These are just notes, a live interview would have been more fluid and I could have gone in to more detail – for example I could have asked for more specifics on exactly how he thought the financial system would have collapsed had Congress not undertaken the heist of the century by stealing billions from the taxpayer and giving it to Wall Street bonus pools.

I got the idea for the interview when I heard Congressman Frank state that he had not heard from any financial professionals in his state regarding financial reform. This surprised me as I had sent letters to his office.

I contacted the Congressman’s office and explained that I had employees and clients in his district, used to be headquartered in his district and was a member of a network with over 100 more employees and thousands of clients in his district. I also explained that the far-reaching nature of his legislating is national in scope.

His office played nicely and said they would do an interview, however they refused to ever actually schedule it.

So, here are some notes I had on what I might have asked.

Interview Questions:

Congressman Frank, chairman Bernanke and others have used words like “angry” to describe their feelings about AIG – does this mean that you will stop giving them our money or is it just talk?

Do you know of any economic example in history when printing new money and a bailout of this type has worked?

You’ve spoken out against no-bid military related contracts, which is great.
We are paying the lending servicing companies essentially a $4 billion to $20 billion bonus – do you call this a no-bid contract? If not, what was the bidding process?

Merrill Lynch paid hundreds of millions in bonuses and we gave them over $20 billion of TARP money – was this what Congress intended would happen with TARP funds? If so, how is it fair to take tax money from Americans who are hurting and pay bonuses with it? If not, how could you take $700 billion in taxpayer money without understanding where it would go?

Essentially, an investment firm executive who had been stupid enough to invest in ridiculously over-priced, over-leveraged subprime debt would have been eligible for a bailout bonus and could have perhaps bought a fleet of Ferraris for its executives. While a firm smart enough to see the over-leverage and avoid it now not only has to contend with a down market but with competitors who have free money from the taxpayer. Is this how you intended the system to work?

Nowhere in a definition of capitalism does it talk about massive government spending of this type – so how do you define our current system?

You’ve said the goal of taking hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money was to increase liquidity in the marketplace and get banks lending to consumers again. As many suspected, this has not occurred at all and it has simply served as a profit center for banks. If the goal really was to have the money lent to the people why didn’t the government simply lend the $700 billion directly and hire an administrator? If the United States can build space shuttles and nuclear submarines, surely we could get a government contractor to administer loans — even if the contractor was paid $50 billion – the equivalent of Microsoft’s annual revenue, then we still would have seen $650 billion placed into the market in loans. Why was this not done?

You’ve said repeatedly that TARP was needed because the financial system would have been destroyed if not for the bailout bonuses. Can you explain how?

You’ve stated that the state state securities divisions are necessary in addition to the SEC and not redundant. Can you name any case in the last decade that the state has brought which was not already a violation of existing SEC law or other regulations?

The financial regulatory environment has made communication and disclosure to clients challenging. For example, registered financial professionals are prohibited from hiring another person to write an article or speech in their name and prohibited from directing advertisements to senior citizens. Congressman, have you targeted senior citizens in campaigns and have you personally written every word of your speeches, letters, articles and bills? If not, are Members of Congress held to a lesser standard than financial professionals?

The decision mentions the word “money” once:

“All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.”

Citizens United Infographic Free Speech

Opponents describe the case as a decision to grant corporations status as a “person” and open flood gates to corporate money in politics. David Kairys of Slate summed up opposition: “Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People”. Documentaries and blog posts eloquently speak about corruption and demand an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the decision.

Like many well-meaning but ill-conceived laws, this all sounds sensible. However, a more careful review of the actual case is in order.

Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision made on appeal of a case in which the Federal Election Commission banned Citizens United from broadcasting a program called Hillary: The Movie critical of then candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Facts should be noted:
- The subject of the Citizens United case was not ‘money in politics’ but was directly related to the rights of a group (in this case Citizens United) to speak about politics.

- McCain Feingold / Bipartisan Campaign Reform law sought to censor political statements, the manner and time in which they could be made.

- McCain/ Feingold limited what independent groups could say about politicians n the time leading up to an election.

- The US Government used McCain / Feingold as justification and BANNED the film and related advertisements.

- The Supreme Court ruled censorship was a violation of the First Amendment and stated that individuals should be allowed to form groups to speak their political views.

- The definition of “corporations” includes for-profit and non-profits, unions and virtually all other groups.

- Citizens United is a 501(c)4 Not for Profit – a corporation exactly like Greenpeace, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), National Right to Life Committee, Human Rights Campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), MoveOn.org and thousands of others.

- The decision did NOT say “corporations are people”.

