Rutgers Student’s face possible Hate Crime charges after violating roommate’s trust

Last week saw Tyler Clementi jumping off the George Washington Bridge after realizing his tryst with another man was shown on the web. The display on the web was not by accident rather it was the work of Clementi's roommate Dharun Ravi and another fellow Rutgers University student Molly Wei. After ruling Clementi's plunge as a suicide, Ravi and Wei were charged with invasion of privacy. Since that time Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan is considering additional charges, "We will be making every effort to assess whether bias played a role in the incident." The additional charge is to charge the duo with a hate crime.

While the action taken by Ravi and Wei violates the trust of roommates and Clementi's cowardly reaction to it, does it really warrant the label of hate crime? Let's say that Clementi does not take the plunge, is anything done? Probably not! The other charge being levied, invasion of privacy is interesting as well since nothing in the Constitutional gives anyone the right to privacy. The Constitutional protects one from right of property but not privacy. What should be the punishment for Ravi and Wei for their violation of trust? Does the punishment increase because Clementi committed suicide? Does it rate as a hate crime?

Pledge to America or Hope and Change: Which will get America back on track?

The GOP launched their Pledge To America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/GOP_pledge_09222010.pdf) in an attempt to win back Congress. Take a moment and read it for yourself to determine if the message that is being sent is what is being portrayed in the media. Based on my understanding of the "Pledge" here is what I took away from it.

A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive

• Permanently stop job-killing tax hikes
  
• Small business that create jobs will get a 20 percent tax deduction
  
• Require Congressional approval of any new federal regulation
  
• Repeal small business mandates passed via the health care law
  

A plan to stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size of government

• Roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels – estimated savings $100 billion in year one
  
• Cut Congress' budgets, establish strict budget caps, net hiring freeze, review government programs for redundancy and duplication
  
• Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  
• Safe guard entitlement programs for seniors and future generations
  

A plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care

• Allow Inter-state purchasing of health care coverage
  
• Enact real medical liability reform
  
• Give small business greater purchasing power
  
• Create new incentives to save for future health requirements
  
• Codify the Hyde Amendment
  
• Ensure people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage
  
• End taxpayer funding of abortion
  

A plan to reform Congress and restore trust

• Require every bill to contain Constitutional citation
  
• Allow all Americans to read the bill for at least three days prior to vote
  
• Cut out unnecessary spending
  

A plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad

• Fully fund a missile defense
  
• Enforce sanctions on Iran
  
• Keep terrorist combatants at Guantanamo Bay
  
• Ensure federal government fulfills its constitutional duty to protect citizens through enforce of border security
  

After the Pledge to America was unveiled I received the following retort from the Democrat Party.

Chris -- 

Yesterday morning, Republicans unveiled their plan for governing -- their Pledge to America.

They're pledging to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires.

They're pledging to roll back regulations on big oil and Wall Street.

They're pledging to strike down rules reining in the credit card lenders and the insurance companies.

They're pledging to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars.

Their agenda is a windfall for the folks spending millions to put them back in power -- the lobbyists, the big corporations, and the special interests.

We're not sitting by watching this scheme become a reality. Our plan to win this fall is as different from that of the GOP as our agenda for the country.

We've got organizers on the ground in every state, working with campaigns and volunteers to coordinate an unprecedented voter-turnout operation.

We're knocking on thousands of doors and making millions of calls to get our voters out to the polls.

We pay for this work with our By the People Fund -- and we're trying to reach 3 million grassroots donations through the course of this campaign.

To stay on pace, we need 5,241 donations by the end of the week.

Can you chip in $5 or more to help us meet our goal?

This Republican Pledge to America is nothing new. Even John Boehner said, "We are not going to be any different than we've been."

They're offering up the very same agenda that put us on a path to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

That means they're not prepared to discuss protecting Social Security and Medicare.

They have no plan for education or teachers.

They offer up no solutions to the outsourcing of American jobs.

They lay out no plans to invest in key industries like clean energy and manufacturing.

They don't talk about rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and railways.

With your help, we can send the Republicans back to the drawing board.

Together, we'll make sure the country never returns to the failed policies of the past. But that means moving forward with our plan to win the 2010 elections.

Please support the By the People Fund today:

http://my.democrats.org/BTPDeadline

Thanks,

Governor Tim Kaine
Chairman

 

Regardless of the results in November, one thing that will not change is both major parties got us in this mess. How can we trust either party to move the country forward? We know the current regime running record deficits with no end in sight while the other party had an opportunity to be fiscally conservative but failed us during the Bush era. What do we do as Americans? Where do we turn?

