Is the Inconsistency of the SCOTUS Showing?
According to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, there are some glaring inconsistencies in the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of McCullen v. Coakley. As you know by now, the SCOTUS ruled unanimously that a Massachusetts law that set up a protest “buffer” zone 35 feet from abortion clinic entrances, is unconstitutional because it overrides petitioners’ right to free speech up close and personal. In his decision for the (unanimous) majority, Chief Justice Roberts actually wrote that petitioners (who said they wanted close up quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives) were not protesters. The law blocked too much speech, he said, “sweeping in innocent individuals.” He also said that the state’s concerns about harassment, intimidation and obstruction could be addressed in other ways, including through creation of legislation on these matters.

The first inconsistency goes back to a 2000 decision that upheld a similar Colorado law in Hill v. Colorado. That “floating bubble” law established 100-foot buffer zones outside all health care facilities, not just abortion clinics. Inside those larger zones, the law banned approaching others within eight feet for protest, education or counseling without their consent. Only Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas wrote that they would have overruled the Hill decision.

The second inconsistency has to do with the fact that such “buffer” zones, based on a need to control a surrounding environment are already in effect and unchallenged in the case of electoral polling stations. Most states and some municipalities have laws that prevent partisans from “lobbying” or “influencing votes” in or around a voting place. There is usually a “buffer” zone that extends about 50 feet from poll entrances in which “electioneering” cannot take place.
In the special case of military funerals, while the Court was consistent about putting free speech before the right of privacy in upholding the right of Westboro Baptist to protest America’s "approval" of homosexuality, the fact Justice Roberts said that the protesters from Westboro were far enough away not to be terribly hurtful to the family is a kind of unwitting approval of a buffer zone. Roberts in his opinion noted the Snyder family was not a “captive audience” to the protests that were conducted several hundred yards away. “Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service,” wrote Roberts. “Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the funeral. And there is no indication that the picketing itself in any way interfered with the funeral itself.”
There are all manner of municipal laws that govern public protests, and many of them deal with conduct, space given, and length away from traffic, etc. However, I brought up Rachel Maddow at the beginning of this post because she rightly pointed out a much larger inconsistency: the fact that protests are barred from the white marble plaza of the U.S. Supreme Court building itself thus having a buffer in front of its own entrance! It appears that free speech is moot if you want to be up close to the Justices for a very personal and quiet counseling or conversation!!! Here is an interesting picture of police on the plaza guarding the Court building. 

“One tool has now been taken away,” said Martha M. Walz, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and a former state legislator who was a lead sponsor of An Act Relative to Public Safety, the law struck down by the court. “We will now use the other tools at our disposal,” including laws prohibiting entrances of clinics from being blocked and injunctions against protesters who go too far.

“By striking down the buffer zone today, the Supreme Court has taken away an essential measure to protect public safety and health care access in our state,” she said. “The opinion raises the question of whether the buffer zone at the Supreme Court is in fact constitutional.” (emphasis mine!). Unconstitutionality is one thing; hypocrisy is another! (source: NY Times)

There are two more things about the decision that concern me. One is the fact that the Court naively believes that this is a case about quiet conversation and personal counseling, and free speech rights that attach. It is not just about free speech. It is very much about personal safety, and about zealots who have no regard for the safety or welfare of the women seeking health care or abortion from Planned Parenthood centers, and about assassins who kill doctors who have performed abortions. It is therefore about rights in conflict: free speech and personal safety.  

The Court has chosen free speech in this case, but it’s protected plaza is telling us that when it comes down to what the Justices really feel when they think of their own safety – free speech in the form of protest is not allowed near their building! My problem with the Justices is not their protection of free speech. My problem with them is that they did not pay attention to the right of personal safety. Instead, they passed it off to the legislature to come up with other laws. They ignored the safety of women who have to endure the hurt, the harm and the hell of having to seek this kind of help in the first place. It would seem from their decision that women are expendable; protesters of abortion (and apparently the Justices themselves) are not.

Finally, there is one more entirely ignored concern that lies at the foundation of these protests, and that is the imposition of a religious belief on others who do not chose to believe as the protesters believe. In protecting the free speech rights of the protesters, the Court has endorsed the concept that a religious belief can be imposed on others under the guise of free speech. As a branch of the federal government, the Court has thus allowed the establishment of a particular religious belief as a state-imposed norm.

