“That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.”

Perhaps we need computers instead of judges on The Supreme Court. They can work on Constitutional algorithms instead of their own emotions.  : )

Let’s be honest, judges are human beings as well, and they are going to likely slant a little bit one way or the other, however, they do need to be as Independent minded as possible, and try to look at each issue from all sides, while applying the law as close to The Constitution as “humanly” possible.

That being said, we certainly “do not” want activist judges whose agenda it is to allow laws to be passed based on their personal (or biased) preferences. While I completely understand why our founders had the three separate branches of government, as a way to de-centralize power, they had to know that The Supreme Court, by its very nature, was a possible opening for “potential” bias decision making, as it allows for The Constitution to be interpreted by a small group of individuals that are Constitutionally granted a life tenure on the court. However, there are nine justices, as opposed to one Supreme Justice; and four out of the nine justices must agree to hear a case before it can even come before The Supreme Court.

While I do understand the concern for the remarks that Sonia Sotomayor made, I do think that there is a reality that we all need to face…If you have a liberal president, then there should be no surprise that his selection is going to be a judge that has ruled with a liberal point of view, and vice-versa for conservatives. It is really bad when every single move that a president or law-maker makes, causes the entire country to draw a line in the sand; this is yet, more evidence that we really have lost faith in our law makers. Also, had judges always been working diligently to follow The Constitution, then we likely would never be having this conversation today.

Law-makers should also completely “respect” The Constitution, and be governing based on how our founders intended it. It really does seem as though we have become so paranoid of our elected officials, that forward progression (without true reform) and trust in their decision making, almost seems impossible.

Mark

During these uncertain times, there are many differences of opinions about how our country got to this point, and to the direction that  our country should go in moving forward. However, I am certain of one thing, we all want this economy to improve, and this terrible recession to end.

I am not an economist, nor am I really a partisan when it comes to politics, but I have been forced over the last year to think about economic matters a lot, and would like to share some of my insights…

I have heard, on several occasions, that upward of two thirds of the economy is based on consumer confidence and spending;  that being the case, to “really” boost consumer confidence and spending, I would think that one of two things need to happen…either all goods and services would need to collectively drop in cost, or all consumers in The United States would need to collectively get a raise in income, so that they have more money to spend. Is either one or both of these two things possible?

Let’s first consider this…the federal government, on February 17, 2009, signed into law, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which started out as The Stimulus Bill. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act…it actually sounds kind of good on the surface, doesn’t it? I mean, what American doesn’t want to see investment in their own country? Our great country certainly deserves investment into infrastructure and some other things that have withered over time. When this bill was being debated, it was asked, how much of this 787 billion dollar bill would actually be stimulative? I thought that this was a great question, and my answer to that question was, “not a whole lot”.

For a moment, consider this…if you took a handful of darts, and all at once, threw them at a dartboard, how many of those darts would actually stick to the dartboard, let alone hit the bull’s eye? The current administration often used the term shovel ready; even if the project was permitted, designed, reviewed, re-visioned and approved; and all of the other red tape that goes along with major infrastructure projects, making it shovel ready, generally construction projects last for a period of time, then the people that worked on those projects, are often once again laid off; therefore, any job creation, or stimulative effects would be of a short term nature, in a so-called shovel ready project.

Let’s now go back to consumer spending and confidence…In the past, we have received stimulus checks (in the mail) from the government, for a few hundred bucks. While money is always welcome in my mailbox, I personally would have preferred the government to keep that money in The Treasury, in case of a national emergency, as I saw very little stimulative effect that would really come from it. In fact, it has been shown that most people either saved that money, or paid down some personal debt, and very little was pumped into the economy.

I think that the use of these small scale and non-stimulative rebate checks have been used by many as an argument against tax cuts. I do not believe that a small scale, one time rebate check will ever do much to stimulate the economy, however, I would like to see a complete tax holiday, eliminating income tax, sales tax, corporate taxes, and any other taxes for a specified amount of time, or until the economy gets back on it’s feet.

So let’s look at some facts…

• We know that consumer confidence and spending is a large key to economic growth.
• We know when people have a sustained raise of income, they have more money that they can rely on, and more money to spend.
• We know that if sales tax is suspended for a period of time, then people will be much more inclined to go spend more, which in return would create profits for businesses all around.
• We know if corporate tax is suspended, or lowered significantly, that companies will also have more money to retain and hire employees; and hopefully to invest into new business; not to mention the new businesses that may flock to The United States as a result of a low corporate tax.

