This is another dark day in America and probably one of the worst since 911 because among the bodies riddled with metal bullet fragments were those of 20 elementary school kids, ages ranging from five to ten years old that lay among the dead; including six adults. This was a gruesome scene that probably experienced first responders like EMT, fire, police or hardened combat war veterans would have been traumatized by what they came upon. In President Obama’s speech to the nation as well as in person to the victims’ families and loved ones in Newtown, CT it didn’t take long for this tragedy to turn political. There are protests against the NRA; legislation is being considered in Congress to reintroduce the law banning assault weapons or the “Brady Bill” sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein of CA that just expired. Never to miss an opportunity to push forward some agenda was House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator harry Reid of NV, who has spoken about tightening gun control laws. The thing that seems to escape notice is that the school was the ‘secondary’ crime scene and Adam Lanza’s descent into madness started when he murdered his mother at their home (the ‘primary’ crime scene) while she was apparently sleeping. Actually, it is unfair and there is no credible reason to blame Adam’s egregious and deadly outburst on mental illness or Asperger's, which is a neurological disorder, nor is it a gun control or school safety issue. People suffering from some sort of mental disease or incapacity shouldn’t now suddenly become suspect as being a violent serial killer or capable of any such aggressive anti-social behavior that poses as a grave threat to others. It would be interesting to know about the home environment where a mom, who was an alleged gun enthusiast and single parent, had that kind of serious firepower, especially in a small, close-knit, middle class, community (“Whitetopia”) of 27,000 who basically all knew one another.
These guns are not for sport but are serious weapons that are meant for maximum killing power, so why did she have them in her possession? Also, what was the relationship between Adam and his mom or older brother, as well as his absent father? This profile seems to be a radical departure from other shooting sprees of this type because the perpetrator didn’t start his murderous rampage at some external place like a movie theatre, shopping mall, or school campus where he attended, or even at the workplace, but rather in this case it was internal, at the very place where he lived and was raised. What conditions persisted at home where a 20 year old man, living at home with his divorced mother would feel compelled to walk into her bedroom, or wherever she was sleeping, point a gun at her a pull the trigger? What caused Adam to snap on that day and where does the elementary school within walking distance come to be an object of his rage? When Adam smashed his computer was it because there was information contained in digital files, email, or other internet postings that would give some clue as to the reason he chose to do what he did or was it just a random and spontaneous outburst? Since Adam attended Sandy Hook Elementary was he acquainted with any of the staff and faculty that he murdered? Was the room that he entered and killed all those children previously his classroom at that age? There is a connection and perhaps Adam’s experience during his early formative years was not very pleasant and he harbored some painful childhood memories that he planned to avenge at the appropriate time in a premeditated murderous outburst, so is the date that this shooting happened important in some way also?
One thing for sure, we may never know the reason why someone will commit such a horrible and inexplicable act that brings such inconsolable grief to countless families; and there are so many victims, even those residing outside Newtown, CT because in some way this tragedy is our own. It is an indictment of a society and a nation that has as a pastime the glorification and celebration of violence in one form or another. It is about our values and willingness to step up to the plate and admit culpability in perpetuating violence as a means to resolve differences. It isn’t about politics, religion, race, ethnicity, education, social status, gender or any other distinguishing characteristic, but rather it is about character and who we choose to be as a people and how we treat one another. We use very lofty sounding words but fall short when it comes to putting it all into concrete action. Americans value freedom and independence more than any nation on earth but at the same time we blame each other and point fingers of blame when terrible incidents like this happens. It is time to be accountable and accept responsibility for this and all other mass shootings because in some small way or another, we are all culpable to some degree.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 18, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Synopsis of the 2012 Vice-Presidential Debate
Martha Raddatz of ABC News moderated the only televised debate between Republican Congressman Paul Ryan and Democratic Vice President Joe Biden. The first question she asked was about Libya and the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the embassy in Benghazi. Ryan accused this of being an intelligence failure of the Obama administration and Biden accused Romney of politicizing the event before he knew all the facts.
Raddatz: Military strike against Iran? Ryan says that despite the administration saying that all options are on the table to prevent Iran getting a nuclear bomb, Iran disregards such a warning, and that sanctions are not working. Biden says that sanctions are having a devastating effect on Iran’s economy and accused Ryan of wanting to go to war.
Raddatz: Can you get unemployment under 6%? Biden says yes and attacks Romney over his comment about the 47% of people not willing to take responsibility for their lives and wanting to let Detroit go bankrupt.
Raddatz (to Biden): Why not very slowly raise the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years as Congressman suggests? Biden didn’t answer the question but accused Ryan of wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system and privatizing Social Security. Ryan quoted a statement by Obama in 2008, “If you don’t have any fresh ideas use stale tactics to scare voters.”
Raddatz (to Ryan): You were one of the few lawmakers to stand with President Bush when he was seeking to partially privatize Social Security- Ryan agreed, and said it was for younger people. Let younger people have a voluntary choice to make their money work faster for them within the Social Security system. Ryan also does not want to increase benefits for wealthy people but slowly raise the retirement age over time. Biden said that all [??] studies show that if you are in your 40’s now you will get $2,600 less in social security, and if you are in your 20’s now you would get $4,700 less benefits under their plan.
Raddatz: If you are elected who will pay more taxes and who will pay less? Biden says that the middle class will pay less taxes and wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire because $800,000B goes to people making $1M (120,000 families will get an additional $500B tax relief for the next 10 years). (1) Ryan said that there aren’t enough rich people and small business to tax to pay for spending under the present administration. The Canadians drop their tax rate to 15% and the avg. tax rate on business n the industrialized world is 25% but the president wants the top “effective” tax rate on successful small business to go above 40%. Ryan said further: 2/3 of our jobs come from small business, and this would affect 56% of small business income, costing 700,000 jobs that don’t even pay for 10% of deficit spending increases. Ryan ends with this point: what we are saying is to lower tax rates across the board [by 20%] and close [tax] loopholes on higher income people. There are 3 bottom lines:
1. Don’t raise the deficit.
2. Don’t raise taxes on the middle class.
3. Don’t lower the share of income that is borne by the high income earner [huh??].
Raddatz [to Ryan]: You have refused to offer ‘specifics’ on how you would pay for that 20% across the board tax cut? Do you actually have the specifics or are you still working on it and that’s why you won’t [can’t] tell voters? Do you have the specifics; do you know exactly what you are doing? Ryan talked about Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil working together on a compromise budget and lower tax rates 20% which would raise about $1.2T, and foregoing about $1.1T in loopholes and deductions. They [Romney/Ryan] would deny loopholes and deductions to higher income taxpayers so that (1) more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation, so we can lower tax rates across the board.
Raddatz [to Ryan]: Can you guarantee this math will add up? Ryan said absolutely! 6 studies have verified this math will add up [he doesn’t name not one of them, though]. Biden sad that Ronald Reagan gave specifics on what he was going to cut in terms of tax expenditures; 97% of small businesses in America make less than $250,000; small businesses like hedge funds that make $600m - $800M a year count as small businesses because of “pass-through” [??]. Mitt Romney paid 14% on $20M and someone making $50,000 paid more in taxes than he did. The biggest loophole is the “carried interest” loophole and capital gains loophole; will they tax that? That’s not enough-the reason why the AAI, the American Institute Enterprises study, and Tax Policy Center study say that the only way you can find $5T in loopholes is to cut the mortgage deduction for the middle class, cut healthcare deductions and take away the deduction for college tuitions.
Raddatz [to Ryan]: Is Biden wrong about that? Ryan said he was and mentioned that Jack Kennedy lowered taxes and increased growth rates [Biden had a golden opportunity to say, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”].
Raddatz: Civil War in Syria? Biden said the last thing we need is another war in the Middle East and are supporting the Free Syrian Army in conjunction with NATO and Arab allies among Jordanians, Turks and the Saudis. Ryan says that we outsource our policy through the UN and give Vladimir Putin veto power over our decisions in this matter.
Raddatz; What role does your religion play in your own personal views on abortion? Ryan says he is Pro-Life, not just because of his Catholic faith but because of reason and science and believe that ‘life’ begins at conception. The policy of a Romney Administration is to oppose abortion EXCEPT for rape, incest, or the life or the mother s at risk. ObamaCare infringes upon religious liberties for Catholic charities, churches and hospitals. In respect to the Democratic Party used to say they want abortion to be safe, legal and rare but now that support it without restriction and with taxpayer money.
The Vice-President went to China and sympathized with their 1 Child Policy of sterilization and forced abortions [Biden didn’t respond]. Biden believes that life begins at conception [like Ryan] and accepts the catholic Church’s judgment on abortion but refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, Muslims and Jews. He won’t impose this view on others and don’t believe we have a right to tell a women how to control their bodies because that’s a decision between a woman and her doctor, and the Supreme Court. No religious institution, catholic or otherwise in Catholic social services, Georgetown Hospital or any hospital has to either refer for contraception; none has to pay for it; none has to be used as a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide.
Raddatz: If the Romney/Ryan ticket is elected, those who believe that abortion should remain legal, do they have reason to be worried? Ryan said that we don’t believe that unelected judges should make this decision- that people through their elected representatives and consensus through the democratic process should make this determination. Biden says that the next president will get to make 1 or 2 Supreme Court nominations; that’s how close Roe v. Wade s to being overturned. Just ask yourself: “Would Robert Bork be Chief advisor to the court for Mr. Romney, do you think he would appoint someone like Justice Scalia of the Far Right who would outlaw abortion?” We pick people with an open mind and who do not come with an agenda [really??].
BROKEN PROMISES (by Paul Ryan):
President Obama said-
1. If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it [20M people projected to lose their health insurance under ObamaCare or 7.4M seniors who are going to lose coverage].
2. I guarantee if you make less than $250K your taxes won’t go up [of the 21 tax increases under ObamaCare, 12 of them hit the middle class].
3. Health insurance premiums will go down $2,500 per family [they have gone up by $3,000 and are expected to go up another $2,400].
4. I promise by the end of my first term I’ll cut the deficit in half in four years [we have had 4 budget proposals and the debt is $1T].
Ryan: That’s what we keep getting from this administration, speeches and not leadership. The president broke his biggest promise to bring people together to solve problems.
Biden: The Ryan budget will kick 19M people off Medicare and 200,000 children off Early Education; eliminate tuition tax credits and cuts in education by $450B; and increase tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 12, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Raddatz: Military strike against Iran? Ryan says that despite the administration saying that all options are on the table to prevent Iran getting a nuclear bomb, Iran disregards such a warning, and that sanctions are not working. Biden says that sanctions are having a devastating effect on Iran’s economy and accused Ryan of wanting to go to war.
Raddatz: Can you get unemployment under 6%? Biden says yes and attacks Romney over his comment about the 47% of people not willing to take responsibility for their lives and wanting to let Detroit go bankrupt.
Raddatz (to Biden): Why not very slowly raise the Medicare eligibility age by 2 years as Congressman suggests? Biden didn’t answer the question but accused Ryan of wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system and privatizing Social Security. Ryan quoted a statement by Obama in 2008, “If you don’t have any fresh ideas use stale tactics to scare voters.”
Raddatz (to Ryan): You were one of the few lawmakers to stand with President Bush when he was seeking to partially privatize Social Security- Ryan agreed, and said it was for younger people. Let younger people have a voluntary choice to make their money work faster for them within the Social Security system. Ryan also does not want to increase benefits for wealthy people but slowly raise the retirement age over time. Biden said that all [??] studies show that if you are in your 40’s now you will get $2,600 less in social security, and if you are in your 20’s now you would get $4,700 less benefits under their plan.
Raddatz: If you are elected who will pay more taxes and who will pay less? Biden says that the middle class will pay less taxes and wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire because $800,000B goes to people making $1M (120,000 families will get an additional $500B tax relief for the next 10 years). (1) Ryan said that there aren’t enough rich people and small business to tax to pay for spending under the present administration. The Canadians drop their tax rate to 15% and the avg. tax rate on business n the industrialized world is 25% but the president wants the top “effective” tax rate on successful small business to go above 40%. Ryan said further: 2/3 of our jobs come from small business, and this would affect 56% of small business income, costing 700,000 jobs that don’t even pay for 10% of deficit spending increases. Ryan ends with this point: what we are saying is to lower tax rates across the board [by 20%] and close [tax] loopholes on higher income people. There are 3 bottom lines:
1. Don’t raise the deficit.
2. Don’t raise taxes on the middle class.
3. Don’t lower the share of income that is borne by the high income earner [huh??].
Raddatz [to Ryan]: You have refused to offer ‘specifics’ on how you would pay for that 20% across the board tax cut? Do you actually have the specifics or are you still working on it and that’s why you won’t [can’t] tell voters? Do you have the specifics; do you know exactly what you are doing? Ryan talked about Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil working together on a compromise budget and lower tax rates 20% which would raise about $1.2T, and foregoing about $1.1T in loopholes and deductions. They [Romney/Ryan] would deny loopholes and deductions to higher income taxpayers so that (1) more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation, so we can lower tax rates across the board.
Raddatz [to Ryan]: Can you guarantee this math will add up? Ryan said absolutely! 6 studies have verified this math will add up [he doesn’t name not one of them, though]. Biden sad that Ronald Reagan gave specifics on what he was going to cut in terms of tax expenditures; 97% of small businesses in America make less than $250,000; small businesses like hedge funds that make $600m - $800M a year count as small businesses because of “pass-through” [??]. Mitt Romney paid 14% on $20M and someone making $50,000 paid more in taxes than he did. The biggest loophole is the “carried interest” loophole and capital gains loophole; will they tax that? That’s not enough-the reason why the AAI, the American Institute Enterprises study, and Tax Policy Center study say that the only way you can find $5T in loopholes is to cut the mortgage deduction for the middle class, cut healthcare deductions and take away the deduction for college tuitions.
Raddatz [to Ryan]: Is Biden wrong about that? Ryan said he was and mentioned that Jack Kennedy lowered taxes and increased growth rates [Biden had a golden opportunity to say, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”].
Raddatz: Civil War in Syria? Biden said the last thing we need is another war in the Middle East and are supporting the Free Syrian Army in conjunction with NATO and Arab allies among Jordanians, Turks and the Saudis. Ryan says that we outsource our policy through the UN and give Vladimir Putin veto power over our decisions in this matter.
Raddatz; What role does your religion play in your own personal views on abortion? Ryan says he is Pro-Life, not just because of his Catholic faith but because of reason and science and believe that ‘life’ begins at conception. The policy of a Romney Administration is to oppose abortion EXCEPT for rape, incest, or the life or the mother s at risk. ObamaCare infringes upon religious liberties for Catholic charities, churches and hospitals. In respect to the Democratic Party used to say they want abortion to be safe, legal and rare but now that support it without restriction and with taxpayer money.
The Vice-President went to China and sympathized with their 1 Child Policy of sterilization and forced abortions [Biden didn’t respond]. Biden believes that life begins at conception [like Ryan] and accepts the catholic Church’s judgment on abortion but refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, Muslims and Jews. He won’t impose this view on others and don’t believe we have a right to tell a women how to control their bodies because that’s a decision between a woman and her doctor, and the Supreme Court. No religious institution, catholic or otherwise in Catholic social services, Georgetown Hospital or any hospital has to either refer for contraception; none has to pay for it; none has to be used as a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide.
Raddatz: If the Romney/Ryan ticket is elected, those who believe that abortion should remain legal, do they have reason to be worried? Ryan said that we don’t believe that unelected judges should make this decision- that people through their elected representatives and consensus through the democratic process should make this determination. Biden says that the next president will get to make 1 or 2 Supreme Court nominations; that’s how close Roe v. Wade s to being overturned. Just ask yourself: “Would Robert Bork be Chief advisor to the court for Mr. Romney, do you think he would appoint someone like Justice Scalia of the Far Right who would outlaw abortion?” We pick people with an open mind and who do not come with an agenda [really??].
BROKEN PROMISES (by Paul Ryan):
President Obama said-
1. If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it [20M people projected to lose their health insurance under ObamaCare or 7.4M seniors who are going to lose coverage].
2. I guarantee if you make less than $250K your taxes won’t go up [of the 21 tax increases under ObamaCare, 12 of them hit the middle class].
3. Health insurance premiums will go down $2,500 per family [they have gone up by $3,000 and are expected to go up another $2,400].
4. I promise by the end of my first term I’ll cut the deficit in half in four years [we have had 4 budget proposals and the debt is $1T].
Ryan: That’s what we keep getting from this administration, speeches and not leadership. The president broke his biggest promise to bring people together to solve problems.
Biden: The Ryan budget will kick 19M people off Medicare and 200,000 children off Early Education; eliminate tuition tax credits and cuts in education by $450B; and increase tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 12, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, October 5, 2012
Obama takes it on the chin in first debate against Mitt Romney
The first 2012 Presidential debate hosted by Jim Lehrer of PBS on Wednesday, October 3, was one of the most anticipated in recent years. It was a Charles Dickens classic of two distinct political philosophies. Although one cannot fault Barack Obama for the great love he has for wife Michelle, but mentioning their twenty year anniversary in the opening remarks at such a serious time was perhaps not the best venue for such devotion, and it may have set the tone for a lest than stellar performance by the president. Mitt Romney used the opportunity to reinforce that he cares about people as he opened with several stories about struggling families. One of the charges that Romney accuses the president of is “Trickle-Down Governomics” (bigger government, higher taxes, more spending on entitlements, and more regulation). For President Obama, it is basically the same things he has been talking about for months now and basically nothing new has been offered. Romney wants to take federal funding for training programs under the Department of Education and give it back to the states.
