The Fourth Branch of Government

Our representative democracy is plagued with dysfunction. 

The Legislative Branch is at an all-time low in approval rating in various polls because it not only refuses to do its job of legislating to resolve or solve problems, its members can't even negotiate compromise measures that will benefit their back-home constituencies.  In other words, most members of Congress no longer represent the People, but represent whatever special interest group bought their election and their office.  Today, half of the members of Congress are millionaires or multi-millionaires, which means that they are members of an elite faction -- Plutocrats.  This elite-owned group is so dysfunctional, they cannot (won't) even pass legislation like immigration reform or extended background checks for gun purchases even though the population at large favors such legislation by 70-80%.  However it may look to us, they know what they are doing, and every move is calculated to bring them closer to their goal: to enhance their control and their wealth.  For them, the current dysfunction in the Congress is a tool, not a failing.  It serves their goal of weakening the federal government, de-regulating all industry, and getting rid of social programs that they do not wish to fund or support.

According to data from Spectrem Group, the Chicago-based wealth research firm, there are now 8.99 million U.S. households whose net worth totals $1 million or more (not including primary residence). That is up from 8.6 million in 2011 and just short of the all-time record set in 2006, when the United States had 9.2 million millionaire households.  However, the number of individual millionaires remains at about 1% of the total population of the U.S.  Yet, this small group basically holds sway over our government, our economy, our schools, our banks, our investments, and even of our tax system.  By means of a conspiratorial Plan (recall those secret meetings of wealthy corporation owners with the Koch brothers), they are out to take over ("revolutionize") our systems and our institutions.  Their Plan is to operate everything according to Right-wing ideology, and they have made too much head-way for any of us to be comfortable with what they are doing. 

The Executive Branch of government - the so-called "federal bureaucracy" -- is so dysfunctional that it can't get wounded veterans to proper treatment in a timely fashion.  It cannot do much about illegal immigration, nor about humanitarian aid to refugees (mainly children) who are trying to flee repressive and violent regimes or cultures in South America.  It can't even produce a healthcare website without major problems because it has so little control over private contractors.  In addition, much of its work in secret ("intelligence" work) is exactly that and is hidden from most of us by a veil of secrecy that only now and then has a slit in its fabric for all to gain a glimpse of what we do behind that veil. 

However, this dysfunction is nothing new; the bureaucracy has been out-of-control for some time.  Unfortunately, now that we have the technological knowledge to resolve many bureaucratic tangles, we do not have the wherewithal to afford to put effective practical hardware and software plus proper personnel in place!  The bureaucracy is so large that we can't afford to equip it adequately.  It is so large and unwieldy that no President can easily move it or get it to function quickly and effectively through Executive Order (perhaps excluding Special Ops forces that brought down Osama bin Laden!). 

It is basically a myth that an effective businessman or administrator as President could coordinate and oversee this labyrinth more efficiently and effectively, for it is essentially a diverse group of unrelated departments all functioning according to their own history, milieu, norms, customs and rules, with common threads between departments less obvious than their differences.  Loyalty is often measured by department standards, not by federal standards, and, in some cases, that misplaced loyalty affects what the departments or offices fail to tell the President or his staff.

We can find pockets of efficiency and effectiveness in certain departments and offices, usually with a narrow scope of operations and purpose, but in the broadest sense, one can expect to find uncertainty, disinformation, ineffectiveness and incompetence no matter who is the President.  And yet, we do see the Executive branch operate well enough that we forget the dysfunctions until attention is drawn to them.  After all, our mail arrives as do our social security checks, our taxes are collected, our medical needs met by Medicare and Medicaid, our emergencies are met by first responders, our military functions keep us safe, and schools provide education every day of the week.  So, what's the problem?

The Veterans Administration is just one example of dysfunction, and it appears to go much deeper than the fact that some veterans failed to obtain an appointment or any treatment, even though paperwork had been submitted as initiating a claim.  It appears from testimony of "whistleblowers" before a House Committee, that the top personnel are not being held accountable for their actions, that middle management and others are being poorly trained, and that an "atmosphere" exists that does not put the veterans' needs and service first and foremost.  The testimony indicates that the VA is a mess, pure and simple.  Is this Barack Obama's fault?  Probably not, since many of the problems existed before his presidency.  The problems of VA autonomy, separation from the White House and other departments within the Executive Branch and reluctance to utilize outside resources are evident and need to be explored in-depth. 

