It was another interesting week as additional presidential hopefuls continued to pop up.  How many GOP candidates are now "officially" running for the White House?  Hmm.  Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Rick Santorum...deep breath, and now Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham and soon Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.  That makes twelve declared candidates for the GOP nomination. Still on the outside looking in?  Bobby Jindel, Donald Trump and Chris Christie. On the Democratic side, we have Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chaffee.  But who will win the nomination from their respective party?  Right now, that's anybody's guess.  
         On the Democrat's side you have Clinton and the massive fundraising and organizing machine (and all the baggage of self-inflicted mistakes).  I do not include Benghazi because this is truly a "made for Media" scandal that has no real substance (sorry to my Right Wing friends).  Clinton does have credibility issues, but so do all of the other candidates - from either side of the aisle.  O'Malley?  One of the main things a national candidate must have is name recognition and O'Malley has none.  Sanders?  Can a self-proclaimed Left-Wing Socialist win the presidency?  Do you know a bridge for sale?  Could there be anyone else to appear on the horizon for the Democrats to win the White House?  Please?  
        On the Republican side you have the same problems.  Although Rubio, Paul, Perry, Cruz and Bush have name recognition,  their recognition is overwhelmingly negative.  Rubio, Paul and Cruz all have "Flip-Flop" pandering issues that will not go away.  Carson is not a viable candidate (as he has never run for public office) and Fiorina, Santorum, Huckabee and Perry have losing records when it comes to national campaigns.  So that leaves Pataki (who could not win in his home state) and Walker who is tied at the hip with the Koch Brothers.  I know, I forgot to mention Trump and Jindel, but why bother - they poll so low they most likely will not even be invited by the GOP to participate in the party's own debates.  Could there be anyone else on the GOP horizon to win the White House? Please?
       I guess that leaves us with no real credible candidates from either party to occupy the White House and lead our great nation.  But why is this?  Why can't there be viable candidates for the most important position in the World?  Could it be because only candidates that can muster the support of Billionaires have a shot at their party's nomination?  Has the overwhelming influence of campaign cash rendered "citizen-candidates" helpless in efforts to gain the name recognition and support necessary to become a viable national candidate?   I know many pundits support the unlimited use of campaign cash (including from corporations and unions), but haven't they ignored the reality that campaign cash can preclude and foreclose opportunities for potentially better yet less "recognized" candidates to have  even a remote chance of winning their party's nomination?  In 2016, it is predicted each candidate for the presidency will have to raise and spend $2 Billion apiece to win.  Isn't this disgusting enough to have folks begin to consider the damage it has caused to both our electoral politics but also to our legislative processes as well?  
         We know our government operates within a well concealed sub-government known as Issue Networks and Iron Triangles.  When will the public come to realize the monied interests control the actions of both political parties and that by separating Americans by party they have successfully neutralized any ability of the electorate to unite against the abuses in our electoral and legislative systems?  Will Americans ever wake up to this reality without holding fast to the talking points and narratives designed by the Parties to keep us divided and clueless as to the real "dark side" of our political processes?
         Although I have used this quote before from President George Washington, I find it more and more relevant; "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."  When will Americans begin to recognize that we need to fight together against "frightful despotism?"   Have a great week!


* I will be attending the Educational Testing Service's College Board A.P. United States Government and American Politics Reading in Salt Lake City, Utah, so next week's blog may be delayed a week.  I appreciate your continued interest in my blog.  Be well!

     Now that the media is determined to focus the public on the cancellation of health insurance policies (and blaming Obama instead of the insurers), the Republicans in Congress are attempting to erode the safety net Americans expect to fall into if victimized by unscrupulous financial "wheelers and dealers."  Yes, efforts to unwind regulations protecting ordinary Americans from scams and shams by bankers and financial "advisors" seems to be the objective of the GOP in Congress this past week - all the while hiding behind the billowing smoke screen of "ObamaCare Lies."  
         From  my simple observation, more media has been focusing on alleged "Lies" from Obama about keeping existing insurance policies under Affordable Care Act than paying attention to recent efforts in the GOP-led House to push aside financial safeguards for Americans.  Do you think I am making this allegation up?  Do you think no one could be so crass as to push aside or delay protections for all Americans from financial con men?  Okay Rubin, what do you have?
       Per the Associated Press, the GOP-led House of Representatives just this past week, introduced a Bill (HR2374) to "sidetrack regulations that impose fiduciary standards on virtually all entities that sell personalized financial advice" to personal investors (emphasis added).  The GOP Bill would "indefinitely" suspend all pending Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and rule making that protects individual Americans from fraudulent financial advice from any and all sources.  The GOP claims in the Bill that imposing rules to include all entities as "Fiduciaries" for American investors must first be shown to positively impact American investors and that only after further study by the SEC may such rules go into effect (see http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/2374).  Does anyone really need to delay action because further study is needed to determine if Americans should trust all financial advisers at any level?  The vote for sidetracking the pending regulations?  254 for and 166 against.  And it gets worse.
        In response to the GOP measure to sidetrack regulations designed to protect individual American investors, the Democrats proposed an Amendment to HR 2374 to exempt protections against fraud in seniors' and veterans' pensions, 401(K) accounts and other retirement accounts from being "sidetracked."  Yes, the Democrats tried to ensure that any efforts by the GOP to delay imposing fiduciary duties onto all financial advisers and salespersons, even when dealing with investments by senior citizens and veterans be excluded, yet the GOP defeated the measure by a vote of 223 to 195.  All the while the media is focusing on Obama "lies", the GOP is actively working to undermine a financial safety net necessary to protect all Americans from shams and scams.  But it gets even worse.
       The Republicans in the House proposed a Bill (HR992) that would exempt financial "transactions such as commodity swaps, equity swaps and certain credit-default swaps from rules imposed by Dodd-Frank on the $600 Trillion-plus derivatives market"...you remember derivatives right?  Those "investment" vehicles designed to fail that led to a government bailout of banks and Wall Street after they crashed in 2008.  Why wouldn't Americans expect to see strict regulation on these suspect investment vehicles?  Unfortunately, the Bill passed the House by a vote of 292 to 122, which means seventy Democrats joined all but three Republican colleagues to allow derivatives to move forward without strict regulatory scrutiny.  Think Wall Street lobbyists poured some contributions into campaign funds for this Congressional favor in the House?(see http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/992?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+992%22%5D%7D).   Do you think it can not get any worse?  Think again.  
