The old adage goes; “all is fair in love and war.” This time of year, a similar version is  "all is fair in war and politics“ or simply,"that’s politics.”

So what is the difference between fair and right?  One could rightly respond the answer is both subjective and reflective.

How many times have we heard claims that are half-truths and cast a disparaging shadow on an opponent, when if all the fact of the case were known, the remark or event was taken out of context?  Far too often !  Yet, in our age of sound bites, alleged 24hour “news” channels and societies 'dumbed down sound bite mentality', they are deemed to be fair play. The theory is “everyone does it.”  Or again, “that’s politics.”

The aforementioned is a prime example of what is fair is not always right. Especially if the use of said is misleading and cast an untrue shadow or disparagement on ones opponent.

However, sometimes we see candidates fail to discuss issues that are of import to the electorate for fear of being accused of playing dirty politics.  This begs the question, is failing to discuss the issues that are of import to the voting public “right”?Or, could it be framed that it is an equal disservice to the voter for failure to discuss the issue?

This year in Pennsylvania we have five Republican candidates for the United States Senate. Many are in fact “friends” with the other candidates.  Some have financially supported their opponent in other campaigns. Some have stayed at each others homes on the trail, or at other times before the campaign. Some have spoken to the others organization and encouraged their members to work with them on other ventures.

In fact,  I have worked with three of the five candidates, both during the campaign and prior to their announcing their intentions to run, while they were with other organizations. Four of the five candidates in the primary, “share my values”. 

While this presents a very collegial situation among the majority of the candidates, does it create a climate in which the voter is deprived information which is vital to their final decision making in this campaign? Or does it leave it open to be a popularity or loyalty contest?

 I know for myself, I have worked with five campaigns (two dropped out since, there were eight candidates for the republican nomination initially) closely through different parts of the race; carrying nominating petitions, arranging events for members and the community to meet with them and distributing literature so people could meet and know the candidates in the race. One campaign offered me a regional directors position, which I declined.  I openly discussed my involvement with multiple campaigns among those I worked most closely with.  These are people I genuinely respect.

My position as the Director of an organization complicates the situation even further. Organizationally, we will not endorse anyone. We have encouraged our members to  now compare the candidates we have brought in and come to their decision on whom they will support and encourage them to do the same.

This leads to the conundrum. What is fair and what is right?  My personal choice in the end will be a comparison of all the information I have available to me.  I will personally endorse  AND make a case for a candidate.  My decision has to weigh experience, the individual, their life experiences, their position on issues, their viability, their support statewide,their ability to raise funds, do they share my values and if applicable, their voting record.

I find myself in the same position as some of the candidates.  Raising issues that I know will be issues in the general election will be considered by some to either “unfair”or  “dirty politics”.  Of course, I realize at the same time, for some, if I support any candidate but theirs either I will be considered to have an ulterior motive or that I am betraying a friendship. 

In the end, I will have to live with that because when placed on the scale of what is right, doing the right thing tips the scales. Issues need to be discussed before people make their selection on April 24^th.The impact of ones votes and positions has had on the state is not something that can be ignored by the primary voter, because be assured, it will be THE issue in the general election and will overshadow the real issues of the campaign for the US Senate seat.

What is right is consequently fair.

The morning after......

Now the state committee has had it's say. In Pennsylvania, quite to the chagrin of the power brokers who would like us to cower to their coronations, we still have a primary election.

The state committee and the governor do not elect the candidates, WE THE PEOPLE do.

So instead of wasting valuable time in lamenting, let us now recharge our batteries and realize the work that lies ahead.

In 2010, Lt. Gov. Cawley eeked out a win in a crowded field in the Lt. Governors race. He was beaten in 52 counties, including the two which we have chapters by grass roots people energizing the base to both support the candidate that represented their values and send a clear message of rejection of the endorsement process. Many were shocked at how many voters rejected the state party and voted for whom they wished to represent them.

