Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: Time For Congress to Regulate The Supreme Court Clan!

Source:Free State MD

This is why I have a hard time respecting a lot of the arguments of todays so-called Progressives, that I call Social Democrats. Because they are so short-sided and go off when they see something they disagree with. And say, “because of this, we must blow up the system and do something different and completely change the ways we do things.” Where was this editorial three weeks ago, or a month ago and why does Thom Hartmann wait until a ruling on the Voting Rights Act from this week, to go off on the Supreme Court? There are short-sightedness on both the lets say further Left and further Right and not saying this only belongs on the Left. But judicial activism as Senator Lindsay Graham whose obviously not a Liberal, but as the Senator said at both Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing as well as the Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court hearing, to quote Senator Graham, “judicial activism are decisions made by courts that someone, or some people disagree with.”

The way our branches of government are supposed to work is that the legislative branch made up of our bicameral Congress of a Senate and House of Representatives, is supposed to do the legislating and oversight over the executive branch. Meaning the administration that the President leads and the judicial branch, our court system where the Supreme Court is our highest court, the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws that the President and Congress agree to. Both the House and Senate working with the President. And the judicial branch is supposed to interpret the laws what they mean and are they constitutional, or not and. Can overturn laws not based on whether they agree with them, or not, but whether they are constitutional, or not. So in Chief Justice Roberts case who personally disagreed with the 2010 Affordable Care Act, but ruled in favor of it, because he believed it was constitutional. Not that he agreed with the law which is a different thing.

The Supreme Court didn’t throw out the entire Voting Rights Act and rule that as unconstitutional. Which I believe would’ve been judicial activism. Because whether you agree with the law, or not it’s clearly constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. But what they did was throw out a section of it. That had to do with how the Federal Government regulates state voting laws. And gave Congress the option of rewriting it to fix that law. I disagree with that decision, but it’s not an overreach even though with the makeup of todays Congress. It looks that way with the Republican House probably not bothering to take that up.

ABC News: VSpecial Report: DOMA Overturned by SCOTUS, Punt on Prop 8

Source:FRS FreeState 

If you are a true believer in states rights and just don’t just use that term to push your partisan ideological agenda, but then disagree with states rights when a law is passed that you disagree with, then you should like this decision whether you are personally in favor of same-sex marriage or not. Because this is a pro-federalist position, because it says that marriage is still a states issue. That the Federal Government has no business in interfering with how states regulate marriage.  

If you are a defender of the Equal Protection Clause which I clearly am as a Liberal, then you should like this decision, because it says that government state or federal can’t discriminate against people simply based on their sexuality gay or straight. That when you pass a law that says straights can get married, but gays can’t, you are judging people and giving them or denying them status based on their sexuality. You do not have to be a lawyer to figure that out, its pretty obvious. 

The other thing I like about these decisions is that it does not create any new power for the Federal Government. It continues to limit the Feds which is where Justice Anthony Kennedy is on the side of the proponents of this decision. There are those on the Left let’s call them Progressives, who are looking for gay marriage to be the law of the land. In other words give the Federal Government the power to decide who can get married and who can’t. Rather than the states making that decision for themselves.  

And then the courts would still be able to rule on the constitutionality of those decisions or not. Marriage is still a states issue and they can write their own marriage laws that would stand as long as they are within the United States Constitution. Which has been the true conservative position in this case. That marriage is a states issue and this is about federalism, rather than the Feds deciding who can get married and who can’t. So if you are a real Conservative like George Will or Ted Olson a lawyer in the Prop 8 decision, whose against Prop 8, then you should like this decision as well. 

So I believe the Supreme Court hit a home run both on DOMA by ruling it as unconstitutional. But also saying that the court ruling on Prop 8 that overturned that gay marriage is still valid. Allowing Gays to continue to get married because Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. While allowing for the people and states to continue to officially weigh in on same-sex-marriage. Just not giving them the last word necessarily.

Kyle Summerall: John Madden's Eulogy of Pat Summerall

Source:The Daily Press

As John Madden said, Pat Summerall’s long time partner on the NFL on CBS and then later on FOX NFL Sunday when they were the lead announce team for CBS Sports and FOX Sports NFL coverage, Pat Summerall was the voice of the NFL. Because, one he did have a great voice for TV or radio, but he knew what we was talking about. He not only knew what he was seeing and could describe it so well, but he knew what it meant. You got an insiders look from Summerall because he played the game himself and knew what he was seeing and what it meant.

