Rebuking a President

Why did they wait so long, you ask? Because they were afraid of President Bush  and they see Obama as a wimp.

 When Bush used signing statements to ignore laws, the Republican members of Congress defended the president’s right to do so. But now that President Barack Obama is following the same strategy, Republicans have awakened to the view that signing statements are a violation of the separation of powers between the branches of government. Since he became president, Obama has issued seven signing statements. However it was one statement, signed on June 24, relating to an amendment to a State Department funding bill, that riled the members of both parties in the House of Representatives. Obama said that requirements intended to pressure the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to strengthen labor and environmental standards and to require the Treasury Department to report on World Bank and IMF activities, would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.”-AllGov

Regardless, I am pleased to see that Congress has found some fortitude in dealing with this  nonsense. No President should be able to pick and choose which laws or which parts of a law to obey. This is the path to dictatorial power.

  In response, the House this week passed a follow-up amendment by a margin of 429-2 warning Obama that if he ignored the restrictions, he risked seeing Congress cut off funds. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) said, “We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of this democracy. There’s kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements.”

Spine and backbone are needed to prevent the Executive Branch from usurping powers it is not permitted to have. Good job, Congress!

On the other hand, the manner in which laws are created with all of these little ‘add-ons’ to bills, the President needs a method to challenge the constitutionality of laws and parts of laws  brought before him. Here is where the Supreme Court or the Federal Courts could act on ruling whether laws are, or are not,  constitutional. It is time to bring the Supreme Court into the fray.

I have in mind the idea that the President could challenge portions of a bill. These portions are then reviewed by the Supreme Court for constitutionality. Upon that ruling, the President can sign, veto, or ignore the legislation as it stands but there are no signing statements to trim the edges off of the bills. It  is all or nothing as intended by the founding fathers. 

Personally, I would like to see the President veto every  bill for a few months. All kinds. I think the President should say ‘NO’ more often.

Truth, Acceptance, and Belief

What if you had to re-invent the scientific wheel every generation? Life would get  very complicated , wouldn’t it?

We are fast approaching a time when human beings cannot possibly learn or keep up with scientific explanations of the universe because their lives are full of other things. Like Facebook and Twitter.

Which brings me to this question: Are scientific pronouncements becoming a  question of Faith in Science?

Are ordinary and  common people looking at scientific explanations in the same fashion as religious and mystical explanations?  Has it come to a point where people choose to believe science like people choose to believe in God, crystals, and voodoo?

Why should people believe in scientific explanations if they do not understand science? Is science becoming too mystical and  magical in asking people to believe it because ’scientists say so’?

If every generation must learn that hard science is truth and that truth is more beneficial to people than mysticism, will we reach a point when  a generation will look at the wonders of science with the same awe that others reserve for God?

Is God perhaps ’ As Yet Unexplained Science’? Or will Science become ’God With An Explanation Instead of Faith’ ?

At the moment do you view Creationism and Global Warming with the same amount of  information in your head about each?  Why do you accept one and not the other? Let me know.  

Take a look at this: (H/T to Obsidian Wings)

Which is the greater surprise: that too few in the public believe in evolution or that too many scientists do not?

And what about global warming?

What do you do to figure out the truth of things so that you can  accept what you are told by others?

A thought on the Honduran Coup

If you have not heard that the President of the Honduras was spirited out of the country last week , you are not paying attention.

Here’s my thoughts:

Background:

The President of the Honduras ( Zelaya) was getting all chummy with Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). Honduran Prez  tried to make an end run around the Honduran Constititution and obtain a referedum to remove the Presidential term limits. He had a poll commissioned to ask citizens their thoughts but the Honduran Supreme Court  said that only the Honduran Legislature can do this and has the ballots impounded (locked up). The Prez then goes to the top general and asks for his help. He says no. The Prez fires him. Later the heads of the army, the Navy and the AirForce all resign rather than do what the Prez wants. The Supreme Court says no way there are grounds for dismissal and the generals must be re-instated. The Prez says no and then assembles his own tea party to liberate the ballots for himself. He breaks into the building and steals the ballot boxes.The  attorney general for the country issues an arrest warrant for the Prez. The military grabs him and takes him to  Costa Rica. It  takes awhile but the US says it supports the rule of law and democracy. Not exactly overwhelming support for Zelaya’s return. Later the US says it denounces the coup and wants Zelaya returned to power.

