Sotomayor on Abortion: A Big Blank

This week the Senate has asked Judge Sotomayor a number of questions regarding law, her thoughts on legal precedent, and her previous "wise latina" comments. Most of this week has been quiet. With Democrats holding 60 votes in the Senate, it would be almost impossible for Republicans to block her from the Supreme Court. Could liberal special interest groups block her? What if Judge Sonia Sotomayor was actually against abortion?

This discussion flows from a conversation my Dad and I had about the Judge. He asked me if I would like something interesting to write about Judge Sotomayor. I am always interested in finding unusual points of view on today's topics. My Dad's is unusual, but also compelling, so I thought I would share it.

Do a Google search for "Judge Sotomayor and abortion" and there are a number of articles about questions she has been asked and her lack of a clear answer. Some pro-choice groups are actually upset she hasn't come out clearly in favor of abortion. You can see in real time what the social media universe is saying about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings at Viral Heat. None of the articles I have read give a clear picture about her personal opinions on abortion. My Dad's line of thought goes like this:

1. Judge Sotomayor is a Hispanic Catholic. Both of these groups tend to be more anti-abortion in poll after poll.

2. She attended Cardinal Spellman High School. Here she would have been exposed to the official Catholic view in her late teens. Cardinal Spellman High School is a prestigious Catholic school.

3. Judge Sotomayor has not spoken out about abortion during her career. This is unusual considering the number of social issues she has spoken out about over the decades of her career. She has spoken out about a number of other issues (such as race) that are coming up in her confirmation hearings. As of yet, I haven't heard anyone say that she discussed the moral implications of abortion during her career.

4. Similarly, there are no papers or rulings. She hasn't written any articles on abortion nor has she ruled very significantly on abortion. These last two together show that she has actively dodged giving her opinion in public on abortion.

5. She has been a leader in a number of liberal groups, but not an abortion rights group. Digging through her memberships, I have found no pro-choice group she has held membership too.

6. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush. In this case, Judge Sotomayor upheld the "Mexico City Policy." This policy said that the federal government would not contribute money to groups outside of the United States that fund abortions. Judge Sotomayor said the government was within its right to make this decision.

There are a number of other clues, but these seem to be the biggest ones to me. I make no claim to know the inner workings of Judge Sotomayor's brain. However, a number of previous nominees have turned out to have different leanings than the President that nominated them. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict my Dad's position, and the more I dig the more I think he may be right. My Dad stated he would give "60 -40 odds that she is pro-life." I think the chances she is pro-life are higher than that. What would the fallout be for the Obama administration if Judge Sotomayor turns out to be anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice?

This post sponsored by Viral Heat

Who are the Uninsured?

Today the Democrats revealed more details on how they wanted to cover the almost "50 Million Americans who don't have health coverage". Most of the proposals include some pretty scary taxes. I thought this would be a great time to look at some of the numbers behind the "50 Million uninsured" that you and I may have to pay for.

There is a site I have started playing with called Spreety TV Online : Watch TV Shows Online Free. Spreety has links to a number of different political websites and has clips of many of the shows on those sites for free. There are links to Fox News, CNN, and an assortment of other news or current events shows. I used Spreety to find the Fact Check. org site. Fact Check has a very interesting summary of the people we could be taxed to buy health insurance for.

First, according to Fact Check, the number of uninsured is estimated at 45.7 million, not 50 million. That number is constantly moving because people are constantly getting, loosing, or changing their insurance. There is not a static block of 45.7 million people in the United States without insurance. According to Fact Check:

-- 26 % of the uninsured (roughly 11.8 Million) are eligible for insurance, but don't make use of it.

-- 21 % of the uninsured (roughly 9.6 Million) are uninsured immigrants. This includes both legal and illegal immigrants. It is difficult to estimate what percentage of the 9.6 Million are illegal.

--40% of the uninsured (roughly 18.3 Million) are young. The term young as used by Fact Check means between the ages of 18 and 34.

There are a number of new questions that open up with these numbers. For example, regardless of the percentage, should families in this economy be taxed to provide government health care for illegal immigrants? Should people between the ages of 18 to 34 who don't want insurance (whatever portion of the 18.3 Million that is) be forced to buy health insurance? These questions and others need to be examined in the debate on Government provided health care.

If we are going to treat this subject with the respect it deserves, it will take time to answer these questions. If Congress and the President rush to solve this, it won't be right, it will waste money, and it still won't cover all of the 45.7 Million uninsured.




This post sponsored by Spreety TV Online!

Can Congress Read?

"If every member pledged to not vote for {the health care bill} if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes."

-- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

This was Mr. Hoyer's response when asked about a petition being circulated asking House members to read everything they vote on. Mr. Hoyer believed the thought of members reading what they vote on was worth a few chuckles on camera. Quite often members and their staff don't read the bills they vote on. Some of this is laziness and some of it is due to the size and speed Congress now passes legislation. For example, the Stimulus Bill was 1,100 pages long (at a price of $787 Trillion) and members were given 13 hours to review the full bill before it passed. The Cap and Trade bill was 1,200 pages and had a 300 page amendment added at 3 AM the day it was voted on. The final version of the Cap and Trade bill didn't exist in written form when it passed the House. A printed copy of the U. S. Constitution is only about 10 pages long.

To be fair, this is not a Democrat only issue. The 108^th Congress, which was controlled by Republicans, passed 2,900 pages worth of legislation in a combined 48 hours (at the bargain price of slightly less than $1 Trillion). Both Republicans and Democrats have been embarrassed when provisions of these bills finally saw the light of day. Republicans were surprised to find their Ominbus spending bill included a provision to allow Republican leaders to review anyone's tax return they choose. Democrats outraged voters when it was discovered the Stimulus bill included provisions for AIG bonuses after the government bailed them out. After campaign finance reform passed in 2003, members had to hire experts to tell them exactly what was in the bill they just passed.

Most people would probably say this is a problem. President Obama campaigned on a 5 day period for bills to be posted on the internet and reviewed by the public. Conservative, liberal, and libertarian groups have all started petitions to get lawmakers to read what they vote on.

If bills are too long to read, they shouldn't be passed. If it can't be read in the time members get to debate it, they should take more time to review the bill. Our expectations of our representatives are so low, we wonder if we can make them read something that may tax us or our children. We give them a pass on legislation that may outlaw things we do, limit our freedoms, or may affect our children. In a reality, when they vote on something they haven't read, they abuse their power and insult their constituents. It isn't enough to read a summary a lobbyist puts in their hand. If they can't read the bill, why are they even there?

The 5 Stories You Missed While Watching Jackson

On June 25^th, Michael Jackson died. We may never know the exact causes. Michael Jackson was at one point in his career a very impressive entertainer. He also had a number of very odd things going on in his private life. Over the last two weeks, the media has covered Michael Jackson's life, death, and funeral as he had been the head of a very powerful country. There were a few important news stories that I thought should be covered. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Minnesota makes 60. Al Franken finally won his challenge in court and is now a U.S. Senator. As I covered in my last post, the Democrats now have control of the Presidency, a filibuster proof Senate, and the House. They now have the ability to pass any legislation without a single Republican vote. It will be interesting to see what legislation they will try to pass.