Its almost as if you were hearing one man give the play by-play as well as the analyst in one voice. And then you add in John Madden perhaps the best sports analyst of all-time not just the NFL. And you are talking about a great team and watching a football game from two announcers who not only knew what they were looking at, but what it meant. And other than maybe with Frank Gifford and Don Meredith doing ABC’s Monday Night Football, its something that was never seen before except for Pat Summerall and Tom Brookshier working together, again at CBS Sports. To have both an announcer and an analyst know so much about the game and sport they were calling.

Pat Summerall was an analyst calling NFL football because he played the game himself as a kicker and I believe a linebacker with the Chicago Cardinals and later of course the New York Giants. Where became somewhat famous and successful as a player. So listening to Summerall call NFL games, was a real pleasure because it wasn’t a fans point of view. Some broadcaster who just loves the sport and his job, but perhaps knows as much about the game as his audience.

But with Summerall you were listening to an expert not just doing the play, but someone who would analyze what he was seeing. Because he not only knew what he was seeing and what it meant. And I feel so lucky and it was such a pleasure to hear him call all of those NFL games. Because he and John Madden were the number one announce team for the NFL on CBS and later FOX NFL Sunday. So you got to see them practically every Sunday. But also as a Redskins fans whose team played in so many NFL games of the week on CBS.

Another thing I take away from Pat Summerall was his intros which were great and famous. Because they were so natural as if Pat Summerall wrote those intros himself and added his own humor to them. And then you throw in the great theme music from CBS Sports and you got to hear the voice of the NFL at his best. Laying out perfectly what to expect from the upcoming game and what to look for from both teams. And what made him so great and best NFL announcer of all-time.

George Stroumboulopoulos Interviewing Bill Maher: European Socialism Part of Their Wisdom and Savvy

Source:The FreeState 

Bill Maher as usually get’s a few things right and a few things wrong in the same commentary. He’s correct when he says that Americans do not understand socialism, I would add for the most part. There are Americans who do understand socialism who aren’t as ignorant and partisan on both sides of the political spectrum. Who are actually interested in facts rather than finding things to back up their partisan ideological perspectives. I would also add to that there are Americans who are simply flat ignorant about Socialism. And we also have Socialists who are socialist, except they don't know it yet, or don't have the balls to admit and prefer to be called progressive, or even worst liberal. 

When Americans they think of socialism, they think of Fidel Castro or the Soviet Union and state-owned industries that are failing and so-forth. And lump socialism and communism into the same pot. What today's Socialists do instead of taking people's property away and making them now the property of the state, they just take most of your money away and claim they know best about what you need to live well. And keep most of the money in government's hands in some made-up of fairness. 

Another thing that Bill get’s wrong about socialism is European socialism as if all European countries are the same. As if Denmark and Germany have the same economy. Which would be like saying Vermont and Texas are the same. They're both America by the way, how different can they be? And have the same economic systems which are simply wrong. I wrote a blog last week about Germany and its economic system and pointed out they aren’t doing well and cleaning the clocks of their European neighbors because they are a socialist republic. Because they aren’t they look a lot more like America and Canada then they do Sweden or France. Denmark looks like Vermont though, at least ideologically. 

The fact is several European countries like France, Britain, Italy, Greece, Sweden and others, are examining their welfare states and seeing if it’s smart for them to have social insurance systems that are so large and cost so much. Or should they expect their populations to do more for themselves and be less dependent on the government. Why, because these countries tend to be run by fairly intelligent people who can understand when something is not working right and needs to be reformed. 

The Communist Republic of Cuba is doing the exact same thing and now requiring physically and mentally able people who can work full-time. Which I'm sure must be a cultural shock for Socialist Cubans are now terrified that they may have to get a job and figure out how to pay their own bills. It might seem shocking at first, but if their education system is as good as Socialists in America claim that it is, they should be able to get through that initial cultural shock.  And of course America is looking to reform its safety net as well. 

So now we have Socialists in Europe who aren’t quite as in love with the welfare states in Europe, looking to reform their welfare states. Even though we have Socialists in America who do not want to reform our safety net. But call any attempts to reform it mean-spirited and callous. And believe if anything that we should expand the safety net in America and create a European welfare state. Even as Europeans are scaling back their welfare states. Socialism in its mainstream and even most used form is about the welfare state. 

And government social services, rather than state-ownership and government takeovers of industries and outlawing private-property. Again the modern Socialist is not so much interested in government takeovers here. We are not talking about Communists here, they just want to take most of the money away from people, but allow for them to keep and continue to own their physical property. Because in most Socialist countries private enterprise and property rights exist. 

So do welfare states, high taxes and regulations, but now there are Socialists in Europe who are examining the role of government there. And looking to see whether they can afford to have a government that provides so many services for their people. Or should their people do more for themselves instead. They are actually examining can they afford to have a government so big and expensive that the people don't have to take personal responsibility over their own lives. And when was the last time Socialists did that.

Mass Tea Party: Video: FNC's Sean Hannity: Ann Coulter, "If The GOP is This Stupid, They Deserve to Die"

Source:The FreeState 

This just in, I’ve just seen my second video in where Sean Hannity was the most responsible person in the discussion. So either Sean is getting better or his guests are getting worst. The first time was from back in 2006 when she was interviewing a lawyer from the so-called Westboro Church, which is really a far-right cult, who protest funerals for Gays or soldiers gay or straight, they actually protest people who’ve died to protect their country.

Ann Coulter is pure entertainment for everyone on the Left and I bet a lot of people on the Right. Whether it’s immigration reform or whatever the issue, because she doesn’t get taken seriously very often as a commentator. But used and I mean used to talk about her. "Look Ann Coulter just spoke or wrote something again. This is what Far-Right is now saying and Ann Coulter is their spokesperson". The whole amnesty issue is a perfect example of that. It’s as if Neoconservatives do not know the word and the definition of it. Or they've made up their own definition and perhaps have written their own dictionary as well. 

Or Neoconservatives are simply being dishonest about the word amnesty. I’m not sure, I go all three ways a lot of times, but amnesty when it comes to legalizing illegal immigrants and not citizenship exactly, but saying they can live and work in the country legally and not have to pay any penalty for it, they are essentially pardoned for entering the country illegally. No one serious in the immigration reform debate who has any real power in this debate is talking about that. What we are talking about in the immigration reform debate is probational residency for people who entered the country illegally, they would become probational residents. 

Not legal immigrants or American citizens at least not until way down the road. But for probational residential status for illegal immigrants who’ve committed no other felonies other than entering the United States illegally, but haven’t committed any felonies since and are working and pay any back taxes they may owe and pay a fine based on how long they’ve lived in the United States illegally. Learn English and after all of these conditions are met, then they would be able to get at the back of the line. But if you're on the Far-Right, anything short of deporting 10-15 million illegal immigrants, or locking them up, especially Latin-Americans, is considered amnesty to them. 

Neoconservatives call this amnesty because they either do not understand the word, like probably in Michelle Bachmann’s case, or they have something against Latinos and seem them as invaders or something like in Pat Buchanan’s case. But with Neoconservatives like Ann Coulter and unfortunately many others on the Far-Right, is anything short of deporting ten to fifteen million illegal immigrants and perfectly securing the borders which is about as easy as making a country free of crime, is considered amnesty to them. 

What we can have in America is a safe and secure border, but not perfect and a country that has low crime rates. But we’ll never have a perfect system, but we can keep illegal immigrants from coming into the country in the future and do a much better job then we are doing now. You're never going to have a perfect immigration system legal and otherwise, as long as you're a huge country both in population and in land that is as wealthy and as powerful as we are. And where a lot of the rest of the world including neighboring countries live in deep poverty and want better lives for themselves and their children. And don't see that happening in their country. 

So when Neoconservatives who don't seem to support much of anything when it comes to immigration reform, except for increase border security, say we have to secure the border first. What do they mean by that, are they simply not intelligent enough to figure out that perfection is simply not possible in an imperfect world. Or do they want the border to the point that only so many people enter the country illegally every year. Secure the border is a cute political catch phrase, sort of like tough on crime, or fiscally responsible. But unless there are real policies behind those phrases, they are nothing, but political catch phrases and talking points. 

The White House: Weekly Address President Barack Obama: Celebrating Father’s Day Weekend

Source:The Daily Press

How to talk about the most important man in my life, which is the challenge of this blog. How to communicate about the man who gave us life and has served as the most important male role model if. Not most important role model at least in my life. That’s why we have Father’s Day in America, to celebrate the men who gave us life and allowed for our country to keep on growing and moved us forward. Who raised us and made sure we had everything that we need growing up to be successful in life. So we go to a good school and are doing what we can to do the best job that we can as students, so we can be successful in life. Who work so we always have a place to live and enough food to eat.

Who are always there to support us when we need them and are there in our most important moments in our lives. Just not as we are growing up, but as adults as well and the guy we can count on when we need advice and someone to turn to. That’s what father’s are for and why they are so important and why people who grew up with their fathers and had good father’s, tend to turn out better in life. Than people who didn’t have a responsible father, or never met their father, or lost their father early on in life. And what my father means to me. So that’s how I look at Father’s Day and what dad means to me. The guy, the rock I can go to when I need advice about something that I can’t get from anywhere else. Or can’t get better advice from anywhere else. Who I know will support me, whose always worked very hard in life professionally.

But also as a father. So his kids always have what they need to be successful and to live well. And when I talk about dad, I tend to use words like Big Daddy and Teddy Bear for a couple of reasons. One because of his physical stature. A big tall man over 6’0 and two hundred pounds. Where I clearly get my size if you were to see both of my parents. But also his personality and when he hugs you, it’s like getting a hug from a big Teddy Bear with the warmth and strength that comes from his hugs. But personally that’s how he is as well. A very loving man who wants the best for all of his kids. Myself and my two brothers who also has a tough love approach to life. That he’s the nicest guy in the world, as long as you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.

But, he’s no one’s puppet, or punching bag and can also get on you and will when you are not doing what you should be doing. Or could be doing things better. We have Mothers Day and Fathers Day even though some other countries might see them as corny. But we have these days to celebrate the two most important role models in our lives. Who without, we would never had existed. The two people who tend to be the most important people in our lives. Father’s Day, is about celebrating the most important man in our lives the man who gave us life who raised us. From the day we were born and has been there everyday since support us and that’s what dad means to me. So happy Father’s Day Big Daddy!

The Nation: Opinion: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: An Oregon Trail to End Student Debt

The Nation: Opinion: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: An Oregon Trail to End Student Debt

Under the Oregon college affordability plan at least according to Katrina Vanden Heuvel, students in Oregon do not pay for any of their college education while in college. But pay three percent of their working income for the next twenty years after they graduate from college. So lets say someone averages seventy-thousand dollars more for the less for the first twenty years, after leaving college, which is not unrealistic, in other words one million four thousand dollars over a twenty year period, that comes out to them paying forty-two thousand dollars. The average cost of a college education right now is over hundred-thousand dollars. So that would leave colleges with a sixty-thousand dollar hole per college graduate. They simply can’t afford that. What we need to do instead is find a way to pay for that entire college education in an affordable way that makes higher education universal for all Americans.

What I’m in favor of is creating Universal College Savings Accounts or UCSA. Something I’ve already proposed on this blog. Which is for each kid that is born their parents would be able to set up an account for each student tax-free. That would be matched by their employer and perhaps even the Federal Government, or we could allow the states to set up their own systems and parents would have eighteen years to come up with the hundred-thousand dollars they would need to send each kid to college. Low-income parents, would get their contributions tax-free, but also would get that money back in a tax credit.

As well as expanding the Federal Government college academies like with the Armed Forces. And have an academy that covers Justice, Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs to use as examples. That graduates of these academies would have to serve in these services after graduating like with the military. The fact is and I know Social Democrats hate hearing this, but there’s no such thing as a free education anywhere in the world. And not even in the most socialist of countries. We have to pay for our education one way or the other and have to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. In a way that those bills get paid, but also so everyone has access to higher education. Like we have access to K-12.

ESPN: CFL 1995-Week 7-Memphis Mad Dogs @ Baltimore Stallions: Short Clip

Source:Real Life Journal

The Stallions, weren’t the only good team in the CFL’s Southern Conference, American Conference, really. The San Antonio Texans, at 12-6 in 1995 were pretty good too. But they were the class of the CFL South. Maybe the only real Grey Cup contender in the entire CFL South in 1995. But you gotta know, the entire CFL South were expansion franchises. The Stallions, were in their second season. The Memphis Mad Dogs, were in their second season. The Shreveport Pirates and Birmingham Piranhas, were in their second seasons. The San Antonio Texans, who came over from Sacramento, were in their third season. The Las Vegas Posse, were in their second season in 1995. The CFL, wanted to create two conferences. A Canadian and an American, so the Grey Cup Final would be a Can Am Championship of pro football. Which was the right idea, but poorly executed. With the American clubs outside of Baltimore never marketed very well in America.