        This past week, the GOP-led House voted 223 to 190 to defeat a Democratic initiative to maintain federal regulations that "police excessive speculation in the derivatives (junk stuff again) that could result in the manipulation of oil and biofuel prices." (Source:  The Associated Press.  See Amendment to HR 992).  Are Americans being informed of these efforts in the House of Representatives?  Is the Media interested in informing the public about real legislative initiatives undertaken in the United States House of Representatives?  Of course not!  Media is too preoccupied with ObamaCare and alleged "lies" instead.  Obama is the source of scandal, ask any GOP leader (or Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz -  all potential GOP "pretenders" vying to lead their party - back into a ditch).  
          Isn't it time for the Media to return to their role as investigators and informers of real news?  Isn't it time for Americans to be told truths instead of talking points and narratives?  Isn't it time for Americans to expect more than ideologically oriented message control from our Media?  As President Harry Truman once said; "There is nothing new in the World except the history you do not know."   Isn't it high time we demand to know what is happening instead of what politicians (and their supporting Media) want us to believe? Have a great week (and stay INFORMED). 

      How many times this week have we heard about the failure of the web sites to plug Americans into the Affordable Health Care Act's registration and how many times have Republicans used the term to describe "ObamaCare" as a "Train Wreck?" As each day passes, Republicans are banking on the short term memory loss of Americans so that they can conveniently blame everything from health care to gas prices to a slow economy to Obama.   Think I am over-reacting?  Look at the Op-Ed pages of your local newspaper along with Letters to the Editor.  You will find the designed strategy of "pivot and blame" unfolded right before our eyes.  But will it work beyond exciting a gullible and anxious base?  Perhaps.  But for how long?  You can bet the economic hit suffered as a result of the Tea Party's shutdown will be blamed on Obama come January.  Count on it.  When the total negative impact of the shut down is revealed in the economic data for the fourth quarter of 2013, Republicans will pivot to blame Mr. Obama for the slow economy and will attempt to use it as a campaign issue heading into the 2014 Mid-Term elections.  But will Americans be paying attention?   Will the "smoke and mirrors" approach of the Tea Party still work by then?  
         Just this past week, several pundits have made concerted efforts to steer America's attention away from the Republican shut down debacle and instead onto the failures of the health care computer systems.  Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and many other GOP "leaders" have excitedly pointed to the computer glitches as proof 
"Democrats cannot govern!"  Ironic isn't it?  If Democrats can't govern is a real concern for Conservatives, than what about Republicans refusing to govern and preferring to dismantle the United States government?  Is this why public polling reveals the GOP has fallen to the lowest level of public approval since such polls have been in existence?   Now don't get me wrong - Democrats in Congress are not held in high esteem either, but for the Cruz faction, Tea that hangs around in water begins to dilute and Americans are getting tired of their rhetoric.
       According to Cruz, the only reason the shut down did not succeed was the GOP's lack of backbone and he was going to be their orthopedic support!  According to Cruz and his followers, real Americans want to dismantle ObamaCare because it is the No. 1 reason America is failing.  Really?  To think some Americans actually believe in Cruz and his crazy talk is not only amazing, but also dumbfounding.  According to data, most supporters of the Tea movement enjoy benefits under Social Security and Medicare.  How far will Tea Party supporters follow Cruz and their leaders if Social Security is privatized and Medicare is severely cut back (see GOP Ryan Plan)?  Hmm, I wonder.
       In addition to the Tea Party rantings about ObamaCare, the GOP has continued its efforts to steer the country into a direction most would find puzzling.  When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dropped his appeal against a ruling in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, Social Conservatives in the GOP were outraged.  When the GOP-led House voted this week to curtail environmental protections the Supreme Court sees as legitimate extensions of the EPA's authority, the Conservatives seem satisfied.  But what about the rest of America?  What about Americans that have never supported the notion that big corporations deserve all of the breaks because they either know best or are the real "job creators" and employees owe their livelihoods to them?  What happened to supporting Middle Class values in the GOP?  Can one say "lip service?"
        Just this week Arizona Republican Senator John McCain hinted (even though he was just reelected in 2010) that he may run for reelection in 2016 at the age of 80.  Is it any wonder that Mr. McCain is so concerned about Ted Cruz's statement that the Tea Party will LEAD the Republican Party in the future?  Is it any wonder that McCain, despite his advancing age sees it necessary to interject himself as a kind of "firewall" to protect the GOP from the likes of Cruz, Rubio, Inhoffe and Palin?   With Moderate Republicans gearing up to defend themselves in the primaries against opponents from the Far Right, can anyone really expect their candidates to succeed in the general elections?  Obviously, Cruz and his followers are banking on America's  collective attention deficit.  I'm betting Americans know better and hope McCain and his supporters somehow wrest control of the GOP back from the fringe dwelling "Cruz missile wing-nuts!"
         So enough of bashing the majority that does not believe in the America used for talking points and narratives .  Enough of manipulating emotions of Americans in an effort to misguide and misdirect the public from the real problems facing our great nation.  And enough with the efforts to divide America by claiming a self-righteousness that pits American against American.  As President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote "We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country.  Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all!"    Have a great week!

      Now that Fox News has made the incredible comparison between the government/Democrats sending more people to guard the WWII Memorial with the lack of security sent into Benghazi to protect the consulate, it is certainly fair game to point out the obvious deception and hypocrisy of our current leaders in the United States Congress.  Since no one calls Fox News out for their blatant misleading of their loyal audience under the guise of being "Fair and Balanced," I find it incredible that no one (besides Jon Stewart) seems to be pointing out the obvious - that Fox News is not a news organization, but an adjunct entertainment/propaganda outlet for the Republican/Tea Party.  
        Some of you are old enough to recall when Dan Rather, anchor of CBS News, reported that Presidential candidate George W. Bush was AWOL from the Air National Guard.  Mr. Rather was forced to resign when he could not prove his reporting about Bush.  In other words, Rather was forced to leave the anchor desk because folks demanded that news anchors be accountable if they report or pursue the reporting of inaccurate or misleading "falsehoods."   So why is that standard ignored in the case of Fox News?  Oh, Fox News would never broadcast inaccurate or misleading news, would it?  