2. Thomas v. Gibbs. A few reporters got upset with the White House for only allowing prescreened questions and prescreened individuals at the last town hall meeting. Press member Helen Thomas complained that this isn't what "openness and transparency" is all about. The Press appears to be a little testy that President Obama's town hall meetings are all staged.

3. Stimulus Part Two. By any standard of measure the stimulus plan didn't work. As President Obama begins to argue for a new stimulus bill, we should keep in mind his words from the first one. We were warned that if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, and didn't pass it immediately, unemployment could go as high as 9%. With unemployment now at 9.5% and climbing, President Obama wants a new stimulus bill, maybe even one focused solely on bridges and roads. But I thought that was what we heard with the first one…

4. Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor are starting this week. While the world mourned MJ, the Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision against the Connecticut firefighters. The U. S. Supreme Court found that discriminating on the base of race (even if the victims are white) is illegal. Judge Sotomayor may have to answer questions about this and her comments that a "…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…" this week. I have seen articles saying Sotomayor's supporters are going to try to attack the character of the firefighters. This might be a good story to keep an eye on over the next few weeks.

5. As Global Warming falls apart, the House acts. The evidence is really starting to look grim for global warming supporters. The tale-tale fingerprint of unusual upper atmosphere warming that the U.N. said would prove global warming hasn't materialized. The global temperature has been declining for the last 9 to 10 years. Things are getting bad enough that global warming supporters are now trying to get everyone to call it "catastrophic climate change". That way, it can explain highs AND lows. Into all this, the House of Representatives voted to enact cap and trade legislation just as New Zealand ditched their version of cap and trade. Cap and Trade will do two things. First, it will raise your energy prices. Everyone agrees on this, it's only the dollar figure that people dispute. Democrats claim your energy bill will only go up be a few measly hundred dollars each year. The Heritage Foundation and others have crunched the numbers and they believe it could be closer to $3,000 a year. Either way, you have a new energy tax coming your way. The second thing this did was violate a campaign promise of President Obama. This tax will be on everyone, not just those earning $250,000 a year or more.

Democrats don't need Republicans

I first saw this add at Red State and I really enjoyed it. It points out something that voters need to remember between now and November 2010: The Democrats control all of it. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without a single Republican vote. They have enough votes to pass anything in the House and they have enough votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate.

Any laws they write can go to the President. If he signs it, they get it. Want higher taxes, cap and trade, government run health care, they can do it all without a single Republican vote.

Remember this in the coming weeks when they say Republicans are trying to stop them or the Republican Party is the "party of no". The only way Republicans can stop any bill is to win the support of the public. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without any Republican support.

Remember this the next time you here Democrats say that the Republicans are preventing them from doing what they want. The only thing that will stop Democrats is the fear of being held accountable for the laws they pass.

The Unconventional Mrs. Palin

Governor Sarah Palin has announced she will step down effective at the end of this month. She leaves her office about a year and a half before she would have to run for re-election. She has to her resume currently: Member of Wasilla, Alaska City Council (4 years); Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (6 years); Chair, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (1 year); Governor of Alaska (2.5 years); Candidate, Vice President of the United States. If the story was written today, we would probably never hear or see Sarah Palin again.

As of this writing, Gov. Palin has not announced her plans for the future. Most political pundits seem comfortable that Mrs. Palin will be running for office of some sort again in the future. Most seem to believe she has driven a stake through any chance she had at being on the ticket, let alone elected, in the 2012 Presidential election. Fred Barnes, writing in The Weekly Standard boldly proclaims, "Forget about Sarah Palin as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 and probably ever." There are many smart operatives on both sides of the aisle that would quickly agree with him. In Mr. Barnes own article, he details the experience Republicans have brought to the table since the end of World War II in both successful and unsuccessful presidential bids. And yet…

I am forced to ask if those covering Washington (or Alaskan) politics have already forgotten the lessons of the 2008 Presidential election. If you were writing a book, could you have come up with a more classical stereotype of a career politician? Senator John McCain served as a U.S. Representative or Senator from 1982 to present (26 years). Before that, he was a career Navy man (23 years) and POW (almost 6 years). Headlining the Democratic ticket was a junior Senator from Illinois (close to 4 years). Before that, then State Senator Obama served about 7 years in the State Senate that was unremarkable and included a failed bid for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ask almost anyone two years ago, and it wouldn't even be close. And yet, here we are, with a junior Senator as our 44^th President of the United States.

During her short run as Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin was able to galvanize the base of the Republican Party in ways John McCain was unable to do for the entire election. During her political career in Alaska, she has shown a determination to prove conventional wisdom wrong at every chance she can. Will she run for President in 2012? Who knows? If she decides to, there are a number of political writers who may be forced to eat their words.

A Special Independence Day Review

With this weekend being the anniversary of our country declaring our independence from England, my wife and I have been reading books to our daughter about America. Tonight we read America : A Patriotic Primer, which we all enjoyed. This kids book is written by Lynne Cheney and illustrated by Robin Preiss Glasser. Mrs. Cheney is the wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Robin Preiss Glasser has illustrated a number of books that my daughter loves. She is especially fond of the Fancy Nancy series of books. Any parents may feel free to email me asking for more information and that series of books.

America: A Patriotic Primer goes through the entire alphabet describing great things about our nation. For example, J - K - L - and M go to famous Americas Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr, Abraham Lincoln, and James Madison. Some pages are about more traditional concepts kids might learn in school (such as P is for Patriotism that fills our heats with pride). Other pages have concepts for slightly older children (such as S is for Suffrage). Each page is beautifully illustrated. Some have one picture, a few have a number of pictures. One double page entry features a full map of the United States.

I also like that many of the pages have additional information around the edges or under some of the illustrations. One page has instructions for folding a flag written around the border. A few pages have quotes, such as one quote from John Adams to his wife Abigail regarding America's independence, "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this declaration and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory."

The book is very inspirational, and really does celebrate our nation. It would be inappropriate for a book targeted for children to get into a Republican vs. Democrat mode. America: A Patriotic Primer should satisfy any parent in that it does stay away from that. The book is also well made, so I hope to read it on a number of July 4th's still to come. This is a great book to read to your children around any patriotic holiday. I would highly recommend it to any parents who would like to get a good book about America for their children.

Fourth of July Trivia

I was reading in The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America today to my daughter. In the Almanac, each day has an "American History Parade" at the end of the entry. These are events that also occurred on this day. I found the entry for July 4th very interesting:

1776 The Continental Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence.

1802 The U.S. Military Academy opens at West Point, New York.

1826 John Adams, age ninety, and Thomas Jefferson, age eighty-three, die.

1831 James Monroe, the fifth U.S. president, dies at age seventy-three.

1872 Calvin Coolidge, the thirtieth U.S. president, is born in Plymouth, Vermont.

1959 A forty-ninth star is added to the flag to represent the new state of Alaska

1960 A fiftieth star is added to the flag to represent the new state of Hawaii.

I just wanted to share these. Enjoy!

