Midterm Rejections

No Surprise, the Democrats were handed their pink slips. We have enough lemons. Now it’s time to make some lemonade.

Looking at all the lemons we have, there are some good, sweet fruit to work with:

With a few elected officials hitting the unemployment line, we might actually get to address real problems that the rest of the country has been dealing with.

Top reasons this election can be seen as good news; (the sweet fruit)

1) Money cannot buy a Senate Seat or the Governor spot either.

2) With the exception of Rand Paul & Marco Rubio, Nutty is still a good type of peanut butter,

but does not a Senator make.

3) PP will still stands for taking a wiz and not Palin Power or President Palin.

5) Shared Government,.. what a concept! We haven’t seen that type of leadership since,…

wait for it,….. Bill Clinton,… BOOM!!!, SNAP!!, POW!!

When I was a little boy and had to take medicine, we actually did add sugar. So, if the sugar is listed above,.. here is the medicine we need to take:

1) Long Term Memory Loss: (I think there’s a pill for that) The American Electorate is so “Last Week” that we don’t seem to remember anything older than 30 days, unless someone is screaming it at us. We also seem to have a Nation that inflicted with a strong case of A.D.D. but unwilling to take our medication. We are so hungry for that next sound bit, or jab, that no one takes in any detail to a topic or issue beyond the head line. Problem there is, if you get your headlines from MSNBC or FOX (kinda) NEWS, not only are you not getting the whole story, but you are getting a slanted story.

I’m fine with “I’m too busy, or don’t have time” as an excuse. We are all caught up in this REAL-TIME life style. But if you don’t have time to learn the facts and the details,.. why do you have time to support or protest an issue?

2) Instant Gratification: Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day,.. but I think France was. You can see the difference right? Let me be the 1st one to formally say it: On Monday, November 1st, President Obama should have come to the daily Press Meeting. He should have made a simple and basic request to the people. If I were a Presidential writer it would look like this:

Today, on the eve of another mid-term election, I would to say to the American People, I am continuing to strive to the campaign promises of 2008. To that end we have

Insert list of successes here

With those initiatives in mind, I still need your help. Please help me to stay the course. We are truly on a ship in troubled waters. And while we all understand that we did not set this course we are on. We did ask that you, to let us take the ship as it was, and bring it into port. And even as we are correcting our heading, we are diligently working on the repairs. And while the port may not yet be in our sights,.. our heading is true.

Understand that anything worth having,.. is worth working for. Remember our parents and our grandparents. These brave citizens of the greatest generation,.. who gave so much, did not sacrifice for the NOW, but fought in the urgency of now. They did not fight for their own gains, but understood the value of the entire country.

I want to ask you to consider all these critical issues we face, ask you to take an objective look behind you, allow me to finish the job you sent me here to do. Let us keep our heading; with your support we may have this ship at full capacity before we even land it into port.

Since that speech never took place, we need to remind ourselves that Government does move slower than internet speed. If we understand that movement is relative to its mass, then we need to acknowledge that if government moves to fast,. A vessel this large will drop a lot of passengers and cargo. If we stop too suddenly, stuff will fly over the dash and through the window.

3) I, Me, Mine Mentality: The “What’s in in for me” crowd, or the “Something for Nothing” crowd. Before I get on this soap box, I want to make sure I set the base here. For me, each & every time that I have voted, I have NEVER,.. EVER casted a vote for Myself, or my individual benefit. Voting has Always been about the what is good for the country. Unfortunately,… I am clearly the Odd Duck Out with this respect. Even within my own home, the discussion is always,.. “But how does that help me” or “Why should I pay for that”. And that is the underlining philosophy of the Tea Party group. Less Tax, less government, give me my money,.. don’t touch Medicare, but no Government health care. It seems to me, everyone wants what they have, but they don’t think anyone else deserves anything. It Is confusing and perplexing.

So let’s take a look what we can cut at the federal level

Executive Branch Agencies

Office of the President Dept of Agriculture Dept of Commerce

Dept of Defense Dept of Education Dept of Energy

Dept of Health & Human Ser Dept of Homeland Sec Dept of Housing & Urban Dev

Dept of Interior Dept of Justice Dept of Labor

Dept of State Dept of Transportation Dept of Treasury

Dept of VA

Dept Defense $720 Billion

Dept Health (Medicare) $850 Billion

Soc Sec $750 Billion

Dept Labor $175 Billion

Everything else is less than $100 Billion a year

Please,.. Tell me what you will cut. But be sure to balance your cut with the impact.

EXAMPLE

If you cut Transportation all together, remember, that will impact Roads and Air Travel.

If you cut the Interior, all national parks are closed & no longer maintained.

Also remember, that people work here, so with every cut, you are adding to the unemployment. So while we will get huge kickbacks in our pay checks, more people will be out of work, more homes foreclosed, and this will drive down everyone’s wages.

Mosque on Rights, Mosque on Demand

I have become very troubled by my own recognition that I seem to have almost come full circle in how I have resolved my personal conflict with the practice of the Islamic faith. After 9/11 until the summer of 2006, I had talked myself in to believing that the Islam faith could be limited or even prohibited from practice in the United States. If the overall leadership of Islam were to continue to claim "Death to America" and that their faith was the absolute faith of the world and that all others must be destroyed, then Islam would no longer be classified as a Religion, but could be classified as “HATE GROUP”. As such, Islam would not qualify for protection under the 1st amendment. This made sense to me back then. And I stood by it for years, until I started watching the Keith Ellison Congressional campaign in Minnesota that drew national attention because Mr Ellison would be the 1st Muslim elected Congressman and would be sworn in with his hand on the Koran rather than the Bible.

