Two Peas in a Pod: Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell

Two of the most disliked members of the dishonorable elite are Representative Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco and Speaker of the House, and the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader.

Nancy Pelosi has been a member of House since 1987, and for much of her time in office, she has held one of the most powerful positions in Congress, Speaker of House (2007 - 2011 and 2019 - Present). She is also one of the wealthiest members of Congress, which is saying something given that Congress is the bastion of millionaires to begin with.

According to Open Secrets, Pelosi is the sixth wealthiest member of Congress. She has an estimated net worth of $135 million dollars. She makes $210,000 from her position in Congress. However, her monthly income from investments brings in $1 million dollars. It's worth noting that her portfolio includes investments in IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Bank of America, and General Electric; all part of the ruling Corporatocracy which pulls Congress's purse strings.  

As an aside, Pelosi has been consistently one of the most disliked members of not just the House, but Congress of years. So how does she manage to keep getting reelected?  Pelosi's is from San Francisco's 12th District, which covers the entirely of the city itself, and thus is 100% urban; the fertile soil of the Democratic Party. The median income is just under $121,000.

Despite her strict Italian Catholic upbringing, Pelosi represents an extremely liberal district, reflecting its racial and cultural makeup. It is one of the so-called major "sanctuary" cities, offering support to illegal immigrants in violation of federal immigrations laws and still receiving federal dollars, thanks to people like Pelosi.  

Racially it's mainly white at 43.5%, followed by Asian with 31.9%, Hispanic 14.3%, black at 5.4%, and mixed race making up 3.9%. Males comprise 51.3% of population while females are 48.7%. With a population of 771,000, it has one of the highest LGBQT concentrations in the country.

 When it comes to voter registration, just under half of district's residents are either registered to vote (total voter registration is 425,290). With its well earned liberal tradition, it's not surprising the 12th District is overwhelmingly Democrat with 57.50% of the voters. Republicans make up just 6.61%, followed by Independents with 1.65%.  Pelosi won her last race in 2020 with a commanding 74% of the vote.

So, the only way Pelosi can lose is if a strong and very wealthy Democratic candidate runs against her, which is unlikely to happen (in addition, Pelosi is very good friends and neighbor with former San Francisco mayor and current senator, Diane Feinstein).

As for Mitch McConnell, he's been a member of what's been called "the most exclusive private club in the world" since 1985; representing Kentucky's 4th Congressional District, which includes upper incomes of eastern Jefferson County, and much of Northern Kentucky extending to the Ft. Thomas, Newport, and Covington (all of which are considered part of the Greater Cincinnati area).

Aside from the wealthy portions of Louisville/Jefferson County, the 4th Congressional District in general is well to do, especially the areas close to Cincinnati. It is also one of the first Congressional districts in Kentucky to become solidly Republican in what was once a hardcore Democrat state (albeit a fairly conservative one).

In terms of registration, the 4th Congressional District has 619,460 registered voters. Of that, 49.50%  are Republicans. Democrats make up 38.31%, while Independents and third parties (most notably the growing Libertarian Party) comprise a total of 12.19% of voters.  

It's worth nothing that Louisville/Jefferson County, which is Kentucky's largest city and the economic engine of the state, is one of the last Democratic bastions remaining in a de facto red state. While there are pockets of traditionally liberal Democrats (notably in the city's Highlands), most residents tend to lean conservative on the majority of issues.

Louisville also has the highest concentration of LGBQT individuals as well, who are known to be very politically active and predominately Democrat. Nevertheless, it appears that the 80 year old senator's base is pretty secure for the foreseeable future. As for his approval rating, that's something altogether different.

Like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator Mitch McConnell is one of the most unpopular individuals in Congress. In a December 2021 Gallup Poll, McConnell came in first place (or should that be last place?) as the most disliked person in Congress with an approval rating of 34%. For what it's worth, Pelosi was second place with 40%. Chief Justice John Roberts was the most favorable with 60%, but that was, of course, before the Roe v. Wade decision.

