Previous month:
April 2009
Next month:
June 2009


We all enjoyed the joke Henry Waxman played on his … committee when he commissioned a speed reader to read the bill before the committee.

Buried in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which purports to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy, is a little known provision to extend unemployment benefits to workers adversely impacted by global climate change.

Should you lose your job due to global climate change legislation, you will be eligible to receive up to 3 years of unemployment, 80% the monthly premium of your health coverage, job training, job search allowances not to exceed $1500, relocation allowances not to exceed $1500.

To get a flavor of some of the language …

“The Secretary  may, as appropriate, authorize supplemental assistance that is necessary to defray reasonable transportation and subsistence expenses for separate maintenance in a case in which training for a worker is provided in a facility that  is not within commuting distance of the regular place of residence of the worker.”

“ … 80 percent of the monthly premium of any  health insurance coverage that an adversely affected work er was receiving from such worker’s employer prior to the separation from employment described in section 425(b), to be paid to any health care insurance plan designated by the adversely affected worker receiving an allowance under this section.”

On page 761 of the 932-page bill is …



(1) ELIGIBILITY.—Payment of a climate change adjustment allowance shall be made to an adversely affected worker covered by a certification under section 425(b) who files an application for such allowance for any week of unemployment which begins on or after the date of such certification, if the following conditions are met:

(A) Such worker’s total or partial separation before the worker’s application under this
23 part occurred— (i) on or after the date, as specified in the certification under which the worker is covered, on which total or partial separation began or threatened to begin in the
adversely affected employment; (ii) before the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which the determination under section 425(d) was made; and (iii) before the termination date, if any, determined pursuant to section 425(d)(3).

(B) Such worker had, in the 52-week period ending with the week in which such total or partial separation occurred, at least 26 weeks of full-time employment or 1,040 hours of part time employment in adversely affected  employment, or, if data with respect to weeks of employment are not available, equivalent  amounts of employment computed under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. For the purposes of this paragraph, any week in which such worker— (i) is on employer-authorized leave for purposes of vacation, sickness, injury, maternity, or inactive duty or active duty military service for training; (ii) does not work because of a disability that is compensable under a workmen’s compensation law or plan of a State or the United States; (iii) had his employment interrupted in order to serve as a full-time representative of a labor organization in such firm; or (iv) is on call-up for purposes of active
9 duty in a reserve status in the Armed Forces of the United States, provided such active duty is ‘‘Federal service’’ as defined in section 8521(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, shall be treated as a week of employment. (C) Such worker is enrolled in a training program approved by the Secretary under subsection (b)(2).


(5) WEEKLY AMOUNTS.—The climate change  adjustment allowance payable to an adversely affected worker for a week of unemployment shall be an amount equal to 70 percent of the average weekly wage of such worker, but in no case shall such amount exceed the average weekly wage for all workers in the State where the adversely affected worker resides.

(6) MAXIMUM DURATION OF BENEFITS.—An eligible worker may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks.


Who knew ?

Who knew that there was an unemployment extension in this bill and that provisions for additional training are also included.

And who cares?

Since your elected officials often show the discourtesy of not reading and debating the bill fully who, other than the lobbyists and advocates who helped craft the language of this bill, actually knows what the bill’s provisions may be when implemented by the “Secretary?” Or the interaction of the bill’s provisions with other Congressional legislation, state legislation and even the Administration’s signing orders? Not to mention the unintended consequences of the bill and subsequent modifying or amending legislation.

Buried in the dense prose are a number of benefits, privileges which pander to specific constituencies and special interests. Often worded in legalese to prevent the public from expressing outrage before the bill’s enactment. Noted above in red is one provision that specifically is designed to curry favor with the labor unions as appears to put service on the behalf of a labor union on a par with service to one’s country in the armed forces.

It’s your money …

The climate control bill is nothing but a giant tax surcharge on all energy production and goods produced in the United States – all based on imperfect science and the corrupt reporting of several political entitites with vested interests in the using climate-related legislation to advance their personal, professional and political interests.

This bill needs to be defeated, or at the very least, thoroughly vetted by the public. Considering the likelihood of the average citizen, let alone a legislator, reading and understanding the full bill and its implications, it is best to simply say NO when it comes to the bill’s passage.

flame For those who want to take a stab at reading the legislation, the  932-page bill is available here.

It’s your money. Tell your elected officials how you feel about an additional tax burden which will push many Americans over the edge into bankruptcy and convey unprecedented benefits to large unionized businesses. Remember, because of the federally-mandated climate restrictions on automobiles, those workers in the unionized auto industry meet all of the prime criteria of this legislation. 

Be well, be safe and take care of yourself and your family first.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

Setting the record straight ... Don Perata investigation ends, Perata cleared?

In many blog posts, I have pointed out that former California Senate leader Don Perata was under investigation for political corruption. He has now been cleared of the pending charges.

According to the Sacramento Bee … 

“After a nearly five-year probe that covered most of his tenure as leader of the state Senate, Democrat Don Perata has been told by federal authorities that he will not face charges in a corruption investigation.”

“Perata, who has announced plans to run for mayor of Oakland, had been the subject of an FBI probe into whether campaign contributors or others benefitted from his actions and power as the Senate president pro tem.”

“But Lawrence G. Brown, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California, which is based in Sacramento, announced today that no criminal charges would be filed against Perata.”

" ‘Prosecutors from both this office and the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice have reviewed the matter involving Sen. Don Perata and have determined not to pursue criminal charges," Brown said in a statement issued at noon. "This office and the Criminal Division in Washington, D.C., worked collaboratively in undertaking this review.”

" ‘Each office reached its decision independently based on our respective analyses of the facts and the law. Beyond that, in accordance with departmental policy, we cannot disclose our deliberative process. Our review of this investigation was consistent with the sound exercise of our prosecutorial discretion.’"

Which means what?

Other than the obvious answer that Perata was not guilty of chargeable crimes, there could be other reasons for the government declining to take further action.

  • Prosecutorial misconduct.
  • Original Charges were brought for political reasons.
  • Charges were dropped for political reasons now that there has been a change of Administration and a likely change in the DOJ and its far-flung outposts.
  • Perhaps the evidence was circumstantial and was not sufficient to win a conviction.
  • Perhaps witnesses were or became uncooperative.

What we do know is that the government spent a significant amount of investigatory manpower and a large amount of money to pursue this case – and now refuses to explain why. Which is highly suspicious for such a high profile case.

We also know that Don Perata  transferred a significant amount of money from his campaign fund to his legal defense fund; continuing to raise funds from special interests purportedly for his upcoming race for the position of Oakland Mayor.

The thought of Don Perata replacing the openly avowed black democrat socialist Ron Dellums should give pause to Oakland’s residents. They have been victims of a one-party rule which has allowed the city to become a cesspool of corruption and crime. In my opinion, by choosing someone like Don Perata for their Mayor, it seems that the citizens of Oakland would be voting to perpetuate the status quo and continuing policies which seemingly favor special interests over the interests of the citizens.

I am not a fan of Don Perata, the democrat party, Ron Dellums and his socialist party, former Oakland Mayor and ex-governor Jerry Brown, one party rule or the damage being done to the citizens of numerous democrat-run cities in California.

But it is up to the citizens of Oakland to assist in cleaning up their own city – by electing honest and honorable candidates. I wish all of them luck in the upcoming election and hope that there is a solution to restoring Oakland to a safe, prosperous and thriving community.

