Memorial Day has arrived.  Cookouts, ballgames, the Indianapolis 500 and family time that always lead to fond memories.  But what about the memories carried by veterans and their families?  What about the need to remember the horrors of war faced by many soldiers who made it, let alone the tragic circumstances that led to many deaths?   Memorial Day for me includes all of the above, but with an added twist.  Isn't there always an added twist when members of families share recollections of war time heartache?  I vividly remember going to two cemeteries to "visit" relatives' graves, having a sense of pride while recognizing the American Flags and Veterans plaques standing proudly at their headstones.   I vividly recall posing question after question to my uncle about his experience landing at Normandy and eventually falling victim to a bullet to the leg somewhere near Bastogne.  Which gets me to the point of this blog.
      Yesterday, I was asked by an acquaintance whether I felt our government has crossed a line and become tyrannical.  Yep, I was asked this.  When I responded with a puzzled look, he clarified to state that the "Founders never meant having such a strong central government, hence the restrictions imposed in the Bill of Rights."   Before I would respond, I asked him if he was intending to state "We the People" must move to secure our liberty by force?
His response of "yes" was typical of someone ignorant of the Constitution and its framing.
      According to my "friend", the government has become so large and intrusive, only armed citizens can move to guarantee our "rights" under the Constitution.  Now, coming from a guy with a B.A. in History and a law degree, I was amazed how easy it has become to derail actual thinking with hyperbolic laced partisan rhetoric.  I mean, Shay's Rebellion (1786) established the American tradition of seeking to change our government through the ballot box and not through the use of the gun.  Have we not learned the lessons of the Civil War?  Which leads me to my point.  As we take time to reflect on this Memorial Day, please consider the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform to protect the Constitution before we even begin to fantasize about taking up arms to defeat it along with the government it establishes.  Once again, "We the People" includes the ability to control our government through elections, which is uniquely, an American tradition.  Even pondering the need to over throw the government of the United States by force demeans every veteran that has ever served.  Please take the time today to reflect and stand proud to be an American (because if anyone dislikes it enough to pick up weapons to fight her, perhaps they should find a "better" place to live instead).  
       As President George Washington once said; "It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal services to the defense of it."   Now those are words of a revolutionary I can live with!  Please honor American today by observing everything that comes with the recognition of Memorial Day! Have a great week.

         Anyone catch Darrell Issa's (R-CA) recent comments at a Florida Republican fundraiser?  Seems Mr. Issa, the Chair of the Republican House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has justified both the new special investigation of Benghazi as a vital fundraising mechanism for the GOP but also because, somehow, Benghazi is equal or more serious than what President Nixon and his cabal of advisers put this nation through during the Watergate era.  Seems folks are really believing this tripe, as evidenced in multiple Letters to the Editors claiming "Four Americans died in Benghazi and no one died in Watergate!"  Huh?  
         Ironically, near the end of every school year, I have my PolySci students learn about Watergate and the extent of the the corruption then emanating from the Oval Office.  While reviewing this real scandal, many are shocked to learn the extent of the active illegality practiced by the White House and how it shook America in the 1970's.  Many now understand how corrosive the Nixon Administration's aims were for American democracy.  Capping their review of Watergate, they viewed the tapes of the Frost-Nixon interviews and found Nixon actually admitting to wrongdoing.  Before I could comment about what they had learned about Watergate, many students asked how Benghazi could possibly be related to Watergate. When pressed, they indicated that nothing Congress has complained of with the handling of Benghazi comes close to the hijacking of American justice and government engaged in by the Nixon Administration.  Gee, no kidding!
        So how it is possible that so many believe the tragedy in Benghazi is more serious than the outright attempt to kidnap our democracy by the Nixon crowd? Because so many today, either forgot what Watergate was really about or they consciously avoid real facts relating to that 1970's presidential scandal.  Okay Rubin, we see where this is heading and Obama is a "Liar" who is stealing our country from us and he needs to be impeached...immediately! Benghazi is just one of many things Obama has been involved in criminally!  Really?  Can anyone explain to me how they could possibly reach such a conclusion?  Does anyone remember the depths of the active corruption engaged in by the Nixon Administration?  Does anyone bother to recall how many officials within the Nixon Administration were found guilty of crimes?  Obviously, no.
         John Mitchell,  having served as Attorney General and Campaign to Re-Elect the President ("CREEP") was convicted of perjury.
         Richard Kleindienst, Nixon's Attorney General after Mitchell was also convicted for refusing to answer investigative inquiries and was sentenced to jail.
         Jeb Stuart Magruder (who died this past week), head of CREEP was convicted of conspiracy.
