Bob Patterson asked:


All of the recent polls show favorable numbers for President Obama as a person. He appears to be a very nice individual with a wonderful family. What isn’t being reported is that while his popularity is high so too are the numbers reflecting a distrust of his policies.

Our country is in serious financial shape and is looking towards Washington for guidance and direction. When everything started down a long slippery slope, Obama was touting the idea that Wall Street has nothing but rich individuals that are responsible for the financial fiasco. This rich versus the common man syndrome sounds eerily familiar to what a dictator was espousing in Germany in order to gain power in the late 30’s. It worked then and it appears to be working now. For an understanding of this just look at the recent G-20 Summit held in England. What you had was a great deal of protesters who broke windows on banks and occupied their offices. Of course the rich caused the problems. Didn’t they?

Everything seemed to have come to a head with the bonuses paid to executives of American International Group. According to The Washington Post on-line (May 13, 2009) the Federal Reserve Bank of New York knew about the details of the bonus structure “more than five months before the firestorm erupted.” I can certainly understand why some might be upset with what was happening but based on contractual arrangements the government should not have attempted to intervene. The idea that AIG was paying bonuses made for a fantastic headline and gave political ammunition to Obama. The question is why shouldn’t contracts be honored? Just remember that if Obama can bring heat to one organization he can bring it to yours. In an article “AIG bonus blackmail and resignations” (www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/03/aig_bonus_blackmail/; March 26, 2009) provides part of a letter from one of the bonus receiving executives.

“I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.”

How many of you would work for an annual salary of $1? Were these managers let down? You bet you. According to Earmon Javers (Politico; 4/3/2009) wrote that the president stated “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks” when talking to a group of CEOs of various financial institutions as they tried explaining their high salaries. His administration did very little to stop the “pitchforks” when bus loads of people went on a tour of AIG homes sponsored by ACORN.

One must remember that Washington set the stage for an economic meltdown through the idea of a sub-prime mortgage. The idea that everyone has a right to own a home is, frankly, a bit flawed. Not everyone can afford to live in a $300,000 home. Many of our elected officials totally ignored the “hand writing on the wall” of a coming disaster. In 2004 a small group of courageous Congressmen and women attempted to change the course only to be out voted by people like Senator Harry Reid who basically said that there was nothing to worry about.

Since everyone is up in arms about AIG and other organizations receiving bonuses, let’s not forget that, as stated earlier, Congress started this mess and as I understand it, many of their staff members received a bonus and that all members of Congress received a pay raise. Why isn’t the public outraged? In my opinion, there are only two possible explanations. Either we are a bunch of sheep or the media did not do their job in reporting this. What do you think?

With the age of the Internet and fast transportation the world is shrinking. No longer can we simply compete at home but we must have a global presence. In order to do that we must hire the best of the best and they are not going to work for low salaries. If Obama and his dictatorial style continues (defining pay and compensation) many more firms will cease to exist as we know them. These bright individuals will start working for “boutique shops” where they can be justly rewarded for their labors.

In order to be competitive we must hire the best. This is why the NFL spends a great deal of money on top quality athletes for the hopes of winning the Super Bowl.

In this country you can go as far as your dreams take you. You too can be rewarded for your hard work. Anyone can become rich if they so choose.

After the brow beating that AIG took next came the firing of a CEO, the supposed takeover of banks, the strong governmental recommendation that a car company merge with Fiat, the prevention of early stimulus loan pay offs, handing controlling interest of a company to UAW membership, etc. all in the realm of righting the financial community and getting people back to work. The question is, what part of the Constitution gives the president the authority to carry out such actions? All of these plans are being formulated without debate and/or public input.

Seems like the time President Obama spends traveling the country he is doing it for one purpose and that is to get re-elected. All of his stops seem to have the same campaign feel and flavor that we saw last year. When he travels overseas this is nothing more than an apologetic tour. I never thought that I would see the day when a President would cower at the feet of a dictator like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Sure we have made some mistakes but we are still the greatest nation on earth. Our free enterprise system, constitution and our general way of life make a lot of people and nations extremely envious of the United States. They may **** us one day then something happens and who do they turn too? Other nations are mad and blame us for the market meltdown. I have a clue for you. Many international markets already had difficulty before our problems erupted. An easy way to think about his trips abroad is that if I were to come to your house and you were to bad mouth my family, we would have a serious and heated exchange then I would leave. We Americans are a family and don’t have anything to be apologetic for. He didn’t have a heated discussion nor did he leave-he just apologized.