- The decision stated that people have the right to form groups and have the right to political speech without government censorship and that Americans have the right to hear that message.

- The court did NOT say that “foreign corporations can spend to influence elections” it was ALREADY illegal for foreign corporations to spend on US elections and the Supreme Court specifically said that it was not changing or addressing this in the decision.

- Disclosure of political advertisement spending is required by law and this did not change with the decision, one justice noted that this enables Americans to judge for themselves the nature of a message based on its funding.

Those against the decision are saying that US Government authorities should indeed ban books, websites and films. If a group of Occupiers or other Americans produce a film critical of a radical Presidential candidate before the election it would be banned if not for this decision. Put partisan rhetoric aside and boil it down to the root facts in case documents: a political film that was BANNED by authorities, our highest court ruled that this was a violation of our rights. Period.
Do we really want to go down a road, anything approaching a road, where any type of film, blog or other form of speech is blocked on threat of imprisonment? The next censored film, book or website could be by Occupiers, by Michael Moore or you or me. Getting “evil corporations” (or “good” corporations, or non-profits, or advocacy groups or unions) out of politics might be great but limiting speech is not the answer. Like Rev, Phelps, racists and bigots, it is a price we pay for freedom of speech.

In 2004 MoveOn.org invited me to appear on a nationally televised ad campaign in which I said that it was hard to admit when our President does wrong but Iraq was wrong and I do not support President Bush. Now whether you love or hate President Bush: should I have been allowed to speak my mind? What if my speech was banned by the authorities and I chose to violate their order and publish it on my blog anyway. Would they send a SWAT team to my home to drag me away? Would I be in Federal prison today because I spoke against the actions of our President?

Fears of unlimited free speech include fear that companies will buy elections or rush in at the last minute to swing an election with a spending spree. Keep in mind: currently most of the biggest corporate spenders are groups like unions and MoveOn.org, which rely on individual donations. Do unions, advocacy groups and others influence elections? Sure. But by censoring what they say we are essentially saying “we don’t trust the people to make a decision, correctly, we’d rather trust the Government to decide who can say what and who can listen”. A new Constitutional Amendment would do just that, it would amend the First Amendment. We would essentially say “freedom of speech….except for groups and certain times and places.”

The problem with giving more power to Government is that, while CEOs of Fortune 100 companies or MoveOn or Unions could perhaps be evil, so could politicians. The difference is that the politicians have an army of Lt John Pikes to mace us, imprison us and take our property and freedom. Free speech is our First Amendment for a reason. It has its drawbacks but they are far outweighed by the benefits. Let’s have faith in Americans to decide what they want to say and hear. We can never, ever back-pedal from this right. Those who seek to overturn Citizens seek to limit our speech and allow Govt authorities to ban books, websites and films.

That’s not freedom, that’s not American, that’s not democracy and that is not even close to the type of action we need to repair our broken system. Want corporations to stop using money to influence politics? Reduce government size to the point that politicians have nothing to offer that corporations would want.

By Bruce Fenton

Subscribe, friend and follow me
www.facebook.com/brucefenton

The letter was signed by advisers to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton; by former presidential candidates of the Libertarian, Socialist and Green Parties as well as independent Ralph Nader, and by representatives of think tanks including the Institute for Policy Studies, The Independent Institute, The Future of Freedom Foundation, Hoover Institution, Ludwig von Mises Institute and Just Foreign Policy, and a wide range of publications including The American Conservative, Antiwar.com, Black Agenda Report, Black Commentator, FireDogLake.com, Liberty for All, Liberty for America, OpEdNews.com, The Progressive, Progressive Review, Raw Story, OpEdNews.com and Reason.

Among the signers are:
•Doug Bandow, Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan
•Robert Dickson Crane, Richard Nixon’s principal foreign policy adviser, 1963-68, Deputy Director for Planning, National Security Council, 1969
•Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower
•Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary, National Council of Churches
•Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor, Tikkun Magazine, Chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives
•Tom Maertens, Former Director, National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush
•Daniel McCarthy, Editor, American Conservative
•Coleen Rowley, Former FBI Agent and one of TIME’s 2002 Persons of the Year
•Ann Wright, US Army Colonel (ret.) and former US diplomat

The letter emphasizes how U.S. militarism undermines the rule of law, weakens the economy, makes Americans less safe and brings widespread and pointless suffering around the world. The letter concludes, citing our founding president:

George Washington urged Americans to “cultivate peace and harmony with all” and to “avoid overgrown military establishments,” which are “hostile to republican liberty.” It is time for Americans to reject fear and militarism and embrace the highest, noblest aspirations of our heritage. It is time to come home, America.