         Frederick C. LaRue, advisor to John Mitchell was found guilty of obstruction of justice.
         H.R. Haldeman, Nixon's Chief of Staff was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
         John Ehrlichman, Counsel to the President was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury.
         John W. Dean, Counsel to the President was convicted of obstruction of justice.
         Dwight L. Chapin, Deputy Assistant to the President was convicted of perjury.
         Herbert L. Porter, aide to CREEP was convicted of perjury.
         Herbert W. Kalmbach, personal attorney of the President was convicted of illegal campaigning.
         Charles W. Colson, Special Counsel to Nixon was convicted of obstruction of Justice.
         G. Gordon Liddy, Head of Nixon's "Special Investigative Group" was convicted of burglary.
         E. Howard Hunt, former CIA operative and Nixon "Security Consultant" was convicted of burglary.
         James W. McCord, Jr., "Intelligence Advisor" to the Administration was convicted of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping.
         Richard M. Nixon, facing certain impeachment and removal, resigns the Presidency (only to be fully pardoned by President Gerald Ford). 
         Just from this list, you must be thinking that Watergate could not have been the only thing Richard Nixon and his cabal were up to.  In fact, their illegal actions began well before the Watergate break in.  In fact, engaging in illegal break ins, surveillance of political opponents, theft of personal records and character assassinations of any perceived opponent (whether real or not) engaged the active services of the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department itself.  All in an effort to manipulate the 1972 elections (and derail our system of electoral democracy).  And THIS is less serious than the Obama administration's failure to label the tragedy at Benghazi as "terrorist attack" the day after it occurred?  What exactly does Issa and his fellow Republicans expect to discover from this (now 6th) House investigating committee?  How much more can the GOP politicize the deaths of Americans at the hands of terrorists?  Yes, I label them "Terrorists", but does anyone actually believe the president called for the murder of Americans? Does anyone actually believe that the military could drop out of the sky and save those killed in the surprise attack?  Does no one recognize that the CIA responded to the attack (even though we were not supposed to know the CIA has such "Boots on the ground" in Libya)?
         No where does the tragedy of Benghazi come even close to the scandal we all know as Watergate, yet so many have no real clue about.  Although some may claim that no one died in Watergate, they somehow fail to fathom that our very democracy was under attack and our liberty itself could have been killed by a sitting president and his minions.  Benghazi?  Issa's own statements tell us all we really need to know about the ongoing "made for Fox News scandal and reality television" - raising money off of Benghazi is "Fair Game."  For more on the real efforts behind the GOP investigation of Benghazi, see http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/benghazi-campaign-fundraising.html).  See also; 
http://tbo.com/news/politics/committee-chair-in-tampa-benghazi-investigation-just-in-the-early-stages-20140515/
         As President Andrew Jackson once wrote; "I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office."  In today's political matrix, Benghazi  = GOP Fundraising = Defeat Clinton in 2016.  It has nothing to do with real criminality or wrongdoing.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, ignores political realities.   Have a great week! 

         Happy Mothers Day to all mothers out there!  None of us would be here without our moms! 
         I know, I know, you all have expertise on what the 25th Amendment (the "25th) to the Constitution says (or can Google it).  Otherwise known as the Presidential Disability Amendment, the 25th establishes a formal process to (among other things), recognize the temporary disability of the sitting president, allowing for the Vice-President to "step in" as Commander In Chief and President while the sitting president recovers (or not) from his/her disability.  Although the 25th has only been used to fill a vacant Vice-Presidency (Gerald Ford replacing Spiro Agnew), we have fortunately, not had the Amendment activated due to the incapacitation of a sitting president.  My point however, is that it was important enough to address the matter in a Constitutional Amendment as previous presidents did serve while experiencing incapacitating events (Wilson - stroke, Eisenhower - heart attack, Reagan - gun shot wounds).  But what process do we have in place for temporarily or permanently disabled Supreme Court justices? Okay, cue the big exhaled "huh?"
       According to Article III of the Constitution, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..."  Knowing the Framer's intended Supreme Court justices serve for life (See Federalist 78), did they intend on them serving while incapacitated?  They obviously did not consider such events, since they too did not address the issue of incapacitated presidents (the 25th was not ratified and added to the Constitution until 1967).  But is it coming close to the time we address the issue if a Supreme Court justice clings to his/her position (as is their right) 'till death, regardless of possible cognitive or mental decline (dementia, Alzheimer's, stroke)?   Should there be a mechanism to protect the American public from clerks making decisions and writing arguments for members of the Court that can no longer properly function in their positions?  
