FOREIGN AID FOR U.S. PRISONERS

OK before you dismiss this notion offhand - hear me out. According to a recent CRS report for Congress titled "Foreign Aid Reform: Issues for Congress and Policy Options" dated November 7th 2007 it was stated in the section headed CURRENT FUNDING as follows: - "Since the evens of 9/11 amounts requested and approved by Congress for Foreign Assistance have steadily increased. The Foreign Operations budget request for FY2008 totals $24.4 Billion in Foreign Assistance programs, representing a 12% increase from the previous years enacted level of $21.7 Billion excluding FY2007 Supplemental funds. This level of increase is the largest within the Budget requests government-wide. The proposed level for FY2008 represents 1.2% of the total US Budget" Now - I ask you my friends, exactly what are we - the charitable people of the United States getting for this large outpouring of our tax dollars?? Can someone please answer me that question? Is it the love and loyalty of our allies? Is it the respect and admiration of the United Nations? The International Red Cross??

Alright - I'll come back to my thoughts on US Foreign Aid policy in a minute as I turn to a brief discussion concerning the US Prison population. We are all familiar, at least I would think we are, that it seems one of the new US business cores is the building of new prisons. Yet, we still hear how overcrowed they are. Just the other day I was amused to hear about various states attempting to alleviate overcrowding by "deporting" prisoners who happen to be illegal aliens. It appears the prison systems and in turn the state governments can save the taxpayers millions by this practice. At an average of $20,000 per day that it costs to house your average run of the mill inmate, savings can accrue in quick order.

This leads me to why I brought up our US Foreign Aid policy. It seems to me that since we provide various countries with so much in the way of US dollars and other Aid that an exchange program should be initiated. This program would provide so much foreign aid, but these countries would also have to accept certain sections of our prison population. By "certain section" I mean those who are already serving several life sentences, are known sociopaths in which it has already been determined that they are not to see the light of day ect., My point is - ship these incorrigibles out and save the taxpayers a ton of money. They would reside in the prisons of another country, and they could sue their new prison overseers when their soup was cold, their was no TV, or their exercise time was cut short, until they were blue in the face.

One more thing - to Hell with the ACLU - these prisoners have lost any rights they may have had.

It is utterly amazing to me that our Supreme Court is agonizing if a needle prick is cruel and unusual on a murderer who hacked someone to death - go figure!!!

-PA Citizen

PA citizen is a writer for In Defense of America.

Border Patrol steps up recruiting

A NASCAR race car, sponsored by the U.S. Border Patrol. Billboards hundreds of miles from the Rio Grande, promoting a career as a border agent. TV commercials for the federal agency, aired during Dallas Cowboys games.

With the Border Patrol undergoing an unprecedented hiring boom, the agency is going to extraordinary lengths to compete with police departments around the country for an unusually small pool of qualified applicants.

"We've not done anything this ambitious before," said Assistant Chief Michael Olsen. "Our biggest task, our biggest hurdle, is just getting our message out to parts of the country that maybe didn't know we existed."

Previously, the Border Patrol relied heavily on word of mouth and job fairs to find recruits. But it has been forced to get creative to compete with local and state agencies, including the expanding Texas Department of Public Safety, that are mimicking the corporate world with hiring incentives such as take-home cars, paid internships and five-figure signing bonuses.

The multimillion-dollar recruiting campaign was also prompted by a shortage of qualified candidates, blamed on a number of factors. Among them: the strong economy, which can offer jobs that pay more than the Border Patrol's starting salary of about $35,000 to $45,000; the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has reduced the flow of military retirees applying for second careers in law enforcement; and the Border Patrol's own stringent requirements.
Too many applicants lack the clean criminal records and good credit required for patrol duty along the border, where bribes are an ever-present temptation.

Nationally, only about 3 percent to 5 percent of applicants for law enforcement jobs meet the requirements, according to Jason Abend, executive director for the National Law Enforcement Recruiters Association. Olsen said the Border Patrol finds an average of one qualified candidate for every 30 to 40 applicants — a rate as low as 2.5 percent.

With politicians demanding more "boots on the ground" to secure the Mexican border, the Border Patrol is expanding rapidly. It has gone from about 12,000 agents in 2005 to nearly 15,000 now, and wants to reach about 18,000 by the end of the year.

To reach recruits, the agency is posting highway billboards well inland, including suburban Salt Lake City, 800 miles north of the Mexican border, and is looking into other new corners of the country.

Michael E. Douglas, a Border Patrol assistant chief patrol agent in Washington, said a team of eight agents is canvassing about 13 Southern states to look for new hires.

"We're going down into the Southeast where we haven't traditionally had a lot of candidates. We are hitting minority groups and trying to make them more aware of who we are," Douglas said.
During the 2007 NASCAR Busch Series season, the Border Patrol put its agency name and seal on the No. 28 Chevy in a sponsorship arrangement worth more than $1 million.

And under a deal signed in November with the Dallas Cowboys, football fans around the country will be seeing TV commercials reminding them that the agency is hiring.

Border Patrol officials are also talking about making a slogan for the agency, one they hope would become as ubiquitous as the Marines' "The few, the proud."

Also, the Border Patrol has raised its age limit for new hires to 40 from 37.
Douglas said it may take several months to know exactly how successful the department's efforts are.

Despite such enticements, recruiting for law enforcement jobs is likely to be a challenge for a while, said Merle Switzer, a consultant and retired law enforcement officer in California.

"Right now, I am telling agencies five to seven years," Switzer said.

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer
Article Link

Will the Democrats Find an Adult of Their Own?