I think the US supported the coup for two reasons: 1. Zelaya is a supporter of Chavez and 2. Zelaya was taken to Costa Rica rather than arrested and impeached for violating the Constitution and ignoring the Supreme Court. I think the State Department was negotiating for a different result all week long  but the generals in the Honduras said B.S. and  took matters into their own hands. They dropped him off in Costa Rica and said, “Fine, he is now your problem, Mr. CIA.”

The US was caught flat-footed by this move. They needed to mark some time while they crafted a way to handle this.  Meanwhile, Zelaya goes to the UN , makes his plea and then goes to the OAS for help. They are all leftists and admire Hugo Chavez so they denounce the coup and want Zelaya re-instated.  The US does not want to be seen as supporting military coups in the Americas OR seen as being on the same side as Chavez and socialists.

The US decides to deny Zelaya a return to Costa Rica because they don’t want to give any impression they support him.  So Zelaya goes to Panama where he is at the moment. Zelaya announces a return to Honduras for today ( Thursday) but then says sometime next Saturday is better.

The US makes milquetoast comments about Zelaya returning but let’s face it, he is not going back except to be arrested. He rejected the Supreme Court, he defied the Legislature and the Constitution, and the Attorney General issued a warrant for his arrest. He cannot go back as is.

This leaves the US to work out the solution among the OAS member nations. All of them are true leftists and they will exact a price from  the US for their help. Meanwhile, the Honduras continues to function under a rule  of law, legislature, and the military.  

The ball is in Hillary’s court to work this out. Will Bill’s influence in South America be utilized to mediate a solution? Let us see if he goes anywhere down there for any reason, eh?

Which leaves us with the new Honduran government dealing with leftist Zelaya supporters… on the nightly news.

Hillary’s team did not move quickly enough on this. They underestimated the patience of the Honduran military and their boldness. It is not likely that Hillary will let this besmirchment by Honduras  go unpunished. Stay tuned…

H8 Wing Radio

Oh, I just spent the day driving  about 600 miles to meet with a client in my new truck with XM radio.

I will never listen to America Right or America Left Wing Radio again. Amd you can add Fox News Talk to that list, too.

I have never heard so much vitriol-spewing vomit in my life …from both sides. Do you really  want to know what is wrong with America? Just think about the screaming , breathless, expectorating @$$…. on the radio. There is no debate, no promulgation of ideas , just smear, sneer, and fleer.

Limbaugh is not on the three channels above but I listened to him today and had the same reaction. Vile. Repugnant.

These are propagandists. Every last one of them.

If you take any of them seriously then you are gullible and you should take measures to protect yourself from being manipulated.

I am upset, Mr. President

President Obama,

I object. I object to your use of signing statements like President Bush.

You , sir, like your predecessor, do not have the authority to disregard the laws passed by Congress. The President is subject to the Constitution of the United States of America and you may select among three choices when confronted with legislation: 1) You may sign it into law, 2)  you may veto the legislation with objections and give Congress the ability to correct its errors, or 3) you may do nothing in which case a  “pocket veto” is recorded.  You condemned the use of signing statements by your predecessor and you are now excercising the very same unconstitutional power.

You are a constitutional lawyer and yet you exercise power that is  not granted to you. I can only assume that you have no integrity because you are now doing what you once condemned, and that you have no backbone to actually reject a  law that blatantly infringes upon the powers granted to the Executive Branch, and that  you do not have the moral courage to ask the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional problem between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. 

You  have failed to uphold your oath to preserve, protect, and defend  the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am a reasonable citizen and I ask now what you intend to do to correct your failure. The oath to the Constitution of the United States demands that you prevent future Presidents from breaching the Constitution in this same manner.    