As for Don Perata, I can hardly congratulate someone I believe has been toxic to California politics and part of the reason that California is now enmeshed in a fiscal crisis.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

Research Links:

Ex-Senate leader Perata cleared in kickback probe - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

Mentions of Don Perata can be found in …
  • One Citizen Speaking...: MAKING ME MAD... LIES ABOUT THE ...

    ... Nunez (under investigation) and Don Perata (under investigation) and selected other legislators who would be "termed out" of office... - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

  • One Citizen Speaking...: Are the California special interests ...

    “Former Senate leader Don Perata has transferred another $400000 to his legal defense fund from a campaign account he created to... - Similar pages

  • One Citizen Speaking...: More California Stupidity: The Senate fox ...

    Even though Don Perata was termed out of the California legislature and will be leaving in a few months, he is said to be running for another governmental ... - 57k - Cached - Similar pages


    ... six years in the Assembly and his equally dangerous cohort, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) could serve another four year term." ... - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

  • One Citizen Speaking...: California Sinking Into $14 BILLION in ...

    How nice of Don Perata to consider that the proposed $10 BILLION dollar healthcare plan (which includes services for illegal aliens) should be reconsidered ... - Similar pages


    The two most visible recipients of any modification in term limits are the leader of the California's State Senate, Don Perata, and the leader of ... - Similar pages

  • One Citizen Speaking...: CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS LIE: "IT'S FOR THE ...

    Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, Senate President Don Perata and Governor ... Don Perata: "We do not have a spending problem we don't have enough money. ... - Similar pages

  • One Citizen Speaking...: Schwarzenegger: Pay attention -- this is ...

    I could understand Don Perata naming Kuehl to the Integrated Waste Management Board... but not to name a hard-working Republican to a similar position on ... - Similar pages

  • One Citizen Speaking...: Schwarzenegger sells out California ...

    Hidden in the proposition is a "transition period" which would allow Fabian Nunez (D-Mexico) and Don Perata (D-Himself) to extend the very same leadership ... - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

  • One Citizen Speaking...: January 12, 2008

    California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as well as Don Perata and Fabian Nunez are taking the lazy way to budget reform. Their "everybody will experience ...

  • “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    Unbelievable: Pravda notes America’s decent into Marxism …

    This would be hysterically funny, sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, if it weren’t so damned scary – and true.

    Stanislav Mishin, as quoted in Pravda, notes that …

    “American capitalism gone with a whimper”

    “It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.”

    Sheeple? Where have we heard that before? The great mass of American citizens prodded into action by a relatively few far-left activists who count on the average American’s complacency. A population comprised of people who want to be thought of as well-intentioned, kindly people; people who would do almost anything to avoid being labeled a racist or a bigot. All being fed the party line by a bankrupt media which seems to have forsaken the truth in order to secure some form of corporate advantage.

    Preparing the battlefield …

    “True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.”

    “Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.”

    Biding their time …

    The fact that the far-left socialists, Marxists, communists and anarchists – and democrats – would bide their time patiently, content to win small battles; eating each slice of salami until the whole thing was consumed – is almost beyond belief by a population motivated by instant gratification. Surrendering their financial freedom to own the latest whiz-bang car, television, iPod or computer. Giving more attention to planning their vacations than they do their careers or marriages.

    Subversion of our educational system at the hands of union-led far-left activists …

    “First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives.”

    And we thought that the failure of our educational system was a product of greedy unions and their rewarding of incompetent teachers with lifetime tenure. No consideration was given to the fact that most trade unions were hotbeds of socialist/Marxist activity. Siphoning off great sums of money to invest on behalf of their so-called member’s retirement, health and welfare. Little attention was paid to their growing political clout that helped elect fellow travelers and defeat those who posed a significant threat to their growing political power and influence. All aided and abetted by corrupt and complacent politicians whose sole goal is to be elected and, once elected, stay in office – primarily to profit personally, professionally and politically.

    They care more for their ‘right’ to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.”

    In this age of instant gratification, most people get outraged at things which affect them now – no thought to the longer term. Perhaps as a consequence of having far-left liberals destroy our history and civics curriculum with their revisionist history featuring multiculturalism and diversity. 

    Obama: another telegenic, televangelist leading his cult?

    Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different ‘branches and denominations’ were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the ‘winning’ side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the ‘winning’ side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.”

    Imagine that … someone notes that even religion has become “commercialized” in an attempt to attract a larger “dues paying” audience. No more pesky consequences for social wrongdoing or imprudent behavior. Everything is forgiven, pass the basket. Not to mention the attention given to the Catholic Priest scandal which did much to reduce the moral authority of the church’s leaders.

    Nonsensically spending our way to riches?

    The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.”

    In the first months of the Obama Administration, more money was allocated and/or spent than the sum total of all federal spending from George Washington to George Bush. A burden which cannot be sustained by even moderate growth in the economy.

    “These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?”

    The difference between a crook and a savior lies in their usefulness to the government in advancing their agenda …

    Imagine, someone outside the country noting that the government is relying on those that actually caused the problem in the first place. The reasons vary: the crooks found religion and want to atone for their past sins, these people are the only people who know how to manipulate the financial system’s levers of power and my personal  favorite, these people are misunderstood and were only playing by the rules that were dictated by unnamed others.

    Usurpation of Constitutional roles … 

    “These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.”

    I am impressed that someone else noted that the Executive branch was quickly usurping the Legislative branch of our government with administrative rules and regulations that are as strictly enforced as if the were crafted by legislative fiat. And now, with the Sotomayor nomination, President Obama is trying to place a far-left activist on the Supreme Court – again, usurping Congressional power by making law from the bench. A total subversion of the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution.

    Interference in the affairs of private business …

    “Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of ‘pure’ free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.”

    There is no Constitutional authority granted to the President to interfere with the employees of  private corporations. And if it is or was a coercive effort to blackmail a private corporation into acting on its own, perhaps that might rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

    So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a ‘bold’ move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our ‘wise’ Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.”

    Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a ‘freeman’ whimper.”

    Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Neil Bortz and Glen Beck aside, the American media has sold out their status as the so-called fourth estate as well as their journalistic ethics in favor of corporate interests. So afraid that the Administration may deny them a broadcast license. So afraid that those holding their debt will allow them to become destitute paupers; as if that were even possible.

    “So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set ‘fair’ maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?”

    Barney Frank …

    Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.”

    Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, openly flaunted his gay relationship with an executive of Fannie Mae – even to the extent of securing a “member’s spouse” identification for him – even though the lover’s position was to insure that Congress expanded Fannie Mae’s charter, raised its lending limits and rebuffed all of the calls for Fannie’s regulatory reform. Everywhere one turns today, it is all about “gay rights” and the redefinition of marriage to become more inclusive. Which, in some eyes, heralds the further breakdown of the family unit – which some claim started with the government’s demands on the black community which was receiving welfare.

    Not so funny …

    “The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.”

    The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.”

    The only analogy that is appropriate is the frog being boiled alive by incrementally raising the temperature of the water slowly.

    As for the world snickering, here is President Obama openly apologizing for the arrogance and prior misdeeds of America – the very same America which gave much of Europe their freedoms, such as it has become, and without whose support would have become a decaying, dying society. They have a right to laugh at Obama, as his history lesson comes from the Alinsky-wing of political activism. What he does not realize is that our enemies respect only naked power and the will to use it for political purposes. To pussyfoot around issues with diplomacy and not be able to take action relegates Obama to fawning fool.

    Bottom line …

    Barack Obama and the majority of our politicians have become complacent, complicit or corrupt. Special interests have exploited these useful fools for their own power and profits. It is now time to drain the swamp and hold both the special interests and the politicians accountable.

