Just this past weekend, I had a couple of interesting conversations with some of my Conservative friends.  One opened the conversation asking me what I thought was the number one issue facing America today.  When I questioned why he would ask me this particular question, he responded that most of his "liberal" friends are claiming that Same Sex Marriage is an important issue.  Knowing I am a moderate in the middle of the political spectrum, he wanted to know my reaction to the position his friends have taken.  Immediately I confirmed that Same Sex Marriage is hardly on my radar screen of important issues facing our country.  His response?  "I knew you'd agree with me!"  With that response, I could not help but ask the obvious follow-up question, "What do you think I believe is the most important issue facing America?"  Brace yourselves...according to my friend, Radical Islam!  Really?
        Although I agree that Radical Islam is a concern that is definitely on my radar screen, I don't think it is the most serious threat to our democracy.  After agreeing that I am concerned with the motivation of folks that could lead to terrorism inside America, I told him my largest concern was the use of money by interest groups and supporting Super PACs to influence our Congress.   Whoa now!  His response to me was nothing short of a rant about the undue influence of Unions on Congress and if I wanted to restrict interest groups, would I include Unions in that equation!?  When I told him I would include Unions in the "Interest Group" equation, he went on to rant that the education system in America has been totally ruined by the dominance of the Teachers' Unions.  Huh?   You see, my friend is neither an educator nor has he ever worked in the field of education.  So where does he get the "expertise" to make this type of statement?   When I asked him why he believes Teachers' Unions have destroyed education, he stated that they have "sucked all the money out of the system and have forced bloated teacher pensions that states can't afford."   There you have it, teacher pensions are too expensive and their Unions push States around.  But in reality, teachers have typically accepted lower salaries than those offered to employees with the same level of education and experience.  By taking the lower salaries, teachers have accepted decent insurance benefits and pensions instead.  Lately, pensions though have come under attack by Conservatives claiming States cannot afford them.  And the ideologically oriented for-profit media is the source of his angst towards Teachers' Unions.  But the reality is again, somehow lost on these folks. 
        According to a bi-partisan group of former governors, teacher pensions are inadequately funded not because the benefits are too expensive, but because State legislatures have for decades been diverting pension monies to General Funds.  As we learned in January, Florida teachers paying an additional three percent (3%) of their income towards shoring up the Florida Retirement Fund have actually seen their contributions diverted by the State Legislature to the General Fund.  But do Conservatives admit this is happening?  No, they continue the charade that pensions are bloated as a result of exorbitant demands arbitrarily imposed upon them by Teachers' Unions.  And my friend has fallen for this line of reasoning.   So what doe he say when I set the record straight? He pivoted to saying the Service Employees International Union ("SEIU")" exerts an "undue influence on Congress with all of their campaign spending!"  Once again, facts seem to be getting in the way of my friend's opinion!
           According to The Center For Responsible Government and OpenSecrets.Org,  campaign contribution reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, indicate the SEIU spent a whopping $36,277,242 on the 2012 election!  How dare a Union spend so much money on an election!  I mean, the US Chamber of Commerce only spent $35,367,029 and we know who supports them right?  Actually, we don't!  The Chamber does not disclose who their donors are, while the SEIU is required by law to disclose their donors.  So what gives?  Do Unions exert an undue influence on Congress or not?  Here's a clue - Karl Rove's Koch Brothers backed American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS spent $175,128,610 and they too do not disclose who their donors were.   Next in line spending the most?  Restore Our Future, Mitt Romney's supporting Super PAC, which spent $142,097,336!  So why the angst towards the SEIU when their campaign spending is dwarfed by the top two Super PACS supporting only Conservative candidates? Because facts continue to escape the rhetoric pushed upon folks, that's why!  Yes, Liberals supported Super-PACs of their own, but Unions spent far less than Conservative Super-PACs in the most recent election.  So where is the angst those groups deserve from the "concerned" public?
        My other friend asked me my opinion on whether I felt the younger terrorist in Boston should have been read his Miranda Rights.  When I told him I believed the Public Safety Exception was properly used and that Miranda being eventually read was acceptable to me,   he then asked why we shouldn't have labeled him an "Enemy Combatant" (straight out of the mouth of GOP Senator Lindsey Graham and Fox News!)?  But I responded to his question with a question of my own - "Should U.S. Citizens be afforded due process of law?"  "Of course" he said.  Then why should the second terrorist, a U.S. Citizen not be afforded his Constitutional rights?  "Because he is a Terrorist, that's why!"  Really?  Since when do we selectively apply the Constitution when it comes to civil liberties and due process, but demand that Second Amendment rights be upheld regardless of the circumstances?  No response from my friend.  Should the second terrorist have been denied access to firearms?  No response.  And hence, the hypocrisy inherent in the argument.
        Should we ever set aside the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution?  If so, which ones?  Who decides which ones?  As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."  It's time to set aside unreasonable fear and replace it with a solid certainty that our Constitution and the reasoning behind it should always prevail.  