Honduras

The Heritage Foundation has the best summary of the "Coup" in Honduras:

On June 28, the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras ,with the assistance of the Honduran Armed Forces, physically removed President Manuel Zelaya from his residence and expelled him from the country. The new Honduran government states President Zelaya’s removal from office was the result of legal orders issued by its supreme court. In a matter of hours, a new government was sworn in. It promises, unlike Zelaya, to abide by the Constitution, move ahead with national elections, and respect basic rights and liberties. Civilian, not military, leaders have taken charge.

From everything I have read, President Zelaya was trying to sidestep the law in Honduras in order to install himself as a dictator similar to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, the national prosecutor, major churches, businesses, and members of President Zelaya's party decided they were not going to allow this to happen. The government (not a fringe military general) seized Zelaya, placed him on an airplane, and sent him to Costa Rica. They then voted on, and installed an interim government until the next elections are held. The interim President, Roberto Micheletti, is from Zelaya's own political party. Coup's are typically power grabs by a party that is out of power. President Micheletti has agreed to serve until the elections in November and promises to step down after that.

As Glenn Garvin points out in the Miami Herald,"[t]he Honduran army clearly did not act on its own when it arrested Zelaya and sent him packing. The supreme court says the generals acted on its orders, and almost every Honduran politician of any note -- regardless of party -- has voiced approval." Outside of Honduras, the actions of the Honduran government have been met with swift criticism.


Chavez has threatened an armed invasion of Honduras if the country swears into office any President other than Manuel Zelaya. Secretary of State Clinton has said the action of Honduras' government should be condemned by all. President Obama has threatened to withhold military aid to Honduras unless they return Zelaya to power.

This appears to be an internal matter to me. It is not a military coup, but appears to be the Honduran government acting with it's power, and using the military to enforce the laws of the land. I think there are some parallels between the actions taken by their government and the actions we would take if we impeached a President here in the U.S. It is very hard to predict how this will play out. While President Obama decided not to meddle in Iran, he has quickly aligned himself with Chavez and the Castro brothers over Honduras. I do not understand why the President would pick Honduras to try and exert influence, and I don't know why he would decide to join the Chavez / Castro team. However, he has. And in so doing, he has placed the United States in a loose - loose situation. As the Heritage Foundation explains:


If Zelaya is returned, he will hail Chávez, Castro, etc. as the true saviors of his regime, with a grudging recognition to the U.S. Zelaya will be granted a six month opportunity to foster polarization, pillory the democratic opposition, and destroy as much of the independent institutions of his country as possible. If the new government resists the OAS resolution, Chávez and company will undoubtedly act, saying their interventions (whether diplomatic, economic, or even military) in Honduras are being done to uphold an OAS mandate and defend democracy. Actions the U.S. clearly supports.


Neither of these situations is good for the country. Red State is asking it's readers to contact their Representatives and ask they support President Roberto Micheletti. There is a chance some Representatives may want to redeem themselvs after Friday's vote. I would encourage you to follow the Red State link. If your representative or senator is on the foreign relations committee, give them a call and tell them to take a deep breath, then back off and let the government of Honduras sort these things out.

Quick Notes: Your Turn

I am looking at making a few changes here at Political Friends. Over the next couple of weeks there are some small changes I want to incorporate here, and I am thinking of making some larger ones. I have always wanted this site to be about political discussion. My goal is to keep people from both sides of the aisle coming back to discuss the issues of the day. To that end, I want to revamp a few things around here. This is where you come in.


In this post, I am looking for comments about what you like or don't like about this site. What would you like to see different. Is there a particular topic you feel should be covered more? Is there something you think I have wrong that you are dying for one more debate about? Same rules of no insulting, but anything else is open. I appreciate any input you have, and thanks for reading Political Friends.

Hope and Change in Iran?

Imagine a country ruled by an older group of religious experts. They decide the path for the nation. They decide who can and can’t run in elections. They also decide who wins those elections. Now let’s pretend that during the recent election, the citizens of this country get fed up with this religious council’s domination of their lives. They decide to protest in the streets. These protesters are sometimes beaten or shot by military snipers under the control of the religious council. The religious leaders force all foreign journalists to stay under guard in their hotels. They close off access to the outside world for the protestors by shutting down or restricting access to the internet and cell phones. The protestors, led by students and women, continue to demand their voice be heard in spite of increasing violence. As the protests continue, the religious group gets more violent and they begin snatching protest leaders in the dead of night from schools, homes, and even hospitals where they seek treatment for the wounds inflicted by the state controlled police. In this imaginary world, where would a Democratic President, one who campaigned on “hope” and “change”, one who got his rise into politics as a community organizer side? Surely he would work with the students seeking change in their own government through peaceful means.


President Obama has shown us that the obvious answer isn’t always the one he will pick. In the not so thinly veiled references to Iran above, President Obama has decided to align with the Mullahs and with President Ahmadinejad. In trying to look neutral, in trying to avoid “meddling” in Iran, the President has given a victory to the ruling clerics. A silent American President helps the Mullahs and hurts the students.


However, as of this writing, it is not too late. President Obama can still align himself with the protesters and the side of democracy in Iran. He can send a clear message that the United States will support the democratic process in Iran. And he can make a difference. Instead of inviting Iranian ambassadors to a Fourth of July cookout, call opposition leaders in Iran and check on their safety. Instead of sending mixed messages about the “debate” in Iran, get prepaid phone cards into the hands of students and protesters. Instead of saying we can’t be seen as meddlers in Iran, demand international journalists be given the freedom to cover the news inside of Iran.


President Obama can work to promote democracy in Iran and help U.S. interests at the same time, and without using the military. If the protesters have their way, there could be a very different Iran in a short time. If there is regime change from these protests, it will be regime change brought about by the people of Iran, not the United States. However, the protests can’t continue without support from the outside world. There are people friendly to the U.S. inside of Iran. If we support their efforts towards democracy, they may create a friendlier attitude towards our nation.

What if.....?

Imagine this as a commercial for health insurance....







What if health insurance companies competed like this? What if Congress realized health insurance isn't a "one size fits all" solution?

Health Care Part Two

This post is my second post discussing health care and health insurance. In the first post, I discussed a few ground rules that seem to get forgotten whenever politicians start talking about health insurance. These were 1) you don't have a right to health insurance, and 2) doctors, nurses, hospitals, and health insurance companies are in business to make a profit. I also pointed out that the jury is still out regarding some of the early initiatives of President Obama and the new Congress. The health care we receive in the United States is some of the best care in the world. Why rush to "fix" this if we aren't sure the people in Washington are up to the task?


In this installment, I want to look at a few problems with the current health care proposal by the Democrats. The current bill, referred to as the Kennedy-Dodd bill, is incomplete. An incomplete bill won't stop Democrats. They have introduced the bill and are trying to get it discussed and voted on anyway.


The non-partisan CBO has estimated the price tag of the bill as currently written at just over $1 Trillion. Democrats have complained that it isn't fair to put a price tag on this bill when it isn't complete. I would tell Democrats to finish the bill, let the CBO score it, then debate it. Another fun fact of the Kennedy-Dodd bill: it won't cover everyone who isn't covered today. I have heard different commentators claim as many as 49 million people don't have health insurance. The CBO says that not all of these uninsured will be covered under the Kennedy-Dodd bill. If we must cover everyone, why doesn't this bill cover everyone?


