The presidential choices: Bad temperment or Bad judgment?

In one more day the most vitriolic, nastiest and mean-spirited presidential election in modern history will come to a conclusion, and the winner will be president-elect of the United States; much to the relief of almost everyone in America. There are no adequate words to describe what the citizens have endured over these past months but bizarre, astonishing, unpredictable, exhausting and grueling are a few of the adjectives that can be used. This is a two-stage process where the candidate for president wins the popular vote and then sometime around December 8th, electors will meet in their state capitols and cast a vote for the president according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The political pundits, reporters, Talk Radio moderators and pollsters have inundated the public with minute-by-minute coverage but they often just focus on limited talking points which generate ratings and neglect other substantive considerations. I want to focus on some of the things that mainstream and conservative media might not have brought to the conversation.

Let’s begin with Donald Trump:

The biggest thing facing Donald Trump, if he becomes president, is about “temperament.” He has proven over and over again that he is thin-skinned, easily provoked and has made on more than one occasion reckless statements. Hillary Clinton was right when she warned Trump that “words matter.” And then there is still the matter of not disclosing his income tax, which is unprecedented for a presidential candidate this late in the game. Also, the TRUMP brand is at risk, which if he won the presidency, could be leveraged to advantage his business interests. There are already signs of some backlash because Ivanka Trump’s line of clothing and accessories carried in upscale stores like Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s and Nordstrom’s have caused customers to threaten to not buy from that line because of the negative association. The politicians who support Trump, especially if he loses may face challenges in their own congressional districts. Some evangelical preachers have put their reputations on the line, such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr and Mike Huckabee who have encouraged their faithful flocks to support this born-again Republican candidate.

 

Now, to shine the spotlight on Hillary Clinton:

The stakes could not be much higher for the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. There is a lot for Hillary to overcome, especially when it comes to transparency, ethics or trust, but perhaps the biggest issue, like a millstone around her neck is that she has “bad judgment.” With all of Hillary’s experience, knowledge and qualifications FBI Director James Comey concluded that her handling of emails was “extremely careless.” While this does not mean she is ‘grossly incompetent’ it should concern everyone that she could have acted this way  unintentionally, but if, on the other hand, her handling of emails was done knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, then this should be of grave concern to every American citizen.

This is Hillary’s second attempt to secure the nation’s highest elected office but her hopes were dashed to the ground by a little-known, African-American male named Barack Obama; a U.S. Senator from Chicago, IL who was serving his second year in office. Imagine the impact of another loss on the Clinton legacy to be defeated by a brash billionaire and one-time supporter, who has insulted so many persons, even the Pope of Rome. If Hillary is defeated this will be the handwriting on the wall, the closing chapter of the Clinton name or brand in power politics in America as well as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party. This will be the swan song of a political career spanning over twenty years on the national scene, the setting of the sun, among the fading glories of the past, finally being laid to rest among the forgotten memories of obsolescence, irrelevance, and obscurity.

The winners and losers:

Whether Donald Trump becomes president or not, Mike Pence certainly has to be a serious candidate for a future president bid among Republicans. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway could see her status rise with a Trump victory but a loss would be detrimental to her marketability. She managed Ted Cruz’s campaign and he didn’t make the cut, and if this turns out badly, she will be associated with losers. RNC Riece Priebus has supported Trump and continued to funnel resources into the Trump campaign instead of diverting them toward congressional races when a few Republican candidates are vulnerable. If Trump loss his decision might be questioned by some of the establishment Republicans, especially if their members lose seats in Congress.

And then there are people like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie who will have egg on their face from a Trump loss. In the Clinton camp, endorsements by celebrities like Beyonce and Jay-Z, Katy Perry, Adele or LeBron James really don’t matter all that much, but is does, or it should to Barack and Michelle Obama The president and First Lady have been campaigning tirelessly on Hillary’s behalf in these past few weeks, and in fact, without their impassioned speeches at the DNC several months ago, this presidential race would be a lot different today than it is now. And then there is poor Bernie Sanders, and I wonder how he really feels because he had her on the ropes during the primaries, but let her off by not wanting to hear any more about “those damn emails.” He also pressed her hard or taking exorbitant speaking fees from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and yet promising, if she were elected president, to rein in their behavior.

I almost forgot about former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who already rigged the game in favor of Hillary Clinton; her political future will be toast after all this is over. Bernie Sanders supporters must be having mixed emotions and having been shut down at the Convention, will those who are electors in their respective states vote for Hillary Clinton? A person in WA State has already said he will not even if Hillary wins the electoral votes in this Blue State. And then there is FBI Director James Comey, whom I am sure already has his letter of resignation already written because he has no future at the agency or anywhere else in law enforcement; except maybe as a security guard. With his level of popularity at this point, he probably couldn’t even get a job as a dog catcher. The vacant seat in the Supreme Court is an issue that has caused some concern for voters, especially when it comes to the president. What should concern everyone is what political party controls the Senate because the president “only” makes appointments to the nation’s highest Court but the Senate has to “confirm” or approve the candidate. This is done through hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate majority comprises the committee members and is the tiebreaker on judicial appointments.

