On July 4, 2010 Paige Norman posted and posed the question at NoPoli: “What is the single greatest impediment to the future economic stability of America?”  She responds by saying: “Possibilities abound, of course, but I believe the single greatest impediment to the future viability is the exploding cost of public pensions—and the demonstrated inability of our governmental leaders to resolve the issue…”

Personally, I can think of other impediments that pose greater holdups to our economic futures than pension funds. For example, securities fraud, mortgage securitization, perennial bubbles, and pyramid schemes otherwise known as exotic derivatives such as “credit default swaps” and “collateralized debt obligations,” not to mention the merging of commercial and investment banks with insurance and mortgage companies, as well as the deregulation of these highly risky activities, which culminated most recently in the Wall Street-mortgage related crash, great recession, and bailouts of 2008-09.

The losses/costs of the Wall Street derivatively driven securitized mortgage collapse of 2007-08 dwarfs the expenditures associated with reasonable pensions and the impending bankruptcies of municipalities, counties, and state governments attributed to them: For example, by mid-2008 the total home equity in the United States had dropped 32 percent to $8.8 trillion from $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, and it is still dropping as we ring in 2011. During the same period, Americans’ second-largest household asset, their total retirement assets, had dropped by 22 percent to $8 trillion from $10.3 trillion in 2006. Meanwhile, savings and investment assets, apart from retirement accounts, lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion as a result of the Wall Street implosion. When combined these losses to the American people come to a staggering $9 trillion in two years. Similarly, since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion in the US.

Of course, there is nothing unique about Washington’s inability to resolve sticky economic issues like the issue of public pensions. Aside from the fact that pensions are generally states’ rights issues that involve agreements reached not by federal but by local contracts, the U.S. Congress has typically not been in the habit of resolving most economically contested issues. This is especially so when it comes to spending, taxing, and acting fiscally responsible, primarily because the federal government does not have to balance its budgets like city, county, and state governments do by law.

For at least the past 40 years our governmental leaders have been playing the proverbial “kick the can” with the future of the United States’ economic stability/viability by failing to strike some kind of balance between “cutting here” and “investing there.” In other words, if the USA is to save its collective ass from becoming the first developed nation, a super power no less, to become a third world country, then it is essential that folks in general and Tea Partiers in particular recognize the nuanced complexity of the world in which we live and abandon  simplistic, one-dimensional, reductionist views of government and the economy.

For example, the commonly articulated and misrepresentative view of economic reality by the Tea Partiers that equates the bailouts by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (orchestrated by the United States of Goldman Sachs and Company) to save the “too big to fail” banking and insurance and mortgage institutions of Wall Street as being one and the same with saving or bailing out state or federal governments, to put it mildly, is nothing short of poppycock. This absurdity is just as crazy as when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) held the “middle class” tax extension hostage for some 150 million persons making less than $250,000 per year, equating at the same time, the $52 billion to extend benefits for tens of millions of unemployed workers to the $215 billion extended tax savings distributed among some 5 million persons. Nevertheless, the politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington, DC acquiesced to this type of insanity.

By contrast, an alternative and finessed view of our political economy in the context of investing in both infrastructural and social development recognizes the necessity, the inevitability that if the USA is going to change its present course from becoming the world’s first, first world-third world economy, then taxes must sooner than later go up proportionally on those who can afford to pay more of them and spending must come down proportionally in relation to maximizing the collective interests of all Americans.

In other words, continuing the tax cuts of the past 50 years for all with a far more beneficial rate and/or increasing return for the rich then in the past (1900-1960), or the precipitation and/or exacerbation of economic inequality in the USA and the looting of the American masses by Wall Street bankers along with their Oval Office appointed economic advisers and their K Street lobbyists, and, at the same time, the continuation of public and private entities investing fewer and fewer dollars in domestic development, education, infrastructure, human capital, and the environment, will only further deteriorate the prospects for either a stable or viable US economy capable of successfully competing with the rest of the developed world in the 21st century.

In the case of the extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires passed by the lame duck Congress and signed into law by President Obama on December 17^th in capitulation to the Senate Republicans, it will add $858 billion to the federal deficit over the next two years. More than 25 percent of those dollars will go into the pockets of the richest one percent of the population or to some three million persons while the other 75 percent will go to 99 percent of the population or to some three hundred million Americans. Within this inequitable obscenity, it could be argued, lies one of the greatest impediments to the future of America ever regaining its national as contrasted with its global competiveness.

Thus, in the larger scheme of things, the “solution” or the approach to the current and projected deficits as well as to the looming bankruptcy crises in the states and the nation as a whole, do not reside in the elimination and/or reduction of a few highly distorted representations of pension funds that the vast majority of workers, private or public, have never received. In fact, most Americans do not have any pension funds and rely almost totally, if not, exclusively on social security when they reach retirement age. Therefore, it is highly misleading to portray as Norman does, such anecdotal evidence of an annual pension of $228,000 to a former Orange County, California General Manager who was forced to resign for authorizing no bid contracts involving the sewer agency under his jurisdiction, or of an annual pension of $148,000 to the former Orange County Treasurer who plead guilty to six felonies, as representative of the pension problem in America. After all, the real pension problem in America is the fact that we all don’t have one!

In bringing an end to this interloping clarification from a non-Tea Partier, allow me to reference the type of exemplary leadership provided by Mayor Kasim Reed of Atlanta, Georgia who has artfully approached the multi-sided problem of “cutting here” and “investing there.” His approach underscores what New York Times’ Pulitzer prize winning economist Thomas Friedman has referred to in one of his many books as those “pay-as-you go progressives” or politicos who combine fiscal prudence with growth initiatives in order to facilitate the possibility of making their cities, their states or even the nation as a whole great once again.

