04/23/2013

Boston Bomber To Use Civilian Court

Since the Boston Marathon Bombings, some have advocated processing the surviving defendant in a Military Tribunal, but since he is a U.S. Citizen, and a civilian, he will be indicted and tried in the ordinary American criminal court system.

Whether someone is to be tried as a civilian, or as a combatant, depends on the circumstances. The following is a review of the various categories.

Civilian U.S. Citizens, who are not combatants, alleged to have committed a crime in the United States, are given access to the civilian courts, with all the rights of the accused, provided in routine jury trials. If they are found “guilty,” they can be sentenced to prison or to death if the offense and the jurisdiction allows it, but if the verdict is “not guilty,” they must be released. An example in this category is the domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, who was convicted in our civilian court system, sentenced to death, and executed.

Combatant U.S. Citizens, enlisted in the U.S. military, and charged with an offense, would be entitled to Courts-Martial proceedings, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, again with all the due process rights and privileges provided by our Constitution. An example would be U.S. Lt. William Calley, who was charged with massacring hundreds of defenseless Vietnamese women and children, and convicted by U.S. combat officers, who served as a jury of his peers.

Enemy Alien Combatants, captured in the field, who may have killed our soldiers, but who did not violate any of the Laws of War, would be entitled to Prisoners-of-War status, and can held for the duration of the conflict, provided they are granted prisoner rights, under the Geneva Conventions. For example, thousands of ordinary German soldiers, taken prisoner by the U.S. in WWII, were entitled to this status, as they were held and later released to go home.

Unlawful Enemy Alien Combatants, captured in the field, would initially be treated as prisoners-of-war, but if evidence surfaced they had committed illegal acts in violation of the Laws of War, they could be subjected to a trial by a Military Commission to answer for their illegal acts. For example, many Japanese commanders in WWII, who had executed defenseless civilians in the Philippines and elsewhere, were tried in Military Commissions, convicted, and executed.

The Boston Marathon Bomber is not a member of the armed forces of another nation. He was not for example an Afghan Taliban captured in the field or a member of the Iraqi Army. He has no status as a enemy combatant, and cannot be tried in a Military Commission. Moreover, he is not an alien, but rather a naturalized American citizen. His status as an American guarantees him all of the Constitutional rights allowed under our civilian judicial system.

04/19/2013

Roots of Chechnya Separatism

Towards the end of the Soviet War in Afghanistan (1980-88), Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew troops from what was Russia’s Vietnam. He proceeded in 1988 to advocate reform from within, as he promoted glasnost (openness) and perestroika (rebuilding). Open elections in the Soviet Union followed in 1989, for the first time in 70 years. 200,000 marched in 1990 before the Kremlin, calling for an end to the central Soviet government.

Independent satellite states, like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and others that had been occupied since the end of World War II, insisted on freedom and demanded that the Russians get out.

More significantly, the Soviet Union itself, comprised of 14 Republics, forged together in the 1920s after the Russian Revolution, also demanded independence from centralized Soviet control. The USSR soon imploded from within, as states like the Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia, and 11 others gained independence. A reactionary coup tried to reassert control, but the Soviet egg had been broken, and it couldn’t be put back together again.

After Russia lost control over the states occupied since 1945, and the 14 Republics that formed the Soviet Union, all that remained was the Russian land that predated the Russian Revolution. The problem was the separatist spirit was alive and longstanding religious or ethnic forces sought to break up Russia. This is where the Russians drew the line and fought to hold their territories.

After Boris Yeltsin replaced Gorbachev in 1991, as President of the new Russian Republic, he presided over the 1st Chechen War (1994-96). He tried to stop a secessionist revolt in Chechnya, which borders North Ossetia to the west, and the Republic of Georgia to the south. When a 2nd Chechen War (1999-09) erupted, Islamic forces invaded Dagestan, and the Russia people turned to former KBG Chief Vladimir Putin to replace Yeltsin. Putin promptly took a hard line to subdue the separatists, as he bombed the Chechnya capital at Grozny. The war later migrated into Ingushetia in 2007, located between Chechnya and North Ossetia.