Recently, Colin Powell had migrated over to The Democratic Party. As an American, he certainly has the right to do so, however, he has also said that he still considers himself a Republican.

Now, while I agree with Colin Powell on a few points, in regards to The Republican Party, I completely disagree with him that Americans want a bigger government and more taxes for services.

Evoking a bigger government and more taxes is in direct contrast to the core principals of The Republican Party and of our founder’s vision. In fact, big government control and high taxes were the foundation for The American Revolution.

Colin Powell is a very smart man, and while I agree with him to some extent, I have to believe that he knows that The Republican Party is a direct contrast to what he has been advocating lately.

If he wants bigger government and higher taxes, then he is now in the right party, at the right time; in fact, that philosophy is even more indicative to a farther-left Democrat, I’m not sure that a more “moderate” Democrat would even agree with his assertion.

He has also stated how he worked under Ronald Reagan; and no reasonable American will doubt Colin Powell’s great patriotism and service to our country; but again, these philosophies that he is advocating, are in direct contrast to Ronald Reagan as well. Ronald Reagan said that government was the problem, not the solution, and he was right. Ronald Reagan was also an advocate of low taxation.

So, while The Republican Party certainly needs to do a bit of work, they “should not” sell out their core beliefs, nor should The Republican Party allow a powerful, intelligent man like Colin Powell to try to sell (brand) The Republican Party as something that it is not.

I would like to see people read more about the history of our parties and what they truly stand for; it is actually eye-opening. It was after doing the research that I realized, my views on the economy, government and taxation, were much more aligned with The Republican Party, and our founding fathers. However, most of my life I had voted Democrat because I was told to do so, and was lead to believe that they were the right party.

The Republican Party has some great philosophies, however, they do not seem to have someone that can articulate the great virtues of The Republican Party… such as low (or no) income tax, smaller government, and how these things really are better for the overall economy. It is not enough to just say that it is better, but they need a good (vibrant) leader who can connect with the people and give many real life examples of “how”, and “why” it is better.

I have heard people tell me that low taxes and smaller government would be great, however, they say that Republicans are mostly rich people that will step right over you if you fall. I don’t believe this to be true, but I can see how they have come to that conclusion as I use to feel the same way. So, for sure, the party does need to rebuild that connection to the every day person again.

I believe that The Republican Party could even articulate a case for putting most government ran programs into the hands of the private sector. In fact, I am one that believes that any program that is being manged by government, could be better managed in the private sector, with “responsible” government over site. Unlike some Republicans that I have spoke and  listened to, I (and many others) do believe that some regulations are a necessary evil; especially after seeing so much corporate abuse in the recent past; none of which gives our great system of capitalism a good name.

That being said, for a moment, consider our ancestors… they were given great opportunity in this country by working hard, and were not taken care of by the government…

So, to that extent, I would agree that we do need to be a nation of more self-reliance, and less reliance on government, however, when we incessantly talk about self-reliance, I think that some mistake that for not caring about others or not being compassionate. I have also spoke to many Democrats who certainly believe in God, but feel as though Republicans have made their faith too much of their political format, and feel as though Republicans often push their religious points of view on the masses. I am not asserting that faith is not important, as I am also a person of faith, however, there are many that feel as though faith should not be mixed in with politics, and they are the ones that do not get the economic message of low taxes and smaller government as a result.

So, my belief is that there are certainly some things that The Republican Party can do to reach a larger demographic, however, it is disappointing to hear Colin Powell say that most Americans want bigger government and more services for taxes; I think that idea is in stark contrast to a good fifty percent of this country. I think that Americans want security, however, once people begin to understand the bigger picture, they will learn that bigger government and higher taxes is actually detrimental to economic growth, as well as our personal liberties and freedom to make our own choices in life.

I would love too see a candidate rise up and be able to use good common-sense policies from all major parties; and be able to articulate these policies to the people in a way that people can “relate to” and understand. I do believe that this person is sorely needed for these times. Which does very much lend itself to a third party candidate; perhaps more so then any other time in our American history.

