For all of my Jewish friends, may you all be inscribed in the Book of Life and receive nothing but health, happiness and all good things in the year to come!  Which brings me to the question that must be asked.  Where will the Jews of Europe be one year from now?  Why do I ask this?  Because many experts are coming to the conclusion that the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has been used as the pretext for European Muslims to incite domestic anti-Semitic groups to begin threatening European Jews.  When I say "threaten" I mean THREATEN with words and actions Europe has not experienced since the days of Nazi Germany.  Think I am being over dramatic?  Then explain away the mobs of people taking to the streets in Germany yelling obscenities to Jews as they headed to and from synagogue on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish Calendar!  
         According to reports, including CBS News, mobs of Nationalistic Germans, infiltrated with Muslim Germans, chanted "Jew, Jew, Cowardly Pigs" along with "Gas the Jews, Slaughter the Jews or Burn the Jews" directed at Jewish worshipers in Frankfort.  And what impression are we to take away from the rising tide of these events?  Is it really about Israel's policies?  If it is, then why the call for the slaughter of all Jews, especially those that live in Germany and not Israel?  According to the CBS story, "We haven't had this dimension at all before," said Deiter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. "When you imagine in German streets, people here chanting - a roaring mob chanting - Jews to be gassed, to be slaughtered, to be burned."He said he doesn't quite believe the sentiments have spiked because of passions that were stirred up by the events in Gaza. "It is cited as a reason for that but I don't think it's a reason," Graumann said. "It's a pretext. It's an occasion to let it out." (See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-semitism-spike-in-germany-raising-old-fears/.
        Now Sweden's Prime Minister is calling for the establishment of a Palestinian State, without regard as to what it might mean to Israel's security.  Add to that Denmark's Prime Minister's recent demand that Israel cease to exist and we have a a rising tide to destroy Jews in an effort to appease the ever-expanding virulent Muslim minority within their societies.  So while demanding Israel stop engaging in a fake genocide manufactured by the Hamas/Propaganda Machine, it is acceptable to these very same people to stand by and allow "European" Muslims to collectively incite hatred towards European Jews - including calls for their slaughter and well....actual genocide!  All because Europeans fear upsetting the violent tendencies of the Muslims in Europe with appeasement.  I mean, how much safer would the World be without the Jews anyway?  And the obvious hypocrisy is not isolated to Europe.  American Liberals wearing "rose colored glasses" can't seem to see the flower gardens from the land mines when giving total deference to Muslims as a "religious group" rather than a group of Arab's hellbent to force their beliefs on anyone that they meet, either through violence or through the political process to eventually overtake those democratic societies.  Just look at Europe today.  And what would keep them from doing the very same in the United States (aided and abetted by the do good Far-Left without a clue that they are inviting cultural suicide to America and especially to practicing Jews and Christians alike).  
            Just this past Friday, liberal commentator Bill Maher created controversy when he pointed out the dangerous tendencies of Islam and how it is being used as political "cover" as a peace-loving free to exercise (and expand) religion while in reality is nothing more than an ideological power-play to rule the world - and destroy free thinking people along the way.  Why is is so difficult for members on the Far-Left to realize that an overwhelming majority of Muslims believe in subjugating women and girls, discriminating against Gays, and certainly having little to no problem eliminating the "Jewish scourge" from the Earth (with observant Christians coming next). https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152428331057297&set=vb.62507427296&&theater.
            As Martin Niemoller once wrote, "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
           In the middle of Yom Kippur services throughout America there is a section to ask for blessings for the sick. After everyone in the congregation gives a name they seek a blessing for, the Rabbi will then say a prayer for blessings and protection for the Armed Forces of the United States and for Blessings for the United States of America.  I wonder how many "moderate" Muslims pray in their Mosque services for the security and blessings for the United States?  I wonder how many "moderate" Muslims stand against the hatred spewed by fellow Muslims against Jews?  I wonder this because thus far, there has been very little evidence that "moderate" Muslims have engaged in such public protests against their "Radicalized" brethren.   
