Has the World actually been turned upside down?  Really?  It might as well have.  Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") heard oral arguments in a challenge to the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in  the matter of  Shelby County v. Holder (No. 12-96).  Under Section 5, certain States and Counties are required to have "pre-clearance" for changes undertaken that might affect rights to vote, especially those that might in any way limit minorities' right to vote.  Sounds like a decent notion to me, and Congress agreed in 2006 by extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for an additional 25 years.  So why the challenge? 
        Shelby County, Alabama claims the requirements of Section 5 are no longer applicable because their racial demographics have changed considerably since the formula was last reviewed in 1975.  But can they prove that the Southern States with a history of limiting racial minorities from voting as identified in the Act are no longer in the habit of making voting difficult for the poor or minorities?  Shelby County, Alabama argues that it can.  But anyone that witnessed efforts to create voter ID registration laws and to curtail early voting, especially the elimination of voting the Sunday immediately preceding Election Day (when predominately Black Churches get their "Souls to the Polls"), knows that efforts to limit racial minorities from voting are alive and well.  So then, what's the argument?
        Seems some members of the Supreme Court believe such protections amount to "a perpetuation of racial entitlements" (Scalia) and perhaps, the Court must rule on what is proper for the protection of voting rights instead of Congress.  Now everyone knows SCOTUS has authority under Article III of the Constitution as outlined in Marbury v. Madison (1803) to interpret the Constitution, but in my over 35 years of studying the Constitution, I have never found anything listing minority voting rights as "Entitlements."  More disturbing though is the appearance that several Justices on the Court have suddenly become advocates of an "Activist" role for the High Court.   You see, Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas have made it their duty to adhere to the mantra that the role of the Court is to employ "Judicial Restraint", one which requires the Court simply interpret the strict meaning of the Constitution while giving overriding  deference to the the "Will of Congress" that enacts legislation.
        While employing such "restraint", Justice Scalia has publicly identified his judicial temperament as being an "Originalist,"  and one that believes in "Textualism" - "interpreting the text of written law without going beyond the intent of those legislators who made the law."  Scalia claims that it is the "Court's duty to predominately defer to the preferences outlined in Laws as determined by the Legislature" (See, "A Matter of Interpretation, Anton Scalia, Princeton University Press, 1997).  In other words, the Court should practice restraint by avoiding the urge to substitute its judgment when the intent of the Legislature is clear when is enacts law.
          In 1985, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Alito wrote that he was "a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this [the Reagan] Administration. ... I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government [etc.] ...."  
        So why does it seem the World has turned upside down?  Because yesterday, during oral argument before the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia argued the action by Congress to extend the Act for an additional 25 years is not enough to prove their real legislative  intent; "...it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?"  Huh?  Justice Scalia, one who maintains that the Supreme Court should rarely, if ever, impose its will over an elected Congress, seems to be making an exception when it comes to the lawful protection of citizens' right to vote! 
        And if Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas really believe Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be struck down because the existing formula only applies to a narrow number of States and Counties that have undergone changes to their racial demographics, then perhaps Congress should extend the Act to cover all 50 states, so that it is equally and uniformly applied.  I mean, the Senate approved the extension by a mere a vote of 98-0!  How in the World can any Supreme Court Justice, let along one who allegedly lives and breathes the "Textualist" and "Originalist" theory of judicial restraint, possibly interpret that  Congress did not really intend to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965?  Can someone tell me how Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas define "Judicial Activism" if they consider their questions during oral argument reflect "restraint?" And isn't interposing their sideways interpretation that Congress really did not mean to extend the Act, like something out of a Fantasy World?  Yes, but perhaps only in a World that has in fact, gone upside down!