       As most of you know, Fox News reported on a satirical news story from the Onion that President Obama was costing America over $200 Million a day for his trip to India.  Not even remotely true.  Fox News also gave a platform to the "Birthers" claiming Obama was ineligible to be president due to his alleged birth in Kenya.  Now that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz admitted to being born in Canada, where is the Fox News machine on Cruz's alleged ineligibility to be President under the same standard they promoted against Obama?  Nowhere. Remember the Onion story about Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, claiming he was filing for personal bankruptcy?  Fox News sure does, they ran with it (once the Drudge Report passed it onto them).   Remember the hoopla surrounding former Chuck Hagel's alleged ties to the fictional group, "Friends of Hamas"?  It was a joke, yet broadcast repeatedly by Fox News as real news.  Remember?  Now Fox News reported that President Obama, while refusing to open the WWII Memorial, was personally paying out of his own pocket money to keep open the "International Museum of Muslim Cultures."   The story originated in the National Report, a satirical publication.  Fox News just can't seem to help themselves when it comes to airing reports that slam Obama, including those that are patently false and ridiculous.  So where are the "Broadcast Purists" that demanded Dan Rather resign over the Bush controversy?  Why isn't the American public demanding "Fair and Balanced" reporting actually BE fair and balanced?  Where are real journalists to point out that Fox News is NOT news, but political entertainment not to be taken at face value?  Does anyone take Saturday Night Live's News Update as serious news?  Perhaps Fox should add SNL News Update to their nightly broadcasts?  
        The shame of it all?  That the hypocrisy is LOST on so many Americans that SWEAR Fox News is a legitimate source of news and rely upon it faithfully to shape their political opinions.   Why?  Because Americans have become so intellectually lazy they must be told what to think.  Being manipulated by news reporters is a lot easier than having to think for ones self.  And please, those demanding I point out the deficiencies of CNN and MSNBC should realize that Fox routinely gets the news wrong.  Could it be mere negligence or part of the network's agenda and design?  Which gets me to my final point.
        The current shutdown is NOT due to Obama and the Democrats, despite the best efforts of Republicans and Fox to promote the lie.  On August 21, 2013, 80 REPUBLICAN members of the House of Representatives signed a strategy letter to shut down the government in an effort to defund ObamaCare (see http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/oct/04/the-letter-behind-the-shutdown/).  Now that public opinion polls indicate the public is blaming the GOP for the shut down, these very same Representatives and Fox promote claims that Democrats and Obama are to blame for the shut down.  What gives?  Where is Fox News to report the truth behind the GOP/Tea Party shut down strategy?  Obviously, too busy amplifying the message that "Obama, the Democrats and Liberals" are to blame.  Yes, folks - Fox News and the GOP do believe Americans are that stupid, and apparently, those who watch Fox News exclusively for their news ARE that stupid!
          With the Debt Ceiling rapidly approaching (Oct. 17) and the Republican/Tea Party representatives willing to sacrifice the nation's financial stability to prove THEY have usurped democracy, things are getting even more at odds with reality.  Just yesterday, Charles Krauthammer wrote that the reason no one likes ObamaCare and why it must be repealed is because it's passage was "contrary to the modern American tradition - and constitutional decency - of undertaking major social revolutions only with bipartisan majorities.  Having stuffed Obamacare down the throats  of the GOP and the country, Democrats are now paying the price."  (Herald Tribune, Oct. 5, 2013).  The gist of his argument is that Congress should not initiate and approve laws unless everyone agrees.  Yet, if that is the case, where is Krauthammer now that the GOP has hijacked the House of Representatives by using its Majority to deny a clean Continuing Resolution that includes full funding of the Government over the opposition of every Democratic Representative?  Democrats have unanimously opposed the 40 plus efforts to defund ObamaCare, yet Krauthammer can not even see over the height of his own hypocrisy to see the reality of the GOP's failure to adhere to his self-described "modern American tradition - and constitutional decency."  I guess it depends on your political perspective - which IS hypocrisy at its worst!  
          So I will leave you with this final thought.  If John Boehner, as Speaker of the House can ensure the country avoids falling off a dangerously real fiscal cliff by extending the debt ceiling, then why all the talk by the GOP and Fox News about protecting the interests of Veterans?  You see, Veterans put their actual lives on the line to protect our great nation.  They are willing to sacrifice their very existence to protect America.  Why do politicians like John Boehner refuse to put their own political lives on the line by moving to protect America from disastrous financial default?  What should we think when we hear the less than authentic rantings of Boehner, Cantor, Cruz, Paul or Rubio, promoted and amplified by Fox News?  What should we think when folks like Krauthammer and Fox News employ hypocrisy (and admitted distortions) in an effort to manipulate a gullible and uneducated  electorate?  And please do not interject Obama into this discussion - his political career was extended due to his re-election and will end naturally at the end of his current term.
          "The Chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns the disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.  Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." President George Washington, 1796.  
      Isn't it time to find politicians willing to sacrifice their political lives to save America from financial threats of ruin?  Isn't it time for America to elect political leadership in Washington that put country first and their political lives and party second?  Until then, perhaps America should begin to seriously think about replacing ALL of our leaders in Congress when the opportunity arises? Perhaps it is time to seriously consider an opportunity for Americans to Sweep Congress Clean in 2014!?  Interest and Duty? You Bet! 

     Now that the government has been officially shut down, many Americans can't seem to fathom what is going on in Congress.  Some reactions I witnessed today I found to be outright dangerous.  Seems folks still believe the ObamaCare will have active "Death Panels" and still believe that raising the debt limit leads to increased spending. These folks actually celebrate the government being shut down and hope the United States  actually defaults on its debt!
      What gives?  The Media must start educating Americans with the truth about our government and stop perpetuating distortions that advance objectives of Political Parties or interest groups. Shutting the Government is one thing, defaulting on our financial obligations is another!  But what can be done?  
     Are we entering an era of total governmental stagnation and self-inflicted financial/economical disarray and chaos? Are Tea Party and GOP members in Congress doing to the Country what no terrorist could ever accomplish - push America over a financial cliff?   But there is something Barack Obama might be able to do!
      Within Article II of the Constitution, the President is required that "...he shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed..."   (Article II, Section 3).  Okay, so what does this mean?  Known as the "Take Care" Provision or Clause, the President is required to take all steps necessary to protect the United States from any threats, domestic, foreign, military or economic.  So there is an obligation to act in this matter!  But, with what authority does he have to act in any way to ensure the country never goes into financial default?  Look to the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads; "SECTION 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."  