Then I started seeing Islam as something different. I started to see it as free –standing, righteous faith that was being used by the leaders of the Middle-East region. It became clear to me that the theocracy nations of Islam were either very vocal that the US was the Evil Nation or were silent and allowed for these others to high-jack their faith to distract their population. Not too unlike our own Republican Party, the Islamic Nations understands, if your people have something outside their own group that they can all focus on, then they are not focusing on what is happening in your own back yard. They need a villain.

Once I saw the reaction to the Center in NY, I knew that the villainy strategy had worked,.. and had spread. We, the US, a nation proud of our freedoms, were actually attempting to stop building of a Community Center because it was Islamic. And when opposition started to loose ground, they resorted to trickery and technicality to block the process. For me it was obvious, now that someone had started a fight against the Constitution, the Islamic Center now HAD to be built. And I have been a loud and proud supporter of the Islamic Center since. Then something unexpected happened on Tuesday (9/7/10).

Imam of the Islamic Center, Feisal Abdul Raufs gave an interview on the Larry King Show. In that interview, Raufs suggested that by NOT building the Mosque or Cultural Center, this would insight an uprising in the Islamic nations. ,… And now I find myself hesitating. I am thinking, “Hey, wait a minute! You have a “RIGHT” to build. But we can NOT be intimidated either.” I start thinking,. “Wait,.. this is a Center of Culture, and I hope for peace and the exchange cultural experiences. “

Understanding how the US political system works, we need to trust that the Cultural Center will be built. But you can NOT even suggest that we allow it to be built so we don’t “upset” other nations that would not allow any other faith inside their nations. If there is any suggestion that this is some type of appeasement, then it can’t be built. We do believe in freedom of religion, but we will not be held hostage. to paraphrase a classic statement, "we will not negotiate with criminals."

Republican Mid-Term Strategy - TAX CUTS?

This last weekend, Senator Jon Kyl provided some vision and insight to the Republican idea of deficit control. Kyl put forth the argument that since any extension of the unemployment benefits would have a direct and negative impact to the deficit and claimed that there was absolutely no evidence that it provides any stimulation to a distressed economy, there MUST be support or offsetting by providing an equal cut in the budget somewhere else. He does not believe that the same rule applies when you provide tax cuts or if you reduce the amount of revenue that is currently used to define the existing budget. He also argues that tax cut do stimulate the economy. Kyl was later support by Mitch McConnell, stating that this was a general view shared by all Republicans.

First, The FACTS: The OMB has consistently reported the following.

For every $1.00 spent on Unemployment Benefits, $1.62 is returned to the economy.

For every $1.00 spent on tax cuts, $0.02 is returned to the economy.

These findings are based on the fact that Unemployment dollars are immediately spent

as they are needed for food, supplies and rent. While the majority of tax cuts are applied

to small businesses or the wealthiest 1% of the population, who historically sit on the

money by way of investment or savings.

With that out of the way we are left with the opportunity to examine Senator Kyl's statement.

When you are unemployed,.. you have no money coming in. As a person who has been on unemployment twice, I can tell you, every dime you receive, is desperately needed. I can also assure you, it is also spent. Every dime. At one point, the Benefits Department had to consider whether or not I would be required to sell one of my vehicles before I would qualify.

When you get a tax cut, or even a tax rebate, there is no sure way to track that money. As a business owner, I may re-invest in my company. That does not always mean Jobs. Or it may only mean short term jobs. But I may also choose to sit on it. Improve my equity, improve my cash flow. Agreeably these are good practices for a business, but do nothing for stimulating a failing economy. As an individual, I may use it to catch up on bills, or may an extra car or house payment. I may put it toward my kids education fund or other savings.

I am not suggesting or implying that there is anything wrong with these ideas. But I do want to make clear what Kyl & the Republicans suggest a tax cut can do. His assertion is tax cuts stimulate the economy because the people who receive them, re-inject those dollars back into the economy. But as I have just demonstrated above, there is no obligation or model for tracking or proving that. Equally, there is statistical evidence that suggest tax cuts actually can undermine an economic recovery effort.

As th Republicans continue to filibuster unemployment benefits, as they continue on the "JUST SAY NO" mentality, they have provided the Democrats with a powerful story to sell this fall. This Mid-term will truly be about choice. Marco Rubio just published on his web site, his plan for economic recovery. Interesting things is, there is nothing new there. Actually, many of his specific points are exactly some of the economic policies directly from the GW Bush play book. The Democrats can truly demonstrate that the Republicans do want to return to the past. With no clear vision for change or the future coming from the Republicans, I am starting to believe that Democrats may actually do well this fall.

It will take some courage, and it will require the Democrats be able to tell this story without sounding like whiners or sound as if they are always saying "It's George Bushes Fault". But this is a story I could sell. And if they maintain a consistent message, and be willing to call out every falsehood, it may serve them well.

One more Fun fact about tax & spend. Currently the amount of revenue the US Government is collecting, is just enough to cover the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Mandatory Spending. This does not include any defense, war funding, interest on the $1.4 T deficit, TARP, or discretionary spending. If we continue to cut taxes, how do we go about resolving the gap?

Estate Tax Re-ducts

Below are some hot discussion point dating back to 2005 when President Bush recommended that the "Estate Tax" be eliminated. The editorials are opinions from both conservative and liberal paper, but still have a resounding consistent message. And these arguments have not changed since. My 2 personal pointed arguments are:

Founding fathers specifically wanted to ensure that excessive wealth is not allowed to

to amassed by such few that it would have dramatic impact to the political process.

The tax is not applied to the someone who worked hard for the money. That person is dead.

It is applied to the heirs. They have done nothing to earn it.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – Philadelphia Inquirer
July 26, 2005 – Editorial

"If your family isn't acquainted with the estate tax, your family isn't alone. This tax now is paid only by estates worth more than $1.5 million for an individual, or $3 million per couple. The Internal Revenue Service said only 2.11 percent of people who died in 2001 left estates subject to the tax.