Although Chechnya is a part of Russia, its people differ ethnically and have beliefs at odds with the Russians in Moscow. While they say they are freedom fighters, Russia calls them terrorists.

After the World Trade Center attack in 2001, the U.S. and Russia became allies against their respective terrorist enemies. Since Chechnya is opposed to the Russian government, and the U.S. is allied with Russia, the U.S. is now a target of some Chechnyans.

01/14/2013

Need “Borrowing” Not “Debt” Ceiling

The “Debt Ceiling” is once again being debated in Congress, but it shouldn’t be, since we have no choice, but to pay the financial obligations we already have. Defaulting on our loans is not a realistic or responsible option as it would do nothing but lower our credit rating and trigger negative global responses.

The debate should instead occur much earlier whenever Congress borrows money.  If we are going to have a “ceiling,” it should be as to the amount we borrow. Whenever right-wing politicians vote for another war, or a new weapons system, without raising taxes to pay for them, they should first be required to raise a “Borrowing Ceiling.” This is where the issue might make a difference, since borrowing is not a necessity.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the power “to borrow money” is specifically delegated to the Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8). Congress must approve of any measure that causes borrowing. It is not a power assigned to the Executive. The President does not write the budget. The House must stop blaming the President for spending and they must face their constitutional duty to control it.

Right-wing politicians, who control the House, where all budget bills originate, are famous for supporting all sorts of wasteful military spending, without raising taxes, but once they authorize spending, it’s a waste of time to debate the issue of paying for the military toys previously purchased with a credit card.

It’s time for the Republican House to act like adults, take responsibility, and significantly cut the Defense Budget, or raise taxes to pay for the military spending they previously supported.

12/22/2012

NRA: Gun Caused Newton Shooting

It’s only been a little more than a week since the horrible grade school massacre in Newton, Connecticut, where twenty 6-year-olds and six teachers were murdered, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) is already confusing people as to its cause.

Yesterday, in a speech by Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, the true cause of the shooting was not mentioned. Instead, he suggested increasing our tax burden by spending countless sums to place armed guards in every school in the U.S. He failed to mention mass killings have occurred in theatres, shopping centers, and even army bases, already protected by armed guards.

The NRA cannot see the forest for the trees. The simple cause of the shooting in Connecticut was a gun, period. Yes, the shooter had a mental issue. People have had mental problems in the past, and no matter what we do as a culture, there will be sick people in the future. All we can do is treat illnesses once diagnosed.

The critical mistake in Connecticut occurred when the mother of the mentally ill kid purchased not one, but three firearms, and then kept them in her home, where her son could access them. Although people have been warned over the years the presence of firearms increases risks of injury or death to the owner, more than anyone else, the mother ignored this, and tragically she died first.

The mentally ill kid then took his mother’s semi-automatic weapon on a shooting spree at a grade school. If the mother had not given him access to the gun, or if we would have barred her from purchasing it, the shooting probably wouldn’t have occurred.

We first have to acknowledge that twenty innocent 6-year-olds were murdered by a gun. Sadly, the NRA just can’t accept this.

Other countries, including Canada where hunting is popular, have far less violence from guns, because their regulations are more effective. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. It specifically refers to a “well-regulated militia.” As the Founders wrote it, they envisioned regulations. It’s time we implemented gun regulations by banning powerful semi-automatic guns now and forever.

12/17/2012

2nd Amendment Allows Regulation

Although the Supreme Court’s conservative five-member activist majority of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy ignored the “original intent” of the Second Amendment, as they drafted law from the bench in 2008, and gave individuals who had not enlisted in any state militia an individual right to bear arms, the Constitutional interpretation enunciated by dissenting justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg, who said only state militia members have a right to bear arms, was the correct view.

In the American Revolution, a loosely-affiliated group of colonial states, operating under the Articles of Confederation (1777-87), provided arms to those serving in well-regulated militias. Art VI of the Articles stated in part: “…Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed…and shall provide…a proper quantity of arms…”

When the Founders realized the Articles were too weak, and the nation needed a stronger central government, they adopted the U.S. Constitution, which created a federal system, and delegated to Congress the power to raise an Army. The new arrangement concerned some, as they feared a rouge President might use the Army for his own personal purposes, to overthrow their liberties.

