Crony Capitalism At Work Under Illinois’ Health Exchange?

By Ron Brzoska

A few weeks ago, several local outlets ran a story about, in a wonderfully bi-partisan move, a small start-up business was being recommended for a $150 million dollar federal loan so they could build Illinois’ healthcare exchange under the Affordable Care Act. ( http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20121011/INFO/310119991/illinois-governor-senators-back-proposed-health-insurance-co-op# )

The company, SimpleHx, was founded by a group of MBA candidates from Northwestern University last year. From looking at there website, www.simplehx.org, it doesn’t appear that they have any clients yet. Their website reads more like a business prospectus for investors rather than information on a fledgling business or non-profit. They refer to their “members”, but they make no mention of the names of their leadership. Somehow, this group has won the support of Governor Pat Quinn (D), Senator Dick Durbin (D), Senator Mark Kirk (R), Representative Jan Schakowsky (D), and Representative Mike Quigley (D). They are being recommended for a $150 million dollar loan from the tax payers to help make healthcare more affordable.

Let’s try to make some sense of this. The so-called Affordable Care Act provides for loans in the ranges of $100 million to $200 million dollars to one company in each state for the purpose of setting up a health insurance co-op. In the case of SimpleHx, they are being recommended as the group to run a state health care exchange without any previous experience. Wouldn’t you like to have a senator recommend you for a $150 million dollar loan based only on your good idea? How about the fact that to save money on healthcare, we are being told that our tax dollars need to be used to create a brand new company?

If you can get past the idea that a $150 million dollar loan will save us all money, then you might still be curious as to how this infant company was able to pull off such big name endorsements. I sure was.

It took a little effort, but I found another story on SimpleHx that finally gave me the names of some of these partners. ( http://dailynorthwestern.com/2012/10/24/campus/kellogg-students-seek-approval-for-first-illinois-health-insurance-co-op/ ) The main players are Dr. Elmer Abbo, Coe Schlicher, and Elliot Richardson. The following link shows that Dr. Abbo has made donations to the campaigns of Jan Schakowsky and four to President Obama. http://www.corporationwiki.com/Illinois/Chicago/elmer-abbo/88126441.aspx

I could not find direct contributions from Coe Schlicher, but his father-in-law has been a donor to the Democratic Party for years. http://www.corporationwiki.com/New-York/New-York/richard-roedel/62940754.aspx

Elliot Richardson is the person who makes the political contacts for SimpleHx. He ran for congress in the 10th Congressional district…

… Mark Kirk’s former office… http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Elliot-Richardson-for-10th-Congressional-District-69906412.html

I cannot say for a fact that any impropriety has taken place, but I can say that the signs are there to warrant further scrutiny. I just wish that the professional journalists would do their jobs and get to the bottom of this and other issues rather than being cheerleaders for corruption.

Guess Who Believes in Voter ID

Early voting started this week in Illinois. One of it’s most prominent citizens was exercising his right to vote yesterday. This prestigious man with a “funny” name, and skin that isn’t white seemed to have no trouble producing a photo ID card at his polling place.

Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to introduce you to one of the biggest critics of voter ID laws, President Barack Obama. The president didn’t seem to have any qualms about producing identification yesterday. It begs the question as to why he openly opposes voter ID and has his attorney general trying to stop voter ID laws from being enacted across the country. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

Vote NO on Illinois Amendment 49

Illinois voters will be asked to vote on a constitutional amendment this election day. The amendment is in regards to benefits paid to government workers at all levels in the state. In short, if passed House Joint Resolution 49 (link:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HC0049lv&SessionID=84&GA=97&DocTypeID=HJRCA&DocNum=0049&print=true ) will require a 3/5 majority vote to increase the benefits accorded to public sector employees. Not only would this apply to the state level, but also for our local governing bodies such as county boards and school districts. On the surface this sounds like a good, worthwhile thing, right? AFSCME and the other unions hate it so it must be a step in the right direction. Think again.

