Folks don't want oil derricks in on their front lawns, town squares, or Central Park. Hence, laws were passed ages ago regulating where mining and drilling operations may take place, to protect towns, farmlands, waterways, and public lands for designated purposes like ANWR, all necessary to American quality of life.

Therefore, the Oil based corporations seek control of the reins of government power to avail themselves and shareholders of the least cost and maximum profit potential as possible, both now and into the distant future. These oil corporations are spending millions on TV advertising promoting an image of responsible management of America's energy needs, as environmentally friendly investors in the future, and in lobbying efforts seeking the authority to drill wherever and whenever it will be most profitable.

The Republicans are tied to these oil corporation efforts by campaign contributions, and more importantly, by their supporter's major investments in oil stocks and corporations. Democrats are being lobbied by the oil corporations as well, but view themselves as the champions of the environment and alternative non-polluting energy sources, which a majority of Americans also sanction. And here lies the field of battle between the Democrats, Environmentalists, and Coastal local governments on the one side, and Republicans, oil corporations and their shareholders on the other.

10's of billions of dollars in tax payer dollars are the prize being fought for on the U.S. Congress floor. Democrats want to subsidize alternative energy source innovation and production and foster independence from foreign oil which will require a long term commitment to that goal. Republicans want the oil companies to have nearly unrestricted access to oil deposits anywhere and anytime they discover them even though, this would not ultimately reduce much dependence upon imported oil as our domestic demand will increase as domestic supplies are increased. However, more native oil supplies would mean more profits for American oil corporations into the future.

It is a fact that the U.S. government has issued vast leases for oil drilling on land and offshore which the oil corporations have sat on without drilling them. There are 1 million square acres of Gulf Of Mexico oil leases purchased by oil corporations which remain untapped. Which begs the question, why are oil corporations fighting for oil rights on the East and West Coast continental shelves and the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge when they have leases for vast areas of federal lands and offshore sites which they have not begun to drill?

It is a question no one in government or the media seems to want to ask, nor are capable of answering with certainty and evidence. Which leaves the answer open to speculation. But, there is an obvious answer. This little know fact of sitting on and not drilling available oil field leases has the effect of lowering oil supply of domestic oil. Which in turn creates both higher profits on current oil tapped as well as, and this is important, the illusion that there is an emergency situation regarding shortage of oil the Republicans and oil corporations can use to argue their need to get leases for areas previously denied them.

They want it all. The very heart and soul of the oil industry is an unfettered and unlimited access to all suspected deposits of oil reserves. If alternative sources of energy are found to replace oil, the oil corporations are out of the oil business, which has been an extremely profitable business to be in. It is therefore, crucial to the oil corporations to secure leases on all potential oil reserves BEFORE such alternative energy sources are developed. Once alternative energy sources and technologies are developed and marketed to the point of being cost competitive with oil based energy, the oil industry will immediately become less profitable as it competes with alternatives for a lower price.

The oil industry with record profits today, can afford to fight this battle on the airwaves and in the Congress to secure access to all of America's oil reserves. Once alternatives to oil energy are marketable, their profits will reduce, and the costs of fighting these battles with environmentalists and Democrats will become less affordable. Therefore, it is in their interest to promote the false image of oil shortages and emergency need to secure access to all oil reserves everywhere, despite the fact that millions of acres untapped leases to drill are already available to the oil corporations.

This "crisis" is their means of swaying both the public and the Congress to grant rights to drill on the East and West Coasts and ANWR, while they can afford to wage that public perception war. There are many issues being fought over, federalism and state's rights to preserve the aesthetics and tourism industries for their coast lines, for example, and taxation of oil corporations while they are reaping historical records in profits. But, the core and central issue is whether oil will remain the mainstay of energy and product development for the rest of this century, or not.

In other words, this is a battle between the oil industry of the 20th century, and alternative energy industries present and future of the 21st century. This is a transition point in history. There is every indication that if sufficient investments are made today in alternative energies and non-oil based technologies, that America could become extremely oil independent, not just independent of foreign oil imports, over the next 25 years. That would spell an unprecedented decline in the oil industry and severe contraction in their profitability margins throughout the rest of this century and beyond.

The oil industry and Republicans view the Democrat's proposal to increase taxes on oil corporations and invest those revenues in the demise of the oil industry by fostering research and development of alternative energies and technologies as unconscionable. The Democrats and Environmentalist view the Oil industry's sitting on vast untapped oil reserve leases while crying oil shortage and crisis in supply, as unconscionable.

You will hear Republicans saying drilling ANWR will reduce our oil dependence. Yes, in 10 years, for about 5 years. You will hear Democrats saying taxing oil corporations and funding alternatives with those taxes will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yes, in from 5 to 20 years depending on how quickly alternative innovations can be perfected and marketed. The bottom line is, higher oil prices are hear to stay until alternatives are put in place. Oil may drop as low as $60 to $80 per barrel in the future for a period, but, that drop will only be part of a 2 steps higher one step lower trend, until there is a viable competitively priced alternative energy source for Oil.

In the long run, the Democrats objectively have the better plan. But, Democratic politicians in Congress are just as prone to deceptive rhetoric on the issue and just as defensive about oil industry campaign contributions as the Republicans.

Gasoline is a matter of refinery capacity. There is no oil shortage in the world. We know this because not a single oil tanker anywhere in the world has pulled up to a port to fill up and been turned away empty. In America, there is an oil refinery capacity problem which creates seasonal and regional gasoline shortages. As these shortages occur more frequently, the price of gasoline spikes higher. And because they are occurring more frequently, the price dips don't dip as far as the previous one, thereby creating a trend of ever higher gasoline prices overall.