        As mentioned in today's Political News of the Week, the House sent to the Senate a Bill (HR 527) to avert the closure of the Federal Helium Reserve.  The Reserve, established in 1925 was created in order to ensure the military had enough supplies of Helium to produce a fleet of dirigibles, or air ships.  As you might know, dirigibles were a technological wonders by 1906 and the Germans were developing a fleet of the airships for use for the military.  Although slow moving, the helium filled dirigibles provided reliable air surveillance that previous "balloon" type crafts couldn't.  The German developed dirigible also provided long distance travel at a time when conventional aircraft were still considered "risky."  In order to catch up with the Germans and their use of dirigibles, Congress created the Federal Helium Reserve to ensure the United States would have enough of the "lighter than air" gas for our own fleet of dirigibles.
          Some time ago, Congress agreed that the Federal Helium Reserve was no longer a national strategic necessity and moved to end the program.  Called the Helium Privatization Act of 1996, Congress and President Clinton decided to end the Federal program in an effort to promote private investment in the storage and sale of helium.  According to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, the measure was undertaken because private demand for helium far exceeded the needs of Federal agencies (such as NASA and research institutions).  As a result, tax incentives were created to promote private enterprises to enter the Helium market. 
        By 1998, helium regulations were altered as well to encourage private enterprise to step into the role of producing, maintaining and selling helium (see: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/energy/helium/federal_helium_program.html).  With continuous rhetoric about cutting Federal Agencies, Congress with the President's approval, voted to end the Federal Helium Reserve by October 1, 2013.  In fact, the closing of the Federal program would cut at least $340 Million over ten years from the Federal budget.  It would also create an immediate opportunity for private enterprise to fill the void created by the government departure from the marketplace.   Helium is a by-product of natural gas and is used in making products ranging from fiber optic cables to computer chips to MRI machines, so there is a market for the gas.  It is also used in the aerospace industry (we commonly associate helium for inflating party balloons or making us all sound like cartoon characters).  Although there are currently four private companies producing helium, they do not engage in the active marketing and sale of the gas.  Why not?    Why hasn't anyone stepped up to the plate to take over this industry (which could lead to a monopoly in the market)?
          I have an idea.  We know more and more politicians are beginning to see the writing on the wall that their careers are coming to an end.  Citizens are getting fed up with politicized rhetoric designed to divide rather than unite our Nation.  Perhaps "retired" politicians in Washington should be given stock in a new private enterprise geared towards storing and marketing helium.  After all, they are sure qualified to run such a company based on their vast expertise at sounding "cartoonish" while spouting "Hot Air."

      Did you know that hunting season opened today?  Not any ordinary hunting season, but one specifically designed to manipulate members of the Republican base into repeating newly minted talking points with the objective of repeating them enough, they become the actual political narrative heading into the 2016 Presidential elections.  The prey for this particular hunting?  Hillary Clinton.
     Just today the GOP led House of Representatives released a report signed exclusively by House Republicans identifying Hillary Clinton as the culprit behind the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Now the odd part of the report is not that it was signed by every Republican member of Darrell Issa's (R-CA) House Oversight Committee or that the Report did not have a single Democratic member's signature.  No that is not odd, that's politics.  What is odd is that the Report states that the Former Secretary of State is to blame because a memo from bears her signature indicating a refusal to provide spending for additional security for the Consulate before the attack.  The State Department has publicly reported that all memos from the Department in Washington bear her name and signature because Under-Secretaries act under her authority.   The State Department has no evidence that Hillary Clinton was actually involved in the decision to reject the request for additional security for the Consulate.  Regardless, Clinton accepted full responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy when she addressed the Senate in January.  But that did not stop the GOP  Committee from making their revealing report public.  Does anyone actually believe the terrorists acted only after the State Department decided not to provide the additional security funds? Historically,  Republicans have a nasty habit of trying to marginalize Democrats even when the events don't turn out in their favor.  Anyone remember the Isolationist GOP led Nye Committee meetings led by GOP Senator Gerald Nye?   Just as Adolf Hitler was moving to conquer Europe, FDR was preparing to get the United States into the World War.  Standing in his way?  A Republican committee reported that WWI was merely an excuse by President Wilson to guarantee huge profits for industry and that there was no reason for America to have entered the World War.  As the Republicans declared hunting season on FDR, Hitler pounded London while moving swiftly to capture every living European Jew.  We know the Republicans worked to marginalize FDR for political purposes.  We know the Republicans are up to the same games today.  In fact, Lindsey Graham took to the airwaves on Fox this morning alleging that the Obama Administration has failed to protect America as evidenced from the attacks on Benghazi and Boston.  I thought Republicans had accused democrats of "politicizing" Benghazi?  Oops!  Think the terms used by Graham like "Failing" and "Benghazi" are not by design?  You bet they are.  They are designed to redirect all discussion back to opening hunting season on Hillary.