        In a follow-up to yesterday's posting about the GOP pivoting narratives from blaming Obama for Sequestration to claiming the cuts will not be that bad anyways, I return to the most common style of hypocrisy floating out in the public due to the pervasive Right Wing Communication Machine, aka, the Ideologically Oriented For Profit Media.   Not only has Obama been warning about the cuts mandated by the Sequestration, it seems Republican governors have joined in with pleas to fellow Republicans in Congress to reach a compromise with Obama and avoid the cuts!  Gee, now isn't that rich? 
         According to Politico, even Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) raised his frustration with the inaction by fellow Republicans in Congress; “We’re not here speaking on behalf of Republicans on the Hill, we’re speaking on behalf of Republican governors,” he said. “The difference is, we’re providing leadership.”  Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) came out stating; "“They need to stop having press conferences and start meeting, The time for shows is over. We’ve had 18 months.”  Are GOP members getting the message?  Hardly.  If the cuts under Sequestration are not as bad as "dishonestly" portrayed by Obama, then why the urgent calls from GOP governors for their political brethren on the Hill to immediately sit down and compromise with the president?  Apparently, GOP Congressional leaders in Washington are still caught up in the old GOP strategy of making Obama a failed president.  Some strategy, huh?
        Yesterday, I outlined the cuts identified by The Office of Management and Budget in an effort to accurately show how dishonest the Right Wing media has been on the issue.  But if the budget deficit is the sole reason our country is doomed, what can we all do to save it from economic ruin?  Make cuts that we can all live with and increase revenues that directly affect the costliest expenses we anticipate America will have!  How can we do that?  By sitting down and listing real financial priorities that are not couched in political ideology, rhetoric or hypocrisy.   But the rhetoric continues.  Just tonight on CNN,  Republican Senator Lyndsey Graham (SC) said that no new taxes are needed for anything but "to get out of debt."  Well, DUH!  Graham explained his belief that  no revenues are actually needed because cutting spending will solve most of our financial problems, and reforming the tax code by lowering tax rates will provide the remaining revenue needed to balance the budget.  Really? Haven't we seen how well tax cuts lead to increased revenues and employment? NOT!
         If Graham is correct, then why didn't lowering taxes on "Job Creators" thirteen years ago lead us to maintaining budget surpluses instead of the deficits?  Oh that's right, Graham's political ideology is the only thing guiding his economic views!  All we need to do according to Graham is to cut taxes and entitlement spending.  For the good of the country Mr. Graham, would you please publicly identify which entitlements you would cut?  And then would you please explain how you justify these heartless measures while proposing cuts to tax rates that favor the most fortunate and wealthy in America?   Forget about the Congressional Research Report revealing tax cuts have never led to the creation of jobs.  Forget the Report says tax cuts do nothing but make the rich richer!  That dog won't hunt.   What happened to reforming the tax code to take away tax loopholes and inane deductions?  According to Graham, tax cuts are the answer!  And the GOP and their Media Communication Machine has the chutzpah to claim Obama has been dishonest?  Let's keep it real folks.  The sooner we do, the sooner we can get beyond this manufactured crisis and move our great country forward! Until then, will we ever get an financial strategy devoid of political nonsense from both sides of the political aisle and instead one we can consider an All-American Economic Plan?

        With Congress off on vacation again, you would think the rhetoric in Washington would settle down, but just the opposite has occurred.  Instead of dealing with sequestration, some members of Congress have instead done everything they can to paint President Obama as a "failure,"  responsible for everything wrong in Washington. Everyday this past week, memes on Facebook have been popping up blaming Obama for "owning" sequestration and that any negative results from same are directly his fault.  Now we are beginning to see narratives that sequestration will not be that bad and any effort by the President to claim them to be disastrous to our economy, are"lies and distortions" perpetrated by our "lying president." Just today, a meme was posted on Facebook portraying Obama as being a "Fool" when he claims police, fire and teachers will be laid off because the cuts under sequestration affect only "Federal workers."  See how foolish Obama is?  See how much he distorts and lies to the public?
