Birth Certificates

While the burden of proof lies on the accuser, President Obama would be wise to release his full birth certificate. With many Americans questioning his place of birth or concerned the President has not made his full birth certificate public, it might be a smart move for the President to release it. This week, one of President Obama's possible challengers, Donald J. Trump, released his own birth certificate. By putting forth the document himself, Trump will preempt any controversy over his birth. Going into 2012, President could lose votes if people vote for his opponent on the grounds that they think he is an illegitimate President.*

*The author of this post does not believe President Obama is an illegitimate President. Like Speaker John Boehner of the House of Representatives, the author recognizes that the State of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there and considers that statement good enough, especially given that the "birthers" have no produced any hard evidence to the contrary. However, many Americans have expressed concerns that President Obama is illegitimate, and their concerns could have an impact on the outcome of the 2012 election.

Ending The Lies

It is known that public officials often fail to tell the truth to their Constituents. Unfortunately, they often get a away with it. The solution is to create a strong punishment for public officials who do not tell the truth to the people: removal and disqualification from office.

It should be an amendment to the United States Constitution that any public official who does not tell the truth is automatically removed from office and shall be ineligible to hold office in the United States, provided that their failure to tell the truth is proven by hard evidence. This means that video or audio of their failure to tell the truth would be required, and there would need to be evidence that their words were untrue.

The idea behind this amendment is not to interfere with free speech, but rather to ensure that those elected to serve the people tell the truth. If a public official says on television that a bill will lower the people's taxes, but there is no provision in the bill to reduce the people's tax burden burden, they would be subject to removal from office and disqualification. If a public official backed a bill that would add taxes, and was asked "will this bill hike taxes" in an interview and responded "yes," they would not be affected because they are telling the truth. If they lied and said "no," then they would be removed from office and disqualified from holding office ever again in the United States. Honest public officials who tell the people the truth would have nothing to fear. The people would benefit greatly because lying would be greatly reduced if public officials knew that lying would lead to removal from office and an end to their public careers.

Democrat Accuses GOP of Blood Libel

When Sarah Palin referred to attacks against her as "blood libel," it set off a firestorm of criticism. While criticism was primarily from the left, it also came from the center and even some on the right. Oddly, the same level of criticism isn't happening following Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) using the term "blood libel" to refer to the Republican efforts to pass House Resolution #2, a bill aimed at repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Here's what Rep. Cohen said:

They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing, blood libel. That's the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it -- believed it and you have the Holocaust.

It appears that accusing your opposition of blood libel isn't allowed when you're a conservative under attack, but that when you're a Democrat trying to defend legislation that has been ruled partially unconstitutional and is has its repeal supported by a majority of the country, then it's fine. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

Jared Lee Loughner

A tragic act of mass-murder took place yesterday in Tucson, Arizona. As The Report tweeted, we pray for the recovery of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others who were wounded in the shooting. We also offer our condolences for those who were lost, including Federal Judge John Roll and 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green.

The person responsible for these heinous acts of mass-murder and violence is not Sarah Palin or the Tea Party, as some on the left have tried to blame. It is one man: Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner is a self-described terrorist. Loughner is a man who believes in burning the United States' flag, as well as a man who supports discrimination against of homosexuals and members of the Jewish faith. Additionally, Loughner is a supporter of socialism, which is the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from the Tea Party. Further, Jared Lee Loughner, for the overt acts of assassination of a Federal Judge and attempted assassination of a Congresswoman is a traitor. There are certainly more than two witnesses. However, since first-degree murder is a capital offense in Arizona and Loughner can be charged with no fewer than six counts of it*, he can still be executed without a treason charge.

Most importantly, the acts of Jared Lee Loughner cannot be allowed to defeat democracy. Rep. Giffords was shot while at an event designed to allow her to connect in person with members of her constituency. Ms. Green was there because she had recently been elected to her school's student council, and as a constituent representing other constituents of Rep. Giffords, she wanted to meet the Congresswoman. This is the way Congress should work. Representatives and Senators should reach out to their constituent, and hear them, and act based on their input. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, is right to say that "this inhuman act should not, and will not, deter us from our calling to represent our constituents."

