Simple Man Politics

The news politics today is President Obama and his town hall meeting yesterday and the political spin from both parties regarding the New Hampshire event. Normally I would be writing about that as well myself today, but I find myself a little more concerned with something that Nancy Pelosi mentioned. I am sure you are all aware that I am no fan of the house speaker, or the President, or their policies, but this is more important to me.

I am going to talk a little bit about hate and extremism today. The part of this post I am giving Pelosi credit for bringing up is only with regard to the symbol called a swastika, because Pelosi is right that the swastika is a symbol of hate. Other than that Nancy Pelosi is as usual a dumbass about her description of American citizens who oppose the Democrats healthcare reform bill.

I am a real big fan of the great melting pot of ethnic and cultural diversity in the United States, although I believe in the ideas put forth and expressed by the founding fathers in both the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe in the traditional, conservative, Christian values that our nation was founded on and that they should not be compromised. I also thoroughly despise extremist hatred in any way be it racial, religious, or political.

I have been a racist and a hater when I was growing up, which is something I am not proud of and over the last twenty five years or so I have done much in the way of educating myself and putting those things about myself behind me and learning tolerance and love for my fellow man. As a result of educating myself personally and learning to see every American as an equal I have a real problem with hate especially when it is in the form if sheer ignorance.

That is why I cannot tolerate people who think and believe that symbols such as the swastika are legitimate forms of representation in a democratic society. I would hope that anyone who is caught defacing someone else’s property or public property would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for committing a hate crime no matter what their reason is for applying this most hateful of symbols. I am not trying to censor free speech with this post, but I am trying to keep a uniquely un-American symbol out of the US.



I came across the picture in this blog while researching something else entirely different from this topic. Some ignorant, uneducated, extremist spray painted the swastika in the picture on a sign belonging to Congressman David Scott (D-GA) in Smyrna GA. While I believe he deserves to be confronted about his support for the healthcare reform bill and that he also deserves to be involved in a serious debate and discussion with is constituents I do not believe that he deserves to be a target of such hateful discrimination.

I would also say to all of you that you should in no way, shape, or form support any group or person who believes in what this symbol stands for. I am quite sure that none of my friends do support this symbol and its bearers, and that they would react quite violently against anybody who would attempt to display it in their presence. I also know that I personally would not stand idly by and allow someone to display it in my presence.

I hope you all have a wonderful day today, and I will be back again very soon my friends, CIAO4NOW!!!!!

As you all know Simple Man Politics was supposed to be on a hiatus of sorts for two or three weeks in order to get some other business taken care of, but I just couldn’t resist writing about today’s topic. Today’s topic is about Ginsberg, the Supreme Court, and Obamas bankruptcy plan for Chrysler including its purchase by Fiat.

It appears that liberal SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not on board with the Obama administrations game plan to reward the UAW (United Auto Workers Union) with 60% of Chrysler, while giving the American tax payer about 30% of Chrysler, and the secure lenders less than 20% of Chrysler.

The result of this bankruptcy deal would have given virtually all of the UAW its losses back. The American tax payers would have gotten about 60 to 70% of their money back, and the lenders would have gotten about 15% of their investment capitol back. This plan of Obamas is surely a payoff to the union and a grand screwing for the investors and the American tax payers who should be paid off above and before the union.

Apparently the three judge panel for the federal district that Ginsberg represents kicked it up to her for review refusing to make a decision on the bankruptcy deal forcing Ginsberg to take the lead in deciding the outcome of this sham of a bankruptcy At that point Ginsberg got the whole Supreme Court involved in the issue, which further threw a monkey wrench into the Obama bankruptcy deal.

It looks like the constitutionality of this bankruptcy mess is now going to be decided by the SCOTUS and hopefully the constitution will be upheld. This is obviously not very good for the Obama administration or the UAW who stand to financially gain an enormous amount of money for their support for Barack Obama in the 08 Presidential election. According to lawyers who practice constitutional law this bankruptcy is in fact unconstitutional and here is why.

In a normal bankruptcy case Chrysler would have been allowed to continue its operations while going through its restructuring process. Auto dealers would have been allowed to remain in business serving their communities in both sales and services, the secured lenders and bondholders would have been first in line to re-coupe their losses, and Last but not least all labor contracts with the UAW would have been null and void.

Unfortunately Obama in his infinite wisdom thought he should circumvent the constitution and do things the way he wanted to. As a result of his actions to force the Chrysler bankruptcy and Chrysler/Fiat deal through it found its way to a federal appeals court and then to the SCOTUS. Apparently 150+ years of bankruptcy law precedent and the US constitution still hold water even in light of the Obama administrations obvious contempt for them.