           Now I know my progressive friends will attack me for this blog.  But what they do not appreciate is the fact I have the right to express these feelings and they too have the right to express their disappointment with me.  But I do NOT have the right to then call for their death just because they freely choose to believe in what they believe.  I am no longer sure a lot of Muslims really care about YOUR freedom of speech (and religion) once they get theirs.
           As President John F. Kennedy once wrote; "Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom."  Am I a racist for expressing my feelings?  Am I a bigot?  Or am I just being honest?  When they come for you, I WILL speak out (if they haven't gotten me first).  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!

          Since this blog is widely read, I apologize for making this posting about a Florida issue, however, I think this issue is representative of the hypocrisy inundating our contemporary political arena.  Nothing smacks more of hypocrisy than the issue of legalizing medicinal marijuana.  How so?  Just pay attention to the folks opposing it in Florida and what they are saying and then align it to reality.  Just by using their own argument/rhetoric, a blind man can see they are lying through their collective teeth.
          As most know, Colorado became the leader in the effort to legalize both medicinal and recreational marijuana use.  As you may not know, the Governor of Colorado publicly apologized to his constituents for presenting anti-marijuana talking points prior to the legislature approving the use of marijuana.  Yes, he apologized.  Why?  Because although he remains opposed to the recreational use of marijuana, he admitted that the rhetoric of the anti-marijuana crowd he employed had been a complete lie.  Hmm.  What parts are a lie?  All of them.  
          The initiative of an amendment to the Florida Constitution came about because despite the public outcry for legalizing medicinal marijuana, the legislature consistently refused to even allow initial hearings on the topic.  Why? Would the fact that Florida is the Nation's prescription drug capital having anything to do with it? (See http://www.novusdetox.com/oxycontin-oxycodone-detox-florida.php).  Would the fact that members of the Florida legislature and Governor receive large sums of money from pharmaceutical lobbies that influence their collective anti-marijuana positions?  So citizens initiated an Amendment themselves and it will ultimately go to the polls in November to decide if citizens favor legalizing medicinal marijuana.  And the elected officials opposing the measure are now coming out of the woodwork, except instead of making real arguments (if there are any) against legalizing medicinal marijuana, they have resorted to expounding faux arguments that have been proven to be fake.  Yet this does not deter the cynically minded hypocrites in the legislature, the governors' mansion, law enforcement, prison management and big Pharma supported physicians associations.
       So why the big push to oppose medicinal marijuana? According to the opposition, if legalized, marijuana will be sold on every street corner in Florida.  Marijuana will be openly promoted as acceptable to use, which will have a direct negative impact on the youth of the state.  There will be no controls as to how much marijuana a "patient" may receive if it is prescribed.  There will be a huge increase in criminal behavior and driving while intoxicated related accidents and deaths.  And the best argument...The constitutional amendment proposed in Florida is flawed as it is written in vague language, which could lead to having anyone suffering from "headaches to back aches" smoking marijuana.  If you think I am making these arguments up, check any media outlet and you will find these talking points match their claims.
        But they are simply not true.  How can I say this?  Because Governor Rick Scott ordered his Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to fight the Amendment in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment language was too vague to be allowed on the ballot.  But the Florida Supreme Court ruled the amendment may proceed on the ballot because it's language IS NOT vague (See http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/sc13-2006.pdf).   So why do so many opponents continue to argue that it is?  Lie #1.
       Opponents argue that it will lead to an increase in criminal behavior, yet in Colorado, crime rates have actually fallen, especially in the areas of drug and sexual assault arrests.  Hmm.  Oh, and seeing an increase in driving under the influence arrests - not happening.  In fact, DUI arrests have actually fallen in Colorado.  Just the opposite of what the naysayers are claiming.  Lie #2.
      Opponents argue if passed marijuana will be sold on every street corner.  The amendment requires the Florida legislature and related State Agencies to create regulations relating to its distribution.  Nothing in the proposed amendment allows for an open market in the sale of marijuana.  The only way marijuana will be sold on every street corner is if the legislature allows for it.  Lie #3.