           So now that sequestration is closer to reality, we are seeing an alternative narrative being created.  Instead of it being Obama's fault, the oppositional narrative is that "the cuts are so small, no one will really be hurt by them" and "Obama, like all liberals, simply can't stand cuts to the big government they think we all have."  See?  The argument went from the cuts are "devastating" and "harsh" and they are all Obama's fault to the cuts are only 2.3% of our deficit and any cuts is better than no cuts and that Obama is "lying" about the negative impact it will have on our economy.   Have you been paying attention to this sudden political pivot?
          So what's your point Rubin, it's going to happen and we just have to deal with it.  My point is that sequestration is symbolic of what is wrong in Washington.  Under Article II, the president has NO authority to enact budgets, only Congress can do so.  When Obama suggested sequestration, it was made in an effort to force the hand of Congress to move forward on real budget measures.  Congress on the other hand, PASSED the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law.  Under the Act, Congress was required to create a budget that would avoid sequestration.  How come no one seems to make this clear to the public?  Setting aside the cuts under sequestration, the mere fact we are facing sequestration is indicative that Congress is unable to agree to anything!  So what do some in Congress do instead?  Take to the airwaves and point fingers of responsibility at each other!
          Now that the cuts appear inevitable, members of the GOP are claiming "they won't be as bad as Obama has declared."   Recognizing sequestration is going to happen, the GOP is trying to minimize the negativity and paint Obama as some kind of "Chicken Little" making much to do about nothing.  According to Right Wing pundits, including  George Will, "Obama, who believes government spends money more constructively than do those who earn it, warns that the sequesters budgetary nicks, amounting to 1% of the gross national product, will derail the economy." "The real choice today is between bigger or smaller unintelligent government."    If this was true, then why did a bi-partisan group of Governors attending the National Governors Association's 2013 Winter Meeting just come out opposing the cuts? (see Associated Press, 2/24/2013).    Which is it folks?  Will mandatory cuts hurt or are they so small we will simply move beyond this "fabricated" crisis created by Liberals? 
         According to the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), sequestration will slash spending as follows; "Aircraft purchases by the Air Force and Navy are cut by $3.5 billion; Military operations across the services are cut by about $13.5 billion; Military research is cut by $6.3 billion; The National Institutes of Health get cut by $1.6 billion; The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are cut by about $323 million; Border security is cut by about $581 million; Immigration enforcement is cut by about $323 million; Airport security is cut by about $323 million; Head Start gets cut by $406 million, kicking 70,000 kids out of the program; FEMA’s disaster relief budget is cut by $375 million; Public housing support is cut by about $1.94 billion; The FDA is cut by $206 million; NASA gets cut by $970 million; Special education is cut by $840 million; The Energy Department’s program for securing our nukes is cut by $650 million; The National Science Foundation gets cut by about $388 million; The FBI gets cut by $480 million; The federal prison system gets cut by $355 million; State Department diplomatic functions are cut by $650 million; Global health programs are cut by $433 million; the Millenium Challenge Corp. sees a $46 million cut, and USAID a cut of about $291 million; The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is cut by $55 million; The SEC is cut by $75.6 million; The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is cut by $2.6 million; The Library of Congress is cut by $31 million; The Patent and Trademark office is cut by $156 million."  The Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") predicts upwards of 1 million jobs will be lost as a result of sequestration.  Just what our fragile economy does not need!