President Obama said "such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society." Jared Lee Loughner has the right to a speedy trial under the United States Constitution. That right must be granted to him -- not for his sake, but because the the faster Loughner is found guilty, sentenced to death, and executed, the better off our free society will be.

* At the time of this post, there are six dead from his actions, and others could still succumb to their wounds in the hospital.

Guns Make Us Safer

Liberals and others opposed to the American people being able to own and use guns often argue that the guns lead to murders happening, and that if we got rid of guns, people wouldn't be killed. Yet, history tells us that people were murdered well before guns existed. Julius Caesar, for example, was killed in 44 B.C. The fire-lance, which could be considered the first guns, didn't exist until the 10th century. Murder took place without guns, and gun-free murders continue to take place guns today. Reading the news, there are stories of murder by stabbing, murder by drowning, murder by strangulation, and other means. Criminals do not need guns to kill!

Guns, rather than leading to more crime, actually serve as a deterrent to crime. If you were a criminal on a street with four houses looking to commit a robbery, knowing the owners of three home are armed and that the owners of another are defenseless, you would use common sense to rob the house where the homeowners are defenseless. Further, if someone enters a school looking to kill in a Columbine or Virginia Tech style massacre, they will be able to kill dozens of people if no one is able to stop them. If a majority of people are armed, they'll be stopped after killing just a few people. While every life is precious, it is a better situation for a few people to be killed than dozens to be killed.

If guns led to crime, the leaders of America would never have submitted the Bill of Rights to be added as amendments to the United States Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This amendment doesn't force anyone to buy or own a gun, rather it states that people have the right to have guns if they want. It is irresponsible and ignorant for anyone to try to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Further, it is improper: the Constitution can be amended, meaning that if the American people no longer want the right to have guns, there is a proper process to bring about that change.

Scalia's Wrong On Discrimination

The Huffington Post, FOX News, and even Perez Hilton (a major liberal) today took notice of an interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in which the Justice alleges that it would be Constitutional for laws to be made that directly discriminate against women (or men):

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about.

Unfortunately, Justice Scalia is wrong. This is not the first time he has proclaimed that gender discrimination is legal. In 1996, he was the lone member of the Supreme Court in United States v. Virginia who voted against stricking down the Virginia Military Institute's policy that did not allow the admission of women. A majority of the court believed that the policy violated the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.

In suggesting that discrimination against a gender is Constitutional, what Justice Scalia suggests is not only complete inconsistent with the Constitution itself, but also inconsistent with the views of the American people. Justice Scalia's suggestion goes against true conservative values, which follow the belief that all Americans are equal and reject discrimination or bigotry.

At the end of his post about Mr. Scalia, Perez Hilton asks the question "He's retiring soon, right?" after noting that it was "troubling that all of this is coming from a current Supreme Court Justice." Given his inability to properly interpret he Constitution and ensure equal protection is provided to the American people, Justice Scalia's retirement would likely be beneficial to the country. However, if he were to retire while President Obama is in office, it could lead to the appointment of a far-left, liberal activist justice with even more disdain for the Constitution. A best-case scenario would be for a conservative to be elected President, and for Justice Scalia to resign once a more conservative leader is in office who can ensure that someone is appointed to the Supreme Court who will respect the Constitution.

Change We Can Believe In

In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama, then just a candidate for United States President put forth a "plan to renew America's promise." For $13.95, you can actually buy the book with the plan for the so-called "change we can believe in." If this was real change that America could believe in, and Mr. Obama wanted the American people to truly read and understand his agenda, it might have been a good idea to just post it to the internet where people can download and read it without paying up. After all, there was (and still is) a recession with high unemployment at the time.

The true change that the American people can believe in is the change that future Speaker of the House John Boehner wants to bring to Congress. The Ohio Republican looks to implement major changes that would provide greater transparency and accountability to Congress. Instead of selling a book about the ideas, Mr. Boehner instead tweeted about them today. Some of these amazing ideas are below:

• Constitutional Authority Statements: Every bill would require a "constitutional authority statement" which indicates what section of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact the legislation. This will ensure that Congress does not exert authority that it does not truly have. 