At this time, Mr. President, I am issuing you a Citizen’s  Nonconformance Report for failing to uphold your Oath of Office. My expectation  is that you will develop a Corrective and Preventive  Action plan, establish an estimated completion date, and return it to me for approval.  The CAPA plan is not accepted without my approval. I cite my authority under the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.  Furthermore, if  the Citizen’s Nonconformance Report is contested or ignored, ReasonableCitizen may invoke his First Amendment rights to petition and to seek redress before the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with its Constititutional authority under Section III of the US Constitution.  Because no lower court may decide a case involving the failure of the President to uphold his oath and because the US Congress does not have the authority to compel the Executive Branch to fulfill a citizen’s requirement for correction in the instance of a  breach of a constitutional oath,  I claim that only the Supreme Court can hold jurisdiction in this matter.

Mr. President, you will find the Citizen’s NonConformance Report below the fold.

You have thirty days to reply to this  nonconformance.

(signed) ReasonableCitizen

Bachman Overdrives it one more time

(oxymoron phrase alert) Michele Bachmann is interviewed by Glenn Beck. For some reason that is an incredibly funny, twisted phrasing of having her on his show.

Michele is beating the 2010 Census horse and states again that the census was used in the past to intern the Japanese. She also says that the census does not ask if the person is a citizen or not. That is not true.

Clicking here will take you to the 2010 Census questions.  Section 3:18 Question 8 ( Page 27 of 76) asks that question. 

We all hope that Minnesota does better in the next election. 

Anyway, here is her crazy interview. Even Glenn Beck wants to bring this to an end.

A Good Decision Today

I wrote previously that it was a bad decision to invite members of the Iranian government to the  4th of July celebration in the US.

As recently as yesterday, a colleague and I were talking about Iran and I stated my opposition to their invitation. I said that Obama should disinvite them for their actions toward the demonstrators.

Today President Obama did exactly that. Huzzah!

“Given the events of the past many days, those invitations will no longer be extended,” Mr. Gibbs said.

For those who do not know, the US has been in a cold war with Iran for over thirty years. The government leads  chants in the streets every Friday night for the destruction of  the US and of Israel. This is a totalitarian regime that uses religion and hate to focus the energies of the country on retribution,  revenge, and domination.

I am not speaking of the Persian people but the government of Iran.

Kudos to Obama for demonstrating some forcefulness towards our enemies.  Although I would like to have Iran as a friend,  it is never  time to treat them that way until they become one.

This is a bad idea: FBI and CIA

 Obama’s proposal of combo teams of CIA and FBI cannot possibly be real.

The task force charged with fleshing out President Obama’s ban on torture in interrogations is likely to recommend the creation of small, mixed-agency teams for interviewing the most important terrorist targets. Representing an implicit demotion of the CIA, which currently has responsibility for interrogating high-level terrorists, the teams would report jointly to the attorney general and the director of national intelligence, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The teams are the brainchild of three members of the Intelligence Science Board, a panel that reports to the director of national intelligence: forensic psychologist Robert Fein, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann and former CIA official John MacGaffin. About five years ago, the three security experts began researching the available social science literature concerning interrogations in a variety of nations, including the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Japan, in order to inform a humane and effective interrogation regimen.

As I said before teaching the police to torture is not a good idea. And if I did not say it before , then let me say it now.

Look,  torture should not be a systematized, trained, and studied process by any government for any reason. A country may need to use torture in some backroom in Morocco, however,  that should remain a clandestine, whispered event and not the foundation for  joint work teams of police and intelligence. This is  the stuff of secret police networks and totalitarianism.

I hope this goes nowhere.

Who will choose and pay for your Healthcare?

