Gun Regulation Splits Party Lines and the Court

When the first settlers arrived on American soil they faced a land rich with bounty and rife with unknown dangers. In order to forge ahead to pioneer this lush land, they found their trusty “weapons” were, at times, their most valued possessions. As time has evolved in America, the citizens have found that living in civilized communities, which honor the rule of law, has over-ridden the need to hang a rifle at the door for protection. However, many still enjoy the occasion to shoot for sport and for food.

In society today, we tend to recognize the gun-lovers and the gun-haters by political party reference: Republicans and Democrats, respectively. It is rare, but not impossible, to find a “gun-toting Liberal” in America today. An article published on the blog Our Free* Country, written by Samara Mendez, a self-professed “vegetarian hippie socialist who would like to own guns,” poses two very important questions. The first: “Why do so many liberals hate guns?” And, second: “Why are liberal gun owners so dismally represented in today’s politics?”

She points out that although she is a part of a “growing minority” as a Liberal who appreciates the right to own her own guns there are good reasons to regulate gun ownership, not ban it completely as most Liberals prefer. She values the collective voice of the Liberal Democrats on social and economic issues, but she feels that “taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens” is the wrong message to advocate. If she chooses to take a stand for the Second Amendment and uphold her right to bear arms, Ms. Mendez feels she must sacrifice her political allegiance in part to the Democratic ticket; therefore she stops short of taking action to become a leading force in this cause for regulation over banning.

Although I lean more to the Conservative political view, I am not a gun owner. I have long held the belief that we should take the guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals. I believe citizens should have the right to own weapons for protection and for sporting, so I uphold the view of Ms. Mendez that gun regulation is necessary.

In March 2008, Gallup published a poll which shows “73% of Americans believe the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns.” In the Supreme Court ruling in June 2008, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the 2nd Amendment does give Americans the right to possess firearms as an “individual right.” The court ruled that the strict gun control in Washington, D. C., violated the Second Amendment.

Based on this ruling, I believe that Ms. Mendez is in good company with her beliefs. I recommend that she join forces with The Liberal Gun Club (http://www.theliberalgunclub.com), an organization that shares her ideals about owning guns as liberals who would like to see gun regulation laws. The website invites good authors to submit articles for their review. I for one will be checking back on a regular basis to see if Ms. Mendez has found a platform for her voice!

I hope that she (as well as all citizens) will find the courage to vote her conscience and stand for what she believes, regardless what party title is listed above the cause. Stand left of center when you believe it is the correct thing to do, but never fear venturing to the right if it serves your cause: That is the right that your Constitution grants you.

Washington Math = Taxpayers’ Burden

As we draw to the close of one of the most tumultuous years in the history of the United States of America, I ponder the cause-and-effect of the course which led us to the edge of the cliff of disaster. Sifting through all the pomp and circumstance of Washington politics, I have to wonder if the answer is not as simple as math. Washington math! The only problem is no one in Washington seems to be able to explain it, even if anyone there knows how to use it.

Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, Jr., Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, President Bush and Capitol Hill lawmakers all step forth with confidence, but none offer assurance that they have the answer to the problem. Quick action by the Bush administration garnered minor fixes for AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Wall Street and banks, while Congress has put on the brakes for doling out an uncertain $38 billion to Detroit automakers with shaky plans for repayment of the government loans.

According to economist Mark Zandi with Moody’s Economy.com, the figures proposed by GM, Chrysler and Ford will do little more than stave off the impending doom for several months, but will not ultimately save GM and Chrysler. Nor should the taxpayers have confidence in recouping their money. An article published today in the New York Times, (Auto Executives Face a Hard Sell on Capitol Hill), by David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, offers a clear picture of yesterday’s hearing on Capitol Hill where the Senate Banking Committee once again grilled the Detroit executives. Although no resolution has been reached to date, it is obvious to all that some provisions must be made to prevent a “cataclysmic” result for our economy, as stated by Mr. Zandi.

The Los Angeles Times ran an article on November 30, 2008, which points out that the long-term costs of the bailout may reach “an estimated total of $8.5 trillion –half of the entire economic output of the U.S. this year.” One only needs to read the headlines of mainstream newspapers, watch the thirty-second news breaks at the top of the hour on cable news stations, surf the blog sites on the worldwide web or walk by the tabloid magazines in the supermarket check-out stands to glean the severity of the situation Americans face today.

