via POLITICO

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday night argued that the 2nd Amendment no longer serves the purpose it was designed to address and that Congress should reexamine granting citizenship to any child born in the United States, the right to bear arms to any citizen in the United States

The 14^th 2nd Amendment was passed following the Revolutionary war out of fear that southern states would once again try to find a way to deny citizenship to freed slaves citizens their god-given rights and freedoms

Pointing to that history, Graham said during an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren that birthright citizenship should not be applied to babies born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants blanket protected gun ownership in the United States should be re-examined, especially as it applies to urban areas.

“I'm looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today,” Graham said. “Birthright citizenship the blanket right to bear arms doesn't make so much sense when you understand the world as it is.”

“You've got the other problem, where thousands of people are coming across the Arizona/Texas border for the express purpose of having a child in an American hospital so that child will become an American citizen, and they broke the law to get there,” he said. “We ought to have a logical discussion. Is this the way to award American citizenship, sell it to somebody who's rich, reward somebody who breaks the law? Coming to Southern states like South Carolina to purchase weapons that will undoubtedly be used for crime and vice in northern cities like Boston and NewYork. In reality, handguns today aren’t really used to hunt or defend against tyrants, they are often used to terrorize our own citizens. I think we need to look at this issue really closely.”

To further justify having that “discussion,” Graham also pointed to tourists who, he says, come to the United States on 90-day visa during the later stage of pregnancy in order to give birth to a child with U.S. citizenship South just to buy guns from retailers, so they can sell them on the black market to gangs and the mafia.

“You come to a resort, you have your child at a hospital within the resort You come to Columbia, you buy your weapon(s) at a local gun show within the state limits [and] that child is an American citizen, and just like that there is another gun on the black market” Graham said. “That, to me, cheapens American citizenship values. That's not the way I would like it to be awarded the country I want to live in. .”

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell has called for “taking a look” at changing the 2nd Amendment as well.

The line in question in the amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …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.  ”

Based on my choice of strikeouts, you might infer that I am advocating for the re-evaluation of the second amendment. On the contrary however, I believe that Lindsey Graham has a common sense point about the 14^th amendment, I also think there is some value to preserving the second Amendment.

Instead, my point is to highlight to blatant hypocrisy and close mindedness of politicians in Washington today. Just two months ago, Grahm and other members of the GOP blasted New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg as he tried to have the government block the ability of terrorists to purchase guns. The reason; it would undermine the constitution’s second amendment rights.Yes.. isn't it a bit funny that the same Republicans that blasted health care reform last summer under the guise of "our sacred constitution" are the very ones that are proposing it's alteration?

To be fair, Democrats are equally as guilty of this type of hypocrisy. Usually fond of the “living document” version of the constitution instead of the “literal” perspective that conservatives take, liberals seem to take things pretty literally when the 14^th Amendment is brought up.

In truth, just as the authors of the 14^th Amendment probably weren’t thinking about “illegal” immigrants from across the border (for a range of reasons), the founding fathers weren’t thinking about violent gangs that threaten the safety and security of American cities. Both the Republicans and Democrats are in favor of changing parts of the constitution, but both use the constitution as a political bludegon when it's convinient.

But don’t tell that to the Washington political class….

Today, the Transport Politic highlights a plan from UPENN to speed up the busiest passenger rail line in the Americas. Their post is below:

If you thought California’s more than forty billion dollar plan to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles with high-speed rail was an unreasonably large investment, you’ll be doubled-over by what a University of Pennsylvania student group has proposed for the Northeast Corridor: a $98.1 billion spending spree that would transform America’s most productive region by speeding commutes between Boston and Washington to just 3h15.

The plan advocates the construction of new rail tunnels through downtown Philadelphia and Baltimore, a bypass around Wilmington, and, get this, a twenty-mile tunnel under the Long Island Sound from Ronkonkoma to New Haven. Trains would average 155 mph on the trip. These investments, the students suggest, would be enough to triple ridership on the intercity rail network by 2040. I wouldn’t doubt it.