One of the things that wasn’t so clear in the former Governor’s message is when he wants to lower tax rates for corporations and individuals and at the same time lower deductions, credits, and exemptions but keep taking in the same money while maintaining growth; just how does that work? Romney wants to use government lands to increase oil and gas production, offshore Alaska, the Keystone Pipeline from Alaska and use “clean coal” so we can create more jobs. President Obama’s contention is that Governor Romney will increase military spending by two trillion dollars in addition to five trillion in tax cuts and middle class taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Romney’s plan to grow jobs is to tax small businesses at the corporate rate instead of at the individual rate that they now pay and these companies will be able to hire more workers. Romney says that President Obama wants to increase the tax rate on small businesses from 35% to 40% and according to the Federation of Independent Business this will result in a loss of over 700,000 jobs.
Governor Romney has a simple litmus-test when it comes to cutting federal funding programs-“Is the program so critical that we have to borrow money from China to pay for it; if not, I’ll get rid of it” Under this plan, PBS is on the chopping block. Certain government programs will be defunded at the federal level and run by the states and some government agencies and departments will be consolidated and employee cutbacks will be done by attrition, but Romney [just like Texas Governor Rick Perry] hasn’t mentioned which ones are targeted. The Obama record consists of eliminating 27 government programs, another 18 for education that were ineffective, $50 billion in medical fraud (Medicare/Medicaid), and savings of a trillion dollars from the ‘discretionary’ domestic budget [which covers what??]. There was an interesting exchange between President Obama and Governor Romney when he mentioned about American companies receive a tax break when they build a plant overseas and Governor Romney mentioned that he has been in business for over 25 years and he has never heard of such a thing. He had to also fact check the president when Obama mentioned about the Big Oil companies like Exxon/Mobil getting 4 billion dollars in corporate welfare tax breaks. Romney cited a Department of Energy study the amount is more around 2 billion dollars with most of the money going to drilling operators and other contractors. Romney reminded the president with all the government subsidies that went into Green Energy companies that went bankrupt like Solyndra and Tesla Motors.
The most spirited part of the debate centered around entitlements (social security and Medicare that President Obama says is structurally sound and his administration has saved 716 billion dollars by not overpaying insurance claims and lowering prescription costs for seniors by $600 annually. Romney doesn’t want to make changes in the program for current and near-current retirees but has proposals to make structural changes [unspecified] for younger people that are fifty years old and younger. He accuse President Obama of making a 716 billion dollar cut to the program for current recipients as an offset for lower prescription costs while limiting other services and benefits. Romney supports having the option to choose the current Medicare/Medicaid system or a private plan (voucher program) for future retirees at no additional cost to beneficiaries. President Obama feels that the private plans will pass on the administrative costs to seniors enrolled under their plans and coverage would vary from state to state. Governor Romney mentions a study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that under ObamaCare 20% of people will lose medical benefits as well as a report by McKinsey & Company of American Business that 30% of insurers under the plan anticipate dropping people from coverage [because of all the government regulations].
When asked about the role of government, President Obama said it is to keep people safe and as a vehicle to ladders of opportunity. Mitt Romney mentioned the Constitution and Bill of Rights and government’s role is to provide the principles of those documents for life, liberty, a strong military to protect our freedoms, to maintain a commitment to religious freedom and tolerance, and the right to pursue happiness (including taking care of those who are less fortunate), and maintain for individuals the right to pursue their dreams without the government making choices for people. To the question of should the federal government have a role in education, Romney mentioned that states or school districts receiving federal grant aid such as IDEA or Title I (lower income or disability [autistic, ADHD, etc]) the money should go to the family so the parent and child can use it to pay for education and other services at the school of their choice. President Obama accuses Romney of wanting the cut the funding to schools [K12] by 20%, which Governor Romney denies and vows not to cut education funding. Romney did bring up the fact that Obama had talked so passionately about supporting education and wanting to hire extra 100,000 teachers in Math and Science, but put 90 billion dollars into Green Jobs where instead, that money could have been used to hire 2 million more teachers.
It just seems that Mitt Romney was more persuasive overall than the present as having a better command of the facts as presented in their first televised debate. Romney seemed sharper, engaged, focused, and looked more presidential. On the other hand, President Obama seemed a little rusty, less energized, and his body language suggested discomfort or lack of attention or having trouble focusing or his vaunted oratory was a little flat. While Romney did lack some of the specifics and more detail would have been better, sometimes too many facts can be a negative. The one thing that has to be acknowledged is that things aren’t as bad now as they were four years ago and some of the credit has to go the president’s leadership and other reversals or leveling of a downward trend happened in-spite of his policies. But as Governor has said, Barack Obama has been in office for 4 years and we still have 23 million people unemployed (over 8%) or have given up looking for work; 47 million people receiving food stamps; economic growth slower than it has been in several years; gasoline prices around $4.00/gal; government debt that approaches or in excess of our GDP, and students graduating from college who cannot find work or employers who have job openings but applicants don’t have the technical skills or training to do the work.
Do Americans want to give President Obama “Four More Years” or do we want CHANGE, coincidentally, the same campaign slogan that presidential candidate Obama ran on in 2008. Barack Obama looked into the camera and told his wife, “A year from now we won’t be celebrating in front of 40 million people” and that statement just might turn out to come prophetically true because he might be fired from his job by then. Perhaps its time because Barack might not have the fire in the belly anymore and is all out of fresh ideas, and like a boxer who hasn’t trained and disciplined himself before a title bout, the ring rust shows as he receives jabs to the body and head from his opponent without an effective counter-punch or defensive maneuvers. Barack seems to be looking for Mitt to lower his guarding or drop his left after making a punch, leaving an opening so he can get the knockout because on the scorecard it is still too close to call.
The president accuses Romney of being a different person now than during the Republican debates but the same can be said for Barack Obama. Even after becoming President he said “The buck stops with me” and so it is fitting that he takes the blame for the economy. Even cabinet appointees, like the remarkably talented Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State has not accomplished anything significant in Foreign Affairs. Mitt Romney is right when he says it’s all about leadership and you don’t lead from behind. America’s problems are serious and require bold, innovative, and never-been-tried before solutions inspired by out-of-the box thinking and risk-taking. President Obama echoes the words of George Bush wanting Americans to just “stay the course” mentality which seems to be looking at life from a half empty perspective. Things were worse four years ago but they should be better in the future but this approach lacks the optimism of living life with the glass half full and things are going to be better. Barack famously decried the final term of George W. Bush as “Eight is enough” but I say to him: “4 and No More.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 5, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
One of the things that wasn’t so clear in the former Governor’s message is when he wants to lower tax rates for corporations and individuals and at the same time lower deductions, credits, and exemptions but keep taking in the same money while maintaining growth; just how does that work? Romney wants to use government lands to increase oil and gas production, offshore Alaska, the Keystone Pipeline from Alaska and use “clean coal” so we can create more jobs. President Obama’s contention is that Governor Romney will increase military spending by two trillion dollars in addition to five trillion in tax cuts and middle class taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Romney’s plan to grow jobs is to tax small businesses at the corporate rate instead of at the individual rate that they now pay and these companies will be able to hire more workers. Romney says that President Obama wants to increase the tax rate on small businesses from 35% to 40% and according to the Federation of Independent Business this will result in a loss of over 700,000 jobs.
Governor Romney has a simple litmus-test when it comes to cutting federal funding programs-“Is the program so critical that we have to borrow money from China to pay for it; if not, I’ll get rid of it” Under this plan, PBS is on the chopping block. Certain government programs will be defunded at the federal level and run by the states and some government agencies and departments will be consolidated and employee cutbacks will be done by attrition, but Romney [just like Texas Governor Rick Perry] hasn’t mentioned which ones are targeted. The Obama record consists of eliminating 27 government programs, another 18 for education that were ineffective, $50 billion in medical fraud (Medicare/Medicaid), and savings of a trillion dollars from the ‘discretionary’ domestic budget [which covers what??]. There was an interesting exchange between President Obama and Governor Romney when he mentioned about American companies receive a tax break when they build a plant overseas and Governor Romney mentioned that he has been in business for over 25 years and he has never heard of such a thing. He had to also fact check the president when Obama mentioned about the Big Oil companies like Exxon/Mobil getting 4 billion dollars in corporate welfare tax breaks. Romney cited a Department of Energy study the amount is more around 2 billion dollars with most of the money going to drilling operators and other contractors. Romney reminded the president with all the government subsidies that went into Green Energy companies that went bankrupt like Solyndra and Tesla Motors.
The most spirited part of the debate centered around entitlements (social security and Medicare that President Obama says is structurally sound and his administration has saved 716 billion dollars by not overpaying insurance claims and lowering prescription costs for seniors by $600 annually. Romney doesn’t want to make changes in the program for current and near-current retirees but has proposals to make structural changes [unspecified] for younger people that are fifty years old and younger. He accuse President Obama of making a 716 billion dollar cut to the program for current recipients as an offset for lower prescription costs while limiting other services and benefits. Romney supports having the option to choose the current Medicare/Medicaid system or a private plan (voucher program) for future retirees at no additional cost to beneficiaries. President Obama feels that the private plans will pass on the administrative costs to seniors enrolled under their plans and coverage would vary from state to state. Governor Romney mentions a study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that under ObamaCare 20% of people will lose medical benefits as well as a report by McKinsey & Company of American Business that 30% of insurers under the plan anticipate dropping people from coverage [because of all the government regulations].
When asked about the role of government, President Obama said it is to keep people safe and as a vehicle to ladders of opportunity. Mitt Romney mentioned the Constitution and Bill of Rights and government’s role is to provide the principles of those documents for life, liberty, a strong military to protect our freedoms, to maintain a commitment to religious freedom and tolerance, and the right to pursue happiness (including taking care of those who are less fortunate), and maintain for individuals the right to pursue their dreams without the government making choices for people. To the question of should the federal government have a role in education, Romney mentioned that states or school districts receiving federal grant aid such as IDEA or Title I (lower income or disability [autistic, ADHD, etc]) the money should go to the family so the parent and child can use it to pay for education and other services at the school of their choice. President Obama accuses Romney of wanting the cut the funding to schools [K12] by 20%, which Governor Romney denies and vows not to cut education funding. Romney did bring up the fact that Obama had talked so passionately about supporting education and wanting to hire extra 100,000 teachers in Math and Science, but put 90 billion dollars into Green Jobs where instead, that money could have been used to hire 2 million more teachers.
It just seems that Mitt Romney was more persuasive overall than the present as having a better command of the facts as presented in their first televised debate. Romney seemed sharper, engaged, focused, and looked more presidential. On the other hand, President Obama seemed a little rusty, less energized, and his body language suggested discomfort or lack of attention or having trouble focusing or his vaunted oratory was a little flat. While Romney did lack some of the specifics and more detail would have been better, sometimes too many facts can be a negative. The one thing that has to be acknowledged is that things aren’t as bad now as they were four years ago and some of the credit has to go the president’s leadership and other reversals or leveling of a downward trend happened in-spite of his policies. But as Governor has said, Barack Obama has been in office for 4 years and we still have 23 million people unemployed (over 8%) or have given up looking for work; 47 million people receiving food stamps; economic growth slower than it has been in several years; gasoline prices around $4.00/gal; government debt that approaches or in excess of our GDP, and students graduating from college who cannot find work or employers who have job openings but applicants don’t have the technical skills or training to do the work.
Do Americans want to give President Obama “Four More Years” or do we want CHANGE, coincidentally, the same campaign slogan that presidential candidate Obama ran on in 2008. Barack Obama looked into the camera and told his wife, “A year from now we won’t be celebrating in front of 40 million people” and that statement just might turn out to come prophetically true because he might be fired from his job by then. Perhaps its time because Barack might not have the fire in the belly anymore and is all out of fresh ideas, and like a boxer who hasn’t trained and disciplined himself before a title bout, the ring rust shows as he receives jabs to the body and head from his opponent without an effective counter-punch or defensive maneuvers. Barack seems to be looking for Mitt to lower his guarding or drop his left after making a punch, leaving an opening so he can get the knockout because on the scorecard it is still too close to call.
The president accuses Romney of being a different person now than during the Republican debates but the same can be said for Barack Obama. Even after becoming President he said “The buck stops with me” and so it is fitting that he takes the blame for the economy. Even cabinet appointees, like the remarkably talented Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State has not accomplished anything significant in Foreign Affairs. Mitt Romney is right when he says it’s all about leadership and you don’t lead from behind. America’s problems are serious and require bold, innovative, and never-been-tried before solutions inspired by out-of-the box thinking and risk-taking. President Obama echoes the words of George Bush wanting Americans to just “stay the course” mentality which seems to be looking at life from a half empty perspective. Things were worse four years ago but they should be better in the future but this approach lacks the optimism of living life with the glass half full and things are going to be better. Barack famously decried the final term of George W. Bush as “Eight is enough” but I say to him: “4 and No More.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 5, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Monday, September 10, 2012
Reflection on the 2012 Democratic National Convention
The one thing that can be said about the DNC held at Charlotte, NC is that the Democrats made a better case to get votes than the Republicans did at their convention. It was unfair in a way because no one in the sphere of American politics can speak like former president Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. Not to be ignored is the influence and popularity of First Lady Michelle Obama, especially among an important voting block, namely White, college-educated women. Her speech at the convention reintroduced Barack Obama as the love of her life and the man she trusts, so America should trust him again, too. It was almost like a rewind to the 2008 campaign with the biographical narrative and the deep commitment Michelle has as Mom-in-Chief toward her daughters Sasha and Malia. In fact, a consistent theme throughout the convention was a page borrowed from the Republicans, which included family values, patriotism and faith. There was also a risk in championing a social agenda of gay rights and women’s health choices and it will be interesting to see if it registered with potential undecided voters. Bill Clinton essentially gave the speech that President Obama needed to give, namely on policy, in a point-by-point manner which dismantled the claims by Mitt Romney and the Republicans that President Obama has run out of ideas, his policies are failing and he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
President Obama’s speech before convention delegates was a little anemic and it indicates the reality of where he and the country are now since 2008. It’s a little difficult to be inspirational with a huge and unsustainable national debt which exceeds the GDP and unemployment at over 8% [the “real” jobless rate probably exceeds 12% or higher nationally]. Even the 29 months of employment growth and 4½ million jobs are mostly low paying, part-time retail and service sector jobs with little or no benefits. As far as manufacturing jobs, probably the only that have been filled are the thousands of blue collar ones at GM and Chrysler that received the government bailout money. It was good for those employees and their parts supplier workers but I don’t know about anybody else who benefited from the Fed’s [or rather the 99% taxpayers] generosity. Additionally, the August jobs report from the Bureau of labor Statistics (BLS) on the day after the DNC ended the economy only added 96,000 jobs instead of several prominent economists prediction of 136,000 and the manufacturing sector is at its lowest level in two years with a loss of 15,000 jobs in the month of August. It is now believed that there are 23 million Americans that are unemployed and/or have given up looking for work of any kind.
The one curious thing that has dominated the Obama campaign as well as the DNC Convention, and which has been difficult for Mitt Romney to shake off, is the allegation that he was a corporate raider while the CEO of venture capitalist BAIN Investments. Mitt and BAIN raked in millions of dollars while gutting some of the companies in their portfolio as these firms had lain off workers and went out of business. Be that as it may, Romney didn’t help his case when he was quoted as saying he likes to fire people, or by making a $10,000 bet to Texas Governor Rick Perry during one of the debates, opposing the government of GM and Chrysler or failing to release more than one year of his income taxes as well as having assets in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands or in Switzerland. A memorable slogan that came out of the RNC was spoken by Ann Romney when she said that “Mitt will not fail” and from Michelle Obama at the DNC when she urged Americans to “trust” her husband. President Obama used words reminiscent of former Republican Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush during the Iraq War, namely, “Stay the course” and things will get better. This seems more like “Mission Impossible” and change usually leads to things getting better rather than worse. While it is true that the country is not hemorrhaging job losses by the tens of thousands like when Barack Obama first became president but its like the old saying, “When everybody else is out of work it is a recession, and when you are out of work it is a depression.” Perhaps to President Obama it is like that old Heinz ketchup commercial that says, “Anticipation is making me wait” but the country can’t afford to wait 4 MORE YEARS and we need “change” NOW!!