       A Facebook posting shared today by one of my Right Wing friends was an old rant on Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The post "shared" by my friend, features a photo of the Clintons from 43 years ago.  With the photo are the following statements, "Old draft evaders never die."  The story goes on to claim Bill Clinton is the "First Pardoned Federal Felon ever to serve as President of the United States!"  Snopes.com found the entire claim originally made in 2002 to be "False" but that does not stop Right Wing ideologues from spreading it anew!  Of course they keep repeating it, because it's Open Hunting Season on the Clintons!  The story ends with the request folks share it on their Facebook because "We don't want this woman to even THINK of running for president!"  Ironically, Hillary never "dodged" a draft.  Incredibly, the photo is from 1970 and Hillary and Bill were not married until 1975.  Perhaps FDR said it best, "I am neither bitter nor cynical, but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking!  The GOP sure is trying to make it a long, long campaign for the White House in 2016!  In the mean time, look out, It's Hunting Season!

    Now that the arguments on whether to charge suspected terrorist Dzhokhar Tsanarev in the criminal courts rather than labeling him an "Enemy Combatant" are over, Washington seems now back to their usual tasks of throwing insults, raising money and doing very little to resolve the budget, the economy or the many problems facing our great nation.  One of the things  "accomplished" by our elected officials in Florida though, was the legislature passing a "huge" Education Bill apportioning $1 Billion to public education.  Wow, that seems like a lot of money, but in reality, the $1 Billion pales in comparison to the $1.7 Billion previously cut by Tea Party Governor Rick Scott (R) and the GOP led State Legislature for public schools in 2011-2012. 
         I know, many of you are not interested in Florida politics, but what is happening in Florida is now happening throughout the United States.  Since the Obama Administration has been dangling over $4 Billion in "Race to the Top" Education funds, States have been climbing all over themselves to get a piece of that Federal pie.  Included in the "Race" fund requirements, are regulations requiring teachers first meet student achievement goals before they are eligible to receive any increase in pay or bonuses.  And what does Florida go and do?  They commit to the ideology that no bonus or merit pay shall be provided to teachers unless they are evaluated as "Highly Effective."  Makes sense, until you learn that in order to be evaluated as "Highly Effective," a teacher must be observed countless times in his/her classroom and after achieving an evaluation score from their observing administrator,  a "value added" score is then included in their evaluation.  What is a "Value Added" Score?
         From personal experience I can tell you it is the most outrageous way of evaluating any employee, let alone a teacher.  In my case, in 2012, I received the highest evaluation score possible (100 points).  According to my actual observations, my administrator rated me as "Highly Effective."  But now add the "Value Added" score and my overall score drops from a solid 4 out of 4, to a 3 out of 4.  Why?  Because my score was reduced by the overall scores on the 10th Grade Reading Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test ("FCAT").  Sounds fair right?  Except I do not teach 10th graders.  I have never met these students.  Then how in the world can my overall evaluation score be reduced by the FCAT performance of these students?   I know, we all are a team, but merit pay is based on individual teacher performance, so why rig the system to preclude any (or very few) teachers from receiving merit pay?  By analogy, that is like the water company cutting off your water service because a neighbor down the street used too much while watering his lawn.  There is no relationship between the neighbor's use of water and yours, yet you are penalized.  This makes sense to no one, except the elected officials in the Florida Statehouse!
         Sound equitable?  Florida teachers earn average salaries roughly $10,000 less than the national average.  Since becoming a teacher, I have neither been paid a "step" increase for every year of teaching experience I have earned or had a raise of any kind, and neither have my dedicated colleagues.  Moreover, the State of Florida decided public employees had to contribute 3% of the gross pay towards their pensions in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS").  But after teachers unions in Florida sued to invalidate the unilateral pension contribution, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the State may impose contribution requirements.  I am okay with this, as it was represented to teachers that the money contributed would go directly into the FRS to shore up pension shortfalls.  But the money did not actually go into the FRS.  What?  According to Supreme Court Justice R. Fred Lewis, none of the contributions made by public employees to shore up the public pension fund actually went to FRS!  So where did the money go instead?  Into the General Fund, just like any other revenue collected by the State in the form of taxes.  Although Florida does not (allegedly) have a personal income tax, they do now for public employees (3%).  Which leads me to the obvious observation.
        As long as our "representatives" in government misrepresent legislation in an effort to win public support for ideologically oriented political policies,  citizens will continue to be misrepresented in our Statehouses and Congress.  So how do we stop this?  We vote to elect new representatives interested in protecting the best interests of all citizens.  Now that my local representative to the United States House of Representatives has voted to support CISPA as well as the Bill to authorize employers the right to demand access to private passwords to social media outlets, I will not be voting for him, no matter how well he handles constituent services.  Diluting fundamental Constitutional rights is enough for me to stand up and say "no!"