     So here goes.   In the event Congress is going to force the United States to default on its financial obligations, the President, under his "Take Care" obligations under Article II, can look to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment and argue that the debt being defaulted upon was authorized by law (Congress), and only now when it comes to pay the tab for the debt do they balk.  And balk not for financial reasons, but solely for political ideological purity reasons alone.   Congress authorized the spending - on credit.  The debt ceiling simply authorizes paying the debt back, not the initial spending represented by the debt.  
       If Obama uses an Executive Order to direct the Treasury to continue to pay the debts of the United States, we might avert total disaster.  Great for the Country, Bad for Obama and Real BAD for Republicans.  Why?  Well, in the event Obama has to act (he would be violating the Constitution if he did not act), then the GOP leaders in the House of Representatives would undoubtedly demand his immediate impeachment, which they would get (impeachment is NOT removal, it is simply an indictment for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and it requires only a simply majority in the House).  So Obama would be impeached right out of the gate (after all, he's already a tyrant in the eyes of the Tea Partiers).  But what about the Constitutional Crisis it would create, surely the Supreme Court would intervene?  Based upon SCOTUS history, the Court might not act due to the crisis being "Political" in nature and not "justiciable" - and an impeachment confirms it is "Political" (does anyone really think Obama would be convicted in the Democratically controlled Senate?).   Of course not.  Bottom line, Obama stays in office, but the hatred towards him rises to a very dangerous level.  So - Bad for Obama.  But why Real BAD for the Republicans?
       If Obama is impeached, that would make two consecutive Democratic Presidents to be impeached by a Republican controlled House.  Two in a row!  Has a Democratically controlled House ever impeached a Republican president?   Richard Nixon resigned before he was impeached, and many Republicans favored his removal as well.   Andrew Johnson was impeached, but by a House controlled by what was known then as the "Radical Republicans."  There has never been a Republican president ever threatened with impeachment, let alone impeached by Democrats in the House.   So where does that set up for the future?  Think the Democrats will ever again ignore using the same tactic of impeachment against a Republican President while having control of the House?  Is this enough  for Americans to finally say "enough is enough" and demand a wholesale turnover in our Congress?  Regardless, the negativity to America is extreme.  The negatively to Obama is short term and history will be on his side, but for Republicans, will they ever recover if this scenario plays out?  
       Time to get real folks.  The Tea Party does NOT represent the vast majority of Americans.  The Media can no longer be trusted to provide real objective information about our government, and the GOP must stop playing fast and loose with their oversight authority in the House and their overuse of the Filibuster in the Senate. Americans are seeing the GOP's true colors with the current shut down and the impending debt ceiling crisis.  Sorry, but there is no moral equivalence in this battle.  It is all on the Republican's side.  The GOP still cannot admit they lost the White House in 2008 and again in 2012.  They fail to admit, ObamaCare IS the LAW.  Instead of trashing it, find its faults and fix them!   The GOP must start doing their jobs instead of running for them! But whatever happens, stop playing games with the financial security of the United States of America!  Perhaps President Washington said it best; "Worry is the interest paid by those who borrow trouble." 

       Honestly, can the House of Representatives do anything more to prove just how out of touch they are on issues affecting Americans?  I mean, this past week, for the 38th time, the GOP-led House passed a Bill to gut, maim or disable (whatever you call it) the major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, aka Obamacare.  Why?  Because they know they cannot repeal Obamacare outright, so by "biting at its heels" they believe they can win their cynical propaganda war against Barack Obama. 
          So entrenched has the GOP become, they operate in direct opposition to what benefits most Americans, yet they are continuously supported by their communication arms in the Media and their ever-adoring political base.  'There you go again, Rubin, making outrageous statements that just cannot be justified."
  Really?   Most Americans have probably heard the news that once again, the House passed a Bill (for the 38th time) to destroy Obamacare.  But have Americans heard that House Democrats attempted to amend the proposed House Bill with efforts to preserve provisions of the Healthcare Law that we all like?
       HR 2668,  the GOP initiated Bill to eliminate all of the most important provisions of Obamacare as law was widely reported in the Media, but little coverage was given to the efforts by House Democrats that proposed their own amendment to HR2668 to restore provisions for pre-existing conditions, a vital aspect of the healthcare law.  Specifically, according to The Associated Press, Democrats proposed an Amendment that would preserve three (3) elements of Obamacare,  1). a ban on insurance discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions or gender, 2). to ensure curbs on out-of-pocket costs is preserved and 3). maintaining tax credits and rebates to make health insurance affordable.  And the score on the vote for this amendment in the Republican controlled House? 230 Republicans against to 193 in favor!   For the record, there are 234 Republicans in the House of Representatives!
        Do Americans realize that Obamacare includes provisions that improve our personal stakes when it comes to health care?  Do Americans realize there are provisions in Obamacare that we all actually want or need?  Has President Obama done such a poor job communicating the benefits of Obamacare that Americans are easily manipulated into believing anything Republicans claim about the law?  And where is the Media in this mess?  All (including Obama and the Democrats) AWOL - Absent Without Leave.  Knowing this to be reality has led the GOP to engage in serious management/manipulation of information that leaves most Americans out in the cold when it comes to health care, all the while the electorate seemingly says "Thank you,  may I have another?"
        So how can I make this claim?  Easy.  Ask many American what provisions of Obamacare they might like and most will tell you "Nothing!"  But why?  Because they have no clue what Obamacare is about.   Instead they have been convinced through repetitive manipulation to believe Obamacare is a "Socialist plot designed to destroy America as we know it!"  Why else does the Ideologically Oriented For-Profit Media still portray Obamacare as a failure, even though its provisions don't take full effect until 2014 and after?  Why is Obamacare continuously portrayed as something worthy of discussion as if it was still a mere proposal before Congress?    Obamacare is the LAW.  So why the continued debate?  Could it be so that the GOP can continue to polarize the electorate knowing it is less and less informed on the real issues.  Is it safe to claim Americans today now have the lowest level of political knowledge and efficacy in the history of the United States?
        How many Americans do you know that have suffered because of insurers withholding coverage due to some "pre-existing condition?"   Hell, according to Texas and like-minded States, we all have pre-existing conditions if we felt any pain from conception!  Don't most Americans want to save money by limiting the amount of co-pays insurers can demand before the provision of medical services?  Show me anyone who wants to pay more and I will show you.... well, I'm trying to be nice.