When Reed took office in January of 2010, Atlanta had $7.4 million in reserves, an out-of-control budget and was lying off so many fire fighters that the number of persons on a truck was below national standards. Today, the city has $58 million in reserves, and with the budget under control, has been able to rehire or add new fire fighters as well as to reopen 16 recreational centers in the city’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods that had been previously closed for lack of money. One of the first things Reed did to accomplish these changes was to sit down with city employees to renegotiate the pension plans for current and future workers in the context of what was viewed by all parties as reasonable given the economic realities.

Editor’s Note:  Gregg Barak is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Eastern Michigan University and the author/editor of numerous books and essays which may be sampled at http://www.greggbarak.com.  Dr. Barak’s thoughtful blog and perspective is very much appreciated.

Steve Kessler:                   Please remain seated.  In The People versus Barack Obama, President of The United States of America, the first ever Social Media People’s Court is now in session, the Honorable Arnold Lambert presiding.

Arnold Lambert:               Good day.  The Grand Jury of the Social Media People’s Court having indicted President Barack Obama on charges of repeatedly making false or reckless statements to “we the people” of the United States, and The People and Defendant Obama having each completed the presentation of their respective cases, I understand that the jury has reached a decision.  Is that correct, Mr. Kessler?

Kessler:                              That’s correct, your honor.

Lambert:                            Then you may please proceed with the reading of the verdict, Mr. Kessler.

Kessler:                               Very well, your honor.  We, the jury, of the first ever Social Media People’s Court, on the charges of repeatedly making false statements to we the people, either falsely or recklessly, find the Defendant, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, GUILTY as charged.

Lambert:                            Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, with the thanks of this Court, you have responsibly completed your service to we the people and you are hereby dismissed.  The Defendant, having been found guilty of the charges against him, will now be held accountable by we the people as they see fit.

Kessler:                              The first ever Social Media People’s Court is now in recess.

Steve Kessler:                   Please remain seated.  In The People versus Barack Obama, President of The United States of America, the first ever Social Media People’s Court is now in session, the Honorable Arnold Lambert presiding.

Arnold Lambert:               Good day.  The Grand Jury of the Social Media People’s Court has indicted President Barack Obama on charges of repeatedly making false or reckless statements to “we the people” of the United States.  The People and Defendant Obama have each completed the presentations of their respective cases, The People’s prosecution case in chief and Defendant Obama’s defense case in chief.

We have come to that stage of these proceedings where it is time for each side to present their closing arguments to the jury.  As is customary, the prosecution goes first and the defense follows second.  It is within my discretion to set the amount of time that each side will be allowed to present their closing arguments.  While each side is allotted an equal amount of time, the prosecution is permitted to reserve a portion of its time to make final arguments after the defendant’s closing arguments.

Because of the importance of this case, in pre-trial proceedings, I offered counsel an opportunity, if they both agreed, to present closing arguments in two successive sessions of this Court.  Counsel in this case have agreed on very little, but they did agree to accept my offer.  As a result, today we will hear Part One of each side’s closing arguments.  One week from today, as originally scheduled, we will hear Part Two of each side’s closing arguments.  In each part, as customary, the People will be entitled to reserve a portion of their closing argument to follow Defendant Obama’s closing arguments.

In exercising my discretion to set the total amount of time each side will be permitted to present their closing arguments, I have decided that each side will be allowed to speak for 30 minutes, both in Part One and again in Part Two.  Of course, neither side is required to use all of its time.  Indeed, I would find it refreshing if either side decided to use less time than allotted.  However, in all of my years on the bench, I have seldom come across a lawyer who voluntarilyspoke less than permitted.

With that said, are counsel ready to proceed?

Ron Barak:          Good day, your honor.  The People are ready to proceed with Part One of their closing argument.  As permitted, the People will reserve a portion of their time to follow President Obama’s closing argument.

Manny Reyes:   Good day, your honor.  The President is also ready to proceed.

Lambert:              Very well.  The lectern is yours, Mr. Barak.

Barak:   Thank you, your honor.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Judge Lambert’s experience to the contrary, I will be quite brief.

“We the people’s” grand jury has indicted President Barack Obama in the first ever Social Media People’s Court for repeatedly making false or reckless public statements.  Preliminarily, I would like to emphasize two points.  First, the charges against Defendant Obama are not merely that he has made false or reckless public statements, but that he has done so repeatedly.  Second, it is a particularly sad day in the political history of this country when the need has arisen to level such charges against a sitting president of the United States.

Well, that sad day is here.  Defendant Obama has made reckless, if not outright false, statements to “we the people.”  And…he has done this not just once, but over and over.  And over.  And over again.  Not just an accidental slip of the tongue, which certainly can happen to any public speaker, Defendant Obama has intentionally, and callously, and with complete disregard for the sanctity of truth and integrity, repeatedly made false statements to “we the people.”

Your honor, the People will reserve the balance of their time until after we hear closing arguments from Mr. Reyes on behalf of Defendant Obama.

Reyes:  Your honor!  President Obama objects!

Lambert:              Objects to what, Mr. Reyes?

Reyes:  We object to the fact that Mr. Barak has not summarized his case.  He has not tied together for the jury the evidence on which he relies to meet the People’s burden of proof.

Lambert:              Let me see, Mr. Reyes.  You are complaining not that the People have failed to meet their burden of proof, but that you want the People to do more?  That’s certainly a first!

Reyes:  Exactly, your honor.  Defendant Obama is entitled to hear what the People’s case is and to formulate his closing arguments accordingly.