In my estimation, free speech stops where my freedom to practice my religion or non-religion begins or when it is being trampled as it is here. The Justices have completely ignored this issue because they do not want to deal with the larger question of separation of church and state, which has been violated in so many ways, many of which have been allowed by the SCOTUS. One example: their latest ruling in Town of Greece vs. Galloway that allows a public entity to begin its public meetings with a Christian prayer in spite of objections of those who feel they are being imposed upon.

The liberal Justices have let us down in not recognizing the broader issues, but being willing to “go along” because the Chief left open the possibility of corrective legislative measures. Wrong; wrong; wrong! Going along with the religious tenets and acts of the right-wing is a dangerous precedent. For it is the sworn intention of right-wing evangelicals and conservative elements of other denominations, to make this a "Christian" society and government. They have no compunctions about forcing their beliefs on others because they have no room in their closed belief systems for any other legitimate beliefs; and certainly have no room -- or tolerance -- for those who profess no religious beliefs.

This is one more "crack in the wall" of separation of church and state. The wall cannot tolerate many more because it is already crumbling. The Supreme Court will be addressing opportunities to shore up that wall, but my guess is that they will fail to do so given the rulings that have recently been made. The decision in the Hobby-Lobby case will be crucial. It may come down at term's end tomorrow, but it may not. Whenever it comes down, ThinkProgress.org expresses it's significance well:
"Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius present the question of whether a business owner who objects to birth control on religious grounds can refuse to comply with federal rules requiring most employer-provided health plans to cover contraceptive care. Yet it is also the first wave of a much broader effort by religious conservatives to immunize themselves from legislative and judicial decisions that they expect to lose. For decades, the guide star of American religious liberty law has been a simple principle — one person’s religious liberty ends when it is used to strip away the rights of another. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood seek to tear down this principle and replace it with a new rule that would subject every attempt to enforce a law against someone who objects to it on religious grounds to the 'most demanding test known to constitutional law'.”

A finding in these cases that supports a right to object to enforcement of a law on religious grounds would be equivalent to wielding a battering ram against an already crumbling wall of separation because what this comes down to is the same regime that pervades some Islamic governments of the middle East. The laws of the state would be subject to the rulings of the clerics. We could no longer claim to be a nation where law is supreme, because individual religious beliefs would determine which laws are viable and enforceable, and which are not. The fundamental issue, then, is not abortion or the right to life. The major issue, in my opinion, is the establishment of religious belief and practice as more important than the rule of law. 

We are headed in a direction that will have dire consequences for this nation as a free society, all under the guise of protecting the right of free speech.

　




　

THE DRUMS OF WAR
Here we go again...! The Drums of War are sounding all around, and President Obama was caught for a time in the rhythm of the sound and the fury. I think we know what he plans to do now. It’s a thoughtful response, as usual. He is positioning U.S. naval vessels near Iraqi shores to both intimidate the ISIS terrorists and to prepare for evacuation of Americans. He is sending a minimal number of special troops to help guard the embassy in Baghdad, and to offer training and guidance to Iraqi troops. He is positioning some of those Special Forces to help get American personnel out of Baghdad if necessary. Will he fire missiles into Iraq? I don't know. Will he use drones to take out ISIS leaders? Probably. After all, he already scored one point by capturing the leader of the Benghazi attack with Special Forces. Will he be pressured into the sending of substantial numbers of troops to fight against the Sunni rebels? He has said he won't. Going back into Iraq is not the smartest of moves. It is the same quagmire as all the other Middle Eastern countries like Libya, Syria, and Lebanon. The religious disputes of the Middle East Islamist countries are not our fight. 

Sure, we have to guard against the founding of terrorist/radical Islamist bases in these countries, as best we can. Of course we don't want another 9/11. But, fighting costly wars in countries hostile to our way of life, our democratic ideals and our Judeo-Christian heritage is not going to stop terrorists from attacking this country whenever they can. They are going to do so because they are zealously committed to destroying the Great Satan, as they have called us more than once. Yes, they scored a successful raid on 9/11, but their record since then has been less than stellar, not because we were fighting to defeat them in Iraq and Afghanistan, but because we were better prepared to stop them here in America. Could Islamist terrorists manage another 9/11? Probably not. Could they attack us in some way? Probably so. Can we always stop them? I doubt it, but their numbers and tactics are not a threat to our national security. They are a threat to pockets of our citizenry. That is not something we want, but it is something with which we will now be living, just as other countries have had to do.

The blowhards, like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney are politicians who like to play the war card every chance they get because they know nothing else. They are pitiful in their puny attempts to scare us and to convince us that war is the answer to foreign threats and disputes. They live in a past when war was fraught with honor and meaningful outcomes. Today, war is simply a failed expression of frustration and nationalistic, jingoistic fervor, but thanks to General David Petreus, we have had a bit of reality inserted into the "debate" from the general who implemented the "surge" in Iraq. Even Senator Rand Paul says to "stay out."

War does not, in our time, solve much of anything. It costs us the lives (both of dead and wounded) of promising young men and women. And, it costs us trillions of tax dollars that are desperately needed in other areas of our national life. Finally, it costs us the enmity and the disrespect of nations and peoples who end up tasting the concomitant effects of combat and war as a threat to their very existence. Ask the multiple millions of refugees from countries that we have tried to "save." Do they feel that we are a great and exceptional nation because we devastated their homeland and their lives? Funny how we take polls at home on the devastation and effects of war, but rarely see any polls that express the opinions of those whose countries are in ruins.

Ask yourself some more questions: are we free from danger from others because we have fought wars? It does not appear that way; not in Korea, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not even in Somalia, and certainly not with either Russia or China.

Have we planted "seeds of democracy" anywhere? Perhaps in Germany, Italy, Poland, and Japan; maybe even South Korea. But, the truth is, the seeds of democracy (human rights) were planted in those countries long before we invaded Europe or Asia. Maybe we could say we forced them to "water the seeds" they had long neglected. What we forget too often is that we are not the Savior of the world, or of other nations, or of peoples. We are too often seen as the invaders, the conquerors, the destroyers, the foreigners who brought destruction, harm, disruption and chaos. We are not necessarily proclaimed as heroic "liberators" as George Bush had declared we would be in Iraq.

There is a lingering temptation to believe what some rebels declare in certain countries where revolutionary protest is underway on behalf of democratic ideals: that their best hope is the USA coming to their rescue and aid. Enticements like that appeal to many, but are fraught with the dangers of complicated alliances and issues. It is never clear in a revolution just what is being sought by each group that joins in. It is never clear who will hold the reins of power or how trustworthy the power-brokers are or will be. When we engage in "rescue" we engage in untying ancient Gordian knots of which we have little understanding in the first place.

What lasting outcomes have we achieved lately with war-like interventions in Vietnam, Sinai, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Desert Storm (Kuwait), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), Operation Iraqi Freedom? Dictators survive, democracy does not flourish, major problems remain unsolved although some immediate problems were solved (we got rid of Ortega and Hussein!). Not only don't we resolve long-term problems in these countries, we don't even gain anything for our country! Just what lasting value have we achieved for the USA from all this fighting? A military that is battle-ready and battle-tested? Friendly partnerships? Profits for private contractors who moved in after the wars and skirmishes were over? Inflation? More oil?

The best we seem to do with war is to solve an immediate problem or crisis, but what we are often left with is over-spending, inflation, and dead and wounded soldiers. War is not a good answer for solving long-term problems or even for keeping short-term problems from re-emerging.

So, let us not even consider going back into Iraq to solve their religious disagreements, or to get them to establish an inclusive government, or to keep ISIS out of power and to prevent them from establishing a base of operations.

If people want help to resolve their problems, let them make a request for our expertise, not our weapons. Let them ask for food and clothing and not for our military. Let them ask for our ability to train a nation of volunteers and citizens, not for our missiles. Are we mature enough to eschew our violent natures and offer our helpful aid and experience instead?

What's wrong with being a helpful resource instead of a war machine or a "super-power"? Why not build peace instead of building more conflict? Is that a sign of weakness? Not in my book. Giving unselfishly of your resources and people and expertise is a sign of the strength of a vibrant unafraid nation. War is a sign of a fearful nation; a paranoid nation that believes threats are everywhere and must be met with overwhelming force. So sad.... We bomb a country like Iraq to smithereens because they supposedly had "weapons of mass destruction." Ooops - sorry, Mr. Cheney. I don't want to disturb your escape from history and reality.

By the way - that's not, in my opinion, why the Bush II administration at the time went to war with Iraq. Yes, they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein - not because he was a major threat to us as a nation or even because he killed his own people. We destroyed Saddam because he dared to threaten the life of George H.W. Bush. It was REVENGE we sought, not freedom for Iraqis or protection for us! The war machine in this country was run by men who had worked for George H. W. Bush -- Dick Cheney (Secretary of Defense); Paul Wolfowitz (Undersecretary of Defense); Colin Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff); and more.

As one commentator from rationalrevolution.net indicates: "The Bush administration was a tight knit group composed largely of long time Bush family loyalists and people from many former administrations. As has already been pointed out, the administration also has a large number of corporate ties and ties to the oil industry, the largest number of ties in history. There are also a significant number of people in the Bush administration with questionable backgrounds, such as Richard Armitage and John Negroponte. In addition to that it is also relevant that many of the members of the Bush cabinet are associated with the Partnership for a New American Century. Aside from the obvious implications of such a cabinet it is also likely that top officials in the Bush administration, including Bush himself, have a high degree of leverage on the members of the cabinet because of the histories of the cabinet members."

That high degree of leverage, and a loyalty to the Bushes that was more than evident, is the key to my assertion about the reason for the Iraq War. Even though doubt has since been cast on whether a real plot against H. W. ever took place, it is clear that George W. believed it did, and he expressed it more than once.

"During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons -- in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-- about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, ''After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad.''

He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after U.S.-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton.

Although he did not name his father, Bush Jr. also cited the assassination attempt in his September 2002 address at the United Nations General Assembly where he called on the U.N. Security Council to approve a tough resolution demanding that Saddam fully give up his (non-existent) WMD weapons and programs. While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits -- including Maureen Dowd of the 'New York Times'-- have speculated that revenge might have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad -- as the sign of one demonstrator suggested in a big anti-war march here just before the war: 'I love my dad, too, but come on!'" (Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service).

Now, you might say, "Well, how do you know that for sure?" From my own experience is how I know because I worked inside government for 25 years, and I saw acts of revenge taken on people and agencies and organizations by government leaders. I was personally, in fact, the target of such a plot under the Reagan administration. I will not go into detail here, but those who believe that politicians and leaders of our country would not go to war over an assassination attempt upon a POTUS, have a somnambulant problem, and are ignoring history as well.

I want to conclude with the record of calling for military intervention by John McCain, Lindsey Graham and other congressional Republicans. Above all -- do not listen to them! They are devoid of any creative ideas or strategies for dealing with international conflicts. They have no credibility because they have nothing but arrows of war in their quivers (irrelevant to present-day warfare). They can't think in any terms other than 19th and 20th century battle strategies (only some of which barely apply to today's terrorist cells). They have narrowed their principles to bellicosity in every instance. They have accepted the simplistic view that proactive, massive-strike warfare is the answer to every threat. Here they are:

During his failed 2000 presidential bid, McCain proclaimed his support for “rogue-state rollback,” which would have required America to “arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.” McCain also suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and called for Saddam Hussein’s ouster (The Daily Beast). Since then, Politicus USA claims that he has called for military intervention in 15 countries, of which Syria, Iran, and Libya are but a few stand-outs!

Dick Cheney went on Fox TV and other programs just to make a fool of himself. He couldn't answer a host's question about his involvement in the mistakes of the Iraq War. He simply is the quintessential War-Monger, who not only has a transplanted heart; he possesses a mummified brain as well!

Graham is no better. "Although sometimes characterized as a Republican "maverick" for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Graham is also a staunch foreign policy hawk, promoting U.S. military intervention across the Greater Middle East. In 2013, he took issue with (President) Obama's stated desire to end the "war on terror," arguing that the "Middle East is going to blow up. Graham and his allies have been at the forefront of congressional efforts to promote war in recent years, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran." (irc-online.org).

My main point is this: you can't trust anything you hear about reasons to go to war. They can be fabricated, they can be trumped-up; they can be personal; they can be stupid, melodramatic and devoid of information. One thing they will never be is free from political ties and intrigues, economic issues and nationalistic egoism.

WE Must Not Go Back Into Iraq to Fight!

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

DONT VOTE For RICHARD HANNA

Is Congressman Richard Hanna concerned? Apparently, Eric Cantor's loss in Virginia has him a bit perplexed. Why else would he bother to run almost a real campaign against Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney, when he has been predicted to be the winner with about 60% of the vote in the June 24th Primary. That Primary win will automatically put him back in Congress because of the lack of Democratic opposition on the general ballot of Nov. 4th, 2014. Maybe the similarities with Cantor's race are bothering him. After all, he has a huge lead in the money race; Tenney is an unknown in most of the congressional district, and she is further to the Right than Hanna, but in a District that doesn't seem to fit well with anything too radical!