Even at home, the Senator's disapproval rating hovers around a 53%, and yet despite the best efforts of Democrats, he keeps winning (when I say "best efforts", it's usually political retreads or inept newbies harping on the wrong message). Nationally, it gets worse. In a May 2022 survey, the Senior Senator's approval rating was a mere 28%.  To stay in office, despite poor approval ratings, takes a lot of money, and Senator McConnell easily makes bank. Who are his biggest donors?

The majority of McConnell's donations come from Wall Street, especially banks and other financial institutions, including healthcare and real estate investment firms. Other top donors include insurance, energy and technology companies which contributed $6.3 million dollars in 2020.

Some of the top donors include the financially powerful Blackstone Group, Humana, NorPac, and Kindred Health. One of the largest is Kent Companies, a third generation family owned construction company based in Midland Texas. It has donated $6.94 million dollars into McConnell's war chest.

Other donors include BlueCross/Blue Shield, AT&T, Goldman Sachs, UPS, Brown-Foreman, Citigroup, General Electric, Peabody Energy, FedEx, and  JP Morgan and Chase. With all those "political investors" in Mitch McConnell, just how much money does he have in his war chest?

When combined with the Senate Leadership Fund (a super PAC), One Nation (a political nonprofit fund), McConnell controls just under $90 million dollars (or $87.5 million to be precise) as of January 2022.  In 2021, he raised a total of $100 million dollars which he used, in part, to help fellow Republicans in Congress with their re-election efforts. Is it any wonder the Kentucky senator so strongly supported Citizens United?

As for the senator himself, he's done alright personally. According to an article by Forbes, Mitch McConnell earns $200,000 annually as senator. With investments, his monthly income is $900,000. His Wall Street investments exceed approximately $25 million dollars in stocks and bonds. Overall, his net worth is around $150 million dollars, making him the 19th richest member of Congress.

Irrespective of their popularity ratings, Pelosi and McConnell have done quite well in politics. The same can be said for Congress in general where more than half were millionaires going in and practically all are coming out. Compare that to just 8% of the total population who are millionaires, and you'll have to agree that Congress doesn't even begin to represent most Americans. They have little or no concept what the average American goes through on a daily basis just to make ends meet. That's mostly thanks to Citizens United.

That fact that these individuals who make up the House of Representatives and Senate can have a reelection percentage of over 90% despite sustained dismal approval ratings under 30%  is due to partisan gerrymandering and (again) Citizens United, not to mention unregulated term limits which allows them to hold office practically forever no matter how poor their performance. Isn't it time for a change?

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

Justice Roberts Tops Federal Leaders in American Approval

Nancy Pelosi Net Worth 2022: Salary Stock Portfolio Wealth

Favorability of Mitch McConnell among U.S. adults, as of May2022

McConnell-aligned groups build $87.5m war chest to spend onwinning Senate majority

Congressional Stagnation in the United States

Blood on the Hands of a Sanctuary City: Crime and Punishment by the Bay/Sexual Shenanigans

Hyperbole. A noun meaning "an exaggeration for effect, not meant to be taken literally" according to Webster's New Word Dictionary. It also means an overstatement or embellishment, which could imply a "lie for affect". When I try to visualize the expressiveness of word, I'm reminded of the old sayings "a tempest in a teapot" or "much ado about nothing" (thank you Baron Edward Thurlow and Mister Shakespeare respectively). Hyperbole is, in fact, one of my favorite words, though it is seldom used these days, because of its descriptiveness. Its sound also reminds me of two other similar sounding words, "hype" and "bold". "Hype" of course. means to promote or publicize through repeated exposure, while "bold" means to be brave or daring, but it can also imply insolent or impertinent. So, you might be wondering, what does this have to do with anything? Well, let's explore that question a bit shall we?