As a last point, if Donald Trump is elected president the smart thing to do is set the tone for conciliation, healing and a peaceful transfer of power, and Hillary Clinton should concede the election and help facilitate a more orderly transition along with President Barack Obama. If Hillary Clinton becomes president she should try to bring people together and reassure everyone that she has a lot of work to do to gain the American people’s trust and respect, and that she want to serve everyone to the best of her ability; never taking their vote for granted or her place in history. Hillary should try to build a coalition of Moderate Republicans to be part of her Cabinet and a president Trump should behave more seriously as it pertains to governance, and as a smart thing start listening more to his advisors instead of going off script. Just like Hillary Clinton, he should try to build a coalition of some Moderate or Progressive Democrats to be part of his administration. Although it is still early, the Democrats need to be looking for the next presidential candidate that is well-known and has some national exposure because the Republicans are ahead of them on that one; it seems, possibly with Cruz or Rubio wanting to give it another shot. So, this election will answer one question: Do we, as American citizens live in a country that live in a country where the glass is half full (“we can be stronger together”), or do we live in one that seems half empty (“to make America great again”)? The answer will come sometime late Tuesday night.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Are federal mandatory sentencing laws unconstitutional?

The Eighth Amendment prohibits, among other things, cruel and unusual punishment. The statute forbids arbitrary and inconsistent criminal sanctions, which would seem to include: guidelines that are used to impose sentencing; length of incarceration; or the conditions under which a criminal defendant serves time. The so-called “War on Drugs” of the 1980’s, with its ‘get tough’ policies on criminals was a disaster because it caught up a disproportionately high number of Black offenders in its far-reaching and arbitrary drug enforcement dragnet. African-Americans are prosecuted at rates that are out of proportion compared to Whites in the actual use and sale of drugs, through receiving higher conviction rates and longer prison sentences. When it pertains to convictions on drug offenses racial minorities are routinely remanded over to federal authorities, where justices can impose mandatory sentencing verdicts on criminal defendants without the requirement for judicial review.

From 1992 to 1994, approximately 96.5% of all federal crack prosecutions were non-White. The U.S. Sentencing Commission Report (1992) determined that only minorities were prosecuted for crack offenses in over half of the federal judicial districts that handled crack cases. In a survey taken by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), between 1991 and 1993 Whites were twice as likely to have used crack nationwide than Blacks and Hispanics combined. Ironically, powder cocaine was used among upper class and affluent Whites, especially celebrities, with very little concern or interest among the police. When powdered cocaine started being cut into “crack” rocks and made more affordable and accessible to Blacks, especially in the inner cities, then it became a priority target of politicians and law enforcement agencies. As a result, this emphasis helped to initiate a series of aggressive and punitive drug prosecution and sentencing laws that hit the Black community especially hard.

Dan Wiekel, Los Angeles Times reporter wrote the article, “War on Crack Targets Minorities over Whites” (May, 21, 1995), in which his investigation revealed that not a single White offender has been convicted of crack cocaine offenses in federal court in the LA metropolitan area since 1986, despite the fact that “Whites are majority crack users.” He goes on to say that many African-Americans were low-level dealers [small time hustlers], first-time users or accomplices [non-violent??]; not the heavy traffickers in the drug trade with major distribution networks. Also, a 1993 report by NIDA found that African-Americans only comprise 13% of all drug users but account for 39% of all the arrests. Researchers James Lynch and William Sabol found a significant incarceration rate among non-poor Black drug users increased six-fold, while the rates for their White counterparts were the exact opposite (Mauer and Huling 11). The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that Blacks accounted for 84.5% of all federal crack possession convictions in 1993 (Welch and Argulo 9).

The numbers are even direr for females, especially those who are arrested for drug convictions, and crimes committed to support a drug habit. Nationwide, the number of women in state prisons increased 433% between 1896 and 1991. Black women were sentenced on drug offenses overall, with half of the charges stemming from crack offenses; compared to 5% for Hispanic women and 7% for White women. In a study of Black women crack users, Mindy Fullilone and her colleagues at Columbia University School of Public Health, their research found a complex pattern associated with depression and trauma resulting from physical, sexual and mental abuse that were the driving factors leading to drug abuse. So, to wrap this up, the question that needs to be asked is this: Is there an implicit and inherent bias in the criminal justice system that not only disproportionately but deliberately targets non-Whites (esp. African-Americans) with unfair criminal sanctions leading to unfair prosecution and excessive sentencing terms?  This is not only an Eight Amendment issue but also violates the “Due Process/Equal Protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Consuela B. Marshall, said: “We do see a lot of those [crack] cases, and one does ask why some are in state court [Whites??], and others are being prosecuted in federal court [Blacks??]. . .  and if it’s not based on race, [then] what’s it based on?”-Good question.  (Weich and Argulo 9).

REFERENCES

 

Mauer, Mark and Huling, Tracy. “Young Black Americans and the Criminal Justice System: Five Years
            Later,” The Sentencing Project, October 1995, pp. 1-36

Ulmer, Jeffrey T, Kurlchek, Megan C, and Kramer, John H (2007). Prosecutorial Discretion and the

            Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency,
            44.4, 427-459

Weich, Ronald and Argulo, Carlos (2012 November 21). Racial Disparities in the American Criminal
            Justice System. Retrieved October 26, 2013 from
           www.urbanpoverty,qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/.../Ronald-Weich-and-Carlos-Angul...