Nonetheless, Congressman Hanna has been conducting a campaign that attempts to show himself as the more conservative of the two, which is a striking contrast to his prior races when he attempted (and succeeded) to make himself look like a moderate Republican. Now he contends in his TV ads (and, I'm told) in his literature (which for some reason, doesn't show up in my mailbox anymore!) that he is the quintessential conservative Republican, who votes against big government, voted against the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), supports the 2nd Amendment with all his might, and brings jobs to New York State. That last claim, by the way, is a farcical bunch of rhetoric, since under his watch, one of the largest employers in the area, Remington Arms, of Ilion, NY, has begun to move local jobs to its new Hunter, Alabama location. His TV ad cites only that he is a self-made millionaire who brought jobs to this area through his own entrepreneurial construction business. He has no legislative record of creating jobs for this area. In fact, he voted against the Jobs Bill and the Infrastructure Bill that would have spawned some jobs for this area, but, remember, he is against big spending! Governor Cuomo's Opportunity Agenda initiative on the state level has brought more jobs to this area than Hanna ever will.

Mr. Hanna is the "do-nothing" candidate: "do nothing that could alienate enough voters to bring defeat." That's his unspoken, but evident motto. He plays the waiting game on all legislation; rarely leads the way to sponsor (or even co-sponsor) meaningful legislation. The only legislation that he seems to favor is anything that pleases the members of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Hanna is all Business-oriented; never mind the worker, or those who need a hand-up in this life, or the children, one of every five of whom lives in poverty. One could make a strong case that he, like so many conservative Republicans, is neglectful of our children.

How? By voting against gun background checks, assault weapons and large magazine clips. By voting for repeal of Affordable health care that extends Medicaid to more families and their children. By voting against an increase in Pell grants and against lower interest rates for student loans. By supporting drastic cuts to Food Stamps and WIC. How? By not supporting the extension of unemployment insurance or raising the Minimum wage. In all these, and more, children are affected and Mr. Hanna has an unblemished record of casting votes that favor children's poverty, educational deprivations, lack of research into children's diseases, and, oh yes -- death from gun violence!

Does it sound as though I really don't care for Mr. Hanna? Well, not exactly true. I don't care for his lack of principle and his attempts to make himself seem to be doing something meaningful, when he is really doing nothing to advance the lives of a major portion of his constituency. He does not represent certain of his constituents at all (the poor, the unemployed, children, college students, women (although he did start out to support women by telling a large crowd of them to spend their money on Democrats!). But my opposition to Mr. Hanna's philosophy and legislative record is not quite the main point I want to make today. (Sorry, if I misled you).

Today, I am calling on all those whom Hanna does not represent, and all those who disagree with his conservative beliefs, and all those who see him as a do-nothing Congressman who values office above effective representation and the needs of constituents -- I am asking you today NOT TO GIVE UP YOUR VOTE by staying home, or by holding your nose and casting a vote FOR Hanna!

 

 

It MUST BE SAID that none of the people whose names appear on this poster have any idea that they have been suggested for a write-in -- they are simply names of Progressives listed here as examples. None of them have indicated any desire to be a write-in candidate, and none have given permission to write in their name. But, you have the right to vote for anyone you want, so you can write-in a name in spite of any disinclination or disclaimer, because your vote is yours and it's free and it's secret!

So, I am strongly urging you to CAST A PROTEST VOTE on November 4th. It is important that you not let Mr. Hanna get away with his do-nothing record, or with his lack of attention to the needs of the people of this District. YOU MUST CAST A PROTEST VOTE on Nov. 4th, and here's how YOU CAN DO IT!

CAST A WRITE-IN BALLOT! That's right. You can write-in the name of anyone you want at the bottom of the column that has Mr. Hanna's name on it for Congress (you can do this for any office, but I'm targeting only the column for "Representative In Congress"). It is so simple, I don't know why it does not get done more often! Look here at last year's ballot. All you do is write the name of someone you would favor to replace Richard Hanna. It's best not to waste this opportunity by putting in a cartoon character or movie star, but to actually record your own name or that of a progressive Democrat, some of whom are suggested on the poster above. Then you take the ballot as usual to a teller or directly to a scanner, and make sure your ballot is scanned. That's it.

(here | at the bottom is where it
says "write-in" on the ballot)

It is important to deal with several questions. For instance:
Q. Why bring this up now? Why not wait until the fall?
A. Because NOW is the time to start a movement and to get people thinking about it. You can start by notifying as many friends and neighbors and relatives as you can (who live in the 22nd NY district) that this is something they should consider. Then get them to notify at least 5 more people. Help all summer by "heating up" this movement.

Q. Isn't a write-in vote a wasted vote? Very few people have ever been elected by that method?
A. It depends on how you look at it. If your only reason to cast a write-in vote is to win an election, it may be an inopportune way to wage a campaign.
On the other hand, if you look at it as a protest vote, it could certainly have some influence, particularly on the next election in 2016.
But here's what I think it could do in 2014:
-- preserve our precious right to vote for the candidate of our choice. A write-in is presumably for your personal favorite.
-- give Mr. Hanna something to think about when this write-in movement begins to 'tweak' the interest of the media. All those questioned by the media will have a chance to say why you oppose Mr. Hanna and what you want instead.
-- and that equates to education. This write-in movement is not about the size of the vote; it's about educating people to the issues and to Rep. Hanna's record. It's about making sure that people understand that Hanna can't be trusted. He veers with the wind -- from a moderate to a conservative, for instance (and probably back to moderate soon enough).

It's about making sure that people understand that Richard Hanna is not going to vote "Yea" on bread and butter issues like raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, making sure single mothers have help sheltering, caring for and feeding their children. He's not going to vote for senior citizens getting a raise in their social security benefits instead of a cut or an inadequate voucher. He's not going to support anything in the Affordable Care Act, which means that he doesn't support extended Medicaid, which is helping so many persons who are disabled, and he doesn't support reducing drug costs for Seniors by getting rid of the Donut-hole in Part D of Medicare which is right now being done as a part of the ACA (ObamaCare).

It's all about understanding that someone who votes for every austerity budget presented by Paul Ryan to the Congress, as Mr. Hanna has done, is voting against your welfare!  
Mr. Hanna believes in draconian cuts for the working poor and middle-class citizens, but has said or done nothing to cut the voluminous corporate welfare that the government spews out to corporations and rich individuals by means of the federal income tax system. Welfare for the rich that Hanna supports is far and away more costly than the amount of waste in the federal social programs for the poor or those with special needs.
That's also why we need to start now. This is an education campaign; not a political campaign. If people don't understand what the radical Right has in mind for them, they are about to court catastrophe!

Q. But, what if the protest vote turns out to be so low that it makes little impression on the voters?
A. Another very good reason to get this movement started now! It's not the size of the write-in vote I'm worried about. It's the lack of a viable Democrat running against Hanna that has me frustrated and angry. It's the expected size of the Hanna vote that has me upset.
What we most need to do besides turn out a protest vote, is to turn out targeted voters. What does that mean? It means finding voters who don't usually vote in off-cycle elections when a presidential candidate is not running. It means finding people who should be voting but are not. It most of all means targeting certain groups of people that can make an impression by their vote.
I'll tell you what would be more impressive than the size of the write-in vote.  If we could point to the fact that mostly single women, minorities, new citizens, college students, people living in poverty, plus seniors were the demographics that came out to cast their protest write-in votes! Such a turn-out -- even if relatively small -- would make the point that Mr. Hanna is not representative of his entire district! And we will make that point if YOU start now to get people -- especially these specific groups of people -- fired-up about going to the polls and casting a Write-In Protest Vote.

Here are a couple more flyers and fact sheets that may appeal to you in this People's Campaign for a write-in vote.

Copy Them -- Print Them Out -- Distribute Them!
　
No One will ACT on THIS unless YOU take the initiative.
　
You know it's a Good Idea -- citizens should have a way to express their frustration.
　
A WRITE-IN VOTE is one way to do it!
　
START A Grassroots MOVEMENT! YOU Can Do It!
　
　
　







 



 



　

Misusing the 'Power of the Purse'

 

 Republican lawmakers have a way of forgetting that their inaction is one of the major causes of later debacles.  Why?  Because every time they refuse to fund something, or act to cut funding, it turns out that those funds are a basis for lack of personnel or services, of safety or enforcement that provokes unfortunate incidents.  You can't run a ship without an adequate crew.  You can't provide adequate services without adequate personnel and structures.  You can't keep water and food and work places safe from corruptive influences without enough inspectors, or enforcement agents.  As much as the slogan "do more with less" is catchy, it is not a viable statement because you can't do more with less; you can only do less with less.  Cuts or inaction are at the root of why certain governmental functions are under-funded and half-baked.  If you want an adequate job done, you have to have the right tools, and in many cases, the number of workers required to do the job.   

Let's take a look at the Ben Ghazi incident, where we lost four good members of the diplomatic corps, including the Ambassador.  Why?  Because we cannot protect our people in those parts of the world where terrorism is rampant and where embassy or consulate guards are limited.  We simply have an untenable situation unless we deploy adequate military units to every such embassy and consulate.  This is WAR folks, and any American diplomatic outpost that is not also a military compound, is vulnerable.  That's the truth of Ben Ghazi, Libya and certainly of Iran; and of Lebanon, Syria, and even Egypt.  Under present circumstances, we cannot protect our diplomatic corps in those areas because they are in the midst of people who want to kill them, and we can't stop those armed militants with 4 or 5 guards or even with 4 or 5 extra guards!  We didn't do it in Viet Nam, and we can't do it in the Middle East either.     

 Instead of facing that basic fact, we have seen an arrogant, multi-millionaire Congressman, Darryl Issa from California, trying desperately to blame the Obama administration for the Ben Ghazi incident.  The truth of the matter is this:  Ben Ghazi is not an isolated incident.  Other embassies have experienced, or been threatened with, attacks from local groups.  If a force of 100-1,000 militants attack our people in an embassy or consulate (an overwhelming force in terms of the measures in place to deal with such an attack), nothing can stop them except an equal US force, and we can't provide that.  Or, maybe we can, but just haven't faced that fact. 

 So Hillary was right, again.  "What difference would it have made" if she or her underlings had sent a few extra guards?  Not one scintilla of difference (except maybe more loss of life).  That's what these Republican congresspersons keep denying.  They can't accept the fact that we are in an untenable situation.  They would rather politicize that untenable circumstance, and use this incident to demean and destroy our first black president.  Please spare us the empty rhetoric.  Either fund what must be done to protect our diplomats, or shut up and stop trying to make Mr. Obama the scapegoat for an inadequate response to a dangerous situation on the part of a recalcitrant Congress; a response that has actually gone on now for a few years. 

 The Huffington Post reminds us of this lack of clarity on what it would take to protect our diplomats:

 "Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged... (recently) that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.  ....CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

 For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to de-prioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.  Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored. "

 Yes, they were ignored -- by the fools who run our Congress who can't get it through their thick skulls that in order to protect our diplomatic people in a time of hotspot wars and attacks that we must commit troops to defend our diplomats in volatile countries like Libya and Syria!  Or, maybe we can do it with private contractors!  How about some mercenary troops?  Either put up or shut up; and stop blaming the Executive branch when you hold the power of the purse, or have you forgotten that too?

Let's move on to another debacle that has been long in the brewing process: the Veteran's Administration failure to care adequately for our military men and women who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan (and other outposts), and are in need of many services, particularly of a medical nature.  Congress has once again ignored the massive problems with the system, and has simply decided that cutting their budget is the right thing to do no matter what that produces as consequences.  Once again, the power of the purse is at the base of the problems, but not the whole problem. 

What are the problems?   The Wall Street Journal has a bit to say on the matter (and it's not that often that such good non-partisan reporting is found there -- added emphases are mine):

 "Now that the political fight over Eric Shinseki has ended, our nation can focus on reforming the VA system, which treats about 10 million of the 22 million U.S. combat veterans and costs taxpayers about $150 billion a year.

 "The problem is much bigger than negligence and dereliction of duty by individual bad actors. In fact, there are two main problems: one cultural, the other of supply and demand.

The supply-and-demand issue is partly due to the huge new caseload of qualifying veterans. Some of this is inevitable in wartime, but secretary of veteran’s affairs Gen. Shinseki instituted policies making it easier for returning veterans to seek treatment. This worthy action worsened the shortage of administrators and physicians processing claims and treating patients. Separately, poor government decision making, largely in Congress, has conflated war injuries with health problems related to aging, and the VA system was unwisely asked to handle both.

 "The cultural issue arises largely because the VA universe of hospitals, clinics and patients is a closed system, effectively impervious to outside influence. Most VA personnel, of course, work tirelessly and at modest pay. But the system itself is badly flawed

Proof is the VA’s poor performance in expediting and improving care for hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury, the signature injuries of our 21st-century conflicts. The VA system has been reluctant to ask for help—even as it has succeeded in getting veterans to seek help with issues that used to be so stigmatized our wounded warriors often preferred to hide or ignore them.

 The VA’s two types of problems compound each other. Demand for treatment greatly exceeds supply even though the VA budget has about tripled since 2000. And the VA has resisted meaningful creation of public-private partnerships to address its huge caseload.

