Obama has been in office for two years.  Since then, the national debt has hit an all-time high, tripling what it was before.  This statement was made by the Obama administration, and not “right-wing” conservatives.

Every democratic politician says that they are proud of what they accomplished, such as a healthcare bill that nobody wants.  What’s funny about this is that democratic congressmen aren’t calling it “healthcare bill”.  They are calling it “making insurance affordable to everyone” or “taking control away from insurance companies.”

Poll after poll show Americans viewing the current state of politics negatively.  But Obama and his comrades are intent on lying to the electorate by saying things are getting better.  Unemployment is still at 10%, despite promises made by every democratic Tom, Dick, and Harry.  Even after controlling the House AND Senate for four years, things have gotten worse, not better.
When Obama swept into office, he famously said “We won” when republicans complained that their amendments and bills were not being considered.  That type of hubris has been the modus operandi of this administration.  

If the republicans retake both houses, I would like to see a humble Obama.  I would like him to say, “America, I’ve heard your voice.  I’m sorry for cramming my bills down your throat.  I will work hard to reverse the damage that I have made to this country and hopefully restore the faith you once had in this government.  I realize that it’s not about my political gains but about the welfare of this country.  And the only way I can do that is by sincerely working together with everyone in the House and Senate.  I hope you can forgive me for my hubris and hope to turn over a new leaf.”

Sadly, I doubt that this will happen.  In fact, I expect this: “America, you’re stupid.  You just elected the same people who brought this mess.  The current state of affairs is not my fault.  It was Bush’s.  Stop blaming me for things that I had control over, like the mismanaged stimulus bill or the corporate bail-outs.”

When did statesmen become politicians?  When will we see honest and humble politicians back in office?

In their monthly magazine, the NRA cited how Justice Sotomayor stated one thing about gun rights and then dissented in the recent McDonald v. Chicago decision.

Sen. Leahy: Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

Judge Sotomayor: Yes, sir.

Leahy: Thank you. And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

Sotomayor: It is.

Leahy: And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney?

Sotomayor: Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged, answered the — a different question.

The NRA points out that in the McDonald v. Chicago decision, she dissented and agreed with her liberal colleague Justice Breyer.  He states in his dissenting opinion (pg. 210), “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”

If Sotomayor recognized that the “personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment”, why did she agree with Breyer?  Normally, if a justice agrees in part, they will provide their own dissent.  Sotomayor did not do this.  Stevens, who also dissented with the majority opinion, filed his own dissent.  Sotomayor has filed her own dissents before.  So why not in this case?

Somewhere, she lied.  She either lied during her confirmation hearings or she lied on the bench.  Either way, Congress should investigate and find out.  Hopefully, if the Republicans retake the House in November, they will start impeachment proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States recently dropped all charges against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation.  YouTube has a few videos of the voter intimidation.  Justice Department did not release an official statement but simply dropped the charges.  Most charges are dropped when there is not enough evidence to move forward with a trial, but with the video evidence, it seems like this is not the case.

The most disturbing aspect about this is the lack of communication from the White House or the Justice Department.  During the Bush administration, Justice Department officials cited plenty of evidence to move forward.  It is Obama’s Justice Department who has decided that there was “insufficient evidence.”

The facts of the case are that two Black Panthers, both wearing camouflage fatigues and one carrying a night stick, were walking in front of the entrance of a voting place.  While the reports differ, the common denominator was that people felt frightened at the sight of the man.  The eye-witness reports range from outright barring of white people to simply “looking mean.”  Since the Justice Department has not released their investigation notes, it’s hard to say.

When the Justice Department dropped the charges, they have given permission for other groups to “look mean” at the polls.  Members of the KKK, in their robes, can stand outside polling places.  They don’t have to say anything.  They can even hold the door open for people.  If this is ALL that they do, they should not get charged.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, any “intimidation” that does not go beyond that of “looking mean” should be dismissed.  The sad fact may be that because the Obama administration is so adamant about flouting the Constitution and the law, Tea Partiers may end up being arrested and charged for simply wearing Anti-Obama shirts when they go to vote.

Of Obama wants to be the great president he says, he should fire Eric Holder and conduct a special investigation into this case.  A dismissed charged does not attach jeopardy so the Black Panthers can be charged again.  Make the investigation transparent, open to the public, and independent.  Then again, the last time there was a special independent investigator, he was fired for finding fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.

Kellen Lauer is misguided in opting to support so-called clean energy in lieu of oil.  Citing the gulf disaster only furthers this point.  The technology behind clean energy is still developing.  Furthermore, the energy transformation for many “green” sources is so low that they are not yet economically viable.  For example, solar power only converts less than 10% of the energy it receives.

I agree with the fact that we must continue to develop renewable energy sources.  But until they meet or exceed the power outputs of oil, we must continue to find sources of oil.  We don’t stop driving cars because we see accidents everyday.  Neither should we stop drilling because of an oil spill.