"But the levy brought in more than $23 billion in revenue to the federal government in 2001. By draining the Treasury of an estimated $745 billion over 10 years, a permanent repeal would increase the burden on middle-class taxpayers to pay for necessities such as tuition aid, Medicaid and veterans' benefits."

Minneapolis, Minnesota– Star Tribune
July 27, 2005 - Editorial

"As a matter of fiscal policy, repealing the tax on large inheritances is a terrible idea. It would cost the federal Treasury $290 billion in lost revenue over the next decade, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, and much more in the decade after that. Revenue losses of that magnitude could hardly come at a worse time. Last year the federal government ran the biggest budget deficit in history, and it will pile up hundreds of billions in new debt over the coming decade. No less an eminence than Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified last week that Congress should not repeal the estate tax unless it finds a way to cover the cost."

New Orleans, Louisiana – Times-Picayune
July 24, 2005 – Letters to the Editor

"It is the heirs, not the decedents, who are taxed. They have done nothing to earn what they will receive, although I have no quarrel that they should benefit from their forebears' success. It is just a matter of degree. That is why small and moderate estates should be exempt and the tax on increasingly larger estates should be graduated. �?

"The origin of the estate tax -- also the reason for subsequent increases -- was not merely to produce revenue but to limit the concentration of wealth. Wealth equates to economic power and thence to political power, and that is inimical to a democracy of the people. This legislation was good public policy."

Seattle, Washington – The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
July 22, 2005 – Editorial

"Recent TV ads depict a World War II vet opposing the federal estate tax. But gutting the tax would actually undo much that the greatest generation fought and worked for their entire lives - by converting into private benefit for a few the last full measure these men and women devoted to American values of fair play, freedom and opportunity for all.

"Hard as they may work, the rich would not be so wealthy except for the social/economic infrastructure created by government and financed by taxes. �?

"What business or farm could prosper without the United States' tremendous investment in roads, harbors, railways and airports to facilitate the movement of products to market? How could business succeed without systems of currency, banking and laws kept intact by a court system?

"What if the estate tax is scrapped? The Brookings Institute calculates schools, churches and other non-profits would lose $10 billion a year in charitable giving. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates gutting this tax would cost society nearly $1 trillion over 10 years. Especially in a time of war, this is fiscally reckless."

Washington, D.c= – The Washington Post
July 24, 2005 – Editorial

"�?'In order to make sure our farms stay within our farming families, we need to get rid of the death tax once and for all,' President Bush proclaimed in a speech last month to the Future Farmers of America.

"This assertion, though, is more convenient myth than fact -- something that senators might consider when they're called on�?to vote on abolishing the tax. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office examined estate tax returns filed by farmers and owners of small businesses in 1999 and 2000. The numbers that owed estate tax, the CBO found, were paltry, and the number without enough cash on hand to pay the bill even punier�?

"In other words, the image of the grieving heir packing up his hoe as he trudges away from the family farm is just that -- a powerful image but not an accurate one. �? But members of Congress debating the issue now ought to look at the facts assembled by the CBO -- not the misinformation peddled by those maneuvering to make repeal permanent."

For more information read our memo on the Repeal/Reform of the Estate Tax

Welcome to Arizona. May I See Your Papers, Jose?

Arizona has a passed a new law. Police Offices now have the authority to stop anyone that they feel are not legally in this country. No other qualifiers. If you do not have proper documentation, you will be arrested. Even if it is later determined that you are a US Citizen or an authorized alien. This law is obviously requires that police use racial profiling. Moreover, it requires that US Citizens be fully aware of everyone’s US Status. Allow me to explain:

If you, a US Citizen, have a friend who is not a US Citizen, and lets say you did not know this person was illegally in the country. Now if the police profile your friend and pulls you over. Not only will your friend be deported, but you will now be guilt of transporting illegal aliens. As that stands, every US citizen who is in Arizona, MUST know the status of every person you run across.

Here is an excerpt of that law:

“A Law Enforcement office, without warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes that person removable from the United States”

The argument is based on the actual language. Supporters of the law still contend that an Officer still requires a “just” cause to engage a suspect, and that language is actually in the bill as well. However, if there is a law that states : “… that makes that person removable from the US”,does this not require a Law Officer to have already determined that the person is at least NOT a US Citizen? If the activity that the suspect is participating in makes him “removable”, he is obviously not a Citizen. I know I can break any law on the books, and I am NOT Removable. Question is, how does a Law Enforcement Officer reach the conclusion of REMOVABLITY”?

Opponents of the Law see huge opportunities for infringing on civil rights. A Law Officer can now approach anyone, anywhere and challenge their right to in the US. If there are officers who would misuse such a rule, they clearly are now empowered to harass anyone under the guise that the Officer thought the suspect was participating in a public offence that would make the suspect removable. In other words, if an officer sees a Hispanic person working at any place of employment, the officer is within his/her authority to arrest that person for illegally working in the US. The assumption was that the suspect was removable, and therefore in violation of actually working while in the US. The underlining fear could be, perhaps the officer just thought that the suspect was really a Drug runner, or seller. But rather than follow the formal practice of getting a warrant and due process, this new law affords an officer to suspect that person of being “removable”. Once the officer uses that rule, they are now able to apply "probable cause" to engage the suspect beyond the original suspected violation. The officer would no longer be obligated to follow those other processes to initiate a search.

If someone like me can invent this type of scenario without ever having worked in any type of law enforcement, how many methods of abuse could a creative and bright officer of the law come up with. And I am not calling out all officers as abusive. Unfortunately, it only takes one. And we know they're out there.