Having dwelt on the dysfunction, let me also say that President Obama has issued the smallest number of Executive orders of all the Presidents in recent history.  In the absence of congressional legislation, and to avoid tie-ups within large departments, the President has instead acted on his own to make things happen. During this broad salvo about dysfunction, let us remind ourselves of some of the important accomplishments of this President through Executive Orders or Presidential Memoranda (some of which involved getting a department or office to act, and some of which did not):

*--Use of torture by CIA and military to interrogate prisoners prohibited; ordered a review of our detention and interrogation policy prohibited use of torture; and ordered interrogators to limit their actions to the Army Field manual

*--Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse

*--Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money.

*--On his first full day, he froze White House salaries

*--He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems

*--Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

*--Obama created business.gov, which allows for online collaboration between small businesses and experts re managing a business; also launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Recovery Act. 

*--Obama crafted an Executive order establishing the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability to assist in financial education for all Americans

*--Obama ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money

*--He established a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau designed to protect consumers from financial sector excesses

*--Obama appointed the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy.

*--He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

*--He issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other.

*--Obama wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families

*--He signed an Executive Order that established the White House Office of Urban Affairs

*--He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues. Closed a number of secret detention facilities.

*--He returned our focus to Afghanistan, and began the process of withdrawing our troops. Fulfilled campaign promise and ended our involvement in Iraq.

*--He signed an order banning gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the Executive Branch.

*--He signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency where they had lobbied in previous years. He also put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House.

*--He held the first-ever online town hall from the White House, and took questions

*--He crafted an Executive Order on Presidential Records, which restored the 30-day time frame for former presidents to review records

All this occurred just within the first few years of his Presidency.  I haven't even gotten to some of the Orders he has signed since then, including several regarding sanctions on Russia, establishing minimum wage for government contractors, establishing an Executive Emergency Board and improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity!  With his determined Republican detractors, he can't win no matter what he does:  he's leading from behind if he doesn't act precipitously; or he's lazy because he plays golf or drinks a beer with someone somewhere; or, he's being sued for acting when Congress refuses to act.  Often, he is blamed for consequences or outcomes originally put into law by Republicans.  Thus, if he puts a waiver on something in the ACA to accommodate small businesses, he gets sued for it, even though he was following what the Republican Congress asked him to do!  The President has been one of the most prolific we have had in a long time in terms of  pieces of legislation signed and executive actions that made a difference in how government operates.  Even LBJ might be envious!

The Judicial Branch is in the spotlight of dysfunction right now.  At times, it now seems incapable of determining what the Constitution says or means mainly because the Court operates with a conservative majority who are loyal to certain tenets and principles that can't be easily found in the Constitution.  These right-wing Justices tend to rule according to their conservative ideology and then try to find a basis for that in the Constitution or in legal precedent.  Sometimes they succeed -- as with the ACA; and other times they fail miserably, as with Hobby Lobby, McCutheon, Quinn, and McCauley.  This is a Court intent on destruction of rights (speech vote, collective bargaining), benefits (women's health), safeguards and protection (McCauley), equality under the Law (nullification of part of voting rights act) and no establishment of religion (Hobby Lobby), except for the wealthy.  As far as the right-wing judges are concerned, the SCOTUS is functioning just fine.  For the rest of us, every day in a term seems to bring another decision that diminishes, damages or eliminates something that we thought we could count on as stable. 

All three branches of the federal government are dysfunctional, which leaves us where?  We may have only one recourse:  the fourth branch of this democracy -- the People.  It is not talked about a lot, but the Constitution does say in its Preamble that the Constitution is established by the People.  Then, there is that mention of this other branch in Amendment X, which puts a proper cap on the Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments that constitute rights granted to "the People."): 

 

        "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." (Emphasis mine)

Moreover, don't you just love Amendment XIV, Section 1?

        "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The time has come to take this Fourth Branch more seriously as an entity with potential power and authority.  It is therefore, my intention, to bring to your attention (as I have briefly in past posts such as 5/26/14, 3/23/14, 1/18/12 and 6/20/10), the importance of placing ordinary citizens in positions that can directly influence the governing of this nation.  Some would argue that the states are the Fourth Branch, but I prefer to think of them as adjuncts to federal government, operating often in compliance with federal laws, appropriations, and grants, rather than as a separate branch.  Arguably, the People have greater standing as a separate Branch, since they are seen as citizens possessing certain powers, rights and privileges granted to them, that are not reserved or delegated directly to the states.

It is my purpose, then, to propose to you that the People need to be included at all levels of government (states included) in a role that will enhance their importance as citizens, counselors and as voters who have, albeit, undefined "powers" not delegated elsewhere.  I venture to assert that some of the powers they derive is that of experience as citizens; acquired expertise by a lifetime of work or study; wisdom acquired by life's experiences, and authority gained in part by all of these attributes.  We also need the practical problem-solving capacity that ordinary citizens can bring to a dysfunctional government out of their own endeavors.  We desperately need the practicality and the pragmatism of our citizens inside our governmental structures, not outside and distant from them!

Thus, I propose a network of Citizen Advisory Panels (CAPs) (or call them Peoples' Advisory Councils (PACs) or Citizen Advisory Boards (CABs) if you prefer), to advise all elected officials, offices, departments, commissions, committees, judges, panels, legislators and cabinet members -- with nothing and no one excluded. 

Here are my specific proposals:

1)    Ideally, a constitutional amendment would serve to cement this concept, but that may be entirely impractical as a first step;

2)    Legislation that makes the operation of such Panels or Councils legal and binding on all parts of government

3)    Procedures for electing and/or appointing citizens to these positions, including basic qualifications and disqualifications for candidates, excluding any private money from elections and making citizen advisor elections publicly financed to protect their unique status;

4)    Place advisory panels in Inspectors General offices wherever this is feasible and appropriate; this might be possible by Executive Order, but may not be wise politically’

5)    Assign particular duties to every panel or council that is seated.  Some of these might include: advise on legislation pending or in progress; advise on fiscal matters, particularly on how money is spent or can be saved; evaluate proposed goals and objectives (a department or office Plan); evaluate accomplishments and outcomes; evaluate private contracts in terms of cost vs. outcomes, etc.

6)    Findings or reports of all evaluations sent to the Inspector General, to the department lead or head officer, and the White House.

7)    Advocate best practices; bring experts in for personnel training

8)    Every advisory group should have the ability by law to be a whistle-blower, if that becomes necessary; 

9)    Advisory groups should not be unduly constrained in their ability to act on areas where they have not been invited or consulted;

10)  Terms of office should be limited to 2 or 3 terms of not more than 2 years each

11)  All travel expenses and accommodations must be furnished by the budgets for the departments or offices served by Citizen Advisory Panels.

 
Our "Representative Democracy" no longer works as it should, except for the benefits it brings to the wealthiest, the most powerful, the One-Percenters, the Elite.  Before the Plutocrats destroy our national government -- the one that watches out for our life, liberty, property, opportunity, welfare and rights -- I suggest to you that the only real counter to the forces of the Right-wing oligarchy now in charge is the grassroots common-sense of ordinary citizens like you and me.  The Fourth Branch -- We, the People -- have to infiltrate and reform our dysfunctional three existing branches with the activism and determination of citizen commitment.  We cannot get to that point until reform candidates with progressive values are elected to office.  The national and state elections of 2014 will be critical to the future of this representative democracy.

IMPEACHMENT WORKS BOTH WAYS!

Once again, we hear another incessant drumbeat from the Republicans.  John Boehner, Speaker of the House, wants to sue the President.  Sarah Palin, she of no office, wants to push the impeachment of the President.  Others add to the din.  Is this the final attempt to smear the legacy of the first President of color?  Probably, but it is also a serious attempt to control the minds of voters who do not care to seek out truth.

Presumably, Boehner, representing more of his party than just himself, wants to sue the President for criminal or anti-civil actions that he has performed.  The only clue we had until recently was that the suit had to do with the President acting contrary to his oath of office in general areas like health care, foreign policy, and education.  Boehner wrote in a letter to his colleagues, that this action stems from President Obama's having "circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce."  Now we are told that the act of non-enforcement has to do with an exemption from the ACA mandate that all small businesses of a certain type had to offer coverage at a certain point.   The action he took was one urged upon him earlier by the Republicans! President Obama allowed small businesses an extra year before they had to meet the mandate.  
We can only presume that Boehner also doesn't agree with Executive actions the President has had to take in order to address problems and issues that Congress refuses to address.  Or more correctly, he opposes Executive Actions that actually get things done!