SOURCE Come Home America

Conservatives clashed sharply over which nominee, establishment candidate Mike Castle or Tea Partier Christine O’Donnell, would be a better choice to run for Joe Biden’s vacated Senate seat. Those backing Castle noted that he had won a dozen statewide races and was a surefire winner, whose presence deterred Beau Biden, the First State’s Attorney-General and son of VP Joe, from running for his father’s long-held seat.  Castle supporters cited his House votes against the Obama stimulus and health care bills, plus his support for extending in full the Bush tax cuts; they also derided O’Donnell’s cipher resume and apparent inability to manage her personal finances.  Those behind O’Donnell stressed the need to shake up the establishment, assailed Castle’s support for the cap & trade bill, and warned that established incumbents were vulnerable in a year that has seen unprecedented levels of public disgust with career politicians.

How can Tea Party & establishment concerns best be reconciled for future races?  One idea, advanced by Castle supporters, is to apply the so-called Buckley Rule, named after the great conservative revivalist figure: vote for the most electable conservative.  Tea Partiers argue that while the Buckley Rule holds in normal times, these are extraordinary times that call for rejecting establishment candidates who seem more electable.  They point to several huge upset races in which favored establishment types lost.

But Tea Partiers are wrong to think prudence should be tossed aside completely in these times.  I propose a modification of the Buckley Rule to fit today’s times, based upon a middle ground: Back the best plausible conservative candidate with a reasonable shot of winning.

“Modified Buckley” would hold that where a conservative candidate of reasonable quality has a somewhat lesser chance of winning than an establishment type, it is worth the risk to back the more conservative one, though judged less likely to win, so as to press hard for incumbent replacement by candidates not tied to old ways of practicing politics.  But given a conservative candidate of dubious quality and thus far less likely to win, settle for the establishment favorite to improve chances of the GOP gaining control of the legislative agenda.

If O’Donnell wins this may appear moot for the time being.  But if as seems likely she loses, and if the balance in the Senate is 50-50 after November 2 with VP Joe Biden presiding and providing the tiebreaking vote in the Senate, Tea Partiers will pay dearly over the next two years for pursuit of ideological purity at all costs.  Controlling the Senate agenda means setting legislative priorities, such as bringing repeal of ObamaCare to the Senate floor and demanding changes to the New START Treaty before allowing a floor vote; it means using hearings to spotlight, for example, Kathleen Sebelius’s heavy-handed blackmail of insurers to shut up or else face the government’s wrath; it means being able to block far left-wing Supreme Court nominees from confirmation.

In other words, in selecting the best candidates in 2012, go for a touchdown on 4^th & 5 instead of settling for a field goal; but do not throw 70-yard Hail Mary passes.

John C. Wohlstetter is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, author of The Long War Ahead and the Short War Upon Us, and founder of the issues blog Letter From the Capitol^SM.

On September 11, 2001 we lost nearly 3000 people, we respect their memory and the price they paid on that terrible day.

Why do we not also honor the more than 10,000 people killed by gang violence in the last nine years?  How about the thousands of soldiers who died since 9-11?  Or the more than 30,000 women killed by domestic violence since that fateful day?  How about the 850,000 people killed by car accidents and the 1,000,000 killed by drugs and alcohol as well as the 3,000,000 who died of obesity and diet related illness since 9-11?

Are these lives, these women killed in domestic violence, children killed by drunk drivers or innocent bystanders killed by gangs any less valuable than the victims of 9-11?  How about the tens of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi civilians who were killed since then?  The families of those who have lost since 2001 surely feel the pain equally.  Why the inordinate focus on this one event?  The focus on 9-11 is not about number of deaths or impact but on the damage to our psyche as Americans.  Operationally, 9-11 was a failure – the terrorists who sought to destroy America killed no more people than cigarettes kill every week.  New York’s Finest rescued over 20,000 people in the most daring and successful rescue operation in history, damage to the Pentagon was far less than terrorists intended and brave passengers gave their lives to stop Flight 93 before it ever reached its target.

Tragically, where the perpetrators failed in operation, they are succeeding in result, even more sadly, this success is one we are giving them.  As Commander Tom Rancich, former US Navy SEAL terrorism expert and Afghanistan veteran states:  “don’t do what you enemy wants you to do”.  Sadly, on this, we Americans have failed miserably.

The grand horrific spectacle that played out after 9-11 worked exactly as planned to those who perpetrated this insane crime.  Today we are more broken and divided than we were a week after the attacks. The unspeakable tragedy of the 3000 lives lost was far compounded by the use of that atrocious event as a justification for us to rush into not one but two ill conceived wars, neither of which has caught the perpetrators.