Another opposing view to be considered is this: As Law enforcement has established a working relation with the Hispanic communities throughout AZ. Can we begin to measure what damage has already been established simply by the existence of this law? Will the Hispanic community want to risk any engagement with Law Authorities? If there is any risk that the engagement has any level of complexity to it, I believe they will shy away. This breakdown in communication will continue to grow. Especially if any story of abuse occurs.

Equally, now that the law is out there, the illegal aliens will certainly run a much lower profile. The criminal element of smuggling and transport have just raised their rates. I will venture to guess even more hostile & ruthless criminal elements may now see a profitability model that will get their attention.

Arizona has now forced immigrants into darker and more abusive environments. They have created a more profitable black market, established a clear path for abuse, and have alienated the Hispanic community across Arizona, as well as the rest of country. They have created a hostile environment for the tourist coming out of Mexico and other South American countries.

People all over the country are standing up and taking action. Conventions have been cancelled, Mexico has announce alerts to warn against visiting AZ. Truckers are circumventing traveling the state. State Governments have already made policies to stop all transactions with AZ. More states are working on more legislation to do the same.

I strongly agree with and will support any and all boycotts of any Arizona based business. With that said,. please be sure to do your research. For Example: AriZona Tea, is made in Brooklyn NY. As with any bad diet. If this is important, please read the labels, or look up companies on the WEB. click on the "ABOUT" statement or the "CONTACT US" statements and find out where the company headquarters are located. Send an email to the State Board of Tourism of AZ. Tell them you will not vacation there. You will not buy any products based in AZ. Even if you have no plans to visit AZ, let them know this can not stand.

FEEL THE RUSH - Cause he can feel for you.

Friday, Rush Limbaugh wrote and Op ED for the Wall Street Journal: (See his article below. )

As I was reading it I started to write little comments to everything that I found to be inaccurate, simple opinion or hypocritical. But I soon came to realize I was commenting on almost every statement he made. So I stood back and rethought how to best address this article. I quick noticed three themes that run throughout this article. Rather than attack each line, lets take a broader look at the Rush Limbaugh message.

Theme 1: It’s all about Rush. I found this to be a very insight view into the Rush mind set. Rush is not a politician or an otherwise elected or appointed official. He is an entertainer. He has a Talk Radio Show that appeals to the far most right leaning aspects of the Republican Party. As a syndicated broadcast, Rush is obligated to secure ratings in order to bring in advertising dollars. Rush is not looking for compromise. That would be bad for business. Rush needs to keep the fire raging. The more controversial he is, the higher his numbers are. The higher his numbers are, the more advertising money he brings in. And that’s all good. But don’t just blindly trust that Rush is some sort of spokesmen for the Republicans. He has already flat-out turned that job down. He doesn't want that position. I think he demonstrates that quite well in this article. He also took a few occasions to let us know what a great contributor he is to worthwhile charities. When you are out blowing your own horn for the charity work you have done,. I tend to think that the horn blowing was the only reason you were out there.

Theme 2: Hateful Words. When you have a point to make, there are several ways you can tell your story to convey the idea. In this article, just as on his show, Rush make a number of general statements and sprinkles them with inflammatory language that can only be interpreted as hostile. “Most” Lefties” are.,… Most? I don’t think most are Angry. I believe that most of the anger we are seeing is being generated from the Right. And the term “LEFTIES” What does that mean? Because my political party sits on the left side of the congressional chamber, that somehow translate that I am not or less of an American than Rush or the others who site on the right side of the chambers? The way Rush delivers this term"lefty" it's almost as if it were a disease. How about “RADICAL” Agenda. We must agree that The Right & the Left are in opposition for most topics, but does that mean that if my party wins the Whitehouse, the policies we implement are “RADICAL”? And lets not leave out “REGIME”.

If we think these terms over, there are several, professional, descriptive and appropriate terms we could inserted so as not to inflame. Rush is a professional speaker, it would be unrealistic to suggest he has not chosen his words very carefully. Especially if he is writing for the WSJ.

Theme 3:” I know your soul.” In this article, Rush spends a great deal of time telling his readers how I , a lefty, thinks. He says, I hate my government we the Dems are not in power. He says I treat my allies like enemies and my enemies as allies. He suggests that the Democrats employ “draconian” methods of regulation. He states that those who has spoke out against him, are the same people who “Condemn” this society.

There are the three Themes worth discussing. I have intentionally left out the hypocrisy theme because , as you read the article, you will see it in all its glory as it is perforated throughout this article, or you will not. For those who will not see it, I would never be able to convince you otherwise and will save that energy for more worthwhile discussions.

As your read his article, think of the themes I have mentions. Each time you see a general opinion, remember that is just what it is. While you have the right to an opinion, unless your are trying to insight your readers, why would you feel the need to lace it with so much hostility. Each time, he tells the reader what a liberal or lefty is thinking or how we think, or what we are planning. Just remember,.. he is making that part up. Rush is not included on the DNC strategy meetings, nothing he states here reflects any ideas, plans or sentiment that I carry. Since this is just "made-up"information, I can draw only two conclusions: Ignorance or misguidance. I don't agree with anything I have ever heard Rush say, but I would not call him stupid, and I cant believe someone could maintain a position such as his buy remaining ignorant of the issues you discuss ona national show. But ,. I am not going to tell you what he was thinking.

Now to the opening and closing of Rushes article. He stated that he has been falsely accused of sedition.

Sedition:

1. Speech or behavior directed against the peace of a state

2. An offence that tends to undermine the authority of a state

3. An incitement to public disorder

4. Revolt

While I will not accuse him of a clear act of sedition, based on the definitions listed above, one could see how such a claim could be made. When you fabricate a story to fit your political view, and you fill it with words that inflame, and you accuse the government of Radical policies, and and nationalizing institutions, where is your obligation or responsibility to your listeners? If a true believer of the RUSH doctrine were to take matters into their own hands, how much of that action should fall on Rush? While Rush did not make any "Call to Arms" here, or on his show, he has chosen to use language that is clearly divisive. He has uses a platform of Opinion Editorials or his own show to misrepresent the facts as well as opposing views. With over 3 million daily listeners, what responsibility is Rush burdened with?

