• It is most likely unconstitutional
• Using it on a takeover of at least 1/6 of the Gross Domestic Product sets an unbelievably dangerous precedent

This is like having your star-student child bring home a report card with an obviously wrong grade on it.  Rather than take it up with the teacher, your child hacks into the school computer and changes the grade.   The same ultimate result takes place (you child gets the correct grade) but the pathway to getting it is completely wrong.  Pelosi and her minions are clearly advocates of “the ends justify the means” theory of leadership.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t support the concept of healthcare reform as it’s currently proposed; it lacks bipartisanship and the cost to the country (and our grandchildren) is simply too great.  But support of the program has no point in this discussion.  Rather the discussion should be whether we want ANY party to use a practice that usurps the Constitution over what is a purely political squabble.

Using “deeming” for anything this important is potentially opening a “Pandora’s Box” that most likely will have serious repercussions down the line. BOTH parties have shown the propensity to use precedent as a means to “up the ante” when they want to push something through.

I would urge everyone to contact their representative and demand that the Senate proposal be given an up or down vote as it stands.  It’s not about healthcare reform…..it’s about democracy!

kab

Sources:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/critics-challenge-legitimacy-plan-avoid-direct-vote-health-care/

http://andthepointis.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/a-mixed-bag/

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

I don’t know that there is any sinister plot by the White House to develop an enemy’s list as has been suggested.  But there is an element, real or unintended, of intimidation.  When coupled with the  Democratic National Committee’s charge that “that mobs are being transported to rallies by “well- funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives” and the far-left blogs labeling essentially calling the contentious townhalls as “mob scenes,” we are seeing the Obama Administration throwing hardball politics not only at other politicians but at the electorate as a whole.  Let’s not forget that the Democrats, IF THEY HAD CONSENSUS IN THEIR OWN PARTY, could have passed healthcare reform almost by fiat.  The fact is that the healthcare reform currently on the table has a smell all it’s own; so much so that even some reasonable-thinking Democrats have problems with it.

I suggest we take Mr. Phillips up on his offer by sending the White House our own “fishy” notes regarding healthcare reform.  Let the President now just how much his “reform” “STINKS…”

kab

Sources:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/05/town.halls/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/cbs-reports-on-town-hall_n_250836.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/5/134012/4532

Thus speaks the Preamble to the US Constitution. There’s a lot of “meat and potatoes” in that single sentence of 52 words. The words are elegant, simple, and to the point. The Founding Fathers felt that high goals, subject to interpretation, would provide a lasting legacy upon which our Nation would grow and prosper. They saw in 1791 that the document ratified by the States in 1789 needed some change; thus the first 10 amendments were added. These constitute the “Bill of Rights” and have been, with the original Constitution as their underpinning, the very real, day-to-day, personification of our rights as citizens of this “union.”

To this date, the Founding Fathers have been proven to be amazingly correct and far-sighted.

Unfortunately, “We the people” have not lived up to our potential.

• We have grown politically “fat and lazy” allowing the parties to dictate to us what we should think about the issues of the day.
• We have grown complacent, allowing the politicians that we elect, to vote, not our wills, but their self-gratifying and self-indulgent whims tailored to whichever special interest group has the loudest “mouth” and the fattest bankroll.
• We have grown disinterested in every election in that we continue to return these same politicians to either Washington, our State Capitol, our County Board, or our City Hall to continue to do the same things that we complain about until we pull the lever or place our ballot in the box.  This assumes that we even bother to vote.
• We can no longer see the “forest” of our country and the common good for the “trees” of ourselves.  Few of us consider what’s good for the country over what makes us feel good.

As I celebrate this Fourth of July, 2009, I pray for our military members, who, above all, understand what the “common good” really means.  I also pray that we, as individual citizens, again take serious the real meaning of those three words “We the People ” written so long ago.

Happy 4th!

kab

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/anti-tax-tea-party-protests-expected/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/report-dodd-receives-early-donations-just-state-residents/

http://www.c-span.org/resources/fyi/108_profile.asp

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=’0DP%2BP,[;%23%20%20%20%0A

With Franken’s entrance into the Senate, the President has the “magical” number of 60 Democratic Senators that should allow the President’s agenda a much easier path through Congress and into history.  The 60 Democratic votes take away the Republican minority’s ability to effectively stop legislation through filibuster in the face of pure party line support.  There is some argument that the strength of the Democrats may not be tight enough to maintain straight party-lines votes in sufficient quantities to realize the filibuster-proof majority.  That remains to be seen.

