While kissing babies is the stereotype of a politician, Democratic Senate candidate Thomas K. Owens is accused of a far more felonious interest after a charge of the solicitation of a minor. Police say that when asked about the solicitation of a 7-year-old girl, he said “I have a problem with that.” He was not considered a serious candidate for the primary.
Category: Congress
The Obama Administration again waited for a Friday afternoon to announce a major new policy change — repeating its practice of timing important announcements to reduce media and public attention. The latest change is obviously controversial. The Administration will no longer deport illegal aliens under 30 who came to this country as children — effectively negating part of the federal law. It raises some troubling questions, again, about President Obama assertion of executive power. While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination. It is one more brick in the wall of the Imperial Presidency constructed under Barack Obama — a wall that may prove difficult to dismantle for citizens in the future.
Continue reading “Obama Administration Declares It Will Not Deport Young Illegal Immigrants”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
My father had a favorite saying with which was to excoriate me on the many occasions when I had misbehaved. “The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions”. He used this to chastise me for some bad behavior, but more importantly to give me guidance of the “slippery-slope” that I was on when I behaved badly. Although it’s been 50 years since his death his words have remained with me even though I’ve aged into a man who’s lived far longer than he had. It’s been my observation that there is truth to this cliche, yet it does represent a form of logic, the “slippery-slope”, which can often also be specious. When I read this New York Times Article: “Slippery-Slope Logic, Applied to Health Care” by Economist Richard H. Thaler, Published: May 12, 2012http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/economy/slippery-slope-logic-vs-health-care-law-economic-view.html , I was again reminded of my Father’s admonitions and began to think about the use of “slippery-slope” logic. As it relates to SCOTUS and health care Mr. Thaler’s critique of the “slippery-slope” logic being applied by Justice Scalia did ring true:
“Consider these now-famous comments about broccoli from Justice Antonin G. Scalia during the oral arguments. “Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food,” he said. “Therefore, everybody is in the market. Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.” ”
“Justice Scalia is arguing that if the court lets Congress create a mandate to buy health insurance, nothing could stop Congress from passing laws requiring everyone to buy broccoli and to join a gym.”
“Please stop! The very fact that a slippery slope is being cited as grounds for declaring the law unconstitutional — despite that “significant deference” usually given to laws passed by Congress — tells you all that you need to know about the argument’s validity. Can anyone imagine Congress passing a broccoli mandate law, much less the court allowing it to take effect?”
These are excepts from Mr. Thaler’s article. His short column is well worth reading for his examples of the problem with “slippery-slope” logic. My piece though, is neither about health care, nor SCOTUS. I’d like to explore the question of the validity of “slippery-slope” arguments that have been commonly used in public discourse and whether we would be better off as a society if we ignored them. Continue reading “The Slippery Slope”
Many of us have long mocked the effort by members of Congress to curry favor with different groups by declaring every day to be observances for everything from National Pi Day to Education and Sharing Day to National Child’s Day (a May day not to be confused with Child Health Day in August). I recently cringed with the announcement of National Beverage Day. That’s right, not any particular beverage. Any beverage. Congress has gradually created a type of value ranking to deliver the goods for such groups. Some warrant only a day while some warrant a month like “National Safe Digging Month” while others get a whole year like “Year of Water.” Now, someone has bothered to track the costs of all of the pandering. In the 112th Congress alone, the Senate has passed or agreed to 318 simple resolutions and introduced over 100 more — costing taxpayers $381,600. This does not include staff time and other costs.
In a major victory for gay rights, the United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit in Boston has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a unanimous ruling. The court found that the 1996 law discriminates against homosexual couples. The law was supported by Bill Clinton and by the Obama Administration until the latter recently reversed its position in court and withdrew support for the law before the Court. The case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.
Attorney General Eric Holder has been criticized repeatedly for actions viewed as political (or his abandoning independent role) during the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration. Few, however, seem quite as raw as his participation in an upcoming event to advise black ministers on how far they can go in campaigning in this presidential election, presumably for President Obama who is expected to secure the overwhelming percentage of African American votes. The event is being hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus and will include appearances by other government officials like IRS officials. While the CBC is bipartisan, there remain questions about the propriety of the appearance.
The Obama Administration is facing another challenge to the national health care law. With over half of the states opposing the law in the federal courts, including the pending case before the Supreme Court, the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and 41 other Roman Catholic institutions have sued over the requirement that employers cover contraception in workers’ health plans.
We have been following the outrageously abusive fines being imposed on citizens for downloading and sharing songs — obscenely large fines allowed by Congress under laws written by lobbyists for the music and movie industries. Law firms have been targeting even people who try to inform citizens of their rights. Now, in one of the most abusive cases involving a former Boston university student, the Supreme Court has refused to review a $675,000 fine against Joel Tenenbaum, 28, for downloading and sharing 30 songs. Despite the general condemnation of these actions, Congress is cowed by pressure from the industry lobby. The most abusive litigation is directed by the Recording Industry Association of America.