At first glance, HJR 49 looks like it would help Illinois’ growing pension and benefit obligations, but a little quick analysis shows that the public sector unions have nothing to worry about. First, the amendment in no way relieves the burden these benefits have on the budget and taxpayers. Reductions are not mentioned at all. Second, the 3/5 majority requirement does next to nothing. If you look back at the votes held in the Illinois General Assembly, you will see that all benefit increases passed with over 60% of the vote. A 3/5 vote does very little at the local level as well. The 3/5 stipulation is not much different from the simple majority. Here are a few examples:

• 2/3 majority vote is equal to 66%
• 3/4 majority vote is equal to 75%
• 3/5 majority vote is equal to 60%
• 4/6 majority vote is equal to 66%
• 4/7 majority vote is equal to 57% – FAIL
• 5/8 majority vote is equal to 62%
• 5/9 majority vote is equal to 56% – FAIL
• 6/10 majority vote is equal to 60%

The point is that most local governing bodies number 10 or less, so a simple majority grants benefit increases in the same way they always had. HJR 49 has had no affect at all.

In addition, the very first sentence provides a way for legislators to avoid even a 3/5 majority. “(a) No bill, except a bill for appropriations, …” What is to stop savvy legislators from burying benefits into an appropriations bill? Nothing.

This amendment is a masquerade for real pension reform. This amendment does nothing more than allow lawmakers to grab some headlines and falsely declare that they are serious about tackling the debt that threatens to bankrupt Illinois. While there are many representatives and senators that recognize that HJR49 isn’t much of anything, there is a genuine reason to believe that other legislators will take the opportunity to say that their mission is accomplished and they will have little incentive to do any substantial reform.

On November 6th, vote NO on Amendment 49. Vote NO for a meaningless promise and vote yes to showing that you are intelligent and won’t be fooled by this sham.

Wake Up Parents: It’s About the Kids

By Ron Brzoska

In the past couple of weeks national attention was once again brought to our educational system through the Chicago Teachers Union strike. I won’t get into the issues and resolution to the strike. That has been discussed ad nauseam, and I have nothing new or enlightening to add to that topic. I won’t be discussing the Lake Forest teachers strike either. That strike was simply about money. There are no pretenses about ideological issues. What I would like to discuss is the more local picture…because a lot is happening right here in my little piece of Illinois. Things that are happening that have nothing to do with public sector unions or collective bargaining. Things that as parents we must wake up to and become active participants in the education of our children.

The first issue to be discussed is a speaker, Jessica Ahlquist, that was brought on a speaking tour of DuPage County area high schools during the past week in celebration of the 225th anniversary of the Constitution. Ms. Ahlquist was sponsored on this tour by the Citizens Advocacy Center. The problem with this speaking tour was that its intentions are a little less than transparent. The controversy is described in this article.  http://elmhurst.patch.com/articles/jessica-ahlquist-athiest-york-high-school. The parents received permission slips that did not explain the content of the presentation or the sponsor group, the Citizens Advocacy Center. The parents were expecting a presentation on the Constitution and its importance in our government, but instead their children received a presentation on why prayer in school is wrong. While that is a healthy discussion for debate, and a healthy debate for our young people, it was presented as a one-sided lecture. This lecture was also given under false pretenses as evidenced by the lack of information on the permission slip. The responsibility for this lack of transparency should be laid at the feet of York High School. In addition to the flip/flop and murkiness on the requirements of the permission slip and whether the presentation is curriculum or not, they may guilty of not simply doing their homework. The Citizens Advocacy Center is a progressive activist group. Please take a look at them at www.citizenadvocacycenter.org. This organization was founded by Theresa Amato, who ran Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader’s presidential campaigns…twice. For those that are not in the know, the Green Party is for people that think the Democratic Party is too conservative. A list of the links to other organizations they recommend on their website has many progressive organizations listed.