Mark

I have been doing some research, and my thoughts were confirmed; political parties were not originally present in The United States government; this was exemplified by George Washington’s diverse and ideologically different cabinet. I was actually very interested to read that George Washington considered political parties to be self-serving, divisive, and detrimental to the good of government; and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

I have also read that in a winner takes all, presidential system, that this naturally lends itself to a two party system; with that, I adamantly disagree. If we were to follow this premise, then I would say that The United States naturally lends itself to a two separate country system; one being The Liberal States of America, and the other being The Conservative States of America. Therefore, if we are going to be a country of Republicans and Democrats, and neither party is willing to build consensus with the other, then aren’t we already living in two very different countries that we merely call united?

If we read back to the time to when our founders were drafting The Constitution, you will find that there were The Federalists, who believed in a stronger central government, and The Anti-Federalists, who were concerned that the new federal government would have too much power, and could swallow up the individual rights and liberties of the states, and the people thereof. Ironically, it seems that we are fighting a similar battle today, only the new names are The Democrats and The Republicans.

This is The Director of The CIA, Leon Panetta, in response to the allegations that The Speaker of The House (Nancy Pelosi) has made in regards to The CIA.

I could not have said (below) it any better myself…

Mark

This is Nancy Pelosi, on May 14th, 2009, discussing The CIA, methods used against suspected terrorists, and the information that she claims was never shared with her.

I was watching this press conference live on TV, and was shocked when The Speaker of The House (third in line for The Presidency of The United States), essentially called our intelligence community liars.

I immediately realized that this was going to be a political firestorm…

Mark

Who Cares About The Question

There aren’t many things that get me wound up like someone who cannot make up their mind about something. No, I am not talking about someone who delays an answer to a question or gives the ubiquitous answer “I don’t care” or “whatever you think”, especially when the question is of little consequence, like “What do you want for dinner?” or “Do you want to go to the movie theater?”. What I am talking about is the kind of failed decision making that we see, especially in elected leaders when they take one stand, many times in a very public and forthright manner, but at same time in the future, change their view so radically that it makes your head spin.

Good, Bad and Indifferent

I have seen people asked what they think of a particular subject, sometimes it is a politically charged topic while others are so insignificant that it makes me wonder why anyone would care. Recently on a television entertainment show, the question was brought up about a particular hollywood type, the value of an estate and how much cash one might be required to pay in a divorce settlement. As far as I am concerned, this is one of those questions where I am quite ambivalent. I recognize that there are a vast number of people who have wrapped themselves in a cloak of hollywoodism and live life vicariously through the lives of these very public figures, I just don’t happen to be one. I could care less, i.e. I am indifferent as to the answer one might get from this question. Of course, being a Philadelphia Flyers fan, I might get a little more animated when people ask me what I think of the Bruins or the Rangers, but then again, in the big scheme of things, these questions should realistically be listed in the “indifferent” column, mostly because they are a question of opinion and not of prime importance (sorry John, the truth is after all, “the truth”).

Then we have those decisions that we all certainly should be able to determine that they are either good or bad. Take for example a recent report of a man impersonating a federal agent who bypassed airport security and reportedly carried a loaded firearm onto the plane and into the cockpit. His decision to not only break the law to circumvent security was not only stupid, his subsequent action of duplicating it on a return trip indicates to this writer that he has an especially hard time making good, and dare I say rational, decisions. But then what do we expect from people who have something to hide?

What Do You Want To Eat

I don’t care who you are, this is an especially egregious question. You may as well ask about my level of euphoria when puppies are killed. The answer will always be the same … that is there isn’t any valid answer. I may want to eat a bug or perhaps a polar bear, and regardless of my answer, someone, somewhere, will be offended or put off by my insensitivity to their feelings. Seriously though, I once had a sister-in-law that would without exception, vomit every time someone would kill a bug. Now I am not the squeamish type, but I was made more sick by her reaction than that of the initial act, which brings me to the original point.

Own Your Decisions

I am a firm believer that whatever decisions you make will ultimately exhonorate or condemn the decision maker. If I make the decision to run a red light or decide to ignore a stop sign, the resulting damage to myself and others will be a telling tale on my character. Regardless of what intentions I had with regards to making a poor decision, the fact that the decision adversely affects others should be a clue as to the quality of the decision being made. The fact that Obama decided to release the photos of terror suspects under interrogation and/or reportedly being tortured and then his subsequent 180 to a position of vehemently arguing for the concealment of such photos, gives me pause to consider the possible off-the-cuff decision making painfully apparent in the Whitehouse and Oval Office. This obvious flip flop has visions of John Kerry flittering about in my mind. So Obama was for releasing the photos before he was against releasing them. It sounds too much like just another politician trying to satisfy everyone and in the end creating enemies from all walks of life. This is a no win situation politically, however, since the greater good must be served, and I believe the protection of Americans is of more importance than the protection of radical terrorists, I applaud this change of heart and pray that Obama will own this decision, not because it is his, but because it is the best decision under the circumstances.