        As someone who wraps himself in the Constitution and has virtually considered the United States Supreme Court the pinnacle of legal expertise (I have been licensed to go before SCOTUS since 1989), I am only now beginning to reconsider how "righteous" this bench can be if some members of the Court are reaching "difficult" years of ill health (both physical and cognitive).  Should there be some mechanism to have a Justice "temporarily" relieved of their duties if they have become incapacitated?  Should there be some mechanism that allows for the replacement of a Supreme Court Justice if they are permanently disabled, yet have not chosen to step down from the Court?
       Two weeks ago, Justice Anton Scalia wrote a dissent in a case.  So?  Justice Scalia writes a lot of opinions.  So what you ask? So what because Justice Scalia while quoting his own earlier decision, had the facts from that earlier decision backwards, rendering a portion of his entire argument flawed.  Once the error was noticed, Scalia was allowed to "correct" his written decision, but not until after his mistake was initially published. Some pundits took ahold of Scalia's mistake as a sign of his obvious political partisanship - arguing he tailors his judicial decisions to fit his political ideology rather than the facts at hand.  While additional pundits piled on to attack Scalia for his obvious error, his supporters moved quickly to denounce the attackers and defend him.  But those attacking and defending Scalia have agreed that an error was in fact made.  So how could it be possible Justice Scalia made such a mistake when writing his opinion (or have his bevy of staffers and law clerks miss the mistake too)?  Which leads me to the obvious question.  How many errors can a Supreme Court justice make before questions can be raised about their mental capacities? (See; http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/scalia-gets-his-facts-wrong-in-epa-dissent-106226.html). 
       Now I'm not advocating removing Justice Scalia or any other justice.  I am simply asking whether there should be a mechanism to ease a justice out of their Judicial seat if they are suffering disabling illnesses - while refusing to resign from the High Court?   Yes, their appointments are for life, but we know many of us are living beyond our capabilities to function (let alone run major corporations, teach, or actively sit on the Bench).   And please do not accuse me of ageism.  As I age, I hope to become wiser,  yet I appreciate some limitations are moving inevitably closer.  
        Take a look at our current Supreme Court. Justice Ginsberg is 81 and has already served on the Court for over 20 years.  Justice Scalia is 78 with over 22 years of service and will be pushing 81 when the next president takes office.  Justice Kennedy is pushing 78 and will be over 80 by the next inaugural. Justice Kennedy has already served over 26 years.  Justice Breyer is pushing 76, heading into his 20th year on the High Bench and Justice Thomas already has served on the bench over 22 years!  My point is simple and has nothing to do with age.  It does though, have everything to do with Justices serving for life, even if they no longer can meet the obligations of the job.  Unlike the 25th Amendment, there is NO mechanism to allow a Justice to temporarily deal with a disability, or to recognize a permanent disability has rendered them incapable of serving.  The Constitution makes no exception for being brain dead or seriously incapacitated.  As we all live longer, should we not begin to consider the real possibility of Supreme Court justices refusing to resign, even though they can't remember what they ate the day before?  
        I know this may sound like some form of coup over the Supreme Court, stripping the institution of its political insulation (and I am not necessarily advocating any such particular mechanism).  And if you think such action could lead to an impermissible theft of judicial independence, what would you call it if a sitting Justice is just that, sitting - while his staff and clerks ghost write all of his/her opinions, pulling the strings from behind their chair(s)? 
        I merely raise the issue because it may become very important in the years to come.  Should there be a mechanism (like the 25th - "Presidential Disability Amendment") to remove or replace a sitting Supreme Court justice that has been medically determined to be mentally/cognitively incapacitated short of them voluntarily resigning or simply dying? The 25th Amendment provides such a procedure for a president.  As President and former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft once wrote; "Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever."   I doubt he meant the Justices themselves do too.  Have a great week!

Shout out to my parents, Jean and Phyllis Rubin on their 64th Wedding Anniversary!  Get well Dad!  Also a Happy Birthday to my son, Nathan on his 24th Birthday!  

       "To everything turn, turn, turn, There is a season, turn, turn, turn,  And a time to every purpose under Heaven" ...sang the Byrds in 1965 (originally from Ecclesiastes, as adapted by the recently departed Pete Seeger).  Okay Rubin, now how does this play into this week's blog?  Going "old school" rock on us?  Why, I'm glad you asked!  I choose this song (check it out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKP4cfU28vM) because it epitomizes what has been happening in our politics and our media for the past several years, and none of it is honest or genuine!