          Isn't it time citizens begin voting in their best interests and not against their personal interests?  Isn't it time our elected officials begin to fear the voters instead of the pressure exerted by interest groups pushing their own legislative objectives?  As President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "Do you want to know who you are?  Don't ask.  Act!  Action will delineate and define you,"   It's time to start reacting to the reality that our elected officials do not represent our best interests and routinely pay us lip service when they seek re-election.  It's time to act!  Like Jefferson, I think the mid-term elections on both the State and National level will define us.  Do we want more of the same, or do we want change?  Change requires work and the work can be hard.  But hard work never hurt anyone, especially if it strengthens our resolve to improve our democratic-republic.  Isn't it time to report to work?

       Now that the "Armchair" lawyers and forensic specialists are out in full force, can we actually have a discussion (as opposed to a debate) about the continued efforts to dilute our fundamental rights embodied in the Bill of Rights?  I mean, now that suspected terrorist Dzhorkhar Tzarnaev has been apprehended, attention has suddenly shifted not to what would cause anyone holding U.S. Citizenship to murder maim, and terrorize innocent Americans, but instead on whether he should have been afforded his "Miranda Rights."  I say "Armchair" lawyers because so many folks think they know criminal procedure, law and the Constitution based upon television shows like CSI, or rely upon alleged anonymous "experts" posting inane comments on the Internet.
       Just last night, I responded to a message posted online claiming the entire Boston Bombing was a hoax and was none other than a "government conspiracy" proven by the fact the apprehended suspect was not read his Miranda rights! When I pointed out an exception exists wherein Miranda does not have to be immediately read to a suspect, the response was swift, "That's what's wrong with you Teabaggers, you know nothing!" Wow, I've been called a lot of things, but having someone call me a "Teabagger" was definitely a first!
       A simple review of Miranda and subsequent court rulings reveals that although self-incriminating speech under the 5th Amendment is generally protected, the collection of physical evidence may not be so protected.    For over two decades, Courts have ruled that criminal defendants, even though they may have the right to remain silent, have no right to decline having evidence collected without a warrant that might incriminate them of a crime.  Gee, do you think an arresting officer of a drunk driver needs to obtain a search warrant when seeking to use a breathalyzer?  Or draw blood or hair samples without a warrant?  This has been happening for years, and only now the Supreme Court is reviewing whether law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before obtaining such samples.  But what if the suspect refuses to allow samples to be taken?  Does he have the right to "remain silent" and refuse any DNA or blood evidence to be collected?  Thus far, State Supreme Court's have ruled suspects do not have such a right (see the case of Missouri v. McNeely, 11-1425).  But what is this alleged "Public Exception" anyway?  Is it something new?  Did authorities just make it up this week?  No, the exception has been used in law enforcement since as early as 1984!
        According to the Supreme Court, the "Public Safety" exception is triggered when law enforcement have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger. Because the standard is objective, the availability of the exception must not depend on subjective motivation of the officers, but instead, upon objective standards relating to public safety.  Legitimate concerns for officer safety or public safety prompting unwarned custodial questioning arise in a variety of contexts. A common factor that can be gleaned from the courts addressing this issue is the prior knowledge or awareness of specific facts or circumstances that give rise to the imminent safety concern that prompted the questioning verbally and physically. 
        But what is then the exception to Miranda that has so many folks "deeply" concerned?  Has the United States Supreme Court ever ruled on whether such an exception to the 5th Amendment exists?  Yes, they have, and the exception has been upheld.  And this is exactly where I get exasperated by the "armchair" lawyers.  They are quick to scream "there ought to be a law" when the Supreme Court has already ruled on its validity.  Since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what is constitutional and they have so ruled.  So what did they decide?  What is "The Public Safety Exception?"  According to the Supreme Court,
"The Public Safety Exception" comes into play when law enforcement have an objectively reasonable need to protect themselves or the public from immediate danger.  Since it is an objective standard, the circumstances of every case will dictate whether the exception to Miranda may apply. The Court further ruled that the exception does not allow law enforcement to compel a statement from a suspect, it simply allows questioning before providing a suspect his Miranda rights.  All the exception requires is a reasonable concern of an imminent threat to public safety.  Once the questioning turns from imminent threats to public safety, to those that can lead to incrimination only, Miranda must then be read to the suspect (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 654 (1984) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460-461, 467 (1966).  In the case at hand, evidence of body vests with explosives existed, making the arrest itself dangerous.  The existence of Improvised Explosion Devices would make any reasonable person nervous as well.  What did it mean before the second suspect was apprehended when his father proclaimed "If my son dies, all hell is going to break loose?"  Was he referring to the existence of  a "cell" that would go into immediate action if he should die?  Where might additional evidence be obtained detailing imminent terror attacks  in the United States?  But "armchair" lawyers knew all about the exception as established by the Supreme Court, right?  So how does one aware of the law suddenly become a "Teabagger" (you can guess I get a big kick out of that label being applied to me)!?
