Now it begins

On Monday one of President Clinton's skeleton's came out of the closet. I know it is not really a skeleton since it was his famous line, "I did not have sexual intercourse" that lead to his impeachment trial. Granted his impeachment wasn't about his affair, as that was nothing new to the Clinton camp, but his lying to a grand jury. I love listening to the pundits speculate why Monica Lewinsky is coming forth after 10 years of silence. And to Vanity Fair of all rags.

It is a simple. There is no secret that President Clinton's infidelity irked First Lady Clinton but it was part of being with Bubba. Now that former Secretary of State Clinton is likely to hold the cards for the Democrat nomination for 2016 there are still a few small camps that don't like the Clinton's and that is why Monica is coming out.

Monica is coming out to help sully former Secretary of State Clinton's chances to be the Democrat nominee. While the Democrats would love nothing better than to check the box of nominating a female, far too many people in the Democrat party are tired of the Clinton's. Looks like another female will be the nominee in 2016; Elizabeth Warren?

The Final Debate of 2012

Last night the Presidential debates saw some competition with the NLCS in game 7 and the Lions visiting the Bears; okay no one really tuned into the football game unless you were in those markets. The debate moderated by Bob Schieffer was on foreign policy - or on Middle East policy. Much of the debate stationed itself in the Middle East dealing with the fallout from the Libya embassy attack, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the devastation in Syria and how to back our ally Israel in the area.

While there was a brief entanglement on China, there was very little discussion of foreign policy outside of the Middle East. I do agree that the unstable nature of the Middle East poses a threat to World Peace, there is a lot more going on that the next President of the United States will need to address. Namely the economy.

The United States makes up 5% of the world population yet we consume nearly 35% of the worlds goods and resources. Countries like Russia, India, Brazil and China are seeing their middle class exploding as we did back in the 50's. Combine that will a United States economy that is slowing to a growth rate of 1.3%, our government needs to assist businesses located here in trade abroad. I know many of you are wondering how can a small government person look to the Federal government to assist business in trade outside of the United States.

It is simple. The role of the Federal government is to be that buffer in trade with foreign nations along with providing a solid infrastructure, security of private property, and settle disputes between the States. Outside of that, the Federal government needs to step out of the way and allow the States to deal with other issues of the day. But I digress.

A number of polling done after the debate has President Obama beating Governor Romney but as the commentary went along the question rose - Will the performance move the needle back to President Obama as Governor Romney had gain a lot of momentum from the first debate?

With two weeks left we will find out the answer to that question. The other observation from last night's debate was the masterful pivot that Governor Romney made from the extreme Right wing aspect of his base to the center. The pivot is similar to the one that Governor Clinton made during his campaign against President Bush. Two weeks to go and it will be interesting to see where the money is being spent and the places the candidates visit.

To those that live in states that will are already decided, when you go to the poll to vote find another candidate other than the major two to cast your die for that more closely aligns with your ideals. By doing this you will potentially give that third or fourth party increased status and we may just be able to end the gridlock in Washington D.C.

Primary Tuesday - Obama v Clinton

Today several states, including Minnesota, will be heading to the polls in primary voting. While the expectation is a low voter turnout in Minnesota, the race for the Democrat Party primary in Colorado will be interesting. What makess the Colorado primary for the Democrat Party is that it pits President Obama versus former President Clinton. President Obama is backing incumbant Sen. Michael Bennett while former President Clinton is backing challenger Colorado's House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.

Normally I would not really pay to much attention to primaries in other states but this one is intriguing. President Obama has a horrible track record and many incumbants running in the fall are not even mentioning President Obama in their ads. Former President Clinton did some last minute stumping for Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas that pushed her over the edge. What will the pundits say tomorrow if Romanoff beats Bennett in the Colorado primary? If Romanoff wins, what does it say about President Obama?

Are Americans on the cusp of a Second American Revolution?

After getting back this morning from a business meeting and setting up quiet time for the kids, I started my daily task of clicking through my internet list of new outlets. I came across this link on the Drudge Report: Paper: Will Washington's Failures Lead to Second American Revolution? (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx). The article is written by Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins and discussed if changes by the current regime are doing "more harm than good" and if "Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives." While the article does call out, briefly, President Clinton and G W Bush it evokes a warning that President George Washington had in his farewell address in regards to public credit and the revenue source from which it is paid back. So I looked up President Washington's farewell address to gain some context, especially after the recent dust up with words being said not in full context leading to knee jerk reactions, and read firsthand the thoughts of our first US Constitutional President.