           This past week, the Department of Labor Statistics released their April 2014 job statistics and reported that unemployment fell to 6.3%, the lowest since before the Great Recession! (See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm).   But what does Speaker of the House say when asked about this progress on the nation's employment? "Earlier this week, we learned the economic growth largely stalled at the start of this year." " We need robust economic growth if we're going to help the millions who remain unemployed get back on their feet." (See: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner-april-2014-unemployment-report).   What did USA Today say about the report? "Finally some good news out of the Jobs Report." "The labor market roared ahead in April as milder weather helped employers add 288,000 jobs — the most in more than two years."  (See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/02/april-jobs-report/8588535/). And Fox?  "Big Downside to April Job's Report" rang its headline!" (See: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/05/02/big-downside-to-april-jobs-report/).  
         So why all of the citations Rubin and why start a blog out this way?  Get to it, what's your point?  My point is simple.  Everyone "spins" or "turns" their take on matters so that it reflects their perspective.  So much so, that often times, the actual truth can be purposely obscured from the American people.  But is "spin" something new?  Of course not, it has been a part of human history since the beginning of time.  What's that old adage, "History is Written by the Victors?"  
          With this in mind, Americans must look behind the curtain and find that the real Oz with the constant conspiracy perpetuators is that there is NO evidence of any kind of continuous pattern of scandal in the White House.  Take a look at any message board on-line that deals with politics and you find vitriolic rants pitting American against American, filled with name calling and misinformation.  Unfortunately, virtually all of it is fed by the Ideologically Oriented For-Profit Media!  Recently, a study concluded that people, when fed misinformation, immediately consider it to be accurate.  When subsequently advised that the information fed to them was incorrect and that it needed to be corrected, a vast majority of them still harbored a negative emotional feeling towards the issue they were misinformed on.  I guess it is human nature to be lazy and only ponder evidence once.  We simply can't be bothered to think further.  In fact, this is a phenomenon perpetuated by our modern Media (and political parties).  What's really ironic is the fact that most folks taking extreme political positions claim their opponents on any issue are "low information" voters, when in reality, the Media has produced millions of them (and most likely the one ranting the most is a member of that expanding category).
         Take into account Obama's now infamous "Lie of the Year" title foisted upon him in the Media as it relates to the ACA.  Like the NFL (and now the NBA and MLB), "after further review" most credible Media have learned that most Americans did not lose their insurance plans or their doctors.  In fact, most Americans that lost their insurance plans, would have lost them even if the ACA was not law! To add insult to injury, even Fox News reported that the ACA did not force insurance companies to cancel coverage for Americans (See; http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/05/insurance-cancelled-dont-blame-obama-or-aca-blame-america-insurance-companies/).  Once told misinformation, very little accurate information can change the originally intended impression.  Clever huh? And it does not stop here.  We now face (again) the Scandal as big as Watergate (not even close)!  BENGHAZI!  To wit I respond, Gesundheit! 
          Now that additional emails have been disclosed from the White House on the events surrounding attacks around the World on September 11, 2012, the Republican's and their supporters in the Media and their followers, are somehow claiming that the tragedy in Benghazi could and should have been prevented if Obama would have 'fessed up about how they presented it to the public after the deaths of four Americans at the Consulate, including our Ambassador.  I know, this is a bit nutty, but somehow we have a scandal because folks seem to believe the Americans would have not been killed or the attack prevented had Obama's White House told us the truth about the attack after they themselves learned about it.  Huh?  More importantly, the Republicans in the House want a special investigation into Benghazi because they feel the President misrepresented the real reason for the consulate attack in order to minimize his political exposure just before the 2012 election.  Really?  Since when do we investigate Administrations for "spinning" issues so that they favor their publicly stated positions?  Tell me, I need to know this!
          Anyone recall "Mission Accomplished" with President Bush?  I mean, I really did not think he was presenting the truth at the time when he addressed the nation with that banner perfectly displayed so that it hung directly behind him (or the stunt of him landing on the carrier).  But I don't recall anyone calling for an investigation into this misleading political "turn" on the status of the Iraq war.  I know, 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi!  Do we conveniently forget over 4,486 Americans were KILLED with thousands more seriously wounded?  And we talk "scandal" because Obama's Administration "LIED" about a video causing the consulate attack (yet have corrected it multiple times since)?
         You see, "turn" and "spin" have become standard procedure in our modern era of instant and Breaking News.  Unfortunately, although it has always been a part of our political rhetoric, the modern Media continues to reinforce misinformation and the efforts to maintain "low information voters" because they no longer are purveyors of information, but politically oriented rhetoric!  How else can anyone explain the ever-present hypocrisy present in our Media today?  As President Harry Truman once said; "It's plain hokum! If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em.  It's an old political trick."  Isn't it about time our Media stop being lapdogs instead of political watchdogs?  To every season, turn, turn turn."