Incidently, I agree with the latest stance made by the Oval Office regarding the release of photos and this is why. If these photos are released, they could very well incite further hatred and disdain for the American people in the world community. That being said, one must wonder what led to the original decision, without the benefit of insider information, all we can do is speculate … and since that is all that I can do, given my Whitehouse press pass hasn’t been approved or processed for that matter, I’ll speculate on the reasons.

Why We Won’t See The Photos

Much has been said about the release of the documents surrounding the reported torture of terrorists, some of it lacks any credible source, while alot of it is based in sound facts and is supported by the documents themselves. Initially we learned that “enhanced interrogations” were used on terrorist suspects and many were outraged. The moral superiority of these outraged people encited the administration to release hundreds of documents that showed how terrorists were subjected to “torture”, however, the opposition countered that there were hundreds of documents that prove the safety of Americans would have been compromised had vital information not been obtained from these terrorists. The counter claim, which had little to do with the rebuttal was that they would release photos showing that the “torture” was evident and ultimately the Whitehouse decided to allow the former administration to be subjected to an official inquiry and determination over whether we would see them tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention.

Now the CIA doesn’t like its internal operations to be meddled in by self serving politicians, so they released documents that implicate Pelosi, among other politicians in the waterboarding fiasco. Among the politicians are many high ranking Democrats, and since the documents are prima fascia evidence of their knowledge of “EIT”s and combined with the fact that they didn’t say anything or attempt to stop them leads me to believe that the sudden change of heart by the administration was designed quell a political backlash on themselves. The Democrats know that 2010 will be a key year that could spell the end of their free reign in Washington and if losing full control of Congress is the outcome of prosecuting Bush-era officials, then they likely would seek to stop the proceedings, after all, these are self serving politicians we are talking about. However, the Democrat leadership is betting on one thing; that is the historically short memory of their constituents. Unfortunately for them, the GOP and their mascot are well known for the length they can retain knowledge … and a year doesn’t seem that long.

In this recent interview with Newt Gingrich, Chris Wallace asks some pretty straightforward and direct questions; and Newt gives some very honest, and rational responses on the subject of our national security; and this unbelievable amount of over-politicization with our national security.

Pre-election Rhetoric

The top two presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain posed differing stances on how to pay for and at what cost we as a nation should investigate a nationalized health care system. McCain proposed something that most agree, flies in the face of many conservatives – taxing heath care benefits. McCain proposed removing the tax break on the first $5000 in benefits paid on behalf of employees. This meant that health coverage costs for most employees would suddenly increase by their marginal tax rate, whether it is 15% or 39%. In an already expensive market, taxing health care benefits would mean that some employees would as a necessity lose their coverage because they could no longer afford it, thus putting an ever increasing burden on the national health care system were one instituted. Obama came out against this proposal pre-election and rightly so. Taxing health care is a politically charged topic with vehement opposition from all sides of the political spectrum. Obama continually beat that mantra into the minds of voters for weeks prior to the election about how terrible it would be to tax these benefits.

Arguments For Taxing Health Care

McCain argued that by taxing health care you could reduce the deficit, fund the failing and near bankrupt Medicare system and fund a multiple payer system whereby the employee would be able to choose health care coverage at a reduced rate. Certainly the IRS and congressional pickpockets would like no more than to dig deeper into your pocket and fund this program. Considering the fact that congress has seldom seen a tax it didn’t like or a bit of pork that they could fatten up for their constituents, so it isn’t hard to imagine then that for the people back home, the recipients of these massive government entitlement programs, there is an argument to be made for them, and thus an argument to be made for taxing health care to provide health care. It seems like the logical next move.

Government Success At Single Payer

Single payer has been around for many years, but it was historically used to fund the health care of aging retirees. Over the years Medicare has grown into a massive government entitlement that will likely be bankrupt by 2017. With the growing cost of health care and the explosion of retired Americans receiving Medicare benefits, it was certainly doomed to fail from the start.

