THROW THE BUMS OUT!

If you step back and take an honest look, you’ll see that the unfortunate state of affairs in American politics has resulted from the reign of both political parties. The politicians, from both parties, work together in lockstep to advance their various agendas. Perhaps not as often during this cycle, but don’t let that fool you, this is only an effort to corral people into one party or another in order to maintain their power structure. Reality dictates that both parties logroll together and when necessary, one side “takes the hit” for political expediency. Whenever the illusion of accountability is needed, one or the other party makes a “sacrifice” in order to maintain the fictional separation between the parties. The system depends on the delusion that people can “vote the bums out.” I believe it is time to actually make good on this promise.

As long as we continue to elect the same people to hold the same offices, every government failure becomes the pretext for more regulatory interference in our lives. If you don’t get distracted by the spectacle, it’s impossible not to notice the pattern: Every political solution to any problem involves more regulation of your life and more taking of your money. If you fall for the political fallacy that we live in a country where government operates with the “consent of the governed” you end up with the faulty conclusion that America is populated by a citizenry which enjoys having its every action regulated by one or another branch of the government.

Americans, over the past 40 years have become the most regulated people on the planet. Consider that the Federal Register – for 2008 alone – had 80,700 pages of laws and regulations. This is before the addition of the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws and regulations at the state and local levels. Oh, and did I mention that the IRS tax code consists of more than 70,000 pages of regulations defining how much of your earnings are going to be confiscated by the government in order to enforce these regulations? The sheer annual output of all the federal and state “lawmakers” makes the 70,000 page IRS code seem miniscule by comparison.

The current administration claims this overburdening regulatory environment is necessary to “share the wealth” with the less fortunate amongst us. The most recent past administration claimed it was necessary to protect us from the “Axis of Evil” who mean to do us harm. In fact, the beneficiaries of this “sharing of the wealth” are the regulators. We don’t need to be told how to “share the wealth” or how to protect ourselves. The act of sharing is a voluntary act. That's what makes it sharing. If you're compelled by threat of imprisonment to give somebody something, then it's not sharing. Nor is it fair. Paying your fair share is what you do when you go out to dinner with friends. But when strangers whose salaries you're forced to pay decide, under threat of prosecution, how much of your money to take, in order to spend it on things you often detest, then fairness is not part of the equation. To show just how unfair it becomes, in other nations, if you’re fed up you can just leave, with no future consequence. In America, unless you properly complete the regulatory process to become an Ex-Patriot and remain outside of the country for the balance of your life, you continue to be forced to pay homage to the government or be prosecuted.

Millions of Americans are fed up with the lies, the debts, the taxes, the bailouts, the hypocrisy, the rip-offs, and the wars. The rise of the Tea Party is an acknowledgement that the average American understands that the system is rotten to the core and it is time to take back out nation. It is time to “throw the bums out” and return the citizen legislator to the halls of government.

Protecting our Southern Borders

So, while meeting with with the President at the Whitehouse, a group of Republican Senators discussed responsible immigration reform. The senators put forth the argument that prior to enacting any further regulations the Fed should secure the southern border. Our President disagreed with the Senators at the meeting, but shortly afterward announced that he was sending 1200 National Guard troops to “help police the border”. While some may herald this as a move in the right direction and others may claim that he is trying to make the Republican Senators look foolish for vociferously disagreeing with him, a closer examination portrays incredibly partisan political extremism.

Before anyone stops reading because I am bashing this administration, consider my reasons for taking this position. First and foremost, 1200 additional troops is atrociously inadequate to the task. Secondly and more important, the 1200 troops are not allowed to guard the border, they are only allowed to offer administrative support to the boarder patrol. This administrative support does nothing to “help police our border”. Even in the event that these troops were actually allowed to function as boarder guards, 1200 additional troops covering a border which is 1800 miles long and has a very harsh DMZ of approximately 60 miles north from the border wouldn’t begin to address the problem. This can only be interpreted as partisan political gamesmanship by the President.

