"The Global Poverty Act – Another Attack on American Sovereignty"

On September 25, 2007, the US House of Representatives passed the Global Poverty Act (HR 1302) that basically commits the U.S. to spending a minimum of 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid to developing countries. The bill was passed by a voice vote with no discussion of the effect this legislation will have on our sovereignty or the potential costs to the American taxpayers. Attempts are currently being made to push Senator Barack Obama’s version of the “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, although no hearings have been scheduled.  If the Global Poverty Act is passed by both houses and signed by the President, American Sovereignty would suffer another blow by making US foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates and whims of corrupt United Nations bureaucrats.

The Global Poverty Act would require the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” While the goals of the Global Poverty Act sound laudable, the adoption of the UN supported plan will mandate the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of its GNP in increased foreign aid spending that would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002 to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this will amount to $845 billion.

America is the most generous country in the world in terms of how much it spends on foreign aid, not to mention the billions of dollars donated by individual Americans through private non-profit aid organizations.   Let us continue to give the people of developing countries the aid they need, but don’t give the corrupt United Nations any legal rights to tell us to whom and how much we should give.

Most of the poverty in the third world is created by corrupt governments that are oftentimes aided by corrupt UN bureaucrats. Much of the money we donate goes never gets to people we are supposed to be helping because of this corruption. Giving any control of our foreign aid funds to the corrupt United Nations will surely enhance, rather than reduce corruption. It will aggravate the current poverty levels, rather than reduce or eliminate them.

Americans should also be aware of another stated United Nations Millennium Development Goal that if implemented, will mandate the elimination of trading in small arms. The real goal of this particular mandate is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately will supersede the laws of all nations, including our own Second Amendment, which means nothing to the globalists at the United Nations.

Americans should not discount the growing power of international law, whether through changes in the United Nations charter and UN mandates, the World Trade Organization, Global Poverty Acts, Law of the Sea Treaty or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties which are direct assaults on America’s sovereignty. American citizens must understand that the forces behind the new world order movement and the expansion of the United Nations powers are hostile toward our Constitution and America’s sovereignty.

For additional information, contact:

JOHN W. WALLACE

 

The term "Earmark" is most comonly used to refer to a provision (line-item) in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Members of Congress insert earmarks into bills in order to direct specified amounts of money be given or spent on particular organizations or projects in their home states or districts. This differs from the appropriation of budget money to a particular government agency where the agency head can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. If the funds aren’t earmarked by members of congress, the agencies are free to spend money on projects they believe are most appropriate to meet their organizational goals and objectives.

Earmarks can more accurately be described as giving away the taxpayers hard earned money by secretly attaching line-items into non-related congressional bills for specific projects or specific recipients in order to get re-elected.

Many of the beneficiaries of these earmarked funds are state or local public agencies, but just as often, the money goes to private entities where the beneficiaries are political supporters of the legislators pushing the earmarks. Earmarks are the principal means by which Members of Congress “bring home the pork” and publishing their earmarks during an election year is a common tactic used to help incumbent members of congress get reelected.

It is not so much that any single earmark is the problem, but rather it’s the entire process. There is no real transparency or accountability in the current system. Members of congress try to re-direct billions of dollars of funding to specific projects within their district without subjecting these projects to debate by their colleagues, or to scrutiny and oversight by the public. The earmarking process invites backroom deals and sometimes unethical, or even corrupt behavior. It has become part of a “pay-to-play” culture where lobbyists, contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for receiving federal funding via earmarks for their special projects.

While the vital interests of the nation are being ignored by members of both houses of congress regardless of party affiliation, many legislators concentrate their efforts on diverting appropriated agency money to low-priority and sometimes outrageous special interest projects that will generate local publicity and additional campaign contributions.

While the country suffers from an invasion of illegal aliens and cannot seem to find the funds for increased border security, congress earmarks $3.4 million to research the Formosan Subterranean Termite and $10 million to La Raza, a pro-illegal alien amnesty organization. While the country goes deeper and deeper into debt and the dollar seems to lose its value every day, congress earmarks $450,000 for the International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota and $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which includes funding for the World Toilet Summit. While the nation’s education system is failing the American people, congress earmarks $2 million for the CharlesB.RangelCenter for Public Service at the City College of New York and another $200,000 for the AndreAgassiCollegePreparatoryAcademy in Las Vegas, Nev.

