You wouldn’t think something as innocent-sounding as the National Defense Authorization Act would pose such a threat to the people of the nation.

On first thought, it sounds like just funding the military….which is just what it is supposed to be. According to Wikipedia it is a “federal law that has been enacted for each of the past 49 years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.”

So, why then, has there been so much opposition among liberty activists?

There’s a dangerous provision that the Huffington Post calls the “worst thing since the Alien and Sedition Acts.” That provision allows for the arrest and indefinate detention of Americans seen as a threat by the military, thereby abolishing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the military from domestic policing.

The act, which passed through the Senate 93-7, was signed by President Obama on New Years Eve…despite orignally saying he would veto the bill with that provision. However, he did include a signing statement saying:” I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Most of our state’s servants in Washington voted for the act including both Senators Richard Burr and Kay Hagan. NC Congressmen Mel Watt and Walter Jones were among the opposition in the House of Represenatives. If Jones, a staunch advocate for the miltary, is against it…there must be something wrong.

Late night radio talk show Coast to Coast A.M. produced a 3-hour special Wednesday night stocked with guests to give their insight on the provision.

Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Emord said the provision is clearly unconstitutional, violating protections outlined in the Sixth Amendment regarding due process. Emord added that the act would also suspend habeas corpus for those detained. When this happens, he said, “that is the end of liberty.”

Independent journalist David Seaman said that what should be the biggest headline has been seemingly ignored by the mainstream media. Working in the industry, I can testify that it has.

Seaman said the provision has been decryed by the ACLU and members of both the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party. He added that if civil unrest continues in the country, the act could be used against members of those movements if seen as a threat.

Several members of Congress have also spoken out against it, including presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX.) Wednesday, Paul returned to the house floor to introduce a repeal of the act:

This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas. A great man named Solzhenitsyn became the hero of so many of us when he exposed the Soviet Union’s extensive gulag system. Is this really the kind of United States we want to create in the name of fighting terrorism?

Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has “substantially supported” certain terrorist groups or “associated forces.” No one has defined what those two terms mean. What is an “associated force”?

In Monday night’s debate in South Carolina, candidate Mitt Romney said that he would’ve also signed the NDAA with the indefinite detention provision, but he recovered by saying he would not abuse the policy.

However, Paul (who insisted he answer that question after an attempt to switch the subject) disagreed. “I think we’re going in the wrong direction for the protection of our liberties here at home…This is major.”

Also on Coast to Coast was Tyrel Ventura, son of former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. “The military is not designed as a police force,” he said, whether it be foreign or domestically. Ventura said he believes the law was put into place to quell potential rebellion and could be used against anti-war activists.

Adding to the concern was Gerald Celente, a trends researcher. He said he could see something like this coming…with all the other liberty destroying actions over the past decade including the Patriot Act and the creation of the TSA. He also said he thinks the act is to keep the people in place in case of an economic crisis.

Rounding out the show was radio host and filmmaker (some say fear monger and conspiracy theorist) Alex Jones. His concerns mirrored those of the previous guests. Jones also aluded to his film Police State 2000.

The 2-hour-long documentary contains footage of urban warfare drills. Those drills were a bit alarming. In Maryland, Marines patrolled the streets and perched on rooftops. In California, troops held back and arrested actors who were insisting on their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. In both drills, the military simulated confiscating guns from citizens.

If we ever get to that point, I pray that our soldiers–unlike our represenatives–will remember the oath that they took to uphold the Constitution.

Hopefully, Congressman Paul can get the provision repealed, for the security of our liberties…or what’s left of them.

“[C]an’t believe the golden rule got booed in SC. wow.”

That was the status from a Facebook “friend” during the GOP debate Monday night in the Palmetto State.

The Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated, was uttered by the media and establishment’s least favorite candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The audience, made up of apparently status quo, warhawk conservatives, promptly booed the libertarian-minded, predidential hopeful.

During a reubuttal to an answer by Rick Santorum, Paul said our nation should follow the Golden Rule in terms of foreign policy.

“If another country does to us as we do to others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say, maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy. [Cue the boos] Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.”

I was a little surprised myself, considering Republicans, especially in the Bible Belt, teach and preach the Golden Rule.
|

“So…we endlessly bomb these countries and we wonder, wonder why they get upset with us. [More boos] And yet, it continues on and on.”

