Through various Constitutional questions, and explanations by Judge Andrew Napolitano, they help the audience, and viewers, begin to guage where they fall, in the political spectrum, in United States’ politics.

The entire show is very interesting, educational, and certainly worth watching…

Enjoy!

–

–

After watching it, you will hopefully better understand and appreciate the great system our founders put in place for our young nation; as well as seeing the  potential peril we can be faced with, if we do not guard our freedom and Republic with great vigilance. Even if this is not new information to you, I see it as a great tool to share with others who are not as well-informed on our system of government.

Incidentally, today would have been former President, Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday; it is great to see his wisdom, and legacy, is being carried on, by people such as Sarah Palin… 

Great speech Governor! …
–

–

“A Republic … if you can keep it.” Those words, attributed to Benjamin Franklin during the evening hours of September 17, 1787, spoke into being a rich history of our nation, its founding and the establishment of our Constitution as the rule of law. The Constitution was written, debated, edited and debated further until a consensus of the Constitutional Convention was reached. In his closing speech, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged, “I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.” This republic afforded the people of the various sovereign states representation on an equal basis based on the population, these are our representatives in Congress. The states were given an equal say in states matters in the Senate. Together the Representatives and Senators would comprise the legislative branch of our government that would direct the laws and policy of these United States.

Order Out of Chaos

Much confusion abounded during the time of the convention, bickering among the participants was considerable. However, one item echoed throughout the process that today most folks would deride as folly. During the final debates, Mr. Elbridge Gerry expressed the concern that the Constitution as it was written would lead to a civil war because it didn’t adequately protect republicanism. It was argued that in his home state of Massachusetts, there were two political parties, one devoted to Democracy, “the worst thought of all political evils” and the extreme opposite. Without a guarantee that the Constitution would protect the nation against such extremes, he refused to sign and subsequently argued against ratification because of the lack of a bill of rights that limited the power of the government.

The republic that was formed allowed each state to have 2 senators that were selected by the various states to ensure the government would never impinge upon the sovereignty of the individual states. This bi-level system assured that the states acting in concert could not impose legislation on the country as a whole without the consent that comes from the people through their representatives. The representatives and senators thus each are required to produce legislation and have it approved through both houses assuring the needs of the people are met and the sovereignty of the states is ensured.

States’ Rights Dealt Death Blow

The 17th Amendment, if doing nothing else, brought about the demise of states rights and effectively neutered the republic. When the Senate passed the amendment on June 12, 1911, they were voting for themselves the ability to be elected by popular vote and whether knowingly or not, they changed the face of the country. A senator elected by the people, will ultimately do the will of the people, or at very least the will of the people who ensure their continued re-election. This holds true for appointed senators as well. Those appointed senators would be loyal to the state legislature. The move from the states’ legislature selecting senators to the people removed the loyalty to the state and put it squarely in the lap of the people. The republic that Ben Franklin announced that historic day in 1787 had been lobotomized.

The Arguments

There are several arguments for the repeal of the 17th Amendment:

• It removed states’ representation from the federal government and essentially abolished state sovereignty and the states no longer have a representative voice in the legislature.
• It removed the balance from the legislative branch of government. A congress made up of elected officials from the enumerated people, plus two from each state essentially gives the people additional representation greater than the enumerated representation allowed by the constitution.
• Power has become centralized in Washington. A senate without loyalty to the individual states takes away the rights of individual states to pass any meaningful legislation, and causes the legislative power to reside in the federal government.
• It has increased partisanship in government. Political parties exist to give a stronger voice to like-minded individuals. Since individuals belong to political parties, their will is pressed in the senate as well as the house. The states on the other hand, do not belong to political parties and usually consist of a varied mix of several political views.
• The Senate is now directly responsible to the people. This means that if they don’t do the will of the people, they can be replaced. While this sounds good, the senate was never designed to do the will of the people. It was designed to do the will of the states. This effectively removed whatever protections the 10th Amendment provided.

The Repeal

In the political climate today, the likelihood of a repeal of the 17th Amendment is remote. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but they failed due to obvious reasons. As recently as August 2009, there were bipartisan attempts to amend the 17th to prevent the appointment of senators by state governors.

Constitutionally we must live within the law, and when those laws seem unjust or no longer are appropriate, it is the duty of the people to change those laws. The expansion of the federal government has put us on the edge of a crevasse that will soon give way to a calamitous action. We must act with purpose to restore the proper balance to a union of nation/states. Each state being sovereign, each person being secure in their liberty and the strength of the nation improved through a cooperative federal government instead of the bastardized monstrosity we are currently relegated to deal with.

Anyhow, the purpose of this post was just to provoke some thought, on laws, and their impact on our lives. So many laws are passed with such little thought on the cumulative effect on such laws on our lives. Much more attention should be given to laws that would seek to protect the majority rather than laws that would serve only to punish the few; the end result simply is, the erosion of our individual liberties.

Without so much as a thought, we can flip a switch, and turn on a light in a dark room, operate this fancy computer I get to use on a daily basis, and charge up the ipod, and all manner of portable appliances we have become dependent upon in our daily lives. When we are thirsty, or need to wash our clothes, the turn of a faucet handle will provide a seemingly unending supply of fresh water, and almost if by magic, the things we find no longer useful in our lives, can be put in the trash bin to go off to who knows where … but it isn’t here, and that is the important part … or is it?