As you've no doubt heard, Jose Ines Zarate, the illegal immigrant charged with the death of Kate Steinle two years ago, was acquitted of all charges yesterday by a San Francisco jury. Technically, he's a free man. But before we go any further, let's revisit events for a moment. Approximately two years, 32 year old Kate Steinle was walking along Pier 14 in the touristy Embarcadero District late one night in San Francisco with her father, sharing a little "father-daughter" time (I used to spend a lot of time there, often staying at the Hyatt Regency). Nearby, sat Jose Ines Zarate, a seven time felon and five time (some sources say six time) deported and self-returned illegal alien (the jury was not allowed to hear Zarate's criminal record or immigration status).

According to Mr. Zarate, age 43 at the time, as he sat on the pier he noticed an object wrapped in a towel or shirt laying under a nearby metal chair. Mr. Zarate picked up the object which turned out to be a semi-automatic pistol. While looking at the gun (and perhaps his new found good fortune), the pistol "accidentally" went off (I presume it never occurred to him to check to see if it was loaded, the safety was on, or at the very least, not to pull the trigger). The bullet evidentially hit a metal pole embedded in the concrete next to where Mate Steinle and her father were standing while taking in the sights of the San Francisco Bay, ricocheting and slamming into Ms. Steinle's lower back and ripping open her abdominal aorta. She died in her father's arms a few minutes later.

Mr. Zarate attempted to run but was caught and eventually booked on manslaughter charges along with possession of what turned out to be a stolen gun (it had been stolen from a federal Bureau of Land Management officer the prior week). Despite being a five time deported illegal immigrant, Mr. Zarate crossed back into the United States before the ink on his deportation papers had even dried. However, this time he was aided by a bit of additional good fortune. The city he decided to hole up in was San Francisco, which had only recently before the murder, declared itself a "Sanctuary City" which meant that illegal aliens were welcome. The residents of San Francisco would gladly pick up the tab to support these individuals (though still expecting federal dollars to keep rolling in) and by declaring themselves a "Sanctuary City", meant that city authorities would not cooperate with Federal immigration officials or abide by any federal immigration laws. This meant individuals like Mr. Zarate had free run of the city without any worries; assuming he could stay clear of the law for any minor offenses he might commit.

Fast forward to November 30, 2017, where Mr. Zarate was---somehow---found innocent, except for possession of a stolen handgun, though he will unlikely be sentenced for it, at least as a felony based on his federal criminal status as illegal immigrant and repeat offender (he can be charged up to three years for possession of the stolen gun, less time already served). The jury was asked to consider first degree murder, second degree murder and/or manslaughter charges, obviously lacking key information. In what appears to be an attempt at some form of court apology to the shocked family of Ms. Steinle, Jose Zarate will be turned over to ICE officials in order to face his latest round of deportation. Personally, I think Mr. Zarate should be turned over to Ms. Steinle's family for about 15 minutes while the cops go on one of their numerous donut breaks. Then again, maybe the jury and the judge should have to face her family in private and explain how they could allow their daughter's murder go free, knowing full well that had immigration laws been enforced, there was a strong likelihood that Kate Steinle would still be alive.

Of course, this tragic death is a direct result of the Mayor's and city legislature's declaration to make San Francisco an "open city". However, I think that is something of a cop-out to blame solely City Hall since the residents of San Francisco willingly went along with their decision, which in some respect, is little different from the residents living adjacent to the Nazi death camps and said or did nothing. Perhaps that's too strong of a charge. Perhaps it's not. Nevertheless, this verdict is an indictment of them and their sanctimonious claims of a "Sanctuary City" makes them at least morally guilty of contributing to Ms. Steinle's death by turning their back on their civic responsibility. As an aside, the entire State of California is now a "Sanctuary State". Shame on them.

Two Peas in a Pod: Hollywood's and Washington's Sexual Shenanigans

The next issue I bring before you as an example of "Hyperbole" is the current outpouring of claims of sexual misconduct, mostly by Hollywood types, Wallstreet and business executives, and---naturally---by politicians, especially those in Washington. Ever since the casting couch of Harvey Weinstein has come under the microscope, it seems like women are stepping forward from the Left and Right to level a claim of sexual harassment on some current or former big shot, be it a newscaster, talk show jock, a former comedian and current Congressman, a business executive, actor or some chubby Hollywood power broker. I'm not saying their accusations are false or that their pain and possible embarrassment isn't real, but there isn't anything new here folks. The faces and names may be new, but the news is old; old as civilization itself. Men (and women) in positions of power have always sought ways to use that power, especially for personal gain. Power is a tool. It's meant to be used, whether it be for good or bad. This is especially true when it comes to politics and fame; both of which being closely tied to wealth which equates to power.