So now, let's have a primary. Time to turn a negative into a positive and do more than protest. Let us turn this protest into a project and have a primary of the people!

NOW is the time to TURN PA!

"If men used as much care in uprooting vices and implanting virtues as they do in discussing problems, there would not be so much evil and scandal in the world, or such laxity in religious organisations. On the day of judgement, surely, we shall not be asked what we have read but what we have done; not how well we have spoken but how well we have lived."

Thomas à Kempis
The Imitation of Christ, Book 1, Ch. 3

With the uprising of the Occupy Wall Street Movement it is necessary to go back and research why government has failed to provide the safeguards to avert the situations that lead to the bank bailouts and manipulation of the markets.

Many have blamed deregulation for this. This prompted me to go back and search my archives for a post first written September 25, 2008. After re-reading this post I can only conclude that all the banking regulations in the world can not avert a crisis if the government regulators fail to regulate. This is what happens when we place to much faith in government and let our guard down.

Very few people are happy with banks these days. That said, that unhappiness does equate support for the methods and demands of the OWS groups. I wonder how many people in the crowds even understand the impact that the Dodd-Frank Act has had on the mortgage banking industry. Isn't it ironic that the two people who were at the core of the banking crisis, one playing apologist for Fannie and Freddie and the other getting preferred deals through Country Wide, are the same individuals who draft "fix-it" legislation?

Here was my post from September 2008 . It is still relevant today:

 Gramm-Leach-Bliley a/k/a- Deregulation, has been the red headed stepchild lately by many looking to assign blame to the financial industries woes. You hear democrats today screaming that it is to blame for the crisis, yet Joe Biden and Harry Reid voted for the legislation. Now yes they voted against the legislation before they voted for the legislation . So you can say they voted against it, but their vote veto-proofed it, so they do also vote for it. Sound kind of Washington to you?

After having read quite a few recent articles on this Act (and many have been flat wrong on the who voted for deregulation and many have said that the final version was only a committee report, misunderstanding how a bill becomes law when the House version and the Senate version differ) , I figured we should take a closer look at this particular Act.

What was the main point of this act originally?

Repeals the depression-era restrictions on banks affiliating with securities firms contained in sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act.

 Creates a new "financial holding company" under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act. Such holding company can engage in a statutorily provided list of financial activities, including insurance and securities underwriting and agency activities, merchant banking and insurance company portfolio investment activities. Activities that are "complementary" to financial activities also are authorized. The nonfinancial activities of firms predominantly engaged in financial activities (at least 85% financial) are grandfathered for at least 10 years, with a possibility for a five year extension.

http://banking.senate.gov/conf/grmleach.htm

No you ask, and rightly so, what do you mean they voted against it before they voted for it? Am I trying to spin this or what? No.

All legislation must first pass Congress to become a law. After it passes Congress it gets forwarded on to the President . For the bill to become law it must either be signed (or not signed for ten business days if Congress is in session) or vetoed (or a pocket veto) by the President of the United States. It is a check and balance.

If the President uses his veto power, the Congress may opt to re-vote on the bill and if they have a 2/3rd's majority, it is known as veto-proof legislation. This is many times when the President who disagrees with the legislation will simply not sign it as a way to note his disapproval.

In 1999, Gramm-Leach -Bliley, ( the original version of the Act), passed the Senate, mostly on a party line vote of 55-44. Therefore, it was not veto-proof legislation.  Thee is a high likelihood as written, and the party line vote in the Senate, it would be vetoed and there was not a 2/3 'rds vote in the Senate to pass it.

 Let me be crystal clear here, when I reported before that Joe Biden and Harry Reid voted for the Deregulation Act and John Mc Cain did not, I am speaking about the Act that stands today, not the original bill that fell under a party line vote. John Mc Cain did support that original bill before committee and Joe Biden and Harry Reid did not.

Roll Call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

How did the bill change for the vote to go from 55-44 to 90-8-1-1  ?

