FAKE NEWS!   Fake news is the phrase of the year.  Not the blockbuster election of the century, but you read it right, fake news!  So much fake news, Americans can no longer tell the difference between real news and the made up sort.  With so much of it floating through our airwaves, Internet and print media, who can tell what is real from fake?  Almost anyone with a brain, that's who!  Americans must stop accepting what the media tells us and start thinking for themselves. Once we start thinking for ourselves, and I mean actually thinking, then and only then will Americans again appreciate when lies or truth are being told. 
        We've been receiving fake news for quite some time now.  One can readily look back to the years of Yellow Journalism where fake stories riled up the masses, so much so that a war was declared ("Remember the Maine!", See: www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war).  A more recent exposure of fake news would be the false stories about our naval ships being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin (See: www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/world/asia/15vietnam.html).  Another example would be the misleading stories about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction that proximately led to the invasion of Iraq (See: www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html).  Now we have seen a slew of lies make it onto front pages of newspapers, headlines on cable news and more importantly, those created and perpetuated by the rumor mill known as the Internet - all with loyal adherants and believers that have so little regard for real news and facts that fake news is all they need to determine their beliefs and opinions. 
           Just during the last election cycle we saw a claim that Planned Parenthood routinely sold body parts from aborted fetuses to universities for "research" purposes.  One candidate for president latched onto this fake news and it suddenly became part of our national discourse.  So much so that members of Congress began to argue for legislation to combat funding for Planned Parenthood.  Was the story true?  Of course not.  Was the reaction to the fake story real?  You bet!
Following this, came other revelations of fake news - too many to post in this week's blog.  The bigger ones?  That Hillary Clinton attacked the mental status of a rape victim in a court case while defending the rapist. The story went on to say Clinton laughed at the victim and essentially, had low regard for women - which explains her continuous support for her "rapist" husband.   Although the story was clearly void of facts, the public heard about this lie enough times to believe it. Unfortunately for those that publicized the story through social media, the story was again, fake. Which led into the fake story that the Clinton Foundation was really a "pay for play" scheme that donated no actual funds to charity.  Although the Foundation was in fact not a contributor to "Charity", they certainly would not be expected to donate money to others considering the Foundation was itself a charity.  Does it matter to those that prefer to gear their fake news from purveyors of fake news?  No way!  Minds made up!  Proof exists only in the masterminds of the misdirection manipulating the easily duped. Need another?  There was a gunman just last week who walked into a Washington D.C. pizza joint armed with a AR-15 firing rounds into the restaurant's ceiling intent on personally breaking up the Child-Sex Ring run by the Clintons out of thier location.  Except there never was a child sex ring run by the Clintons, let alone one run out of the pizza joint (See: ktla.com/2016/12/05/fake-news-stories-about-pizzagate-led-armed-man-to-d-c-restaurant-police/). 
        But fake news said there was and if fake news reported it, then it must be true.  Except it too was a lie.  Instead of labeling the purveyors of fake news the liars they are, the public readily blames the actual media because well, they have to blame someone for their own intellectual failures to discern nonsense from reality (admitedly, the "real" media has some responsibility for turning actual news into Infotainment, but fake news driven by mannipulators most certainly warrants the distain and disgust it deserves).  Which gets me to my point.
        Ever wonder what will happen if the entire nation is convinced there are no reliable sources of unbiased news?  Would it evolve into a general denial of all things factual?  Will facts then be replaced by the ideological bias that drives our interpretation and appreciation of fake news instead?  Just read the comments of Trump supporters when the Trump Transition team admits not everything Trump said on the campaign trail can or should be taken as fact.  In fact, Scottie Nell Hughes, one Trump surrogate actually proclaimed "there's no such thing, unfortunately as facts anymore."  More importantly, some in the Trump camp seem to mock the American public for being so gullible for believing things Trump himself said on the campaign trail. According to Cory Lewandowski, “They (the American public) understood that sometimes– when you have a conversation with people, whether it’s around the dinner table or at a bar– you’re going to say things, and sometimes you don’t have all the facts to back it up,”
(See: www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html).  When did it become acceptable to American families for President-Elects to lie to the public because folks don't always "have all of the facts"?  When do morals and ethics come into play when Americans no longer can determine what is real or fake when the people they elect to the highest office in the land can't themselves keep reality from fiction straight - let alone communicate it to all Americans? 
         This is the danger we now are facing.  Every intelligence agency has determined that Russia has hacked into our political systems in order to manipulate our elections.  After years of investigating Hillary Clinton for things made up by her opponents ("she personally murdered four Americans in Yemen", etc.) why do Trump supporters so readily dismiss reports of foreign nations engaged in disrupting our elections - the foundation of our democratic-republic?  Is it because they are now convinced by fake news outlets that actual facts need not be heeded, because the outcome negates the need to know the immoral, unethical and untruthful means for reaching their preferred outcomes?  
       Isn't it just as dangerous to us all to no longer even care that we are being lied to, being manipulated and being deceived for what to many, including this author, finds repulsive and repugnant to our way of life?  Until Americans wake up, we may be heading towards an abyss of dishonesty and a serious corruption/erosion of our democratic principles.  All coming from the misinformation machine, whether from the Left or the Right.  And for the next few years, it appears the Right will be using its "fake news" expertise - rendering it the sure bet to be the culprit for any mayhem and devastation it may inflict upon our our collective society.  Think I am being overly dramatic?  Look at the use of Twitter by President-elect Trump. His personal attacks on anyone he does not agree with is enough to convince any student of American presidential history that we are no longer "in Kansas anymore."  We are entering a new era of the Modern Presidency and its already beginning to look a lot different than what many Founding Fathers and Framers would recognize.  Should we expect anyone within the GOP to confront Mr. Trump when he "goes off the rails" with impulsive and reactionary tweets that have a wide-range negative effect on citizens?  Let's hope so.  Especially knowing some followers will feel it their personal civic duty to confront those their President has called out.  Think I'm being too critical? Think again about the nut job opening fire in the D.C. pizzararia and get back to me.  Think again when Trump supporters posted on social media that on Thanksgiving they are most thankful for -----Donald Trump!  Forget their G-d, health, their education, their families, but thank Trump!  Think they will ever agree if real news and facts attack Mr. Trump?  Not hardly.  
       Does  fake news have a legitimate place in our political discourse?  Remember there are millions of folks who believe anything, including that lunar missions were all faked.  Remember that many refute the science around global warming as fake.   Despite actual facts, many will refuse to acknowledge them because some basement dweller made up a fantasy and now is collecting advertising revenue off the Internet for "click-bait hits" perpetuating the lies.
        One thing that was not faked?  NASA missions to space, including the brave pioneering work of an original Mercury Astronaut.  This week we lost a true American hero with the death of John Glenn. Serviceman, Pilot, Astronaut, Senator, and Public Servant, Glenn was appropriately honored earliar this year in Columbus, Ohio with the renaming of the airport to John Glenn International Airport. Was Glenn a product of a fake media?  Obviously not.  But will anyone believe the fact that such a man even existed to help move America forward - with honesty, integrity and selfless love of Country?  As John Glenn once said; "Don't tune out or drop out. Don't give in to complacency and cynicism.  Don't ignore what is bad, but concentrate on building what is good.  Don't take America and the values reflected in our form of government for granted. And never forget that in our democracy, the government is not 'them' -- it is 'us'." What more can or need be said?  Pay attention to the bad and make it better.  Appreciate that calling out any lies and efforts to manipulate the public is necessary to protect our form of democracy and remember most of all, our government, no matter who is in charge, must honestly work for We The People!  Have a great week!

          As I wait to board a plane, I noticed an article on Politico with the title, "Did Obama Unite America's Enemies?" and couldn't help but shake my head.  Obama "united" our enemies?  What enemies?  ISIL/ISIS?  Al Queada? Syria?  Russia?  The GOP?  I mean, what could possibly unite our foreign enemies more than  a wide open political battlefield here in the United States?  If our politicians and their supporting media engage in a never ending campaign to de-legitimize, discredit and destroy the president of the United States, then why would anyone possibly think that our enemies shouldn't be united when America appears to be nothing but divided?  
           From Rush Limbaugh's public declaration shortly after Obama's inauguration that he hopes the president would fail, to Glenn Beck's incessant Obama-Nazi analogies, to the Right-Wing's constant clamor that Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, and now an open violator of the Constitution, how else would America's enemies come to view Obama?   I mean let's face it, Obama has a few more enemies in America than he does overseas.  And somehow this is okay to his political opposition?
           Just this past week, opponents slammed the president for saluting his Marine One guards while holding a cup of coffee in his right hand.  Not only did his opponents have a field day on Right Wing Media, but like minded folks flooded the Internet to attack Obama for his blatant "disrespect" for the men and women in the military.  Unfortunately for them, the Internet is flush with images of prior presidents engaged in similar gaffes while saluting the guards (see George W. Bush's weak salute while holding his dog).  But is that enough to prove the Right Wing engages in petty hypocrisy?  Hardly, because it goes so much deeper than a simple "the sky is falling" because Obama flubbed a salute.
          So when we read headlines questioning whether Obama "has united our enemies" (as if that was his true and sinister intent all along - not being a real American like those posing on Fox News and the Right Wing wind-bag tunnels), it should give one great pause.   Isn't it quite possible all of those attacking the president for "sport" on  virtually everything, are really the ones uniting our enemies while dividing our nation?
           To set the record straight, I do not agree with the president on many fronts.  I especially disagree with Mr. Obama on his positions as it relates to Israel, Russia and Iran.  But by disagreeing with him, I do not consider him to be an enemy of the State, worthy of execution, impeachment or exile.  After two terms of President Obama and all of the hypocrisy filled rhetoric, will it ever be possible to reunite America?  By looking at the potential presidential candidates for the 2016 presidential races, I think not.  Hilary Clinton is a figure that clearly will unite the Far-Right and their evangelical base against her (and the negative and false rhetoric against her has already begun), yet the plus for Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz by the Far Right will equally galvanize the Far-Left.  Ironically, the politicians and their supporting media have created an atmosphere of distrust, not of our leaders, but of each other.  
           President Gerald Ford once wrote; "It's the quality of the ordinary, the straight, the square, that accounts for the great stability and success of our nation.  It's a quality to be proud of.  But it's a quality that many people seem to have neglected."  With a media created solely to divide, filling the the ordinary, the straight and the square with hypocritical and virulent rhetoric, the very stability and success of our great nation is being threatened.  And with friends like those, who needs enemies?  Have a great week!

              Early each year in my Advanced Placement United States Government and American Politics class, I teach my new students the term "Justiciability" and how it is applied to cases to be decided in the Appellate Courts.   According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Justiciability is defined as "capable of being decided by legal principals or by a court of justice."  According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as "Capacity to claim a right before a tribunal."  In layman's terms, Justiciability is something that must first be shown to be a legal claim that is neither political in nature (versus legal) nor one in which legal remedies are available in another accessible forum.  And this is how I present it to my students.  If controversies arise that have remedies outside the Courts available and are truly legal and not political in nature, courts of law have jurisdiction to both hear the claim and rule on said claim.  Which leads me to the latest round of hypocrisy in our currently skewed political climate.
              According to Article II, Section 4, "The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The procedure for Impeachment and trial are laid out under Congressional powers under Article I.  So, in the event the President, acting in any fashion that may arise to the level of Treason or High Crimes and Misdemeanors, may be subject to impeachment and trial in the Congress.  
             With this in mind, the GOP-led House has voted strictly along party lines to sue the President not for Treason or high Crimes or Misdemeanors, but for alleged "abuses of Executive Authority" tied to his extensive use of Executive Orders.  So the issue is quite narrow.  Has the President's use of Executive Orders exceeded his authority enabling the House of Representatives without involvement of the Senate, to litigate against the President of the United States for using Executive action(s)?  Has the House the ability to unilaterally sue the President for such actions seeking a ruling of a Court of Law that such actions are, well, not legal?  But does not being "legal" mean not being "Constitutional?"  And for what purpose? (See: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/house-republicans-lawsuit-law-firm-111150.html?hp=l16). 
              And this raises the issue of Justiciability.  Can the House without the Senate litigate against a President for using previously acceptable Executive action because his action is conducted without their approval?  But what authority does any President have under Article II of the Constitution?  Since President Washington's term, the Executive has issued Orders to carry out the powers "vested" in him under Article II, even if Congress has not acted.  Executive Orders have therefore through our history, been used by every president (except Harrison - because he died shortly after his inauguration), and under the theory of "Custom and Usage" have become traditional powers of the president.  Ironically, under the theories of Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers, Executive Orders may be ruled "Unconstitutional" by the United States Supreme Court if it can be shown that the action violates the Executives powers.  But at no time has the High Court ever entertained a lawsuit involving one chamber of Congress, voting along strictly political party lines to sue a sitting president.  Why?  Because of that stubborn issue of "Justiciability."  
               IF a legal remedy is available under the Constitution to the House without suing the sitting president, then remedies outside of Court are available.  And IF the demand to sue the sitting president is from solely one political party and is not considered enough to gain an impeachment and conviction/removal, then the issue would be considered "politically motivated" and not "justiciable."  And here we are with the GOP-led house initiating legal proceedings against the President for alleged "abuses" of Executive authority.  And for what?  
According to the GOP suit, for issuing Executive Orders postponing the ACA mandates on businesses (which the GOP-led House also supported, but did nothing to legislate into law).  Hmm... the GOP-led house opposes the mandates on businesses under the ACA and instead of legislating their delay, they ignore it and then watch the President issue Executive Action delaying it and they want to sue for this action?  Why would they want to do this if the delay is exactly what they wanted in the first place?  So they can further delegitimize Obama as president - plain and simple.  Knowing they could not use their available legal remedies of impeachment, conviction and removal, they choose a purely cynical stunt to sue the president in court.  And this one-sided purely partisan action could not possibly be considered "politically motivated?"   Justiciability is a tough word to say, but not so tough to apply to the GOP lawsuit.   
             With Obama's presidency winding down into "lame duck" status after the upcoming Mid-term elections, why would anyone really think the GOP lawsuit should actually be given "justiciable" status in the Courts?  And this from the political party that hypocritically rails against "frivolous lawsuits!" Stop wasting the taxpayers' money.  And please stop spending all of your waking hours attacking the administration while political fundraising and seeking election gains while real work demands action in the House of Representatives (and has since 2010). A wise man once wrote a cautionary note that actions of one political party may lead to the reactions of another, none of which is healthy to our great nation (and a slam of shame on both existing parties that rule Washington) by saying; "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."  That man?  None other than George Washington himself.  Stop the games in Washington and start working.  Stop creating reasons for revenge and start uniting.  Stop vacationing and politicking and instead engage in the work of the People.  So having the People suing members of Congress for not doing their jobs would be rejected by the Courts for lacking "justiciability!"  Why, because We The People already have available remedies to force them to do their jobs --- they're called ELECTIONS.  I can only hope every eligible American exercises their right to vote in order to send a strong message to the politicians in Washington!  Have a great week!

          Boy, have politics taken a front seat in American life!  I know, it's been going on since the beginning of the Republic, but lately it has taken a screwy turn or two.  With President Obama delaying executive action on immigration to opposition leaders slamming his role as Commander-In-Chief, the political rhetoric is reaching a fever pitch.  Now we know this to be true, but the media is now a perpetual political mouthpiece, rendering any real discussion of topics - one sided affairs.  
         Case in point.  Just this week the GOP-led House of Representatives voted to "Condemn" Obama for exchanging Guantanamo prisoners for the release of the American solider being held by the Taliban.  While voting for the purely symbolic "condemnation" the Republicans in the House have done exactly what they complain about - overreach.  According to Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States as Commander-In-Chief has the authority to use the military without direct Congressional interference - except when it comes to funding such measures.  In the event Congress disapproves actions undertaken by the Commander-In-Chief, they have collective oversight over the Executive because they control the "purse strings."   In other words, the Commander-In-Chief may act as much as he/she wants until Congress decides to strip away funding for such measures.  But to condemn the Commander-In-Chief for actions undertaken within his/her authorized role is nothing more than political gamesmanship.   Think about it.  When Obama agreed with Congress' Bill limiting his ability to trade prisoners for soldiers held in captivity, he also executed a Signing Statement outlining exceptions to the requirement he notify Congress in advance of such prisoner exchanges.  Obama, using his authority under Custom and Usage followed the terms of the Signing Statement to a "T" - which members of the opposition party cynically played up as "Overreach" and hence, a vote to "condemn" his actions as somehow being "Unconstitutional."  Ironically, the GOP members of the House KNOW this is  untrue, yet promote it to their uneducated base so that it continues to convince them that Obama is some sort of criminal.  Just this week, social media commentary called for Obama's impeachment because of his use of Executive Orders and demanded that Congress outlaw such Orders - Except Congress has no such authority under Article I to curtail Article II powers.  Gee, can you say "Overreach?"  (See H Res. 644, passed 249-163, a non-binding resolution that has no chance of passage in the Senate).  
        And now we see efforts by the Democrats in the Senate to pass  legislation to curtail the expanded use of unlimited anonymous political campaign fundraising.  In Senate Bill SJ Res. 19, the Democratic led-Senate proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would restore broad Congressional and state control to regulate and control campaign contributions (which have flowed through the floodgates opened through the SCOTUS Citizens United v. FEC ruling (See  http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Citizens_United_v_Federal_Election_Commission_130_S_Ct_876_175_L_).  According to the Associated Press, the measure would "negate...the decision which equated political spending with free speech."   Now most Americans appreciate that unlimited campaign contributions leads to a corruptible Congress with the wealthy exerting influence over legislation that average Americans can not afford, yet when the measure went to a vote, the GOP rolled out a very cynical narrative now repeated throughout right-wing media and its supporters.  Senate Minority Leader and major opposition leader Mitch McConnell proclaimed; "I have to say it's a little disconcerting to see the Democrat-led Senate focusing on things like reducing free speech protections for the American People...This is what they chose to make their top legislative priority this week?  Taking an eraser to the First Amendment?"  (See http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/217449-senate-republicans-block-constitutional-amendment-on-campaign).  So under the brave leadership of Mitch McConnell, the proposed resolution did not even make it to a vote.  McConnell and his minions voted to block the measure from getting to a vote (see cloture rules).  And this is a positive thing for America?  Allowing a 5-4 split Supreme Court decision to rise to First Amendment status like Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Petition, Press and Religion?  The right to influence elections with unlimited campaign and lobbying spending by the privileged and wealthy when no such option is available to average Americans simply expecting political leaders to engage in what is best for the nation, not just the wealthy?  The Supreme Court 's Citizens United decision is an abomination and an clearly an "activist" manipulation of what the First Amendment was intended to protect, yet those supporting the GOP now believe money IS political free speech because 5 justices on the Supreme Court said do.  And folks are caught up with Obama and alleged "overreach?"            
         Wouldn't it be nice for all Americans to demand any one running for office agree to place limits on the outrageous sums spent by the wealthy few to influence elections and legislation?  As President Andrew Jackson once said; "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes."  Selfish purposes indeed!  Have a great week!

         Now that Congress is returning from an extended vacation (again), can we expect anything productive to come out of Washington in the final weeks leading up to the 2014 Mid-term elections?  Probably not.  I mean, does anyone really expect members of Congress to accomplish anything that might be used against them in their concerted efforts to collect huge campaign donations and get themselves re-elected to the jobs they barely engage in all year long?  Okay Rubin, we know you are down on Congress, but isn't it expected they will be going in campaign mode as we approach election season anyway?  Of course, except they have been in campaign mode since 2010.  When can we expect them to WORK instead of fundraise?  Well, perhaps not in the near future!
        According to Republican sources, if the GOP takes control of the Senate, concerted efforts will be made to undermine the ACA by gutting its funding, double-down on attempting to investigate everything that can be dreamed up as a scandal and well, not about much else.  In fact, now that Obama is facing a real foreign affairs crisis with ISIS/ISIL, you can bet both parties will take to airwaves to pontificate on what policy avenues to pursue, yet run away from those positions once Obama offers Congress the authority to decide those policies fate.
        You see, it is already happening.   Although Obama created his "Red Line" with Syria, he did go to Congress to seek their support for further military action against the Assad Regime.  By going to Congress, Obama felt he could obtain a coalition, not of foreign powers, but powers within his own government.  Instead of supporting the positions pundits and politicians publicly espoused, they collectively ran away from the issue just so they could leave the impression that Obama broke his promises and therefore, cannot be trusted and is weak.   Just what our enemies need, a divided United States government allowing their leaders to assume America can be pushed around.  I mean, when GOP pundits credit Putin for his toughness while slamming our own president for being weak, who the hell do you think they are empowering?  Themselves?  
