Letter from the White House

I opened up my email this morning and found a letter from Dan Pfeiffer, Senior Advisor to President Obama, previewing the State of the Union speech coming up next week by President Obama. In reading through the email a few points really concern me and should concern all Americans.

In this year of action, the President will seek out as many opportunities as possible to work with Congress in a bipartisan way. But when American jobs and livelihoods depend on getting something done, he will not wait for Congress.

President Obama has a pen and he has a phone, and he will use them to take executive action and enlist every American -- business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country -- in the project to restore opportunity for all.

It will be an optimistic speech. Thanks to the grit and determination of citizens like you, America has a hard-earned right to that optimism. Five years after the President inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, our businesses have created more than eight million new jobs in the past 46 months, and they're primed to create more.

Within these three short paragraphs lies plans if followed through to transform our Republic form of government into something far worse; a socialist state. It is true that President Obama came into office during the worst economic conditions seen in the United States since the Great Depression and it is accurate that since he has taken office five years ago that 8 Million jobs have been filled. Despite these facts the policies of President Obama have created uncertainty in the work force resulting in over 90 Million American's leaving the job force.

President's over time have attempted to expand the use of Executive Orders to side step Congress and ignore the United States Constitution. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled on the expansion of powers with varying degree of outcomes based mainly on the prevailing ideology of the Court. Yet this is the first time in our nations history that a President is so bold and reckless in the threat of Executive Order.

The Affordable Care Act, despite not being passed as a tax was upheld by SCOTUS based on it being so, is a debacle. While elements of it are progress in dealing with the escalating health care costs it created more questions and uncertainty in the market. Without rehashing the debate, President Obama by stroke of the pen waived the mandate for the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Big Business and Unions. Thus re-writing the ACA which is not a power the Executive Branch has; yet Americans sit idly by and allow it to happen. 

President Obama needs to understand that the Executive Branch doesn't have the power to create legislation nor re-write legislation signed into law. If the President Obama is serious about getting people back to work then remove the uncertainty of the ACA.

The other part of the email that is concerning and more than likely puts a smile on Karl Marx face is the part of " [enlisting] every American -- business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country -- in the project to restore opportunity for all." The government's role is not to create jobs; rather the government is to ensure employers don't exploit the employees. 

I look forward to listening President Obama speak on Tuesday. My hope is that he will finally earn that Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded after being elected.

Term limits on the Supreme Court

Chapter 4 of Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendment tackles the Judicial branch of Government( p49-50):

Section 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.

Section 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire a the end of the fourth year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices in the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.

Section 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be nominated to a full term.

Section 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

Section 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be subject to litigation or review in any Federal or State court.

Section 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the State may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

Section 7: The States' override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.

Section 8: Congressional or State override authority under Section 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

Thus far I have been on board completely with Levin as to Amendments needing to be added that will lead us to more freedom and control over our lives. When I read this chapter the first time my knee jerk reaction was yes. I do like the notion of term limits on Justices while at the same time I struggle with the notion that 9 people can make decisions that drastically impact our lives.

With our country becoming more and more polarized, we have seen - especially in my life time - the courts outcomes are not based on Constitutional limitations rather by judicial review. That judicial review has turned the courts into a defacto legislature. The fact that 9 humans cloaked in black robes will judge cases in the purview, limited by the Constitution originally and later expanded in Marbury v Madison, without error is a fallacy. Humans by our very nature are flawed thus the 9 Justices are flawed despite their education and training.

Adding another layer that gives Congress more check and balance on the Judicial system while also allowing the States that same authority is interesting. What makes this additional twist more interesting is the limitations that Congress and the States have to override a decision.

Big Government At it again: NYC Bans Big Gulp!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1

The above link is to a news article published yesterday by the New York Times where Mayor Bloomberg announced that he plans to propose a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces. The ban would effect restaurants, fast food, movie theaters, ball parks and and deli's. Thankfully the proposed ban does not attack the vending machine or the grocery store.

Per the article: "Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.


I don't think anyone will deny the fact that obesity is a nationwide issue but let's look at the root cause of obesity; laziness and over indulgence. Any medical person will tell you that if you eat too much and exercise very little you will gain weight. Parents are the real problem and in an effort to not hold people accountable, New York City is dictating to the public that they are too stupid, or lazy, to take care of themselves.  While I understand that the "Occupiers" probably love this notion, unless of course it has to do with getting a job, of the Government telling them what to do, but if you  enjoy your freedoms and relish the ability to make a choice then make your voice heard in opposition.

