Gabrielle Giffords’ shooter won’t be going to trial anytime soon. I have a question for Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ). In the wake of the Tucson shooting, what are you doing about getting mentally impaired people off the street, instead of rendering citizens defenseless?

For six years, Jared Loughner exhibited increasingly bizarre behavior. His college math teacher was afraid to turn his back on Loughner to write on the board for fear he might be attacked. But what do our esteemed legislators propose? A ban on gun magazines that can hold more than ten bullets. Let me point out the ignorance of this particular “solution.” If someone is intent on maximum carnage, he can carry as many magazines of any size as he wants to acquire. An emergency reload of an empty gun by a trained shooter takes about 1.5 to 2 seconds. So much for that solution. Here’s an alternative. Have Jared Loughner and others like him (e.g., the Virginia Tech shooter) brought before a judge to determine if they are a danger to society, before they wreak havoc on society. If the same judge sitting at his trial for killing six people and injuring thirteen, had examined him when he was freely walking around scaring the hell out of dozens of people, perhaps instead of being a major national news story, it might not even have made the newspapers.

Criminals don’t pay obey the law; that’s why they are criminals. They only deal with the law after they get caught, which for the victims is too late. The laws should be about what people do, not what they own.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

You almost have to wonder, why in the world did he run for president? Was he swept up in the ego trip? Was he reading too much into his own press clippings? Did the historic opportunity of being the first real black president, sorry Bill Clinton, in U.S. history overwhelm a careful consideration of what the job entailed?

For those who believe in federalism, as James Madison said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.” As the powers of the federal government are (supposed to be) few, so are the responsibilities of the President of the United States; important and focused, yes, but few. So why does President Obama look to avoid those few responsibilities and get involved in so many that are not in his purview?

From golf, to beer summits, to healthcare, to golf, to conferences on bullying, to golf, and now on guns, he seems to find that which is least related to his job to focus his energies and those of his administration. Even senators from his own party decry his lack of leadership on perhaps the most important issue of the day, spending and the debt. The Middle East is in flames and he talks tough but does nothing.

A Gun Summit

A deranged man in Tucson, Arizona, slipped through the cracks of existing laws that prohibit the sale of a gun, under both Arizona law and federal law to someone who is mentally ill or a drug user. Jared Loughner is guilty of both, but no one bothered to take the step to have a court declare him mentally unstable and no one made sure the system was updated with his drug use. If the laws on the books aren’t enforced, what will the addition of more laws do, other than further curtail liberties?

Of course that does not stop President Obama from wading in. On his team he picks Eric Holder and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I hope I am not being overly critical by saying, with the Middle East crumbling into chaos, a major ally recovering from an earthquake and tsunami in the Far East, and the function of the State Department being how we interface with other nations, am I the only one who thinks HRC is probably a little busy right now, or should be?

Then there is Eric Holder, who wouldn’t know a terrorist if he were jumping up and down on his desk screaming Allahu Akbar, while sweeping a sword inches over his head. Who sees Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia as just a couple of guys from the ‘hood hanging out. Who will twist himself in paroxysms to avoid saying in Congressional hearings that the possibility that Major Nidal Hisan was a radical Islamist, instead saying, “No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”

One of the knee jerk comments you hear from the gun opponents if you criticize gun restrictions is, “Should we allow machine guns!!” Considering that the U.S. government and this president have abdicated their responsibility to defend our border, even to the point of putting signs up 100 miles inside our country warning travelers that it is unsafe to travel in parts of Arizona, the idea of a couple of .50 caliber machine guns mounted on the roof of some rancher’s home in that area might not be a bad idea. With drug cartel members active in that area with automatic weapons, why not?

A Simple Approach

Let me suggest a simple approach. The laws should not be about what property you own, but what you do with it. Laws should apply to actions, not who we are, what we own, or what we think. The rules can and should be different for people who have violated laws by their actions or who have diminished capacity to safely operate something that could be dangerous. Felons should not be allowed to buy a gun nor someone who is mentally unstable. We are allowed to drink. We are allowed to drive. We are not allowed to drink and drive. The prohibited action is the combination of the two. If you drink and drive repeatedly, you don’t get to drive at all.