Lambert:              Mr. Barak, do you wish to be heard in response to Mr. Reyes’ remarks?

Barak:   Your honor, apparently like you, this is the first time I have ever heard a defendant argue that the prosecution should do more.

Lambert:              Watch it, Mr. Barak.  I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself.  This is the first time I have ever heard a defendant argue that the prosecution should do more.

Barak:   That’s what I said you said.

Lambert:              Mr. Barak!

Barak:   Sorry, your honor.  Nevertheless, the People reserve the balance of their time, and trust that this exchange is not being charged to the People’s clock.

Lambert:              Do you have anything more to say in support of your objection, Mr. Reyes?

Reyes:  Your honor, the defense wants you to order to Barak to put on the prosecution’s full case in chief so that President Obama can respond.

Lambert:              Your objection is overruled, Mr. Reyes.  While Mr. Barak’s tactics are unusual, he is well within his rights.  There is no law that requires Mr. Barak to do anything at this time, let alone anything he chooses not to do.  It is now up to you, Mr. Reyes.  Do you or do you not have a closing argument that you wish to make?  If you don’t, then we will come back to Mr. Barak for the time he has reserved.

Reyes:  Well, your honor, bearing in mind that we have a Part Two of closing arguments coming in the next session, Defendant Obama will pass on any closing argument at this time.

Lambert:              Very well.  Mr. Barak, you are now entitled to the balance of your Part One closing argument time.  Do you have anything you wish to add at this time?

Barak:   No, your honor, I do not.  The People will await Part Two of closing arguments.  However, if Mr. Reyes is up to the task, The People are prepared to move on to Part Two right here and now.

Lambert:              What do you say about that, Mr. Reyes?

Reyes:  President Obama is just as prepared as Mr. Barak is.  If that’s what it takes to hear Mr. Barak’s closing argument, President Obama is prepared to move on to Part Two right here and now and get this absurd case over once and for all.

Lambert:              Alright, then.  Mr. Barak, the floor is yours.  Let’s hear your Part Two closing argument.

Barak:   Thank you, your honor.  The People will reserve all of their Part Two closing argument until after we hear from Defendant Obama.

Reyes:  Your honor!

Lambert:              Enough, Mr. Reyes.  We’ve just gone through this.  The People are well within their rights to hear from you first if that’s what they wish to do.

Reyes:  Very well, your honor.  Then Defendant Obama will wait until the next session to present his closing argument.

Lambert:              No, sir.  You just agreed with Mr. Barak to conclude closing arguments today and I ordered that we would do so.  My specific words were “Alright, then.”  You are either going to present your closing arguments now or you will have no closing arguments.  Which is it?

Reyes:  We will proceed, then, your honor.

Lambert:              You’re on the clock, Mr. Reyes.

Reyes:  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have just seen a shameless, low blow tactic on the part of Mr. Barak.

Lambert:              Hold it right there, Mr. Reyes.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will disregard Mr. Reye’s statement about Mr. Barak.  Mr. Barak is not on trial here.  That remark has nothing to do with closing arguments.  As I ruled, Mr. Barak was totally within his rights in reserving his closing argument until he hears Defendant Obama’s close.  Mr. Reyes?

Reyes:  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.  The People have listed five alleged instances of misstatement on the part of the President.  I hasten to emphasize the word “alleged.”  The People utterly fail to meet their burden to prove that President Obama has done anything wrong.

We all know that politicians take some liberty in formulating their public remarks.  Allow me to examine the five misstatements the President is alleged to have made:

First, President Obama is on record of stating—repeatedly—that he never heard Reverend Wright make any anti-American statements during the 20 years he attended Reverend Wright’s church.  You have heard The People’s Case.  They have not produced one witness to President Obama ever admitting otherwise.  The People have not met their burden of proof.

Second, President Obama obviously believes in the health care bill recently enacted in law.   He believes in that passionately.  The People simply offer no testimony or other evidence that this is not the case.  Again, The People have not met their burden of proof.

Third, President Obama is bringing about change in the way we regulate the oil industry.  It is beyond credulity to suggest that this is a false statement.

Fourth, President Obama is also going to bring about change in the way we handle the immigration issue in this country.  Again, the President has made no false or reckless statements to the public in this regard.  The People woefully fail to meet their burden of proof.

Fifth, there can be no question that the President’s stimulus plan is fixing our economy.  Understandably, The People want to see more accomplished, and they want to see it accomplished more quickly.  These are difficult issues; it takes time to address them.  However, the President is doing just that.  He has not misstated anything in this regard.

One, two, three, four, five, the President has made no false or reckless statements to “we the people.”  The People have not met their burden of proof and these frivolous charges against our sitting President should and must be dismissed without further delay.  President Obama is innocent and he must be acquitted.  Thank you.

Lambert:              Thank you, Mr. Reyes.  Now, Mr. Barak, are you now ready to be heard?

Barak:   I am, your honor.  Thank you.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, allow me to repeat something you just heard Mr. Reyes say to you:  “We all know that politicians take some liberty in formulating their public remarks.”  “Some liberty,” says Mr. Reyes.  “Some,” says Mr. Reyes.

I guess it’s a matter of degree.  Sure, all politicians take some liberties in what they say.  Sure, a little liberty is probably okay.  However, when does “a little” become “a little too much?”

