SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Subsection (v)(1) of section 24, as so redesignated by section 8(1) of this Act, is amended by striking all that follows `section' and inserting `$800,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2015.

"NEWARK, Del. — Finding character witnesses when you are 6 years old is not easy. But there was Zachary Christie last week at a school disciplinary committee hearing with his karate instructor and his mother’s fiancé by his side to vouch for him.

Zachary’s offense? Taking a camping utensil that can serve as a knife, fork and spoon to school. He was so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to use it at lunch. School officials concluded that he had violated their zero-tolerance policy on weapons, and Zachary was suspended and now faces 45 days in the district’s reform school.

“It just seems unfair,” Zachary said, pausing as he practiced writing lower-case letters with his mother, who is home-schooling him while the family tries to overturn his punishment."

In a separate incident, a girl was suspended for bringing an uncut cake, and a knife to school. 

"House Bill 120, introduced by Rep. Teresa Schooley (D-Newark) comes in the wake of a recent incident where an 11-year old student was suspended for five days and faced expulsion because she brought a knife to school to cut a cake.

The girl’s teacher used the knife to cut the cake, then reported the student for bringing a deadly weapon to school, according to the girl’s parents. No charges were pressed against her, but the Leasure Elementary School student was suspended according to district policy.

The policy classifies any blade longer than three inches as a deadly weapon, regardless of its use, and students caught carrying or concealing one are subject to five days suspension and possible expulsion.
HB 120 would give school boards the ability to modify the terms of expulsion or determine that it is not an appropriate punishment on a case-by-case basis.

“I am in no way making light of the situation of children bringing weapons to school, but I think adults know the difference between a weapon and a knife being used to cut a cake,” Schooley said. “Because the law is so strict and there’s no room for discretion, families are placed in difficult situations where they have to get a lawyer to fight expulsion.”"

Let me just say, THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOLEY!  And thank you to the 16 cosponsors(where the hell are the rest of our legislators, I would expect all 41 representatives to be sponsoring this bill unanimously).

This is the problem with a “one size fits all” solution. Kids like young Zachary, so excited about taking a POSITIVE step forward end up violating some policy somewhere. Our children have had their youth stolen from them. When I was a 7 year old boy at least 5 of my cub scout friends did this EXACT same thing everyday. Heck, I wore my baseball spikes to school one day because I was excited to be playing in a game that afternoon.

Today our 6, 7 and 8 year old kids are treated like adults and assumptions of violent intent are made immediately. How, in just 20 years have we allowed the innocence to escape out children? Have we really spiraled this far down? And if we have, shouldn’t we do something to help out children regain that innocence and be allowed to be kids?

I know I'm just an average Joe but can't we do better than this?

Gray Ghost writes:

To Reduce Gangs and Gang Violence....

Reduce "entitlements" to ZERO.

One of the reasons, in my opinion, that crime in our "inner" cities is so bad is that the "Welfare State" rewards bad behavior. 

In Mississippi we have many casinos. When do these casinos make their most money? At the first of the month with the distribution of "welfare" checks.

If there were no "welfare", no SSI, no food stamps, what would happen? More people would be required to work (or they would starve). There would be less demand for the importation of foreign workers.

I agree completely but I also understand the plight of the citizenry here and in many inner cities. There are very few "adequate" services. It's not for lack of funding contrary to popular belief but instead a multitude of waste, fraud and abuse. The answer is not to flood the market with money but to get out those who abuse and misuse the system. Benjamin Franklin said the best way to help the poor is to make being poor unattractive (paraphrased for today's lingo) and I believe that must be done. Do I sympathize with the poor? Absolutely, in many cases.

 

In fact, I'm working on a non-profit to cure many of the ills I mentioned in this post. It's designed to help those who NEED help and to direct those who NEED guidance. It's designed to teach the young how to grow up with the principled strength that our founders had and to give them the courage to rise above the fray (and hopefully deter them from beating each other to death with railroad ties). It's going to replace ACORN and provide an alternative location for the homeless, the disenfranchised and the hungry.

 

At the same time it's going to be a resource center for anyone looking for any kind of assistance. From job placement/job training to housing and subsistence as well as counseling in many areas this organization will help the people who need the help. This organization will also advocate for individual property rights while demanding that the city of Wilmington take action on condemned properties. No longer will caved in roofs be the sore sight seen from our city buildings. No more will the inner city residents be trapped in a city of garbage and filth. Our water and sewage systems need over hauls and not the band-aid fixes the city feels it can muster. We will demand that these problems be addressed and work to fix them. We won't stop there. The streets of Wilmington aren't safe after dark. The city (or more precisely a group of concerned citizens) have formed an escort service for city workers to make it safer to walk to their cars at night but that's not a fix. Once again it's a band-aid. They do an excellent job and I applaud them but we must do more.

 

This non-profit will address those issues by working with the local churches to hold block vigils once a week. It will also reach out the communities where gangs have become the norm and where people feel little hope coming their way. We'll offer them access to local faith based groups and give them a positive message to carry forward into a life outside of the criminal element. We'll provide them a way out and leg up while ensuring that THEIR will pulls them out of their poverty and criminal activities.

