Sarah Palin is a 21st century enigma. She posts on Facebook and within minutes hundreds of people have either clicked “like” or left a comment, usually incredibly flattering, about Palin’s message. She Tweets, the media writes.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, there was one major argument against Sarah Palin being included on the ticket with John McCain. That would be her lack of knowledge about national issues, which she seemed oblivious to, almost uncaring. She had a couple of very unflattering interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric, which showed her in a very unfavorable light. Yes, I know they were edited in a way that did not help her, but it still gave us some insight as to how she thinks. As the campaign progressed, it seemed clear to me that her role was to be that of the attack dog, which is customary for anyone who runs for Vice-President. I doubt anyone would argue that she failed in that regard and she still continues in that role today. Whether that makes her a viable candidate for President remains to be seen.

The article in Politics Daily led me to what most Sarah Palin fans are probably calling a hit piece, published in the October edition of Vanity Fair.  Michael Joseph Gross followed the Palin entourage during the spring and summer, talking to whomever would speak to him, mostly on the grounds of anonymity. From those conversations, there seems to be a strong opinion that one must walk very gingerly around the woman, specifically because of her temper. Obviously, I can not attest to the accuracy of Gross’ article or his information, but it does give me pause to consider a few things. In that light, let me pose a question.

How many times have we heard the statement; where there is smoke, there is fire? During and since the 2008 campaign, there has been a lot of smoke concerning Sarah Palin. Accusation after accusation, about everything from her spending and clothes habit to her temper, has came out since 2008. Former McCain campaign workers and advisers have regaled us with stories of how hard she was to get along with. All in all, Palin has a reputation for having a very thin skin. Albeit, some of the incidents she has been involved in, such as the response to David Letterman’s uncalled for remarks about her daughters, were probably the result of a mother getting her hackles up when someone insulted her children. I can’t blamer her for that, as I would have probably not been as nice as her, had it been my daughters he spoke of in that manner. However, there has been entirely too much smoke around Sarah Palin for my taste and I am afraid the fire has been rearing it’s ugly head, on more than one occasion. Consider this paragraph from the Vanity Fair article.

Warm and effusive in public, indifferent or angry in private: this is the pattern of Palin’s behavior toward the people who make her life possible. A onetime gubernatorial aide to Palin says, “The people who have worked for her—they’re broken, used, stepped on, down in the dust.” On the 2008 campaign trail, one close aide recalls, it was practically impossible to persuade Palin to take a moment to thank the kitchen workers at fund-raising dinners. During the campaign, Palin lashed out at the slightest provocation, sometimes screaming at staff members and throwing objects. Witnessing such behavior, one aide asked Todd Palin if it was typical of his wife. He answered, “You just got to let her go through it… Half the stuff that comes out of her mouth she doesn’t even mean.” When a campaign aide gingerly asked Todd whether Sarah should consider taking psychiatric medication to control her moods, Todd responded that she “just needed to run and work out more.” Her anger kept boiling over, however, and eventually the fits of rage came every day. Then, just as suddenly, her temper would be gone. Palin would apologize and promise to be nicer. Within hours, she would be screaming again. At the end of one long day, when Palin was mid-tirade, a campaign aide remembers thinking, “You were an angel all night. Now you’re a devil. Where did this come from?”

I am not basing my entire post on Gross’ article, nor have I formed my opinion of Sarah Palin entirely on the stories and opinions of others. I was a fan during the campaign, thinking she was good for McCain, that she gave the Republicans a chance to defeat Obama. In retrospect, I was wrong in that opinion. From everything I have seen and heard, she may be nice to the adoring crowds, but to the rest of us, not so much. I encourage you to read the article, even if you think the woman can walk on water. You may discover a thing or two.

There is one thing about Palin that even her fans can not deny. She insists on being in total control of any public appearance that she is involved in. She likes it so much that she refuses to be put into a situation where does not have said control. If you happen to be one of the very few journalists who have been granted a personal interview, you can attest to that. She is not asked a question she is not prepared for and those questions are not particularly difficult. Call it what you will, but I think this has came about because of the interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric I mentioned earlier in this post. She was clearly caught off guard by some of their questions and I believe she is making sure it doesn’t happen again. Here is one more portion of the Vanity Fair article.