- An additional tragedy of 9-11 is the loss of thousands of American troops in wars with no apparent mission, objective or Constitutional purpose.

- An additional tragedy of 9-11 is the increasing Islamophobia in America to the point where houses of worship are being burned or asked to move.

- An additional tragedy is the thousands of people out of work in a slumping economy while we spend hundreds of billions on wars that yield no return.

- An additional tragedy is that the land of the free, land of opportunity so long marked by the Statue of Liberty has become one of the most closed, anti-imigrant nations on earth.

- An additional tragedy of 9-11 is increased Government interference with our Bill of Rights,  the onerous and unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, Americans imprisoned without due process or rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, unlawful search and seizure and increased interference in free speech.

-A tragedy is the paralysis we face as a nation, unable even to rebuild almost 10 years later while economic competitiveness of China, Russia, Brazil, India and the Middle East races by us at light speed.

The greatest tragedy of 9-11 is how our nation has changed, our inability to move and how we have undermined our core values of rights for our own citizens as well as our foreign policy.

The criminals responsible for 9-11 could not beat us by killing 3000 people. This loss of life is profoundly sad but not enough to beat us.  Los Angeles county gangs alone have killed that many in the last 10 years.  Great Britain endured similar sized attacks over 100 times during WWII yet prevailed.  No, the terrorists could not blockade our ports, take our cities or defeat us by any measure used in warfare or kill any more of us than die from junk food or cigarettes each week.  They couldn’t beat us, but we could beat ourselves.  Sadly, in some ways we have. Just as if we used deaths from gang violence as a reason to create new laws and a Department of Homeland Gang Security to suck our Treasury dry while infringing on our rights, we’d be losing where the gangs couldn’t win.  Just as if we used the horrible tragedy of domestic violence as justification to install cameras in every home, abandon or waive our civil rights, we’d lose where the criminals could not win. The worst nightmare for the attackers would have been if we simply ignored the event, rebuilt the towers and moved on with no change in policy but a team of a few thousand special forces and investigators tasked to capture those responsible. Had we done so we’d be $900 billion richer, safer and far more likely to have brought justice to the victims, thousands of soldiers would be alive and more would be at home with their families.

On this solemn day we honor the memory of those fallen on 9-11 and all people worldwide who lost their lives to so many causes.  One should be cautious about putting these lives on a pedestal above any other tragic loss.  We do not honor the memory of the fallen by using their deaths as an excuse to continue policies that cause more death, destruction and intolerance. Terrorists couldn’t beat us by killing one in 100,000 people but they can win if we destroy our own nation with weak policies.

Lets lay a wreath for those victims and move forward as a nation and with policies that honor our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, a nation that realizes the gravity of sending our troops into harms way and one that honors our principals of freedom, tolerance and equality.  Honor the victims, but don’t give the attackers what they want by continuing to use this event as fuel.  Lets rise from the tragedy of almost a decade ago as better Americans and better global citizens.  Let’s once again inspire the world as we did when we landed on the moon and so many times in our great history.  Lets think carefully next time we are faced with tragedy about whether the documents made by our founding fathers should be so easily cast aside.  Let’s move on toward creating the country, society and world we can be most proud of.  Lets move on to 9-12.

by Bruce Fenton

Some years back I discovered a book called For the Courage of the Founders by Tom Rancich.

In the book, Tom makes a stunning case that America’s Global War on Terror is not only an illusion but is counter to our most basic principles and American values.

In the book Tom makes some bold claims:

1) Terrorists are not a true threat to America.

2) Our own undermining of the Constitution IS a threat to America.

So who is Tom Rancich?  Does he know what he’s talking about?  He must be a Californian dope smoking, America-hating hippy right?

More on that in a second.

Terrorism Kills, but so do Cigarettes

The book goes on in great detail.  With scientifically objective thinking, Tom points out that most scars left by terrorism are more emotional than of significant objective material consequence to our nation.  Example: far more people die of cigarettes or obesity than terrorism, yet we don’t change our Constitutional values to fight junk food.  In other words, terrorism hurts our ego more than it actually threatens us.  What Tom does believe is that the increasing erosion of our freedoms by our own government is a significant threat. Although written after the passage of the Patriot Act, the book had not yet seen the suspicion-less highway stops, wiretaps, expansion of Homeland Security, full body scans and many other draconian controls initiated in recent years by Uncle Sam.