Burning the Koran: Freedom of Speech?

Terry Jones, a preacher in a small Florida church, is making a name for himself as he plans to burn the Koran on September 11^th. General David Petraeus warned, in an e-mail to the Associated Press, last week that "Burning copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops and Americans worldwide." Americans already, especially our troops in the Middle East, have targets on their backs. Terry Jones is simply exercising his American born right to freedom of speech to send a message to the Muslims that America will not cower to Islam. I do not see why people are raising a fuss over this. If the media had not given this event the coverage it has then only the people in the 50 member congregation would have known about it. Instead the media blows this up and demonizes an American by using the military as its foil; how ironic is that?

When the dust up erupted over the Mosque being built so close to Ground Zero the same media zealots and White House stated emphatically that it was the Imam's Constitutional right to build. Why then are the same people going after Terry Jones for exercising his Constitutional right? Are Constitutional rights's only applicable to non-white, non-christen, non-male members of society? General Petraeus and President Obama, are you serious when you feel that after the book burning that our troops will have bigger targets on their backs? Really? Will the burning of the Koran enrage the radical elements of Islam? Of course it will but not any more or less than the existence of the Imperial West does already. Will other Muslims be irked by the burning? Probably but they too should understand the context of the burning as well. Just as many that I speak of are looking for the Tea Party to call out the fringe elements of the movement so should non-radical Muslims denounce the radical elements within their midst.

Much like the Mosque fiasco, no one can argue that Constitutionality of the event planned by Terry Jones instead the focus is on whether it is right or wrong. And if we don't want to send the wrong message to the world then either doesn't report it at all or report the event as one American exercising a freedom granted every citizen of the United States.

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?

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?

Why are we skirting the Conference Committee for health care reform?

Yesterday President Obama went on the offensive for a final push on Democrats plan for health care reform at Arcadia University near Philadelphia. The speech was fiery and brought back memories of the type of speeches Obama gave during his election. The goal set by Obama is to have a reform bill on his desk prior to the Easter break. While we all can agree that reform is required in the health care industry to bring down costs and reduce premiums. President Obama has it right when he said, "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government. The insurance companies continue to ration health care…That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable" (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2).

I do not think anyone, Republican or Democrat, will disagree with the assessment by Obama. Even though Obama appears to think differently when he said, "You had 10 years. What were you doing?" That is a great question but should not be the reason to forge forward with the Senate's version of reform. A few weeks back leaders from both parties sat down for a six-hour chat to come to a common ground on health care reform. Now the current Senate bill does not contain the items the Republicans spoke of during the summit. The message yesterday by Obama was the first time he was clear about the process to follow moving forward to achieve reform. Obama wants the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill as is then after Obama signs the bill they will go back and "fix" the bill.

Why not use the process established to reconcile bills that pass Congress when language is different? The Conference Committee is supposed to convene when the bills differ and then re-introduced for both chambers of Congress to pass. Instead of this process the Obama administration wants to end run the process because they lost their filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate. Obama claims that his administration is doing what is best for America; yet Americans are voicing opposition to the bill through the election in Massachusetts and polling data too. If the reform is strong enough and is bipartisan the filibuster threat in the Senate by Republicans will be for not. Sen. Brown (R-Mass) has already proven that he will not play partisan politics.

I agree with President Obama that the status quo cannot be sustained. At the same time, I cannot support the use of reconciliation to pass legislation that will impact America like health care nor can I support the House of Representatives passing the Senate bill as is in hopes that a separate package of changes will be introduced and passed. The arrogance of our elected Representatives to think that Americans do not see what is going on is staggering. Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified it has been treaded on. We need to stand up to our two-party system and demand more from our elected officials. President Obama, I agree with you reform is needed, please do not follow the path of passage you profess rather allow the Conference Committee to make the changes and have both chambers of Congress vote on it. What is wrong with following this approach?

Congress vote on health care per the Constitution not with “parliamentary gimmicks”

President Obama said on Wednesday, "The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing reform into law" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1). In a letter sent out by President Obama on Wednesday he stated, "I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts."

I agree with President Obama that Americans deserve a vote on health care reform but not through the reconciliation process. Americans in Massachusetts spoke loudly, remind you Massachusetts has socialized medicine, by sending a Republican to the Senate on the key platform promise to derail Obama-Care. No one disagrees that reform is needed and what is included in the 2700 page bill is not it. It creates over 100 new government agencies, establishes over 50 new taxes, mandates all Americans have health insurance or face fines and/or imprisonment, and does not pass Obama's "Pay Go" pledge.

