As the esteemed 17th President of the United States Andrew Johnson once said, "Someone cue up Gwen Stefani. I need some banana-related background music."

The case of Eric Holder and the Obama Administration transferring the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 9/11 trial from military court to civilian federal court sets quite a unique precedent.


None of these per se are wrong. But they do establish a different precedent and it doesn't appear the Obama administration has thoroughly thought through the ramifications completley (as evidence in the Lindsey Graham questioning of Eric Holder).

But what drives me most bananas about the KSM trial transfer can best be explained by another case Holder represented while an attorney at the very prestigious, DC-based firm Covington & Burling.

Let's get one thing straight, Eric Holder is a very smart man and a damn good attorney. You wouldn't so much as get your resume looked at for an internship at Covington & Burling with out being intelligent, gifted and talented, let alone land a job there. While at Covington & Burling, Holder represented Chiquita International Brands (you know, the bananas) in the first case of a major U.S. corporation being convicted of financing terrorism.

What basically went down was Chiquita paid $1.7 million dollars to the terrorist organization United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia as "protection money." According to the United States government, this money was used by the USDF to purchase arms and commit terrorist acts of violence.

So what does this have to do with KSM and 9/11? Chiquita is an American company based in Cincinnati, OH. As such, they are protected under the U.S. Constitution and are granted rights and protections.

• Chiquita was innocent until proven guilty.
• Chiquita was not required to testify against themselves.
• Chiquita deserved fair (and probably received fantastic) legal counsel.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others are not Americans. They have never been Americans. And nowhere in our Constitution does it grant rights to non-Americans. Nor can it. The jurisdiction of the Constitution ends at the United States borders.

So why if terrorism is an act of war, and the terrorists are not legal citizens of the United States, are we now establishing a precedent that they should receive the same rights and privileges as civilian Americans? What purpose does that serve?

Now I don't know if the Obama administration is just moving the trials so as to expedite the process of closing Gitmo, or if they are trying to establish new policy and precedent for all terror related cases. But I do hope they have thought through all of the ramifications of their actions, as it is doubtful one could argue their actions are making the US a safer and more just society.

The other day I broadcasted to the world via Twitter, Facebook, Google Wave, and Messenger Pigeon the important and life shattering news that I have decided to purchase a gun. The reasons for said gun purchase are quite irrelevant (unless of course your are my mom).

But the Facebook conversation that proceeded (below) inspired me to explain myself with a bit more detail.

Now I freely admit most of you will discredit me as a source on the topic of gun laws because I interpret the 2nd amendment to say that, "people of a state - whether militia or individual - should be allowed to own the same level of weaponry as the federal government."

Extreme, right? But let us remember the mindset of those who wrote the Constitution. Jefferson once said:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Now before you jump on me for being ignorant and throwing in all the accidental shooting statistics and other "vanilla, mothers running the world" arguments: stop. I have heard them. I know them. Hell, the President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - arguably the largest gun-control lobby in the world - has been a long time family friend. I get it.

But here is what it really comes down to: Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided in June of 2005 that we could not sue police departments for not protecting us in the event of violence committed against us, nor could we sue fire departments for not rescuing us. So the long and the short of it is: the Supreme Court says your safety is your responsibility and only your responsibility.

I don't think most Americans would argue with this per se. Most would acknowledge suing a police department after getting shot for not protecting you would be a ludicrous precedent. But for some reason we don't seem to make the logical conclusion that when in a dangerous situation, protection is our responsibility and should be taken seriously.

But let me be clear about this: Jesus doesn't give a damn about gun control (or taxes for that matter). When Christians call into the show and try to justify why "Jesus would be a republican," they always seem to lump in defending the right to bear arms as a "faith issue." It isn't.

And frankly, the only justification I could ever see against owning guns comes from the mouth of Jesus and that is "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Although he eventually did tell the Disciples it was time to purchase a sword to defend themselves).

Thus the way I see it is that Jesus is neutral on whether or not I buy a gun, and the Supreme Court wants me to. So it's time to go gun shopping because that Ginsberg scares the crap out of me and I don't want to cross her.


Enjoy the Facebook conversation on the topic below

There are two things about me that I think most of you know: 1.) I have a bit of a lead foot, and 2.) I love NASCAR racing. And even though those might sound mutually inclusive, most of the people I know who actually like NASCAR give me the most amount of crap for my speeding.

Now, one could argue that going around and around at 200 mph, sometimes inches from each other, is pretty dangerous. But most NASCAR drivers would say most the time they feel pretty safe. But the one time you'll get them to complain about safety is restrictor plate racing.

Now stay with me...

The long and the short of it is in restrictor plate races, a device is put on a car to ensure that there is a limit to the maximum speed a car drives (in theory lowering the speed). The controversy is that these races become inherently more dangerous because while the speeds are slightly lower, the packs that are created due to everyone driving the exact same speed is harrowing. For example, at Talladegga, at times they are only 1 SECOND that separates all 43 cars (at 200 MPH!).

Now hopefully you are still with me...

What does this have to do with real life? I have been saying it for years: zones where enforced speed limits are in place are some of the scariest places on highways. What you get is everyone driving the exact same speed, and a build of cars. And really, speed isn't what kills you in an accident, running into something kills you.

But don't just take my word for it. Psychics proves my point as well. According to PhysicsCentral: "jerks" actually help reduce traffic jams because they add a variable that reduces bunching. It is true with pedestrians, it is true with cars, it is true with molecules.

Even the end of the article supports what I am saying. I insist that part of the reason I speed is because I am claustrophobic and I don't like to feel trapped. I am less likely to be tailgated when speeding. I am less likely to tailgate when speeding. And people are less likely to be to my right or left when speeding. Thus, I am not trapped, I am not claustrophobic, and I am less likely to run into someone or having someone run into me.

So my conclusion is that people should drive the speed they are comfortable with and leave the restrictor plate conditions to NASCAR (and apparently DoT Utah also, psuedo-supports this idea as well).

And next time you are with me in my car afraid for your life, all you need to say is thank you.

Simple physics. I always knew I liked you.

P.S. I am aware of the irony that physics would also support the idea that IF I hit something, increased speed would not be my friend. But that is an ironic double standard I am willing to live with.

I have a friend who - along with about 10-20 other people - started a bank 2 years ago. One afternoon I found myself in the office talking to him about what that venture looked like. Having been around startups my entire life, I have an understanding of starting a business. But a bank? That's a completley different story. So naturally I was quite curious.

The brief conversation included some points on banking regulation and the FDIC. I knew what the FDIC was before this conversation, but hadn't really given it much thought (probably like most Americans). Then we had the banking crisis of 2008 - exactly one year ago from today.

Anybody who had any kind of money at all quickly became familiar with the FDIC guarantee.

Amidst all the collapse in our economy - 401(k)s taking huge hits, hedge fund manager corruption, banking scandal after banking scandal, and finally a ridiculous, non-capitalistic, yet necessary bail out - the one thing that worked EXACTLY the way it should was the FDIC.

Most Americans had every confidence in the world that their money (assuming less than $250,000) was safe, protected and backed by the Federal Government. And you know what. It was. Even as IndyMac failed, and Washington Mutual and Wachovia and JP Morgan all collapsed, there wasn't chaos because the FDIC was there and functioning.

What does this have to do with healthcare?

This past weekend Allen pulled the comparison that we don't need the government running a healthcare company because what we would have is the United States Postal Service. And frankly, if you want something delivered guaranteed and to actually not be a drain on taxpayers, you and I both know UPS is the way to go. Rather, he focused on three things that should be changed.

1. Fat People - obesity killing healthcare costs
2. Old People - quoting that most healthcare costs are spent in the last couple months of life
3. Lawyers - Medical malpractice is a killer on doctor's insurance (which gets passed on to the patients) and also means tons of unnecessary tests (adding to the cost)

I think his analysis is fairly good. But it left me asking, ok, then what do you actually envision as the answer?

The answer to that question is the FDIC, only for healthcare.

We need regulation in healthcare.

The current situation right now is UPS only with two deepening caveats: with too little competition and a service we have to use.

The public option option is the USPS. It will surely go bankrupt, and ruin healthcare in the process.

The "FDIC" option is the route to go. Under it would include:

• Tort reform to curb malpractice costs.
• Regulation to allow for previous conditions to be covered.
• Allowing insurance companies to operate beyond state borders allowing for more competition but with minimal capital needs to start new operations.
• Holding insurance companies accountable to live up to what they promise to insure.
• A division to make sure the 10-20 million legitimately uninsured could be subsidized
• Requiring every citizen to have proof of health insurance (I know this isn't popular, but I am all for it).

But the actual insurance, and the hospitals, and the doctors, and the nurses are still all private companies. The regulation is there. The accountability is there. The improved healthcare for all would follow.

After blogging self-righteously about how much better I am than Barney Frank and Mark Souder on Sunday, I have decided to continue the self-righteous attitude and advise Henry Louis Gates and Barack Obama on what they can learn from me.

While driving back from Key West I got pulled over on I-75 just outside of Unadilla, GA.

I will say I was very disappointed in my actions that day, not because of my driving, but because I argued with the police officer.

My attorney (aka Dad) always told me, you never argue with a police officer on the road. Not only is the police officer "king out there," frankly, he is usually just doing his job and if he is wrong, take it up in court.

Most of the 20+ times I have been pulled over I have always followed this. But this time I did not.

With traffic flying by, I unfortunately argued with Lt. Colvin. And after the anger subsided a week later, I realized my error and felt deeply bad about it. So I found his email address and shot him the following email.

Lt. Colvin -

You might not remember me, but you pulled me over while driving up I-75 two Saturdays (5/23) ago in a Blue minivan allegedly going 85 in a 70. You are the only police officer in over 20 that I have been pulled over by in my life that I argued with him on the road. Typically all I do is turn on the interior lights (if dark), stick my hands out the window, honestly admit my speed when asked, and accept (and pay) the fine. For arguing with you on the road, I sincerely apologize.

I Google searched your name and came up with a page at catchingcriminals.com and I wanted to write and say thank you very much for your service in Iraq as explosives specialist. That is very brave work and am grateful for your service to this country. And even though I was one of the "criminals" you were protecting others from in this particular case, I very much thank you for your continued service to this country in law enforcement.

Take care out there!

Andy Borgmann

My situation with Lt. Colvin has some relatability to the Obama/Gates/Crowley affair.

What Gates Should Learn
I freely admit as a white male I do not know what it is like to be racially profiled. To my white brethren out there, if we think there isn't a "racial profiling" issue in this country, we are sincerely naive. That being said, in this particular case Gates over reacted.

I'll cut him some slack because he just got back from China and he was in his own home, but as Colin Powell said on Larry King, even if you think you are being racially profiled, you don't argue with an officer trying to assess the situation.

I have an anti-authority streak in me that can rival just about anyone. So I get Gates' inclination to argue. But that is not the time.

What Obama Should Learn
But the real disappointment in this whole thing is Barack Obama. Not because he wanted to find a teaching moment for the country, but because he did so out of ignorance of the situation and then didn't know how to apologize afterward.

Obama and I share a lot more than just a birthday. We share the arrogant belief that we are smarter than most and we have a tendency to stick our foot in our mouth. But what Obama fails to grasp is that if you are going to be like us, you better get damn good at apologizing.

In a true apology, you don't make excuses and you don't passive-aggressively try and make your point again - both things that Obama did in his "apology." I didn't use my apology letter to Lt. Colvin to reiterate my "perceived innocence." No. I apologized and thanked him for his service.

The Beer Summit
The most interesting thing about the whole story with Lt. Colvin and I is, about a month after I wrote him the email, I got a Facebook friend invite from him. So we are now "friends" and had a "beer summit of our own," and we didn't even need the pressure of the media to do it.

I have been waiting to do this blog for four years now. I knew one day it would come. I just never thought the complaint would be due to me (ok, I sort of thought it might).

Allen and I have been on the air for over four years and up until last week we have never had to use the DUMP button due to an obscene comment made on the air. That all changed last week.

Last Sunday Allen picked up a caller and the first words out of his mouth were "Fuck You" and then hung up. We were actually out of delay, so that went out live over all of our affiliates.

Then just last night, a caller from San Antonio (first night on that station by the way) was talking about something and accidentally said "shit" on the air. We were in delay, hit the dump button, and all was good. No worries.

The real surprising thing was the only real complaint we got over the last two weeks wasn't with the F-bomb being dropped, but rather the fact that when I talked about the bike race I completed for charity, I made a reference to how I could see how Lance Armstrong got "ball cancer" due to the way my crotch felt after riding for 30 miles.

One complaint! That's it. But as Family Guy puts it, for every complaint received has to equal one BILLION people offended:



I freely admit I am not concerned with obscenity. I don't really see a case to be made in the Bible that "fowl language" is really amoral. And don't even get me started on how as a culture everyone gets way too offended way too easy - especially Christians (and gays).

But beyond that, why is it the government's job to legislate this stuff anyway? Why did we decided that the public airwaves were owned and controlled by the government to begin with? And as delivery options become less dependent on "public airwaves" (satellite communication, cellular communication, hardwired communication), I have to ask myself, should the FCC and "obscenity" laws really become obsolete?

And as always, it isn't the situation we find ourselves in now that I am too worried about, but rather the precedent it establishes that will allow for the expanse of power:



Before anyone asks, no, we didn't get any complaints from the FCC (yet). I just found the Family Guy stuff to be pretty profound when I first saw it back in November of 2005 and have just been waiting for a "personal" story to commentate.

Enjoy the FCC song:

This is quite possibly the most controversial blog I have ever written - even more than the Anything For Love post of 2007.

Dr. George Tiller was the late-term abortion doctor who was gunned down while serving in his Lutheran church this past Sunday. And while i freely acknowledge I do not know this man's heart, and judgment is only for God, I am going to go out on a limb and say that we will see Dr. George Tiller again in heaven.

From the start I should say that I am pro-life - although from posts like mine back in October - it is probably obvious that I am not "super pro-life." I do believe that abortion is wrong, I just fail to see it anymore wrong than anything else and therefore I refuse to make it a wedge issue.

Most of my personal theology stems from the statement: "In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity."

It is this theological principle that helps me appreciate the theology from Catholics to Baptists and the super-crazy Greek Orthodox. It is why I don't get bogged down in the pros and cons of Calvinist vs. Wesleyan theology. Do I have stark disagreements with all of these, sure. But I realize in the end we all accept that Jesus is God, none of our theology is perfect, and therefore we are all unified in salvation through Christ alone.

But the question that arises is: is abortion a theological essential to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Is it so heinous and irredeemable that an abortion doctor, who on at the surface seems to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and trusts in him for his salvation, cannot be forgiven?

Now I know just becuase you go to church hardly makes you a Christian - especially in Kansas. But this man was an unapologetic abortion doctor. If there is anyone in our society that wouldn't feel the social pressure to go to church, don't you think it would be him? So I am going to proceed with the assumption that he attended and served in church for the right reasons.



He clearly didn't see abortion to be wrong.

Do I disagree with him. Yes.

Is abortion such a cut and dry issue in the Bible that I believe it to be "an essential" of Christian theology. No.

There is a lot of sin in my life that I know about. I am not proud of it, but I humbly admit that I am not perfect. What's more is that there is probably even more sin in my life that I do not know about. I go on doing what I do, thinking I am right and correct, but in actuality I am not. Do I understand myself to be any less forgiven or redeemed because of this known and unknown sin? No.

What does Jesus say really saves us? I know sin in my life continually gets brought to the surface every day I am alive. I see no evidence that Paul or David or Peter or anyone went on to live a sinless life. So if we are saved only by the grace through our faith in Jesus Christ, why would it be hard to believe Dr. George Tiller - while probably erroneous in some of his theology and practice - would be unsaved?

So while I do not know the heart of George Tiller, if I were a betting man, I am going to bet that I'll see him again in heaven.

I was driving to Key West during the last weekender when I caught word during a news break about the Department of Homeland Security recently issuing Assessment IA-0257-09.

What got my attention was that according to the assessment: fringe groups of Pro-lifers and those who believe in "end times prophecy" were being labeled terrorists - along with other groups including returning veterans.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano issued this "explanation" on CNN with John King:


Janet was initially asked, "do you have active investigations of active abortion groups that are preparing to conduct terrorist attacks?"

Now Janet might have successfully dodged the question to John King's content by inciting history (which I will get to in a second), but I am not letting her off the hook so easy. I read the whole report and one of the first lines states:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

So in other words Janet, your answer to the question should have been, "No. We don't have any groups that are actively being investigated as terrorists, but "rightwing" groups are becoming more popular, and that is something we are concerned about."

Now I hope one caught the sarcasm and irony in my statement above. The irony of course being that we are a democracy built on the principle that what is most popular is what as a country we hold is right. But I don't think Janet has much of a sense for irony, so I am moving on.

Now let's look at history for a second - which Janet implied gives legitimacy to calling some pro-life groups terrorists.

There have been 7 - that's right 7 - deaths as a result of "pro-life" violence since Roe v. Wade in 1973. And while 7 cases is 7 cases too many, it is precisely that feeling that proves the label terrorists to a group as broad as "Pro-lifers" is unwarranted.

Now that might be a bit of a straw man argument - which I concede - but I am exhausted with conversations about abortion coming back to the "extremists that blow up abortion clinics." It just isn't a current or historically warranted argument.

The shear minuteness of violent extremism within the pro-life movement should actually speak to the contrary about the value of human life many of those within the movement hold to.

Janet has since apologized for the returning veterans remarks, but not any of the others. I am not exactly the most ardent Pro-Lifer (if that makes sense). But I am pro-life, and I know millions of others are with me when I say: I am not a terrorist.

It was six years ago I came to the same conclusion Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer - two law school professors at Pepperdine Law School - recently came to in a San Francisco Chronicle article that was picked up by Time. Conclusion: the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

The truth of the matter is that marriage licenses weren't required until the early 1900s in (successful?) attempts to keep black people from marrying white people. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 where the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional - but unfortunately the government's authority of marriages stuck around.

I have said it before but the government should only have two roles: 1.) protect us from others - including things like physical harm (murder, rape, etc...) and all other forms of harm (financial laws, contract disputes, etc...) - 2.) do that only which the government can do (build highways, defend the country, etc...).

Sanctioning marriage does not fall into either of those categories.

I am sure someone right now is saying, "ohh but won't someone PLEASE think of the children." And while I would like to say no, frankly, I am sick of thinking about the children, I also realize that isn't going to convince anyone who does "think of the children" of anything. So here's another approach.

I don't think growing up with a mom as a stripper is particularly healthy. I am sure there are some great stripper moms out there, but on the whole, I am going to say that strippers usually do not make good mothers. However, there is nothing illegal about stripping - despite it's questionable morality - thus there is no reason for the government to intervene.

If we take the "think of the children" philosophy of governance, why not make it illegal for strippers to have kids? Or pornographers? Or casino owners? Or politicians? Or anyone else with "questionable" morality.

Likewise, it makes absolutely no moral, legal or logical sense to continue the racist-roots of the Government being involved in the marriage business.

If the government wants to make it easier on families for tax purposes or if they want a method of finding census data, fine, have civil unions for all. All the same benefits - regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There is no second class tier system where the government gives heterosexuals "marriages" and homosexuals "civil unions." In the governments eyes, we are the same.

Let religious organizations hold on to their traditions and vernacular like they have had for thousands of years. Nobody needs to redefine any terms. Marriage becomes a religious ceremony like baptism.

Think how much less contentious this society would be if we could come to that agreement. Conservatives/Religious folks compromising on detheocritizing an already detheocritized government, and Liberals/Gays compromising and letting religions keep their tradition.

No more fighting. No more constant hatred by both parties. We become like most other groups in society where everyone's rights are protected, and we agree to disagree.

Then all we would have to dispute is abortion.

I got word this morning that my father - Dan Borgmann of Helmke, Beams, LLC - was named to the 2009 Best Lawyers in America list.

I checked the Best Lawyers in America website but they don't have the 2009 directory up - but this article in the Journal-Gazette confirms it .

My dad isn't really one who likes seeing his name in the paper - something where this apple fell far from the tree - but he should be very proud of this accomplishment.

Dad has always been a great model of what it means to be a hard and honest worker - in a field where honesty is hardly the reputation. We have known he was one of the best attorneys in America for some time, now so does everyone else.

There are events that have happened and decisions made that will never get any publicity but have made me incredibly proud to see how he managed the legacy firm he came to over 20 years ago. And I am sure - due to attorney/client privilege - there are events and actions that I don't even know about that would make me all the more proud.

So congrats Dad. If I were in Indiana right now, I'd take you out for a drink at Columbia Street street to celebrate. You deserve it.


(I was planning on blogging today about something else, but when I heard this - check back tomorrow )