    As a first step, I think we should examine Barack Obama’s qualifications to serve as the President of the United States. Answering questions of his birth with documentation and records, citizenship by examining the passport he used to travel – and then breaking precedent, conducting another election if necessary.

    This single step will force both the Congress and the Supreme Court to declare their loyalties – and if they are not to the Constitution of the United States, the battle will be to remove each person from office for violation of their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

    If the majority of citizens are not willing to take action now, perhaps they will replace all of the Congressional tools that are up for election in 2010 and repudiate the power of local and state politicians. Possibly to the extent of voting the current union leadership out of office and replacing it with someone more trustworthy and without a political agenda.

    Some, my best friend included, will consider this to be a nonsensical pipe dream – but then again, a group of men felt the same way about England and did take action.

    It should be remembered that our Constitution is not a living document subject to the expedient winds of social concerns, but a generational trust which insures the continuity of our government and the equal and predictable application of the laws to all citizens.

    -- steve


    OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …


    Reference Links:

    American capitalism gone with a whimper |Pravda

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    Sotomayor: Spinning the story with shorthand labels ...

    The mainstream media is cranking up their efforts to assist push President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor through her confirmation hearings.

    The methodology is simple:

    One, attempt to firmly hitch Sotomayor to Barack Obama’s positive personal ratings by declaring the choice to be “brilliant, well-thought out or using some referential praise from Obama himself.

    Two, declare Sotomayor to be a moderate-conservative whatever that may mean. Unfortunately, most people will not give due consideration to the fact that when a committed far-left activist uses the term moderate, they may well be speaking of someone a little bit to the right of Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, or others of their ilk. 

    Three, declare Sotomayor to be a conventional choice. Here I defer to columnist George Will

    “Her ethnicity aside, Sotomayor is a conventional choice. The court will remain composed entirely of former appellate court judges. And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented -- understood, empathized with -- only by persons of the same identity.”

    Democrats compounded confusion by thinking of the court as a representative institution. Such personalization of the judicial function subverts the rule of law.

    Four, demonize those who speak out against Sotomayor as extremists, bigots, racists, right-wing crazies, wing-nuts or whack-jobs.

    Five, excuse her past comments and writings by claiming they were taken out of context or that her judicial decisions were extremely narrow and affected only the single case at issue.

    Six, dismiss her numerous reversals by the Supreme Court by claiming that are judges are reversed from time-to-time; and avoid discussing the true nature of the rebuke which often proved that Sotomayor’s reasoning was significantly flawed or biased by a social agenda.

    It is up to each individual to make up their own minds rather than blindly accept the positions of an Administration which is ideologically bankrupt and exists solely on the personal charisma of President Obama. Look at what he says and then what he does – and you will find a pattern of complacency, corruption and an agenda which supports Marxism over our traditional capitalistic democracy.

    My perspective: What is not in the constitution …

    Our Founding Fathers believed in limited government and set about granting the federal government limited rights and functions; reserving all other duties for individuals and the individual states.  Our Founding fathers did contemplate judicial usurpation of power and thus built-in checks and balances into a system which demanded three co-equal branches of government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial.

    Unfortunately, by appointing activist judges who declare that our Constitution is a “living document” which should be constantly reviewed in light of the current times – they break with the stability, security and generational continuity offered by the Constitution in favor of supporting the political expediencies of the day. Instead of ruling on the Constitutionality of a matter or interpreting the law in favor of the framers of the Constitution, activist judges have sought to usurp the power of Congress by making de facto laws from a document which remained silent on the issues.

    Roe v. Wade – does not deal with abortion per se, but the federal funding of abortion activities. Clearly this is not a federal issue, but a state issue and the Court’s ruling is unconstitutional on its face.

    Children of illegal aliens becoming automatic citizens likewise is a tortured interpretation of an Amendment to grant citizenship to those slaves which were forcibly brought to the United States or born of slave parents. It need not convey citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. In fact, most nations demand that children born of foreign parents demand that the children assume the nationality of the parents.

    Dual Citizenship – when one takes an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, it is supposed that an American citizen does not have an allegiance to a foreign power. This raises questions about Barack Obama himself who was said to have traveled abroad using a foreign passport rather than a United States passport. Of course, Obama refuses to answer questions about his origins and his associations – and the mainstream media has ceded all journalistic credibility and ethics in not pursuing the matter.

    Global Warming – imposing stringent controls over the economy is not addressed.

    Education – imposing controls over the state’s education activities by attempting to blackmail or extort cooperation by granting or withholding federal funds should be a criminal action.

    Civil rights are addressed in the Constitution as seeing all people as equal. There are no carve-outs for quotas to redress grievances of individuals or of any race, ethnicity, etc. There are specific remedies in court actions for individuals and groups – but not at a federal level which contradicts equality of man.

    What we seek in a Supreme Court justice should be easy to determine:

    Knowledge of the law and especially the Constitution of the United States;

    Judicial fairness which does not bias the nominee to take action in favor of a pre-conceived political or social agenda or impair their impartiality towards either side in the dispute.

    Judicial temperament which would restrict wild and crazy people from being appointed to the Court; and above all,

    People who do not make law from the bench but restrict their rulings of the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

    It does not matter so much what prestigious law school they may have attended or their grade point average as it does a history of well-researched and well-founded judicial rulings and writings that indicate fairness, balance and temperament.

    Why I believe Sotomayor is wrong for the Court …

    One, by her writings and past actions, I believe that Sotomayor is a racist or a bigot due to the fact that she seems to view everything through a prism of race, ethnicity or the lens of social policy dedicated to redressing the alleged wrongs of past generations. Under this apparent limitation, the parties seeking justice before the Court would be at a significant disadvantage if the matter included either racial or social policy components.

    The recent case of the Connecticut firefighters who were denied a fair hearing on their case involving reverse racial discrimination makes my point. Sotomayor and a number of her fellow jurists did not address significant and compelling Constitutional issues and blew off the claims of the firefighters with an originally unpublished one-paragraph decision. Of course, the Supreme Court disagreed and is now hearing the matter. A clear demonstration of Sotomayor’s beliefs and lack of judicial appropriateness. More on the base can be found here.

    Two, I believe that Sotomayor’s bias towards ecological issues as put forth by the far-left may have a lasting and damaging effect on the economy of the United States and the freedoms of its citizens.

    One need only consider a recent ruling where Sotomayor ruled “that power companies must protect ‘fish and other aquatic organisms’ from being sucked into cooling vents regardless of the costs, saying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not allowed to use a cost-benefit analysis in measuring power companies’ compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.”

    Like many other Sotomayor decisions, “the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on April 1 of this year that a cost-benefit analysis was entirely appropriate when judging whether a power company was following the law.”

    “Sotomayor, writing for the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said that the case was about the fish, ruling that the EPA could only consider whether a power company was able to buy the technology, not whether it made economic sense to do so.”

    " ‘This case is about fish and other aquatic organisms,’ wrote Sotomayor. ‘The flow of water into these plants traps (or 'impinges') large aquatic organisms against grills or screens, which cover the intake structures, and draws (or 'entrains') small aquatic organisms into the cooling mechanism; the resulting impingement and entrainment from these operations kill or injure billions of aquatic organisms every year.’”

    " ‘In determining BAT (Best Available Technology), by contrast, the EPA may consider cost as a factor to a limited degree, but only as to whether the cost of a given technology could be reasonably borne by the industry and not the relation between that technology’s cost and the benefits it achieves,’ Sotomayor concluded.”