The House of Representatives has recently taken an important first step in reducing earmarks by passing House Rules changes requiring that earmarked spending projects and their congressional sponsors be publicized on the internet at least 48 hours before they are considered for a vote on the floor. Under the new rules, Members of Congress will be required to justify the public need for the specific earmarked expenditures and certify that they won't benefit financially from them. This is a good step forward, but more must be done.

The best way to reduce the number of earmarks is to pass legislation that requires that all bills and legislation be single issue or purposed. An individual bill should address one specific issue and only that issue. Any amendments must directly address that specific issue. No pork, no side issues, and especially no riders. All bills must be published and the discussions open to public scrutiny.

Limiting legislation to a single purpose will make bills more concise, and will substantially reduce the number of expensive special interest giveaways that are routinely inserted into so called "must pass" legislation without any debate. If members of congress want to fund specific projects back in their home states, let them introduce bills for these projects and let these bills be openly debated and voted on.

By:

JOHN W. WALLACE

Candidate for Congress

New York’s 20^th Congressional District

www.FreedomCandidate.com

FREEDOM RALLY IN WASHINGTON DC

Someone at the Ron Paul Freedom Rally in Washingto DC on April 15th recorded several of the guest speakers while they were talking to the crowd.

The following YouTube link is a video of John Wallace, Candidate for Congress in New York's 20th Congressional District, speaking to the crowd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF66YTg_gDM

If you want more information about this candidate, go to his website at: www.freedomcandidate.com

 

I acknowledge that the United States has been built on the talents and sacrifices of immigrants starting with the first settlers. While this nation has always accepted newcomers it did so by establishing a system of eligibility. America has never promoted open borders. In recent decades our nation has been burdened with an invasion of illegal aliens who have taken jobs away from American citizens and legal resident aliens and who are active participants in violent gangs and other illegal activities. It has been estimated that more than 25% of the inmate population in the jails throughout the United States are illegal aliens. These Illegal Aliens and their families are also a drain on our social services, schools, hospitals and the taxpayers.

There are approximately 11 million to 20 million illegal aliens currently in our country. When these people are caught, they are usually deported back to their own country. Many of them voluntarily self-deport after they are temporarily released, but many others must be forcibly deported back to their home countries.

The good news is that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has launched an ambitious nationwide effort called “The Secure Communities Initiative” that would deport the estimated 300,000 to 450,000 illegal immigrants locked up each year in jails and prisons in the U.S. In 2007, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) filed deportation charges against 164,000 illegal immigrants in jail, and removed 95,000. As part of the program, ICE will upgrade computer technology in jails and allow local jailers to access ICE’s fingerprint database to quickly identify prisoners with immigration violations as they are booked. $200 million in funding has already been allocated for the program this year and would add an unspecified number of ICE detention and removal officers.The first priority of the program is removing those convicted of major drug offenses and violent crimes including murder, manslaughter, rape and armed robbery. It is estimated that removing those offenders would cost around $1 billion a year. ICE estimates the cost to remove all convicted criminal immigrants in custody would be $2 billion to $3 billion annually.

There is, however, a loophole in the deportation of illegal aliens because some countries have been refusing to take their own citizens back, both criminal and non-criminal. Currently, there are eight countries that are refusing to accept their own citizens from the United States who have been ordered to be deported from the USA. These countries are China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Jamaica, Laos, India and Vietnam. As of February 2008, these countries are refusing to repatriate a total of 139,000 individuals. More than 18,000 of them are convicted criminals and many have already been released back onto American streets.

A)   Countries that deny or unreasonably delay the repatriation of their nationals who have been ordered removed from the United States will not be eligible to receive any federal financial assistance from the United States, and  

B)  Discontinuing the granting of Visas to nationals of countries that deny or delay the acceptance of their deported citizens.

These two bills would require reports to Congress every 90 days on the countries which inhibit repatriation. Receipt of the report automatically triggers denial of foreign aid as well as suspension of visa issuances to the listed countries.

I propose the addition of two more steps in the process in case the above two procedures do not achieve their goals:

C) Impose “Sovereignty Tariffs” on all imported products from countries that refuse to repatriate their criminals and deportees, and if the sovereignty tariffs do not achieve the goals,

D) Impose a ban on the import of all products from any countries that refuse to repatriate their criminals and deportees.