Our government should not stand in the way of its citizens being able to defend themselves. In a Supreme Court case Warren v District of Columbia, it was ruled that a police department is not responsible for failing to protect its citizens. It should be my responsibility to protect myself and my family. The Supreme Court seems to agree that you cannot blame the police if they do not respond.

So Hillary, go back to the State Department and focus on foreign policy not on guns. Mr. Holder, try being our chief prosecutor not a busybody. Mr. President, put away the golf clubs and start figuring out how to cut a very large slice out of the $1.6 trillion deficit you are running. If you didn’t want the job in the first place, you shouldn’t have asked for it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The common themes in each presidential race turn on a hope and dream for the future, defining a common purpose and a call to action. Candidates usually win on the success of their ability to marshal these themes into a cohesive series of arguments for their nomination and eventually election to office. Few were as effective as Ronald Reagan at recruiting the support of the average listener. If he could get your ear, he could get your vote. Candidate Barack Obama frequently compared himself with Ronald Reagan during his campaign. His media cohorts happily aligned themselves with this maladapted relationship, with the centrist and even right leaning (business friendly and low/fair taxes) themes hinted by Obama’s vague comparisons.

He then has compared the first half of his first term to Ronald Reagan, again with the support of an eager media. They both inherited a terrible economy, with high unemployment, handed to them by unpopular presidents, and a world on the brink of disaster. That is basically where the comparisons end in real life and thus spurring a misunderstanding in comparing the two I call The Great Reagan Mistake. When Ronald Reagan was elected, interest rates were double digits, as a result of years of an economic condition known as “stagflation”, a term rarely used because Reagan’s economic policies essentially made the condition obsolete. Or so we thought. A couple more years of this recovery, especially if interest rates rise as they are predicted by many economists to do, and the term will come back into vogue sooner than one may think.

After a year and a half of the Barack Obama recovery (2009-2010), the results of his economic policies could not be more divergent from the results of the first 18 months of the Reagan recovery (1983-84). Unemployment is chronically high, even though interest rates are historically low and we are told to expect 8% unemployment as the “new normal”. We are also told to expect trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

According to Larry Kudlow, an economist in the Reagan administration, we have anemic 3% growth in GDP and a microscopic 121,000 new jobs created in the Obama recovery. Get ready for this: in the Reagan recovery, 5.3 million jobs were created by 7.7% GDP during the same period of recovery. Mr. Obama’s government centric high tax and suffocating business climate marked by presidentially led animosity for business in America, has stunted the very growth for which he longs, the absence of which is causing increasing frustration among the administration as well as the American people. Contrast that with the economic launch pad created by the then maligned “Reaganomics”. While his clueless Vice President Bush called it “Voodoo economics” to the howling delight of the liberal media, the business community knew better, and jumped on the rocket and rode it into unparalleled prosperity for the next twenty years. Reagan was the first president to shatter then accepted economic theory that low unemployment, low inflation and high GDP could NEVER exist at the same time. After the Reagan recovery began, those conditions coexisted continuously until 2008. Mr. Obama is turning back the clock, printing money and driving up inflation, while telling us to get used to high unemployment, leading us back into the “stagflation” era of Jimmy Carter.

While Reagan was accused of being an actor who was empty of substance and only made people feel good, this is the sadly unfolding truth about the Obama presidency. While they both had/have a gift for the rhetorical flourish, calling upon Americans to get in touch with their internal longing for a new vision for America, a dream and an awakening spirit, Mr. Reagan’s words were a separate and distinct tool for inspiration of the American people, guiding them through very tough times, while he took decisive action based on sound economic theory, with courage and conviction. Mr. Obama’s need to latch onto that legacy is resulting in the truly hollow rhetoric, lacking the substance so badly needed in the American domestic agenda today. Why can’t liberals just admit they were wrong and go back to what Reagan showed us worked? I always said it was the single most important thing Bill Clinton did to insure his presidential popularity: he didn’t mess with Reaganomics. He kept that his dirty little secret only supply side devotees like me would recognize. He never had to explain it to his liberal base because they were living in such nonchalant prosperity most Americans took for granted by then. He knew better than to make the Great Reagan Mistake. Mr. Obama is losing his window of opportunity to turn the tide and make actual changes. In two years, he will follow Jimmy Carter into oblivion. Hopefully the next President will not make the same mistake.