It may be that the numbers have become too large for Washington politicians to tally. Perhaps the “Washington math” has run its’ course. Perhaps it is time for the American taxpayers to step forth and offer our own proposal to Washington. I propose it can be as simple as a basic math problem. According to Wikipedia there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States as of 2007. Why not write a government stimulus check in the amount of $50,000 to each of the 138 million taxpayers for a total of $6.9 trillion, and allow the taxpayers to jumpstart the financial wheels by buying automobiles from GM, Ford and Chrysler rather than bailing them out. Oh, and by the way, members of Congress, President Bush and President-elect Obama, you can then thank the taxpayers for saving $1.6 trillion for all of you to squander any way you see fit!

Saving The Big Three Will Save Millions

With just over six weeks left in 2008, American taxpayers are holding their breath waiting for the other shoe to drop before heading into a new year with a new president. Only this time the shoe is the size of the country’s three largest automakers.

In an article published November 7, 2008 on the blog of Michael Cackler, a self-proclaimed Social-Conservative who follows current events, he lays out the case of “the end of American motors as we know it.” Michael points outs that the “Big Three” are running out of money and need, yes, the American government to put salve on their wounds, saving at least two of the three lives.

He talks of staggering third quarter losses for GM and Ford and fading hope for Chrysler, which has been down this road before. In 1979, Lee Iacocca, the head of Chrysler at the time, shocked the nation by asking Congress to do the unthinkable and guarantee loans for $1 Billion to save the failing company from bankruptcy. Although this was an unlikely venture for the U.S. government, Chrysler prevailed and was quickly able to begin the payback of loans and get back on track.

Now, almost thirty years later, Chrysler, along with GM and Ford, is once again asking Congress for a helping hand. Only this time it falls on the heels of trillions of dollars already committed by our government to bailout banks, mortgage companies and an insurance conglomerate that thinks it is okay to continue to do business as usual, provided the media keeps its’ collective noses out of their business.

As Michael clearly states, these auto manufacturing giants (GM, Ford and Chrysler) are some of the “oldest and largest” American companies that are caught up in the “financial meltdown the country is experiencing.” Whether or not these three can survive is questionable, even if they change their ways and learn how to run a better business model, while building a car model for the future rather than continuing to build autos that are better suited to our past.

The reminiscence of Michael’s grand-father’s “Fairlane” and his great-grandfather’s “Model T” are only one sad part of this story. The untold story is that of millions of families, who will suffer much more than shattered dreams of their kids not growing up to one day own an icon of history like the “muscle car.” It is the story of ‘would-have-been, should-have-been, could-have-been,’ if the taxpayers don’t step up to the plate to help out these giants.

I am not one to give over my hard-earned tax dollars lightly. I do not think that these companies truly deserve another chance to simply try to make big business a success. I think they should have paid attention in 1980 when Honda announced it would bring the international marketplace to their doorstep by building Japanese cars here in America. I think they should have countered then with a higher bid by building a more competitive auto for Americans to buy from them: More fuel-efficient, more durable, and more cost effective for consumers. This was the time to shore up their businesses.

I am not for having millions of American families lose their jobs, their homes, their hope for their children’s futures and their own retirement because “executives” refused to look out for their employees and for their customers. We will all be touched by this tragedy of the loss of these companies. Just look around to see the faces of family and friends who drive an American car now. What will happen to them when their car or truck needs to be repaired? Will the needed parts be available? What will happen to loans carried by Ford Motor Credit, GMAC and Chrysler Financial? The employees who work for these companies, dealerships and all vendors of these motor mile giants will be hurting and out there competing for your job!

Yes, I realize that the world is in the middle of a recession, but did no one in a position of authority see this coming? American voters spoke loudly on November 4. It is time that our President, the Congress and “big business” hear what was said. I heard clearly: “We have had enough; now fix it!” It is time for everyday Americans to take notice of what is happening in our country, our communities and our workplaces and to become accountable. If not, we shall soon wake up to find that we are in a foreign land.

Obamamercial – No “Insider Secrets” to Close Deal

Barack Obama stepped into the world of infomercial gurus like Carlton Sheets and Donald Trump on Tuesday, when he simulcast a 30-minute paid-program on seven networks. Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that approximately 33.6 million people watched, according to Nielsen Media Research. Various television media outlets reported that the Obama campaign laid out anywhere from $4 million to $8 million for this opportunity to close the sale with voters.

We last saw a presidential candidate use this advertising format in 1996, when Ross Perot aired his attempt to educate Americans about his policies using pie-charts, graphs and straight Texas-talk.

There was no comparison between the production quality of Perot’s simple show and that of Obama. Obama’s program glowed with Hollywood sophistication, opening with golden wheat fields and a multitude of faces from all walks-of-life, while the ever-soothing voice of Barack Obama spoke of hope, optimism and strength. The testimonials were heartfelt, as genuine people told their stories of being down on their luck and needing someone who understands to save them before it is too late.

The slow pace bordered on boring, and offered no new details to encourage the undecided voters, who were seeking a defining moment that would tip the scales for Obama and win their vote on Election Day. If you have the attention of more than 33 million viewers, shouldn’t you take that chance to tell us something that we have not already heard?

Americans are impassioned, intelligent people. We are used to being sold. That is why infomercials work! We commit to sit in front of our television set as a captive audience, affording us the opportunity to decide for ourselves whether the infomercial guru is a snake-oil salesman or the real deal.

If a voter is undecided a week before the election, why not provide “specifics” of how you will cut spending to get funds to pay for healthcare, education, energy development and job creation. Voters want and deserve to know specifics: no more talking points.

Will we ever have full disclosure on the associations with Ayers, Khalidi and ACORN? The LA Times refuses to release a tape that places Obama at a party honoring Khalidi, where disparaging remarks were made about Israel. The story was published in April 2008. Why would Obama want to leave the impression that he has something to hide? Or does he?

Overall, at a cost of less than twenty-five cents per viewer, the Obama infomercial could be considered a media win for Obama. On substance, it definitely fell short. Compassion for the testimonials is a good thing, but you only have to look as far as Fox News for a story about Joe Cook, an army vet injured in Iraq, who posted a two-minute ad on YouTube that incorporates more compassion and passion than Obama’s full half-hour. Although, the ad is titled “Dear Mr. Obama,” it is an endorsement for McCain that has received almost 12 million hits. And, it didn’t cost McCain one penny!

Flat Tax or Flat Line?

With the final debate finished, and just over two weeks left for the Presidential candidates to pander to undecided or waffling voters, is there one topic that could create a major upset in the polls to push John McCain into the White House? As I was skimming through different blog sites today, I came across an article on The Huffington Post, the liberal blog, which caught my eye.

The headline, John McCain’s Flat Tax October Surprise by Chris Kelly, a somewhat controversial writer, offered the promise of a great read only to disappoint once I found that Mr. Kelly had elected to hypnotize with unfounded and unsubstantiated reasoning for why McCain would change his tax policy at this time to the Flat Tax, or why Kelly thinks it would not work. He randomly submits that John McCain has “one more trick up his sleeve” and is going to pitch the Flat Tax to voters in October.

While throwing out insulting phrases such as “planning our terror” and “Vice President Miss Wasilla,” he gives two weak reasons that he “thinks” John McCain would implement this plan now: 1) Joe the Plumber hates the idea of progressive taxation and 2) Obama possibly would repeal the Bush tax cuts if he is elected, causing poor Joe to have to pay higher taxes if he is lucky enough to win the lottery.

Kelly cited an article in the Wall Street Journal co-authored by Jack Kemp which talks about the Flat Tax as a possible solution to the banking crisis as “crazy talk” backed up by more of his fluffy metaphors. He goes on to state that the Flat Tax won’t work, and simply offers his thought that it would be “really, really, really stupid.” He makes the assumption that it would be a “game changer” for the McCain campaign, suggesting that it would “really shake things up.” Finally, he ends with the ultimate compliment to McCain: “Wouldn’t it be a maverick thing to do?”

The article left me wanting to know more about the Flat Tax. Not that I found the article all that interesting, but the subject does intrigue me. Apparently, Mr. Kelly doesn’t have access to the internet to find actual facts of what the Flat Tax “really, really” is, or he surely would have built a brief case for Tax Reform by briefly comparing the McCain plan to the Obama plan and proffering why the Flat Tax would be better or worse than both, or mentioning that other Presidential hopefuls have been proponents of the Flat Tax.

After all, a political piece should enlighten the reader and encourage her to return to the blog to find out what juicy tidbits the writer has tomorrow. I suppose that political writing is a bit like penmanship. Some writers have a steady, flowing hand. Others have a fine style of writing. Kelly reads more like chicken scratch. I imagine that even his liberal audience found this piece fell dead.

Palin Delivers

After watching the Vice-Presidential debate last night, I watched MSNBC, FOXNews, CNN, CBS and ABC to get the run-down on “how she did.” Most commentators were generous in handing Sarah Palin a pass for no blunders. MSNBC, of course, showed the usual bias and was basically hard-pressed to find complimentary language beyond the suggestions of cartoonish or folksy. FOXNews channel generally showed more enthusiasm for Ms. Plain, while offering differing views from staunch Democratic pundants.

This morning, I turned to The New York Times online to read the op-ed by columnist, David Brooks. (The Palin Rebound, Oct. 3, 2008). Mr. Brooks leans to the Conservative, so I believed he would offer a fair assessment of the debate.

He set the stage for an expectant audience of nail-biting Republicans, who sounded more like nervous relatives than supporters, each hoping that Palin could fly under the radar with no glaring mistakes. After describing Palin’s demeanor as characteristic of a “straight-talking mom from regular America,” he shares her verbal colloquialisms and declares that “…in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.”

Mr. Brooks injects that she is not much better than George W. Bush when it comes to the command of the English language, but the conclusion is clearly drawn that Palin is getting no closer to the Bush administration than that. Although she is no match for Biden’s knowledge from years of experience, he surmises that by the end of the debate Republicans were no longer hiding behind the couch. They were instead standing on the couch!

I think that Mr. Brooks showed a fair assessment of the facts. As a Republican, I must admit that I, too, was holding my breath. Not that I believed going into the debate that she isn’t qualified to be Vice-President, rather that she might not be hard-skinned enough to play the contact sport that politics in Washington, DC, has become. After the debate, I was reminded of a man from the 1800’s named Abraham Lincoln, who stepped into the political limelight when he debated Stephen Douglas seven times for the U.S. Senate. He was also the underdog in those debates, but in the end he answered the question on the minds of many. Was he someone who could lead? Clearly he was, even though he lost that race. In fact, two years later he was elected President of the United States of America.

So, Republicans be proud. Democrats beware. This is just the beginning of Sarah Palin!

85 Billion Reasons To Say ENOUGH!

Are we throwing good money after bad? Wednesday, we witnessed another historic moment in U.S. government. Our leaders scurried to put together a quickie plan to bailout yet another failing American business, American International Group, a major force in the insurance industry, whose failure would have far-reaching international implications. Did our government make the decision to jump head-first into this venture because of the company’s vast assets in Japan and China?

From what I gather, “we the people” can consider this a loan of our hard-earned tax dollars, and we should cross our fingers and pray that the company can sell off assets and restructure rather than sinking so low that we become the proud owners of $85 Billion pieces of nothing!

I realize that the Global markets rallied after the announcement, which is a good thing. However, I find it very strange that the story of AIG has all but vanished today. Yesterday, on FOX News(not sure which show), Judge Andrew Napolitano was asked by Shepherd Smith if this arrangement between our government and AIG was Constitutional. He said, no. He said that our government is not empowered by our Constitution to take over businesses from the private sector, and if this loan fails that is exactly what would happen. The government, i.e. "us," could end up with about 80 percent of whatever is left of the company. He went on to say that if someone chose to challenge this in court, it would be very interesting. I tried to find documentation of this interview to use in this post, but it is nowhere to be found. Did anyone else happen to see the show?

My concern is that our government is leading us down a very rocky road. We bail out airlines, bad-debt mortgage companies, failing insurance companies. What is next the auto industry? Will there be anything left to reform the Congress!!