I’m reminded of another cliché:  “All is fair in love and war.”  When “a little” becomes “all,” that is “a little too much.”  The problem is that our political representatives today have lost their way.  They have lost their perspective.  They don’t seem to understand the difference between “a little” and “a little too much.”  They also seem to have lost their sense of the boundaries of “love and war.”  Are our political representatives in love with us or at war with us?  It’s pretty hard to characterize our politicians as being in love with us.  So, it must be that they perceive they are at war with “we the people.”  It sure seems like it’s “them” against “us.”

You all just heard Mr. Reyes complain that I abused the system to get the last word.  Do you think I abused the system?  The system already gives me the last word.  What Mr. Reyes meant is that he didn’t want to formulate his closing argument until he first heard mine.  Why is that?  Wasn’t Mr. Reyes’ closing argument already formulated based on the evidence already before the jury?  Why did he need to hear me first?  The answer is because Mr. Reyes is guilty of precisely what his client, President Obama, is guilty of, playing around with words to say what he thinks is strategic to say and not what he believes to be the truth.

Well, lawyers use strategy to advocate the interests of their clients.  In this case, I employed a strategy to help illustrate to you, the jury, what our political leaders, President Obama first and foremost, are doing today, not just “a little” misspeaking, but “a little too much” misspeaking.  In fact, a lot too much misspeaking.  I did nothing more than follow the rules on behalf of my clients.  Nothing wrong in following the rules.  What President Obama has done, over and over, is to bend the rules against the interests of his clients, “we the people.”  That kind of behavior is terrible.

Mr. Reyes argues that The People have not met their burden of proof.  He wants The People to come up with a smoking gun, something like an email in which the President admits he was lying.  That would be what I would do if I were Perry Mason or NBC’s recently retired Supreme Court Justice Cyrus Garza.  But I’m not one of those clever fictional characters playing out some kind of fantasy.  And I’m not as smart as those guys.  I’m just a real lawyer in the real world having to put on a real world case about real world issues, doing the best I can.

And the best I can is this:  The law doesn’t require smoking gun admissions.  All the law requires is competent, lawful evidence for the jury to consider.  Circumstantial evidence, what common sense dictates, is one such form of competent, lawful evidence.  What does your common sense tell you about Defendant Obama’s remarks to “we the people?”

Does your common sense allow you to conclude that President Obama could have attended Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years and never heard Reverend Wright utter a single anti-American remark?  Then why did President Obama suddenly part company with Reverend Wright?  And has he really parted company with Reverend Wright or just said he was doing so?

And please don’t be fooled by Mr. Reyes’ subtle attempt to change the second subject from what Defendant Obama believes about the economic viability of his health care legislation to his belief that we need a better form of health care in this country than what we had.  No one disputes that our health care system is broken and needs fixing, especially for the benefit of those who truly can’t afford appropriate medical coverage.    However, the issue here is whether Defendant Obama truly believes in the economic viability of his health care bill—or whether he is just trying to redistribute the so called wealth of this country.

President Obama asks us to be patient and wait  for the “change” he has promised.  He knew precisely what was wrong when he was campaigning for president, and how he was going fix it.  However, two years into his presidency, regulation of the oil industry has not changed at all.  Was he lying when he said he knew what was wrong and how to fix it?  Or was he lying when he said he was going to fix it?

The same is true when the President says he is mending our economic ailments and is going to repair the flawed immigration system in this country.  As retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Garza put it just last week, President Obama is not trying to improve our immigration system, but is simply trying to game “we the people” and curry political favor, spelled  V  O  T  E  S !

President Barack Obama is wasting his considerable talent, a man who has lost his way and any understanding of what it means to tell the truth and to truly lead our country.  Defendant Obama is guilty as charged and should be convicted by the jury.

Thank you.

Lambert:              Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case is now concluded.  You will retire to the jury room and decide whether President Barack Obama is innocent or guilty of the charges against him, recklessly or falsely making misstatements to “we the people.”  Thank you for your attention and continuing efforts.  You must reach your decision on or before October 18, 2010, when we will reconvene this Court to hear your decision.  Should you reach your decision any sooner, you must hold that in confidence until it is announced on October 18, 2010.

Kessler:                The People’s Court is in recess until October 18, 2010.

Steve Kessler:   Please remain seated.  In People versus Barack Obama, President of The United States of America, The first ever Social Media People’s Court is again in session, the Honorable Arnold Lambert  presiding.

Arnold Lambert:               Good day.  This is People versus Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.  Defendant Obama is charged with repeatedly making false or reckless statements to “we the people” of the United States.  The defendant has pleaded not guilty.  Each side has now presented its opening statement and case in chief.  All counsel are present in court today.  Mr. Barak, do the people wish to put on a reply case today?

Ron Barak:          Good day, your honor.  Frankly, the people don’t feel that Defendant Obama put on much of a defense case at all—illustrative of the way in which the President is purporting to run the country—but the people do have a brief reply case they are prepared to present today.

Lambert:       Very well, then.  We will hear the people’s reply case at this time.

Barak:  Defendant Obama is on trial here for repeatedly misspeaking to the people he is supposedly serving, recklessly if not outright falsely.  Ironically, the President began his defense by telling yet another lie!  The first words of defense from the President were—and I quote—first, the economic challenges facing the country were caused by the prior Republican administrations.

This is a perfect illustration of Defendant Obama’s half-truths and outright lies.  It is true that President Bush was in office when many of the actions referred to by the Defendant took place.  However, most of the underlying legislative acts were passed by a Congress controlled by the Democrats, not the Republicans.  President Bush may not have vetoed those bills, but to suggest that the Democrats had nothing to do with them is just another lie on the part of this Defendant.

President Obama then went on to say that he has been and continues to be entirely open and above board with we the people.  Really?  Who in this country genuinely has the slightest idea what is on this President’s mind?  President Obama says he wants to—quote—change the country.  But change it to what?  He certainly is not telling we the people what he wants to do with our country.