The Second Amendment was adopted to preserve the rights of the states to maintain armed militias, so they could collectively resist a federal Army. This is why it provides: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The “original intent” of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias. In modern terms, the U.S. government in Washington cannot take guns away from those in state militias, such as the Wisconsin National Guard. If you belong to the Guard, you have a right to bear arms; if not, you have no right to them.

Subsequent Acts of Congress, such as the Militia Act of 1792, which ordered every 18 to 45 year old man to be “enrolled in the militia” and to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock…or with a good rifle” showed the Founders were connecting the right to bear arms with enlistment in a militia.

State Supreme Courts also found only those in the state militias had a right to bear arms. In Andrews v State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871), a Tennessee Court held the right to bear arms for common defense did not mean individual defense, but referred to the right to bear arms for the defense of the community.  In English v State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872), the Texas Court held the “arms” referred to in the Second Amendment are those of soldiers. In Dabbs v State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882), the Arkansas Court held a statute making it an offense to sell “any pistol,” except those “used in the Army or Navy of the U.S.” did not invade the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In Pierce v State, 276 P. 393 (Ok App 1929), an Oklahoma Court held “arms” in the 2nd Amendment did not include pistols, but only weapons carried by the militia.

A few years ago, however, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court ignored the language of the 2nd Amendment, as well as case precedent, as they created an individual right to bear arms. See District of Columbia v Heller (2008). Heller was later applied to state and local governments, in another 5-4 case. See McDonald v Chicago (2010). (Sotomayer replaced Souter’s dissent).

The only saving grace in Heller was the part where the Court upheld the constitutionality of firearm regulations, and reaffirmed the right of states to engage in gun licensing. They said Second Amendment rights are not unlimited, as there is no right to carry any weapon, in any manner, for any purpose.

Gun regulations have been used for over 100 years. 126 years ago already, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Illinois Military Code that prohibited all bodies of men, except U.S. troops, and those in regular organized state militias, from drilling or parading with arms, unless they were licensed. See Presser v Illinois (1886). 115 years ago, in Robertson v Baldwin (1897), the Court held the right to bear arms was not absolute, and states had the authority to regulate concealed-carry. 73 years ago, the Court held the 2nd Amendment does not protect citizens who transport 12-gauge shotguns, because they are not reasonably-related to the preservation of a well-regulated militia. See U.S. v Miller (1939).

Today, while the need of urban governments to reduce crime by imposing complete handgun bans has been blocked, they can still keep felons and juveniles from possessing firearms; they can ban certain types of firearms, like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns; they can prohibit concealed carry; and they can ban guns on public property.

While gun control advocates are unable to ban and can only regulate, 10 to 20 thousand Americans die each year as a result of handguns. Most murders (63%) are caused by handguns, and 70% of the time the person shooting is a friend or relative of the victim. Foreign countries, such as Japan, Canada, and those in Europe, have only a small fraction of homicides caused by handguns.

Gun control is needed in central cities (where there is no hunting), and any regulation that makes access to handguns in urban areas more difficult, is a step in the right direction. Since the Supreme Court decided to write law, and outlawed handgun bans as an option, the only alternative is to now regulate gun use to death, with the hope that someday, a different Supreme Court will finally apply the original intent of the Second Amendment.

12/07/2012

Wisconsin: Win With Player-Coaches

Dr. Beilema and 11 resident-physicians have been performing surgery for 13 hours. Five times they suffered major setbacks and thought the procedure was hopeless, but during eight other critical moments, they gained a renewed optimism. With only an hour to go, Beilema and the residents huddle around the operating table.

Dr. Beilema: I know this surgery isn’t finished, but I’m leaving.

As he removes his surgical gown, the residents are shocked.

Dr. Phillips: You’re leaving now? But Dr. Beilema, we’re just residents and interns. You’re paid to guide us. What will happen?

Dr. Beilema: Why do I care? I have to move to Arkansas, now.

Dr. Beilema just walks out, leaving the 11 residents behind.

Dr. O’Brien: I can’t finish the surgery, as my hands are too jittery.

Dr. Stave: Since I was hurt earlier this year, I can’t do it either.