When I began considering the massive integration and collective cooperation we have as a society, the geek in me began to see subtle flaws in its implementation; then the more I dwelt on the issue, the more important these flaws became, until I can no longer take anything for granted; danger, grave danger, lies everywhere, and we as a society are blind to its inherent flaws. Sure, I like a nice hot shower, probably more than most folks; to get that shower though, I have to rely upon lots of other people; people I don’t know, to do things that quite frankly, I don’t understand. The public works people maintain the public water supply, and actually keep the city’s waterline in proper working order; send off water samples for tests, treat waste water, and scope out new well sites among the vast number of other things they are required to do, to actually get water out of the ground, or reservoir, and out to the populous. The electrical workers have to maintain not only the power generation plant, but they also have to install and maintain tens of thousands of miles of high power electrical lines to get the power out to the customer. Power generation facilities across the continent are connected in very complex and highly volatile network, and require tens of thousands of people, on a daily basis, just to keep it working. Our trash is collected and consolidated into huge holes in the ground, designed to hide the excess of our ways. In essence, we just live our daily lives and use these things without a thought about any problem or potential problem that might exist in the system … and that is a very dangerous situation to be in.

Last week when the news broke, about the earthquake in Haiti, we were complacent … oh, another earthquake in a place most of us had never given a second thought to … but when the gravity of the disaster began to become real for us (thanks Anderson Cooper), we realized that this was much more than your run of the mill earthquake; if there even is such a thing. No, this was much worse, this was the complete collapse of an entire society of people; an entire country is in turmoil, and despair is the nicest thing they have going for them. This was devastation like we have never seen before. Outside of collapsed schools, homes, businesses, and government buildings, were throngs of people, hundreds of thousands of people, displaced. There are perhaps, 2 million people or more, whose daily lives are affected to a degree that we can barely fathom, yet here we sit oblivious to the dangers our own highly integrated society has built for itself; oblivious to the havoc we would face if we were to have our own infrastructure-quake.

Consider that you are reading this, likely on a computer, powered by electricity, generated by a power plant, that runs on uranium, coal, oil or gas. What happens when there is a failure at a power plant? Can’t happen? Think again … across this country, there have been numerous catastrophic plant failures, explosions at solar power facilities, core leaks at nuclear plants, massive turbine failures, collapse of steam pipes, and wind and ice damage to transmission lines … and that was only in the last couple of years. It doesn’t seem that bad though, particularly if you were not one of those affected, without power for weeks on end. As any computer expert would tell you, in order to have a secure and reliable system, you must have redundancy … lots of redundancy. Look at how NASA works … there are redundancy protocols, for redundant systems, for redundant protocols, for backup systems, for backup systems… and yet they still have a track record of having catastrophic, irrecoverable, problems.

That hot shower we take for granted, would be of little concern for those who rely upon a public water source, were that source to become contaminated or unavailable. Consider that, in a town my size, as many as 50,000 people could be left without so much as drinking water, much less bathing water, if a single system goes down. The idea that bigger is better, and consolidation for the common good, is of little concern if you are thirsty.

What we can learn here, is that, smaller, more localized handling of the needs of people will provide a much better solution than massive projects to provide for the masses. Multiple, neighborhood water supplies, will ensure that, in the event of a single failure, the least number of people are affected. If one or more wells stop functioning, there may be a lower capacity of the remaining supplies, but the lower supply is a better alternative than no supply. Electricity generation is another very similar situation… If we have more plants, much smaller than the gazillion megawatt plants of today, spread out in more communities, with shorter transmission distances, the failure of one in a huge network, will be much less problematic than the failure of a single plant providing power to an entire quadrant of the country.

The whole point is, when you put all of your proverbial eggs into a single basket, no matter how big and strong that basket might be, there is a flaw in that basket, a flaw you don’t see … and grandma knew that… thats why she always carried two baskets to the hen house, and why she went twice a day. If one of the baskets failed, she didn’t lose all of the eggs. As a populace, it would do us well to remember that … we need to have many baskets in order to have the least collateral damage in the event one fails. If you learn nothing from the plight of the Haitians, learn this one thing … almost always, a little something is better than no something … and right now, the basket that contained the Haitian infrastructure, has been dropped to the ground by an earthquake nobody predicted.

In my opinion, it is sad, because the president seems to (usually) be a likable man, who clearly is very smart, and a very good orator; however, these attributes are only one part of the equation, and can not, and will not, be permitted to trump our fiscal, and national security. It is yet to be seen, if the president will get more in step with the citizens of The United States.

Please listen to Bill O’Reilly’s analysis… I believe he is spot on!

–

–

I am a member of or have been a member of many different organizations in the last 25 years or so. Most of the time they are specific cause charities, for example boys clubs or scouts. For the purpose of this entry, I’ll not identify the organization I am writing about because I really do believe in their cause, and wouldn’t want the people involved to become pawns in yet another political debate.