President Obama then went on to say to the jury that he is not about to allow himself to be steamrolled in these proceedings by we the people—even if he apparently has to keep on lying to defend himself.

Reyes:  Objection, your honor!

Lambert:       Mr. Barak, you should save the rhetoric for your closing argument.  Objection sustained.  If you have any reply evidence you wish to present, let’s hear it.  If not, we can move ahead to closing arguments.

Barak:   My apologies, your honor.  I’ll move on.

Let’s consider the Defendant’s contention that he never heard Reverend Jeremiah Wright make any anti-American statements during the 20 years the Defendant attended services at the Reverend’s church.  The Defendant does not deny that to this day he claims not to have heard an anti-American statement from Reverend Wright during those 20 years, but, he argues, that the people have not and cannot meet their burden of proof that he was lying.

Not only is the President apparently hard of hearing, but he also needs to have his reading glasses checked.  Not only was Reverend Wright repeatedly making anti-American remarks during those 20 years, but the media was repeatedly writing about those remarks—over and over.  So, not only did Defendant not hear any of those remarks while he sat in Reverend Wright’s church for some 20 years, but it seems he also didn’t come across any of the hundreds of news reports of those anti-American statements—and the fact that Reverend Wright never denied making those anti-American statements.

It is flat out frivolous for the Defendant to contend that he was unaware of Reverend Wright’s well reported anti-American position.  President Obama must believe that the only way the people can meet its burden of proof is to come up with something like a smoking gun email from the Defendant admitting that he knew Reverend Wright was making anti-American remarks.  But of course that is not the only kind of evidence the jury can consider in deciding whether Defendant Obama is lying about this.  Circumstantial evidence is perfectly appropriate for the jury to consider.  It is well within the jury’s judgment and discretion to consider that the Defendant must have known what everyone else familiar with Reverend Wright knew he was saying about the United States.

Reyes:          Objection, your honor.  Mr. Barak is attempting to instruct the jury.  Only the Court may instruct the jury.

Lambert:       Okay, Mr. Reyes.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, only I am permitted to instruct you about the law, which I will do before you adjourn to deliberate the charges against the President.  That said, however, the people are well within their rights to present their case and evidence to the jury, including the circumstantial evidence to which Mr. Barak refers.  You may continue Mr. Barak.

Barak:           Thank you, your honor.   

In exactly the same fashion, the President does not deny that raising tax rates to fund the cost of his health care legislation will not necessarily result in greater tax revenue.  He just says, once again, that the people have not met their burden of proof that the President actually understood that.  It’s not rocket science to understand that raising the cost of a loaf of bread from $X to $10X dollars will make it more expensive to buy bread—and will reduce the amount of bread being sold.  Again, the people are perfectly within their rights to present circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of proof that Defendant Obama was reckless, if not an outright liar, when he said that he could raise taxes on the wealthy to cover the additional costs of his health care legislation.  If the Defendant has the native intelligence to run our country, he should also be able to understand that raising prices does not necessarily assure more revenue.

As for the other illustrations the people offered that Defendant Obama speaks recklessly and/or falsely, all that the Defendant says, over and over, is that the issues are complex and change takes time.  In other words, the Defendant says that we should just trust him, and accept whatever he says.  We are approaching the half way mark of the President’s first term in office.  We are still waiting.  But we are no longer trusting.  This President behaves like a lame duck president.  We can only hope that at least he has that right!

This concludes the people’s reply case.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we the people thank you.

Lambert:              Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will stand adjourned until September 27, when the parties will each present their closing arguments.

Kessler:                The People’s Court is now again in recess.

Steve Kessler:   Please remain seated.  In People versus Barack Obama, President of The United States of America, The first ever Social Media People’s Court is again in session, the Honorable Arnold Lambert  presiding.

Arnold Lambert:               Good day.  This is People versus Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.  Defendant Obama is charged with repeatedly making false or reckless statements to “we the people” of the United States.  The defendant has pleaded not guilty.  The people have presented their opening statement and case in chief.  I see that all counsel are present here in the court today.  Is President Obama ready to put on his defense case?

Manny Reyes:   Good day, your honor.  Manny Reyes, White House Chief of Staff, appearing on behalf of Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.  We are ready to proceed, your honor.

Lambert:              Are the people ready, Mr. Barak?

Ron Barak:          Good day, your honor.  The people are ready.

Lambert:              The defendant waived making an opening statement at the commencement of this trial.  Do you wish to make an opening statement at this time, Mr. Reyes, or does the defense prefer to proceed directly to its case in chief?

Reyes:  If necessary, we will make a brief opening statement at this time, your honor, and then proceed with the President’s defense case in chief.   However, we would first like to move the Court to dismiss the charges against the President.  Even if everything the people contend in their case in chief might arguably be true—which is not the case—the people have not met their burden of proof and the case must be dismissed without requiring President Obama to put on a defense.

Lambert:              Motion denied, Mr. Reyes.  We’ll hear your defense case at this time.

Reyes:  Yes, your honor.  In his opening statement, Mr. Barak acknowledged that we are facing economic challenges not seen since the Great Depression of 1929.  Mr. Barak then went on to claim that the confidence of we the people in our political representatives is at an all-time low.

Mr. Barak is rather verbose.  In contrast, I will cut to the chase.

First, the economic challenges facing the country were caused by the prior Republican administrations. 

Second, it is the Republicans who are doing everything in their power to make President Obama fail in his mission to overcome the mess created by the prior Republican administrations.