         I think what disturbs me the most however, is the faux concern about the terror suspect's rights being denied him yet no real concern that the United States House of Representatives, led by the GOP, has passed Bills allowing private Internet services immunity when sharing citizens private account information for "cybersecurity" purposes.   According to the Bill passed this week, Internet providers may share citizens e-mails and other data (bank records, sales transactions, etc.) with the government with impunity, even if citizens are not suspects of any crime(s).   The President has demanded the Bill be amended to limit its scope to investigations of actual suspects with further limits to the scope of the information to be shared, yet the GOP House (with the help of some Democrats) passed the Bill anyway.   So why the uproar over the exception to Miranda and no similar outrage over the sharing of private Internet based information (see CISPA)?  And where is the equal outrage at the GOP for passing a Bill in the House allowing employers to demand all personal passwords of employees to social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn?  Yes, you are reading this correctly.  The House passed HR624 allowing employers the right to demand access to all employee passwords to social media sites as a condition of employment!  What happened to the right of privacy when it comes to our personal use of the Internet?  Does the GOP really think Freedom of Speech does not apply to what we read and say on the Internet?  On Facebook?  Twitter?  It galls me even more that the GOP alleges it is the party against "Big Government", yet it gives them and "Job Creators" access to everything we do on the Internet!  Does this mean that if my employer does not like the way I criticize the current state of our education system, I can be fired?  Whatever happened to protection against "Chilling" or inhibiting Free Speech?  Does this mean we lose our fundamental rights when we become employed?  Is being employed more important than our Liberty, including our right to Free Speech?  Have so many serving and dying for our Country paid the ultimate price to protect businesses instead of the People of America?
          So folks, stop clamoring against the government when it seeks to investigate terrorist attacks.  Criminal law and procedure are in place to protect society.  Instead, start demanding our Government immediately stop attempting to dilute our collective fundamental rights to freedom and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution!  As Abraham Lincoln once wrote, "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as is liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.  Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty."  It's time for the "sheep" to recognize who the wolves are so that we step up and stop them from diluting our fundamental rights and liberties.  We need to recognize that some in Washington may be "wolves in sheep's clothing!"

      Due to a hectic schedule, I am unable to post today.  I apologize.  I will return Sunday with both my Politics of the Week and my regular blog.  In the interim, let's hope they capture the second Boston Bomber alive so we can find out the "who, what and why's."   Have a great and safe weekend!

       What a strange week it has become, strange indeed.   First off, due to illness yesterday I was home in bed.  Since my routine schedule has me up at 5:30am every morning, awaking at 6:45 felt like I had slept in.  Choosing to get up and at least "try" to feel better, I scanned the morning papers, said goodbye to my wife and then decided to tune in to see what "Fox and Friends" was reporting about the Boston Bombing.  Honestly, I thought I was watching a poor version of Saturday Night Live!  Among the "anchors" for the show were Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocey with Brian Kilmeade was someone portrayed by Fox as an "expert in bombings with over 25 years of experience."  During the episode, the "expert" was asked whether he suspected the bombings had an "international" connection.  Without a shred of evidence, the "Expert" reveals that the New York Post reported that a "Saudi National" had been placed under guard in a Boston hospital with bomb related wounds, but he was "tackled by spectators while running away from the blast."  He went on to add that "it is alleged by witnesses in the Post that the Saudi National asked upon being tackled "has the second bomb gone off and have people died?"  And Fox and Friends were off to the races.  When the conversation got to the type of materials used for such a bomb, the "expert" dropped a little "bomb" of his own....he said he was "no expert on bomb making!"  Beginning to see where I am heading with this?  By the end of the segment, another Fox reporter on a remote broadcast actually said, "It is truly shocking what the expert is saying about the Saudi."  And then they reported that the FBI is considering the Saudi National a "Person of Interest" and have obtained a search warrant and successfully searched his apartment.  So there we have it.  Yet not a single other source confirmed what Fox was reporting, not CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, The Associated Press or the FBI.  In fact, the FBI reported the exact opposite of what "Fox and Friends" was reporting.  The Saudi National was injured and was running away from the blast just like everyone else near it.  He never made the alleged statements.  He allowed the authorities to search his residence without a search warrant.  Not a single item reported by Fox News was anywhere close to being accurate.  But the need to sensationalize something already sensational drove Fox to go beyond journalism.  And yet today, all but NBC reported that a suspect had been apprehended today based upon video obtained from local businesses.  Sadly, that was debunked as being untrue as well.  And the rush to be first to "break" the news further trumps journalistic accuracy.  Just another in a long line of "Opps, my bad?"  Are Americans paying attention?
        To add a twist and clearly lost in the "noise" of the week, President Obama has formally threatened to veto the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2013, or CISPA.   According to the
Los Angeles Times, President Obama will not sign the Bill into law until Congress amends it to provide broader protections to American's Civil Liberties.  Seems the President finds the Bill gives the government unnecessarily broad powers to share information considered not central to the intelligence originally being monitored.    Certainly not Ollblamer right?  According to the Times, "In addition to better privacy protections, the statement calls for further changes to reflect that information about such breeches would be handled by civilian agencies rather than the military, and that exemptions from legal liabilities would be much narrower."  Wasn't it just a few days ago some in the Media (again) were claiming Obama was hell-bent on ripping the Constitution apart?  