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 7, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
President Obama’s speech before convention delegates was a little anemic and it indicates the reality of where he and the country are now since 2008. It’s a little difficult to be inspirational with a huge and unsustainable national debt which exceeds the GDP and unemployment at over 8% [the “real” jobless rate probably exceeds 12% or higher nationally]. Even the 29 months of employment growth and 4½ million jobs are mostly low paying, part-time retail and service sector jobs with little or no benefits. As far as manufacturing jobs, probably the only that have been filled are the thousands of blue collar ones at GM and Chrysler that received the government bailout money. It was good for those employees and their parts supplier workers but I don’t know about anybody else who benefited from the Fed’s [or rather the 99% taxpayers] generosity. Additionally, the August jobs report from the Bureau of labor Statistics (BLS) on the day after the DNC ended the economy only added 96,000 jobs instead of several prominent economists prediction of 136,000 and the manufacturing sector is at its lowest level in two years with a loss of 15,000 jobs in the month of August. It is now believed that there are 23 million Americans that are unemployed and/or have given up looking for work of any kind.
The one curious thing that has dominated the Obama campaign as well as the DNC Convention, and which has been difficult for Mitt Romney to shake off, is the allegation that he was a corporate raider while the CEO of venture capitalist BAIN Investments. Mitt and BAIN raked in millions of dollars while gutting some of the companies in their portfolio as these firms had lain off workers and went out of business. Be that as it may, Romney didn’t help his case when he was quoted as saying he likes to fire people, or by making a $10,000 bet to Texas Governor Rick Perry during one of the debates, opposing the government of GM and Chrysler or failing to release more than one year of his income taxes as well as having assets in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands or in Switzerland. A memorable slogan that came out of the RNC was spoken by Ann Romney when she said that “Mitt will not fail” and from Michelle Obama at the DNC when she urged Americans to “trust” her husband. President Obama used words reminiscent of former Republican Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush during the Iraq War, namely, “Stay the course” and things will get better. This seems more like “Mission Impossible” and change usually leads to things getting better rather than worse. While it is true that the country is not hemorrhaging job losses by the tens of thousands like when Barack Obama first became president but its like the old saying, “When everybody else is out of work it is a recession, and when you are out of work it is a depression.” Perhaps to President Obama it is like that old Heinz ketchup commercial that says, “Anticipation is making me wait” but the country can’t afford to wait 4 MORE YEARS and we need “change” NOW!!
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 7, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Reflections on the 2012 Republican National Convention
The political pundits of print and broadcast media as well as historians will doubtless have exhaustive commentary and analysis on the RNC which concluded on Thursday, August 30, 2012 in Tampa, FL. This was the first time that a number of prominent Hispanic officials were on the stage in front of the podium to address fellow Republican delegates at this grand political event. There were also riveting personal testimonies regarding the compassion and goodness of Mitt Romney that had not been revealed to the general public. One of the main points that echoed as a recurring theme is the “immigrant-rags-to-riches” story, which though inspirational and compelling, these words should fall on deaf ears among the majority of Americans who did not grow up in a family where one or both parents was a small business owner or an entrepreneur.
Even more interesting is the fact that there was no mention at all by Mitt Romney or anyone else regarding the passage of a comprehensive immigration policy; which would certainly be of interest to Spanish-speaking Americans. There was no mention of the military who are still serving in Afghanistan or commitment to help military families and veterans who have served in Iraq and are suffering from PTSD. The one thing that team Romney and Ryan hit it right on, which is President Obama’s economic record. Although part of the blame can be placed on the previous administration, still the president hasn’t been able to lead in such a way that brought both political parties together to get legislation passed that would help the country; and it seems that Barack Obama is running on fumes and is out of fresh ideas and he is just about out of time.
Also, there were quite a few quotes from the Christian Bible and references to that ‘faith’ and God. While it is certainly commendable to believe in a Supreme Being and Creator but in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: The Senators and Representatives, members of the several State legislatures, all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the United States and the several states . . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. It is puzzling that this seemingly religious alliance among Rick Santorum’s Catholics, Mike Huckabee’s Evangelicals and Mitt Romney’s Mormons in a united front was on display of at the convention when the larger Ecumenical Christian community hasn’t totally embraced Mitt Romney, partly because of his religion and concern that he still may not be a “true” Right-wing GOP Conservative. As a final point, it is the political and social evolution in America which is affected to a great extent by Christianity such that it is almost seen as a religious “requirement” or litmus-test. It is doubtful that few candidates could ever get elected to any civic or political office if that person were Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Wiccan, and Scientology, Agnostic or any religion or faith system other than Christian.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 31, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Even more interesting is the fact that there was no mention at all by Mitt Romney or anyone else regarding the passage of a comprehensive immigration policy; which would certainly be of interest to Spanish-speaking Americans. There was no mention of the military who are still serving in Afghanistan or commitment to help military families and veterans who have served in Iraq and are suffering from PTSD. The one thing that team Romney and Ryan hit it right on, which is President Obama’s economic record. Although part of the blame can be placed on the previous administration, still the president hasn’t been able to lead in such a way that brought both political parties together to get legislation passed that would help the country; and it seems that Barack Obama is running on fumes and is out of fresh ideas and he is just about out of time.
Also, there were quite a few quotes from the Christian Bible and references to that ‘faith’ and God. While it is certainly commendable to believe in a Supreme Being and Creator but in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: The Senators and Representatives, members of the several State legislatures, all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the United States and the several states . . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. It is puzzling that this seemingly religious alliance among Rick Santorum’s Catholics, Mike Huckabee’s Evangelicals and Mitt Romney’s Mormons in a united front was on display of at the convention when the larger Ecumenical Christian community hasn’t totally embraced Mitt Romney, partly because of his religion and concern that he still may not be a “true” Right-wing GOP Conservative. As a final point, it is the political and social evolution in America which is affected to a great extent by Christianity such that it is almost seen as a religious “requirement” or litmus-test. It is doubtful that few candidates could ever get elected to any civic or political office if that person were Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Wiccan, and Scientology, Agnostic or any religion or faith system other than Christian.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 31, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, August 31, 2012
A promising newcomer in the dietary supplement marketplace
According to an article on obesity found at Wikipedia, the United States has the highest rate of all industrialized countries. In 2010, the CDC reported 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children. In 2008 a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found the obesity rate among adult Americans was estimated at 32.2% for men and 35.5% for women. Looking at the long-term consequences, overweight adolescents have a 70 percent chance of becoming overweight or obese adults, which increases to 80 percent if one or more parent is overweight or obese.
Obesity has been cited as a contributing factor to approximately 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year and has increased health care use and expenditures, costing society an estimated $117 billion in direct (preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to weight) and indirect (absenteeism, loss of future earnings due to premature death) costs. This exceeds health-care costs associated with smoking or problem drinking and accounts for 6% to 12% of national health care expenditures in the United States. Obesity increases the prevalence of complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Babies born to obese women are almost three times as likely to die within one month of birth and almost twice as likely to be stillborn than babies born to women of normal weight.
These trends in healthcare costs associated with pediatric obesity and its co-morbidities are staggering, urging the Surgeon General to predict that preventable morbidity and mortality associated with obesity may surpass those associated with cigarette smoking. Furthermore, the probability of childhood obesity persisting into adulthood is estimated to increase from approximately twenty percent at four years of age to approximately eighty percent by adolescence, and it is likely that these obesity co-morbidities will persist into adulthood. Researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that in 2003, obesity-attributable medical expenditures reached $75 billion. Historically, obesity primarily afflicted adults, but this has changed in the last 2 decades. 15-25 percent of American children and adolescents are now obese. Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese in adulthood and to develop obesity-related health problems.
All of this information makes the matter of weight management all the more urgent. Needless to say there are hundreds if not thousands of dietary and nutritional supplements on the market today, either found in Health Food Stores, infomercials or over the Internet. The ingredients in some of these formulations have unpleasant as well as dangerous side-effects, resulting in significant medical complications and supplements containing Ephedra have caused death in extreme cases, and it has been banned by the FDA and is not used in any product sold in the United States. However, one bright spot among those wanting to lose weight in a safe and effective way, Nouveau Life Pharmaceuticals has a dietary supplement consisting of Raspberry Ketone extract, Apple Cider Vinegar (powder), Grapefruit (powder), Acai Fruit (powder), Green Tea, Kelp, African Mango and Resveratrol that looks quite promising. Dr. Mehmet Oz (Oprah Winfrey friend) has touted the health benefits of Raspberry Ketones, African Mango and Resveratrol on his show as far as contributing to weight loss.
The link to their product line of nutraceuticals can be found at http://nlpnaturals.com/products/?ap_id-9154359
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 31, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Obesity has been cited as a contributing factor to approximately 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year and has increased health care use and expenditures, costing society an estimated $117 billion in direct (preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to weight) and indirect (absenteeism, loss of future earnings due to premature death) costs. This exceeds health-care costs associated with smoking or problem drinking and accounts for 6% to 12% of national health care expenditures in the United States. Obesity increases the prevalence of complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Babies born to obese women are almost three times as likely to die within one month of birth and almost twice as likely to be stillborn than babies born to women of normal weight.
These trends in healthcare costs associated with pediatric obesity and its co-morbidities are staggering, urging the Surgeon General to predict that preventable morbidity and mortality associated with obesity may surpass those associated with cigarette smoking. Furthermore, the probability of childhood obesity persisting into adulthood is estimated to increase from approximately twenty percent at four years of age to approximately eighty percent by adolescence, and it is likely that these obesity co-morbidities will persist into adulthood. Researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that in 2003, obesity-attributable medical expenditures reached $75 billion. Historically, obesity primarily afflicted adults, but this has changed in the last 2 decades. 15-25 percent of American children and adolescents are now obese. Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese in adulthood and to develop obesity-related health problems.
All of this information makes the matter of weight management all the more urgent. Needless to say there are hundreds if not thousands of dietary and nutritional supplements on the market today, either found in Health Food Stores, infomercials or over the Internet. The ingredients in some of these formulations have unpleasant as well as dangerous side-effects, resulting in significant medical complications and supplements containing Ephedra have caused death in extreme cases, and it has been banned by the FDA and is not used in any product sold in the United States. However, one bright spot among those wanting to lose weight in a safe and effective way, Nouveau Life Pharmaceuticals has a dietary supplement consisting of Raspberry Ketone extract, Apple Cider Vinegar (powder), Grapefruit (powder), Acai Fruit (powder), Green Tea, Kelp, African Mango and Resveratrol that looks quite promising. Dr. Mehmet Oz (Oprah Winfrey friend) has touted the health benefits of Raspberry Ketones, African Mango and Resveratrol on his show as far as contributing to weight loss.
The link to their product line of nutraceuticals can be found at http://nlpnaturals.com/products/?ap_id-9154359
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 31, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Thoughts on the Batman character and shooting deaths at the Aurora Theatre
Almost everyone who has ever picked up a comic book is familiar with the origin of “Batman.” The story of the ‘Caped Crusader’ is one of the most compelling in all the history of superhero stories, starting back around 1946 in Detective Comics [later “DC comics”] where a young boy of around the age of eight years old watches both his parents get robbed and murdered before his very eyes. The criminal named “Jack” who pulls the trigger sets in motion a series of events after sparing the life of the youthful eyewitness to the crime sets both of them on a collision course later in life. Jack become head of a crime syndicate as the “Joker” and Bruce Wayne dedicated the rest of his life to fighting crime. Batman was driven by a sense of justice, moral integrity or fairness, and a real hero, not someone seeking revenge or retribution; although his feelings about the Joker may be the exception to the rule.
Several actors have played the character of Batman on the big screen, including Michael Keaton, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, and Christian Bale and Adam West starred in the late 1960’s television series, still, none of them quite captured the essence of the man Bruce Wayne or his alter ego. Batman did not have super powers like his friend from the planet Krypton named Kal-El (Superman) or the Amazonian goddess Wonder Woman but his leadership served as a role model for others and was the ultimate team player. The noble ‘Caped Crusader’ of the past has morphed over the decades into The Dark Knight. It is as though Bruce Wayne suffers from a Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde multiple personality disorder, schizophrenia, and he is a brooding loner trying to exorcise his inner demons, keeping people at a distance, and someone who doesn’t always explains his actions or feel the need to do so. This Batman doesn’t trust anyone, even those closest friends who he has known the longest. Sometimes it is hard to tell if this Batman is one of the ‘good buys’ because more often than not, he blurs the line between protecting the public good and outright criminality. Batman seems to operate just ‘outside’ the law and in some ways he is no better than the character known as “The Punisher,” who is solely driven by revenge for the mob killing of his family and he makes no apology about it.
DC Comics have created a “batty” man instead of portraying the original Batman and Hollywood has taken it to the next level with the visual and sound effects that can only be reproduced on the big screen with unmatched quality and effectiveness. The thing though, is that such graphical imagery stimulate a part of the brain, perhaps the lower reptilian one or causes the secretion of brain chemicals such that it can serve as a trigger for someone who my already have a disconnect with reality or is at a borderline threshold between sane and insane, who is enticed into the latter and commits acts that to his mind is a blur between what is real on one hand and imaginary on the other. And while the movie industry or comic book illustrators or their publishers are not liable for the behavior of some disturbed individual yet thoughtful consideration must be given to whatever is presented to the public has to be done in such a way that it does not explicitly or implicitly influence anyone to act out a role that leads to hurtful or deadly outcomes. Such was the case with James Holmes who planned and carried out one of the most horrific crimes of domestic terrorism in recent years when he shot and killed about a dozen and wounded nearly fifty others at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado last week. Ironically, it was thirteen years ago that the massacre happened at Columbine High School that shocked the nation, which is about fifteen miles away.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 25, 2012
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Several actors have played the character of Batman on the big screen, including Michael Keaton, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, and Christian Bale and Adam West starred in the late 1960’s television series, still, none of them quite captured the essence of the man Bruce Wayne or his alter ego. Batman did not have super powers like his friend from the planet Krypton named Kal-El (Superman) or the Amazonian goddess Wonder Woman but his leadership served as a role model for others and was the ultimate team player. The noble ‘Caped Crusader’ of the past has morphed over the decades into The Dark Knight. It is as though Bruce Wayne suffers from a Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde multiple personality disorder, schizophrenia, and he is a brooding loner trying to exorcise his inner demons, keeping people at a distance, and someone who doesn’t always explains his actions or feel the need to do so. This Batman doesn’t trust anyone, even those closest friends who he has known the longest. Sometimes it is hard to tell if this Batman is one of the ‘good buys’ because more often than not, he blurs the line between protecting the public good and outright criminality. Batman seems to operate just ‘outside’ the law and in some ways he is no better than the character known as “The Punisher,” who is solely driven by revenge for the mob killing of his family and he makes no apology about it.
DC Comics have created a “batty” man instead of portraying the original Batman and Hollywood has taken it to the next level with the visual and sound effects that can only be reproduced on the big screen with unmatched quality and effectiveness. The thing though, is that such graphical imagery stimulate a part of the brain, perhaps the lower reptilian one or causes the secretion of brain chemicals such that it can serve as a trigger for someone who my already have a disconnect with reality or is at a borderline threshold between sane and insane, who is enticed into the latter and commits acts that to his mind is a blur between what is real on one hand and imaginary on the other. And while the movie industry or comic book illustrators or their publishers are not liable for the behavior of some disturbed individual yet thoughtful consideration must be given to whatever is presented to the public has to be done in such a way that it does not explicitly or implicitly influence anyone to act out a role that leads to hurtful or deadly outcomes. Such was the case with James Holmes who planned and carried out one of the most horrific crimes of domestic terrorism in recent years when he shot and killed about a dozen and wounded nearly fifty others at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado last week. Ironically, it was thirteen years ago that the massacre happened at Columbine High School that shocked the nation, which is about fifteen miles away.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 25, 2012
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Dr. Drew’s Life Changers segment on “Spanking”
Dear Dr. Drew:
I watched the segment on "Spanking" yesterday (July 24, 2012) and found it one of the more honest and sometime spirited discussions on television. I will get right to the point and state that all your guests were right and it is unfortunately that none of them appeared to see it. There are instances in which a 'spanking' is disciplinary and at other times it is abuse. There are children who will learn without receiving a spanking and others that no amount of spankings will do any good, except for the negatives that you and your other professional colleagues cited based upon years of clinical research. For those parents who spank their children this form of discipline is almost always used as the first resort instead of the last, with very few other options or alternatives. It is usually administered when one is angry, frustrated, irritated, tired, upset and is more punishment than corrective. It is usually accompanied by yelling, screaming or fussing and meted out in a wrathful fury.
Glozell and pastor Michael Pearl talked about the Biblical statement of "spare the rod" but it also says, "Train up a child in the way he/she should go" and this is NOT the same training one does with animals. If the Bible were written today the statements about a child might very well include putting the child on a "time out" as well as "negative reinforcement" (withdrawing privileges). What must be taken into account and you hit the nail right on the head Dr. Drew is when you mentioned about the environment in which the Bible was written came out of a warfare culture and people were disciplined in order to fit within the society that they were a part of. Also, the African-American professor's comments I found to be the 'least' credible because he, like so many others in the Black community and White apologists keep blaming everything on slavery to account for problems within Black families, especially with disciplining Black males. For one thing, slavery hasn't been practice in the U. S. for nearly 235 years and is too remote to be used as an excuse today.