     Do Americans deep down want to ignore pains or symptoms of serious illness that could be detected and cured before becoming deadly, just because they fear what treatment will cost them? How many Americans
skip filling prescriptions because the monthly expense for their medication is too high?  Or skip potentially life-saving colonoscopies or mammograms because they feel they cannot afford them?  Of the 230 members of the House voting to strip these common-sense provisions from Obamacare,  229 were Republican members, including my very own representative!  Are we paying attention America?  Who benefits from such action?  And what alternative does the GOP offer us?  As of this writing, none!  In other words, the GOP demands it is in our best personal interests to take something away from us, but offer us nothing in the alternative!  Do people really favor this approach?    Is repealing Obamacare what Americans really expect and demand?  Do we have any clue what is going on in Congress?  Will anyone call out Republican incumbents on these actions in the 2014 Mid-term Elections?  Will anyone ask the simple question, "Why?" 
        President Harry Truman once wrote, "You can always amend a big plan, but you can never expand a little one."   Instead of moving to repeal Obamacare, how about the Republicans come up with a better alternative instead of wasting time on Bills that have no chance of being enacted into law?  How about the Republicans stop efforts to repeal Obama's initiatives and instead move to bigger things?  Nah, that would require change and the word "Change" was co-opted by Obama so it no longer can be embraced by Republicans!   It's time to tackle real issues, not the small and petty political ones.  If members of Congress cannot handle big issues, perhaps they should stay home and let others take their spots!  Keep this in mind as 2014 approaches.    Let's put folks into office with BIG ideas and send those with small minds home!  Sweep Congress Clean in 2014!

       This past week was certainly an interesting one, and not just because of the games being played in Congress with the aid of many in the  Media to portray President Obama as a "failed president."   I could not help but look at the actions undertaken in Congress this week to ponder what Americans think when they see what that branch of government has been doing.  Although the Media has made sure we know all about  House committees investigating Obama on Benghazi, the IRS and the electronic eavesdropping on the AP and Fox News' James Rosen,  how many Americans know what our Congressional leaders have been up to this past week?  I'm willing to bet, not many, because if they did, we would be seeing more outrage focused on them instead of Obama!  Where is the Media on this week's Congressional action?  Quiet as usual with the typical attitude of  "Move along folks, nothing to see here..."  So let's take a look then!
          You may recall that the Keystone XL Pipeline was a huge political issue during the recent Presidential Election Campaign with Republicans leading the way demanding the pipeline be built so that:  1. Jobs can be created and 2.  America can become energy independent.  Republicans framed the entire issue as both an economic and foreign policy imperative. For those that are not regular readers of my blog, welcome - but check the archives for blogs identifying GOP leaders using the above-referenced pipeline talking points.  So what does the GOP-led House push this week?  HR3, a Bill calling for the immediate construction of the final section of the Keystone XL Pipeline between the Canadian border and Steele City, Nebraska.  Ironically, the final authority by law to determine whether the pipeline meets environmental and foreign policy concerns (Canadian tar sands)  lies with the Executive Branch under the Constitution, but the GOP moved ahead without heeding the law and instead passed a Bill circumventing the President's authority by a vote of 241-175 (and Fox viewers think Obama is the "tyrant" skirting the Constitution at every turn).   So why the need to move forward with such a measure?  Because of the Economy and Energy Independence right?  WRONG!
      In an effort to force the House to require all petroleum produced from the Canadian Tar Sands crude be sold to Americans, the Democrats proposed an Amendment to HR3.  In other words, if the pipeline is constructed, all oil related products refined from the tar sands must be dedicated for domestic consumption.  I mean, isn't that one of the reasons Republicans claimed the pipeline was needed?  It's about energy independence right?  Apparently not!  The GOP-led House voted down the Amendment that bans all exports of the refined crude!  What gives then?  Perhaps the pipeline was never intended to supply oil to Americans (what Obama was claiming all along). Perhaps Republicans spun talking points for political gain in the last election cycle?  I'm shocked (not)!  To make matters worse, Democrats then attempted to require all firms receiving refined petroleum from the tar sands pay into the Oil Spill Liability Fund (that existing oil producers pay into).  Doesn't it make sense that the oil producers benefiting from the sale of the refined Keystone XL related tar sands oil pay into a fund that provides coverage for environmental damage in the event of a leak or spill?  Of course it does.  But the Republicans struck that Amendment down by a vote of 223-194.  What gives then?  Why shouldn't the firms involved pay into the Liability fund like they already do for all other existing pipelines?  Can anyone answer this question?  What impact will the pipeline have on the environment should a spill occur? 
      In an effort to avoid that very question, the GOP also passed an Amendment "green lighting" the project by affirmatively rejecting State Department environmental concerns.  The Amendment usurping the Executive Branch's control passed the House along party lines, 246-168.  Seems the Republicans in the House have called for the Bill to proclaim all environmental issues "minor"  and the pipeline be built on an expedited basis.  So the pipeline and the crude it carries will not be sold to Americans, will not make us further energy independent and the environment be damned.  To add insult to injury, House Democrats proposed an additional Amendment requiring the petroleum producers  achieve "carbon emission neutrality" so the environmental impact of the additional release of carbon emissions from the refining of the dirty tar sands is minimized.  What does the GOP-led House do?  Vote the measure down by a vote of  269-146!  Are Americans paying attention to the fact these Republican positions don't even come close to their talking points promoted in the past election?  Where is the outrage?  Lost in the Media fixated on the "shiny objects" of Bengahzi, the IRS and the DOJ snooping!  Is it possible the entire "scandal" parade was designed by the GOP just to begin to usurp presidential authority while the nation is told to "Move on, nothing to see here?"
      So when it comes to protecting separation of powers, the environment and Congressional integrity (an oxymoron?), the Republicans cannot be found.  Despite their repeated political talking points, it can be proven  they have sold out to big business at our collective expense.  As President Theodore Roosevelt once said; "It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law, but it is easy to ruin it by bad laws!"  Will Americans ever learn to distrust the Media and politicians when they tell us "Nothing to see, move along?"

    As Americans share their thoughts and prayers for the victims of the massive tornado in Oklahoma, politicians in Washington have already indicated their beliefs that disaster relief should come with a high price!  Despite the fact that Federal Deficit Spending has been cut in half for fiscal year  2013, some politicians insist that any disaster relief spending be offset by a dollar for dollar cut in other budgeted spending.  In other words, in the event Americans become victims of a natural disaster and need emergency relief, no money can be provided for said relief unless it comes at the cost of another budgeted cost item.  
