Ensuring that anyone is entitled to any special right or privilege enjoyed by the majority of others does nothing to take any right or privilege from anyone else. Well, let me amend that a bit. It does prevent someone from taking those rights away from others. However those of us who believe in fair play, equal rights for all and the “American Way” have no problems denying the cheap thrills of those who would harm others simply because they are of a different race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, or political affiliation.

The Supreme Court heard today a challenge to Title 5 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_civil_rights_act_5.htm

What they are challenging is this portion of Title 5:

“(1) investigate allegations in writing under oath or affirmation that certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin; which writing, under oath or affirmation, shall set forth the facts upon which such belief or beliefs are based”

Specifically this provision is designed to keep states from establishing anything in voting law or procedures that would unduly prevent minorities from exercising their right to vote. Their argument is essentially “Hey, racism is dead so stay out of our business and trust us not to do it again.”

Despite the allegations of voter suppression in states covered and not covered by Title 5 to establish voter ID, remove voting machines from predominately minority districts, caging, etc. They’re arguing that not only are they not discriminating against anyone’s right to vote, to have such a law gives these “minorities” more than what anyone else has. Its puts them above the “majority.”

Ultra conservative “Italian” Justice Antonin Scalia went so far as to say today that the key provision of the Act leads to “a perpetuation of racial entitlement.” http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/27/4648931/scalia-on-voting-rights-act-perpetuation.html  So what he is saying is that guaranteeing that a minority race isn’t infringed upon sets them apart from everyone else and that isn’t fair. As I hinted to above, it’s certainly not fair to those who want to infringe on their rights.

This country was founded on the principle that “All men are created equal” although at the time, all men did not have equal rights and certainly not women. As our country matured, we as a nation agreed that the Constitution and Federal Law needed to ensure that “all were equal” as the Constitution was amended to guarantee rights not be kept away from the “other” people as well as laws to back it up. We had two hundred years of amendments and laws guaranteeing equal rights and freedom from discrimination for women and minorities. In recent years, we started tackling rights of those of a different sexual orientation or religion.

If we are to take our founders at their word and “All men (and women) are created equal” we cannot allow any sets of laws to exist that detracts anyone from exercising a right enjoyed by the majority of others simply because they are of a different, sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, or political view. To do so is codifying discrimination. That isn’t what we were told being America is all about.

Many pundits are convinced that the Supreme Court will rule Title 5 unconstitutional. I tend to believe they will too. Sadly, since the United States Constitution actually doesn’t guarantee a citizen the absolute right to vote, it is conceivable that it will be overturned. Voting rights were essentially given to the individual states.

In light of the ongoing activities of the Republican Party working under the auspices of ALEC and the Koch brothers to disenfranchise those voters who don’t recognize that corporations are people and are more equal than the rest of us, we could be in very real danger here.

Should the Supreme Court overturn Title 5 in a 5 to 4 decision, you know Congress will do nothing to stop it unless you all get active, but that may be too late for 2014. I posted earlier about the Electoral College and the fact there is no absolute right to vote enshrined in our constitution. Without such a guarantee, any federal law designed to prevent voter discrimination has no constitutional backing. We need such an amendment to guarantee all American Citizens the right to vote on equal terms as everyone else. We cannot allow individual states the right to disenfranchise voters especially for national elections.

And besides, no matter your race, creed, religion, etc, everyone at one time or another, can be considered a minority and thus the target of discrimination by those of the majority. Take the rights away from one, codify that into law, you end up making it lawful to do it to all.

A good editorial about this situation from the Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0227/To-protect-democracy-Supreme-Court-must-fully-uphold-Voting-Rights-Act

Our history has continuously been one of doing the impossible. It started in 1776 when for the first time in the history of the human race, a colony declared her independence from her mother country. Not only did we do that, we successfully defeated to best armed and trained military force in the world to secure the liberty. Then we met as thirteen disparate and not very agreeable colonies and ratified a Constitution that guaranteed rights never guaranteed before. Then the first President of this nation, voluntarily relinquished power to another person without threat, coercion or failing health. Never done before. Not a bad start.

In the years that followed we continued to do “impossible things” such as building the Erie Canal, creating an industrial base, building a railroad from coast to coast. And those were the easy “impossible” things we accomplished. We pulled out of the worst world-wide depression in history and became an economic power at the same time we won a World War (mind you for the second time) and then rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan. We became the world’s first “Super Power.”