Wiekel, Dan, ‘War on Crack Targets Minorities over Whites.” The Los Angeles Times May 21, 1995:

            Print.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is the proposal of reparations for African-Americans unrealistic?

I was reading my copy of the Pocket Constitution by TheCapitol.net recently and happened to notice the often overlooked last line of the First Amendment. There isn’t usually much excitement or interest in these words, unlike the earlier part which has received so much attention like in Freedom of Speech/Religion/the Press or Freedom of Assembly. That being said, I decided to take a closer look at what does it mean that the people have a right to petition the Government for a “redress” of grievances-why the Government? I hadn’t given much thought to the word ‘redress’ and figured it meant pretty much the same as petition; or something like it. I decided to get a more technical explanation on the word so I pulled out a copy of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th. Ed) from my shelf, and looked up the word.  To my surprise, the word ²redress 2: compensation for wrong or loss; REPARATION. There are also several words that need to be reviewed, like grievance, injury, petition and injustice. According to the same source, petition 2: a: a formal written request made to an official person or organized body (as in a court); grievance (syn) 2: a cause of suffering or distress (as under unsatisfactory working conditions/labor); injustice (syn)- applies to any act that involves unfairness to another or violation of his [basic human] rights; injury (syn)- applies in law ‘specifically’ to an injustice for which one may sue to recover compensation [restitution/reparations/remuneration??].

Now, putting all these terms together it seems that there is precedent for citizens (the People) to bring legal action against the Government that legalized and codified by statute institutionalized slavery, as authorized by the Constitution. The same document on which this Republican form of governance is built also provides the means for remedy. Sure, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery but it did not eradicate the generational harm that still afflicts the lives of millions of African-Americans suffering from this horrid legacy. A quote from MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech (August 23, 1963) says, “The Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

There are those in and out of the political arena who think it laughable or absurd to suggest such a thing as reparations but the Constitution itself bears witness to the fact that it is our inalienable right as a citizen of this great nation to seek and expect some type of obligation from the Government to make “whole” a class of people who have been systematically disenfranchised and brutalized since their ancestors first stepped upon these shores shackled in iron chains from head to feet. We are not property but people and not only do we demand the right to reparations but the Constitution says we do. If this is not the case, then this document isn’t worth the ink that these words are written with and those who gave their lives for the old Red White and Blue died in vain

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 6, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Are we losing the War on Homelessness?

I want to say to all those public policy generals who have been waging the unrelenting war to end homelessness; you are getting your collective butts kicked- why you ask? Well, for one thing, in spite of all the resources poured into this effort you still don’t know what the real enemy is or how to fight it. This is because the methods you use are ‘reactive’ and while you might win a small victory here and there, the battle still rages on as the ranks of the homeless swell almost nonstop and unabated. Would you consider trying something from the playbook of a former president called the Bush Doctrine of waging a ‘preemptive’ first-strike attack instead of dealing with disaster after-the-fact.

Ok, so where do we start? I think the cause of many homeless situations involves persons having incurred a felony (conviction or probation). This makes it difficult; if not nearly impossible to finding employment earning a living wage, receive financial aid for attending college or technical training, as well as passing a background check to even obtain housing. Even if someone were employed it is usually a low wage, labor –intensive part-time job with few benefits or stability.  A person might have become evicted in the past and it is unlikely that a landlord or property owner would want to risk leasing a place to an applicant with that kind of history. Now, oftentimes well-meaning, progressive and socially-liberal thinkers who initiate enlightened programs like those administered in King and Pierce Counties (Seattle and Tacoma, WA) think this solve the problem of homelessness; but it won’t. What it does do is act as a magnet, attracting indigent travelers, runaways and people from other areas because they can take advantage of services that they might not otherwise qualify for; or in some instances have exhausted the benefits and services in the places where they previously lived.

This last point is the most difficult to do, painful to think or implement because not only is it controversial but counterintuitive as well. What needs to be done is to scale back instead of increase services because it will force the free riders to seek other means to help them survive and it will help reduce the numbers of people that can be helped to a manageable level. This may not be convenient or the answer that people want to hear; it is certainly not the politically-correct thing to advocate as it is a bitter pill to swallow but sooner or late reality has to be dealt with. The thing is though, even if one disagrees with this suggestion, still it is becoming increasingly apparent that what is in place now is not working.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 16, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Backlash over movie co-star about past rape allegations

In the September 3, 2016 edition of the Tacoma News Tribune, there was an article from WA Post reporter Caitlin Gibson about the controversy in the aftermath of making the movie, “Birth of a Nation.” Gabrielle Union wrote a blistering editorial after she learned of her co-star Nate Parker’s rape trial seventeen years ago. Nate was acquitted of all charges and his female accuser eventually committed suicide four years ago. This situation hit a nerve for Ms. Union, who was a rape victim herself twenty-four years ago when she was forced into the back stockroom at a Payless Shoe Store. Because of her experience and doubtless sensitivity to the issue, Gabrielle wants to spark, as she sees it, a national conversation about misogyny, hyper-masculinity and the embodiment a rape culture that is in overdrive in American society. The center point of her argument rests on what constitutes “consent.” This is a good point in which to begin this discussion because it might seem so clear from a moral or gender standpoint, but maybe a bit murkier or less well defined as a matter of law.