And just for the record, compared to Beck,... I love this guy.

Liberals and the Violence Card

Conservative protest is motivated by a love of what America stands for.

By Rush Limbaugh / Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575199743566950622.html#printMode

The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused "loud and angry voices" on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they're not in power.

From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anti-capitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we're used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they're violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It's in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.

Now the liberals run the government and they're using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, "transformational" changes to our society. In just 16 months they've added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens. Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn't have garnered 30% of the popular vote.

Like the millions of citizens who've peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who've condemned this society?

I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional. I do not believe America is the problem in the world. I believe America is the solution to the world's problems. I reject a foreign policy that treats our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies. I condemn the president traveling the world apologizing for America's great contributions to mankind. And I condemn his soft-pedaling the dangers we face from terrorism. For this I am inciting violence?

Few presidents have sunk so low as Mr. Clinton did with his accusations about Oklahoma City. Last week—on the very day I was contributing to and raising more than $3 million to fight leukemia and lymphoma on my radio program—Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of that horrific day to regurgitate his claims about talk radio. At a speech delivered last Friday at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., the former president said: [T]here were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our domestic economic problem was the federal government itself. And we have to realize that there were others who fueled this both because they agreed with it and because it was in their advantage to do so. . . . We didn't have blog sites back then so the instrument of carrying this forward was basically the right-wing radio talk show hosts and they understand clearly that emotion was more powerful than reason most of the time.

Timothy McVeigh was incensed by the Clinton administration's 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It's no coincidence that the bombing took place two years to the day of the Waco siege. McVeigh was not inspired by anything I said or believe and to say otherwise is outright slander. In the aftermath of the bombing, I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation.

Let me just say it. The Obama/Clinton/media left are comfortable with the unrest in our society today. It allows them to blame and demonize their opponents (doctors, insurance companies, Wall Street, talk radio, Fox News) in order to portray their regime as the great healer of all our ills, thus expanding their power and control over our society.

A clear majority of the American people want no part of this. They instinctively know that the Obama way is not how things get done in this country. They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.

END:

Palin and Tancredo in "The Emperors New Clothes"

Tom Tancredo and Sarah Palin are blazing their way to the front & center of the new conservative movement. The Voice for the National Tea Party (NTP) Movement. However, it is not because they are the dynamic leaders that the GOP has been in desperate need of. Actually, it is because of the GOP's lack of leadership that enables Palin & Tancredo to run around unchecked and unchallenged.

Without this strong leadership, the GOP’s message has splintered and lost it’s focus. It still as the basic structure: Control spending, reduce taxes, and state rights. But it has lost definition and has become a conversation of bullet points & sound bites without any substance. The GOP has unintentionally unlocked their Pandora box. The diseases that are creeping out are based in irrational demonstrations of intolerance, hate, oxymoronic contradictions and hypocrisy.

They way this is playing out in the public forum, I am reminded of a childhood story about an Emperor and his new clothes. Tancredo suggested that people who cant spell the word ‘VOTE’ and / or who cant say VOTE in English, are responsible for electing a socialist into office. He went on to suggest that we should have literacy tests as a pre-qualifier for the right to vote. Just like the ones we used to keep black voters out of the voting process. These literacy tests had been used for more than 70 years until President Johnson ended these practices in 1965.

More surprising yet was the applause that he received for these statements. I am always the optimist, so I must assume that the audience doesn’t really share his views. The nation as a whole has a large number of people whocant or struggle with reading. I have seen signs at protest in DC, where English speaking people cant spell at a 3rd grade level. They must realize that they too would also be required to take “The Test”. Equalliy, I must believe that, as they applauded the speech, they weren't really supporting a practice that has been used as a racist tool to keep blacks out of voting booths. I am sure if someone would just speak out, they would that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

Link to portions of his speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-7hlUgCIXo

Equally, Palin took center stage at this 1^st NTP convention. Once again she took shots at the president, which is expected. But almost each of her criticisms were either direct contradictions of her own behavior, or contradicted the behaviors of the Republican Party. Most noticeably were her comments on the teleprompter. While these were funny and endearing comments, they were delivered to her audience atthe same time as she herself was reading from her note cards and displaying he crib notes on her hand. Let’s not forget the comment about Obama speaking from a lectern, as she is holding tight to a podium. I think Chris Matthews has captured the single sound bite that can best sum up Sarah Palin: “She is an empty vessel.”

Link to her speech: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6182081n

Now, enter the child in our story, Megan McCain? That’s right. The GOP does have a voice of reason. Megan was captured on “The View” speaking out clearly against Tancredo. She was making it perfectly clear that the emperor has no clothes. As if she was tell the Republican Party: “There is still reason within the GOP, We Can disagree without losing ourselves and our values.

She also pointed out, the Republicans of the next generation do not,.. will not,.. participate in any type of irresponsible racism and hateful bantering.

She took no stand against Palin or even address she speech. And no one would expect her to. So far, Palin has spoken in such generalities that there isn’t much to work with. And of course that is the challenge with Palin. During a pre-screened interview at the NTP Convention, were Palin was staged and rehearsed, she was unable to memorize a script. This was not a impromptu speech. It has been on the calendar for months.

I continue to be hopeful that the NTP movement will eventually understand that “sound Bites” does not a policy make and the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Unfortunately for Megan is she is too young to be President, and too young to be taken seriously by the Good-Ol Boy structure that controls the GOP. But she is speaking out, and she is able to address issues with substance. Lets all hope that her of voice will be the voice that puts some details to the sound-bites and brings the Republican Party off the right of right

Detainee by any other Name

This is frustrating. The rule of law is so clear, that this does not rise to the level of debate. Unfortunately, Obama has demonstrated that he does not have a strong counter-punch.