JOHN W. WALLACE

Candidate for Congress

New York’s 20^th Congressional District

www.FreedomCandidate.com

Text of Speech by John Wallace -prepared for the Freedom Rally in Washington DC on April 15, 2008

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words at this great gathering for Freedom. In the Declaration of Independence, our country's Founders told us that Governments get their just powers from the consent of the governed and whenever the government becomes destructive of these ends, it is not only the people's Right, but it is their sacred Duty to change the government.

That is why we have come here today from all parts of the country, from all walks of life and from all political parties and views. We have come here to change the direction of our government. Everyone here knows that our individual Freedoms, Liberties and our country's sovereignty are in mortal danger because of the political and social agendas, pandering, corruption and lack of basic common sense that exists at all levels of our federal government, but particularly in our congress.

My fellow citizens, the greatest threats to your freedoms and liberties are not coming from outside our country. They are coming from inside our country. While there are numerous anti-American groups and organizations located within America that would love to see our nation fail, Americans are also facing a federal government that is no longer listening to them. With its unconstitutional expansion and intrusion into every facet of our lives, it is our own government, not some foreign power, which has become the biggest threat to our individual freedoms and liberties.

Special Interest donors, who give huge amounts of money to the candidates of every major political party, no longer care who wins the election, because they have already paid off all of the candidates. Because of the influence that special interest money has on most elections today, it is the Special Interest Groups that are usually the big winners and it is the American people that are usually the losers. In 1863, in his Gettysburg address, President Abraham Lincoln said "this nation is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I'm afraid that is no longer true.

Although it has happened gradually over many, many years of corruption and bribery, America has now become a government of the special interest groups, by the special interests groups, and for the special interest groups. It can now be said with confidence, that America truly has the best congress that money can buy.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM from the hundreds of millions of Special Interest dollars that are buying votes and elections. Why is it still legal for a politician to take a bribe simply by calling it a contribution, when every other public official who takes this kind of money commits the crime of bribery? Do you think it's because politicians make the laws? Of course it is. In 1776, our Founders stood up, put their lives and fortunes on the line and declared their freedom and independence from the chains and shackles of the King of England. In 2008, Americans must also be willing to stand up and publicly declare their Freedom and Independence, not from the King of England, but from the chains and shackles of special interest money. America needs legislation that defines the receipt of any special interest money by elected officials and candidates, at all levels of government, as Bribery and therefore illegal and a crime.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM from the invasion of Illegal Aliens that threatens our country's sovereignty and costs us over $350 billion dollars a year. The government must stop this invasion by securing our borders, by enforcing our current immigration laws, by cutting off the honey pot of financial assistance that attracts illegal aliens, by not issuing them drivers' licenses and by deporting all illegal alien criminals when they are released from prison.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM ELECTION FRAUD. Computerized voting systems that are easily hacked and designed by companies that make big donations to elected officials are definitely not 100% reliable as we have seen in the recent primaries and elections. We need an honest and verifiable election process that mandates a permanent, verifiable paper record of the peoples' votes.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM A MULTI-LINGUAL SOCIETY. We need legislation designating English as the official language of the United States; for it is our common language that unifies us and will preserve us as one nation.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM DESTRUCTIVE INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS. Free and Fair Trade between nations is a good thing, however some trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other similar agreements are a threat to our sovereignty and independence as a nation. Many of these international agreements transfer power from the U.S. government and its people to unelected international bureaucrats. These agreements help no one but the international corporations that exploit cheap foreign labor and they are costing millions of Americans their jobs.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Funded by international banks and corporations, private organizations with official sounding names like the "Council on Foreign Relations" and the "Trilateral Commission," are exerting extraordinary influence on our government leaders to move our country towards a one world government and a new world order. These global elitists see not only our nation's sovereignty, but the sovereignty of all nations, as a hindrance to the international banks and corporations conducting cross-border trade and financial transactions.