The Kennedy-Dodd bill will also include some sort of "public option" health insurance. It is hard to tell if this option would be paid for by taxes people who get employer provided health insurance, or by increasing our deficit again. Either way, a public option would eventually drive private insurance companies out of business. Senator Dodd has stated frankly that private insurance companies need a public version to reduce the profit of insurance companies. If the public option doesn't have to make a profit, how is a private insurance company going to make a profit or stay in business?


One of the biggest flaws with Kennedy-Dodd is that it is 615 pages long. Very few Senators (Republican or Democrat) are going to read a 615 page bill before voting on it. There have been a number of problems with the Omnibus spending bill congress passed a few months back for this exact same reason. Lawmakers don't read the bill until after it passes.


Kennedy-Dodd is a bad bill for a number of reasons: it costs to much, it won't cover as many people as the authors say it will, and it will drive private insurance out of business. Do you want a politician deciding what health care is most "efficient" for you? We may need health care reform. Kennedy-Dodd isn't it.

The Healthcare Debate, Part One

President Barack Obama and many Democrats would like to implement is sweeping healthcare reform. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the Presidents health care reform at around $1.5 Trillion. They have discussed universal health care, single-payer health care, and government run healthcare. For the most part, these three terms are interchangeable. Republicans introduced their own healthcare reform prior to the Democrats and are waiting for the Democrat version to be introduced. Other ideas that have been batted about include taxing existing health care, health care credits, allowing individuals to use Social Security to pay for healthcare, and health insurance co-operatives.

Before any meaningful discussion of health care can begin it might be helpful to review a couple of facts that seem to get lost in this discussion. First, and maybe most importantly, you do not have a right to health insurance. Health insurance is not required by law, and is not listed in the Bill of Rights. Whenever anyone takes a new job, or is evaluating job benefits, you need to weigh the health benefits just as you would the starting salary. This seems like remedial politics, but I think most Americans have forgotten this. There was a time when people evaluated the benefits of the job, as well as the salary, when trying to decide where to work.

Secondly, Doctors, Hospitals, and Insurance Companies are generally in business to make a profit. Think about it this way, when you go to work, do you expect a pay check, or do you let your employer keep your pay check? Most of us work to pay our bills. Some of us even enjoy our job. At the end of the day, we work to pay bills, put a roof over our head, and take care of our family. Doctors and Insurance agents are the same way. Once again, this sounds like remedial civics, but I am not sure House Democrats, or the President, understand this. Profit is good. Getting paid is good.

If we keep these rules in mind, any sort of Universal health care, single payer system, or government run insurance agency, starts to look a little silly. Supporters of these options want to tax people who work in order to provide health care for all. Remember, you do not have a right to health care. Therefore, the President is really asking to tax the middle and upper class in order to provide a luxury item to everyone. Any government run healthcare will drive private firms out of business. Why? The government doesn't try to make a profit. They also get to steal money from the taxpayers whenever they wish. No private firm can compete against that.

The President and his staff insist that we must pass health care reform today. This isn't the case. While not everyone is happy with their health insurance, many are. We have been told that our health insurance spending is a crisis. If we don't fix it, it will be a ticking time bomb on our economy. But we have been here before. We were told that TARP, the Stimulus plan, and the Omnibus spending bills all had to be passed as well, or the results would destroy our economy. These were all passed in spite of their massive pork. What happened? The jury is still out. Most of the Stimulus money hasn't been spent. The day after TARP was passed, the Treasury started using it in ways they never informed Congress they were going to do. The White House projected unemployment would max out at 8%. Today, it has passed 9.4% and is still rising. We still don't know what is going to be the result of these massive spending programs, and the Democrats want us to take on more spending. In our economy, do we really need to raise taxes to provide a luxury item to people?

The Perfect Storm

Rarely do you see The Daily Kos, Michelle Malkin, Red State, and U.S. News and World Report agree on something. So when all of these are arguing against a Democrat sponsored bailout of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), we should probably take a minute to hear them out.


This started with a commitment by President Obama to send $108 Billion to the IMF. Now Rahm Emanual and Nancy Pelosi are trying to bully House Democrats into voting for a war funding bill with an amendment attached to provide $108 Billion to bail out the International Monetary Fund. Nancy Pelosi wants Democrats to sneak this bailout through becuase no one believes a bill bailing out the IMF could make it on it's own. The American public has reached their limit of bailouts. Strategists on both sides are predicting losses for elected officials voting for bailouts in 2010.


The funny part is the coalition lining up to defeat this. Red State has listed the names and contact info for the Democrats most likely to be flipped. Eric at Red State is encouraging everyone to call them. Peter Roff writing at U.S. News and World Report has listed the top ten reasons to vote against this. The Daily Kos has gone so far as to write supportive profiles of Democrats likely to defeat those Democrats who might vote for this bill.


In this age of new politics, Republicans and Democrats can unite together to tell Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi Americans are tired of bailouts. We are tired of bailouts, and we don't want to bailout European banks. If Pelosi thinks this is important, let her put this bailout on a bill by itself. If she can't get the votes for it by iteslf, don't try to sneak it through.

Three Great Minds

Some of you may remember that I attended the "Obama First 100 Days" put on by a local talk radio station. While at the event, I got my picture taken with Dennis Prager and Bill Bennett. I thought my readers would enjoy a picture of three great conservative minds...

I really enjoy the event. It was my first time attending a large event like this with a number of conservative commentators. I hope I am able to do it again in the future. I would encourage everyone to attend events like this in order to become more knowledgeable on the events of the day.

Quick Notes: Special BHO Edition

For the first time in my adult life since the inauguration in January, the President has done something that has made me feel truly liberated. I know I criticize President and GM CEO Barack Hussein "Hopey-Change" Obama a lot on this site. In his honor, this edition of Quick Notes , and special 300th blog post of Political Friends, is dedicated exclusively to him!

President Obama's New Found Faith. You may remember during the campaign last year unscrupulous Republicans and Conservatives had the Audacity to use then junior Senator Obama's middle name, Hussein. As Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report on ABC News, the Obama campaign even had to address this on their Fight the Smears website saying:

"Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and daughters for years. But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying about Barack's religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone's faith to denigrate them politically, that's an attack on people of all faiths. Make sure everyone you know is aware of this deception."

During the campaign, Senator Obama even stated his father was agnostic. Now the White House is playing up not just his middle name, but his Muslim connections. Again, according to ABC:

"During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said 'the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.'"

While I am quite excited about the freedom to use the President (CEO's?) middle name, I am a little concerned about the President's comments that America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. The President was very specific that the number of American Muslim's living in the US makes it one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. That simply isn't true. As Toby Harnden writes on the UK Telegraph blog, we are either the 34^th or 48^th largest Muslim country if you actually do the math (depending on whose head counts you use). We aren't even in the top ten. Is this a lie, bad number crunching, or simple pandering?

Nuclear Power is OK for Iran, and UAE, but not the United States. President Obama has been very careful with what he has said regarding nuclear power in the United States. Any serious clean energy plan for our nation must include nuclear energy. According to Newsweek, nuclear energy accounts for 20% of our energy, and 70% of our nation's emission free energy . However, President Obama hasn't come out in favor of nuclear power, and by moving to shut down Yucca Mountain, he has made it much more difficult to increase our nuclear energy production.