    “The EPA, she said, must first consider whether the industry could ‘reasonably’ bear the cost of new technology and then conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis--which measures which technology meets the EPA requirements the cheapest, not which technology is most economical to install.”

    " ‘EPA may permissibly consider cost in two ways: (1) to determine what technology can be ‘reasonably borne’ by the industry and (2) to engage in cost-effectiveness analysis in determining BAT,’ wrote Sotomayor.
    Cost, which gets passed on to customers as rate increases, can only be considered for technologies that meet EPA goals, rather than what effect it might have on the abilities of the power companies to produce electricity.”

    " ‘Thus, the EPA must first determine what is the most effective technology that may reasonably be borne by the industry,’ Sotomayor explained. ‘Once this determination has been made, the EPA may then consider other factors, including cost-effectiveness, to choose a less expensive technology that achieves essentially the same results.’”

    “The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court that a cost-benefit analysis was entirely reasonable and that a cost-benefit analysis could be used to determine what is the ‘best available technology.’”

    “ ‘But ‘best technology’ may also describe the technology that most efficiently produces some good,’ wrote Justice Scalia.  ‘It seems to us, therefore, that the phrase ‘best technology available’ … does not unambiguously preclude cost-benefit analysis.’”

    The Supreme Court ruled that Sotomayor was in error and that the EPA could continue using a cost-benefit analysis when enforcing environmental regulations.” 

    “ ‘We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards,’ Scalia wrote. ‘The Court of Appeals,’ Scalia ruled, ‘was therefore in error.’”

    Considering that the environmental movement has been infiltrated with communists, Marxists, anarchists and others who do not wish the United States well – and want to use our own laws as weapons of class destruction against us, one must be careful in appointing an Obama-style Marxist or activist to a bench which will be besieged with s0-called “global warming” cases in the near future. To have am activist bench which creates public policy out of whole cloth where no Constitutional issue is at hand, is a clear and present danger to the citizens of the United States.

    And three, I believe Sotomayor will not uphold the Second Amendment of the United States.

    “In August 2008, Sotomayor affirmed the district court opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which ruled that the Constitution does not prohibit state governments from restricting the right to bear arms.”

    “The district court’s decision stated that ‘the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right [to bear arms].”

    Another activist lawyer?

    Traditionally, the democrats, also known as the party of lawyers, has attempted to create social policy by bypassing the Congress and issuing Administrative rulings from the Executive branch of government or sought to involve the Courts in making public policy – a practice which is clearly unconstitutional as it usurps the authority of Congress to make all laws governing our land and citizens.

    There is a critical flaw in democrat thinking …

    Again, I defer to George Will who wrote: "Democrats compounded confusion by thinking of the court as a representative institution. Such personalization of the judicial function subverts the rule of law.

    Defending OUR Constitution …

    It is not so much a statement on President Obama’s choice for a vacant Supreme Court position as it is the need to defend OUR Constitution from those who would demean its protections in the name of creating social policy where no such right exists.

    We need to let our Senators know that a vote for Sotomayor is a vote against preserving the traditional role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. And secondarily, Sotomayor lacks the intellectual ability, judicial temperament and basic impartiality to serve. She should be regarded as Obama’s “Harriet Miers, an unqualified ideologue who needs to be rejected in favor of returning the Supreme Court to its traditional interpretive role.

    In the final analysis, I believe it is her comment that the “court of appeals is where policy is made” is all the proof that we need that Sotomayor is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

    -- steve

    Quote of the day:Does she think the figure of Justice should lift her blindfold, an emblem of impartiality, and be partial to certain categories of persons?” – George Will

    Reference Links:

    Sotomayor Ruled Fish Must Be Protected from Power Plants Regardless of Cost-Benefit Analysis|

    Sotomayor Has Sparse Record on Social Issues| 

    Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice|George F. Will

    Sotomayor: Judging Obama and the Senate on their loyalty to the United States Constitution?|OneCitizenSpeaking


    OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    Is Meg Whitman a McCain-style RINO (Republican In Name Only)?

    There is no doubt that California is a liberal state … beset with problems caused primarily by its one-party democrat rule and the inability of a jet-setting Republican governor to provide the leadership he promised when first running for office to replace the re-called tax-and-spend democrat Gray Davis.

    What we got in Arnold Schwarzenegger was a ego-driven RINO (Republican In Name Only) who openly declared himself to be a “post-partisan” politician who was rich enough to withstand the blandishments and offers of the special interests while serving all the people.

    What we got was a liberal democrat masquerading, with the help of Hollywood Smoke and Mirrors, as a fiscally-conservative Republican. A faux Republican who out-fund-raised and out-pandered Gray Davis. A man who presided over the destruction of California’s economy; and continues to propose wacky tax schemes to, once again, paper over a deficit and a budget that bears his signature.

    Is Meg Whitman any better?

    I am worried that Meg Whitman, the former e-Bay chief who would be our next Republican candidate for governor, will be in the same mold – and just as ineffective as Arnold Schwarzenegger when it comes to reining in a corrupt and complacent legislature beholden to the unions and big-money special interests.

    The McCain kiss of death?

    Now I hear that Meg Whitman is about to be endorsed by John McCain.

    McCain lost the election because he wasn’t the real deal. No Ronald Reagan, the aisle hopping McCain gave us an election finance law (McCain-Feingold) that enlarged the amount of money which could be spent on elections, attempted to jam illegal alien amnesty down our throats with McCain-Kennedy and tried to further enlarge government and raise taxes with his McCain-Lieberman global warming legislation. Running on a platform which stressed his time as a prisoner-of-war  over the solid benefits which he would bring to the country. Only at the last minute did he infuse some semblance of life into his dying campaign with the entry of a relatively-unprepared (and conservative) Sarah Palin.

    Now we seem to be faced with the same choice in California. A Republican candidate who may be able to win, but who might become as liberal as a Arnold Schwarzenegger or John McCain.

    Yes, she has a storied background as a business executive and a relatively no-nonsense executive bearing – but then again, the executive branch of government, with its slow-moving bureaucracy and formal legislative  opposition, is far from being susceptible to the almost dictatorial policies and demeanor of a CEO operating in the private sector. 

    I don’t give a damn about the fact that she can understand a balance sheet or income statement – she can look at all the numbers she wants. But in the final analysis, we know the books are cooked and the numbers are often conditioned on avoiding the public’s outrage. Hidden accounts and slush-funds; borrowing from internal State accounts as well as Wall Street. Borrowing that which we do not have based on "revenue anticipation bonds."

    So, do we really care that John McCain is going to endorse Meg Whitman as a gubernatorial candidate in California?

    I think not. McCain has proved that a wishy-washy RINO that seeks to enlarge the tent to accommodate independents and conservative democrats by moving away from conservatism is exactly what the democrats want. A “me too” candidate that does not offer a clear delineation between the parties and does not attract voters who are content to stay where they are.

    The fact the Whitman is said to be writing a book to be used to introduce her to the public during the run-up to the campaign is also worthless – unless she were to give it away to all comers. Again, who takes time to read books by politicians – that is, other than reporters looking for story hooks.

    I personally think that McCain’s early endorsement of Meg Whitman will only make me look harder for the signs that she will become so liberal -- as to hand the legislative democrats another relatively easy victory. Her likely democrat opponents are said to the Diane Feinstein and ex-Governor Moonbeam, Jerry Brown. We will have to wait and see who will appear on the conservative side of the Republican ticket.