 

We'll show that Wilmington and by extension the rest of Delaware is a state worth a look by more than just banks and financial companies. We'll invite new manufacturing businesses to remodel, rebuild and reestablish a manufacturing industry in Delaware. How? We'll work with the government and new high tech companies working in many different fields including alternative energy, semiconductors, and the auto industry. We'll fight to reduce the union stranglehold on our state and reinvigorate the workforce. We'll fight for the rights of our workers while protecting the hard earned profits of our business community.

At the same time, Delaware has become a so-called "Blue State Haven" for financial institutions and is one of the corporate capitals of the world thanks to our kind business laws. We're not proposing we eliminate those but instead that we ask those corporations who benefit so much from our legal system (Delaware's Chancery Courts are renowned in the business world) and from out low taxes/fees. We'll be asking those companies headquartered or squatting here to contribute to the community. At the same time the citizens will be asked to cover their share as well. This does not necessarily mean a rise in taxes but instead a shifting of the direction of the funds from government pockets to where it belongs, the people.

 

Analysis:   National average is a C/C- . In Delaware the average is a C- as well and the breakdown shows that 52% of Delaware has graded Obama’s Administration at a D or F level. 38% of Delaware has rated the administration in the range of A+ down to B-. That is a total of 6 choices that scatter 38% of the people of the state of Delaware. More than half of the state is in agreement that the administration has failed or is in danger of failing to fix the economy. Despite Obama’s claims that the rebound is occurring, Delawareans are smart enough to realize that the current “bounce” is not sustainable unless the government continues to give away free (read taxpayer) money for cars and homes. Once the money goes away so does the business and the economy crashes. Delawareans understand that the economy requires more than a couple of incentive programs. They understand that we must stop printing money, stop spending recklessly and start being fiscally responsible. We’ve got to start cutting our spending, ensuring the money we do spend is spent wisely and that it creates jobs and is self sustainable.

Analysis:   National average is a D. Delaware state average is a D. 64% of Delawareans do not agree with Obama’s ideas on healthcare. A large majority (49%) grade Obama an F. Having seen this in person at recent Mike Castle town hall meetings and hearing thousands of citizens concerns about this government hijacking of the healthcare system I believe that any bill that passes with YEA votes by our congressional delegates must be considered null and void as the PEOPLE of the state no longer side with the legislators.

Analysis:   National average is a C. Delaware state average is a C. I can understand this to some extent. The state run media has a monopoly on what international public opinion is by and large. We’ve all been made to feel bad for our God given rights and our legal system that allows us to grow and succeed as well as fail. It’s natural to think other countries hate us. The fact is they don’t by and large hate America. Most Europeans love America and wish their countries valued God given rights as much as we do. Given the control of the state run media and Obama’s successes in Afghanistan and Iraq I am actually surprised his numbers are not closer to a B or even a B+.

Analysis:   National average is a C+. Delaware average is a C+ as well. Given her relative silence and the fact that her few public stances have likely set America back, I can only conclude that America is saying “Thank God she’s not speaking.” And figuring if they say she’s doing well as it stands that they will keep her quiet. 

Analysis:   National average is a C-. Delaware state average is a C-. This may be the most generous of all the polls in this entire survey. The guy has yet to give a speech, do an interview or otherwise vocalize his thoughts without hurting Obama. I can understand Delaware’s sentiments. We want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Only the hardcore liberals went so far as to put him in the A range (15%) while most Delawareans (42%) would give Obama a D or F. That really ought to show you how bad he’s done. The state that elected him 6 times to serve as a state Senator even gives him a C-.

Analysis:   National average is a C/C- . In Delaware the average is a C-. 44% of our state is unhappy with our Senators.   For a state that is one that votes for the same people every time out it’s amazing to see so many unhappy. Given the C votes at 30% I think we could see the state swing this election and see a same old state become a dynamic change state.

Analysis:   National average is a D. Delaware state average is also a D. Americans don’t like Socialism. They don’t think Congress can help (unless it goes on recess). 70% of Delawareans give Congress a D or F for their performance. I think it’s clear that Delaware is just as fed up with Congress as the other states. The fact that nationally not 1 SINGLE state voted to give Congress higher than a D average pretty much sums everything up.

Analysis:   National average is a D. Delaware gives them a C-. Kind of tosses that whole blue state thing out the window doesn’t it? 46% of Delaware rates them D or F. Good for us here in Delaware. Let’s be fair. The Republicans have done some good (or tried) and have done more bad. A C- is a fair vote although I can certainly understand the D’s and F’s as well.

Analysis:   National average is a D. Delaware state average is a D. 56% of the state gives the MSM an F. *clapping* It’s about time we held someone responsible for their inactions. The 3% that votes A or A+ must have misread the question or been playing a joke on us. Delaware and America as a whole are simply fed up with all the nonsense in the media today.

Analysis:   National average is a C/C- . In Delaware the average is a C- as well and the breakdown shows that 57% of Delaware has graded Obama at a D or F level. This is amazing given the fact that a few months ago Obama had a 70% approval rating. In Delaware his approval rating a few months ago actually topped 70%. Now in Delaware his approval rating is 44%.  

1.)   1.) It dumps whatever issue based approach it takes currently and focuses on returning to the GOP founding principles which were built on living out the legacy of the founding fathers, opposing big government, keeping taxes low and protecting the nation.