Here is a link to the entire address: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html . The consideration made in the article, by Christian and Robbins, was if Obamcare through it's "insidiously powerful" new rules and regulations; the Dodd-Frank power grab that will allow the President to "control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation"; or the attempts by the Obama administration and the EPA "to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation…" will lead to a "Second American Revolution." While I believe armed insurrection is a thing of the past in the United States, a sentiment among the populous may be gaining strength. The catalyst of how strong the populous movements of the Coffee and Tea Parties become lie in the decision Congress makes in regards to the expiring Bush tax cuts.

In President Washington's farewell speech he warned:

    As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

A friend of mine on Facebook recently posted an article that was spurned from Governor Tim Pawlenty's statement, "I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors" (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/29/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-says-us-not-undertaxed-compared-its-c/). To which the article posted pointed out that in a sample graph in 2007, established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), compared the United States overall tax burden to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and ranked us with 30 other OECD countries. The results were, in 2007, the United States overall tax burden was 28% of GDP and the average of the 30 OECD countries is 36%. The authors of the article did talk to several experts to gain their take and they cautioned interpreting the results as it does not paint a complete picture without taking into consideration deficits of the countries. As William Ahern, the director of policy and communications at the Tax Foundation, cautioned about solely drawing a conclusion from the OECD chart that, "a country with a low tax-to-GDP ratio may have a substantial deficit, and in time, that deficit will put upward pressure on taxes."

Since Obama has taken office, and one can even go back to Bush's term, America has increased the deficit percentage in regards to GDP substantially. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, "Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly—to the point that, compared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=116590). This is precisely what President Washington was warning us about. Our elected officials need to "cherish public credit" and understand that "to have Revenue there must be taxes" to abuse these tenets, as we have seen over the past 10 years, is an "inconvenient and unpleasant" assault on our peace, prosperities and freedoms.

Could we see a Second American Revolution? Has the ruling class embedded themselves in far enough that the only method of removal is by force? Does the current oligarchy of political power preclude Americans from making transformative decisions at the ballot box?

“He was trying to get elected”

Sen. Byrd was laid to rest last Thursday after a long service to his country in the Senate. Many notable politicians, including Obama, Biden, and former President Clinton, came out to show their gratitude and honor the late Sen. Byrd. Now, we have been discussing the KKK, NOI and NAACP mission and push for their own agenda's based on race. In the latest update to the KKK website, which I posted previously, displayed their understanding that violence will not get their agenda push forward. Former President Clinton said in his eulogy for Sen. Byrd, "He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done come and he spent the rest of his life making up. And that's what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians."

President Clinton is correct that Sen. Byrd, who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, ties to the KKK was foolish but I am not so sure he spent the rest of his life trying atone for it. Sen. Byrd voted against and attempted to block the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall. While no one will deny Sen. Byrd's fondness and knowledge of the U.S. Constitution but let's be honest about the man. For President Clinton and President Obama to overlook Sen. Byrd's connection to the KKK because of his long service to the nation is a slap in the face to everyone that fought for Civil Rights. To say it was okay for Sen. Byrd to have ties, and they were very strong ties, to the KKK in order to get elected displays an attitude of our current political state of mind.

How many minorities out there believe that it would be okay for a man or woman to run for office on the sole basis of saying anything to get elected? I know this is America and we all have the right to hold our own views and say our own opinions but for two Presidents of the United States – one anointed the First Black President and the other actually being the First Black President – to wash away the sins of a man because "he was trying to get elected" is ludicrous. Thomas and Marshall were not the only non-white confirmations he voted against. He also voted against Condoleezza Rice. To say he made strides that overshadowed his racist start in politics is intriguing since this is the same man that used the term "white nigger" in a 2001 interview with Tony Snow. While his run in the Senate and the good he did for West Virginia is remarkable, I struggle with the notion for two presidents to forgive a man of his sins because "he was trying to get elected." Does no one else see the hypocrisy here?