Dr. Phillips: You have great hands, Dr. Abbrederis, can you help me close up the patient?

Dr. Borland: Wait a minute! We’re not going to just close him up, and let him die, after all our work!

Dr. Phillips: You’re right! Let’s find that old Dr. Barry. Doctors Ball and White, you run down the hall to the right, and Doctors Abbrederis and Pedersen, go left. See if you can catch Dr. Barry. Bring him to the Operating Room!

As the four break from the huddle, they sprint out of the door, quickly locate Dr. Barry, and usher him in.

Dr. Barry: What the hell is going on in here?

Dr. Phillips: We’ve been in surgery 13 hours. Dr. Beilema walked out on us, with only an hour to go. He thinks we have a lost cause.

Dr. Barry: Oh my god, who opened such a big hole in the patient?

Dr. Phillips: Doctors Frederick and Wagner did that.

Dr. White: Big openings give Dr. Ball and I more room to work.

Dr. Barry: Does anyone know the prognosis?

Dr. Borland: We need to stop a west coast virus called Stanford.

Dr. Taylor: It’s been done twice this year! It can be eradicated!

Dr. Barry: I’ve seen the strain, and yes, I know it can be beaten.

Dr. Phillips: Can you finish the surgery for us, Dr. Barry?

Dr. Barry: No, I don’t even know if I can stay my feet. I’ll watch and give advice from the sidelines, but you’ll have to finish.

Dr. Ball: But you’re a legend! You succeeded in situations like this three times. We read about it. We saw the films!

Dr. Barry: In those cases, I was involved from start to finish. Look, I’ve watched you guys perform. Let me tell you, if you save the situation, you’re the ones who will become the legend, not me.

Dr. Phillips: But can we really make the save ourselves?

Dr. Barry: You know the procedures! You’ve been here all along, not me. Like player-coaches at a sporting event, you can step up. Doctors Phillips, Ball, and Abbrederis can move the surgery forward, while Borland and Taylor just stop the virus from spreading. If the patient dies, blame me. If you succeed, you’ll be remembered as the legendary team that prevailed against all odds.

After a knock at the door, a florist walks in with a box of flowers.

Dr. Barry: Why are you bringing flowers in this room?

Florist: I was told there was going to be a funeral at Wisconsin.

Dr. Phillips: Dr. Barry, let me handle this! We are not quitting!

Florist: But what do I do with these roses?

Dr. Ball: Put them down. We’ll need them on Jan. 1, 2013.

12/06/2012

Beilema: Only Chickens Miss Roses

We are living in such a sad time, where there is so much greed, it totally permeates our culture, and there is no longer any refuge where morals remain, including our universities. Greed has infested the minds of college officials to the point, where students are now taught the wrong lesson, as in the case of former UW football coach Bret Beilema, who by his recent actions, has instructed young minds that immorality has no consequence.

What morally-grounded person would win a Big-10 championship game, qualify for the Rose Bowl, and then quit abruptly, leaving his team on a lurch to fend for themselves? What sick mind would value money so much, that he would burn every single bridge behind, as he high-tailed it out of state? It doesn’t matter how many games Beilema won at Wisconsin in the past, from now on, he should be booed.

I once taught part-time at a university, where I was paid the paltry sum of $3,000 to $4,000 for a 16-week class. I was wondering what would have happened if I had just quit in the 14th week, as my students were preparing for their final exam, and they had questions. A descent professor wouldn’t do that to his students.

I also practiced law. I wonder what would have happened if I had worked on a case for about a year, and a few weeks before trial, simply quit, and walked away. Not only would the judge be all over me for unethical behavior, I could have faced discipline.

But Bret Beilema, lives in the immoral world of greed. They have different rules. His world is all about Beilema. I can go to the Southeastern Conference. I can make even more than the obscene amount I’m already overpaid. It’s about me, the great Beilema. How lucky Wisconsin was. Oh, how fortunate Arkansas will be.

Get over yourself Beilema. You were overpaid. You inherited a football program with great recruiting. You dropped the ball at two Rose Bowls, and at many other winnable games. You were a coward afraid to lose a third Rose Bowl, so you quit. Go ahead to Arkansas. You’ll be right at home next to Tysen Foods, the world’s greatest producer of chickens.

11/23/2012

Big Ten: Expand to 20 and Divide by 2

Now that the Big Ten has grown to 14 teams, by adding Maryland and Rutgers, six more should be invited, to expand the conference to 20, so two 10-member divisions could be created.

Iowa State should be recruited to form a 10-team Big Ten-West, which would be a return to the traditional Midwestern alignment.

Big Ten-West (1 private, 9 public schools, 7 states)
24,000–Nebraska–Lincoln (Big-10) (1869)
29,000–Iowa St.–Ames (Big-12) (1858)
30,800–Iowa–Iowa City (Big-10)(1847)
52,000–Minnesota–Minneapolis (Big-10)(1851)
42,000–Wisconsin–Madison (Big-10)(1848)
15,000–Northwestern–Evanston (Big-10)(1851)
41,900–Illinois–Urbana (Big-10)(1867)
42,000–Indiana–Bloomington (Big-10)(1820)
39,000–Purdue–West Lafayette (Big-10)(1869)
41,000–Michigan–Ann Arbor (Big-10)(1817)

The Big Ten-East would start with Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers. They would invite five more eastern teams: Ohio (at Athens), Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Delaware. The Big Ten-East would be as follows:

Big Ten-East (10 public schools from 7 states)
41,000–Michigan St.–East Lansing (Big-10)(1855)
56,000–Ohio State–Columbus (Big-10)(1870)
44,505–Penn State–Carlisle (Big-10)(1855)
28,993–Rutgers–New Brunswick, NJ (Big-E) (1766)
37,600–Maryland–College Park (ACC) (1807)
20,619–Ohio University–Athens (Mid-A)(1804)
42,421–U of Cincinnati (Big E)(1819)
28,823–U of Pittsburgh (Big-E)(1787)
29,000–West Virginia–Morgantown (Big-E)(1867)
19,499–Delaware–Newark (Col)(1743)

11/04/2012

Undecided Voters: Foreign Policy Issues

The better choice on each issue is in the left column, indicated by a (D) for Democrat, (R) for Republican, or (N) for neither.

(D) TRADE WITH CHINA: Although Romney called China a currency manipulator and promised to prosecute them in the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the right to impose tariffs (10-11-11) (11-9-11) (11-12-11) (1-7-12) (1-19-12), since the Great Depression, both parties have worked together to eliminate tariffs, and in recent years, the Republicans have been the loudest advocate of free trade. It is highly unlikely Romney will seek or impose protective tariffs, or interfere with free trade.

(D) TRADE WITH CUBA: Although Romney said he would not open trade with Cuba, until Fidel Castro is dead (1-23-12) (1-26-12), there is actually no reason to treat Cuba any different than the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, or any other country we now trade with, who was once our enemy. Open the door now.

(D) EURO CRISIS: If the banks and economies around the world were collapsing, Romney said he would act to prevent contagion. (10-11-11). He also said Europe should take care of their own problems (11-9-11), and if Europe had a financial crisis, he wouldn’t give them a blank check, or save their banks (1-16-12). He was critical of the European for using IMF Funds (11-9-11). It appears, as usual, Romney wants to cover both sides of the issue.

(D) IMMIGRATION: Romney promised to crack down on immigration. (8-11-11). He said employers who hire illegal aliens are magnets. (9-7-11) (9-22-11). He would make businesses check the E-Verify data base. (10-18-11) (12-15-11) (1-19-12) (1-26-11). He thinks illegal aliens without jobs will self-deport (1-26-12). He said amnesty for illegal immigrants is another magnet that only encourages more. (12-10-11). He would not give aliens tuition assistance. (9-12-11) (9-22-11) (10-18-11). He would not give them Driver’s licenses. (9-12-11). He wants people with math and science degrees (11-22-11), and English language emersion for immigrants. (1-23-12) (1-26-12). He opposes special routes to citizenship (1-16-12). Although many Republicans favor what Romney has said, business owners in his own party wish to continue hiring illegal aliens, so they can keep paying cash under the table, to avoid payroll taxes and other legal obligations.

(D) MILITARY SERVICE: Romney, who received several deferments during the Vietnam War, found it extraordinary that only a few families were paying the price for freedom (1-7-12)

(D) IRAQ: Obama carried out his campaign pledge to end the misguided War in Iraq. Romney said he thought we had to go to war against Iraq. (1-16-12). Why is that even remotely true?

(D) BIN LADEN: President Obama was the Commander-in-Chief over the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden. If a Republican had been President when the mission was accomplished, they would be carving his face into Mt. Rushmore. On the assumption Bin Laden was responsible for 911, it was a job well done, and Obama should be credited.

(D) ASSASSINATION: Romney said he thinks the President has a right to order the death of any “American citizens” suspected of terrorism (11-12-11) Sorry, Mitt, no such right.

(D) LIBYA: President Obama waged an almost flawless campaign to help the Libyan freedom fighters remove Gaddafi, their long-time dictator. He refused to put U.S. troops on the ground, but supplied aid to the rebels, and succeeded in bringing change to Libya. Republicans, who spend time on the recent incident in Bengazi, can’t see the forest for the trees.

(D) AFGHANISTAN: We should withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as possible, so our troops can come home, and we can save billions. Romney was vague about Afghanistan during the Republican debates. He said he would defer to generals and conditions on the ground. (6-13-11) (8-11-11) He thinks our commanders in the field don’t want to withdraw. He wouldn’t cut and run. He thinks Obama’s announcement of a withdrawal weakened us (1-16-12) He accused Obama of withdrawing early, but then he also said he would stay until 2014. (11-12-11) (11-22-11) He gave no reasons for wanting to stay until 2014. (1-7-12). He wouldn’t negotiate with the Taliban, since he said they’re terrorists. He incorrectly said they declared war on us. (1-16-12). Romney wants to win in Afghanistan by defeating the Taliban (1-23-12) He also said he wants a gradual transfer to Afghan Security Forces. Frankly, I think Romney wants to be President and will say just about anything, depending on who’s listening.

(D) LAWS OF WAR: Romney said the rights that apply to criminal law are different than those applicable in war (11-22-11)

(D) GUANTANAMO: As to the Guantanamo Prison, Romney thinks we have a right to deny al Qaeda due process. (1-16-12).

(D) PAKISTAN: Romney is concerned about the fact Pakistan has nuclear weapons (2-22-12) He believes they are a fragile nation close to a failed state. He wants to bring Pakistan into the 21st Century (11-22-11) He wants them to let us go after the Taliban and Haqqani Network inside Pakistan (11-12-11). We need to stay out of Pakistan, Mitt. You’re playing with fire there.

(D) SYRIA: Romney said Syria is a threat to Israel (1-26-12), and an ally of Iran. He would use covert means to end Assad’s dictatorship (11-12-11) He would not however impose a no-fly zone over Syria. He would use sanctions and covert means (11-22-11) I say let’s stay out of their war altogether.

(D) ISRAEL: Although Republicans accuse Obama of sticking a thumb in Israel’s eye (8-11-11), the American problem is not too little support for Israel, it’s too much. Our bipartisan American foreign-policy has been controlled by Israeli special interests for a long time. Romney is frightening, because he sounds like a weak leader, who would allow outsiders to control our foreign policy. Romney said it was wrong for Obama to criticize Israel for illegally constructing settlements in occupied Palestine (9-22-11) Weak Republicans like Romney would abandon our long-standing objection to Israel’s illegal taking of the Palestinian territories in 1967. (8-11-11) Since Obama courageously followed international law, we need him to keep Israel from taking the U.S. even deeper into their conflict. Romney pandered to the Jewish community while in Florida (1-26-12), and it’s not surprising his first foreign policy trip would be to Israel (11-22-11) We need a leader much stronger than Romney, one who would stand up to Israel.

(D) IRAN: Romney has a desire to impose crippling sanctions against Iran to keep them from developing nuclear weapons, which he called unacceptable (9-22-11) He falsely accused Obama of not putting crippling sanctions against Iran (1-7-12) He supports Iranian dissidents. He favors regime change and would take military action to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (11-12-11) He called Obama weak on Iran (12-15-11) Romney said if Iran shut down the Straits of Hormuz, it would be an act of war (1-23-12). He thinks they will sneak dirty bombs into the U.S. through Latin America (2-22-12) Romney would indict Ahmadinejad for violating the Genocide Convention (11-22-11)

(D) LATIN AMERICA: Romney actually thinks the Hezbollah is working in Latin America (11-22-11) (2-22-12) Get real Mitt.

(D) RUSSIA: In one debate, Romney sounded like he didn’t know the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. He was still talking as though Russia was an enemy, as he accused Obama of giving them what they wanted. (11-12-11). Romney worries me.

(D) FOREIGN AID: Romney thinks the U.S. spends more on foreign aid than we should (10-18-11). We are still the richest nation on earth, and if we want allies, we need to give some aid.

(D) HOMELAND SECURITY: Romney would let people who are a “lower risk” go through TSA screening quickly. (11-22-11). Sounds like he wants to set up a fast track for his friends like Donald Trump, while the rest of us wait in line.

11/04/2012

Undecided Voters: Social Issues

The better choice on each issue is in the left column, indicated by a (D) for Democrat, (R) for Republican, or (N) for neither.

(D) VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS: Which party is more likely to promote a constitution amendment to remove money from campaigns, or appoint Supreme Court justices willing to interpret large contributions as bribery? Romney goes in the wrong direction as he suggests getting rid of campaign finance laws. (1-16-12). Who is more likely to promote and protect the right to vote by removing unnecessary obstacles, and yet preserve the integrity of the system? Democrats clearly win this one.

(D) MEDICARE: Although the nation must get Medicare spending under control, Romney has no solution, for he would block grant it to the states, which would effectively kill it. (10-18-11) (11-12-11) (2-22-12). Not changing things for current retirees is just a way of screwing those who’ll retire later (1-8-12) Romney wants a premium voucher program, which inevitably will not cover increases in insurance company premiums (1-16-12).

(D) MEDICAID: Romney would also effectively end Medicaid by sending it to the states. (1-16-12). As he put it, he would get the government out of Medicaid. (1-19-12). The problem is a large segment of the population will prematurely die off.

(D) HEALTH CARE COSTS: Health care needs tough federal regulation to control doctor and hospital costs, as well as drug prices, but neither party openly proposes a solution. Since regulation is the only answer, and the modern Republican Party never advocates price controls, Romney cannot be the solution.

(D) OBAMACARE: Romney was wrong when he thought Obamacare would be declared unconstitutional. (12-10-11). He repeatedly promised to repeal it. (10-11-11) (10-18-11) (1-7-12) (1-16-12) (1-19-12) (2-22-12). He posed a good question when he asked what we would be replaced with. (10-11-11). He alleged Obamacare raises taxes 500 billion, cuts Medicare 500 billion, and is a government takeover. (10-11-11). He thinks eliminating it would save 95 billion annually (11-12-11) (1-7-12). Romney would give states health care waivers (9-22-11), which effectively would repeal it. Since the current health care system is dysfunctional, the greatest problem with the Republican position is their failure to suggest a rational intelligent alternative.

(D) INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: Romney argued people need to purchase health insurance to show their personal responsibility. (8-11-11) (11-9-11). He said uninsured persons are going to emergency rooms and taxpayers end up picking up the tab. (9-7-11). Romney insulted those who cannot afford health insurance by calling them “free riders.” (1-26-12). He later contradicted himself saying he opposed the individual mandate (1-23-12). The problem is even with a government voucher program, health care providers and health insurance companies will continue raising costs and premiums, and most will be priced out of coverage. Deductibles and co-pays will continue to rise. Prices need to be controlled and regulated. Since Republicans will never regulate, the vote has got to go to the Democrats.

(D) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Romney said he would not repeal the unfunded Prescription Drug Program started by Little Bush (9-12-11). The problem is we need drug price regulation, but the Republicans will never do it. Our only hope is with Democrats.

(D) SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT: Social Security retirement should never be confused with Medicare, or other social welfare programs. The retirement plan, created in 1935, is the most successful and efficient program ever created by the federal government. It needs nothing, except to be left alone. While Romney called it an “essential program” (9-12-11), Republicans from Reagan to Little Bush have advocated phasing it out. So, even though Romney said we should save the retirement plan (9-7-11), he would be pressured by House Republicans to push a right-wing agenda, which is to privatize it. Although Romney said it would not change for current retirees (1-8-12), he would add a year or two to the retirement age (1-16-12).