There is also the speculative pressure on gasoline prices. If the Democrats and environmentalists and alternative energy technology start-ups win their battle against the oil industry and Republicans, there will be no need for newer oil refineries. This makes the investment in new oil refineries a very risky one, until the outcome of the war over oil is determined.

It is crucial for the future of America that voters and the public bear this discussion in mind going forward, for it is their, and our children's, future and pocketbooks which are hanging in the balance. It is the environmental quality of our nation and earth also hanging in the balance.

Some excellent article sources for the political battles being waged over this issue are:

Billions could be lost in Gulf oil leases.

Happy Earth Day, How About An Oil Lease?

Democrats take jab at holders of unused oil leases.

The site is called "Good Bye Incumbents" and it is a very well laid out and easy site to read and navigate. My only criticism is they don't permit comments to their column articles. It is however a great information site with lots of photos for those who need them to keep the visual interest and attention span going. Very well done. Congratulations to Jack Walsh, the site designer. And welcome Jack to the anti-incumbent movement.

UPDATE: Jack Walsh has implemented comments to his articles on his site. Good move. Check it out.

GOP Out of power:

The easiest way to evidence this claim is to simply reference this week's news headlines and accompanying articles.

• GOP cancer: Party could lose 20 more seats.
• GOP can't rely on money advantage now.
• GOP scrambles after Mississippi loss.
• After String of Losses, Republicans Face Crisis
• Republicans look for new message, no sugarcoating after latest defeat.

What they may not know is what common problems with the GOP won't get solved with Democrats, and what new problems Democrats are likely to create. After outlining these, a straight forward voter defense guide will be presented.

Common Problems with the GOP.

First among these will be deficit spending. It won't be as bad as under Republicans who pulled out all the stops in charging up our children's taxpayer debt to the tune of 10 trillion dollars. But, the Blue Dog Democrats (fiscal conservatives) will be outnumbered. Fortunately it does not appear the Panderer in Chief Hillary Clinton will be the president, trading deficit spending for popular support ala gas tax holidays. Still, with all in America that needs repair and investment after 8 years of being Bushed and Whacked, plus all the pork barrel projects and desirable, but not affordable programs which Democrats having been lusting for in their wilderness from power, Democrats only salvation from voter wrath in 2010 will have to be Obama's veto pen, if he has any better luck finding it than Bush did.

Entitlement crisis. It's here. The first baby boomers, those conceived by returning soldiers at the end of World War II, are eligible for early retirement and the subsequent Social Security and Medicare benefits this year. From this year forward, the surpluses in the Soc. Sec. program dwindle each year before morphing into deficits. And the Medicare/Medicaid system becomes a tax anchor weight on a drowning economy and consumer class.

The Republican answer was to let everyone fend for themselves amidst the insurance and medical provider wolves, or failing that, ignore it entirely. Raising the taxes to help pay for these shortfalls was never a Republican option, nor was reducing the debt so we would have credit and borrowing power when needed.

Democrats on the other, will reform Soc. Sec. and Medicare. Of that there is no question because failing that, they will be turned on by the public in a fashion not dissimilar from what is now happening to Republicans. The question is, will they come up with reforms that are any more viable, sustainable, and supportive than the GOP Congress and President devised? Raising additional revenues must become part of the solution if these programs are to be retained. The majority of the public demands they be retained as insurance against poverty and the indignities of becoming indigents at the mercy of limited charitable resources. But, raising revenues as the only answer to the problem will just as surely torpedo America's listing economic ship as Republicans attempt to ignore it.

National Security. Republicans abdicated much of national security despite the so-called Homeland Security Agency, and chose foreign aggression and intimidation and saber rattling overseas instead. The most obvious and logical first priority of national security was one Republicans found abhorrent: secure our borders. It wasn't until they got booted from power in Congress, that Republicans began taking up the 'secure our border' war cry against Democrats. Republicans were conflicted. They needed the support of business to donate to their reelection campaigns, and businesses were demanded cheap illegal and imported labor.

Democrats have a very similar situation except that it is not businesses which are their constituency insisting our borders remain wide open to terrorists, illegal alien labor, criminals, and cheap imported work forces. For Democrats it is Mexican, South and Central American immigrants who are insisting the borders remain wide open. And make no mistake, the Democrats view these people as their constituents, which is why amnesty is still the centerpiece of Democrat's immigration reforms. With amnesty, Democrats become their champion and they in turn, after becoming American citizens, will dutifully and gratefully vote Democratic. It is the ultimate pander, and in the most Un - Constitutional manner conceivable.

One of the most fundamental roles of federal government is to protect the sovereign borders of these United States and its citizens from invasion and enemies both foreign and domestic. But, Democrats are too willing to turn a blind eye to the potential terrorists, criminals, and illegal invaders into our homeland, culture, and jobs in the hopes of securing their power hold on government for decades to come. The very act of coming here illegally is a demonstration of contempt for our laws and sovereignty. Not a concern for most current Democratic politicians.

Voters thinking this problem will be resolved by switching parties in control of government are in for a rude awakening.

Different Problems than Republicans gave us.

Democrats will create policies with absurd federal spending. They will seek to remedy social and individual ills to the last person. They will do this because as the Big Tent Party of diverse factions and splinter groups, their power rests upon holding such a diverse coalition together at election time. The only way to do that is by legislating in behalf of each of those factions and splinter groups. The only way Democratic massive pandering of this kind is likely to be checked from within the Party is with a strong willed and clear visioned communicator Democrat in the White House. Hillary Clinton was never going to be that president. Her entire political experience is as an old school Big Tent Democrat. Pandering to factional interest groups is her forte'.