An additional side effect of the “War on Terror” is that while our soldiers, intelligence agencies and law enforcement officers are fighting a war against “terror” (an emotion), conventional threats such as large nations are going unmonitored or neglected.  Did the huge number of Russian spies in the US suddenly go home just because the former KGB head became their leader?  Domestically our FBI is so busy chasing terrorists that fraud and other serious crimes are ignored.  (Yes, ignored.  On more than one occasion I have reported financial fraud and theft to the FBI on behalf of clients and in all cases my clients have been ignored.)

So who is this Rancich guy?

Surely Rancich does not know anyone who wears a uniform and must be a coward right?

Well, it reminds me of one of the often repeated and extremely stupid things said by so many hawks who think war is cool: “How dare someone speak out against America’s actions if he never wore a uniform!”  A preposterous notion that goes against the very values the speakers usually proclaim to support: a free, civilian-run society where the military is used for protection of rights of all citizens.  So no, it doesn’t matter whether Rancich wore the uniform or not, his opinions are as valid as any citizen.

Anyway, propaganda being strong as it is, it’s understandable why many misguided people would attack someone who is anti-“War on Terror” as being against the troops or whatever other reason.  Surely if some President went mad and sent troops to Canada it would not be be “un-American” to criticize that too.  Chickenhawks can pick on hippies in Berkeley and Cambridge, use the word “liberal” as if it’s a slur and assume that anyone who questions why a soldier’s life should be risked is unpatriotic.  They can continue to bash the anti-war-on terror crowd and assume that because they read a lot of Tom Clancy books or once did drills with Jr ROTC, that they are the real patriots and the anti-war crowd isn’t….

Trick is, with ole Tom the conversation might go something like this:

He thinks the Al Qaida threat is a myth?  Must be a hippie soldier-hater.  I know all about those kind from my armchair where I watch Bill O’Reilly talking tough.

Actually, he was in the US Navy.

Weekend-warrior reserves for a couple years right?

Actually he was a Lt Commander and served for 20 years.

Ahh, I see, a supply clerk medical officer who hid behind a desk in Chicago right?

Not exactly, he was a Navy SEAL Platoon Commander.

Hmm, Oh, …um… well then, he must have been some kind of umm desk SEAL right?

Fraid not, he served in and led SEAL missions in South America, Afghanistan and elsewhere and earned the Bronze Star for his actions in Afghanistan.

Okay fine.  Well he just must be a misguided vet who doesn’t know much about terrorism like I do.

Well, actually he was Commander of Naval Special Operations in Afghanistan, Expeditionary Antiterrorism Officer and Director of the Combat Terrorism Warfare Innovation Development Team and was Commander of the Atlantic Fleet’s Antiterrorism Program.

Hmmm, Umm ohh.  Well, my mind is already made up, don’t cloud it with facts!

Once the jaw-dropping stops and people realize that the author of this book has far more street-cred than Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Ted Nugent, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Matt Drudge or whoever else they might look to for military leadership, they might actually listen to a few things he has to say (wait I just noticed, none of those people ever did serve, interesting how keen they all are on sending others to die).  Yes, Tom even has more credibility than all those Navy SEAL video games and movies.  Maybe the hawks who take lightly the sending of American soldiers to die should revise their motto about only those who’ve worn a uniform can criticize a war to saying perhaps that only those who’ve worn a uniform should have the right to support a war.

Al Qaida is a Threat!  O’Reilly told me so!

Rancich goes into exacting detail about how Al Qaida is not the sophisticated global threat our mass media would have us believe.  Without the power to hold significant territory, command cities, blockade ports, control trade, sign treaties, levy taxes or engage in mass manufacturing or drafting of soldiers, Al Qaida is really nothing more than a not that large gang of thugs.  Some estimate the number of Al Qaida to be 10,000 or so and the number of LA gang members to be 40-50,000.  By the way, LA gangs have killed far more citizens than terrorists in the last decade.

Microsoft is a global network, points out Rancich, not some guys in caves whose most sophisticated technology is a satellite dish.  The Nazi’s were a true threat, not these thugs with sticks and bombs.  How does Rancich define threat?  One cold comparison is made by Rancich between the tragedy of 9-11 and the attacks by the Nazis in WWII.  In this war, the rough equivalent of a 9-11 sized attack occurred nearly daily for three years in England.  The 9-11 attack, while tragic and horrible as Rancich and everyone else agrees, was not of sufficient scale to come close to destroying our way of life…unless we let it.

But What if the Terrorists Win?