She manages to be at once a closed book and a constant noisemaker. Her press spokesperson, Pam Pryor, barely speaks to the press, and Palin shrewdly cultivates a real and rhetorical antagonism toward what she calls “the lamestream media.”

She keeps tight control of her pronouncements, speaking only in settings of her own choosing, with audiences of her own selection, and with reporters kept at bay. (Despite many requests, neither Palin nor her current staff would comment for this article.) She injects herself into the news almost every day, but on a strictly one-way basis, through a steady stream of messages on Twitter and Facebook. The press plays along. Palin is the only politician whose tweets are regularly reported as news by TV networks. She is the only one who has been able to significantly change the course of debate on a major national issue (health-care reform) with a single Facebook posting (in which she accused the Obama administration, falsely, of wanting to set up a “death panel”).

Keeping in mind what Gross wrote in that last paragraph, let’s go back to the first quote I used. I believe it goes hand in hand with Gross’ statement. I realize most politicians are using Twitter and Facebook to connect with their constituents, fans, etc. The two women who are campaigning for Governor of Oklahoma are using both of these social media outlets extensively, but they are doing so to keep the voters informed of their activities, ie. where they are and what they are doing. I can understand that. Sarah Palin takes that to a whole new level, using Twitter and Facebook as a means to make it into the daily news cycle, without actually saying much of substance. She Tweets and the media writes? Give me a break.

Here is how I see the phenomena that is Sarah Palin. Pulled out of obscurity by John McCain, she has evolved into a national celebrity. She is more of a rock star than a politician and certainly more than a real leader. It can not be denied, however, that she has fired up the conservative base more than anyone in recent history and because of that, she probably does have a political role to play. However, it’s one thing to Tweet 140 characters and blast those with whom you disagree. It’s something else entirely to be able to articulate real ideas and formulate policies that will help repair the damage that has been done to America. That is what we need in 2012 and I remain unconvinced that she is anywhere close to being that person.

Palin continues to raise money, both for SarahPAC and for other candidates. She is continually in the news, no matter if she deserves the attention or not. She is getting paid by FOX News to supply commentary and analysis on the news. I am not sure how she gained expert status, but again, no matter. In the meantime, she has become a multi-millionaire by way of her speaking engagements. More power to her, I suppose, but I will still refer you to my previous comment about her expert status. All indications point to her running for President in 2012 and sadly, we still do not know who she really is.

Will the real Sarah Palin stand up?

As you can see from his first post, there is a reason I asked him to contribute to the discussions we are having around here. I just ask that you treat him with the same respect you have given me, even when you may disagree with what he writes. So, without further ado, please welcome Harry Brooks to Political Realities.

In the generic ballot, a poll that asks, “If you were to vote today, would you vote Republican or Democrat?” the split is now 45% to 39% according to Rasmussen.  This is very accurate, since Rasmussen only polls likely voters.  Among registered voters, the split is even more dramatic at 51% to 41%.

The split is not surprising.  The Congress and the Executive branches are both controlled by big government leftists.  These people favor a large and powerful government to control many aspects of your heretofore private life.  Among the more egregious power-grabs by the left are:

• The Health Care Bill – this bill includes 2700 pages of regulations, dictating the relationship between you, your doctor and your health insurance company.  It also compels citizens to buy insurance.
• Cap & Trade – this scheme already passed by the House, would set up a system in which the government allocates “carbon credits” to companies, allowing them to produce only that certain amount of carbon.  If a company wants to produce more, they have to buy more carbon credits.  Can anyone say, “Big time scam?”
• Debt Load – In 2007 the national deficit was about $163 Billion.  At the end of 2010 it will be $1.5 Trillion!  With deficits like this, it is no wonder that the government has added some $2 Trillion to the national debt since Obama took office.
• Government Take Overs - The government has moved on the auto industry, banks, insurance companies, and is using end-around regulation and czars to take over any business it deems “too big to fail.”

So it is clear that the left wants to control the economy and by extension, you.  Through Obamacare and Cap & Trade alone, the government will have an extraordinary amount of coercive power over your life.

What about the right?  What exactly do conservatives want?

Interestingly, conservative desires can be summed up in one sentence: Leave us alone.  Here are the central tenants to the conservative movement:

1. Smaller government – conservatives believe that the government should be quite lean, only large enough to perform constitutionally enumerated functions, leaving the rest of government functions to the States.
2. Lower taxes – conservatives believe that if people can keep more of what they earn, they will be better off.  They believe that you can make spending decisions about your money much better than the government can.
3. Fiscal responsibility – Conservatives want the government to only perform enumerated powers (see #1 above) and do so within the confines of a small and balanced budget.

Conservatives don’t want much.  Conservatives are only asking to be left alone to go about their lives without the heavy hand of government taxing and regulating them at every turn.  This is a stark contrast to liberal and progressive Democrats who seek a government solution to most every problem citizens may encounter, and solve none of them well, or at all.

The left wants to control your life.  The right wants you to control your own life.  It’s a simple choice.

Before I go any further, let me say how much I admire our troops. They were thrust into an impossible situation and they have made the best of it. Listening to some of their stories has made me understand just how great a sacrifice they have given, some of them the ultimate sacrifice of their lives. They deserve our praise and any honor we can give them. Anything less would be the ultimate tragedy. Now, on to the subject at hand.

I am sure most of us are aware that President Obama gave only his second Oval Office speech last night. It was known that he wanted to mark the end of the war in Iraq and that he did, praising his war strategy and taking credit for ending combat operations. Yes, you heard me right. He took credit for ending combat operations. You can watch the video of the speech if you don’t believe me. Here is part of the transcript, from FOX News.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

I really don’t mean to gag on a gnat here, but can someone tell me who devised the strategy that has led to winning this war and moving our troops out of Iraq? Let me give you a hint, it wasn’t the man sitting in the Oval Office last night. If you want to give credit where credit is due, let’s look to the military under President George W. Bush and the man himself. It was fairly clear to anyone who was watching, the war in Iraq had been mishandled from the start, with most of the blame for that laying at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld. He insisted on managing the war after his own fashion and it simply was not working. When that became apparent, a new strategy was devised, hence the troop surge of 2007.

President Bush did not devise this strategy, but his military did and because he believed it would work, he stuck to his guns, even though it was a major unpopularity move for his administration. We see how that has worked out, three years later, so let’s look at how then candidate Barack Obama felt about it then. As you can see, his words were not quite so glowing. These excerpts were taken from the website of John Boehner.

Then-Sen. Obama said the surge would actually worsen sectarian violence in Iraq. Then-Sen. Obama: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal. … I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he’s wrong.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

Then-Sen. Obama: “We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)

Then-Sen. Obama: “Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/22/06)

Now, let’s look at what President Obama said about George W. Bush in his speech last night.

As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

Honestly, why could he not have just said, Bush was right and I was wrong? The only thing he changed was to put an explicit timetable on the withdrawal. Other than that, the strategy that won this war and brought our troops home was that of George W. Bush. He was the one who stuck by his guns, even though he was castigated by the Democrats and the media alike. Would it have been so hard or so bad for our current President to give a little credit to his predecessor for doing that? Would that have been too much to ask?

Here is what the text of the requirement actually says, from Open Congress.

SEC. 9006. EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING RE QUIREMENTS.
(A) IN GENERAL. Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections: 2000 (h) APPLICATION TO CORPORATIONS. Notwithstanding any regulation prescribed by the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this subsection, for purposes of this section the term person includes any corporation that is not an organization exempt from tax under section 501 (A) . (i) REGULATIONS. The Secretary may prescribe such regulations and other guidance as may be appropriate or necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including rules to prevent duplicative reporting of transactions.. (B) PAYMENTS FOR PROPERTY AND OTHER GROSS PROCEEDS. Subsection (a) of section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended (1) by inserting amounts in consideration for property, after wages,, (2) by inserting gross proceeds, after emoluments, or other, and (3) by inserting gross proceeds, after setting forth the amount of such. (C) EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2011. 2001.

What these changes will do is really very simple, yet at the same time, they will prove to be very costly to implement, not to the IRS, but to the businesses that the requirements will rest upon. Until now if you did business with a corporation, you did not have to file a 1099 for them, but on January 1, 2012, that will change. Here is how Cato @ Liberty puts it.

Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS.

The IRS thinks they will be collecting many more tax dollars and it will be on the backs of businesses, some of who can ill afford the additional costs of filing the 1099 forms for virtually everyone they do business with.

This little jewel of a mandate was slipped into the health care reform bill unnoticed by a lot of people, with very little discussion or debate on the matter. John Boehner brought it up last week in his speech on what could be done to help the economy and I learned about it from that. Again, it is just one example of how government regulation in America is out of control. It makes me wonder just what else the Democrats slipped into this legislation, buried in 2,000 pages of legalese.

When you read or see the news coverage of this rally, it is almost always classified as a controversial event. The Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were positive that the timing and the location of the rally was mimicking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and humiliating his legacy. This because the rally took place at the same place and day, some 47 years after King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. The reality is something much less sinister and much more honorable. During the speeches that were given, Dr. King and his speech was mentioned time after time. Glenn Beck himself gave honor to the man who has done so much for equality in America.

In spite of the accusations by Sharpton and Jackson and the counter-rallies they organized, their protests against Beck and the timing of his rally were rendered somewhat impotent by the attendance of Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King. I have to say, I really enjoyed her remarks. She made it clear she felt this rally transcended race. Here is a short blurb from CNN.

Alveda King, a niece of the late civil rights leader, also participated in the “Restoring Honor” rally, saying that her uncle would have approved of the event.

“If Uncle Martin could be here today, he would sure commend us of giving honor where honor is due,” she told a large, cheering crowd.

King said earlier she’s been accused of hijacking “the dream,” but on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360″ on Friday night, she said “the dream” is in her genes.

“I don’t have to reclaim the civil rights movement, I’m part of the civil rights movement,” she said, noting her family’s home and her father’s church were bombed when she was younger.

Further down in the CNN article, you will find a statement from Lenny McAllister, an African-American Republican who declined to speak at the rally, saying it was disrespectful of Dr. King. I respect his decision and his reasoning, but I humbly suggest that those who disagreed with this rally are missing the real point here. I wonder sometimes if it is they who can not move beyond racism.

I am sure videos of the event will be surfacing on YouTube  and you will be able to see what took place and what was said, but from what I saw, the event was anything but political in nature. I didn’t get to see Sarah Palin give her speech, but the reports I have read are saying it was not political in nature. “We stand today at the symbolic crossroads of our nation’s history. May this day be the change point,” she said. “Look around you. You’re not alone. You are Americans!” She said she was not speaking as a politician, but as the mother of a soldier. This was not about politics, but about America. Even in the closing prayer by Dave Reever, thanks was given to God for several things, including President Barack Obama. You can’t get any more apolitical than that.

As the event was unfolding, Kerry from One Mom posted a wonderful article about Who Owns The Lincoln Memorial that I want to share with you. It gets the essence of what could have taken place at the Lincoln Memorial, if only certain people had been willing to shake off the past and step forward into the future.

Today is August 28, 2010. Forty-seven years ago today, Martin Luther King, Jr., stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his I Have a Dream speech. Because of this anniversary, there are those in the African American community who are decrying the Restoring Honor rally. From what I can gather, Al Sharpton and his crew are upset because Glenn Beck is white and this is defiling Dr. King’s dream for this country. Seems that the real problem is that Glenn turned in his application to the National Park Service to hold an event before anyone else did.

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Glenn Beck – none of them own the Lincoln Memorial. We all own it. All of us who are citizens of the United States of America own the Lincoln Memorial. How great it would have been for Al Sharpton to stand shoulder to shoulder with Glenn Beck today at the Lincoln Memorial … wouldn’t that have been what Dr. King wanted?

As I am watching the rally at the Lincoln Memorial this morning, it is one of patriotism, a day of honoring those who serve in our military and a day of challenging us to return to God and to the premises that built our country. Personally, I would have loved to have seen Al Sharpton standing arm-in-arm with Glenn Beck this morning. I think Dr. King would have liked that as well. What a missed opportunity.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Just how bad is it? Let’s look at some figures from the report, supplied by The Associated Press.

The government is about to confirm what many people have felt for some time: The economy barely has a pulse.

The Commerce Department on Friday will revise its estimate for economic growth in the April-to-June period and Wall Street economists forecast it will be cut almost in half, to a 1.4 percent annual rate from 2.4 percent.

That’s a sharp slowdown from the first quarter, when the economy grew at a 3.7 percent annual rate, and economists say it’s a taste of the weakness to come. The current quarter isn’t expected to be much better, with many economists forecasting growth of only 1.7 percent.

Such slow growth won’t feel much like an economic recovery and won’t lead to much hiring. The unemployment rate, now at 9.5 percent, could even rise by the end of the year.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the newest economic indicators just released by the government, as well as a quote from the report.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010, according to today’s second estimate. This follows a growth rate of 3.7 percent in the first quarter.

If this isn’t bad news, then I don’t want to hear the bad news when it comes along. This news is sure to make consumers edgy and uncertain about the economic future. This is turning out to be a very vicious cycle. Little to no economic growth means the economy is stagnant. In turn, that means consumer purchases will be down and that leads to businesses selling fewer products. From there, we have the unemployment rate, which is already high, possibly going even higher. Last, but not necessarily least, businesses are looking forward to the end of the year and the possibility of their taxes going even higher. Have I mentioned the uncertainty this brings to the picture?

What does all of this mean for you and I, the American consumer? I think we had best be tightening our belts, even more so than we have already done. Until our government officials can see their way to changing the course they are on and the tactics they are using to try to keep our economy from going further into the tank. One thing for sure, what they are trying now is just not working. Is it time to try something else? Just a thought.

By no means have I been the only voice in the wilderness, calling out about the billions of dollars that have been spent on trying to stimulate the housing market, our economy, etc., etc. Many others, much more qualified than I, have been trying to explain how dangerous this path that we are on really is. Our country is in much greater debt than we were at the beginning of this crisis and what have we really seen as a result? Unemployment is still high and shows no sign of abating. New numbers are due out today and they are not expected to be pleasant. We have already mentioned the woes of the housing market, on which the fate of our entire economy seems to be resting. The bottom line is, our economy is really in no better shape than it was when Barack Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009.

What is really telling to me is the way the news sounded as I was driving to work this morning. NPR seemed to be making it a point to show that it appears the economic recovery, if it can be called that, has slowed and is in danger of reversing. This appears to be a real concern among the experts they are consulting and from everything I am seeing in the job market and the general economy, I would tend to agree. I am no expert on such matters, but the economic prospects for our country appear to be very dim indeed. That begs the question, where do we go from here?

To continue on the same path of economic stimulus, more and more spending, getting America deeper and deeper in debt, is not the answer. The reason the job market is not bouncing back is because jobs are not being created. I know that sounds over-simplified, but it’s the simple truth. All of the spending being done by the Obama administration is not giving cause for optimism to the small businesses who are the backbone of our economy and of the job market. Until that changes, small businesses, such as the one where I work, will not be hiring new workers. There will be no need to do so, as the businesses are not growing. Why, you may ask? Here’s one reason, namely the expiration of the Bush tax cuts coming next year.

As it stands right now, the expiration of those tax cuts is set to increase the tax rate on a lot of people in America, including those who own and operate small businesses. They are already looking ahead at what may happen and they are refusing to stick their necks out to grow their businesses. Again, the reason is simple. They are afraid of what is coming in 2011 and the less neck they have stuck out, the less neck there is for the government to tax and/or cut off. You can’t blame them one bit.

It is very clear, we need to go in a different economic direction in this country. Continuing down the same path on which we are treading right now is not going to move our economy in the right direction. It has not done so after almost two years of spend, spend, spend and it will not do so if we stay on the same path for another two years. The Obama administration would like us to believe otherwise, but it is simply not true. Even The Associated Press is showing their overly optimistic estimates of the effects of the stimulus to be what they are, fallacies.

John Boehner is already calling for some drastic measures and while they would likely be effective, I seriously doubt they will come about while Obama is still living in the White House. For starters, he is calling for the entire Obama economic team to resign. Again, that isn’t likely to happen, but Republican Redefined has a great post about that.

This leads us to November 2 and the elections. We must gain enough seats to slow down the spending habits of Washington, keeping them in check until 2012 and we have a chance to send Barack Obama back to Chicago. If we do not, I can not imagine the shape America will be in after a full four years of uncontrolled spending and “stimulus” from the Democrats. If that happens, I am not sure how long it will take for our country to get back on it’s feet. The prospects are not promising, to say the least.

When this measure passed, there were multiple concerns about it’s constitutionality. I’m not sure how other states handle legislation like this but in Oklahoma, we have a couple of items in our Constitution that is supposed to prevent measures like this from being passed in the waning days of any particular legislature. For starters, no legislation that raises revenues for the state can be passed in the last five days of the legislative session. To back that up, State Question 640, which was passed in 1992, requires that any such measure to have a two-thirds majority or be put before a vote of the people before it can be signed into law by the governor. HB 2437 fails both of these tests and shortly after Governor Brad Henry signed it into law, Oklahoma State Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland filed a lawsuit on July 20 to challenge it’s constitutionality.

The lawsuit came as no surprise to anyone and the Oklahoma State Supreme Court handed down it’s ruling yesterday, a mere three days before the fee was to go into affect on Friday. From CapitolBeatOK:

At the state High Court, voting to slap down the tax increase were Chief Justice James Edmondson, Vice Chief Justice Steven W. Taylor, and Justices Yvonne Kauger, Joseph Watt, James Winchester and Tom Colbert. Justice John F. Reif dissented in part. Although he agreed the court had jurisdiction in the case, he asserted the claims levy “is a constitutionally permissible fee related to the provision and regulation of health insurance” in Oklahoma.

Justices Marian Opala and Rudolph Hargrave dissented in the case, saying the court did not have original jurisdiction, and should have sent Holland to district court to challenge the law. They contended facts presented to the court “do not show conclusively that the levy imposed by the enactment sought to be condemned was in fact a true tax.”

On the other hand, the dissenting pair of jurists argued a district court proceeding “might readily disclose from nonfacial proof the attacked enactment’s status as a pure revenue measure subject to judicial condemnation.” They concluded the Supreme Court should not have assumed original jurisdiction, without prejudging the merits of a district court test of the law.

Now that HB 2437 has been prevented from going into affect, the state Legislature will have to come up with other funds to balance the state budget, which is another Constitutional requirement. According to Oklahomans For Responsible Government, there are ways to deal with that. The state may also be able to rely on some federal funds. At any rate, they should have done this in the first place, instead of passing a law that was so clearly unconstitutional. It would have saved us all the time and effort it took to find out the obvious.

REMOVING BARRIERS TO RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN STEM CELLS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Research involving human embryonic stem cells and human non-embryonic stem cells has the potential to lead to better understanding and treatment of many disabling diseases and conditions. Advances over the past decade in this promising scientific field have been encouraging, leading to broad agreement in the scientific community that the research should be supported by Federal funds.

For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions. The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America’s scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind.

Sec. 2. Research. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.

Sec. 3. Guidance. Within 120 days from the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Director of NIH, shall review existing NIH guidance and other widely recognized guidelines on human stem cell research, including provisions establishing appropriate safeguards, and issue new NIH guidance on such research that is consistent with this order. The Secretary, through NIH, shall review and update such guidance periodically, as appropriate.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 5. Revocations. (a) The Presidential statement of August 9, 2001, limiting Federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells, shall have no further effect as a statement of governmental policy.

(b) Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9, 2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked.

This order paved the way for the National Institutes of Health to set the guidelines that would allow federal funding of research on some stem cell lines that have already been created. This led to a lawsuit that challenged the executive order and the new guidelines. The ironic part is, the lawsuit is not being brought because of ethical issues, but rather because of the money itself. From FOX News:

The court challenge was brought by adult stem cell researchers who argued the new rules not only would increase competition for limited funds, but violated federal law. A nonprofit group, Nightlight Christian Adoptions, also joined and argued that the government’s new guidelines would decrease the number of human embryos available for adoption.

We have been told for years that the issue of embryonic stem cell research is a very complex issue, one that is not easily decided. As it turns out, it boils right down to the dollars that are involved in the research and of all things, the number of adoptions. I probably should have seen this coming, but I didn’t. I find it sad that the challenges to this funding are being brought because of the money involved, instead of the ethics. I may be the only one who thinks this way, but I am afraid we are missing the boat here.

At any rate, President Obama has now suffered his latest setback, as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a temporary injunction on the federal funding of this research. Who knows how temporary or permanent this will be, but it does muddy the waters on embryonic stem cell research for some time to come. In reality, it should be clear. I know scientists have been telling us this research could lead to some very important discoveries in the treatment of certain diseases. How high of a price should we be willing to pay for those discoveries? Methinks it is really very simple. Do the research, as long as it doesn’t harm an embryo.