The problem, of course, is that while the plan is well-documented, beautifully illustrated, and, I’m sure, technically feasible, it stands absolutely no chance of being realized, bar some unforeseen willingness on the part of the U.S. government to drop tens of billions on one program and a multi-state agreement binding the Northeast region’s taxpayers to the construction of the world’s single biggest infrastructure project. I would love to see such ease of transportation between these cities, but in the next twenty years, the most we’re likely to get is Amtrak’s current ten billion dollar plan to speed trains from 6h30 between the extremities of the corridor to 5h30. This in spite of the fact that the Northeast Corridor, with the nation’s highest densities and highest potential train ridership, is theoretically perfect for high-speed rail.

But there are two fundamental obstacles to a significantly improved Northeast Corridor: financial limitations and differences in political interest.

Though the Northeast is an incredibly rich region, it has no capacity to raise sufficient funds to pay for an investment on the scale of what the Penn Studio has suggested. Not only are all the states in a fiscally difficult situation today, but they are underfunding their existing roads, transit, and intercity rail systems. Because the Northeast has some of the nation’s oldest infrastructure, it also has the most pressing maintenance needs. If the region were to suddenly benefit from a massive increase in tax revenues, that money should probably first be spent on making sure the subways and highways are working as they should, no small task.

Just as important, the U.S. government, despite its decision to allocate $10.5 billion thus far to the high-speed rail development program, is handicapped by the fact that it must spread the money across the country. If the Northeast deserves a federal contribution of $50 billion for its high-speed program, the rest of the country will demand another $200 billion for their own needs. Where, exactly, will that money come from? The two-year period in which the U.S. government appeared to be guided by a Keynesian impulse to stimulate the economy through infrastructure creation has come to a definite, and probably premature, end.

Of course, the lack of adequate funds is determined by politics; if they wanted, state leaders could approved tax hikes to pay for far more than just maintenance. They could, for instance, band together to promote a regional gas tax increase. Yet the situation in the Northeast is paralyzed by poor decision-making and an unwillingness to look across state lines for compromise.

For example, the $8.7 billion Access to the Region’s Core tunnel, which will connect New Jersey and Manhattan by 2017, will not include connections into the existing Penn Station complex; this makes it possible for only trains terminating in Manhattan to use the tunnel and fundamentally blocks off Amtrak use of the facility. As a result, the national rail operator is now studying the construction of yet another tunnel under the Hudson River, a consequence of the fact that New Jersey simply didn’t care enough to find a way to share. (Note that Amtrak’s study is far from final; while the tunnel may be needed, there is no funding for the project.)

The Northeast has internalized its decision-making at the state level, refusing to come to clear agreements about where the region’s priorities should be focused. This is partly due to the fact that many of the state capitals are not along the Northeast Corridor itself — Albany, Hartford, Harrisburg, and Annapolis — but also due to the fact that high-speed rail sections through some states may be actually more beneficial to residents of other states. For instance, though the link between New York and Philadelphia runs primarily through New Jersey, its users are primarily not from that state; this makes it outside New Jersey’s political interest to invest in true high-speed rail there.

Thus, one wonders whether the kind of mammoth investments necessary to outfit the Northeast Corridor for true high-speed rail should be prioritized. California and Florida are developing cheaper and far less complicated plans to run fast trains between their biggest cities, and it’s actually possible to imagine that their schemes will come to fruition. They benefit from the fact that each project remains within state borders and California’s voters made a very large $10 billion commitment to actually funding their line, a feat to which no Northeast state has come close.

Similarly, in the Midwest, there’s a relative consensus in thinking that Chicago is the region’s core and that primary rail links should head in and out of there. This has made agreement about where investments should go simpler and explains that region’s relatively advanced plans for intercity rail.

People in the Northeast complain that the federal government’s high-speed rail funding allocations have gone to other regions, but the Obama Administration may have its priorities right. Instead of choosing to throw its funds into the mind-numbingly complex project that is the Northeast Corridor — where even minor improvements cost billions of dollars — it has picked intercity rail programs that will significantly improve service at a lower cost in the short-term. If Northeastern states want to see similar allocations in the coming years, they must get their act together by developing regional funding sources and establishing more lines of agreement.

WOW!

Boston to Washington in just three hours? It currently takes just over 8 (if you’re lucky).