Below is the URL to Eric Holder's Letter to Mich McConnell. Please read it. If you read that, you don't need to continue reading my comments.

Here are the quick highlights of Holder's letter: since 2001, there have been over 300 terrorists convicted in US Civil courts. In that same time, there have been two people (ONLY TWO) who have been transfered to "Law of War" detention. (Jose Padilla & Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri) In both these cases, the process to use the "Law of War" placed significant risk to the prosecution process. All this resulted in was a much longer legal process, under two different court jurisdictions, where one court decided that the President did not have the authority to hold Padilla under the Law of War, and that Al-Marri was not afforded proper process to challenge his detainment. In the end, both detainees were transfered back to Civilian law and were convicted.

Lets be clear, McConnell, McCain, Collins and other Republicans are asking Obama to prosecute both KSM & Abdulmutallab using a:

a) Process that has never been successfully prosecuted before under Obama or Bush

b) And which has the highest likelihood to fail.

So as yet another example of how the Republicans are Obstructionists and are tuned to a single message: "Oppose Obama at all cost", McConnell & Sue Collins are willing to risk the strongest case against Abdulmutallab, and risk conviction, in order to gain their political stature.

If Obama were to follow their lead, there is a high probability that the prosecution would fail and be sent back to the Civil Process. Rest assure, the Republicans would make that a circus. If Obama, rejects their recommendation, Republicans continue this talking point.

The ctritical point in this argument is: They are wrong, They never followed their own advice and when they tried, it failed.

There should be no discussion here. But since the Republican Party is short on Leadership, short on credible solutions without working with Democrats in some way, they can only defuse, deflect, obstruct, mislead and blur the national conversation.

Eric Holders Letter to Mitch McConnell

http://www.justice.gov/cjs/docs/ag-letter-2-3-10.pdf

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So I looked at this for over an hour last night. Occasionally switching back to the Constitution, and then back to this.

I did recognize one critical nuance throughout this document. There is a clear mention and uses of terms such as Citizen, or Persons, or even "The People". As I read the 8th Addendum in context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. its overwhelming obvious that none of those terms are present.

Now, I'm not a Judge. Don't even play one on TV. But I can not see any disseminate or any difference in how a "Person", "People" or "Citizen" qualifies or disqualifies any constitutional due process

I'll go one more step and refer to the Declaration of Independence and attempt to capture not only the spirit, but the letter of that declaration.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," Now I realize that we have had issue with these terms in the past. When these words were written down, they did not intend to be all inclusive. This did not include servants or labourers (aka: slaves) . We know this because those issues were resolved through constitutional amendments:13th & 24th Amendments. And we know that the framers did not intent to include women. We resolved that in in 1920 with the 19th amendment.

But we must assume that the term "All Men" applied to all men, and by todays standards we can argue that they must be at least of an age of 18 years. And we can assume that the national orientations could not have played a roll in the definition, or it would have excluded all the founding fathers. Many of them or their parents, or other family and friends were either a citizen of other countries or only one or two generations removed.

More current than this is the direction the President offered in his election bid and continues to support in his administration: We Do NOT Torture. Do the republicans get it? It doesn't matter if the suspect is is detained under any rule of law, we will not interrogate prisoners using any "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"

Ok, back to camera three,.. Damn! not a TV Studio, just a Blog

Closer to Common Ground

So the 2010 Election season has kicked off and is quickly shifting gears. The theme this year crosses both parties: "Throw the Bums Outs!"

Just over one-third (36) of the Senate seats are up for elections. All of the seats in the House of representatives are open for election. The Democrats and Republicans alike face challenges. Some of the more contested races will be no race at all.

Chris Dodd, Moving to Montana, or Iowa,

Byron Dorgan is retiring

Marion Barry - Duh!!

Parker Griffith - Switched Parties

Colorado Gov Bill Ritter, not seeking re-election

Michigan Lt Gov John Cherry has ended his bid

Truth be told, this is better for the Democrats than trying to run as an incumbent. In Connecticut, the State AG, Richard Blumenthal will run in Dodd's place. He is a strong candidate who can not be married to the current tit-for-tat that is going on inside the DC Beltway.

The Democrats need to work on a message. The problem is, the Republicans are much better at creating effective sound bites than the Dem’s. Always have been.

But all is not lost for the Democrats. The path to capture the drifting Independent vote may best be provided by the Republicans themselves.

The Republicans are facing a a tough incumbent challenge too. As Obama pointed out at the Republican Caucus last week, a Republican who makes any measurable compromise with the Obama Administration, puts themselves at risk to be challenged by their own fringe base. So the Republicans can not afford to meet Obama in the middle of any ideological issue. Equally, they can not appear to be the “Party of No” as the left has made claim. This would paint them as Obstructionists.

So the day-to-day political tactics for Republicans is now a double edge sword. Offer no middle ground for any legislation, less they risk the backlash from their own base. Make enough progress or create enough static background noise, so as not to be labeled an Obstructionist.

The 2010 election-cycle strategy for the Republicans boils down to semantic and word play. Regardless of the actual result or effect of a policy, bill or idea, the Right will colour every solution as more of the “Bank Bail Out” or more of “Socialist Obama-Care” plan. Even if the proposed plans would reduce deficit spending and limit how big, big-banks can be, and limit the risks banks would be allowed to take with tax payer money. Or how these plans would eliminate “Pre-existing” conditions as a reason to refuse benefits. With indifference to the actual content of the legislation, the Republicans will spin every policy to the negative, and stop all legislation.