Let’s be clear from the onset, and I will say this without fear of equivocation or disagreement, “rape is not a sexual act.” It is perhaps the ultimate power trip in which sexual means are fueled by violence and brutality to humiliate and degrade another human being [female in this case]- relegating them to the level of a non-person with no sense of value or self-worth. I have even heard a woman refer to the act or experience of it leaving an empty space in your soul; and that may very well be literally true. Any man that would do such a thing, leave such a permanent scarring of someone’s being is not fit to called ‘human’ but rather some ravenous, vicious animal hunting for some defenseless prey; but I digress. Now, returning back to this notion of giving ‘consent,’ does it have to be explicit or implicit? What about extenuating circumstances such as does the consumption of alcohol or drugs lead to impairment or disability where one is not truly aware of the consequences of participation in acts of a sexual nature, and consent in not given a conscious, voluntary act but rather, it is coerced in some manner?

One of the arguments that Nate Parker used in his rape trial is that the victim didn’t say, “No” [or stop]. I suppose his attorney was trying to use her silence as “implied consent” which would not make it ‘rape’ technically speaking. The thing is, though, a non-verbal “no” does not automatically imply “yes” either. Also, just because a woman comes to a man’s room at 2 o’clock in the morning or agrees to meet with him alone in his dorm room that she is, as the colloquial expression, “asking for it.”Another point to consider is whether prior consensual sexual contact (intercourse) with one’s accuser prejudices a rape conviction in the present circumstance. I think Gabrielle Union as well as other victims of rape or sexual assault should join forces and try to get this issue on the front burner, but I am not so optimistic that it will become much of a priority in the bastions of male-dominated power systems. Unfortunately, gender-bias is America’s dirty little secret that no one wants to seriously talk about, so it is conveniently swept under the rug.

I don’t know what the answer is or who should begin the conversation, or where it should start. On this matter, First Lady Michelle Obama or Miss ‘O’ might have some ideas. In the meantime it is an uphill battle for women to get some justice, or like in the movie, Magnificent Seven, the gunslinger portrayed by Denzel Washington asked the lady who hired him if she wanted revenge-she said she wanted righteousness but she would settle for revenge [instead]. Just ask Gretchen Carlson about that one; ok, I digress again.  But this does go to a deeper social issue that is more than oversexed men but how women are “commodified” as sexual objects or things for a man’s enjoyment or pleasure and when he is finished, she is tossed away like a thing discarded and disposable. Even within the marriage some women are nothing more than “Stepford wives” and talk about bizarre- I remember a case that went to trial many years ago, I think it might have occurred in that state of Oregon, but at any rate it went something like this: A wife sued her husband for rape but the judge ruled that a husband cannot be criminally liable for rape because she cannot refuse conjugal obligation rights to her husband. Of course the judge was a man, but since “rape” is not a sexual act in the strictest sense, the wife should have sued for domestic battery of aggravated assault with sexual motivations.

 

As with bringing any suit before the Court, as the Plaintiff the burden rests with such a person to prove with the introduction of evidence that convinces the trier-of-fact (judge and/or jury) that what you claim satisfies the requirements of the law for a guilty verdict, conviction, and incarceration and other criminal penalty or sanction. I just had this thought about all the women coming out of the woodwork accusing Bill Cosby of rape, most nearly forty years later. I wonder what would have happened if the first one or two victims would not have remained silent because their inaction allowed a serial sexual offender (predator) to victimize other women. Yes, this is a conversation that should be happening but when you make that call who is going to be on the other end of the line, and will they be willing to listen?

 

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701

Tacoma, WA 98402

September 17, 2016

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Is the term “racist” mostly overblown?

If there is one word besides the notoriously provocative and socially-offensive ‘N’ word then ‘racist’ would be a close second. Hardly a day goes by that someone isn’t accused of using this term, so maybe it is time to find out what the word means. According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, racism (n) 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capabilities, and that racial differences produce an inherent (natural) superiority [or inferiority??] of a particular race. 2: racial prejudice or discrimination. Let’s try to unpack this meaning within the context of social interaction and experience. So, is it a necessary or essential requirement for White people to love Black people or vice-versa? If a White person or some member of a racial, religious or ethnic nationality thinks their group is at the top rung of human cultural evolution, or social as well as economic development, is such an attitude ‘racist’? Even if it is, who cares but them; and what’s the harm?

I think what should concern everyone is not so much with what a person says or thinks but rather the exercise of power, as demonstrated by what a person does and those institutions in society that reinforce the maintenance of these systems of discrimination, and which denies the same privileges and immunities to all citizens. I do not care what David Duke, the John Birch Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, Knights of Columbus, or any other White supremacist group of individual thinks or says about those they disparage in one way or another- I only care about acts of violence and physical harm because in America freedom of speech and assembly is a constitutional right, no matter how extremist their views might be. You know, when I was in elementary school there was this jingle that went like this: “Sticks and bones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Well, I guess they really can after all, especially in times like we live in today.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 17, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Can the president pardon any criminal offense?

President Obama recently commuted the sentence of roughly 111 inmates serving time in federal prison on non-violent felony drug convictions; and some are serving life sentences. This practice did not start with president Obama but is this sweeping display of presidential and Executive power consistent with the Constitution? In Article II, Section 2, the Constitution stipulates that the President has the authority to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States,” except in the case of Impeachment. Now to better explain the meaning or intent of the statute it is prudent to consider the context. To start with, the presidential oath of office is an affirmation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States- and by extension, the people, territory and integrity of our form of government and laws. The Fourteenth Amendment, Sections 2-4, seem to place quite an emphasis on this notion of insurrection or rebellion; which was always a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER in those days.

In modern times it would be more likely that concerns over espionage (like Julian Assange of Wikileaks), Eric Snowden or any kind of support to enemies of America as in separatist groups or individuals who wage war [like Timothy McVeigh], anarchy and other such acts against what they perceive as government over reach into their personal lives or international terrorism against American citizens here at home or abroad. It would seem that these crimes and others of such nature would be deemed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ within the purview of the scope of presidential power. After the Civil War ended, President Lincoln pardoned the Confederate states that seceded from the United States on the condition that those wanting to rejoin the Union of the Free states would accept the Constitution (“Bill of Rights”). Presidential power to set aside, commute, or give clemency to criminal felons on offenses that are not of such magnitude as trying to overthrow the government or harm the people of the united States is foreign to the Constitution; no matter how passionately one is driven by moral imperative and a sense of fairness, equity and social justice.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Could there be a contested presidential election?

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the highest unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidate in modern American history. Each ballot cast will essentially be an anti-vote against the other contender and not necessarily for the person deemed most qualified to be president. It is a matter of choosing between someone who wants to build a wall to keep people out, and another who has built a wall of political intrigue and near-immunity to keep secrets from getting out. This election will be like Gore v Bush (2000) when the Supreme Court decided the outcome after Al Gore won the popular vote but not the Electoral College delegate count.

It is doubtful that Clinton or Trump will get 270 of the possible 538 votes in the Electoral College to become president, so according to the Constitution, the Twelfth Amendment is invoked and the president as well as vice-president has to be chosen through the House of Representatives. As Donald Trump likes to say, “It’s going to be huge, really, really huge.” Yes, Donald, it will be and whoever becomes POTUS may not win us over, but when this election is finally over it will surely wear us out. To take a page from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “You don’t vote for the candidate that you wish you had but for the one [choices] that you have.”

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Are police actually the greatest protector of Black lives?

It was during a segment of the nationally televised Town Hall discussion between president Obama and American citizens that Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn made this incredibly bold statement. I thought he made the case quite passionately, articulately, and convincingly; at least, as it seemed to me. Although president Obama seemed to struggle with his answers as he went through his encyclopedic reasoning, and seems to get bogged down in his own thinking and then when he does answer a question it seems that the question and questioner seems to get lost in all of the carefully worded response; which is understandable in light of the recent events of the past couple of weeks. Chief Flynn, on the other hand, while defending Black Lives Matter and the experience of people of color within the context of this nation’s past historical narrative, nevertheless chided the movement for not being more vocal in denunciating Black on Black crime in the African-American community.

During the unexpectedly long discourse he made the bold statement that the police are the greatest protector of Black lives, and the Calvary is not going to come rushing over the hill [to save them/Blacks] because there is no one else. That was a poignant moment that resonated with me, and I wonder if the moment was lost on the audience and the viewers watching at home .or on their mobile devices. And it’s like in the movie, Ghostbusters, which invokes the phrase, “Who [else] you gonna call?” I mean, if the racist police are the enemy and if Black lives are not important or valued, then why call 911 emergency when a dangerous situation is imminent or crime occurs or is about to occur? Why not organize local community or block watch groups and patrol the neighborhood as well as provide security for the residents? And as a last point, during the shooting melee in Dallas by Micah Johnson at the Black Lives Matter demonstration, White [and other] police officers braved the hail of bullets, placing themselves in the line of fire to shield the attendees, including children, with their own bodies. Five officers gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect and keep others safe, minimizing further casualties. So, the Dallas police didn’t scatter and run for cover but by their actions they proved, without saying a word or carrying a sign, placard, or poster that ‘Black Lives’ as well as all lives matter, too.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 16, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

The paradox of law enforcement

In Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Ed.), the word paradox is defined as a (noun) c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions from acceptable premises. So, with that understanding I think this a good place to begin with, because the results derived from combatting crime proves this very point. There are those get tough on crime proponents in society who advocate hiring more police officers but there aren’t any statistical data or studies that I am aware of which prove that this approach results in lower crime rates. This may sound convincing on the surface of it, and there might even be a correlation to substantiate lower incidents or reports of crime, but that is not the same as causation. The only thing hiring more police officers do is that it means there are more of them to dispatch to a criminal incident or threat, which is reactive; not proactive.

