Why Pick on eBooks?

The Justice Department has announced it’s going after eBook publishers.  They allege that these publishers are colluding to keep the price of eBooks up.  There is a great article here that explains exactly why eBooks cost what they do.

I find myself somewhat suspicious of the timing of this latest announcement.  The Justice Dpartment claims that Apple and a number of publishers intentionally tired to raise the price of eBooks. Are eBook prices a great threat to our nation?  No.  I spend a small fortune on eBooks.  I would love to see the price of eBooks drop.  I would also like to see eBooks become more interactive.  I would love to see them really utilize the tablet platform.  However, when I buy an eBook, I decide if the product I am getting is worth the $9.99, $12.99, or more I am paying for.  I am never forced to buy any of these eBooks.  I make a choice to.

However, let’s accept the possibility that a crime has been committed.  Any administration, and any Justice Department can only pursue so many cases.  The Administration and the Justice Department must decide what their priorities are, and prosecute those cases.  I wonder what it says about President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that they are going after eBook publishers and not looking at these issues:

- On April 3rd, a man walked into Eric Holders voting precinct and obtained Mr Holders primary ballot.  The man (who looks nothing like Eric Holder) even offered to show his ID, which the poll worker wouldn’t look at.  Yet Mr Holder has stated numerous times that there is no need for voter ID laws.

-The  New Black Panthers have offered a bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman.  As of yet, Mr Zimmerman has not been tried and is presumed innocent of any crime.  However, the Black Panthers have been allowed to offer a$10,000 bounty on his head, an illegal activity, without any comment from the Justice Department.

-The Justce Department has stated they are going to look into the actions of the local police  department.  They want to ensure that no civil rights were violated in not arresting George Zimmerman earlier.  Perhaps the Justice Department should also verify that Mr Zimmerman gets a fair trail.

- The Justice Department also seems to be silent on the increasingly violent “Occupy” movement. This weekend, it smashed up a Starbucks andvandalized part of New York City.  I can only wonder what would have happened if this had been part of the Tea Party movement…

Whether this attack on ebooks is a timed distraction or not, it shows the Justice Department, and this administration, isn’t focused on the important issues.  This is just another reason why we need a new President and a new administration this Fall.

Top Stories You Missed While Media Talked about Rush.

The media has spent a lot of time over the last two weeks attacking Rush Limbaugh.  A Georgetown University female student testified to Congress that she spends so much money on birth control that she needs government assistance.  She asked that taxpayers help cover the approximately $1,000 a year she currently spends on contraception.  For this, Rush called the woman a slut.  He has since apologized.  However, the media has covered this so much that you may have missed a few other important news stories from the last few weeks.

Gas is getting more expensive.  If you’ve filled up at your local gas station, you already know this.  However, the news isn’t covering this as much as they did during the last presidential campaign.  As of this writing, the website Gas Buddy reports that gas in the Atlanta area is between $3.59 and $3.99 per gallon depending on where you fill up.  AAA reports that the national average for a gallon of gas is $3.76.  For comparison, four years ago the national average was $3.16.  The most expensive gas has been reported in California at $6.00 a gallon.

Iran is about to get the bomb.  The International Atomic Energy Agency is now warning that Iran may be months (not years) from having a nuclear weapon.  Iran has ramped up their nuclear production in the recent months, is beginning to move production facilities deep underground to avoid a military strike, and is continuing to draw out the negotiations process.   I would argue that they are at the diplomatic table to buy time and not to seriously reduce their nuclear ambitions.  Experts believe that Israel has a very narrow window when it can make a strike against Iran to stop its nuclear program.  Within a few months, Israel must either attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, or trust the United States to protect them if Iran gets a bomb.  While this is going on, the White House has admitted to the Washington Post that, “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.” If only they showed the same determination to make things difficult for Iran.