If Senator Jon Kyl’s story is true, congress should seriously start considering articles of impeachment on Obama.  The President’s sworn duty is to protect this country first and foremost.  If Obama is using political manuvering to not secure our borders, he is neglecting the job that people have voted him to do.  The Chief Executive is to execute the laws of the land, not write them.  If he wanted to do that, he should have stayed a senator.

Impeachment is not meant to be an easy process but when the President refuses to do his job, congress needs to get the courage to do the right thing and begin impeachment proceedings.  However, time has shown that courage is something that both the executive and legislative branch seem to lack.

There are two republicans running in the primary: Matthew Berry and Patrick Murray. Berry is a new-comer to politics and is seeking his first elected office. He is unashamedly homosexual, living with his life partner in liberal Arlington, VA.

Patrick Murray, whose name sounds so familiar but can’t place it, is also running in the primary. Residing in more-blue-than-red Alexandria, VA, Murray is also running for his first elected office. Little is given away about his private life on his website. He is a retired U.S. Army Colonel.

I’ve said this before: I’m a Republican by force, not by choice. What I mean by this is that I’m often more conservative than the Republican party tends to be. Since we live in a two-party system, unfortunately, the only option is the vote for candidates that best represent my views. These candidates, more often than not, side Republican.

Berry and Murray have similar political views. They both have pledged to repeal the Healthcare bill if elected. They stand remarkably close in terms of national defense. I believe the biggest difference comes down to two issues: gay marriage and abortion. And this is where I made my choice.

Berry, who is homosexual, supports legalized marriage for same-sex partners. This is understandable, but something I completely disagree with. I actually ran into Berry when I was having lunch with a friend at Famous Dave’s. When I asked him if he would support federal legislation, he said no, which was surprising. He said that he was a federalist and that question should be left to the states. While I disagree with this notion, I like the fact that he would not support federal legislation to do so, which also means that he would not support legislation to support marriage between one man and one woman. Murray’s stand is that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but agrees with Berry that this should be left to the states to decide.

My stance is that an issue this important should be decided at the federal level with a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.

Abortion legislation is likely to come up after the election. Something so pisive is never introduced on an election year for fear of political ramifications. However, it’s important to remember candidate’s voting record on these issues.

Berry and Murray both describe themselves as “pro-life” but this can mean many different things to different people. So both of them describe what they would support. Murray believes that abortion should be a “decision that should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her family and her doctor.” Berry, on the other hand, told me that he believes abortion should be made illegal.

While I believe the battle for making abortion illegal has been lost, I believe that Berry’s stance is important. His stance says to me that he believe life is important. It should just be terminated without regard. Abortion supporters will say, “What about a woman’s health?!” The word-choice here is important. Health can mean many things. I’ve heard “stretch marks” be used as a reason to abort a baby. Berry’s stance on this issue made my choice clear.

As a Christian, I believe God values every life, from conception to death. While I believe God would disapprove of Berry’s life-style choice, the fact is that there is still time for God to reveal this sin to him. When a baby is terminated, it is never given the chance to know God. (I’m not going to start a “Does a fetus go to heaven?” debate here.)

I believe God values life far more than he loathes sin. This is the reason Jesus came to save us. While I disapprove of Berry’s lifestyle (and told him so when we met), it doesn’t mean that I hate him or think he’s evil. There are many people in my life whom I believe are not living the life that God had intended. I lived that life for a while. It just means that God is still working on their hearts.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I would vote for a Satan worshiper who believe in the right to life than a Christian who was pro-choice. I am not saying Berry is a Satan worshiper! Let’s make the clear! But the priorities he has placed is important and this key issue made the difference.

This is why I’m asking Christians as well as conservative Republicans to support Matthew Berry in the upcoming primary on June 8th.

Dear Mr. Soh,

This responds to your request for a fee waiver relating to your Public Access to Records Policy (PARP) request for copies of the report that shows how much was paid to WMATA’s bus drivers, Metro train operators, maintenance personnel, and any other position that is unionized for the last five years.  You requested that we include how long the employee has worked for Metro and how long the employee has held their current position including both current and previously employed individuals.

Pursuant to PARP § 8.1, fees are charged for record search, review, and duplication when records are sought for commercial use.  However, fees are limited to charges for copying when records are not sought for commercial use or the request is made by a representative of the news media.  PARP §§ 8.1, 8.2.  PARP § 8.4 further provides that “documents shall be furnished without charge or at a charge reduced below the fees established in §§ 8.1 and 8.2, if WMATA determines that the disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations of WMATA and is not primarily in the interest of the requester.”