Just because the President doesn't like nuclear power in the United States doesn't mean he believes it isn't good for the United Arab Emirates and Iran. In May, he proceeded with a deal to allow the United States to help the UAE become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power plant. The construction work in the UAE associated with this deal could provide U.S. companies with $41 Billion in contracts.

President Barack Hussein Obama has said, and reiterated in the last few days that he feels Iran has some right to nuclear power, just not nuclear weapons. I can't begin to cover all of the problems with this statement. The top two: Do you really think Iran will accept nuclear power and not create a nuclear weapon? What position does this put our ally Israel in?

President Obama quiet on murder? On Sunday, when Dr. George Tiller was shot at his church, the White House was quick to release a statement. In part it said that the President was "shocked and outraged" by the church shooting of a doctor who was known to perform late-term abortions. He went on to say, "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." So far, I agree with the President. However, the President puts himself in a very bad position when he comments on something like this. Why? Because what happens when another person is murdered and the President is silent on it?

For example, the next day, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot two Army soldiers in front of a recruiting office in Arkansas. One soldier was killed, the other wounded. Muhammad shot the soldiers because of what he felt the Army had done to Muslims. Details have come out today that Muhammad may have had other targets in mind based on information the FBI and Homeland Security Department found on a computer "linked" to Muhamad. As of this writing, the President has been silent on the murder and shooting of Army soldiers on American soil by a man who had converted to Islam. Whether he is intentionally placing different values on the life of Dr. Tiller versus Private William Long or Private Quinton Ezeagwula, he is giving the appearance that he doesn't consider these individuals, or their murders, equal.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

If you have been following the major news outlets this week (Fox News included), you know a few things about the judge President Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court:

1. She is a She.
2. She is Hispanic.
3. Republicans had better watch out if they question anything about her.

Republicans have tripped over themselves saying they will not criticize her based on her sex or ethnic background. I believe there are a few good reasons to deny Judge Sotomayor the highest court in the land. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. If my criticisms would be valid against a white Republican, then they are valid against Sonia Sotomayor.

Her previous decisions do raise some real question marks, specifically her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The city of New Haven, Connecticut uses an exam to qualify firefighters for promotions. This test is examined ahead of time to make sure it is "race neutral" and it is administered due to an agreement between the city and the union. Traditionally, firefighters who pass the examine are promoted. On one specific occasion, 16 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter passed the exam. They were not promoted because no black firefighters passed the test. The city decided they wouldn't promote anyone if there were no successful black applicants. The firefighters sued believing they had been the victims of racism. The lower court dismissed the case, and Judge Sotomayor heard it as an appeals judge and agreed with the lower court. In the coming weeks you will hear more about this case for three reasons: the appeal of the case is going to be decided by the Supreme Court in June; the decision, coupled with other comments by Sotomayor, does not pain a flattering picture of the Judge; and another Hispanic Judge, Jose Cabranes, wrote an opinion questioning Sotomayor's decision.

She has made some very questionable remarks, in public and on the record, regarding her judicial philosophy. This is important because her comments are fair game in confirmation hearings. She shouldn't be asked how she will decide on gay marriage, abortion, or school prayer, but she can be asked what she meant when she said, "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." President Obama and Secretary Gibbs have both tried to clarify these remarks.

Perhaps even more troubling are her remarks in 2005 stating that policy is made at the appeals court. Policy and law are not made in court. State and Federal Legislators make law, not judges. Judges interpret that law. They decide what is and what isn't out of bounds. They don't decide where that foul line is.

Republicans should challenge Judge Sotomayor on these points, and others that may come out over the next few weeks. Democrats and the Media would do well to look over these issues as well. Perhaps they should stop telling Republicans what is fair criticism, and look at Judge Sotomayor's record.

Why Do We Have CAFE Standards?

Last week President Obama had a major press conference to announce a proposed new national fuel economy standard for vehicles. This new standard will average out to around 35 miles per gallon. This new standard implements some policies from the Bush administration years ahead of their original target date and creates a national corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard.

CAFE standards started in the late 70’s and were specifically targeted at passenger cars. At the time they were created to lessen our use of foreign oil. They have failed miserably with this goal. According to the Heritage Foundation, the US has increased its foreign oil consumption from 32 percent to 52 percent of oil used since the standards were adopted. The new time lines announced last week will affect the 2016 model year cars. These standards will require that all of a particular class of vehicles sold by any manufacture average out to meet the target miles per gallon. The footprint of the vehicle is the best way to think of the different classes. If Ford sales 1,000 cars in a certain footprint, those 1000 vehicles must average out to have the target fuel efficiency. If Ford sales a lot of cars with lower efficiency, then the other cars must have a much higher efficiency in order for the 1000 vehicles to average out to the required mandate.

There are trade offs to higher fuel economy. According to the Obama administration, the new national standards may add around $1300 to the purchase price of your vehicle. This is only an estimate, and some groups claim the real price is higher. There is also only so much fuel economy you can get from an engine. The rest has to made up by making the car lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has expressed concerns that the lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles result in more fatalities every year. CAFE standards have resulted in an estimated 1,300 to 3,900 deaths per year, depending on the year and the source. Some environmentalists would argue that these deaths are acceptable if we lower the amount of pollutants discharged each year to help solve global warming. The truth is that CAFE standards won’t solve global warming. The next time you drive to work and see a convoy of tractor trailer trucks, or pass a construction site, remember those vehicles are exempted from CAFE standards due to their size. The CAFE mandate also argues against itself. The theory is that more fuel efficient vehicles reduce our need for oil and gas. In reality, fuel efficient vehicles make driving cheaper. Cheaper driving means more vacations, more car trips, and more gas used.

Personally I don’t think the government should be telling auto makers what fuel efficiency their vehicles must achieve. The government doesn't mandate XM radio (yet), why fuel efficiency? President Obama has never run a business, and I don’t believe there are any automotive engineers in Congress. The government should try to address other problems. Perhaps after the economy is fixed, the nuclear problems of Iran and North Korea are resolved, and terrorist stop trying to kill us I will change my mind. Until then, I think the government needs to keep its eyes on the ball, and stop worrying about whether my car gets 20, 30, or 40 miles per gallon.

Quick Notes: Political Friends.

I wanted to post a quick update on what is going on and to apologize for not answering comments this weekend. Work has been a little busy this weekend so it has eaten into my blogging time. I spent 19 hours at work yesterday for example. In addition to that, I chose to simply ignore this blog over the last couple of days. Go figure.

There have been some good comments (both for and against) my last two posts, and I want to give them the attention they deserve. I hope to catch up on my responses tomorrow. This week, I want to write blogs on C.A.F.E. standards and on Minnesota's governor. Consider this your fair warning if you want to do your homework ahead of time.

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend, and look for two new posts later this week!

Prager University

I attended the "Obama the First 100 Days" tonight featuring Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Hugh Hewitt. There were a lot of interesting topics discussed, and I think I got a few ideas for future posts.