2.)    2.)It phases out candidates like Mike Castle who have helped lead the party into the black whole of liberalism.

3.)    3.)Replaces the “Do nothing” leadership with active conservatives who will engage the state and the Democrats in an open and honest debate.

4.)    4.)Returns to being the party of the people.

Universal healthcare is coming.  President Obama has promised us that by the end of July we would see it.  We’ve spoken with Senate and House leadership and we’ve been assured that to some extent they will vote for it.  We understand the Constitutional implications but do we understand the cost implications? President Obama’s healthcare program is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost between $1 Trillion and $1.5 Trillion just in the first 10 years.  That works out to an annual cost of between $100 billion and $150 billion per year or between $274 million and $411 million per day.  To put that in perspective, $100 billion per year would pay the annual budget for the departments of Housing and Urban Development ($52.3 billion), Energy ($23.3 billion) and Justice ($25 billion).  But are these numbers even accurate?

Most of us remember 15 years ago when Hillary Clinton submitted her healthcare plan at a cost of $1 billion dollars per day.  According to government reports that measure medical inflation, prices for healthcare have gone up by 80%.  The Obama administration has set its aim just as high and yet this estimate comes out between 27% and 41% as high as the cost of Hillarycare in 1993. Without even factoring in population growth the inflation suggests that Obamacare should cost in the neighborhood of $658 billion per year or $6.6 Trillion over the first 10 years.  For reference, our Social Security liability is $13.6 Trillion.  

So how can the Obama administration claim that it will shrink the cost of nationalizing nearly 20% of the American economy?  Mandates and regulations will shift the cost more and more to the private sector to hide the rise in costs.  Administration officials have spoken eloquently about “cost control” being a major step toward affordable government insurance.  Obama has touted Healthcare IT as a major step toward achieving these cuts but without changes to regulations or the ability to create a single information form, this would only reduce costs by .3% leaving the main source of cost savings as direct rationing of healthcare through a harmless sounding concept called “comparative effectiveness research”.  This sort of process would allow government bureaucrats to delay and deny care on the grounds that it is not effective.  There will also be indirect rationing through tightening the reimbursement of providers.
  
In 1966 when Medicare was conceived its cost was $3 billion a years and “conservative” estimates projected that the cost would be $12 billion per year by 1990.  In 1990 Medicare costs were 9 times that “conservative” estimate, topping out at over $107 billion annually.  How can we honestly expect a government to keep costs down with a government run national healthcare plan when they have run up Medicare Parts A & B to unfunded liabilities of $68 trillion dollars and added to that with another $17.2 trillion in Medicaid part D (prescription drug coverage) in 2003?

Concerns are also mounting over the true scope of a “nationalized healthcare plan”.  The Senate’s plan, touted as Senator Ted Kennedy’s work with the administration will cover 16 million more people than are currently covered at a cost of $1 Trillion over the next ten years on top of our current Medicaid spending of nearly $500 billion per year and accounting for 22% of our current nationwide healthcare expenditures.  At the recent AMA speech Obama touted the $950 in tax increases and budget cuts (mostly tax increases) that would get us “almost all the way there” to covering the cost of this massive plan.  Unfortunately the CBO isn’t as optimistic about the Senate plans cost.  It weighs the plan in at a hefty $1.6 Trillion, a cost that Sen. Olympia Snowe (one of the three Republican Senators who voted for the Obama stimulus package) described as “a jolt of reality”.  Thanks Senator Snowe, where was that jolt in February?  Adding to concerns about the fiscal sanity of the Senate bill is the fact that while finance committee chairman Max Baucus is putting together a bipartisan group of Senators, Chris Dodd has been quoted as saying “My goal is to write a good bill” and “My goal is not bipartisanship.” So much for all the “civility and integrity and the bipartisanship that goes with that...” Nancy Pelosi called the congress to do.

Worse still is the plan in the House which has not yet been given a price tag.  That bill would require the HHS Secretary to establish a “public health insurance option” to compete directly against private plans in a national insurance exchange.  It would also raise the existing Medicaid program eligibility past the current threshold of 133% of the poverty line (currently $17,600 per year for a family of 3).  The public plan would pay providers based on Medicare payment rates plus 5% and could result in up to 113.5 million people losing their private insurance coverage.  The plan also calls for shifting costs to private plans or taxing insurance benefits at the employer level at a rate of $460 per person in order to reduce to “visible cost” of the plan.  Provider revenues would decline significantly and with the included individual mandate to obtain “acceptable coverage” or face a tax penalty of 2% of their income, personal liberty would be restricted at an unprecedented level. 

There are also questions about how many people are truly uninsured.  The administration has been claiming that if insurance is affordable, more people will buy it but unfortunately the evidence says otherwise.  Of the 47 million people the administration points to as unable to afford care, 20 million of them are college students or people making over $75,000 or more per year but choosing not to sign up for a healthcare plan.  Another 10 million plus are not U.S. citizens and 11 million more are eligible for state Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid but have not signed up for the programs.  That leaves between 10 and 15 million people who are long term uninsured and that is manageable under the current private charities setup to deal with this problem.  If the government really must be involved, we could give the 10-15 million uninsured vouchers or debit cards that would allow them to choose their doctors and provide them with coverage.  We could even give them health savings accounts for retirement and according to some experts this approach would cost just $25 billion per year. 