    But my real take is that we should throw all of the bums seeking re-election out of office and start over by electing your friends and neighbors. Enough with the millionaire or billionaire super-stars. When the are bedazzled by the power of the state, they turn into "go along to get along" media whores or worse, union sycophants and friends of the special interests.

    -- steve


    OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

    Reference Links:

    Capitol Alert: McCain set to back Whitman for governor

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    The problem with Colin Powell ...

    As one time, I would have gladly and eagerly voted for Colin Powell as the President of the United States. I still have two Colin Powell for President pins in my top right desk drawer.

    But I have reconsidered my opinion …

    One, I believe that Colin Powell is embarking on a transformational rehabilitation routine to distance himself from the Bush Administration which almost destroyed his public image with his testimony before the United Nations on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

    Two, I believe Colin Powell deserted the Republican Party and its nominee John McCain to support Barack Obama for the Presidency. He did this to gain popular support and I have great difficultly believing he did it honestly on the candidate’s qualifications and not simply a racial decision. Especially since McCain was a democrat-loving, aisle-hopping liberal Republican as opposed to a conservative hard-liner. By this token, Powell should have openly embraced McCain and his legislative legacy: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman, etc..

    Three, I believe that Colin Powell’s prescription for the Republican Party is wrong-headed as it produces a party position that is substantially the same as that of the democrat party. Thus turning the electoral process into a popularity contest rather than a contest of life-affirming important issues. is reporting …

    “Colin Powell: GOP Needs to Stop Listening to ‘Diktats’ from ‘Right-Wing of the Party’”

    “Gen. Colin Powell, who was appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George H.W. Bush and secretary of State by the President George W. Bush, said yesterday the Republican Party needs to stop being controlled by the ‘right wing’ if it is going to expand and becoming a viable national party again.

    To my way of thinking, the Republican Party needs to clearly and unequivocally state their platform and invite those who support that platform to join them in righting our foundering ship of state.

    Powell’s expression that the Republican Party is not a viable national party is dead wrong. While the Republicans may not have a central spokesman to articulate the still-forming platform, it is my belief that we really don’t need one this exact second. President Obama is doing so much to screw up the nation with his far-left political ideology, that eventually the people will become dissatisfied with his leadership and seek out any party which articulates a coherent, common-sense platform and presents a viable candidate.

    “Powell said on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ that he is still a Republican and that until he voted for President Obama in last November’s election he had voted for Republicans in each presidential election starting with the presidential election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Powell also said he voted for John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter for president, but he did not say on the program whether he voted for Richard Nixon or his Demcratic opponents, Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern.”

    Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter – some Republican. Sounds more like an opportunist rather than a committed Republican!

    “In responding to criticism he has received from former Vice President Dick Cheney and radio host Rush Limbaugh, Powell told Face the Nation moderator Bob Schieffer that some Republican conservatives consider him “too moderate.”

    Moderate? I don’t think so! Independent, maybe. Republican, doubtful!

    “He said his response to that is that the GOP should be ‘more inclusive.’”

    “ ‘What the concern about me is, well, is he too moderate?’ said Powell. “’ have always felt that the Republican Party should be more inclusive than it generally has been over the years. And I believe we need a strong Republican Party that is not just anchored in the base but has built on the base to include more individuals. And if we don't do that, if we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base.’”

    Considering that the Republican Party has welcomed diversity in the people who have decided to support the Republican platform, what I think Colin Powell meant is not “inclusive” but more “accommodative” of center- and center-left opinions.

    “Powell said he believes it is time for the Republican Party to stop listening to ‘diktats’ that come down from the right wing of the party.”

    As far as I know, the two most contentious platform items in the Republican party are abortion and illegal immigration.

    Supporting human life over the casual abandonment of the pre-cursor to life, the embryo. Which also gives rise to some reluctance to conduct certain types of stem cell research. Research, I might add, that I support whole heartedly as a potential cure for disease.

    And as for illegal aliens, I believe we need to enforce our sovereignty by strengthening our borders and to develop a rational immigration policy which does not allow for the import of illiteracy, poverty, unskilled people and people without language skills to flow into the country – with the likelihood that they will not assimilate into our culture and present a picture of loyalty to a foreign sovereign state. I have articulated in other blog entries my common-sense program of dealing with illegal aliens that are now in the United States, without granting them citizenship and, additionally, insuring that children born in the United States assume the nationality of their parents as done in most of the civilized world.

    Powell’s prescription …

    “ ‘You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base,’ said Powell. ‘And I believe we should build on the base because the nation needs two parties, two parties debating each other. But what we have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are and not just listen to diktats that come down from the right wing of the party.’"

    Powell is a skilled politician and knows that the debate and definition of a platform will not be, as he says, inclusive as it will not pander to centrists, moderates, middle-of-the-roaders who will demand fiscal conservatism, but expanded social programs. Often mutually incompatible as one needs to fund social programs from increased taxes.

    “Powell said the Republican Party has been losing people in all parts of the country, and that he is concerned the party is moving too far ‘to the right’ and thus may be surrendering even the ‘right-of-center’ to independents and Democrats.”

    I wonder if General Powell has noticed that we have a government who has moved so far to the left, that those who proclaim they are slightly right-of-center are in actuality democrats and independents due to their desire for increased social spending.

    “ ‘A Gallup poll had a series of indicators. And in almost every demographic indicator, the Republican Party is losing-north, south, east, west, men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics,’ said Powell. ‘And I think the Republican Party has to take a hard look at itself and decide, what kind of party are we? Are we simply moving further to the right, and by so doing opening up the right-of-center and the center to be taken over by independents and to be taken over by Democrats?’ Powell said he believes that even ‘right-of-center’ Republicans are ‘concerned about the right-wing.’”

    Truth be told, the dissatisfaction arises from the fact that both parties, democrats and Republicans have sold the American people out. The democrats with their obstructionism, hyper-politicalization and profligate spending on far-left social programs. And the Republicans with their obstructionism, hyper-politicalization and profligate spending on programs benefiting special interests. I can hardly blame any citizen for abandoning their party and assuming an independent or third-party stance.

    “ ‘And if you look at the other statistics that is around these days and the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has dropped significantly, into the low 20s, and among those low 20s, they're not all conservatives,’ said Powell. ‘A lot of them are fairly moderate or right-of-center Republicans who are concerned about the right wing. And they're not that vocal about it, because if you are vocal, you're going to get your voice mail filled up and you're going to get lots of emails, like I did.’”

    Considering the vituperation heaped on anyone identifying themselves as a Republican, who can blame them for their silence? The way back is to posit a solid platform of fiscal conservatism, capitalism and rational private sector solutions to public problems. Dumping unnecessary spending and get on with the task of repairing and replacing our crumbling infrastructure. Perhaps funding initiatives with money that is building schools, firehouses and roads in Iraq instead of the United States. Withdrawing troops from Korea, Japan, Kosovo and demanding that United Nations’ Peace Keepers do their job. We are willing to contribute, but not 95%.

    Bottom line …

    Colin Powell brings the Republican Party nothing but admonishment and a suggestion of accommodation. I would have more respect had he presented a full platform (like Newt Gingrich) and worked to strengthen the Republican Party than appear to suck-up to President Obama, possibly in return for a cushy career-rehabilitating appointment.

    -- steve

    Reference Links … - Colin Powell: GOP Needs to Stop Listening to ‘Diktats’ from ‘Right-Wing of the Party’


    OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    Sotomayor: Judging Obama and the Senate on their loyalty to the United States Constitution? (updated)


    According to the Washington Post ...