I wasn’t the first nor the last to enter the board room as the meeting was getting underway. As is customary, the opening ceremony was completed and the course of business had gotten underway. When it came to new business, it was posited that considering the substantial devastation in Haiti and the fact that aide organizations across the world are clamoring for funds to get supplies and people on the ground there to help, it would be nice if we too would contribute to the cause. On the face it seemed like a great idea, although our annual budget is pretty low, we could put together a care package of $250, it might not be much, but it would certainly help. If more people did it, then the dollars add up pretty quickly.

Now spending money is something that I enjoy. I also really like helping people, regardless of their situation, I call it my compassionate guilt complex. When I am able and sometimes when I am not, I give of my time and money to help others. This is a weakness that I have, but I am willing to bear because of the joy that I get from knowing I was able to help someone in need. But this was different. This was money from an organization that had come together for a specific purpose, whose charter laid out the rules of conduct and whose members agreed to abide by that charter.

In many ways it is very similar to our federal government and our own system of laws. To draw a complete comparison, we can liken the Constitution to the club charter, the President would be the board chair, and the Congress would be the board members, finally the citizens of this country would be akin to our club members.

The ‘President’ called the question … after the requisite motion and second as required, ‘Congress’ entered into debate over this bill. The sentiment was unanimous. The people in Haiti are having a really tough time of it and we have the desire to help them. Considering there wasn’t alot of real discussion going on, I asked a simple question. “Mr President, does our constitution allow for us to spend money on the people in Haiti?”. The ‘President’ was honestly shocked by the question, and after a couple of minutes simply stated that it did not. So I followed up with “If our constitution doesn’t allow for us to do this, why are we even entertaining this bill?” The resounding, almost unison response from the ‘Congress’ was “Its the right thing to do to help these people. We can and we must!” … now if that sounds like a mandate, it surely did to me … its the right thing to do, we can do it, so we must do it … At this point there was much bickering and arguing back and forth between those who saw that the truth is, regardless of whether we want to do it, it is neither right nor can we just do it. As an organization bound by laws and rules, we must abide by those or risk losing the confidence in the citizens that elected us to our position. When the final vote was cast, the bill failed by a 1 vote margin.

Clearly this wasn’t our government in action, but it was a really close approximation in the private world, however the reaction was right on par with what one might see from the citizens who desperately wanted to see this bill pass. Immediately I began receiving comments about how I must hate the people in Haiti or how can I ignore their plight. These sentiments, while on the surface seemed to be correct, they were far from the truth. Regardless of how many times I said I had nothing against them and really wanted to help them but my hands were tied, as it would have been against our charter to authorize such an expenditure, they would have no part of it.

Finally, I made a comment that would cease the discussions and quieted the naysayers. I reached into my pocket and pulled out a $50 bill and laid it on the table. Of course it was already earmarked for gas, but I needed to make a point. I told the entire committee that I was donating $50 toward the recovery efforts in Haiti right then and there, and I would gladly accept any personal donations from the members of the board, up to a total of $250. After a few seconds of shock, the murmuring quieted down and I instructed the members to see me after the meeting so we could coordinate our $250 donation. Amazingly, but not unexpectedly, there was not one person who took up my offer to fund a private initiative.

Sure it was OK as long as it was someone else’s money they were giving away, but the end result was that I made my point. People feign compassion when it makes them look good, they feign conservatism when it makes them look good … in fact people generally do whatever they can to make themselves look good, except, and this is a big one, except when it requires that they actually do the deed.

So what does this teach us? If you are really concerned about people, don’t be a fake conservative, don’t let your compassion go awry and by all means, don’t fall for the rhetoric about certain things being the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to live within the constraints of our laws and rules, and if you don’t like them, work to change them.

I totally share Ted’s frustrations with these dam Progressives! Today, in this country, our government, in the name of regulation, is trying to control too many aspects of the people’s lives; while reading terrorists their rights, and court-marshaling our Navy Seals. It is truly insane!

I love Ted’s straightforwardness, articulation, and passion, on The Second Amendment…

–

–

Throughout the course of our short history, political parties have come and gone. I, for one, don’t believe in political parties, and neither did George Washington. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson formed The Democratic-Republican Party, in response to Hamilton’s formation of The Federalist Party, a year earlier; and hence, the beginning of “true” political division in our nation.

That being said, The Republican Party, over the years, did represent our founding principals, as the party of Thomas Jefferson; however, over the years, both parties have increasingly become more and more nationalized, while the sovereignty of the individual states seem to be getting less and less. Fiscal responsibility is another thing that seemed to have become a thing of the past, in Washington D.C, over the last decade or so. And now, most recently, our free-market system seems to be really under assault by a heavy-handed, far-left Democrat majority in Congress.

The establishment will also have you believe, and with good reason, that a third-party can not succeed in our system of politics. OK, well, what if someone had told that to Abraham Lincoln, and he believed it? He would not have become our first Republican President.

I truly believe, the only establishment that true conservative Americans should be interested in, is the establishment of a prudent, limited, and fiscally responsible government, as directed by our founders, and through our Constitution. For conservatives across the country, it is exciting to see Doug Hoffman so close to a victory in NY, under The Conservative Party. He appears to be advocating “true” conservative values; and from what I understand, The Republican Party is allowing him to caucus with them as well. Speaking of third parties, I recall Joe Lieberman winning his Senate seat back, running as an Independent, which is further evidence that we do not necessarily have to concede to the two “established” parties.

