvania Court House after declaring Confederate sharpshooters couldn’t “hit an elephant” before being shot below the left eye).  But a muster area isn’t as vital to the actual history of the battle as the front-line battle area is.

In defense of the historic preservationists who say that all of the land is sacred, the outlined positions on the maps are approximate.  No one was there drawing the maps during the battle.  The woods were so dense that it was easy for units to get lost and trying to remember where your line was became difficult.  They weren’t even able to entrench, which leaves a lot of the typical archeological proof found on most battlefields missing.  Even temporary battlements were destroyed and eroded after a few years.  Even veterans of the battle often said in their memoirs that they weren’t exactly sure of their locations.  Remember, GPS wasn’t invented back then – so all maps really have to be suspect.

Wal-Mart, even though many see it as evil incarnate for the way it moves into small towns and the mom-and-pop stores suffer, does bring jobs and tax revenue to Orange County if it is allowed to build.  The entire population of the county was listed as 25,881 after the 2000 Census, so I’m sure it could use the help.

Having visited the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, I can see where commercial building outside of the actual NPS area has been contested but it doesn’t detract from the serenity of the “hallowed ground” preservationists strive to protect.  I have also visited Nashville and Franklin, Tenn., where the battlefields have been completely obliterated by urban sprawl.  These important areas are forever lost and forgotten by most.

 While I appreciate the work that the Civil War Preservation Trust and other organizations do to prevent other battlefields from going the same way, this argument over Wal-Mart building a new store has been raging since 2008.  True, the celebrity list signing petitions is impressive.  But Wal-Mart also has shown that the proposed store would be built behind a bank and a small strip mall already there.  No one is asking the NPS to move any already protected boundaries and nor is Wal-Mart planning something as large as Disney had in 1994 at Manassas, Va.

The National Park Service is partly to blame for this whole mess.  Back when the land was inexpensive and available, no one imagined that people would want to build in such a remote area.  Urban sprawl wasn’t as prevalent as it is now and the land started to be developed.

The “scandal” of Wal-Mart “invading” a historical battlefield could be construed as a fund-raising scheme by historic preservation groups.  By keeping the story in the forefront of the media, more people will rush to their aid and donate time and money to crush the “evil empire” of Wal-Mart.  People who may have heard the arguments months ago may have forgotten or see the continued struggle as a reason to donate more in order to keep the land preserved.

But the land will still be preserved, regardless of whether or not Wal-Mart builds.  The Military Park isn’t going anywhere unless the entire federal government begins to collapse and the funding isn’t renewed.  Even then, it would go on sale and I’m pretty sure one or more of the celebrities on the petitions would chip in for it.  There are many more battlefields that are in more danger of being completely destroyed that could use the attention.

Birds of a feather — Blagojevich “appoints” Burris

As if to thumb his nose more at public opinion (remember, he only had a 13% approval rating when he was arrested!) and the U.S. Senate (Democrats have warned him against doing anything), Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich today “appointed” Roland Burris to the vacant Senate seat once occupied by President-elect Barack Obama, who has also released a statement that the nomination is inappropriate.

The “appointment” has to be certified by Illinois Secretary of State Jessie White who has said emphatically that he won’t approve anyone the governor names.  U.S. Senate leaders have also stated they won’t accept anyone Blago nominates, either.

So why make the “appointment” anyway?  Well, he may feel indebted to do so since Burris contributed $4,500 to Blagojevich’s campaign.  His timing was appropriate as it was received while the embattled governor was in the middle of fighting charges of ethical misconduct.

What’s odd is that Burris recently was heard being critical of Blagojevich’s alleged corruption dealings.  He even spoke negatively against Blagojevich when he was expressing his interest in the vacant seat while in the same breath praising Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s attempt to have the governor declared unfit to serve by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said the decision to announce the “appointment” was “an insult to the people of Illinois.  We believe in clean government, and Rod Blagojevich has unclean hands.”

Really, Pat??  Amazing statement since Quinn stood on-camera with Burris as he touted his interest in the President-elect’s vacant Senate seat.  Maybe he’s talking more about Blagojevich, but doesn’t it speak volumes about with whom someone associates?  Burris has continually campaigned for the seat, even though he’s been a bit more quiet about it since the charges were fired.

Burris isn’t unremarkable, though.  He was the first black politican elected to a statewide office.  He’s a native of Centralia, Ill., and even graduated from Southern Illinois University – Carbondale before studying at the University of Hamburg in Germany and finally earning a law degree from Howard University.  He served as Illinois’ comptroller from 1979 to 1991.  He then served as the state’s attorney general from 1991 to 1995.  He also served as the vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1985 to 1989.

His political career hasn’t been without heartache — he lost the gubernatorial nomination in 1994, 1998, and 2002, the last loss coming to Blagojevich.  In 1995, former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley defeated him for the nomination to that city’s highest office.