With the release of information about our interrogation techniques did nothing but put our own intelligence community at risk to say nothing of the lives of the men and women in uniform who have been called to serve in war. Sometimes the need for the public to be informed can go a bit too far when it comes to national security. He could have quietly ended a controversial program without announcing it to the world which also emboldens our enemies. Of course I forgot that Obama feels we are no longer fighting a war on terrorism. I guess that he did not read the 9-11 report. He is showing his extreme inexperience when dealing with foreign policy. In particular he wants to sit around the proverbial campfire with the very people who have sworn to kill us and wipe us off the face of the earth. Oh! Did he tell you that we are not a Christian nation either. More apologizes.

One of Obama’s early campaign promises was to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Eric Holder went on a tour of Europe to try to persuade our European allies to take some of the “enemy combatants.” This, of course, was a big flop even though they were extremely vocal about the detention facility. Again, why should we apologize? Our European partners do not want anything to do with accepting detainees. So now what is he to do? Is he going to bring them to the continental United States? I doubt that there are any congressmen that want them in their back yard with access to our court system. Once again this shows his complete lack of understanding the big picture and the role that Guantanamo serves

President Obama and members of his administration have repeatedly stated that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorist. This could be nothing further from the truth. The real tool for recruitment is a successful operation. Another way of putting this is that they have killed many people as they did on 9-11. When we are successful in infiltrating their networks, stopping their funding lines, intercepting communications, putting them behind bars (all part of the Patriot Act) and killing them severely hampers terrorist recruiting efforts. As a side note. Many on the left are against the Patriot Act even though there hasn’t been an attack in this country since 9-11.

What about his plan to nationalize the health care system? Obama has stated that he is not out to run or nationalize any organization but rather to compliment employer insurance programs. His intent is to model the system after Medicare. Let me get this straight-he wants to model a national program after a system that is poorly run and out of money. In the same breath, there is talk of taking the tax credit away from businesses that provides medical insurance. So when and if this were to happen there would be more people entered into a dysfunctional and broke system because businesses would no longer provide medical insurance. Who is going to pay for it? Obama just doesn’t get it.

Congress had a great idea about the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In order to pay for this program they increased the Federal tax on tobacco. This is a great idea from a public health standpoint. The rise in tax will cause many to quit. If people quit tobacco the government will not take in as much as they expected to cover the cost of SCHIP. Incidentally, many city and state governments are outlawing smoking in public venues. Again, the question must be asked. When the revenue dwindles, who will pick up the additional cost? You will in some other form of tax. Only this tax would probably be applied so that even non-tobacco users would be hit.

The stimulus package was touted as providing immediate relief. So far, as I understand, only about 6% has been spent. All or almost all of this has been spent on governmental programs. Obama has continually stated that he will either save or create four million new jobs. How can you quantify the word “save?” You can’t! It is an unrealistic statement that cannot be measured. Unfortunately, this “used car” sales rhetoric is what many citizens are buying into. (I need to apologize to used car salesmen) On the other hand he can create the jobs. However, most all of them will be in government not the public sector. A president cannot create jobs in the private sector he can only provide the atmosphere in which to do it. So far he seems reluctant to take a different approach. For instance, I would go out on the limb and state that if he were to abandon his coming tax policies for corporations who do business overseas, cut the capital gains tax, and provide a short term “no tax” policy for corporations that these same corporations would begin hiring and putting people back to work. Corporations would again be lucrative-the stock market would re-bound and many individual retirement accounts would be salvaged along with more income for the federal government through individual income tax (even at a low percentage). By taking these simple measures would be a win win situation and Washington would not have to print more money thus keeping down our national debt so our future generations would not have to pay the price of liberal stupidity. Right now it appears that they (Government) are throwing money down a “sink hole” or rather the proverbial “money pit.”

Nearly every day there seems to be a new or revised policy coming out of Washington that there is so much more that could be written here. The big question that should be asked is how much of your income are YOU, the tax payer willing to “donate” to Washington?

I had heard this fable many years ago and think that it might sum up the impact of government intrusion. I am sure that there are other variations.