There is a definite potential in Barack Obama to be the kind of President to check his Party's bank busting pandering. He has an educational background in the study of our Constitution. That provides him with the potential to see that it is the nation and its unity and strength that are the foremost responsibility called for by our Constitution. It can provide him a priority set that will not permit pandering to minority voter constituents for votes. His priority set for fiscally responsible budgets, effective internal and foreign affairs management, and legal matters essential to preservation of our nation and its posterity may veto such pandering by his Party's old school incumbents. The Constitution's priorities are a tall order for any president in today's politics, but, it has not changed in over 230 years.

Time will tell if Obama is up to it. Few persons ever considering occupancy in the White House have ever been, or ever will be faithful to the Constitution's priorities. Presidents get to the White House through politics, and politics has a corrupting and compromising influence upon those who see the role of President as the Constitution defines it.

A great many, if not most Democrats currently in government, by virtue of having been in government for decades, are jaded and blinded to the new realities challenging Democratic Party values and ideology. Traditionally, Democrats valued domestic issues more than foreign, it was their strong suit. They valued safety nets over citizen sacrifice. They valued compromise over unrelenting principle.

However, America in this century is not the America of the 20th century. America today is a net debtor nation instead of net lender nation. America is now a service provider instead of a manufacturer nation. America is a money changer nation instead of goods producer and exporter nation. America today is accustomed to a degree of freedom and wealth, and entitlement to these which were only being striven for in the 20th century. America was a leader and chief competitor amongst nations in the 20th century. However, in the 21st century America must witness a growing number of emerging nations take first place over America in a wide array of measures, thanks in very large part to the generosity and leadership of America toward the world in the 20th century.

Far too many Democrats will work to reinstate the benchmarks America owned in the latter half of the 20th century. But, that will be largely a futile effort and expensive to boot in many areas of endeavor. America achieved so very much in the 20th century because she had vast untapped natural, human, and creative-educational resources to muster to the call of growth, expansion, and innovation.

America in many ways is tapped out of a great many of those and other resources, like trust in government. As America continues to increase its two parent working family society, her labor force face difficult choices. Among them are working longer for the same returns, accepting growth through imported labor forces with the large costs that accompany such population growth or, learning to live with very much less in the way of consumption and discretionary choices. America is still a very wealthy nation. But, for most of the 20th century there were 200 million or less people sharing that wealth. In this century there are 50% more people, and growing, trying to share the wealth. Which would be achievable if America's real asset wealth (vs. paper wealth) were growing as in the 20th century. But, it isn't.

America is a net debtor nation. Her government and her people are going to carry a debt load unprecedented in America's history since the post Revolutionary War decades. What this growing American population will share more of in the 21st century is debt and responsibility for service payments on that debt to net asset growing nations like China, Malaysia, India, and possibly Africa and Russia in the latter half of this new century.

America has witnessed a growing net trade deficit with other nations for almost 30 years running now. The piper is going to demand to be paid in the 21st century. More Americans today service other people instead of their own needs than ever before in our history as their primary occupation. And that paradigm shift will extend ever wider to servicing the needs of people in other nations, through interest payments on our debts, and exchange of our human and creative resources for non-discretionary necessities for every day living from other nation's .

These facts of the 21st century for Americans need not spell doom and gloom for our children and theirs in the 21st century. To be sure, the peoples of other nations have maintained national, cultural, and personal dignity while being dependent upon and servants to the American economic dynamo in the 20th century.

However, it is going to require governmental leadership with the capacity to both accept and honestly deal with the facts of our situation in this new century. Having faced these facts squarely, that leadership must then be relied upon to do that extraordinarily American thing Americans have always done; turn adversity into opportunity with resolve, perseverance, and creativity. America can transition to a player amongst many in this global economy as a debtor instead of lender, partner instead of trailblazer. America can transition to an interdependent member of a United Nations dedicated to collective security from and for its members. America can transition to a role of servicer and innovator for other nation's growth needs with pride and a sustained broad middle class intact.

All these things America can do. But, only if she has leadership that can squarely face the new realities and chart a course of opportunity and principle in the face of them, much as Abraham Lincoln had to do with the Civil War, and as George Marshall and Harry Truman had to do in the aftermath of WWII. The majority of Democrats in leadership today lack the comprehension of our newly defined role in the 21st century. A deficiency shared by nearly all Republicans in office. They lack the appreciation of the precarious fork in this centennial road, one path leading to an endless string of failures to recreate the past, the other toward redefinition and new opportunities to remain a major productive player in the world while maintaining control and ownership of our future.

We are no longer a young country. We have grown very rapidly by historical standards of empires and great civilizations. With vast untapped resources and relative isolation from the rest of the world, providence granted us forbearance for our youthful errors, hubris, and cockiness. But our youth as a nation is behind us. We now face mature decisions and responsibilities for our debts, our education, and our future as united and interdependent people.

Our time of squabbling like siblings over desserts, whose skin is prettier, and what we want to be when we grow up, is over. America has very adult challenges before her. And we as Americans must meet those challenges as experienced and learned adults, responsible for our past though our youth and inexperience failed us at times. And far more importantly, we Americans must assume the responsibility for our future as a mature nation amongst other nations, both responsible and maturing like us, and inexperienced and cocky as we once were.