The Pew Institute put out a poll, http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=953, asking Americans what the Top Priorities for 2010 are. The top five are: 1) Economy 83%, 2) Jobs 81%, 3) Terrorism 80%, 4) Social Security 66%, and 5) Education 65%. Health Insurance is tied in 10^th at 49% with Military, Energy, and Crime. So when the Obama says Congress owes America to vote on health care reform perhaps he needs to refocus as people are more concerned with other items. But if Obama wants Congress to move forward with a vote then follow the proper legislative process by going to Conference Committee and having both houses of Congress to vote. Yes, reconciliation has been used in the past and each time the average vote for the passage is 67 votes in the Senate. Right now Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) would be lucky to get 51 and the 51^st vote may have to be cast by Vice President Biden.

If the health care reform put forth, passed by the House and Senate, is right for America then allow the legislative process, without gimmicks such as reconciliation, run its course. Citizens will contact their representatives to have their opinion heard. To ram it through Congress as is being threatened is not how our Fore Fathers envisioned the Constitution to work when they risked their lives to create. I agree with Obama, let's demand Congress vote without "parliamentary games" and go through the natural process. What is the White House afraid of? The Democrats had every vote they needed last year to pass health care reform but obviously Americans spoke as some within the Democrat ranks could not sign on or get the blessing of their constituents.

Does the Nebraska Compromise secured by Sen. Nelson make Senate health care reform bill unconstitutional?

Sen. Graham (R-SC) and Sen. DeMint (R-SC) have requested State Attorney General Henry McMaster to look into "concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34551523/ns/politics-health_care_reform/). The Nebraska Compromise is in reference to the deal that Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) was given to exempt citizens in Nebraska from the cost of the $45M, annually, expansion of Medicaid program in exchange for his vote on the Senate health care debate. Other states working with Attorney General McMaster include Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington. Just a few seconds ago on MSNBC McMaster announced two more states have joined the effort as well.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott defended his decision to join the discussion by saying, "The Nebraska Compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska form paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution, as well as other provisions of federal law. In light of this unprecedented and highly questionable backroom deal, Texas will join South Carolina and other states in an effort to thoroughly review the constitutionality and legality of the Nebraska Compromise" (http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/12/23/42918). While "backroom" deals are nothing new to the political but the difference between traditional "backroom" deals and the Nebraska Compromise is that traditionally the deals result in a onetime influx of money for a pet project. That is the core of the argument being made with the Nebraska Compromise is that it unfairly benefits one segment of the population. Other states were involved in getting special funding as well for Medicaid expenses which include Louisiana, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Obliviously this will play out but does the deal that Sen. Nelson secured violate the Constitution? Is it fair to the rest of America to pay for all Medicaid costs of Nebraska going forward?

Use of “Czars” Constitutional?

Czars has become the common term associated with advisors a president surrounds themselves with. While previous presidents have relied on "Czars" for advice on various topics but President Obama has taken it to new heights. To a point that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a hearing to examine the legality of executive branch advisors (Czars) who are not confirmed by the Senate. Sen. Feingold said, "I think the public wants to know why there are people called czars" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27987.html). The fear among Senators is that the "Czars" are making administration policy without being vetted by Congress and may be in violation of the Constitution (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/07/feingold-hits-obamas-use-of-czars/). A move by the Obama administration to trample upon the Constitution is not a surprise. The move to nationalize the banking and automobile industry put the foot forward of ownership of private companies by the Federal Government.

During the opening moments of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, Sen. Feingold, who is the chairman, said, "While there is a long history of the use of White House advisers and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate." Now, many believe that Fox News commentators, i.e. Glenn Beck, are behind the push to attack the Obama administration on the use of "Czars". Let's take a step back from that bias for a second. While previous administration have used "Czars", as I stated above, and concur with Sen. Feingold when raising the question if the use of "czars" violates the Constitution.

The White House did not send anyone to Sen. Feingold's subcommittee to discuss the role or defend the appointment of 30 something "Czars" within the Obama administration. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs quipped in response to why the White House declined to provide a witness was, "I don't know if Sen. Feingold's calling Franklin Roosevelt to be a witness. I would assume that Congress and Sen. Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than something like this." Mr. Gibbs, if these "Czars" are in fact a violation of the Constitution I do not know any more weightier topic for the Congress to "grapple". President Obama touts transparency within his administration. That being said, why did the White House not take the time to send representation to the subcommittee hearing?

