Eric Holder is One Tough Dude!

Today, our abysmal failure of an Attorney General, known as Eric Holder, gave a very brave speech detailing how the Obama Justice Department would challenge the Texas Voter ID law in federal court in San Antonio. Of course he bravely gave the speech 1400 miles away in Philadelphia to a friendly audience at the Urban League Convention.

He cited last year’s law suit regarding redistricting and that same court’s ruling that the maps were drawn in a manner that was overly discriminatory against Latinos. Were they? I don’t believe they were, but I am not a Latino. But then again, in Texas how many of our families are interracial and just how do you accurately determine who is Latino and who isn’t. I mean I have relations in my family and my wife’s family that are of all different colors and cultures.

As a matter of fact, I have a lifelong friend who married a young lady of Hispanic culture and they have three sons who all have German sir names. Are they Hispanic? This same friend’s sister married a Hispanic man and they have two boys and a girl all with Hispanic sir names. Which kids are Hispanic and which aren’t? This is the future of Texas and the United States. All you have to do to see the integration of america clearer is travel to a college or high school campus.

When my parents were in high school they were all segregated. By the time I was in high school integration had been the law of the land for nearly twenty years and while we were fully integrated I am afraid there was still some self segregation in the schools. Today things have changed greatly since the time my parents were in high school. Take a look and see that the kids of today are pretty well integrated when allowed to be so. When I visit my children at college or in high school I am so happy to see this taking place. It reveals a little window into martin Luther King’s dream.

Unfortunately there are far too many older folks including many in my generation who knowingly and unknowingly work to maintain the rifts between cultures and the races they need to survive financially or politically. Regardless of their party affiliation, I look at representatives in government who are of mixed racial and cultural backgrounds and I see people who should be the perfect candidates to help unite Texans and Americans.

Yet far too many of them are worried about winning the next election rather than working for the betterment of society. They can’t see past their own future to take the time to help create a brighter future for all of our children and grandchildren. As a result, I have to say that should we as a country not learn to quit bickering, to address our own flaws as a people, become proactive in our handling of the issues rather than reactionary, to unite, and to work to come together; then our current outlook is bleak.

But then you have race hustlers (who I will leave nameless); people who through their own actions make a mockery of those who came before them. People who make a mockery of addressing civil rights and racial harmony while claiming to carry the legacy of Civil rights trailblazers like Martin Luther King, James Peck, Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, James Zwerg, or Octavio Ambrosio Larrazolo.

So to go on the plaque of race hustlers who shall remain nameless, you can etch in the name of Eric Holder because regardless of what else he says, the only way for him to keep the fires from flaming out of the liberal agenda is to keep all the racial fires stoked to an overheated frenzy.

Sadly though, this will be a costly endeavor for both the federal government and the State of Texas; and in the end it will go to the Supreme Court of the United State where they will rule as they have in similar cases in other states and the law will stand. After all, Texas’ law is less severe than the decade-old voter ID laws in either Indiana or Georgia; and amazingly enough in both of those cases minority voting increased after those laws were passed.

But Oh Well, why not waste all those federal dollars….it’s not like they’re borrowed or anything!

Bring your ID with you to the polls in November!!

Bill

ObamaCare and the SCOTUS!

So this week we got the news that ObamaCare was constitutional because the individual mandate was legal based on it being exactly what President Obama promised us it was not – A TAX!

That’s right, the same thing the president ran around swearing it wasn’t is exactly the only way the Supreme Court said it could possibly be legal. But in reality is this what anyone wanted? NO!

Both Democrats and Republicans are going to claim some sort of victory but in reality NO ONE wins. The Democrats are faced with a law that may turn out to be the single greatest single rise in middle class taxes in history and slaps the very voters Obama said would not be affected; those making less than $250,000.00 a family.

To the Republicans the very fact that the law was left standing is hard to deal with; and not because it was constitutional, but because the constitutionality of it was so hard to find. In Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion he doesn’t even speak to the constitutionality of it until page 52 of his 63 page opinion. That alone shows that this was a result of much digging in the tax code to find something to stand on. And that much digging must have been a strain on the justice, I mean the IRS code is 70,000 plus pages.