Since I mentioned the latest sleaze on the block, Harvey Weinstein, the "casting couch" is hardly new. Many would say it's part and parcel of the Hollywood culture. so let's briefly take a look at Hollywood. Hollywood has been rife with stories of casting couches, groping, even murder going back to the era of Silent Pictures (anyone remember the story of Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle who allegedly raped a very drunk actress named Virginia Rappe in 1921? He was twice acquitted of manslaughter charges after suffocating Ms. Rappe due to his weight. How about the first "It Girl", Clara Bow and her orgies?). There were countless stories involving almost literally every celebrity and wannabe celebrity, from Errol Flynn (who was acquitted of statutory rape charges in 1943), to Mae West, Rock Hudson, big studio bosses Jack Warner, Louis B. Mayer, and Darryl Zanuck (talk about your "casting couch"!), Marlene Dietrich's rumored numerous lesbian love affairs (such as with Greta Garbo) or her trysts with the leading men of her time and even a "star struck" Jack Kennedy, the forced abortions of Judy Garland, Jean Harlow, or "Mommy Dearest" Joan Crawford---not to mention her porn movies, and countless others. So, while the likes of the Harvey Weinstein's of Hollywood might be vulgar and reprehensible, it's hardly a new story.

As for politics, and in particular Washington politics and sexual misconduct, I hardly know where to start or whether I have enough space to do it justice! There is no doubting that places like Washington are "good ole boy" clubs, where inappropriate language, butt slaps, and so forth are common to the point they are almost ignored; the price one pays to be near power (just as in Hollywood or your local city hall). Even those elected to office; the elected peers to the other, male, members of Congress, feel that they have to accept a certain amount of "boys being boys" type of behavior, and perhaps they do. After all, the majority of these male members are egotistical to the max. They come from wealthy and privileged backgrounds where their money ensured they could get anything they wanted or when necessary, buy their way out of any jam. These individuals tend to believe they are somehow "special" and above not just the law, but even common moral standards and even polite behavior (unless the media is there, and that's still no guarantee).

Of course, there has been more than enough women who could hold their own against any of her male counterparts. I've personally know several female legislators who could out drink or out swear any man they came in contact with, Kentucky's former Governor Martha Layne Collins and State Senator Georgia Powers, the first black female legislator and mistress of MLK Jr. Historically, there has always been women of power. Take Ancient Egypt's Pharaohs Hatshepsut or Cleopatra VII, the Celt's Queen Boudicca, Russia's Czarina Katherine the Great, or England's Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria. More recently, UK's "Iron Lady) Margaret Thatcher, Israel's Golda Meir, India's Indra Gandhi, or Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto.

Here in the US, we've politicians like Sarah Palin, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, or in the world of business individuals like Mary Barra who is Chairman and CEO of GM, the Executive Vice President of Home Depot, Anne Marie Campbell or Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook to name just a few. However, trying to "out macho" macho males does come at price. Politics is tough sport where the weak are often eaten alive and emotions like compassion and empathy are often seen as chinks in the armor. But too, there has been just as many women calling the shots behind their higher profile husbands...or lovers ( Ancient Greece's Queen Olympias (wife of King Phillip II and mother of Alexander the Great comes to mind along with Empress Theodora who was the wife of Justinian I (Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire), as well as the wife of President Franklin D Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt or Ladybird Johnson, the wife of President LBJ). So, power is, or can be, a two way street.

