Category: Guest Authors

A Quiet Push To Reform Pa.’s Prevailing Wage Law

Pennsylvania’s prevailing wage law passed in 1961 requires all local governments and state agencies to pay workers a rate  determined by the state’s Secretary of Labor for any “construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration and/or repair work.”

This law has been shown to hike labor costs for school additions and such by as much as 44 percent.

Seven bills, some which would radically reform how prevailing wage is handled in Pennsylvania, were voted out of the Labor and Industry Committee of the State House chaired by Rep. Ron Miller (R- 93) on Oct. 3.

The most significant would be HB 1191 sponsored by Rep. Ron Marsico (R-105) which exempts local governments (school districts, municipalities and counties) from prevailing wage requirements — unless they really, really want them.

That raises the question as to what local government could possible want them. Go to Upper Darby, stand on the west bank of Cobbs Creek and look east. See that big, steaming pit of greed, corruption and incompetence? That one.

Also voted out of committee were:

HB 709 sponsored by Warren Kampf (R-157) which simply exempts school districts from the requirements.

HB 1271 sponsored by Rep. Marsico which would clarify, and expand, the maintenance exemptions for road work from prevailing wage requirements.

HB 1329 sponsored by Fred Keller (R-85) which would raise  to $185,000 the point at which which projects become subject to prevailing wage requirements. The mark is now  set at $25,000 as it has been since 1961. That amount in 1961 dollars roughly equals $185,000 today. Keller’s bill would require the limit to be adjusted annually for inflation or deflation.

HB 1367 sponsored by Rep. Miller which would require the Secretary of Labor to use data from the Labor Department’s Center for Workforce and Analysis in determining the prevailing wage.

HB 1541 sponsored by Scott Perry (R-92) which would require a project to be at least 51-percent publicly funded to be subject to prevailing wage restrictions.

HB 1685  sponsored by John Bear (R-97) which would standardize and require the public listings of worker classifications.

All the bills would help the taxpayer. With HB 1191, however, the taxpayer might actually notice it.

They Are here!

                                                                              The Roar

If any questions remained, they were all finally answered by recent events.  There is not one remaining iota of doubt that America, along with its institutions of freedom,individual liberty and opportunity are squarely in the cross hairs of our Cold war nemesis, communism.

Consider its recent strides.  Since their scare from McCarthy, they regrouped mainly in academia, but also with a fair sprinkling in other influential fields.  However, their invasion into the educational field, with particular emphasis at the higher level, provided both insulation against a replay of inquiries while at the same time enjoying an air of respect from their lofty positions of tutelage.  And the plums to be planted and harvested were the young and impressionable minds which fed off their instruction.

This cadre of subversives had their first taste of success through the Vietnam protests during the sixties.  What appeared as a simultaneous uproar no doubt required a coordinated effort.  Each college campus reacted in almost a knee jerk reaction once the affair commenced.  This large scale effort was the product of a national network, and with many of its cohorts at the classroom controls, the only organized anti-American element capable was the CPUSA, the Communist Party USA.

Now, zoom forward forty plus years to this fervent anti-American,  anti-capitalist venom.  The demographics from this orgy of unrestrained youthful idealism  leaves little to the imagination as to where this unrest originated since overwhelming numbers appear to be of collegiate age.

As if this disorder and mayhem is not enough, what is more alarming are the elected leaders in our government who are themselves sensing that  the time is right to aid and identify with this rabble.  Sadly, this has been evident at every level of authority, including our President.

Politicians being what they are, extreme opportunists, democrats and Obama may view a chance to raise sagging poll numbers through alignment with this youthful rebellion.  While this may be the most acceptable of reasons, it remains reckless and irresponsible since the emotions they are stoking may erupt from the slightest provocation.

Americans of every stripe must decide whether our country should resemble a tattered South American banana republic as political tactics hasten after the rise or fall of poll numbers?  And, if this Obama ploy is successful, will this anarchy become embedded within our political process every four years?

Or is there more to this than political gamesmanship?  If we remember back to those protests from the sixties, what ever became of all those college hooligans?  Many matriculated into current positions of authority and prestige within our government.  Bill and Hillary attest to how youthful idealism fades with age.  Or does it?

Through these intervening years, the American voter unknowingly may very well have sponsored the same anti-American radicals who rampaged our society during the Vietnam era.  The question is, did their indoctrination fade or has their own venom been waiting for just such an occasion.  Certainly, with a number of leading politicians voicing their own anti-American utterances, the seriousness of this consideration cannot be ignored.

Consider the reaction of a former Speaker of the House when learning of a Portland, Oregon demonstration  singing a song’s lyrics of, F “the United States.”  Rep. Pelosi’s comment was, “Well, God bless them.”  And she is just one example.  They are here and they are not just in the streets but also in our government legislating.

Jim Bowman
Author of,
This Roar of Ours

Romney Must Address His Mormonism Now

Romney Must Address His Mormonism Now

He is Republican, pro-defense and hawkish on the War. He is also an unabashed Christian, although his particular sect is viewed with suspicion and prejudice. Oh, and he’s running for president. Based on the recent firestorm that erupted when a pastor called a presidential candidate’s religion a “cult,” it seems clear that we’re talking about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith. But we’re not. The above description referred to none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower–a Jehovah’s Witness for most of his life.

Eight years later, it was John F. Kennedy defending his Catholicism.

Now, it’s Romney’s turn. But he is taking a “leap of faith” by deliberately avoiding discussion about how his Mormonism influences his values, and how he views the relationship between religion and government.

During the last presidential campaign, Romney made a strategic mistake on the religion issue. It wasn’t that he didn’t address his Mormonism, because he did. The problem was his timing. And he seems about to make the same mistake.

*****

In the run up to the 2008 primaries, there was an intense battle inside Romney’s camp over whether Mitt should address the Mormon issue head-on. That the debate even took place demonstrated political naivete on Romney’s part, as well as a lack of historical knowledge.

Romney and some of his advisers actually thought they could avoid discussing his Mormonism. Since he was the frontrunner, how could they have believed that the “Mormon issue” would disappear?

Romney finally made his Mormon speech, but it was too late. Had it been delivered three months earlier, he would have been ahead of the curve, proactively talking about Mormonism on his terms. But that didn’t happen.

Instead, it looked like an act of desperation.

Romney, who had been leading in the early states (in both money and polls) suddenly found himself trailing the surging Mike Huckabee in Iowa, who was also breathing down his neck in New Hampshire and South Carolina. It was only after losing momentum that Mitt decided to address the questions that had long been swirling about his faith. The result was that he looked desperate and disorganized.

Apparently, Romney’s staff thought they could put the issue to rest by emulating Kennedy’s famous Texas speech to Protestant ministers, where he adamantly stated that he would not be taking orders from the Pope. That was a miscalculation on several counts. First, common perception is that Kennedy ended concerns about his Catholicism after that speech. Wrong. JFK felt obliged to address the issue on several other occasions.

More importantly, Catholicism was the largest single religion in the nation, and Catholics made up a substantial and powerful voting bloc in many key states. Conversely, Mormons make up just a fraction of the electorate, and a significant number of voters, especially evangelical Christians, view Mormonism as a non-Christian “cult.”

Romney’s unexpected slip in the polls four years ago was his first major crisis, and how he reacted–some say over-reacted–led to questions about the candidate. Were people put off by a potential commander-in-chief who seemed to panic at the first sign of trouble? Could America afford a president who was seen as indecisive? And just how much of Mitt Romney’s “strong faith” was believable, since his former positions on abortion and gay rights stood in contradiction to the tenets of his religion?

As we know, Romney failed to win the nomination that many experts said was his to lose. Now he’s back in the same frontrunner position, yet is again choosing to remain silent on the Mormon issue.

He sidestepped Rev. Robert Jeffress’s cult remark made at the Values Voter Summit, and failed to directly address another evangelical leader who questioned whether Mormonism was even a Christian faith. A Romney spokesman said he would not address the Mormon issue because he did so four years ago.

Given that the memory span of the average voter is about three months, that’s ridiculous. Failure to act quickly on this matter will undoubtedly cause history to repeat itself.

Like all religions, Mormonism has some tenets that seem quirky to non-adherents. As the primaries draw near, expect those aspects to become front and center on the national stage, both directly and indirectly. With all of Romney’s crisis-management experience in business, he ought to know that it’s always better to take the bull by the horns to define a difficult issue–and being the first to do so. If you allow the issue–or your opponents–to define you, you’re always playing catch-up.

By refusing to address an issue that clearly isn’t going away, Romney is playing with fire. No one remembers his speech from four years ago, but even if they did, he should innately understand that addressing an issue–any issue–just once is meaningless. In the same way that he hammers home his economic plan time and again, so too should he proudly discuss both Mormonism and his personal thoughts on how it affects his life. Not doing so only raises more questions and, by default, gives credence to unsubstantiated hearsay about “strange” Mormon beliefs.

Interestingly, but not unpredictably, several of Romney’s GOP competitors had the opportunity to state that Mormonism was a Christian religion. They took a pass. Why? Because they believe they’ll lose part of their evangelical base, some of whom view Mormonism with animosity.

That’s proof-positive that this issue isn’t going away. All the more reason for Romney to address it, and turn the tables on his competition.

Romney would be wise to study how Kennedy handled the religion issue. By consistently hammering away, JFK made it seem that voting against a Catholic was bigotry, plain and simple. Kennedy smashed a religious barrier that many said would never be broken, not by remaining silent and taking the high road, but with a take-no-prisoners approach in his quest to become America’s leader.

As both Eisenhower and Kennedy proved, it’s the man, not the religion, who will carry the day. But that distinction doesn’t come from rolling over. It is earned. Time will soon tell whether Romney understands that lesson.

 

Romney Must Address His Mormonism Now

Nutter Nuts About Philly Murder Rate

By Chris Freind


If the CEO of a Wall Street firm announced that revenues were up 22
percent, he would be lauded for his leadership and undoubtedly receive a
hefty raise.

By contrast, if it was revealed that the CEO was
playing games with the books and basing his figures not on a
year-to-date comparison from the prior year, but from four years ago, he
would probably be shown the door.

But that’s precisely the
situation with Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, the
city’s highest-paid employee. The argument can be made that
Commissioner Ramsey is deliberately misleading the public on the city’s
murder rate.

A visit to the Philadelphia Police website Crime Stats page (http://phillypolice.com/about/crime-statistics)
verifies what we already know: shootings, violence and murder are out
of control throughout the city. As of this writing, there have been 259
murders since January 1, as one can plainly see from the highlighted
2011 figure on the webpage. Beside that is a number with a down arrow.
Currently, it’s 18 percent, but last week it stood at 22. It purports
to represent the percentage that murders have decreased.

And therein lies the problem. A big one.

Murders
aren’t down 18 or 22 percent. As a matter of fact, they’re up.
Comparing year-to-date statistics, they’ve increased ten from last year,
a whopping 24 from 2009 (a ten percent jump), and eight from 2008.

But
Chief Ramsey has decided to hide these numbers and instead compare
today’s murder rate with that of 2007, the high-water mark for killings.
That’s like the Phillies claiming a playoff victory because they beat
the Cardinals half a decade ago.

It’s interesting to note that
Ramsey was hired at the end of 2007, which perhaps explains why he is
using that blood-soaked year as his benchmark— all the easier to pass
the buck and make himself look better.

Maybe the Chief, and Mayor
Nutter, who hired him and remains his boss, missed their callings. They
seem better suited for Wall Street firms that rely on misleading
investors (in this case, the citizens) for their own personal gain
(re-election, job security and bloated pensions).

So residents
get the screws two ways: they walk away with a false sense of security,
mistakenly believing that murders are down. And when they realize the
truth — that their leaders are deliberately misleading them — they
feel betrayed.

Unlike the Wall Street CEO, Nutter and Ramsey get
away scott-free. And like some robber baron execs, they each make a
pile of money, courtesy of a duped public, with little accountability
and oversight.

In fact, Chief Ramsey is rolling in it, to the tune of $255,000/year.

You
may recall that earlier this year, the Commissioner was actively
courted for the top police job in his hometown of Chicago. Despite
pleas that he stay, it was almost a done deal, but for one small
sticking point: his $400,000 per year total compensation asking price,
according to press reports. You know it’s greedy when even a liberal
Democrat like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel balks at such an obscene
amount, which, by the way, is the salary of the President of the United
States.

Ramsey’s reason for ultimately staying in Philadelphia?
“…the support I got here at home from the business community — and the
media, even — and, of course, Mayor Nutter, made the difference.”

Well,
that, and the $60,000 pay raise he was promised from the Mayor as a
reward for not leaving the city, courtesy of the taxpayers. That
increase makes the Commissioner the highest — repeat, highest — paid
city employee. Even more than the Mayor himself.

Ramsey was
right about one thing. He did get quite a bit of support, from city
councilmen (“we won the big prize” by retaining Ramsey) to the gushing,
sycophant media. Notably, neither entity bothered asking the right
questions before, or after, the lavish pay hike was doled out to the
Chief.

Questions such as:

1) How can the city afford to
shell out a $60,000/year salary increase to anyone when it can’t even
pay its current bills, has an insolvent pension, and continues to see
its tax base — what’s left of it — flee? In fact, it was just
reported that there is yet another tax revenue shortfall, adding to the
budget deficit. What a surprise.

And for the record, there are
plenty of qualified people who would have gladly accepted the
Commissioner’s previous salary of $195,000 had he chosen to leave.

2)
When will Philadelphia realize that paying exorbitant salaries to
government officials is not just financially foolhardy, but doesn’t
guarantee results? Just look at Arlene Ackerman, the now former School
Superintendent who made $325,000/year (with incentives allowing for a
half-million dollar payday) to preside over an ever-worsening school
district. For the privilege of leaving her post, she banked $905,000,
all footed by the public.

And don’t forget scandal-plagued former
Housing Authority chief Carl Greene, who, with his bonus, was making
$350,000. In addition, residents are still paying sky-high legal bills
related to the mess he left behind.

3) Was any quantitative, or
better yet, common sense analysis done to see if Ramsey merited such a
large salary bump? Murders are increasing, out-of-control flash mobs
have led to curfews, police corruption is rampant, and there is growing
fear on the streets, leading many suburbanites to stay away.

According
to the Chief’s 2008 “Crime Fighting Strategy,” the big goal that year
was to “reduce homicides by twenty-five percent,” yet the Department was
way short, overseeing only a 15 percent drop from 2007 to 2008. And
what of the stated overall plan of reducing homicides by 30 to 50
percent, as outlined in a public letter from Ramsey to Nutter? Not even
in the ballpark. As noted above, homicides have been rising, not
falling.

While certainly not all these things can be attributable
to the Chief, the buck stops with him. He is responsible. Just like a
CEO often receives no bonus when numbers are down, the Chief of Police
should have pay raises tied to performance. But since the Mayor deals
in Other People’s Money, that isn’t the case.

Is the city is
safer? You can play with statistics to bolster any desired conclusion.
Yet ask those in Philadelphia whether they truly feel secure, and most
would simply laugh. And that’s the only statistic that matters.

Is
the Chief doing a good job? In some respects, yes. But so stellar that
he commands a raise three times more than the city’s per capita income?
Not even close. The fact that the city can’t afford the money is just
salt in the wound.

OK, fine. Ramsey got his money. It is what it is, and he isn’t relinquishing it. But that bolsters the point all the more.

The leader of the Police Department should epitomize transparency and honesty.

Instead,
in what can only be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to deceive
Philadelphians, games are being played with the city’s increasing murder
rate. And there is no excuse for that. None.

The culture of any
organization is established by the conduct of its top leaders. In the
Philadelphia Police Department’s case, its culture of honor, values and
integrity has taken a hit. And when the rank and file — the guys on
the street chasing down the murderers — see their top brass skirting
the truth for political gain, perhaps they too cut a corner where they
shouldn’t be. They take on the persona of their leadership.

It’s
time for the Mayor and Chief to do the right thing by telling the
truth, no matter how difficult that may be. Let’s see more honesty in
the most trusted institution in Philadelphia — its police department.

Only when the city’s leaders regain the trust of the people will Philadelphia begin its journey back to respectability.

 

Nutter Nuts About Philly Murder Rate

Irresponsible Leadership

                                                                                  The Roar

For too long, America has been under the leadership of a President who, for all intent and purposes, consistently opts for the wrong course of action.  This fact alone validates why our fuel prices have almost doubled, our unemployment hovers at or above nine percent and our housing market remains in tatters.  And, it is this consistency which raises eyebrows.

In a curious sidestep, it has recently become the fashion to center our ire against those Wall Street profit seekers.  The original gatherings of protest have since leap-frogged from the Big Apple to any and practically all metropolitan areas.  Again, the President’s choice of action regarding this development becomes highly questionable if the betterment of our Nation remains paramount.

It probably seems slightly redundant to echo the inescapable fact that from Obama’s earliest Presidential campaign overtures, our media has been overly accepting of any and all of Obama’s shortcomings.  This policy continues today as a local headline misleads, “Obama ups heat on GOP to pass jobs bill.”

While this jobs bill gains the reader’s initial attention, a more accurate headline may have read, “Obama once again shows impatience and Presidential irresponsibility.”  His frustrations were evident from the first sentence as he stated his desire for Congress to pass his jobs bill or  be “‘run out of town’ by angry voters.”  Actually, Ben Feller of AP left the key word of “run” out of the quote which once again softened Obama’s threat.

Now I ask you, is this any way to be Presidential?  Vote for what I want or you will be chased “out of town” by essentially a mob, which I condone?  And talking about mobs, we return to Wall Street where there might be career openings for organizing and training the mob mentality.

Once again, Obama’s actions are irresponsible as he not only supports but seems to encourage this mob sentiment against our Nation’s financial center.  While hyping his jobs bill, which is essentially just another stimulus package cut in half, he reflects the anticipated positions of both Republican Congressional leaders by a return to his former organizing skills.  They may be the heart and soul of community organizing but as a National leader, the overall betterment of the country should be first and foremost when being President of “all” the United States.  Not so with his embarrassing comment; “And, you know, all I can do is make the best arguments and mobilize the American people so that they’re responsive.”

Since the House became the purview of Republicans, the Obama Presidency has traveled rocky roads.  The American voter is now witnessing the sudden change from his first two years of grinning to his current  nine month state of perplexity.  And his frustrations are without pretense, as his recent remarks suggests.

One last observance offers credence to his uncertainties.  Supposedly, Obama’s unseen resume contains a reference to his professorship of Constitutional Law.  So, it might just be the heat of the moment for him to misstate, as Commander-in-Chief,” We have a democracy…”  Or, I wonder how many of his students got that question wrong in his tests?  Again, his baffling consistency.

Jim Bowman
Author of
This Roar of Ours

Montco Reagan Connections

Montco Reagan Connections

After his victory in 1980, Ronald Reagan chose the best, the brightest – and make no mistake – the most politically powerful to fill his cabinet. In an acknowledgement to the Republican might of Pennsylvania (a state he won), he chose three cabinet officials from the same county! Drew Lewis (who fired the striking air traffic controllers), Alexander Haig, and Richard Schweiker all hailed from Montgomery County.

In 1994, Pennsylvania was the most Republican state in the nation in terms of elected officials. The GOP controlled the two U.S. Senate seats, the Governorship, the state Legislature, all statewide row offices, and a majority of the congressional delegation.

And in 2010, five congressional seats flipped to the Republicans, Tom Corbett trounced his gubernatorial opponent, the state Senate remained in GOP hands, and Republicans seized control of the state House with a 10-set majority.

Yet the biggest prize of all has eluded the Party for a quarter-century: a win for their presidential candidate. Not coincidentally, the southeastern counties, home to nearly half the state’s population, have trended Democratic in that timeframe, with the former GOP strongholds of Delaware and Montgomery counties abandoning Republican nominees since 1988.

So it’s no surprise that leading Republicans, including Gov. Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of Chester, have come up with a plan to change how the state’s presidential electoral votes are awarded. Under their proposal, one electoral vote would be allocated for each congressional district a presidential candidate wins, as opposed to the current system, which is winner-take-all.

We’ll get to the real reason behind this naked political ploy, but first, let’s look at why the plan is a bad idea:

1) It politicizes the election process in an unprecedented way: Congressional districts would be gerrymandered like never before, drawn by the party in power to suit its candidate’s needs in order to win the most districts. This is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed the system, and most definitely puts the politicians ahead of the people. It’s supposed to be the other way around.

2) It sets the stage for the system to constantly change: Although labeled a plan offering “electoral fairness,” it is being pushed simply because the GOP now controls Harrisburg and wants to bolster the Republican nominee’s electoral total any way it can. Remember, the Democrats need Pennsylvania to win the White House, whereas the Republicans do not.

And since this change would be enacted by simple legislation, where does it end? If Pennsylvania Democrats regain control in 2014, and a Republican occupies the White House, would we then see the winner-take-all system come back into play? The electoral system in constant flux would only breed resentment and confusion, which could not come at a worse time.

3) It’s a wash on the national level: If enacted nationally, this system would ultimately be a wash, or even negatively impact the GOP. For example, Republicans would no longer win all of Texas’ 38 votes, perhaps only taking 25. Taking it even further, it is possible that in 2004, despite George W. Bush winning 31 states, he might have lost the election, since he only won the Electoral College with 16 votes to spare.

4) The system works as it is: It is not easy to pigeonhole the American people’s voting preferences. For example, Montana and North Dakota, both Republican states in most presidential elections, have Democratic senators, as did solidly Republican Georgia a short time ago. Indiana, with a GOP governor and legislature, had voted Democratic for president only once since 1940 — but that changed in 2008. Obama also won the normally GOP states of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Missouri. Yet the Republicans are darn close to winning the traditionally progressive states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Bottom line: Voting patterns are not set in stone. The more competitive elections are, the more engaged the electorate. The Electoral College works, so why mess with a good thing?

5) It all comes down to having good candidates who can articulate a message with charisma and passion. When Republicans instead coronate those whose “turn it is,” they get clobbered. Bob Dole and John McCain are prime examples. Neither had any business being the presidential nominee. Not much has changed, as the GOP is in total disarray heading into what many Republicans call the most important election in history. The truth is, there are only two candidates capable of winning the nomination, both of whom carry tremendous baggage. Yet McCain, the party’s patriarch, just stated, “We have the deepest bench in the Republican Party now that I have ever seen.” And that says it all.

On the state level, it’s much of the same, as Lynn Swann and Mike Fisher proved all too well.

Which leads us to the The Pennsylvania story.

The GOP’s demise in the Keystone State can be attributed to two things: the lack of quality candidates and the colossal failure of leadership. Fix both, and they win the state — and the White House. But the electoral system shouldn’t be changed just because the entrenched Business As Usual GOP hierarchy is the poster boy for incompetence.

The combination of running untenable candidates, valuing insider contracts and solicitorships over issues and choosing laziness over grunt work has caused it to lose huge chunks of the political landscape.

There has been little effort to groom candidates, and absolutely no initiative to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-million vote deficits. As a result, the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains from the tidal wave of 2010, but taking a pass on challenging vulnerable Democratic Sen. Bob Casey. The GOP leadership doesn’t seem to realize that the big swings in 1994 and 2010 were not mandates for the Republicans per se, but a demand that real solutions be enacted to solve monumental problems.

When Republicans talk about the issues, they win – and win big. President Reagan innately understood that, which is why he won 44 and 49 states, respectively, with massive Electoral College victories. Even George W. Bush learned that lesson, as he too galloped to victory with 40 states and 426 electoral votes.

Thirty years ago, when someone moved into the Philadelphia suburbs, they were always greeted (usually within a week) by the local Republican committeeman. The conversation went something like this, “Oh, I see you moved here from the city. Well, we have safer streets, better schools, and lower taxes – because our municipality and county are run by Republicans. Here is a voter registration card. I’ll be back in a few days to see how we can work together.”

That recruiting effort built the Party into a well-oiled machine, and the county organizations could be relied upon to deliver for national and statewide candidates.

But all that ended, and with it, the GOP’s dominance. Issues gave way to power trips and petty infighting, the Party lost its energy and brand. Now, door-knocking and personal visits are virtually non-existent. And the numbers illustrate that failure: in the largest Republican wave since 1946, neither Tom Corbett nor Pat Toomey won Delaware or Montgomery County. Given that the GOP isn’t making the necessary changes, it’s a good bet that trend will continue, with Obama and Casey again winning the state.

Republican woes aside, letting the genie out of the bottle by fundamentally altering the hallowed electoral system established by our Founding Fathers – one that has served us so well -&nbs
p; for short-term political gain is anathema to everything uniquely American.

The folks pushing this change should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are truly the leaders they purport to be. If so, they should abandon this foolhardy plan and seize the day, winning the hearts and minds of the electorate the old-fashioned way – through hard work.

The Founding Fathers knew a thing or two about how government works best. Honoring them by not punting a good thing is the least we should do.

 

Montco Reagan Connections

Continuing Health Care Intrigue

Continuing Health Care Intrigue

By Jim Bowman

As each verdict is aired, it is now taking on the appearance of a judicial version of making a mountain out of a molehill.  If it was only that simple.  I mean really, just what is legal anymore?  How can one District Court find Obama’s Health Care legal while another finds parts illegal and another rules that the entire Health bill is unconstitutional?  Is this what is meant by a “living document?”

On January 31, 2011, Judge Vinson declared that “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” to be unconstitutional.  Within his conclusion, Judge Vinson wrote that, “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

From Judge Vinson’s seventy-eight page Summary Judgement, my excerpt,while brief conveys the heart of the the Judge’s ruling.  Again, with this iron clad conclusion, how can other black robes disagree and still maintain Constitutional integrity?

The vast majority of Americans have fought tooth and nail against this Health Care abrogation to our individual liberties.  When public opinion generates such a strong resentment against an institution which, in former times, was respected and dutifully obeyed, then the ugly head of judicial activism becomes hard to ignore.  With each passing contradiction, our granite like belief in the rule of law diminishes.

Much of what our Court system pivots around today comes from past interpretations which were in themselves, based upon past interpretations.  In fact, today’s Law School regimens incorporate a curriculum based not upon the Constitution but of Supreme Court decisions.  It stands to reason that this system of passing down words can and often does becomes an errant formula for the law’s strict adherence.

Consider the era when our Forefathers wrote our Government’s prescription.  Over time, word definitions under go change.  During this past year, I became familiar with Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary.  Even the dictionary’s format was different in that modern versions follow each word with a pronunciation breakdown.  Not so in Webster’s first edition.  Also, Webster’s definitions often contained religious connotations related to Christianity.  Ironically, this has fallen victim to modern standards of interpretation.

The difference between then and now is so dramatic that when confronted with the comparisons, one cannot help but wonder about the reasons for such diverse  thought and the extent to which it has become so prevalent.   Taken one step further, how can the current day study of American law be so enamored with definitions and interpretations which lacked relevance when our laws were written.  This is the very definition of lawlessness.

Added to this judicial mix of changing definitions and wide latitudes for interpretation is the art of improvisation. The infamous 1947 Supreme Court Everson v. Board of Education ruling presents the first reference to  “the wall between church and state.”  Today, this has received a reverberation of sorts as if it were a constitutional tenet.  In reality, the Everson ruling simply transposed a phrase from a privately written Thomas Jefferson letter.

It is necessary to understand that while the Supreme Court may rule upon Health Care’s illegitimacy, our Judicial Branch is not authorized to legislate.  At some point, we were led to believe that decisions from our highest court constituted law.  This wrong dovetails with the Court’s penchant for redefining, interpreting and improvising.  All with a quiet public nod.

If nothing else, these back and forth health care decisions come as a direct result of our Constitution’s modern day elasticity.  As such, it would be foolhardy to place any reliance upon a Supreme Court decision based upon the Constitution’s strict governmental limitations.

Continuing Health Care Intrigue

Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP

Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP


Here’s a message to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: Take care of
business or get off the pot. The “Is he running for president?” story
has to end, right now.

Your indecision is hurting the Republican Party, and, ironically, giving
Barack Obama a much needed reprieve. The time for games is over. It’s
in or out.

Christie is a firebrand, an extremely effective governor who has done
what few thought possible: reform bloated pensions, institute
public-sector union reforms, and balance the budget without raising
taxes. And all that was accomplished with a Democratic legislature. It
doesn’t get any more bipartisan, and miraculous, than that.

But more than anything, Christie’s hallmark is his brusque,
straightforward style. He tells it like it is, from state finances (“the
state is going to go broke” without reform) to yelling at people to
“get the hell off the beach” before an impending hurricane.

Sure, some view him as “in-your-face,” but Christie is far from rude. He
simply expresses himself in a concise, matter-of-fact way. And in
politics, that is rare.

Most endearing is that Christie speaks from the heart — no teleprompters
or note cards. His passion and sometimes aggressive style belies a very
articulate leader, one whose charisma has won over more than a few
adversaries.

People may not agree with Christie, but they always know where he
stands. As a result, he has achieved national status because he embodies
what Americans crave: a leader refusing to dance the Political Two-Step
to avoid tough issues.

Until now.

The governor made a speech this week which was covered by the national
media. It provided the golden opportunity to end speculation about
ambitions for 2012.

In one fell swoop, Christie could have revealed his intentions, and in
that unmistakable Christie way, put an exclamation point on his decision
so that questions would cease.

But he didn’t. Instead, he left the door wide open.

In doing so, for the first time, he looked political. Dare we say it,
but it almost seemed like he was doing the Trenton Shuffle.

And that’s not the Chris Christie we know.

His past statements that he is not running are meaningless. All
politicians say such things, and it was too early for even Christie to
be wholly believed. But it’s a different ballgame now. The primaries
begin in four months, which is barely enough time to organize a
campaign.

Could Christie overcome such obstacles? Absolutely, but only if he
announces within days. Should he ultimately not run, however, the
problem with his nondecision is that it’s hurting the only two viable
Republicans: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Because of the Christie factor, significant uncertainty remains among
Republican powerbrokers, donors, elected officials, and the grass roots.
Instead of a clear-cut race, the battle lines remain blurred, so many
of these folks are sitting on the sidelines, withholding money, effort
and endorsements until Christie makes a decision.

As a result, the front-runners have lost momentum as donations and
support stagnate, and they have been taken off message. Because of the
Christie buzz, anything Perry and Romney say is simply white noise.

Most damaging, however, is that Barack Obama has been given a reprieve.
As president, he is driving the ship, which is listing badly. So any
opportunity that takes the political focus off of himself is greatly
welcomed.

Until the Christie rumor mill is shut down, the president will be able
to regroup and attempt to stabilize his situation. It’s not a panacea,
but it certainly helps.

While that was not Christie’s intention, it is reality.

One of several things is true:

1. Christie has no intention of running, but is badly underestimating how closely people are hanging on his every word.

2. Christie is definitely running, taking advantage of millions in free
media coverage. While a brilliant strategy, its shelf life is measured
in days, and will backfire if played too long. One cannot run a stealth
campaign for president.

3. He really hasn’t made up his mind yet.

The last scenario is most troubling, because if a candidate’s heart is
not in a race, but he chooses to run anyway, it will be a total failure.
The American people can sense such insincerity immediately.

Need proof? Ask Fred Thompson. (And conversely, a tip of the hat to Mike
Huckabee and Mitch Daniels, who both admitted they were lacking the
fire in the belly in deciding not to run).

I have been fortunate to have had a front row seat covering some of Gov.
Christie’s triumphs, seeing firsthand the progress one man can make. It
would be a shame to see that legacy tarnished by indecision.

So with all due respect, Mr. Christie, given the impending political
hurricane, let me paraphrase a popular governor by saying, “Get the hell
in or out of the race!

 Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United Nations has been met with fierce opposition, including a 30-nation walk-out during his address to the international body. That childish protest, led by the U.S., was exactly what transpired during his previous visits when he spoke at both the U.N. and Columbia University.

People can protest all they want. That’s their right in this country, and Ahmadinejad has certainly provided enough material. But a distinction has to be made as to what is being protested.

If people want to voice disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s totalitarian policies and inflammatory statements, great. If, however, the walk-out was to (ultimately) criticize the organization’s decision to allow an unpopular figure to speak, that’s a different story.

Why are we so scared of Ahmadinejad? What frightens us so much that we demand his viewpoints be silenced? He is the undisputed leader of a sovereign nation, a man whose words and decisions have significant weight on the world stage. Like him or not, he’s the president of Iran, and the West has no choice but to deal with him and his government.

And if the criteria for a walk-out are fanatical statements made by the ranting leader of a second-rate country, then UN delegates better get comfortable shoes, because they’ll be doing a hell of a lot of walking.

Walking out on Ahmadinejad is completely counterproductive, as it gives him a public relations bonanza. Like eating the forbidden fruit, Ahmadinejad’s remarks will now be heard by many who otherwise would not have cared, being attracted by the “If it’s bad enough that the U.S. walked out, I must hear what he said” mentality. And it permits our enemies to label us hypocritcal; we jettison free speech whenever convenient.

It’s exactly like those who protest KKK and neo-Nazi marches. The louder the protesters, the more energy and media coverage is given to those groups. They feed off the attention. Stay home, and they go away. It’s that simple.

And it’s a horrible example for our children. Don’t like what the professor has to say? Leave. Mom and Dad trying to enforce the rules? Walk out. Disagree with what your political opponent says about you? Throw out some invectives and storm away.

*****

In 2007, despite getting hammered by protesters and politicians, Columbia played it right by affording Ahmadinejad a platform, but equally important, chose not to give him an award. It is one thing to allow someone to speak, but quite another when accolades are bestowed upon individuals who don’t deserve them.

The larger question centers on free speech. Aren’t we always told that America sets the standard for the free exchange of ideas? Don’t we teach our young people to keep an open mind and question everything? Isn’t it invaluable to hear opposing points of view, and ultimately form one’s own opinion?

Failure to maintain an open atmosphere leads to close-mindedness and ignorance. The world is increasingly “flat,” in that we live in an ever-expanding global economy. Traditional borders and cultural barriers continue to be dismantled. Therefore, it’s imperative that Americans understand the value of listening, are open to constructive dialogue, formulate tough questions, and refuse to live in fear.

Narrow-mindedness will only make the road ahead more difficult.

This is not a call for appeasement, nor is it running from reality. Iran’s posturing–and actions–have made the West very uncomfortable, and if that nation continues on its current path, especially with regard to its nuclear program, the situation may well become bloody.

Is Iran an “enemy,” whose leaders should be banned from entering America, as some contend? Depends on your definition. But if that’s the case, then kick out France, which aided and abetted Iraq leading up to the war (in many cases illegally). And China, since it massacred citizens at Tiananmen Square, among its other heinous transgressions. And Syria, given the ongoing slaughter of its citizens.

And let’s not forget to look in the mirror, as America’s role in overthrowing the sovereign regime in Libya–which we had repeatedly praised as a nation reformed and a partner in rooting out terrorism–was nothing more than an inexcusable oil grab for our European allies. Where do you draw the line?

We are not at war with Iran. If Ahmadinejad wants to make ludicrous statements amounting to Holocaust revisionist history, the absence of homosexuality in Iran and who was really behind 9/11, he does so at his own peril. He needs Western investment and petro dollars to survive, and such rhetoric only undermines his credibility and jeopardizes the economic stability of his country. The more Ahmadinejad speaks, the more he hurts himself.

While he advocates much which we abhor, it is the strength of America that allows him to express himself without fear of repercussion. That is why we are still the envy of the world.

It’s time to start effectively dealing with Iran–politically, diplomatically, economically, and yes, if necessary, militarily. For that to happen, we need to act like grown-ups and dispense with second-grade games that make Khrushchev’s shoe-banging outburst look respectable.

The United States should run from no one, least of all Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the words of FDR, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

 

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?

Obama’s Obit May Be A Tad Premature

Obama’s Obit By Chris Freind

Despite scandal and a stagnant economy, he was surging in the polls as the election neared. Against the odds, he had gained enough momentum that victory was within his grasp. But in the span of one televised debate, a gaffe sealed his fate. Gerald Ford, president of the United States at the height of the Cold War, adamantly stated that the countries in Eastern Europe were free of Soviet domination. Ballgame over. (But there was a silver lining. Had Ford won, Ronald Wilson Reagan would never have been president).

In 1972, Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie’s campaign for the presidency immediately imploded when he cried during a speech in front of the offices of Manchester’s Union Leader, claiming that the paper’s editor unfairly criticized his wife.

And in 1967, a leading Republican presidential contender saw his hopes crushed after saying he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War. The otherwise very smart man who said that? George Romney, father of current candidate Mitt.

The point? At any given time, especially in the world of 24/7 news coverage, a major gaffe can sink an otherwise strong candidate. So the fact that many Republicans are already writing President Obama’s political obituary a year out from what will be a close election is not just naive, but political stupidity.

And it will be a close election.

In addition to the billion-dollar war chest the President will have, the most important aspect that commentators and politicians are missing is that the popular vote–and by extension most polls–are meaningless.

The only thing that matters is getting 270 electoral votes, and Obama already has, at a minimum, 164. And when you add the states he will likely win, including electoral prize Pennsylvania, which hasn’t voted Republican in 24 years, that number rises to 224–just 46 shy of victory.

Is the President’s road difficult? Absolutely. The economy is in shambles with no possibility of a recovery until an energy policy is instituted, and that simply isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Bank failures continue, homes are still being foreclosed at an alarming rate, inflation is rising, and companies not only aren’t hiring (let alone expanding), but are shedding jobs and closing doors. Merck is laying off 13,000, while Bank of America is jettisoning 30,000–and that’s just two companies. Job loss and uncertainty are so commonplace now that the nine percent unemployment rate has become the new norm. America is fast becoming a suburb of France.

And that doesn’t bode well for an incumbent.

So while it is a good bet that Obama will not be re-elected, the “put-it-in-the-bank” GOP mentality can only work to the President’s advantage. A look at the recent special election for disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner’s seat in New York City tells the story.

A Republican won the seat for the first time since 1920. Impressive? Yes. Good for the President’s party? No. A harbinger of Obama’s re-election chances? Absolutely not. But the long-lasting impact of the GOP win? Zero.

For the very few able to step outside of the ridiculous spin zone, a few things are obvious about that race:
1) The Republican winner will either be bounced out next year, or will be re-districted out of Congress.
2) Does anyone really think Congressman Bob Turner, while good for the Republican caucus’ organizational votes, will vote as a true Republican in an extremely liberal district?
3) Voters knew the world was watching, and many voted Republican as a public rebuke to Weiner’s extremely salacious behavior. They did their job, but it will be back to business as usual next year.
4) Many of the Jewish voters wanted to send the President a message that they were displeased over his position regarding Israel. But does anyone really believe they will abandon the President in the general election? Not a chance. Yet some political insiders have even suggested that the state of New York might be in play electorally (as well as states like Maryland). That thinking is just so out there that I can’t even come up with an appropriate sarcastic response. Optimism is great, but what’s next? The Iranians holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” with us? Entertaining as it is, let’s stick with reality.
5) The Democratic candidate was a boring, uninspiring hack. Which leads us to the next principle in politics: It usually helps to have good candidates.

Barack Obama has certainly not been an effective or popular president. His policies of Big Government are based on academic theories that simply do not work in the real world, especially in a market-driven economy. His advisers don’t have a clue, and the administration keeps going back to the same old playbook that never worked particularly well. The results (although not all his fault) speak for themselves.

That said, he is a great campaigner. And make no mistake. Running for president and being president are two totally different things.

While Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry are formidable challengers, neither has been battle-tested in the fire of a presidential general election. Maybe it will be enough in 2012 for candidates just to have an “R” next to their names. Sometimes that is all that’s needed, but that should never be a strategy, and is no guarantee for success.

For proof, look at the 2010 election–the largest Republican tidal wave since 1946. Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell got be-witched in a lopsided loss, Nevada’s Sharron Angle lost to the unpopular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, despite the state having the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and Alaska’s Joe Miller lost to incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the general election–by a write-in campaign. All three were bad candidates, and none of the races was close.

Trite as it sounds, Republicans would be wise to focus on the issues, ignore the spin and stop deluding themselves that 2012 will be a walk in the park. An example of how fickle the political winds are? Just four months ago, in another New York special election, the Democrats won a long-held Republican seat. In full spin mode, the Dems declared it a monumental setback for the Republicans and a validation of the President’s vision.

That spin was wrong too.

What these last several election cycles show is that voters, more volatile than ever, are fed up with scandal, bickering and meaningless 30-second sound bites. They want vision. They want solutions. They want action. And they will reward whomever can best articulate their ideas in a bold, commonsense way–and kick out those who don’t.

Bottom line: While current conditions certainly favor the Republicans, it is entirely too early to put 2012 in the record books for the GOP. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the President’s political death are greatly exaggerated. If the GOP refuses to recognize that, they do so at their own peril.