I believe it is true that inflicting physical pain in the form of discipline does affect the chemistry of the brain along with physical/mental development and social skills and a child might start lying as well as terrorize others more vulnerable in the form of bullying, teasing, pranks, fighting or others forms of aggressive behavior including inflicting pain or harming [torturing] animals and insects. A child needs to hear more positives than the negatives such as don’t, can’t, etc, and the data suggests that while growing up the ratio of negatives to positives are astoundingly high [thousands to one]. A parent has to let their child know they are wanted and to feel safe and loved as well as hugged on occasion. Sadly, for many children the only time there is physical touching is when they are grabbed by the hand or arm for doing something wrong or breaking the rules.
As a final point, I found it most amusing at first, then later I was offended at Glozell because she was the most vocal person, rude, impatient, discourteous, disrespectful and the most animated when it comes to raising and disciplining children- that she doesn’t have any herself. My message to her is this: “How can you tell someone else how to raise a child or be a parent if you are not one?” Oh, by the way, I am a parent and know from which I speak [or write in this case].
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 25, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Saturday, March 10, 2012
A pill that will cure racism?
Dr. Sylvia Terbeck and her colleagues at Oxford University conducted a clinical study, which was recently published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology that “Propranolol,” which works to combat high blood pressure, anxiety, migraines, and a number of heart ailments, affects the same part of the central nervous system that regulates subconscious attitudes on race. Needless to say, these findings have created a lot of buzz on the internet as well as some activity among those in the medical community. There is concern among ethical issues raised by the use of medication to modulate or control human behavior; but wait, don’t we have doctors writing out prescriptions for drugs that our local pharmacist gladly fills that does the same thing anyway? Dr. Chris Chambers of Cardiff University School of Psychology postulates whether the drug influenced racial attitudes only or alters implicit brain systems more generally; especially reducing the heart rate.
Some have questioned the validity of the test because all the participants were White males. Experimental psychologist Sylvia Terbeck and her team gave two groups of 18 volunteers either a placebo or a dose of propranolol, then put them through a battery of tests designed to gauge racism, such as matching "positive and negative words and pictures of black and white individuals on a computer screen." More than a third of the propranolol takers scored negative, meaning they showed little subconscious racial bias; none of the placebo-takers [White??] scored negative. It seems that when one experiences anxiety and panic, the heart rate increases, stimulating a region in the brain called the amygdala; which processes emotions, including fear. The Oxford team posits that racism is tied to fear, so inhibiting the amygdala suppresses racist urges. However, Terbeck cautions that the drug had no measurable effect on "explicit racial bias." This seems to mean that although propranolol can alleviate or lessen the symptoms of stress and anxiety bylowerng blood pressure and heart rate, makng a person feel calmer, less intense and more subdued, it does not however, change overt racist attitudes or behavior.
According to one of the online posts, “This medication is a common Beta blocker. It has been in use for quite a while. It has shown excellent results to settle the effects of Traumatic stress. It is used to help individuals with PTSD be able to talk about what previously caused too much anxiety. Since racism is a conception based on stereotypes and generalizations which has with it an implicit anxiety, it is not surprising that it helps people with their subtle fears and phobias as they are related to [matters of] race.” Also, there was an interesting online comment that mentioned about the high numbers of African Americans who suffer from the symptoms of high blood pressure than any other ethnic group, so are they subconscious ‘racists’? Looking at the matter realistically, in all due respects to Dr. Terbeck and her esteemed Oxford research team, the test subjects could have been given a battery of tests where a strong emotional response other than racial bias could have been the end result; thereby stimulating the “amygdala.” Be that as it may, since race seems to get so much attention, I agree with the person who posited, “Do you have a pill to make people [us] forget all about race”?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 9, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Some have questioned the validity of the test because all the participants were White males. Experimental psychologist Sylvia Terbeck and her team gave two groups of 18 volunteers either a placebo or a dose of propranolol, then put them through a battery of tests designed to gauge racism, such as matching "positive and negative words and pictures of black and white individuals on a computer screen." More than a third of the propranolol takers scored negative, meaning they showed little subconscious racial bias; none of the placebo-takers [White??] scored negative. It seems that when one experiences anxiety and panic, the heart rate increases, stimulating a region in the brain called the amygdala; which processes emotions, including fear. The Oxford team posits that racism is tied to fear, so inhibiting the amygdala suppresses racist urges. However, Terbeck cautions that the drug had no measurable effect on "explicit racial bias." This seems to mean that although propranolol can alleviate or lessen the symptoms of stress and anxiety bylowerng blood pressure and heart rate, makng a person feel calmer, less intense and more subdued, it does not however, change overt racist attitudes or behavior.
According to one of the online posts, “This medication is a common Beta blocker. It has been in use for quite a while. It has shown excellent results to settle the effects of Traumatic stress. It is used to help individuals with PTSD be able to talk about what previously caused too much anxiety. Since racism is a conception based on stereotypes and generalizations which has with it an implicit anxiety, it is not surprising that it helps people with their subtle fears and phobias as they are related to [matters of] race.” Also, there was an interesting online comment that mentioned about the high numbers of African Americans who suffer from the symptoms of high blood pressure than any other ethnic group, so are they subconscious ‘racists’? Looking at the matter realistically, in all due respects to Dr. Terbeck and her esteemed Oxford research team, the test subjects could have been given a battery of tests where a strong emotional response other than racial bias could have been the end result; thereby stimulating the “amygdala.” Be that as it may, since race seems to get so much attention, I agree with the person who posited, “Do you have a pill to make people [us] forget all about race”?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 9, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
K-Mart Manager shot in robbery attempt
A lone gunman entered the Aurora Avenue North K-Mart store (Seattle, WA) on Saturday, February 25, 2012, near closing time, found a place to hide and waited until the store was nearly empty before he went to the office at the back of the store, and after brandishing a handgun, demanded money from the safe. According to the police report, the store manager, assistant manager and a clerk were the only remaining persons in the office. This happened around 9: 07 PM, which was only minutes after the store closed at 9: 00PM. Afterwards, it seems that the store manager and robber wrestled with one another and the manager got shot in the chest. The struggle continued between the two and moved to the front of the store where the manager, though critically wounded, was able to knock the gun out of the robber’s hand. In the meantime, the clerk dialed 911 the assistant manager was able to retrieve the firearm and ran outside, awaiting the arrival of police officers. The store manager was taken to Harborview Medical Center where he underwent surgery to remove his spleen and is scheduled for another surgery, but he is in stable condition as of Sunday morning, according to the police.
This is a relatively positive outcome from what could have been a much worse scenario, but some serious questions need to be asked, namely, what is the corporate policy regarding what is the responsible behavior or guidelines recommended when confronted with someone who robs the store and carries a firearm; is the employee to resist or not? Did the manager give the robber money from the safe as he requested, and then have reason to fear, by way of direct threat, implication or body language that the gunman was going to shoot him and his subordinates anyway? If such was the case then his struggle with the robber might have been justified, if not to protect himself, then at the very least to preoccupy the robber so that the others could perhaps get to safety and call the police.
It is curious that this incident happened within such a short time window (seven minutes) because there are usually customers in most retail stores after closing time as well as hourly workers and department managers who still have work to do. When the store closes managers make a final inspection of their departments and throughout the store and check for any thing out of the ordinary, so the robber must have found a really good hiding place. This is in addition to all the hidden cameras strategically placed in the store which are monitored by Asset Protection (store security), which is usually staffed by more than one person so it would be interesting to know what surveillance footage found; or more importantly, how the person was able to evade a system that costs the store thousands of dollars (including personnel) on a monthly basis; which apparently failed in this case. No doubt there will be an internal investigation, as there should be, and some kind of changes will be made at this store to prevent a future recurrence of this type of unfortunate incident from happening again.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 28, 2012
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
This is a relatively positive outcome from what could have been a much worse scenario, but some serious questions need to be asked, namely, what is the corporate policy regarding what is the responsible behavior or guidelines recommended when confronted with someone who robs the store and carries a firearm; is the employee to resist or not? Did the manager give the robber money from the safe as he requested, and then have reason to fear, by way of direct threat, implication or body language that the gunman was going to shoot him and his subordinates anyway? If such was the case then his struggle with the robber might have been justified, if not to protect himself, then at the very least to preoccupy the robber so that the others could perhaps get to safety and call the police.
It is curious that this incident happened within such a short time window (seven minutes) because there are usually customers in most retail stores after closing time as well as hourly workers and department managers who still have work to do. When the store closes managers make a final inspection of their departments and throughout the store and check for any thing out of the ordinary, so the robber must have found a really good hiding place. This is in addition to all the hidden cameras strategically placed in the store which are monitored by Asset Protection (store security), which is usually staffed by more than one person so it would be interesting to know what surveillance footage found; or more importantly, how the person was able to evade a system that costs the store thousands of dollars (including personnel) on a monthly basis; which apparently failed in this case. No doubt there will be an internal investigation, as there should be, and some kind of changes will be made at this store to prevent a future recurrence of this type of unfortunate incident from happening again.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 28, 2012
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Bill and Monica: The President and the Intern
The recent PBS documentary on former President Bill Clinton brought back memories of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Linda Tripp and who can forget a starry-eyed twenty-one year old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. The ensuing political intrigue, controversy, sex-lies and blue dress [will it be sold on eBay or donated to “The Smithsonian Museum” after being dry-cleaned?], as well as cast of characters is a Hollywood director’s and screenwriters dream-come-true. For First Lady Hillary Rodham-Clinton and Daughter Chelsea it was the painful public humiliation and betrayal of trust. Looking back on that time, it seems everyone came out of it relatively unscathed; that is, except poor “femme fatale” Monica Lewinsky, who had to leave America and take up residency in England. President Clinton has a private global Foundation in his honor which he runs; Hillary Clinton became a Senator from New York, and is currently Secretary of State in the Obama Administration; and Chelsea Clinton practically gets anything she wants.
Loyalty has its rewards except when it comes to former “Valley Girl” Monica Lewinsky, who could have profited financially by writing a tell-all book about her ‘tryst’ with President Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton. However, one should not feel too sorry for Ms. Lewinsky because she was a former spokesperson for "Jenny Craig" and obtained a Masters degree in Social Psychology, and was an entrepreneur for awhile by launching a line of stylish handbags, but interest in them dried up and she went out of business. Nowadays, Monica manages to find available employment and lives in London in various condominiums owned by family friends and doubtless has an active social life. As a final thought, former President Clinton apologized to the country in 1998 after his impeachment hearing and took some degree of responsibility for his inappropriate actions but hopefully he also apologized to Ms. Lewinsky, who, at the time was an impressionable young woman, who noticed a man occupying the world’s most powerful elected office checking her out, and the temptation was just too great to say no to; even if she knew better.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 22, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Loyalty has its rewards except when it comes to former “Valley Girl” Monica Lewinsky, who could have profited financially by writing a tell-all book about her ‘tryst’ with President Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton. However, one should not feel too sorry for Ms. Lewinsky because she was a former spokesperson for "Jenny Craig" and obtained a Masters degree in Social Psychology, and was an entrepreneur for awhile by launching a line of stylish handbags, but interest in them dried up and she went out of business. Nowadays, Monica manages to find available employment and lives in London in various condominiums owned by family friends and doubtless has an active social life. As a final thought, former President Clinton apologized to the country in 1998 after his impeachment hearing and took some degree of responsibility for his inappropriate actions but hopefully he also apologized to Ms. Lewinsky, who, at the time was an impressionable young woman, who noticed a man occupying the world’s most powerful elected office checking her out, and the temptation was just too great to say no to; even if she knew better.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 22, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Is the anger over expensive gasoline prices somewhat one-sided?
The anger and frustration that car owners feel over the price of gas when they fill up at the pump doesn’t really tell the whole story. An internet search reveals some interesting facts about whether or not OPEC (specifically, Saudi Arabia) and the big oil companies have the consumer, “over a barrel” (pardon the pun,). The top fifteen countries that primarily feed nearly half of America’s 18.7 mbbl a day oil addiction (2011) are listed below in the following:
1. CANADA 2,157,000 bbl/daily
2. SAUDI ARABIA 1,180,000 bbl/daily
3. MEXICO 1,113,000 bbl/daily
4. VENEZUELA 893,000 bbl/daily
5. NIGERIA 826,000 bbl/daily
6. IRAQ 473,000 bbl/daily
7. COLOMBIA 364,000 bbl/daily
8. ANGOLA 323,000 bbl/daily
9. RUSSIA 246,000 bbl/daily
10. BRAZIL 225,000 bbl/daily
11. ECUADOR 203,000 bbl/daily
12. KUWAIT 164,000 bbl/daily
13. ALGERIA 204,000 bbl/daily
14. CHAD 54,000 bbl/daily
15. OMAN 39,000 bbl/daily
TOTAL 8,464,000 bbl/daily
Also, add to the fact that a typical 42 gallon barrel of oil only yields approximately 19.4 gallons of oil. The first 4 gallons are from straight-refining and the remainder is from a process called “cracking” which breaks the long hydrocarbon molecular chains into shorter and lighter ones of which the remaining extra 15 gallons can then be extracted. The price for a barrel of oil is set on the international markets by spot traders, commodities brokers and futures contracts who inflate the “real” cost on a barrel of crude oil by roughly fifty percent. Let’s say the cost at the pump is $3.50/gallon X 19.4 gallons=$67.90, and subtracting that amount from $100.00 (est. ppb crude oil) =$32.10; with the remaining 22.6 gallons to be refined into thousands of consumer products and goods, many of which we use every day. The thing that is not known is how much does it cost to refine each barrel of oil into gasoline and other petroleum by-products and how is the price at the pump determined, and by what organization or regulatory agency?
So, while all the outrage is over how much it costs at the gas station but what about the high prices at the grocery, hardware, department and sporting goods stores? Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil day each and some of the 6,000 products derived from crude oil are: Ballpoint Pens, Soap, Perfumes, Shower Curtains, Telephones, Detergents, Toothbrushes, Crayons, Shampoo, CD's & DVD's, Hand Lotion, Aspirin, Paint, Shoes, Panty Hose, Deodorant, Antihistamines, Clothing, Rubbing Alcohol, Umbrellas, Mops, Food Preservatives, Tool Boxes, Insecticides, Lipstick, Toilet Seats, Trash Bags, Electric Blankets, Shower Curtains, Luggage, Shag Rugs, Motorcycle/Football Helmets, Tennis Racket, Football, Basketball, ad infinitim.
Ironically, domestic oil production in the United States for 2010 was between 5.5 mbbl/daily and 9.688 mbbl/daily (est.), with exports to Mexico, Latin America and an OPEC country (Ecuador) of 1.92 mbbl/daily as of 2009.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 21, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
1. CANADA 2,157,000 bbl/daily
2. SAUDI ARABIA 1,180,000 bbl/daily
3. MEXICO 1,113,000 bbl/daily
4. VENEZUELA 893,000 bbl/daily
5. NIGERIA 826,000 bbl/daily
6. IRAQ 473,000 bbl/daily
7. COLOMBIA 364,000 bbl/daily
8. ANGOLA 323,000 bbl/daily
9. RUSSIA 246,000 bbl/daily
10. BRAZIL 225,000 bbl/daily
11. ECUADOR 203,000 bbl/daily
12. KUWAIT 164,000 bbl/daily
13. ALGERIA 204,000 bbl/daily
14. CHAD 54,000 bbl/daily
15. OMAN 39,000 bbl/daily
TOTAL 8,464,000 bbl/daily
Also, add to the fact that a typical 42 gallon barrel of oil only yields approximately 19.4 gallons of oil. The first 4 gallons are from straight-refining and the remainder is from a process called “cracking” which breaks the long hydrocarbon molecular chains into shorter and lighter ones of which the remaining extra 15 gallons can then be extracted. The price for a barrel of oil is set on the international markets by spot traders, commodities brokers and futures contracts who inflate the “real” cost on a barrel of crude oil by roughly fifty percent. Let’s say the cost at the pump is $3.50/gallon X 19.4 gallons=$67.90, and subtracting that amount from $100.00 (est. ppb crude oil) =$32.10; with the remaining 22.6 gallons to be refined into thousands of consumer products and goods, many of which we use every day. The thing that is not known is how much does it cost to refine each barrel of oil into gasoline and other petroleum by-products and how is the price at the pump determined, and by what organization or regulatory agency?
So, while all the outrage is over how much it costs at the gas station but what about the high prices at the grocery, hardware, department and sporting goods stores? Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil day each and some of the 6,000 products derived from crude oil are: Ballpoint Pens, Soap, Perfumes, Shower Curtains, Telephones, Detergents, Toothbrushes, Crayons, Shampoo, CD's & DVD's, Hand Lotion, Aspirin, Paint, Shoes, Panty Hose, Deodorant, Antihistamines, Clothing, Rubbing Alcohol, Umbrellas, Mops, Food Preservatives, Tool Boxes, Insecticides, Lipstick, Toilet Seats, Trash Bags, Electric Blankets, Shower Curtains, Luggage, Shag Rugs, Motorcycle/Football Helmets, Tennis Racket, Football, Basketball, ad infinitim.