 Democrats agreed to support the bill if it was amended to include the following Community Reinvestment Act provisions :

The rule of law creates stability and stability is the "condition" required for an economy to thrive and prosper.

The governments policies and rule through regulation has turned the rule of law on its head, which in turn creates instability, uncertainty and chaotic conditions. The current employment, market and monetary conditions are all a direct result of this created chaos.

A free society and a free market can not survive, yet thrive, without the public trust in the rule of law. Remember, the rule of law is a precept and a perception. There is never enough authority to enforce it, it is a societal agreement.

You can't fix something if you do not know what is broken. Treating symptoms is a waste of time and money without a proper diagnosis. Our government was designed to operate within defined parameters no matter whom is in office. Constitutions, by their very definition, limit power given to the government and define the parameters they operate in.

The first step in restoring stability and prosperity to our nation is a return to the rule of law and government operating within its defined parameters.

Repost: I felt like it fits today!

"How fortunate for governments, that the people they govern don't think." - Adolph Hitler

Yesterday was a busy day.

I was out of the house early to attend a 730 am breakfast with Senate President Pro tempore Joesph Scarnati hosted by the local Chamber of Commerce, a full schedule in the day, concluding with a picnic hosted by the House Majority Leader Sam Smith and Sen. Scarnati. I had an opportunity to speak with the County Commissioners on some projects they were working on, the Sheriff, a few candidates and concluded the evening speaking with the District Attorney.

I know all of these people from having worked with them. One thing about our relationships, especially Rep. Smith and Sen. Scarnati, is that we do not always agree with each other. However, we work with these men where we can, speak to them about out concerns on areas we disagree and advocate for change in areas where we see problems. Again, we do not see eye to eye on many issues.

The difference is that we can agree to disagree and therefore we can be candid. When they speak on an issue and say they will work on it, they do. There is a credibility that comes from following through on your word. It also builds a respect and creates a working situation. To do otherwise is to undermine your own efforts.

Last evening when I got home the speech by President Obama had already concluded. Honestly, I rarely listen to his speeches. I cam home , touched based with some associates for an update on last nights meetings in other locations and my meeting. After getting off the phone I switched my computer monitor over to television and CNN was rebroadcasting his speech, so I watched it in its entirety.

I reserved comment on the speech until now, having reflected upon what I saw and heard, sleeping on it, then sorting was actually being proposed.

Here is what I gleaned from his speech:

We had a crisis this summer, which was in part caused by the Senates failure to pass a budget in the last three years. If there had been a budget passed, the date in August would have not taken place. August was a created crisis. Granted we were going to run into problems, but it was a problem created by the failure to pass a budget for the country. This is an abysmal failure of the Senate leadership and the President by failing to hold him to account and responsible.

Instead, the President chose to push the manufactured crisis button and lay blame on those who offered other solutions. In my opinion the House leadership acted like morons. They should have said the solution is passing the budget, you have months to do it, now do it. But instead they played into a manufactured crisis trap. Their bad.

So then a grand deal was reached which included no taxes in exchange for the increased debt ceiling. The new money was pretty much spent upon receipt. Now the new money is gone, we have the President who goes back on his agreement and calls not only for new taxes, but taxes on big Oil and the wealthiest among us. He cites his hombre Warren Buffet as thinking it is a good idea, since he does not pay enough. (Hey Warren, how about letting those in government come and run Berkshire as a sign that you are putting your money where your mouth is?)

He then cites further tax cuts in payroll taxes. Now what are payroll taxes? Income, Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment taxes. Where is the President saying we have problems? Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance shortages. So why in the world when we are running out of money in social security, medicare and unemployment would you cut the funding to those specific programs that the PEOPLE who depend on them in times of crisis need? Unless you need for there to be crisis after crisis to keep things in a state of turmoil to keep people distracted.