The way to deter or prevent crime is to address the conditions or environmental factors that provide the fertile ground from which these behaviors sprout. The favorite talking points of politicians of “get tough on crime” or policy makers in the legislative, as well as administrative branches of state and local government do not fully understand, or choose to ignore the problem in favor of other considerations. For instance, instead of hiring a police officer and paying an annual salary of $50,000 why not take that same money and put it to better use in the community for job training, technical education, mental health services, and other needed programs? The new ‘paradigm’ should not be more police or boots on the ground, but rather, more books and other educational materials to help someone pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Let’s help create a society that moves away from the approach derived from the Old Europe of medieval times to one of positivity and self-actualization.  As it pertains to the old ways, when the guillotine was introduced in Europe crime rates actually went up, not down; as one might would have expected.

Enforcement is not prevention nor is it a viable strategy and it is counterproductive as it is presently implemented, Crime will only be deterred and reduced, though not totally eliminated, when the conditions and socio-cultural factors that inhibit lawful behavior are significantly minimized and alternatives and incentives are provided that reward self-empowerment toward achieving positive outcomes which benefit the person and society as a whole.  More importantly, it is time to take the profit motive from prosecuting criminal behavior that benefits the courts and the prison industrial complex; of which the latter earns billions of dollars annually in operational revenues and serves the financial interests of vendors and suppliers who provides services to them.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 15, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Weeping in Dallas: The Hate that hate produced

The shooting deaths of five Dallas, Texas police officers by Micah Johnson has produced such raw emotions that it is difficult for most Americans to fully process. President Barack Obama is scheduled to address in a town hall meeting moderated by David Muir of ABC News that will be broadcast live as well as simultaneously live-streamed online starting at 5PM PST. The president will answer questions from the audience and once again start a national conversation about race. This time however it will be different because it will come on the wake of five slain police officers and a Black man specifically looking to kill White police officers (or White people in general??). This tragic event happened during a peaceful demonstration by Black Lives Matter participants whom, as some Whites recently, like former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani have labeled as ‘racist.’ The motivation for the ambush of law enforcement officials is in retaliation for the number of Black men killed by White police officers, and the latest victims being   Alton Sterling of Louisiana and Philandro Castile of Minnesota.

No one can specifically answer the question why the Black communities (esp. Black males) are the target of aggressive policing by law enforcement, and disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system as prison inmates, in juvenile detention, or on felony probation in comparison to any other ethnic or racial group. Why is this so; what is White America so afraid of; why are Blacks such a threat to society? There are published studies by some social scientists suggesting that African-Americans have an inherent “pathology” towards violence and anti-social tendencies. This is patently nonsense, insulting, intellectually dishonest, and it condemns a race of people as nothing more than uncivilized, untamed, wild animals, or at the very least, subhuman. I have another opinion that I would like to offer instead. Oprah Winfrey used to talk about the “new normal” in America after 911, and she was right; but in ways that she couldn’t even imagine. One of the things that was warned about in past generations as far as predicting the future was that this country would evolve into a “police state” with almost unchecked power from law enforcement officials. The terrorist attack on America and the Twin Towers in flames along with the loss of over 3,200 American civilians was the breakout moment in this nation’s history. First responders (fire fighters and police) who risked their lives to save people trapped beneath the rubble, twisted girders, broken glass, and toxic dust became heroes; not just nationally but internationally. They were lauded, and rightly so, with honors and praises befitting the heroes of Greek mythology- like Odysseus, Perseus, Hercules, Achilles, Agamemnon, and others. This also meant, however, that they could do no wrong; at least in the eyes of the public (their worshippers).

Now, let’s take a step back and try to look for some perspective. Since 911 there has been a radical change of attitude and tactics in law enforcement when it pertains to crime prevention; which by the way, had been coming for some time but at a more gradual pace. The approach of community policing (‘Protect and Serve”) of the past has been replaced by military tactics in urban warfare against criminals, much like soldiers fighting enemy combatants in the Middle East (Iraq & Afghanistan). In fact, the growing ranks of police are filled by veterans of the War on Terror, who have served several tours of duty or many wannabees who were somehow disqualified for military service- just saying.  A lot of inner city, urban neighborhoods probably looks like they could be in a war-torn, ravaged and blighted, Third World country. Police patrols ant traffic stops seem like checkpoints by Israeli military from the Palestinian side into the territory of state of Israel in eastern Jerusalem. For all intents and purposes African-Americans might as well be Palestinians because for many, they don’t seem to be treated any better. Just as disaffected Palestinians retaliate the best way they can against what they see as injustice from the government policies and aggressive Israeli military in the beloved land of Israel, then sooner or later frustration boils over into violent reprisals from African-Americans who feel such neglect, despair, and hopelessness.

This reaction does not justify what was done in Dallas or what might be done in the future; nor does it answer the problem but it may help explain it a little. Now, having said all of this I want to wrap things up with a look forward and where to go from here. The “eye for an eye” approach is no solution and all it does is continue the non-ending karmic cycle of violence. Personally, it would not come as a surprise to me that a lot of police officers suffer from PTSD, and I wonder if it has ever been suggested or investigated; and if so it must have been swept under the rug because I haven’t heard anything about it. Anyway, I think probably 9.5 out of 10 police officers bravely serve with honor and distinction; irrespective of the race, religion, ethnic identity, and any other differences in the people they come in contact with. Having said this, there are bad cops and they have to be fired just like there are soldiers who are unfit to wear the uniform and faithfully carry out their duties in violation of the military code of conduct (UCMJ). Just as these individuals are dishonorably discharged from military service, police officers who fail to carry out their jobs to safeguard the public trust without prejudice, then these officers are a disgrace and dishonor the badge/shield they wear, the institution, and their fellow officers.