        Despite Obama seeking to protect Americans' civil liberties, he is currently under attack from Conservatives for not paying "due respect" to a former British Prime Minister and close ally to Ronald Reagan.  Oh, the humanity!  According to Politico, Conservatives in Great Britain and America are riled because Obama is not attending Margaret Thatcher's funeral and is not sending Vice President Joe Biden to attend either.  Now Politico was quick to point out that Obama declined the opportunity to personally attend prior to the Boston Bombing, so that cannot be the basis for his refusal to attend.  Nor can the excuse be used for Mr. Biden.  So the complaints take the form of a a whirlwind in the Conservative media.  But who is representing the United States at the "Iron Lady's" funeral?  None other than President Reagan's former Secretary of State George Shultz and Jim Baker, Reagan's Chief of Staff.  Both of these distinguished men actively engaged in work with Ms. Thatcher. None of the members of the current Administration did.  What former Presidents should be going?  Carter?  He was no fan of Thatcher.  H.W. Bush is in ill-health.  Clinton?  Not exactly a fan of Thatcher either.  G.W. Bush? Attending a foreign funeral as a representative of the Obama Administration?  After all of the flack doled out about the First Lady being "over-exposed" no one should be surprised she is not going!  So what is the problem, really?
        But what else has been happening that might keep both the President and Vice President busy?  Oh let's see...have we already forgotten last week's story involving North Korea?  Does anyone with half a brain think the President of the United States should be "out of country" when a rogue nation is making public proclamations about attacking American assets?  Add to it the dishonest and successful purchase of U.S. Senate votes by the NRA with today's frustrating defeat of the Manchin-Toomey Gun Bill.   Wasn't Vice President Biden engaged in every effort to bring the bill successfully to the Floor?   NRA sponsored Amendments and Riders in the Senate forced the bill back to the "Filibuster stage" and Cloture "suddenly" failed a second time around with the defection of  Democratic Senators from their original  support of the Bill.  Once again, an interest group has paid off our elected officials and Americans stand either in disgust or denial.  The NRA does not vote in elections, they merely buy their candidates and use their supporting media to sway Americans with distortions and lies by selling emotionally based talking points and narratives.  And just today, Rand Paul (R-KY) publicly stated his distaste over families of Sandy Hook victims being used as "props"  Senator Rand Paul, a modern demagogue straight out of the mold of Huey Long!  Don't know who Long was?  Learn some history then! 
       As President Andrew Jackson wrote, "Unless you become more watchful in your states and check the spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that...the control over your dearest interests has passed in the hands of these corporations."   As any student of American history can relate, we are a nation in flux, constantly being shaped by modern events.  Our challenges remain large, but as Americans we have always overcome these obstacles.  We will eventually overcome the overbearing influence of Interest Groups, the manipulation exercised by ideologically oriented for-profit media, and the scorn of those not sharing our ideals and sense of morality.  We can, we must, and we will!

      This blog post was written on Sunday and was saved for tonight when I was not going to be able to post.
          During a recent conversation with some folks, I learned that the Ideologically oriented For-Profit Media has been very effective in convincing the electorate of their skewed broadcasts and rhetoric.  Unlike many previous discussions, I have begun (over time) to be accepted as one with an educated opinion on political matters, so the "heat" involved in such discussions has been eased considerably.  By lowering the "temperature," I am able to provide facts that address the rhetoric being regurgitated by many. 
      One of the areas continuously brought up by folks is the fear Obama is going to take everyone's gun away from them.  They immediately follow-up this narrative with stories about Castro taking away guns from Cubans so that he could maintain complete control over them.  And we know how that worked out for Cubans, right?  Another new story I was told just yesterday was that the Japanese did not attack the American mainland because they knew they could never invade a country possessing so many firearms, and to do so would be suicide (like attacking Pearl Harbor was not enough to lead to the dropping of two Atomic bombs on her homeland?).  When the discussion got down to what the Senate is actually proposing (Universal Background Checks), they pivoted to the tried and true rhetoric that "criminals get guns anyway..."  Drunks still drive drunk.  Banks still rip off consumers.  Folks still murder folks.  That does justify not having laws against these crimes?  We have limitations on all of our fundamental civil liberties, so what is so different about those that regulate firearms by requiring a background check?  When I remind them that the First Amendment has limitations imposed on it (like yelling "bomb" at the airport, or printing defamatory statements in the press), they seem a bit confused.  When I remind them that "Probable Cause" can limit the application of our inherent rights of privacy, they all agree limitations in some circumstances may be necessary.  So why not at least close the gun show loophole that allows sales of firearms without a universal background check?  And how in the world would such checks lead to a blanket seizure of citizens' guns?  We have to register to vote, we have to register our automobiles.  Why not register our guns?  It's not like society has any expectation of privacy in today's modern Internet world, does it?  Google yourself on the Internet and you will find plenty.  How many governmental data bases are we all in?  Hell, places on the Internet even show images  of our homes and their current market values! 
