Private Business Rights

The Republican Primary victory by Dr. Rand Paul displayed the influence the Tea Party can have on the future of the Republican Party. Dr. Paul is a lifetime Libertarian who campaigned in the Primary on fiscal conservative message but may have just unraveled that message with his comments made on the Rachel Maddow Show. The issue that may be Dr. Paul's Achilles Heel is his view on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although he agrees with ending the racism in government and institutional racism but he does feel the Government overreaches when it comes to private businesses. The comment made by Dr. Paul does create an interesting philosophical debate on the right of private business.

Earlier this year we saw private business rights challenged, which I do not believe any lawsuits ever came of it, when a doctor placed a sign outside his office telling any Obama supporters need not apply. The sign did have another twist because of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take before being allowed to practice medicine. Yet it still brings up the rights of private business. Does it make sense, from the standpoint of owning a business, to turn away anyone when they want to purchase from one's business? No. Do we need protections, like OSHA, for our citizens? Yes.

How far can the Government go to tell a private business how they are to run their own business? Setting aside Dr. Paul's comments a local private business, Target, had to deal with religious issues from their Muslim workers. For those that do not recall, Target Muslim cashiers refused to scan pork products because it violated their religious freedoms. In the end Target bowed to the perceived violation of the Muslim's Constitutional right to practice their religion. Here is the thing, when one agrees to work for a private employer for the most part your Constitutional Rights stop at the door step. Another example of Government intrusion into private business is the banning of smoking. While we can agree that smoking is not healthy for one; yet if one takes a job in a bar or restaurant or any establishment that allows smoking then we as an employee need to recognize that.

Now where the Government can mitigate the impact of smoking is through requirement of filtration to recycle the air. When it comes to private property are we okay with continual government intrusion?

What are you drinking?

Gridlock in Washington D.C. due to partisan politics is strangling, polarizing and leading our great country down a slope of fiscal irresponsibility toward bankruptcy. For the past three decades, or so, we have seen the size and scope of the Federal Government grow while placing unfunded burdens on the shoulder of the States. After the historic election of Sen. Obama, as the United States first mulatto president, a movement started to take hold. That movement has become to be known as the Tea Party movement. Criticism has been heaved upon this group as a bunch of redneck bigots that only protest the President because he is black. According to Tea Party Patriot website (www.teapartypatriots.org) the mission is:

    The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

There philosophy is:

    Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.

Recently a new group of people feeling alienated by the Tea Party movement has sprung up. The new movement is called the Coffee Party. The Coffee Party (http://coffeepartyusa.com) mission is:

    The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

Both Parties claim to be independent, non-partisan and diverse. The grassroots mantra is being heralded by both parties but a quick Google search finds only one website for the Coffee party and over 30 sites for the Tea Party movement. Regardless if you consider yourself a Tea, Coffee, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Socialist, or Libertarian Party member an intriguing change on the political landscape is before us and threatens the Two-Party system. Listening to the pundits, left and right, a common fear grips them all with Americans gravitating towards a third party concept; competition. The right is afraid that too many Conservatives will vote for a non-Republican endorsed candidates while the left is concerned that Progressives (Liberals) will vote for a non-Democrat endorsed candidates.

The Tea and Coffee Party members are bringing to light that a serious third party movement can really take hold and gain traction? The bums in office now, and in the past three decades, have done little but their own re-election needs ahead of America by contending that putting America further into debt and making us all slaves to the notion that Big Government is in our best interest. Much to their chagrin Americans have become dependent, almost co-dependent, on the Federal Government to solve our ills. We want cheaper health care so we turn to the Government, we want assistance from losing our job so we turn to Government, we want to marry whom we choose so we turn to Government, etc…Have we not learned one thing as Americans from turning to the Government?

