Santo Subito Santorum…and Sayonara!

Good afternoon, gentle reader….

I know I haven’t posted a new blog in a couple of weeks, but my personal life has been busy as of late.  Fear not, for I have not abandoned my column.

Let us also face the fact that nothing earth shattering really happened last week, save Rick Santorum bowing out of the GOP race to challenge President Barack Obama come November.  Yes, he was getting trounced in the polls by Romney, but that is not why he quit.  Many people would have liked to believe that he kowtowed to Romney because of his concern for daughter Bella’s health.  The truth is that Santorum just couldn’t keep up with the financial juggernaut that is the Mitt Romney campaign.  In a press conference shortly after he announced the suspension of his campaign, Santorum admitted that he was getting in to a financial campaign debt that he was uncomfortable with going forward.  Honestly…who didn’t see that coming a mile away?  For better or for worse, Romney has been able to outspend his rivals by financial leaps and bounds.  None of the candidates could ever have hoped to raise the capital to wage a campaign like Romney can.  The only reason Newt Gingrich and…what’s his name…oh, Congressman Ron Paul…the only reason those two are still campaigning (and I use that term “campaigning” very loosely) is because they both suffer from that political malady that I wrote about a while back called hubris giganticus.  Their egos won’t let them quit until they absolutely, positively have to because they are stone cold broke or their staffs quit.  Polling be damned: it is not about popularity for Gingrich or Paul.  For them, it is about finishing a job in the face of overwhelming odds and, I might add, extremely underwhelming popularity.

It is up to the GOP to rally behind Mitt Romney.  With all the talk about him not being a ”true conservative,” I am not yet convinced that will happen.  Remember what happened in 2008 to Senator John McCain?  He is a good man and a fine example of a leader, but he was perceived as being too “in the middle” for the growing conservative insurgency that eventually morphed in to the formation of the tea party.

On a side note, I refuse to use capital letters in the name “tea party.”  They are not a political party, nor should they be treated as such.  If they were a true political party, they would have, at minimum, put forth one candidate to represent them.  Even though the race is now between Mitt Romney and President Obama, they still have not endorsed anybody and will most likely never officially endorse Mitt Romney.  Their disorganization mirrors that of the GOP and it is hurting them all in their quest to regain control of the Senate, let alone the White House.

But, I digress…

The “true conservatives” in 2008 did not like McCain, so he was marginalized within his own party and did not get the support he needed to carry on a good and balanced campaign.  When that happened, he was doomed to lose the election to Barack Obama.  I fear that Mitt Romney is headed down the same path.  Mark my words: if Romney does not start getting the support he needs from within his own party, the election in November will be a landslide victory for Obama the likes of which this nation has not seen since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984 by a record Electoral College margin not since surpassed.

Strenue Is Taking the Day Off

Due to illness, I am taking the week off.  My weekly column will continue next week, April 16th.

- Strenue Fans

Hey, Is This Thing On? Open Mic Night at the White House: How America’s Relations Can Break Down at the Flick of a Switch

I used to work for this tiny radio station in northern Illinois.  One day, I was checking on the board to make sure our local commercial spots were playing like they had been programmed to play.  Suddenly, the feed just stopped and the studio computer froze.  It was imnmediately apparent that whatever was wrong was beyond my limited technical knowledge.  I ran to get my mentor, Nick, who was the Program Director for our FM sister station.  Nick was a great guy and had been in the radio business for…oh, I dunno…maybe twenty-five or thirty years at that point.  Surely, he would know what was wrong and could get the local commercials playing again.  Nick and I ran in to the radio booth, followed closely by a few other concerned employees.  Nick started flipping switches and sliding levers at random in an attempt to get something working.  All of us in the room were keeping our fingers crossed, hoping things would be back up and running soon.

What I haven’t told you yet, gentle reader, is that Nick had a short fuse and, when he was stressed, was prone to swear like a drunken sailor.

“What the [expletive] is wrong with this piece of [expletive] thing?  Honest to [expletive], this is [expletive] un-[expletive] believable!  Who programmed this [expletive] [expletive] thing like this?”

Just as quickly as Nick started his rant, he stopped and froze in his tracks, save one finger which slowly raised and pointed at the studio microphone as he looked at me and mouthed silently, “Is this thing on?”