During the Supreme Court hearing over ObamaCare, a Justice asked the Solicitor General if the Government can dictate health insurance coverage could they dictate broccoli? Now I admit I paraphrase but it is a serious question to be asked. The U.S. Constitution is very clear on what the Federal Government cannot do. That being said and the fact that the ban is at the city level, it starts us down a very slippery slope. 

Parents of America do us all a favor - make sure you kids limit their TV, computer, texting, and computer game playing to less then hour a day and demand they do something more active for a hour a day. Don't take the lazy route of going to fast food for dinner or lunch; instead cook a meal, sit down with your family, and enjoy the time together. It is a little work but it will result in healthier kids and will avoid restricting legislation like Mayor Bloomberg is proposing.

Good Friday Rant 2012

Followers of The Hamburg Post I do apologize for my lack of participation over the past month or so. Rest assured I have not forgotten about things or neglected to track the events of the day.

This past week has seen President Obama act Un-Presidential like by weighing in on Augusta National's tradition of being a men's only association and more importantly the threat leveled at the Supreme Court as they decide the fate of Obamacare. I have watched over the past week the stumbling the administration has done to cover President Obama's gaffe - to think that we thought it be Biden making gaffe's.

More to come as I take time this weekend to piece together the events as they unfolded. Now I did not see President Obama actually speak about the "unprecedented" event it would be for the Supreme Court to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed into law by a President of the United States so I cannot say if he was on or off teleprompter. Either way it shows a real concern that all Americans should have in President Obama. President Obama is suppose to be a Constitutional lawyer yet signed into law a mandate that demands and punishes American citizens to purchase a product for just being an American citizen.

Have a great Good Friday and Easter weekend.

Central Planning dealt a blow by Virginia Judge

Yesterday Virginia federal judge ruled that Obamacare's provision to require, by law, that everyone purchase insurance by 2014 is unconstitutional. The reason given by the Virginia judge was that Congress cannot regulate "an individual's failure to purchase health insurance under the pretense that it is an economic activity that affects interstate commerce". The argument being pushed by Sebelius and Holder is that, "as two federal courts have already held, this unfair cost-shifting harms the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court decisions have made clear that the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal with such harmful economic effects, which is what the law does – it regulates how we pay for health care by ensuring that those who have insurance don't continue to pay for those who don't."

It's called insurance people. The notion of insurance is simple; one pays for the potential use against needing to use it while another takes on the risk of paying if the use is acted upon. We, as a free society, shall never be dictated to by any form of government to what we have to purchase in order to part of the free society known as the United States of America. Some have pointed to car insurance as a similar instance where one is obligated to purchase a product to drive a car but what they fail to recognize is that one does not need a car to be a citizen of the United States. The Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause have been abused by the Federal Government and here is just another liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. If the Supreme Court hears this case, or a similar one, and rules that mandating health insurance as a right of citizenship then what is next? Where does it stop?

Perhaps these words will fall on deaf ears because the American Spirit was waned in recent decades. Apathy is the order of the day instead of entrepreneurial spirit. The masses have been trained and enslaved by the federal government with the passing of entitlement programs and bailouts. The health care mandate is a blatant attempt to pave the way for more central planning in all aspects of our lives. Wake up now before it is too late and you are herded into ghettos.

“I forgot he was black tonight for an hour”: Racist Comment?

Okay, let me get this right, Chris Matthews host of Hardball on MSNBC said after President Obama gave his State of the Union address that, "I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It is interesting that he is post-racial. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour." Then went onto say that Americans forgot he was black tonight because of the breadth and scope of his speech and "seduction". Am I missing something? Imagine if Rush, Hannity, or any other Conservative pundit had called Obama "post-racial" or "forgot he was black". The kicker was the chuckle from Olbermann, who was off camera, as Matthews made his comments. Besides "Post-racial", what is that?

As I admitted in my previous blog entry, I was not able to watch the speech live but I did go back and listened to it. I apologize that I did not gathering in Obama's lack of blackness as Matthews had. I saw a President attempting to run to the middle all the while shouting back at the past. I saw a President attacking the Supreme Court for a decision that had nothing to do with foreign corporate campaign financing as the President wants us to believe. I saw a President desperately trying to keep his poll number alive.