Franken’s victory also becomes a watershed event for the President and his legislative agenda.  He can no longer use the weak “fault of the prior administration” argument for today’s problems.  Increasingly, as he uses the filibuster-proof majority to etch his vision on the American people, his use of that majority, as well as the items he uses it on, will determine the outcomes of the 2010 mid-term elections and his own re-election campaign in 2012.

kab

Sources:

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/01/what-will-al-franken-mean-for-obamas-agenda/

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1907937,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/minnesota-high-court-rules-franken-senate-battle/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/?test=latestnews

Given all of the above you would think I would be an advocate for the President’s “plan.”  I am not because I don’t believe the economy of our country can support it.  This country is becoming less of a producer of things and more of a consumer.  A good percentage of our jobs are now services-based.  A primarily services-based economy cannot support the kind of spending necessary to support the Stimulus Bill passed in February much less the estimated $1.5 TRILLION healthcare “reform” proposed by the President.  My grandchildren deserve a piece of the so-called American Pie; they don’t deserve the tax burden that is being passed on to them.

kab

Sources:

http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/06/15/obama_fast_tracking_the_nanny_state

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/15/miron.health.costs/index.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/14/biden-refuses-to-rule-out-new-tax-on-health-care-benefits/

“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, (and) judges of the Supreme Court … .”

Over the course of the last 220 years, Presidents have submitted 158 nominations for the Court.  Of these, 122 have been confirmed and 7 have declined to serve.  This means that 29 nominations have been either rejected or withdrawn in 220 years.

Not counting the current administration, the last 12 presidencies have been evenly split between the two parties while the Senate has been controlled for 56 of the 76 years (since FDR in 1933) by Democrats.   Lets take a look at how the nominees have faired over those years given that historical perspective:

1. Forty unique nominations have been made by 11 Presidents (only Jimmy Carter did not have the opportunity to nominate a Justice).  Those numbers do not reflect the nominations of sitting Justices to be Chief Justice.
2. Of those 40 nominations,  Democrats and Republicans have both made 20.
3. Six of the nominees were not confirmed:
   • Johnson nominee Thornberry had no action taken by a Democratic Senate
   • Nixon nominees Carswell and Haynsworth were rejected by a Democratic Senate (this was prior to Watergate).
   • Reagan nominee Bork was rejected by a Democratic Senate.
   • Bush 43 nominees Roberts (prior to being nominated as Chief Justice) and Miers were withdrawn under the threat of a Democratic filibuster

The statistics would indicate that Democrats are much more likely to reject a nominee than are Republicans.  In fact Republicans over the years have felt a duty to present hard questions but have in all cases given the sitting President, regardless of party affiliation, his choice of nominee.  In fact, Republican-led Senates have confirmed all four nominees presented to them by Democratic Presidents with average Senate vote of 76-7.

So now we come to President Obama’s nomination of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice Souter.  Some of the pundits have already painted the nomination with the label of “identity politics” and some of Judge Sotomayor’s comments do have troubling aspects to them in any context:

• Her assertion that “the court of appeals is where policy is made” is troubling if you believe that the role of Judges is not to make laws but to interpret them within a Constitutional framework.  Personally, I find it more disquieting that she made the comment with a “wink and a nod” with no defense or explanation.  That shows a distinct lack of the kind of propriety that I believe foundational to being a Justice on the  Supreme Court.
• In 2001 she stated that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” The liberal bloggers and media have stated that she was taken out of context because she was talking about “race and sex discrimination cases.”  That argument belies the fact that a JUST decision could be made by a person of any sex or of any race because a just decision is based upon the law and the individual facts of the case – NOT the experiences of the individual rendering judgment.

An even more disturbing aspect of Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is the fact that the very court she has been nominated to has overturned her appealed judicial decisions 60 percent of the time.  This could be equated to having the “D student” teach the class the next semester!

Does Judge Sotomayor have the “right stuff” to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court?  I can’t honestly say.  Are there some aspects of her professional life troubling?  Yes.  Will she be confirmed? Without a doubt.

Should she be confirmed?  Without a doubt.  Republicans lost the last election and this is part of the price we pay.  We fought the “good fight” and the other side won.  As the old phrase says “To the victor, belong the spoils.”  In this case the spoils include the right to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court.

History has shown that once seated on the Court and assured of the position for life, Justices don’t always heed the politics of those who nominated them.  Current Justices Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens were all nominated by Republican Presidents and no one would say any of the three remained true to their nominator’s politics.

Judge Sotomayor may turn out the same.  Regardless, she should (and will) be confirmed.

kab

Sources:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/where-policy-is-made-soto_n_207570.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270005

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html

The President’s basic arguments are:

1. GITMO is a smear on the US reputation and that the world thinks less of us because of GITMO.
2. GITMO was established by the Bush Administration with a lack of forethought as to how detainees would be handled in the long-term
3. The detainees can be housed, on American Soil, with no danger to the American Public.

For his part, former VP Cheney says GITMO works and should not be closed.  Further, he thinks it a mistake to bring detainees onto American soil due to the danger of escape.

I side with Cheney but with an entirely different perspective.

