About Me

Name:Tony Sacco
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

The Hillary and Bill Show: Same Old, Same Old

Posted by Tony Sacco on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:29:52 AM

Reprinted from http://www.quazen.com/News/Opinions/The-Hillary-And-Bill-Show-Same-Old-Same-Old, 2/19/08; and www.saccoservices.com. 

 

PINE BLUFFS - When the National Review placed Mitt Romney on the cover of its December 31, 2007 issue and endorsed him for President of the United States, I was excited:

 

 "Our guiding principle has always been to select the
 most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment,
 that candidate is Mitt Romney. Unlike some other

 candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum

 conservative; a supporter of free market economics

 and limited government, moral causes such as the 
 right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a
 foreign policy based on national interest." 
 

          I should have known better. After all, just a few years ago, claiming that we’d lost the battle against illegal drugs, that same conservative epistle had championed - although very low key - legalizing marijuana. Today, marijuana is still illegal, more people than ever are following Nancy Reagan’s 1984 sage advice to “just say no,” and Mitt Romney withdrew from the presidential race two days after a disastrous Super Tuesday.

 

          So should I cancel my subscription? Well, no. The Review merely demonstrates that no one has a crystal ball when it comes to predicting future events. Even though it gets a few things wrong, it’s still the best Conservative weekly on the market.

 

          The future IS unpredictable. Everything changes. Everyone changes. Everyone, it seems, except Bill and Hillary Clinton. Back in July 2007, feverishly campaigning in Iowa hoping to install themselves once again in the White House, the former first couple jettisoned any pretense that Hillary Rodham Clinton was seeking the presidency in her own right. Even as Donna Brazile, a Democrat Party strategist, was sounding the alarm that their old two-for-one strategy would not work again, Hillary and Bill apparently made a calculated decision to run as a co-presidency, looking to restore “the Clinton years.” During their 4th of July swing through the state where the first caucus in the country was later held, Washington Post reporter, Anne Kornblut reported that in one stump speech, Mrs. Clinton promised "to restore conditions in the economy and the government to the way they were” during her husband’s administration.

 

            Do we really want that? I don’t think soooo! In this article and my next, I’ll spell out several reasons why.

 

BILL CLINTON’S ILL-ADVISED PERMANENT MFN POLICY TOWARD CHINA.

          Hillary Clinton’s husband’s presidency lasted – some says it was inflicted upon the American people - from January 1993 to January 2001. Despite polls showing nearly 80% of Americans opposed the move, Bill Clinton pushed Congress to grant permanent most favored nation status (MFN) to Red China. The U.S. had granted that status to all its trading partners way back in 1934. But in 1951, during the early days of the Cold War, that policy was modified to require the president to suspend the MFN status of all Sino-Soviet bloc countries. President Harry Truman did so in September 1951, after China’s reprehensible occupation of Tibet.

          However, later, The Trade Act of 1974 allowed "non-market economy" countries to be granted a waiver and have their MFN status restored. Under the terms and conditions of that act, the waiver needed to be reviewed and renewed by Congress every year. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter sent to the Hill a trade agreement with China that included an MFN waiver. Normal trade status was formally restored to China on February 1, 1980.

          Apparently China’s horrible record of religious persecution, forced abortion, military buildup, and arms sales to Libya, Pakistan, and later to Iraq and North Korea meant nothing to Democrats as far back as the Carter Administration, and even less to Mr. Clinton during his time in the White House. Obsessed with the idea of accessing the so-called “China market,” assisting special interests in the downsizing of their U.S. labor force, and using cheap Chinese labor to manufacture products for resale in the United States, he adopted a policy of “constructive engagement” with Red China.

 

          Prior to Clinton’s push Congressional procedure was to consider this MFN issue and vote on it annually, thereby retaining some ability to influence China’s human rights practices. But by signaling his approval to granting the Chinese permanent most favored nation status, Mr. Clinton was in effect rewarding Communist China’s terrible international and domestic record, and permitting that nation to achieve an important goal: complete and virtually unobstructed access to the huge U.S. market without having to moderate its shameful record of human rights violations or halt its reckless threats of war against America. For China, MFN status was essential to obtaining membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), which it also coveted.