Does President Obama believe his administration and the Executive branch is more important than the Legislative branch or the Balance of Powers the U.S. Constitution has established? The Appointments Clause of the Constitution gives the president the authority to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate but says that, "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone" (Feingold hits Obama's use of 'czars', The Washington Times). Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Al) has voiced his disapproval of Obama's high number of "Czars" by saying, "They are unelected, un-vetted, and unaccountable. They include individuals with extremist views and records – such as Van Jones, John Holdren, and Kevin Jennings – all of whom were installed in high government offices without having to face scrutiny before Congress or the American people" (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/07/feingold-hits-obamas-use-of-czars/).

The question remains no whether it's right because it was done by previous presidents; rather the issue is if it should ever been allowed to be done. Many feel the attacks on the Obama administration are motivated by race instead of the real reason; the growth of big Government.

A win for State rights: Thune Amendment fails passage

State Rights were defended yesterday in the Senate when an amendment presented by Sen. John Thune (D-S.D.) fell two votes short, 58-39, of passage. Dissenters used State Rights and the increase of gun violence as their key reasons for voting against this amendment. For years the States have seen an erosion of rights afforded them by the Constitution either by passage of legislation or the end run by mandates on Federal money.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does allow for all Americans to keep and bear arms. Sen. Thune argued that “An individual should be able to exercise their Second Amendment constitutional right and be able to travel through individual states as long as they live by the laws of those states.” I agree with Sen. Thune and nearly every state that has ‘conceal and carry’ law state that only permits approved in that state are recognized. That being said, if it our right as Americans to keep and bear arms, then no state or federal regulation ought to bar anyone from bearing arms across state lines.

Why ‘conceal and carry’ when one has the right to openly carry? Sen. Dianne Feinstein warned that Thune’s amendment “is a grave threat to public safety. Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What’s good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York.” Sen. Feinstein listen to yourself and apply that logic to other legislation and issues facing our nation; gay marriage, smoking bans, or Cap and Trade.

The NRA states that “the right to self defense does not end at state lines.” I agree completely with the NRA and the supreme law of the land already gives one the right to “bear” arms across state lines. All one has to do when crossing state lines, regardless if one has a ‘conceal and carry’ permit, is to keep their gun visible at all times. The Supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, already permits this. Openly bear your arms and exercise your Constitutional right!!!!

Iacocca's words still applicable to Obama's adminstration.

In his book, Where Have all the Leaders Gone? Lee Iacocca writes :

“Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bit: Throw the bums out!

You might think I’m getting senile, that I’ve gone off my rocker and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking the hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean. I’ve had enough. How about you?”

Lee Iacocca was writing about the Bush administration. The interesting point by the excerpt above is that much of what Mr. Iacocca writes is applicable to Obama administration as well. Media is still waving their pom-poms, President Obama is taking deficits to new heights (just hit $1T this morning), we have move our focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we are still leading corporate crooks off in handcuffs.

A wave of nationalization is flowing across the United States. It started with our financial industry where regulations put in place prior to the meltdown were not enforced; rather Congress asked, begged, and strong armed the financial markets to offer mortgages to those who could not afford them. Now those same “leaders” in Congress are crying foul. Leadership, as Iacocca mentions, is failing us.

President Obama nationalized the auto industry by taking controlling interest in GM. The “Leadership” forced GM in to bankruptcy while Michigan is experiencing unemployment rate at 14.1% and expected to go higher as GM and Chrysler emerge from bankruptcy. Now the Auto Czar, Steven Rattner, is stepping down amid a kickback scandal; yet the Obama administration gives Rattner a “vote of confidence”. I agree with Iacocca in his question and outrage at the lack of “leadership” in both public and private sectors.

America has been a country of innovators. That aspect of America is being threatened by Obama administration. No business is too big to fail!!! Markets still exist for the products of companies that are labeled “too big to fail” and smaller companies will pick up the pieces once the larger ones fail. The nationalization of the financial and automotive markets will hamper growth in both industries. The next move is for Obama to nationalize the Health Care industry through offering a public option.

A public option is not leadership in action. It’s an enabling program. To bring leadership into the Health Care system, do it through regulation to guide the course. Many options are on the board, some of which I have stated in a previous blog, but Obama is sticking to the public option as the savior for the Health Care industry. The public option will not advance the Health Care industry; rather it will stagnate it. The public option is not one that will spur innovation that Iacocca said lacked back in 2007.