Please share your thoughts below.

The baseball season has ended.  The San Francisco Giants are the world champions for the first time since 1954 when they were the New York Giants.  The stadiums are empty and the spring training fields have not yet gotten busy.  But, fear not, the free agent season is heating up.

I’ve got a hot prospect for you.  His batting average is 0.004, but he does have a home run to his credit.  Interested?  Fantasy league or real, any attempt to sell this turkey, even during Thanksgiving would be a bust.  But when it comes to the trial of Islamic terrorist Ahmed Ghailani those are the stats turned in by Eric Holder. 

Ghailani was charged with 285 counts and the jury convicted him on one of them.  So for a batting average that is 1 for 285 or 0.004.  Holder and his backers are bragging that Ghailani is going to be sentenced to 20 years to life; the home run.  So how do you feel about having this player on your team?  Yes, his is capable of hitting a home run once every 285 times at bat, but how close was he to striking out?  Was the home run skill or dumb luck?  If you were a baseball team’s general manager, would to take a chance on him?

Such are the problems of trying terrorists in civilian court with the full rights of American citizens.  When asked if the information that could have resulted in more convictions was a result of interrogation techniques that may be considered coerced, the Holder team told the judge to assume so.  Out the door went all that evidence.

In a civilian court any number of national security issues are at risk.  A prosecutor has a choice to make, go for the conviction and reveal information that could be priceless to Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, or keep it under wraps and let the perp walk.

In a military tribunal, there is more leeway on the evidence and greater concern over protecting national security secrets.  It is well past time to stop the nonsense of trying these people in civilian court and try them in military tribunals instead.

There is one more thorny issue.  If the mighty Eric had struck out, after telling the American people that failure to gain convictions was not an option, they administration is saying they would have put Ghailani back in Guantanamo or some similar facility and held him as a prisoner of war until the end of hostilities.  If that face saving device is on the table, what is the whole point of even considering civilian trials?  Another head scratching moment brought to you by the most inexperienced administration in the history of the Republic.

The injustice of it all.  Poor Charlie Rangel ran out of money for his attorneys and stomped off saying he wasn’t going to play anymore, because his fellow House members were being unfair to him.  As many a parent has said to their recalcitrant child, “You should have thought about that before you [fill in the offense here].”  It is most likely that Mr. Rangel will be censured, just like his predecessor in that same Congressional District, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was censured.

So what does censure actually mean?  According to the CRS Report for Congress titled, “Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives” it says:

In the House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Member present and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House.

There was probably a time, where personal honor and dignity were values held in high esteem, where this meant something.  In today’s world of trash talking, smash mouth politics, this is almost embarrassingly inane.  Picture Charlie Rangel with his toothy grin standing in front of fellow House Members while Nancy Pelosi delivers the slap on the wrist.  Do you anticipate a scathing, dressing down of Mr. Rangel by Nancy?  Neither do I.

On another front, actor Wesley Snipes has just been sentenced to three years for tax evasion.  Yes the amounts Mr. Snipes was convicted of withholding from the government were more substantial than anything Mr. Rangel purloined.  But Mr. Snipes used a firm to prepare his taxes that had a history of filing false return and taking a percentage of the refund.  I don’t seek to defend Mr. Snipes.  But I find it ironic that Mr. Snipes faced the challenges of someone complying with the tax code, ran afoul of that and now faces jail time.  Mr. Rangel, on the other hand, headed up the committee that wrote the tax laws and when he didn’t follow them, he gets to listen to Nancy Pelosi call him a bad boy.  Maybe those are equivalent punishments, but in the latter case it will be over more quickly.

So Mr. Rangel can continue to draw his $174,000 salary courtesy of you and me; he can remain in at least three of his four rent controlled apartments, while his poorer constituents battle with the rent being too damn high; and at 80 years  of age, he could also retire to some pretty good sunset years.

As far as the claim that he didn’t know rent was being collected on his condo in the Dominican Republic and therefore not paying taxes on it was an honest mistake, that goes out the window with the evidence that Rangel instructed the management of the condo complex to deposit the rent directly in his personal account.

But Mr. Rangel is a Democrat.  So the Democrats, will circle the wagons. John Lewis will come out and make a speech saying that although he knows nothing about the facts, he is sure this is racially motivated.  Republicans are not a choir of angels, but when one of theirs cross the line, they are typically dealt with honestly and swiftly.  Rangel spent many months in the chairmanship seat while these claims swirled around and it wasn’t until a formal hearing and trial imminent did he finally give up the gavel.

So perhaps Mr. Rangel can visit Mr. Snipes in prison and explain the tax code to him in detail so that he doesn’t embarrass himself again, when he is released.

New York state government is a basket case.  Earlier this week we were treated to the theater of the governor’s debate featuring such luminaries as Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is 2 Damn High party, and former madam Kristin Davis who seemed smarter on fiscal policy than half of her opponents on the stage.  But let us not forget it was a stage and this is New York.  Instead of being held at Hofstra University, it should have been held on Broadway, but I digress.

The government itself is one problem, the state pensions are quite another.  A problem on the order of $30 billion to $80 billion.  Harry Wilson is running for state comptroller.  Mr. Wilson made his money on Wall Street, investing and turning around troubled companies.  His opponent, Tom DiNapoli was appointed to the comptroller position after his predecessor, Alan Hevesi, was charged misconduct for trading access to the pension in return for favors.

Mr. DiNapoli has been in politics since he was 18 years old.  An entire career in politics and he is supposed to be able to cope with this massive problem created by career politicians?  As Albert Einstein said, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”  But Mr. DiNapoli attacks Wilson because Wilson comes from Wall Street.  From what planet are these New York politicians coming from?  New York’s motto is the Empire State.  We call ourselves the financial capital of the world.  New York City and New York state would collapse if not for the tax revenue from Wall Street and the income taxes of those who work there and we are to believe that Wall Street is evil?  Those are the ramblings of an imbecile.

In one of the bluest of blue states Mr. Wilson has not only been endorsed by the New York Post and the Daily News, but the New York Times as well.  He has also been endorsed by Michael Blumberg, who knows a thing or two about finance.  Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal suggests that Andrew Cuomo should endorse him and seal the deal for both Wilson and himself.  If this pension bomb is not diffused, Cuomo, if he wins as he appears likely to do, will be doomed before he begins.  Wilson has the tools to turn this around.  Or we can leave this in the hands of a political hack.

I’d like to know what you think.  Share your thoughts below.

Republicans have to learn to stop fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, while Democrats, bite, kick, pull hair, scratch and hit below the belt.  Yes, Christ told us to turn the other cheek, but he also overturned tables, formed a whip out of cords and drove the money changers from the temple.  In other words, sometimes you have the hit the bully hard between the eyes before he learns to stop being a bully.

So if the Republicans regain control of Congress in November, they should open the new Congress in January with detailed hearings on what happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and don’t pull any punches.  By that I mean if they need to put Andrew Cuomo in the witness chair, even if he is the governor of New York, which he probably will be, then they should do so.  It’s time to stop playing patty-cake.

For all the hoopla of the Dodd-Frank Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were left out of the new regulations.  Oh, we’ll get to those later.  Okay, let’s get to them with the Republicans in charge.  Let’s expose how it was our government that got us into the housing mess and let’s do this before the Democrats re-write history and paper over their culpability in the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.  It’s time to put the big lie to “it’s all Bush’s fault and Republican policies.”

The papering over has already started by none other than Franklin Raines the former head of Fannie Mae who received bonuses of over $90 million while at the helm of Fannie Mae and was also charged with cooking the books that helped him receive those bonuses.  He reached a settlement with the SEC and gave back about $1.8 million from the profits in the sale of Fannie Mae stock and gave up $5.3 million in future benefits related to his pension.  But he essentially kept the rest, what the Wall Street Journal called a “paltry settlement.” 

Mr. Raines claims the demise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to which taxpayers have already coughed up $145 billion, was due to bad credit decisions made after he left the firm.  To put it in his own words:

 “The Journal had been warning for years that the on-balance sheet portfolios of Fannie and Freddie would lead to their demise. Mr. Carney suggests that excessive leverage was the culprit. Unfortunately, neither of these were involved. Nope. Just bad credit judgments. Decisions made, by the way, while operating under close regulatory scrutiny.”

According to the Wall Street Journal “What he doesn’t say is that Fan and Fred had a political and legal mandate to support low-income housing.”  To meet this mandate which had increasing goals each year, Fannie and Freddie had to cast a wider net to find these borrowers and the wider they cast the net the lower their standards had to be.  Thus more creative types of mortgages were created to lower the bar such as, interest only loans.  This scheme would continue to work as long as housing prices kept rising but that could not go on forever.  When the music stopped a lot of people were left standing without chairs and we all lost.  People’s credit ratings were destroyed, mortgage securities were worth far less than face value, people walked away from houses, and taxpayers were forced to pick up another “too big to fail” enterprise.  By the way, where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to get involved in helping people buy houses?

The secret veil put in place by the main stream media has been lifted.  With the Internet and the bloggers and cable television and talk radio, the main stream media can no longer keep information that does not comport with their agenda hidden from the American people.  The American people are energized and informed but that may not last long after the election, if we don’t continue to engage them.  Uncovering the true “swamp” that is our federal government and draining it should begin by letting the sun shine in.  So let’s do away with the good ol’ boy politics of not rocking the boat when you gain control so that they won’t rock the boat when they get it back.  If we don’t have a new class of non-incumbents who are willing to go to Washington and clean it up, really clean it up, we need to get rid of them and put new people in their place.  If that means replacing Republicans with better Republicans or Democrat incumbents with better Democrats, so be it.  We have to end the process of only being able to choose between two pathetic life time politicians who have never lived in the real world.

Over the past eleven months, have you ever gotten a feeling that you are watching a magician, rather than a president run our country?  As any practitioner of the art of the illusionist will tell you, one of the key things is to keep the audience distracted.  Have them watch the left hand, while the right is slipping the coin into the pocket.  The Obama Administration is about to unleash their greatest trick yet, trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civil court in New York for the 9/11 attack on America.  Why?

The Greatest Show On Earth

The trial will become an absolute three ring circus, with all the world watching closely.  The liberal pundits say, “this is our chance to show the world our justice system.  We can demonstrate how civilized we are, and show the Muslim world how fair we are.”  Really?

Remember to the footage in the Muslim world immediately following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  They were dancing in the street, laughing and singing, shouting praise to Allah.  What do you think the reaction will be if Khalid Sheik Mohammed, jumps up in court and screams out, “Kill the infidels! This is a fraud meant to disguise these devil’s tricks!”  Do we let him ramble with a global audience?  Do we have the bailiffs wrestle him to the ground?  Do we put him in restraints for the rest of the trial?  Who exactly is going to show the world what?

We Have No Secrets

In a civilian trial there is a process called discovery, where the defense is told everything the prosecution plans on bringing to court, including witnesses, so that the defense has a chance to prepare their rebuttal case.  How much of the CIA’s methods and contacts are we prepared to reveal to the world and to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s allies?  Or, how much are we not going to use in order to protect that information and at the same time increase the chances that he will be acquitted?