In relation to the seemingly looming (again) war with Iran, Paul brought up a history lesson in a previous debate. Actually, he schooled Santorum in that lesson. In 1953, the CIA helped stage a coup to overthow the democratically elected leader of Iran to make room for the return of the Shah.

From the CIA’s website:

The operation was orchestrated largely by a single CIA officer sent to the scene—Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt. After securing the approval of the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, for the coup—the Shah also agreed to sign a decree dismissing Mossadegh that was to provide it legitimacy—Roosevelt set about to create a situation in which the coup could occur. Using a network of contacts left behind by British intelligence and the Agency’s own assets, he mounted an intensive propaganda campaign against Mossadegh, spurring demonstrations and protests across the country. When the time came to oust the prime minister, however, the effort faltered. Mossadegh had gotten wind of the coup and had the Iranian military officer who was to deliver the decree dismissing him arrested. The shah fled the country, fearing for his safety, and Mossadegh thought he had put at end to the coup.

Roosevelt tried again a few days later, however, first organizing violent “fake” demonstrations against the monarchy, which were in fact, joined by members of the Tudeh party; then organizing “backlash” demonstrations in support of the Shah. As these played out, the Iranian military units, police, and rural tribesmen under Roosevelt’s control were able to overcome the limited military forces that Mossadegh could muster. Mossadegh was arrested, and the Shah returned to Teheran to take control.

The report goes on to list other covert actions over the past 50 years. It’s amazing that we’re not being attacked by ”terrorists” from South and Central America.

However, in the same rebuttal Monday, Paul got a rousing applause for calling for an end to war.

“This country doesn’t need another war. We need to quit the ones we’re in. We need to save the money and bring our troops home.”

Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy, which is often called “isolationist”, is a bone of contention for many mainstream Republicans. While the military-industrial complex booms during war, the nation’s coffers suffer a boon. As he has pointed out for years, the country can’t keep policing the world financially. He has also stated that his biggest contention with the “wars” that we’re in is that they are unconstitutional, as an official declaration of war has not been issued by Congress since WWII.

Despite an attempt to ignore him, or belittle him, Paul continues to stay close behind “frontrunner” Mitt Romney. “After all, freedom is popular.”

Why couldn’t I have been born rich instead of good looking?

Even though I wasn’t as close to him as I would have liked to have been, I still looked up to him. I’ve often said out of everyone in my family, I’ve followed in his footsteps the most.

I remember wanting to be like him as kid. He was cool. I used to try to play his old trombone from his days in the West Craven High School Band, although it was slightly bent and had no mouthpiece.

With his love of music and a gifted voice came a career as a disc jockey. Starting at the age of 15 at a Christian radio station inside Twin Rivers Mall, he floated around formats across Eastern North Carolina including WDLX, WSFL, WLOJ and WTND…among others. We would sometimes go and visit him at the stations and watch him in action behind the mic. We would also often listen to the stations he worked at…at least when he was on-air as Don Shannon.

I remember calling to talk to him during songs and commerical breaks, usually aslo requesting songs. When at WSFL, I would always ask hime to play Kokomo by the Beach Boys. Later at Thunder Country, I’d beg to hear Hank Williams Jr.’s Born To Boogie.

In addition to being a local on-air personality, he also had a varied career in sales: from Radio Shack to radio ads, Life Insurance to credit card machines. Yet another career that requires a gift. He had both.

But he never gave up music. He continued spinning at the Shereton in New Bern and playing private parties and weddings. He was one of the most respected and sought-after DJs on the Crystal Coast. He even returned to his alma mater to play the 1999 prom…my senior prom.

He was also gifted with a big heart. During his years in Carteret County he worked with vicitms of domestic violence and played Santa Claus during the Christmas season.

When I was unemployed he offered to take me under his wing in insurance sales and to help him out and learn the DJ trade. I now regret passing up those opportunities, if nothing else, to get to know him better and see him action.

Although my path took me into newspapers, advertising and television instead of radio, I still credit him for the career influence. But his influence on me goes beyond job choices.

He was a big man with a big heart that made a big impact on the lives of so many people.

As pointed out in this blog before, the threat of tyranny comes not only from the overreaching federal government, but also from local elected officials on a power trip.

A city council in the Triad is considering altering a public assembly ordinance that would further limit free speech, according to the Winston-Salem Journal.