These men and women have sworn a public oath and are bound by law to that commitment and any violation of such is punishable by law. It is also important for those in the Black community to give the police the benefit of the doubt (initially), like innocent until proven guilty; but I don’t like that last part because it implies “guilt”- you just have to wait long enough until it is revealed or becomes self-evident. There can and must be cooperation between these two camps and I think what they have in common is in the area of, pardon the vernacular, “snitch-bitch.” The Black community doesn’t like anyone to inform on the group to outsiders and the police department doesn’t like to single out ‘rogue’ cops but this practice has to stop if we are going to ever make progress in race relations. It is inherent in every group to want to protect its members but sometimes we have to step outside the box and draw up another paradigm-one that will keep us true to our values and yet at the same time purge the harmful and destructive elements from us. This can be done and it will not happen overnight, but this is America and anything that the people of this country really want to do, nothing can stop us from getting it done.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 13, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg takes on Donald Trump

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the feisty octogenarian Supreme Court Justice, in an unprecedented breach of protocol and tradition, made unflattering remarks about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. “The Donald” who has never met a criticism that he didn’t like and take personally, In true form Donald Trump tweeted, "Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!" The thing is, though, Justice Ginsberg has every right as a citizen to say whatever she wants as long as it doesn’t involve any legal situation before the Court that involves Donald Trump. Besides, didn’t the late Justice Scalia make comments about persons or policies he was in disagreement with? Donald Trump is so predictable and behaves like a kid in a kindergarten playground reacting to being picked on or teased by other children than a man who might one day sit in the Oval Office. Elizabeth Warren calls Donald Trump “insecure” and Hillary Clinton echoed the same thing during one of her rallies by saying that Trump doesn’t have the “temperament” to be president. She went on to say that Donald Trump is someone that cannot be entrusted with the nuclear launch codes.

The way Donald Trump behaves it not only seems un-presidential and lacking statesmanship but based on some of his actions or statements,  he shows an ignorance of the Constitution that as president, he is sworn by oath to preserve, protect, and defend. Not only that, but imagine if some world leader were to say something that a president Trump didn’t like, as insults will surely come, will we be entering the “War of Armageddon” at long last? Some leaders in Congress, such as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, think that Donald Trump will bite his tongue and change his tone as the Convention nears but the brouhaha with Justice Ginsberg sees no sign of relent or retreat from the wrath of Donald. I think Justice Ginsberg is right on point and New Zealand might just be far enough away to escape the mushroom cloud of a nuclear holocaust after president Trump pushes that “Red” button.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 13, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

FBI Director James Comey gives Hillary Clinton free pass to the Oval Office

I never thought in my wildest imagination that there would be agreement between me and WA Post syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, but sadly it’s true. In the July 8, 2016 edition of the Tacoma News Tribune was an Op-Ed by him titled, “Why the FBI director let Clinton off the hook” that was quite compelling in making the case for, if not a cover-up, then some kind of political influence or maleficence. But before getting too far into the issue, the first thing to do is look at the federal laws that Hillary Clinton assumedly violated.

Secion 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that: Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.

18 U.S. Code § 793 (f/1)  - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through “gross negligence” permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed. Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

NOTE: The statute in this section, which applies to Hillary’s emails, does not require “intention.”

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either “intentionally” or in a “grossly negligent” way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time. Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were “extremely careless” in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

NOTE: Isn’t “extremely careless” and “grossly negligent” the same or equivalent thing, legally speaking?

Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. Opinions are irrelevant, only facts matter. Comey cited a lack of precedence in charging someone under similar circumstances, saying his bureau could not find a single case in which a person was charged with crimes for similar actions.

 

> End of FBI Detector James Comey's comments

 

Oh, really, what about the following:

Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband.

Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material: Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pled guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials during stints in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. Here’s the money quote from the AP – “An FBI search of Nishimura’s home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.” The exact words used to clear Hillary of her misdeeds. Instead, Nishimura was sentenced to two years’ probation, fined $7,500, and had to surrender his security clearance. Meanwhile, Clinton will be able to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Low Level Submarine Shipmate Prosecuted for Less Serious Crime than Clinton: Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier allegedly used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation. He was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice.

Marine Corps. Major Caught Sending Classified Documents to Superiors Using Personal Email: Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps when he “accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified.” According to the report, Brezler was “in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account.”

Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”

State Dept. Official Steals Classified Docs:  Donald Willis Keyser earned over a year in prison when he “pled guilty to a three-count Criminal Information in which he admitted that he willfully and unlawfully removed classified documents and digital memory devices from the Department of State to his residence.” United States Attorney Chuck Rosenberg stated that Keyser “had an absolute obligation to safeguard the classified information entrusted to him and utterly failed to do so.