         You may recall that when tornadoes struck Arkansas last year, GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) suggested this "quid pro quo" exchange before emergency disaster funds be provided to the victims.  When Hurricane Sandy ripped through Virginia, New Jersey and New York, Mr. Cantor suddenly got quiet about his demands that money be offset before being provided to disaster victims.  Was it brought back up for discussion when West, Texas fell victim to the local fertilizer plant explosion?  Nah, that might inflame Tea Party Texas Governor Rick Perry, who wasted no time requesting Federal Emergency Disaster relief.  So did this political attitude ever go away?  Nope, Senator Tom Coburn from OKLAHOMA has now demanded that any money set aside for Federal Emergency Disaster Relief be first set off against other Federal spending.  From Oklahoma?  Really?  Give Coburn credit, he sure is being consistent in his beliefs, but how do the folks of Oklahoma feel about Coburn's principled sentiment that no Federal money become available unless cut from somewhere else in the Federal budget? 
        In the event fellow members of his Conference in the Senate agree with his position, perhaps Coburn should find easy sources for "set-off" so that emergency relief can be given.  One area that can provide an easy target to free money for Oklahoma relief would be to reduce the number of Abrams A-1 tanks some in Congress demand we need (regardless of the fact the Pentagon says they are neither needed nor wanted by the Military).  What does a single Abram A-1 Tank cost? $8 Million each!  Would Senator Coburn be willing to swap the cost of a handful of tanks in order to provide needed relief to fellow Oklahomans?  If not, why not?  Does Coburn also believe that all the costs associated with FEMA should also be "set off" against other expenses in the Federal Budget? 
       With the country experiencing a spate of "historic" natural disasters, where do Coburn and Cantor stand on Climate Change?  We know the frequency and severity of warming affects Hurricanes.  And although Climate Change may not directly affect the severity of tornadoes, they do impact their non-traditional frequency and locations which do follow the patterns previously outlined by climate scientists.  Would it not make some sense to begin to take Climate Change more seriously in Washington?  How many natural disasters will we have to sustain for our leaders in Washington to accept the fact that climate related disasters will continue to wreak havoc across the Nation and the costs associated with them will continue to dramatically increase?  If the effort is to save money, perhaps Coburn, Cantor and others should invest in ways to better predict such weather events and towards measures to reduce their severity.  As President John F. Kennedy once said, "Change is the law of life.  And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."

     Wow, I thought I had a crazy week, between the Advanced Placement Government and Politics testing for my students and watching our Venice High Baseball team win a rare Back to Back Baseball State Championship (Venice's third overall, 2007, 2012 & 2013).  Yet in reality, not nearly as nutty as the one in Washington.  With the stories about Benghazi, the IRS and the AP Subpoenas from the Justice Department, the Media is going crazy trying to sensationalize them into becoming the worst scandals in history.  In fact, Pew Research found that 44% of all Republicans believe these scandals are the worst in "American History."  And where might they even get such an idea?  What knowledge of American history do they actually have?  Apparently, very little.  GOP Senator James Inhofe (of "Friends of Hamas" fame) has even gone to the extent to suggest Obama might be "impeached" for these scandals.  But are they really scandals?  Are they directly tied to the President?  Even Former GOP Vice President Dick Cheney and former  GOP Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have criticized Obama for "covering up the truth" about Benghazi.  Does anyone really want the truth on any of these matters?  Really?  Seems the truth is as far an objective as possible for the GOP and the Media.  So allow me to get to my point.
         It turns out that the Benghazi matter was not really a scandal at all.  Congress voted well before the tragedy to cut embassy security budgets which caused a ripple effect for all embassies, consulates and missions.  Who in Congress pushed for these cuts?  The GOP-led House.  So as the anniversary of 9-11 was approaching, the military offered additional security to Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens for the embassy and consulate.  In fact, according to a variety of news sources, including ABC News, Stevens turned the offer for additional security down TWICE.  So much for the GOP created notion the Obama Administration arbitrarily left the Benghazi consulate without adequate security on the anniversary of 9-11!  Does this FACT sink in for partisan politicians?  Of course not.  Does the partisan base accept them as fact?  Of course not, it deflates political rhetoric.  Does the Media use this fact to tamp down its news reporting?  Of course not, it would mean turning their backs on sensationalized news, and every customer of the Media loves a "hot scandal."  It drives their audience. 
       It also turns out that then CIA Director David Patraeus, was actively engaged in the development of the "talking points"  for release by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that is now driving the "Scandal" probe by the GOP-led House Oversight Committee.  CIA Director and Former General Patraeus objected when the final talking points did not include more information about the actual attack itself.  According to NBC News, it can be seen clearly from the 99 emails released by the White House that the "tug of war" on the talking points were exclusively between the CIA and the State Department.  The emails never reveal any involvement by the White House or the President in shaping the publicly released report presented on the News Shows by Ambassador Rice.  The emails also reveal that State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concern that the talking points favored by Patraeus might prejudice an ongoing investigation into the tragedy by the FBI.   Gee, since the emails reflect actions taken in "real time" and not within the scope of 20-20 hindsight, they actually might make legitimate sense.  Does this make the GOP leadership wary of continuing their loud claims of a White House cover-up?  Does this dampen the GOP demands that include some suggesting Impeachment?  Does this sway the Media to stop pushing heated sensationalized rhetoric?  Of course not!  Even though the evidence suggests there has been no coverup and no measurable "wrongdoing" by the White House or the Administration, Republicans believe it is the worst scandal in American history!  Forget about Slavery, Trail of Tears and the Indian Agent scandals, Credit Mobilier, The Red Scare and the Palmer Raids, the Veterans Bureau thefts, Tea Pot Dome, the internment of Japanese Americans, McCarthyism, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin and Watergate...If Obama is involved, Benghazi is the WORST in our history!  How shallow can these people be?  As shallow as the irresponsible Media and GOP leads them!