Not once did I think, "Man, President Obama is not black." The trouble I have with Matthews statement, especially after his town hall meeting two weeks ago, is that he evoked race into a situation that did not require it. Everyone in the world knows that the President of the United States is black. Perhaps Matthews felt this way because President Obama, as Sen. Reid points out, does not always speak in a "Negro dialect". Actually, I wished Obama had used the "Negro dialect" last night because his speech lacked emotion and conviction. I saw a man angry with America. Americans have spoken loud and clear that they do not want Democrat health care reform via the town hall meetings, the Tea Party movement and the vote in Massachusetts.

Perhaps that anger is bubbling over after the recent defeats of Democrat strongholds as Americans are growing tired of big government which grew under the Bush administration. President Obama promised hope and change to which he has not delivered on. I agree with President Obama that change "will not happen overnight" and "it will not be easy" but when it is done in the secrecy of the Oval Office I take offense and question his sincerity. I am willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and hope he will guide America to a brighter future. What I see instead is a man bent on growing government and spending money that our grandchildren's children haven't even earned yet. Obama has been given everything in life and now adversity presents itself; he does not like it. Maybe that is why Matthews "forgot he was black"?

Ta'Nehesi Coates attempted to gloss over Matthews words in her article by saying, "I think it's worth noting that Chris Matthews wasn't trying to take a shot at anybody. But I think its most worth noting that 'I forgot Obama was black' – in all its iterations – is something that white people should stop saying, if only because it's really dishonest." Coates added, "Chris Matthews didn't forget Barack Obama was black. Chris Matthews was white" (http://www.thegrio.com/politics/chris-matthews-to-thegrio-no-regrets-on-forgot-obama-was-black-remark.php). Why are we focused so much on color of a person skin and not on their skills and/or experience? Barack Obama is our President, for better or worse, and he, like any other President, ought to be challenged when the direction of the country is not right or when being deceived.

Why do we allow Matthews to go unchecked in his comments? Where is the outrage from the White House or Jesse Jackson or Rev. Sharpton or even the black community? Is it perhaps because Matthews is a mouthpiece of the left that he gets a pass?

Supreme Court decision: Who Benefits?

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to ease the limits that corporations and labor unions can spend on during the campaign season. The decision overturned two lower Courts decision and appears to be a win for the Democrats. That apparent win for Democrats was dashed when President Obama stated on his weekly radio and internet show that "This decision opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don't." I find this state ironic coming from a man that promised to run on public funds then turned around and accepted millions in campaign donations that set records.

If we are a true Democracy then those who wish to spend their money to campaign for or against a particular candidate they should be able to. A few weeks back President Obama held private, closed-door conversations with union groups to discuss the impact health care reform would have on existing benefits. Remind yourself that President Obama said on several occasions that the health care debate would be hosted on C-SPAN as to ensure nothing is done within secret. While I acknowledge that Obama does not have control over the leaders in Congress as it pertains to C-SPAN offer to air the conference committee discussion on health care, I find it bothersome that Obama is not living up to a campaign promise. Amazingly enough, after the meeting with Union leaders President Obama encouraged Congress to look for other avenues of income than taxing "Cadillac" plans.

It is not his broken campaign promise that is in play here; rather it is lack of accountability for the actions he takes. Doesn't Obama find himself a bit of a hypocrite? In reading the Sunday's Star Tribune issue they alluded to Obama becoming a populist. I wonder how progressives see this "Change" and is this the "Change" they "Hoped" to see take place? And now President Obama is tapping David Plouffe to head a team of strategist in order to stem the tide of Democrat mid-term election appeal. The intent of bringing back Plouffe is significant as the Obama brand is losing its luster. While many Democrats up for election will welcome the additional help, it may be a little too late because, if the recent elections are the barometer, Obama does not carry the same weight with Independent's and Progressives he once did.

Maybe President Obama will read my blog and suggest change in the election process that I have previously laid out. Perhaps it is now time for a shorter campaign season that is restricted to public funds and denies any private donations to candidates or national committees. This type of change would not prevent individuals or corporations from buying air time to campaign for or against a candidate. Is it time for American's to demand a different approach to electing candidates? I am not suggesting the elimination of the Electoral College; rather looking to make all campaigns for national offices to the three months preceding November. In the end though, will the Supreme Court ruling benefit either major party or will it give grassroots movements a great advantage?