In this turbulent time, in our nation, and with so much on the line, we must remain open-minded to candidates who truly are interested in restoring our government back to a much more constitutionally respecting place in our nation; and from there, I do believe, as with Hoffman, the right people will get behind them, and help them get to where they are going.

We should not hold animosity to anyone who believes in the established system of the two parties; it is human nature to feel secure with a system that has lasted so many years; however, if things are meant to be, they will be, if not, they will be replaced. We need to embrace all true conservatives, because many people have so many great ideas that can help our nation get it’s footing back to where it needs to be.

If Doug Hoffman wins a seat to Congress, I do believe other conservative candidates will follow suit; and hopefully, The Republican Party will embrace them as well. Perhaps this movement will be a clear message to future Republican candidates, while many of us believe in building consensus, we are not always happy with their compromises.—There is clearly a difference…

Mark

I don’t consider myself a hyper-partisan, in regards to party politics, but increasingly, I am having less and less tolerance for these so-called progressives who seem to completely disregard, even have a disdain for our Constitution, and founding principals. I have heard Barack Obama himself talk about the incompleteness of our constitution… Really? So is the inference that our founders were not competent enough to consider the necessary factors? Or, subconsciously, would you like to toss the Constitution to the wind, and create laws as you and other progressives see fit? If that is the progressive thought process, then in my mind, that is a true subversion of our Constitution, and of the very system of governance that our founders set in motion.

I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating… If all of Congress were forced to create laws that are in line with The Constitution, as opposed to a bunch of renegade laws, I think we could get back to some uniformity and well-needed continuity in this nation. It is not hard to imagine, if all of Congress, in both parties, were forced to follow the same rule book, increasingly, the gap between both major parties would begin to narrow.

Mark

Certainly, for many years, The Republican Party was thought to be the more conservative of the two major parties, however, over the last ten years, the conservatism in The Republican Party seems to be slipping away more, with each passing year.

Not many events prior to the failing of our financial markets, the subsequent bailouts, the recession, the election of Barack Obama, and the continued far-left agendas being considered in Washington D.C., have I seen such a collective effort for true conservatives to lay their foot down and say, enough! I must admit, I am now one of those conservatives who feel we are in a sink or swim moment in our nation, and no longer have much time to watch our great nation be compromised further into the abyss.

That being said, over the last few years, I have listened to former Speaker of The House, Newt Gingrich, articulate some great political, and economic arguments; as well as the great books, and videos he and his wife continue to churn out. In my opinion, Newt Gingrich, politically and socially, appears to be truly conservative…

Which leads to this interesting congressional race in New York State between Doug Hoffman (Independent) and Dede Scozzafava (Republican)… Admittedly, I have not really followed either candidate, nor do I know much about the policies either candidate espouses; however, the big news seems to be that such names as Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and Steve Forbes are backing Doug Hoffman, as they feel he is the more conservative candidate out of the two. As a Conservative Independent myself, I am all for their support of Doug Hoffman, and completely understand their rationale for backing him as well. That being said, I have now heard two interviews where Newt Gingrich articulated the Tenth Amendment argument,…

We, as citizens of The United States, now have two very large powers that we often take for granted: One is the ability to vote for the candidates that we feel best represents our interests, and the other is the power to purchase, or not purchase from a particular merchant if we are not happy with their prices or services. If we, collectively, bond together, we can actually force prices to go down, if we decided not to purchase from a particular merchant.

Now, if the government (hypothetically) were to takeover the business of health care in this country, and is taking our money, via income tax, what recourse do we have if we are not satisfied with the services that are being provided?

In the free market, you have discretionary spending, and through income tax, sadly, you would be considered breaking the law, if you decided that you don’t want to participate in a federally mandated program, and refuse to pay taxes.

Of course, everyone can draw their own conclusions, but as for me, I’d rather retain my rights to continue or end a service, at any given time.

In a nation such as ours, we are very blessed, and should be careful “not” to take our freedoms for granted; they can be here today and gone tomorrow.

Mark

“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work—work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”

Every four to eight years, we end up with a President that is in favor of either Team Democrat or Team Republican, when in fact, we need them to be an objective leader that represents both teams, while utilizing the same set of rules, for both teams. The United States Constitution addresses the powers of The Congress, and the powers of The President, however, there is nothing in The Constitution that explains how Republican elected officials are to objectively represent a Democrat constituency of voters, and vice-versa for Democrat elected officials; therefore, these same principals should apply to all elected officials, including Senators and Representatives; and all with strict term limits, as with the President.

With Supreme Court Justices, there is an expectation for them to objectively interpret the law; and  law-enforcement is expected to objectively enforce the law; therefore, wouldn’t it only make sense that the law-makers begin to objectively create laws? And laws that benefit the entire team, instead of one team or the other? If we had elected officials, in Congress, acting as objective legislators, and utilizing The Constitution as their foundation for creating laws, then I would believe, the need for political parties would diminish greatly. And, after all, aren’t we suppose to be The “United” States of America? 