Rancich goes into detail including the type, likelihood and feasibility of attacks ranging from another 9-11 to the dreaded dirty bomb, chemical attack or biological attack.  He goes further to evaluate this in terms of historic significance and actual threat.  A US Naval Academy graduate, Rancich uses knowledge of historic warfare standards to measure the chances of terrorists having meaningful impact on our ability to operate as a nation.  Could Al Qaida conceivably “take Boston” for example?  Sending US troops to skirmish for control of New York, Virginia or other areas as we did 200 years ago against the British?  Surely not.  Could they have meaningful impact on our food supply and trade such as a blockade?  No.  Could they destroy an entire city?  Possibly.  Could they attack us with 9-11 scale every single day for a year?  Unlikely.  But even in a doomsday scenario (which is very unlikely) our Constitution and our Republic could survive.  Yes, terrorists could destroy a city.  So could Americans.  So why are we continually undermining the very fabric of what makes us great in the name of stopping “terrorism” while spending so much money, effort and time (and erosion of our rights) on something so statistically insignificant?  “Would a drug company spend any effort to cure a disease that kills 4000 people every 200 years?” asks Rancich with cold, hard logic.

Have you no feelings?

Many will be quick to point out the loss of life and property resulting from 9-11, some even point out the enormous emotional cost of the attack as well as the changes we have made as a result (changes in civil liberties, creation of the Department of Homeland Security and others).  Rancich doesn’t dispute this.  Many argue that these very measures are a threat to our way of life far more than any terrorist.  He who sacrifices freedom for security will have neither.  This is exactly Rancich’s point: terrorists cannot defeat a country by any conventional means of measuring warfare success, terrorists only win if they succeed in terrorizing people to the point that the people undermine and defeat themselves.

As Rancich boldly points out:  the terrorists cannot win, but we can lose.

If his words and opinions sound controversial, read his book yourself, it is available for download at tomrancich.com.  Next time someone questions your patriotism, send them to Tom.

Bruce Fenton is an entrepreneur and editor of FentonReport a global economic newsletter, he served in the cub scouts.

Much has been discussed about the exchange between Senate candidate Dr. Rand Paul and talk show host Rachel Maddow.

In the exchange, essentially Maddow drilled on some old comments Paul had made in which he said that he took issue with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act.  He has before and since said that he is for the Act and would have voted for it.

Here is some food for thought:

Did Paul change his opinion about being for or against the Civil Rights Act?

Many have said that Paul flip-flopped on whether he was for or against the Act and that someone cannot be against a provision of the Act (as Paul described, one out of ten of the major points of the bill) but for the Act itself.

However, this is common in politics, with large bills it is virtually impossible to be for or against every single part of a bill, it’s called compromise and it happens with every major piece of legislation.  Yes, someone can certainly be against a small piece of a bill but for the whole bill.

Is Paul’s stand evidence of racism?

Paul has been called everything from a racist to a fool for his comments.  First off, what Paul has said is that he is against one portion of the bill:  the provisions relating to telling private businesses that they cannot be segregated.  He has gone on record many times for saying that he is in favor of the other parts of the bill.

So the big question:  if someone does not think it should be required by law to have private businesses serve people regardless of race, does that mean they are racist?

Of course at first glance, the obvious answer seems “Yes!” They are racist!”  The thought of racial segregated restaurants is reprehensible to me and many other people.  However, to be fair to Paul, one needs to go beyond sound bites and look at his deeper philosophy- a philosophy that says that government should not interfere with private property, people or businesses.  Like any philosophy, this has its drawbacks.  Are people like Rachel arguing that all racism everywhere should be illegal?  How about in churches?  Private clubs?  Homes?

Personally I draw the line at homes for sure.  Should people be allowed to discriminate and make offensive racist comments in their own home?  I say yes, absolutely.  I don’t agree with them and I will not go to such a home but they have that right.  How about private clubs?  Should the Nazis be allowed to exist?  Its pretty clear that offensive groups and speech are a price of free speech and liberty.

What I’d like to ask Maddow

I’d ask Rachel if she feels that any type of discrimination not be regulated by the government.

What about a private club?  What about a home?

Surely Maddow would not think that the US Federal government should regulate that people in their own homes be required by law to admit any guest regardless of race.  Or that they not be allowed to make racist or otherwise offensive comments in their own home.  Okay then, what about a home-based business?  Its here where Maddow may have surprising common ground with Paul -  although both state that they agree racism is bad, it is only a line of where each feels the responsibility of Government comes in to regulating this.

How about businesses that sell Christian services such as books?  Should they be required to allow atheists to their store?  Maddow would probably say yes.  How about Israelis and Palestinians?  Should they be required by Federal law to serve each other?  Yes again perhaps.  How about gay clubs or bars?  Should a gay association be required to serve non-gays?  Should a gay club be required to allow 50 straight frat boys in?

When I was in the military, the 18 and 19 year old service members, often from small towns who had never heard of a “gay” nightclub, let alone seen one, often thought it would be amusing to go to one, especially those catering to lesbian females.  They would march in step to the door giggling and acting like goofy hillbillies, apparently with juvenile fantasies about the adventures they would have once allowed into the mysterious gay zone.  Without fail, they would be turned away at the door.  Was this club violating the law by discriminating against patrons based on sexual orientation?  Perhaps.  Was it smart business that probably saved their patrons and the young men in question some hassles, embarrassment or a broken nose?  Probably.

So Rachel, should people be allowed to discriminate in their own homes, free from Government intervention?  If so, then you share something in common with Dr. Paul, that not all areas that we find offensive should be regulated by Government.  How about that female gay bar?  Should the law require them to let in the straight frat boys and Marines knowing full well that no good will come of it?  How about the black-only rallies that Louis Farrakan held some years back, should a speaker be allowed to select who can attend his event based on race?  Private clubs, be it the Nazi party, democrats, republicans or a Gay Business Alliance are allowed to discriminate based on race, orientation or beliefs.  Should they be?

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate who they hire based on belief?  Should The Advocate be forced to hire straight people?  Should a Jewish deli be forced to hire a Nazi?  Should democrats be required by law to hire republicans?

Lastly Rachel, how about communists? Surely you don’t think businesses should be forced to hire communists do you?  If so, then you don’t believe in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the Act, which was written in the times of the red scare, specifically allows discrimination against communists and exempts them from the other parts of the bill (Section 703 a. (2) (f)).  Does this make you racist or discriminatory?  I don’t think so.  Does Ron Paul drawing a different line on where Government responsibility comes make him a racist?  No.  Debate all you want, but lets be smart enough to debate about what the real issues are rather than degrade the whole thing to name calling.

Rachel Maddow and Ron Paul draw the line in a different place about where the Govt should intervene: so what?  Lets debate the line, the place government belongs.  Better yet, lets debate issues that are actually part of this campaign.

Osden Coolidge is associate editor of the FentonReport and wants to go on record as supporting the Civil Rights Act, without question would have supported it in 1964 but also recognizing that no document in our nation’s history has been perfect.

In one of the biggest political upsets in history, the most liberal state in the USA has voted a republican as US Senator for the office formerly held by Ted Kennedy.

My good friends who are democrats, especially those in Massachusetts and even more so, those who worked on the campaign for Martha Coakley-  I feel for you.  I know you are angry, frustrated and hurt.  Drop the anger.  Instead take this opportunity and learn from it.

What can you learn?

1)  Voters are often stupid but at times can be surprisingly smart.  Voters often know when they are being handled and manipulated.  The presumptive nature of the democrats in the race turned off many voters.

2)  Americans are sick of government spending/  the ‘health care’ bill sucks.  Have you actually read these so called “health care” bills?  Do you see where the billions are going?  To drug and insurance companies – the same jerks who are at the root of most of the problem.  Show me a bill that spends $700 billion to build 1000 state of the art $1 billion hospital complexes (20 in each state) and I’ll be impressed –   $700 billion so Merck and Pfizer and Sherring Plough can keep screwing the people?  No thanks.  Better yet, let us keep the $700 billion (or at least not borrow it from China) and have the freedom to do what we want.

3)  Let this be a wake up call to all politicians:  the people are tired of your BS.  Idiots like Rachel Maddow and Olberman have consistently missed the point of the Ron Paul/ Tea Party movement – dismissing it as racist or whatever — they miss the point-  the point is that people are tired of the BS in Washington from BOTH parties.  Go to a tea party rally and you will see as many angry with Bush’s bailout bonuses as Obama’s money-printing.

4)  The government works for us.  This was never “Ted Kennedy’s seat” this Senate seat belongs to the people – Kennedy was a steward of it who, lets face it, got it in the first place because of nepotism and held on to if by shrewd politicing, pork projects and a iron curtain like network — he was a decent man but also repres.ented much of what is wrong with politics today.

Mr. President and the dems — if you want to have ANY hope of getting anything done, please take this as a wake up call.  If the most liberal Senate seat in the USA can go to a republican then ALL elected officials (and the media) is hereby on notice: quit the old games and politics as usual – YOU WORK FOR US.

Written by Osden Coolidge — opinions not necessarily those of the FentonReport

“How’s business?”, the question is asked in coffee shops and law firms, factories and fishing boats.  “How’s business?” Massachusetts needs a win.  Record lost jobs and homes and uncertainty loom.  Our economic crisis calls for leaders who understand economics.  While business talent is not reason to elect a candidate, looking past credentials to his skills and values gives inspiration to countless supporters of Steve Pagliuca for US Senate.