The decision that the SCOTUS makes on the Chrysler plan may ultimately affect the Bankruptcy deal that is currently in place for General Motors as well. The resulting decision may do great damage to the UAW, which personally doesn’t offend me one little bit. The decision could also result in both the tax payers and the lenders getting the bulk of their investments back, which I consider to be fair. The SCOTUS may also put an end to the Obama administrations plans on wealth distribution on a large scale, which I ma also in favor of.

Well that’s it for today folks and I am glad I was able to talk to all of you once again. I will be back again soon I hope so have a terrific day CIAO4NOW!!!!!

Hmmmm lets see what makes a good United States Supreme Court Justice? I’m sure there are lots of qualities that we can think of that would go into making an excellent Supreme Court Justice pick. We see a lot of these extraordinary qualities in many federal and state judges all around the country although Supreme Court Justices are generally chosen from the ranks of federal judges or those who have practiced before the Supreme Court.

I think the foremost quality I would look for in a Supreme Court Justice is someone with a razor sharp knowledge of the US Constitution; yep that’s a good start. Another excellent quality would be someone who is a constitutionalist who would strictly interpret the constitution and the laws that are governed by this invaluable document. I also think another excellent quality in a justice would be the ability to be an impartial observer as well as a fair justice who uses the US Constitution as his or hers only guideline for passing judgment.

Unfortunately these qualities are not always evident in justices to those who have an opinion that runs counter to that of a particular jurist. A large part of this problem exists on a purely ideological level considering some of the topics that the SCOTUS has to rule on with ever increasing frequency. Topics like Roe v Wade and the 2nd Amendment just to name a couple of those hot button issues off the top of my head.

Then of course there is the problem that is associated with political party partisanship. This problem inevitably occurs every time there is a Supreme Court Nomination to be made. If the President making the nomination is a Republican he attempts to seat a conservative justice and if he is a Democrat he attempts to seat a liberal justice. The reason for this of course is that he wants the justice he picks to have opinions similar to his own.

Of course with a Supreme Court Justice seat being a lifetime appointment these justices will influence the SCOTUS and its opinions for decades potentially. That is at the heart of what makes these nominations so vehemently contested especially by those whose party does not represent the sitting President. Of course the President and his party try to push their nominees through every bit as hard as those fighting against the nominee.

Some of the biggest battles in seating these nominees are trying to find one who does not believe that the SCOTUS should legislate from the bench because they are the Judicial Branch and not the Legislative Branch of our government. Another big battle and the one that is currently brewing in the nomination process is the battle against racism on the bench.

At this time in our history our current President has had a chance to nominate a replacement for sitting Justice David Souter with another whose judicial views are similar to or maybe even more liberal than Souter’s and this nominees name is Sonia Sotomayor a Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and the first Hispanic female to ever be nominated although not the first Hispanic nominated.

The current battle against her nomination stems from her statement supporting policy making from the SCOTUS by saying that policy is made all of the time on the appeals level. Another battle being waged against her nomination is because of an apparent racist statement that she made in which she said that a Latina female justice would make better judicial decisions than a white male justice because they would be unable to relate to the regular people who are the ones that the SCOTUS is supposed to protect. As always the battle against judicial activism will be fought on this nomination.

Now I will be honest with you and tell you that I would not support her for the simple reason that I fervently disagree with her notion that government policy is made on any federal judicial bench whether it be in federal circuit court, federal appeals court, or the SCOTUS. No justices are sworn in as legislators they are sworn in as judges or justices. As for the Latina female versus white male statement it may be racism in reverse and is certainly ignorant at the least.

As always I will tell you that it is up to you to do your own research and decide what you believe about this nominee. And as always all I can do is tell you the facts as I know them and my very educated opinion on the topics I write about. I hope all of you do take the time to read the things I write and decide if you like the direction our country is moving in and if it is where you want to go.

I hope you all have a fantastic day and I will see you all again tomorrow CIAO4NOW!!!!!

Yesterday saw an extraordinary political event occur on the national stage and brought to all of us by our favorite news outlets. This extraordinary event that I am talking about is the back to back speeches made by President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney both of which were on national defense and the war on terror. Both of these speeches were in stark contrast to each other as well and immediately sparked sharp debate from both sides of the argument.

I found both of these speeches to be very well thought out and written by and for their respective speech makers. What I mean to say is that if you support the Obama position on the war on terror, closing Gitmo, and national security then his speech was just what you wanted to hear, and if you support the Cheney position then likewise he said just what you wanted to hear. As I said both sides of this argument will be talking about the speeches for a couple of days at least.

I applaud Obama for his choice of venues for delivering his speech, which was the National Archives where the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are enshrined, which are the three documents that he said in his speech he would defend. However I found the consensus that Obama was giving this speech from a position of weakness. On the other side Cheney chose to give his speech from the American Enterprise Institute and seemed anything other than weak from his position.

He also restated his intention to close down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility stating that it was not only illegal but a sore point with our enemies and a recruitment tool for them also. He likewise stated his position on the Enhanced Interrogation Program and its termination saying that it was illegal, inhumane, and immoral. He also said that it was a recruitment tool for terrorists also. He further stated that bringing the Gitmo detainees to the US and trying them here with all of the rights of a criminal defendant was the right thing to do under the law.

On the other side of this argument Cheney said that the construction of Guantanamo was designed to house just these sorts of animals that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001 and was legally developed. He also staunchly defended the Enhanced Interrogation Program stating that it was not only extremely effective, but constitutionally legal as well. Cheney went on to say that Gitmo was there so that we wouldn’t have to bring these vermin onto US soil and implied that the detainees were not eligible for the rights our legal system affords its citizens.

Now I will give you my own thoughts on this subject. I agree with Obama that he has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and likewise the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and he should defend them. These documents are the very foundation, heart, and soul of our nation and its democracy, but there is little if anything else that he said yesterday, which I do agree with.

On the other hand I do agree with Cheney that 9/11 changed forever the way I look at our enemies and in particular those in the Middle East that support, harbor, fund, equip, train, or otherwise take part in terrorist activities against our country. I do not believe that they are eligible for Geneva Convention Protections because they are not a recognized national military. I will also tell you that I think we should leave them in Gitmo or put them in some more inhospitable environment where they could not survive without our assistance such as a place like ANWAR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or maybe Alcatraz Island, which is a federal military reserve.

As enemy combatants I also do not believe that they are eligible for habeas corpus rights or any rights afforded a simple criminal in our federal criminal court system including legal defense. I say a military tribunal is just what is needed for them. With regard to our Enhanced Interrogation Program and its apparent success in gaining intelligence from high value detainees I believe that it was not only a successful program, but legal as well and as far as water boarding in particular it was only used on three of those terrorists and with great effect. By the way their recruitment tools are nothing more than their hate of freedom and democracy.

I personally don’t care what we do to the detainees or what happens to them for that matter as long as it is extremely unpleasant. I don’t believe that animals and these animals in particular are deserving of the rights and protections of law abiding citizens of the world or of the United States in particular.

I would just as soon shoot them like rabid dogs myself personally and if I cannot then send them back to their countries of origin, but apparently we can’t do that because it would be a death sentence for most of them at least, but I don’t care if they are killed by us or their own kind. All I care about is that they never again have the ability to raise their hands against another citizen of the United States or any other democratic country.

Well that is my Friday rant for all of you to read and I hope it leaves no doubt where I stand on the issue of this nation’s defense and its enemies. I hope you all have an awesome weekend and I will be back again on Monday CIAO4NOW!!!!!

I hope you all had a wonderful weekend and welcome back to another installment of Simple Man Politics. Today’s topic is going to very interesting to you all especially if you happen to be parents. The topic for today is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a threat to parental rights.

This UN convention is an attempt by the International community to gain some legal control of the US by having our country sign on and give control of our parental and children’s rights to UN, and circumventing the US legal system. Unfortunately this is not the UN’s first attempt to accomplish some sort of control over the US it is just the latest attempt. I am also sure it will not be the last either.

I first heard about this on a popular news program. The person speaking on the topic was the founder of parentalrights.org Michael Farris. He spoke at length about this UN convention and it’s potentially sinister agenda, and said that we need a Parental Rights Amendment using a Supreme Court decision in 1925 as the basis for his argument.

After I had read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Supreme Court decision on Piece v. Society of Sisters I can only conclude that he is absolutely correct. There are two list you need to see, one is a list of 20 things you need to know about the structure of the CRC and the other is a list of 10 things you need to know about the substance of the CRC. Here are the lists in the order I mentioned them in straight from the website parentalrights.org.

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.
1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
8. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
10. Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC.
1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
5. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.
9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

As a parent I am going to tell you that the last thing I want or need is some International politician or political body trying to tell me the best way to raise my children. If you look at most nations track records for maintaining law, order, and discipline with their younger generations or citizens they are not very successful, and I know I can do a much better job than 99.998% of anyone else on the planet because Poppi knows all and they are my kids.

The other problem that I have with this unveiled attempt by the UN to usurp our own authority on our own soil is that our nation’s laws are founded within our own US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am of the belief that our laws need to be written by our own lawmakers and our Constitution strictly interpreted by the US Supreme Court, which fortunately for us has at least four Constitutionalist justices maybe even five. Unfortunately we may have a President who will sign this damned treaty.

There is definitely no good reason why we should be governed by an International body, which if I may remind them and you that without us most of them would either be speaking German or Japanese. As a result I don’t think that they are on an equal footing with us, but that may be the reason they are so hot to try to get this done, because they are not on an equal footing with us and as second class societies they never will be.

That is all I have for you today, but I am sure it is quite enough for now. I will be back again tomorrow my friends, CIAO4NOW!!!!!