• Brennan Center for Justice in New York
• Change Illinois!
• Common Cause
• Crossroads Fund
• Heartland International
• Illinois Public Interest Research Group (IL PIRG)
• Joyce Foundation
• McCormick Foundation
• Midwest Democracy Network
• Student Press Law Center
• Sunlight Foundation

Progressives believe that the Constitution is an outdated document. They believe that it is open to interpretation and change to address the situations and challenges that they believe the founders could never have thought of. Progressives believe that law is dynamic and relative to the situation. They also believe that as man evolves, we no longer need checks and balances in government. Those get in the way of action. Man is better and smarter now. We don’t need checks and balances. The government can be trusted. Dictators like King George no longer exist. They believe that government can be used as a tool to solve just about any problem. You don’t have to believe me. This is not my assessment. Please feel free to read the works of Woodrow Wilson. I’m only paraphrasing his words. Taking our children out of class on Constitution Day and bringing them to a progressive presentation is equivalent to bringing a group of students to a David Duke lecture on Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday. Being a parent, I want to know what is part of the lesson plan. We are entrusting our teachers with our children for up to eight hours a day in some cases. We are owed this transparency.

In Hinsdale High School District 86 there is an issue regarding the showing of certain movies in an elective film class. A parent has raised objections to the showing of Brokeback Mountain and American Beauty in an elective class, Film as Literature. The debate here is the same as the one waged during our generation and our parents’ generation over what books are suitable for students and what values are out schools trying to teach our children.  A story from the Patch is linked: http://darien-il.patch.com/articles/highly-controversial-movies-being-shown-in-class-has-d86-parent-concerned. I had made a comment on this story below:

I’m not clear on what the purpose of the class is. I have seen American Beauty, Brokeback Mountain, and two other films on the syllabus, The Graduate, and Old School. The name of the class is Film as Literature, so I suspect movies are to be broken down like when we studied books when I was in high school. Each book and a theme that we were studying. So what is the theme of Old School. Is there really anything to be learned by the movie Old School? Don’t get me wrong; I love the movie and this story will probably get me to dig it out and watch it again, but it’s just a fun time. There is nothing intellectual about it. I think if the lesson plan were more transparent, many parental concerns could be relieved.

As for the commentors that feel the board should not have approval rights over what is in class or the summer reading lists, please remember that movies, music, and summer reading are all a part of the curriculum. You can’t say one media (textbooks) is ok to screen and others are not. This is especially true today with the way many teachers are looking at alternative ways to teach our children as a way to reach and stimulate our children’s’ minds. Textbooks are gradually going by the wayside. We elect our school board members to spend our tax money wisely and make sure our children are prepared for college and their adult lives. The board is supposed to represent us. Teachers should never have cart blanche as to what they teach. What if the class had movies such American History X, Birth of a Nation, or that stupid Innocence of Muslims movie? Wouldn’t parents have a right to be concerned and upset then? Sure they would.

Is there a chance that Mr. Casini is grandstanding? Sure. In my opinion, I think this elective is a fluff class that has very little academic merit, but that is my uniformed opinion based on the things I can see and not on what I don’t know about the class. Transparency would help us parents a lot. I think that the focus on the objection to Brokeback Mountain and American Beauty distracts us from the real issue of what kind of say do we have in the education of our children.

Since posting that comment, I have seen the course syllabus. (HSHS Film in Literature Syllabus 09 19 12 (1)) I have to take back my statement that Film as Literature is a fluff class. The class is not about sitting through movies and coasting through class. The class has nothing to do with interpreting themes of each film. The class deals with concepts in film creation and adapting text to film. It also teaches how film can communicate in ways that written or spoken word alone cannot (examples: comedy and surrealism). I do not see any value or moral lessons being taught. This doesn’t invalidate my earlier statement about transparency help allieve the objections of parents however. While I do think that movies that would be less prone to objection could have been used for the class, I don’t believe any moral positions are being promoted. I still believe the greater issue is do we as parents have a right to a say in our children’s education? Yes we do. Not only a right, but an obligation. No one loves your child more than you do. We need to remember that. I stand by my comments that a school board as our elected representatives should look at all forms of curriculum. I think that the class is fine and the protest is much ado about nothing, but the school board is justified in having a discussion about evaluating the additional learning materials. The argument should not be about what has happened in regards to this class; it should be in regards to protecting our children in the future. What if a teacher really was using their position as a pulpit? Left or right, it is still wrong and there should be a check and balance system in place.

Now that I have given kudos to the District 86 school board, I have to take them right back. District 86 has one of the lowest transparency ratings (source: http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4959). While the district can boast some of the best schools in the area, they are not free from criticism, even within the ranks of their own school board. I have attended some of these school board meetings and have seen how uncivil they behave toward each other and the residents of the community. To say the discourse from the board to members and residents that disagree with the majority is toxic is an understatement. In response, someone has created a website, www.hinsdalehighschools.com. This site is extremely critical of the school board and its superintendent, Dr. Nicholas Wahl. The board members being criticized believe that the website is sponsored by the one or two members of the board that are in the minority on most issues. The school board is so upset about this site that they have debated sending a cease and desist notice to them on a number of occasions and will being trying so again in the coming week. On what grounds can you try to silence a website that criticizes you? The school board believes that they have proprietary rights to anything called ”Hinsdale high schools.” They contend that the site critical of them confuses people into thinking the statements on the site are sponsored by the school board. The charge is incorrect. Anyone who cannot distinguish the difference between the official school district site and www.hinsdalehighschools.com either failed to read the disclaimer on their site or is the recipient of a poorer education than the one provided by District 86. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this school board civil war, the interests of parents and students would not be served by a one sided argument. The First Amendment is about the freedom of dissent, whatever the level of government involved. Due to the previously cited lack of transparency, it is important for critics to have a forum. I am not submitting that everything that is said on the website is correct, but it should raise questions that the school board should not be too shy to answer. These are questions about the education administered to our kids and the spending of our tax dollars. We have a right to know.

The theme of these three stories is that parents need to stay involved in their children’s education and not delegate the responsibility to administrators and teachers. In many cases, our schools are doing a good job, but we should never take that for granted.

They Get it: Turning Point USA

I admit that I’m not up to speed on all of the issues involved in the Chicago teachers strike. In the name of fairness, I’m not going to blame one side over the other for that reason. One thing that both sides should be able to agree on is that no one is happy about striking. Unfortunately, I’m seeing a lot of pictures of teachers on the picket line having more fun than they did on their summer vacations. Even more unfortunate, one of those teachers whooping it up is a family member. They just don’t get it.

While some of the teachers may have forgotten what is really important, there is a group of high school and college students that “get it” in a big way. The name of the group is Turning Point USA. The have a wisdom that escapes many adults I talk to: economic wisdom. Their area of concern is what they call generational theft. Generational theft is what is happening to our youth due to our debt-ridden economic policies. Our children are being saddled with a burden that they may be unable to overcome unless we can be convinced to start today and do right by our kids. Stop the spending and balance our budgets!

We often hear that the youth vote is lost. We hear that they are either apathetic or willing to vote for whoever will provide them benefits,often being ignorant of the costs. I had the good fortune to hear this group speak and I came away inspired. They really do understand the damage that our Keynesian economic policies are doing now and to future generations. On their own they are articulating the concepts that are damaging and they do it without a partisan slant. They are not shy about calling out Republicans for not following their own advice. Seeing teenagers speak this message and speaking it well makes me realize the future is not lost. I got a lump in my throat listening to their passion on the subject. I kinda reminded me of me (LOL).

Better yet, Turning Point USA does not just preach to the choir. Aside of their appearances on television and with local groups, they have embarked on a college debate tour. On this tour they debate economic policy with college republicans and democrats and evangelize against the dangers of generational theft. I encourage anyone who has the opportunity to hear them speak to do so. While the subject matter is heavy and wonkish, seeing young adults that really “get it” will energize you and leave you feeling renewed and ready to take on the world yourself.