    "The Supreme Court restricted how far employers may go in considering race in hiring and promotion decisions, a ruling that puts workplaces across the nation on notice that efforts to combat potential discrimination against one group can amount to actual discrimination against another."

    "The court ruled for white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said city officials violated their rights when it threw out the results of a promotions test on which few minorities scored well. The case drew outsize attention because President Obama's nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, had been part of a unanimous panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that endorsed a lower-court ruling upholding New Haven's decision."

    "The case was a victory for conservative groups and the firefighters, who said the city's resolution had amounted to denying promotions based on skin color. The court's conservatives prevailed in a decision that said employers needed a 'strong basis in evidence' that a test is deficient before discarding the results, rather than just 'raw racial statistics' that may indicate a subtle discrimination."

    Original Blog Entry ...   

    Another failure of the Obama Administration …

    Once again President Barack Obama has clearly demonstrated his far left activism by nominating another flawed candidate who has proven to be far less than what “We the People” deserve as a Supreme Court judge.

    Obama in his own words …

    Once again the TelePrompTer speaks …

    “He [Obama] told the audience he wanted a judge with a ‘rigorous intellect’ and mastery of the law who would not legislate from the bench, saying he wanted someone who understood that ‘a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.’"

    And once again, he does a 180-degree turn and nominates someone who does not exhibit a rigorous intellect, does not seem to have a comprehensive mastery of the law, is a person who appears to legislate from the bench and is already giving the appearance of being far from impartial.

    Obama: intellectually dishonest …

    Just as it is intellectually dishonest for legislators to insert legislation which would not pass the people’s smell test as an amendment to a “must pass” bill; it is likewise dishonest for President Obama to submit a flawed candidate -- hoping that their race, ethnicity, gender or other characteristic would buy her a pass from politicians afraid to anger a substantial segment of the voting public.

    However, truth be told, confirming a toxic candidate under these conditions should be a reason for throwing the politician from office for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and dissing their  constituents. 

    Sotomayor: a clear and present danger …

    We are rapidly approaching a point in our nation’s history when it is possible that a single political party can breach the Constitution's checks and balances  and institute a political ideology that is antithetical to the American way of life.

    By electing judicial activists to the United States Supreme Court, the sitting Court can usurp the power of the Congress to set public policy by making laws as well as limiting the power of the Executive to enforce Congressional will. Thus, we are creating an oligarchy of lifetime Judges who are not responsible to the people and who are insulated from the consequences of their actions. Therefore, we cannot allow the court to be filled with activists who deviate from the original concept that the Court’s prime role is to rule on the constitutionality of the matter before them, nothing more and nothing less. 

    A bigot by her own words …

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” -- Judge Sotomayor

    “ ‘Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,’ she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’” -- Judge Sotomayor

    A broad generalization that suggests that any consideration of  judicial knowledge, character, demeanor or experience is trumped by race, ethnicity or gender is the mark of a bigot.

    The function of a judge, as expressed by their oath of office is to adjudicate the matter at hand using the Constitution and established principles of law – feelings, empathy, social impact are not legitimate criteria for forming an official opinion.

    A bigot by her actions …

    Sotomayor, by participating in an attempt to deny a group of Connecticut firefighters their day in Court and being complicit in the release of a tortured one paragraph dismissal of the obvious racial matter, displays her unwillingness to rule in a fair and impartial manner. The fact that there were clearly issues of racial preference which needed to be resolved was confirmed by the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case. 

    “Ricci v. DeStefano is a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by 18 city firefighters alleging that the city discriminated against them with regard to promotions.”

    “At the center of the case is New Haven's 2003 promotion exams to select firefighters for 15 open captain and lieutenant positions within the fire department. One hundred eighteen candidates took the test, 27 of them black. After the tests were scored, no blacks scored high enough to qualify for consideration for the promotions. In response, the city decided not to promote anyone, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

    “The lead plaintiff in the case is Frank Ricci, who has been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. Mr. Ricci gave up a second job to have time to study for the test. Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks on to audiotapes. Mr. Ricci also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group, and participated in mock interviews. His hard work at studying resulted in him getting the 6th highest score among 77 people who took the test.”  <Source>

    “We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D.Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). “

    In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.” <Source>

    Three days later, the Second Circuit voted 7-6 to deny another opportunity to rehear the case, this time before the entire Second Circuit (en banc).

    Fellow Latino excoriates the Court in a dissent …

    A dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes points out that the appeal does contain matters of public importance and that the Court had failed to render a fair and just hearing.

    "This appeal raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit - and indeed, in the nation - regarding the application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VII's prohibition on discriminatory employment practices. At its core, this case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of the examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?"

    "[T]his Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal. If the Ricci plaintiffs are to obtain an opinion from a reviewing court, they must now look to the Supreme Court. Their claims are worthy of that review."

    The Supreme Court demonstrates that the Ricci matter is important to the nation …


    “This case presents recurring issues regarding proper application of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause to the civil service.”

    “Petitioners, New Haven firefighters and lieutenants, qualified for promotion to command positions pursuant to job-related examinations and merit selection rules mandated by local law. Citing the race of the successful candidates and Title VII's ‘disparate impact’ provision, city officials refused to promote the petitioners.”

    1. When an otherwise valid civil service selection process yields unintended racially
    disproportionate results, may municipalities reject the results and the successful
    candidates for reasons of race absent the demonstration required by 42 U.S.C. §
    2000e- 2(k)?

    2. Does 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(l) which makes it unlawful for employers "to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race ... ," permit employers to refuse to act on the results of such tests for reasons of race?

    3. If, citing the public interest in eradicating political patronage, racism and corruption in civil service, a state's highest court mandates strict compliance with local laws requiring race-blind competitive merit selection procedures, does 42 U.S.C. §2000e-7 permit federal courts to relieve municipalities from compliance with such laws? <Source>

    If Sotomayor did not see the constitutional significance of this case and was willing to give a case of national import  short shrift, she is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

    In the final analysis, the public does not care about the race, ethnicity or gender of the first responder who is attempting to fight fires, save lives or restore order. The public wants, deserves and demands competent, well-trained people. Relaxing standards to produce a “social outcome” is not only odious, it is downright dangerous to the public’s welfare.

    A judicial activist by her own words, see for yourself …

    Spinning a false “bipartisan” story …

    For those who believe that Sotomayor was a Bush appointment, the truth is that a deal was struck with New York Senator Daniel Moynihan to confirm one in four of his appointees if the Republicans did not challenge theirs. Sotomayor was a Moynihan appointment, not a Bush appointment.

    Appropriate Judicial Philosophy?

    Adding to my opinion that Sotomayor is a racist is her involvement with La Raza (“The Race”) whose motto “For the Race, everything; for others, nothing) marks it as a racist organization.

    From “A Latina Judge's Voice, 13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87 (2002) …”

    “I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench . . .”

    Judge Cedarbaum is correct and is my idea of a jurist with integrity and a worthwhile judicial philosophy.

    “While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.”

    Sotomayor’s take …

    “Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

    “Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.” <Source>

    La Raza is apparently pleased …

    “NCLR (National Council of La Raza), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, applauds President Obama’s nomination for Supreme Court Justice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, to replace retiring Justice David Souter.”

    “We commend President Obama for making this historic appointment and for recognizing that excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive,” concluded Murguía.” <Source>

    Republican reaction?