In an apparent response to the Occupy movement, some council members in Winston-Salem, one the state’s largest cities, thought it would be a good idea to change an ordinace which would among other things “temporarily” make City Hall non-public property, and prohibit open-air meetings.

According to the Journal, permits are not currently required.

The proposal came from Council member Dan Besse who also thought it would be a good idea to try and pass it without public notice…and the city’s attorney agrees that it doesn’t need public notice.

And of course, the reason is all in the name of “public safety.”

Luckilly, some of the other council members found the proposal disturbing and the topic has been put on hold for next month.

“What happened to the notice and the public hearing?” asked council member Wanda Merschel.

How could City Hall not be public property? It was built using tax money, is supported through taxes and even the council members are paid with taxes. Taxes that come from the public.

Even working in the news industry, I still seem to miss big stories.

If it wasn’t for Infowars.com, I never would have seen a story out of my home state about spying streetlights.

I was planning to write another post about how we’re heading toward the world of George Orwell’s 1984, citing the Emergency Alert System test held earlier this month, but other developments of intrusion were brought to my attention which I feel compelled to share.

FOX Charlotte reported earlier this month that new, high-tech streetlights known as Intellistreets could soon be spying on us as we stroll through some of our bigger cities, including Detroit and the Queen City. ABC-7 reports that the lights are able to “provide entertainment, save energy, make announcements, and even counts people for police.” Even more frightening is that they can take pictures and record conversations.

Now, while I support the notion that there is no real expectation of privacy in public places (for First Amendment reasons), we shouldn’t have the government spying on us in a free society.

Despite concerns from privacy advocates and those fearing Big Brother tactics, the company issued a press release to try and make us feel better.

In its fullest form, Intellistreets also includes the collection and reporting of information immediately and completely so that first responders (police, fire and EMS) can react very quickly in moments of danger for an individual or an entire community; and, in other cases, pedestrian and vehicular traffic can be safely routed away from danger in an orderly manner.

That’s why we proudly reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to share our technology. DHS needs American entrepreneurs to develop the technologies that can better keep our citizens safe. Importantly, DHS is intrigued by Intellistreets’ potential. They see the tremendous opportunity to add a level of safety and security into our public environments utilizing infrastructure that already exists. To date, no funding from the DHS has been either offered or accepted by us.

Again, more propoganda trading liberty for a little bit of alleged safety.

Across the country in the Lonestar State, police are using drones similar to those employed in our several wars…right here at home. The drones are not only capable of survellience, but may also be equiped with tasers or grenade launchers.

As mentioned earlier, the government attempted to break into all radio and television broadcasts this month to test out the Emergency Alert System, a way to bring up-to-date information during emergency situations, including hurricanes and dreaded terror attacks.

But, thankfully that test didn’t go very well.

When I first heard about plans for the test and the system, it cojured more images from 1984, reminding us that we’ve always been at war with Eurasia and it’s time for the two-minute hate.

If you havn’t read Orwell’s book, I think you should. You’d probably be surprised at how life is imitating art.

Since the advent of the United States and its application by our founding fathers, the party system of Democracy was designed to protect and represent our nation’s populace.

Unlike the Monarchy of 18th century Great Britain, the governing body of the United States was created to function in regard to the diverse ideologies prevalent throughout the colonies.  The intention was to govern via civilized debates, with each party or platform presenting their respective points of view, and then agreeing on a suitable compromise of principles to eventually implement into law.

Today, this democratic style of politics has been abused and manipulated beyond recognition.  What used to serve as an efficient source of policy making has now become an engine of personal interest, driving a wedge between Democrats and Republicans.  Congress, who has been gridlocked by political incompetence for nearly 2 years, has a current approval rating of around 15%.  This means about 85% of Americans don’t feel the government has provided reasonable solutions to problems it was designed to solve.

One of the major reasons for our country’s political inadequacies is due to a substantial lack of accountability among lawmakers.  The result is petty name-calling and finger pointing.  During the first year and a half of President Obama’s term, there was a tendency within his administration to blame the declining economy on his predecessor George W. Bush.  However true the claims may have been, they accomplished nothing politically and most likely had a negative effect on his ambitions by antagonizing Republicans before solutions were agreed upon.