We eradicated small pox, malaria and polio. We invented things (some that were considered impossible), such as: the Airplane, Anesthesia, the Assembly Line, the ATM, Color Film, Cotton Gin, E-Mail, FM Radio, Free Public Schools, Kevlar, The Microprocessor, the Microwave Oven, The Motion Picture, The MRI, Novocain, The Nuclear Power Plant, The Personal Computer, the Phonograph, Polaroid Instant Photography, The Polio Vaccine, The Rocket, the Sewing Machine, The Skyscraper, Sneakers, and Typewriter and scores of others devices as depicted in this YouTube clip (oh yeah, YouTube):

And did I mention, we sent men to the moon and brought them back safely. Talk about doing the impossible.

But more importantly, we accomplished legislative acts that changed our country and in some ways, the world. Despite overwhelming opposition we outlawed slavery (See the movie Lincoln), we gave citizenship to minorities, we gave women the vote, we outlawed alcohol and then overturned it, and we gave civil rights to minorities. Then this century, we elected a Black President twice with a majority vote of the American people. Despite the solid opposition, much of it angry and racist, Barack Obama won a second term.

Why am I posting this? Well it irritates the hell out of me to hear that certain legislation up for consideration is “impossible” to pass.

Namely, gun safety regulations that include universal background checks, high-capacity magazines ban, assault weapons ban, and gun registration.

As well as a budget that will both cut government spending and raise revenues in a fair and balanced way that will reduce and eliminate the budget deficit and pay down the national debt. The pundits say that with opposition from the NRA any gun legislation is dead on arrival and they also say due to the hatred of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party towards Barack Obama any budgetary acts that raises taxes and doesn’t severely slash entitlements is also dead on arrival. Even though the majority of the country wants both of these legislative accomplishments, they say it’s impossible.

Well it isn’t because we’ve done this sort of thing before. One common thread of all the legislative accomplishments in the history of this nation is that not only were they right, the majority of the American people fought for it despite their representation in Congress. As long as we stand up and demand action in Congress for what we know is right, this can be done. The impossible is always accomplished as long as there is a will, courage, ingenuity, and relentless fortitude and desire of the people. Let you voices be heard in Congress and demand that they do the impossible. Afterwards, we can do the next impossible thing, out do the Republican gerrymandered districts and get the GOP out of control in the House. More on that later.

In 1947, Wisconsin sent to the Senate Republican Joe McCarthy. He was known as “Tail Gunner Joe” for his service in World War II where he volunteered to serve as a Marine. Bless him for that. Beyond that point however….

McCarthy was a keen political animal playing off the fears of his time. He saw “communists” everywhere. In the 1950’s a new political phrase entered the lexicon, “McCarthyism” which stands for demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. He of course went after those in the Truman administration. However, he also went after fellow Republicans in the Eisenhower administration. It was the height of the cold war. People saw communists everywhere. So Joe started his “Anti-American Activities” committee in the Senate that he used as his platform to the American people to demonstrate how he was personally keeping the country safe from communists. He played to the lowest common denominator; clueless, intellectually lazy people who only believed what they were told without actually thinking anything through. Much like today’s Tea Party.

For the first three years of his term, he garnered little attention until 1950 when he declared there were communists in the State Department. He said it had been infiltrated. Throughout his remaining years in the Senate he provides no proof that supported his accusations. He was successful in ruining the careers of government servants both military and civilian, but found no communists. Joe had no facts, only rumors and innuendo. But he made a lot of it until it all came crashing down on him.

In the Army McCarthy Hearing of 1954, the press finally came after him and then there was this famous episode in our governance that had reverberations for generations to come.

On December 2, 1954 Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate in a vote of 67 to 22. Though he remained in the Senate, his career ended. He was seen for the swine he was. He died three years later in Bethesda Hospital of acute hepatitis exacerbated by alcoholism.

Fast forward to 2012 and Texas Tea Party Darling Senator Ted Cruz. He was born in Calgary Canada to a Cuban father and American mother. He entered the United States when he was four years old. His family was in the oil business. He went to Princeton and got his law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist and eventually made oral arguments for the Heller case before the Supreme Court that resulted in a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that indicated that U.S. Citizens did have a right to own a gun. However, as Justice Scalia indicated in his majority opinion, even this right can be regulated. He is a Tea Party darling and came to the Senate from Texas in 2012. He has extreme right wing views and has recklessly attacked not only Democrats in the Obama administration, but Republicans too, like Joe McCarthy.

In the two months as a Senator, he has:

●been one of three senators to vote against confirming fellow Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as secretary of state.