      Opponents argue that anyone with a "headache or back ache" may receive medicinal marijuana.  Sure, make light of folks that have chronic pain from migraines, severe sinusitis, chronic arthritis or spinal stenosis (just to name some debilitating ailments).  Easy for folks to complain about others that suffer from chronic pain (unless they are prescribed far more dangerous prescription drugs for said pain).  Easy to have NO empathy for those suffering from Crones Disease or side effects from Chemotherapy.  I mean, clearly these folks suffer from illness just so they can smoke weed - NOT!  Lie #4.
      Opponents argue that the proliferation of medicinal marijuana will trickle down to the youth and lead to widespread abuse.  Really? But isn't it a time tested truth that if a child has loving parents that serve as role models, drug and alcohol abuse would be curtailed or minimized like any other unacceptable behaviors? But how can legislators expect to step into the shoes of families when it comes to raising their children?  Which gets me to my final point.  Virtually all of the opponents of legalizing medicinal marijuana are the very same folks that spout "family values" and freedom from government interference in our lives.  These are the same folks that spout an ideology of free markets and liberty - except when it comes to personal choices that may interfere with their paid supporters' positions (Big Pharma , law enforcement and private prison lobbies).  In this instance, politicians seem to always choose to regulate our lives instead.  And that makes their entire public ideology of personal liberty and freedom from government overreach a LIE.  
       To all of those who love or have loved someone that suffers and/or died from cancer, ALS, Crones, chronic diverticulitis, spinal stenosis, chronic arthritis, and on and on, how about we think about improving their lives instead of guaranteeing profits for drug companies, law enforcements' receipt of drug related forfeitures, and expanded taxpayer support of prisons?  Is there anyone alive that still believes the War on Drugs has been worth the cost (in human and financial terms)?  Think I am the only one taking this stance?  According to the New York Times,  In Colorado (the same place these identical arguments were raised before they legalized marijuana use) "The criminal justice system is righting itself. Marijuana prosecutions are way down across the state — The Denver Post found a 77 percent drop in January from the year before. 'The ominously predicted harms from legalization - like blight, violence, soaring addiction rates  and other ills - remain imaginary worries.  Burglaries and robberies in Denver, in fact, are down from a year ago."  (See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/opinion/sunday/high-time-the-great-colorado-weed-experiment.html?_r=0).   
      So what's my beef with this issue?  The lying of elected officials publicly opposing the ACA because it allegedly takes away personal freedom to choose health care while misleading the public when it comes to medicinal marijuana.  Their hypocrisy is front and center.   As someone who witnessed a brother suffer from a losing battle with cancer, a dear friend whither and pass away from ALS, a father who destroyed his kidneys taking large doses of ibuprofin to combat spinal stenosis, to a wife diagnosed with Crones and friends suffering so much from it, enough is enough.  Humanity requires society make it easier for citizens to cope without making them seek pain reducing remedies illegally.  Illegal because lobbyists demand it be so.   Stop the lies.  Stop the rhetoric.  Stop the hypocrisy.  And stop government interference with the personal right of American adults to choose.  Is it any wonder why less than 25% of the public bothers to vote in primaries anymore?  Could it have anything to do with the complete loss of faith in our elected and wannabe officials who seem to always engage in hypocrisy?
       As President Ronald Reagan once famously quipped: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."  Perhaps this is why recent polling show 9 out of 10 Floridians support the amendment to legalize medicinal marijuana in Florida?  To those elected officials who oppose medicinal marijuana, stop using your governmental positions to employ a cynical campaign fraught with hypocrisy.  "Freedom and Justice For All - including the sick!  Have a great Labor Day holiday and week! 

          Wow, anyone catch the wave of political hypocrisy that has been sweeping through America these past couple of weeks?  Did you see that Tennessee's 4th Congressional District re-elected "family values" Tea Party Congressman Scott DesJarlais to return to Washington?   I know, so what?  So what is that Congressman DesJarlais parlayed his down to earth family values positions to get himself elected the first time in 2012, yet the guy is not exactly the role model constituents think of when it comes to family values.  With all the Anti-Abortion talk from the Far Right and the Tea Party, can anyone explain to me how in the world folks in Tennessee's 4th District could re-elect a guy that has pressured former girlfriends into having abortions (perhaps as many as three) and who was slapped with ethical violations for having sex with patients (DesJarlais is a physician, a practical Dr. Freelove)? See
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028.html?hp=t1#.U_DX4IBdWHY
          What is crazy is that despite overwhelming evidence that this guy is a hypocrite, his stance of being Anti-Obama on everything is good enough for his voters.  So as long as you have zero integrity it is okay, as long as you claim Obama has none.  Go figure!  
          We then have the news that Texas Governor Rick Perry has been indicted by a Texas Grand Jury for "Abuse of Authority" for vetoing funding for an Anti-Corruption Committee headed by a District Attorney.  On the surface, it obviously looks suspicious that a governor can be indicted for exercising his/her right to veto legislation, I mean that's part of the job. But in this case, the District Attorney, not appointed by Perry but elected by the people of Texas,  was told by Perry to resign after pleading guilty to drunk driving, or else Perry would eliminate all funding for the anti-corruption investigation group she heads.   Hmm.   Perry and his ilk have made a fortune in social awareness and money attacking Obama and his administration for overreaching in their handling of matters, yet here is Perry, clearly taking a faux moral and ethical stand against someone not responsible to him?  By threatening to veto and then in fact vetoing appropriation bills that fund investigations that have been looking into Perry's own administration for allegations of corruption?  According to Perry, his veto was appropriate because “I very clearly, I very publicly, said as long as that individual was running that agency, I had lost confidence in her, the public had lost confidence in her." But voters get to decide when officials they elect need to go, not the Executive (as a reminder, while running for President, Perry also said if elected he'd "fire Ben Bernanke"...even though the Fed Chair cannot be fired by any President).  Perry also chimed in with demands Obama fire officials relating to the VA problems, yet Career Senior Executive Officials are protected by Civil Service and the president cannot fire any of them, only Congress can.  Does Rick Perry have so little understanding of the law?  If so, how can he be taken seriously (and he still is by many), when he publicly states that he is simply standing "up for the law." (See http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/08/perry-on-indictment-i-stood-up-for-the-rule-of-law-194061.html?hp=l2).  But whose law?  And this guy is seriously considering running for president again in 2016?  My bet is he'd accept a VP slot, right behind Rand Paul (to carry Texas).  Only problem is, Rick Perry fits the Dan Quayle model for Vice Presidents (if this reference is too old for you, feel free to Google Mr. Quayle).
          My point is simple.  Folks today are so blinded by ideology that they cannot even hear themselves think...at least hear themselves thinking.  You elect a guy on his claim of family values and he turns out to be a real leech of a man.  What do you do?  You re-elect him because he has great rants against Obama - whom you have been led to believe has completely destroyed America (even though "your guys" control the House of Representatives and with the Senate have done as little as any Congress in the history of the United States).   Some then turn to Rick Perry and glorify him for his macho confrontations against, well everyone.  But who can  forget Perry's campaign appearance where he stuttered and appeared intoxicated, once approved of Texas secession and then denied it, and had trouble remembering talking points created by his staff (because he is incapable of creating them on his own) and now claims he has the right to establish moral standards to ensure he gets his way.  And he claims Obama is acting "imperially?"  The rule of law does not change to fit the facts.  The rule of law is the rule.  It is set in stone.  When will Americans wake up and realize they are being played by cynical politicians?  
          As President Woodrow Wilson once wrote; "What we seek is the reign of law, based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind."  If politicians insists they are enforcing the rule of law, perhaps it's time Americans require them to know what the rule of law actually is (is anyone paying close attention to the mess in Ferguson, Missouri this week)?  Until then, isn't it high time the governed begin withholding their consent to politicians!?  Have a great week!