Then, in 2011, the Obama Administration—Joe Biden specifically—made the remark, “Bush broke it, but we own it,” referring to the U.S. economy and attempting to take accountability for the 2 and a half years of stagnant economic growth.  It didn’t take long for conservatives to seize the opportunity to call for a public apology for previous remarks blaming Bush.

Such bickering wouldn’t be so intolerable if it didn’t affect policy making.  Voters sometimes claim they want politicians to take matters personally, not from a business perspective.  Now, things have gotten so personal that one party has agreed to refuse negotiations with the other in hopes of furthering an economic depression and using it as leverage to regain the presidency.  But I’m not just talking about Republicans.  The Democrats are equally responsible.

Democrats, including the Obama Administration, succeeded in capitalizing on their control of the Senate and the House of Representatives by ramming an unpopular health care bill through Congress during the first year of the President’s term.  This action set the tone for the rest of his term by spurring dissatisfaction among American citizens and compelling many to vote for Republicans.  It also infuriated conservatives who viewed it as a cheap shot.

Anyway, that’s neither here nor there in the scope of the point I’m trying to make here: that politics have been reduced to an infantile game of “I know you are, but what am I.” A more appropriate example would be Republican hopeful Herman Cain’s comments this Sunday on Face the Nation on which he claimed that Occupy Wall Street was fueled by jealousy for the rich.  He went on to call it a distraction coordinated by labor unions to divert the attention of citizens from the failures of the Obama Administration.  He dismissed protesters as ‘people who want to protest the success of somebody else.’  Both accusations—protesting out of jealousy and coordinating a diversion—are two entirely unrelated assumptions bordering conspiratorial.  Not exactly the best way to get elected president; alienating one’s self from an entire angry demographic.  The satisfied and even the dissatisfied are less likely to go out and vote than the irate.

The worst part about making irrational comments out of passionate hatred—and nobody’s made a worse one than Hank Williams Jr. in recent weeks—is that there are people out there that can’t distinguish biases and buy into these blatantly false accusations—although I think it’s safe to say nobody really bought Hank Williams Jr.’s absurd gaffe.

And that, I think, is the root of the problem.  Not the ridiculously false claims by lawmakers but the blind conviction with which many Americans follow them.  We are letting these politicians antagonize each other and it’s dividing the nation in the process.  Instead of waiting on Washington to change, it is our duty as citizens of this country to demand change.  And because neither party is necessarily right or wrong, we have to educate ourselves on the current issues and make our own decisions instead of lazily aligning our ideals with a particular political party.

It’s easy to sit around our living rooms blaming the government for its dysfunctions.  But, in doing so, we are adding fuel to the fire.  It’s time to take a stand and reshape the system in such a way that it might actually work.  One of the major problems is that people don’t realize they don’t have to vote Democrat or Republican.  Unlike most democracies, the United States is dominated by 2 main parties.  “The United States is one of the world’s only developed democracies where third parties have the least political influence.”

This, in my opinion, inhibits the true potential of democracy.  It forces people to appropriate themselves with one of two ideologies.  In order to move away from this fashion of politics, we must speak out.  If politicians know that a large portion of Americans want something, they will adjust their ideologies to accommodate voters.  That’s how our system was designed to operate: politicians adjusting their principles to represent our ideals.

In short, the first step toward rehabilitating Washington is to become educated.  Don’t rely on biased media outlets or believe the heated accusations of politicians.  Find out where you stand based on your own principles.  Once you figure that out, speak up; write your local congressman, find others who share your views.  Politicians count on your votes; they can’t afford not to listen.  We have forgotten the true power of the people in our democracy.  It’s time we found it.

College is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas — a place where students examine a range of diverse viewpoints, champion some and challenge others. At some North Carolina schools, however, robust debate is off the syllabus and questioning authority is out of the question.

Just up the road in Hickory, Catawba Valley Community College suspended student Marc Bechtol for two semesters after he criticized the college’s partnership with a debit card company on the college Facebook page. Bechtol accused the college and its partner financial institution of selling student information to banks, and he suggested a tongue-in-cheek method of retaliation: Registering a college email address with pornographic websites to trigger a flood of spam emails.

It’s clear from the full text of Bechtol’s post that the proposal was made in jest. But CVCC administrators didn’t appreciate his sense of humor. They pulled him out of class on Oct. 4. Without a hearing, Bechtol was banned from the campus for two semesters for violating a college policy that bars anything the administration believes “may be contrary to the best interest of the CVCC community.”