But in reality what did the Supreme Court’s ruling actually do? Let’s look at the implementation.

Well, besides the preliminary groundwork for ObamaCare, little else has been done by the states or the federal government to prepare for the execution of ObamaCare. As a matter of fact, it’s doubtful anyone will move on it for a while; at least until November.

That’s because the Supreme Court’s ruling put the proverbial future of ObamaCare ball in our hands. That’s right; the voters are the ones who will make the decision. So regardless of whether you agree with ObamaCare or you are against it, it is up to you and every American to get out and vote this November to help determine the future of ObamaCare; as well as the future of America.

The sad part is that there are good provisions in ObamaCare; however, like all comprehensive bills ObamaCare tries to cover too much and runs all over itself with contradictions and miscalculations in funding and expenses. In short, there has never been a comprehensive bill that has ever accomplished what it was designed to do. ObamaCare is no different than any of those comprehensive bills and anything 2,700 pages can’t be good (unless it’s a Lord of the Rings Book).

Covering those with preexisting conditions and keeping children on their parent’s coverage until their 26 are two of the items the President will tout as positives of ObamaCare – and they are. But in actuality, both of these could have been done with a small five or ten page bill that could have passed a very simply. But these were two planks that the Pelosi/Reid team needed to use to make the entirety of the bill seem palatable.

To repair healthcare in America more needs to be done, but it cannot be done in one comprehensive bill. It must be done in a series of bills that work independently of each other while still working in-line with each other as well to benefit us all. This way there isn’t one large monstrosity that must constantly be amended but a series of laws that could be negated if they fail to work as designed.

Maybe this can be done once the elections are over in November, but until then we shall hear plenty on this subject and regardless of your feelings on this week’s ruling, the choice of whether ObamaCare stands or falls is in the hands of all of us voters in November.

Remember to Register to Vote!!

Bill

Rant for the third week of 2011

Thanks for all the nice emails. I am glad someone out there is reading this as I thought I was writing with no readers. Kind of begs the question; if you write it and no one reads it is it really a blog?

Here we go!!!

1. China’s President Hu has come for a visit this week and has been attacked by President Obama, Hillary and Harry. Be careful my liberal friends, I mean after all, our Chinese friends could have come over here to foreclose on us.

2. About one year ago, 219 house members voted for Obamacare. Today 245 voted to repeal it. And yesterday House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on MSNBC that the reason there was so much negativity towards Obamacare was because it did not go far enough – HUH? Yeah, that’s it Nancy.

3. Late last week Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that she is stopping the construction of the “Virtual Fence” on the Mexican Border. Two years ago she proclaimed the virtual fence the end all beat all in border security. So what could she have up her sleeve that will trump the virtual fence? Wait for it…….She has a plan that will address the concerns for each region of the border and provide a “new path forward” for border security; however, she had no details, None, Nothing, Nada…..Oh I feel safer already!!!!

4. More new jobs have been created in Texas than in any other state in the union in the last few years. As a matter of fact, more jobs have been created in Texas than in all the other states combined. So rather than being proud of job creation in the Lone Star State, our Democrat friends are only too eager to pounce on the fact that a majority of these are minimum wage jobs. So let me get this straight, Democrats would prefer to have people jobless and on welfare rather than being paid the minimum wage they set at $7.25 an hour.

5. How about the next time there is an opening on the Supreme Court we put an English scholar on the high court. Since everyone seems to have such a difficult time understanding the 230 year-old document, maybe having an expert in English on the court instead of having lawyers on the court would lead to an easier time understanding the true meaning. After all, nothing says a member of the Supreme Court has to be a lawyer.

Well I think that takes care of this week’s Rant. Hope you all enjoyed it and it makes you think a little. Wonder how much a used border security camera is going for on eBay?

Until next time, stay safe!!
Bill

How About a Regular Person

First of all, whether you agree with his positions on the issues of not, I think it is important to thank Judge John Paul Stevens for his more than 30 years of service on the high court of this nation. For those of you wondering, President Ford appointed Justice Stevens and he was then approved by the senate 98-0.

Some have criticized him for being too Conservative in his early career on the Supreme Court while many have labeled him the leading Liberal on the current high court. Maybe if President Ford would have known where Justice Stevens’ judicial philosophy would have ended up he might have rethought his selection…who knows. But that is the luxury and the responsibility of the being the president, you get to make these sort of appointments.

Much has been made of Justice Stevens stepping down and President Obama appointing a new justice. Will he appoint a middle of the road appointee, or a far-left appointee? I don’t think that is the question we should be asking ourselves. I think the question should be the same one we have been asking for a while of our elected officials. Are we going to have more of the same, or Change?

I believe whoever the president chooses as his nominee should be respected and allowed to serve, after all elections have consequences. I would like to make one recommendation though. When Justice O’Conner retired a few years ago, President Bush replaced her with an Ivy League selection making Justice Stevens the only non-Ivy Leaguer. Now that Justice Stevens is stepping down, President Obama is looking to appoint yet another Ivy Leaguer to the high court. He already did once in Justice Sotomayor, and likely will again.

Now I have nothing against the Ivy League, I just think that making another Ivy League alum a Supreme Court Justice, thereby having the entire high court made up of people from either Harvard, Columbia or Yale, would be a slap in the face to the rest of the entire country.

Yes I know President Obama is a Harvard Law man, but we need to realize that the people who have done the most and made the biggest impacts in American Society have not always, and not usually, from the Ivy League. Appointing yet another Ivy League Lawyer to the high court of the land just moves us one step closer to cementing the elitist ruling class; an Oligarchy that most Americans, from all walks of life, seek to avoid.

So with this said, it is incumbent on all of us to demand from our elected officials a few things of their political appointments. 1. That appointees are qualified for the appointment, 2. That the newest appointment somehow blends with the court to help it better represent America as a whole, 3. That the appointee is of sound mind and an unquestionable morale character that is beyond reproach, 4. And finally, if the appointee meets the preceding requirements, the approving authorities not challenge the appointment for the sake of partisan party rancor.

Yes I know this will probably not happen and that the whole thing will more than likely disintegrate into a political bloodbath. As a matter of fact, most people that read this will immediately begin to think, “Well if the (Democrats/Republicans) had not done this…” And that would be the wrong thing to do. If this nation is to ever come together and solve the problems that face us all, then we must first find a civil way to run government for the people and not for the ego-driven career politicians.

ALL RISE,
Bill

Naming a New Justice

There are a few truths to winning a presidential election. One of these truths is the winner has the opportunity to select appointments to the Supreme Court. So as Justice Souter is retiring, President Obama will have the opportunity to nominate his replacement.

Many on the right are concerned that this will be a radical individual who will lean heavily to the left. I am not sure who the nominee will be, but if that individual is heavily Liberal, then it is Mr. Obama’s constitutional right to be allowed to nominate that individual.

With that said, I would like to see two things from President Obama in making his selection. First, avoid the Ivy League. I know the president is an Ivy Leaguer; however, so are all the justices except for John Paul Stevens. Actually, except for Justice Stevens, the other eight all come from Harvard, Yale or Columbia. And they blame us in the oil field as being to Old-Boy Network.

Second, I would like to see the new nominee come from somewhere other than the federal judiciary. All of the current members have come from the Federal Judiciary. Now is the time to get someone who comes from a state court, or a district court, or Private practice. Someone like my Grandfather who graduated from Emory and was a state circuit court judge in Georgia.

What the court needs is Common Sense and Real World Experience instead of the partisanship that has been so prevalent in the past. President Obama has the chance to make his first nomination, will he start to make a change in the federal way of thinking or will he give us someone with a background similar to what we already have?

ALL RISE,
Bill