        As I have mentioned, the IRS matter is despicable.  Does anyone in America like the IRS?  Has the Media ignored the fact that Democratic leaders have also been in front of this matter to investigate who was engaged in this matter in the Cincinnati office of the IRS?  Yes, they have.  But have they informed the public that the IRS is a quasi-independent federal agency in which only two people out of at least 93,337 employees are political appointees?  The Inspector General J. Russell George is a political appointee.  So is the Commissioner of the IRS, who during the improper targeting of all groups seeking 504(c) exemptions, was Doug Shulman.  BOTH were political appointees of President George W. Bush (See timeline published by The Wall Street Journal at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/17/irs-timeline-what-we-know-so-far/).  All other employees, all 93,000 plus are career bureaucrats hired and protected by Civil Service.  Since it happened under Obama's watch, he must shoulder some blame, but not to the extent that the Media claims as "White House Scandal".   According to law, the IRS is vested with the authority under guidelines created by Congress to scrutinize political groups applying for tax exempt status.  In order to qualify under the Tax Code for the status they sought, groups are required to focus on "Social Welfare" issues.   Do "Social Welfare" issues include elections and political fundraising?  Since this is a real problem, will Congress ever get around to reforming the Tax Code?   Does the American Public understand that according to the Constitution (Article I, Section 7), the GOP-led House has the sole authority to initiate changes to the Tax Code and in the almost three years they have had the power in the House, they have done nothing?  Will the GOP ever get around to reforming the Tax Code?  Of course not, their plan is to continue to use it as political rhetoric against Democrats and Obama, and they will hit that chord over and over in preparation for the 2014 and 2016 election cycles.  Will the Media call them out on it?  Of course not!  The Media loves political squabbles!  Where else do they get the big money for advertising if they don't suck it in during election cycles?  You think they make more money advertising cars, beer and "As Seen On TV" products?  How much of the $8 Billion spent on the last election cycle was taken in by the Media for political advertising?  As I mentioned in my book, is the Media a watchdog or a lapdog when it comes to the modern political landscape?  I'll let you decide.  Bottom line, the IRS went too far.  We all know it.  According to GOP Speaker Boehner, some should go to jail!   Instead of demanding "heads roll" in the IRS (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/15/stalag-america-boehner-wants-someone-jailed-despite-no-evidence-of-an-actual-crime/), and before he embarks on his publicly stated goal of making Benghazi his top priority, perhaps Boehner should be directing his caucus to begin work on revising the Tax Code!?  Nah, that would require real work and attacking Obama is now seen as some sort of Republican centered "ritual!" 
        What about the Justice Department scandal?  No one likes having the "free" press hindered in their effort to inform the public.  Yet, the GOP has routinely supported any efforts to stop leaks relating to National Security, and maintained that position throughout the Bush Presidency.  The Supreme Court has continuously rejected  "Shield Laws" that protect confidential news sources from being compelled to reveal their source of  leaks.  Regardless, Obama has proposed that Congress enact some form of Shield Law in order to insulate the Media from Subpoenas demanding the source of leaks.  Will the GOP-led House actually take up this initiative?  Of course not, they will continue to focus in on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP stories until they ride into the 2014 Mid-Term Elections.  Want proof of this phenomena?  GOP Representative Michele Bachmann publicly attempted to tie the IRS matter into the enforcement of Obamacare provisions!  According to Bachmann, "Under Obamacare, the average American will pay more, they'll get less, and now they have to worry that their government may punish them because of their beliefs!"  Thank you Ms. Bachmann for your keen observation.  And Republicans wonder why most folks can't take them seriously!  According to the Associated Press, "IRS agents will not be setting up health insurance markets, and they will not have a say in which health plans people get to pick or what doctor they see."
      With the GOP-led House leading a third of Congressional Committees to investigate Obama, former GOP Senator and Tea Party Favorite Jim DeMint's Heritage Foundation's letter to GOP leadership makes it clear what the real Republican agenda should be in Congress. "It would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama Administration...we urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the (GOP) conference."  So what does the GOP-led House do when they are not conducting their "Investigations?"  They hold a vote again to repeal Obamacare!   As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote, "Republicans have already begun overreaching, turning legitimate areas of inquiry into just some more partisan food fights." 
      So where do we go from here?  Unfortunately, nowhere.  We are stuck in partisan fed quick sand.  Instead of offering America the insight needed to pull ourselves out from the current quagmire known as Washington, the Media instead continues to capitalize on sensationalized political scandal designed solely to inflame passionate partisans in both parties.  Will Americans  learn that politics is a game, played by established rules that emphasize holding onto power when it has been obtained, and/or doing everything possible to regain power if it has been lost?  Will America  learn it is up to US to change the rules of the game by changing our leadership in Washington?  Will Americans ever learn that the following of political leadership and the Ideologically Oriented For-Profit Media is at their own risk and peril?  As President Abraham Lincoln once said; "I am a firm believer in the people.  If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.  The great point is to bring them the real facts!"  Real facts, indeed!

      Some in the media have announced this week to be the perfect "Trifecta" for the GOP.  Between Benghazi, the IRS and the Justice Department, one would think Obama's presidency is cooked!  But perhaps Carl Bernstein, of the former "Woodward and Bernstein duo" put it best when he said the current matters in Washington are more "Political Spin than Criminal."  Perhaps, but before some folks slam me for ignoring the obvious, let's examine what we do know.
      According to the GOP, the Obama Administration directly or indirectly edited selective facts about the Benghazi attack in order to avoid having them appear as "Red Meat" or talking points for the Republicans.  Their claim is that by eliminating the language identifying the terrorists and their reasons behind the attack, the Democrats attempted to "soften" it so Republicans could not use it as a sign that terrorism has not been curtailed as Obama had boasted on the campaign trail.  You might recall the effort by Mitt Romney to paint Obama into a corner on Benghazi in the last Presidential debate before the Election.  By selectively editing the memos/emails, did the folks in the State Department know the culprits behind the Benghazi tragedy would not be immediately disclosed and Obama could effectively diffuse the GOP attacks against his re-election bid? If so, then on a political level, Obama scored huge points by deferring the Benghazi discussion until after his re-election.  Do Republicans actually think Obama had our consulate attacked in Benghazi?  Certainly not.  Do they really want to get into why the security was cut at the consulate when security budgets were slashed in the GOP-led House?  Certainly not.  But they sure are irate with the notion that Obama got away from dealing with Benghazi and was able to get re-elected so easily as a result.  So naturally, they want to use it anyway they can against Obama.  Why else are they making such a big deal about it?