At the end of the night, Dennis Prager asked everyone to check out a new project of his called Prager University. It's on You Tube. I looked at it when I got home and was impressed with the first course. I don't typically listen to Prager, but I still found this very interesting. The clip is five minutes long, and I am keeping this post short so you will have time to watch it. Enjoy!

Book Review: The 5000 Year Leap

Quite possibly the best book I have ever read on the U. S. Constitution and what the Founders intended.

If I could only write one sentence about The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World by W. Cleon Skousen, that would be it. If I could add a second sentence, it would be, "The book is easy to understand and is intended as a High School text book." If you are looking for an easy to read book on the Constitution, this is it.

The 5000 Year Leap was written because Mr. Skousen wanted a book that, "…catalogue[d] the ingredients of the Founding Fathers phenomenal success formula so it would be less complex and easier to digest." This combined with recognition of mistakes elected representatives were making inspired the book. It is written as a high school text book, and does a very good job of explaining the fundamentals of our government. Mr. Skousen came up with 28 principles that represented what the Founders were trying to accomplish.

Mr. Skousen shows a deep understanding of the Constitution. For example, under the chapter The 17^th Principle: Checks and Balances, there is a complete list of checks and balances found in the U.S. Constitution. There are 18 of them.

The book does not specifically attack one party or another. I am not sure the Republican or Democratic Parties are mentioned at all in this book. Right and Left are mentioned, but not in the concept of Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Mr. Skousen uses these terms as he claims the founders would have understood them. According the political theory at the time of the Constitution, government ranged from the "left" or complete tyranny imposed by a monarchy to the "right" or absolute anarchy with no government at all. The founders intention was to get the United States government in the exact center of this political spectrum. Our founders thought of our government as a three headed eagle, with the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive branches all being represented by one head of the eagle. In addition, one wing represented the "Problem Solving Wing" or what government could do with unlimited funds. The other wing represented "The Conservation Wing" or the wing responsible for making the best use of all funds available. If both these wings work together, the eagle flies straight and doesn't lean towards tyranny or anarchy.

The 5000 Year Leap quotes the founders extensively. If you read the book with an eye to today's politics, it is easy to see that our elected officials (Republican and Democratic alike) have either forgotten the lessons listed here, or never knew them. Some of the chapters may cause you to question your own political beliefs and what you have thought of the U.S. Constitution. If you don't believe Mr. Skousen, it is easy to follow his footnotes to do your own homework and make your own decisions.

I would beg anyone with a high school age student to buy The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World and ask them to read it. Every voter should read this book before they head to the next ballot box. Every elected official should be forced to read this before being sworn into office. If you only buy one book that I review on this website, this is the book.

****

If you like this post, you may also like:

Book Review: Glenn Beck's Common Sense

The Repugnant Nature of the Minimum Wage

Of Government and Men: Introduction

Godfather Obama and the UAW

This past week has shown us that President Obama will do anything to protect the UAW. The President is willing to break the law, strong arm banks with TARP money, and use the "…full force of the White House press corp…" to destroy any dissent. The President isn't interested in doing what is right, or what is legal, but what protects the UAW.

As Chrysler heads into Bankruptcy court, we should all pay attention. GM (commonly referred to now as Government Motors) is likely to head the same way, and we may see more TARP companies or banks go into bankruptcy before it's all over. Whatever happens to Chrysler is going to set precedent for future bailouts and bankruptcy's.

President Obama attempted to force a bankruptcy down the throats of Chrysler's creditors that violated contracts those creditors had in place. He hasn't given up on this and is actively working on it. Secured creditors loaned money to Chrysler with a contract that stated if Chrysler sold off its assets, these secured creditors would be paid back, dollar for dollar, before any other creditor is paid back. President Obama is attempting to violate this contract simply because it suits his political will. He believes these creditors should only get 28 cents for every dollar they loaned Chrysler. The UAW would get 55% of the entire company.

In a related story, you may have read that some of the banks that received TARP money want to pay it back to the Government. President Obama won't let them. Why? The stated reason is that these banks need to pass a "stress test" to prove they are sound enough that they don't need the money. This is way above and beyond simply bailing out banks. When last I looked, President Obama has no experience running a bank, or a company. Who is he to decide when a bank can or can't pay back the money? More importantly, this money isn't the President's money. The money loaned to these banks, and to the auto industry, is tax payer money. The President is suppose to be a steward of the tax payer's money. Right now, he is failing at that job. Instead of protecting the tax payer, President Obama is controling these banks so they won't object to his version of Chrysler's bankruptcy. Imagine if President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Karl Rove had cooked up a scheme like this...

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this entire story is the threat by President Obama to destroy Chrysler's creditors in the press if they don't submit to his will. This is the classic Chicago political move of "making them an offer they can't refuse". One creditor has gone on the record stating they were threatened by the White House. How many more creditor's have been threatened and are afraid of President Obama, Press Secretary Gibbs, and the Democratic PR machine? These thug style political manuevers got him elected in Chicago, and he is trying to use them to get what he wants now.

President Obama's tinkering with the auto industry threatens property and contract law in our nation. The precedent it starts is that if you have a contract, its only valid as long as the current President says so. This is not the way our government is allowed to operate under the U.S. Constitution.

There are a number of good articles covering this. I have provided links below to the most recent ones I have read.

The Big Business of Big Labor from the Washington Examiner

Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics from CBS News

An Offer You Can't Refuse by the Economist

If you think I am simply a crazy conservative, go read those three articles and see if you still think so.

The Specter Defection

There has been a lot of commentary in the media over Senator Arlen Specters move from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Many are portraying this as a wakeup call in some form or another. One of the best pieces I have read on Specter's move is by Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard. Mrs. Emery uses Specter's defection as a call for more of a big tent in the Republican Party. I think she is right.

Mrs. Emery points out a fact that many voters on the right and the left forget: Conservatism is a movement and not a Party, while the Republican Party is not a movement. The goal of a movement is to advance a set of ideals. The goal of a political party is to get more people elected and to implement a political platform. Republicans need Conservatives to win national elections. Conservatives need Republicans (even the not so conservative version) in order to get their ideals acted on. As good as Mrs. Emery's article is, there are two points she and most commentators seem to be missing.

First, many elected Republicans have pushed the parties platform aside. Elected Republicans have forgotten the Contract with America, and have become as big government as their Democratic counterparts. Many voters who traditionally vote Republican are upset with that. To make matters worse, since the 2006 elections, the Republican party has had trouble convincing voters that they want to get back to the Party of the 90's, let alone Regan's big tent party of the 80's. Many Republicans talk about attacking new voters. But they phrase this in how they wish to change the party. Republicans should be looking at ways they can phrase their message or better communicate it to traditionally Democratic voters.

The other point that seems to get lost is why Specter changed parties. Mrs. Emery touches on it, but then forgets it. Arlen Specter was most likely going to lose his primary battle. He looked at the numbers, and in order to stay in the Senate, switched parties. He is very likely to get reelected as a Democrat. In my opinion, this speaks to a larger problem. Specter has been in politics since the 60's. He started his career as a Democrat, and switched to the Republican party after his first election. He has been in the Senate since 1981. He is approaching 30 years in the Senate. Mrs. Emery and other Republicans seem to think it is tragic that he would loose his primary. I think it would have been a good thing. Do we really need Senators in office for 30 years? One of our problems in the Congress is that these older Senators are more concerned with winning another term than they are with fulfilling their role as the outlined by the Constitution.