Consider that when Medicare was originally instituted in 1966, the number of recipients of Medicare benefits versus the number of payers was roughly 20:1;  with 74 million Americans paying 0.35% into the system (employee and employer portions). The average wage adjusted for inflation was $32k and the maximum taxable income was $43k. Even in 1966 the average employee could conceivably exceed that limit and pay considerably less in Medicare taxes than in 2008.

Today the average wage is roughly $41k with the Medicare cutoff at nearly $107k, this means there are more people being taxed more on their income just for Medicare, and Medicare is broke. The 2009 rate for Medicare tax is 2.9% (employee plus employer portions), however, considering the number of retirees and disabled Americans (and dare I say illegals) receiving benefits the revenues are falling short of the need. In 2008 the number of Medicare recipients vs employee was reduced to 3.5:1, and that number is likely to continue shrink. By looking at projected aging figures from the National Institute of Health we can see that the number of retirees and disabled Americans is expected to double in 25 years and add to that the waning birth rate in the US and there is considerable cause for alarm. If the US population continues its stagnant growth, and by some estimates turns to a negative grown rate in the next 20 years, we could very well be looking at a single payer system where the worker/payee ratio is closer to 2:1. Since the cost of medical care is certainly not expected to decrease over then next 25 years, it is certain that we will be looking at a combined tax rate of 6% or more or a complete failure of the system and either scenario has a problematic future.

The Obama Plan

Fast forward a few months and the tune has changed. Apparently the reality has hit the fan. It is now painfully obvious that the reduced taxation and the continued bloviating over McCain’s plan to tax medical benefits is suddenly a good idea. Score 1 for McCain. The Obama administration now feels that by taxing health benefits the taxes raised would suddenly and without problem raise a miraculous amount of cash to fund a far reaching nationalized health care system whereby your employer is forced to provide health care and you are required to pay for it, and to make it even better, it would necessarily reduce the amount of money being paid to doctors, thereby making the medical field a less appealing field for young graduates. Considering the only program the government has done even a marginally good job at is taxing citizens, we should have serious reservations about this program as well.

Under the Obama plan, your employer provided benefits would be taxed at your marginal tax rate, that being 15% for most taxpayers, but increasing to 39% for those in the top income brackets. The program would initially cover only those who did not have an employer sponsored health care program or were unemployed and did not qualify for other programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. However a flaw recently pointed out was that as the cost of medical benefits increase due to the taxation, many employers would simply drop coverage to allow their employees to seek coverage under the government program. To fix this obvious flaw, the plan would necessarily require that employers provide health care coverage, and thus employees would thus be required to take it or have no coverage. People who work in entry level positions, such as retail clerks and fast food employees, would still be unable to afford to have insurance, even if it were employer subsidized. To combat this flaw, another exception would be required to allow for low wage and under employed people to qualify for coverage. Suddenly the number of people paying for the system is significantly fewer than those using the system and therein is the recipe for failure.

To be fair, I didn’t support the McCain plan nor do I support the Obama plan, in fact, I think the government’s role in health care is non-existent. It has proven beyond a doubt that it cannot administer any program effectively, that it lacks the fortitude to cut such programs when it is no longer economically viable and the people most often in need of such a program are the ones who are most frequently disqualified by bureaucratic red tape. Obama should abandon this plan as being failed before it even begins. It is fraught with problems and will quickly become unwieldy. If the government wants to help millions of Americans with health care, then perhaps they should look instead at reducing the federal debt, balancing the budget, tightening border security and by getting dis involved from peoples’ lives. It would surely reduce the number of Americans on anti-depressants and allow those with ulcers to heal … well, at least it would for me.

♦ On February 21, 1787, The Congress of The Confederation, endorses a plan to revise The Articles of Confederation (The Congress of The Confederation evolved from The Second Continental Congress, and included 55 delegates representing each state)

♦ On May 25, 1787, the delegates from twelve of The thirteen states, with the exception of Rhode Island, convene in Philadelphia, in The Assembly Room of The Pennsylvania (Independence Hall) State House.

♦ On July 13, 1787, The Congress of the Confederation meet in New York City, and adopt The Northwest Ordinance, which established formal procedures for transforming territories into states.