 

 

 

1.)    Canada’s system is actually what’s known as “single payer” insurance where the provincial governments provide a single insurance choice to all citizens.  This eliminates individuals being allowed to choose what plan they want based on what coverage they want to pay for and entrusts the local governments with providing the appropriate coverage in all cases.   In fact, it is illegal in Canada for private insurance companies to compete with the government monopoly.  The only other nations who still impose these restrictions are North Korea and Cuba.  Now I’m not comparing our northern neighbors to North Korea or Cuba in any other way than to say that the government in Canada is not allowing its citizens to make a choice in their own healthcare. 

Are you willing to entrust the government, which has bankrupted our country to the tune of $11,407,680,203,719.35 and counting with negotiating your insurance premiums?

2.)    Everyone has free and equal access to healthcare providers (which naturally generates a lot of demand). Providers bill the government for services rendered. Government pays providers with the money it collects via highly progressive taxation. Government has the power to restrict healthcare spending (which logically leads to long waiting lists and wait times).  Here is a quick snapshot of the difference in tax levels here in the U.S. versus Canada:

Comparison of taxes paid by a household earning the country's average wage (as of 2005)

The Canadian government uses a progressive income tax system and also levies sales taxes on goods and services.  Canada levies the following taxes on its citizens:

a.       VAT (Value Added Tax): The federal government places a 5% tax on all goods and services rendered in Canada.

b.      Provincial sales taxes: The provinces all work slightly different (with the exception of Alberta which has no provincial tax) on how they institute their sales taxes.  Some provinces add the Federal VAT tax to their provincial tax to create a total “Harmonized Sales Tax”.  In the long run, the combined Federal and Provincial taxes range from 5% in Alberta (remember they levy no provincial tax but are still required to pay federal VAT taxes) up to 15.5% in Prince Edward Island. 

c.       Federal income taxes are as follows (This link points you to a work sheet to help figure out what Federal and Provincial income taxes would be on yearly income)

                                                              i.      15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +

                                                            ii.      22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +

                                                          iii.      26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +

                                                          iv.      29% of taxable income over $126,264.

d.      Property taxes: These are levied by the local government, similar to here in the states and account for about 10% of total taxation in Canada

e.       Canada also imposes Excise taxes(also known as Sin taxes) on goods such as cigarettes(avg. 66% tax), gasoline(35%), alcohol(varies depending on alcohol content but the avg is around45%) and vehicle A/C units($100 flat).

f.       Most Provinces also levy Health and Prescription Taxes or charges citizens “premiums” for their healthcare(with the exception of Alberta who levies no tax or premium).

                                                              i.      Ontario charges a tax on income for the healthcare system in amounts that range from $300-$900 with low income individuals excluded

                                                            ii.      Quebec requires citizens to obtain prescription insurance (Premiums range up to $570 per adult) AND pay a maximum monthly deductible /coinsurance of $77.21 if that person is age 18-64 with children free however, some prescriptions require an additional amount which is not taken into account when calculating the monthly contribution and has no CAP.  For citizens over 65 Canada has a system similar to SS known as GIS.  There are different levels of GIS paid based on the total amount of other income received and the maximum monthly deductible /coinsurance(again not including “additional amounts” vary from $48.99 to $77.21. 

                                                          iii.      Other Provinces charge rates from as low as $10.80 per month for an individual making between $20k and $22k per year up to $108 per month for a family of three making over $28,000.

g.      Like America Canada also taxes inheritance (as though it were a sale upon death so subject to the Provincial and Federal Sales taxes) and levies the following: Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gross Receipts Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor License Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Personal Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service Charge Tax, GIS Tax, Road Usage Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring & Non-recurring Charges Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax

Are you willing to see the taxes raised not only on every other citizen but also on your SSI income to Canadian levels or perhaps higher? Are you willing to pay for your healthcare AND see these taxes raised?

3.)    Since government is taking the money from the people and paying for these government services, the providers are now directly accountable to bureaucrats, politicians and “special-interest” groups and not to patients.  The system becomes a monopoly similar to for instance the Medicaid and Social Security Insurance plan which is already indebted to pay out $60 Trillion over the next 35 years adding roughly $1.7 Trillion to our national debt annually.  And from which our legislators have siphoned $2.2 Trillion.  Only when we as individuals retain the power to financially reward providers for good service can we expect providers to compete by offering quality services at lower prices. 

Is it worth adding trillions of dollars in debt to future generations (think of how the rise in costs will affect your grandchildren)? 

4.)    Current government plans for a “universal healthcare” option are actually much more closely aligned with European style plans.  Under those plans government “rationing” boards determine the kind, quality and amount of care you receive.  They shut down the ability of Canadian doctors to innovate and create new treatment plans.  Government control simply removes all incentive for these healthcare industries to innovate.  This will cause drug, treatment and provider prices to stagnate and will slow delivery of services to patients.

Do we really want to shut down the innovation of American doctors by placing government in charge?

5.)    Healthcare wait times will vary.  Keep this in mind, in Canada, most patients do not have a “family doctor” or a doctor that they know specifically and trust.  In Europe no one does.  That being said most of the time you can head on down to your local doctors office and be seen relatively quickly with appointments sometimes taking a couple of weeks not much different from here.  However, in Canada and Europe the doctor generally prescribes medicine to address the symptoms and free up a bed instead of diagnosing the problems.  Wait times for specialists and complex medical procedures (like Chemotherapy) can take up to 2 years on a list.  In fact, in England there are actual photos of lines stretching hundreds of yards and instances where patients brought in on ambulances were made to stay in the vehicles for more than 6 hours before being treated.

Is this how we want America’s healthcare to be run?

 

Am I suggesting that you just grin and bear it, deal with your hardship and move on?  Not in the least bit.  By reforming Medicare and Medicaid, focusing on innovating health information technology and creating electronic medical records, removing financial and bureaucratic burdens, considering state health insurance exchanges and creating incentives for individuals and businesses to get and provide quality affordable healthcare we can shrink the current individual costs of healthcare nationwide.  The point is that universal healthcare/single payer healthcare is not the only option.  I urge you to consider checking out www.cprights.org and reviewing the plans.  The list all of the serious current plans out there and have links to the entire plan for each one.  You can compare the plans and see which one you like best.

 Having just returned from a visit to the seat of our government, this is particularly disturbing. 

Put aside the fact that Judge Sotomayor did in fact achieve her resume by way of the American Dream as President Obama (or more accurately his press corps) stated. Through the excellent upbringing of her father who passed before his time, and the hard work and sacrifice of her single mother to the countless hours that she and her M.D. brother spent studying in order to obtain grades that would earn them scholarships to the colleges of their choice. She particularly earned scholarships to Princeton AND Yale. As a graduate of those Ivy League schools she served a distinguished legal career which led her to appointments by the First President Bush as well as President Clinton. Judge Sotomayor did not thank the government for its food stamps nor did she praise New York City for its welfare system that allowed her to succeed. She didn't cite affirmative action as her avenue to prosperity. Why not? Because none of things ever helped her along the way. It was grit, determination and hard work that done by her and others around her lifted her up. 

Forget that while sentencing a drug dealer she said, "We all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose." Judge Sotomayor felt the need to apologize to a convicted drug dealer not simply for our laws, but for a society that has forced this person to make the choice to sell drugs. A choice that was not forced on Judge Sotomayor who grew up in a similar situation, or on her brother who became a doctor instead of a drug dealer. Also forget that in another case involving a convicted drug trafficker she said, "It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is that this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir." Judge Sotomayor does give cite a reason for this, that apparently the police detective lied in order to obtain a search warrant. While I don't condone the police department engaging in obvious deceit in order to obtain convictions, warrants, searches or confessions, I also don't believe that a judge, given evidence obtained legally or illegally ought to apologize to anyone who is convicted. If indeed the warrant was illegally obtained, could she not have thrown out that evidence? The fact is she can't stand our justice system as it was designed.

Also forget that Judge Sotomayor once said "[W]e who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience or heritage but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate." or that she also once said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Ignore that she also ruled against the firefighters in New Haven Connecticut in a case in which the city fire department held a testing session to allow the 15 open leadership spots to be fairly obtained by the most qualified candidates. Tests were designed so as to give the fairest possible chance regardless of race and yet the top 15 candidates were all white and Hispanic.  One of the top 15 candidates, a white man was dyslexic and spent over a year studying for his chance to move up. The city cited the lack of a qualified black candidate as a reason to throw out the all of the tests and promote no one. 19 firefighters ended up signing on to sue the city. At the appellate division, Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters and according to Judge Cabranes, a colleague, her opinion "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

Throw all of that and more out and look at just one issue, the Constitution. Judge Sotomayor is on tape in 2005 speaking to potential law clerks where she states that "the court of appeals is where policy is made." and adds “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...” and has also made it clear that “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Judge Sotomayor either does not understand or does not respect the Constitution or America's intended legal system either of which disqualifies her from the bench and I know I will catch flack from the left on this but I can back this up.

                The Constitution is clear in creating three separate but equal branches of government called the Judicial, the Legislative and the Executive branches. Each branch has its own purpose. The Executive branch, at the head of which is the President is tasked with setting policy, commanding the military and to enter into treaties. Basically, the President is supposed to be the face of the government. The Legislative branch is tasked "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." along with other legislative powers. Finally, the Judicial branch is charged with ensuring that laws are followed and if not that the offenders are punished according to the Constitution. 

                No where in the Constitution does it state that any division of the Judicial branch is tasked with making policy or setting laws. In fact, the idea of "blind justice" was so important that two sources can still be pointed to at this time.

                                1.) Lady Justice, the symbol of our judicial system is wearing a blindfold to show that justice is blind to all distinguishing characteristics. She does not care if you are rich, poor, white, black or Hispanic. The only thing that matters is the law which does not change based on the circumstances.

                                2.) The following is the federal judges oath: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

My question is which is it Judge Sotomayor? Be honest with us, do you not agree with the justice system as intended or do you not understand that oath and the protections the Constitution gives?

I'm sitting here watching Dick Cheney speak about national security and defending the Bush Administration policies.  I also listened to Obama speak this morning.  Listening to both men talk I'm left with a few tough thoughts.  

Obama is a gifted speaker, teleprompter or not, if you listened just to his words, I could understand how you'd be in awe.  He stands upright, looks out to the crowd and seems to catch an eye with each turn of the head.  He's charismatic and he uses words that speak to America's heart and soul.  However, Obama is missing just one thing, facts.  His words are filled with lofty moral rhetoric and radical left wing ideology cloaked expertly in patriotic wording.  He uses the Constitution and the values of our founding fathers as proof that President Bush and his administration were evil and stupid little men and women.  He presumes to hold the moral stick of righteousness over the heads of the previous administration and to persecute them at every turn.  He never stands to take responsibility but instead reflects that he is cleaning up the shattered mess of America left by "the policies of the last 8 years".  President Obama, we get it, you don't like the policies of the past, please move on and take control of your own destiny.

Dick Cheney is not as gifted a speaker as Obama.  His eyes are often down on his paper and when he looks up it's less clear to whom he is speaking.  However, Cheney speaks with facts as his guide and in defense of the policies the Bush administration embarked upon.  Dick Cheney used substantive factual representations, such as the in depth answer given to the question of water boarding.  Former Vice President Cheney was able to name who was water boarded and when and for what reason.  Specifically he named Khalid Sheik Mohammad who was water boarded LEGALLY and who gave information that led to stopping other attacks on American soil.  He pointed out that the tactics used at the time were used specifically with national security in mind.  

From a Constitutional perspective, who was right and who was wrong?  The answer is both were right and both were wrong.  While I sympathize with Dick Cheney (I was a United States Marine stationed in Camp Lejeune, NC when the towers were hit and served in the Middle East) and the Bush Administration on their decision to authorize these techniques in order to protect America, I believe that our rights and liberties were taken away or eroded further by those steps.  Unfortunately, I can say that the Patriot Act and other Bush Administration policies, intended to protect Americans have led to our Constitutional freedoms being stolen.  On the other hand, how dare one President look back on another administration and blame it repeatedly for so many problems?  Isn't that better left to the pundits and the media? These techniques were legal under the former administration.  America can either like it, or not like it but it WAS LEGAL and we must accept it.  Going forward, we must strip our Executive officer of this power.  We ought to have a national referendum within each state to determine how America feels.  50 states, everyone gets a chance to vote on it and majority rules.  Not number of votes but states won/lost.  Up or down we go forward with the decision of the American people.  Either we torture or we don't.  We can work out the details based on PRINCIPLE and VALUES later.  You're not going to see this because the lofty rhetoric of Obama's "transparency" argument will never be fully upheld as intended by the Constitution.  Since Ronald Reagan and perhaps not since Jackson before him have we had a President that actually understood and upheld the Constitution.  Lincoln, for all his brilliance and study was not given the chance to truly uphold the Constitution.  The great war between the states that marred his Presidency demanded that he restrict rights and actually subvert the Constitution in order to preserve the union for which the document was intended to provide law.  

It's time to return to our Constitutional Values.  Hillary Clinton spoke of a reset button on a recent trip to Russia.  America DOES need a reset button.  We need to once again become the men and women our founders asked us to be.  In all of their writings the founding fathers pleaded with future generations to understand that government will necessarily try to expand at every turn and that it is OUR job as citizens to ensure they do not grow beyond the limits set forth in the founding documents lest our liberty be restricted.  In our last election 130 million of 303 million citizens voted.  If you consider that 24.5% of our population is under 18, that means that there are nearly 230 million Americans of voting age.  That means 100 million citizens of voting age are not upholding their part of the Constitutional deal.  Every American has a voice, but we must use it.

This morning on my way into work, I was doing my obligatory pre 9AM (Glenn Beck) radio scan.   I listened to the WDEL morning news, heard Michael Smerconish ranting about some unfinished project he was working on and finally settled on WIP for some low brow comedy mixed with sports debate talk.  What I got to hear was far worse than the typical talk about breasts, pregnant women or my beloved Philly sports teams.  What I heard was the morning show crew, Angelo Cataldi, Rhea Hughes, Hugh Douglass and Al Morganti discussing a very frugal nurse named Melissa.  So frugal in fact that this particular nurse, and according to her testimony, many of her colleagues at the hospital, actually steal food from patients.  Yes, you heard it right, they take the food ordered by these patients off the tray and replace it with a terrible sandwaich from the nurses fridge.  Worse yet, this nurse actually admits to having called the hospital kitchen and ordering food for patients in a comma.  Her rationale?  "The kitchen doesn't know their diagnosis, and the guy in the comma isn't waking up."  So America, you want to know why your healthcare costs are through the roof?  This is why.  And these morning show people, did they show the slightest bit of concern or denounce these acts?  NO!  They laughed and giggled and thought it was funny.  Angelo Cataldi even saw fit to explain how he thought that it was great and how much he respected this thievery.  Couple this with the NY Insurance Commissioners office denying a Primary Care Physician the right to charge a monthly flat right of $79 for unlimited visits, avoiding costly insurance and you can see why healthcare costs have gone up so much.  By the way, the NY insurance commissioner has stated that the doctor must charge not only a $79 flat rate per month, but also a sick visit office charge of $33 per visit.  This sort of defeats the original intent of the DR. who wanted only to charge his patients $79 a month for any and all visits with no limitations or other fees.  Still think government run universal heathcare is a great idea?  Also keep this in mind, over in England, where they have UHC, the nations rationing board (the group that controls who gets what medicine) denied life prolonging cancer treatments to dozens of patients due to the cost of the drugs.  Are you sure about wanting the UHC?