I see this as a way that we can come together, as a nation, but still maintain our liberty, privacy and freedom of choice.

I believe, the aforementioned is far better then any public option or having the government managing another large program, which more then likely, would balloon out of control at some point, and further damage our long term, economic stability.

Mark

Whether or not you agreed with the post 911 policies, one thing is absolutely irrefutable; and that is, The George Bush administration did dwarf any further 911 type attacks on The United States’ soil; which in my opinion, makes these political witch-hunts that much more outrageous.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

- George Washington (Washington’s Farewell Address 1796)

Anyone who knows me, and my political views, surely, by now, knows that I have great admiration for Daniel and his great political views, honesty and courage.

His below speech is very inspiring, as he talks of our  founding principles in The United States, and our founders.

Lets look at how sports figures all across the world compete for that elusive crown of victory. Athletes are willing to put aside sleep, pain and family for the prize of achieving that ultimate goal at being a winner, to be great at what they do. There is no mountain too tall, no ocean too deep and no river too wide that will keep them from working toward that pinnacle. Frequently we hear how football players continue to force themselves to strive on despite having a torn ligament in a knee, something that would bring the toughest person down, but somehow, they push through the pain and continue. There are baseball players that seek to achieve greatness through the use of injections and supplements designed to increase muscle mass to improve their game, and yet, many of these sports figures, great in their own mind, fail to achieve what they want most.

In the political arena we have politicians who sell out their constituents for the promise of power and fortune, but in the end they end up despised and even hated. The ever increasing nature of divisiveness in politics has created but a few “statesmen”, the rest simply slip into obscurity for eternity, failing to reach that goal of being remembered for grand achievements.

Even in families and the workplace we have folks who go about their daily activities looking for that next grand scheme that will propel them into fame, that will grant them riches and glory, but alas here again, the vast majority of these fail to reach their goal.

Considering that my own life experiences has taught me a lesson or two or a hundred, I have to look back and see what I did that was so different from those who have achieved greatness, at least as far as I can tell. To do this I have to consider what kind of greatness I am observing. As best as I can tell, there are two distinct ways to achieve greatness as is defined by popular culture.

The first, which isn’t really greatness at all, is notoriety, being known for doing something that others have not, or would not. In this category, we have all sorts of people who believe they have achieved the reward. To see this, one need only look at people like Nero and Caligula, Dahmer and Kaczynski, Osama and Atta et.al.

The second, which is probably the more classic example of greatness, has people like Washington and Jefferson, Ghandi and Mother Teresa, Marino and Babe Ruth, and others who throughout their lives made it a point to do what they love and love what they do. To achieve greatness in the minds of others, to reach that lofty place where others would admire and respect their achievements. But what each of these have in common is not that they achieved greatness, but rather that they did so without the expectation of accolades .. ok maybe Marino and Babe Ruth wanted accolades, but it is a nice sentiment, and from all indications they took particular interest in their fans, something lost on many folks today.

So after all of this, if I haven’t lost you, the real question is; “How can I achieve greatness?” – it is achievable, but it isn’t easy. Remember those ball players who play through pain, you will have to play through your adversities as well. You will have to seek out those things that are blocking your goals and move beyond them, put them aside and reach for that elusive mark, but even then that mark is unsatisfying if you have not done it for the right reasons. There is one quality that supercedes all in the quest for greatness, and that is the motivation behind such a journey. If you are seeking greatness for the sake of greatness, then you are doing it wrong, however, if you are not seeking greatness, but you are doing what you believe in for the sake of others, you will achieve it.

For any United States citizen that thinks nationalized health care sounds good; I would agree, on paper, every citizen having accessible and affordable health care, would be good. However, before handing over control of your health, and the health of the ones that you love the  most, to the government, I am asking you to “please” watch this video, and find people and doctors that live in countries such as England and Canada, that currently have these government ran health care systems, and get their views on it as well.

I would also like to add, that many, including “some” government officials, would like some to believe, that people like myself, or Glenn Beck, don’t care about fellow Americans; on the contrary, we do care “very much” about our fellow citizens, and “that is why” we bring this information to the public.

There are many possible solutions to making health care affordable and accessible to the general public, while maintaining your privacy and freedom; but as you will hopefully learn, government ran health care systems are “not” an efficient or best approach to national health care concerns.

Please watch the below (interviews) videos with Daniel Hannan, on nationalized health care…

When he said this, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,  though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’[a]

11″This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

Luke 8:4-8:15 (NIV)

Soros on the Dollar, Euro @ Yahoo! Video

2.He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3.He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4.Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5.Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6.Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Amen!

Psalms 23 (KJV)

Over and over, polls show that this country, in general, is a center to right country; which means, most of us would like just to have responsible, commonsense and prudent governance.

I think that the people on the far-left, and on the far-right, are in the minorities; and these are the people that I often have trouble dealing with, because they are just too stuck in their own (world views) ideologies, that it is hard for them to bend or compromise with anything; and this is precisely what we are seeing with The Obama administration not bending and compromising with The Republican Party, and some of their very good ideas on health care reform and other legislation.

I have noticed, when the government goes too far left, there tends to be push back, and the moderate people move right; and vice versa, when the the government goes too far right, it seems that moderate people move further left.