A farmer in Russia was walking to town during a very cold winter morning. Along the path he sees a bird just lying on the ground. He picks the bird up and notices that it is still alive. He puts the bird under his coat and continues the trek towards town. He finally gets to town and wants to go in a store. Unfortunately, there is a no animal sign posted. He wonders what he should do. He looks around notices a huge fresh manure pile. The farmer digs a small hole at the top and places the bird in it and covers him up to his neck. After a short period of time; the bird warms and starts to sing. On the outskirts of town a wolf hears the singing bird and comes in to investigate and eventually eats the bird. There are three morals to this story. First; who ever puts you in is not necessarily your enemy. Whoever takes you out is not necessarily your friend. But above all when you are up to your neck do not sing. All of us should view the wolf as government. All they want to do is devour everything that we have and will have in future years. Obama is out for himself and bigger government. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing telling you that he will listen but then does what he was planning to do all along.

Carol Forsloff asked:


 

Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.

Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.

At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.

We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.

Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in  Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.

Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the  Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues.  He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.

Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.

Cathy D. Christiansen asked:


Jerry Erickson

Published: July 1, 2009

The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.

In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”

One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.  Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.

President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”

It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.

On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.

Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.

President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.

 

The above information is provided for informational purposes only.  The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys.  An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.

 

 

 

Elizabeth O’Reilly asked:

President Obama jumped right into the news conference tonight, immediately focused on health care, and keeping the reform proposal debate the main subject.  In fact, only two questions, which were followed by brief answers, covered other topics.

The president explained some of this preoccupation, as well as his rush to push the reform through, by explaining that “it’s not about” him, but about the American people; the bushels of mail he receives everyday by American families “clobbered” by costs and their hardships; the fact that “if you don’t set deadlines in this town, things don’t happen”; and the fact that he feels it is being made out to be a game by many, while indeed, “this is not a game to the American people”.

It’s true.  In an AP story, a group of Republicans were overheard by reporters, in which one of them was heard making comments along the lines that if they beat this bill, it will “break” Obama, make him weaker, give way to some slippage in his approval ratings.  As if this bill were to be used as leverage to gain political advantage.  More and more, on both sides of party lines, we are seeing officials, those whom we elect to be our leaders, concerning themselves more over power, politics, and trying to rule, than over American interests.

According to the President, two thirds of the costs of the reform will be paid for by “redesigning” the current health care structure, by reducing administrative costs, utilizing technology systems, and taking out profit motives for insurance companies who are seeing record breaking profits while steadily raising premiums.  The other third, he suggests, should be paid for by “reducing itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans, giving them the same deductions as everybody else.”  To me, this is fair: one hundred percent of my family’s income is taxed; the first ten percent of many millionare’s incomes are taxed.  Why is this?

Obama insists this will not add to the deficit.  In fact, he claims that he won’t sign a bill that would add to the deficit, and named some of the work his administration has been doing to reduce the current deficit by $2.2 trillion over ten years, and are constantly working to eliminate waste and lower it further.   However, as he pointed out, after numerous bailouts, recovery packages, stimulus packages, now a health care program, the government keeps on spending.  He noted that Americans are “understandably queasy” about this, because while we people keep sacrificing and keep needing to cut our own costs and reduce our own budgets, it doesn’t seem that the government is doing with the same, with OUR tax dollars.  I appriciate that this was acknowledged, but I must say, we’ve all heard it before, for years, that the government will start spending out money a lot wiser and eliminate the waste; and so far, reducing spending and funding seems to be hitting places locally the hardest.  I’d like to see the deficit reduced without cutting off funding for states.

When asked about cuts to medicare, Obama explained the Republican proposed Med Pack program, which supposedly takes the politics out of medicare, will not cut benefits, and “fills half of the donut hole” in benefits, the area in which seniors coverage temporarily runs out, and they have to pay a certain amount out of pocket before their benefits resume.  He made the points that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages, and the biggest force behind the current national deficit is the skyrocketing costs of health care.  He claims to want a plan that will provide more security, ensuring people will be able to keep coverage if they lose or change their jobs, that will not add to the deficit, and that will keep the government out of health care decisions.  He promises that he will not sign a bill that will be paid for “on the backs of middle class Americans”, and that does not slow the rising costs of health care.

Obama is a very talented speaker.  I believe this may have been a driving factor as to how he got elected, with his ideal plans and the presentation of them.  At the risk of getting too personal, I voted for him, and that’s not a decision I regret.

However, this health care reform, at least when it’s coming out of his mouth, sounds too good to be true, and I’m going to have to pull the pleaser card.  A president telling a people what they want to hear.  It’s an experiment, and it could prove to be a dangerous one.  For example, the President claims that by making health care more efficient and redesigning its current structure, as I pointed out earlier, will cover two thirds of the outrageous price tag.  I’m no financial expert, by in my opinion, that’s an exaggeration, and a guess at best.  Let’s say that “redesigning” only covers a third of the cost, or even less.  Then how will we go about making up the difference?  Has anyone even thought of a provision that would make up this kind of loss?

My main issues with the plan, from the start, were the costs, and the rush to get it through.  To Obama’s credit, he IS loosening up on that a bit; during the conference tonight, instead of promising they will accomplish this by the August recess, he promised it will be done “this year”.  Maybe still a push, but it sounds a lot better than one month.  For the last week, Obama has been making at least one speech per day, pushing the reform bill.  I understand that this has been one of his main goals since his campaigne, and that he was voted into a very high pressure and problematic presidency.  Yet, congress needs to be able to do their job.  This is what they are here for, in a delicate system of checks and balances.  The process can be called drawn out and inefficient, but it IS functional.  While there may indeed be a need to set deadlines in that “town” to get things done, they  must be reasonable in order to serve that function.  You can’t just trump their purpose.

And I was not very pleased that none of the press present questioned the president on the television ads.  What an absurd way to gain support for your agenda.

Thanks to everyone who watched the conference tonight and gained information from it, and don’t forget to contact your congress people with your thoughts on the health care reform!

Chad asked:

President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

Blanketing most of the Sunday TV news shows, Obama defended his proposed health care overhaul, including a key point of the various health care bills on Capitol Hill: mandating that people get health insurance to share the cost burden fairly among all. Those who failed to get coverage would face financial penalties.

Obama said other elements of the plan would make insurance affordable for people, from a new comparison-shopping “exchange” to tax credits.

Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama told ABC’s “This Week.”

“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.”

Obama faces an enormous political and communications challenge in selling his health care plan as Congress debates how to pay for it all.

He told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he will keep his pledge not to raise taxes on families earning up to $250,000, and that much of the final bill — hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years — can be achieved from savings within the current system. Coming up with the rest remains a key legislative obstacle.

Obama put his support behind the idea of taxing employers that offer high-cost insurance plans.

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Obama’s network interviews were taped Friday at the White House. He became the first president to appear on five Sunday network shows in the same morning, an extraordinary effort to build public support for his top domestic priority.

The goal is expand and improve health insurance coverage and rein in long-term costs.

Yet despite so many weeks of speeches, town halls and interviews, Obama said he has found it difficult at times to make a complex topic clear and relevant.

“I’ve tried to keep it digestible,” Obama said. “It’s very hard for people to get their arms around it. And that’s been a case where I have been humbled and I just keep on trying harder.”

Obama told Univision’s “Al Punto” (”To the Point”) that the strong opposition to his plan is part of a political strategy.

“Well, part of it is … that the opposition has made a decision,” he said. “They are just not going to support anything, for political reasons.”

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama doesn’t understand Republicans’ opposition.

“I don’t know anybody in my Republican conference in the Senate who’s in favor of doing nothing on health care,” McConnell said. “We obviously have a cost problem and we have an access problem.”

But he told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Democrats’ plan is simply too rushed.

J.J. Jackson asked:

Liberals are gushing over, and President Obama is praising endlessly, Sonia Sotomayor. Repeatedly we are being barraged by the left with the personal story of one who could possibly be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. While such tales are always compelling, what is rather annoying is how any time you want to move beyond that superficial and sugary coating to examine her record the left quickly jumps right back to it. In an attempt to keep your attention away from a debate about who should be sitting on the highest court in the nation, people who do not want to examine anything of substance shout, “Look! Up In the sky!” Then they regale you with tales about how Sotomayor can stop a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

President Obama claims that Sotomayor is smart. He even claims that she believes in the Constitution. But when one stops following his pointed finger into the sky where his nominee supposedly soars, we see that there is a plethora of evidence on the ground that contradicts the rhetoric. And for Sotomayor, that evidence littering the ground is damning and destroys any credibility those that call her smart and a defender of the Constitution may have.