♦ On September 17, 1787, The Federal Convention, in Philadelphia, adopt the final text of the proposed Constitution.

♦ On December 7, 1787, Delaware becomes the first state to ratify The Constitution; officially making Delaware the first state of  The United States.

♦ On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire becomes the ninth state to ratify The Constitution, and two-thirds needed to officially put The Constitution into effect; establishing the new government for The United States, and making The Constitution the new (highest) law of the land.

♦ On April 30, 1789, George Washington is inaugurated as the first President of The United States, in Federal Hall, in New York City.

♦ May 29, 1790, Rhode Island becomes the thirteenth of the original thirteen colonies to ratify The Constitution; making The Constitution unanimous.

♦ On December 15, 1791, Virginia becomes the tenth state (of the now fourteen) to ratify ten proposed amendments to The Constitution; these ten amendments, known as The Bill of Rights, and some of our most treasured rights, were then added to the United States Constitution.

♦ On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson is inaugurated as the third president of The United States, in Washington, D.C, making him the first president to be inaugurated in the nation’s permanent capital. 

♦ On April 27, 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspendes Habeas Corpus in Maryland and parts of the midwestern states. 

♦ On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issues The Final Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in The United States  “forever free”.

♦ On December 6, 1865, The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, outlawing slavery, forever, in The United States.

♦ On February 3, 1870, The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, which forbids discrimination in accessing the polls, based on race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. This amendment allows men of all color to vote in The United States.

♦ On February 3, 1913, The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, which grants Congress the authority to directly tax income;  this amendment modified Article 1, Section 8, and Article 1, Section 9  (No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid…), which required all taxes to be levied relative to the population as determined by the census. Prior to this amendment, taxing income directly “may” have been considered unconstitutional.

♦ On April 8, 1913, The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified; transferring the selection of state Senators from the state legislation, to an election by the people of each respective state.

♦ On January 16, 1919, The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified; after one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacturing, sale, import or export of intoxicating alcohol, for the purpose of beverage, is prohibited (prohibition) in The United States.

♦ On August 18, 1920, The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, which forbids discrimination in accessing the polls, based on sex. This amendment allows women to vote in The United States.

♦ On December 5, 1933, The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified, which repeals The Eighteenth Amendment; allowing the manufacturing, sale, import and export of intoxicating alcohol, for the purpose of beverage, in The United States.

♦ On April 12, 1937, The United States Supreme Court decides The National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, which upholds the federal power to regulate labor relations.

♦ On May 17, 1954, The United States Supreme Court decides Brown v. The Board of Education, which strikes down school segregation as a violation of The Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.

♦ On March 9, 1964, The United States Supreme Court decides New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which imposes federal constitutional standards on libel suits brought on by government officials against news media.

♦ On July 2, 1964, The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, upholding federal authority to enforce civil rights against state and local governments, and to bar discrimination.

♦ On June 7, 1965,  The United States Supreme Court decides Grinswold v. Connecticut, recognizing the constitutional protection for rights of privacy in decision about giving birth and the use of contraception.

♦ On June 13, 1966, The United States Supreme Court decides Miranda v. Arizona, enforcing federal constitutional protection of rights of criminal suspects and defendants against state and local governments. This is the origin of The Miranda Rights. Police officers must read a suspect their Miranda Rights when being placed under arrest.

♦ On June 30, 1971, The United States Supreme Court decides New York Times v. The United States (”Pentagon Papers” case), striking down the idea that the federal government can prevent the publication of news stories in the name of national security.

♦ On January 22, 1973, The United States Supreme Court decides Roe v. Wade, which upholds federal constitutional protection for a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

♦ On July 24, 1974, The United States Supreme Court decides The United States v. Nixon, rejecting presidential claims of executive privilege, and upholding that a president must submit to a demand of evidence from a federal grand jury in an ongoing investigation.

♦ On June 29, 1992, The United States Supreme Court decides Planned Parenthood v. Casey, upholding the constitutional protection of a women’s right of choice.

At President Obama’s recent press conference, it was a bit surprising to hear his interpretation of Winston Churchill, and the use of coercive techniques used in England, by their intelligence community.

England, historically, is a country that is very familiar with terrorism on its soil, and they are a country that understood, sometimes, in extreme cases,  you have to do things that may not be the most politically-correct, however, are in the best interest of their nation’s security.