Now I did not agree with all of actions taken under the Bush administration and the “Change” candidate is not doing much more than Bush that excites me either. Yes, the Bush administration stripped away freedoms through the guise of protecting America post 9-11 but Obama is going to bankrupt America before he can nationalize it. Either aspect, bankruptcy or nationalization, are not an America I want to see take place.

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?”

Transparency: Really?

As the CIA memo debate continues on and Attorney General Eric Holder is comtemplating legal action against those involved, the Obama administration has promised transparency. Really? If what former Vice President Cheney is saying is true, why is it taking so long for the Obama administration to declassify CIA memo’s that showed technique’s used saved Los Angeles from an airline attack. Throughout the run for office and since, President Obama repeated the claim that his administration would be the most transparent in history.

I ask again; really? Why hasn’t the President Obama produced a birth certificate? President Obama has done everything possible to block the true nature of his birth certificate. Many will say that Hawaii has it on record. A certificate of live birth, which Hawaii has on record, is not the same as a birth certificate. The certificate of live birth is something that you or I can get in any state since it simply acknowledges a live birth took place regardless of location.

So why doesn’t President Obama produce his original birth certificate? President Obama speaks of transparency but fails to be transparent on a vital piece of information. American’s, in hindsight, are seeing how President Obama has no plans of honoring the U.S. Constitution. Other evidence is the nationalization of banks, firing a CEO, and now forcing an automaker into Chapter 11.

Everyone on the left feels that former Vice President Cheney is out of line when speaking out against the CIA memos. Never in our history have we looked at the previous regime to punish. FDR administration didn’t get looked into for the Japanese internment camps, Wilson’s Sedition Act, or Clinton’s administration in their three missed opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden. The continue attack on the CIA, Bush Administration, and the U.S. Constitution by the Obama Administration only weakens the United States.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

The below comments of mine were printed in the Letter to editor section of the Start Tribune on Sunday Feb. 1, 2009.

RUSH LIMBAUGH
He has a right to express his opinion
Like him or not, Rush Limbaugh's comment that he hopes President Obama fails is a prime example of free speech in America. Limbaugh objects to the direction in which Obama wants to take America. Freedoms afforded every American under the Constitution exist to allow all of us to voice our opinions on whatever topic we wish to without reprisal from the government.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/38724237.html?elr=KArksUUUU

AIG Outrage: Appropriate or Misguided?

American International Group (AIG) has been front and center over their contractual obligation to pay executive bonuses. President Obama questioned the merits of AIG paying executives a bonus due to questionable lending practices of AIG and the TARP funds accepted. President Obama was not alone in calling in question the payment of AIG executive bonuses. CEO Edward Liddy was brought before a Congressional hearing this past week to explain the bonuses paid to AIG executives and asked for the executive names. To CEO Liddy’s credit he refused to give names out of fear of the safety of the executives and their families. Since CEO Liddy’s appearance several executives have agreed to pay back their bonuses. Executive vice president at AIG’s financial products division saw Jake DeSantis resign and profess that he will donate $742,000 of after tax bonus money will be donated to charity in an Op-Ed column in the New York Times.

DeSantis and others executives at AIG were not obligated to pay back the bonus they contractually agreed to. The fact that many executives at AIG are “willingly giving” back the bonus money at the point of public outrage begs the question where was Congress oversight. Sen. Dodd had originally added a provision to the “Stimulus” Bill that would have prevented, proactively, the issuance of bonuses for companies taking bailout assistance. Sen. Dodd removed the language and why/who asked for the provision to be removed is still an unanswered question.

Why is the outrage not directed at Congress who passed a “Stimulus” Bill without holding a single committee hearing or taking the time to read the bill?

The House of Representative passed, 328 to 93, a measure that would levy a 90% tax on the bonuses for any company receiving more than $5B from TARP. Many contractual questions, ethical, moral, and common sense questions are raised by AIG actions. A bigger question looms.

Does the United States Government posses the ability to pass legislation of this nature?

According to Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting bill of attainder and ex post facto laws. A bill of attainder is any legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trail per www.techlawjournal.com. Encarta.msn.com defines Ex Post Facto law as a law enacted or decreed after an act has been committed that may be illegal as a result of the new law but was not illegal at the time it was committed.

The measure passed by the House of Representatives, mentioned above, is a bill of attainder. Where is the outcry against the 328 House members that failed to live up their oath to uphold the US Constitution?