In fact, the President's problem with Boehner and Congress has centered around having to act almost solely on his own because Congress refuses to act.  So, he has had to rely on past legislation, and on rules and regulations, and presumably on the power of being Commander-in-chief.  It would, of course, be ridiculous of President Obama or any other President to promulgate Executive actions without first checking with his legal staff and with the Attorney General before acting. 

Sarah Palin seems to disagree with the Speaker, and apparently thinks the President should be impeached rather than sued, although she does not say in detail what "high crimes and misdemeanors" that might entail.  However, and I hate to admit it, Palin may be right in this sense: the House (and the Speaker specifically) probably have no standing to "sue" the President.  Impeachment is the primary course of action permitted by the Constitution.

That brings us to a very important point: the law suit is nothing but theater.  The intention is undoubtedly two-fold:  bring more Obama doubters and haters into the voting in November, and use this scam to prepare for the process of impeachment.  I say this for good reason.  The Constitution does not support law suits of one branch of government against another.  As I read Article I, Section 3, Congress would have no standing to bring a suit against the President until after he has been found guilty ("convicted") of impeachable crimes by the Senate.  However, the Constitution does allow the process of impeachment as a check of one branch upon another (Article II, Section 4).  Therefore, the suit might be useful as preparation for impeachment, but can by itself go nowhere unless the SCOTUS decides to make up one more unfounded and noxious nostrum!

There are some from the Radical Right, who try to be more specific about "charges" of wrong-doing against the President.  Here are a few:

1)  Chairman Darell Issa:  claims the President is responsible for the lack of adequate protection at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya; for the deaths of the four Americans, and for lying about the nature of that attack.  He claims that a "stand-down" order was issued by the White House, thus preventing protection from ever taking place.  After millions of dollars in expenses to run the committee hearings involved, the Chairman has not found one shred of evidence to assert any charges in court, or any high crimes or misdemeanors in an impeachment process.  It just won't fly, and the total transcripts and evidence in emails showed that the White House was not involved.  A similar outcome applies to the so-called "IRS scandal."  No White House involvement.  No matter how hard Issa tries, the further away from crime or illegality he gets. 

Perhaps not as applicable as regards the tactics of the NSA. The American people don't like to be spied upon or listened in on.  But again, there is nothing that proves direct involvement of the White House.  The NSA has legislative and judicial authority for what it does, so the President is not the perpetrator of the actions of that agency, but Congress is.  And therein lies a very basic fact:  it is Congress who makes all the laws.  Congress has only itself to blame if something is objectionable about their legislative acts.

2)  Senator John McCain would like nothing better than to impeach the President.  He would most likely concentrate his efforts toward showing that the President's failures as Commander-in-Chief to act militarily against Syria, Egypt, Iran and others are impeachable offenses.  With the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, McCain will undoubtedly bring forth the absurdity that the President has failed to protect our borders, and should therefore be impeached for failing to enforce our immigration laws as regards illegal aliens crossing our borders.

3)  And then, there is Sen.Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who has said, on more than one occasion, that he is watching President Obama's actions for impeachable offenses.  Apparently, he hasn't found any since we do not have any detail to report other than what Coburn has already said.  His mantra is that the Congress should start working on the list of criteria that would begin the process of impeachment.  That may very well be exactly what Boehner has in mind with his law suit.  Perhaps it is simply a listing of charges that could be used for impeachment rather than in a regular court of law.

Let us then explore the other side of this issue.  Let democratic representatives bring charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against John Boehner, Speaker of the House, who has failed to fulfill his oath of office!  Unfortunately, we will miss the opportunity to include his recently vanquished lieutenant, Eric Kantor, in those charges!

Boehner had to swear a similar oath of office to that taken by the President: to uphold the Constitution.  Our Constitution says many things about the functions of the Congress which can be applied to the office of the Speaker.  Here are a few that might serve as grounds for impeachment:

1)  Congress is responsible for providing for "the common defense and general welfare of the United States."  Can it be charged that Republicans in general, and the Speaker in particular, have not provided for the general welfare of the poor children of this country by cutting Head Start, Food Stamps, WIC programs, and school lunches, as well as ignoring the effects of refusing to allow a vote on universal pre-K, expanded gun background checks, refurbishing of old school buildings. The list of neglect goes on and on, but I have spoken of this before on other blog postings.  The point is that Congress has failed to provide for the general welfare of children and as a result, too  many children (1 in 5 in this country) are going without essential services and programs.  In my opinion, this is a "high crime" and impeachable.

2)  Congress is responsible for establishing a "uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Not under this Speaker! who refuses to bring to a vote, the comprehensive uniform immigration bill passed by the Senate.  Does the Speaker have the right to block legislation that is required by the Constitution?  Perhaps, in general.  But, in this case, although we have immigration laws in place, it is a reasonable question as to whether we have a uniform rule (comprehensive code) of Naturalization.  I am of the opinion that we do not have such simply because immigration has developed in ways that are not addressed by the old code.  The Speaker is responsible for the lack of a uniform Rule.

3)  "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts."  Why, then, do we have a tax system that does not pay our debts?  Could it be that Congress is not paying attention to its responsibility, but is more concerned about tax breaks, tax loopholes and tax rebates for the rich and wealthy corporations?  I believe Boehner is guilty of not paying our debts, contrary to the Constitution.

4)  Congress also has the responsibility of establishing "Post Offices and post roads." Does that mean that cuts in post offices across the country are unconstitutional if the Constitution only allows "establishing" them?  Does the responsibility involved in establishing post roads extend to maintaining those roads?  One would think so, but an infrastructure bill still sits un-considered and un-passed because it has not been brought to the floor by the Speaker! 

5)  Congress has the broad responsibility "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution...."  Is the Speaker's past statement about being proud of his record of not passing legislation an impeachable offense when one takes seriously what the Constitution declares about making laws?  Does the Constitution stand for a positive attitude toward passing legislation, and is that being undermined by the Tea Party in general and the Speaker in particular?  I believe the authors of our founding document would not recognize the negativity and neglect demonstrated by this Speaker and his Party of NO! 

6)  A few more thoughts brought about by several of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially XIV and XV:  the Speaker has not addressed the robbery of the tax system by corporations and the rich, the Speaker has failed to speak or act against the unconstitutional restrictions on voting and voters; the Speaker has allowed a minority to dictate disposition of legislation rather than a majority vote; the Speaker has allowed "emoluments" to influence legislation; the Speaker has vowed to destroy an Act of Congress (ACA) declared constitutional by the SCOTUS.  Most distressing is the fact that the Speaker of the House led a movement to shut down the operations of the federal government.  Since that power is not granted to the House by the Constitution, the Speaker acted outside the Constitution, and must be impeached for that, if nothing else.
 
Let Speaker Boehner know that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!"  Impeach the do-nothing, illegally  neglectful Speaker of the House if he dares to impeach our President!!

The RULE of LAW vs. The RULE of MEN

The Radical Right has been trying for some time now to convince us that Islamic law is a threat to our country. In fact, 13 states have legislation either passed or pending that rejects the introduction of Sharia law into those states. Talk about a miscalculation: the Sharia "threat" is not real, is not valid, is not even applicable to our political life.

According to Wikipedia, "The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islam. Sharia deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues.

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."

 There are those countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law has a great influence on political governance because the civil law is informed in certain respects by Sharia Law, and that involves, especially in Iran, the elevation of Islamic clerics to a high office of interpreters so that civil legislation can be guided properly in the understanding of how Sharia law affects civil law. Thus, the clerics - Ayatollahs mainly - along with Muslim legal scholars, are attempting to relate the will of Allah to the 21st century, having reopened the door to interpreting Sharia in relation to politics and government.

Our own Supreme Court just announced a decision that is likely to be a greater threat to our government than any Sharia code could ever be. The Supreme Court just put a hole in the wall of separation of church and state that can bring down the entire structure of our democracy. You see, the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga litigation was not just about contraception and abortion, or about freedom of religion, or about freedom of speech. It is primarily about the basis of our constitution and our government. We are a nation dedicated to the rule of Law, not the rule of individuals, or corporations or dissidents. The Rule of Law just took a "hit" that cannot be ignored.

The law of the land, the Affordable Care Act, declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in a June 28, 2012 decision, requires certain businesses to offer contraception counseling and free contraceptive coverage in its health plans. The Hobby Lobby/Conestoga decision, although called "narrow" in scope, has allowed a "religious exemption" to those businesses. If they object to this section of the law on the basis of a religious belief, they can decide without penalty to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.

It's important to say that religious exemptions do exist because of other laws, other actions by various administrations, and other rulings by the courts. However, this is the first time that an exemption has been granted on religious grounds to corporation owners or to corporations seen as "individuals." So says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her unrelenting and powerful dissent statement. It is important to pay attention to her arguments, in order to have a fuller understanding of this decision. So, following is a synopsis of terse and applicable statements that I have pulled together by reviewing the entire dissent.

The Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) "demands accommodation of for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith." Ginsburg is persuaded that RFRA served a far less radical purpose. She cites specific legislative intent and previous Court rulings to show that the exemptions for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are not required.

She says that the Court's reading (of RFRA) as a bold initiative departing from previous jurisprudence is not plausible because even an amendment to that law "does not suggest that Congress meant to expand the class of entities qualified to mount religious accommodation claims."

As concerns RFRA's application to the current lawsuits, she raises several questions which she describes as "dispositive" of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga's claims: "Do for-profit corporations rank among persons who exercise religion? Assuming that they do, does the contraceptive coverage requirement substantially burden their religious exercise? If so, is the requirement "in furtherance of a compelling government interest?" And last, does the requirement represent the least restrictive means for furthering that interest? Ginsberg concludes that the Court fails at each step of its analysis of these crucial questions that are in keeping with the requirements of the RFRA.

Her analysis brings forth some notable quotes (emphases added are all mine):

"Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities."

"Indeed, until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in the commercial, profit-making world. The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so for-profit corporations."

"The Court's determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely-held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."

"The Court barely pauses to inquire whether any burden imposed by the contraceptive coverage requirement is substantial. Undertaking the inquiry that the Court foregoes, I would conclude that the connection between the families' religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial."

"What the Court must decide is not the "plausibility of a religious claim, but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States."

"Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. An employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. But no individual decision by an employee and her physician -- be it to use contraception, treat an infection or have a hip replaced -- is in any meaningful sense their employer's decision or action." It is not compelled by the government either, but is "the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

"Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage, for which the ACA provides, furthers compelling interests in public health and women's well-being. Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence. The coverage helps safeguard the health of women for whom pregnancy may be hazardous, even life-threatening."

"The Court ultimately acknowledges a critical point: RFRA's application 'must take adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on non-beneficiaries'. No tradition, and no prior decision under RFRA allows a religious-based exemption when the accommodation would be harmful to others -- here, the very persons the contraceptive coverage requirement was designed to protect."

The government argues that the least restrictive means has been used; the Court suggests the government pick up the tab for those not covered under the exemption.  Ginsburg says: "A 'least restrictive means' cannot require employees to relinquish benefits accorded them by federal law in order to ensure that their commercial employers can adhere unreservedly to their religious tenets." Furthermore, "impeding women's receipt of benefits by 'requiring them to take steps to learn about, and to sign up for, a new government funded and administered health benefits was scarcely what Congress contemplated." "And where is the stopping point to the 'let government pay' alternative?"

" The Lee Court made two key points one cannot confine to tax cases. 'When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Further, the Court recognized in Lee that allowing a religion-based exemption to a commercial employer would 'operate to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees'."

"How does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation and which are not? Would the exemption ...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions, antidepressants, medications derived from pigs, and vaccinations?" While she says the Court sees nothing to worry about, concluding that the ruling is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate, Ginsburg counters:

"There is an underlying interest, I believe, in keeping the courts 'out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims.' Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.' The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield'."

The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

And therein lies the kernel of truth that is being overlooked by most commentators and news media. This decision makes the rule of Law secondary to religious belief. And that, dear reader, is the basis of Sharia law, and of any system that puts religion or religious belief above the rule of civil law. The very officials who are supposed to be protecting the primacy of the rule of law have managed to attack it in such a way that individuals or corporations may now be able to question compliance with any law that does not conform to their individual religious beliefs.

Does it logically follow upon this decision that polluting industries can object to pollution laws on the basis of the bible giving dominion over the earth to human beings in Genesis? Can corporations now object to, and exempt themselves from, laws that require equal opportunity hiring based on scripture that denounces homosexuality; or that says that women are not equal to men? Can they now cite the religious belief that the earth was created in seven days by Yahweh/Jehovah/God and thus exempt their children from public school attendance because the school does not teach "creationism"?

Not only that. The five conservative Justices have now threatened your religious liberty because they have allowed the belief about the use of contraception as equivalent to abortion, to be the law of the land. They have sided with a particular religious belief, and thus established the doctrine of certain faith communities as the basis for this exemption. Those who do not hold this belief, and who believe in the right to free choice on the matter of abortion and contraception, are thus discriminated against and will be caught up in this favored treatment of certain religious groups over others when they are denied contraception coverage by their exempt employer; or eventually by their local pharmacy if it objects to selling contraception on religious grounds!

Moreover, this is a 1% decision. It was made in favor of rich corporation owners. It allows them to assert rights that enable them to wiggle out of responsibility to their employees. (Don't forget - the writer of this decision for the Court, Justice Alito, is known for his anti-Labor decisions and views). So are the Conservative Justices conspiring together to support the 1% as Congress has been wont to do?

Well, look again-- Hobby Lobby is not the only decision about capitalism handed down this term. There is also the little noticed Harris v. Quinn decision in which collective bargaining is weakened. According to a posting on SCOTUSBLOG, sponsored by Bloomberg News, the Harris decision makes it "unconstitutional to require personal assistants (to people with disabilities) to defray the costs of collective bargaining by paying a fee to the employee's union. Collective bargaining is substantially impaired when unions cannot require the workers who benefit from it to pay their share of the cost, and that is one result of this decision. Another likely result will be erosion of the collective-bargaining regime that has helped to stabilize the personal-assistance workforce." Down the road, many see the emergence of a case that will cement the primacy of right-to-work laws in the states.

The SCOTUS is aiding those plutocrats who believe that everyone has the responsibility for achieving success on their own; that "entitlements" produce laziness and dependency. You're now pretty much on your own for contraception, pension, health care, and college loans, and perhaps soon enough -- Social Security. This is another nail in the coffin of everyone who can be denied something by their employer. This is a capitalistic decision, not just a religious one.

But, it comes down to the same thing: putting the rule of (rich) men and their corporations before the rights and benefits of ordinary citizens; placing the beliefs, policies and opinions of the rich before the law of the land; allowing the law of the land to be accommodated to fit the perceived needs of the employer no matter what effect it may have on other parties. The SCOTUS conservatives are taking us down a “path” (note the Sharia reference) that offers little in the way of solace in terms of securing our rights.

Can we fail to ask then: are the conservatives on the Court involved in conspiratorial pursuits in favor of Christian practices and beliefs, or the ability of corporations to claim the right to free speech and religious accommodation, or the pursuit of enhanced power of employers over employees? I personally would not put it past them, even if it is a simple sharing of viewpoints in preparation for certain cases. At the very least, the conservative members of the Court have been laying groundwork for this flawed decision for some time. Citizens United declared corporations equivalent to individuals with free speech rights in the form of money donated to third party PACs. Then came McCutcheon telling government it cannot prevent citizens from giving campaign contributions to as many different candidates and political parties as they want. Of course, we can't forget Town of Greece and the approval of Christian prayer to open public meetings.

The Hobby Lobby decision has opened a can of worms, whether the Court recognizes it or not. The consequences for our society, our politics and our civil practices can be devastating simply because this Court has no regard for the primacy of "no establishment of religion" as stated in the first amendment. There is no firm basis for individual religious freedom if the establishment clause that walls off church and state is continually battered. Once particular doctrines, practices and beliefs of particular religions get encoded, favored, or allowed to be used to exempt an individual or corporation from a law of the land, we are in serious trouble as a democratic nation dedicated to the rule of Law and not of men.

Yes, we are being bamboozled; but, it’s worse than that. We are being saddled with the tenets of a minority who do not believe in the basic principles of democracy, and thus it’s very foundational principles are crumbling: “free speech” defined in terms of money; public safety given short shrift around abortion clinics (even though the Justices insist on their own safety as primary over protests at their offices); voting rights truncated and invalidated; establishment of one type of religious belief over another; denial of equality for all while favoring the rights and privileges of the rich; denial of the basic necessity of collective bargaining and the need for entities that can protest injustices in terms of pay and hours, benefits and safety measures; allowing open bribery in terms of elections; allowing employers to claim exemption from laws because of their religious beliefs.

This is not simply the misleading trickery involved in the art of bamboozling; this is destruction of the Rule of Law pure and simple!

　

　


　

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!