●expressed “deep concerns” with a bipartisan immigration-reform blueprint crafted by, among others, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla).

●introduced his first bill, to “repeal every last word of Obamacare.”

●tangled with Rahm Emanuel over the Chicago mayor’s “bullying campaign” to have the city’s pension funds divest their investments in gun manufacturers.

And most notably, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, even though he never served in the military, he’s gone after Vietnam War Veteran and Hero, Republican Chuck Hagel over his nomination for Secretary of Defense. He also besmirches fellow Vietnam War Hero John Kerry. Odd that a man too cowardly to serve the country he claims to love has the audacity to impugn the honor of those who volunteered service in Vietnam. Here is a snippet of what Cruz had to say on the record in the Senate in a very McCarthy like manner:

And here is what Ted Cruz had to say about both John Kerry and Chuck Hagel as presented and commented by David Pakman

Cruz, like McCarthy has no facts to back any of his accusations. Only accusations. Much like McCarthy, its innuendo, speculative and wouldn’t hold up in Court. You would think a lawyer would know that. He even acknowledges he has no evidence in his accusations against Hagel. He is drawing complaints from Democrats and some mild complaints from some Republicans, but nothing substantial. Even today, Senator Marco Rubio called Cruz “a superstar.”

Cruz is a bully and is on his way in becoming far worse than McCarthy. He is an extremist who only is in it because playing to extremist makes him powerful in Texas and the Tea Party Movement. He cares not for the truth or who he hurts in his quest for glory and power. It’s a damn shame our “liberal media” doesn’t have the balls to call this man out for his reckless behavior on the Senate Floor and that Harry Reid doesn’t begin Censure hearings against Cruz for his inappropriate and fact less attacks on American Citizens in the same way Joe McCarthy dishonored the Senate and the American people.

Here are some facts worth knowing about the U.S. Postal Office that are factual, beyond any doubt and should be used when dealing with anyone who’s in favor of shutting it down:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution written and ratified by the founders of this country empowered Congress “to establish Post offices and Post roads”.  It was written and ratified long before anyone even thought of a 2nd Amendment. It was established as not only a way to spread information throughout the nation, but also as a way to generate revenue for the United States Government. It was another example of “Socialism” that was favored by our founders.

The Post Office does not operate under any federal tax sources. The tax payer doesn’t support its operation. Its operating funds come from the revenue generated from delivery of mail, packages and sales of postal related items. Further, it is not permitted to earn and maintain a profit. It is designed as a non-profit organization unlike Fed Ex.

Were it not for an act of the Lame Duck session of the Republican led House of representatives in 2006 known as the “Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act” that requires the Post Office to pre-fund 75 years of postal workers pensions in a ten year period of time, the post office would not be in debt and looking at shutting down post offices, slashing service and ending Saturday deliveries in order to fund the pension. Were it not for this requirement, the Post Office would have a $1.5 billion dollar surplus. Instead it is now billions in debt.

No private company or public service agency has ever been required to pre-fund their pensions in this matter. It is the only reason the Post Office is in debt and it served no good purpose.

Although many now use the internet for personal communications and even payment of bills, many in this country do not have access in internet infrastructure. Further, many rely on the U.S. Postal Service to vote, get prescription drugs, ship items for their businesses throughout the Country. The Post Office covers the entire nation unlike private corporations such as Federal Express. Further, for the limited areas Fed Ex covers, they charge substantially more than the U.S. Postal Service.

Though it is Congress that is working to place the Post Office in debt, Congressmen and Senators nonetheless continue to make full use of the Postal Service for mailing out information to their constituents at tax payer expense. If they have to go to a private company, the cost to the tax payer would increase substantially.

Now what follows is speculation, but it adds up and I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise. Congress acted in order to shut down the Postal Service in order to privatize postal service across the country. Further, by placing the U.S. Postal Service into bankruptcy, all of its assets go for sale to private industry at rock bottom prices. The 75 year funded pension fund would be used for some other government service unrelated to the people. The Congressman at the lead of this scam is convicted criminal Darrell Issa of California. A sleaze if you ever saw one. He and his compatriots stand to make a lot of money from the downfall of the U.S. Postal service while the people in the nation suffer by higher cost of business, lack of needed services, and death of an organization that has stood strong and served this nation since Benjamin Franklin only to be stabbed in the back by con men like Darrell Issa.

Tell your Congressman and Senators to reverse this con and return the Postal Service to solvency for yourself and the nation.