mikesoh.com

About a month ago, I made a suggestion to fellow #TCOT member MarkRMatthews concerning the current state of our legislative body.  Everyone agrees that special interest groups have way too much control yet not one politician will admit that they are affected by them.  The reality is that our legislative body has become way too powerful.  Every year we seem to hear about some congressman or senator having some sort of ethics issue.

Politics was never meant to be a full-time career.  In fact, it was supposed to be a group of individuals who believed in bringing REAL results from the national level down to the local level.  But we’ve gone far beyond this vision.  The majority of the elected legislators are millionaires.  They live cushy lives from lobby kickbacks.  They air a sense of entitlement, like they deserve to have popularity, money, prestige.

I want to believe that there is at least one honost politician.  But due to the fact that politics is now a game as opposed to a mission, these honest home-grown politicians fall by the wayside.

Despite elections, I don’t believe that the everyman’s concern is addressed.  Congress has gotten so partition that the majority of votes now can be counted by which party the politician is in.  We, the people, must wake up from this fact and seek real change.  Not the change that Obama promised because it isn’t enough.

I’m calling my proposal the 3-2-1 plan.  It’s simple:

• Three: Elected legislative members are limited to three consecutive terms.  It doesn’t matter if he puts in two terms in the House and then one term in the Senate or all three terms in the Senate.  After serving three consecutive terms, the  member must not seek ANY federally-elected office for two full terms of his last office.
• Two: The legislator-to-constituent ratio is way too high.  Using 2010 census data, we must double the number of legislators in both the House and Senate.  This makes it so that more specific concerns can be heard from a smaller group of constituents and makes it harder for lobby groups to control one group of legislators.
• One: Each legislator will earn a different salary, which will be equal to the median income level of his constituents.  This salary will be determined by the last census.  This will force the legislator to relate to his constituents and understand their financial needs better.  If he needs to take on a second job, so be it.

I need help getting this message across.  Right now, the foxes guard the hen house.  There is no way that a bill like this will pass because no legislator in their right mind would want to give up the power that they have right now.

Our elected officials have forgotten that they work for the people.  We don’t have to cater to them.  The only way that a bill like this can pass is through grassroots support.  I doubt either house will introduce this bill.  The only way for it to pass is for it to be voted on by referendum at the state level.

I’m not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.  But I know enough about the constitution that a bill like this will require an amendment to the constitution.  With your help, we can make this happen.

Please tell your friends about this plan.  It’s a good plan and gives power back to the people and away from the lobbiest and the carear politicians.  Your comments are always appreciated.  Please post them below.

The World Net Daily reported Tuesday that a citizen grand jury issued an indictment against Obama.  The charges are fraud and to, one and for all, prove that Obama has a legitimate claim to the presidency.

While I am not one of the people who believe Obama is not a citizen, the fact that so many people have blindly accepted this fact has caused me great concern.  Several law suits have already been issued and quickly dismissed.  However, there has been little to no information from the Obama camp to assuage these charges.  Their silence has only deepened the controversy to the point that I am beginning to wonder why the president refuses to acknowledge this question.

Senators have taken the issue from their constituents and pretty much replied, “Whatever.  Get a life.”  But I found this particular reply interesting:

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”

Just because someone is elected by the people doesn’t mean that the elected is qualified as per the constitution.  For example, we can vote for my dog by a huge majority.  Yes, he can win the primary.  And sure, he can win the general election.  But it doesn’t mean that he can be president.  I hope Senator Martinez isn’t suggesting that we completely ignore the constitution and only rely upon public opinion.

The problem I see with this whole issue is that the government as a whole thus far has suppressed these complaints.  This is something that should be put to rest, once and for all.  The court should rule that either Obama is duly qualified natural born citizen that can take the office of the President or that he isn’t.

The controversy has become incredibly strong.  It needs to be put to rest.

The Washington Post and News 8 are running a story that speculates that the Obama administration will move Gitmo detainees to the Alexandria, VA.  The Mayor of Alexandria, William D. Euille (D), had this to say:

We would be absolutely opposed to relocating Guantanamo prisoners to Alexandria.  We would do everything in our power to lobby the president, the governor, the Congress and everyone else to stop it. We’ve had this experience, and it was unpleasant. Let someone else have it.

Mayor Euille, you are the worst kind of hypocrite.  People have protested Gitmo and wanted it closed during the Bush administration.  Now that some of those “innocent” people are going to be released, they don’t want them there!

This is similar to a story that I heard about a year ago.  Montgomery county in Maryland said that they would not help Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown on laborers.  But the largely liberal community cried out when these laborers started loitering around their neighborhood.

This goes to show that liberals only care about justice when it’s cool and hip.  If you truly believe that these wrongly held citizens are innocent, why not invite them with open arms?

I’ll be the first to say welcome!  Here’s my letter to Major Euille:

Mayor Euille:

I am shocked by the comments you made regarding the possible relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Alexandria.  Many of your constituents have demanded their release from the prison.  Many of these same constituents wanted to end the war in Iraq.  I personally don’t take these positions but I find it highly hypocritical that you would not welcome these detainees with open arms.

Per our constitution, all of these detainees are INNOCENT until proven guilty.  With the new president, he is listening to the people and is releasing them.  It’s not right for these same people to now complain when they are being released into their back yard.  Alexandria, who voted President Obama in with a sweeping majority, should now embrace these detainees.  After all, they haven’t even been charged with a crime.