    This will be the first major test of the Republican Party. If little or no opposition to Sotomayor is mounted, there is little or no hope for the Republican Party. Both parties will have surrendered their right to represent American citizens who may be forced to look at an Independent for curtailing Obama’s Marxist moves and restoring America’s strength.

    Bottom-line …

    Do you want Sotomayor’s influence to be felt for decades on matters of:

    • abortion;
    • illegal immigration;
    • global warming;
    • the expansion of government power;
    • affirmative action and quotas;
    • reparations and racial redress issues;
    • expanding the power of the Court;
    • expanding the power of the Executive; and
    • ceding U.S. sovereignty to foreign powers by adopting the opinions of foreign judicial rulings? 

    We owe it to all our fellow citizens to elect officials which reflect our values and who nominate judges who are fair, impartial and who rule on the constitutionality of the matter before them without regard to extraneous social issues.

    The personal history and background of the nominee should not trump judicial requirements. The color, race, ethnicity, or gender of the nominee should not trump judicial requirements.

    Clearly Sotomayor is not a distinguished jurist, not does she seem to have a wealth of solid judicial experience – so she should not be confirmed by the Senate.

    Any Senator who votes for confirmation should be voted out of office. This does double for New York Senator Chuck “the Schmuck” Schumer whose past behavior in IndyMac and other issues has proven him to be a far-left political hack who has the potential to destroy the United States with his nonsense.

    Let your Senator know how you feel about the Sotomayor appointment.

    -- steve


    OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    Obamanomics & Healthcare: Manufactured Misery?

    Once again, we are being asked to choose between high-flying rhetoric and reality …

    Organizing for America

    OneCitizen --

    Remember this date: Saturday, June 6th, 2009. We will look back on that day as the moment when the fight for real health care reform began in your neighborhood -- perhaps even in your own living room.
    On June 6th, in thousands of homes across the country, we'll gather to launch our grassroots campaign for health care. We'll watch a special message from the President. We'll build the teams and draw up the plans for winning health care reform the same way we won the election: Building support one block, one neighbor, one conversation at a time. And we'll put those plans into action.

    These kickoffs are so crucial that President Obama will join confirmed hosts and attendees on a live conference call.

    Obama does not have the answers to healthcare …

    He looks and sound good as he reads his TelePrompTered speech; but the reality is that he mostly speaks in platitudes evoking the themes hope and change. He speaks of government ethics and transactional transparency which we have yet to see.

    It appears to be all Hollywood-style smoke and mirrors pushing forward a radical agenda which will plunge the United States into chaos and ever-increasing debt; manifested by an enlarged and more bureaucratic government, higher taxes on those not already receiving state welfare and the significant loss of personal freedoms and liberty.

    One need only look at what Congress and the Obama Administration have done to the economy; blaming everything on George Bush while expanding government spending commitments far beyond the total expenditures from Presidents Washington to Bush. No controls, little or no transparency and unbelievable nepotism, cronyism and pandering to the special interests.

    A clear and present danger …

    One need only consider that Obama’s healthcare plan does not include mandatory privacy legislation; expands a healthcare database to “big brother” proportions – able to track your health, finances and physical location – all the while reducing the amount of care you may received to that specified by a statistical “best practices” survey. It should be noted that these “best practices” surveys often result in the denial of any “extraordinary” life-saving treatment as the results of last-ditch efforts are likely to have poor statistical outcomes. The summary conclusion: rationing at the hands of handsomely-paid bureacrats and government contractors.

    A not-so-shining example of government care …

    One need only consider the medical availability and care afforded to those who have been asked to potentially sacrifice their lives for their country – the American veteran. Veterans who have received traumatic head injuries are likely to be lumped together with those who are appealing their hemorrhoid disability in a tangle of bureaucratic paperwork. This is a microcosm of managed paper and healthcare which should be perfected before the American public is subject to healthcare sanctions.

    Truth be told, government healthcare is not about healthcare as it is increased bureaucratic control over the American public for political purposes and just another chance to raise taxes and limit freedoms and choice.

    Something that would work …

    Want to make healthcare coverage work? Let’s start with the basics. The insurance companies need to offer care to everyone, pre-existing condition or not, and spread the costs over a wider population base. To this end, healthcare providers would be required to post prices (no more tiered system to bilk the middle class and reward the illegal alien) and performance statistics. All subject to Federal Trade Commission regulations regarding false and misleading information.

    • Doctors would be allowed more latitude to specify treatments and spend time with patients. To think that a doctor would review a patient’s history, electronic format or not, in five minutes and then suggest a course of treatment in the remaining ten minutes is ludicrous.
    • We could continue subsidized clinics for the poor, but illegal aliens with major medical issues would be returned to their home country for treatment.
    • Of course, emergency treatment would be given to anyone, anytime and the patient medically stabilized before decision-making about continuing care.
    • As for the large university medical groups with their taxpayer subsidized facilities  and which compete against community physicians, perhaps we should restrict their specialized care to tertiary or quaternary care.
    • And perhaps we should remove the incentive for insurance companies who profit from unwarranted denials and who obtain large performance bonuses at the expense of their patients.

    President Obama’s assertion that this can all be paid for with the savings from computerizing medical records and creating a political big brother database are hogwash.

    There are solutions to our medical crisis and they should not include input from large insurance company lobbyists with vested interests that run counter to the public’s welfare.

    The same rah-rah political actions of the political activists might be great for politics, but the average person on the street knows little or nothing about the business of big medicine let alone how to fix a damaged system. To believe Obama, on the basis of past performance, is unwarranted and is likely to be dangerous to the health and welfare of American citizens.

    Make the bastards prove their system, paperwork and all, works for the much smaller number of veterans before trying to implement a system which is surely doomed to failure. The key to implementing reforms is a phased approach – let them build  and successfully demonstrate one block at a time; starting with absolute privacy legislation which mandates absolute jail time for anyone who uses private medical information for commercial,  political or coercive purposes – with no exceptions.

    Best advice, be well, be safe and take care of yourself and your family first.

    -- steve


    OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    Global Warming: A flaw in the discussion?

    During a recent on-line chat (via sequential postings in response to a published article), I was able to discuss the subject of global warming with a knowledgeable fellow truth-seeker; albeit with a different perspective.

    And thus I found what I believe a fatal flaw in the global warming discussion. Simply put, many of the proponents and opponents of anthropogenic global warming were both well-read and able to sustain a conversation about the subject, citing the work of their favorite scientists or authors; some cherry-picking the citations, but still being able to argue their position in the absence of specific references. Many held opinions based on their wide reading and the extension of logic to the subject matter.

    No, that’s not the flaw. Those are good things. The flaw is that these passionate people are better informed and think more clearly about the subject than the majority of our Congressional representatives – many of which are so busy fundraising, finding deals for their special interest friends and engaging in non-stop campaigning – that they simply accept the idea of carbon cap-and-trade policies without any further thought; other than, of course, how can I spin the matter to my personal, professional and political advantage.

    A better answer …

    Which leads me to suggest that the present is discussion about implementing social policy based on somewhat settled science may be better discussed and understood by a knowledgeable panel of ordinary citizens rather than a blue-ribbon commission of highly-credentialed scientists and political thought-leaders like former Vice President Gore. 

    Massaging the data …

    The first thing I learned in school about the business of science was that the ability to review the existing literature and draw conclusions from previous work was often a cost-effective method of being published without resorting to much more than summarizing the prevailing conclusions of the day and adding a catchy academic title. Of course, introducing a little controversy into the process did not hurt. This was the theorist’s intellectual equivalent of the physical scientist who bases his conclusions on an existing experiment and achieving results by moving the dial from 2.3 to 3.5.