WMATA has reviewed your email, dated April 2, 2010, where you provided information for us to determine whether you are eligible for a fee waiver.  You note that your intended use of the records is non-commercial, that you intend to use the data to accurately determine whether employees of WMATA are paid within market standards, and plan on releasing the records on your personal website.  Although your response suggests that you do not have a commercial interest in the records, we have denied your request for a waiver because merely posting records on a web site is not enough to meet the standards of disseminating the information to the public widely, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 185 F.Supp. 2d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2002), or in a way for the public to understand the operations of WMATA.  See Brown v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 445 F.Supp. 2d 1358, 1359  (M.D. Fla. 2006).  Wage rates are set through the collective bargaining process and not through individual WMATA managers.  Furthermore, information regarding wage rates regarding union employees are published on our website and can be viewed at http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/local_689_050104-063008.pdf.  For all of these reasons, we have denied your request for a fee waiver.

We estimate that it would cost $208.00 for  5 hours of staff time to retrieve and review the records that you requested for exempt material.  We do not anticipate a fee for copying charges because the data will be provided electronically.  Please confirm via email whether you agree to pay the fee associated with processing your request by May 28, 2010.  If we do not receive your agreement to pay the fees by May 28, we will close your request file.

Sincerely,

Keysia A. Thom

I believe getting these records will be important especially in light of the fact that WMATA plans to increase fares AGAIN. The proposed increases will be the largest in the system’s history.

I would like your help in raising the money needed to get this request filled.  I’ve set up a Paypal page where you can donate money to help off-set this cost.  While I could appeal the decision to charge me, it would cause a delay in the release of the records.  I’m asking people to donate at least $2 because the fees Paypal charges make any less amount pointless.

As soon as I receive the data, I’ll make it available on this site for immediate download.  Once I finish my analysis, I’ll post the results.

I expect the data by the end of next week.

Mr. Thomas Sowell’s article was a bit outlandish, but the overall point is great.  One of the arguments used by the left to legalize gay marriage is, “Why do you get to decide what is moral and what isn’t?”  This same standard should be applied to Barack Obama.  His ‘enough money’ statement was tantamount to saying, “I’ll say when you’ve made enough.”  While he was talking to Wall Street, I doubt he would have the same attitude toward the unions that back him.  His statement reminds me of his campaign when he advocated “sharing the wealth.”

Mr. Sowell accurately wrote that the more people make, the more they donate.  The only reason why Obama would want to cap income is so that any excess could be taken by the government to be spent by the government.  And well all know how great that’s worked out.

Author’s note: This letter was not published.

Under the Obama administration, there have been several attacks within the homeland, many of which have failed not because of intelligence but out of sheer luck.  Suspected “Christmas pants” bomber Umar Abdulmutallab was allowed on the plane with explosives in his underwear, while many of his fellow passengers had to discard their water bottles.

The Ft. Hood Massacre, regardless of whether you call it a terror attack, happened on a military base where there was evidence of Maj. Nidal Hasan’s instability and the army did nothing.

Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad was thwarted because his detonator did not work.  What’s worse is that he was able to buy a plane ticket in cash despite being on the “Do not fly” list.  His plane was minutes from taking off when someone realized he should not have been allowed to board.

The first job of any president is to provide for the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.  It is NOT providing health care, regulating markets, or even providing jobs for citizens.  If the president cannot keep his citizens safe, all of the mentioned policies will be for nothing.

Obama needs to get his priorities straight.

Author’s note: This letter was published in an abridged form on May 11, 2010 in the Washington Examiner.

The public needs to know where this money is going before any additional fare hikes are enacted.  I’m okay with a fare hike IF AND ONLY IF the AFL-CIO isn’t bullying for more money.

I am disappointed with the Examiner’s coverage of WMATA and it’s bloated budget.  In today’s paper, it reported that over 70% of the comments received by WMATA indicated that they did not want service cuts.  What I believe is missing from the coverage is where is the money currently going.

After WMATA’s last 10-cent increase, I started my own investigation.  I found that in 2008, WMATA spent over 77% of it’s expenditures on salaries and benefits while only spending 3% on preventative maintenance.  These figures are available to the public via WMATAs web site.  I also found out that the industry with the highest salaries-to-expenditures ratio is the health care, which comes in at 55%.  Since finding this out, I submitted a Public Access to Records request to WMATA, asking for salary information of it’s unionized workers.  My guess is that much of the WMATA force is grossly overpaid when compared to the open-market and it’s the ATU that is forcing these fare increases.

I only have so much influence as a private citizen.  I’ve been working on my investigation on my own time for two months, negotiating slowly with WMATA’s legal council to release these records.  As a major news outlet, I expected much more from the Examiner.

I am covering my investigation on my website: http://www.mikesoh.com/tag/wmata

All of my figures and facts have been sourced.

Author’s note: This letter was published in an abridged form on April 12, 2010 in the Washington Examiner.