A 2012 executive order directed the VA to establish public-private partnerships for research into better treatment for PTSD and traumatic brain injury, as well as to create more and better therapy options. While the research program is well conceived, the therapy concept to date involves hospitals in remote areas, far from VA hospitals and clinics. It is in effect a niche effort. Broader private-sector involvement is needed, particularly for mental health issues, and should include some of the country’s best teaching and clinical hospitals, whose innovative methods could push the envelope on treating the brain injuries that frequently debilitate veterans and their families’ quality of life even after conflicts end. Facilities of such size could make a meaningful difference in addressing the VA’s enormous backlogs.

Medicaid, Medicare and even elements of the Defense Department health-care system reimburse for care that patients can seek in a variety of private settings. Starting immediately, any veteran qualifying for treatment of PTSD or traumatic brain injury should have the option of seeking that therapy within or outside the VA system, with the government footing at least most of the bill. This would introduce an innovative and constructively competitive culture into the community of caregivers for our nation’s wounded warriors."

 I'm not sure there is much more to say, but I'll say it anyway.  The one thing left out of that excellent article is the same thing that afflicts our government in almost all of its branches:  the lack of a world-class computer system and data-gathering.  The primitiveness of the systems in some of the departments is appalling, and the VA is no exception.  There is just no excuse: 1) for delays of up to one-two months for treatment - an adequate computer system would not allow that to happen because built-in would be a notification system that would alert administrators all the way to the top as to the backlog; 2) for anyone to be able to hide the delays -- an adequate system would not allow such tampering with data.  If it did occur, alarm bells should go off everywhere! and 3) for the lack of a world-class data system that not only keeps track of treatments and recommends next steps, but is also able to indicate when outside treatment and services are required.

 So, once again, Congress must take most of the blame.  Ignoring the technical needs of the government for such a world-class data system is equivalent to their neglect of our infrastructure which is vital to the health of our businesses and economy.  As a nation, we are going to pay an enormous price for this neglect of duty on the part of Congress.  The VA problem is just the tip of the iceberg.  Transportation is going to continue to lag; buildings will deteriorate and crumble; bridges will fall; railroads fail, and roads will be ever more dangerous as more truckers fill them, and more accidents occur.  The neglect of investment in our infrastructure, including our computer systems, is tantamount to the kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the Constitution mentions in regard to grounds for impeachment.  Thus, any attempt to impeach the President for any trumped-up charges should be met by 'We, the People' with a serious call for the impeachment of all those who have voted against the refurbishing of our infrastructure. 

 Now let me add to that the abuse of children that Congress has allowed to happen by neglect and inaction, as well as by active cutting of programs that benefit children and families.  Because I have spoken before of this (see blog postings for 4/13/2014, 2/17/2014, 3/14/2013, 3/3/2013), I will make it brief and to the point.  Pre-natal care is essential for children yet unborn.  Affordable healthcare is a must for children if they are to grow as they should and to face life without the effects of childhood diseases; they must have a first-class education that prepares them for life's work and life's demands, beginning with a pre-K program that starts them off with an advantage; they must be protected from environmental hazards; they must be encouraged and enabled to graduate from college;  they must be nurtured by families that are themselves not put at risk by either private or public decisions that can harm their lives.  Children must be nourished in many ways:  by caring people, with the right foods, the best education possible, and with a vast array of possibilities for living a fruitful and meaningful life. 

 The Republican Radicals in Congress have decided that none of this is true or possible.  They have instead decided to cut funding for almost every program that benefits, encourages, nurtures and promotes children:  research into prevention of childhood diseases, universal pre-K education, housing for the homeless and the poor, adequate funding for all schools and the resources necessary to bring about a world-class education for all; they cut Head Start, they cut Aid to children and families, they cut food stamps, and housing subsidies, and want to repeal affordable health care.  They have neglected the needs of certain children with special needs; they have cut Pell grants and neglected to cut back on interest rates for student loans.  They neglect entirely the special needs of homeless children, children with disabilities, children who will not go to college, and of those who drop out of school.  They have increased punishment for children who stray from the laws of the land, but have done nothing to reform the juvenile justice system or the over-incarceration of drug-abusers.  They have neglected the potential of minority children and have instead laid the groundwork for them to be perpetual felons with no vote, no rights and no jobs.  I call this abuse and neglect of children who are our most valuable resource.  The congressional naysayers are child abusers and for that they must be called to account.  Impeachment for them is too mild.

 Having the power to invest in the future, the Congress has chosen to cut programs and services.  Cutting the ground out from under millions of citizens is not a viable problem-solving technique.  It is, without a doubt in my mind, equivalent to undermining our government and our economy; something similar to an act of disloyalty.  It should not go unpunished.