    The second thing I learned about the business of science was that there were always hot topics and areas of discovery which attracted the majority of attention and funding. Fighting for funding to research some arcane point involving pure science with little or no practical application was extremely difficult. Other than the government, there were few avenues of funding for those without already blossoming career.

    And the third thing I learned about the business of science was that it was always painful to challenge the prevailing wisdom or a scientist with better credentials, recognition and reputation. Even though one knows that science is not governed by consensus, to stick one’s neck out was to metaphorically put one’s head into a noose. And as with all science, sometimes, often rarely, you were right – and mostly you were mislead by your native enthusiasm of your own ideas.

    Where is global warming’s Kary Mullis? 

    Unless you had a mentor like Richard Feynman or Kary Mullis who would rigorously challenge your ideas, but allow you to make mistakes which were intuitively obvious to someone with a different perspective, science was mostly a go-along-to-get-along affair. Scientists who retained their critical thinking skills while maintaining a sense of humanity and sense of humor are uncommonly rare.

    We all have in our minds, consciously or unconsciously, some result that we want to achieve. The result will often be based on human emotions and needs – the career recognition that comes with first discovery, the accretion of solid scientific credentials, peer approval, continued employment, funding for one’s projects or merely the opportunity to expose the truth. 

    What the world needs now is a Kary Mullis who knows how politics and commerce can adversely affect science and would serve as an honest arbiter of the ongoing debate over global warming. 

    “Mullis has said that the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas has hurt science. He believes that ‘Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out,’ not for what they actually produce.”

    Unfortunately, the needs and wants of scientists are widely divergent from those of corrupt or complacent politicians who want to use the mystique and apparent unassailability of “science” and the highly-credentialed “scientist” to sell their particular point of view or project.

    Where is global climate change’s Dick Feynman …

    What the world needs now is a Dick Feynman who is able to look at the subject of global warming and make trustworthy recommendations. Not a committee and certainly not a consensus.

    One need only to consider the opening remarks of Feynman’s Appendix to the Rogers Commission Report on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident. Many on the committee though Feynman a rebel and loose cannon (at least politically) and his Appendix was only added after he threatened to remove his name from the report’s final publication.

    It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask ‘What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?’"

    Again, I ask where is global climate change’s Dick Feynman?

    Biased by self-interest, politics and profits …

    I do not trust politicians like Al Gore, scientist/activists like James Hansen or organizations such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Their self-interest agendas are readily apparent and do not instill the type of confidence that would be required for me to promote a public policy which will demonstrably enlarge government, increase taxation and curtail some of our freedoms – with deleterious effects on America’s economy, military and social infrastructure.

    Each succeeding Administration and Congress has been increasingly corrupt and more interested in maintaining political power than being representatives of “We the People” and being a honest broker when it comes to public policy. One need only look at the government’s complicity for the current financial crisis and the mismanagement of a so-called recovery attempt to know these people are not to be trusted with our freedom or our money.

    Trusting people like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and others to tell the honest truth about global warming and public policy, if they have even taken the time to study the issue, is ridiculous.

    If you desire to engage in the debate on global warming, you need to go far beyond the talking points and prevailing wisdom. Do your own research reading and form your own conclusions. Be skeptical of all claims which may deprive you of your freedom and hard-earn money.

    Remember the old adage:

    “Just because they know something you don’t know, don’t automatically assume that you are wrong and they are right.”

    And question:

    Do you need this arcane piece of minutia to form an opinion? If you need to know it, learn it; if not, eliminate it as an unwelcome distraction to keep you from seeing the bigger picture.

    But, in the final analysis, the best policy is always:  to be well, be safe and take care of yourself and your family first.

    Madder then hell …

    Why is this democrat smiling?

    Capture5-23-2009-8.09.53 PM

    Perhaps as a moment of levity or in response to the Republican demand that those voting on the Global Climate Change Bill read it first,  Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has hired a speed reader – making a mockery of the committee’s consideration of this far-reaching piece of legislation that will affect the size of government, the amount of taxes you pay and will reduce your personal freedoms. This is no laughing matter.

    See for yourself …

    Want to read it yourself, here is the link to H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.  The  932-page bill is available here. Along with the unintended consequences of this bill, it also contains the seeds of the fiscal destruction of the United States and a move towards European-style socialism.

    All based on speculative science which is not well-understood by the scientific community and which definitely is not understood by those legislators who have not and will not take the time to read this bill.

    Beyond questions of science, this is a shocking abuse of Congressional power and those who engage in legislative shorthand for their pure political and financial self-interest should be thrown out of office for malfeasance.

    It appears that this bill is an extension of government power far beyond that granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States and should be vigorously researched and debated before being rammed through Congress and signed by a willing and complicit President.

    -- steve


    OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

    Reference Links:

    Dick Feynman|Wikipedia

    Kary Mullis|Wikipedia

    Thanks to “Ford Driver,” "netdr" and "CommonSenseCEOs" for the inspiration to write this blog entry.

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

    OBAMA: It's 3 A.M. and the phone rings in the White House -- North Korea has just exploded a nuclear weapon after testing a long-range missile!

    Earliest Report: The South Korean government is reporting that they have detected an Earthquake consistent with an underground nuclear test in North Korea. Is this a natural Earthquake? A fake-out with massive amounts of conventional explosives?


    "North Korea staged a 'successful' underground nuclear test on Monday, the communist state's official media said. South Korea's presidential office said has earlier said that North Korea had appeared to have conducted a nuclear weapons test."

    "The [South Korean] government received a report on the nuclear test having been conducted, presidential spokesman Lee Dong-Kwan told a briefing. He said President Lee Myung-Bak called an emergency National Security Council meeting for Monday afternoon." <Source: AFP>

    Are the North Koreans only doing what they promised?

    "North Korea raised the stakes yesterday in the dispute over its nuclear weapons' programs, threatening to conduct a second test unless the United Nations apologizes for condemning its rocket launch. If no apology was forthcoming, it would take what it called additional defensive measures."

    " 'The measures will include nuclear tests and test-firings of intercontinental ballistic missiles,' the foreign ministry said." <Source: April 30, 2009: AFP>

    Nuclear Blackmail? Questions abound!

    • Is this the major test of the Obama Administration predicted by Joseph Biden?  

    • Will President Barack Obama respond directly to North Korea?  

    • Contact the Chinese Government for assistance? 

    • Will Obama fall back on his "need to talk to our enemies" gambit? 

    • Is this test especially troublesome considering the North Korea's test of an intercontinental ballistic missile in April? 

    • Is there a linkage between the missile test conducted by Iran -- coincidently said to be carrying the same configuration of warhead as the Korean missile -- and this test? We know that the North Koreans will do anything to attain hard currency, might they simply sell a complete weapon to Iran. And, heaven forbid, this was a seller's demonstration of the hardware. 

    It’s in Obama’s court!

    • Considering that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in China and Hillary Clinton is roaming, who is likely to be making policy?

    • Is this a method to sell the legitimacy of the Kim Jong Il regime to the starving people and prepare them for the possible succession to a leader who is known to have serious health problems?

    • Is this aimed at the South Korean President, Lee Myung-bak,  who is thought to be a hard-liner when it comes to the  pattern of appeasment that was shown toward North Korea by the former President, Roh Moo-Hyun, who recently comitted suicide.

    Capture5-24-2009-9.38.15 PM

    “Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

    “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

    “Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

    “The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

    “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

    “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS