Executive

Experience Matters – December 2009 Update

by Bill O'Connell on December 29, 2009

Share and Recommend:

For the second time in two months there has been a terrorist attack or an attempted attack on U.S. soil.  How is this administration responding?  Well, if grandma is planning to visit the family for the next holiday and she has a bladder problem, she had better drive or take the train, because she won’t be allowed to use the bathroom during the last hour of an airplane flight.  Whew!  That was close.  I feel so much better now that we kept grandma from flying.  Don’t you feel safer?

Who’s Minding the Store?

As pointed out in several other posts, Barack Obama was elected with zero executive experience and we hold our breath as he stumbles about trying to learn what an executive is supposed to do.  He put Janet Napolitano in charge of the Homeland Security department, because her home state borders on Mexico, but without any security experience.  This was put on full display when she went on the Sunday talk shows to say the administration response to the terrorist bomber went very well and then goes on the Monday morning news shows to say they failed.  President Obama put Leon Panetta in charge of the CIA even though he has no intelligence experience.  Feeling a little uncomfortable?

Planning to Fail

President Obama has taken just about every step he can to dismantle what Bush and Cheney put in place and to discredit how they kept us safe.  Even today, Obama insiders were whispering to the Washington Post that this was all Bush’s fault.  Let’s look at the Obama record:

  • Closing Guantanamo — this is one of Obama’s top priorities.  Rather than keep these enemy combatants off shore and in military hands, as any battlefield captives should be held, he is planning to release Yemenis back to Yemen.  Where did the bomber obtain instructions?  That’s right Yemen.
  • Curtail Interrogation techniques — calling a technique that has no lasting physical effects on prisoner torture, and requiring that prisoners be asked only name, rank and serial number, this administration cuts off sources of valuable information that can save lives.
  • Calling the War on Terror, the Overseas Contingency Operation and changing us from a war footing to a law and order footing.
  • Letting the bomber lawyer up — instead of treating the bomber as a foot soldier in the War on Terror he is treated like some delinquent trying to knock over a Seven Eleven.  We should be putting him under intense interrogation to find out everything we can from him on the operation behind him.  Instead we are reading him Miranda rights, getting him a lawyer, putting him in one of the best burn center hospitals in the country, and planning to give him skin grafts.  I guess he’s part of the new health care plan.

Correctness or Political Correctness

Profiling works.  When are we going to stop ignoring this simple fact?  Look at any one of the known terrorist attacks around the world.  When someone gets on line at an airport who fits the profile of a young, male, single, Middle Eastern, African or South Asian, then pull them out of the line and give them a more thorough screening.  Pat them down.  Swab every bag for explosive residue rather than a sampling, open and examine closely everything.  Don’t say we can’t check this one because we have already checked two others and until we check our quota of old men, white grandmas, Asian children, etc. we cannot check another Middle Eastern man because we may hurt their feelings.

If enough of them get their feelings hurt, maybe all the other fair minded and peace loving Muslims around the world will rise up and take back their faith from those who have hijacked it for their own murderous aims.  Until then, we should err on the side of caution and pray that this administration figures out what they are doing to protect us.  If they don’t know what to do they should leave what Bush and Cheney did well enough alone.  It kept us safe for seven years.

Share and Recommend:

Sotomayor: Legislator-Yes, Justice-No

by Bill O'Connell on May 27, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Sonia Sotomayor’s story is a great American story.  Like Barack Obama hers is a story of overcoming adversity to live the American Dream.  For that we should admire her and applaud her.  However, her nomination to the United States Supreme Court is a poor choice.

Her personal story, her life experiences, her empathy, would all be excellent qualities as a Congresswoman representing the interests of her district and giving a strong voice to those she represents.  But the Supreme Court and all courts for that matter are based on two principles:  Blind justice and the original intent of the United States Constitution.

Blind Justice

We’ve all seen the famous statue of Lady Justice.  She holds scales in one hand and a sword in the other.  More importantly she is blindfolded.  The reason for the blindfold is so that she does not take into account what she sees, that is, she ignores race, sex, social status, height, weight, etc.  In other words she applies justice equally without regard to any personal factors.  Judge Sotomayor has said:

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

How does that work?  If a white male candidate had made a statement like this his nomination would not only go down in flames, he would probably be removed from the bench on which he was currently sitting.  Are there different laws for Latina women?  Are the laws applied differently based on your race or your upbringing?  If she makes that statement as a Congressional candidate representing a Hispanic district running against a white male opponent, that statement is fine, but as a judge, no.

Original Intent

There is an ongoing debate about the Constitution in this country with conservatives standing behind the original intent of the document and liberals saying that the Constitution is living, breathing and should evolve.  If you believe the latter point of view, we have no constitution. It is whatever a judge today says it is.  Tomorrow?  Who knows, it may take another breath.

Judge Satomayor says that policy is made on the Court of Appeals. (Video -  Policy is Made on Court of Appeals.) Laws are made in the legislative branch, which is Congress at the Federal level.  Policy is typically made in the Executive Branch in enforcing the laws.  The courts function is to interpret the laws written by the legislature, not to make new laws to their liking.  Such a statement by Judge Sotomayor is dangerous.  She is openly saying that she believes that the courts should usurp the function of Congress and other legislatures and has no problem with that.  Think about it.  A Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime appointment with no recourse to the people.  If we are going to have judges make our laws, let’s shut down the Congress.  I can guarantee you that no judge is going to write a 900 page opinion that no one will read.  It is the same effect.  It is also the same as taking away the right to vote, because once appointed, judges who make laws are not accountable to anyone.

Withdraw Your Name and Run for Congress

If you want to make laws, run for Congress.  I may disagree with your positions, but your qualifications for the legislature are excellent.  But judges must apply the law according to the Constitution.

Share and Recommend:

Fair is Fair

by Bill O'Connell on March 23, 2009

Share and Recommend:

President Barack Obama is now proposing that shareholders should be allowed to vote to limit executive pay. After all they own the company, right? If that is such a good idea shouldn’t all of us vote on the pay of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Charlie Rangle? And I don’t just mean within their districts, the whole country should vote on each of their salaries. After all they work for us, no? It would be interesting to see how much the American people would cut their $175,000 salaries since their approval ratings are abysmal.

If we did this, then many of these incompetent bloodsuckers would leave Congress and do something else. Then maybe we could replace them with real talent, who would be well paid because they do a good job: close the budget gap, shrink the size of government, cut taxes and let the economy grow.

I think Nancy Pelosi should work for $1 per year and see how fair that is. What do you think?

Share and Recommend:
© 2009 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.