         Case in point - Obama inarticulately mentioned not having a strategy in place to deal with the threats of ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and Syria.  Instead of pushing further to determine what he meant, his opposition (again and again) piled on that he is "disengaged" when it comes to dealing with Muslims (proof he is a closet Muslim himself and golf enthusiast).  Social media perpetuates this garbage and simpletons throughout American echo those sentiments by claiming he is not a "real" president.  I kid you not.  But where was Obama this past week?  In Europe, securing military coalitions for a confrontation of ISIS/ISIL.  Gee, incremental foreign policy implementation and military intervention.  Sound familiar (see Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush for coalition building)?  So what gives?  Obama had a strategy on the matter, and it required an agreed upon coalition.  Until the United States can get world-wide support to engage ISIS/ISIL in Syria, we should not unilaterally engage.  Why?  Just look at the situation in Ukraine.  If Europe, on the doorstep of Ukraine is not willing to engage in efforts to stop the naked aggression of Putin, then why should the US?  Obviously, we are the World's policeman, but why should we risk our human and financial capital if the folks we are protecting don't support our efforts?  Isn't is well past time to back away from asserting American military pressure and influence when the folks most affected by those efforts don't appreciate them?  
          As written in the Washington Post recently, every aspect of the opposition to Obama's presidency has been calculated to defeat Democrats come election day, whether it hurts America or not.  According to the Post, Republicans have been caught on many fronts engaging in political hijinks - including arguments relating to the national deficit.  The main architect of the GOP positions?  You guessed it, Karl Rove, who now directs Republicans to attack Democrats for actually supporting GOP Deficit Reduction plans.  Why?  Because Rove and his ilk truly don't care about the financial health of our nation (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/crossroads-gps-moves-the-deficit-debate-in-the-wrong-direction/2014/09/03/41ca0ec8-33a4-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html).  They also don't care about the military standing of America - if they did, they wouldn't engage in undercutting the Commander In Chief on virtually every front.  Isn't it time folks agree that Obama is NOT the biggest threat to America?
           I would insert my disdain for the Democrats here, but they are not anywhere near as hypocritical on the deficit and foreign policy front as today's GOP.  You can bet though that after the GOP takes control of Senate (along with their control of the House of Representatives), Democrats will learn from the Republican strategy and will take the title of "Party of No" so artfully mastered by the Republicans.  And who benefits from such measures?  Certainly not the American people.  I hate thinking it empowers our enemies though.  As President Franklin D. Roosevelt once wrote; "Virtues are lost on self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea."   When it comes to the United States, may Americans soon re-take the helm and steadily steer U.S. into calm seas!  Have a great week!

*  The Third Edition of "How Our Government Really Works, Despite What They Say" will be available on line in both paperback and e-book by the end of this week!  

         With many jurisdictions heading into election season (beginning this Tuesday), options abound with a multitude of candidates for a variety of public offices.  One thing I think we are all seeing in our localities - huge campaign expenditures to get elected to a public office that pays nowhere near the amount of money a candidate is willing to spend to win the position.  Basic economics leads one to pause.  Why would someone spend so much for a position that pays relatively so little?  Can you say hunger and greed for power and money?  
But, but, the positions pay nowhere near as much as the candidates are spending in their election bids, so what gives with the  greed for money?  Do you really have to ask?
          With public office comes a certain amount of cache'.  Although the position pays only (relatively) little, it comes with prestige and power - which ultimately leads to cash benefits.  Now I know political corruption is against the law, but really, is it?  According to the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decisions, there is no known "quid pro quo" involved when a contributor pays a huge sum of money to a candidate.  In other words, the wise sages sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land, firmly opine that folks give away tons of cash to folks they "believe in" without any expectation of a political/financial return!  Has anyone drug tested these justices?  Who in the world donates large sums of cash to politicians without some form of strings attached?  Hell, governments themselves routinely attach strings when granting funds so that some control remains with the donor (see Federal Mandates).  Since when has money not been a source of trouble in the age of humans?   
          And now we see outrageous sums of campaign cash being raised and spent for such positions as County Commissioner, School Board and Hospital Boards.  Why?  Although some candidates may have altruistic aims in running for these public offices, what parts of their souls do they sign away when collecting relatively huge sums of cash to run for these intensely local positions?  What promises do they make to ensure they can even compete in the election cycle?    
        Am I the only one, or do you all see full page ads from school board candidates too?  I know we talk about income disparity in America, but what about the disparity between the haves and have nots when it comes to our political arena?  What if the very best candidate in a century hits the scene but because of their highly regarded positions and platforms, can't get either of the established parties or local wealthy donors to support them?  What if they routinely fall between the cracks and and the mere thought of a potential candidacy (despite the value they would bring to the public), instead dies a slow death?  Isn't this really what disturbs most Americans today?  That qualified candidates for important public offices won't even begin to consider public service because of the cost of money (let alone time) involved?  So what do we get instead?  Candidates whose claims to fame are their abilities to raise political contributions instead of maintaining qualities necessary for moving both small town America and Washington!  
        The solution is simple.  We The People, determine who we support and elect not by how big a candidate's "financial war chest" is, but instead choose a candidate by how big their chest of IDEAS for the people are.  That way, real virtuous candidates can reappear on the political scene, instead of so many political "wannabes" created by corporate donors and established political machines.  I can only hope I live long enough for America to wake up to this now novel approach to public service. 
         As President John K. Kennedy once wrote; "The United States has to move very fast to even stand still."  Isn't it time for those "running" to be able to do so on their own two legs instead of the legs of those only with money?"  Have a great week! 

        Anyone following social media can tell how divided Americans have become when the subject of Obama's "lawlessness" and "tyranny" is raised.  Yet, most folks are unaware of a recent Florida court decision ruling that the Florida GOP engaged in unconstitutional ( lawless and tyrannical) practices while devising gerrymandered legislative districts.  Instead of giving you my commentary, Thomas Tryon does a fine job of pointing out the political hypocrisy that exists in today's society.  To read Tryon's commentary, see http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140713/COLUMNIST/307139995?Title=Tryon-Florida-s-flawed-redistricting.
        As far as the gist of today's blog, look no further than the action undertaken in the House of Representatives (yes, they are back in Washington).  According to the Associated Press,  the GOP-led House continues to look busy, while in reality, remains dedicated to pass bills having little to no chance of passing in the Senate.  Case in point - the GOP-led House initiated a bill that would make "accelerated depreciation" a permanent tax loophole for businesses. This bill (H.R. 4718) allows businesses to "deduct 50% of the cost of qualified property in any given tax year."  According to the AP, such deductions are typically temporarily granted to boost production spending in a down economy.  To make them permanent would add $287 Million to the federal deficit over the next ten years.  With all the talk about reducing spending and the deficit (at the expense of the poor), why does the GOP initiate and pass (258-160) a bill that increases the deficit?  Because it benefits business, that's why! What makes this so interesting, is that it allows an additional 50% deduction to already existing deductions available to businesses.  I wonder who the House is trying to appease with this partisan legislation?
        Along these lines, the GOP-led house initiated and passed a bill (H.R. 4923) authorizing an increase to subsidies in the amount of "$31 million to $593 million for "fossil-fuel research" while reducing funds for energy efficient and renewable energy research by $112 million."  To add insult to injury, the Bill  "prohibits funding for certain environmental protections under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.  Huh?  Plus, the House passed a bill (H.R. 4923, 229 to 188) prohibiting funding to the Army Corp of Engineers for policies that combat "climate change" that may be based upon "biased" science."  Can anyone explain to me where exactly "biased" science has come into play?  More like Ideological opposition to science to me.   Anyway,  is this what the GOP-led House of Representatives believe is important to solve America's problems?  Do they think one of our national priorities is appropriating more money to the oil, coal and gas producers, at the expense of researching clean and efficient renewable sources of energy?  Any guess what entities the House is pandering to with this legislation?  
         As President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote; "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." By now we know where our House of Representatives stand on environmental issues.  Isn't it about time the public acknowledge the House has not been responsible to the people but obviously instead to interest groups?  Have a great week.  I will be out of town for the next two Sundays, so see you again in August!

         With the recent Supreme Court decisions ranging from freedom of religion to expression, many pundits seem to have missed or are ignoring the extent of the overreach of the Court.  I mean, we all can agree that the decisions regarding freedom of expression and religion have undertaken ideological bents, but the decisions are clearly within the Court's discretion under Article III of the Constitution and related precedents under Case Law.  But while pundits have been railing against perceived "Presidential Overreach" (see litigation stunt by Speaker John Boehner), no one has bothered to comment on the concurring decision led by s of Justice Scalia, in the case of NLRB v. Noel Canning, et al., 
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/NLRB_v_Noel_Canning_No_121281_US_June_26_2014_Court_Opinion.  You see, the decision to limit the Executive's use of Recess Appointments has been established to a standard that the Framers would hardly recognize, let alone endorse.
        According to the Court's opinion, the President may no longer make Recess Appointments when the Senate is in "Pro Forma" session, even though the Senate, by resolution agreed not to conduct any business other than opening and closing the session with the banging of the gavel.  The Court reasoned that in the event of an appointment being made, the Senate may still be capable of meeting its Constitutional Role of "Advice and Consent" and therefore, cannot be considered by the Executive as "In Recess."  The majority determined, however, that if the Pro Forma session extended ten (10) days or longer, than the Executive may move forward with a Recess Appointment. Okay, we get that. What we don't hear about is the Concurring Opinion wherein four Justices ruled that the President should no longer have the Constitutional authority to make any Recess Appointments if the Senate claims it is in session, even if it is meeting just to collectively eat grilled cheese sandwiches (okay, I added that example).  Nevertheless, these Justices actually proclaimed that the Senate alone should decide forever if the President can or cannot make Recess Appointments, regardless of the Separation of Powers inherent in the Constitution.  More importantly, these Justices would deny the power actually granted the Executive under Article II (as if it never existed in the Constitution at all).  From the decision itself, the majority points out Justice Scalia's own attempts to re-write the Constitution; "JUSTICE SCALIA would render illegitimate thousands of recess appointments reaching all the way back to the founding era. More than that: Calling the Clause an "anachronism," he would basically read it out of the Constitution. Post, at 12. He performs this act of judicial excision in the name of liberty."  
       So when the Media perpetuates the myth that the President is a tyrant because of his Imperial efforts to seize control of the Country by ignoring the Constitution, their mentors on the Court (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) have actually begun to write opinions that not only run counter to the actual Constitution, but do so without regard to their role as interpreters and not as Framers.  According to the Constitution, We The People, have the right to amend, not justices who have illusions of knowing better than what the Framers actually intended.  And THIS is what is known as "Over-Reach!" Be careful folks, the Extremists on the Right are well represented on the Supreme Court.  As Framer Alexander Hamilton once wrote; "There are seasons in every country when noise and impudence pass current for worth; and in popular commotions especially, the clamors of interested and factious men are often mistaken for patriotism."  Go no further than the Supreme Court to see Over-Reach (mistaken for patriotism) in play! Try to have a great week!

       There's the funny joke of the argument between a pessimist and an optimist.  The Pessimist says, "It can't get any worse" and the optimist says, "Oh yes it can!"  Just this past week, I found that after all of the nonsense spewed by the Media manipulating an uneducated electorate, things actually can and are getting worse!  I mean, after all the vitriol infused political rhetoric tossed about since 2008, one would think that facts and reality would trump the incessant "the sky is falling" nonsense.  But, nooo, the Media can't allow the shiny objects known as political theater to ever leave the forefront of political manipulation.  I know, "there you go again Rubin, spouting the same old nonsense about manipulation. Isn't it time to get off that train?"  To which I respond, if that runaway train is America and I have any chance to slow it down so that it does not derail, then yes, I will continue to point out the nonsense our politicians and their supporting media spew at Americans on a daily basis.  
         Just this past week, a former colleague wrote on Facebook that "President Obama will be the first sitting president sent to jail at the end of his term of office!"  Huh?  For what?  More importantly, what would motivate anyone to actually publicly state such an opinion (when I say colleague, I do not mean a professor of Political Science or American History...he's a former Science teacher - and I wonder where he stands on climate change)? Letters to the Editor have taken a even more severe turn.  One just yesterday stated that "America cannot survive another two years of Obama, and he needs to go!"  But where should Obama go?  And under what means is a duly democratically elected president supposed to be "removed" from office?  Impeachment - we know getting 2/3 of the Senate to vote for conviction is virtually impossible - especially since there is NO evidence Obama has done anything to violate his oath of office.  So what gives?  I call it "Foot in Mouth Disease."  You see, folks are reacting to stories designed to manipulate their emotions without stimulating their (now lazy) brains.  Instead of seeing through the manipulation, they readily "buy into it" because it somehow makes them feel empowered while facing  an otherwise difficult reality.  
        When high profile "Moocher and Taker" Clyde Bundy stirred up a bunch of gun toting anti-government nut jobs, the Right Wing Media immediately came out to support his efforts, even before realizing that Bundy had for years been heard in courts of law and found guilty.  Before investigating the fact that his claims of land ownership predated statehood were outright lies, Sean Hannity of Fox News embraced him and his followers as "Patriots." Anything that appears to smack down the federal government (ie., Barack Obama), is "red meat" and a "dog whistle" to stir the pot of anti, well, anything, as long as it charges the emotions of their audience.  We all know what happened with Bundy after he used Fox as his stage for proclaiming his "thoughts" on the benefits of slavery for African Americans.  As if the collective nonsense of accumulated distortions was not enough (Fast and Furious, the IRS, and of course Benghazi), we now have the "rush to judgment" against Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and whether it was worth the expense of gaining his release from the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Except, I know not one person that actually knows anything about Sgt. Bergdahl, but that does not stop the Media machine from its efforts to tell us what the guy was all about and what Obama wrongfully did to seek and obtain his release from his captors.  Once again, Obama acted "illegally" for seeking the return of an American soldier held in captivity.  
         But, but, but...but what?  He was a deserter!  He is a coward!  He is a traitor!  But did he desert?  Is he a coward?  Perhaps he is, but what do we actually know about Bowe Bergdahl and his capture and subsequent release?  Obviously, very little.  So why do folks in the Media spurn on the electorate with misinformation and distortions based upon supposition and hearsay instead of real facts?  Because it fits their political motivations and objectives.  And to most thinking folks, this knee jerk reactionary punditry is getting tired and worn out.   Case in point.  Folks actually believe that Obama should be impeached for "illegally" negotiating with terrorists for the release of a traitor.  Yet, the Media has purposely omitted some critical facts in this matter - like the very law Obama has allegedly violated, was accompanied by a Signing Statement and pursuant to that Signing Statement, the president reserved the right to act without Congressional knowledge or authority in the event "exigent" or "emergency" circumstances warrant said actions.  Is there any wonder why Obama has continually pointed out the need to move quickly without Congressional knowledge or authority in this matter? Does it have anything to do with the exception he left open for him when executing the Signing Statement?  Go figure!  And the Taliban, albeit it awful to Afghani's, is not Al Qaeda, no matter how hard Fox tries to make them be.   IF in fact Bergdahl is a deserter and a traitor, wouldn't it be best for American Military Courts to decide this instead of a biased Media and its like minded audience looking for a quick verdict based upon nothing but speculation and hearsay?  Aren't we all supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty?"  Isn't that also a concept found in the Constitution?  Ask any politician accused of wrongdoing and you can bet they will fight to prove the charges as false.  Why do we selectively "cherry pick" rights we like from the Constitution and conveniently ignore the ones that don't fit our ideology?  
        And what about the hysteria created by the Media we know as "The War on Coal?"  Seems the Media has convinced folks that Obama has illegally endorsed new regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon emissions from coal fired power plants.  Immediately, politicians and their supporting Media have attacked Obama for his alleged illegal action.  Somewhere along the line, folks have not been told that the EPA's authority to regulate the environment has recently been UPHELD by the Supreme Court as a Constitutionally valid exercise of the Executive (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-upholds-epa-rule-on-cross-state-pollution/2014/04/29/7978fd14-cfce-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html).  But when do facts actually begin to interfere with the fantasy created by politicians and their Ideologically Oriented Supporting For-Profit Media?