Perhaps this would explain why I had (have) an intuitive sense that Pelosi, Reid and Obama will not succeed; even though (in my opinion) they are severely hurting our economy, their agendas will not fly with The American people; because, as a whole, we are mostly moderate and conservative people who appreciate our founding principals, and our freedoms, such as entrepreneurship and Capitalism.

I would go as far as saying, if we had no political parties, as our founders intended, the body of Congress would be mostly rational and moderately conservative people; and we would not have to go on a roller-coaster ride every 4 to 8 years. If I had my way, we’d resolve to having no parties; then we could focus on policies that help advance this country, as opposed to incessant party line battles.

Please see Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Point Memos (below) on the proposed government sponsored health care plan, President Obama, and the the far-left agenda in general…

Mark

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Our founders were very wise, they believed in the de-centralization of power, and often chose to relinquish power; unlike the over-reaching and ever-expanding federal government that we are often seeing today.

When our founders drafted The United States Constitution, the federal government was given explicit (expressed) powers…

 –

First let’s look at the expressed powers given  to The (Legislative Branch) United States Congress…

• The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

• —And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

• The Migration or Importation of such Persons (prev. referred to as slaves) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight (1808), but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
• The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
• No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
• No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
• No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
• No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
• No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
• No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

• “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Article 2, Section 2…

• The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
• The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Then there are presidential duties…

Article 2, Section 3…

• He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

And lastly, a United States President can be impeached (removed from office) for any of the below reasons…

• The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3, Section 1…

• The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 3, Section 2…

• The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
• In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
• The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Article 3, Section 3…

• Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
• The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I believe there are many good people that run for office, with the best of intentions in representing their constituents; and to make positive changes for their country, fellow citizens, and communities…

However, after a long string of events, that seemingly make little to no sense from our elected officials in Washington; only to see continued pain with each new proposed bill; after watching many good people lose every thing that they’ve worked so hard for; it not only breaks my heart, but it leaves me with an extraordinary cynical view of our current federal government; and the incessant abuses that continue to be legislated, and forced on the good people of this country; none of which, by virtue of common-sense, seem to be aimed at truly fixing the problems at hand, let alone restoring this country to the virtues and foundations which have made us a great country.

So, if we were to apply common-sense, most of us can relate to the old adage..”If it isn’t broke, then don’t fix it”… However, what if the machine is severely broken? Shall we continue to replace it with bad parts? 

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people”…

Therefore, let’s not be confused or misled: here in The United States, we are not living in a true democracy… If anything, we have  a Representative form of Democracy.

In reality, we are a Republic… which is a state or a country that is not led by a monarchy, and which the people (or part of the people) have an impact on it’s government. More broadly, we are a Constitutional Republic, governed by laws, and by which the people are represented by elected officials.

The word Republic is derived from the Latin phrase “res publica,“ which is translated to English as “public thing,” or “public affair.”

Article 4, Section 4, of The United States Constitution:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…”

I am Janet Contreras, a concerned, home-grown American citizen. I am 53, and I have been a registered Democrat all of my adult life. Before the last Presidential election, I registered Republican because I no longer feel the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. I now no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.

There must be someone, please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me you are there and are willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please do it now.

You might ask yourselves what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me? These are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

* Illegal Immigration—I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S. I am not a racist. This not to be confused with legal immigration.

* TARP Bill—I want it repealed and no further funding supplied to it. We told you “NO!” but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze! Repeal!

* Czars—I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the Czars. No more Czars. Government officials answer to the process not the President. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

* Cap & Trade—the debate on global warming is NOT over, there IS more to say.

* Universal Health Care—I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

* Growing Government Control—I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Please mind your own business; you have enough to do with your REAL obligations. Let’s start there.

* ACORN—I do not want ACORN or its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them on every real estate deal that closes. Stop all funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audit and investigation. I do not trust them with the taking of the census or with taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before the taxpayers get any further involved with them. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck—hello… stop protecting political buddies. You work for the people. Investigate.

* Redistribution of Wealth—No. If I work for it, it is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth I support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do want me to hate my employers? What do your have against shareholders making a profit?

* Charitable Contributions—although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities where we know our needs best and can use local talent and resources. Butt out, please. We want to do this ourselves.

* Corporate Bail Outs—knock it off! Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we will be better off just getting to it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful, like ripping off a band aid. We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us a chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

* Transparency and Accountability—how about it? No really, let’s have it. Let’s say we give the “buzz” words a rest and have some straight, honest talk. Please stop trying to manipulate and appease me with cleaver wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

* Unprecedented Quick Spending—stop it, now. Take a breath. Listen to “The People.”

Let’s just slow down and get some more input from some “non-politicians” on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law.

I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant nor a violent person. I am a mother and grandmother. I am a working woman. I am busy, busy, busy and tired, tired, tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawns and wash our cars on weekends, and be responsible, contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same, all the while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding our Constitution and believed in the checks and balances to keep you from getting too far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think that I find humor in hiring a speed reader to unintelligibly ramble through a bill you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not! It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face! I am not laughing—the arrogance!

Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it, but you expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children? We did not want that TARP bill. We said “NO!” We would repeal it if we could. I am not sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all the recent spending. From my perspective, it seems that you have all gone insane.

I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back!

You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.
—

For anyone that has not really given this kind of spending, any real serious thought, I would like you to please consider a few things…

The Iraq war costs approximately 10 billion dollars a month…while that alone is an enormous amount of (tax payer) spending,  the federal government, on February 17, 2009, signed into law, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which conveniently started out being sold as The Stimulus Bill. That one bill was for the monumental amount of 787 billion dollars…

According to my calculations, that would be 78 months of funding for The Iraq War; which amounts to 6.5 years, and roughly the cost of the entire war thus far. So, was that bill (monetarily) a bit unprecedented? Let’s not leave out the interest… it is estimated that the total cost, with interest, is approximately 1.4 trillion dollars…

Estimates say, that amounts to $30,000 per household…Can anyone think of a few other ways that our federal government (or we the tax payers) could have utilized that money?

Well, China holds approximately 763 billion dollars of United States Treasury Securities; which in short, is our government’s debt to foreign countries. Perhaps paying off our debt to China, “may” have been “one” of the several prudent things that the federal government could have done. 

Now, for a moment, let’s stop and ponder what a trillion dollars really is…

• If you had one thousand dollars ($1,000), 1,000 times over, you would then have one million dollars ($1,000,000)

• If you had one million dollars ($1,000,000), 1,000 times over, you would then have one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000)

• If you had one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000), 1,000 times over, you would then have one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000)

Well, apparently, we are starting to see some of this come to fruition…and recently, President Obama appointed a Pay Czar named Kenneth Feinberg, who will have authority over compensation for senior executives… Wait! A what? What is a Czar? Well, let’s see, according to Dictionary.com, a  Czar is a noun, meaning one of these four things…

That makes twenty-some odd Czars appointed thus far by President Obama. Oh yes, by the way, has each one of these so-called Czars been approved by The Senate Mr. President? After all, there is this document called The United States Constitution (Article 2, Section 2 ), that happens to mention alittle something about this…

We Can’t Afford Socialized Health Care

There are several factors to remember when talking about a nationalized health care system and the biggest of them is probably the fact that we can ill afford to pay for it. Consider the points I raised in the previous article regarding the fact that insurance is a business. Currently, medicare costs are bankrupting the system, and presumably the new socialized health care will follow a similar model … pay as you go. As it has been pointed out by many people other than myself, the current “pay as you go” mentality of the government is nothing more than a huge ponzi scheme whereby benefits to previous subscribers are paid for by new subscribers. This means, that at some point, as is now evidenced in both Social Security and Medicare, the new system will be ill prepared to provide for the combined proposed benefits of the subscribers and as a result will either have to cut benefits substancially or it will have to exact more taxation from the subscribers (you and I) to pay for this monstrosity.

Now before I get off on a tangent, let me explain why you cannot afford nObamaCare. Under the current proposal, every citizen in the US or under US control would be required to purchase insurance with the caveat being “if they can afford” to purchase it. I have checked out various insurance programs, considered their cost, and determined that the median family income of  $67,019 a year would probably allow some families to purchase group policies, while others would not. The reason for this is that outside of a group policy as provided by an employer, major medical policies can vary from as little as $350 a month per individual to $1700 a month for a family of four. Now if we consider that an insurance company is a commercial enterprise with aspirations of making a profit, you have to believe that the costs are that high for a reason, and that reason is they have to cover the costs of providing the care.

So what might put you, the average citizen, in the $350 category as opposed to something higher? Consider that your age, health care history, home state, and gender play a huge role in determining your rates, and while race is not immediately asked of applicants, you can rest assured that it plays a factor as well, despite the efforts by government and insurance companies to make us believe otherwise, it is quite obvious to insurance companies that African-American males have a higher health care cost than any other gender/race group of people. The insurance companies know this, and you can bet they have a method to insure they are not exposed unnecessarily. There have been reports of gender and race bias in the application of benefits that seem to unfairly target minorities. Whether this is by design or because of other social issues remains to be resolved. Regardless, the equitable access to health care is expensive, especially if you have any pre-existing conditions.

The bottom line, is do you trust government enough to allow them to dictate whether you can afford to pay $350 a month for single coverage or as much as $1700 a month for family coverage? I doubt most have that kind of faith in our government .. I know I don’t.

Limited Choices for Care

Under the proposed system, your health care will look similar to that of Europe or Canada where it has been reported that medicine is not provided because of cost or treatments denied based on where they live, in fact, under most conditions, patients are barred from paying for the procedures themselves.

According to British journalist Melanie Phillips, the British model, which many in our own government have taken direct clues from as to what they would like to see in the US, has become a matter of life and death with dire circumstances.

” Britain has some of the worst cancer survival rates in Europe, and as some doctors privately acknowledge, one reason is that NHS patients are prevented from buying the most effective drugs.”