In support of the previous statement I note that since the Presidents announcement, administration officials have already begun to spin his action as an attempt to “reach across the table” and come to a compromise with rigid Republican legislators who are not willing to work with him. This administration and most specifically the President continue to follow a growing habit of deriding anyone who disagrees with his position. The President will now pander to the ignorant and uniformed of his supporters to portray the Republican legislators as partisan politicians who place their interest above those of the American people. In fact, his actions show that he is unwilling to consider the opinions of anyone who doesn’t support him blindly, including the majority of the American voting public.

I am truly depressed that I have come to think this way because, although I couldn’t in good conscious vote for candidate Obama, I had hoped that as President, he would grow into the job of being a statesman. I had the same hope for President Bush and was disappointed by him as well, but at least he didn’t embarrass the office of the President. Unfortunately, what I see in President Obama is a growing narcissistic arrogance which belittles the man, the office of the Presidency and embarrasses the people who are proud to their core to be an American. We, the proud and loyal citizens of this country, deserve better from our President. We also deserve to have our borders protected from the absurdly excessive illegal and criminal entry across our southern border.

KAGAN NOMINATION

First, let’s consider what we actually KNOW About Nominee Kagan:

1) She argued that movies, library books, and other media may be banned or censored in some circumstances, before SCOTUS in the CU v. FEC case.

2) She believes the Court can continue expanding rights and governmental power/control and supports broad executive powers. She vigorously defended "EXTREMELY BROAD EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY" before her 9-0 smack down from the Court on her challenge of the Solomon Amendment.

3) She wrote, “The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court’s decisions . . . If that is too results oriented … so be it. . .”

4) In her senior thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," she bemoaned the death of socialism in this country.

Now, consider some reactions from Liberal Academians and Bloggers:

“She appears to have gotten tenure at the University of Chicago based on a single article, something that’s not allowed at most top schools, she is certainly a nominee who has one of the thinnest records, in terms of writing, that we have seen in years.”” said Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at The George Washington University

“Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for ‘American Idol,’ not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him.” - liberal blogger Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake

While Kagan did win tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, her limited body of academic work played a role in the university’s decision not to allow her to reclaim her post after her White House stint, associates said.

My personal reaction to her nomination:

The SCOTUS was envisioned and designed to be an independent entity for a reason -- to avoid executive pressure. Like an umpire, the SCOTUS should have the reputation of an impartial entity, interpreting our basic document, the Constitution, not amending it or changing it. Otherwise, it is a useless, bureaucratic monstrosity and the tool of an over-reaching executive power grab.

Justice, especially on the SCOTUS, MUST look at the facts and only the facts of the case, apply the tenets of the constitution and render a decision based upon the constitution, period. The court should not be functioning as another government agency supporting the executive branch and its ideological views.

I may be old fashioned but I think the Supreme Court's highest duty is to protect the liberties of the American people as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. More often than not, it should not be assisting the inevitable thrust of the government for more power, but reining it in. The race, wealth, politics, or status of the people involved is immaterial.

Consider that nominee Kagan tried to kick military recruiters off the Harvard campus, despite the federal law authorizing it. Like Pres. Obama, she appears ambivalent about whether federal law needs to be followed. She seems to think you can ignore it if it suits you or it is politically expedient. Is this the proper attitude for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land? I think not.

Unfortunately, Madam Kagan, like Judge Sotomayor do not believe that this is the case. They have stated that the court should consider cases, not based upon the constitutionality of the issue but on the basis of the individual. President Obama is doing his level best to appoint functionaries who support this ideological belief in the expansion of a central government. Madam Kagan is another example of this effort and I find her appointment very threatening to the operation and independence of the SCOTUS.

One of the most dangerous views expressed by Nominee Kagan is her seeming desire to move toward administrative law. If what she writes and says is true, she has little respect for the rules of law, let alone the constitution if it doesn’t support those, who in her view, are the underdogs. She has written and seems to believe that person A deserves a different level of justice than person B because A and B are of different races, religions, political parties, income levels, sexual orientation or whatever. I firmly believe that anyone who holds these views should not be considered qualified to serve on any court in this country and most especially a lifetime appointment the SCOTUS.