Third, President Obama has been and continues to be entirely open and above board with we the people.

Those prosecuting this case are, plain and simple, on a witch hunt.  They ought to go about their business and allow the President to go about his business.  President Obama is no witch and he is not about to allow himself to be steamrolled.

Barak:   In fact, the people would love to know just what President Obama thinks his business is.

Reyes:  Objection, your honor.  I didn’t interrupt Mr. Barak when he was making his opening statement.

Barak:   I was under the impression that Mr. Reyes had completed his opening statement, your honor.

Lambert:              That’s enough from both of you.  Are you in fact ready to proceed with the defendant’s case in chief, Mr. Reyes?

Reyes:  I am, your honor.

Lambert:              Alright, then, let’s get on with it.

Reyes:  As I understand it, the first thing the people attempted to do in their case was to flagrantly invade the sanctity of the President’s religious beliefs.

Barak:   Objection, your honor.  In no way have the people invaded the defendant’s religious beliefs.  This case is about the integrity of the President, not his religious beliefs.  The people’s first point was that the President lied when he said he never heard Reverend Jeremiah Wright make any anti-American statement in the 20 years the defendant attended Reverend Wright’s church.

Lambert:              Objection sustained.  The people hardly invaded the defendant’s religious briefs or preferences.  In a purely secular manner, the people have simply placed in question the truth or falsity of certain statements that the President made.  Having chosen to say what he did, the defendant cannot now be heard to object to an examination of the integrity of his remarks.

Reyes:  Very well, your honor.  Nevertheless, Mr. Barak has no crystal ball that I see.  Nor has he offered any smoking gun.  The facts are that President Obama has stated that he never heard Reverend Wright make any anti-American statements during the 20 years the President attended services at the Reverend’s church.  The people have not and cannot meet their burden of proof that the President was lying.

This brings us to the people’s second point, that President Obama lied to the people when he said that he would cover any economic shortfalls in his healthcare legislation by raising tax rates on the wealthy.  Once again, Mr. Barak has failed to produce his magic crystal ball to show that President Obama doesn’t believe precisely what he has said, namely that he will impose new taxes on the very rich in this country to make sure they are paying their fair share and assuring the economic viability of the President’s healthcare legislation.  Moreover, the people’s reliance on economic analysis is nothing more than inappropriate opinion that should not be admissible.  Here, too, then, the people completely fail to meet their burden of proof.

Barak:   Objection, your honor.

Lambert:              Objection sustained.  Mr. Reyes, you know better than that.  Opinion testimony from qualified experts is perfectly admissible, for determination by the jury of the appropriate weight to be given such opinion testimony.

Reyes:  Your honor, even if that is so, the fact is that the people have no competent evidence that President Obama doesn’t believe what he said about the viability and sufficiency of raising the tax rates on the wealthy.

This brings me to the people’s so called case against President Obama concerning the oil spill.

Barak:   Objection, your honor.  Once again, Mr. Reyes is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the People’s Court jury.   While the people do believe that the defendant’s record in dealing with the oil industry is abysmal, that is not the issue on trial here.  What is being tried here is whether President Obama lied to the people when he promised “change.”

Lambert:  Objection denied, Mr. Barak.  You are mincing words.  I’m confident that the jury understands that what Mr. Reyes meant was that he was now turning to question of whether President Obama has been truthful with the people concerning his intentions to reel in the oil industry and to make it more accountable than it was during the prior Republican administrations.

Barak:   Thank you for helping me to clarify that for the jury.  I’ll defer to your honor.  Objection withdrawn.

Reyes:  Your honor!  You already denied Mr. Barak’s objection.  There’s no objection for him to withdraw.

Lambert:              Mr. Reyes.  Now who’s mincing words?  Move on, please.

Reyes:  The President’s position concerning the oil industry is simple.  These are complex matters.  President Obama has every intention of implementing the changes he promised in this area, but it takes time, especially when the Republicans thwart the President at every opportunity.

This brings us to the people’s charges concerning immigration reform.  Once again, we are dealing with very sensitive, complicated issues, made all the more difficult by the bad faith refusal of the Republicans to work with the President.

The same is true of the people’s final point, their claim that the President is lying in claiming that his stimulus approach to bringing the country out of the depths of depression is working.  Clearly, the President’s stimulus efforts are working.  Who are the people to claim otherwise?  They just need to be more patient, particularly in the face of the contrarian conduct of the Republicans.

Lambert:              I believe that was the final point that the people advanced, Mr. Reyes.  Do you have anything more that you wish to say in defense of the President?

Reyes:  Just that the President was elected by we the people and given a mandate to bring about the change that President Obama promised.  The President is doing precisely as he promised.  The people have to be patient and allow the President to finish the job he has started.  The President has not misspoken to the people, not once.  The people have not met their burden of proof.  The charges against President Obama are absurd and must be dismissed.  The defense rests, your honor.  Thank you.

Lambert:              Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will stand adjourned until September 20, when the prosecution will be entitled to put on its reply case.

Kessler:                The  People’s Court is now again in recess.

Steve Kessler:                  Please remain seated.  In The People versus Barack Obama, President of The United States of America, The first ever Social Media People’s Court is now in session, the Honorable Arnold Lambert presiding.

Arnold Lambert:                Good day.  The Grand Jury of the Social Media People’s Court has indicted President Barack Obama on charges of repeatedly making false or reckless statements to “we the people” of the United States.  Are counsel for the people and the President ready to proceed?

Ron Barak:                          Good day, your honor.  Ron Barak representing the people.  We are ready to proceed.

Manny Reyes:                    Good day,  your honor.  Manny Reyes, White House Chief of Staff, representing President Obama.  The President is also ready to proceed.