OK. So where do things stand in the aftermath of the New Hampshire primary?
On the Republican side . . .

John McCain reclaimed his role as the principal adult in the room — solid, experienced, wise. Across the state, he spoke of the war on Islamofascist terror as the “titanic” and “transcendental struggle of the 21st century.” In accepting victory, he cited the need for fiscal integrity and a strong defense, and eloquently employed words such as “truth,” “respect,” and “trust.” This is the guy who gets it.

Mitt Romney is toast, though he possesses the cash to press on in a failing enterprise. Fred Thompson cannot long survive. Rudy Giuliani probably can’t either — having resolved to forego the early contests and devote his time and energy to Florida later this month and the 23 states holding primaries Feb. 5.

Mike Huckabee tanked in New Hampshire after his surprising success in Iowa. Yet Iowa is not a reliable predictor of ultimate success. Huckabee may win heavily evangelical South Carolina and carry that success into Florida, where he also may do reasonably well if McCain and Giuliani divide what might prove a common constituency there.

Huckabee represents the Republicans’ social conservatives, who have issues with McCain. But McCain trumps him in experience and depth, and it’s difficult to foresee how Huckabee can prevail through the convention — let alone against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama come fall. The party’s social conservatives seem destined to face this choice: accept a less-than-perfect nominee (e.g., McCain) or resign themselves to a Democratic president reigning in Washington, with a Democratic Congress just down the street.

On the Democratic side . . .

It’s now a two-person race. Angry plaintiffs’ lawyer John Edwards should get out, but he is the Democrats’ Romney — albeit with less money. What may force him to leave is recognition that thereby he would strengthen Obama against the dread Clinton machine.

Obama is a sensational political property — electric, inspiring, a communicator verging on the demagogic, and decidedly left-wing. Many in the press view him, in the words of The Washington Post, as “(John) Kennedy, Santa Claus, and the Messiah all rolled into one.” So do many of those rallying to his banner and his mantra of “change.”

It may take a more disciplined intellect, like Hillary Clinton’s, to force a discussion as to what sort of change Obama has in mind — and such a discussion could determine the Democratic nominating outcome. So far the two are saying fundamentally the same diaphanous thing. Obama: change we can believe in; Clinton: change you can count on.

If Sen. Clinton found her “voice” in New Hampshire — as she said Tuesday night — she may have meant any of several things:

(1) That she has learned the importance of an image softer, more caring, more capable of (yes) tears;
(2) That however she may cast them, her White House years as the wife of Bill hardly qualify her as presidentially experienced; and/or . . .

(3) That devoutly liberal as she is broadly known to be, she can present as a moderate/centrist and begin differentiating herself from Obama by contrasting her record of action with his airy, action-free talk of dream-fulfillment and “post-partisan” hope.

The Democratic result may turn on the extent to which the newly voiced Hillary Clinton is willing to stick it to Barack Obama — forcing a comparison of records and views.

Hillary Clinton must grow, and soon, beyond such campaign pabulum as these bon mots in Manchester, N.H., when she greeted a little girl walking a cocker spaniel: “I will be a good president for dogs, I promise!”

Obama must grow beyond offering the sum of his experience in foreign policy as his madrassa school years in Indonesia and a visit or two to his grandmother in Africa. The very-nice Sen. Obama also needs to grow beyond enlisting recruits such as the very-nice Oprah Winfrey, who says nonsensical things on his behalf, such as: “You can’t be fooled by this experience question because you know it’s not the amount of time you spend with your child, it’s the quality of that time.”

Obama must grow beyond statements such as this, too:
“What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to — a dumb war.”

Obama and Clinton might productively style themselves after John McCain — a certifiable grown-up. He believes global warming is less important right now, and less susceptible to human remedy, than global terror — and boasts abundant experience in terrorism and national security: “I know how to handle the issues. I’ve been there.”

He understands the war in Iraq, terming it “an American war, and its outcome will touch every one of our citizens for years to come.” Osama? “I’ll get (him) if I have to follow him to the gates of hell.” And the U.S. troops? “I’ll bring ’em home, but I’ll bring ’em home with honor.”
If the Republicans are moving toward nominating a grown-up — an adult — in McCain, prudence would suggest the Democrats find an adult of their own to run against him.

By Ross Mackenzie
Townhall.com

McCain Promises Bin Laden's Head

John McCain promised he would “get” Osama Bin Laden if he were elected President in 2008 in a GOP televised debate two days before the second in nation New Hampshire primary.

““I know how to get him and I’m gonna get him” McCain said on the campus of St. Anselm College on Manchester.

Moderator Chris Wallace followed up on McCain’s promise later in the debate. Wallace asked McCain if he had heard him say he would catch the terrorist.

“Sure,” McCain replied. McCain said he would do so by “improving our intelligence capability dramatically.”

During the debate, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also tried to puff up his security credentials. “I am the only one here who has had to face an Islamic terrorist attack, at the center of it” Giuliani said.

GOP presidential candidates sparred over national security and other issues for the second time in two nights, as each of them participated in a nationally televised debate sponsored by ABC News, CNN and WMUR Saturday night. Missing from the Sunday evening debate, however, was Ron Paul who was not invited by Fox News to participate.

On January 3, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus. Mitt Romney came in second and Fred Thompson was third. The most recent CNN/WMUR poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire gives McCain 32 percent, Romney 26 percent and Huckabee 14 percent. Giuliani polled 10 percent.

When the debate concluded a Fox News focus group deemed Romney the winner of the debate by a show of hands.

By Amanda Carpenter
Townhall.com

Michael Ramirez - Funny Because It's True

Political Cartoons of Michael Ramirez

Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily