The Castle Doctrine

Just how far should one be able to go to defend their private property?

Bo Morrison, 20, was shot and killed by homeowner Adam Kind back in March after when Morrison ran away from a party that was held a neighbor's garage next door to Kind and hid on Kind's enclosed porch. Kind called police earlier about loud music coming from a car parked in the neighbor's driveway and actually went to the car himself and asked a woman that was inside to cut down the music, to which she refused to comply.

Police notified the mother of the girls that were hosting the party; she called her husband (who was home, sleeping), and the husband stormed the garage and forced everyone to leave. Morrison (who had previous run-ins with the law and had a blood alcohol content twice the legal limit) was among those that fled the house after the party was broken up.  Morrison fled to Kind's porch where Morrison's life ended with a single shot from Kind's handgun. Kind told police that he got his handgun after hearing noises on the porch. At the time of the shooting, Kind, his wife, his two children, and guest were at home.

Some are comparing this to the Trayvon Martin shooting considering both Martin and Morrison were both young black men (Morrison is technically biracial) gunned down while being unarmed at the hands of white men (Zimmerman is also biracial). However, race really has little to do with the underlying question.

While Zimmerman was charged with murder, Kind was cleared by authorities under Wisconsin's stand your ground/castle doctrine law. Police believed that Kind acted in simple defense of his home. Naturally, Morrison's friends and family did not believe the shooting to be justified. His family started a petition on Change.org to push for a complete repeal Wisconsin's law in regards of defending private property.

More evidence was eventually released, including Morrison being on the phone with police shortly before the shooting; the shooting taking place with police near by, and Kind yelling "stupid fucking kid".

The Castle Doctrine law and the Stand Your Ground law variant are laws that basically say that an individual is not required to retreat before using deadly force if they feel that they are being threatened. A vast majority of states, from the most progressive to the most conservative, have this law including here in Texas. The Castle Doctrine generally supported by most Americans; here in Texas, it enjoys overwhelming support.

Why? Because people feel that they have the right to defend their home or their property. But there's of course the moral quandary to that it can empower some property owners to feel that they have a license to kill anybody that they perceive to be a threat to their property.

There's two ways to look at what happened to Morrison:

The first way, obviously, is that Morrison should have exercised better judgment -- by either not attending the party, by not getting intoxicated, or not running away and hiding on Kind's porch.

The second way, taken on by many of those that are opponents of the Castle Doctrine laws, is that Kind acted unreasonably and the shooting of somebody that was unarmed was unnecessary. In addition, they feel that the additional evidence shows that Kind acted in aggression and not self-defense, largely in anger of the party next door.

As I stated before, the downside to the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws is the potential for an unreasonable reaction to a given situation. However, the majority of the time, people that choose to defend their property or defend themselves using deadly force have a split second decision to make and almost always, its shoot and then ask questions later. Why? It's the abyss of the unknown -- I could say fear, but abyss is really a more accurate term. The individual does not know if an intruder may or may not be armed and what kind of intentions an intruder may or may not have. Risk is always involved on all parties.

People do make mistakes, yes, and I really do not believe Morrison should have lost his life. He was not armed, he was scared, and he was running away. That's all it was. Kind's actions were far too aggressive as to what the Castle Doctrine / Stand Your Ground laws were designed for. Morrison was on Kind's porch, not in Kind's house. If Morrison entered into Kind's house, it would be a different story.

Yet, I believe that the majority of the time that whenever a property owner does use deadly force to defend their property, it is not out of zeal.

I firmly believe that people have the right to their own lives, so as long as they do not maliciously move to intrude upon and violate the rights of others to have their own lives. As a corollary, I believe that you have the right to defend your own life, within reasonable limits, 

if you are faced with a situation where you may have someone standing in front of you that is aiming to maliciously violate your rights.

So the question is, could overzealous reactions, such as what happened with Morrison and Kind and even further back to Joe Horn and the two illegal immigrants here in Pasadena back in 2007 should lead to repeals of Castle Doctrine / Stand Your Ground laws? To all due respect to those involved, I will have to say no. If it's clear that somebody is threatening me or my household, then I have the right to use whatever force necessary to abort that threat, even if it renders the threatening presence dead. However, the laws need to be clear that deadly force should be used when the danger or threat is imminent and demonstrated. 

Buying into political messages

The Democratic Party believed that Scott Walker's demise in the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election -- which seemed like a reality after the standoff between the Walker administration and pro-union Wisconsinites -- was all but a given. Too bad Tom Barrett, the Milwaukee mayor who Walker beat for the job back in 2010, was burned even worse by Walker this time around.

Amongst the numerous things that I deal with on a daily basis -- you know, the web design thing, being a caretaker, and being a college student -- I even had time to ponder what took place in Wisconsin. The dejected left are calling it a case of not enough strong organization, grassroots and financially, against the Walker's Republican Machine; those on the right are championing it as a victory that justifies their small government, personal responsibility ideology.

I'm not really against the idea of unions. I'm not very crazy about paying union dues, but I support the premise behind unions in that they're basically advocating better pay and conditions for its member workers. Of course, there's additional tenets to union mechanism that turns into a shenanigan of semantics (i.e., the United Auto Workers being blamed, and partially rightfully so, for nearly destroying the American automotive industry), but when it comes to premise, I only mean it from the bottom line. However, this post is not about unions. This post is not even specific points about ideology.

Leading progressive writer Robert Scheer wrote on his website Truthdig.org that the triumph of Scott Walker is more or less an indictment against the Democratic Party's inability to create a message that contradicts the Tea Party.

I'll disagree and agree. I'll disagree on the fact that the Tea Party is still a relevant, unified political movement in the way that a lot of political pundits and the media portray it to be. Personally, I think the Tea Party movement has morphed into simply being the hard-right sector of the Republican Party because some of the Tea Party's favorite sons and daughters make their tubthumping be as much about social conservatism as it is about fiscal conservatism, the original core advocacy of and source of passion for the Tea Party. I'll agree on the fact that the Democratic Party doesn't have a viable alternative message against hard-right conservatism.

Chris Bridges, who is indeed a socialist and also a writer on Truthdig.com, wrote a critical piece a few months ago about the Democratic Party accosting the Occupy movement, and hoping to mold it into an analogous response to the Tea Party Movement in the Republican Party. Not only it didn't work, but the Occupy movement became its own worst enemy -- "Occupiers" being "Occupiers" for the sake of being "Occupiers", and not in the interest of coming up with a coherent, unified political message where there was an actual end to justify its means. The Democratic Party's response to the Tea Party movement was more or less dashed -- not to mention, the Occupy movement was not only neoliberal and progressive in nature; there was enough of it that could be considered classically liberal in nature and it can be said that quite a few of those that subscribed to the Occupy movement probably identified themselves as libertarians.

Now to the point of this whole post: if you have a message and the means of that message has ends that justify that message, then people will buy it. In a way, it goes back to American romanticism -- if you work, you will prosper; hand outs unnecessary. Granted, I could have put that in a more poetic way, but this is a blog and not a book, and I have no intention on writing a book.

How the means of a political message is justified by its ends is the main difference between American (neo)conservatism and its apparent acceptance and American neoliberalism and its apparent standing as a political pejorative: anybody can accept the conservative message, no matter the socioeconomic standing or educational level; not everybody can accept the neoliberal message (or classical liberal/libertarian message even), except by those of a certain socioeconomic standing or educational level.

So what does all of this mean? What transpired in Wisconsin was not so much a validation of Walker's policies amongst Wisconsinites, but more of a case of more people on one side (in this case, conservative Republicans) that bought into a message and was mobilized against Barrett. The same thing could be said in the late April to mid May delegation fireworks amongst Ron Paul supporters.

The irony of it is, that despite the prevalent cynicism in the United States politically, it was people buying into a message and being mobilized by it that put Barack Obama into the White House. For the first time in a while, the Democratic Party actually had a coherent, clear message. Indeed, that clear message raised expectations astronomically, and unrealistically, and thus far the President is paying for it heavily, as expected.

But don't take it from me -- it's how politics work. Always has, always will.

Gay marriage and the jurisprudence of marriage law

Many liberals and progressives are up in arms that North Carolina voted to have a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. After mulling over it for the past day or so, I decided I would have a different take on it. This isn't the critical piece or impassioned plea that you think: this is about religion, the neutrality of law, and marriage as a legal, and not religious, institution.

A couple of my friends, whom are both libertarians, made a compelling point -- why is government involved in marriage, which is generally seen as a religious event as it is?

They have a point, and even I began to argue that if the government can't even legalize it for everybody, then the government should get out of the business of establishing jurisprudence when it comes to marriage law -- granted, it would probably put a whole hell of a lot of divorce attorneys out of work. I also argued that marriage is now a legal, not a religious institution. A few have disagreed with me and that's understandable.

However, I'm going to stick with my core belief that I've developed over the years -- if there's going to be laws made in regards to marriage in terns of additional benefits and privileges that would not be made available to persons that are simply cohabitating in a committed, long-term  relationship -- hetero- or homosexual -- of no real, legal status, then marriage is no longer a religious institution, its a legal one. Why do you ask?

It goes back to the Establishment Clause and the actual purpose of it: to not only promote religious freedom and establish the federal government as a religiously neutral institution (yes, secular), but to prevent laws from being passed that pander to religious beliefs while at the same time restricting the rights of others. Others have made it a statement about the United States not being a "Christian nation" (for while the United States is a predominantly Christian nation for the number of adherents to the Christian religion, the Christian religion has never been and its prevented from being made a state religion), its less about that, and more about the prevention of having a single religion to be a de facto state religion. And before I get the usual Christian retort -- there's not even a universal agreement amongst theologians about what the Bible actually said about homosexuality as it is. Hell, there's not even a universal agreement amongst Christians about what's the proper interpretation of the central scripture and the core belief system for what it's worth with all the denominations that exist that reject, contradict, and counter at least one aspect of another.

Before I digress any further, civil rights is not a religious issue, it is a human issue and it is a legal issue. Furthermore, another way to look at it is laws in regards to murder and theft: both are rejected in the Abrahamic religions, but is the criminal prosecution of a murderer or a thief a religious proceeding or a legal proceeding? (It's a rhetorical question, for fuck sake.) You're probably arguing what does that have to do with what I'm arguing, and I'm telling you it has everything to do with what I'm arguing.

As such, with government functioning with religious neutrality (at least, it's supposed to be), the instance of creating a legal structure around the marriage institution moves out of the religious sphere and into the legal sphere. I completely understand marriage as religious symbolism, however, the laws that get passed are really supposed to stand on their own -- whether through a theistic or non-theistic lens. Obviously, there's no legitimate, secular, religiously neutral argument in favor of restricting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from legal status in same sex marriages, unless it's just straight up bigotry.

As a corollary, if Christians are looking to protect the "hallowed institution of marriage", then  they should do so by reclaiming marriage as a religious institution, which they keep doing: actually which means by the way, advocating for all levels of government, federal and state, to end all legal recognition of marriage. Why? Because the Christian Right is claiming a technically legal institution as a religious institution.

Now, as the reader, you should be catching on.

The rhetoric you hear often when "faith" is evoked by American politicians is that its "faith", "the Bible", "Christ" -- you name it -- guides their philosophy and decisions in regards to politics. There's nothing wrong with guidance and at times, it can prove benevolent. Yet, these same Christian politicians (the conservative ones, at least), often act in total discord to what the nation's early leaders and the Constitution itself  aimed for -- to prevent restrictions and abuses in civil rights and liberties in the name of religion.  So here it is in a nutshell: The Christian Right using Christianity as a vehicle to restrict gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from a legal, and civil, institution, blatantly contradicting the timeless "American values" that they so fiercely believe that they're defending.

I made a comment about government getting out of the business of defining what marriage is, and a friend of mine who is conservative expanded on a few extremes in regards to marriage and pedophilia. There's already laws in place in regards to protection of minors that would invalidate any marriage as it is in terms of marriage taking part between two people with somebody that is not of legal age to consent and in a position of abuse.

In the end though, if you're going to have marriage laws, then it has to be recognized that marriage laws are to be religiously neutral, especially in regards to the legally recognized, administered, and protected additional benefits and privileges being given to couples recognized by government jurisdiction as married. Whether you're Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, you still have to show legal, valid proof of marriage to even take advantage of these said benefits and privileges, and while all three faiths worship the same deity, all three of them can't be any further apart than what they are already in terms of what they believe in; as such, it reinforces marriage as a religiously neutral, legal, civil institution that no state or federal government can legally ban certain members of the population from participating in without any religiously neutral, secular justification, of which none exists. If government, especially the state governments that already demonstrated this, is unable to remain religiously neutral when it comes to the legal institution of marriage, then the conversation should begin as to ending the jurisprudence of -- and subsequent government involvement in -- marriage period. 

Time For A New Progressive Era

The last Progressive Movement sprang up United States as a response to the completed transition of American society of being primarily rural and agricultural to being urban and industrial, and consequently, the fully matured relationship between corporate America and American government that persists to this day. It was the Progressive Movement that led to the direct election of Senators, a constitutional amendment allowing for federal income tax collection, labor laws, women's suffrage, and the first real, concerted fight against the increasing influence of corporate America. However, the Progressive Era ended with Warren Harding elected President in 1920, and the big business, wealthy conservative faction of the Republican Party firmly in command.

For the record, progressivism is not liberalism. Where liberalism focuses on the function of society as it relates to government, progressivism focuses on the function of government as it relates to society. Where liberalism is generally reactive political philosophy, progressivism is primarily proactive. However, considering the means of which a liberal or progressive agenda is achieved -- usually through expanded powers of government,  it is not surprising "progressivism" is now an adjective that is used interchangeably with "liberalism", when in truth, it really should not. Nothing is wrong with liberalism and I won't even deny it as a term to describe my own political ideology -- granted, I cross classical liberalism and neoliberalism in act of centrism.

The next Progressive Movement should spring up sooner or later, preferably now, as a proactive response to two major fronts: the hyper partisan, ideological drunkenness that is now dominating American politics and the reality that the United States is transforming from a unilaterally dominant industrialized, blue-collar country to a technologically advanced nation dominated by a service and information economy, and trying to do so in the midst of globalization.

This new movement should be more realistic than the current American ideological currents of liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism. All three have delved deep into idealism with ambitions that are not only unrealistic, but contributes to the current dichotomy in American politics. Civil rights, human rights, and civil liberties should be a given; government regulation should be sensible; government should be efficient; legislators in their legislation should be solving problems with critical thinking in regards to the realities of today and not simply believing in calling problems as they are because they are a direct contradiction of championed ideological stances; advantages and privileges for certain groups and areas should be done away with; and more importantly government should be a complement to society, not a domineering presence over it. In short, it shouldn't be about a "Democratic thing", "Republican thing", "liberal thing", "conservative thing", "Christian thing", or "atheist thing", it should be about where we are in this country as human beings and society in general.

In truth (at least it should be truth), the primary goal of any government is to complement stable society that values the individual as much as it values our current, undeniable interdependence. Despite what you hear in terms of arguments to the contrary, it's possible. We choose to make it impossible by allowing our value structure to be corrupted -- for example, American conservatism moved from aggressively protecting civil rights and liberties to allowing for civil rights and liberties to be subjugated in the name of protectionist nationalism; American liberalism moved from pushing for a proactive government to pushing for a reactive government; and both ideologies will claim positions as if they're kids on the playground picking teams for a playground basketball game.

However, as a reaction to the current social transition, two distinct political movements erupted -- the populist, left-leaning Occupy movement and the populist, right-leaning Tea Party movement. One decried economic inequality as a rise against the purported oligarchical enemy of the rich, American wealthy class; the other decried massive government as a rise against the oligarchical enemy of big government that poaches on the everyday American. Some believe that they're both aiming against the same animal; it's partially true, but mainly it is about an ideological divide brought upon and built upon by two sides of the tunnel-visioned sociopolitical arena.

There's nothing wrong with idealism; there's good that can come out of it, however, ideologically strict idealism has created a severe, numbing paralysis in American politics and a divide in American society where one side vehemently denies the right for you to stand as an individual and another side that vehemently denies the realities of social interdependence. Yet, the real enduring quality of the Progressive Movement was action through common sense -- at least for the most part. While some of the things that the Progressive Movement has brought along still exists to this day in varying degrees, the most admirable thing about the Progressive Movement was its centrism, as it was as liberal as it was conservative as it was libertarian as it was socialist. Yes, this is an appeal for centrism to return, but not the Bill Clinton brand of appeasement centrism; but a centrism founded on one part common sense, one part realism, and one part idealism that's more proactive than reactive.

Bear in mind, and this is the most important thing: while I invoke the last Progressive Movement, I'm not saying there should be another one as if there should be a return of what happened during the Roosevelt-years. I'm saying there should be another Progressive Movement to address the issues of today similar to the one that formed that addressed the issues of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, it takes two things: one, moving forward and not living to recreate the purported glory days of yesterday; two, a much needed maturing of American political discourse. 

Grading The President of the United States

I'm going to take this post to grade the Obama administration on five key areas: foreign policy, fiscal policy, the economy, social justice and civil rights, and civil liberties. It looks at what he has had success at and what he has not, and finally whether or not he his at an advantage or disadvantage against Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Grading methodology: I used the following grading scale:

A+ 99
A  96

A- 93

B+ 87
B 84

B- 81

C+ 78
C 75

C- 72

D+ 69

D 66

D - 63

F+ 57
F 54
F- 51

Foreign Policy:

The Obama administration has, in the eyes of many journalists and pundits, an extremely successful foreign policy. The administration has managed to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, kill Osama Bin Laden (yes, yes, I know about the claims of him being dead a lot longer than reported), get involved-but-not-involved in Libya's revolt, getting Putin's Russia to  cooperate (somewhat), still managing to avoid war with Iran, and improved the reputation of the States' globally. Moreover, the Obama Doctrine makes for a major shift in American foreign policy -- one that favors the American unilateralism that dominated foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, to one that makes note of and is accepting of new rising foreign policy powers.

However, I'm very weary about drone bombings in Pakistan. There's something about bombing another country, a supposed ally, killing innocent civilians and refusing to apologize for it is nothing short of disturbing.

Bottom line: A quote that's often attributed to John F. Kennedy is "domestic policy may hurt us; foreign policy can kill us."

Grade: B+

Huge advantage over Romney. While I like Paul's non-interventionist stance, it's just completely unrealistic. 

Fiscal Policy:

While the Obama administration's fiscal policy is heavily criticized (partially with merit), I think it should be recognized what is actually bloating federal spending. Note two things -- government spending outside of transfer payments (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) has actually dropped since 2009. In fact, government spending as a share of GDP has dropped since 2009, granted, it is a combination of decreased federal spending, moderate GDP recovery, and finally the fact that GDP calculations in regards to government ignore transfer payments. The transfer payments, however, has ballooned, especially in the wake of the financial sector collapse, the increases in Medicare enrollment stemming from the baby boomer generation retiring, and finally increases in the cost of health care. It is these transfer payments that represent the real source of the federal deficit. In addition, the Social Security Trust Fund is actually intragovernmental debt. This would be a reality no matter who is President.

The Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare, was passed in 2010, which represents the biggest legislative victory of the Democratic Party in years, however, it's cost has been met with increasing derision from the American public. The real idea of it, which is almost never mentioned and is really a personal hypothesis, is that if risk is spread out over a greater population then it would become cheaper to pay for that risk (i.e., insurance premiums), hence the individual mandate along with insurance companies being forced to more or less cover more people and the fact that Medicare Advantage funding is expected to decrease throughout the implementation of the provisions. A corollary of that, in my opinion, is the furthered idea that health care services will become much more efficient to provide with technological and medical advances and if more people can actually pay for it. The real failure of the legislation, aside from obvious constitutional questions, is that it focuses too much on point of use and continues to help the debate evade questions as to why the costs of administering health care services are so high in the first place.

The Obama administration has put in place numerous economic stimuli, from the omnibus stimulus package from 2009, to certain tax credits, cuts, and increases which only further complicated the American tax code. While the Keynesian-based plans have shown to somewhat work -- the United States economy is still expected to expand, albeit it slowly -- the relatively small tax paying base (only comprising really half of all taxed units in the United States), creates fiscal peril. Not to mention, the stagnating of wages in general in relation to the ballooning government expenditures in transfers and entitlements only exacerbates the issues in regards to revenue. The United States has a spending issue, yet that's rooted inefficiency, and complications in revenue.

Bottom line: Economic stimuli are expensive, even more so when the tax paying pool is too small to effectively pay for it. 

Grade: C+

It's a wash between Obama, Romney, and Paul. Romney wants to make cuts, Paul wants to make draconian cuts, and neither Romney nor Paul stand a chance against an uncooperative Congress, especially the Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans, if Obama won, would come around to having cooperate with Obama, considering the GOP would have to if they want to make any legislative progress in 2014.

The Economy:

Obama's economic policy (or issue) is a combination of great expectations and cold hard realities.

The great expectation was that the Obama omnibus stimulus was supposed to have a domino effect that would encourage consumerism. As such, consumerism is a state of mind. In addition, the thawing of credit markets should have led to an economic boom. The underemployment and employment rate was supposed to drop by 50%.

Unfortunately, those rosy dreams were a result of the American cultural propensity of always wanting instant gratification.

The truth is that private debt is too high for robust consumerism (the average debt to income ratio in the United States was still over 110% in 2011), businesses are scared of government instability and lack of policy direction (surrounding the tax code), the American system of efficiency through greater production out of fewer people is in full swing, and finally the American transformation from a blue-collar, manufacturing economy to a service and information oriented economy created increased labor competition as companies globalized and a lot people not possessing the skills that are currently in demand.

However, the stimulus and the automotive bailout worked: economists credit the measures with 3 million jobs; the American automobile industry was saved, saving millions of jobs in regards to manufacturing and supply. At the same time though, economic stimuli packages are merely stabilization packages -- as much as the government wants to tout otherwise, it is actually the private sector that is going to be responsible for job growth. More on that in a minute.

The Obama administration is wanting to make moves with a new education initiative with increased funding for community colleges towards the education and the training of new workers. This is critical and something I overwhelmingly support. While I have nothing against the existence for-profit post-secondary education, they are indeed overwhelmingly expensive in regards to the level of education and training that they provide.

As for private sector growth, it is actually a mixed bag. Companies are either too scared to hire, not interested in hiring because they don't see the need for it, or are focusing all of their efforts on emerging markets. As much political fodder that the Obama administration may try, if employers aren't going to see a need to hire or companies are not going to see the need in not taking advantage of emerging markets -- a reality of globalization -- then companies aren't going to hire in a robust fashion domestically. People expect the executive office to do something about it; in truth, there's little the executive office can do about it.

The only reason why I'm going to give the Obama administration a fair grade is because of what the stimulus and the automotive bailout packages did; however, the Obama administration has done a bad job at raising people's expectations way too high and playing into instant gratification syndrome.

Bottom line: Love it or hate it, the bailouts were necessary and they worked -- just not to the degree people thought it would.

Grade: C+

Obama's economic views are mainstream, Romney is more Chicago school, and Paul is more Austrian school. It's a wash between all three -- Obama raised expectations too high in regards to the new economic reality, Romney would go on a deregulation spree that would produce no payoff, and Paul would enact policies that honestly only work in theory and prove why a completely lassiez-faire country has never existed. 

Social Justice and Civil Rights:

There's not much to write about in terms of the social justice and civil rights arena, aside from the federal intervention of states such as Texas from blocking Planned Parenthood funding and immigration reform (of which there has been none). Illegal immigrants spent 2010 and 2011 being deported at a pace faster than the Bush administration. A weak growing economy, combined with the Mexican Drug War, has more or less stifled illegal immigration.

Probably the biggest social justice move by the Obama administration was the ending of "don't ask, don't tell", which finally allows gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving in the military without repercussion. It was about damn time that came to an end. However, while that was a major step in gay civil rights, he's largely mum on the other major issue concerns of same-sex rights activists (i.e., it begins with an "m").

Bottom line: He ended "don't ask, don't tell". If it wasn't for that, his grade would be much lower.

Grade: B-

Obama and Romney are both center-right, with Romney leaning a little bit more right. Romney has conspicuously stayed away (for the most part) from the conservative family values rhetoric and for the most part, tries his best to avoid religion. Paul generally focuses more on civil liberties than civil rights. As such, advantage, Obama.


Civil Liberties:

The irony of Obama's civil liberties agenda is that it even gives the ACLU nightmares. 

The Obama administration passed NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). This is very regrettable. Not to mention, he has spared anyone in the Bush administration being tried for torture. In addition, he has continued quite a few of the Bush administration's controversial security policies such as continuing to operate Guantanamo Bay's detention center and permitted wireless surveillance. Not to mention, numerous public interest lawsuits have been blocked by the administration, which accuses the administration, amongst other things, privacy violations.

However, the Obama administration has came out strongly against the three major bills that have been a threat to internet privacy -- PIPA (Protect IP Act), SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act), and CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). PIPA and SOPA are postponed; CISPA actually passed the House with the White House threatening twice to veto it, the second time just being a few days ago. However, the White House never, for any of those three bills, guaranteed to veto them under any and all circumstances. It's not too surprising -- while most tech companies were against PIPA and SOPA, it's quieter on the technological front (save Mozilla) when it comes to CISPA, as CISPA provides a provision that pretty much frees any company that flips over any private information about you to the federal government from a civil liberties lawsuit.

Bottom line: The Obama administration's civil liberties record is indefensible.

Grade: F-

Paul torches Obama and Romney. No question about it. 


Bottom line: Obama has turned out to be a lot more pragmatic than people expected him to be, and I think that is because Obama has more or less became assimilated with the realities of Washington. Believe it or not, Obama is one of the few Democrats that is center-right. The last five Democratic presidents -- Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman -- ranged from center-left to left-wing.

Overall grade: C

What happens in November: I forecast a 60% chance he gets re-elected, only because of a united Democratic Party. Whether or not I'd vote for him again remains to be seen.