Last Monday, President Barack Obama was caught in an open mic situation that, quite frankly, was blown out of proportion.  He was having a private conversation with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev about missile defense systems.  Unfortunately for Obama, a live microphone picked up the conversation.  Quicker than you can say “nyet comrade,” he was heard telling Medvedev, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this [issue] can be solved.  But, it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin, whose new six year term as Russia's president starts in May] to give me space.  This is my last election.  After my election, I have more flexibility.”

In the wake of the overheard remarks, Republicans across the country accused President Obama of making back-room deals to go soft on our missile defense system, a system which Republicans see as a protection of Europe from pending attacks from Iran.  In letter written last week, House Speaker John Boehner demanded that President Obama clarify his remarks and to state clearly whether concessions to Russia were in the works.  Mitt Romney took Obama to task for his mis-spoken words moreso than all the other politicians in this country combined.  He accused President Obama of “pulling his punches with the American people” and being dishonest about plans to placate “our Number One geopolitical foe” in Russia.  During an interview with CNN, Romney said, “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage, and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility, where he doesn’t have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia, is very, very troubling [and] alarming.”

Democrats were quick to return fire, calling Romney’s remarks “reckless” and further proof that Romney was not only out of touch with the American people, but also out of touch with global politics.  Perhaps the most interesting comment came from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.  Upon hearing Romney’s assessment of the private conversation he had with President Obama, Medvedev said, “Regarding ideological cliches, every time this or that side uses phrases like ‘enemy No. 1,’ this always alarms me.  All U.S. presidential candidates (should) do two things: use their head and consult their reason.  We are in 2012 and not the mid-1970′s.”

Who knows if Medvedev or any of the members of the Russian government follow American politics on a daily basis?  In a country with political upheaval like the United States is suffering through right now, I find it more than a little amusing that a Russian would be able to assess our current situation and diagnose what ails this country the most based on one comment.  This is the 21st century, not 1974 or even 1984, arguable the most tense time during the Cold War between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.).

Well, would you look at that: Russia’s name used to contain the word “socialist.”  No wonder the Republicans still hate them so much.

I can not completely excuse President Obama from the kerfuffle that erupted as a result of his comments.  He is the President of the United States and should always assume that there is a live, hot mic somewhere near him.  What I find baffling is how anybody could interpret what President Obama said was an attempt to undermine the safety and integrity of United States citizens.  When someone talks about needing “space” in politics, it means they are looking for some room to negotiate, not to wave a white flag of surrender as the fear-mongerers of our country would have you believe.  When a incumbent president talks about their “last election” and their plans after that election is over, they are talking about the fact that they are expecting to win re-election and will have more “flexibility” (read: time) to talk about negotiations or any number of things that may need to be discussed.  Republicans are mad now because they have fears (some would argue irrational and, if I may, well-founded ones) about the possibility of a second term for Obama.  Why would a sitting president give anyone else an impression that they were going to lose their next election?  What is the point of running for office if you are doing it under a preconceived notion that you are going to lose?  It is not a national or  international crime, nor is it heretical to any religion I am aware of, to go in to an election believing that you can win.

Many people are caught daily saying something that they wish they could take back.  It happens all the time and it happens to everybody, including presidents of the United States.  Does anybody aside from me remember when Ronald Reagan joked about bombing Russia prior to his weekly address to the nation on NPR?

Thanks to the ’round-the-clock and in your face media in this country, we have all heard the multitude of gaffes from all of the candidates for President of the United States this year, including some real doozies from Vice President Joseph “the Joe” Biden, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Congressman Ron Paul.  What we Americans need to ask ourselves before this coming November is if we want to have someone in the White House who might (and, I stress might) say something stupid every now and then?  Or, would you rather have someone who is prone to saying and will most definitely say something stupid when they know that the cameras are rolling and the microphones are on?

I should hope the answer is not cause for debate, let alone twenty debates.

The Supreme Decision of My Generation: Debating the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and How One Case Can Change a Nation, Part I: The Players

The U.S. Supreme Court began to hear arguments yesterday on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The nine judges are hearing three days worth of testimony and when they issue a ruling (which is not expected until June), their decision will be the most talked about decision in the past fifty years.  This impending judgement will affect every single American man, woman and child in the United States, regardless of age, race, creed or socio-economic background.  If the law is upheld as constitutional, it will fundamentally change the landscape of healthcare in this country.  If it is struck down, then nothing will change.