Lastly, we must become crime fighters of the first order, both inside and outside our borders. Rule of law, just law, is one of America's great weight bearing foundations. It has been crumbling for decades.There is no future if our foundation fails.

We must commit to erasing laws which cannot be enforced, and which breed contempt for law and order by absence of strict enforcement. We must find other means of addressing those behaviors. And the laws we can enforce justly and equally, we must enforce without exception. America cannot allow criminals to come and go across our borders at will. Americans cannot allow criminals to be rewarded with power in our government offices or, the benefits normally afforded upon leaving those offices after crimes were committed, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

That is as sure a path to downfall as any ever imagined for America. No president, no congress man or woman, no civil servant can be permitted to violate our laws and walk away unpunished. No murderers of innocents from foreign or home soil can be permitted the satisfaction of knowing they got away with it. It is anathema to the American spirit, American ideals, and undermines the very foundations of our Constitutional system of justice and law.

The Voters Defense Guide

The voters defense guide then is simply this. Vote for leadership oriented to this century and able to see it for what it is and portends. Boot those government politicians who are still living in the past, squabbling over outdated and divided power games and ideologies. Vote out those elected officials using deceptions aimed at voters designed for the last century's preoccupations. And vote out and insist upon prosecution of those in government who circumvent our laws and violate them, or behave as though the laws that apply to the rest of us, do not apply to them. America overthrew King George of England's rule here, for just such acts of his government. Law defines who we are, and our just laws define why we are a special people in a special nation.

Voter Defense is Mandatory

Some of our youthful challenges were never met. Some of our opportunities are now closed. We should vote for leaders who can let those go, and respond to this century's challenges and opportunities within our ability to accomplish as a united people. Not for ourselves, as children are preoccupied with themselves. But for our children, and theirs, that they may benefit from the parentage of a nation more experienced, mature, and wise.

America was a magnificent idea at its founding, pregnant with idealism, potential, and daring. America became a great nation despite failing to perfect that idealism and fulfill all that potential. In the 21st century, with a little less daring and greater ability to respond appropriately as a mature and experienced nation of the world, we can yet further perfect the realization of that magnificent idea that was, and is still, our birthright. A birthright bought and paid for with the difficult, but proud industry of youth, blood, and sacrifice of those Americans who preceded us.

Yet, universal suffrage is what we have delivered unto ourselves in the name of Women's rights, African American rights, Civil Rights, and Ignorant and Uneducated Rights. America decided that even the ignorant and uneducated are entitled to a voice in electing not just their district representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives as originally intended, but the Senate and the President as well.

The issue of who should participate in our democracy is not however a settled issue. Just this week the Supreme Court upheld a state's right to require picture ID in order to vote. It should be quickly noted that in this narrow ruling, the state's right was upheld on the conditions that the state provided such ID free to those requesting it, and that those without it could still vote on the provision that they would provide such ID immediately after the election to validate their vote. The ACLU, opposed the Court's ruling. On this issue, many ACLU supporters stand at odds with the ACLU.

Democracy should not be left vulnerable to wholesale fraud or abuse. That, most people would agree with. Indiana's ID law is one way of addressing the fraud and abuse of the voting system. Though fewer agree this is the best way. But, the issue of whether voters even have the capacity for informed, rational, educated, and self-interested voting is a far more controversial issue, and one with far greater consequences for America's future and governance than the Indiana voter ID issue.

Yet, neither the media, nor the politicians, nor the public seem interested in the issue. Just as Ethanol subsidies and fuel conversion were adopted by the Congress and President, only to have been proved to be a very bad idea, universal suffrage too has enormous costs and negative consequences associated with it.

Many scholars and political philosophers would argue that the reason this issue is settled is because all measures to test voters have proven to be discriminatory and unfairly, unjustly, and unequally applied, with horrible negative social consequences bearing down on other citizen and human rights. But, something in their arguments rings hollow when compared to reality.

States reserve the right, and the Court's have upheld their right, to deprive felons of voting rights. This constitutes a judgment that a person upon conviction, is deemed from then, and forever, to be unqualified to vote, without opportunity to prove differently or appeal, and shall remain a life sentence regardless of any other sentencing provisions. This is far more permanent a judgment than a voter awareness test in which a prospective voter may fail one year, but, upon improving their civics education, pass the test the next year. Is not the lifetime loss of voting to a convicted felon more onerous than a voter awareness test in which the voter at least has the opportunity at reprieve from their former ignorance?

The concept of the Founding Fathers that voters should, with some measure of assurance, be capable of understanding the import and consequence of their vote, in order to better insure responsible government, is a valid concept. Implementing the concept has been fraught with racism, class warfare, political party warfare. The concept of responsible government, is entirely void and null in a democracy if it is not the voters to whom elected officials are responsible to. Yet, we have witnessed decades of both the major parties abjectly failing the expectations of the majority of voters, culminating in the present with both the Congress and the President having some of the the lowest approval ratings in American history.

Not all the blame must fall upon the politicians. The voters themselves, specifically those who would never read an article like this, vote for candidates, yet allow ignorance and disinterest to dominate their political perspective between elections, relying on their Party to tell them how good or bad their politicians have performed. Needless to say, objectivity and holding their representatives to account for their actions is not what follows from such ignorance and disinterest in what politicians do between elections.

Would it be possible in America to require voters to know their precinct number, their Congressional and Senatorial District numbers, and the names of their US Congressional representatives and challengers before becoming qualified to vote? Would it be possible to ask American voters to name 5 of the 10 original Bill of Rights and what rights they protect, in order to qualify to register to vote?