Lets be clear,.. this is NOT because the Republicans are evil, or because they want to see the country fail. As we go through this election cycle, the Left must be consciously mindful, not to make wild and unfounded statements. The Republicans are simply trying to retake as much control of both houses as they can. No one can fault them for that. I’m pretty sure the Democrats are doing the same.

Unfortunately, the conservative engine that powers the political resistance is driven mostly by the hard-right media. This has created a hostile climate that makes it almost impossible for any Republican to openly cooperate with this administration. Somewhere between, Glen Beck, Bill O'Riley, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative hosts, they have taken control of the Republican Party. Any move toward the middle, yet to mention the left, will be met with full retaliation from all the right wing media.

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are faced with a similar problem. They have had several seats filled by the "Blue-Dog" Democrats. While we did have that "Super Majority" until the MA election, the Blue-Dog Democrats have been problematic for Obama because these Blue-Dogs won their seats in conservative districts or states. Advantage: Democrats, They are in power. They don't have to go on the attack. They do have to play nice. Actually, they can even do better than nice. The Democrats now need to pull together all their most conservative policies and put them to a vote. This is a WIN/WIN strategy for 2010 because it forces the Republicans to the front.

If the Republicans approve or agree, they have to fight their base. If they reject it, the Democrats can prove that the Republicans are obstructionist who are worried about their jobs, the jobs of their constituents. And finally the best reason for this strategy is this. The Democrats never have to risk their integrity or their ideals. They just need to shut-up and play nice.

While I am obviously left of center, my hope for this year is not for sweeping power shift to the left or right in the mid-term elections. If I can hope for any change, I hope that we can temper the rhetoric and find a way that makes our elected officials understand that we are watching. We have expectations, and we demand better. Also, reassure them that we can start somewhere new, somewhere closer to common ground.

Final Note: As seen on Meet The Press this weekend, the executive from FOX News Network clearly articulated that their News Cycle is driven purely by Rating. And in his own words, He is winning. If that is true we should be able to agree that "Fair & Balance" is more of catch phrase than it is a model for reporting the news. The reason FOX stopped covering the President during the Republican Caucus Meeting last Friday was not motivated on weight or worthiness of the news. It was because it did not meet expectations of its viewers.

Think about that for a minute. They are not bringing you "News You Can Use". They are not interested in news for news sake. They are covering news that their viewers want to see.

I watch NBC, CNN and other News. If any of those broadcasts would have delivered the News the way FOX does. And if all other news Media outlets are liberal media, we would have last seen GW Bush on 9/12. But I don't think they ever pulled away from Bush in the middle of a speech.

Failure is Not an Option

Gene Kranz is accredited for coining the phrase"Failure is not an option" during the Apollo 13 Mission. Attorney General Eric Holder used that phrase last week as a definition to the efforts that his team will be putting forward to ensure that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) is tried and convicted through our civil due process.

This weekend, David Greggory of Meet The Press suggested in a discussion that this phrase implied that KSM would be tried and executed no matter what the Trial results would be.

When Flight control originally used the phrase, I am sure they had no idea what the final outcome would be as the ground teams scrambled to create a way to clean the remaining supply only using the limited equipment that was available in the orbiter. The Phrase "Failure is Not an Option" is only about the absolute commitment the team would consider when trying to save the lives of the men on Apollo 13.

Holder was not suggesting that KSM would not be provided a fair trial, but only that as his team works for that conviction, to fail would put to risk a greater population of US citizens. With so much at stake,.. I would hope the Attorney General will not consider failing.

Miss California - Beauty above all else

I do not claim any high moral ground. I try very hard not to make judgement and believe that everyone should be afforded a clear opportunity to make up for any mistake.

Donald Trump however seems to have provided another qualifying measure for redemption. Beauty - is now a qualifier for innocents. According to Donald, as long as you are beautiful, you are not obligated to follow rules and are not required to adhere to contracts or agreements. Equally as important, since I am not Beautiful, my views have no value and carries no weight what so ever.

Donald suggests that Carries statements about the existence of the photos are not lies. Carrie even suggested that she did not remember taking the "every" picture in her past. Donald then added that he had reviewed the pictures and had determined that the content was not inappropriate. While I may agree with him, these are not pictures I will be showing to my kids. And I also do not recall when Donald became the spokesman for moral content.

While Carrie was allowed to outline her defence. What she was unable to defend are the facts.
What are the facts?
Fact One: Carrie did knowingly and willingly enter into a (12 page) contract with the Miss California organization.
Fact Two: This contract did require full disclosure of the existence on any photographs or images containing nude / naked content.
Fact Three: These pictures do exist
Fact Four: Carrie inaccurately and with the intent to withhold information, denied any such pictures existed.
Fact Five: Once the 1st set of pictures were released, Carrie denied that any other pictures exist.
These are the facts.

There is a mitigating issue. We can all but agree, the only reason these pictures were released is based on Carries answer to Perez Hiltons question about same sex marriage.

These are all the issues. The line that I'm having difficulty drawing is; How does her looks alter these facts. According to Donald Trump, since I am not beautiful, I would be held accountable,.. provided anyone cared what a common looking person like me would have to say.

Ok one other fact; I have never watched a Miss USA, Miss America or any other pageant show before. So I will not make any impact if I tell you I will not watch it in the future. And I wont.

I will speak out against this pageants in strong terms. Donald Trump said that these pageants are relevant to today's society. I would argue they are not. They rise above the common rules that hold our society together. They do not reflect the common beliefs that America is based on. Honest, hard work can now be replaced with deception, vernacular double talk and empty promises,... as long as you are beautiful enough to be noticed

Torture – How does that work again?