Specter's defection should be a wake up call for the Republican Party. I think Republicans needed to be doing some soul searching right now for a number of reasons. However, I believe Specters defection should call us all to examine a different issue: Term Limits in Congress and the Senate. Specter switched parties to stay in office. Do we really need any Representative or Senator in office for thirty years? I don't think so. If a President is term limited to two terms, why should a Senator (or Representative) be able to make a full career of sitting in the Senate or the House?

Book Review: Ted, White, and Blue

My wife and I were watching Glenn Beck one night when Ted Nugent was on as a guest. The Motor City Madman was on the whole night talking about America, Politics, and our Society. During the course of the night, they talked about his book, Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, and I knew I had to read it. The book did not disappoint me.

This is not Ted Nugent's first book. It is his sixth. The book covers a wide range of topics, and is his personal manifesto. As such, he makes no apologies for anything he says in the book. Some of it is fun, some of it is insightful, and some people will be insulted by some of the stuff they read. The truth sometimes hurts. Through the course of the book, Mr. Nugent gives his recommendations and ideas on a number of issues including: Politics, Religion, War, Taxes, Immigration, Unemployment, and Global Warming. This is by no means and all inclusive lists. There are seventeen chapters in the book covering seventeen topics. Ted, White, and Blue also has a decent index, and thirteen pages of notes and references.

Ted Nugent surprised me by his depth of knowledge on a number of the topics. I am a supporter of nuclear energy, and believe we should be building more reactors. Environmentalists concerned with reactors always ask, "What will you do with the waste?" Ted Nugent has a great response:

"Another unfounded fear is based on the waste that nuclear power produces. The overwhelming majority of the waste from nuclear power plants could be stored in your backyard with no risk to you. It is totally harmless. You could pick it up with your bare hands and not suffer any ill effects. Of the remaining nuclear waste, most of it could be recycled and used again but peanuts-for-brains Jimmy Carter banned the recycling and use of nuclear waste in 1977. Fortunately, the American voters banned Jimmy in 1980. Carter's baseless decision means that all nuclear waste we have ever produced must be stored in a nuclear waste repository such as Yucca Mountain…"

According to the material cited in Ted, White, and Blue, there is enough nuclear waste material in the United States, that if recycled, could power every household in our country for twelve years. That sounds like a good idea to me. Another unique idea from his book revolves around two hot button issues: Health Care and Illegal Immigration. There are a number of different studies that try to calculate the health care costs to American Taxpayers for treating illegal immigrants in emergency rooms. If someone goes to a hospital and needs emergency care, they have to be treated, even if it is something minor like a hang nail or a cough. Someone has to foot the bill for this "free" health care. Mr. Nugent suggests deducting the cost of the health care from the foreign aid we would normally send to the illegal immigrants home country.

Ted, White, and Blue is a fun read. While it does talk a little about Ted Nugent's biography, it is really a discussion of solutions for current problems. I would highly recommend it as an entertaining read that may provide some unique view points and solutions you hadn't considered before.

Why I go to the Tea Parties

There have been a lot of comments on here and in an assortment of media outlets regarding the people who attend Tea Parties. Some of the worst comments are those like Jeanine Garofolo saying that Tea Party attendees are only protesting a black man being President. The racist comments are uncommon, but not as uncommon as they should be. What seems more prevalent is the belief that the Tea Parties are organized by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Fox News and that the goal is to overthrow the government. Anyone who says this hasn't spent any real time talking to those who attend the parties.

While kooks are often attracted to protests (both on the left and the right), the majority of people I have seen at the Tea Parties are there because they are upset by the spending going on in government right now. Many were mad at President Bush and the previous Congress for TARP and the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. They are also mad at President Obama and the current Congress for continuing these bailouts, and for the ever increasing budgets and spending programs. Many of the attendees realize there is no way to continue this level of spending without dramatically raising taxes on everyone. The chart below was published originally in the Washington Post, and has been researched and defended by the Heritage Foundation. It shows the deficit under President Bush and the projected deficit under President Obama.

Whether you believe the White House or the Congressional Budget Office, neither of the above estimates are good. The spending in Washington is way out of control. Every idea in Washington revolves around funding a program, spending money on research, or buying something. There are very few elected officials arguing to cut the budget, and not enough officials arguing to stop the bailouts (auto, credit, or bank). My biggest fear is that the bailouts are going to make things worse, not better. By propping up these industries, we are delaying the day they go through the reforms they need. As painful as those reforms are now, they are going to be much more painful down the road.

I go to the Tea Parties to protest the current levels of spending by our government. This includes President Obama's spending and Congresses spending. I am not there to protest just President Obama. If the protests were about Global Warming or some of the other silly idea's this administration has, I probably wouldn't attend. While these ideas are worthy of debate, and I do debate them here, they aren't as dangerous as the continued spending by Washington. If we continue on the pace the chart above shows, our economy is going to get so bad, cap and trade and national health care won't matter. I can't speak for everyone at the Tea Parties, only myself. I can say that many of the people that I have spoken with at these parties have the same concerns I do, and are worried about the same things. The Tax burden on the American Worker is already too high. Spending like we are seeing in Washington is going to make that tax burden much worse.

I also go to the Tea Parties because I don't believe it is the role of our government to do these things. I don't believe our government should bailout financial companies and car industries. I don't believe we should step in and fire private CEO's. I don't believe the government has a right to interfere in how business pays their employees. Every time the government interferes in these areas, all of our freedoms are diminished. Anytime the government is allowed to save a bank, or a car company, or to fire private employees, it represents a time when the government gets to take control of our lives. I think Americans would be much better off without the government telling them what to do. Do we need some boundaries for companies to operate within? Sure. Do we need the constant intervention created at the end of Bush's term and perpetuated under President Obama? Absolutely not.

As I said, I can't speak for every person at these Tea Parties. I can say most of them are every day Americans who work and send their kids to school. These Americans deserve our respect and they deserve to have their voice heard in Washington. I , and many of the Tea Party attendees, believe Republicans and Democrats have stopped listening to voters. That's not good for anyone.

This post was published at Tea Party Patriots and Political Friends.

Is $100 Million more or less than $8 Billion?

While trying to catch up on politics today, I came across this exchange on the Real Clear Video site (video provided by Sevenload)

Link:

The transcript can be found here. I have to give credit where credit is due. I am often critical of the AP and ABC News both for what I feel is a lack of unbaised coverage. However, both of these reporters brought up excellent questions. After watching the video, I don't think Mr. Gibbs answered the original question. President Obama is trying to show sympathy with the public by cutting $100 Million out of the $3.7 Trillion budget over the next 90 days. Why is that a big deal? The $100 Million won't touch the budget and won't even be a whisper when compared to the deficit. Why should voters be excited about $100 Million? And why did Mr. Gibbs describe $8 Billion as miniscule and now ask for accolades for attempting to cut $100 Million? If Mr. Gibbs can't find the money to cut, why not look for programs like the $7 Billion in the stimulus package to improve broadband coverage nationwide. Surely that isn't important in a down economy.

Back From Vacation!