Lambert:                             Very well.  Mr. Reyes, do you wish to have the charges read?

Reyes:                                That won’t be necessary, your honor.  The President is a busy man and waives reading of the charges so this trial may be concluded as rapidly as possible.

Lambert:                             You may proceed, then, with your opening statement, Mr. Barak.

Barak:                                 Thank you, your honor.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, these are unprecedented times.

                                           We are facing economic challenges not seen since the Great Depression of 1929.  The confidence of we the people in our political representatives is at an all time low.  No wonder:  Like Nero, our representatives are fiddling while Rome is  burning.   Abandoning their solemn oath to serve we the people, all our leaders – majority and minority alike – want to do is gild their own lilies, preserve their own interests at the expense of we the people, and point their collective fingers at the opposite sides of the aisle.   And while they do nothing useful for we the people, the country is burning.  Respected political bloggers Paige Norman and Nopi made this clear in their NoPoli.org blogs on July 18 and July 19, copies of which will be presented to the jury during this trial.

Reyes:                                Your honor!

Lambert:                             Mr. Barak.  Mr. Reyes is correct.  While the use of these arguably unsubstantiated personal opinions of Ms. Norman and … Mr. or Ms. Nopi is admissible in this People’s Court for the jury to consider as it deems appropriate, is there a point relevant to this trial amid all of your rhetoric that you wish to make?

Barak:                                 Indeed there is, your honor.  My point is this:  The lack of integrity among our political representatives is at epidemic proportions.  Our leaders have lost their way.  They think they are free to spin whatever they wish to say whenever they wish to say it.  Truth counts for nothing.  All that matters is achieving their agendas and objectives.

                                            The lack of public trust in our leaders has reached crisis level.  Our politicians must return to the proper discharge of their duties.  This will not happen until our representatives are held accountable for their all too frequent misstatements, whether merely reckless or outright false.  As the highly regarded journalist Leah Klein pointed out in her June 30 seminal article on “A Truth in Politics Code and Commission for We The People,” a copy of which will be presented to the jury during this trial, the time  has come for procedures to be bring these rampant political misstatements to an end.

                                            However, until such time as our representatives are prepared to enact laws to hold themselves accountable, it is up to we the people to speak out and make this happen.  Nowhere do we have a better example of such repeated political misstatements than in the case of President Barack Obama.  Whatever his actual agenda is, President Obama clearly feels that he is above any form of accountability and that he is entitled to say whatever he wants whenever he wants to achieve his  agenda – without regard to the falsity of his remarks.

                                            Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have a singular opportunity here to send a loud and clear message to all of our politicians by convicting President Obama of repeatedly making false statements to we the people, whether knowingly or merely recklessly.  Thank you for your attention, your service, and your consideration.

Lambert:                            Thank you, Mr. Barak.  Mr. Reyes, do you wish to make an opening statement for the President, Defendant Barack Obama?

Reyes:                                 Your honor, President Obama will reserve his opening statement until the presentation of his defense case after Mr. Barak puts on his case for we the people…that is if Mr. Barak has any case to put on.

Lambert:                              Mr. Reyes, I understand that Mr. Barak is already on record being critical of you in his book a season for redemption.  However, your personal feelings for Mr. Barak have no place in this courtroom.  That attitude may be precisely why the President finds himself on trial here.  You would do well to demonstrate more respect for these proceedings, and the jury, if not Mr. Barak as well.

                                            Mr. Barak, are you ready to proceed with your case against Defendant Obama?

Barak:                               I am, your honor, thank you.  As for Mr. Reyes’ animus, I’ll deal with that in the sequel to a season for redemption.

Lambert:                             Let’s get on with it, Mr. Barak.

Barak:                                 Very well, your honor.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, actually the case against President Obama is really quite an easy one to make.  Every dog gets his first bite.  In the case of President Obama, he has already devoured the entire carcass, making one reckless or false statement after another since becoming President of these United States, if not prior to that.  Time will not permit me to chronicle all of the Presidents false and reckless statements to the public since being elected President.  However, that should not be necessary.  Please consider the following examples:

                                              During his  election campaign, the Defendant was accused of long term relationships with several radical personalities who harbored extreme anti-American sentiments, outright hatred for the U.S.  One of those persons, Reverend Jeremiah  Wright, was the leader of the church the President supposedly attended for some 20 years.  When asked how he could support such a person for so many years, President Obama responded that he never heard Reverend Wright utter one anti-American statement in all those years!  Putting aside the possibility that the Defendant is hard of hearing, he must be lying.  Either he heard the oft made anti-American remarks of Reverend Wright in spite of his denials or he wasn’t present in that church as he claims, perhaps contributing to the belief of 25% of the people of this country that the Defendant is a Muslim and not a Christian.

Reyes:                                  Objection, your honor, the President’s religious beliefs are not on trial here.

Lambert:                              Objection denied, Mr. Reyes.  The President’s integrity is on trial here and the President’s religious and political commitments are relevant to the extent they bear on his integrity.  Proceed, Mr. Barak.

Barak:                                   The point here is that the Defendant is virtually, if not literally, the only person in the country who claims to be unaware of Reverend Wright’s loudly and oft outspoken anti-American views. Strike one against President Obama’s integrity.  Let’s take another example, the President’s at all costs behavior in pushing through his health care legislation.