For more information on Turning Point USA, please click on one of the following links:

http://www.facebook.com/theturningpointusa?ref=ts

www.turningpointusa.net

https://twitter.com/TurningPointUSA

Support the True RNHA

By Ron Brzoska

You may or may not be aware of the controversy surrounding the Illinois branch of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly (RNHA). Some links to stories regarding the controversy are below.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/08/the-il-rnha-distraction.html

http://www.championnews.net/2011/02/11/a-look-at-the-recent-controversy-at-the-republican-national-hispanic-assembly/

In a nutshell, for two years a faction of RINO republicans that work with and are sympathetic to Democratic congressman Luis Gutierrez, have been trying to take over the organization. Unfortunately, the state GOP establishment seems to be taking the side of this illegitimate group. This group, led by Steve Orlando, is trying to solidify its hold by making appeals to different county GOP chairs. One of these events is about to take place in DuPage County. Steve Orlando has recruited Evelyn Sanguenetti to host a RNHA ”kick-off event” at DuPage County GOP HQ next week with DuPage County GOP Chair Darlene Ruscitti.

https://www.facebook.com/events/271642242951247/

What am I asking you to do?

I am asking you to please get the word out to your networks and contacts that this event is being put together by the fake RNHA IL that has ties to Chicago Democrats. Please ask them to call Darlene Ruscitti at 630-880-8192, ask her to not speak at this event and even spread the word on facebook. You can even send emails to her at druscitti@dupage.k12.il.us or regsupt4kids@sbcglobal.net.

Attached is a letter sent to the IL GOP Central Committee alerting them to the latest attempt by Orlando to take over an organization illegally. It is my understanding that Angel Garcia AND Demetra Demonte tried to have the IL GOP SCC recognize Orlando’s group at their SCC meeting yesterday in Springfield. They were rejected…again. A similar letter is being sent to all IL GOP County Chairmen soon.

OrlandoAug2012CentralCommittee

Please do not sit this one out. Thank you.

Can We Afford to Give Bill Foster Another Chance?

By Ron Brzoska

This past Saturday, my family was greeted by a gentleman who was passing out fliers for Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in Illinois’ 11th District, Bill Foster. He seemed to be a thoughtful and caring man. I knew he was thoughtful and caring because he proudly wore his green and gold AFSCME union polo as he walked through my precinct. You know who AFSCME is. You know…the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. You know… the union that has helped drive up the numbers of state employees, raise their salaries, raise their benefits, and helped us create a pension burden that is bankrupting our state. I’m sure that AFSCME’s efforts will be rewarded should Bill Foster win in his election against Republican Judy Biggert. God help us!

I didn’t know much about Bill Foster, since when he was last in office, he was in another district. So I decided to look him up and learn a little bit about him. What I learned frightened me, and it should frighten you. I went to his Wikipedia page first, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Foster_(Illinois_politician), and found the entry to be even-handed if not slightly favorable. That’s ok, but I was mortified to see what was listed as his accomplishments in his lone term (2008-2010).

1. He voted for the Obama $787 billion spending bill. This single act alone was over half of our budget deficit for 2009.
2. He voted in favor of Dodd-Frank, which did nothing to stop the harmful practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while creating regulations on the banks who have passed that cost on to their customers. (How are the credit card companies and banks treating you lately?)
3. He voted for Obamacare. Do I really need to explain what is wrong with that?

Nuff said! In two years Bill Foster has helped bring about this much damage. We can give him another crack at us. I’m voting for Judy Biggert.

Why the Fuss Over Voter ID

In recent years, voter integrity groups have grown and picked up steam in their efforts to combat voter fraud. The movement has become so popular that states are finally listening and cleaning up their rolls. Honest elections have even been a true bi-partisan effort. Afterall, who wants their election “stolen?” People on the left and right sides of the political spectrum can agree on poll watching practices and cleaning up the voter rolls, but they seem to be parting on one issue: voter identification cards. Why?

Liberals have argued against voter ID cards by saying everything from it being tantamount to a poll tax, to being racist, to being a way for Republicans to suppress voting. The right says that voter ID cards are just another tactic in ensuring that voter integrity is kept.

I happen to believe that it would be a help to ensuring honest elections. Let’s examine the opposing arguments:

• It’s a poll tax. Not unless you charge for the ID. This is something I would not be opposed to be provided to all at taxpayer expense.
• It’s racist. How? If everyone has equal access and must jump through the same hoops, how can it be racist?
• It’s a way for Republicans to suppress voting. Not exactly. It is a way to suppress ILLEGAL voting.

But progressives may have a point. Voter ID is meant to keep illegal aliens (by the way, “illegal” is not a code word for Mexican like liberals would have you believe) , unregistered voters, and people voting multiple times from voting. So if that is what is meant by suppressing the vote, then it’s true. Progressives have worked hard to make it easier to register voters. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately, the unintended (I may be too forgiving) consequences are that registering voters became so easy that it has been opened up to more corruption.

The left did not promote initiatives such as “motor voter” out of the kindness of their hearts. They were looking to find ways to register their kind of voters. Democrat voters are typically younger and less educated than Republican voters. The youth are impatient. The traditional way of registering to vote was perceived to be too cumbersome by young Americans. It’s really not, but as we say in sales, perception is reality. Motor voter has made it possible to register voters on impulse, like buying the candy bars that you see at the check-out line. You don’t need to block off a day and make an appointment to go to get registered to vote. You can get registered within five minutes on a day that you hadn’t even thought of voting. As a consequence, voter turnout on the Democrat side has increased.

Voter ID cards have the potential to reverse these gains. More than anything else, voter ID cards are seen as an inconvenience. Can you imagine the OWS crowd standing in line waiting for their voter identification cards? I hate to say it, but many Democratic voters don’t exercise their right to vote if they see it as an inconvenience. So I guess the progressives are right after all. Voter ID could suppress voting, but only by the left’s own doing. no wonder they are worried.

 

Stop Politicizing the Aurora Tragedy

By Ron Brzoska

Liberals really do live by the mantra of “never let a crisis go to waste.” They live by it so religiously it is both predictable and sickening. First, it took no time at all for ABC news’ Brian Ross and former Clinton staffer/pseudo newsman George Stephanopoulos to attempt to smear tea partiers by linking James Holmes to them. This was quickly proven to be false.

Much worse than what ABC news did is what continues to happen every day since. The left is trying to use this tragedy to promote gun control laws. Proponents point to Aurora as a reason for stricter laws, and for many advocates, outright bans of firearms. Let’s not follow Holmes’ example and reason like crazy people. Does this look like a person who would care about gun control laws?

Of course not! There is no legislation that James Holmes would have heeded. This is a man who had a twisted mission and he would have strove to accomplish that mission with stricter gun controls or not. Criminals break laws. More laws do not stop crimes. Red tape and regulation does not stop the person who has no respect for the law in the first place.

Critics on the left try to marginalize those that believe in our Second Amendment rights, as conspiracy theorists that are holding on to an archaic principle because they are afraid the government is “taking our guns away to enslave us.” While that is exactly why the Second Amendment exists, that is not the point here. The point is that good, honest citizens cannot… and should not… be made defenseless against society’s predators. Did the current gun laws save anyone in Aurora, Colorado? No, but they have saved people in many other situations.

It is very sickening to think that while so many people died in Aurora, Colorado, there were those on the left that thought it was much more important to push their misguided (and dangerous) agenda than it was to be human. Just stop it and wake up!

Thoughts for Independence Day

I’m using this Independence Day to think about where we are as a nation. Are we free? Is our government acting in the spirit of the Declaration and the Constitution? I don’t believe so. This is not me stating the obvious as I preach to the choir. This is me speaking to the nonpolitical public. I will try hard to stay away from buzz words, phrases and talking points. Those things are easy to use, but only through sincere belief and carefully chosen words (truth versus political, or politically correct language) can we have the necessary discussions to heal our nation. When I speak of healing our nation, I am not talking about repairing violence or hurt feelings. I am saying that the American promise that we have had for over 200 years is dying.