(D) WELFARE: Romney would turn poverty programs back to the states (1-8-12), which would kill them. He thinks Obama is creating a welfare state (1-19-12), and the U.S. has become an entitlement society. (1-16-12). Romney would block grant Food Stamps (2-22-12), which would cripple the needs of the hungry.

(D) EDUCATION: Romney apparently thinks there is something wrong with teacher unions, as he said he would stand up them. (9-22-11) While he would test children in math and English (2-22-12), which is fine, too many Republicans push the idea of privatizing schools, a long range threat to our culture.

(D) EDUCATIONAL TV/PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS): In an shocking campaign promise, Romney said he would eliminate Public Broadcasting (11-12-11). At a time when more, not less, non-fictional programming on science is needed, why cut PBS? Personally, it’s the only benefit I ever received from the federal government. I can’t believe any candidate would eliminate it.

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: In Presidential elections, we don’t just elect a man; we choose a party to manage the agencies of government. If Romney wins, House Republicans will name the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Extremists like Republican Michelle Bachmann, who advocated abolishing it, will have influence. If Romney wins, we will have a weak EPA. We should prefer over-regulation, than the other way around. Although Romney said we can’t let pollution flow from one state to another (1-8-12), which implies a need for federal law, modern Republicans cannot be trusted to regulate.

(D) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) The storm that just hit the East Coast is a good reminder of how bad it would be if FEMA had been abolished, or privatized. We need to remember we all sink or swim together.

(D) SUPREME COURT: It is likely the next President will appoint one or more Justices. A Romney win would tip the court to the hard right. The Court currently has four right-wing Justices: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts (on most issues). Reagan’s appointee Kennedy completes the usual conservative majority, which has existed since 1972.

(D) ABORTION: The secular right to “liberty” found in the 5th and 14th Amendments allows women to have an abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, when the fetus is incapable of living outside the womb. As a practical matter, attempts to outlaw abortion have been a waste of time. Even if the anti-abortion crowd had another Justice, who would ignore precedent, and reverse Roe v Wade, subsequent attempts to convict women and doctors would fail. Prosecutors will never get 12 jurors to convict women or doctors, and there would be hung jury after hung jury. We live in a free country which has no official religious creed. People disagree as to whether life begins at birth, or some other point before the fetus can live outside the womb. Romney, a missionary for the very conservative Mormon Church, will almost certainly appoint right-wing Justices. He changed his position on abortion. Most recently, he said he is pro-life (12-15-11) (1-19-12). He said Roe v Wade was wrong, it should be overturned, and the issue should be left to the states. (1-7-12). His stand would only give religious fanatics the power to impose their religious views on a secular society, filled with many who want to be free.

(D) CONTRACEPTIVES: Romney did not think any state wanted to ban contraceptives (1-7-12), but he is part of a right-wing Republican Party willing to turn back the hands of time.

(D) GAYS: Romney, whose Mormon grandfather fled the U.S. and moved to Mexico, because he believed strongly in the right to have more than one wife, ironically wants to amend the Constitution to limit marriages to one man and one women. Why the Republicans want to control the life of gays, who are genetically predisposed, is a mystery. We live in free country. It’s time to leave gays alone. Although Romney opposes same-sex marriage (12-15-11) (1-8-12) (1-16-12), and would amend the constitution to stop gay marriage (1-7-12) (1-8-12), the Democrats have the better position, as they believe in personal freedom.

(D) GUNS: Neither party is doing much to control hand guns in cities. Romney signed an assault weapons ban when he was Gov. in Massachusetts, but now he says he is pro-gun (12-15-11). The Republicans offer little hope to control firearm violence.

(D) RELIGION: Romney served overseas in France as a missionary for the Mormon Church. (12-10-11). He said he would seek guidance and providence in making critical decisions (1-26-12). He thinks Obama is somehow attacking religious freedom. (2-22-12). I have no idea what Romney is talking about.