Dear Mr. Queitsch:

Thank you for contacting my office and letting me know of your concerns regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I appreciate hearing your views on this important matter. I apologize for the length of this response, but the issues before us are complex, and I hope that you'll take a few minutes to read my response. 

Let me begin by saying that I have heard from hundreds of Delawareans who, like yourself, expressed to me their opposition to this legislation, known to most as the stimulus package. Many people conveyed their concern with the overall size of the economic recovery proposal and contended that some of the spending provisions would not create jobs in the near-term. I share many of those same views, and agree with you that the bill that came to the Senate floor was far from perfect. Its cost was approaching a trillion dollars, and a number of its provisions did not directly stimulate the economy, create jobs, or start us on the long road to economic recovery. They shouldn't have been included in this proposal in the first place.  But rather than accepting the bill as it was, I went to work with a bipartisan group of a dozen or so senators in an effort to bring common sense and purpose to the debate and to make the proposal - not a perfect one - but a better one.

As I'm sure you know, the challenges facing our economy are like nothing that our nation - and other nations -- have seen since the Great Depression.  In the last year, Americans have lost over 3 million jobs including 1.8 million in the last three months alone, bringing our national unemployment rate to 7.6 percent with the worst still to come. The ongoing downturn in the housing market has resulted in a tidal wave of foreclosures and delinquencies, flooding our communities with thousands of blighted, boarded up homes. Moreover, as millions of Americans have witnessed the value of their homes, stocks, and pensions drop, consumers have hunkered down and largely stopped spending, making it even more difficult to lift our economy out of its deep recession. In response, leading economists from all sides of the political spectrum, from Alan Blinder to Martin Feldstein to Mark Zandi, have made it clear that our federal government has to act and act now. 

During most recessions since World War II, the efforts by the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates were generally far more effective in encouraging economic recovery than most actions taken by Congress.  In fact, the Fed's ability to cut interest rates, often referred to as monetary policy, has helped to end every post-WWII recession within less than a year. The current recession, however, just entered its 15th month, and the Federal Reserve has exhausted its primary tool by lowering interest rates to essentially zero. Unfortunately, that has not done the job, and it has become necessary for Congress and the President to act. A wide cross-section of economists argue that sound, targeted fiscal policy from our executive and legislative branches can help complement the efforts of the Federal Reserve in order to reverse this economic downturn and eventually restore growth to avoid a prolonged recession.

In response, several weeks ago, the Obama administration and the 111th Congress began crafting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to provide a combination of federal spending, tax cuts, and tax incentives to create jobs, promote investment, and help states like Delaware address their budget shortfalls and meet the growing needs of their citizens. At the same time, the legislation was intended to advance vital public policy goals like reducing harmful emissions, promoting energy independence, rebuilding our nation's decaying infrastructure and schools, and overhauling our inefficient health care system.  

Many constituents, like you, have flooded my office with phone calls, emails and letters to say that they believed the measure was flawed and misguided. I listened carefully to these concerns, and want to let you know that I agreed with many of them.  The legislation passed by the House of Representatives on January 29th along with the initial bill that emerged from the Senate Appropriations Committee was less than perfect. I have long believed that if something isn't perfect, we should try to make it better, and that's exactly what I set out to do.

For the better part of a week, I worked with a bipartisan group, led by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), to pare back a very substantial amount of money-$110 billion- in provisions that, while meritorious, did not belong in a bill whose main goals are economic recovery and job creation. We sought to make sure that more of the stimulus package was timely, targeted, and temporary, and that more of its spending provisions, as well as its tax cuts and tax incentives were better focused on creating jobs now and on producing real economic improvement soon. Our compromise agreement trimmed the bloated legislation from the House and Senate Committees to under $800 billion in targeted federal assistance over the next two years - roughly 60 percent spending and 40 percent tax cuts. While the Senate adopted the Nelson-Collins compromise on February 10th, that compromise was still far from perfect, and a House-Senate conference was formed to make further improvements.   

The final version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that emerged from the conference committee includes tax cuts for more than 95 percent of American working families: up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. The bill is expected to create an estimated 3.5 million jobs -- including 11,000 in Delaware -- by putting Americans to work to begin rebuilding our nation's crumbling infrastructure, including roads, bridges, ports, railways, waterways, mass transit, and water and sewer systems. The bill invests in clean energy, energy efficiencies, and electric grid upgrades - which will not only reduce our energy costs and clean our nation's air, but will also make America more energy independent.   This legislation provides energy tax incentives for the manufacturing and production of wind, biofuels and other renewable sources of energy that are crucial to creating green jobs and making Delaware's offshore wind farm competitive. The bill also includes the critical extension of emergency unemployment benefits in areas of high unemployment, while increasing food stamps benefits -- two temporary measures that most economists agree are both highly effective as stimulus.