         Did anyone happen to see the massive media splash about the findings of the GOP-led House of Representatives Select Committee to investigate Benghazi and the Obama Administration?  As a loyal follower of this blog, you would know I have been consistent in my opinion that Benghazi was nothing more than a political exercise designed to mislead the electorate into believing Obama has violated his oath of office and that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State was guilty of murder (as if she pulled the trigger), invalidating her efforts to seek the presidency in 2016.  Outrageous claims abounded that Clinton and Obama ignored the terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, or worse yet, ordered the military to "stand down" so that the terrorists would be assured a victory in killing our Ambassador and his bodyguards or that it was never about a film that was deemed to be "inciting" by Radical Muslims.  One problem though, the GOP committee, dedicated to "get to the truth" found that Obama and Clinton did not ignore the tragedy as it unfolded and that no one in the Administration ordered the Military to "stand down."  They also concluded that military intelligence at the time of the tragedy had linked the attack to the video as originally claimed by the Administration (oops).  By now this is old news to some, but to many it has not received nearly the media coverage the talking points and narratives (lies) have received for the past 18 months.   Just check any Right Wing social media site and no matter the truth as revealed by the GOP Committee, Obama and Clinton are still "unfit to serve" due to Benghazi.  It just goes to show that tell a lie enough times and people will believe it to be true.   Now we have another set of lies to deal with.
        According to the Associated Press, both the BBC and the New York Times are finding the death toll numbers in the Hamas-Israel fight to be fudged.  Instead of 1,900 innocent civilians being killed, about 1/2 are actually Hamas fighters that have been killed.  Moreover, it appears as many as 100 (or more) of the "innocent civilians" Israel is blamed for killing were not killed by Israel, but by errant Hamas rockets.  More importantly, it has been reported that over 50 Palestinians were executed because they publicly protested Hamas in Gaza.  Yet, where is the media on this front?  Still citing UN death figures supplied by, you guessed it, Hamas.   Now I know innocents have been killed in Gaza, but "collateral damage" is always an issue in war.  How many innocents have been killed as "collateral damage" in US attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere (not to mention those killed in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII).  But the lie that Israel is committing "genocide" of innocents continues to live on in some media (with many in the World believing it).  And more lies are coming.
       According to the New York Times, Republicans are preparing their agenda in the event they successfully take control of both the US House of Representatives and the Senate.  According to the article by Carl Hulse, if victorious, the GOP will again push for a balanced budget, along with the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act and vote to immediately approve construction of the Keystone Pipeline.  The article goes on to cite leading Republicans warning that if victorious in 2014, Republicans "must be mindful of the potential vulnerability of their senators up for re-election in 2016."  And there we have it.  Instead of focusing on immigration and tax reform, instead of dealing with income inequality and corporate "tax inversion strategies",  instead of dealing with the reality of crushing student loan debt, American infrastructure and the urban decay of some of our larger cities, the GOP leadership is planning to "solve" America's problems such as "ObamaCare" and the "Keystone Pipeline."   But before they do anything, they must first check to see if by doing what they deem is "right for America" is it right for their incumbents to get re-elected?  And there you have it.  Another lie.  When political parties publicly claim to be representing the best interests of America while really primarily concerned on gaining political power and keeping it, we have another big lie.  Now don't get me wrong, this is not new.  Both parties play this cynical game.  And to make matters worse, the article goes on to say that Democrats, once in the minority will resort to the same obstructionist strategies employed by the Republicans since 2010.  And this makes America better, how?  
         So as long as the electorate is uninterested in finding the truth about our current state of politics, we as a nation will remain divided and in decline.  As President Woodrow Wilson once wrote; "If you think too much about being re-elected, it is very difficult to be worth re-electing."   Now if we can get the American Electorate on board and exercise its voting power come every election November!  As I have been saying all along about both Republicans and Democrats, "Stop running for re-election to a job, and start doing the job!"  Have a great week!

         As I get back into the swing of things finishing up on the Third Edition of "How Our Government Really Works, Despite What They Say," I wanted to briefly fill you in on a discussion I recently had with some "progressive friends" over the fighting in Israel and Gaza.  I can honestly tell you it was the most disappointing discussion I have had in recent years.  Virtually ALL of the progressives involved in the discussion, directly accused Israel of "Apartheid, Ethnic Cleansing and War Crimes" for their treatment of Palestinian "refugees" and that the body count between the two entities during the recent fighting "proves their point!"  Not all progressives are anti-Israel, but virtually all in this most recent "discussion" were.