I would like too make to final points. If you want to avoid unwanted sexual advances, wearing revealing deeply clothing (or lack thereof) would be a good first place to start. Yes, women should feel free to wear what they please. But human nature being what it is, they must also be willing to accept the consequences,and no amount of legislation will change that. Secondly, while women (or men) should report unwanted sexual harassment or assault, waiting 20 or 40 years later is a bit much don't you think? If it is an issue now, all these years later, then it was an issue then too. People will forget. Memories will become foggy. Evidence will fade or disappear. Hell, if there is a statute of limitations for bank robbery of seven years, there should be a statute of limitations on this too. Waiting years or decades, and then trying to make a big deal out of something which may or may not have happened, smells of dirty money. Lastly, power, wealth, and politics is pack mentality. If you're going to run with wolves, you're either going to need to become a wolf or you will become its meal. Now, that's hyperbole.



The Shooting of Kathryn Steinle: San Francisco Pier killing suspect found not guilty of murder



14 Old Hollywood Scandals That History Forgot


Old Hollywood Murders, Scandals, Secrets, and Crimes


Casting Couch Tales From Hollywood



Hollywood's Heinous 'Casting Couch' Culture That Enabled Harvey Weinstein

Two Corpsmen I Once Knew

Growing up in the late 60's and 70's, I can honestly say I had friends of just about all stripes. They were black, Irish, Chinese-French, Italian, Native American, Greek, from India, and some were just "mutts'. A few were Catholic, some were Hindi, a couple were Jewish, but most were Protestant of various denominations. Some were so dirt poor that they could only hope to move up to public housing. A few were from wealthy families, but the majority were somewhere in the Middle Class. Most seemed to come from stable families, while a few quickly became "survivors" . It wasn't really until I was stationed in San Francisco during the mid to late 1970's that I met with my first exposure to gays, and I was on the receiving end.

Two friends and I (along with our girlfriends at the time) had ventured into Castro District. Unbeknownst to us, Castro was considered the "gay" side of town. All we knew (or cared about) was really good and cheap food. We had found a little Greek sandwich shop, and while waiting on our order, we suddenly heard a huge commotion and everyone took off outside. Naturally, we walked outside and much to our provincial Southern and Midwestern awe, we were ground zero in San Francisco's 2nd Annual Gay Pride Parade. It was one on the most amazing events I ever saw for oh so many reasons! Later, my girlfriend and I went walking to look at the most beautifully restored Victorian era homes. Suddenly, we noticed we were being stared at; then came cat calls and a more than a few loud snide comments directed at us. We suddenly became self conscious about our holding hands. For the first time in my life, I knew what it felt like to be the subject of ridicule. We had many more experiences after that. Most was positive, some not so much.
It was during the parade that I recognized two individuals who were participating and ---shall we say---"provocatively dressed" , and more importantly, they saw me. These two individuals were active duty Navy Corpsmen and my boss was the base commander. In those day, a single word (especially from someone in my position) would have resulted in their detention by base security. They would have been confined in a security holding cell and received immediate General Discharge (less than Honorable) with 24 hours. What to do? My job was to report it. My lack of exposure made me slightly fearful and yet, I found myself intrigued at why they would put themselves at such risk.

Upon returning to the base that afternoon, I stopped by my office, were I had access to the personnel records. I fixed myself a cup of coffee and notified base security across the hall that I was there catching up on some work. While I pulled their files, I wondered what they might thinking about now. Both were First Class Petty Officers; just one step below the coveted rank of Chief. Both had, up to point given at least 12 years of their lives to the military. Was now all in vain? Neither knew me very well, but they most certainly knew who I was and who I worked for.

Both individuals had volunteered for military service. A rarity in the Vietnam Era where very few stepped up to fight for a war no one wanted except the politicians and industrial-military complex. Most were drafted. LBJ and Nixon had proven to be failures and liars. Jimmy Carter, despite being a former Navy, was quickly proving himself inept (within a year, he would remove all doubts and secure that distinction for himself until recently). One was from the Midwest like two of my friends while the other grew in Florida just as I had done. Much of their service record was unremarkable, except for one interesting section.