I have returned from sunny Maui. Tomorrow I must return to work. Hopefully I will be back to regular post in the next couple of days as I bring myself back up to date in the world of politics.

Posted with LifeCast

Maui Tea Party

Having attended a Tea Party in Atlanta a while back, I was very excited when the national tea parties started showing up for Tax Day. I was going to be on vacation, but was able to coordinate with the organizers in Maui to be at their tea party today.



Unlike the last one I went to, the weather was great. I asked around, and I estimate there was probably 200 to 300 people at the event by the time I left. This is pretty amazing because most of the people were residents of Maui. Many of them were complaining about their local representatives.

I have heard today's events reported as "tea parties that were started by conservative bloggers, talk show personalities, and republicans." This isn't true. These tea parties are grass roots movements. The one I attended today was organized by a self proclaimed Democrat. In an email to me, he stated that he has supported a number of liberal groups over the years, but he felt the spending in Washington has really gotten out of hand.

As I am on vacation, I thought most of this post would be some of my favorite pictures from today's event in Maui. This first one made me laugh the most:



Considering this weeks revelation of what the Deparment of Homeland Security thinks of out spoken conservatives, I thought this one was pretty good too:


This sign also appeared at another Tea Party in Lahaina earlier in the day:



One participant was kind enough to let me borrow his sign so I could get a photo of me at the demonstration for my readers:

Letters of Marque

In my last post, I got on a bit of a soap box about the standoff with pirates over the captain of a private vessel in Somalia. Brandon points out that using our navy to fight pirates around Africa may not be the best, or most cost effective solution. Brandon suggests using a combination of convoys and training for local coast guards to solve the problem. For a short term solution, I am not against convoys. However, there is one solution that I am in favor of that could potentially make money for our government and has worked in the past: Letters of Marque.


Letters of Marque are issued to private entities. The documents allow a privately owned vessel to attack specifically named enemies of the issuing nation on the high seas. This was a way of dealing with pirates in the 1700's. The receivers of the Letters of Marque are typically called privateers.


There is legal grounds for the United States to issue these. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque in Article I, Section 8. As much as our Congress likes to spend money, they may consider this idea. Secondly, those nations that signed the Declaration of Paris in 1856 agreed to no longer issue Letters of Marque. The United States is not a signer of the Declaration of Paris. Finally, we have used Letters of Marque as recently as World War Two. Admittedly, that is the only time the U.S government has since the War of 1812, but we have done it.


Historically, a privateer would pay a fee to a nation to get a Letter of Marque. Let's say $100,000 in today's world. The privateer would be responsible for outfitting and training their crews, and would be entitled to a percentage of any "booty" captured under the Letters (let's call it 85%). The United States would designate specific "hostile forces", such as pirates operating off the coast of Somalia, and would get the 15% "booty" not accounted for in the last sentence. One last note, the privateers would also be able to deal out punishment to any pirates they captured. The Letters are very specific in the areas and enemies privateers are allowed to operate. It would not be a blank check to cause mayhem on the high seas.


I think this is a very smart way to handle the pirates. The United States doesn't have to beef up it's military presence near Somalia, nor do we put additional funds and resources into the area. Private companies or individuals would go forth and deal with the pirates. Already the pirates have said they are going to retaliate on future U.S. vessels they capture, and they have tried as recently as today. Letters of Marque were quite effective against pirates in the past, and can be once again.

There's More Than One Way to Skin a Pirate

I am on vacation with my family, so I haven't been following politics as closely as I normally do. Having said that, I have been bombarded by the pirate story. If you have escaped the news, go check out Fox News or CNN, I am not going to repeat the details here. However, as I write this, the situation is that the captain of the Maersk Alabama is still being held by pirates. The Alabama itself made it to port sometime yesterday, but the crew is still on board the vessel. It seems the FBI is considering the ship a crime scene and is trying to build a case against the pirates. Negotiations with "elders" claiming to represent the pirates today broke off when the American negotiators insisted the pirates be handed over to local authorities.

Before I get on my soap box, let me point out that my criticism's are not directed exclusively at the Obama administration. I wrote about pirates last year, and I was not impressed with how we handled that situation either. As I said then, pirates are the blood suckers of the modern world. All western nations should respond to pirates with as much speed and firepower as necessary. I would be quite happy if the Navy captured these pirates and hang them from the yard arm. One could make the argument that we should do everything in our power to return the captain safely home. Any outcome of the current situation that allows the pirates holding this captive to live will result in more pirate attacks on vessels flying U.S. colors. Our ships haven't been attacked by pirates in hundereds of years becuase we were preceived as too big of a threat to attack. If we do anything to diminish that view, we will see more pirate attacks, more hostages, more demands for ransom, and perhaps, more dead sailors.

When you attempt to take a ship by force, you take your life into your own hands. It's time to show pirates that if you attack American ships, we will respond with everything in our arsenal.


UPDATE:

Drudge and others are reporting that the Navy rescued the captain after a firefight that killed three of the four pirates. Good Work!!

More and More impressed with Michele Bachman

I am on vacation this week with my family, so I haven't been following politics as closely as I normally would. However I found this video clip at Freedom Works. The clip is a little less than 6 minutes, but I think it is very important to watch.





Two quick points. First, the more and more I hear from Rep. Bachmann, the more and more I am impressed with her. At the very end of the clip, you will her Barney Frank call her down. The more and more I hear from Barney Frank the more I wonder why he has a job. If the CEO of GM and other companies can be fired because of their actions at private companies, why can't Mr. Frank be removed from office for his part in getting us into the current mess?

A Quick Quote...

I finished Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto on an airplane today. The end really struck me:

President Reagan said,"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

We conservatives need to get busy.


This is what I have been thinking for a while now, but I couldn't articulate as well.

Posted with LifeCast

The Presidents Policies Are A Threat To Freedom

Our country was founded on the belief that people should be allowed to determine their own path. My success or failure should be determined by the choices I make. As companies grow to the size of an AIG or a GM, it is easy to see them as faceless giants. They are still companies and people who are guaranteed their freedom.

Our nation has a long history of cherishing freedom. The pilgrims were looking for freedom when they came to the United States. Our Founding Fathers sought to protect our very "...Life, Liberty, and the Prusuit of happiness". We fought many wars to protect our freedom and to protect the freedom of others.

Our nation now faces a new "soft tyranny". While the President is not throwing us in prison, or torturing us in the dead of night, he is slowly but surely eroding our Freedoms. Our Constitution does not give the President hiring and firing abilities at private corporations. The U S Constitution does not provide a provision for the President to design the cars of GM or Chrysler. The President does not have the authority to demand Chrysler and Fiat merge any more than he or our Congress can put salary caps on executives.

Each time the President oversteps his bounds the Congress must pull him back. If Congress won't , we the voters must reign them both in. It may seem like a good idea to "stick it to" the executives of AIG or GM, but it is really an erosion of Freedom. Remember, any power granted to this President makes it easier for the next one (Democrat or Republican) to grab more. This President attacks GM and AIG. The next may attack Hollywood or U S Today. If we don't convince our officials to roll this behavior back, to stop this "soft tyranny", we may one day find ourselves living in a "hard tyranny"

Posted with LifeCast