Some may consider Bechtol’s Facebook comment immature or inappropriate. But it was clearly a satirical statement, not a call to arms for cyber-warfare against the college. It’s protected by the First Amendment, and as a public college funded by North Carolina taxpayers, Catawba Valley crossed the line when it disciplined Bechtol for his words.

If CVCC found Bechtol’s comments distasteful, administrators could have simply clicked the “delete” button. The comments were made on a college-maintained Facebook page, and the college bears responsibility for that page and can moderate user content at its discretion.

But whether Bechtol made the remarks on his personal Facebook profile, the college’s Facebook page, a protest sign or a bumper sticker, they would still be constitutionally protected. It’s the message — not the medium — that matters.

Bechtol contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonpartisan group that fights for student free expression and due process rights. FIRE notified the college that the policy it used to punish Bechtol is unconstitutional. Bechtol appealed the punishment and his suspension was overturned, but the problematic policy remains on the books at CVCC.

Sadly, Cleveland Community College students could also be disciplined for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. College spokeswoman Margo Greene told The Star that Bechtol’s Facebook comments would violate a provision of CCC’s code of conduct that bans “intentional obstruction or disruption of teaching, research, administration or disciplinary proceedings, or other college activities.”

Bechtol’s Facebook comment caused no known obstruction or disruptions at CVCC, so we fail to see why the outcome would be any different here in Cleveland County. Making a single hyperbolic statement is a far cry from sabotage, and satire is constitutionally protected speech whether or not we find it amusing.

Another portion of Cleveland Community College’s policy that gives us pause subjects students to discipline for “behavior deemed incompatible with the mission, the regulation or the responsibility of the college.”

Is criticizing the way a college does business incompatible with the college’s mission? Not if that mission is to produce good citizens capable of expressing their opinions and advocating for positive change.

A better question to ask is whether the college’s mission is to promote its brand at the expense of students’ constitutional right to free expression.

Author’s note: This post originally appeared as an editorial in The Star newspaper of Shelby, N.C.

A 12-year-old girl could be a gang member according to a Nebraska school system.

Sixth-grader Elizabeth Carey has been banned from expressing her faith by Fremont Public Schools. The forbidden gang symbol: rosary beads.

“The principal said I couldn’t wear my necklace at all because gangsters were wearing it,” she told KETV-7.

Fremont Public Schools adopted the policy last year, according to the station. Steve Sexton, the superintendent for the system, used the tired old line that the policy is for “student safety.”

“We had information from law enforcement that there were documented instances of gang activity in the area and we had information that states that the rosary was being used as a symbol of gang affiliation,” Sexton said.

Local Catholics are understandably upset.

“I don’t think Christians should have to forfeit what is the symbol for the love of Christ because a few people want to misuse that symbol,” said Omaha Catholic Archdiocese Chancellor Rev. Joseph Taphorn. “One ought to be able to figure out whether she’s trying to promote a gang,” he said. “If she’s not, why would she be punished for her right of religious freedom and religious expression?”

Two days after the story ran, the American Civil Liberties Union took the young girl’s case since her First Amendment rights, along with those of other Catholics, have been vilolated by the policy.

“We understand the serious concerns about gangs in schools, but Fremont Public Schools should demonstrate there is a concrete gang connection before shutting down a student’s free speech and religious rights,” said Amy Miller, the legal director for the ACLU in Nebraska.

The superintendent, so far, isn’t backing down, hiding behind the sheild of “safety.”

“There are those who want to make this an issue about religion when it’s about a singular goal — to create a safe environment for our students,” he said. Sexton added that the school system would listen to the ACLU, “but the fact is, one year ago we were alerted to the fact that wearing the rosary as jewelry had a gang affiliation.”

But the Nebraska school system isn’t the only one banning beads. A quick Google search shows a bevy of stories from across the country.

Earlier this year, a North Carolina girl won a case on religious grounds for wearing a nose ring. She belonged to the Church of Body Modification.

If the courts are as defensive as they should be of religious freedom, the rest of these students should have an easy case.

“I’m deciding to stand up for Jesus and do whatever I can to stop this,” said Carey.

Don’t just stand up for Jesus, Elizabeth, stand up for yourself and everyone else in your fight for the First Amendment.

Occupy Wall Street has reached its 3rd week of protests since the original congregation of enraged Americans on September 17.