      Another "discussion" point was that the Federal budget is so far out of control, we probably cannot remedy the problem.  When I mentioned that over 80% of our national debt is owed to ourselves, people always seem to be puzzled.  You mean we don't owe at least $10 Trillion to China?  Nope.  We owe the Federal Reserve, Social Security (that our government stole from and replaced with worthless I.O.U.'s), and pension funds that invested in governmental securities.  They had no clue.  Why?  Because claiming we owe China scores huge political points, reinforced over and over on Ideologically Oriented For-Profit Media.  I mean, telling Americans the truth might actually be boring, and boring does not bring viewership.  Creating a fiscal "car crash" sucks folks into watching "Breaking News" (that is hardly breaking, or for that matter, "news.").
      And then the discussion turns to States' Rights.  Many claim States are better off running their governmental bureaucracy and not the Federal Government.   But are they?  Really?  And then I get the rhetoric I was waiting for..."States have a balanced budget, they run like a business!"   But balanced budgets come with a cost...a cost TO the Federal Government!  According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, a total of $3.238 Trillion was spent on states in the form of revenue sharing during fiscal year 2009.   You read that right, $3.238 Trillion!  So what would happen to states having a balanced budget requirement if Federal funds were not provided?  If political ideologues truly felt the federal deficit has to be cut, surely they would volunteer to take less from the federal government, right?  This year, the Florida legislature is gleefully boasting that they have successfully budgeted themselves a surplus in excess of $128 Million.  Would it not be in our nation's best interests then to ask Florida and similar states with budget surpluses, to refund those surpluses back to the Federal government, earmarked specifically to lower the much complained about Federal deficit?  Really?  If you believe that will happen, then I have a bridge to sell you!
     And what top ten states receive more in Federal Revenue Sharing than their citizens pay in?  Although evaluations date back to 2004, PolitiFact has verified these statistics as  "Mostly True."  "Split State" is one led by one Party in the Governorship and the other Party in the Statehouse.  Per dollar paid in, the following states receive: 1. New Mexico ("R" State) receives $2.63 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.  2. West Virginia ("D" State)  receives $2.57 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.  3. Mississippi ("R" State) receives $2.47 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.  4. Hawaii ("D" State) receives $2.38 for every $1.00 paid in taxes. , 5. Alabama ("R" State) receives $2.03 for every $1.00 paid in taxes. 6. Alaska ("R" State) receives $1.93 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.  7. Montana ("Split" State) receives $1.92 for every $1.00 paid in taxes. 8. South Carolina ("R" State) receives $1.92 for every $1.o0 paid in taxes. 10. Maine ("Split" State) receives $1.78 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.  10.  Arkansas ("R" state) received $1.53 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.   The reason I post these numbers?  Because the "discussion" I was having led to my being told that "Red States" lead in budget surpluses and receive the least in federal aid!  Really? 
      And according to those I was talking to, California is the worst economic State in the Union!  But California projects a budget surplus of over $851 Million by the end of next year!  So where do folks get such incorrect information about our economy?  About the sad state of poverty?  About the overall failure of political ideologies mandating tax cuts for "job creators" vs. spending to help average Americans simply "get by?"
     Facts are sticky things.  Unfortunately, Americans today would rather be told what to think than to exert any brain power that might "tax" them and force them to think for themselves.  Thomas Jefferson once said, "He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
Isn't it time to start thinking for ourselves and stop listening to a Media designed to mislead and manipulate?  Isn't is time we collectively exercise our brain, lest we fall into a national case of political dementia? It won't be easy, it will be hard.  But the richest rewards await U.S. when we earn them! 

     Like most Americans, I sat stunned watching and reading about today's bombings during the famous Boston Marathon.  Detonating two bombs near the end of the race is nothing short of "cold blooded" murder.   But what drives someone to plan and execute such a heinous act?  If it was motivated by some foreign entity, we will collectively deal with them.  If however, the bombing becomes classified as "an act of Domestic Terrorism" we need to address the negative affects of  people listening to media oriented "crazy talk."
         Just today I engaged in an Internet conversation with two young men claiming their taxes are too high because First Lady Michelle Obama "eats too many steaks."  When I pointed out that the First Lady's meals are paid out of the President's salary, the predictable response was that Obama's salary is paid by taxpayers, and that I must be some kind of idiot for not knowing that.  Clearly, these young men have had their judgment diluted.  Out of all of the money these two paid in federal taxes, how much (if any) went to the President's salary?  On top of those claims, they added that their taxes were too "damn high!'  What appears to be lost on them is the fact that the super wealthy actually pay lower tax rates than they do due to loopholes and tax breaks that are not afforded to the less than wealthy.  And they seem to support lower taxes for the wealthy without understanding they pay a higher tax rate than the wealthy they politically support!  Is there a coincidence that the bombings have come on April 15, "Tax day?"