Universal, single-payer health care — the idea that the government will cover everyone’s medical bills using taxpayer dollars — was dismissed by leading Democrats long before any details of their reform plans have been finalized. In the Senate Finance Committee, for example, a series of health reform discussions this year included input from academics, retirees, health insurers and other industry representatives, but no single-payer advocates were invited. Last month, the White House’s top health official told lawmakers that President Obama rejects the model altogether.-Minnesota Independent

Hmmmm. What will those nattering nabobs of negativitity say now about Obama? (I guess they will make things up)

I do not support forcing people to purchase insurance and I do not support a single payer system and I am also in favor of healthcare for all citizens. This cannot occur unless we think differently about healthcare.

I favor having the government burdened for diagnoses and insurance plans burdened for  treatment. It seems to me that we are all better off if any citizen can find out what ails him/her at no cost. Then the citizen can choose what to do with that knowledge. In my mind this would promote a wider variety of insurance plans that could be targeted to health treatments  that may be available. It also furthers the idea that people with risk behaviors would pay more. 

I know this is a radical idea to separate diagnois from treatment yet I think this is a rational approach.  Once a diagnosis is made herbalists can choose herbs,  medical frontierists can choose new approaches, and minimalists can tough it out. Expanding the freedom to choose is what we ought to be about.

I am also in favor of government-run wellness clinics. Establishing facilities across the country that can address good health, and maintaining it, looks to me like a no-brainer. As I said in my letter to Wisconsin senators: “ I support federal government managed wellness clinics across America focused on diet, exercise, hygiene, habit control, and disease prevention.”

With wellness clinics focused on keeping you well, government-paid diagnoses, and insurance pools for treatment, it appears that we citizens have options to deal with whatever aches and pains and maladies we may have.

Isn’t America about the freedom to choose for ourselves?

And as for payment, it appears to me that this is a  great opportunity to establish Healthcare Savings Accounts to pay for the wellness clinics and the treatment insurance plans. Employers may, but are not required, to deposit monies into employee established HSAs that are portable and the employee can take it with him/her when they change jobs.  Employees can choose if they wish to deposit additional monies.  Control over healthcare dollars to maintain health is in the hands of the consumer where it belongs.

I also favor government-paid nursing home/assisted living programs.  Seems to me this is a reasonable approach and I would place this under the state’s control rather than federal.  A cost sharing approaching between the residents and state health authorities makes sense. Here I think that a health care condominium approach is a good option in which families, groups/ or individuals can purchase a health care condominium for long term care and have healthcare services  as an annual commons element.

I think that we need more options and more control in  healthcare not less. 

The Kennedy-Dodd Plan: If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got.

A thought on the crappy healthcare plan

The Kennedy Healthcare Plan is just crap.  Why?

1. You are required to buy a health insurance plan. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

2. Employers will be required to offer insurance to their employees. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

3.  If you don’t have a plan,  you have to pay a tax. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

4. Group Health Plans with less than  250 members would be prohibited. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread on Me.

5. Federal Government mandates State gateways to offer healthcare plans. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

6. Mandated Federal electronic health care records to dossier your medical conditions.  Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread on Me.

Here is what I want in healthcare reform :

1. I want the option to choose an employer plan that remains with the company, a federal  government plan that I can take with me wherever I go and whatever what I do, and the freedom to purchase insurance ala carte from any  insurance provider nationwide.

2.  I want  government-paid diagnosis and insurance-paid treatment plans.

3. I want government -paid wellness clinics for a healthier lifestyle.

4. I want a rider that covers international health expenses for three months of time  within a period of five years.

5. I want to choose my doctor, my hospital, and my treatment options.

6. I want my medical privacy protected.

7.  I want risky behavior premiums.

8.  I want to opt out of any private or company insurance program and yet  have catastrophic insurance provided by the federal government. 

9. I want my federal taxes reduced two times  the amount of  the annual federal  insurance program cost to me  and allow me to pay for my own insurance as I see fit.

10. I want federal insurance only for citizens of the United States while  the States may have sovereignty over insurance for aliens as they see fit.

It is not healthcare reform to change the name on your insurance forms. 

Give me freedom or leave me alone.

ReasonableCitizen