Can Anybody Say O.J.?

Do you remember the O.J. Simpson trial?  A slam-dunk if ever there was one.  There was blood evidence, DNA evidence, means, motive, opportunity, it couldn’t get any easier.  But what happened?  Judge Lance Ito, lost control of his court room in the klieg lights of national television.  One of O.J.’s attorneys or advisors told O.J. to stop taking his arthritis medication  so his hands would swell and then the famous glove trick, abra cadabra, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  What happened after that trial?  Dancing in the streets of the black community.

The Jury Pool

Are Muslims going to be excluded from the jury pool?  If so, on what grounds and would a judge allow it?  In the O.J. case we had what was called jury nullification, where a jury handed up a verdict not based on the evidence presented, but based on a social determination.  O.J. was a symbol for all black men put on trial and all past injustices.  He was a sports hero to millions and he wasn’t going down, no matter what.  What if a someone with strong beliefs sees disrupting the outcome of the trial as the new jihad?  Don’t use suicide bombers in New York, that’s so Middle East, let’s kill them softly by getting Khalid Sheik Mohammed acquitted or a give them a hung jury.  What better way to humiliate the Great Satan.  It will be like David and Goliath all over again.

The Real Trial

Or is it really the Bush Administration that Obama wants to put on trial?  The Obama administration’s popularity is sinking link a stone.  The stimulus package was a bust.  Cap and Trade is a disaster.  Health care a debacle.  Tea Party’s are breaking out all over.  The Democrats got trounced in Virginia and New Jersey, and even New York’s 23rd is still alive as recounts have dramatically closed the gap. A show trial of the Bush Administration is just what the Obama Administration needs to keep the focus off what they are really doing.

This is a tragedy and a travesty and there should be no end to the shame heaped upon this administration if they follow through on this.

It seems like a bad dream.  The man who is spending like there is no tomorrow, lecturing us on how we are spending too much money.

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

Is this a joke?  I keep waiting for President Obama to burst out laughing and say, “April Fool’s” but it’s well past April.

Two weeks ago Obama announced his budget and proposed $17 billion in spending cuts.  Let’s be generous and say he can deliver on that.  Big deal!  Twenty-five years ago, in 1984 President Reagan received a report from the Grace Commission, whom he charged with the task of finding areas of the federal government to cut costs.  The Grace Commission, led by Peter Grace, came up with $424 billion in savings in three years and $1.9 trillion in savings by 2000.  Let those numbers sink in for a moment.  In 1984, with a far smaller federal government, the Grace Commission was able find twenty-five TIMES as much savings as President Obama can find in his behemoth budget.  Unfortunately, the Democrats controlled Congress and therefore the purse strings, and scoffed at most of what the Grace Commission proposed.  Why? Less government means less power, and the statists are all about power.

Let me make a modest suggestion.  President Obama, dust off the Grace Commission Report and give it a read.  You might find some gems in there that are worth more than a paltry $17 billion in savings.

It couldn’t be more clear that the Obama administration should immediately begin the conversion from our convoluted tax code, to a flat tax that could be filed on a post card.  How can I make such a claim?

Well, Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes the tax laws, seems to have forgotten to pay his income taxes on a villa that he owns in the Dominican Republic.  More recently we learn that Timothy Geithner, Obama’s nominee to be Treasury Secretary, didn’t pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years.  The Treasury Department includes the Internal Revenue Service which enforces the tax laws that Mr. Rangel’s Committee writes and collects the money.

So if the tax laws are so complicated that the individual in charge of writing the tax laws cannot understand them enough to follow them, and they are so complicated that the individual in charge of enforcing those tax laws, doesn’t understand what he is charged with enforcing, don’t you think it’s time we simplified the tax laws?  If these highly educated, very experienced, extremely intelligent people cannot comply with the tax code, what hope does the average Joe have?  Perhaps that is why it is estimated we spend $200 billion per year in tax compliance.  Couldn’t that money be more productively be employed elsewhere in the economy?

What do you think?