I do not believe that The United States should necessarily allow itself to engage in overly brutal techniques of coercion, however, I do believe that our enemies should definitely fear what could potentially happen to them, the next  time they consider taking out skyscrapers (or worse), in the middle of a populated United States city.

War truly is hell, and if we do not let our troops, and intelligence community, get the information they need, even if enhanced-interrogation techniques are necessary, then I, for one, am very concerned for the future of our nation’s security.

Having said that, please listen to President Obama’s (1:00 in) assessment of Winston Churchill’s stance during World War 2, based on an article that he said, he had read.

Mark

Being a writer, I will often put things on paper or in electronic format that quite honestly makes people cringe or even comes across as vitriolic. It would be a fair assessment that with the vast majority of the writing I do, someone, somewhere is likely to be offended, made angry, or perhaps even emotionally hurt by the content of my writings. I make no excuse for that and I do not and will not cowtow to the pressure our government has repeatedly put on media, with the exception of course being the media that is in love with our current president.

It has come to my attention and the attention of hundred of thousands of others across this country that Congress has introduced legislation that would make it a felony, imprisonable by 2 years in federal prison for the mere act of offending someone through an electronic communication.

One has to find the irony in this bill, while it is a very serious matter there is the added twist that under this self same legislation, the writers of this document could conceivably be held liable under its language. The Congress, Senate and President; all of which have offended me to a degree, some more than others; are purposefully and with intent, posting this bill online to coerce me and others like me, to cease and desist.

In part the bill says: “Whoever” … this means you, me, congress, the President, everyone … “transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication” … this is all communication … “with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person” … this is the qualifier, you must intend for your communication coerce among other things … “using electronic means” … this means the internet, email webpages etc. … “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” … and the punishment SHALL be a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

This seems all well and good, except with other laws currently on the books, one could conceivably be charged under the RICO act for continuing dates of enterprise or you could be charged each time someone is offended, each being a distinctly separate crime. This means that a single post that makes someone angry, could net the offender up to 2 years for each act and the sentence quite possibly could be ordered served consecutively. It isn’t hard to imagine that with as few as 10 people beng offended, your freedom can be removed from you for as long as 20 years, perhaps longer depending upon how they categorize each offence.

I have long been a proponent of free speech, not suprisingly I write very often with the express intent to get peoples’ blood pressure to rise, most often to get them to take notice and do something positive in their life; to stand up against tyranny and the unmitigated corruption running rampant in Washington. Our government, with the insane group of politicians who support such a bill needs to be turned out on their heads for writing such a piece of garbage. Of course I understand the purposes of HR1966 and that is to stop cyberbullys in their tracks, however, the chilling effect it has on free speech cannot and must not be tolerated. I will be waiting to see if the mass media gets behind this latest pile of excrement, but I don’t hold out hope.

I have read alot of hatemongering protected speech in my lifetime, and a great deal of it was through electronic media. I don’t subscribe to it, nor do I approve of the methods these people take in an effort to coerce and intimidate those who have opposing viewpoints. This is actually healthy, it is important that as a society we feel free to speak our minds without the burden of offending others and without the fear of government reprisals if we do. Our founding fathers knew that beyond any doubt. They hated (yes I know .. hate is such a strong word) the press. The media of the time were newspapers that would print all sorts of slanderous and demeaning articles with spins so fast they would make any fair-goer puke with disgust. However, they also recognized that when govenment becomes too big or unresponsive, it is the media who will ultimately incite the citizenry to rise up and squash just such a government.

We are to that point now … our government has methodically, with malice and intent, passed numerous laws and regulations that would never have been allowed in the 18th century. Our founders would have taken up arms and would have marched right down to the capitol building and demanded that those in charge be removed from office, but alas, our society today lacks the stomach to demand that such shenanigans be stopped immediately.

Now lets set the record straight; I don’t support cyberbullies, nor do I support the mean and hateful things people do in an attempt to demean and otherwise denegrate people, however, the far reaching unintended consequences of this legislation will certainly cause a severe curtailing of the expressiveness of people as individuals. I do however support the right of people, like minded or not, to state their true and honest opinions, regardless of whether I like their comments or find them offensive. In the meantime while this is being shuttled through Congress to effectively render the free speech protections of the Constitution meaningless, it is imperitive that every person who supports free speech contact the naer-do-wells in Congress to tell them that you don’t support such a bill.