The answer is clearly no, at this time. But, isn't that answer precisely the explanation for so much that is dysfunctional and unnecessarily costly in our federal government today? Our democracy was never intended to be overseen by an ignorant and civics undereducated electorate. Voters should be able to give an informed definition to the word the 'electorate' before being allowed to become a member of it.

We don't grant children the right to vote due to lack of education and rational judgment in their own self-interest. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Why should we not impose the same constraint upon adult voters demonstrating a similar lack of education and rational judgment about learning civics as our children? Surely a vote in one's self-interest requires a minimum of objective information and education about our process and government. It is a fundamental question and issue that must be addressed before America can reclaim a responsible democracy with the results the Founders intended. (The word responsible here being defined as 'the ability to respond appropriately').

'All men are created equal"... but, all voters certainly are not, anymore than all students of math or music are created equal. Universal suffragists failed to take into account the reasons the Founders did not advance universal suffrage, and those reasons were sound and valid, if not also peppered with other unsound and invalid motives of the Constitution's signers. America is on the wrong track, and this is one of those fundamental and unquestioned reasons why.

Universal suffrage should be an American goal, accomplished by elevating the education and information breadth of all potential voters universally to a minimum qualification. Universal suffrage which permits political automatons to vote as they are directed by their Parent's unquestioned Party affiliate is guaranteed to produce the kind of government and political system most Americans no longer trust or have confidence in today.

I am proposing that we create a popular, bloodless, political revolution in our country.

I believe that it is very necessary, very possible, and very doable.

The object of this revolution is the destruction of the professional political class which currently dominates and corrupts the US Congress.

I am convinced, as are many, many voters, that the bulk of our country's political problems arises out of this 'permanent' Congressional political class, and their devotion to party power and to the financial special interests keeping them in power.

It can be done easily and at no cost. All it takes is a national email campaign by all voters, convincing their friends, and their friends, and their friends, to send out this NEVER REELECT message, frequently, thru out 2008, 2010, and 2012, and maybe longer...Just NEVER REELECT!

If we succeed in doing this for two or three election cycles, we would sharply reduce the rate of successful reelections for the careerist professional politicians, which currently stands at over 98% in the House. Similarly in the Senate. When they find that they are no longer virtually guaranteed to be reelected forever (like Kennedy and Dingle, over 50 years each, just two examples), they will drop out and get jobs elsewhere.

This would leave room for and encourage 'citizen legislators' to run for and win office, using the Internet, without the help of special interests. It would break the back of the special interests who will have to work ten times harder to try to poison a huge batch of freshmen every cycle.

The resulting larger contingent of freshman Congresspeople would enable us, the voters, to call for term limits of "Six Years and Out", and for publicly funded federal elections. Both of these changes would keep the professional politicians and their financial backers on the sidelines for a long, long time.

Let's do it!
(Note to all readers: Please feel free to use this message, with or without attribution, for any purpose).

[Editor's Note: Nelson Walker is a VOID supporter and author at TenureCorrupts]

Josh White of the Wash. Post informs us:

Al Kamen of the Wash. Post tells of an ignoramus Republican who never heard of the concept of valid sources. How convenient since it leaves him free to seek out lies, extremists, and boneheads to report as his sources for Misinformation. Take a gander:

"This is a national security problem," [Rep. Paul] Broun [R-Ga.] told the lawmakers. "I'm told by people who are involved in helping just monitor the border that roughly 40 percent of the people that are intercepted crossing our border are not Mexicans."

(Actually, the official stats for FY 2007 show slightly less than 7 percent are OTMs, or "Other than Mexicans." The ASICs, or "Aliens from Special Interest Countries" -- most anywhere in the Middle East and a chunk of South Asia -- totaled 297.

Another ignoramus, this time a Democratic fund raiser for the Clinton campaign, perplexed by the criticism of her public remark regarding Obama, now claims reverse discrimination. Roger Simon of Politico informs us Geraldine Ferraro now says: "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" The Clinton campaign has to be quietly breathing a sigh of relief that Ferraro has quit volunteering for Hillary.

It started as an industry induced lobby to protect American Catfish farmers and consumers from tainted and unhealthy foreign catfish imports. It turned into an upside down whale of a political conundrum, and exemplifies why American's want basic general principles applied and not all this special interest wrangling and counter intuitive subterfuge, as consumer representatives oppose fish inspections by the US Dept. of Agriculture. Very good article by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum of the Washington Post.

How is this for political nonsense? Let's say in 2001 your employer cut your salary by 20%. In 2008, you and your worker friends get together and tell your employer "Look, we understand the company was in the hole in 2001, but, profits this year are great, and we would like to have our 20% pay cut back in our paychecks." The employer replies, but, that is ridiculous. That would be the largest pay increase in the history of this company and that is just not going to happen."

Well, this is exactly the argument Republicans are about to make over the Democrat's proposal to allow the 2001 Republican tax cuts to lapse in 2010 as was proposed in the law in 2001. Martin Kady II at Politico reports that the GOP is rehearsing their chorus line, "Democrats are in favor of the largest tax increase in American history".

They are of course, referring to Democrats carrying out the law Republicans passed in 2001 calling for the tax cuts to end in 2010. The rhetoric simply does not get more twisted and distorted beyond all truth than this line being rehearsed by the GOP talking puppets. Will you buy into it, and vote for John McCain out of fear that Clinton or Obama would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and therefore, foster 'the largest tax increase in history'? Consider this a political IQ test.