Burris runs the lobbying and consulting firm Burris & Lebed Consulting, which might make him ineligible to serve in an Obama administration position but it doesn’t disqualify him from serving in the Senate.  However, his own ethical fortitude might be questioned as you look farther back into his past.  His tenures as comptroller and attorney general saw many, many contracts approved from contributors and many questionable contributions — just like most every Illinois politician before or since (the only exception I can think of would be the late Senator Paul Simon, who defeated Burris).  A Chicago Tribune article in 1994 even noted that he “sweetened his state pension with a loan from his own political fund.”

Even though President-elect Obama and late-Senator Simon’s daughter, Sheila, have stated that he is a person to be admired, Burris may have dashed any hopes of holding the seat by allowing Blagojevich to move forward with the “appointment.”  Obama’s statement reads:

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat.  I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it.  I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place.  While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.”

Blagojevich railed at the cameras and reporters as he left the press conference and said that he didn’t want the allegations against him to taint his nominee.  Well, Rod, it will and it has.  And Burris’ record doesn’t help the situation any, either.

I guess the newest hope for 2009 is that Illinois will find a politician that isn’t of the same political machine-driven fabric that has led to generations of cronyism and political corruptness.

Is anyone REALLY surprised over Blagojevich arrest?

Living in the Midwest, many of us are constantly embarrassed by the things that come out of the Chicago political machine.  I don’t live in Illinois and that’s one of the main reasons why.  The long-standing political corruptness has been a blight on not only that state’s but the nation’s political history.  With the election of Barack Obama, many said it was “business as usual” and that Washington would just become Chicago-East.  Though not as ecstatic over his election as many others, I at least held hope that President-elect Obama would shy away from the historical corruptness and cronyism.  The political appointments he’s made so far have irritated some liberals and gives hope to sincere possible change.

Now, though, Obama’s longtime friend and Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich has been arrested today on charges of trying to sell Obama’s empty U.S. Senate seat.  The FBI report even shows that Blagojevich considered giving himself the seat when those he was offering it to wouldn’t “offer [me] anything of value.”

Blagojevich has been running at a 13% approval rating lately and most people figured that he would automatically appoint himself to the vacant seat with his political future in Illinois running thin.  Following the disastrous end of Republican Former-Governor Jim Ryan, Bagojevich was the first Democrat elected to the high office in 30 years.  Since then, his tenure has been fraught with difficulties in passing legislation and budgets, often requiring special sessions of the Illinois legislature to come in and hash things out.  Even the Democratic leadership in the Illinois House, most specifically Speaker Michael Madigan, have fought Blagojevich at almost every turn and questioned decisions made very vocally.

Even Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley — part of the infamous Chicago dinasty — has disagreed openly with Blagojevich.  That’s enough to stun anyone!

But let’s look at the history of Blagojevich’s problems:

He’s linked with Antonin “Tony” Rezko and Stuart Levine for participating in a scheme to obtain kickbacks from investment firms seeking to do business with two state boards.  In April 2008 the Illinois Finance Authority accused him of offering a position in his administration in return for campaign contributions.  Friends of Blagojevich received a $10,000 campaign contribution in the same month that three Union officers from the donating entity, Elevator Constructors Local 2 PAC,  were appointed to the Illinois Elevator Safety Board.  He has been under constant criticism because of his commute from Chicago to Springfield instead of moving into the Governor’s mansion.  And, Illinois State Representatives have even begun talking about impeachment proceedings.

With today’s arrest, they may not need to impeach him….

The 76-page indictment details Blagojevich’s conspiring to sell or trade the seat for favors not only for himself but also his wife, Patti.  It’s Patti’s father, Richard Mell, who helped get the governor into office.  They now have a very public feud running between them ever since Blagojevich closed a landfill for environmental concerns.  While most would have been thrilled with the action, it caused more problems because the landfill was owned by a distant cousin of Patti’s and her father had served as an adviser to him.  The closure is still under investigation as many believe the Blagojevich administration overstepped it’s authority with the closure.

The indictment also states that he wanted to withhold state assistance from the hemorrhaging Tribune Company unless members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board that have been critical of him were fired in exchange for the funds.

And people are surprised by this?  He can’t get along with members of his administration.  He now can’t get along with his extended family.  His record, vulgar statements, and erratic behavior have made him an embarrassment to many who live in Illinois and the Midwest as a whole.

One can only suspect that President-elect Obama will be making very public statements distancing himself from this scandal.  Just as Republican candidates running for office this past election season threw President Bush under the bus in order to keep their job or argue the reason they would be best to lead the country now, Illinois Democrats must be scrambling to figure out a way to minimize any impact from this.  Fortunately for the president-elect, the plan to trade the seat in return for a favor from Obama in the future was not something actually discussed with the new administration.  So long as he can maintain deniability and ensure no one working for him was in the least bit involved, the president-elect should be safe.

View the indictment here in PDF format.

The Clinton Compromise – Bill tells all for sake of Hillary’s career

No, no, no….everyone already knows all about that!  What with Bill’s book, Hillary’s book, and the daily coverage on the news during his administration, Bill’s sexual exploits have been thoroughly covered.

The title is about how former President Bill Clinton has decided to disclose information so Hillary can be Secretary of State. President-elect Obama’s choice for the position, however, still raises eyebrows of many considering the heated contention between the two on the campaign trail.  And many pundits are still asking, “What will Bill’s role be in all of this?”