It seems that both if these men, who graduated near the top of their "A" School class as Corpsmen, asked to be stationed in Vietnam with Marine Corps units on the ground. That was serious "in-your-face" duty. that no one wanted . It was unbearably hot, dirty, and incredibly dangerous work. A good place to be if you wanted to die young. Their personnel reviews were all top notch, with several letters of commendation. I found a few notes addressed to their respective commanding officers from Marines whose lives they had saved (or who had saved or tried to save the lives of one of their buddies). I was starting to see a very different picture than what I had imagined. It was in Vietnam that they shared a common duty assignment. It must have been there that they first meet.

After rummaging through more pages, reviewing applications for various awards and ribbons that I decided I had read enough. That Monday, I walked over to the dispensary and asked to meet with both of them privately. When they walked in, I could almost see their hearts drop. Their faces went pale as they almost involuntarily glanced around for base security. There was an eternal moment of silence before one asked if they were to be arrested (I wondered if they realized that they were almost involuntarily reaching out to touch each other's hand? No matter). I paused for a moment. For me not to do anything carried its own ramifications for me. I could face a similar scenario as both them. After all, it was not just against Navy policy. It was against policy of the US Armed Forces. But how could I say anything? How could I not say anything? What moral right did I have to say who one could be in love with? Isn't that what the world needed more of? I certainly didn't understand it. How could someone not like girls I thought? I was the base liaison to the Jewish Community in the Greater Bay Area. I thought of the Jews, and the Gypsies, and yes, the gays in Nazi Germany and the conquered territories. How many millions were shot, gassed, or burned just for being different? Wasn't destroying their careers the modern equivalent?

Quietly, as if I was now suddenly drawn into their secret, I explained that I had reviewed their personnel files. They had led an exemplary service to this country. I asked what their plans were? Would they go back go after their time in the service? Both indicated they knew they'd never make Chief, and it was only a matter of time until someone found them out. They fully knew and excepted the risk. They had both contrived to be stationed in San Francisco, which was one of the few places they felt "safe" (which is why they also lived off base). They didn't know if they would go back home. No one there would ever accept them they said. Until then, they wanted to make their home in Northern California and continue in their medical profession. After all this, all they wanted was each other and to help strangers. Wow. I shook their hands and thanked them again for their service to the Navy; the Marine Corps; and to this Country and left the room; shutting the door behind me and leaving them to each other.

As I walked back to my office, taking the long way along and watching the waves break along the breakers, I wondered if I had made the right decision. What it was someone else who had seen them? Would they had made the same decision? Would someone be making a similar decision 20 or 30 years later? Would someone's sexual orientation in the military even be an issue then? For me, it didn't affect me or my sexuality. I still liked girls...a lot. All that mattered to me was whether the individual next to me could and would do their job to the best of their ability. My life was in their hands and theirs was in mine. That was the definition of comradeship.

The Super Committee/Death by China: A Review

With its approval rating the lowest in history (around 12% at the time of this writing), Congress has put together a so-called "Super Committee". So, what's so "super" about it? Well, let's first look at why our elected representatives felt the need to create this committee; who's on it; and what it is supposed to accomplish. Finally, we'll examine the long term repercussions of having a "Super Committee", whose actual name is Joint Select Committee for Deficit Reduction.

As I said above, the approval ratings for Congress are dismal, and they've been that way for a some time. Long enough for even the arrogant thick headed politicians in Washington along with their K Street paymasters to realize that it may be an angry mob coming to Washington rather than another idealistic Mr. Smith. The latest, and so far most disastrous example of Washington's failure was the debate over the raising the debt ceiling. With the public's mood becoming darker as each day of economic chicken played out, the leaders in both parties came to the conclusion that the only way to save their worthless hides was to create a political body to deflect future blame.

It's really an interesting idea if you think about it. Under their agreement, party bosses selected three individuals from each party and both the upper and lower chambers of Congress for a total of twelve individuals (a brief biography of each member is included below). Originally called a "Super Congress", the name was quickly abandoned since it gave the "wrong" impression that a new entity was being created outside of Congressional parameters (never mind the fact that both the Executive, Judicial, and Congressional branches have long over stepped their respective boundaries decades ago). Now called a "Super Committee", these twelve individuals would meet behind closed doors to attempt to draft a deficit reduction bill.