What started out as an isolated protest against the discriminations and malpractices of the financial sector has evolved into a legitimate force.  The ideology behind the demonstrations have appealed to many Americans as the protests have spread to other cities across the nation including Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and Miami.

Many media outlets have questioned the demands of the protesters, often going out and interviewing the most outlandishly clad, eccentric individuals they could find in order to make some sense of the situation.

“So tell me, what exactly are you aspiring to accomplish here on Wall Street?”

“Um, well . . . corporations are taking money from the people by . . . uh, keeping it for themselves instead of giving it to other people.”

“Corporations?”

“Yeah.   Uh, like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch . . . .”

“Mortgage companies?”

“Uh, well . . . yeah.”

So it goes.  CNN’s Erin Burnett recently asked a protester, “So do you know that, um, taxpayers actually made money on the Wall Street bailout?”  The man replied that no, he was not aware of it.  “Does that make you feel any differently?” she asked.  To which he replied that, pending a little research, it might.

My question is: who said anything about protesting the financial bailout?

The initial purpose of the protests—to my understanding—is to demonstrate against “the influence money has over our representatives in Washington” and to encourage lawmakers to better enforce regulations.

On Wednesday, several labor unions joined forces with the protesters in New York in an attempt to amplify their objections.  They have been protesting against financial regulations for the past few years but have failed to draw in sufficient media coverage despite their numbers.  While the original protesters don’t have a clear requisition, the labor unions have created a more specific and lucid list of demands…  something Washington—and Wall Street—is already familiar with.

United NY, one of the several labor unions participating, is demanding that corporations and ‘big banks’ pay their fair share of taxes.  From their website:  “The recent debt ceiling deal contained significant tax breaks for big banks and corporations, while making cuts to vital programs like Medicare and Social Security. Big banks are paying historically low tax rates, and the corporate bank that will be targeted tomorrow cut its lending to small businesses by 70 percent, and has laid off at least 14,000 employees since receiving bailout money.” In August, members of United NY—a majority of them senior citizens—staged a “knit-in” at several branches across Manhattan.

The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) has also pledged support to the protests and are expected to participate.  “We have to tax the rich, we have to close the loopholes and we need to hold the financial institutions accountable,” claims UFT President Michael Mulgrew.

“We are the ones who do the work of New York and the world, but we are under attack,” adds secretary-treasurer of 32BJ SEIU, a union representing property service workers including  security officers, maintenance workers, bus drivers  and food service workers.  “We have one enemy that is attacking us: corporate America. Brothers and sisters, the time is now to unite and fight.”

Now that Occupy Wall Street is beginning to gain some traction, many believe it could become a considerable force in influencing political decision making and may engender future legislation.  However, President Barack Obama’s recent acknowledgement of Occupy Wall Street was received as less than satisfactory by protesters who claim he hasn’t done enough to crack down on unlawful and immoral behavior within the financial district.  Although President Obama mentioned that we’re ‘seeing the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place,’ he offered no new resolutions as to how he planned to constrict further infractions.

In the meantime, protesters aren’t going anywhere.  There’s a sense of determination among participants despite contradictory remarks from the media, who typically write the movement off as a bunch of hippies with no sense of direction or purpose.  In fact, the media has misinterpreted the motives and underestimated the potential of Occupy Wall Street from the beginning.

CNN recently compared it to the Egyptian protests, scoffing at it for its lack of anger and violence—which is about as correlated as Hank Williams Jr.’s comparison between Barack Obama golfing with Speaker John Boehner to Hitler playing with Benjamin Netanyahu.  Specifically, it’s the difference between the political revolution of a long oppressed nation and the protesting against unfair financial regs.

Not to take anything away from Occupy Wall Street and the millions of people affected by the poorly managed congregation of greed motivated ideologies advocated by bureaucratic assholes.  The protests in Egypt were an attempt to overthrow its nation’s government.  Occupy Wall Street is meant to persuade political action to protect America’s citizens from financial bullying.  And it’s continuing to gain momentum.

Early last week, the Obama administration decided to pursue a Supreme Court ruling regarding its heavily disputed health care legislation.  26 states including Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan—key states in the upcoming presidential election—have filed lawsuits claiming that the mandate to purchase health insurance by 2014 or else face penalties is unconstitutional.