It appears that there is nothing quite so inspiring for a Sunday morning like a good old-fashioned homicidal homophobic homily. Pastor Charles L. Worley has propelled himself into the national limelight with a hate-filled sermon that lays his faith-based fantasy for homosexuals — concentration camps with electric fences where they would be left to die off. In what could be viewed as a violation of the tax-exempt status of the church, he rails against President Barack Obama and says that it would be impossible to vote for him.
Continue reading “American Taliban: Pastor Worley and How To Solve The “Homosexual Problem””
Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
I have to admit that I was not aware that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as its detractors call it, mandates that the insurance companies who don’t spend at least 80% of premium money on actual medical care expenses, must send rebates to policy holders. “But the rebate provision of the law — the fruits of the so-called “80/20 rule” — is about to kick in big time, as millions of Americans receive rebate checks or premium reductions from insurance companies who have failed to spend enough on patient care. This cash could be a true game changer in public attitudes about whether the law actually is beneficial and good public policy. The rebate provision of the law has been known and discussed in health care policy circles for months, but has largely flown below the radar in the political world and for voters—until now.” Time Continue reading “Health Insurance and Rebate Checks”
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In these days of ever eroding civil rights, it is important to recognize those in Congress willing to stand up for your rights. This is especially true given the ever increasing domestic surveillance of citizens without warrant by government agencies in cooperation with the telecommunications industry; a clear abuse of citizen’s 4th Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Love him or loathe him, this week the Congressman willing to fight the good fight for your rights is Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.).
Reps. Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva introduced a bill yesterday that would amend the House appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice and Science to add a provision punishing states with “Stand Your Ground” laws — the law at the heart of the trial of George Zimmerman in Florida. While I have been a long critic of both Castle Doctrine laws and “Stand Your Ground” laws, I believe this bill is a mistake and represents an attack on federalism principles.
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Here are some questions for you:
– Do you know how the United States Postal Service (USPS) is funded?
– Do you know why the USPS is having such serious financial problems?
– Would the closing of more than 200 postal processing centers and more than 3,000 post offices across this country, eliminating Saturday mail delivery, and cutting more than 100,000 postal jobs be the best way to save the USPS?
– Would slowing down mail delivery help the USPS to take in more revenue?
– What would happen to rural communities if their post offices were closed?
– What do you know about the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006?
– Have you heard about H.R. 1351?
Yes, the USPS is experiencing serious financial problems. I’ve heard on the news and read in the papers that drastic measures must be undertaken in order to save this great American institution. I think that it’s important to understand the causes of those problems and to know what could happen to the US Postal Service unless Congress solves them without severely impacting the institution and the services it provides to Americans.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
We haven’t heard his name for quite some time now, but former Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel attorney, John Yoo is in the news again. The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out an appeal by convicted terrorist, Jose Padilla attempting to hold Yoo liable for the torture used on Padilla while in U.S. detention centers.
Believe it or not, the Justices stated that the law on what constituted torture was not clear when Padilla endured the Bush Enhanced Interrogation methods. “A three-judge panel of the court said laws governing combatants and the definition of torture were unclear during the years policies were crafted. Padilla alleged he was subjected to death threats, given psychotropic drugs, shackled and manacled for hours at a time, denied contact with family or a lawyer for 21 months and refused medical care for potentially life-threatening conditions. “That such treatment was torture was not clearly established in 2001-03,” Judge Raymond C. Fisher, a Clinton appointee, wrote for the court.” LA Times Continue reading “Shame on Yoo”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
The following link was sent to me by Otteray Scribe, who is among the most erudite and respected people among those who frequently comment on this blog. He is an extremely well educated man, with masterful writing ability and a creatively active mind. The title of his E mail to me and the other guest bloggers was WTF? and this is what he wrote:
“This is beyond strange. Horace Boothroyd III is disabled and apparently has nothing to do but sit at his computer. He monitors everything going on regarding OWS and police misconduct. I won’t try to describe this, but it is more than passing strange. Might be worth following up.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/03/1088516/-Occupy-Minnesota-WTF-Cops-picking-up-sober-Occupiers-and-Drugging-them-for-Training-
When someone who I like and respect as much as I do Otteray Scribe, is at a loss for words to describe something, I take notice. When I clicked the link and read this story from Daily Kos, my own reaction mirrored his: WTF? It took me more than twelve hours to respond to his E mail because I needed to let it gestate in my own mind and figure out just what to write about.
Rather than me regurgitating the story I think it is an important one for the readers to view for themselves and present their own take on the why, wherefore and implications inherent in the story.
While allowing you make your own judgments, let me give my bottom line opinion on all of the issues and questions the story raises and let’s see what you the reader makes of it on your own. I believe that the actions detailed in this story are indicative of our beloved America fast moving towards becoming a police state, in the same manner that the USSR, its successor Russia and China are police states. That is that all protest against the status quo is to be repressed. The police/security/intelligence/military forces are not only to act as agents of this repression, in many instances on their own volition without sanction, but also are taking part in the use of counter-insurgency techniques towards those elements within the society deemed dangerous to the status quo. In the minds of those in power openly and behind the scenes the question of what is threatening to the country is in most instances a self-serving rationale for what is politically/economically threatening to them. We must ask ourselves are we to be mere observers meekly silent for fear of our own security, or will we act openly to oppose the destruction of the Constitution of the United States and with it our rights and freedoms?