                                                In addition to the President’s remarkably ugly attempt to buy Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, President Obama maintains to this date that his health care legislation is economically viable.  However, Defendant Obama totally ignores credible economic evidence in supposedly making his assumption that taxation of the rich will successfully underwrite the cost of his health care “reform.”  Health care for all is indeed noble, but the Defendant refuses to admit his all but certain knowledge of the compelling economic evidence that when the rich are pushed too far with taxation, they stop working as hard and the increased taxation rates actually result in less tax revenue.

                                               Just like it is not credible for President Obama to claim he had no idea what was on Reverend Wright’s mind, it is also not credible that President Obama is unaware of the economic vulnerability of his health care legislation.  So, what was Defendant Obama not telling us?  That he is just out to redistribute the wealth or that he is just out to buy the votes of the low income masses no matter the consequences?  Whatever it is, he’s not telling it like it really is.

                                               Let’s consider for a moment the President’s record against the oil industry.  President Obama ran on a platform of “change.”  Beyond question, the Republicans were way to cozy with the oil industry, but let’s take a look at what the Defendant did to “change” that after he was elected.  Oh, that’s right…he did nothing to change that cozy relationship between the oil industry and the government bureaucrats who regulate the oil industry.  Prompt change in that lack of regulation might have been in time to prevent the BP oil spill catastrophe.  President Obama’s talk of “change” doesn’t seem very honest to we the people.  Of course, there are numerous additional examples of lack of change on the part of this President, but we don’t need any examples to demonstrate the President’s clear pattern of half truths and no truths.  However, one more example worth mentioning is the lack of change or progress in the immigration challenges confronting our nation.

                                               Allow me a moment to speak about the Arizona immigration law fiasco.  To be clear, the fiasco to which I refer is not the Arizona law, but the reaction of the Defendant’s administration to the Arizona law.  First of all, the Arizona law is not all that different than the federal immigration law  that has been on the books forever, though all but ignored.  Why?  Because the Defendant, and Congress as well, are afraid to enforce the law in an election year.  There is nothing wrong with the Arizona law, a law also being considered by several states besides Arizona.  Arizona is not guilty of interfering with the federal law, but is only guilty of wanting to enforce it.  Yet the President’s Attorney General admittedly criticized the Arizona law before even reading it!  More untrustworthy statements by the President and his administration.

                                               Perhaps a bit more subjective, the President also claims that his stimulus efforts are working.  What data is he looking at?  Ask the ranks of the unemployed, growing every month, if they think the stimulus efforts of the Defendant are working.  The only thing that is working for the unemployed are the President’s printing presses, printing more and more handouts for the unemployed.  Of course, we can’t abandon our employed brothers and sisters, but what they need are jobs, not handouts.  It is not credible that the President believes his stimulus is working.  The Defendant may feel that something he has in mind is working, but whatever that might be, it’s not the unemployed who are working!

                                               I could go on, but I don’t think it’s necessary.  The charges against Defendant Obama are that he makes repeated statements to the public at best reckless and at worst outright false.  If the examples presented here today are not enough to show that the President is guilty as  charged, then just piling on more  examples is not going to change anything, just like the President has not changed anything.

Reyes:                                 Objection, your honor.

Lambert:                             Lighten up, Mr. Reyes.  You’ll get your turn.  Do you have anything further, Mr. Barak?

Barak:                                  The people rest for now, your honor.  Thank you.

Lambert:                             Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will stand adjourned then until September 13, when Mr. Reyes will present his defense of President Obama.

Kessler:                               The People’s Court is in recess.

LEADERSHIP is a solemn responsibility.  An oath to lead is a promise not to be made—or taken—lightly.  It should not be taken lightly by those who make it.  It should not be taken lightly by those to whom it is made.

Too often, our leadership becomes caught up in the practicalities of the day.  The integrity of their oath becomes the forgotten warrior.  When our corporate leaders lose sight of what their priorities should be, their stockholders are there to remind them.  When our political leaders lose their way, it is our voters—we the people—who must remind them.

Plato said it centuries ago.  Overlooking his lack of gender sensitivity, it could not be truer today:

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs

is to be ruled by evil men.

To be perfectly clear, this is not a matter of left or right, liberal or conservative.  All of us must make sure that we are properly heard by our leaders.

To this end, I congratulate the editorial board of NoPoli Network News for putting together this unique and very special website, NoPoli.org.  I have had the opportunity to closely review NNN’s website.  For each of us who may feel just a bit overwhelmed trying to keep up with everything happening in our country today, NoPoli.org is a great presentation—a crisp, tight focus on what is really timely and important to all of us, but without too much detail to manage, and without ever taking itself too seriously.

NoPoli.org is destined to become a household word, politics without politics, a streamlined version of CNN or Fox, but without any hidden agendas to be met.

I intend to visit NoPoli.org regularly and often.  I encourage all of you to do the same.  Mark it as one of your favorites.  Sign up for its RSS feeds.  Provide your comments and feedback.

About Lod Cook: The challenge is how to describe in only a few words a gentle man who would prefer not to be described at all.  Born Lodwrick Monroe Cook, Lod calls both Louisiana, where he was born, and California, where he now resides, home.  But Louisiana comes first, where Lod is a graduate of LSU and, with apologies to Shaquille O’Neal, quite possibly it’s most prominent, generous and quietly fierce alumnus.  Wikipedia describes Mr. Cook as “an American businessman,” no doubt due to his many years as Chairman and CEO of ARCO, under whose leadership ARCO was widely recognized as one of the most successful corporations in all of America, and his seat on too many philanthropic and corporate boards to name.   NNN describes Mr. Cook as “philanthropist supreme,” “leader by deeds rather than words” and “advisor to the Presidents.”  No exaggeration, Lod has served as a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation and a director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.  NNN is proud to count Mr. Cook among its most cherished friends and supporters.