          Even members of Mr. Clinton’s own Party viewed his move as unwise. Senator Richard Gephardt (D-MO) and others had consistently opposed Mr. Clinton on China's most-favored-nation status, only to lose when the contentious issue of granting China its annual waiver came to a vote.

          At one point during the Clinton years – in 2000 - Democrat opponents thought they had a better shot at defeating the President in this matter because of questions about his China policy. They were wrong.

          The anti-MFN coalition encompassed strange bedfellows that year: liberal Democrats upset with China's human rights record and Christian conservatives critical of China's lack of religious freedom. In Congress, even some establishment Republicans who had traditionally supported MFN threatened to withhold support because of questions about Clinton's technology waivers, and questions about China's role in Pakistan's missile and nuclear programs.

          Pursuing his misguided policy of “constructive engagement” with the Chinese – which I wrote about extensively in my creative non-fiction novel, The China Connection (Writers Club Press, an imprint of iUniverse, Inc. Lincoln, NE. December 2003; http://www.saccoservices.com. To order call 1-800-AUTHORS), and fueled by millions in illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese and several high-tech American corporations, Mr. Clinton mounted a ferocious campaign to beg, borrow, or buy enough Congressional votes to give the brutal Chinese dictators the victory they wanted. This, at the very time when Republican Congressional members were reminding Mr. Clinton that Congress was about to examine the question of whether national security was compromised by the Clinton Commerce Department’s transfer of missile technology to China.

          These transfers prompted House GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner, a traditional MFN supporter, to say that even support for the annual extension was in peril because Clinton had not swiftly put to rest suggestions that the missile technology waivers were connected to big Democratic campaign contributions from Loral Space & Communications' chairman and CEO, Bernard Schwartz, who had a long history of complicity in Democrat Party fundraising scandals. In 1994, he gave the DNC $100,000 and visited China with President Clinton’s Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Their trip netted Loral a $250 million package that allowed China to use Chinese rockets to launch Loral's multi-million dollar satellites into space.

          Undeterred by anything said by Mr. Boehner, Mr. Clinton sent his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, to Capitol Hill to urge renewal of China’s MFN status and its expansion to permanent status. That prompted Shengde Lian, a leader of the 1989 democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and Director of the Free China Movement to announce that the Clinton Administrations’ policy was naïve and would not bring more freedom to the Chinese people: “In the long term, to give communist China unconditional MFN is not a smart decision. There have been some improvements in human rights in China, but not because China wants to change but because of international pressure,” he said.

          Well, in the end , Mr. Clinton had his way. Today, thanks to MFN status, China’s exports to the United States pay only a mere 2% tariff, while our exports to China are subject to tariffs as high as 30 to 40%.

          Next time: What, exactly, was GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner talking about back in 2000, when he said that Mr. Clinton had not “swiftly put to rest suggestions that missile technology waivers were connected to big Democratic campaign contributions?” Did President Clinton sell American foreign policy to the highest bidder in return for campaign contributions? What about Loral Space & Communications, Ltd., Hughes Electronics, Inc., and the Lockheed-Martin Corporation? Did they have anything to do with illegal campaign contributions to the Democrat Party?

_________________

          Anthony J. Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com. To read an exerpt from his latest book, Echoes in the wind, go to http://www.saccoservices.com/echoesinthewind.php.

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Illegal Aliens Should be Given the Gate, Not Rebate Checks: McCain Republican Frontrunner after Super Tuesday, Romney Withdraws from Race

Posted by Tony Sacco on Friday, February 08, 2008 11:18:42 AM

PINE BLUFFS - Responding to cries from liberals in the media and government that our economy is going in the tank, Congress is presently considering a so-called stimulus package.

As initially proposed, the stimulus plan would have provided taxpayers a rebate check of up to $800 per individual and up to $1,600 per married couple. But then Republican Congressional leaders decided they had to compromise with liberals who wanted to morph it into a huge government give-away.

It wasn't enough to simply provide a rebate check to taxpayers - folks who actually paid taxes. The House compromise would send checks to anyone who earned an income of over $3,000. The Associated Press  estimates that $28 billion dollars would go to people who never paid a nickel of income tax. 

That's neither economic stimulus, nor tax relief. It's a welfare entitlement! 

But that was not the worst of it, because it quickly became evident that some of the money would end up in the hands of illegal aliens. Word of this soon leaked out. Congressman John Shadegg, one of the few Republicans in the House of Representatives with the courage to vote against this stimulus package, explained it this way:

"The reason that illegal aliens will receive rebate checks is that under the terms of the bill, checks are to be automatically sent to all people who filed a tax return and earned the requisite $3000. Because tax returns do not disclose a taxpayer's legal status, rebate checks will automatically be sent to all illegal aliens who filed a tax return."

"It's a little like going out on Halloween and telling your babysitter that she should only give out candy to kids from your neighborhood. But, she has no way of knowing which kids are from your neighborhood and which are from somewhere else, so she just gives it to all the kids who come to your house.

"Simply put, the IRS has no way to know whether the individual who filed the tax return is an illegal alien or not. As a result, it will issue checks to all illegal aliens who filed a return."

Shadegg's comment came regarding the bill as it originally passed the House, which made even those who filed tax returns using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) eligible for refunds.

Days later Senator John Ensign, who also heads up the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (NRSCC), advanced "a quick fix" for this loophole by amending the proposal so that only those with valid Social Security numbers - and not ITINs - would be eligible for checks.

But that won't stop illegal aliens from receiving checks! CBS News explains further:

"Every year, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants use individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) to file income tax returns with the IRS. These ID numbers are used instead of Social Security numbers. There are no exact statistics for how many illegal immigrants file tax returns but [a New York Times report] from last year details the significant increase in use of ITINs."

Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, explains it this way:

"there is a lack of coordination between the IRS and immigration enforcement agencies.... If the IRS was cooperating with Social Security or DHS... they would know who the illegal immigrants are who file tax returns."

According to government estimates, the buying and selling of fraudulent Social Security numbers is a $50 billion dollar a year business. That's a huge problem.

In an interview on FOX News, Colorado Republican and former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, one of the most vocal anti-illegal immigration voices in Washington, didn't like the Senate's proposed fix either, but for different reasons: 

"'Whether the total amount of checks cut to illegal aliens from the U.S. Treasury amounts to $600 or $6 billion, I do not believe the American public supports a stimulus package that reinforces the idea that there is really no difference between illegal aliens and American citizens. Worse, given the well documented tendency of illegal aliens to send large portions of their earnings back to relatives in their home country, it is quite possible that the lion's share of any payments sent to illegal aliens will simply be sent abroad -- stimulating a foreign economy rather than our own.

"The Senate's proposed fix also doesn't address a much greater problem. The fact that we know Social Security numbers are compromised, the fact that thousands of people, maybe millions of people, we don't know for sure how many people, filed an income tax form with a fake Social Security number. We also know that there's absolutely no communication between the IRS and Social Security Administration."

I can't understand it. Politicians in Washington, D.C., after all this time, still don't get it. Many illegals already exploit and overtax our nation's welfare systems and other social services, and citizens like us foot the bill. Yet our government continues to turn a blind eye to this problem, thereby encouraging more illegal border crossings. Now our elected leaders in Washington want to entice even more people to cross our nation's borders illegally by promising more government handouts - this time, tax rebate checks for illegal aliens.

Tired of this nonsense? If the issue of illegal immigration is one of your primary concerns, then you'll want to vote for the presidential candidate who has promised to actually fix the problem. And that's neither Democrat Party presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Barack Hussein Obama.

Who then? In the presidential debates, the immigration issue has been a major point of contention among Republican candidates. Not so among Democrat candidates who seem to agree: amnesty for all, followed by increases in immigration quotas to permit a major influx of immigrants into this country, thereby changing the demographics of the United States drastically over the next 20-30 years. 

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul have all pledged to secure our borders, eliminate so-called sanctuary cities in America, cut off welfare and other benefits for illegals, and, through policies of attrition or outright arrest and deportation, reduce the presence of illegals here. John McCain, once aptly-named "Amnesty John," has been a Johnny-come-lately to the issue, (pun intended) who has belatedly promised to secure the borders and deport illegals who commit criminal acts here.

But which of these guys can actually win the presidential election? On Super Tuesday, Ron Paul demontrated a lack of national appeal, garnering 4% or less of the vote. Mike Huckabee showed strength only among  evangelical Christians and only in the south, with wins in his home state of Arkansa, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

Romney, a man of sound moral values and a solid Conservative, is a former Republican governor of the liberal Democrat state of Massachusetts. During his tenure there he showed his ability to reach across the political divide and attract Democrats. He has broad experience in the business world, some appeal to mainstram Republicans, and might have been able to unite social and fiscal conservatives behind him. On Super Tuesday, he showed a glimmer of national popularity with wins in Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesotta, Alaska, North Dakota, Montana, and Colorado. But when the chips were down, he could not unite his own Party. Watching results as Huckabee took evangelical Christian votes from him, he apparently realized that he could not win the nomination without them, so he withdrew from the race the following day. 

So, if you want change in Washington, but want to see Republicans back in office after the deplorable showing by Congressional Democrats and others, you're left with John McCain, 71, who's been part of the "inside the beltway" crowd for 25 years.  Can he unite the Republican Party, go on to win the nomination, and the election in November? Will he be able to reach out to Conservatives, whom he has marginalized in the past? What about evangelicals? Can he secure their trust?
 
We didn't have long to wait. On Thursday, February 7, 2008, McCain addressed 6,000 members of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. and attempted to do all of the above. He stated that he would NOT sign any Congressional bill which contained earmarks, that he was pro-life, that he would appoint to the Supreme Court judges like Roberts and Alito, that he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, AND that he would fight the war on terror to win. He received long, sustained applause.

These solidly conservative positions place him in stark contrast to both Clinton and Obama on the Democrat side, and promise the American people a clear choice in November.
_________ 
Anthony J. Sacco, a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com. To read an exerpt from his latest book, Echoes in the Wind, go to http://www.saccoservices.com/echoesinthewind.php.
 









 




 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do We Really Want This Man to be President of the United States?

Posted by Tony Sacco on Friday, February 01, 2008 4:43:51 PM
PINE BLUFFS — We’re a bit over one year (yeah, that’s right, one year) into the current campaign for the presidency. The caucuses and primaries have just begun. Super Tuesday is a week in the future. With ten months to go, let’s hope the candidates all have paid-up life and health insurance. This election cycle promises to be the most grueling in history.

So far, on the Republican side, John McCain is leading in the delegate count, having revived his failing campaign with a close win in Florida, the first of the closed Republican primary states. Mitt Romney has garnered two wins and one second place finish in caucus states (Wyoming, Nevada, and Iowa), and one win and two seconds in primary states (Michigan, New Hampshire, and Florida).

On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton has pulled off two wins in caucus states (Iowa and Nevada), and one win and one second in primary states (Nevada and South Carolina), but Barack Obama has shown surprising strength winning handily in South Carolina’s Democrat primary with 55% of the vote to Hillary’s 27%.

Barack Obama? Given the state of today’s world - terrorism and that sort of thing - we shouldn’t need foreign policy experts to tell us that it might not be the wisest or most prudent idea to elect a Muslim or someone with a Muslim background as our president. But apparently common sense isn’t what it used to be. Makes one wonder if those high doses of stress Americans experience these days have caused a temporary loss of sanity, especially among Democrats.

So just who is Barack Obama? What’s his background? Who were his parents? What experience has he had that qualifies him to be president of the United States?