Sonia Sotomayor: The Sacrificial Lamb

President Obama announced his nominee for United States Supreme Court by introducing Sonia Sotomayor. Sonia Sotomayor is an U.S. Court of Appeals judge in the Second Circuit. In response to her nomination, the pundits grasped onto her being the first Hispanic to be nominated to the highest court in the land. Who cares!! Skin color, ethnic background, and sex are not criteria to be used when nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

Currently Justice Ginsburg is the only female while Justice Thomas is the only non-white Justice on the bench. Many have looked for President Obama to appoint a more diverse nominee to the bench. With Sonia Sotomayor he gets both the female and ethnic box checked. Over the summer, Miss Sotomayor will be put under the spot light by both parties prior to being voted on by the Senate.

Jeff Rosen, writer for The New Republic, in his story “The Case Against Sotomayor” published May 4, 2009, attempts to look at all sides of the potential nomination of Sotomayor. Rosen reports that “former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness.” My hope is that she does not use the bench as a pulpit which is something many judges do attempt. Rosen goes on to report, when talking about former law clerks of judges on the Second Circuit or federal prosecutors in New York (most Democrats); many are concerned “about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.”

If she is intellectual enough to provide “counterweight” to conservative voices on bench now, why would President Obama nominate her? One concern I have is a quote, if true, in Rosen’s article by a former clerk of the Second circuit of “she has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” If Sotomayor lacks the ability to ask probing questions then she is definitely not Supreme Court material.

Sen. Schumer in a letter to President Obama stated, “It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor and Ken Salazar are two candidates who would make outstanding justices. They have top-notch legal minds, years of experience, moderate approaches to the law, and would make history by being the first Latino on the court.” While I agree that having a diverse look to the Supreme Court is appealing, but we cannot afford it to be done if the candidate does not understand the limited role of a Supreme Court Justice.

Kidding or not, Sotomayor is caught on tape saying, “court of appeals is where policy is made” when addressing potential law clerks in 2005. She did later add that she was not promoting or advocating the concept. It is these types of slips that can give real insight into true belief of the words being said. The interesting part will be if liberals will be okay with her “moderate” view of the law since many liberals are looking for more influence for their cause on the bench.

President Obama’s introduction read like a campaign stop. Earlier I posted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the next Supreme Court Justice and I have not given up on that yet. It will be interesting to see how Sotomayor defends her position when she upheld the reverse discrimination case of white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Conn; Ricci v. DeStefano. It will be this interpretation of law that will start the unraveling of Sotomayer and pave the way for Clinton. Previously I spoke on the reverse discrimination case by the New Haven firefighters. Please read further there as this case will become a central component to whether Sotomayor is confirmed.

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement, “Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.” This examination of her record will bring to light the reverse discrimination case of New Haven firefighters as well as the six decisions she made that saw five reversed and one where the court disagreed with her reasoning.

A lot will be made of her comments and case load. One in particular that will see a lot of attention, beside New Haven, is the 1993 case where Sotomayer, as reported in Foxnews article “Sotomayor’s Judicial Record could be Battlefield for Critics, Advocates”, “threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant – prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an ‘abomination’ that the defendant did not deserve.” Due to a failed search warrant the evidence was thrown out but for her to criticize the mandatory sentence is the type of empathy that many will say does not exist at the Supreme Court level.

The Supreme Court is to interpret law based on the guidelines and amendments in the United States Constitution. Not to interpret law based on upbringing, life experience, or empathy for the excused.

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.

Affirmative Action: Arcane or Required

Affirmative Action had it time in the sun and now it is time for American’s to be judged by their merits and not by their sex, creed, or sexual orientation. In New Haven, Connecticut a group of firefighters saw their hopes for promotion scuttled because the test they took resulted in no minorities eligible for promotion. The Supreme Court will hear the case of reverse discrimination brought forth by 20 New Haven firefighters (19 white and 1 Hispanic).

Chief Justice John Roberts posed the question to Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler that if the results had been reversed “can you assure me that the government’s position would be the same?” Although Kneedler retorted with “Yes”; I highly doubt it. Affirmative Action, as stated above, was needed and now is no longer required. With the historic election of the first black President, are we, as a society, still staying that minorities are second class citizens and are in need of protection?

It is time for the Supreme Court and others to stop playing politics with Affirmative Action and promote those based on merit. To use the firefighter test as an example, as long as the test is not biased then the results should never be questioned. The trouble with New Haven is they were worried that minorities would sue because no blacks were considered for promotion based on the test scores.

The new minority on the 21st Century is the white heterosexual male. It is time for America to grow up and to judge/promote people on their merit. Affirmative Action is an arcane program. The sad thing about the New Haven firefighter case is that the future hangs in the fate of justices that wield their political power versus the legal candor.