        You are intelligent enough to interpret what these cuts mean, so I am not going to itemize each of them with commentary.  They are though, not"minor" and "insignificant"  as those on the Right claim them to be.  Once again we are seeing the predictable course of political narratives.  When you begin to lose the high ground, pivot to another.  Which gets me to my last point.  As soon as these cuts go into effect, expect the GOP in Congress to immediately introduce Bills reinstating spending for the military, yet leaving the cuts in place for social programs.  This will be done in an obvious attempt to paint Democrats as "soft" on defense and "strong" on social programs that assist the "takers" in our society through "big government."   By pushing this agenda, they will again assert the narrative that President Obama is a "pandering, dishonest, socialist interested in re-shaping America to be more like a European nation" (and we now know how well things are working out for European nations these days).   What really is happening is the inaction by Congress to address the real long-term needs for economic reform.  Instead of initially placing blame for sequestration and then claiming it won't be that bad, Congress should be addressing reforms to our tax code, immigration laws, and entitlements.  Instead of taking more vacations, they should be working to remedy the obvious problems facing our nation.  Wouldn't it be nice if our political leaders did as much work as they do complaining?  As we enter baseball's Spring Training, perhaps it is best for Americans to demand our leaders take the field of leadership and go to work!  Like Spring Training, all Americans should cry loud and clear to our elected officials, "PLAY BALL!"

         Now that it appears Congress is refusing to avoid sequestration, some Americans appear to be collectively shaking their heads in disbelief.  Unfortunately, most folks will only learn about sequestration after its negative effects are felt in our economy.  Perhaps even more unfortunate, is the current "blame game" being waged between the parties as to who caused the sequestration to come about in the first place.  Yes, President Obama suggested the drastic action as a measure of last resort.  But President Obama made it clear, sequestration should not happen and by suggesting the measure, he planned and hoped pragmatic minds in Congress would be forced to work together and agree on deficit reduction measures.  So what happened?  Congress agreed and passed the sequestration bill, otherwise known as Budget Control Act of 2011.  Yep, 2011!  Congress has had that much time to avoid the harsh realities of sequestration.  Have they done anything to stop it going into effect?  Of course not, and now we are only eight (8) days from the sequestration going into effect!  But who is really to blame for this?
            The Republicans say it is President Obama's sequestration because he asked for it.  But Congress passed it into law.  President Obama claims he proposed it in an effort to get Congress to get deficit reduction measures negotiated.  But what about tax reform?  Didn't Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan repeatedly campaign on promises they were going to reform the tax code?  Paul Ryan is chairman of the House Budget Committee in a chamber controlled by the Republican Party.  He has all the authority he needs under Article I, Section 8 to get those reforms proposed and enacted in the House.   So where are these promised  reforms?  Nowhere, because the GOP candidates really had no such plans.  But the Democrats are just as culpable in the Senate for their lame inaction. 
             So who is really to blame for this failure?  We are, that's who! What? No way it can be our fault.  But yes,  it is our fault for electing folks to be leaders of Congress when they have proven time and time again that they are incapable of leading.  Seriously, they are not doing the job they have been elected to perform (except Tea Party members of the Republican Party who were elected to go to Washington to destroy it).  Ironically, it takes no leadership skills to tear down the government...anyone can do that! But leadership on the national level requires skilled, articulate and smart folks in order to create initiatives in public policy and legislation a 21st century America requires.  And to do so, requires bi-partisan cooperation,, but we seriously lack those leaders in our current Congress.
         Perhaps it would be best for the President to suggest a new type of "or else" measure?  Like one that requires Congressional leaders from both political parties negotiate deficit reduction, entitlement, tax and immigration reform by the end of summer (like August 31, 2013).   Instead of automatically cutting spending if they cannot agree to work together to accomplish necessary legislation, then the new plan would require the Speaker and Majority Leader of the House and the Majority and Minority Leader of the Senate, to resign from Congress, effective immediately!  Now that would be a great way to shrink our government.  Unfortunately, such a proposal would be D.O.A. ("Dead on Arrival") in our Congress.  Even Harry Truman said,  "Washington is a very easy city for you to forget where you came from and why you got there in the first place."   Let's begin to remind these folks in 2014 where they came from and bring them home!

