The one thing we can never get enough of is love. And the one thing we can never give enough of is love.
Henry Miller
The 15 Trillion Dollar Man
 |
| President Barack Obama Photo Paid For By Future US Taxpayers |
"The US government's debt load topped the $15 trillion mark Wednesday...That was roughly equal to 99 percent of the size of the total US economy projected for 2011, a level normally seen as very unhealthy by economists." - The Economic Times
Recuse from ObamaCare Decision? Thomas, NO! Kagan, YES!
Ginni Thomas, the SCOTUS justice's wife, earned income as an executive of a conservative lobbying group called Liberty Central. Liberty Central has a number of major agenda items: tax and spend policies, welfare, education, and cap and trade; they are concerned with the overreach of government, morally hazardous policies, and the like. Ginni Thomas resigned nearly a year ago from Liberty Central.
I'm just utterly amazed at tonight's Greta van Susteren's On the Record program. All 3 lawyers, including her two black male guests, largely agree that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself because Ginni's organization, on an issue consistent with their overall conservative philosophy, came out against ObamaCare. It's argued that Ginni Thomas, and hence her husband, had a material interest in OPPOSING ObamaCare.
I'm at a loss at the incredulous, hypocritical leap of logic taken by such a fundamentally unreasonable point of view. First, let's point out from the get-go that Ginni Thomas resigned from Liberty Central long before the Supreme Court even agreed to pick up ANY of the ObamaCare cases. They could have refused to take up the cases, leaving the appeals court decisions the law of the land. Justice Thomas by himself could not act by himself to bring the court decision before SCOTUS.
Second, Justice Clarence Thomas' basic views have always been largely consistent with a more conservative standpoint; in fact, that was a major reason G.H.W. Bush nominated him. The idea that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from making a decision consistent with his decisions over the past 2 decades is absolutely unfair, absurd and irrational. What would be a violation of ethics is a decision fundamentally at odds with his judicial philosophy, i.e., if Thomas' principles would lead him to reject the constitutionality of ObamaCare but Ginni Thomas worked for those with a vested interest in ObamaCare, he then switched to a pro-ObamaCare decision.
Ginni Thomas has her own First Amendment rights, and this was an issues advocacy. Ginni Thomas has a right to make a living and to her own points of view. The idea that Justice Thomas would be required to recuse himself from any and all decisions where conservative vs. liberal interests diverge because, at one time, Ginni Thomas worked at a conservative issues advocacy, is unreasonable. Let's point out, for instance, Marjorie Rendell is a federal court of appeals judge--and was concurrently the First Lady of Pennsylvania. In theory, state laws could have come up to review before Judge Rendell.
Third, there's a difference between working at a non-profit like Liberty Central and working for a party that has a material stake in ObamaCare, e.g., insurance companies, health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. I, as an individual, may find the only way I can fight against Obama's crony capitalism in the form of ObamaCare is to support advocacies like Liberty Central. We don't know much about the donors to Liberty Central, although Politico reported indicated that a wealthy Texas real estate magnate helped with seed money. What do I have to gain in opposing ObamaCare? I know that government price fixing schemes never work, and what ObamaCare will do is actually raise the cost of health care--because all of the government overhead basically gets passed onto patients. I don't want my doctor having to navigate through bureaucratic inertia and unaccountable regulators. The pro-ObamaCare forces unfairly want to cost-allocate all of Ginni Thomas' management income from the advocacy to a solitary issue (ObamaCare only touches on one aspect of progressive government overreach and in fact isn't explicitly listed on Liberty Central's basic issues webpage).
Elena Kagan, on the other hand, is a different story. As Solicitor General under Obama, Elena Kagan undoubtedly had a hand in terms of fashioning a defense against challenges to ObamaCare. But, as many conservative sources have noted, she also was personally vested in the ObamaCare law:
A March 21, 2010, email from Kagan to then-Senior Counselor for Access to Justice Laurence Tribe: “I hear they have the votes Larry!! Simply amazing...” Tribe responds, “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”Now I believe that Kagan will simply be the predictable liberal vote like her predecessor, and I would rather see a judge be more transparent about his or her real views, but what I found amazing is that Elena Kagan has, by any objective review, a far more explicitly vested interest in ObamaCare as a high-ranking member of the Obama Administration's Justice Department dealing with Obama's signature issue, than Ginni Thomas, whom worked for one of many conservative advocacy groups opposed to ObamaCare (among other issues). Liberty Central had little to do with attorney generals from over 20 states filing suit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
Hypocritical Democrats look the other way as Obama subverts bankruptcy proceedings to act on behalf of his union cronies, he manipulates ICE policies to pick and choose unauthorized immigrants to deport in a blatant attempt to attract Latino political support, he cuts deals with various industry and advocacy groups during the corrupt ObamaCare proceedings, and he names environmental activists and union officials to his administration. This is from a man whom promised higher standards of behavior, openness and transparency, and a post-partisan politics--he is simply just another corrupt Chicago politician, business as usual.
Herman Cain's Libya Moment
This interview, in my view, is far worse than Rick Perry's brain freeze (see Political Humor feature below); for one thing, Rick Perry's core point was downsizing the federal government, e.g., consolidating federal agencies and/or eliminating federal programs. He was fleshing out the concept; I think after a couple of seconds he should have briefly referenced his platform for more details and gone on to talk about the bigger issues of, say, the federal government meddling in the private sector or state and local responsibilities in terms of education and health care, etc. It came across like he was reciting memorized political spin. We've had enough political spin the last 3 years.
(I had a brief moment like that during my high school graduation valedictory, my first public speech; I had my speech typed up but in the dim light could barely read it and delivered it largely through memory. My mind abruptly went blank near the end of the speech and I futilely fumbled through my notes to find my place; after a few agonizing moments, I suddenly remembered the rest of the speech. It's never happened since in several public speeches (to a Toastmasters' like group) and 8 years of college teaching and delivering papers at national conferences. But my hopes that the rest of the people hadn't noticed were dashed within 10 seconds of going home in the family van.)
Cain's awkward hesitations in discussing Libya are more difficult to explain because his foreign bona fides had already been challenged, e.g., the Palestinian right of return. If he had spent time in Congress and cast votes on military and foreign policy issues, or if he had years of diplomatic experience like Jon Huntsman, it would be less of an issue, but given his lack of a track record, it's only natural that what he says and does on foreign policy would be subject to higher scrutiny. The question of Libya is particularly notable because it involves unprovoked military action by the US. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have been notoriously clear in their opposition to the Libya action.
I initially supported very limited military action as part of an internationally coordinated response to Qaddafi's threat of genocide against the civilians of Benghazi and other east Libyan cities (the base area for Qaddafi's opponents). But what happened was de facto a military alliance with the Libyan rebels, which is something I did not favor; this is basically Obama scope creep. Obama is using the War on Terrorism to expand the use of drones in a manner similar to Clinton's cruise missile-prone policies.
I have become more sympathetic with the military and foreign policy views of Ron Paul (although not with his strident blame-America rhetoric); there will always be unjust actions taking place in other parts of the world. We are engaging in morally hazardous policies by not allowing area participants to do their part in regional stability. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman: even the most daring fiscal conservatives only promise to get to a balanced budget within a decade; what are we going to do with a debt half again the size the economy (see the lead segment above)? We need to streamline our alliances and responsibilities.
Herman Cain here haltingly, incoherently and indirectly suggests some concerns about rumored terrorist links with the Libyan resistance (now in power). And then he suggests that he needs access to the information Obama has available to make a decision. WRONG ANSWER! How many debates have we had so far? More than a handful--in all that time, dealing with a contemporary issue like Libya happening during the campaign, you don't have a canned response regarding the pros and cons of Obama's handling of Libya? For example, what about the fact that Obama seems to be EXPANDING versus CONTRACTING the American footprint across Africa and the Middle East? What about Obama bombing Yemen and Pakistan, two nations whom are not in a state of war with us: where is the legitimate national interest? What about Michele Bachmann's point about a comprehensive military rationale for our involvement in Libya?
Saying the world is complex and you need more information is a non-answer; you need to demonstrate a detailed knowledge of the facts, an ability to organize and summarize your relevant points within the context of your general principles enveloping foreign affairs and military policy in terms your audience can understand. Herman Cain is painful to watch here; I could easily see this deer-in-the-headlights response to an Obama challenge at the Presidential debates; you have to be able to foil off surprise attacks and think on your feet; I can already see Michael Moore mock Cain's response in the same way he mocked George W. Bush's reaction to news of the 9/11 attacks. The point here is--a question on Libya is NOT a gotcha question. How could someone seriously running for a Presidential nomination be so inarticulate over a contemporary issue?
Political Humor
David Letterman's Top 10
Rick Perry's Debate Senior Moment
10. "Actually, there were three reasons I messed up last night. One was the nerves, and two was the headache, and three ... oops."
9. "I don't know what you¹re talking about - I think things went well."
8. "Hey, I was up late last night watching Dancing with the Stars."
7. "I thought the debate was tonight."
6. "Hey listen. You try concentrating with Mitt Romney smiling at you. That is one handsome dude."
5. "Uh, El Nino?"
4. "I had a five hour energy drink, six hours before the debate."
3. "You know, I really hoped it would get me on my favorite talk show, but instead I ended up here."
2. "I wanted to help take the heat off my buddy Herman Cain."
1. "I just learned Justin Bieber is my father."
[Hmmmm. What about:
3. "I forgot to tie a sting to my finger. No excuses: you know, we get a lot of them attached to that limited money we get to pay for federal mandates."
2. "That debate moderator sounds a lot like my political science professor back at Texas A&M. It was déjà vu: I thought my professor was calling on me during lecture..."
1. "President Obama wouldn't let me borrow his teleprompter." ]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Boston, "Foreplay/Long Time"