“Too Big to Fail” does not apply in a Free Market society

Last Friday the following letter was sent to me, and million others, by President Obama on the need for Wall Street reform. The new battle on Capitol Hill is pitting American's vs. Wall Street. Perhaps Obama jumped the shark as a recent Pew Institute, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1569/trust-in-government-distrust-discontent-anger-partisan-rancor; poll resulted in the trust in government hitting all-time low. What one will not see in the letter below is the slush fund and unchecked power attempting to be passed by the Obama administration. "Too big to fail" is a misnomer and should never be uttered again. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under President Clinton kicked off the derivative fiasco that caused the "financial meltdown". Combine the repeal and artificially low interest rates led by Alan Greenspan, we have meltdown that all of us experienced.

Had our government left the Glass-Steagall Act alone and not felt that every American had the right to own a home despite being unable to pay for them, we would not have experienced the "meltdown". Government is not the answer to all of our ills. We do need to regulate the industry but it needs to be done judiciously and not without a check-n-balance or slush fund system which is being proposed by Democrats. Ask yourself why did the SEC file a civil suit against Goldman Sachs on the very day that Obama sends out this email?

 

Chris --

It has now been well over a year since the near collapse of our entire financial system that cost the nation more than 8 million jobs. To this day, hard-working families struggle to make ends meet.

We've made strides -- businesses are starting to hire, Americans are finding jobs, and neighbors who had given up looking are returning to the job market with new hope. But the flaws in our financial system that led to this crisis remain unresolved.

Wall Street titans still recklessly speculate with borrowed money. Big banks and credit card companies stack the deck to earn millions while far too many middle-class families, who have done everything right, can barely pay their bills or save for a better future.

We cannot delay action any longer. It is time to hold the big banks accountable to the people they serve, establish the strongest consumer protections in our nation's history -- and ensure that taxpayers will never again be forced to bail out big banks because they are "too big to fail."

That is what Wall Street reform will achieve, why I am so committed to making it happen, and why I'm asking for your help today.

We know that without enforceable, commonsense rules to check abuse and protect families, markets are not truly free. Wall Street reform will foster a strong and vibrant financial sector so that businesses can get loans; families can afford mortgages; entrepreneurs can find the capital to start a new company, sell a new product, or offer a new service.

Consumer financial protections are currently spread across seven different government agencies. Wall Street reform will create one single Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- tasked with preventing predatory practices and making sure you get the clear information, not fine print, needed to avoid ballooning mortgage payments or credit card rate hikes.

Reform will provide crucial new oversight, give shareholders a say on salaries and bonuses, and create new tools to break up failing financial firms so that taxpayers aren't forced into another unfair bailout. And reform will keep our economy secure by ensuring that no single firm can bring down the whole financial system.

With so much at stake, it is not surprising that allies of the big banks and Wall Street lenders have already launched a multi-million-dollar ad campaign to fight these changes. Arm-twisting lobbyists are already storming Capitol Hill, seeking to undermine the strong bipartisan foundation of reform with loopholes and exemptions for the most egregious abusers of consumers.

I won't accept anything short of the full protection that our citizens deserve and our economy needs. It's a fight worth having, and it is a fight we can win -- if we stand up and speak out together.

So I'm asking you to join me, starting today, by adding your name as a strong supporter of Wall Street reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/StandForWallStreetReform

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Military Service not a Civil Rights issue

Former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II and 11 others saw hopes of returning to the military dashed yesterday when the United States Supreme Court rejected to hear their appeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy initiated under President Clinton. Earlier the federal appeals court ruled that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.” The decision may be a setback for GLBT community but applause must be given to the United Supreme Court for not engaging in Judicial Activism.

The military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is something President Obama campaigned to overturn but “urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy” as reported by William Branigin in the Washington Post. Many are saying that Gays and Lesbians have the right to be in the military are simply wrong. Enlisting into the military is not a right of an American citizen.

The military has certain physical and mental requirements, depending on the role, that many in the American public cannot or unable to perform. The American Disabilities Act does not apply in the military. I am not saying that members of the GLBT community have a disability; rather just re-stating that serving in the military is not the right or a civil rights issue. There is a reason why women are not on the front line.

In the heat of battle, when the command comes to take a hill that will certainly result in a high casualty rate the company cannot worry if other concerns are present. This example is why family members do not serve in the same company. President Obama has asked the Pentagon to study the affects of Gays and Lesbians on unit cohesion and morale. Personally, I feel that if you can follow orders, physically perform the task, and meet the mental requirements then you can serve.

President Obama’s decision to encourage the United Supreme Court not to hear the case is the correct action to be taken. The change in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy does not violate the Constitution which is part of the reason why the United Supreme Court decided not to hear the case. The proper channel to change the policy is through Congress.