The PPACA is a very complex set of laws and regulations.  In order to make an informed analysis of the stakes that are involved with the Supreme Court’s ruling, it is important to understand as many aspects of this trial as possible.  With that in mind, I am going to deviate from my normal once-a-week posting schedule and embark on a three-day writing and posting spree in order to help you better understand all of the facts of this case.  In order to do that, there are three aspects of this trial in which we all need to have a firm grasp and understanding.  First, we need to know and understand who the players are in the trial, specifically who the lawyers are and who the nine Supreme Court justices are who are charged with making a ruling on the PPACA.  Secondly, it is important to understand exactly what is being argued before the court i.e. what the issues are that the justices are debating.  Last, but certainly not least, it is important to discern how this new law will affect us all if it is found to constitutional and not altered in any way.  Today, we’ll tackle that first question.

Donald Verrilli became Solicitor General of the United States last June.  He has a great deal of legal experience behind him and he is going to need to use every bit of his charm, wit and vast legal knowledge if he is going to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to see things from his perspective.  Below are some highlights from Verrilli’s personal and professional life:

• Received a Bachelor’s degree in history with honors from Yale University in 1979 and his law degree from Columbia Law School in 1983 where he was editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review
• Clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan
• In 1994, he acted as special counsel to President Bill Clinton, assisting in the confirmation process for Stephen Breyer (one of the justices who will be hearing arguments on the PPACA)
• Highly involved in court battles over a federal law aimed at spurring telecommunications competition
• Won a landmark case in 1995, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Hollywood and the music industry were allowed to sue technology companies that encourage customers to steal music and movies over the Internet.
• Argued and won by a majority 7-2 vote from the U.S. Supreme Court that Kevin Wiggins should not be put to death on the grounds that his rights to an effective counsel had been violated because Wiggins’ previous attorneys had not examined or brought about the fact that their client had suffered through a traumatic and violent childhood at the hands of his mother and repeatedly raped by family members of the two foster families who took him in.

President Barack Obama appointed Verrilli as an associate White House counsel in 2010.  In this role, Verrilli has dealt with immigration, health care, financial regulations and the Gulf oil spill.  It is because of his previous experience in defending “the little guy” that his colleagues say he is most excellently qualified to defend the merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Opposing Verilli on the other side of the courtroom will be Paul Clement.  He is representing Florida and twenty-five other states who claim that the PPACA is unconstitutional.  Clement’s professional career is a very interesting one.  It was not long ago that he would stand in front of the Supreme Court justices and defend the aggressive use of federal power using an encyclopedia-size cache of hand-written notes and, as his colleagues have described, “an easy banter.”  However, the majority of his career has been in defense of typically conservative agendas.

Some of Clements’ personal and professional career highlights include the following:

• Graduated from Harvard Law School one year after President Obama and worked under him on the Harvard Law Review
• Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and worked for John Ashcroft, both when Ashcroft was a senator and attorney general
• Appointed Solicitor General at the age of thirty-eight, the youngest person to hold that title in the previous 115 years
• Represented NFL owners in disputes with players
• Argued for the G.W. Bush administration’s policy on detaining suspected terrorists
• Argued in support of a federal law outlawing “partial-birth abortion”
• Argued in support of a federal ban on the use of marijuana for medical purposes
• Resigned from the law firm King and Spalding over the firm’s abrupt and belated decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of the House of Representatives, a move which drew criticism from some gay rights groups but praise from lawyers across the political spectrum, including Justice Elana Kagan who was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Obama

These are the positions that you would expect an attorney representing a conservative clientele to argue in court.  It is worth noting, however, that Clement has not always been on the side of conservative thinking.  In addition to his almost impeccably conservative resume, he has also argued for California prison inmates seeking better medical and mental health care.  He has also argued for higher fees for lawyers who won changes in Georgia’s foster care program.  In essence, Clement has done a flip-flop in deciding which clients he chooses to represent.  Critics of Clement find it more than a coincidence that the GOP, whose leading presidential candidate in Mitt Romney has been lambasted for doing a flip-flop of his own views on national health care, has chosen someone who has done a flip-flop in deciding the type of client he most wishes to represent.

In addition to Verilli and Clement, the other major players in this fracas are, of course, the members of the U.S. Supreme Court themselves.  On the one side of the political spectrum, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito represent the conservative side of the court.  On the liberal side are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.  The “wild card” and typical swing vote in the group is Justice Anthony Kennedy.  In recent years, Chief Justice Roberts has led a charge for judicial restraint amongst his fellow justices.  At his confirmation hearing, he said his job as judge is to act as an “umpire…to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”  He said judges must “have the humility…to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent.”  The question remains if the conservative side of the court will follow his example or abandon those principles and go rogue, as they did in the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C., a case in which they struck down limits on corporate campaign spending.  This is why Justice Kennedy’s vote is so crucial in deciding whether or not the PPACA is ruled constitutional or not.  During today’s arguments, Justice Kennedy said that the U.S. government has a “very heavy burden of justification” to show where the Constitution authorizes the Congress to change the relation of individuals to the government.  I would call that a warning shot to Verilli that he had better step up his game if he wants to win his case.

TOMORROW: THE ISSUES

Strenue Is Taking the Day Off….

Hello, folks….

I’m feeling a little under the weather today, so I’m taking the day off.  My weekly column will resume tomorrow.

- S.F.

Racism Is Alive and Well in the Un-United States of America: How We Too Often Hurt When We Need to Help Our Fellow Man

Every time I think the human species has evolved, I see something on the news or read something that gets sent to me via e-mail and I feel an instant slap back to reality.  I got slapped pretty hard last week…twice.

The first slap was from a video posted on YouTube.  You may have seen it.  If not, here it is in all its repugnant glory:

I know quite a few people who were born and raised in Mississippi.  In no way does this video reflect the views of every single Mississippian, or even every Southerner, for that matter, but when I hear people ask, “Why don’t you like [fill in the blank...it does not have to be President Barack Obama]?” and someone responds that they do not like someone based simply on their last name, that scares and saddens me.  When throngs of people say that the President of the United States should be “American” and “not Muslim,” that angers me and shocks me.  When people say, “We lost the war, but we’re not gonn’a be pushed around; we’re not gonn’a back down from what we believe,” I am left shocked, puzzled and angered.  Most of the people I spoke to who had seen this video had similar reactions:

“This is horrific!  I just came back from visiting my folks in Mississippi and I can tell you this video is accurate.”
“I was appalled when I saw it.”
“Damn!  Aren’t those racists dead yet?”
“I, as a conservative Republican Hispanic  woman, certainly don’t share racist views, nor is it the reason why I vote Republican.”

Those reactions made sense, but there was one that hit me like a leather strap to my back: ”I hate to spoil the enthusiastic condemnation of Mississippi and its residents, but I want to provide an example that idiotic statements and scary people are not the sole province of whites, Southerners or (gasp) conservatives.  If your video condemns me and mine, then my video condemns you and yours.”  This person then posted a video on Facebook, a video which he thought proved that Democrats and liberals make racist statements as frequently as any conservative Mississippian.  Everybody knows that racism can be found amongst conservatives and liberals.  With a knee-jerk reaction to something that smelled like a liberal or Democratic smear campaign against conservatives and his zealotry to prove that racism exists all over the political and human spectrum, he made himself out to look racist.  I still chuckle that he posted a video that supposedly condemned liberals and Democrats while defending the video in which he saw ”me and mine.”  Defending the indefensible is becoming a serious problem in this country.

Chris Matthews from MSNBC garnered considerable attention last week when while delivering his commentary on this season’s GOP presidential nomination process.  In one particular video that I saw posted online, Matthews was talking about how some people do not feel comfortable voting for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.  You may have seen this video or clip on cable last week, but if you missed it, click on the link below to see it for yourself:
GOP Willing to Outsource Election to a Mormon

The fact is that some evangelical Christians do not believe that Mormons are true “Christians” and will therefore have a hard time voting for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.  However, many evangelical Christians will be willing to compromise their morals and vote for Romney in any state caucus because they know that his chances of beating President Barack Obama in November are far greater than those of Rick Santorum.  Any reasonably sane person can not watch that video and not agree that this was what Chris Matthews said.  Ahhhh, but you will notice, gentle reader, that I said “any reasonably sane person” will understand that this was what Matthews actually said.  We must not forget the insane portion of the United States who will view that clip and come to a completely different conclusion:

“Romney called Matthews a cultist as well as his two opponents who are Catholic.  If Rush [Limbaugh] should get the boot, so should this [expletive].”

Of all the comments on the Matthews video that I saw last week, that one was my personal favorite.  Matthews did not call anyone a cultist, but I can see where this person would have made that assumption if he and the other morons and misanthropes who agreed with him did not actually watch the video and simply read the commentary of the politically conservative-leaning website which posted the video.  For those of you who have watched the video and still think that Chris Matthews is racist, let me help you to connect the dots of reasonable and critical analysis.  What Chris Matthews said was, “Who are they [evangelical Christians] going to get to beat [President Obama]?  That’s what seems to be on their minds down there, not who they like.  They’re willing to outsource it to a Mormon [in the hopes of beating President Obama in November].  They’re willing to vote for a guy they don’t like and probably wouldn’t trust his (Obama’s) religion.  But, they have no choice.  They have two Roman Catholics running and a Mormon, so there are three ‘cultists’ running, and I gott’a pick one of the three ‘cultists’ as they see ‘em…”.  Anyone who watches that video and does not see that Chris Matthews is expressing the views of at least some evangelical Christians and not his own views is clearly not paying attention.

Being a disabled man, I have always appreciated people who call out racism when they see it.  Unfortunately, far too many people are on a quest, a quest often tied to popularity on Facebook or ratings for a radio talk show, to find and condemn racism wherever it exists.  In their zealotry to stamp out bigotry, they often fling barbs of righteous condemnation at those whose views are simply different from their own.  Those quixotic warriors are as much to blame for true racism in the United States as any neo-Nazi or member of the Ku Klux Klan.  Regardless of political or religious affiliation, we all need an occasional reminder to think before we leap or speak.

President Barack Obama Fails Constitutional Law: The Passing of the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 and Your Eroding First Amendment Rights

I kick myself a little when I miss an important story, and whoa…did I miss a good one last week.

Whilst I was kvetching and lamenting the loss of the moderates in our political system, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed what is easily one of the most egregiously un-Constitutional piece of legislation I have seen since Joseph McCarthy’s Communist witch-hunt of the 1950′s. While Delaware’s Wilmington City Council debated the “personhood” rights of eggs and sperm, our national legislature was working on taking away your embedded and protected rights to freedom of speech under the Constitution of the United States of America. While Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland) tries to rally national support for giving tax breaks to people who grow well-groomed facial hair (stop laughing…I know for a fact that you, like me, are acquainted with at least a few women with a mustache), your rights to peaceably assemble and protest grievances with the federal government are being whittled away by power-hungry morons.

So, what is this insane piece of legislation that passed both the House and Senate so easily? It is H.R. 347, The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. It states, and I quote:

H.R.347 — Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)

–H.R.347–

H.R.347

One Hundred Twelfth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever–

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is–

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if–

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

`(c) In this section–

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’

Make no mistake: this is not about Democrats versus Republicans, or conservatives versus liberals. They were all complicit in dreaming up and passing this law. If the legislature in Washington, D.C. has their way, it would be a federal offense to disrupt or protest at any place or event attended by any person with secret service protection. It would make it a criminal offense to trespass on any “restricted buildings and grounds.” This restriction would hamper any future political protests near the White House, or anywhere else high-ranking government officials meriting secret service protection may be. Those found in violation of this new law would face a prison sentence of up to ten years. It is well worth remembering that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the creation of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I asked some friends of mine what they thought of this new bill. The most interesting comment I heard was, “It passed in the Senate by unanimous consent? How did that happen?” A better question would be to ask how this legislation ever came to be dreamed up in the first place. Certain lobbying groups and individuals who serve them in our legislature are on a daily quest to take away our legally protected freedoms. They hope that a numbed and dumbed down nation of sheep will not see what’s going on behind their curtain of deception and lies. Don’t believe the hype. Get informed and stay informed about what is going on around you.

Normally, I would now take the time to admonish those who passed this bill that their days in power are numbered for so blatantly violating the Constitution of the United States of America. Under normal circumstances, I would now take the time to ask you, gentle reader, to not go gentle in to that good night and take this legislation lying down, to get up off your duff and make some calls to your congressmen and women and your senators to make sure this law doesn’t get passed. Speaking of congressmen, Congressman Ron Paul was one of only three members of the House of Representatives who voted against the bill. Score one for the Republican…er, Libertarian from Texas.  I’m not going to admonish any legislators or issue a call to arms for the good citizens of the United States of America.  Do you want to know why?

Out of all the questions that have been raised regarding the formation and the passing of this bill through the House and Senate, there is one question which demands to be answered right now:

Given how fraught with peril this legislation is, how could President Obama, a Columbia University and Harvard Law School graduate and a former teacher of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, actually have signed this bill in to law on March 8, 2012?