Ironically, domestic oil production in the United States for 2010 was between 5.5 mbbl/daily and 9.688 mbbl/daily (est.), with exports to Mexico, Latin America and an OPEC country (Ecuador) of 1.92 mbbl/daily as of 2009.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 21, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, February 3, 2012
Response to Dr. Claire Brindis' sugar tax suggestion
Dear Dr. Brindis (UCSF):
I was listening to TALK Radio station KOMO NEWS, 1000AM in Tacoma, WA on Friday, February 3, 2012, and the moderator John Carlson was discussing with you and then later on with other listeners about the merit of taxing sugar. I did not call in to the show but I want to share with you my thoughts on the matter. First of all, the harmful effects [toxicity, addiction, etc.] from refined sugar and artificial sweeteners have been debated for the last twenty or thirty years; maybe longer. I do agree with the scientists and researchers who are alarmed about the over-consumption of sugar by Americans, roughly three times more annually per person than it was a generation ago. I am a sugar-holic who consumes more sugar than I should, and my maternal Aunt died from diabetes while undergoing dialysis treatments. I use sweets for self-medication due to boredom and depression since I am unemployed, and drawing an early pension before I qualify for SSI in a couple of years. I have one of those free blood glucose test kits and used it a few months ago and my results do not indicate I am a diabetic but high enough to be concerned about becoming hypoglycemic. Anyway, I must admit that I am addicted to sweets, especially cookies with HFCS, which causes me to crave them such that I can devour a three roll package in 3 days or less; and don't get me started on anything containing honey because I can give the bees a run for their money (smile).
I could go on and on but I digress from the main point, namely, that taxing sugar products is not the answer. Such legislation would not benefit consumers [addicts, yes addicts] like me because we would still buy these items at the higher price. I wonder if you and your colleagues have considered the extent to what products contain refined sugar or artificial sweetener. It all starts in infancy when our mothers put us on a diet of sugar-containing [artificial sweetener] baby products from decades ago, like SIMILAC, ENFAMIL, Gerber, Heinz, etc. Just think of all the breakfast cereal, desserts, fruit drinks, liquid medicines, confectioneries, breads, crackers, vegetables, meats, condiments [ketchup, salad dressing, etc.] and other items found on grocery shelves that contain some kind of artificial sweetener, including high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which has been suspected as affecting the adrenal glands just like sugar. So, "what is the answer, you may ask?" Well, perhaps the best place to start is requiring those companies who have products which contain sugar or artificial sweetener to lower the concentration or amount they put in, or eliminate the use altogether. Not everything has to contain sugar to taste good. Also, as it is with some breakfast cereals, why does a manufactures include sugar, brown sugar, honey, high fructose corn syrup, raisin paste, maple syrup, and molasses at the same time? Those companies, who offer alternative, natural sweeteners like fruit juice or evaporated cane juice (??), prune juice or raisin paste should receive some form of tax credit from the federal government.
Anyway, I thought I would contact you and encourage you and your colleagues to be the voice for those of us who are struggling with this problem, and things have gotten to the point now where the slightest morsel which contains sugar gives me a pretty significant headache. I wish you success in persuading members of the various State Legislatures and Congress to ignore the lobbyists and funding from the powerful sugar refiners, manufacturers and their PAC's for favorable subsidies and price controls, and instead, pass into Law a Bill that would help us overcome being victims of a lifestyle obsessed with consuming empty calories, which invariably lead to obesity, cancer or diabetes.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
I was listening to TALK Radio station KOMO NEWS, 1000AM in Tacoma, WA on Friday, February 3, 2012, and the moderator John Carlson was discussing with you and then later on with other listeners about the merit of taxing sugar. I did not call in to the show but I want to share with you my thoughts on the matter. First of all, the harmful effects [toxicity, addiction, etc.] from refined sugar and artificial sweeteners have been debated for the last twenty or thirty years; maybe longer. I do agree with the scientists and researchers who are alarmed about the over-consumption of sugar by Americans, roughly three times more annually per person than it was a generation ago. I am a sugar-holic who consumes more sugar than I should, and my maternal Aunt died from diabetes while undergoing dialysis treatments. I use sweets for self-medication due to boredom and depression since I am unemployed, and drawing an early pension before I qualify for SSI in a couple of years. I have one of those free blood glucose test kits and used it a few months ago and my results do not indicate I am a diabetic but high enough to be concerned about becoming hypoglycemic. Anyway, I must admit that I am addicted to sweets, especially cookies with HFCS, which causes me to crave them such that I can devour a three roll package in 3 days or less; and don't get me started on anything containing honey because I can give the bees a run for their money (smile).
I could go on and on but I digress from the main point, namely, that taxing sugar products is not the answer. Such legislation would not benefit consumers [addicts, yes addicts] like me because we would still buy these items at the higher price. I wonder if you and your colleagues have considered the extent to what products contain refined sugar or artificial sweetener. It all starts in infancy when our mothers put us on a diet of sugar-containing [artificial sweetener] baby products from decades ago, like SIMILAC, ENFAMIL, Gerber, Heinz, etc. Just think of all the breakfast cereal, desserts, fruit drinks, liquid medicines, confectioneries, breads, crackers, vegetables, meats, condiments [ketchup, salad dressing, etc.] and other items found on grocery shelves that contain some kind of artificial sweetener, including high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which has been suspected as affecting the adrenal glands just like sugar. So, "what is the answer, you may ask?" Well, perhaps the best place to start is requiring those companies who have products which contain sugar or artificial sweetener to lower the concentration or amount they put in, or eliminate the use altogether. Not everything has to contain sugar to taste good. Also, as it is with some breakfast cereals, why does a manufactures include sugar, brown sugar, honey, high fructose corn syrup, raisin paste, maple syrup, and molasses at the same time? Those companies, who offer alternative, natural sweeteners like fruit juice or evaporated cane juice (??), prune juice or raisin paste should receive some form of tax credit from the federal government.
Anyway, I thought I would contact you and encourage you and your colleagues to be the voice for those of us who are struggling with this problem, and things have gotten to the point now where the slightest morsel which contains sugar gives me a pretty significant headache. I wish you success in persuading members of the various State Legislatures and Congress to ignore the lobbyists and funding from the powerful sugar refiners, manufacturers and their PAC's for favorable subsidies and price controls, and instead, pass into Law a Bill that would help us overcome being victims of a lifestyle obsessed with consuming empty calories, which invariably lead to obesity, cancer or diabetes.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Does Mitt Romney really love America?
You heard it straight from the horse’s mouth. At a time when America is struggling with allegations about class warfare, a candidate for president from a major political party has the audacity to say, “I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there [for them]. You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.” Talk about confusing and contradictory. On the one hand Mitt Romney talks about having such love for this country and on the other hand he seems to want to ignore the very people who need the most help and attention; those American citizens living in the deepest grip of poverty. What safety net does the poor have except that which the federal government provides, because almost all state budgets have significant revenue shortfalls and a few are facing possible defaults. Romney wants to shrink the size of the federal government but this would impact the most vulnerable citizens, namely the poor, who depend on programs funded by the government for their survival. Romney is really out of touch with what is going on in the country because he still believes there is a “middle class” in America, which there isn’t anymore. There are the super-rich, multi-millionaires, upper class [some professional occupations and small business owners], blue collar [includes some working poor], the working poor [includes those whose income and family size meet the federal guidelines for poverty].
Newt Gingrich was criticized during the recent Florida debate about putting a colony on the moon but it seems that Mitt Romney is the ‘real’ space cadet because he is so out of touch with what the average person is struggling with, as some of his past statements demonstrate, in the following:
-- "There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New Hampshire)
-- saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in January)
-- and the ultimate release of his 2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than 15%.
–Also, Romney claims to not having received that much in speaking fees for 2011, only $370,000.
Perhaps Mitt Romney feels about the poor like the French Queen Marie Antoinette of the 1760’s, who, when told “the peasants have no bread” is reputedly to have said, “Then let them eat cake instead;” which was a mixture or paste made from oil and flour scraped from bakery pans called, “the poor man’s bread.” As a final point, when Mitt Ronmey later tried to do damage control over his remarks about the poor, this Bible-believing Mormon must have forgotten the words of Jesus, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matthew 12: 34b
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Newt Gingrich was criticized during the recent Florida debate about putting a colony on the moon but it seems that Mitt Romney is the ‘real’ space cadet because he is so out of touch with what the average person is struggling with, as some of his past statements demonstrate, in the following:
-- "There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New Hampshire)
-- saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in January)
-- and the ultimate release of his 2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than 15%.
–Also, Romney claims to not having received that much in speaking fees for 2011, only $370,000.
Perhaps Mitt Romney feels about the poor like the French Queen Marie Antoinette of the 1760’s, who, when told “the peasants have no bread” is reputedly to have said, “Then let them eat cake instead;” which was a mixture or paste made from oil and flour scraped from bakery pans called, “the poor man’s bread.” As a final point, when Mitt Ronmey later tried to do damage control over his remarks about the poor, this Bible-believing Mormon must have forgotten the words of Jesus, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matthew 12: 34b
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
Is the new X-47B unmanned drone an accident waiting to happen?
LA Times reporter J.W. Hennigan had an article that was featured in the Friday January 27, 2012, Tacoma News Tribune entitled, “Drone may drop bombs without human control.” There is little doubt that the deployment of unmanned, pilotless drones turned the tide in favor of the United States in its “war on terror” by killing almost all the top al-Qaeda leaders as well as crippling the Taliban in Afghanistan. Although this high-tech killing machine is not without its drawbacks because some innocent civilians have mistakenly been targeted as hostile insurgents and lost their lives after the drone unleashed death-dealing missiles and rockets upon their location. Now the Navy is about to test its newest aerial war toy, The X-47B. What makes this drone so remarkable is that it just might have the ability to indiscriminately initiate its own attack protocols without direct human involvement. A human operator would program it with a flight plan and could override its decisions or abort its mission; at least that is the plan in theory. Although this could certainly alter the face of warfare in the modern era but it should also be of great concern to everyone if something goes wrong and a malfunction of the world’s most sophisticated offensive, aerial war machine could prove a grave danger to those along its flight path. In case of such an incident, how soon could the military get control of or destroy a rogue mini-plane roaming the skies, probably flying at Mach speed and out of control, lacking the human capacity to distinguish between friend or foe?
This brings to mind several Sci-fi precedents: The movie, “The Day the World Stood Still” where the space traveler Klatuu mentioned that the United Federation of Planets have given all police duties over to robots like ‘GORT,’ which includes the ability to detect any form of aggressive behavior or hostility [through internal programming and sensors] and act automatically [by artificial intelligence] to completely neutralize any threat [unleashing a disintegration beam or ray through its visor. In the Sci-fi television series, “Star Trek,” Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise was in danger of losing his command to the super computer M-5, which had human-like sentiments (“ingrams”) incorporated into its AI (artificial intelligence) circuitry and it functioned in place of Kirk by making bridge decisions during Starfleet battle simulations. It later malfunctioned by destroying an empty space freighter, which could have contained human occupants, and then it took over the Enterprise. The movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey” where the super-computer ‘HAL’ developed self-awareness [sentience] and took control of the ship. The “Terminator” movies and television’s “Sarah Connor Chronicles” where advancements in computer technology leads to the creation of ‘SKYNET,’ which becomes the harbinger of doom and MAN vs. MACHINE Armageddon by manufacturing and unleashing the prototype cyborg-series terminator robots. The 2010 movie “Stealth” was about an AI (artificial intelligence) super-advanced, pilot-less Stealth fighter plane that went rogue after being struck by lightning.
So, many could argue that such comparisons are unwarranted and concerns to the contrary are mere paranoia because safeguards will be built into this super plane to prevent even the slightest loss of total human control. It is one thing to watch a movie or a television series but all comparisons stop there because fantasy is one thing but reality is quite a different thing altogether.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 27, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
This brings to mind several Sci-fi precedents: The movie, “The Day the World Stood Still” where the space traveler Klatuu mentioned that the United Federation of Planets have given all police duties over to robots like ‘GORT,’ which includes the ability to detect any form of aggressive behavior or hostility [through internal programming and sensors] and act automatically [by artificial intelligence] to completely neutralize any threat [unleashing a disintegration beam or ray through its visor. In the Sci-fi television series, “Star Trek,” Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise was in danger of losing his command to the super computer M-5, which had human-like sentiments (“ingrams”) incorporated into its AI (artificial intelligence) circuitry and it functioned in place of Kirk by making bridge decisions during Starfleet battle simulations. It later malfunctioned by destroying an empty space freighter, which could have contained human occupants, and then it took over the Enterprise. The movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey” where the super-computer ‘HAL’ developed self-awareness [sentience] and took control of the ship. The “Terminator” movies and television’s “Sarah Connor Chronicles” where advancements in computer technology leads to the creation of ‘SKYNET,’ which becomes the harbinger of doom and MAN vs. MACHINE Armageddon by manufacturing and unleashing the prototype cyborg-series terminator robots. The 2010 movie “Stealth” was about an AI (artificial intelligence) super-advanced, pilot-less Stealth fighter plane that went rogue after being struck by lightning.
So, many could argue that such comparisons are unwarranted and concerns to the contrary are mere paranoia because safeguards will be built into this super plane to prevent even the slightest loss of total human control. It is one thing to watch a movie or a television series but all comparisons stop there because fantasy is one thing but reality is quite a different thing altogether.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 27, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The controversy over WA State's impending Gay Marriage Law may be overblown
There are two sides on this contentious issue: those who are for it and those who are against it. But before getting into some of the particulars, one question needs to be asked, namely, “Is marriage a duty established as by social custom, history and tradition or is it instead, divinely ordained and ONLY approved or accepted before God as between a man and woman”? If the Judeo-Christian Scripture is the authority for this institution which some contend supercedes any civil legislation, how can this be reconciled if we live in a Representative Democracy separated between Church and State?” The Bible does not seek to change, incorporate or regulate the civil laws but rather is the rule or standard for those who belong to the community of faith and are citizens of the Kingdom of God [Heaven].
It is indeed puzzling why there is such outrage and furor among believers over this single issue because no church can be forced through passage of legislation to abandon their faith practice to accommodate adoption of this law, nor to do anything in violation of their conscience. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Right to the free exercise of Religion and no Law enacted by a state legislature, or mandated by an act of Congress as well as the Supreme Court, can legally force any religious denomination to accept Gay Marriage as a lifestyle. Practically speaking, this means Christian clergy cannot be sued for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple as well as for not hosting a reception for the couple if they were married at a courthouse or somewhere else.
On the other side of the issue, which is a valid legal concern, is the discrimination and unequal treatment in denying a marriage contract to same sex couples as well as the State’s interest in the matter. There was a same-sex couple in 2004 who sued in Superior Court, which challenged Washington State’s Civil Marriage Law, amended in 1998, as discriminatory because the statute ONLY recognizes marriage as “valid” between a man and a woman. The Plaintiffs contended that the law unfairly makes a distinction arbitrarily based ‘solely’ upon gender by denying privileges under the law that are not being made equally available to all citizens, whch is in violation of the Washington State Constitution (Art. 1, sects. 3 & 12) and Washington's Equal Rights Amendment, denying them the right of due process to liberty and privacy.
The first issue under review is if denyng marrage to same-sex partners burdens a ‘fundamental’ right of a suspect class, and secondly, [whether the goal or purpose being sought is deemed a "compelling state interest]." Since marriage is a contract with the state [civil authority], subject to the conditions and requirements of such a governing body imposes on its citizens, it would seem reasonable that the state would want to ensure that all citizens under its jurisdiction are treated the same. Even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that, "the moral views of the majority [in a pluralistic society] can never provide the “sole” basis for legislation and that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is insufficient rationale . . . to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons. Also, a Massachusetts Supreme Court noted, "It is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it has been historically. Be that as it may, Article IV Section 2 and Amendment XIV (part b) of The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all citizens of the United States and in each state respectively are to enjoy all the privileges and immunities as well as equal protection under the law.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
It is indeed puzzling why there is such outrage and furor among believers over this single issue because no church can be forced through passage of legislation to abandon their faith practice to accommodate adoption of this law, nor to do anything in violation of their conscience. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Right to the free exercise of Religion and no Law enacted by a state legislature, or mandated by an act of Congress as well as the Supreme Court, can legally force any religious denomination to accept Gay Marriage as a lifestyle. Practically speaking, this means Christian clergy cannot be sued for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple as well as for not hosting a reception for the couple if they were married at a courthouse or somewhere else.
On the other side of the issue, which is a valid legal concern, is the discrimination and unequal treatment in denying a marriage contract to same sex couples as well as the State’s interest in the matter. There was a same-sex couple in 2004 who sued in Superior Court, which challenged Washington State’s Civil Marriage Law, amended in 1998, as discriminatory because the statute ONLY recognizes marriage as “valid” between a man and a woman. The Plaintiffs contended that the law unfairly makes a distinction arbitrarily based ‘solely’ upon gender by denying privileges under the law that are not being made equally available to all citizens, whch is in violation of the Washington State Constitution (Art. 1, sects. 3 & 12) and Washington's Equal Rights Amendment, denying them the right of due process to liberty and privacy.