• Posting All Bills and Votes Online: Three days prior to a bill being voted on, it would be posted to the internet so that the American people can read the bill with ease. This would ensure that Congress acts in a transparent manner, giving the American people at a minimum, three days to express their support or outrage over a bill that Congress is considering. There would be no more last-minute bills created behind closed doors and passed without the public having a chance to review the bill. The three day rule would also apply to committees looking at bills. Additionally, committee votes would be posted online, enabling the American people to keep their representatives in check. 

• No Taxes Hikes to Fund Spending: While the two aforementioned rule changes will likely be acceptable to Democrats, those on the far-left won't be happy that raising taxes to pay for new spending and earmarks wouldn't be allowed. Mr. Boehner's proposal is that new spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere. This would ensure the American people would not be faced with a greater gap between government spending and government revenue each year. 

As Mr. Boehner said on 60 Minutes earlier this month, "Washington does not have a revenue problem; Washington has a spending problem." By following the Constitution, embracing transparency, and not simply hiking taxes to pay for new spending, Congress can come closer to solving its spending problems and Congress will better serve the American people.

Rejection of Individual Mandate Protects Our Freedom

When Henry Hudson, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled this week that the "individual mandate" provision of the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) mandating that individuals purchase health insurance coverage or be fined was unconstitutional, he made a ruling that protects the American people from the government overstepping its bounds and removing freedoms. That freedom, of course, is the right to NOT buy something you don't want. Under Obamacare, individuals who didn't want to buy health insurance would be forced to either buy it or pay up a fine. Luckily, Judge Hudson properly interpreted the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and ruled that Congress does not have the power to force someone to enter into interstate commerce.

Could you imagine the United States government telling you that you had to buy an orange, a television, a bag of rice, lost luggage insurance, or a six pack of beer? Of course not. Substitute health insurance for one of the aforementioned items, and it is just as ridiculous a proposition. Imagine if a law was passed that every American must own a gun. The same liberals who support all of Obamacare, or believe it didn't go far enough, would be outraged. Yet, the Obama administration has decided to appeal Judge Hudson's ruling. The administration of President Obama continues to not get it. They fail to understand that the American people do not want to be forced into buying a product. The decision to buy health insurance is something that each American should be able to make for themselves and their families. Remember, a majority of those who purchase health insurance will pay more in premiums than they'll receive as a benefit. This is how the health insurance companies cover their costs and earn profits. Rather than pay premiums, some choose to save that money and pay directly for the cost of healthcare that they want or need. The freedom to make the decision as an individual is a fundamental American right.

While portions of Obamacare are beneficial to the American people, the individual mandate provision is not. Common sense would be for the Obama administration to accept that the individual mandate overstepped what is constitutional, and to try to continue forward with the good provisions of health care reform, such as improved coverage for dependents.

In the long-run, the Supreme Court will likely hear the case on whether or not Obamacare's individual mandate is constitutional or not. The Court would be wise to uphold the decision of Judge Hudson, rejecting the individual mandate provision of Obamacare, and setting a precedent that the American people are free to decide whether they will buy a product or not.

Congress Should Lose Control Over Taxation

The United States Congress gets to decide how much Americans pay in federal income tax. Unfortunately, as the events of the past week have shown, Congress cannot be trusted with the responsibility and power to decide how much the American people should be taxed. The solution to ensuring that the will of the American people is followed is to take away Congress' power to decide how much tax Americans will pay.

Congress' power to decide how much Americans are taxed comes from the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

While it is Constitutional and legal for Congress to currently set income tax rates, the 16th Amendment was  ratified in 1913, and has become outdated. The 16th Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a new Amendment (the 28th) that provides for a referendum with each election of members of the House of Representatives (every two years) where the American people can decide what tax burden they are willing to accept. The American people would have the power to increase, decrease, or keep taxes the same, and Congress would no longer be able to play political games that run the risk of damaging the country's economy.