Emotional Legislation

When rules, regulations, or laws are driven by emotions or idealism, very little thought is given to consequences. An emotional rush to enact legislation always results in something different than what was intended, causing more problems.

Denver is facing unintended consequences from Colorado’s recent Amendment 64 that legalized marijuana and is now considering opting out of that amendment. Some city council members say voters intended only to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, not to have pot stores in their neighborhoods. The police chief says there are a lot of safety issues involved and that crimes, such as burglaries, have increased since Amendment 64 passed. Imagine that.

The marijuana issue has become an emotional and political football, confusing legalization with decriminalization. That confusion, a deliberate tactic on the part of marijuana advocates, helped get Amendment 64 passed. Buyer’s remorse is already setting in, but it could have been prevented had voters and legislators been more observant and less emotional.

They should have looked at Los Angeles where marijuana dispensaries now outnumber Starbucks. California has been trying, and failing, to regulate medicinal marijuana which has been legal in the state since 1996. This out-of-control situation provides a lesson for other states, but emotional, feel-good legislation is deaf, dumb, and blind.

Current emotions are running high on gun control, with wingnuts on both sides of the aisle taking untenable stances and refusing compromise. The same can be said concerning comprehensive immigration reform where “reform” has become synonymous with “amnesty”, making the issue impossible to discuss rationally.

We are currently experiencing many negative, unintended consequences from Obamacare, an emotionally charged bill forced through Congress by an idealistic president. This, too, was legislated while ignoring lessons from European countries struggling to sustain liberal health care policies. Good intentions need rational analysis, not knee-jerk reactions.

President Obama’s fomenting of class warfare along with his myopic focus on social issues uses emotions for political gain. As long as emotions rule politics, resulting legislation will just be another burden passed onto the next generation. It is our responsibility to think before acting and elect leaders who do the same.

David J. Hentosh

What Difference Does It Make?

With that inane response to questioning at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Hillary Clinton put forth the far left’s attitude about every hypocritical position they take and about anything that proves them wrong. Nothing matters to one self-righteously convinced of being right. Facts are useless and reality doesn’t exist.

To keep a proper perspective and context, Hillary’s response was: “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.” Interestingly, she contradicts herself with this arrogant and flippant remark.

“Figuring out what happened”, as she agreed “our job” was, actually does depend on the difference she sneeringly dismissed. That’s why the hearing was taking place. Of course, Hillary came to this hearing fully intent upon an offensive approach. Her tactic was to take the high road, aghast at the very idea of her competence, experience, professionalism or politics being questioned. In other words, she came as a hardcore liberal.

Sadly but unsurprisingly, the liberal media loved her for being obstinately aggressive and unforthcoming. A terrorist attack on a US embassy resulting in the murder of four American citizens doesn’t matter as much as toeing the political line. That line includes protecting a possible future presidential candidate from having to take responsibility for actions or inactions that contributed to the debacle.

No one died or was injured in the Watergate scandal, but Nixon was held to the fire and forced to resign. Bill Clinton’s lying under oath brought the same “What difference does it make” attitude espoused by Hillary. Could there be two different and hypocritical standards working here? You be the judge.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Dangerous Campaigning

Obama’s prime occupation for the past year has been campaigning for re-election. Refusing to ask hard questions, the biased media has been a willing partner in Obama’s attempt to hide his failures in order to get re-elected. Rather than investigate the administration’s glaring missteps and blunders, the media has focused on finding fault with Romney while echoing administration spin. This obsession with re-election has become a danger to the country.

Afghanistan, Obama’s “right” war, is failing and the American death toll is approaching 2000 at a current rate of approximately one per day. That’s slightly less than half the toll from 8 years of the Iraq war, and neither Obama nor the press mentions it. This is a far cry from the nightly reports of war deaths during the Bush administration. Afghanistan, for Obama’s sake, has become a silent, hidden war – and it is failing.

The economy, a definite smear on the Obama administration, continues to be spun as “recovering” in spite of all data and statistics, and voters are being told Obama has saved us from disaster. One need only look around to see the fallacy in this, yet, the spin continues in the hope of repetition becoming fact in voters’ minds.

Perhaps the most dangerous failure of Obama has been on the international front. Iran sneers at Obama and is on the verge of having nuclear weapons. Recent embassy attacks and deaths have been determined to have been planned terrorist actions and the administration is still immersed in blaming them on a video clip. The cover-up is part of a re-election campaign considering danger to the country as irrelevant.

We have had an absentee president for the past year and it is taking a toll. There is no national budget, immigration reform has been ignored, the Middle East is exploding, the economy is failing, class warfare is raging, the race card is alive and well, “green” policies hamper economic recovery, the deficit is increasing, and the media has lost all credibility

Obama’s solution is fund-raising, appearances on “The View” and “David Letterman”, ignoring national leaders, cover-ups, Romney bashing, and empty rhetoric. Four more months of this kind of irresponsible neglect is frightening. Four more years would be disastrous.

David J. Hentosh

Kathy Boockvar Running on…Inexperience

Democrat Kathy Boockvar, a Doylestown attorney, is challenging PA 8^th District’s Republican Mike Fitzpatrick for his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Boockvar ran for election and lost twice before, once for Commonwealth Court Judge and another for Bucks County Register of Wills. This is her third attempt at winning a public office.

Boockvar lacks political experience and although that is not normally a political show-stopper, it is particularly poignant this election cycle. Obama proved to all, or at least to those paying attention, that experience actually does count. Our economy, foreign relations, and social structure are suffering badly because of his inexperience and lack of responsible leadership. Voters should be hesitant to elect any political novice at any level at this time.

Adding to the bad timing of Kathy’s challenge is the absence of fresh ideas or a new direction that could at least spark interest from voters. Railing against the rich and corporations, blaming Bush tax cuts, and bringing our troops home are stale, Democrat talking points. So, too, is her bumper-sticker, fear-inducing accusation that Fitzpatrick wants to “kill” Social Security. Desiring a change to the tax code is pretty much an across-the-board issue with all candidates and accusing Fitzpatrick of partisanship sounds like the pot calling the kettle black

Boockvar will appeal to far-left voters because she certainly leans that way, but far-left tactics won’t convince others. On her website, she lamely tries to pair Fitzpatrick with Tod Akins, hoping printing their names together will stain Fitzpatrick with Akins’ infamous blunder. That and accusing Fitzpatrick of trying to “roll back women’s rights”, however, are typical far-left, over-the-top tactics showing her true colors – and they are bland.

One can find fault with Fitzpatrick as with any politician, but inexperience or extremism certainly do not apply. Boockvar offers nothing to make one believe a change is necessary. It seems that as far as elections go, it may be “three strikes and you’re out” for Boockvar.

David J. Hentosh

Finally, A Bright Idea From Congress

Congressional Republicans struck a deal on a spending bill that funds the government through the rest of the fiscal year. They compromised by dropping policy restrictions they tried to attach to the bill – except one. They did not back down from fighting a 2007 law that would have essentially made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.

The provision left in the spending bill stops the administration from spending any money to carry out that 2007 law, thereby, stopping it in its tracks. It may well turn out to be a temporary reprieve, but at least it brings common sense back to an issue that was decided upon with knee-jerk enthusiasm.

The CFL bulbs that are meant to replace incandescent bulbs are much more costly and, arguably, have not lived up to their promises. From health issues to bulb life issues, their use has brought controversy and concerns. The increased cost, alone, is a good enough reason to put aside a mandate for their use in this struggling economy.

The mandate for getting rid of incandescent bulbs was a politically correct product of over-eager environmentalists riding a “green” wave of the progressive agenda. This is the same agenda that vehemently espouses “pro-choice” on some issues while trying to severely limit personal choice on many others.

It is certain this bulb issue will resurface in the future but, for now, there is incandescent light at the end of the tunnel. We are also relieved from having to follow extensive EPA requirements for the disposal of broken CFL bulbs. That may actually be the bigger benefit of stopping the light bulb law.

David J. Hentosh

Solyndra Misuses the Fifth Amendment

Over at NRO’s Corner, Attorney Hans A. von Spakovsky explains the misuse of the Fifth Amendment by Solyndra executives at last Friday’s congressional hearing and in doing so, he gives us an excellent lesson on the Amendment. His explanation also clears the smoke that Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) was blowing in an attempt to hide any executives’ wrongdoings. The pleading of the Fifth by the executives is also shown to be a directional arrow pointing to all the possible criminal violations that may have occurred.

From NRO’s Corner

…two executives of Solyndra, the bankrupt solar energy company, pled the Fifth to avoid answering questions about how the company wangled a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy…Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) jumped to their aid. He protested when other members of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation continued questioning the witnesses after they had asserted the privilege. “It’s unseemly and inappropriate for members to be asking questions that you now know they will not answer,” Waxman claimed.

Waxman’s assertion that it was inappropriate for members to continue asking questions is…legally incorrect…Generally, it cannot be asserted to avoid answering questions in a purely civil matter…when a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment, he can use it only to avoid answering specific questions that will incriminate him or potentially link him to possible criminal liability. He cannot use it to avoid answering questions because he fears being embarrassed by his answer or because he believes it will cause political damage…The subcommittee members had the right to continue to ask Harrison and Stover questions…You can’t use the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering “political questions”… By refusing to answer certain specific questions, the Solyndra executives told us that they believe they are risking criminal liability…

Read it all here: Misusing the Fifth Amendment

DJH

The House Approves 9-Month Censure Limit

Congress has decided that nine months is long enough for censure of one of their own. In a seemingly Congressional bi-partisan agreement, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will be honored at a ceremony unveiling his official portrait as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee – followed by a reception, of course.

In the wake of being censured by the House with a vote of 333-79, Rangel was pressured by many of those voters to resign as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Even more ironic is the fact that the very portrait of Rangel to be unveiled was a subject of controversy during that ethics scandal.

It seems that being censured carries no stigma in Washington. In fact, it may be a positive thing, following Hollywood’s axiom that “there is no such thing as bad press”. In any event, the Congressional bar for being frowned upon has now been lowered to nine months.

Does this mean Bush will be honored at the 2012 Democratic Convention?

David J. Hentosh

Three Point Plan to Sanity

First, immediately stop paying every member of Congress, including their staff (and the White House staff), until the debt crisis is solved and the country is headed down a fiscally solvent and responsible path. Also, Congress is to remain in session, around the clock, until it is all worked out satisfactorily. There will be no compensation at all during this time.

Second, everyone, and that means “everyone”, in the House and Senate (along with the president) must leave office when their current term is over, never to return – no exceptions. They must also be banned from economically benefiting from this political fiasco – meaning no book deals or TV shows.

Third, pass a strict law that holds politicians, the media, and comedians/celebrities (speaking as political experts) responsible for everything they claim in public. When a politician such as Pelosi says: “What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today”, it must at least make sense, and then it must be substantiated. If not, removal from office (or TV) must be mandatory and immediate. The death penalty should not be ruled out in cases where intentionally frightening the public was found to be the motive.

David J. Hentosh

Obama Re-defines “Days” – And Much More

Back in March, Obama told us and members of Congress that his initiated U.S. military action in Libya would take “days, not weeks” and then we would be out and taking only a supporting role. These have become the longest “days” in history, currently lasting over a month. NATO just announced it has extended the mission in Libya for another 90 days, so we’ll see how far “days” can be stretched.

This highly intelligent nuance of Obama is, of course, way over the heads of average Americans. Many also foolishly thought that “Kadafi must go” actually meant he must go. Obama obviously meant he must go in “days” which, of course, guarantees him to be correct – eventually.

Obama has his own definition of “supporting role”, too, so he will not be pinned down with something as simple as that on the Libya mission. Using his personal definition of “war”, Obama also says he will not ask Congress for approval as stipulated by the War Powers Resolution because he has deemed that his commitment in Lybia is too small to merit Congressional approval.

Obama’s actions in Pakistan and drone strikes in Yemen could be curtailed if he followed the War Powers Resolution on Lybia, so don’t expect administration concessions. It is highly likely that Obama will do all he can to make Congress forget that resolution, or maybe he will just re-define it. If a Republican administration takes over, it’s a sure thing the resolution will return in full.

The mainstream media certainly seems to be running on Obama time and has fully accepted “days” to mean “weeks” or even “months” if necessary. They are used to re-defining anything to help Obama’s agenda. This was evidenced with the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner when the media redefined “mission” to mean the entire Iraq conflict. The fact that the carrier’s mission was, indeed, accomplished (hence, the carrier’s homecoming) was no obstacle. Facts are pliable under the magic of progressive ideology.

David J. Hentosh

Charlie Reese’s Final Column

Charlie Reese was a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, but has been retired for several years. He wrote some excellent columns about government.

The link attaches to a version of his final column, although it appears, after a little digging, to be a combination of a couple of columns.

http://www.orangepower.com/showthread.php?t=119649

Here’s a link to the way they seem to have originally appeared, along with some other columns.

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/woes.htm

Read through to the end. It’s worth it.

You might also send to your congressmen. They don’t seem to be getting the message.

aln