      Have you heard about the type of dirt that is so refined, it can be evenly spread to provide great coverage and still be fertile enough to nurture seedlings that can grow big and strong?  No?  You have heard though that former GOP Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination by President Obama to serve as Secretary of Defense has been filibustered by fellow Republicans in the Senate right?  Republican Senators have delayed Hagel's confirmation because they demand answers about certain speeches Hagel supposedly made to groups tied to terrorism.  But did he make those speeches?  He claims he has not, but that is not good enough for suspecting Republican Senators and Fox News.   In fact, Fox News made it a regular topic for the past couple weeks, explaining that Tea Party Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Jim Inhofe were simply doing their jobs while "interrogating" Hagel using suppositions during his confirmation hearing.  Yet anyone watching them in action was instantly reminded of the late Joseph McCarthy's Senate hearings based upon illogical speculation, innuendo and conjecture created out of whole cloth.  Remember?
          When asked why the Republicans oppose Hagel so much, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) admitted it had to do with Hagel's refusal to support President Bush and Republican efforts to push for the surge in Iraq.  McCain stated that many fellow Republicans "have a long memory" for that type of thing.  But other Republicans have admitted they sought to delay Hagel's inevitable confirmation in the hopes that more accusations of shady dealings will arise, leading to Hagel withdrawing his nomination to head the Pentagon.  But what kind of "other" dealings might arise? 
          According to Fox News, citing Breitbart.com, Hagel had delivered a speech to a group known as "The Friends of Hamas" and failed to disclose the speech and related income as required under Senate rules.  Even though the Obama Justice Department cleared Hagel for the nomination in their vetting process, the Republicans continue to claim nothing from the Justice Department can be truthful, so they are waging a personal war against Hagel based on allegations from Breitbart.  Except one little bit of evidence has gotten in the way!  What could that be?  Proof that Hagel's speaking to "Friends of Hamas" never happened because no such group exist(ed) and that a reporter making a joke made the entire thing up.  According to various news sources, including The Wire, Dan Friedman, a reporter with the New York Daily News, had a conversation with a source and knowing Hagel was being framed as Anti-Israel, started the rumor as a joke, recently admitting responsibility; "So, I asked my source, had Hagel given a speech to, say, the "Junior League of Hezbollah, in France"? And, What about "Friends of Hamas?"  The names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed — let alone that a former senator would speak to them."  So what happens next?  Despite being ridiculous, the source knows this is "red meat" to the Right Wing Communication Machine so he passes it along as a "rumor."  And that is enough for "Fair and Balanced" Fox News to report it accordingly.  Wow! 
           So there we have it!  Something so ridiculous and outrageous that it cannot be possibly be believed as true, is promoted by the ideologically based for-profit media in an effort to embarrass President Obama and destroy the reputation of former Senator and decorated Viet Nam war veteran, Chuck Hagel.  Forget about working to seek and find the truth, it is easier and more salacious to sell lies to their gullible, ideologically leaning audience knowing how easy they are to be cynically manipulated for political gain.  Fox News, Breitbart and Republican Senators Inouye and Cruz should be ashamed.  But will they feel ashamed?    Not likely, because they are the newly minted and celebrated stars of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party and its supporting media.  Instead of dealing with facts, they deal with smears based upon innuendo, falsehoods and fear.  As Harry Truman once said, "When even one American who has done nothing wrong is forced to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."   So when dirt is being spread around, let's remember that some of it is laced with partisan manure that can lead to Senators with dirty hands!

     Out of respect for Presidents' Day and the fact that Congress is (again) on vacation and President Obama is away from the Oval Office, I think it best that Americans sit back and reflect on what is really happening (or not) in Washington.  We once again are facing a self-imposed crisis coming at us in the form of the Sequestration and no one in Congress seems all that "bent out of shape" over the negative effects it will produce. So why should we?  I'll tell you why.  We should all be concerned because if Congress cannot work long enough to avoid a self-imposed "dooms day" in the form of Sequestration, what in the world makes us think they can positively react in the event of a real crisis?