       My point is that the Ideologically Oriented For-Profit Media is driving many Americans to distrust their government and to at least write ignorant statements on social media.  How many Americans have been continuously pushed by the Media to begin to actually ponder whether it is their patriotic duty to engage in domestic terrorism? 
        No matter who claims responsibility for this 2013 Boston Massacre, isn't it time for the Media to stop inflaming emotions?  As President Abraham Lincoln once said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." It's time to pray for the speedy recovery of those injured.  It's time to pray for our country.   It's time to reflect on today's events.  It's time to come together as a nation.  It's time to stop the self-inflicted hate and engage in fixing our problems, together.

      Isn't it interesting that President Obama's most recent budget proposal has been attacked by folks on both sides of the Political spectrum?  I mean, everyone expected the GOP to publicly excoriate the President for his budget, and they did, even before he officially released it.   But how many folks expected the Far Left, the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party to also join in the condemnation of Obama's proposals?  This is exactly why I thought it best that Obama be re-elected...to show everyone that the man is looking out for what is best for the nation and not just his political "skin!"  Let's examine what is in Obama's "wish list"  proposal that some on the Far Left and Far Right find so ugly and pitiful.
        According to an analysis from The Associated Press, President Obama proposes a budget designed to end political bickering and instead attempts to bring about the long sought "Grand Bargain" that will help our Nation move forward.  How does he propose to do this?  As follows: (note Red is a Cut, Purple is an Increase)...

        Agriculture:  Spend $145.8 Billion, a decrease of 5.9%
        Commerce:   Spend $11.7 Billion, an increase of 34.3%
        Defense:  Spend $682.9 Billion, an increase of 0.5%
        Education:  Spend $56.7 Billion, an increase of 10.8%
        Energy:  Spend $32.5 Billion, an increase of 35.3%
        Environmental Protection:  Spend $8 Billion, a decrease of 9%
        Interior:  Spend $12 Billion, a decrease of 2.7%
        Health and Human Services: Spend $949.9 Billion, an increase of 5.4%
        Homeland Security:  Spend $45.2 Billion, a decrease of 34.8%
        Housing and Urban Development:  Spend $47.2 Billion,  a decrease of 50.7%
        Justice: Spend $30.5 Billion, a decrease of 13%
        Labor:  Spend $72.6 Billion, a decrease of 33.4%
        NASA:  Spend $17.7 Billion, an increase of 0.1%
        Securities and Exchange Commission:  Spend $1.67 Billion, an increase of  27%
        State Department:  Spend $47.3 Billion, a decrease of 17.7%
        Transportation:  Spend $127 Billion, an increase of  50.2%
        Treasury Department:  Spend $500.2 Billion, a decrease of 5.9%
        Veterans Affairs: Spend $149.5 Billion, an increase of 10%.     

      Included in the President's proposal, is a written offer to adjust Social Security by linking it to Chained CPI, a statistical mechanism that lowers Social Security benefits based upon cost of living increases "chained" to consumer prices being driven lower by lower costs (even if the actual costs do not actually "fall").  Clearly not equivalent to actual cost of living adjustments, but an obvious way to further reduce benefits.  The president has also offered to reduce Medicare benefits to couples making more than $170,000 per year.   Amazingly, this is not enough for Republicans.  According to Paul Ryan (R-WI), "I don't see this as fundamental entitlement reform..."  Huh?  Isn't there something incredibly wrong when Republicans adamantly refuse to consider closing tax loopholes for the wealthy as a mechanism to raise revenue from the very few,  while demanding cuts to entitlement benefits that affect the very many? 
      Having paid into Social Security since the age of 14, I have a problem having folks identify the program as an "Entitlement."   The only thing I demand is to receive benefits that equal my contributions.  Any benefits received after my contributions are exhausted can and should  be considered an "entitlement!"  But Progressives on the Far Left are so furious with Obama, The New York Times reports groups are being formed to challenge any Democrat in the upcoming 2014 Mid-Term Primary electionsvoting in favor of the President's budget .  Doesn't this prove that both parties have to cater to their extreme base?  Does it not prove that those of us in the middle must figure out what is in the best interests of our nation, become activated and push for candidates that will lead for all of us and not the extreme wings of either party?  Isn't it time for moderates to stand up and be identified as such, MODERATES?
     We have big problems with our country and they are not all budget related.  We have an education gap widening between rich and poor.  We have a social structure favoring the wealthy over the poor everyday, and that gap continues to widen.  We have political parties being paid by special interests to push their ideologies through oriented For-Profit Media that clearly run counter to the best interests of all Americans.  As President Reagan once said; "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.  I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."   It's time to take a step back, take off our political blinders, and realize that budgets and their reform cannot solve all of our problems and that thinking they do creates new problems.  We can change the way Washington operates.  We can change our leadership.  We can create a new direction for our nation.  We can do it, all of U.S.!