Moreover, the legislation targets relief to recently unemployed workers to continue receiving affordable health insurance through COBRA, providing much needed assistance to some of the most vulnerable individuals and families affected by the economic crisis. The bill also makes possible important investments in health information technology in doctors' offices and hospitals across America - much like we've done in our V.A. system - saving lives and money while enhancing the productivity of health care providers in our country.  In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helps states that are being crushed under the cost of their Medicaid health care systems for low-income families without health care coverage.  And, it also provides almost $54 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to the 46 states, like Delaware, that are facing enormous budget deficits this year and next. These vital funds will help keep the size of classes from growing even larger, make much-needed repairs in many of our schools, and continue to provide essential community services like law enforcement and fire protection.

Finally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act attempts to address the root cause of the current economic downturn -- the housing crisis - by overhauling an ineffective homeowner refinancing program adopted last year, so that distressed Americans facing the prospect of foreclosure can have a more realistic and viable option to avoid foreclosure. In addition, the final version of the bill provides for a first-time homebuyer tax credit of $8,000 through December 31, 2009 that - coupled with 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage rates approaching 5 percent and much lower home prices -should help to jumpstart the housing market this year. 

The American people have entrusted the Congress and the President with the responsibility to set aside politics and do what we believe is needed to strengthen the pillars of our nation's economy. Americans don't care if our ideas are liberal or conservative.  Rather, they want us to work together to figure out what will work to pull us back from the precipice that we face and put our nation back on the path to recovery. 

No one is pretending that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is perfect. No piece of legislation whose scope is that large will be. There are provisions I would like to add, and - frankly -some that I would like to remove; however, I do believe that our bipartisan efforts succeeded in making the bill better by reducing its overall cost and by focusing on putting Americans back to work on projects and initiatives that are worth doing. Ultimately, I believe in the resiliency of the American people and in our small state.  I remain confident that as we now turn our attention to fixing our banking system, our economy eventually will emerge from this recession stronger, more competitive, and ready to continue leading the global economy in the 21st century. 

Again, I apologize for the length of this response, and I do thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on this critical issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or comments about this or any other matter of importance to you and to our nation.

Sincerely,

Tom Carper
United States Senator

Folks, I just received an email from someone I consider a friend, a patriot and above all, a Great American Hero.  This person has done more to advance the cause of liberty, freedom and independence than just about anyone in D.C.  Time and again this person has been a voice for optimism and certainty when both were little seen or heard.  So when I saw the personal message at the bottom of the group email, I knew it was time for me to speak.
      
           Here is the note... "News Alert A news alert on FOX just announced that out of the $350,000,000,000.00 the ignoramuses at the treasury has already spent, $78,000,000,000.00 of it was wasted in that they overpaid by that amount for the holdings that they paid for with OUR money. Idiots.  Our new treasury secretary, Mr. Tax Cheat, was involved actively with this payout/bailout, taxpayer/robbery waste.  SPEAK UP AMERICA. !!! We need a full blown Revolt in this country." 

        Why is this so important?  This rational and exceptional individual is calling for a revolt.  Their not telling us simply to have and use our voice, their telling us to stand up and overthrow the government.  This is not the first time I've hears such a sentiment, but it is the first time I've heard it from someone so level headed.  For this reason I have decided to, in my very humble words, explain a few things.

         Now is not the time to engage in a Confederate style secession or revolutionary revolt.  Put down your torches and pitchforks.  Now is not the time to pit brother against brother or to quibble over minor differences in philosophy.  Now is not the time to revolt, now is the time to unite.  Does this mean we accept the Socialism being hurled at us from the leftists "in charge"?  No!  It means we must look to our fellow Americans, open a dialogue about where our country is going and where we want it to go.  It means we must activate the form of government instituted by the founders in the Constitution.  Citizen government was never intended for only the wealthy and powerful.  Planters and Printers, Farmers and Firefighters make up most of the men who are responsible for the country we have today.  Many were dirt poor and tended fields by day and sowed revolutionary dreams of their own independence by night.  Fewer still had toiled in their soil for many years in order to establish their wealth and local position before stretching out into the boundaries of revolutionary politics.  Even though Lincoln was a lawyer and lawmaker before he was elected, he was born to a farmer, poor and unknown.  He never attended Harvard, Yale or Columbia.  He had no degree, no pedigree and no fame.  He studied hard, never enjoying the fortunes of a college education and by wits and effort alone passed the bar, became part of the state legislature and eventually President.  From humble beginnings come the best talent.  Ronald Wilson Reagan was born poor.  It was only through his years acting, in B-movies that he gained any fame.  Did he simply fade into the dust?  No, because Reagan was an American and he knew it and was proud of it.  He went on to become the greatest President of the modern era and arguably one of the best in history.  They all, from Samuel Adams to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan have one thing in common.  They were proud Americans.  This country is literally filled with men and women like them.  We see them everyday everywhere we go.  We don't speak to them and we don't know them, or maybe we do.  We've got to activate these people.  We've got to press these folks into service.  It's time now to unite as Americans under the common cause of preserving our liberty and defending our freedom.  WE must reinstate citizen government.  We MUST take back our country.  We must do it though with civility and activism.  We must do it across party lines.  We must understand the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist and we must act fast and not allow our country to be hijacked from us in the dark of night.  WE are "the shining city on a hill" that Ronald Reagan spoke of.  WE THE PEOPLE are what make this country great and we must be proud to do so.  Please stand with me, with us.  Join in the movement, unite in the quest and let's take back our government from the wealthy and privileged.