        When Rightest claim the Left is out of touch, I usually take it at face value, but when it came to this discussion, I was appalled.  After reading constant diatribes against Israel ranging from being a "blight" on the World to being an "evil empire" I could only ask a simple question - "How many of you have actually been to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank?"  Even though many, many folks raged against Israel using talking points eerily similar to those posted by Hamas, NONE bothered to answer my simple question.  NONE!  I could only assume then that none of them had actually been to Israel, yet they hold strong opinions about the country and her people.  And Progressives accuse Conservatives for being "out of touch!"
       A few years ago while in Israel, an international poll was conducted to see what folks around the World knew about Israel.  Incredibly, an overwhelming majority thought Israel's borders spanned over half the Arab-World.   Many more thought Israel actually "occupied" Arab land (without realizing they were pointing to maps that included the countries of Jordan, Iraq and Iran).  No, Israel is not a huge country.  It is a tiny speck of land, recovered from the desert and marshes, surrounded by hostile nations that have launched multiple wars against her.  And then the best, "Israel is evil.  This is obvious when so many poor Palestinians are killed and only a few Israeli's have been killed.  This is evidence that Israel is strong-arming the poor Arabs into submission, all by design to continue their war crimes and illegal occupation!"  All from allegedly intelligent people!  Trust me when I say this....Israel's casualties have not been low due to Hamas efforts.  If it was up to them, all Jews would be dead.  But again, the Left seems willing to forgive their killers instead of killing them first.  Kumbaya, all the way to the grave!  
       Israel does not "Occupy" Gaza.  Over NINE YEARS ago, Israel exchanged Gaza for peace with the Arabs.  The Arabs then voted to have Hamas lead them and then the hopes for peace ended.   Instead of building an infrastructure that would enhance their citizens' lives, they began spending all of their monies on themselves, weaponry and an extensive network of tunnels.  Initially, Israel did not place a blockade on Gaza.  But Hamas began importing weapons, including sophisticated missiles capable of striking deep into Israel.  So what was Israel to do?  Wait, allow Gaza to become the launching pad for future strikes on Israel?   How many of these "progressives" ever heard about murder squads assembled in Gaza and tunneled into Israel with the sole purpose of murdering entire families in their sleep? How many know of "hit squads" tunneled into Sinai to attack tourists heading to the resort town of Eilat on the Red Sea?   How many are aware that Egypt controls the Southern border of Gaza and they too have closed the border due to threats of terrorism as well?  Just as many that have actually been to Israel - NONE! Do they know how many Hamas missiles have been shot into Israel since 2005 (over 11,000!)?  How many Americans would accept such actions from neighboring countries?  Ah, but some progressives would!  But would they?
      When will many progressives acknowledge that Hamas exists to destroy Israel and kill every last Jew?  Under ANY circumstances, how is this justifiable?  Several progressives stated they support the BDS - divestiture  movement against Israel because of their "Apartheid Practices."  Hmm, with Muslims having voting rights and representation in the Israeli Parliament and representation on the Israeli Supreme Court, sure seems like Israel is a bit different than China, North Korea,  Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sudan...should I go on to list all of the countries that truly deserve scorn from like-minded progressives?   For those that think Israel is evil and no one should patronize anything from there, please stick to your guns.  I mean, if inequities guide your sensibilities, don't wear clothes made in the US Mariana Islands, petroleum products that enrich oligarchs, anything made in China, Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan, and on and on.  Selective perception is never a way to go, but the hypocrisy of the Far Left on the issue of Israel is more than disappointing.  It is dangerous to America's long-term interests.  
         I'm not saying Israel does everything right, no nation does.  But in a World filled with death, starvation and human rights violations, singling Israel out for trying to protect itself against enemies sworn to destroy it, is wrong.  As President John F. Kennedy once wrote, "Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish.  It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.  It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success.  It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom."   Like anyone else, I wish for peace throughout the World.  But when some dedicate their lives to murder others, there shall be no peace until those with such designs change their ways or are destroyed.   When it comes to Israel,  Jews will fight to protect their country, their values, their religion, their culture and their land.  Kumbaya that!

        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!