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
Friday, January 27, 2012
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)