        Now we have the Texas GOP overwhelmingly endorsing Senator Ted Cruz for President in 2016.  Yes, you read that right.  Ted Cruz, the man who claims the federal government should be shut down now thinks he should be presiding over that very same government.  Ted Cruz, a climate change denier (See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/20/cruz-to-cnn-global-warming-not-supported-by-data/), also endorses the notion in Texas of "Reparative Therapy", an alleged treatment designed to "cure" gays and make them straight.  Yes, you read that right! (See http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/08/us/texas-gop-gay-therapy/).   Anyone else notice how the politicians that yell the loudest and the most often, somehow get elevated and promoted by the Media despite the fact their entire political beliefs are based upon lies?  How the Media "proclaims" national leaders based upon the level of their vitriol and personal ambitions rather than upon the real solutions they should be offering to unite America instead of tearing it apart?
         Now we learn the United States Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on whether threats posed through social media can be considered actual threats that should lead to criminal indictment without protection under the First Amendment.  As anyone that writes blogs or posts online can relate, many Americans - sensing some form of anonymity and protection, seem to feel free to insult, denigrate and actually threaten others through social media.  I have personally been under attack by someone for over  a year (including threats that involve my employer).  Where does anyone have the protected right to threaten others?  Before social media, any threat that was perceived by the recipient as real, was legally actionable.  Nowadays, folks seem insensitive to respecting others, while feeling empowered to run their uneducated opinions at will along with threats and language that would not be accepted in any household I know of.  So, according to The Associated Press, the United States Supreme Court may be reviewing two cases involving threats made via social media to determine if the First Amendment protects them from legal action.  According to the article, "True threats are not protected by the First Amendment under a doctrine established by the Supreme Court in 1969."  Once again, the High Court must catch up to the realities of modern technology and address the issue of lying and distorting in order to foment hate against others.  One thing is for sure these days, Americans have the right to remain stupid! But when does their stupidity cross a line?  Opinion is one thing, attacking and destroying others that may not agree with you is another.
        My bottom line is simple.  Many will jump to the conclusion that I am an Obama Apologist and therefore have no credibility.  That's fine (I guess), except I too have railed against Obama for a number of reasons, but unlike many, understand that the president has done nothing outside the realm of what other presidents have done.   I would prefer however, that most of America's trumped up anger be redirected instead at Congress where it really belongs!   America was built upon compromise and a sense of unity.  Along those lines, I am always open to be convinced to change my positions on a myriad of matters.  The only problem these days though, is that instead of raising cogent argument designed to persuade, I am seeing and hearing nothing more than the repetition of carefully designed talking points and narratives designed not to unite US, but to divide US.  To pit Americans against Americans, all the while politicians reap the benefits from the public they have so carefully manipulated.  
       As President Abraham Lincoln once famously quipped, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."  By their actions, we have become a nation of so many fools, following a manipulative political system and its supporting Media.  Isn't it high time we come together to deal with our differences before it becomes too late? Before the uninformed and uneducated start actually believing the lies and distortions so they actually think democracy is better served by armed revolution?  What else could folks be thinking when stating a "sitting president will be sent to jail" or "we must, for America, get rid of Obama before his term ends?"  Clearly American Media has proven time and time again, they have removed all doubt about their foolishness!


Please note I will be unable to post a blog next Sunday as I will be working for the College Board scoring Advanced Placement United States Government and American Politics exams in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Have a great couple of weeks!

       Living in Southwest Florida gives ample opportunity to hear a lot of "fish stories" as many, many of my students are avid "outdoorsmen and women."  Many of them share photos of their latest "catches" and they are typically, very impressive!  But lately, there has been news about catching "stingrays" around our area.  Not the kind that ply the ocean waters, but the kind that are engaged to snoop into private conversations, either from telephones or text messages.  Huh?
       Yep, according to Tom Lyons' article in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune, "stingrays are portable devices that can mimic cell phone towers.  They...are sold to law enforcement agencies for use in tapping information about calls and text messages as well as the past or present locations of cellphones, including the times when phones were not being used."  (See http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140601/ARCHIVES/406011035/-1/search10?Title=A-spying-device-cops-may-be-using).  
           Wow, instead of monitoring folks suspected of potential terrorist activities, our newly technologically energized police state has begun to set up camouflaged cell towers in an effort to invade private conversations, all under the guise of "public safety."  You see, authorities have been covertly spying on citizens under the rationale that they are in fact protecting society by stopping crimes "before they happen."  Wasn't the story line of "The Minority Report" similar to this?  Where criminals were taken off the streets before they ever committed a crime, because the police state could "predict" their future wrongdoing.  I know we have Constitutional protection against enacting laws rendering past legal acts illegal, but what protections does we have to safeguard us from government predicting future crimes (even though they may never happen)?  And I am not alone in questioning this method. The ACLU has been actively engaged in monitoring these measures because they have included entire areas of communities for secret monitoring, all without judicial authorization or proven "probable cause." One can easily see the "slippery slope" we may all slide down if these types of measures are accepted as "routine" by law enforcement under the guise of "protecting us all."  
         One thing is for sure, with the expansion of social media, are we not all at risk of law enforcement being improperly used by government to manipulate public discourse, and perhaps intimidate public dissent?  After experiencing the rampart loss of privacy under the English Crown, the Founding Fathers and Framers were keenly aware of the need to ensure the rights of Americans to maintain their privacy in their everyday lives.  As Founding Father, Patrick Henry once wrote; "When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object."  Covert spying looking for clues in the private conversations of ordinary citizens would certainly not be approved by Henry or his radical colleagues when breaking away from England and establishing the United States.  Isn't it time (again) to remember what "Liberty" really means? Liberty, should always be the primary object, for all of US! Have a great week!