There is one case in particular that sums this point up so succinctly and makes it impossible to ignore that Sonia Sotomayor is neither smart nor a believer in our Constitution. That case is Maloney vs. Cuomo in which Sotomayor signed onto an opinion that flies so far in the face of the facts that she should not be elected bubblegum sidewalk scraper much less nominated to the Supreme Court.

The case involved one James Maloney who was trying to assert his second amendment right to keep and bear arms but had been arrested for carrying a pair of nunchucks. The opinion with which Sotomayor agreed stated that the arrest was warranted because, now get this, the second amendment, “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government and not upon that of the state.”

Sotomayor did in this decision what liberals always do. She looked for something that she might be able to use to support her opinion and disregarded anything that actually contradicted it. Things like, oh I don’t know, say the 14th Amendment? You know that one don’t you? It says that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” which makes it clear that the states must, absolutely must, protect the same rights as the Constitution itself protects.

Sotomayor’s opinion does lead to some interesting potential conundrums however. If the second amendment only applies to the federal government as she suggests then what about other rights retained by the people and specifically called out in our Constitution?

Can the states now infringe upon my freedom of religion? How about my freedom of speech? What about my right to petition from redress? After all, unlike the second amendment, the first amendment specifically states that it is Congress that shall make no law regarding such.

Can the states now decide that they do not need a warrant to search my home even though the Constitution forbids such actions? Or can the states now decide to deprive me of a right to due process and a right to jury trial? What about these Constitutional protections written in a similar manner to the second amendment that Sonia Sotomayor believes stops at federal authority only?

Can I now be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment at the whim of the state? Can blacks now be placed back in shackles and shipped off to the plantations again simply for being black? After all, if what is written in the federal constitution only applies to the federal government what is to stop the states from doing any of these things?

Is my right to assemble in jeopardy now because my state legislature might decide that such is not a good idea? Can the state now quarter soldiers in my home without my permission? Can my papers and effects now be seized on the whim of the state alone?

Where does the lunacy of this opinion which Sotomayor agreed with end?

Of course the 14th Amendment renders all of these questions of mine moot. But Sotomayor either never read far enough into the Constitution to find it or is so wedded to ideology that she chose to ignore it. Can we afford to place someone who is obviously a wifty illiterate or dangerous ignoramus at best and a treacherous anti-American radical at worst to a court where such opinions of hers would become the norm and perhaps even the law? Will Americans stop looking to the sky for a super woman that does not exist long enough to ask serious questions and soundly reject her?

Douglas Fender asked:


The most basic obligation for those elected in Congress is to at least understand a piece of legislating enough to make a determination if they should vote yes, no or abstain. For some time now congress has used the excuse that bills are too long, complicated and they do not have adequate rescores to read a bill toughly before deciding to vote on it.

 

This pathetic and unprofessional excuse shows the arrogance and lack of regard that many in congress have for their constituents as well as their sense of responsibility. A ten year old child could tell you that if you do not understand a bill you should vote no on the grounds that it is confusing, ambiguous and or improperly written. This excuse of not being able to read a bill before voting is the “invisible monster did it” excuse that politicians use to take blame from their incompetence and derelict of duty by shifting the blame to the complexity of the written words in a bill.

 

Voting yes for a bill that has not been read or understood and evaluated is a crime against duty as well as the concept of representation of the citizens. If lawyers of lobbyist author bills giving themselves great power or loopholes to get unfair advantage in business and the congress blindly votes yes on these bills with no concept of what is actually written in the bill then the argument could be made that congress is paid by the lobbyist to stamp their own authored legislation into law. If this is how Washington does business then I propose we put legislation on EBay and let the special interest groups bid on it and the winner gets to write it as they see fit, as it is basically done now with congress using the excuse that they cannot read what is in the bills.

 

President Obama told the American public that the stimulus bill was a do or die bill and had to be signed immediately and the congress did not have a clue who authored it or what was in it and in a show of total disregard for proper professionalism they passed a bill that is full of pork and added to the national dept numbers beyond imagination. This great heist of American wealth written on a check that the unborn will have to pay has done nothing to help the economy in any way like it was advertised and to this day most in congress have no idea who wrote it and what is in it. Does this legislation truly say that America has to buy gold cars and million dollar mansions for anyone who votes for Obama for a second term? Or that we must give the state of Alaska to China in 2020? Or America must demolish New York City and make it into a wildlife refuse. Who knows, those who voted on it do not know what it says.