           But what type of real crisis are we talking about?  Like a negative ripple effect on our fragile economy Sequestration will bring? Or an increasingly belligerent Iran and North Korea, two rogue players on the world stage?  Or the brewing tempest in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon that could be made much worse by an overzealous Turkey attempting to fill any leadership vacuum created by a collapse of Iran's puppet nation-states?  Or the need for real reform of our tax code and entitlements that would ensure our citizens future and our country's economic and fiscal security?  I could go on, but I think you "catch my drift."  Instead of sitting down and working towards real solutions to real problems, our political leaders in Washington are playing a game of hide and seek, moving away and hiding from responsibilities while seeking an alleged "high ground" to proselytize why their ideology is more worthy than their opponents (in an effort to steer huge sums of campaign cash and support to themselves).
         Is America paying attention yet?  I think so, but I am not sure to what extent.  Far too many Americans have "bought" into the notion that we are a nation divided by obvious differences, highlighted by the ideologically oriented for-profit media with the objective to perpetuate our division in order to maximize political gain.  We seem to prefer our leaders debate solutions to fake problems without really discussing what our real problems are.  We are blinded by political factionalism instead of being guided by the bright lights of liberty and democracy.  It is time for Americans on this day commemorating the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, to respect our differences while embracing our mutual interests as a nation.  It is not too late to bring our nation together again to work on common causes, and to avert pending crises that are created out of whole cloths of ideological narratives.  It all starts with one American connecting with another, and then another and so on, regardless of political or ideological orientation.  Pass the word, America is for all Americans!  As Lincoln so eloquently stated in 1858,  "A House Divided Cannot Stand."  Let's begin by celebrating our common goals and aspirations...to keep America great!

       Although citizens of the area around Chelyabinsk, Russia might not find a Meteor crashing into Earth fascinating, the rest of the World does.  Over the centuries, mankind has gazed in wonder at the universe that surrounds our great Earth, pondering life outside our planet and the great depths of space within our galaxy and beyond.  But some on the political Right, still see Space as the outer reaches of Heaven, not to be considered seriously because of their literal beliefs in Scriptures they believe limit our imagination beyond our orbit.  I do not wish to interpose my religious beliefs, but my religion has great respect for both biblical and scientific origins of mankind and the planet upon which we all live.  But for many Conservatives and their representative politicians, science is not to be believed! 
              Come on man, you've got to be kidding, right?  Unfortunately, I am not.  At the top of the list of Republican's in denial of science is  Georgia Republican Congressman Paul Broun, who actually chairs a House Science Subcommittee.  In September, 2012, Broun publicly announced that scientists have made up lies about "evolution, the age of planet Earth, the Big Bang Theory, and embryology…and that those lies come straight from the pit of Hell.”  Really? 
             Which gets me to my point.  While discussing the fantastic footage of the Meteor streaking over the Russian sky, someone piped in that it was a hoax.  Huh?  Yep, they claimed that the space rock plummeting through our outer terrestrial rings at speeds of 40,000 MPH and exploding some 25 miles over land resulting in producing tremendous sonic booms and blistering glass and brick shattering sound waves, was not a meteor at all.  When I pressed this person further, they claimed they heard on the news it was instead "something America shot over Russia and was not from space after all!"  When I asked where she heard this news, she pondered for awhile and claimed it was all over the news "last night."  She ultimately claimed she heard it on ABC News.  When I expressed my amazement with her comments, she told me "just watch the news tomorrow and it will be all over!"  But I could not find anything tying ABC News to such a false report.  For that matter, I could not find any news source claiming the meteor was instead something coming from "America."