No matter what Hillary Clinton wants to do in her career, as long as she is married to the former president she will have to contend with questions like that.  Bill is still very active in his post-presidential career and is enjoying a continued success of which Hillary is still quite envious.  As a junior senator, Hillary wouldn’t have the opportunity for immediate advancement she feels entitled to after her run at the presidency.  Regardless of her pledges to represent New Yorkers in her senatorial re-election bid, she never really was satisfied being the small fish in the big pond.  Add to that how much Bill’s celebrity has grown, especially since he’s been out of office, and you can see how Bill’s activities still impact what she can and cannot do.

Bill Clinton has always stated that he would not disclose the names of those who have contributed to his foundation since many did so on the understanding that they would remain anonymous.  Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, who plans to vote to confirm Hillary’s appointment as Secretary of State, said:

I don’t know how, given all of our ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this who has such cosmic ties, but … hopefully, this team of rivals will work.”

Was there any English in that??

Lugar also said that “legitimate questions” will be raised with regards to Bill Clinton’s activities.  However, there are many, including Democrats, who feel Hillary is too politically ambitious to effectively serve in a new position.  Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island noted,

The presumption will be that both Secretary of State Clinton and former President Clinton will be very judicious in what they take on, because there’s a new dimension here.

But, in order to appease his wife (and, more likely, to help his star to continue to rise), Bill has agreed to terms that the President-elect’s transition team required.  Included are agreements:

-to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.

-to refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.

-to cease holding CGI meetings overseas.

-to volunteer to step away from day-to-day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.

-to submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.

-to submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.

While Bill may be willing to compromise like that, the larger question is whether Hillary really is ready to follow suit.  By agreeing to take the position, President-elect Obama has assured her that she will have direct contact with him and can pick her own staff.  But is she really ready to let go of her campaign and fundraising habits?  It certainly wouldn’t help the new president’s administration to have someone covertly planning a run at his office in 2012.  And can Hillary really stand having to wait four or eight years to try again at the office for which she feels entitled?

After the way Hillary and Obama sniped at each other on the campaign trail and Hillary’s ambitious nature, is Bill really the biggest concern to the incoming presidency anymore?  Maybe this is a way of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

Merry Hanukkah?? White House invitation has Christmas tree on it…

Okay…who screwed this one up?? The White House Haunkkah Reception invitation sent out this year comes complete with a Christian/pagan Christmas tree right on it!

Will Santa be there too?  Maybe everyone will get to light the Misumaa Saba candles (they’re for Kwanzaa, if you didn’t know that).  I love the clydesdale horse towing the sled, too.  I guess ABInBev (what used to be Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis) will provide all the refreshments.

Supposedly it’s just a slip-up.  This late in the game, we should be used to that from the current White House.  It just reminds us that they’re not done yet — so don’t close the printing deals on your “Bush Gaffe” books!

Citi too big to fail? Fed employees owe them money, too.

There are tons of news articles and blogs out there about how Citibank is too large to fail.  President Bush said it yesterday.  The new economic team being brought together by President-elect Obama seems to agree.  Does anyone know why?  Here’s some food for thought….

Most of it has to do with consumer spending and the crashing economy.  But it’s not all because of main street spending or the irresponsible banks.

A close friend of mine works with a government disaster agency.  They recently were told that their government travel cards for hotel and travel expenses only were going to change from Citi to JP Morgan Chase.  Everyone who was eligible by their employment and credit ratings to receive a new card got one almost a month ago.

Remember when Hurricane Katrina hit?  Remember when everyone was screaming for people to show up and help in New Orleans?  And remember when FEMA recruited people off the streets to fill those positions?  In that article it mentions that the lady couldn’t get her government travel card — something required by all employees in order to be able to work.

Many of those people were given credit cards to use for “travel only” that were issued from Citi.  Just in April of 2008 the Department of Homeland Security had to accept the Government Credit Card Abuse Act of 2007 that requires actions to be taken against employees who misuse card.  Many were fired because the credit cards could be used anywhere and these temporary “surge” employees bought computers, leather handbags, jewelry, and “entertainment” with their cards.  They weren’t supposed to, of course, but the checks-and-balances of reviewing all purchases never happened.  Many who were fired, as well as many who were not, never paid-back the money they owed.  So who owes it now?

You may be thinking, so what if they changed from Citi to JP Morgan?  Well, the government is still responsible for clearing those accounts with Citi.  Also, my friend told me that he got a memo stating that JP Morgan isn’t ready to take over the accounts yet and that government employees will need to continue to use their Citi cards into 2009.

So of course the government thinks Citi is too big to fail!  If the government itself is depending on that credit to keep itself going, then it absolutely would believe it’s important to save it.  I haven’t been able to figure out where the money is going to come from to pay the old bad debts.  I’d be willing to be they don’t get a dime out of the people who charged the bills in the first place.  That leaves it falling back on the taxpayers, of course.  We’re already bailing out everyone else.  What’s one more bailout at our expense?