Unfortunately, as the article alludes, America lacks the will or the imagination to improve to make this a reality. Made rich by the investments of prior generations, we’ve become content to simply wallow in the mud of our past, while lazily avoiding making any contribution to the system that got us here in the first place. While the rest of the world passes us by, Americans stand woefully complacent, still perhaps thinking that they’re number 1 in the world.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but this time, I’ll point the lack of leadership from the White House. President Obama and Joe Biden (a frequent Northeast Corridor passenger) have the clout to bring all the leaders of these states together. Surely they must recognize the massive economic benefits that await both the construction and completion of an upgraded rail link. Increased productivity, less traffic, more tourism are just a few of the benefits that would result. With the recession still lingering, such an investment would also create tens of thousands of jobs directly, and could potentially add strength to the economies of cities like say… Baltimore.

But these plans are for a different America; one with vision, audacity and courage. These plans are for a time when we were willing to tackle big, grand projects that would change our lives. It grows more evident every day that these plans are for a time and place other than our own.

Oopsie!

Activists can be annoying. They lay all sorts of public relations traps for politicians and then watch in glee as careers collapse.

Congressman Bob Etheridge has no one to blame for this but himself. This time there was no intricate trap, just a microphone and a camera.

Granted, I’m sure the tape has been edited to appear favorable to the conservative students, but still, how dumb do you have to be to behave this way as a congressman in Washington, DC (with cameras rolling). See the Video for yourselves

This doesn’t look career ending, just very, very embarrassing.

While Rome burns......

Tomorrow, President Obama will address the nation from the Oval Office about ongoing oil spill that threatens Gulf coast marine and economic life. The oil spill is now the largest man made environmental disaster in United States history and threatens to derail the Obama presidency.

I supported President Obama, and I even worked for his campaign. I believed then, (and still do) that he is a gifted leader with something very special to offer the country, that prologue makes this post even harder to write.

I’m afraid President Obama’s address and trip to the Gulf Coast might simply be too little, too late. The oil spill happened more than a month and a half ago, and since that time the President has had plenty of opportunities to show that he was competent and engaged. Instead, he was posing for pictures with the Duke men’s basketball team, giving silly interviews and vacationing.

At the same time, the White House insisted that the President understood the gravity and severity of the situation. President Obama himself insisted that he “would not rest” until the situation was brought under control.

Oh Please....

Being president is more than about being a apt manager and bureaucrat, (although that is certainly important)it’s about being a responsive, galvanizing and inspiring symbol. We have always expected our President to act as both a figurehead and commander-in-chief, to be the leader we look to for wise words in times of trouble, and the brilliant leader who can appropriately handle a wide range of situations and crises. In the past month, President Obama has failed at least one of those responsibilities.When we see a president who is emotionally detactched from a developing national crisis, how can a nation help but be nervously restless. Right now, America needs a leader.

What is even more disappointing is that this president is a proven orator and communicator. While both pundits and the White House insisted that “podium pounding” isn't the president’s style, Americans remembered the fiery speeches that the President gave during his 2008 campaign. Make no mistake, Barack Obama is not Al Gore, the president is fully capable of showing emotion and anger. This is what makes this episode even more upsetting

Going forward, what the President needs is a staff shakeup and a re-examination of his strategy. The Obama White House’s mantra of compromise, endless negotiation, and consensus building has failed miserably. Everyone is unhappy. The President needs to be more aggressive and true to the campaign that he ran in 2008.

President Obama also needs to admit that his administration made some serious errors in its handling of the crisis. At the very least, going on vacation and hosting the Duke basketball team at the White House sent the message that the White House did not fully understand the crisis. President Bush never fully admitted that his administration failed in post Katrina New Orleans, Obama shouldn’t repeat the same mistake.

In the end, President Obama’s response to BP oil spill is not comparable to Bush and Katrina; it’s worse. The delayed nature of the crisis means that it progressively gets worse with each passing day, not better. This is more like Jimmy Carter’s hostage crisis than Bush’s Katrina. The slow, drip, drip, drip, of oil into the Gulf and the images of destroyed wildlife and out of work fisherman threaten to destroy the Obama presidency (ironic that the environment would bring down a democrat). Carter’s presidency wasn’t derailed instantly, or even within the matter of weeks, but as the crisis wore on, the administration’s apparent impotency demoralized the entire nation.

President Obama is not yet Jimmy Carter, and tomorrow he has a chance to take charge of this situation, but first the President himself must decide what kind of leader he wants to be.