I expect more from a leader such as yourself.

Sincerely,

Michael Soh

UPDATE :: 31 March 2009 10:00 am

Mayor Euille did me the courtous thing and replied to me.  But it confuses more than it answers.  I guess if he couldn’t do that he wouldn’t be in politics:

Dear Mr. Soh:

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your concerns about the disposition of the Guantanamo detainees. While I support the closing of this facility and giving the detainees a fair trial, I believe that Alexandria has already done its fair share by handling for more than four years the Missaoui trial.

William D. Euille
Mayor

For those that don’t know, Missaoui, a Gitmo detainee was tried in the federal court located in Alexandria.  Of course, there were protests and the like.  The security alone cost an arm and a leg.  However, a democratic society has the duty to administer justice, right?  Well, apparently, Mayor Euille doesn’t believe in justice.  He believes in convienence.  Here is my reply to him:

Mayor Euille

I appreciate your reply. However, I’m confused by your last sentence of your e-mail. If you support giving the detainees a fair trail, why should it matter how many detainees are tried? Does this mean that you don’t support exonerating wrongly convicted prisoners?

It seems that there is a double standard. I believe that as a democracy, we should give these detainees the benefit of the doubt and support them as a community. They have yet to be proven of any wrong doing. I think that by saying that “Alexandria has done it’s fair share” you are saying “Let someone else deal with the problem.”  But what problem is that?  Administering justice?  Making sure that a possibly innocent person gets his fair day in court?

The detainees should be treated with respect, and not like garbage that we can simply pass on to someone else. The next city many not be as accommodating as the fair citizens of Alexandria, who support President Obama. I continue to disagree with your position would appreciate a more thorough explanation.

Very respectfully,

Michael Soh

My letter to my Congressman:

Congressman Moran

I’m writing to you because of my deep disappointment of your vote to impose a 90% tax on people who received bonuses through the TARP.  Congressman, you voted for this for bill, which included NO oversight.  You agreed to bail them out, despite your constituents screaming no.

Instead of admitting the mistake, you decide to blame someone else.  The reality is your vote allowed this to happen.

I’m becoming deeply troubled by your voting record and will now openly admit that my vote for your re-election is in jeopardy.

Very respectfully,

Michael Soh

First a disclaimer: This is probably going to be one of the most controversial posts I’ve written.  I say this for several reasons: First, I don’t think America is ready to hear it.  Second, I will be reflecting on the state of society.  Third, I will be talking about a minority group who has historically been singled out for simply having a different skin color than what was considered normal.  Please understand that the thoughts and ideas addressed here should be considered as a whole.

It’s closing onto two weeks since Obama was christened as the new President.  Before he was sworn in, I wrote how Obama would first be judged as a black president before he would be judged as a president.  I stand by this article.  I will, however, be expanding on this post.

Yesterday, the Republican National Committee nominated their first black chairman.  Being a republican, I’m excited by this, even though I don’t really pay attention to the going-ons of the national committee.  But I don’t think I’m excited for the right reason.

People have said that it’s historic that a black person can become president after decades of racism.  Overcoming all adversity, fulfilling Martin Luther King’s dream.  But what was his dream?

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I believe that Obama was voted president not by the content of his character but the color of his skin.  And now, to avoid the label racism, the RNC is following suite.

Obama’s character has been questioned since his nomination.  His pastor, his relationship with a known and convicted terrorist, his lack of any credible leadership experience were completely ignored because of one reason: “change”  It didn’t matter to the American people what kind of change.  Obama could have been white and won the election.  But the fact that he is black gave America the opprotunity to forgive themselves of any racial prejustice they had.  The election was about change but race was what Obama ran on, whether he knew it or not.

The racism that is currently permiating America is very subtile.  People are so afraid of being called racist that they will do things they normally wouldn’t do so they can avoid being labeled one.  Consider the appointment of Roland Burris.  Before he was appointed, Obama and his fellow democrats announced that they would not honor any appointment by now impeached Rob Blagojevich.  Obama was ademant that any appointment by Blagojevich would be tainted.  His stance changed when Burris was appointed. Blagojevich, counting on the fact that Burris is black, knew that the Senate would have to seat the only black senator.  If they didn’t, they would be labeled a bigot.  Obama suddently backs down and quietly tells the Senate to seat Burris, completely ignoring the fact that several days ago, he wouldn’t support any person appointed by Blagojevich.

Racism comes in many forms.  Anything done to treat someone different because of the color of their skin is racism.  If a black person is denied access to a building because he’s black, that’s racism.  But if that same black person is encouraged and ushered into the building because he’s black, it’s still racism.

I couldn’t help but overhear one of my co-workers the day after the election.  He called several people and asked if they helped write history.  It’s sad because the only reason it was history was because Obama is black.  If he was white, would there have been the same pomp and circumstance?  If he was white, would there have been mad hocking of merchandise?  If he was white, would we even be having this conversation?

America, you are racist, even if you do it with a smile on your face.  Yes, let put black people in power to make yourselves look good.  Let’s completely ignore everything else because you want to save face.  You don’t want to be called racist, right?

I’d rather be labeled a racist and judge a man by his character than be labeled “open-minded” because I support Michael Steele.  Racism has turned from hatrid to undeserved respect.  As a real minority, I find it sickening.