Today’s economy has so massive effect on our lives that it has some career politicians posturing as economic experts.  Perhaps in a food shortage, they would try to become instant farming experts.  Real working professionals comprehend real hopes and needs of Americans: they also understand what works and what doesn’t.  They know how to build consensus, make friends and understand change.

Let’s be clear: there are professionals like great basketball players at the community court and there are professionals who are more like Celtics starters.  We know who Steve Pagliuca is: his wins are so staggering that some joke his success could alienate a voter.  A pundit or two even implied that working Americans have less value than career politicians.  When our founders inscribed “By the people”: surely they didn’t mean members of an elite club whose door is locked to us workers from the real world.  Are brains and hard work not as vital as political maneuvering?  Today’s dire situation confirms one thing:  we need starters in our corner.

Mr. Pagliuca’s competitive spirit that started in 1963 in Pee Wee football continues with his turnaround work as co-owner of the Celtics and drive to make so many charities successes.  Mr. Pagliuca’s spirit helped him become a leader at Bain Capital: an economic developer whose workers regularly roll up their sleeves and actually fix things.  In 1984, 15 people partnered to invest and improve companies.  They grew to a $70 billion investor empowering businesses including Staples, Hospital Corporation of America, Burger King and the Weather Channel, companies providing over 70,000 jobs.  Mr. Pagliuca’s experience building and fixing things brings an understanding of commerce, globalization and economics that other candidates only dream of.

America is in chaos with many politicians clueless about how our economy works or what drives it. Career politicians have little economic, globalization, trade, finance, development or job-building knowledge.  In some times this just might be okay.  Not today. If faced with a threat from asteroids, we’d elect those who know how to save us.  Economic science is no different: its complex and hard to learn.  Changes in our world from Brighton to Beijing and Dover to Delhi need deep understanding.  We need economic doctors. Do we trust career politicians with fast, on-the-job bluffing and pre-packaged business buzzwords or do we elect someone with real-world operating room experience?

Beyond ability, what does Steve Pagliuca’s background say about his vision and values? Foremost are honesty, integrity and work ethic.  Steve masters a schedule we wish all politicians would keep:  traveling from Longmeadow to London, Taunton to Tokyo or Springfield to Seattle, deciding issues affecting thousands of people, collaborating with experts on issues of our day, leading global economic conferences and charitable boards like the Mass Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.  Steve doesn’t just observe; he does things.  He takes action quickly, massively and often.  Seeing Steve in action makes some wonder why he works so hard, one answer is his character.  Steve is a reliable friend to many, a coach for all four of his children’s teams and a dedicated husband.  Perhaps most of all, his success comes from one trait: intelligence.  Steve is extraordinarily smart and uses his brainpower to aid others: be it at companies he helps like food chains and medical companies, sports teams or charitable boards.  But we won’t hear bragging from Steve; he is a humble, grounded man who knows his roots.  You may be refreshed to see someone gain success by being overwhelmingly positive and building industry that works and wins.

Plato said “philosopher-kings” lead an ideal government.  We don’t have kings and don’t see philosopher-candidates but we can have: “smart and hard-working”. When the Pagliuca family immigrated to America, his shoe-repairman grandfather surely didn’t imagine the success Steve’s hard work and wits would bring.  Opponents attempt manufactured unease over electing a ‘rich guy’ Senator.  Yes, if the American Dream has winners, Steve Pagliuca is a living example, but don’t hold that against him.  Forty-seven years ago a young man with extraordinary wealth, who never needed to work again, ran for US Senate.  Even his keenest critics honored Senator Kennedy’s record of being un-beholden to PAC money.  True, Steve Pagliuca has financial success.  Because of this he will never be bought by special interest money.

Massachusetts citizens and Americans need hope, guidance, work ethic and brains. We need the A-team, we need the starters, we need people who know how to make friends and build stuff that works.  We need leaders who know the difference between China and Chinatown who see what is going on in the world and how it affects us.  We need people who understand health care, finance, jobs and globalization not because of sound-bites by political packagers but because they’ve been there and directly worked on the issues.

Steve sees a better America and a better Massachusetts and having him in our corner is what we need.

“How’s business?”  The business of Massachusetts needs a winner.  Steve Pagliuca for US Senate.

Vote for Pags in the special primary on December 8.  Registered independents CAN vote in the special primary.  Also mark your calendar to vote in the special election on January 19.

www.StevePagliuca.com

Endorsement By Bruce Fenton, Massachusetts entrepreneur, veteran and global economic strategist