The Republican White House repeats again and again the now well rehearsed refrain: "Screw the American people". But, it is a non-verbal refrain for obvious political reasons. The Hill reports on Congress' efforts at oversight of the Executive Branch of government and the White House's rejection of Congress' Constitutionally defined oversight role as a co-equal branch of government.

Congress asks for documents. White House says, 'we will get back to you'. Congress, months later says, 'you haven't gotten back to us'. White House says, 'we will get back to you'. Congress issues subpoenas to previous White House staff, the White House tells the Attorney General not to honor them. The Congress files suit in federal court to get compliance. White House says, 'we will see you in our hand picked Supreme Court'.

At issue here is the fact that the Congress is the American People's branch of government, comprised of the politicians and government staff in closest communication with the American people. When the White House non-verbally tells Congress to go screw itself and its Constitutional powers, that White House is saying the same to the American people and voters. The Congress and Supreme Court are the only thing standing between an American authoritarian dictator and that dictator's contempt for the people. Some say this President already has the Supreme Court in his pocket. If the Congress is rendered irrelevant by the President and White House staff, the people risk having lost their Republic and democracy, entirely.

There are two items common to all these and many other government dysfunctions. The first is the political division between the only two parties in government to represent we citizens. When their fighting supersedes our, and our nation's needs, the American people and nation are in real trouble. And this is clearly the case as I will illustrate in a moment.

The second commonality in these dysfunctions is voter ignorance and apathy; understandable as it may be. How many Americans are aware that the drastic and unprecedented measures taken by the Federal Reserve in the last week are an attempt to forestall bank and financial institution failures, the likes of which, led to the Great Depression of the 1930's? Very few, save those who keep tabs on the Wall Street buzz on a daily basis.

How many American voters are aware that our government's unwillingness to respond appropriately to this crisis for political reasons dating back to the warnings issued forth in 2006, is primarily responsible for the current sub-prime mortgage industry led economic contraction we are now experiencing? Very few.

And therein lies the problem. A democratic republic requires the voters to maintain an informed vigilance over their elected representative's actions and results, and vote accordingly. Clearly, that is not the basis on which a majority of voters in America vote. Voters in America vote for a team (Red or Blue) or a candidate and walk away believing their job is done for the next 2 years. Welcome to the age of specialization. But, in this case, specialization in this fashion is the enemy of a responsible government.

Above nearly all else, if America's best days are not to be behind her, America must invest in civics education and participation with all the sense of necessity and urgency as math and science. And voters must stop tolerating the political in-fighting that prevents our government from solving more problems than it creates. One does not need to vote for the other party to vote for a new face as their representative when the old face has become two faced. The Primaries and Caucuses are the place to elect new faces from your own party and send both the old faces and your party the message that prior performance is NOT what it should have been.

The vote is such a powerful thing. Which explains why so many obstacles are placed between the people and their casting an informed vote of accountability by BOTH the major parties. For an easy uncomplicated example of such obstacles, just listen to both parties' political advertisements. Do they appeal to reason and are they factually informative, or, are they contradictory and designed to appeal to your emotional center and quiet your analytical mind, whatever its level of expertise?

Government isn't going to change until the voters change the criteria they use to vote. That is VOID's purpose and mission, with your support. And that change will require voters taking a genuine interest in what their representatives accomplish and fail to accomplish. The place to learn that is not the slick newsletter your representative sends to your mailbox. You will only get a sales job in those newsletters, not a fair and critical evaluation. Try our Political News Page for 30 to 60 minutes per week and get the scoop from all sides. Or, better, become a regular C-Span watcher.

My Representative is telling me all about how he is working to regulate the mortgage industry and stimulate the economy. Four years ago, he wrote me to tell me how hard he was working to reduce and eliminate government regulation. He thinks I forgot what he said 4 years ago and has done these last 4 years. I haven't.

Hopefully you haven't either and you will use that information in deciding whether your representative is solving problems, or creating them.

Weeks went researching, then an injury, and more weeks of research and finally landing the right software, days went by configuring it, working out details with our Server Host, and finally, getting the email out. Regretfully, the email went out after the Texas Primary instead of before, when interest would have been at its height. We had a few very positive responses, and will likely see more in the coming days.

But, we will press on. The Board will meet shortly to authorize the purchase of another list for another targeted audience. This time, having all the infrastructure in place, we can be assured of a timely delivery in a state with its primary or caucus coming up. The email we are sending raises awareness of the need to vote anti-incumbent where possible, and of our organization and its purpose and mission. You can view the email being sent by clicking here.

Your thoughts, recommendations, and suggestions made in the comments here will be read and considered and very much appreciated.

House has opened wide loopholes in ethics rules.

As the U.S. House of Representatives continues its debate on how to proceed on ethics reform, an article in today's edition of The Hill is instructive. Even though, the Senate is far from doing all the work on policing its members that needs to be done, that body is viewed as more aggressive on ethics issues. Two former House members (Cunningham and Ney) are incarcerated. Two more members (Jefferson and Renzi) are currently under indictment.

The three-term Republican appeared in U.S. District Court in Tucson on Tuesday. He was named Feb. 21 with two other defendants in a 35-count indictment.

Another of CREW's recent entries includes:
Former Murkowski Chief of Staff who pleaded guilty on "growing list of cooperating government witnesses". As we [CREW] noted last night, Jim Clark, who served as Chief of Staff to former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski, entered a guilty plea to charges stemming from the on-going public corruption scandal in that state. But, Clark isn't finished. He now has to cooperate with the authorities. And, we still don't know where that will lead -- although the names of two members of Alaska's Congressional Delegation, Senator Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, are under federal investigation: [Continue reading this story on CREW's website by clicking here.]