This is a tough job, and they will certainly earn hazardous duty pay, especially when you consider their job is to find 1.5 trillion dollars to be cut over the next 10 years ( I strongly suspect that number will increase by at least half long before then). That means dealing with highly protective issues like the military, Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, illegal immigration, and veterans to name just a few. If seven of the twelve members vote in favor of a specific proposal, it gets "fast tracked" through the House and Senate. The pressure on these 12 individuals will be unbearable.

The Super Committee derives its authority from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (or BCA for short). The committee will act as a select committee, meaning that once its object is meet (in this case, finding 1.5 trillion dollars) and drafting a deficit reduction bill, it will be dissolved. The bill gets the unusual benefit of a up-or-down vote in the House and Senate. No filibusters, and no amendments to the bill can be added (and for the record, I oppose adding non-relevant "pork" amendments to bills. I also support line item vetoes to help curtail this form of political pandering).

Joint and/or select committees are not unusual. Its how things get done in Congress, and while this one does have a few unusual characteristics like no filibustering and an up-or-down vote, it may prove to be the only way the federal government can accomplish its goal of finding and eliminating 1.5 trillion dollars. America is in deep financial trouble, due largely to mismanagement, a lack of leadership, and the creation of a society of special interest entitlements. There can be no failure here. Everything is at stake. If it takes a super committee or a Superman, then so be it.

Suggested Reading:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-is-a-super-committee-53423/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/11/news/economy/debt_committee_members/index.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0811/Who-s-who-on-Congress-s-debt-super-committee/Sen.-Max-Baucus-D-of-Montana


Book Review: Death by China
Written by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry

Lenin once famously remarked that Communism would sell Western Capitalism the rope that would be used to hang them with. Well, as it turns out, that rope is made in China. How many of us have sat in dazed anger watching the news about another US plant closing while hundreds or even thousands of jobs...our jobs...were being sent to China? How many of us remember Wal-Mart's slogan about everything they sold being made in America? Nowadays, just try and find something made in America in Wal-Mart. If you're like me, you've often asked yourself how did America, and American jobs end up some 5000 miles away. I found the answer. It's in "Death by China", written by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry.

This totally engrossing book explains in everyday language how America lost its competitive edge to its ideological enemy, China. The authors detail how China has been so successful in exporting shoddy and often dangerous products like poorly made electrical tools, baby cribs, or children's toys painted with toxic lead base paint, not to mention food stuffs grown in contaminated soil and irrigated with polluted water. Exposed too is how China bypasses regulations and product inspections, often with the tacit support of inspectors; how China ignores various free trade agreements; creates a "devil's bargain" with the likes of General Electric, Caterpillar, and Microsoft, which often includes giving away proprietary technology while, at the same time, allowing a Chinese majority stake in any operation set up on Chinese soil. Often these "devil's bargains" promise access to the Chinese consumer market, does in reality the exact opposite.

Globally, China has launched a war of conquest. It's aim is nothing less than acquiring resources, be it in Africa, South America, or the Middle East, for the sole purpose of crippling the economies of the West, Japan, South Korea, India, and Southeast Asia. At the same time, China continues to manipulates its currency, while buying up US debt; in effect, making it the banker that allows this country to continue to function. Can you imagine your biggest competitor or worse enemy controlling your checkbook?

China has openly declared global war, and on America in particular. They are in this for the long haul. Their goal, as trite as it may sound to Post-Cold War ears, is world domination. This war is not one of guerilla insurgencies or vast armies. It's one of economics. It's being fought on every level in every country. It's a war we should be winning, but we've bought the rope instead.

Authors Navarro and Autry have done an exemplary job of explaining the new rules of engagement. The final chapter, "Life with China: How to Survive and Prosper in the Dragon's Century", brings it all together with their suggestions on how to level out the playing field, and start winning while there's still time. To paraphrase former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, in a global economy, everything is local. If you're concerned about your job, you need to read this book.