The first issue under review is if denyng marrage to same-sex partners burdens a ‘fundamental’ right of a suspect class, and secondly, [whether the goal or purpose being sought is deemed a "compelling state interest]." Since marriage is a contract with the state [civil authority], subject to the conditions and requirements of such a governing body imposes on its citizens, it would seem reasonable that the state would want to ensure that all citizens under its jurisdiction are treated the same. Even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that, "the moral views of the majority [in a pluralistic society] can never provide the “sole” basis for legislation and that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is insufficient rationale . . . to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons. Also, a Massachusetts Supreme Court noted, "It is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it has been historically. Be that as it may, Article IV Section 2 and Amendment XIV (part b) of The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all citizens of the United States and in each state respectively are to enjoy all the privileges and immunities as well as equal protection under the law.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Shaken and Stirred: Romney loses South Carolina Primary
This is not about how British super spy, James Bond, Agent 007, likes to have his martini served but rather a description of the two leading GOP Presidential nominees. Mitt Romney has been shaken by the recent reversal of fortune regarding his frontrunner status when he was almost guaranteed to be eventual presidential nominee over the other Republican rivals. Instead of winning the Iowa caucus as previously announced, when the last votes were counted, it was Rick Santorum who was announced the winner, instead of Romney. Add to that, following the New Hampshire primary, polls showed that Romney was enjoying a double digit lead among the electorate, however, because of negative campaign ads, especially from the Gingrich camp in particular, not only did his commanding lead rapidly began to erode but much of that support migrated to the Gingrich camp instead, and helped propel him to victory.
For Romney this has to be quite a devastating blow, irregardless of the statements he makes in public. For Gingrich, it as if new life has been breathed into his campaign and like a man on a mission, he is fired [stirred] up even more and will continue to launch a barrage of attack ads against his arch-rival and political nemesis Mitt Romney. Strange as it seems, Newt Gingrich used to be the "Angry White Man" but now it is itt Romney who is out for blood while Newt seems as innocent-looking as the Pillsbury dough boy. As a final thought, the Florida Primary should be a critical test, do-or-die for Romney as well as Gingrich because it is an "open primary" (voters can belong to any political party, or none at all), and will serve as a measure of support throughout the political spectrum; much like in a General Election. Since Florida has mail in ballots we may get a preview of voter preference before the January 31st deadline.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
For Romney this has to be quite a devastating blow, irregardless of the statements he makes in public. For Gingrich, it as if new life has been breathed into his campaign and like a man on a mission, he is fired [stirred] up even more and will continue to launch a barrage of attack ads against his arch-rival and political nemesis Mitt Romney. Strange as it seems, Newt Gingrich used to be the "Angry White Man" but now it is itt Romney who is out for blood while Newt seems as innocent-looking as the Pillsbury dough boy. As a final thought, the Florida Primary should be a critical test, do-or-die for Romney as well as Gingrich because it is an "open primary" (voters can belong to any political party, or none at all), and will serve as a measure of support throughout the political spectrum; much like in a General Election. Since Florida has mail in ballots we may get a preview of voter preference before the January 31st deadline.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Some reflections about The U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is a remarkable document and as the cornerstone of our grand experiment as a Democratic Republic, it has survived rather well for the past two-hundred and thirty-six years. It is unfortunate that the average citizen, and not some lawyer-turned-politician, does not take the time to become more familiar with its contents. There used to be a time when a Civics class was taught in school and students had to become quite familiar with The Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the Constitution as well as The Amendments, and recite verbatim, President Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” Looking at the way things are happening in America, this seems to confirm the worries expressed by some of the Founding Fathers, namely, the growing power of the Executive Branch of Government. Adding to this problem is the fact that the supposedly neutral and impartial U.S. Supreme Court is very politically partisan because each Justice is appointed by the President, who belongs to a political party and is later confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee; which is politically partisan and dominated by whoever is in the majority. Also, the Supreme Court may be exceeding the powers for which it has been granted. Here are excerpts from the U.S. Constitution as cited below in the following:
Article IV Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment X. The powers [explicit or implicit] not delegated to the United States [Federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it [Federal government], are reserved to [for] the States respectively, or to the People.
Amendment XIV. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge [lessen or take away] the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States [or the State where they reside]; 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 Constitution guarantees the minimal protections and privileges to the people and “NO” state can legally deny its citizens anything less than these. It is interesting that in the most often quoted Fourteenth Amendment, there is no precise definition of what “due process of law” is or even a hint at its intended meaning. The only thing that has language comparable to this is found in The Sixth Amendment, which pertains to persons involved in a criminal prosecution, and what the Rights of the accused [Defendant] are. Be that as it may, the one thing that gets lost in all of the anger towards government at the Federal level and in each State Legislature is the power of “WE THE PEOPLE.” Yes, it is a scary thing to think that we are not slaves to the powers that be [“Brutus to Cassius”], and the Tea Party and Occupy WALL STREET are prime examples. The problem with the former was that is became a platform for Sarah Palin to use it as a CASH COW to become rich, and when she could no longer milk KA-CHING from those political teats, she said, “Adios;” You betcha! As for the latter, without any real leader or guidance, it morphed into separate entities in each state, a headless body that attracted the homeless, anarchists [Eco-Terrorists] or just plain criminals who assaulted and raped people. There was no real referendum or strategy but only criticizing the wealthy and it became nothing more than a one-sided shouting match, a US vs. THEM [The 99% vs. The 1%].
In addition to all of that, The U.S. Supreme Court gets involved in way too many legal issues that could be decided in The Federal Appellate Courts or The Supreme Court in each State capitol. Even among those judges, some of their cases could be arbitrated in the lower Superior courts under judicial review, and in some cases, decisions reversed if an error in the initial trial court ruling was proven to exist. Of course, as it is with any statute, it is not so much what it says but rather what it means, and how should it be applied to a particular situation; and not only that, but no two set of circumstances are exactly alike, and therefore the court is governed by ‘PRECEDENT’ (prior ruling) to guide it in the present. As a final thought, the field of Republican candidates for President have mentioned on more than one occasion about some issue that should be left up to each State, an no one is more vocal in this sentiment than Texas Congressman Ron Paul. It is time to seriously consider curbing the over-reaching power of the Federal Government into our private lives and mettling in the affairs of private corporations, as well as Judges who legislate from the bench; but it may already be too late. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is hard to get him to go back in.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 18, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Article IV Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment X. The powers [explicit or implicit] not delegated to the United States [Federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it [Federal government], are reserved to [for] the States respectively, or to the People.
Amendment XIV. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge [lessen or take away] the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States [or the State where they reside]; 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 Constitution guarantees the minimal protections and privileges to the people and “NO” state can legally deny its citizens anything less than these. It is interesting that in the most often quoted Fourteenth Amendment, there is no precise definition of what “due process of law” is or even a hint at its intended meaning. The only thing that has language comparable to this is found in The Sixth Amendment, which pertains to persons involved in a criminal prosecution, and what the Rights of the accused [Defendant] are. Be that as it may, the one thing that gets lost in all of the anger towards government at the Federal level and in each State Legislature is the power of “WE THE PEOPLE.” Yes, it is a scary thing to think that we are not slaves to the powers that be [“Brutus to Cassius”], and the Tea Party and Occupy WALL STREET are prime examples. The problem with the former was that is became a platform for Sarah Palin to use it as a CASH COW to become rich, and when she could no longer milk KA-CHING from those political teats, she said, “Adios;” You betcha! As for the latter, without any real leader or guidance, it morphed into separate entities in each state, a headless body that attracted the homeless, anarchists [Eco-Terrorists] or just plain criminals who assaulted and raped people. There was no real referendum or strategy but only criticizing the wealthy and it became nothing more than a one-sided shouting match, a US vs. THEM [The 99% vs. The 1%].
In addition to all of that, The U.S. Supreme Court gets involved in way too many legal issues that could be decided in The Federal Appellate Courts or The Supreme Court in each State capitol. Even among those judges, some of their cases could be arbitrated in the lower Superior courts under judicial review, and in some cases, decisions reversed if an error in the initial trial court ruling was proven to exist. Of course, as it is with any statute, it is not so much what it says but rather what it means, and how should it be applied to a particular situation; and not only that, but no two set of circumstances are exactly alike, and therefore the court is governed by ‘PRECEDENT’ (prior ruling) to guide it in the present. As a final thought, the field of Republican candidates for President have mentioned on more than one occasion about some issue that should be left up to each State, an no one is more vocal in this sentiment than Texas Congressman Ron Paul. It is time to seriously consider curbing the over-reaching power of the Federal Government into our private lives and mettling in the affairs of private corporations, as well as Judges who legislate from the bench; but it may already be too late. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is hard to get him to go back in.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 18, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Does the requirement of a photo ID violate the Voting Rights Act?
On the 83rd anniversary of MLK’s birthday, Associated Press reporter Jeffrey Collins had an article in The Tacoma News Tribune on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, mentioning about a throng of African-Americans who surrounded the South Carolina capitol to voice opposition to the state’s voter ID laws, which was rejected by the U.S. Justice Department last month. What is at issue, critics say, is that the new law is “discriminatory” towards African-Americans and poor Whites; and is especially meant to suppress the turnout and participation of Blacks in the voting process, undermining the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1966. In order to better determine if requiring a photo identification is “unequal” treatment and a violation of the U.S. Constitution, therefore it is necessary to get a historical perspective about the evolution of the voting experience in America.
When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier. Poll taxes enacted in Southern states between 1889 and 1910 had the effect of disenfranchising many blacks as well as poor whites, because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting. By the 1940s some of these taxes had been abolished, and in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disallowed the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections. In 1966 this prohibition was extended to all elections by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that such a tax violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.
1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1970 Literacy requirements are banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still have a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upholds the ban on literacy tests, which is made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act require states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.
REFERENCES:
Read more: poll tax — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/poll+tax#ixzz1jluxV0rD
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6rkwX1
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6RbQJ1
The recurring word in The Fifteenth Amendment as well as Twenty-fourth Amendment is “abridged,” which has the meaning of to weaken or take away and it is yet to be proven that such a requirement is in any way to be construed as an attempt to disenfranchise any ethnic, religious or social class/group of their rights under the Constitution. In fact, it could be argued that this procedure is in streamlining the voting process by discouraging fraud and proving the person’s citizenship and eligibility to vote; which would seem to be the intended objective of the 2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act. It seems reasonable to conclude that every legal and naturalized citizen of the United States, regardless of income, social status, level of education or any other consideration, ought to have on their person at all times [if possible] some kind of photo identification. To wit: any allegation to the contrary, no matter how passionate the argument, is without merit and should be rejected. As of this writing, Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin passed voter ID legislation in 2011. Texas has pending legislation before the Justice Department and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley vowed to fight the Justice department in Federal Court over rejection of their voter identification laws.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 17, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier. Poll taxes enacted in Southern states between 1889 and 1910 had the effect of disenfranchising many blacks as well as poor whites, because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting. By the 1940s some of these taxes had been abolished, and in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disallowed the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections. In 1966 this prohibition was extended to all elections by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that such a tax violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.
1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1970 Literacy requirements are banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still have a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upholds the ban on literacy tests, which is made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act require states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.
REFERENCES:
Read more: poll tax — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/poll+tax#ixzz1jluxV0rD
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6rkwX1
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6RbQJ1
The recurring word in The Fifteenth Amendment as well as Twenty-fourth Amendment is “abridged,” which has the meaning of to weaken or take away and it is yet to be proven that such a requirement is in any way to be construed as an attempt to disenfranchise any ethnic, religious or social class/group of their rights under the Constitution. In fact, it could be argued that this procedure is in streamlining the voting process by discouraging fraud and proving the person’s citizenship and eligibility to vote; which would seem to be the intended objective of the 2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act. It seems reasonable to conclude that every legal and naturalized citizen of the United States, regardless of income, social status, level of education or any other consideration, ought to have on their person at all times [if possible] some kind of photo identification. To wit: any allegation to the contrary, no matter how passionate the argument, is without merit and should be rejected. As of this writing, Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin passed voter ID legislation in 2011. Texas has pending legislation before the Justice Department and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley vowed to fight the Justice department in Federal Court over rejection of their voter identification laws.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 17, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Monday, January 16, 2012
How should the legacy of MLK be honored?
One of the things about revering a saint is that oftentimes such a person, as well as his words and deeds remains frozen in time, and are not able to save those who need help and guidance in moments of crisis or impending danger. Such is the case with slain Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who would be eighty-three years old this month. The birthday of this great African-American is a national holiday, there is a museum and national monument built in his honor, and his writings, as well as speeches, are taught in the most dilapidated and rundown classrooms in America as well as among the recommended curriculum in some of the most prestigious institutes of higher learning throughout the world, but the question remains that needs to be asked is whether or not he is still relevant? Of course, this is not to suggest that he is not an important historical figure and cultural icon, because he is, but on another level, is it heresy to suggest the MLK brand, especially the “I have a Dream” speech to be nothing more than a one-size-fits-all social template that is no longer useful or practical as it needs to be, especially in the complex world that we live in today? It’s like the what would Jesus do mantra that is just way too simplistic because things are not ‘just’ Black and White in the rainbow social universe of today.
To determine if such a statement is seen as disrespectful to the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., consider and think for a moment: What would MLK say about “Gitmo?” or the Iraq/Afghanistan War, the mortgage crisis, occupy WALL STREET, rap music and use of the "N" word, Oprah Winfrey, gay marriage and GLTB rights, 9/11, North Korea, Iran, water-boarding, the national debt crisis, political gridlock in Washington D.C., President Barack Obama, the recession, bullying, legalizing marijuana, the Arab Spring, the European debt crisis, Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, capitol punishment and the disproportionate number of minorities on death row, Herman Cain, Israel, Palestinian statehood, Lady Gaga, the Republican and Democratic political parties, pedophile clergy, Mormonism, Islam and the holy Koran, immigration, outsourcing jobs, The Bush Administration, Global Warming and the KYOTO Treaty, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, video games with violent and sexual content, suicide bombers, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, Mega-Churches, the economic power of China and India, NRA and gun control, reparations for descendants of slaves, reverse discrimination, Roe vs. Wade, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, birth control/contraceptive use, racial profiling and a host of other issues or people?
Since nobody is able to channel the spirit of MLK through some kind of clairvoyant trance, and even if someone could, it still doesn’t mean he would have the answers to the problems we face today. The legacy of MLK, it seems, is not for us to look backwards in time and become stuck in reminiscing about the past, but rather to look toward the future and use his example to become the MLK in each succeeding generation. One of the most poignant statements ever made by Dr. King is “If a man is not willing to give his life for what he believes then he is not fit [doesn’t deserve] to live.” Now, that is what having a mission in life is all about and if each person would take to heart these powerful words then the “Dream” will continue to live on in us. It is much more deeper than a mere festive annual holiday celebration, awash with drama and ceremony, but rather it is a life-affirming commitment to making the world a better place in which to live; it’s sacrifice without expecting recognition nor reward in return, absent of even the smallest trace of praise, glory or honor.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 16, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
To determine if such a statement is seen as disrespectful to the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., consider and think for a moment: What would MLK say about “Gitmo?” or the Iraq/Afghanistan War, the mortgage crisis, occupy WALL STREET, rap music and use of the "N" word, Oprah Winfrey, gay marriage and GLTB rights, 9/11, North Korea, Iran, water-boarding, the national debt crisis, political gridlock in Washington D.C., President Barack Obama, the recession, bullying, legalizing marijuana, the Arab Spring, the European debt crisis, Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, capitol punishment and the disproportionate number of minorities on death row, Herman Cain, Israel, Palestinian statehood, Lady Gaga, the Republican and Democratic political parties, pedophile clergy, Mormonism, Islam and the holy Koran, immigration, outsourcing jobs, The Bush Administration, Global Warming and the KYOTO Treaty, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, video games with violent and sexual content, suicide bombers, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, Mega-Churches, the economic power of China and India, NRA and gun control, reparations for descendants of slaves, reverse discrimination, Roe vs. Wade, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, birth control/contraceptive use, racial profiling and a host of other issues or people?
Since nobody is able to channel the spirit of MLK through some kind of clairvoyant trance, and even if someone could, it still doesn’t mean he would have the answers to the problems we face today. The legacy of MLK, it seems, is not for us to look backwards in time and become stuck in reminiscing about the past, but rather to look toward the future and use his example to become the MLK in each succeeding generation. One of the most poignant statements ever made by Dr. King is “If a man is not willing to give his life for what he believes then he is not fit [doesn’t deserve] to live.” Now, that is what having a mission in life is all about and if each person would take to heart these powerful words then the “Dream” will continue to live on in us. It is much more deeper than a mere festive annual holiday celebration, awash with drama and ceremony, but rather it is a life-affirming commitment to making the world a better place in which to live; it’s sacrifice without expecting recognition nor reward in return, absent of even the smallest trace of praise, glory or honor.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 16, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The 2012 Republican Presidential nomination still up for grabs
It is still way too early to crown Republican Mitt Romney as the party favorite to challenge Barack Obama for the 2012 Presidential nomination; as some of the political pundits are doing, while this long and grueling race is just getting started. Yes, Mitt Romney is doing better this time around than he did in 2008, but a brief historical recap from 2008 is in order. Romney lost the Iowa Caucus in Iowa with 25% of the vote and came in second to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Again, he placed second to John McCain in the New Hampshire Primary but came in fourth in the South Carolina Primary with only 15% of the vote. Also, Romney came in second to John McCain in the Florida Primary. Romney did however; win the Wyoming, Nevada and Maine caucuses, and in The Super Tuesday contest: won the Alaska, Michigan, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah caucuses and primaries; but John McCain won Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma. After the outcome on The Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses which were held on February 7, 2008, Romney suspended his campaign and decided, according to him, “to step aside for the good of the party and for the country.”