Torture – How does that work again? 4/30/09
I have been frustrated lately about the limited discussions that have taken place regarding the torture issue. Not that there hasn’t been a lot over coverage. Every Op-Ed or News show has discussed it. The issues I have had, is that the editorials only outline one side of the issue, and no one has dedicated enough time to have a discussion that allows for open conversation.
David Gregory from “Meet the Press”, George Stephanopoulos “This Week”, or any of the cable news programs have all opened the discussion, and after 3 to 5 minutes of uncontrolled discussion, there does not seem to be any substantial discussion.
The Cliff May discussion on Jon Stewarts “The Dailey Show” was the single deepest discussion I have seen, and that is a comedy show.

We all understand the arguments. First we have to get the semantics correct. No one is supporting torture. The discussion is around several key definitions:
1) What is torture and what is not?
2) Who is protected under US Law and who is not
3) Who is authorized to establish where we draw lines.
Once we have some how agreed to these issues, we can then think about how we go about holding people accountable.

My Bias: Just so we all know where I am coming from: I believe that water boarding is torture. I believe that anyone who is incarcerated is subject to a standard of human rights. While I believe there can be a simple line drawn between the rights that are afforded to a US Citizen and those that are afforded to a foreigner, there can not be lines drawn on what “class of foreigner” is afforded different standards of human rights. I am not saying these are absolute or right,.. only that this is how I interpret the situation.

With that said, I will try not to use language that will inflame or try to goat a reaction.

What is Torture and what is not?
I heard a lot of conversation about what is torture. Is a slap to the head torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is over exposure to cold, torture? With each of these there is an obvious is not almost silly line of yes or no types of answers. For my definition, If I am sleep deprived for 4 days,.. Yes Torture. If I am left in a cold room for two days without cover and no idea if I am being monitored or not,.. Yes Torture. Strip me naked for any length of time,.. Yes Torture.
If I am unwilling to give you information, and you attempt to extract the information by placing me in a “Perceived“ situation where I am compelled to believe that my life, limb or well being is at risk, that is torture. I understand that many people will think this to be very liberal of me, and I will agree. But here is the point. If I rob a bank, or person or place, and I hold a gun, or if I say, suggest or imply that I have a gun, I am guilty of assault. It is law. Perception is reality.

Who is protected by US law and who isn’t?
I was intrigued by the discussion around the qualifiers that were used on detainees for the application of enhanced interrogation procedures. Have we exhausted all other alternatives? Is the detainee and Al-Qaeda operative? As I mentioned before, I have no issues identifying a person as a US Citizen and someone who is not. That makes sense to me. As US Citizens, we have a number of rights and freedoms that are not afforded to people of other countries. But no where do we suggest that other nations are less than human.
I do not need a US law for me to understand that I am expected to treat people humanly. I don’t consider it a US law, that all men are created equal. I don’t think that a right to an attorney is only for US Citizens. I can not believe that detainment without a hearing would be considered.

The push back is: “Well, they will get off” or “We do not have enough evidence to support the charges”. If you read that last sentence and still think that I am just an ideological liberal, we will never come to a compromise. But we still may be able to come to an understanding. If there is not enough supporting evidence that it can provide credability to any claim, then there should not be a claim. Please note, I did not refer to a jury of their peers. But if you do not have enough evidence to convince a competent and honorable judge that someone is guilty, how did you come to a conclusion of guilt.

Who is authorized to establish where we draw lines?
This final issue seems to be less troublesome than the other two issues. I would only suggest that what ever lines are considered to be the line is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. For US Citizens, that is easy. We have the legislative & executive branches for authorizing such rules of engagement. As for international, there would be a body of different governments that agree on common standards. If the acting President wants to edit or withdraw from an existing agreement,. I believe that Congress be required for authorization.

I will save the Accountability discussion for the next blog. But this has been one sided until now. Please let me know your opinions and objects.

GOP Can Survive

Even as the Republican Party faces it's darkest moments, it continues to engage in divisive misinformation as its only tool to combat the predominately popular President Obama. It appears that the Republicans are embracing opposition for oppositions sake.
That is not to say all Republicans have taken this position. However, if you are a Republican and you find yourself supporting President Obama, you also need to watch carefully how the RNC interprets your choices.

As with Arlen Specter, the Republicans were already planning to oust Senator Specter before he shifted to the Democrat side simply for supporting Obama. It should be clear that Republicans forced Specters hand. With the RNC backing a hard Right Conservative to compete in the Pennsylvania Republican Primary, it was a foregone conclusion: Specter could not win. If Specter was to keep his job, he, as with most Americans, made a change. Not a change to the far left. A change to the center.

We still do not see clear leadership within the GOP and that only dilutes any vision or direction. As Republicans continues to shift hard to the right at the same time as the country continues to shift to the center left, what will remain of the GOP for the 2010?.

This is not all doom and gloom. The democrats were is a similar position just 5 years ago. I believe the Republican Party will recover. It may take place in 2010, or it may take longer. But when it does recover, it will come back stronger for its efforts.

To survive, the GOP needs to be more inclusive. The southern, old, white Christian men can not carry the day. They need to tap into the growing Hispanic population. They will need to include other religions. They will learn to temper their opposition with less divisive rhetoric. If they want to bring on new members, they have to first make sure they do not insult them.

They will still be able to hang on to core beliefs. They will just sell it from a different point of view. The new Republican Party can no longer demonize any and all opposition. Republicans need to find a way to deliver their message in a manner that does not first assault everyone who does not already share a specific value or position. They need to position a value or idea so that people can be persuaded to join, not forced adhere. The “it’s my way or the highway” mentality will not survive the 2010 elections.

Once the message has been tempered, and the audience expanded, the GOP will be better positioned to address the issues that are truly core to their image: fiscal responsibility, self-reliance, smaller government, states rights, lower taxes, less regulation. While I may not share these ideals, these are the discussions worth having.