Over the past few weeks we have seen our Attorney General held in contempt for what appears to be obstructing an investigation into a poorly run program that has cost us American lives on American soil. We have seen this Attorney General run to the President like a child in trouble at school runs to his father, the principal. We have seen this principal… President… inappropriately grant executive privilege in an attempt to keep their son… Attorney General… from having to provide documents that would prove his guilt. We have seen now that the Department of Justice will not participate in any proceedings against their boss, the Attorney General. Does this sound like Justice? Does this sound like the checks and balances are being used effectively? Or does it sound like the Attorney General, appointed by the President, is more bulletproof than Superman?

We have seen the President, obviously unhappy that the DREAM Act could not get passed through a vote of Congress, has made it the law of the land through executive order and policy decision. Executive order is a procedure that he decried his predecessor for using. By executive order, the president has saved 800,000 illegals from deportation. By policy decisions, the President and his Department of Homeland Security will not expend much energy to enforce the immigration laws already on the books. The executive branch has decided that if they don’t like a group of laws, they will just not enforce them.

The Supreme Court, once thought to be an apolitical group, has now done what it can to not only remove that belief, but to also engage in what is either hypocrisy or stupidity. Let everyone make their own judgement. First, the court ruled against Arizona in the case their immigration law case. Arizona carefully crafted their law to mirror the existing U.S. law. The court ruled their law unconstitutional on the basis that states cannot make their own immigration laws. Arizona only made their law in order to give them the power to enforce the very laws that the Obama Administration refused to enforce. Isn’t it hypocritical for Arizona’s law to be ruled unconstitutional, when there are many sanctuary cities across the country that have stated they will not support the federal immigration laws? Second, Justice Elena Kagan voted to revisit the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. For those that don’t remember, Justice Kagan argued for the Obama Administration, as the Solicitor General, on the losing side of that case. If this is nor the textbook case for recusal, then there is none. Imagine a lawyer that loses (or wins for that matter) a case being allowed to preside as judge on the appeal. How is that close to being ethical? Finally, we have the Obamacare decision. I will not go deeply into it as there has been story after story, and analysis upon analysis of the decision. To make a long story REAL short, the decision was that the Affordable Care Act was held up because the court saw it as a tax which was within the powers of Congress. The problem was that the court allowed the administration to argue that it was a tax AND argue that it was a penalty. The fact is that the Affordable Care Act can only be one or the other. The President and the Democrats ALWAYS said it was a penalty. The job of the Supreme Court is to take a law and rule as to whether it is square with the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make a new interpretation of a law or of the Constitution to force a fit. Words are on paper. They are what they are. Yes; it is supposed to be that easy. Instead, the Chief Justice wrote an opinion that changed the nature of the law so it would fit his argument to uphold it. Let’s look at that argument too. The Affordable Care Act is a tax. Ok, every tax (as every 8th grader that passed his/her Constitution test knows) must originate in the House of Representatives. Wait a minute… didn’t the Affordable Care Act originate in its final form in the Senate? Oh yeah! It did! Ah-ha! Wait… the Supreme Court didn’t catch that…?

So I’m led back to my original thoughts at the beginning of this writing? Are we a free nation? Do we follow the Constitution?

The conclusions that we can draw from the examples above are:

• The Department of Justice is above the law.
• When the President doesn’t like the laws, he either decrees new ones or shirk his responsibility of chief executive of the nation and instructs his cabinet to not enforce existing laws.
• The Supreme Court no longer sees the Constitution as static and seems to blow in the winds created by the Executive branch.

Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” (oops a buzz phrase slipped out) our nation. He has succeeded. I would never have dreamed of these things happening, even on the night of his inauguration. This is why it is so damn important to be involved in the political process. I feel guilty for not being involved enough.  My participation in organizations has been down. I write once a month instead of every day. I have to do more. We have to do more. We cannot let this country be transformed any further. We need to transform this country back. If Obama and the left (that means our Senate, Representative, and local elections too) win this November, we may put ourselves past the point of no return. If we succeed in November, we cannot consider the job done. Progressives took 100 years to make our nation the way it is today. One election will not deter them from trying again. I want my son to grow up in a free nation, not a culture of government dependence. I want a nation that he feels proud to serve and contribute to, not a nation that he is obligated to support.