Unemployment rose to 9.1%.   Gallup reported that unemployment went up to 9.1% this month.  This is at the same time that many in the media and the White House are trying to convince the public that the US is in a recovery going into the presidential election this year.  Three years ago President Obama famously said that if he hadn’t turned the economy around in three years, he didn’t deserve to be elected to a second term.  At this point four years ago, unemployment was at 5.1%.

The Earth experiences a massive solar flare.  Fox News reports:

The largest solar storm in five years — spawned by a double whammy of flares from the sun — has engulfed the Earth, but scientists say the planet has lucked out, largely missing the predicted dangers.

There was a lot of build up to this storm with forecasts including massive satellite damage.   However, in the end this appears to have only affected a few airline routes.  While I wouldn’t normally report on this here, I think it’s more important than the circus the media created out of Rush calling a woman who wanted others to bear the responsibility of her sexual activities a slut.

The Problem with Insurance Provided Contraception.

President Obama recently stated that he was going to force religious groups and organizations to provide abortion and contraceptive coverage to their employees for free. There was a lot of complaining about this, most notably in the Catholic church. Some religious groups currently don’t cover contraception. They believe contraception and abortion are morally wrong and they don’t want to encourage their employees to do something they believe is wrong. They also don’t want to pay for something they find offensive.

Many people also complained that this was the same as the government telling the Catholic church how to worship. The President then said that if that was offensive to religious groups, he would instead force their insurance provides to cover it so that the church doesn’t have to. This is a slight of hand at best. Seven states have filed suit against the federal government arguing that the federal government is violating the first amendment to the US Constitution.

This looks like an election year campaign trick. The Obama administration wants voters to believe that the only thing standing between their birth control pills and the Republican party is president Obama. In truth, Republicans are not interested in outlawing contraception. There is no candidate running with the intention of outlawing birth control pills.

Besides this being a campaign trick, I think there is a much larger issue here. This is a new power the federal government has just assumed. For the president to wake up one day and suddenly decide that an insurance company has to cover anything at 100%, or any other percentage is illegal. The president doesn’t have that authority. It doesn’t matter if it’s birth control, abortion, flu shots, or aspirin, the president doesn’t get to dictate what an insurance company does or doesn’t cover.

I would also caution those that support the president on this. If any president has the power to dictate what can and cant be covered and at what costs, then all presidents do. This opens a Pandoras box that may never be closed. What’s to keep a future conservative President from decreeing that abortion can’t be covered by ANY insurance company at ANY percentage? Why couldn’t a future president forbid auto insurance companies from insuring hybrid or electric cars, thereby killing that entire industry? If you agree with president Obama’s dictate to cover contraception, then you have to support these as legal as well.

Voters need to recognize this for what it is. The president is trying to distract voters from the economy. In doing so, he has reached for more power than he is allowed in the Constitution. We need to hold the president to the powers he actually has and we need to pass judgement on his economy this November.

Obama Cuts Our Military

The defense budget is being reshaped in the midst of a presidential contest in which Obama seeks to portray himself as a forward-looking commander in chief focusing on new security threats. Republicans want to cast him as weak on defense.

—FoxNews

Today the Obama administration says it wants to cut the U.S. Defense budget by $259 billion over the next five years.  However, this is suppose to look like a simple cost savings restructuring.  The administration is claiming that our military will still be stronger than it was on 9/11.  But will it?

The biggest cut that is being reported is the number of soldiers our military is going to be reduced by.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta listed among the cuts:

The Army would shrink by 80,000 soldiers, from 570,000 today to 490,000 by 2017. That is slightly larger than the Army on 9/11. The Marine Corps would drop from today’s 202,000 to 182,000 — also above the level on 9/11.