Hi guys and gals, from tenurecorrupts.com

Now that the latest political buzzword is 'CHANGE', I guess I'm gonna have to get on the bandwagon...

I say the CHANGE that is needed in our country is to end the permanent status quo in Congress.

How many of you realize that the average reelection rate in the House of Representatives is over 98% ? And in the Senate it is over 92% ?

Do you really, really think that Congress does such a good job that it deserves to be reelected over and over again, ad infinitum ? Something is wrong !

Doesn't this sound like Congress has a real need for CHANGE ?

Since they are not likely to ever let us term limit them, we have to do it ourselves. And it is easy to do. We simply have to NEVER REELECT THEM !

During this Presidential Election, vote for whoever you want for president. But when it comes to your members of Congress in either House, or either party, vote only for challengers, never for incumbents.

If we succeed in knocking down their reelection rates to the low 70 or 80 percentile rates, they will get the message and let us have a constitutional amendment for term limits for Congress.

Now THAT would be REAL CHANGE !!!

--Nelson Walker, TenureCorrupts.Com

U. S. Senator 6 yr. term

All 32 United States Representatives 2 yr. term

Railroad Commissioner 6 yr. term

Chief Justice, Supreme Court 6 yr. term

2 members of the Supreme Court 6 yr. term

3 members of the Court of Criminal Appeals 6 yr. term

15 State Senators 4 yr. term
Districts 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31

All 150 State Representatives 2 yr. term

7 Members, State Board of Education 4 yr. term
Districts 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14

Chief Justice of Courts of Appeals 6 yr. term

3rd Court of Appeals
4th Court of Appeals
7th Court of Appeals
8th Court of Appeals
9th Court of Appeals
11th Court of Appeals
14th Court of Appeals

Various Other Court of Appeals Justices 6 yr. term

Various District Judges, Criminal District Judges 4 yr. term
Family District Judges

District Attorneys 4 yr. term

Sheriff 4 yr. term

County Court at Law 4 yr. term

County Attorneys 4 yr. term

Tax Assessor-Collector 4 yr. term

County Commissioners, Precincts 1 & 3 4 yr. term

Justices of the Peace 4 yr. term

Constable 4 yr. term

On the one hand, this is great news. We have succeeded in growing beyond our resources. On the other hand, the bad news is we cannot grow further nor efficiently without help from VOID supporters. Volunteers who can email others, who can research the web and copy and paste some challenger information, who can reply to some newly interested persons, who can blog on other sites about VOID, are all needed if VOID is to continue to grow and change the way Congress abuses us and our tax dollars.

If you can help with a few hours per week or month, please CLICK HERE to provide us with information so we can contact you. And thank you for your continued commitment and support.

However, their comments don't reflect a genuine understanding of the anti-incumbent movement; obvious by their numerous references to an anti-incumbent mood. Mood and movement are two entirely different things. VOID is the only legitimate anti-incumbent movement, and all others miss the mark entirely as demonstrated in following paragraphs and quotes.

[The 2006 elections] took out some very strong GOP incumbents in 2006 (NH-1's Jeb Bradley, PA-4's Melissa Hart, and IA-2's Jim Leach) based solely on anti-incumbency, including anti-Bush anti-incumbency. But now Democrats are the incumbents, and they ain't too popular either. Just as Dems took out unpopular incumbents such as Indiana's John Hostetler and North Carolina's Charles Taylor (who lost to Heath Shuler), the GOP can easily do the same this year.

Much is revealed here. First, that the writer assumes anti-incumbency is a partisan event. He proposes that the GOP can, as a party, create an anti-incumbent election. The writer is wrong, first because an anti-incumbent election is far more an expression of exasperation with government results than with one party or another. In 2006, Democrats didn't replace Republicans in Congress because the public believed Democrats were superior. That fact was demonstrated by the Virginia election in which voters previously voting Republican didn't in 2006. Republican dissatisfaction registered in low GOP voter turnout. The growing throng of Independents however, voted Democrat to register dissatisfaction with Sen. George Allen (R) by electing Jim Webb (D) instead.

Party loyalty cannot create an anti-incumbent election. A fact lost on Polis Politic's writer. Only a pervasive dissatisfaction with Congressional results can do that, regardless of which party is in office. And that dissatisfaction, while showing up in party switches and cross party voting, is most prominently and decisively demonstrated in the Independent voters choices at the ballot box, without allegiance to one party or another.

To be sure, there was an anti-incumbent mood in 2006, but, that mood alone could not have returned control of both houses of Congress to Democrats. For that to happen, Independent voters had to register their dissatisfaction with incumbent candidates, and they did, in sufficient numbers of districts to change political history.

By the numbers, the Independents in 2006 outnumbered registered Democrats or Republicans. If there is to be an anti-incumbent dance on election day, it will be the Independent voters choreographing it. And if there is to be an anti-incumbent movement that transcends election moods every two years, it will be populated by a majority of Independent voters.

Richard Viguerie of The Conservative Voice attempts to imply that the majority of Virginians and Americans are principled conservatives who were disappointed at their Republican representatives abandonment of conservative ideology. He writes:

"The Virginia Republican Party--which dominated the state just a few years ago--has placed the raw pursuit of power over its principles, and in the process has lost both power and principles. It will not return to power until it returns to principled conservatism.