The President made an agreement to get the funds he needed. Less than 40 days later he wants to change the terms of the agreement. Why would any sane person enter into an agreement with someone who does not honor their agreements and acts as if they do not even exist.

It is easy to pick out that Obama is not from the city, but an exploiter of the people from urban areas. His actions are a reflection of his elitist white grandparents and his mother. His word is not his bond. Last night he spent the last bit of his credibility .

imo

I won't feign shock at the rhetoric of Jimmy Hoffa. He was preaching to the choir. Watch the video:

And I wont feign shock at the Presidents remarks either. He said what he means and he meant what he said.

But I will say that Obama has proven himself to be completely un-presidential. Do as I say, not as I do. Flashback:

Well, I guess our children really don't expect much from him, so that may be his definition of living up to them.
I often hear about "dangerous speech" as it relates to the President, because you know, it might "trigger" someone to action. Well, do you expect to hear the make believe media cry out about this dangerous speech by the President? My bet is the silence will be deafening.

Like I said, Hoffa is Hoffa , so be it. Consider the source and his job title. (In an interview afterwards, he said he would do it again-so it was not taken out of context). But the President of the United States is a different story. He was proud of Hoffa assembling an army/

If these were just words, or political rhetoric, that would be one thing. But the vitriol the President unleashed about right to work had actions taken just recently.

Can you say Gibson Guitars? At a time of spiking unemployment this president (lower case now) has used his "Justice" department to raid non-union plants, confiscate product and fiscally harm a non-union company that gave campaign donations to Republican Candidates. Martin Guitars, on the other hand who imports the same wood, donates to Democratic Candidates and has never been raided.

Non-Union Shops 2- Union Shops 0...raids that is.

Obama's actions were both dangerous and lacks the decorum of the office. Don't bother apologizing Barack. Your homeboy Sheriff Joe was out stoking the fires today as well. Your words were loud and clear and you both meant them.

This is a coordinated effort by the President and the Vice President. Dangerous, Irresponsible and Unacceptable.

Our debt numbers may be irrelevant to many people, but the interest on the debt, that is quite a different story.

It equates to pure bondage.

Hope and Change has it's implications.

Traditionally the American system worked because government operated within the limits of the constitution and honored the rule of law. Generally. So you may be asking, just what does that have to do with unemployment?

When a government constrains itself, or is constrained to operate within its defined parameters, their behavior is predictable. This allows businesses and families to plan for and make economic decisions, which are weighed risks. When the government starts to exceed its granted authority people no longer know the rules the can not factor the risks on known limitations, which hurts the stability of the market place.

Who pays? The least skilled and those with the least experience.

Wednesday night before the monthly school board meeting I saw a political rival of mine outside the administration office. I went up and greeted him and asked how he was feeling, that I hadn't seen him all summer and heard he had been ill.

We discussed his health a bit and he said he didn't feel up to the meeting, his breath was too short. I told him I would remember him in my prayers. A few minutes later , he walked into the lobby and sat down. I handed him my copy of the agenda and went up to get another.

He attended the meeting and we both were talking with board members for about an hour afterwards. He passed me as he was talking to the School Board President on the way to their vehicles.

Later Wednesday evening, after thanking a friend for being our representative at a Public Utilities Commission hearing while I was on vacation, I recounted my encounter with our rival and that we did not discuss issues but instead was a personal exchange of concern that was well received.

Friday morning, when I logged into our local paper to respond to a comment on the op-ed page, I looked over and saw that he had passed away Thursday at his home.

In reflection, I am glad that our last exchange was one based on concern for his well being. Life has no mulligans and there is only one last time that you see someone. It pays to take time to be human.

*****

Post Script: I found out this evening from a friend that Lester died shortly after we spoke. He collapsed on his way into his home and was found by the mail man in the morning. In reflection, I respected the passion he had, his refusal to accept the status quo and his goals to make a difference in this world. Despite different worldviews and methods, our motivations were very similar. John