Presidential Recall

People make mistakes. Sometimes, the American people as a whole make a mistake and elect a leader who fails to deliver. President Obama was a candidate who managed to attract many voters from the center, including many independents and even Republicans. Unfortunately, some of these people now regret having voted for President Obama, and some even have said that they will vote against him in the 2012 election.

When someone is elected President of the United States, the American people are stuck with that person for four years. Only if the President engages in impeachable conduct is there an opportunity for Congress to remove the President from office. Otherwise, the President has to be convinced that he should resign or would need to die. It is obvious that the death of the President is not a legitimate, moral, ethical, or legal way to remove him from office. Anyone who assassinates the United States President should be executed for the criminal act. Convincing someone to resign because they've failed to listen to the will of the people could be difficult, and leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the person the people might want out of office. Impeachment, while a method of removing the President in the Constitution, requires the President to engage in treason, accept bribes, or commit a crime.

The American people deserve a legitimate means of removing the President should he or she fail to follow the will of the American people. That is why a recall process should be made available. Should a simple majority of the American people desire the President to be recalled, then a special recall election will take place. The President will have the opportunity to defeat the recall and be elected again, but if the American people believe someone else can do the job better, then they can vote someone else into office.

Many states already have recall procedures. California and Wisconsin, for example, empower the people to recall elected officials. In 2003, California Governor Gray Davis was recalled and the people of California replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Wisconsin, a recall effort is currently being considered by union leaders and others who believe Governor Scott K. Walker has failed to adhere to the will of his constituents.

A national recall process for the President of the United States would serve to give more power to the American people, and enable the people to keep the President in check. A President who fails to adhere to the will of the people will find themselves serving an abbreviated term, while a President who listens to the American people would serve their four years, and perhaps even see re-election for four more.

New Laws Aren't the Answer

The St. Petersburg Times reports on a movement to restrict alcohol consumption on Sunset Beach in Florida. An ordinance there would ban drinking alcohol between 8:00 AM and sunset on Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays, and those in favor of it argue that crowds drinking or partying get rowdy.

Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a case of government gone too far in restricting the people's freedom by attempting to pass unnecessary ordinances or laws. The problem that Sunset Beach faces is not alcohol, but rather rowdy people. Existing laws against causing public disturbances or nuisances simply need to be enforced. Passing a law that will prevent someone from having a beer on the beach isn't the right answer, and is a continued migration towards making the United States a nanny state instead of a nation based on freedom.

In Obama We Trust?

Yesterday, United States President Barack Hussein Obama in a 60 Minutes interview said that he would not be releasing the photos of recently eliminated terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

While most Americans trust President Obama's word that Osama bin Laden was killed, there are those who doubt that the terrorist is really dead. Some say President Obama faked the death in order to gain political advantage. It would be great if everyone felt they could trust the word of President Obama. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In the past, the American people have been faced with political leaders who failed to tell the truth, and they have reason to believe President Obama may be deceiving them.

President Obama's credibility would be stronger were he to say that he was telling the world the truth when he announced Osama bin Laden was killed, and that there is evidence available to back it up. Unfortunately, no hard evidence exists given the decision to dump Osama bin Laden's body at sea. A better way of dealing with Osama's body would have been to bring it to the United States for independent examination and analysis. Then, a decision about disposal of the coward's body could be made. In lieu of having the body, the President should release what evidence does exist, that being the photos of the body and the video of the raid. Additionally, any documentation such as the DNA tests that were run should be released and if there are DNA samples still available, they should be provided to an independent organization for verification.

President Obama could once again prove those who do not believe him wrong as he did last week when he released his long-form birth certificate, putting an end to any argument or legitimacy the "birthers" had. Unfortunately, he has decided to hide evidence and as a result the "deathers" now have can make legitimate claims that there is no proof Osama bin Laden is really dead. It is also factual that there is no evidence that the "deathers" have that proves that Osama bin Laden is alive. Still, one must wonder what happened to the idea that President Obama was going to run the most transparent administration in American history?

The War Isn't Over

The elimination and defeat of terrorist Osama bin Laden is clearly a good thing. Osama bin Laden will never kill another American, nor will he ever kill any of his fellow Muslims again. As President Obama said on Sunday, "Osama bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims."

