The Boy Scouts' motto is: Be prepared. Who knew it meant preparing to defend themselves against purple-shirted union thuggery over community service? Kids, pay attention. This is a teachable moment for all of you on power, politics and Big Labor's culture of corruption.

Last week at a city council meeting in Allentown, Pa., a top official of the local Service Employees International Union chapter ranted about 17-year-old Scout Kevin Anderson's park cleanup work. Anderson devoted some 200 hours to the job in order to earn an Eagle Scout badge. He picked up trash and helped clear a 1,000-foot walking path with fellow members of Boy Scouts Troop 301 of Center Valley.

But SEIU's Nick Balzano gave them hell instead of thanks.

Balzano disparaged altruistic efforts in city parks and asserted that "there is (sic) to be no volunteers" since his union members were laid off. He then issued a witch hunt threat: "We'll also be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails. We may file another grievance on that." Citing union rules, he gave the Allentown city council, the Boy Scouts and all potential volunteers an iron-fisted ultimatum: "None of them can pick up a hoe. They can't pick up a shovel. They can't plant a flower. They can't clear a bicycle path. They can't do anything. Our people do that."

That's right. Balzano was ready to bludgeon the Boy Scout because his gung-ho volunteerism posed a threat to the SEIU labor monopoly. The outrageous display of Boss Balzano's union protectionism provoked a national furor. SEIU headquarters in Washington immediately blamed "the disreputable Fox News and other right-wing outlets like Michelle Malkin's accuracy challenged blog" for the backlash. While decrying their critics' "fiction," SEIU distanced itself from Balzano, denying that he was a top union leader and dismissing his remarks as "unauthorized."

Fact: U.S. Department of Labor records from 2008 (their most recent filing) show that Balzano is no rogue rank-and-file member. He currently serves on the SEIU local's executive board and previously served as president.

Fact: The union tried to minimize Balzano's grievance threat as "inappropriate." But the dirty open secret is that public-sector unions have routinely attacked volunteer workers who threaten their stranglehold.

Last June, union officials in Baraboo, Wis., filed a complaint against volunteer firefighters who built sandbag barricades to protect the city from record flooding. They whined that city Department of Public Works employees should have been called first and demanded overtime pay (for work they didn't do) to compensate them.

Yes, kids, the city was knee-deep in water and the government union got mad that other people scrambled to work together in an emergency to put sand in bags, save homes and help their neighbors. Public-sector unions aren't about serving the public interest. They're about serving their people, their power and their self-preservation.

In Montpelier, Vt., several years ago, the teachers union went after a superstar educator, Bill Corrow. The students, staff and supervisors at his school loved the social studies teacher and Vietnam veteran. But the Vermont Education Association hated him because he was a volunteer who did not accept payment for his elective course. Teachers unions are all for parents and schoolchildren volunteering their time to engage in political lobbying and power-expanding initiatives on the union's behalf. But God help the community service-oriented individual with a passion for sharing his knowledge in their classrooms.

In California, union heavies in the Sacramento area sued a nonprofit environmental group for using college-age volunteers on a state-funded project to clean up a canyon and build a community trail. Big Labor dusted off an old law that requires community service volunteers to be paid prevailing wages for doing the same kind of cleanup that Allentown Boy Scout Kevin Anderson was punished for doing freely. The law was finally repealed, but not without a brass-knuckles fight.

As National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix, whose group monitors forced union abuses, pointed out during the battle: "Discerning California union bosses' real agenda … is not hard. Volunteer workers don't have to pay compulsory union dues to serve their communities, but most paid workers on public projects in California do. … (It) is yet another example of how government-authorized compulsory union dues corrupt the political process and furnish unscrupulous union officials with an enormous incentive to act against the public interest."

SEIU President Andy Stern in Washington speaks for all of Big Labor when he describes his organizing philosophy: "We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power." President Obama, who has made national service an administration priority, has been and will continue to be silent about the Big Labor bullies who make public enemies of Scouts with trash bags and hoes.

You see, kids, Obama owes Stern (his most frequent White House visitor) and his union brethren. SEIU alone poured more than $60 million in compulsory membership dues into Obama's campaign and leaned on its workers to "volunteer" to knock on doors, place phone calls and send out mailers for the Democratic Party. No good deed goes unpunished by union bosses -- unless it benefits their political empire.

Mexico’s culture of corruption is synonymous with the drug dealers, Federales as well as the government. It is no secret business south of the border is handled with a greasy handshake full of money, but what’s surprising to most Americans are the major trade deals cut to benefit our neighbor to the south.

Why has America bent over backwards to create free trade and open borders with such an uncooperative neighbor? What has Mexico given up for the sake of our benefit? Still thinking? It could take awhile.

Mexico is a country filled with natural resources. There is plenty of fertile land for crops, it lays claim to a massive amount of oil and contains thousands of miles of sandy beaches for tourists to frolic on. So why does this country, so close to the successes of its North American neighbor continue to stagnate in corruption and remain an oligarchy?

For the meantime America is the sole superpower. But unlike the past, American administrations have made mistakes and those blunders translated into some bad deals for the American people.

So where did it begin to go wrong?

Beginning in 2002/03 the American government was in the business of trying to catch the bad guys in Juarez and in the midst of catching the murderous cartel members, ICE found itself involved in a dozen murders.

The murders took place in Juarez, Mexico at the now infamous ‘House of Death.’ Twelve murders should have shook Mexico awake and dealt a blow to the American law enforcement community. Strangely it did not. Mexico would hold on to that huge mistake and smartly use it to their advantage at a later date.

This would now become the first major law enforcement cover-up in the Bush “W” White House.

While 12 murders are taking place under the watchful eye of ICE, a mistake is made and it nearly cost the lives of several DEA agents assigned to the Juarez office. This would forever be known as the catalyst point. Once a senior DEA agent Sandalio Gonzalez learns of ICE’s shenanigans, he writes a letter and begins a paper trail.

When Gonzalez learned about the House of Death details he rightly knows something is afoul. He then writes his ICE counterpart and the office of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton formally demanding accountability for the missteps that led to the U.S. knowing and allegedly participating in 12 murders.

It is worth pointing out that there is no statute of limitations for murder.

“Over the past five and a half years I found a trail that didn’t make sense regarding economic disparities and the undermining of national security. All paths led right back to the El Paso Region because everyone understood Mexico was holding something over us. The pattern was easily documented and verifiable. Ultimately it all led back to the House of Death,” says Andy Ramirez, president of the California based nonprofit Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council, who documented a pattern of prosecutorial abuse by Justice, and misrepresentations of fact by Homeland Security.

With an internal cover-up in play, Mexico was in position to play the House of Death card in 2004 and thereafter due to the failure of the U.S. government to clean house. This would eventually somewhat play out in federal court in December 2006 where sworn testimony of Michelle Leonhart, then DEA Deputy Administrator places responsibility for the House of Death squarely on ICE.

When Leonhart was asked if ICE was responsible, she responded, “ICE was responsible, yes…ICE caused the incident.”

At this point, former U.S. Attorney Pete Nunez said, “heads should have rolled in this case.” Yet no high-ranking U.S. officials lost their jobs, nor were they prosecuted.

This simple fact, coupled with a massive cover-up and Mexico’s silence would allow Mexico to gain favorable economic and immigration related concessions while restructuring U.S. border security- with a very complicit Bush White House.

Uncovering the favors for the Mexican Government

Now that the cover-up is in full swing a pair of meetings would take place in Crawford, TX with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox and U.S. President Bush. During the first meeting in March of 2004, Mexico and the U.S. reached a critical agreement that allowed Mexicans with short-term visas to cross the border without being fingerprinted and photographed by U.S. authorities. The respective leaders also began a discussion of a “Guest Worker Plan” or amnesty.

In April of 2004 a plea agreement was reached regarding the murders in the House of Death case. The cartel leader, Heriberto Santillan pled guilty to drug trafficking while the murder charges were dropped. He accepted 25 years in a U.S. prison courtesy of Sutton. This plea deal ensured that Johnny Boy and the Bush Administration would not have to go into court where the gruesome tortures and murders, as well as the case mismanagement by Sutton’s office and ICE (the very things being covered-up) would be exposed in the light of day.

One can conclude that Sutton was placed all along in the position of gatekeeper to protect the White House. Along with his partner in crime Alberto Gonzales, who went from Special Counsel to the President to Attorney General, both would be able to protect all the Bush Administration’s policies regarding Mexico.

It was also during this time that Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, El Paso Border Patrol Agents, found themselves in a heap of trouble regarding shots fired at a known drug dealer. Sutton was the prosecuting attorney in this case, and in another case involving illegal aliens, that being Edwards County Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez.

“This case (Ramos-Compean) was a skunk. It had a terrible odor,” explains Congressman Walter B. Jones-R NC. “I always wondered why there was no investigation in this matter and why the Mexican Government had so much sway in this American case involving Border Patrol Agents.”

For Jones and a few other Senior Congressional members the story is becoming increasingly clear, referring to the House of Death. “This conspiracy, corruption and cover-up screams for immediate Congressional investigation,” Jones said matter of factly.

“Wrong is wrong, and after reading more about this case it was expected that Sutton would have shut down the House of Death case after the first murder. He did not. We need to remember we are a nation of laws,” Jones finished.

However, these favors for Mexico did not just involve the questionable prosecutions of law enforcement officers.

Marginalizing the Border Patrol

Soon after in June 2004, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge releases an internal memorandum, which prohibited race profiling as an enforcement method.

U.S. Border Patrol agents from the Temecula Border Patrol Sector were conducting interior enforcement operations in Ontario, CA, which resulted in condemnation by the Mexican government and Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus claiming race profiling. Such actions have continued to this day when it comes to immigration enforcement.

June would prove to be a busy month for the Mexican government.

A Social Security Totalization Agreement was signed with Mexico. This agreement would put millions of illegal Mexican workers into the U.S. Social Security system. It is alleged that they would collect U.S. benefits based on their U.S earnings under false or stolen Social Security numbers plus earnings in Mexico. Opponents claimed this pact would further lure illegal immigration, and remain a key component for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

On July 1, 2004 David V. Aguilar became Chief of the Border Patrol after being named to the position in May 2004. The appointment of Aguilar, Chief Patrol Agent of Tucson Sector, was key as he immediately began restructuring the patrol from which many controversial internal events began to inexplicably shape.

This brings us back to Andy Ramirez who stated, “It was the appointment of David Aguilar where the Border Patrol was destroyed from within. Very quickly, I had sources consisting of active duty and retired agents telling me that Mexico was running all the sectors and stations along the southwest border. In a very short time an agency who’s motto was ‘Honor First’ became one of ‘no confidence’ where their own employees would be filled with mistrust and fear of the very government they were willing to die for defending our front lines.”

By the end of summer 2004 a “gag” order was put in place by the Department of Homeland Security ending any unauthorized discussion or statements by its’ employees with the public and media. This was needed to stop any whistle blowing within the department or comments by agents to the media regarding the outrageous policies of the Bush Administration.

It is also worth pointing out that the formation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 was critical in bringing immigration and customs law enforcement agencies together under one umbrella and squelch any stray employees’ opposition to these types of matters.

DHS now had the Border Patrol, Customs, and ICE all within one roof. No one could step out of line under the Bush White House’s watchful eyes. Secretary Ridge and Attorney General Ashcroft would have a direct pipeline to the president, both of whom had full knowledge of the House of Death case as documented in Sandy Gonzalez’ civil suit.

Taking a cue from the 9/11 Commission Report, the Bush Administration released a new National Border Patrol Strategy, which made stopping the terrorists the top priority.

The reality was that such a strategy sounded good on paper, but accomplished very little other than giving Congress and the public a façade of smoke and mirrors to give a sense of “wow they’re doing something to control the borders.”

However, local Border Patrol sector chiefs were stripped of command and control over their kingdoms. All operations were subsequently centralized and placed under the control of headquarters and Chief Aguilar in Washington, DC. In effect, headquarters no longer served the field.

On November 16, 2004, a memorandum of understanding was completed between CBP and ICE in which ICE’ Office of Investigations was given control of key investigative responsibilities while ultimately neutering the Border Patrol by limiting enforcement to cross border traffic in “routine areas of patrol”.

Moving forward into 2005 the Congress was making a full-court press for immigration reform or amnesty.

In early spring another Bush Administration meeting took place in Texas with President Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Martin to outline the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

This deal would further weaken border security and interior enforcement as well as denounce U.S. civilian border observers or Minutemen groups as vigilantes, and proposed Republican Congressional legislation calling for construction of a border fence. Discussions about a new “guest worker” plan for Mexican illegal aliens that experts have called a second amnesty also began to take shape at this tri-country pow-wow.

Throughout the summer the country would begin its grumblings about the McCain/Kennedy/Bush immigration reform bill.

Curiously the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Official Website outlines all the activities by U.S. civilian groups including the Minutemen groups, and official investigations by Congressmen regarding border security and interior enforcement.

During this same time period numerous Chief Patrol Agents and other high-ranking officials in the Border Patrol suddenly began to retire early before their mandatory age-57 retirement requirement.

New Mexican President, Same Interference

In the interim, Mexican violence continued to spin out of control with the election of new President Felipe Calderon.

Meanwhile as word of the border fence made its way into the 2006 legislation it was becoming increasingly clear a fence would not be built as many Americans wanted.

“The Bush Administration was constantly dragging their feet. They wanted no part in clear language that put a mandated double fence in high traffic zones and they didn’t want a time certain for completion,” said retired Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, R-CA. “I finally just pushed for the double and triple fence in the San Diego region and left Arizona and Texas out.”

The Bush White House along with other Texas legislators would water down the required fencing in the 2006 immigration reform bill and to this day the fence has been plagued by delays, cost overruns, and bureaucratic obstruction due to immense pressure from Mexico.

However, Americans were having no part in the new amnesty talk and it would be the radio talk shows leading the charge to stop the final McCain/Kennedy/Bush legislation in its tracks.

A defeated White House and an empowered Mexican government wouldn’t end on that note.

The outgoing President Bush would get the Merida Initiative signed into law by June 30 of 2008. It provided $1.4 billion ($400 million immediately) financed through Congressional Appropriations (from U.S. taxpayers) to assist Mexico in combating transnational organized crime; Ambassador Garza and counterpart in Mexico City sign implementation agreement Dec. 3, 2008

Considering the mishandling and subsequent cover-up of the House of Death murder spree that began in El Paso and found its way to Washington, local Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) oddly has never issued any statement regarding this entire mess.

When asked to comment, Vincent Perez, Reyes’ press secretary responded with, “I don’t know what this had to do with us.”

When pressed with the fact that the agencies involved were working in his district, Perez responded, “I still don't understand what this has to do with our office.”

However, in a different matter Reyes’ office contacted ICE on June 19, 2008 regarding the kidnapping of a relative in Juarez though ICE had no jurisdiction. As a result, Reyes is now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee as a complaint was filed in July 2008 questioning the improper usage of a U.S. law enforcement agency.

Betting the House

The only way this type of political play could have been pulled off was by Mexico having a chip; keeping in mind they want open borders – amnesty at minimum. They had the political chip, or blackmail, courtesy of the mishandling and cover-up of the House of Death case. But to pull it off, law enforcement starting with the Border Patrol had to be undermined and destroyed from within; the very thing Mexico has always wanted. ICE is corrupt, overwhelmed, and melting anyhow so they would be an ineffective replacement.

The long-standing relationship between Reyes and Aguilar within management at Border Patrol is equally important. Reyes was Chief Patrol Agent of McAllen Sector while Aguilar was a high-ranking subordinate under him.

Given this relationship it would be easy to communicate and restructure the Border Patrol to the agency’s detriment with Reyes shepherding it through Congress without much notice. Many Members of Congress have deferred to Reyes due to his experience as a Border Patrol high-ranking agent.

Given DHS and the Justice Department’s roles in the House of Death case, with the ‘rule of law’ eliminated, and their failure to hold people accountable in this matter, amnesty could be pushed. The American people have been left standing alone against these overwhelming odds.

The Blind Sheikh (Abdel Rahman) was successfully convicted in 1995 for bombing the World Trade Center and is now in prison for life. He had permanent resident status in the United States – though he was on the official US terrorist list – and this was prior to 9-11, so he was tried in U.S. civilian courts as a criminal defendant. His conviction and sentencing is Attorney General Holder’s terror trial standard and he holds it up against the many concerns expressed about KSM+4 being tried in our civilian courts. There have been several other terror trials since 1995 in our criminal courts, but the powerful combination of a World Trade Center attack and convicted Islamist bomber is held up as the best claim that enemy terrorists can be prosecuted in federal court.

Former Attorney General Mukasey does not agree and he was judge for the Blind Sheikh’s trial. Days ago, Mukasey remarked on Holder’s announcement as he addressed attorneys at the Federalist Society’s convention in Washington DC. Among other objections to Holder’s decision, Mukasey worried that battlefield evidence is not collected according to criminal law standards. He also noted that the trial process would have to start anew in compliance with civilian court procedures, causing a “circus of information disclosure.” He posited that constitutional provisions like the right to a speedy trial -- generally a 90-day standard for a defendant to be charged or tried -- may be argued by the defense.

Mukasey pointed to the Moussaoui trial as an example of how terrorists will use the courtroom to grandstand. Even though Moussaoui proclaimed himself guilty, courtroom shenanigans went on for over four years and the jury failed to return a death sentence verdict. Apparently the jury was not convinced that Moussaoui's “silence was directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks.” No wonder, the legal difficulties of proving “silence” and “direct responsibility” and how to demonstrate the negative of not doing something, all conspire to contort the process. Moussaoui left the courtroom trumpeting, “America, you lost.”

Andrew McCarthy, the lead US Attorney in the Blind Sheikh’s trial, also disagrees with Holder. First, McCarthy does not find constitutional, international law, or legal case history basis for vesting unlawful enemy combatants with US Constitutional due process rights. Second, he agrees with Mukasey that the different standards for criminal trials complicate efforts to convict terrorists, while maintaining his great confidence in the Southern District New York prosecutors. Finally, and most terrifying, is that McCarthy knows firsthand how intelligence secrets will be disclosed during trial:

In 1995, just before trying the blind sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven others, I duly complied with discovery law by writing a letter to the defense counsel listing 200 names of people who might be alleged as unindicted co-conspirators--i.e., people who were on the government's radar screen but whom there was insufficient evidence to charge. Six years later, my letter turned up as evidence in the trial of those who bombed our embassies in Africa. It seems that, within days of my having sent it, the letter had found its way to Sudan and was in the hands of bin Laden (who was on the list), having been fetched for him by an al-Qaeda operative who had gotten it from one of his associates.

Jihadists delight in gaming our legal system. As McCarthy also records in his riveting account of the two-year trial: Willful Blindness: Memoir of Jihad, the terror plotters planned for getting caught: “Bring my lawyer.’ Never talk to them. Not a word. ‘My lawyer’—that’s it! That’s what’s so beautiful about America.”

Attorney General Holder said in Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings today that he knows we are at war. When,then, will he treat the terrorists like enemies – not common criminals -- in this war?

On Tuesday night I attended the annual dinner of the Family Research Council, an event I served on the host committee for and helped to sponsor (full disclosure).  Michelle Malkin was the keynote speaker, and FRC President, Tony Perkins, anecdotally addressed the crowd a few times.  Tony has become a public leader in the "Christian Right", appearing frequently on CNN and Fox News, consistently advocating the socially conservative message that FRC promotes.  He is a fine man, a good leader, and I am fond of much of the work he and FRC are doing.

Tony said something last night that I found fascinating, and it inspired me to address one of the most important issues I spend time obsessing over.  Tony said that it was "a mission of his" to "change the perception people have of the Christian Right."  I think this is a very good idea.  And as you might have guessed, I believe I know how it ought to be done.

What Tony is likely referring to is the unfortunate stereotype placed upon the religious right which depicts them as a monolithic unit, only concerned with the moral issues of life and marriage.  Now, I am a pro-lifer, and I fervently desire to see the overturning of Roe v. Wade so that states can individually address the issue (as the Constitution demands).  And I am a traditional marriage advocate, finding the judicial activism of many state Supreme Courts today to be perversely offensive.  I believe that marriage is a legal institution involving one man and one woman, and that regardless of one's own religious and moral views, legal definitions and civilizational standards can not be completely discarded or re-drawn.  I agree with FRC that there is a far broader agenda behind most of the same-sex marriage agenda, and I join them in repudiating it.  But Tony identified a problem that night, and I agree with him that it is a problem.  The issues of life and marriage ought not be the total extent of our political IQ, and Tony is right to not only change the impressions others have about the religious right, but he will be right to actually change the reality as well.  The perception needs to be altered, but only to the extent that the reality itself is altered.

And the reality I am referring to is this: men and women of faith who have political instincts and inclinations must address the issues of economic freedom and fiscal responsibility in the coming decade or they will not be, and should not be, taken seriously.  The interference in the free marketplace Americans are tolerating today is wrecking havoc in our economy, and therefore in the lives of families.  Our progressive tax code is oppressively punishing ambition, decimating the incentives that people of diligence and industriousness believe in.  Government spending is burdening our children and our children's children with a debt load that can only be described as indescribable.  Attempts to expand the federal government's role in health care threatens to permanently re-define the relationship the citizen has with the state.  We have abandoned the limitations our Constitution puts on the jurisdiction of government, and are enabling a behemoth bureacracy that is good for nothing but alleviating the citizen of individual responsibility.  Class warfare is the rhetoric of the day, and it is promoted inside church walls just as much as it is on the floor of Congress.

These are moral issues.  Faith-based conservatives have absolutely no choice but to address these issues head on, or die the death of cultural irrelevance that will inevitably come to them.  Secular progressives who resist the partnership of moral conservatives in conserving a free marketplace will also live to regret their decision.  The Club for Growth and the Family Research Council may have different focuses, different tactics, and somewhat different agendas, but to the extent that there is overlap in their respective missions, and to the extent that they can sythesize much of what they are doing, conservatism and free market lovers of life and liberty will be the real winners.  Our country was founded with the explicit purpose of facilitating the achievement of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  No conservative group has a future if they ignore one of these purposes.

Medical technology has dramatically changed the conversation about abortion in our country.  31 out of 31 states have now held elections in which the traditional definition of marriage was upheld.  There is no need to abandon these issues (or others that may be near and dear to social conservatives).  But my plea to my friends in what used to be called the "religious right" is this: Pick up the sword on the issues pertaining to the economy.  They are the huge moral issues of our day.  Define yourself not just by your regard for the 6th and 7th commandments, but the 8th and 10th commandments as well.  Defend the businessman who feeds his family at the same time you defend the institution of family.  The free market and the institution of family are inseperable.  We undermine the family when we undermine the free market. 

The good fight today is one for economic freedom.  As defenders of faith, family, and freedom, we all have work to do. 

Plenty of ink is being spilled this week over President Obama's trip to Asia.  Looming is another key head of state visit.  Iran's Ahmadinejad is set to visit Brazil next Monday.  The stakes are high.     

Sure, the Iranian president has played in the Western Hemisphere with the likes of Venezuela's Chavez and Nicaragua's Ortega.  But his visit to Brazil --South America's anchor-- takes it up a big level.  In the recent past, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva kept Ahmadinejad somewhat at arms length.  Brazil's relations with Iran were low level, lacking the personal relationship that Ahmadinejad has forged with Chavez and others.     

The Brazilian president is moving his country away from U.S. policy.  At the United Nations this fall, Lula challenged a reporter to "Give me one example of how Venezuela is undemocratic."  Earlier this year, he compared the protests in Iran's streets to clashes between rival soccer teams:  "Whoever wins celebrates, and who loses cries."  He has defended Iran's nuclear program and called Tehran a "great partner."     

President Lula likely sees this visit as part of his "South to South" strategy of building political capital across the developing world.  He has opened 35 embassies in the past six years, mostly in Africa and the Caribbean.  This campaign has increased his world stature, bolstered by his stunning Olympic site victory over Chicago. 

For Ahmadinejad, the goal is legitimacy in our Hemisphere, and recruiting another ally to gum up any diplomatic move against his nuclear drive.  And Brazil is a big catch.  As Doug Farah put it recently before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Brazil is a "serious power."  He went on, "They are the economic engine... Chavez is viewed, I think, largely as a clown.  Lula is not.  If [Ahmadinejad] gets legitimized by Lula, it's huge - something much more important than Chavez could ever give him." 

So the world will be watching.  President Lula could play the statesman by standing-up to Ahmadinejad, telling him that Iran's nefarious activities in South America are unwelcome, and that his nuclear program will bring diplomatic isolation and pain for Iranians.  That's a long shot.  Far more likely is that Monday's visit will be a depressing milestone on the way to South America's future.

Either today or later this week, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev) wants the Senate to vote on a "motion to proceed" on the Senate's version of the healthcare bill. That wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that it has barely been seen by anyone in the Senate. At least not as far as most Senators are concerned. Why is that? Because the bill has not been shown to them with sufficient time to study it, that's why.

What Reid wants is for the Senate to vote to proceed on a bill that has not been seen, not read, not studied by the very Senators from whom he wants to force a vote. If this bill is so important, why isn't it imperative that our Senators actually get to see the thing they are expected to vote on?

And that isn't the worst of the unconscionable dirty tricks that Reid is playing with this "important" legislation. He's also planning on a bait and switch tactic once he gets his vote to proceed.

News is that Reid wants to use a Senate procedure where a bill can be swapped out with another on the floor. He wants to bring an unassociated bill to the floor and once it gets there he wants to swap that bill out with the healthcare bill. Then he wants to force a quick vote.

Alarmingly, Reid is making an effort to eliminate any time for Senators to see what is in this economy killing, liberty slaying, big government leviathan before a vote is forced down their throats.

If this bill was a legitimate bill would all of these dirty tricks be necessary? Further, if this bill had such wide acceptance and agreement among Congress and the people alike, why are Democrats afraid to let everyone see the bill?

Reid isn't a fool, though. He knows that once America gets to see what is in this mess it will become nearly impossible to pass this thing. Naturally, that is why he is trying to eliminate any possibility that anyone might get a glimpse of what is in the bill before it is passed.

The fact is, though, if Reid cannot get his 60-vote "motion to proceed" his sly maneuvers will be stymied for now. So, call your Senators and tell them where you stand on these underhanded tactics, won't you? Tell them not to vote to proceed until they've at least gotten a chance to see this mysterious, invisible healthcare bill.

Lastly, one wonders why the most "transparent" president in history is allowing the Congress to continue day in and day out to press votes on legislation no one has ever seen on bills that haven't been written? What ever happened to the hoary days of campaigning when Obama kept promising that we'd all get 5 days to see a bill before a vote?

How things change.

Note: As of today, the bill has been posted online so that we can see it. But Reid wants to vote on the motion to proceed today or tomorrow. This is hardly the 72 hours timeline that transparency advocates have pressed for, nor is it anywhere close to the five days that President Obama promised us all.

You can see the bill at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22734971/Senate-Democrats-Health-Care-Reform-Bill.