      Yes, I understand the Obama Administration lied to us about who and why they attacked our consulate in Libya.  Did they ignore the attack completely?  Did they try to hide the tragedy from us? Did it make any difference in the murder of four Americans?  The GOP notion that the Administration rejected the consulate's request for immediate military assistance has been labeled "ludicrous" by the Pentagon considering we had no military assets  geographically nearby.  Regardless of GOP claims the military "rejected Benghazi calls for help", the terrorists were confronted by the CIA, who were called upon to immediately respond from their secret operations center nearby.  At least the location was secret until it was revealed by GOP Representative Jason Chaffetz (Utah).  So much for keeping classified information classified. 
     My point is that I agree with Carl Bernstein.  Benghazi was a tragedy described to the American public in a way to avoid having it used as a weapon by Obama's political opponents.   The Republicans are only really mad not because of any coverup, but because Obama was able to get away with the "messaged" talking points until  only recently, long after his re-election.  As far as a coverup?  The very emails being used by Darrell Issa (R-CA) to prove language in the communiques were "edited" have come from where?  The Obama Administration!  So how can one accuse someone of covering up something after they get their information from the person they claim is wrongfully keeping it from them?  Only a gullible public would believe such a claim.  In fact, the Obama Administration turned over all documents to Congress as early as March, but only now the GOP is using them to further their political "spin."  All such efforts are keenly designed to de-legitimize Obama and use it against Hillary Clinton should she run for the presidency in 2016.   Like Bernstein, I see plenty of political spin on both sides of the aisle here, but no criminality.
      The I.R.S. matter is something all together different.  The Internal Revenue Service is required to operate solely in a non-partisan manner.  Yet, history has shown that I.R.S. Commissioners, appointed by presidents have been used in an abusive effort to investigate and/or punish political opponents.  FDR did it,  so did Richard Nixon.  But did Obama?  The commissioner involved while the I.R.S. targeted Conservative groups' applications for 501(C)(4) non-profit status was appointed by President George W. Bush, not Obama.  Back in 2010, the I.R.S. received thousands of applications claiming to be non-profit groups dedicated solely to working on "social welfare" issues.  Instead, many were immediately used as fronts for political action committees, or PACs.  Isn't it the job of the I.R.S. to ensure applicants meet the tax code requirements before they are certified as "exempt" from taxation?  But I have to admit, if the I.R.S. and their extremely harsh investigation capabilities are used to harass and intimidate legitimate groups because an Administration opposes their existence, then criminal activity has been undertaken.  But where was the outrage in 2004 when the I.R.S. investigated the NAACP?  Where were members of the GOP demanding an explanation from the Bush Administration?  Seriously, I am NOT attempting to use some form of "moral equivalence" in this matter.  I am simply pointing out that when it comes to political outrage, it is certainly tainted by a heavy dose of "Selective Perception."  I personally believe the I.R.S. is a royal pain in the butt and should always consider the rights of citizens first and the government second.  But just as I write this, someone will send me a nasty comment that all I am doing is covering for Obama.  I am not.  It's just that simple.  But hypocrisy is heightened by our now famous "Hyper-Partisanship."  Does anyone really expect it to get any better with all the bickering go on now over these matters?  Despite the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a criminal investigation into the I.R.S. matter, Conservatives will claim he will "cover up" the entire affair and again attempt to paint him as criminally incompetent, worthy of impeachment.  After they failed to run him out of office after Operation Fast and Furious, you can bet they will be beating the impeachment drums long and hard on this matter.  Ever wonder why Holder has not already resigned from his position as Attorney General?  Because there is a reasonable fear in the Obama Camp that no matter who he might nominate, Republican Senators will use the "Nuclear Option" or filibuster to block them, leaving the Justice Department impotent.  Based upon the realities in Washington, the Republicans are stuck with Holder because of circumstances they themselves have created.  But I hope folks get the hint.  No matter who is in charge of the I.R.S., the agency should never be used to intimidate or oppress any citizen or citizens group, unless they can be clearly be shown to be acting in willful violation of  law.  Period! 
         Which gets me to the recent disclosures the FBI was intercepting telephone conversations between Associated Press journalists and sources.  Oh, the outrage! But were the conversations on land lines or cell phones?  Were they authorized by a F.I.S.A. judge?  Will we ever know?  Now,  I do not support the warrantless searching or interception of telephone conversations of any kind.  I could cite you a long line of cases incorporating the right to privacy in our telephone conversations,  but the Supreme Court has, for some time now, been whittling away at expectations of privacy on the telephone.  In fact, currently there is NO right of privacy for conversations conducted over cell phones - none!  The extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") even allows for all social media and electronic conversations to be eavesdropped and intercepted without a warrant.
          When the FBI goes into a suspected terrorist's telephone to eavesdrop, does the Media wonder if they have secured a warrant allowing such action?  Does the public expect suspected terrorists (even if U.S. Citizens) to have their individual First and Fourth Amendment rights upheld when a claim of National Security might be made?  Where was the Media to expose the devolution of our fundamental Freedoms of Speech and Privacy when the Patriot Act was enacted and then extended?  When FISA was enacted and then recently extended?  When the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protecting Act was enacted?  Where was the Media outcry then?
Does the Media think their First Amendment rights are somehow more fundamental than the individual's First Amendment Rights?  Moreover, the claim that the FBI was investigating "Confidential Sources" holds little to no water when the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Media can not legally shield the identity of their sources from authorities (see Shield Laws and Supreme Court).   Ironically, the many members of Congress that have routinely voted for FISA and CISPA now claim the FBI has engaged in criminal activity.  Really?   Those who make it legal to routinely snoop and pry into individuals electronic communications now raise a voice against the FBI when intercepting communications from the Media?  Now that's rich!
        The bottom line is that everything in Washington stinks to high heaven, and the only thing worse is the political gamesmanship being played by political parties in order to wreak havoc for their own political ends.  They no longer care about the negative impact it will have on America, they only care how they can use it to retain or regain political power.  Isn't it past time for Americans to get them all out of office and demand our mutual priorities take center stage instead of political strategies?  I know what Obama needs to do to rise above this mess, but I am not one of his advisers.  And I am not sure he would even listen to me anyway.  As far as the Republicans, "be careful for what you wish for."  Over reach is a bitch and this "Trifecta" could easily come back to haunt them!  Perhaps President Andrew Jackson said it best, "The great constitutional corrective in the hands of the people against usurpation of power, or corruption by their agents is the right of suffrage; and this when used with calmness and deliberation will prove strong enough!"