Rather than asking the U.S. Appeals Courts to make further rulings on the issue, the administration will seek Supreme Court adjudication.  It is likely that the Supreme Court will accept the case primarily due to claims of unconstitutionality.  If the Supreme Court does, in fact, take the case, projections have indicated a ruling by July of next year.  Thus, the decision could have a direct influence on next year’s presidential nomination.

Of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, the four most liberal—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotoymayor—will likely support the bill while the four most conservative—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts—are expected to vote against it.  This could potentially make Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote; the deciding factor in the ruling.  Which raises the question among many Americans: who is Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Born in Sacramento California in 1936, Kennedy is the second of 3 children.   His father, Anthony J Kennedy, was a California attorney with ‘a reputation of influence in the California legislature.’  Kennedy graduated high school in 1954 and enrolled at Stanford University where he attended for 4 years before earning a B.A. in Political Science.  Following Stanford, he attended Harvard Law School where he obtained an LL.B. and graduated cum laude in 1961.

After graduating from Harvard, Kennedy moved back to California and went into private practice for a couple years until the death of his father in 1963.  He then returned to Sacramento to take over his father’s practice and be closer to home to provide support for his family.  In 1975, at the request of then governor Ronald Reagan, Kennedy was nominated to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Gerald Ford where he served for 12 years.  In 1987, Ronald Reagan appointed Kennedy to the Supreme Court following the Senate’s rejection of Robert Bork and the withdrawal of Douglas Ginsburg after his admission of marijuana use.  His nomination was confirmed on February 3, 1988 when the Senate voted 97 to 0 in favor him.

A registered Republican and devout Catholic, Kennedy has drawn criticism from conservative politicians for his non-conformist ideology.   Many Republicans have accused him of ‘betrayal’ for his favorable rulings on abortion and homosexuality.  Some have even described Kennedy’s ideology as ‘Libertarian.’  In 1996, in Romer v. Evans, Kennedy ruled against an amendment that would have inhibited ‘legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.’

Also in 1996 in Lawrence v. Texas, he voted against the prohibition of sodomy for homosexuals in Texas in a landmark win for gay rights.  Some other notable left-leaning rulings by Kennedy include Roper v. Simmons which decried capital punishment for minors unconstitutional with a 5-4 vote and Ashcroft v. ACLU which ruled against the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s decision to criminalize the distribution of pornography on the Internet.

Kennedy’s adjudications have also correlated with conservative ideologies on many occasions.  In 2000, Kennedy ruled in favor of George W. Bush in the Bush v. Gore case, effectively enabling Bush to win the Presidency.  He’s voted to stymie Congress’s power in 1995, ruled in favor of the University of Michigan Law School for allegedly discriminating against a white Michigan resident who was denied acceptance despite a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, and decided against intact dilation and extraction, or partial-birth abortion, in 2000.  However, Kennedy supports the right of abortion in principle.

While politicians sometimes criticize Kennedy for his non-partisan ideologies, others herald his principles for the same reason.  It certainly muddies the waters of speculation in the scope of the current health care debate.

From a Libertarian perspective, (or any perspective for that matter) Obamacare is a precarious piece of legislation.  One thing most people agree on—people from all ends of the political spectrum—is that the discrimination against pre-existing medical conditions by insurance companies is unethical.  The Obama Administration claims that the best way to prevent both the discriminations and the inflating insurance premiums is to mandate that everyone, with the exception of those whose incomes hinder their ability to afford it, purchase a health care plan.  Requiring citizens to have health care will, according to the administration, lower premiums that inflate due to the number of uninsured people rushed to the ER every year.

Many—not just Republicans—are skeptical and consider the mandate unconstitutional.  “Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up,” shot Dick Durbin, the Democratic Senator from Illinois.

“It will ruin the best health care system in the world. It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy!” argued Speaker John Boehner at a press conference in January.

With so many different opinions on Health Care Reform, it’s impossible to determine how the Supreme Court will rule next year.

“We must never lose sight of the fact that the law has a moral foundation, and we must never fail to ask ourselves not only what the law is, but what the law should be,” Kennedy once stated.  But what will he envision ‘should be’ in regard to the Health Care Reform Act?  Will his ‘libertarian’ ideology cause him to vote against the bill due to its allegedly unconstitutional mandate or uphold it because a mandate is the best way to protect against discrimination and inflation from insurance companies?

Only time will tell.