Turning to the Government for all the answers only creates more problems because those in Government cannot agree on which freedoms to restrict or who should pay. I know I invoke our Founding Fathers a lot but I believe they set the ground work for one of the most envious forms of Government the world has seen. Democracy does come with a price but Big Government is not the price we should be paying. Again I ask, is it time for a new bold approach to Government that the Tea and Coffee Party organizers are trying to tap? Is it time for the Republicans and Democrats to graciously step aside and allow everyday citizens to represent Americans again? A mistake we have made is to make Government a full-time job.

Are you for the status quo – Republican or Democrat Party – or are you drinking something different?

Bonding Bill pull back gives “Pause” but will it give Intelligence.

Minnesotans call your DFL representative or any DFLer if you are not represented by one and thank them for holding back the bonding bill. Right now Minnesota faces a $1.2B budget deficit and adding another $1B to the books just does not make sense. To make matters worse the projects listed in the bonding bill do very little to improve the state or create permanent jobs. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher explained the reason for pulling back the bonding bill as, "It's a pause, it's a second chance, and I think it's the right thing to do right now" (Star Tribune, February 24, 2010). I agree with the House Speaker but I don't share her reasoning. The hope of the DFL Party was to ram through the bonding bill then watch Governor Pawlenty red line, through the line-item veto, some of the projects on the list. Well Gov. Pawlenty sent a letter to the Legislature warning that the current bonding bill will be met with an outright veto.

Granted part of Pawlenty's plan is to show America and the Republican Party that he is fiscally conservative. Plus, I see the bonding bill becoming a bargaining chip as the Legislature deals with GMAC and other unallotment by Pawlenty. Let's put the politics aside for a moment and take a realistic look at the purpose of the bonding bill. The purpose of this bonding bill is to reward members of the Legislature for their vote with pet projects in their home region. I agree it would be great to have a sports complex in Western Carver County or a hockey rink in Hamburg but when already are facing a $1.2 B deficit this go around and a possible $5-8B next biennium red does it make sense? When you sit down to at your own budget and realize that the household income is falling short do you honestly think the best move is to put a pool in the backyard, buy a new SUV or take a 2-week all-inclusive cruise? Most responsible adults will say no.

Unfortunately that is not the mentality we are getting from our elected officials in Minnesota or Washington D.C. The Government cannot spend our way out of current economic situation, especially through pet projects like we see in the bonding bill. Now, if we must spend money and I mean must, and then spend it on projects that improve the communities that lay the ground work for future expansion and sustainable economic booms. Do we want to wait for another bridge to fall before replacing it? Do we want to wait for another town to be flooded before taking preventative measures? No. If we must spend a billion dollars then spend it on projects that improve the infrastructure of Minnesota. Community Centers, ice rinks, trails, parks, and sports complexes are great but if the sewer lines, bridges, roads, or levies give way all we end up doing is spending more money to clean up the Community Centers, ice rinks, trails, parks, and sport complexes.

In my small town of Hamburg money has been raised through fundraising activities to improve our park, erect an electronic sign, and other projects. Hamburg's population is only 550 residents. Why cannot a city like Rochester, that has a population of 100,413 (http://www.city-data.com/city/Rochester-Minnesota.html) people, find a way for citizens to raise funds for a new volleyball court? Rochester is about 183 times larger than Hamburg. According to Hamburg's City Clerk Jeremy Gruenhagen, at last night's city council meeting, the improvements made to Hamburg over the past eight was about $100,000. The $100,000 was not given to Hamburg for improvements made via the Legislature or Government; it was raised by the citizens that live in and around Hamburg. Now, I'd like to think that Rochester could raise more per capita but for argument sake let's say they raise the same as Hamburg. That would be $18,300,000. The proposed volleyball court, in the bonding bill, is only $5,000,000.

We have seen the power of donating through the incredible amount of money raised during the last Presidential election to the money amassed to help Haiti. When it comes to these extra frills for the community, the citizens need to take ownership and action not relying on a pet project to win a vote from their representative. Allow the money the state takes in to go to keeping up safe, assisting with education our youth and sustaining an infrastructure for continual growth. So, pick up the phone and thank the DFL Party for pulling back the bonding bill and implore them to rescind it in order to craft a new bonding bill that moves Minnesota forward.

Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton

Over the past few days I have extended the distance I take Mischka for a walk from 1.5 miles to 3 miles. Since Mischka is heeling without being reminded, the walk is a lot quieter. The peaceful walk, except for the occasional barking dog or car passing, has allotted my mind greater freedom to explore events, concepts, and ideas without interruption. During our walk on Wednesday my thoughts traveled back to the Democrat Primary and the ultimate selection of Sen. Obama as their nominee.

My focus was not on the eventual historic bid for the White House rather on rival that did not get tapped; Sen. Hillary Clinton. Many whom I talked with when Democrat nominee Obama tapped Sen. Joe Biden to be the tickets Vice President thought Obama made a poor decision. The misstep of Sen. Biden instead of tapping Sen. Clinton looked to be fatal then the Republican Party gave the Democrats a gift when they added Gov. Palin to the ticket.

The adding of Gov. Palin allowed the conversation of the non-appointment of Sen. Clinton to subside. Why is it that Sen. Obama did not choose Sen. Clinton to form the ultimate “Dream” ticket? Was it perhaps a larger picture was being painted? The bigger picture being painted is the Supreme Court.

On President Obama’s 100th day in office, Justice Souter notified the President of his intention to retire from the bench. The news stirred up the mass media as to what type of person President Obama ought to choose for the highest court in our land. Currently the Supreme Court has one female and one black with the remaining Justices being white males. The pressure on President Obama is to appoint a minority female to the bench.

President Obama has established a list of criteria that he will look for in the next Supreme Court Justice. The number one criteria being empathy while top Democrats are looking for President Obama to appoint a non-judge type. I believe that President Obama will appoint a female but it will not be a minority.

Thinking back to the primary and the fallout after Sen. Biden was tapped to be the Vice President instead of Sen. Clinton, perhaps the media missed the second great story to come from last year historic election season. It appeared that the Clinton’s were on the outside looking in as the Democrats pushed toward the White House but that was all a façade.

The ground was being laid to pave the way, if Democrat nominee Obama was elected, for Sen. Clinton’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Granted the right Justice had to step down as to make the choice of Sen. Clinton the right one. The next Supreme Court Justice will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The pondering point is if the President will offer up a sacrificial lamb prior to Secretary of State Clinton’s confirmation hearing.

Sen. Specter defection shines light on the need for politcal parties

Sen. Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania has switched back to the Democrat Party yesterday. As a moderate Republican he often voted with the Democrat Party on several issues. In his press conference yesterday, Sen. Specter stated that after looking at polling numbers from the upcoming Republican primary for the Senate race and figured it was time to re-join the Democrat Party. Sen. Specter tried to make it sound, during his press conference, that he was making the switch because it is in the best interest of those he represents in Pennsylvania.

Are you kidding me? How is switching parties for political survival in the best interest of our constituents? The move by Arlen Specter is job security. When looking at the polls, Sen. Specter realized that he trailed Pat Toomey 20 points. In the 2004 primary, Specter held off Toomey by 2 points. Seeing the door, Specter did what every good politician does, run away from principles and toward political expediency.

If I lived in Pennsylvania I’d be upset had I voted for Specter or donated money to him. “I am not prepared to have my 29 year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate,” said Sen. Specter during his press conference. Sen. Specter is admitting that making the switch is for personnel reasons and not because his constituents are looking for new leadership.

The Republican Party has lost their direction. The Democrats are courting Moderates in an effort to balance the run to the Left. Adams and Jefferson loathed political parties even though it was their hyped and gave birth when the two squared off for the Office of the Presidency. Americans need to take a moment today and examine what took place yesterday with Sen. Specter.

It is time to take an inventory of one’s belief and view on Government. The overriding question is to ask oneself is, “How big do I want Government to be?” As the answer to that question will drive the regulations, taxes, and spending that will be carried out by the Government one envisions. Then ask oneself, “Can my vision of Government guarantee everyone the rights and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution and the principles of Democracy?”