The administration claims our military will still be, “…slightly larger than the Army on 9/11″.  This is true if you fudge the numbers a little.  In our pre-9/11 military, the army consisted of 32 Brigades.  Our army under these cuts would have 33 Brigades.  The Obama administration is hoping you don’t dig any deeper.  In our pre-9/11 military, each brigade had 3 heavy combat battalions.  Brigades in our current military have 2 heavy battalions and 1 light battalion.  Brigades under the current plan aren’t as strong as those organized pre-9/11.  So while we have more brigades, those brigades aren’t as strong as they use to be.  Some might call this slight of hand a lie.

That’s not the only deception in the plan.  Panetta also says, “Purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, to be fielded by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, would be slowed.”  That may not grab you on first glance.  However, back in 2009, President Obama canceled production of the F-22 fighter.  According to the New York Times:

The Pentagon would rather buy unmanned aircraft to gather intelligence in Afghanistan and accelerate the testing for the F-35, a new plane designed to attack ground targets. Pentagon officials say the F-22 is hard to maintain and costs $44,000 to operate for an hour, compared with $30,000 for older planes.

…and at the time,  an F-22 site run by Lockheed Martin,

 the Pentagon will end the F-22 fighter jet and White House helicopter programs run by Lockheed, but would increase production of the company’s Joint Strike Fighter.

Now, our military will be without the F-22, and will slow the production of F-35.  Slowing production will also drive up the cost of the F-35.  If President Obama is re-elected, should we expect him to kill the F-35 due to its increased cost in a year?

The Obama administration is going to continue to use the death of Osama bin Laden as evidence they are strong supporters of our military and they take foreign threats seriously.  While the president does deserve credit for allowing that mission to proceed, the proof is in today’s announcement of what our president really thinks of national defense.  He’s willing to make our military weaker than it was before Sept 11, 2001.

Has President Obama Violated the Constitution?

While you were following the Iowa caucus and preparing for the New Hampshire primary, you may have missed a big news story.  President Obama has made four recess appointments.  One appointment is to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three are to the Labor Relations Board.  There are plenty of stories that argue whether these individuals are or are not qualified.  Their qualifications aren’t the story.   The President made these “recess appointments” while the Senate was actually in session, making their appointment unconstitutional.

U.S. A Today has an op-ed piece defending the President’s action.   U. S. A. Today believes that the Republicans are just being obstructionists.  They argues that the Senate was “technically” in secession, but they weren’t really in session.  So while the President may have technically violated the Constitution, it doesn’t really matter.

I think this argument stretches credibility.  Presidents are allowed to make recess appointments. Many have done it, some have done it a lot.  However a President can’t make a recess appointment if the Senate is in session.  The Senate is charged with confirming Presidential appointments under the Constitution as a check and balance on the Executive branch.

The editors at U. S. A. Today are arguing that the Senate was only “a little” in session, so it’s ok for the President to make a recess appointment.  This is like being “a little” pregnant.  Either the Senate is or isn’t in session.  In this case, the Senate was in a “pro forma” session.  That means a member comes to the Senate floor, gavels in a session, waits a minute or two (or longer), then gavels the session closed.  Its a parliamentary trick that both Republicans and Democrats have used before for a number of different reasons.  However, according to the rules of the Senate, this is a “session” and affects the Senate just as any other session might.  The President has violated the U. S. Constitution.  U. S. A. Today defends this action:

But from a common-sense standpoint, you’d think there is already enough hypocrisy in Washington without pretending that an empty Senate chamber where no business is conducted is really “in session.”

Congress created the consumer protection bureau in 2010. The agency opened its doors in July. Obviously, it should have a leader. Sometimes, the government simply has to get going and do its job, no matter how badly obstructionists prefer gridlock.

While I agree that there is enough hypocrisy in Washington already, I don’t think this qualifies as such.  The amount of business that is or isn’t being done doesn’t determine whether the Senate is in session or not.  And while the editors of U. S. A. Today may agree with the President because they feel like the government is doing its job, they are wrong.  The President swore to protect and defend the Constitution.  That’s his job.  Breaking it whenever it suits him and the editors of U.S.A. Today isn’t.