          I did however, find a news report that a Russian politico by the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky  claimed the "meteor" was nothing more than the result of a "secret testting of a new weapon by the U.S."  So there we have it!  A Russian politician making an outrageous assertion that a Meteor, actually tracked by several scientific agencies, can not possibly be a naturally occurring scientific event, but a man-made military event.  And who would believe such a statement?  Folks gullible enough to ignore science!  And which side of the political spectrum seems to place science into the "not to be believed" category?  Those on the Political Right that's who!  Any wonder most of those very same folks cling to inane notions that President Obama is a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Terrorist, the Anti-Christian, Anti-Gun, Anti-American president?  Now add them to the list of "Chicken-Little"  naysayers that disrespect science only because they do not understand it.  Like most folks, I sat back in complete awe at the power and spectacle of science and space, but for many it seems, scientific thinking is not their strong suit.  If this keeps up, it will not only be Asteroids, but also be some Republicans and their anti-science beliefs that will be crashing to Earth!

      Sometimes you really have to wonder! I mean, I had my political science students write a recap on the State of the Union Address and the Republican response.  When collecting their assignments, one student voiced his overwhelming admiration for Marco Rubio (R-FL).  In an effort to give him a platform to vent, he stated he agreed with everything Mr. Rubio said and finished by asserting that Rubio "perfectly framed the reason Obama is wrong on the economy."  As an educator, I found myself in the perfect position to open the floor for debate, and wow did the floodgates open! 
         Some students felt it necessary to add that business owners can not afford to pay any increase in the minimum wage and we were off to "the races."  Instead of cutting off the discussion, I allowed them to tell us all why the minimum wage should not be raised.  And I waited.  I heard all of the time worn arguments about small business owners not having the money to pay more to employees and how any increase would surely force business owners to close shop or lay off employees.  And I waited some more.  And when another student cited that an employee working full time at minimum wage could not afford much of anything and would undoubtedly be living in poverty, I waited some more.  And when another student mentioned that food servers make even less than minimum wage (the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act wage is set at a lowly $2.13, with Florida's server wages established at $4.77 - per U.S. Dept. of Labor - 2013) I waited for even more.  Was this enough to change minds about minimum wage? Of course not.  And then I heard what I was waiting for!  "Business owners and executives deserve to make as much money as they can!"  And there it was.  Sound familiar?  Remember Social Darwinism?  Better yet, remember Mitt Romney's 47% comment?  Put those together and you have the notion that the working class is really a bunch of "slackers and takers" not deserving of what employers have.
        But executives working for S&P 500 Index companies make 380 times what average workers are paid at those same companies.  This number used to be 42 times worker wages in 1980.  And has the huge gap in executive pay even remotely been taken into account while employees' standard of living decline?  Nope.  We see more companies granting pension and stock benefits to executives at an alarming rate while laid off employees are still scratching to get by! More importantly, collective corporate profits have been stockpiled in excess of $1 Trillion!  So why the tremendous ideological support for corporations at the obvious cost to average Americans?  Because political ideologies cloud peoples' judgment.  I mean, who shouldn't be able to make as much money as possible?  That's the prevalent talking point...it's downright UnAmerican to even think someone should not make as much money as they can.  But where is the argument that American workers also deserve to make as much as they can...or at least as much as they are worth to an employer?  As a student of American history, I think it is time for Americans to learn more about Theodore Roosevelt (R-NY) and how he found it to be in the Nation's interest to protect American workers from predatory business owners and executives.  Roosevelt once publicly stated; "The Constitution was made for the people and not the people for the Constitution."  I agree with T.R.  This country is made up of working folks and they deserve a place at the table.  We are not a Nation designed to benefit the few, the privileged. 
        As an aside, the GOP has filibustered the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.  But why?  Is it because they truly hate the fact Hagel is a former Republican Senator?  Is he a traitor to them?  Is it possible that they are insulted that Obama nominated someone from "across the aisle?"  Is it possible Republicans remain in denial that Obama won re-election and this is the only way to let the American Public know they still are relevant?  Perhaps another T.R. quote is worth mentioning here too?  " If the minority is as powerful as the majority there is no use of having political contests at all, for there is no use in having a majority."   Is it possible the Republicans actually believe they will never win the White House again?  Otherwise, you can believe they will reap what they sow if they ever do!