Romney is untested in a marathon political contest and it is uncertain what a protracted and bitter campaign filled with negative ads will have upon him because he just might want to quit again before reaching the finish line, and this time around it will cost a lot more than twenty million dollars of his nearly quarter billion dollar net worth to get his message out to prospective voters. Another problem that Romney faces is whether or not he can convince those true believers in “The Bible Belt” or red meat states (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, New Mexico and The Carolina’s) that he is a “true” born-again political Conservative instead of just masquerading as one. Aside from not being able to shake off the dogged question of ‘authenticity’ is Romney being able to relate to the average person struggling to keep a job when he is a son of privilege whose father was the CEO of General Motors. No, Mitt Romney doesn’t have anything in common with Joe Six-pack but rather with the aspirations of someone like Gordon Gekko [the movie “WALL STREET”].
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 12, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Romney is untested in a marathon political contest and it is uncertain what a protracted and bitter campaign filled with negative ads will have upon him because he just might want to quit again before reaching the finish line, and this time around it will cost a lot more than twenty million dollars of his nearly quarter billion dollar net worth to get his message out to prospective voters. Another problem that Romney faces is whether or not he can convince those true believers in “The Bible Belt” or red meat states (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, New Mexico and The Carolina’s) that he is a “true” born-again political Conservative instead of just masquerading as one. Aside from not being able to shake off the dogged question of ‘authenticity’ is Romney being able to relate to the average person struggling to keep a job when he is a son of privilege whose father was the CEO of General Motors. No, Mitt Romney doesn’t have anything in common with Joe Six-pack but rather with the aspirations of someone like Gordon Gekko [the movie “WALL STREET”].
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 12, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The Doctrine of Ron Paul
The Republican field of presidential candidates has been whittled down to the gang of six, with the possibility of one or more dropping out of campaigning in the coming weeks. Ron Paul has been largely ignored, almost unnoticed and under the radar for the most part and now he has been receiving more and more attention, so it just might be the time to take a closer look and see what kind of America Ron Paul believes in and what is his view on some of the more pressing issues of the day.
On the National Debt, Congressman Paul wants to slash nearly half its spending and shut down five Cabinet-level agencies and end spending on existing conflicts as well as no longer allocating any resources and money toward foreign aid. This seems rather shortsighted and ignorant of the value and impact of this assistance on a global basis. As far as The Economy is concerned, Paul wants a return to the “GOLD STANDARD” and total elimination of The Federal Reserve as well as abolishing most federal regulations. Of course, he hasn’t said which regulations need to be axed and which ones are to be kept. The implication of replacing the dollar with gold as the currency standard and eliminating the “Fed” is so radical as to not even merit further comment because the impact on world economies, including in this country is too serious to imagine. On Education, he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and sees no role for the federal government in education; so that presupposes refusal to accept any assistance in the form of Pell Grants and low-cost Stafford Loans for college tuition.
Although, like most Americans, the idea of paying taxes is a hard pill to swallow but Congressman takes it to another level when is comes to Taxes by completely eliminating the Department of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] and paying all federal income taxes. He is an avid proponent of ‘States Rights’ and believes that Abortion, The Environment and Gay Marriage/Rights are matters that should be settled by the states and not federal legislation or The U.S. Supreme Court. Congressman Paul has an Immigration policy that is non-apologetic and forceful as he believes, “Do whatever it takes [BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY]" to secure the border and end right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as well as deny social services for illegal immigrants. He also wants aggressive deportation of undocumented citizens no matter how long they have lived here and raised families, or worked and paid taxes or served in the military. As far as positions on Terrorism or The War/Foreign Policy, Ron Paul believes that America’s military presence overseas [Pacific Rim or Middle East] is what provokes or incites terrorists to attack America or our troops in these regions and pulling our military from remote places should be the highest priority. He wants to slash the Pentagon budget and opposed the intervention in Libya but it would be interesting to know how he views the outcome now.
There is an article by syndicated Columnist Michael Gerson, which was featured Tuesday, January 3, 2012, edition of the Tacoma News Tribune, Section A9, listed some of the more interesting comments by Texas Congressman Ron Paul:
He accused President Lincoln of “causing a senseless war” and regarded the presidency of Ronald Reagan as a “dramatic failure.” He once proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin and promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection in South Korea. He believes that 9/11 was a government “cover-up” and published in a newspaper that the 1993 WTC [World Trade Center] attack was a set-up orchestrated between the U.S. government and the Israeli Mossad.
He would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the “Holocaust” and freeing over six-million Jewish men, women, boys and girls from the horrors and atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis. Congressman Paul believes that forced [government-mandated] “integration” is evil. He obviously doesn’t agree with the outcome of Brown vs. the Board of Education in which the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed segregation as unconstitutional. He sees no problem with former slaveholders treating human beings a “property” and can treat them in any way as they please, and he believes that the federal government has no “legitimate“ authority to infringe upon the sovereign rights of the states and their citizens. Congressman Paul has disparaged Martin Luther King Jr., former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and has referred to the MLK holiday as “Hate the White Man Day.”
Finally, since this nearly octogenarian [76 year-old] is vying for nomination to represent this country on the international stage as well as occupy the most powerful elected office on planet earth, and sit at the head of government of world’s only true military “SUPER POWER” it is imperative that a window into what he really believes in is important, and after getting a glimpse into his inner psyche [past and present], there are a few things that should concern all of us but each person has to make up in their own mind about which of his personal perspectives that concern them the most.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
On the National Debt, Congressman Paul wants to slash nearly half its spending and shut down five Cabinet-level agencies and end spending on existing conflicts as well as no longer allocating any resources and money toward foreign aid. This seems rather shortsighted and ignorant of the value and impact of this assistance on a global basis. As far as The Economy is concerned, Paul wants a return to the “GOLD STANDARD” and total elimination of The Federal Reserve as well as abolishing most federal regulations. Of course, he hasn’t said which regulations need to be axed and which ones are to be kept. The implication of replacing the dollar with gold as the currency standard and eliminating the “Fed” is so radical as to not even merit further comment because the impact on world economies, including in this country is too serious to imagine. On Education, he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and sees no role for the federal government in education; so that presupposes refusal to accept any assistance in the form of Pell Grants and low-cost Stafford Loans for college tuition.
Although, like most Americans, the idea of paying taxes is a hard pill to swallow but Congressman takes it to another level when is comes to Taxes by completely eliminating the Department of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] and paying all federal income taxes. He is an avid proponent of ‘States Rights’ and believes that Abortion, The Environment and Gay Marriage/Rights are matters that should be settled by the states and not federal legislation or The U.S. Supreme Court. Congressman Paul has an Immigration policy that is non-apologetic and forceful as he believes, “Do whatever it takes [BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY]" to secure the border and end right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as well as deny social services for illegal immigrants. He also wants aggressive deportation of undocumented citizens no matter how long they have lived here and raised families, or worked and paid taxes or served in the military. As far as positions on Terrorism or The War/Foreign Policy, Ron Paul believes that America’s military presence overseas [Pacific Rim or Middle East] is what provokes or incites terrorists to attack America or our troops in these regions and pulling our military from remote places should be the highest priority. He wants to slash the Pentagon budget and opposed the intervention in Libya but it would be interesting to know how he views the outcome now.
There is an article by syndicated Columnist Michael Gerson, which was featured Tuesday, January 3, 2012, edition of the Tacoma News Tribune, Section A9, listed some of the more interesting comments by Texas Congressman Ron Paul:
He accused President Lincoln of “causing a senseless war” and regarded the presidency of Ronald Reagan as a “dramatic failure.” He once proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin and promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection in South Korea. He believes that 9/11 was a government “cover-up” and published in a newspaper that the 1993 WTC [World Trade Center] attack was a set-up orchestrated between the U.S. government and the Israeli Mossad.
He would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the “Holocaust” and freeing over six-million Jewish men, women, boys and girls from the horrors and atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis. Congressman Paul believes that forced [government-mandated] “integration” is evil. He obviously doesn’t agree with the outcome of Brown vs. the Board of Education in which the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed segregation as unconstitutional. He sees no problem with former slaveholders treating human beings a “property” and can treat them in any way as they please, and he believes that the federal government has no “legitimate“ authority to infringe upon the sovereign rights of the states and their citizens. Congressman Paul has disparaged Martin Luther King Jr., former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and has referred to the MLK holiday as “Hate the White Man Day.”
Finally, since this nearly octogenarian [76 year-old] is vying for nomination to represent this country on the international stage as well as occupy the most powerful elected office on planet earth, and sit at the head of government of world’s only true military “SUPER POWER” it is imperative that a window into what he really believes in is important, and after getting a glimpse into his inner psyche [past and present], there are a few things that should concern all of us but each person has to make up in their own mind about which of his personal perspectives that concern them the most.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Monday, January 2, 2012
Which Republican presidential candidate would you vote for?
Several weeks ago, Associated Press writers Brian Bakst and Chris Tomlinson listed the political positions of the contenders for the GOP nomination for president of the United States. They are Republicans: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Since the Iowa Caucus is Tuesday, January 3, 2012, it is important to review what stand the candidates have taken on some of the more important issues and the nation’s first early voting process will serve as a bell-weather indication on the effectiveness of each candidate to get their message across to the electorate and how it has been received; now that the debates are over.
Although the results of this event may be overstated as such but for those who do not finish in the top three positions it, especially Bachmann, who is in the single digits, it may very well be the death knell of their long journey and their campaigns may come to and end by Wednesday, or not too long afterward. Although there aren’t any real specifics in these points that are listed, still, there is enough information to get a glimpse of perhaps the moral leanings or character of a few of them and one can make a determination as to whether or not if this is the person who merits any further support and of whose values you can identify with.
ABORTION:
Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry, Santorum and Romney are for a constitutional ban on abortion.
Gingrich is against federal subsidies to fund abortions while agreeing, along with Paul, Romney and Perry that the states should decided their own abortion laws.
FEDERAL DEBT:
Bachmann and Santorum opposed the federal bailout of the financial industry (TARP) which averted a default on the U.S. debt and raising the debt ceiling by Congress, While Huntsman supported it.
Romney supported the financial bailout but criticized GM and Chrysler receiving government assistance. Romney wants to cap federal spending at 20% GDP while Perry favors 18% of GDP.
Paul would eliminate five Cabinet-level agencies [which ones??], end spending on existing conflicts [post-war Iraq and Afghanistan] and end foreign aid.
Perry wants to cut the pay of the members of Congress [like that’s really going to make a big difference].
Gingrich, as well as Romney, is for a balanced budget but didn’t mention specifics.
ECONOMY: Bachmann feels the best way to create jobs is to eliminate all the excessive overregulation by the federal government [the same as Santorum, Huntsman, Perry and Romney.
Paul wants to eliminate most federal regulations] which limits capital investments and proposes, along with Gingrich, Perry and Romney, the repeal of financial-industry regulations enacted in response to the sub-prime housing crisis.
Gingrich feels that the Federal Reserve’s power to set interest rates artificially low is what is stifling the economy, and Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve altogether.
Huntsman, along with Santorum, believes in eliminating corporate subsidies, lower corporate taxes [same as Romney], and spur jobs through energy development [the same as Santorum], seek repeal of President Barack Obama's health care law [the same as all candidates], break up big banks [financial institutions and insurance companies] as hedge against future bailouts. He also wants to break up big banks as a hedge against another financial bailout.
Paul wants a return to the gold standard instead of using the dollar.
Romney more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts.
EDUCATION: Bachmann, along with Paul [and Romney, who later changed his mind in bowing to the interest and demands of teachers’ unions], believes in abolishing the Department of Education while Gingrich and Santorum favors shrinking it. She says the federal government doesn't [shouldn’t] have a role in education; jurisdiction is with state and local governments.
Huntsman says, “No Child Left Behind hasn't worked for this country. It ought to be done away with." He favors more school choice [charter and private schools??].
Perry opposed No Child Left Behind law, whereas Romney and Santorum support No Child Left Behind law.
ENERGY: Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman and Paul advocate reducing regulatory restrictions to drilling.
Gingrich wants oil and natural gas industries to drill offshore for reserves now blocked from development by federal regulation, and end restrictions on Western oil shale development.
Huntsman wants to phase out (eliminate) energy subsidies and subject fuel distribution network to federal review to "break Big oil's monopoly" and expand opportunities for natural gas development and production.
Paul wants development of coal and nuclear power, eliminate gasoline tax, and provide tax credits for alternative fuel technology [wind, solar, geothermal, etc.].
Perry proposes more development on restricted federal lands to spur drilling.
Romney supports drilling in the Gulf, the outer continental shelves, Western lands, offshore Alaska; and exploitation of shale oil deposits.
Santorum, Perry and Romney favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
NOTE: These proposals would provide many thousands of jobs and stimulate the economy but at what cost to the environment?
ENVIRONMENT: Bachmann wants to repeal "radical environmental laws that kill access to natural resources." She voted to bar EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. She, along with Romney, opposes cap and trade.
Gingrich, along with Perry, wants to convert the EPA into "environmental solutions agency" with no enforcement powers, devoted to research and "more energy, more jobs and a better environment; although he once backed tougher environmental regulation.
Huntsman wants to end the EPA's "regulatory reign of terror." Yet, he acknowledges the scientific evidence that humans contribute to global warming.
Paul says emission standards should be set by states or regions. He, along with Huntsman and Romney, believed human activity "probably does" contribute to global warming; now later, he, along with Perry and Romney, says that there isn’t conclusive evidence [it hasn’t been proven] that human activity contributes to global warming and calls such science a "hoax."
Santorum also believes the science establishing human activity as a likely contributor to global warming is "patently absurd" and "junk science."
GAY MARRIAGE: Bachmann, Romney, Santorum and Perry [who earlier was against it before he was for it] support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Gingrich says, “If the Defense of Marriage Act fails, you have no choice except a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
Huntsman supports same-sex civil unions, with many of the rights of marriage, and says states should decide their own marriage laws and not the federal government [the same as Paul and Perry].
HEALTH CARE:
Bachmann favors limits on medical malpractice lawsuits as a way to control health care costs, and she voted against expanding Children's Health Insurance Program.
Gingrich wants to prohibit insurers from canceling or charging hefty increases to insurance holders who get sick [or have a preexisting health condition??]. He wants a "generous" tax credit to help buy private insurance, although he previously supported mandatory coverage [like ObamaCare].
Huntsman says,"Let the states experiment," and he is open to restricting or limiting Medicare benefits for the wealthy [like Perry].
Paul opposes compulsory insurance and all federal subsidies for coverage.
Perry wants to raise eligibility age [to what??] for Medicare benefits, offer federal aid (“subsidies”) to help elderly buy private insurance instead of getting Medicare benefits.
Romney opposes federal mandate to obtain coverage [ObamaCare]; introduced health insurance mandate in Massachusetts [RomneyCare or is it ObomneyCare??]. He also proposes "generous" subsidies [like Perry] to help future retirees buy private insurance instead of going on Medicare.
Santorum wants Congress to defund Obama’s Health Care Law if passed, and supported Bush administration's prescription drug program for the elderly.
NOTE: All the candidates would seek repeal of Obama's health care law.
IMMIGRATION: Bachman favors a fence all along the 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexico border, not just the 650 miles built, and she opposes government benefits for illegal immigrants and their children [no matter how long they have lived in the U.S. and are law-abiding and pay taxes].
Gingrich supports option of giving legal status to illegal immigrants who have sunk roots in the U.S. and lived otherwise lawfully, and supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants' children who perform U.S. military service. He also wants to make English the official language. He wants to divert more Homeland Security assets to the Mexican border.
Huntsman thinks it is unrealistic to deport all illegal immigrants out of the country. In Utah, he threatened to veto a bill to repeal cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants [so that means he is in favor of cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants].
Paul says, “Do whatever it takes to secure the border and end the right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [even if they served honorably and with distinction in the Armed Forces]"; and he wants no social services for illegal immigrants and aggressive deportation [like Bachmann].
Perry opposes a complete 1,900 mile U.S.-Mexico border fence [what about the 650 mile one that’s already built??], but instead wants more border agents [like Gingrich]. He supports continued U.S. citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [like Gingrich].
Romney favors complete U.S.-Mexico border fence [like Bachmann and Santorum], opposes education and social service] benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, Romney and Santorum].
Santorum supports complete border fence [like Bachmann and Romney], opposes education and social service benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, and Romney].
SOCIAL SECURITY: Bachmann wants to keep Social Security for older workers [what age??] and wean everybody else off. The age for retirement benefits will have to go up for new workers [like Huntsman and Perry].
Gingrich wants to give younger workers the "option" of diverting Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts [privatizing social security benefits in risky equity investments??].