If we were to follow their recommendations, American sovereignty will eventually be surrendered, piece by piece, to corrupt international organizations like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. Currently, their goal is to create an integrated North American Union similar to the European Union, complete with its own currency, international highway system, cross-national bureaucracy, and borderless travel and trade within the three countries of Canada, the United States and Mexico. It would destroy our national sovereignty and a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM EXCESSIVE TAXATION. In addition to a drastic reduction in spending that includes the abolition of programs and agencies that are unconstitutional, ineffective or no longer needed, the government must reduce the tax burden on the American people by substantially reducing or eliminating the income tax on individuals and any other taxes that punish individual investment and savings. We must also eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits and eliminate the Tax on the estates of hard working Americans who have died and already paid their taxes on these assets.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM ATTACKS ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Our country's founders designed a formal system of checks and balances for our government, but they were also concerned that the system could fail and that we might someday face a new tyranny, not from a foreign government, but from our own government. They knew that a government facing an armed citizenry was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. Law abiding American citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to defend.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM ATTACKS ON THEIR PRIVACY AND FROM A NATIONAL ID CARD. Protecting the country from Illegal Aliens and Terrorists attacks are necessary in today's world. Making it very hard for these individuals to obtain driver's licenses and other legal documents is a good thing. But imbedding American citizen's driver's licenses with radio frequency identification chips, in the name of security, that allows the government to remotely access their personal information and determine their location and travel habits is a violation of the people's freedoms and liberties. We must support legislation to get rid of the RFID chip requirements on our citizens' licenses.

AMERICAN CHILDREN NEED FREEDOM FROM BEING DRUGGED BY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. Approximately 6 million children, including 10% of all 6-18 year old boys in the United States are on psychotropic drugs like Ritalin for attention deficit hyperactivity disorders. These numbers are increasing despite the fact that there is no independent, scientifically accepted valid test for ADHD. Could the millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of congress and the funding of professional and academic institutions by the Pharmaceutical industry have something to do with this continued expansion? Of course it does.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM A FAILING FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. Before the creation of The Federal Department of Education in 1979, America had the finest education system in the world. With help from the National Education Association, federal programs are now specifically designed to de-emphasize academic knowledge and dumb-down America's children. Why is it that more and more of our children can't read, write or understand math at grade level? How come many of our high school students can't find the United States on a map of the world, but know how to put a condom on a cucumber? It's because our once great educational system has been hijacked, corrupted and deliberately Dumbed-Down by socialist, politically correct bureaucrats in Washington.

Not only has the federal Department of Education been a colossal failure, it is also unconstitutional. Nowhere in the US Constitution, is the federal government given the power to legislate or mandate educational policy for the states. This very important power was retained by the states and for a very good reason. Parents, along with their respective State and local governments, are the people best situated to educate their children, not federal government and union bureaucrats in Washington trying to push their political and social agenda on us. The Federal Department of Education deserves a failing grade of "F" and should be abolished.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM THE PRIVATE CONTROL OF OUR NATION'S MONEY. In the U.S. Constitution, the people of the United States granted Congress the power to coin Money and regulate its Value. The people never gave congress the constitutional power to delegate this money-creating and regulating responsibility to any private group of bankers.
Yet this is exactly what the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did. As long as this cartel of private banking executives, who make up the Federal Reserve Board, have control over our nation's money, they will continue to encourage our government to spend more than it takes in. For the deeper in debt the country goes, the more money these private bankers make.

When their own private banking investments fail, they always find a way to get the American taxpayers to bail them out with guaranteed loans and the issuance of new printed fiat money backed by nothing. The big banks take no risk and the taxpayers foot the bill. How does this system benefit the American people? The answer is that It's doesn't. It's just a clever scheme that fuels inflation, devalues our dollar and benefits the big commercial banks. The Federal Reserve Board should be abolished.

AMERICANS NEED FREEDOM FROM THE ENDLESS CYCLE OF WAR. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly states that "The Congress shall have Power...To declare War," but no Congress has declared war since December 8th, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The U.S. Congress did not declare war on North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia or Bosnia. Since World War II, over 60,000 U.S. military personnel have died and hundreds of thousands wounded in either undeclared wars or military actions pursued with a U.N. mandate.

Going to War with vague authorizations of force, and without a formal "Declaration of War," gives the executive branch a blank check and it also gives members of congress wiggle room to change their minds with the shifting political winds. The reality is that if presidents are allowed to commit large numbers of troops to combat on their own authority, or on the basis of some vague authorizations by congress, there are essentially no limits to what they can do.

FORTUNATELY, THERE ARE ALSO NO LIMITS TO WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN DO: Largely as a result of the Ron Paul Revolution, the Internet and conservative radio, the American people are becoming more aware of the corruption, unconstitutional expansion and intrusive power of our federal government.

However there are hopeful signs. When the US Senate tried to quickly pass an Amnesty bill for Illegal Aliens last year, we saw the power of the American people. Because they were so outraged by the actions of the Senate, the people rose up in great numbers, shut down the Senate's switchboard and the politicians quaked in their boots in the face of this massive display of citizen power. The time has come for Americans to exert that citizen power again.

Let's put aside all of our minor differences that have separated us until this day and unite as one strong political force. Let's leave here united by our major common goals and not divided by our minor differences. Let's become active in politics and support only those candidates that are honest, ethical, of good moral character, who take no special interest money and who support smaller, less intrusive federal, state and local governments.

Together, let us begin the journey that will leave future generations of Americans a legacy of individual freedom and liberty, a first class education system, a clean environment, a strong and sovereign America with an honest, limited government that will offer unlimited opportunities for their future. If we stand together, we can give it to them.

Thank you all for coming here today and God Bless America!

By: JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

 

The H-1B visa program was originally created to assist American employers who were having trouble finding American high-tech workers for their businesses. It allowed a fixed number of foreign workers come to the United States to “temporarily” fill those positions while the American companies and the federal government invested time and money in upgrading the training of American workers to meet the new skill levels required.

Although the program was originally designed to benefit American businesses, it has now become a program that benefits foreign companies with offices in America, rather than American companies, because the majority of the H-1B visas are now going to foreign-owned companies. Data just released by the federal government shows that offshore outsourcing firms, mostly from India, dominate the list of companies awarded H-1B visas in 2007. Indian outsourcers accounted for nearly 80% of the visa petitions approved last year for the top 10 participants in the program. These statistics should set off some alarms in congress that the H-1B visa program is not working as it was intended. Aqccording to data from the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Infosys Technologies and Wipro, two companies based in Bangalore, top the list of visa beneficiaries in 2007, with 4,559 and 2,567 approved visa petitions, respectively. Microsoft and Intel were the only two traditional U.S. tech companies among the top 10. Microsoft received only 959 visa petition approvals, or one fifth as many as Infosys, while Intel got only 369. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

The H-1B work visa program was supposed to be used to bolster the U.S. economy by helping American-owned companies. Under the program, American companies can use the speciality visa to hire foreign software programmers or computer scientists with rare skills in order to encourage innovation and improving competitiveness. Instead, foreign companies such as Infosys and Wipro are using our own government program to undermine the American economy by wiping out American jobs. These foreign-owned companies are bringing low-cost workers into the U.S., training them in the offices of American business clients, and then rotating them back home after a year or two so they can provide low cost, out-sourced tech services that causes American IT workers to lose their jobs. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

Even though approximately 80,000 Americans lost their jobs in the first two months of 2008, incredibly some members in the House of Representatives have introduced legislation to help these big foreign-owned international corporations bring in an increasing number of foreign workers that will put even more Americans out of work. Since its inception, the H-1B Visa program has been rampant with fraud. In the first half of 2006, the Programmer’s Guild, a group representing U.S. worker interests, filed over 300 discrimination complaints against companies who posted “H-1B visa holders only” ads on internet job boards. It’s obvious that these foreign-owned companies are only targeting foreign workers and undermining the system by bypassing the American worker. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

While a bill to reduce illegal immigration (HR-4088) is stalled in Congress with the House leadership refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote, Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) has introduced “The Innovation Employment Act” (HR-5630) that would increase the cap of H-1B visas from 65,000 a year to 130,000 a year. In addition, there would be no cap on H-1B applications for foreign graduate students attending U.S. colleges and studying science, technology and related fields. Currently, there's a 20,000 student-a-year cap on visas for graduate students in all fields. The legislation would eventually increase the H-1B cap to 180,000 and the total number of foreigners admitted under this work and graduate education proposal could reach almost 300,000 a year. To make matters worse for the American IT workers, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has introduced the “Strengthening United States Technology and Innovation Act” (H.R. 5642), which would TRIPLE the current H-1B visa cap to 195,000 in 2008 and 2009 and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) wants to make Rep. Smith’s increase permanent. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

There is no real shortage of American information technology workers. It’s just that the large high-tech international companies want to turn these hard earned information technology skills into as cheap a labor commodity as possible at the American workers’ expense. On March 12th Bill Gates appeared before Congress calling for an increase in H-1B visas. Two days later, without soliciting comments from any representatives of American IT workers, Congress introduced two bills that would double or triple the H-1B base cap. Why weren’t the representatives of American IT workers allowed to be heard? Could the average of $25 million dollars a year that members of congress receive in bribes (I mean campaign contributions) from the Computer Equipment and Services Industry, have something to do with this? Here’s some interesting campaign contribution statistics compiled by the Center for Responsible Politics at http://www.opensecrets.org/ that shows why congress may be so eager to support the requests of the Computer Equipment and Services Industry over the American IT workers. Here’s how much the high-tech industries have contributed to federal campaigns:

2000 - $38.9 million
2002 - $26.7 million
2004 - $29.0 million
2006 - $18.4 million
2008 - $15.5 million (partial)

These two bills (H.R. 4088 and H.R. 5642) will do nothing to curb the fraud in the H-1B visa program and they will have serious consequences for American citizens that are employed in the information technology field. The proposed legislation will displace even more American IT workers and outsource their good paying, high-technology jobs to foreign off-shore companies. We must learn from our mistakes. The current H-1B visa program has not served the best interests of American workers nor American companies. The current program has actually helped foreign competitors, with branch offices in the USA, hire almost no Americans and shift as many American jobs overseas as possible. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

The current H-1B Program, as designed, is detrimental and harmful to the welfare of American workers and American high-tech businesses. It should be abolished. In it’s place and only if it is needed, H-1B type legislation should be written in a way that actually benefits American companies, American workers and American students thinking of embarking on a high-tech career.

Any new H-1B Visa legislation should be simple and have the following criteria to help Americans only:

IT MUST BENEFIT BOTH AMERICAN WORKERS AND AMERICAN COMPANIES: The H-1B Visa Program was originally designed to help American companies. Any new H-1B Visa Program should apply ONLY to American-based business entities and the H-1B visas should only be issued to foreign employees after proof is supplied that no American worker has either applied or is otherwise qualified for the position.

BENEFIT FOR AMERICAN STUDENTS: Companies that hire H-1B visa holders should pay an annual fee for each visa holder they hire to be used to fund scholarships for American citizen high school and college students interested in high-tech careers and enrolled in STEM educational programs (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics).

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.freedomcandidate.com/

 

Regardless of who wins in the upcoming national elections, Special Interest and Big Money Donors will again be the winners and the American public will be the losers. Why do you think special interest groups and corporate executives contribute large sums of money to the political campaigns of candidates from both major parties? We all know the answer to that question. They want and expect “their politicians” to somehow look out for the interests of the group that provided the money. In America today, we are living under a political system that not only allows, but encourages and condones the legalized bribery of candidates for the presidency and congress. To the Special Interest and Big Money donors, it doesn’t matter who wins the election because they contribute to the campaigns of the candidates of both major parties. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the Special Interest and Big Money donors are always the winners.

The reality of political life in America today is that politicians are being bribed every day by special interest groups that want them to look out for their interests, which are not necessarily compatable with the best interests of the American people. Money given to candidates for federal office by Political Action Committees, industry lobbyists, labor unions and other special interest groups is nothing more than "legalized bribery."

As public servants, candidates for federal offices should not be taking money from these organizations to influence the decisions they will make during the course of performing their official duties. If a policeman takes a thousand dollar bribe from a drug dealer to help him out in some way, he would be committing the crime of Bribery. Why then is it legal for a presidential or congressional candidate to take a thousand dollar bribe (I mean campaign contribution) from some special interest group to help them out in some way.

There is another practice that is perfectly legal, but equally as objectionable as receiving money from Political Action Committees and Special Interest Groups. It’s called “Bundling.” Bundling is the practice of pooling together a large number of contributions from individuals (or PACs) in order to maximize the influence of the bundler and the interests they represent. Most often, a bundler is a corporate executive or lobbyist, who raises substantial sums of money for specific candidates with the expectation of getting something in return.

Here’s is an example of how a corporate bundler might operate:

Let’s say the Chairman of a big Wall Street firm invites a candidate to give a 15 or 20 minute speech at a luncheon before a hundred or so of the firm’s top executives. At the end of the speech, the Chairman presents the candidate with a bundle of $2,300 checks from those executives and the candidate walks away with almost a quarter of a million dollar bribe (I mean contribution). Although this practice is perfectly legal, whose interest will the candidate really be looking out for if he’s elected?

Here are some actual figures of Bundled Special Interest money from Wall Street firms (Top Four Donors) flowing into the campaigns of the leading presidential candidates that can be found on the http://www.opensecrects.org/ website:

Senator Clinton: Goldman Sachs: $490,000, Morgan Stanley: $426,000, Citigroup: $353,000, Merrill Lynch: $161,000.

Senator Obama: Goldman Sachs: $474,000, J.P. Morgan: $280,000, Lehman Brothers: $275,000, Morgan Stanley: $190,000.

Senator McCain: Merrill Lynch: $177,000, Citigroup: $161,000, Goldman Sachs: $104,000, J.P. Morgan: $75,000.

No matter how you say it, Special Interest dollars and Bundled Contributions can buy votes, elections and possibly even buy positions within the government. For example: the current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs before he became the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. Did the large bundled contributions from Goldman Sachs have something to do with it?

I will support any legislation that defines the receipt of any special interest money by candidates for federal office as Bribery and therefore illegal. I will also support the continued reporting by the Federal Election Commission of the names of the employers of people making donations of $200 or more. This way, the American voters can see where the candidates’ money is actually coming from, including those organizations that are bundling their contributions to candidates with the hopes of getting something in return.

Our elected officials should be more concerned about doing what is in the best interest of the American people, rather than doing what is in the best interests of their big money and special interest donors. Eliminating special interest money will be an important first step.

 

In Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the people of the United States granted Congress the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” The people never gave congress the constitutional power to delegate this money-creating and regulating responsibility to any private group. Yet this is exactly what the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did. The bill was publicly promoted as a plan to reform the nation's monetary system and stabilize the currency by taking control of it out of the hands of big bankers. In reality, of course, the Federal Reserve Act was written by the big bankers for the purpose of solidifying their control over our currency.

Many Americans today wrongfully believe that the Federal Reserve is somehow part of the federal government, possibly even the Treasury Department. Many do not know that the Federal Reserve is actually a cartel of private banks that was given the power to be the sole issuer of U.S. money, with full control over its quantity and thus its value. Since this group of private bankers (the Fed) provides credit to the U.S. government when we spend money we don’t have, the Fed also is able to profit handsomely from the ever-increasing national debt. Because the Fed makes more money when the country goes deeper into debt, there is no incentive for the Fed to support any reductions in federal deficit spending. The more credit we need, the more money this cartel of private banks will make.

The actions the Fed takes can drastically affect the economy simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. The president, congress, big business, investors, home buyers and anyone else with an interest in our economy waits with baited breath every time the Federal Reserve Board meets. If they decide to raise interest rates, politicians and industries could fall, homes might not be purchased and jobs could be lost. If the Fed decides to lower the interest rates, politicians, industries, investors and consumers may prosper. There is too much power vested in a handful of people whose names would not be recognized by most Americans.
Why do we allow such a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board to wield so much power over our country’s economic well-being? As average Americans strive to earn a living, cope with rising costs of food, fuel and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. On a daily basis, every dollar they have is being devalued.

Even though most Americans seem unaware of the current plight of the US dollar, especially in relation to the Euro, there is definitely a dollar crisis in the world economy because of the immense size of the international debt of America. America has now become the largest debtor in history, owing somewhere between $70 and $100 Trillion. The reckless deficit spending by our government, coupled with Federal Reserve currency devaluation, has become one of the greatest threats facing America today. Because Congress is routinely spending more than it can tax or borrow and the Fed is routinely printing “Fiat Money” (Dollars backed by nothing) out of thin air to make up the difference, this classic “one-two punch” threatens to further destroy the value of our dollars.

The actions of both major political parties would seem to indicate that they want the Fed to print more “Fiat Money” to support their extravagant and unchecked spending habits. Most politicians want the printing presses to run faster and faster, create more credit, issue rebate checks, etc., so that the economy will somehow be magically healed by this dangerous financial potion, or so they believe. The President and members of Congress may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects and earmarks, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our American dollars.

Issuing “Fiat Money” has allowed our government to live well beyond its means, but that practice cannot continue much longer as it is slowly destroying the value of our dollars. History shows us that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, as the actions of our congress and the Fed would indicate, nearly everyone suffers and both the economic and political structure becomes unstable. The Federal Reserve System has been the tool used by the major bankers to allow them to gain control over the smaller regional and local banks. The Fed has also acted as the financing agency for Congress' unprecedented deficit spending on an ever growing, more intrusive federal bureaucracy and the expansion of the welfare state. Some people believe that the private bankers in the Federal Reserve wield so much power that they can intentionally manipulate the economy in order to influence the results of our presidential elections.

Our government and the American people do not need the help of any private banking cartel to manage our monetary system. We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and return control of our currency to Congress where it belongs, as was the intent of our Founders. We also need to have a serious national discussion about how real currency reform can be achieved. As long as the private bankers in the Federal Reserve have control over our nation's money, Congress' control of the purse-strings will not have the benefits the country’s Founders intended.

I support legislation introduced by Congressman Ron Paul, of Texas, entitled “Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (H.R. 2755) that will restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve.

REF: H.R. 2755: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:

Regardless of who wins in the upcoming national elections, Special Interest and Big Money Donors will again be the winners and the American public will be the losers. Why do you think special interest groups and corporate executives contribute large sums of money to the political campaigns of candidates from both major parties? We all know the answer to that question. They want and expect “their politicians” to somehow look out for the interests of the group that provided the money. In America today, we are living under a political system that not only allows, but encourages and condones the legalized bribery of candidates for the presidency and congress. To the Special Interest and Big Money donors, it doesn’t matter who wins the election because they contribute to the campaigns of the candidates of both major parties. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the Special Interest and Big Money donors are always the winners.

The reality of political life in America today is that politicians are being bribed every day by special interest groups that want them to look out for their interests, which are not necessarily compatable with the best interests of the American people. Money given to candidates for federal office by Political Action Committees, industry lobbyists, labor unions and other special interest groups is nothing more than "legalized bribery."

As public servants, candidates for federal offices should not be taking money from these organizations to influence the decisions they will make during the course of performing their official duties. If a policeman takes a thousand dollar bribe from a drug dealer to help him out in some way, he would be committing the crime of Bribery. Why then is it legal for a presidential or congressional candidate to take a thousand dollar bribe (I mean campaign contribution) from some special interest group to help them out in some way.

There is another practice that is perfectly legal, but equally as objectionable as receiving money from Political Action Committees and Special Interest Groups. It’s called “Bundling.” Bundling is the practice of pooling together a large number of contributions from individuals (or PACs) in order to maximize the influence of the bundler and the interests they represent. Most often, a bundler is a corporate executive or lobbyist, who raises substantial sums of money for specific candidates with the expectation of getting something in return.

Here’s is an example of how a corporate bundler might operate:

Let’s say the Chairman of a big Wall Street firm invites a candidate to give a 15 or 20 minute speech at a luncheon before a hundred or so of the firm’s top executives. At the end of the speech, the Chairman presents the candidate with a bundle of $2,300 checks from those executives and the candidate walks away with almost a quarter of a million dollar bribe (I mean contribution). Although this practice is perfectly legal, whose interest will the candidate really be looking out for if he’s elected?

Here are some actual figures of Bundled Special Interest money from Wall Street firms (Top Four Donors) flowing into the campaigns of the leading presidential candidates that can be found on the http://www.opensecrects.org/ website:

Senator Clinton: Goldman Sachs: $490,000, Morgan Stanley: $426,000, Citigroup: $353,000, Merrill Lynch: $161,000.

Senator Obama: Goldman Sachs: $474,000, J.P. Morgan: $280,000, Lehman Brothers: $275,000, Morgan Stanley: $190,000.

Senator McCain: Merrill Lynch: $177,000, Citigroup: $161,000, Goldman Sachs: $104,000, J.P. Morgan: $75,000.

No matter how you say it, Special Interest dollars and Bundled Contributions can buy votes, elections and possibly even buy positions within the government. For example: the current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs before he became the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. Did the large bundled contributions from Goldman Sachs have something to do with it?

I will support any legislation that defines the receipt of any special interest money by candidates for federal office as Bribery and therefore illegal. I will also support the continued reporting by the Federal Election Commission of the names of the employers of people making donations of $200 or more. This way, the American voters can see where the candidates’ money is actually coming from, including those organizations that are bundling their contributions to candidates with the hopes of getting something in return.

Our elected officials should be more concerned about doing what is in the best interest of the American people, rather than doing what is in the best interests of their big money and special interest donors. Eliminating special interest money will be an important first step.