       Am I the only one to come away from last night's State of the Union Address more convinced than ever that little to nothing is going to be done in the 113th Congress?  I mean, President Obama raised several reasons for America to invest in our infrastructure, students and small businesses, but that meant spending money! But what about the Deficit?  Why is it that the richest nation in the World cannot seem to afford to operate in the 21st Century?  Our electrical grid is decaying, our bridges are crumbling and our transportation systems have not been seriously upgrades since the Eisenhower Administration .  Anyone broken their neck yet slamming into the debt ceiling?  Already, the GOP has labeled such ideas "Leftist", "Liberal" and "Socialist."  Earth to Republicans, look up Henry Clay's American System/Plan.  You will learn that investments in America pay off in expanded commerce, which leads to profits for business, revenue for governments and jobs for workers.  Go figure!  Alexander Hamilton is still spinning in his grave.  Gee,  I wonder if he would want gun control?  Considering he was shot to death by Aaron Burr (the first Vice President to shoot someone...).
       As Marco Rubio (R-FL) presented his "Republican rebuttal" to the State of the Union, I quickly realized that the man seemed to be reading a speech written back in 2008 instead of 2013.  Rubio reminded us all that big government is never the answer and only free markets make the world go around.  While feeding us this old rhetoric, Rubio mentioned his past reliance upon student loans and his mother's current reliance on Medicare...both government programs!  Oops.  And then..the water moment.  Honestly, I immediately thought of Saturday Night Live and the Not Ready For Prime Time Players!  Poor Rubio, he seemed to be having a problem swallowing the rhetoric his handlers were feeding him.  Did anyone else find his final smile to be forced?  I think his initial smile was genuine, but someone behind the camera told him to smile like they do to students posing for a school yearbook photo, and Rubio delivered.  You remember those smiles, right?
       The only thing we can look forward to is an activated President utilizing Executive Actions to move the ball forward on his initiatives.  But be prepared for the Right Wing Communication Machine to begin pounding their fists about an over-reaching dictatorial President.  Is it really overreach when Congress can't otherwise get anything done?  Are we witnessing a new era of Executive Action to govern instead of legislative action from Congress?  As long as Congress remains in gridlock of partisanship and cannot meet their collective Article I responsibilities, we can expect Obama and future Presidents to expand their "Custom and Usage" authority under Article II to meet their Constitutional responsibilities. 

      By now, most folks have heard that Steve Stockman, Republican member of the House of Representatives from the State of Texas has officially invited Ted Nugent to attend tomorrow night's State of the Union Address.  This year's address will be special not only because the President was reelected, but because Mr. Stockman publicly proclaimed he would initiate formal impeachment action if the President signed any Executive Orders that affect gun rights (and we are still waiting for the impeachment proceedings).  The invitation of Nugent adds to the "special" flavor to the State of the Union, as Nugent also proclaimed prior to the election in November, that if President Obama was reelected, then America will  surely meet its "end."  Nugent went further by stating that if Obama was reelected,  he would  "be either dead or in jail."  Now Nugent will be neither, any more than Stockman will be impeaching Obama. 
         At what point do these jokers realize that they have no credibility and therefore, are to be perpetually ignored?  By Stockman inviting Nugent, what type of signal is he sending to the public?  After Obama's election, Nugent, never missing an opportunity to make himself "relevant", told reporters  that only "pimps, whores and welfare brats" voted for Obama.  So much for respecting the 60.65 Million Americans that voted for Mr. Obama.  So much also for respecting the democratic process!
           Now if Mr. Nugent attends the President's Address, then perhaps it would be a good idea to conduct a full body scan and cavity search on Mr. Nugent and Mr, Stockman.  Perhaps while searching, they might actually find where their brains reside?  
         See you on the radio tomorrow night with Robyn Davis on The Robyn Report on www.1490wwpr.com.