1. Many acts of terrorism are singular acts of violence, but terrorism as a whole is about securing the hearts and minds of both the victims and the perpetrators – the first through fear, the second through fervent radicalism. While few of the other prisoners they may come in contact with will ever see the light of day outside a prison wall, some may.  There is little doubt that Islamic jihadists would attempt to spread their ideology throughout any population with which they have contact.  Best to leave them with those who are similarly disposed than to give them a new, vulnerable populace to convert.
2. GITMO is situated on the western end of Cuba and, as such, is isolated and well contained.  While there have been no reported attempts at escape or breakout, the consequence of successful escape is much less serious because of the Cuban Island geography.  Additionally, any coordinated attempt by jihadists to rescue their terrorist mates would be repelled by US military assets located at GITMO and certainly within close proximity on the US mainland.
3. So far the discussion has been about placing the detainees at multiple sites within the US – notably the so-called “super-max” facilities.  Throughout history, numerous turning points have seized victory from the jaws of defeat.  As stated in the paragraph above, GITMO is easily defended.  But as you spread the threat, it becomes harder to defend against.  Multiple locations mean multiple sites for potential terrorism.  I believe that having the detainees at various locations is an open invitation for jihadists already within the country to have a rallying point with potential nightmarish results.  Imagine the “glory” given to the “martyr(s)” who attack within the “Great Satan” to rescue their fellow jihadists.  If you keep them in a single place, GITMO is better than any other.
4. Throughout our history, the penal system has seen “reforms” instituted as the result of lawsuits brought by both prisoners and outside agencies.  Do not doubt that the ACLU will redouble efforts to “reform” the prisons where the detainees are held.  One judge (not necessarily an activist) making one decision could have unintended consequences when applied to one or more detainees.
5. We open the American legal system to the families of the detainees, some, if not many, of whom will bring lawsuits for unlawful detainment of their fathers, sons, brothers, etc.  The cost to defend these types of lawsuits will nor doubt exceed the cost of maintaining GITMO as an active detention facility.  And have no doubt, groups like the ACLU will actively recruit these families for suits.

There are three possible results from bringing the detainees to US soil:

1. They serve their (hopefully LIFE) sentences with no consequence.
2. They serve sentences until such time as they orchestrate an escape attempt and are harmed or harm, possibly kill, another American.
3. They succeed in escaping and cause widespread panic and potentially catastrophic harm to large groups of American citizens.

Keeping GITMO open all but ensures the first and completely negates the second and third.

Fears can result in either disastrous or prudent decisions.    Keeping GITMO open would be a PRUDENT decision.

kab

p.s.  Life work and family have intruded on my blogging for the last few weeks.  For whatever number of followers I might have, I promise to be more regular in blogging in the future.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/navarrette.guantanamo/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/obama.reversals/index.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113893/Americans-Send-No-Clear-Mandate-Guantanamo-Bay.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_guantanamo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052100285.html?sub=AR

Now the problem is that not all of us live in the areas where tea parties are being held or we may not be able to take the time off from work, family, etc to participate.  I suggest you participate virtually.  In the time you take to read this blog entry, you can cut and paste a simple message and send it to your members of Congress, your Governor, Mayor and City Council members and simply state that “I am FED UP with uncontrolled spending and am not going to take your voting for it any more!”  I would also encourage you to send it to Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and, perhaps, most importantly, the White House.  The second link below provides addresses for all national officials.

We as Americans have allowed our voices to be silenced.  We take for granted that we “can vote them out” at the next election, but rarely do.  We need them to vote OUR conscious and not THEIRS.  If they fear for their next election then they will vote the way the constituents want.

Let your voice be heard!!!!!

kab …

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/modern-tea-parties-chance-to-scream/

http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

Founded in 1993 on the 11 acre site, MSF has struggled through the years to meet the vision of its founder, Hans Geissler.  But that struggle has been one of measured success and continued hope.  Geissler, and his wife Sigrid, operate the non-denominational Christian foundation in hands-on fashion, living in a modest house on the property.  MSF was founded after a mission trip by Geissler to Nicaragua where he was assisting in the construction of a church.  The sight of the hunger, poverty, and misery remained with him on his return and provided the impetus to open the foundation.  Morning Star attracts people from near and far, including those from nations in Central America who come to learn to breed tilapia, a freshwater fish that can be raised in many environments and sold as a food source.   One of the most recently arriving students comes from Malawi.  Dare say MSF will have more impact on that country than Madonna’s adoption of its children!

On top of the educational component, MSF runs frequent mission to Central America to build aquaculture sites.  A number of mission trips are planned for this year to include Nicaragua.

Please visit the Foundations website and learn more about the work and efforts that go on there and other places.  Hans and Sigrid are special people and deserve any kind of support you can muster be it volunteer hours or donations.

kab …

http://www.morningstarfishermen.org

Given the owners’ lack of response, this would seem to be the perfect situation for the use of eminent domain.  The owners will either respond to the eminent domain proceedings or they won’t.  If they do, then chances are the repairs will be made.  If they don’t, then the City can demolish the building and have a much more valuable asset than a lien that may take years to enforce.

Government has the responsibility to think smartly and to think “out of the box.”  The City Council will consider this on Monday.  Please let your thoughts be known.

kab …

Source:

http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/apr/05/ha-city-may-demolish-former-vfw-building/news/