This came to me in an e-mail originating with someone named Donald I. LaFever, Sr. The person who forwarded it to me said, “We checked this out on ‘snopes.com’. It’s factual. Check for yourself.” What appears below was probably written well over a year ago, before the election campaign began. The words in caps are contained in LaFever’s e-mail. I think it’s important enough to pass along. However, I’ve checked Snopes.com myself, and have found several claims that appear below to have been slightly exaggerated, and one or two to be totally false. The rest are accurate. The results of my research appear as author’s notes in italics. So here it is. You decide:

“Probable U.S. presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas. [Author’s Note: This statement is true].

“Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was six years old the family relocated to Indonesia. [Author’s Note: This statement is true]. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Author’s Note: This statement is true].

“Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that he ‘was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic schools.’ [Author’s Note: Whether or not he takes any pains to conceal the fact that he may have once been or still is a Muslim, is unclear. That he once briefly attended a Catholic school is true].

“Obama’s political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical, [that] Obama’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education. [Author’s Note: Obama’s father DID return to Kenya after the divorce, but not before moving to Connecticut to finish his education. It is true that the man’s influence over his son was neither direct nor pivotal. But early on, it was there. Of more significance to Obama’s claim that he’s a Christian now, his mother’s atheistic views seemed to influence Obama as a boy. His own book admits this].

“Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Durham, introduced his step-son to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. [This claim appears to be false. Obama DID attend school in Jakarta, but it may have been simply a public school].

“Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. [Author’s Note: This is an accurate definition of Wahabism]. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, [Author’s Note: That’s correct. It is] Barack Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. [Author’s Note: It is by no means clear when Obama joined this church. However, it’s wise to remember that the United Church of Christ has no dogma. Its members can believe anything they want to believe and still remain in good standing].

"Also keep in mind that when he was sworn into office [Author’s Note: as a Senator from Illinois], he did not use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran. [Author’s note: This claim appears to be false, arising from confusion with another politician in a different north central state].

“Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of allegiance nor will he show reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches. [Author's note: While he was observed and documented doing this at the inception of his presidential campaign, he has since begun to recite the Pledge. But one can only wonder what was behind his earlier refusal].

“Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy.

“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level – through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!! [Author’s Note: This is an accurate depiction of a radical Muslim claim, arising from their belief that those who do not accept Sharia Law are infidels and must be destroyed. However, not all Muslims believe this].

“… Would you want this man leading our country? …NOT ME!!!”

When one couples the above TRUE information with the fact that his record while a Senator from Illinois indicates a confirmed leftist; a liberal who hates the capitalist system, advocates higher taxes, more governmental regulation, and bigger government, I probably would not, either. It would be foolhardy to follow the course of Europe and Canada into socialism.

Still, it is apparent that at least leftist liberal types in this country might have no qualms about electing a Muslim or someone with a Muslim background to lead the United States. Steve Forbes, once a candidate for the Republican nomination to the presidency, who now sits on the Board of Trustees at the Heritage Foundation, recently remarked: “Liberal politicians seem to have been captured by the far left. Both in Congress and in the campaigns, they are playing to the most radical elements in the country with their rhetoric, stirring up class warfare on the domestic front and surrender to our enemies on the foreign front.”

He’s correct. The people to whom he was referring are those who hate America with a passion for having weathered so many storms and come through as the strongest nation under God in the entire world. To them, America is always wrong. Many of these misguided souls have taken to the hustings to help Obama win election in 2008. Faced with the appalling slate of Democrat candidates, he appears to be the best of a bad lot.

It’s also conceivable that enough ill-informed, un-informed, and un-interested Democrats – you know the type; those who feel that, “All politicians are crooks. I can’t be bothered to learn about them.” Or those who owe their seat at the table of power to the politics of victimhood, or those who simply do not want four more years of the Bill and Hillary show, or those who want to see a black man as President, will be fooled into voting for Obama.

            Anthony J. Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College of Maryland and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com. To read an exerpt from his latest book, Echoes in the Wind, go to http://www.saccoservices.com/echoesinthewind.php.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »