I believe that the United States of America must continue to demonstrate leadership around the world without apologizing to those who wish us harm.  I am in favor of a strong military.  I also favor giving our brave young men and women every advantage they need to win the war in Afghanistan.

We must untie the hands of our military in Afghanistan.  We must rely on the advice and counsel of the best military minds our nation possesses.  The Obama Administration sent Lt. General Stanley McChrystal to lead our troops in Afghanistan.  We need to listen to his recommendations and to those of General David Petraeus.  We can’t permit the politicians in Washington to continue to tie our military’s hands.

Two Presidents, Bush and Obama, have said that we must defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.  I believe that is exactly what must be done.  Pundits from the right, left and center have all recently said we should leave Afghanistan.  I think that would be a huge mistake for the United States.

None of us like the thought of losing even one more precious American life, fighting in a far away land, a country that seems to have little significance to the American people.  I firmly believe that if we trust our military to fight this war based on their best judgment, we will be successful.  Why is it so important that we win in Afghanistan?  Quite simply, this is where radical Islam was born.  This is where the jihadists planned and trained.  This is the country that with the Taliban in control supported and sheltered Osama Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists. 

If we walk away now, with the Taliban enjoying a strong resurgence, we walk away from the terrorists who murdered 3,000 innocent Americans then we walk away from Afghanistan without soundly defeating the Taliban. They will immediately assume control of the country again, and once again provide a safe haven for those determined to destroy our country and our way of life.

I still believe in the words of Ronald Reagan “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

We must win there or face the certainty of another attack on American soil.

Cross posted at Tom Ganley For Senate

Please follow me on twitter@tomganley

To become a fan of Tom Ganley on Facebook please click here.

To learn more about Tom Ganley For Senate please click here.

 

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama pledged that his Administration would look forward and not revisit the past, referring specifically to the issue of CIA interrogations.  After taking office, in fact, just a few months ago, President Obama again pledged that he was only interested in looking forward and did not intend to revisit the past.  Unfortunately, the President has not kept his word.

The Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr., has named a special prosecutor to go after CIA interrogators, who got information from terrorist suspects, using controversial methods.  The only issue that is really important here is that since the terrible attacks against our country on September 11, 2001, our country has not been attacked again.  Using tactics that were controversial, and perhaps even wrong, when looked at through the prism of the immediate period of right after September 11, should not be a reason for prosecution. 

The Administration has every right to decide not to use those controversial methods during their term in office, but to prosecute CIA officers who followed instructions from their superior, is simply wrong and in fact will place the American people in great peril.  The CIA is the agency that our country relies on to gather intelligence needed to keep Americans safe.  To demoralize this very important agency during this very critical time in our country's history is wrong and places the American people in danger.

I am not condoning the use of torture, if that in fact is what American intelligence officers did.  As an American, I think all of us can agree that the United States should not and does not resort to torture to secure intelligence information.  However, there is simply no useful purpose to be served by prosecuting CIA operatives who did what they were told to do in order to protect our country.  They thought they were operating within the law and defending our nation.

I agree with the recent statement of Senator Joe Lieberman, who said "I  . . . fear our country will come to regret the decision of the Attorney General because an open ended criminal investigation of past CIA activity, which has already been condemned and prohibited will have a chilling effect on the men and women agents of our intelligence community."  Senator Lieberman has it right, and Eric Holder has it wrong.

Unfortunately, the actions of Eric Holder have placed our great country in danger.

Cross posted at Tom Ganley for US Senate

Please follow me on twitter@tomganley

To become a fan of Tom Ganley on Facebook please click here

To learn more about Tom Ganley for US Senate please click here

All politicians at one time or another have faced heated debate. That is the American way. Thomas Jefferson probably said it best "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to." If our founding fathers recognized and spoke out in favor of dissent how is it that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer call Americans who engage in raucous dissent "un-American?"

Evidently, Pelosi and Hoyer would rather remain in the ivory tower that Washington DC has become rather than listen to the voices of Americans who oppose the Health Care bill that no one has bothered to read. It is far easier for Pelosi and Hoyer to stifle dissent and call the American people names than it is to debate a bill that they haven't read. For them to claim that opponents of the President's health care bill are disrupting townhalls across the country by "drowning out the facts" is disingenuous to say the least.

Jefferson discussed debate hundreds of years ago when he said "Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I am sure is the ultimate and sincere object. We value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." It's too bad our Congressional leaders have never read anything about Thomas Jefferson. They could learn a lot.

Raucous debate is nothing new to this great country. Sometimes the tone and tenor of the discussions get out of control. But it is interesting to me that none of the confrontations turned violent until allies of the Democrats got involved. In fact, wasn't it a White House advisor who told Democrats, "if you get punched, we will punch back twice as hard?"

None of us like to see meetings turn violent, or even see them get out of control. But every public official must respect the right of the people to be heard. Dissent and public debate are part of the First Amendment. Public officials who seek to silence public debate are the ones hurting our country, and they are the ones forgetting some of our founding principles.

Cross posted at Tom Ganley for US Senate.

Please follow me on twitter@tomganley

To become a fan of Tom Ganley on Facebook please click here.

To learn more about Tom Ganley for US Senate, please click here.

I am running for the United States Senate from Ohio because I believe in the fundamental principles of America.  Our founding fathers in their infinite wisdom established three completely different and distinct branches of government.  The Legislature, which is to represent the people, and pass legislation that the people want; the Executive branch, which represents the American people with foreign governments, and sets the agenda for the legislature, and the Judiciary, whose job it is to apply the laws of the United States fairly and evenly to all of the people.

If I had been in the United States Senate on August 6, 2009, I would have voted against the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  Why would I have opposed her appointment?  The reasons are pretty simple.

 First of all, although Justice Sotomayor tried very hard to change her judicial background at the Senate confirmation hearings, it is obvious to me that throughout her career she has indicated that a judge should allow her personal views and experiences to influence judicial outcomes.  A fair reading of her past rulings and comments at various events makes it apparent that she has judged cases and made rulings based on the prism through which she views her life.  The fact that her background and life experiences should not enter into her judicial rulings has evidently been lost on her, or if she was aware of how a judge is expected to decide their cases, she has chosen to ignore those principles.  America can’t afford this type of judicial temperament on the most important Court in our country.

Second, I am a strong believer and supporter of the Second Amendment.  I believe that the Founding Fathers meant exactly what they wrote: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  That is very clear to me.  Yet Judge Sotomayor, in an opinion in January, 2009, Maloney v. Cuomo, ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.  The ruling from the Second Circuit cited an 1886 case, Presser v. Illinois.  But Judge Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues ignored the 2008 Supreme Court case of Heller v. District of Columbia, in which the Court said the Second Amendment “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.  The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”  Unfortunately for Americans, Judge Sotomayor seems to have forgotten about this ruling.

Third, Judge Sotomayor failed to apply the law fairly in the case of  Ricci v. DeStefano.  It took the United States Supreme Court to undo the damage done by Judge Sotomayor in the Ricci case.  As I’m sure you remember, Judge Sotomayor, as a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, was part of a majority opinion that upheld the decision of the City of New Haven, in 2003, to scrap the results of a promotional firefighters exam because no black candidate passed the tests.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in overturning the Second Circuits decision.  Justice Kennedy wrote “No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race.  The exam process was open and fair.  The problem, of course, is that after the tests were completed, the raw racial results became the predominant rationale for the city’s refusal to certify the results.” 

I agree with Frank Ricci, who called the Supreme Court’s ruling a “vindication” for himself and his colleagues.  I also find myself in agreement with Mr. Ricci, when he said “Americans have the right to go into our federal courts and have their cases judged based on the Constitution and our laws, not on politics and personal feelings.”  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor failed to understand or recognize this basic right.

Fourth, Judge Sotomayor upheld a government’s taking of private property in Didden v. Port Chester.  The Didden case is one that I strongly disagree with.  The facts are pretty simple.  In 1999, the village of Port Chester, N.Y., established a “redevelopment area” and gave its designated developer, Gregg Wasser, a virtual blank check to condemn property within it.  In 2003, two property owners approached Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy on land they owned inside the zone.  Wasser demanded that they pay him $800,000 or give him a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project.  His threat was to have the local government condemn the land if his demands weren’t met.  Well, they weren’t and the very next day that property was condemned.

When the property owners challenged the condemnation in federal court, on the grounds that it was not for a “public use” as the Fifth Amendment requires.  They went on to state that “out and out extortion does not qualify as a public use.  Amazingly, a Second Circuit panel, which included Judge Sotomayor  upheld the taking.  Although the Second Circuit opinion was based largely on procedural issues, they also were obligated to follow the clear language of the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London.  In the majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the United States Supreme Court stated “the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit” was not enough to count as a “public use.”  It seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?  But once again Judge Sotomayor and her liberal Second Circuit colleagues ignored the law in a clear attempt to legislate from the bench.

Fifth, Judge Sotomayor has clearly indicated that foreign law should be considered and can “inform our understanding” of U.S. Constitutional law.  Judge Sotomayor wrote in the forward to a 2007 book “The International Judge” “the question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution is . . worth posing.”  No opinion written or joined by Judge Sotomayor has been discovered where she relied upon foreign or international law to interpret the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.  But in a 2009 speech made by Judge Sotomayor to the Puerto Rican chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, she made it clear that the Court’s citation to foreign and international law was proper and indeed laudable since “international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about unsettled issues in our own legal system.”  That is enough for me to conclude that if given the opportunity, she would consider foreign law in deciding cases before her.

While I appreciate the Judge’s personal life story, and applaud a Country where she was given the chance to succeed, I salute the thirty-one Republican Senators who stood by their values and principles and voted against her confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. 

Cross Posted at Tom Ganley.com

follow me on Twitter@tomganley

To become a fan of Tom Ganley on Facebook click here.

Go to Tom Ganley For Senate to learn more.

 

 

 

Read the Bill!!

Congressional committees have been busy coming up with various ideas for health care reform. The Obama Administration has been busy urging both houses of Congress to adopt health care legislation before the August recess. If you are like me, you have been asking yourself, what’s the rush? Well, it’s become pretty apparent to me what the rush is all about.

They don’t want members of Congress to have the time to read the bill. Nor do they want them to have time to talk to the people who really count – the people who put them all in office. I wonder why? Could it be that they just don’t want us to know what’s in the bill. Right now there are two main versions of Health care bills being discussed on Capitol Hill. The House Bill, H.R. 3200 is 1017 pages long. The Senate Bill, called “The Affordable Health Choices Act” is 615 pages long.

Do you trust everyone in Congress to read the bill in its entirety?

I don’t. So I thought we should take a look at the House Bill, and see if there is anything in it that the American people might not like. No spin, just the language that has already been inserted in the bill. Let’s start with the first thing that really jumps out at you. Section 123 is titled “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”. It clearly provides for the establishment of a private-public advisory board, which will recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans. The Committee will be comprised of (among others) the Surgeon General and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (surprise, political appointees in charge!) What is really frightening here is that the Committee is going to consist of 27 members (including the Surgeon General) 18 members who will be political appointees of the President, and 9 members who will be appointed by the Comptroller General. These are the people who will make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I surely don’t want a committee of political appointees making health care decisions for me and members of my family. Do you?

Let’s take a look at another Section of the proposed House Bill. Section 142 is labeled “Duties and Authority of Commissioner.” In a nutshell, it provides that the Health Care Commissioner will be responsible for establishing qualified plan standards, running something called a Health Insurance Exchange and administering individual affordability credits. It sure sounds like the “Commissioner” is going to determine the benefits that you and I have under any plan.

Section 152 of the Bill is labeled “Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care” says “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” In other words, coverage will be provided to all people in our country, without regard to how they got here.

Had enough? It gets better as the bill goes on. For example Section 1173A is called “Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions”. What does that mean to you and me? Well, in every day language it says the Government will have “real time” access to your financial information so that they can determine your financial responsibility, and it also provides that at the discretion of the government this determination of whether you are eligible for a specific service with a specific facility, “may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card.” I’ve just covered a few items contained in the House Bill. If you don’t get the idea that any plan being considered by Congress is going to impact on the kind of health care that you and your family are going to receive, then you just aren’t reading the same things that I am.

I’m sure people who want a one size fits all health care bill at all costs will say these are just scare tactics, utilized by conservatives determined to stop health care reform. To them, I say, rewriting every part of the American health care system is not reform. But more importantly “Read the Bill.”

One of the toughest things in business is to truly cut costs without hurting the business when you do it. There are two parts to that. First is finding a way to cut costs in one area without causing costs to increase ‘downstream'. A lot of times a cost decrease in one area merely pops up somewhere else. follow me on Twitter@tomganley

To become a fan of Tom Ganley on Facebook click here.

Go to Tom Ganley For Senate to learn more.