She futher states as a matter of policy that the NIH causes physicians to cease treatment for an illness if the patient or patient’s family purchases any enhancements to the treatment. For those who are part of the envy class that hate people for being good money managers and savers instead of spenders, this means that evil rich people have to get the same crappy medical care as the rest of the population, except what they fail to realize is that refusal to allow a person medical care is the exact opposite of their mantra for improved coverage and improved care. I suppose it is only a bad thing if it is somebody else that is refused care. I have a sneaking suspicion that the lawmakers in Washington will not be forced to see the same sub-par medical practitioners as those who will be part of the socialized health care they are advocating so vehemently.

–Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor

I am a compassionate person, and I am also proud of the humanitarian efforts that The United States has made around the world, however, from my point of view, it seems as though our presidents have not been putting enough emphasis on The United States, over the last so many years.

While we are in other countries, rebuilding their countries, The United States has been withering away, both structurally and economically; so, if there is another Ronald Reagan out there, I am begging them to please run for office in 2012, because we are sorely in need of another president like him, that “will” be all about America.

We need a leader that will accentuate the greatness, and achievements of this country, instead of going on these worldwide, Blame America First Tours. The American people are not paying the president to be a leader of the world, we are paying him to sort out our affairs, and defend our country. I am so tired of hearing about how bad America is from this administration.

We do not need worldwide approval or International consensus; in fact, just about every country in this world has committed their share of atrocities, far worse then anything The United States has ever done or would do; and we have absolutely nothing to be sorry or ashamed for. We are a great and generous country!

That being said, can we please have leaders that will start being all about America again?

Mark

It was The attack on Pearl Harbor that ultimately brought The United States into World War 2, however, if The United States did not enter that war, Europe, as we know it, could very well be dramatically different today.

We owe a great amount of  gratitude to those men and women, from all countries, that made these enormous sacrifices in World War 2, to defend the liberties that we still have today.

There is hardly any words that I can write to effectively describe their sacrifices, and the gratitude that I feel to that generation. However, our former President Ronald Reagan, said it so eloquently, in this famous speech to the veteran Rangers at Pointe Du Hoc, Normandy, France, on June 6th, 1984.

Please watch this great and emotional speech…

Mark 
-

-

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

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.

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 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

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

 
“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Matthew 6:25-6:34 (NIV)

The news is out and people in Pennsylvania and across the nation are trying to make sense of it. This news, while shocking to some and welcome by others gives me pause to consider the reasons behind the action. The news of course is the switching of parties by Arlen Specter. On Tuesday, Specter announced that after some serious soul searching and considerable thought, he has decided to change parties once again returning to the party he abandoned some 40 years ago, because it was politically expedient to do so.

This comes as a welcome move by the Democrat controlled Senate as it is another step closer to a filibuster proof majority. With a 60/40 split in the senate, the Democrats will have the power to pass any legislation and abscond with any requirements to work in a true and meaningful bipartisan manner. If you are a Democrat, you may find this appealing, however, a wise man once said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The Senate majority will presumably have that absolute power, the next step is absolute corruption, and I fear that, regardless of which party is in control.

The detractors of this notion want people to believe that this is good for the nation, except for their own power grab, this is good for no one except those in power. The real losers here are the constituents in Pennsylvania who in good faith cast ballots for Specter because of the conservative stance he had taken in the past.

With recent polling numbers showing that many Pennsylvanians wanted Specter to be replaced, the majority of them being Republicans, it was painfully clear that he lacked the necessary constituency base to win in a statewide Republican primary. This evidently didn’t bode well for Specter, whose only alternatives would be to move to the Democratic ticket, retire, or become independent. Considering the options, I doubt that he would want to retire on a low note and his ego may have precluded that option. The next option was to switch away from the Republican ticket to remove the largest number of voters from the primary in which he would have undoubtedly lost. With 53% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans seeking change, the prospect of overcoming a significant deficit on the Republican ticket was surely a deciding factor. It would be far easier to mount a campaign to reduce a 3 point deficit than 16 points, particularly considering the large base of voters who disapproved of his vote for the stimulus bill. The only logical move would be to the Democrat ticket.

I am deeply concern with that move, not because I am anti-democrat, but because I have to question the motives of an individual who will change parties on a whim based on whether they can win an election. This shouldn’t sit well with Pennsylvania voters because many of them now feel betrayed and abandoned by their senator. This same senator who previously had vehemently rejected the notion of switching parties, has made a complete 180 and did exactly what he said he would not. This makes me believe it was about his fear of losing power and less about representing Pennsylvania in the senate. This should concern Democrats even more. You will now have a man in your midst, who has in the past has been outspoken about many issues the Democratic party holds as core beliefs. To have such a wolf in sheeps clothing should make the Democrats stand up and take notice.

He has already proven that he will change his party whenever it suits his personal needs and that he cannot be trusted to do as he has said, why should he change his tactics just because the letter behind his name has changed. If I were a Pennsylvanian, I would stand against his re-election, not because of ideological party politics, but because he has now proven himself to be in it for something other than doing the will of his constituents. It was clear the Republicans had already decided they no longer wished him to represent Pennsylvania and it is unlikely that a party independent Specter could garner the support to win. Democrats should look long and hard at him and take stock in who they really wish to represent the state; a man who would sell out his constituents for political gain or someone who has an idological stand nearly identical to their own. Specter could be the person for the job, but I suspect that many will see though his antics and attempt to give him a retirement sendoff in 2010. I know I would.