However, Osama bin Laden's elimination does not mark the end of the War on Terror. Al Qaeda members, and other terrorists that wish to harm the United States, restrict freedom, prevent democracy, and kill innocent people are still at large. The War on Terror, for the United States, will not be over until every last terrorist is dead or in jail. The elimination of Osama bin Laden is merely a victory in one battle in the War on Terror.

Ending DUIs

Frequently on the news, we read or see cases of idiots driving ridiculously drunk and causing deaths or injuries out on the road. We suggest that there is a better way to solve the problem of drunk driving: simplify all the DUI (or OUI, DWI, etc.)  laws into one law that makes it a capitol offense to cause injury, death, or damage as the result of driving drunk. Further, the execution should be public and used as a deterrent to those who think about drinking and driving.

If someone drives drunk and doesn't hurt anyone, then "no harm, no foul" should be the policy. But, if they do cause injury, death, or damage, they're publicly executed. Most Americans wouldn't want to take the risk, and after the first few are executed for taking the risk and causing injury, death, or damage, then more Americans will realize drinking and driving is a bad idea.

Some would say there are other crimes that should get the death penalty, such as rape, before drunk driving that causes injury, death, or damage. They're right. We should execute violent rapists to ensure they don't rape again. However, this isn't a situation where one or the other should be made a capitol offense: both crimes should be made a capitol offense.

Dodd-Frank Bad for Consumers

One of the consequences of Congress passing the Dodd-Frank "reform" bill is that consumers are now finding themselves losing out as banks cut debit card rewards programs, increase consumer fees, can no longer serve young adults independently, and now are forced to tell people that their credit and debit cards can be declined by merchants who don't want to accept them for small purchases. Dodd-Frank was positioned as a way to curb so-called "abuse" by banks, but in reality it limits the free market and hurts consumers. 

Congress made mistakes, and they need to act to repeal these parts of Dodd-Frank. Here's why:

• With the interchange rate caps, banks are moving to eliminate rewards programs and incentives on debit cards, and to a lesser extend credit cards. Consumers in the past could get rewards points or cash back when using their debit cards. Now, many debit cards are eliminating the rewards offerings and some credit cards are reducing their programs as well. The result of this is that consumers lose out. The way that the free-market system worked is that debit and credit card processing firms set rates for debit card acceptance, and merchants who decided they wanted to accept the cards would find the processor that suited their needs and charged a price they were willing to pay. Some merchants decided they didn't want to pay, and thus decided to remain cash-free despite data that shows businesses that accept more forms of payment are actually more profitable.

• Since Dodd-Frank will curb the amount that banks can charge merchants for credit and debit card transactions, banks are now considering adding more fees to consumers to make up for the lost revenue. Imagine if you had to pay 50 cents every time you used a debit or credit card to your bank? That could add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars in a year. Some consumers would be forced to carry cash, increasing the opportunity for criminals to take advantage of them and losing out on consumer protections.

• Dodd-Frank limits access to credit for people age 18-21. As a result, these adults, who are of sufficient age to serve the country in combat in a place like Afghanistan, are unable to obtain credit cards or loans on their own. This reduces their ability to build a strong credit profile while in college or when starting out on their own. Additionally, it places an undue burden on young adults. Booking airline tickets, checking into a hotel, or renting a car is much more difficult or inconvenient when you don't have a credit card, for example. 

• One of the worst parts of Dodd-Frank is that it overrode the "no minimum" policies of Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. In the past, consumers knew their valid credit and debit cards had to be accepted by merchants whether it was a $0.49, $4.90, or $490 purchase. Now, merchants can set a minimum of as high as $10 to use a credit or debit card. This limits consumer choice in payment, and can force people to carry more cash making themselves a target for criminals.

All of the above make it more difficult for consumers to shop, and as a result consumers end up spending less leading to a negative impact on the economy. There are some ways that the American people can fight back against these portions of Dodd-Frank that hurt consumers:

• Switch to banks that continue to provide rewards programs and do not charge absurd fees. Unfortunately, many banks in order to remain competitive are going to "follow the leader," giving consumers fewer options. 