Huntsman and Perry want to restrict benefits for the wealthy.
Paul, like Gingrich, says younger workers should be able to "opt out" [diverting Social Security taxes to risky private retirement accounts or other savings] of Social Security taxes and retirement benefits.
Perry previously branded Social Security a "disease," now says it should be saved. He supports private accounts [like Paul, Santorum and Gingrich].
Romney says that reducing inflation adjustments for rich retirees are among options that should be considered [Huntsman and Perry differ on that matter].
TAXES: Bachmann wants a tax holiday [no one is taxed on their personal income??] followed by 5% corporate tax rate for U.S. companies operating overseas that invest their profits back in the U.S. economy.
Gingrich wants to offer the American taxpayer a “choice" of filing under the current system or paying a 15% tax rate, preserving mortgage interest rates [prevent them from rising] and allow charitable deductions. He also wants to cut corporate tax to 12.5%.
Huntsman favors lower income tax rates coupled with the elimination of deductions [including charitable in opposition to Gingrich] and cut corporate tax to 25%.
Paul wants to eliminate the entire federal income tax system and the IRS, and defund half the government.
Perry, like Gingrich, wants to offer the American taxpayer a "choice" between the current system and 20 % tax on income, preserving mortgage interest rates and charitable deductions. Also, for each individual or dependent, he wants to exempt them from paying taxes on the first $12,500 in income.
Romney wants no one with an adjusted gross income under $200,000 to be taxed on interest, dividends or capital gains and to cut corporate tax rate to 25% [like Huntsman].
Santorum proposes zero corporate tax. "If you manufacture in America, you aren't going to pay any taxes." He opposes any national sales tax.
NOTE: All candidates support eliminating the estate tax and keeping Bush-era tax cuts.
TERRORISM: Bachmann wants to expand Guantanamo [like Gingrich], and no Miranda or constitutional rights for foreign terrorist suspects [enemy combatants]. She approves the use of “waterboarding” [torture or extreme interrogation techniques] and probably ‘rendition’ as an option in prisoner interrogations.
Gingrich supports extending and strengthening investigative powers of Patriot Act and creation of the Homeland Security apparatus. In 2009, he said of waterboarding: "It's not something we should do."
Huntsman said Homeland Security Department has been heavy-handed, conveying a "fortress security mentality that is not American [unlike Gingrich]," and opposes waterboarding [unlike Bachmann and the 2009 Gingrich].
Paul opposes Patriot Act as an infringement on liberty [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich], and says: "Waterboarding is torture, it's illegal under International Law and under our law, and it's also immoral [unlike Bachmann,Perry and Santorum and like Huntsman and Gingrich 2009]."
Perry said it was "unprincipled" for Republicans to vote for creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich and Santorum]. Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann], and that U.S. interrogators should "use any technique" short of torture, which he did not define [Is "waterboarding" torture according to Perry??].
Romney wants no constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects [like Bachmann]. His campaign says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture [like Bachmann, Santorum, Romney and Perry and unlike 2009 Gingrich and Paul].
Santorum defends creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Gingrich and unlike Huntsman and Paul]. He voted to reauthorize Patriot Act [unlike Paul]. And says airport screeners should employ racial or ethnic profiling; "Muslims would be someone you'd look at, absolutely." Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann and Perry]. He says waterboarding has proved effective [and is not "torture"??].
WAR: Bachmann opposed intervention in Libya and said that might help terrorists there, and called Afghanistan a war "we must and can win" with sufficient troops and money [now that Osama bin-laden is dead, is it worth staying there just to fight the Taliban and pump billions of dollars into a corrupt Karzai government??].
Gingrich supported the Iraq war and opposed early U.S. troop withdrawal and said U.S. forces should not have been used in the Libya campaign, after he had called for such an intervention at the onset [he was "for" it before he was "against" it]. He opposes "precipitous" [all at once??] pullout from Afghanistan.
Huntsman proposes reducing U.S. involvement in conflicts around the globe and, unlike most rivals, says Pentagon budget should be cut. He opposes any U.S. military assistance of new Libyan government and says no more than 15,000 U.S. troops should be left in Afghanistan [for how long; indefinitely??].
Paul wants to bring most or all troops home from foreign posts "as quick as the ships could get there [like Huntsman]." He opposed U.S. intervention in Libya [like Bachmann and Gingrich at first] and wants to cut the Pentagon budget [like Huntsman].
Perry criticized planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq this year and Afghanistan next year but has not said how many troops should stay or for how long.
Romney has not specified the troop numbers behind his pledge to ensure the "force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully" [whatever the mission is] in Afghanistan.
Santorum said in September that 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops should remain in Iraq and that troops should withdraw from Afghanistan "a little slower" [Gingrich's 'precipitous' pullout??] than the timetable Obama is planning.
NOTE: Some of Texas Congressman Ron Paul's political solutions seem to be a bit too 'Draconian' or just plain crazy.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
.
Although the results of this event may be overstated as such but for those who do not finish in the top three positions it, especially Bachmann, who is in the single digits, it may very well be the death knell of their long journey and their campaigns may come to and end by Wednesday, or not too long afterward. Although there aren’t any real specifics in these points that are listed, still, there is enough information to get a glimpse of perhaps the moral leanings or character of a few of them and one can make a determination as to whether or not if this is the person who merits any further support and of whose values you can identify with.
ABORTION:
Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry, Santorum and Romney are for a constitutional ban on abortion.
Gingrich is against federal subsidies to fund abortions while agreeing, along with Paul, Romney and Perry that the states should decided their own abortion laws.
FEDERAL DEBT:
Bachmann and Santorum opposed the federal bailout of the financial industry (TARP) which averted a default on the U.S. debt and raising the debt ceiling by Congress, While Huntsman supported it.
Romney supported the financial bailout but criticized GM and Chrysler receiving government assistance. Romney wants to cap federal spending at 20% GDP while Perry favors 18% of GDP.
Paul would eliminate five Cabinet-level agencies [which ones??], end spending on existing conflicts [post-war Iraq and Afghanistan] and end foreign aid.
Perry wants to cut the pay of the members of Congress [like that’s really going to make a big difference].
Gingrich, as well as Romney, is for a balanced budget but didn’t mention specifics.
ECONOMY: Bachmann feels the best way to create jobs is to eliminate all the excessive overregulation by the federal government [the same as Santorum, Huntsman, Perry and Romney.
Paul wants to eliminate most federal regulations] which limits capital investments and proposes, along with Gingrich, Perry and Romney, the repeal of financial-industry regulations enacted in response to the sub-prime housing crisis.
Gingrich feels that the Federal Reserve’s power to set interest rates artificially low is what is stifling the economy, and Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve altogether.
Huntsman, along with Santorum, believes in eliminating corporate subsidies, lower corporate taxes [same as Romney], and spur jobs through energy development [the same as Santorum], seek repeal of President Barack Obama's health care law [the same as all candidates], break up big banks [financial institutions and insurance companies] as hedge against future bailouts. He also wants to break up big banks as a hedge against another financial bailout.
Paul wants a return to the gold standard instead of using the dollar.
Romney more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts.
EDUCATION: Bachmann, along with Paul [and Romney, who later changed his mind in bowing to the interest and demands of teachers’ unions], believes in abolishing the Department of Education while Gingrich and Santorum favors shrinking it. She says the federal government doesn't [shouldn’t] have a role in education; jurisdiction is with state and local governments.
Huntsman says, “No Child Left Behind hasn't worked for this country. It ought to be done away with." He favors more school choice [charter and private schools??].
Perry opposed No Child Left Behind law, whereas Romney and Santorum support No Child Left Behind law.
ENERGY: Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman and Paul advocate reducing regulatory restrictions to drilling.
Gingrich wants oil and natural gas industries to drill offshore for reserves now blocked from development by federal regulation, and end restrictions on Western oil shale development.
Huntsman wants to phase out (eliminate) energy subsidies and subject fuel distribution network to federal review to "break Big oil's monopoly" and expand opportunities for natural gas development and production.
Paul wants development of coal and nuclear power, eliminate gasoline tax, and provide tax credits for alternative fuel technology [wind, solar, geothermal, etc.].
Perry proposes more development on restricted federal lands to spur drilling.
Romney supports drilling in the Gulf, the outer continental shelves, Western lands, offshore Alaska; and exploitation of shale oil deposits.
Santorum, Perry and Romney favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
NOTE: These proposals would provide many thousands of jobs and stimulate the economy but at what cost to the environment?
ENVIRONMENT: Bachmann wants to repeal "radical environmental laws that kill access to natural resources." She voted to bar EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. She, along with Romney, opposes cap and trade.
Gingrich, along with Perry, wants to convert the EPA into "environmental solutions agency" with no enforcement powers, devoted to research and "more energy, more jobs and a better environment; although he once backed tougher environmental regulation.
Huntsman wants to end the EPA's "regulatory reign of terror." Yet, he acknowledges the scientific evidence that humans contribute to global warming.
Paul says emission standards should be set by states or regions. He, along with Huntsman and Romney, believed human activity "probably does" contribute to global warming; now later, he, along with Perry and Romney, says that there isn’t conclusive evidence [it hasn’t been proven] that human activity contributes to global warming and calls such science a "hoax."
Santorum also believes the science establishing human activity as a likely contributor to global warming is "patently absurd" and "junk science."
GAY MARRIAGE: Bachmann, Romney, Santorum and Perry [who earlier was against it before he was for it] support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Gingrich says, “If the Defense of Marriage Act fails, you have no choice except a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
Huntsman supports same-sex civil unions, with many of the rights of marriage, and says states should decide their own marriage laws and not the federal government [the same as Paul and Perry].
HEALTH CARE:
Bachmann favors limits on medical malpractice lawsuits as a way to control health care costs, and she voted against expanding Children's Health Insurance Program.
Gingrich wants to prohibit insurers from canceling or charging hefty increases to insurance holders who get sick [or have a preexisting health condition??]. He wants a "generous" tax credit to help buy private insurance, although he previously supported mandatory coverage [like ObamaCare].
Huntsman says,"Let the states experiment," and he is open to restricting or limiting Medicare benefits for the wealthy [like Perry].
Paul opposes compulsory insurance and all federal subsidies for coverage.
Perry wants to raise eligibility age [to what??] for Medicare benefits, offer federal aid (“subsidies”) to help elderly buy private insurance instead of getting Medicare benefits.
Romney opposes federal mandate to obtain coverage [ObamaCare]; introduced health insurance mandate in Massachusetts [RomneyCare or is it ObomneyCare??]. He also proposes "generous" subsidies [like Perry] to help future retirees buy private insurance instead of going on Medicare.
Santorum wants Congress to defund Obama’s Health Care Law if passed, and supported Bush administration's prescription drug program for the elderly.
NOTE: All the candidates would seek repeal of Obama's health care law.
IMMIGRATION: Bachman favors a fence all along the 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexico border, not just the 650 miles built, and she opposes government benefits for illegal immigrants and their children [no matter how long they have lived in the U.S. and are law-abiding and pay taxes].
Gingrich supports option of giving legal status to illegal immigrants who have sunk roots in the U.S. and lived otherwise lawfully, and supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants' children who perform U.S. military service. He also wants to make English the official language. He wants to divert more Homeland Security assets to the Mexican border.
Huntsman thinks it is unrealistic to deport all illegal immigrants out of the country. In Utah, he threatened to veto a bill to repeal cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants [so that means he is in favor of cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants].
Paul says, “Do whatever it takes to secure the border and end the right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [even if they served honorably and with distinction in the Armed Forces]"; and he wants no social services for illegal immigrants and aggressive deportation [like Bachmann].
Perry opposes a complete 1,900 mile U.S.-Mexico border fence [what about the 650 mile one that’s already built??], but instead wants more border agents [like Gingrich]. He supports continued U.S. citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [like Gingrich].
Romney favors complete U.S.-Mexico border fence [like Bachmann and Santorum], opposes education and social service] benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, Romney and Santorum].
Santorum supports complete border fence [like Bachmann and Romney], opposes education and social service benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, and Romney].
SOCIAL SECURITY: Bachmann wants to keep Social Security for older workers [what age??] and wean everybody else off. The age for retirement benefits will have to go up for new workers [like Huntsman and Perry].
Gingrich wants to give younger workers the "option" of diverting Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts [privatizing social security benefits in risky equity investments??].
Huntsman and Perry want to restrict benefits for the wealthy.
Paul, like Gingrich, says younger workers should be able to "opt out" [diverting Social Security taxes to risky private retirement accounts or other savings] of Social Security taxes and retirement benefits.
Perry previously branded Social Security a "disease," now says it should be saved. He supports private accounts [like Paul, Santorum and Gingrich].
Romney says that reducing inflation adjustments for rich retirees are among options that should be considered [Huntsman and Perry differ on that matter].
TAXES: Bachmann wants a tax holiday [no one is taxed on their personal income??] followed by 5% corporate tax rate for U.S. companies operating overseas that invest their profits back in the U.S. economy.
Gingrich wants to offer the American taxpayer a “choice" of filing under the current system or paying a 15% tax rate, preserving mortgage interest rates [prevent them from rising] and allow charitable deductions. He also wants to cut corporate tax to 12.5%.
Huntsman favors lower income tax rates coupled with the elimination of deductions [including charitable in opposition to Gingrich] and cut corporate tax to 25%.
Paul wants to eliminate the entire federal income tax system and the IRS, and defund half the government.
Perry, like Gingrich, wants to offer the American taxpayer a "choice" between the current system and 20 % tax on income, preserving mortgage interest rates and charitable deductions. Also, for each individual or dependent, he wants to exempt them from paying taxes on the first $12,500 in income.
Romney wants no one with an adjusted gross income under $200,000 to be taxed on interest, dividends or capital gains and to cut corporate tax rate to 25% [like Huntsman].
Santorum proposes zero corporate tax. "If you manufacture in America, you aren't going to pay any taxes." He opposes any national sales tax.
NOTE: All candidates support eliminating the estate tax and keeping Bush-era tax cuts.
TERRORISM: Bachmann wants to expand Guantanamo [like Gingrich], and no Miranda or constitutional rights for foreign terrorist suspects [enemy combatants]. She approves the use of “waterboarding” [torture or extreme interrogation techniques] and probably ‘rendition’ as an option in prisoner interrogations.
Gingrich supports extending and strengthening investigative powers of Patriot Act and creation of the Homeland Security apparatus. In 2009, he said of waterboarding: "It's not something we should do."
Huntsman said Homeland Security Department has been heavy-handed, conveying a "fortress security mentality that is not American [unlike Gingrich]," and opposes waterboarding [unlike Bachmann and the 2009 Gingrich].
Paul opposes Patriot Act as an infringement on liberty [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich], and says: "Waterboarding is torture, it's illegal under International Law and under our law, and it's also immoral [unlike Bachmann,Perry and Santorum and like Huntsman and Gingrich 2009]."
Perry said it was "unprincipled" for Republicans to vote for creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich and Santorum]. Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann], and that U.S. interrogators should "use any technique" short of torture, which he did not define [Is "waterboarding" torture according to Perry??].
Romney wants no constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects [like Bachmann]. His campaign says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture [like Bachmann, Santorum, Romney and Perry and unlike 2009 Gingrich and Paul].
Santorum defends creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Gingrich and unlike Huntsman and Paul]. He voted to reauthorize Patriot Act [unlike Paul]. And says airport screeners should employ racial or ethnic profiling; "Muslims would be someone you'd look at, absolutely." Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann and Perry]. He says waterboarding has proved effective [and is not "torture"??].
WAR: Bachmann opposed intervention in Libya and said that might help terrorists there, and called Afghanistan a war "we must and can win" with sufficient troops and money [now that Osama bin-laden is dead, is it worth staying there just to fight the Taliban and pump billions of dollars into a corrupt Karzai government??].
Gingrich supported the Iraq war and opposed early U.S. troop withdrawal and said U.S. forces should not have been used in the Libya campaign, after he had called for such an intervention at the onset [he was "for" it before he was "against" it]. He opposes "precipitous" [all at once??] pullout from Afghanistan.
Huntsman proposes reducing U.S. involvement in conflicts around the globe and, unlike most rivals, says Pentagon budget should be cut. He opposes any U.S. military assistance of new Libyan government and says no more than 15,000 U.S. troops should be left in Afghanistan [for how long; indefinitely??].
Paul wants to bring most or all troops home from foreign posts "as quick as the ships could get there [like Huntsman]." He opposed U.S. intervention in Libya [like Bachmann and Gingrich at first] and wants to cut the Pentagon budget [like Huntsman].
Perry criticized planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq this year and Afghanistan next year but has not said how many troops should stay or for how long.
Romney has not specified the troop numbers behind his pledge to ensure the "force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully" [whatever the mission is] in Afghanistan.
Santorum said in September that 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops should remain in Iraq and that troops should withdraw from Afghanistan "a little slower" [Gingrich's 'precipitous' pullout??] than the timetable Obama is planning.
NOTE: Some of Texas Congressman Ron Paul's political solutions seem to be a bit too 'Draconian' or just plain crazy.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)