Of course, the anti-incumbent overturn of Republicans in 2006 was not a result of the public's frustrated demand for conservativism, but, instead a result of voter's disappointment with Republican results. The majority of Americans have never been conservative for the last many decades. They gave Republicans a shot at solving more problems than they create. They failed. The anti-incumbent is not about the war between extremist liberal and conservative ideologies. It is about those running government solving problems. The public doesn't care whether liberal or conservative policies provide jobs, peace, liberty, and prosperity for their children, as long as these things are largely provided by the management of this country.

Democrats now have power. If they fail to provide peace, liberty, and prosperity for the future, they too will be ousted. Not because they are liberals, but, because they failed to manage our nation appropriately in line with the desires of all voters for these ends.

There are a number of Anti-Incumbent web sites popping up on the internet. But, none of them have all the ingredients necessary to change federal government. They have a good idea, a web site, and good timing. I say good timing because as Tom Blakely writes: "No Incumbent is safe" these days. Here is a sampling:

• Anti-Incumbents.com
• U.S. Congressional Anti-Incumbent Party, which isn't a registered Party at all.
• No Incumbents.Org

Changing federal government responsibility and accountability will take a lot more than these sites offer, however, it will take organization of committed voters. A true Anti-Incumbent organization must be non-partisan, must be legal, registered with the Federal Elections Commission and IRS, and must be funded and organized by a growing membership of voters committed to the Anti-Incumbent movement with a plan for responsible and accountable government. There is only one Anti-Incumbent organization that meets all these criteria, and that is Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, or VOID for short.

VOID is using membership contributions to purchase Independent voter email lists to reach out to them with our message, our plan, and hope for far better government than we now receive for our tax dollars. Members like us and you are the Anti-Incumbent movement. Nothing happens if individuals do their own thing. Much will happen if 10's of thousands spread the word to millions of voters to organize and make the goal a reality. Join VOID. Make it happen.

The 2001 tax rebates didn't have the all the oomph! in stimulus politicians had hoped for. The reason is that many of the Middle Class instead of going shopping, used the funds to pay down their credit cards. No stimulus effect for employment or business from that. But, here, the politicians are agreeing to make the same mistake. Part of the compromise was that Democrats would drop their call for increases in food stamps and unemployment benefits.

There is no question, food stamp recipients and the unemployed would have been the most likely group to go shopping with the funds of the stimulus package. It's not clear why Republicans insisted these people be dropped from the stimulus, but, a few guesses are readily available. Increasing food stamps would increase eating, and poor people are already the most likely to be obese. And the unemployed, would be less motivated to seek reemployment if their unemployment benefits were extended. Clearly however, such rationales undermine the express purpose of the stimulus idea, to stimulate consumer activity in a slowing growth economy.

Democrats in turn accepted Republicans offer to drop their demand for businesses to be refunded taxes previously paid. Which is rational, since the economic slowdown is not a result of business not having enough profits or capital to continue operating. Their problem is they don't have enough customers putting in orders. Yet, this seriously compromised bill passed by the House, instead provides businesses with $50 billion in accelerated depreciation (tax deductions they wouldn't have been able to claim until later years) with the hope that the tax savings will cause businesses to invest those savings in new plants and equipment. Whether they do, or not, is debatable.

What is clear is that the government is reducing its revenues yet again, increasing the deficit back up to more than a quarter trillion dollars with this $150 billion, hopefully partially effective, economy stimulus plan. Ardent fiscal conservatives might argue it would be warranted if the entire $150 billion were dedicated to stimulating the economy with maximum efficiency, but that is clearly not the case. As much as $80 billion of the package could have no stimulative effect at all on the economy because of credit card pay downs and businesses increasing profit margins instead of productive capacity and employees. That would be $80 billion wasted on a purpose never intended to be met.

The Ugly! - The ugly truth about this angelic bi-partisan fever that swept over the House of Representatives is that they are all facing reelection in November and they are all attempting to buy votes from their constituents back home. This accounts for the compromises, and the targeting of who will benefit, and who won't. The very poor in this country don't generally vote.

So, politicians could exclude the poorest, and did, despite the fact that they, more than any other group of Americans, would have used the money for the greatest stimulative effect upon the economy, buying food, medicines, doctor visits, and other American based products and services as opposed to imported conveniences and plastic gadgets from China. (Congress refused to require label foods as imports, or American, insuring consumers can't tell if they are buying American or Chinese.)

The Senate has yet to debate and deal with this package. Only about 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection this year, which means 2/3 won't be as pressured by the election year to rubber stamp the House version of the Bill. Additionally, the Senate tends to be the more deliberative half of the Congress and therefore, more likely to debate the merits and weaknesses of the House proposal discussed in this article.

Should there be sufficient Democratic and Republican Senators objecting to the weaknesses so as to avoid public reaction against one party over the other, the potential exists for a better version of the Bill with more stimulative impact and insurance being produced. It would then be up to the Conference Committee to resolve the differences between the two versions of the Bill. And then up to the President to sign or veto it.

There are a number of potential political twists and turns ahead for this proposal. But, they remain only potential and hardly guaranteed, as the 800 lb. gorilla pushing this bill through is the election cycle well underway. This was in evidence in last night's Republican debate in which the candidates agreed the stimulus package was a needed start but, that it didn't go near far enough to cut taxes and increase the national debt even further.

One has to wonder why the presidential hopefuls still don't get why the tax cut mantra isn't carrying the public opinion like it used to? Democrats and Republicans are for the increased stimulus spending, but insist on cutting taxes further. Did they not go to public schools with basic arithmetic classes? Apparently not, considering their 3.67 Trillion dollar addition to our children's national debt over the last 7 years.