• Contact members of Congress and encourage them to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank that hurt consumers. Send letters, e-mails, tweets, and if you see your Congressperson talk to them.

• Boycot any merchant that imposes a minimum sale. Additionally, if you encounter a minimum sale amount that was not disclosed to you, such as if a bar tells you you have to buy more drinks to close a tab, refuse to do it. Do not sign the receipt, and if you are charged more than what you actually bought then report this is fraud to your credit or debit card issuer. If the place holds onto your credit or debit card, report it as stolen so your bank can close it and issue a new one.

Dodd-Frank is a prime example of how government regulation and interference run amuck hurts the American people. We can only hope that parts of it are repealed. 

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.

Is Christine O'Donnell Really the Subject of a Criminal Investigation?

The answer is "no." Despite reports indicating that the U.S. Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating crimes of misuse of campaign funds by Christine O'Donnell, former Republican candidate for a Delaware Senate seat, there is no direct confirmation of a criminal investigation from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Ms. O'Donnell herself has said that neither her nor her attorney's have received any notification of a criminal investigation. Further, the Boston Globe reports the following:

Law enforcement sources said the inquiry by the US attorney's office in Delaware is very preliminary and has not progressed to a full-fledged criminal investigation. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing.

Essentially, the Boston Globe's report indicates that a criminal investigation targeting Ms. O'Donnell is not taking place right now.

The idea behind an investigation into Ms. O'Donnell is that she misused campaign funds to pay for person expenses, namely to pay rent for a town home she resided at. However, on CNBC's The Kudlow Report, Ms. O'Donnell explained that she actually paid her campaign money to list a town home rented to serve as a campaign office/headquarters as her legal residence following vandalism and a break-in at her own home. Since candidates for office must disclose their legal residence and address, and unlike many of the elite politicians serving in Congress Ms. O'Donnell doesn't reside on a large, gated estate with private security, Ms. O'Donnell listed the campaign's office as her legal residence for her own safety and security -- a move that was deemed okay by the Federal Elections Commission. Speaking to FOX News, Ms. O'Donnell said the following:

The current campaign rents a townhouse to use as our campaign headquarters because my personal home was vandalized, broken into, eggs thrown at it, nasty words were written on the front door. I use that townhome as my legal residency, and I pay the campaign rent in order to my legal residency. That is where the whole rent thing has been taken out of context. This has been taken totally out of context to discredit the Tea Party movement.

The American people should be glad that no criminal investigation is moving forward regarding this matter. It would be a complete waste of tax dollars to attempt to seek out impropriety that didn't take place. Yet, the left has been pressing the U.S. Attorney to investigate Ms. O'Donnell for months. If you don't believe that fact, take a look at this petition on the website of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The petition was put online in September 2010. CREW refuses to release it's list of donors, however the organization itself admits to being on the left and has received money from far-left billionaire George Soros as well as the left-wing Service Employees International Union.

While the left has every right to oppose the Tea Party and speak against Christine O'Donnell, what they do not have the right to do is force the American people to pay for pointless criminal investigations against their political opponents. Ms. O'Donnell, well aware that she will come under personal attack as a strong conservative woman in politics, stated that she hopes the public "will see right through these thug tactics," calling them an "establishment  trick to stop the anti-establishment Tea Party movement in its tracks."

Do you see through the left's "thug tactics" against Christine O'Donnell? Whether "yes" or "no", feel free to post your comments, questions, and thoughts.

The Liberal Filmmaker

Update (December 21, 2010 @ 8:50 PM)
Moments ago on the Rachel Maddow Show, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore stated:

Every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted has to be -- must be -- taken seriously.

Moore also said that Assange must answer to the charges against him. He avoided providing a straight answer to Maddow's question about why he posted Assange's bail, however. Our Twitter account provided some live updates as the interview aired.

Original Post
Michael Moore has been the subject of many negative Twitter posts lately for his recent comments on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. While one would normally expect that moderates and conservatives are the ones tweeting against the liberal filmmaker responsible for Sicko or Fahrenheit 9-11, it turns out that this time, Moore is so out of line that he's under fire from people all over the political spectrum.

What did Moore do that could anger his far-left base? He called the rape allegations against WikiLeaks' Julian Assange "all a bunch of hooey," ignoring the fact that Assange is accused of having sexually assaulted two women. The Report previously blogged about the topic, with the message that if Assange did not actually commit a rape, then he should be released. This was based on a Reuters report that indicated no actual rape occurred and that the entire thing was over getting Assange tested for sexually transmitted disease/infection. The Reuters report was taken in the context of being definitive and true. It was noted, however, that if Assange actually did rape the women in question, then he should face "arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment for life so that he never has the chance to rape another woman again."

It now appears, however, that Assange is a rapist and there are more to the charges. One woman said that she and Assange "had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use." This would be a rape. Another woman said Assange "ignored her appeals to stop." This would also be rape.

Unlike Michael Moore, The Report takes the position that Julian Assange needs to be put on trial and the case heard so that justice can be served. The media reports are conflicting. Further, you can't find someone guilty through reading blogs and newspapers. These are serious allegations, as are any rape allegations, and must be properly investigated and tried. If Assange raped two women (or even one woman), and it can be proven in court, then he should be jailed for it. If it cannot be proven that he committed a crime, he should be released. This isn't about WikiLeaks, it is about ensuring that justice is served. Julian Assange is not a victim in this situation. While he deserves the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the victims here are the two women that he is accused of raping.

The #MooreAndMe hash tag on Twitter was created in order to bring awareness and protest Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann's lack of understanding of the facts and their failure to recognize that the victim in this case isn't Julian Assange. Repeated calls have been made for Moore and Olbermann to set the facts straight, but they have failed to do so. Media Bistro has more about the issue.

Per his own Twitter, @MMFlint, Michael Moore is on Maddow tonight on MSNBC at 9:00 PM Eastern Time. Hopefully, some sense will come to him and he'll apologize and set the record straight. Otherwise, expect the #MooreAndMe campaign to continue.

Release Assange & Arrest The Damn Hackers!

The controversy over WikiLeaks and cablegate continues. As posted before on The Report, the United States government should not be attacking and blaming WikiLeaks for its troubles, but rather, should be blaming its own citizen and armed forces member, Private First Class Bradley E. Manning. Manning betrayed his country by leaking the documents out, and as written before on The Report should be prosecuted for his treasonous acts and executed if found guilty.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange was arrested by authorities in the United Kingdom on a European Union arrest warrant out of Sweden. Assange faces extradition to Sweden to face charges of sexual assault / rape charges. However, it turns out that he didn't actually rape anyone: the women involved have actually stated that the consented to having sexual relations with Assange. The charges stem from Assange refusing to go to a Doctor to get tested for sexually transmitted disease/infection and being difficult to reach. As a result, the women went to the authorities in Sweden when the simple solution would be that they get tested for diseases/infections and leave Assange to deal with anything he may have picked up on his own terms. It is absolutely absurd that the Swedish authorities issued an EU arrest warrant for Assange, and even more absurd that the British actually acted on these ridiculous charges. Had Assange actually forced himself upon these women, then this blog would be advocating for his arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment for life so that he never has the chance to rape another woman again. However, since Assange did not rape anyone, he should be released, the charges should be dropped, and the arrest warrant cancelled. The Report also would advise Assange to go get tested for disease/infection for his own good, because having something like syphilis or herpes go untreated is probably going to be quite painful.

Besides PFC Manning, the other party that needs to be found, arrested, and put in prison are the hackers who have been wreaking havoc on various websites and firms through denial of service attacks. These attacks slow down the Internet for users worldwide, and can hurt the economy by preventing transactions from taking place. While MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, and EveryDNS (not be be confused with a good DNS provider based in Canada called EasyDNS) did the wrong thing by cutting off WikiLeaks, attacking their websites is not the proper course of action. Further, it is illegal, and the criminals behind it should be prosecuted. Those who oppose the actions of the companies that cut off WikiLeaks should oppose them through legal means, such as boycotting them. Instead of using a Visa card or MasterCard card, for example, go with American Express -- if Visa and MasterCard see transaction numbers fall, they won't make as much money and will realize that such poor judgement will cost their bottom line.