So, after the abundance to the contrary and legal statutes notwithstanding, one can only speculate as to why Director Comey did not recommend indicting Hillary Clinton to Attorney general Loretta Lynch, and did the seemingly serendipitous meeting between the AG and hubby Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, AZ, have something to do with the legal outcome; or was this an inside job and the outcome already decided? Hillary Clinton is on the verge of making history and who would want to be the individual to derail the nomination and election of the first female president of the United States? Well, I guess after it is all said and done, this power couple may be the only husband and wife political tag team with matching towels in the master bathroom of their Chappaqua, NY mansion embroidered with:

                      HIS                                                          HERS
Indicted but never convicted                           Investigated but never
                                                                                prosecuted

 

 Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 12, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

The deadly shooting in Dallas: Symptomatic of a nation in crisis?

The shooting deaths of four Dallas police and one transit officer has shocked the nation as never before. This is the single loss of life by law enforcement since 911, but the circumstances are entirely different in scope and purpose. This brazen and unprovoked attack on police officials happened ironically, during a peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstration. The reason for the attack was based on the lone gunman’s displeasure over the recent shooting deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philandro Castile of Minnesota by White police officers. Dallas police cornered the gunman in a parking garage and after negotiations with the police failed, the decision was made to send in a robotic device armed with an explosive and detonate it near the suspect; finally bring an end to a day filled with tragedy, horror, suffering, pain, and death.

Of course, when an incident like this happens there are so many questions but few answers. Predictably also, are the recriminations and playing the blame game; as well as fanning the flames of social unrest. So where does one start in the dialogue? Let me get right to the point, then. To all the good and well-meaning participants of the Black Lives Matter movement, it’s time for a reality check- “BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER” to the majority of Americans who are not Black. I mean, how many mixed ethnicities do you see at the BLM rallies except Whites, who always seem to join up with these kind of anti-establishment, peace, civil/gay rights or countercultural movements or protests. Where are Asian citizens, Middle Eastern, Eastern or Northern Europeans, Latinos, Jewish, Muslim, and others? If they are among those who want to fight injustice either their presence is quite small or the news cameras do not show them in any significant number.

Anyway, it’s time to cut to the chase. To put it bluntly, Blacks in America have no “leverage” that can be used to influence or challenge the institutions of power in America to their benefit. In Marxian terms, African-Americans do not control the “factors of production” or the allocation of resources in this country. What would happen if Canadian males were victims of excessive use of force leading to their deaths in their encounters with the police? Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the United States, so the Canadian government would simply retaliate by cutting back on selling oil to us. Different scenario: Chinese men were treated the same way as African-American men as far as profiling, traffic stops or any other encounters with police resulting with a loss of life- what would happen? China is the largest purchaser of U.S. Treasuries they would retaliate and simply dump them on the market; resulting in trillions of dollars in losses and literally sinking the American economy. It would hurt China too, but I think it would hurt us more by creating a deep recession and depression that would take years to recover from. So, do you see where I am going with this?

There is a saying, “Perception is Reality” but the truth is that what is really real just might be other than what one believes or experienced on a personal level. President Barack Obama sees America as progressing in the right way but Civil Rights icon Georgia Congressman John Lewis sees it differently. To him, American seems to be sliding back from all the social advances that came about over the last forty years or so. Given the choice between the two opinions I defer to Congressman Lewis.  At the time that Congressman Lewis was being mistreated by angry mobs of Whites in The South, Barry Obama was probably eating coconuts and smoking marijuana with his teenage friends in Hawaii. So, where do we go from here? Please, not another summit or panel of law enforcement officials and leaders from the Black community; or sociologists, mental health professionals, or clergy urging us to pray (again); or even an appeal for peace by Beyonce and Jay-Z. Hillary Clinton mentioned that Whit people need to try to understand about the challenges and issues that Blacks face, but it is an introspection that she doesn’t practice herself. I mean, she only cares about Black Lives Matter to the extent that it means votes for her; it’s the votes that matter, not necessarily the people casting them. I do however, agree with Hillary’s point but not the lack of sincerity and broad smile in which she echoed those words. The question really is, “What kind of America do we, and especially the majority of White people want- one married by violence, racial injustice and social inequality?” Do we want to make America, not great again as envisioned by Donald Trump; but greater than she has ever been? Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once said, “You don’t go to war with the military that you wish you had but with the one that you have.” So, in closing, do we as citizens of the United States, go into a bright, prosperous and glorious future with optimism, hope, living up to our high ideals as the greatest nation on earth? Will we soar to the heights or descend down into the abyss of hatred and violence? The choice is ours to make; all of us not just some of us.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701

Tacoma, WA 98402

July 11, 2016

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Gay rights organizations target Christian Universities

In the July 2016 edition of The Christian Chronicle, reporter Bobby Ross Jr wrote an interesting article about the LGBTQ community wanting to put religious colleges on the “shame” list. It seems that these activists want to punish these institutions for their standing firm on traditional Biblical beliefs on sexuality and gender identity. They want the federal government to revoke Pell Grants and for the NCAA to expel these schools from their ranks because of their faith. Although the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling on same-sex marriage being legal the matter is a little more complicated when it pertains to the sacred (religious) as opposed to the secular. The following is offered for consideration:

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (1972) prohibits discrimination based on “sex” and it was ‘originally’ intended to protect females from differential treatment in the field of education [esp. sports activities]. The legislation, as it is currently interpreted does not apply to someone who “self-identifies” as a particular gender or no gender at all. The law would have to be amended to include “gendered/non-gendered” persons for it to be legally enforceable; and even then, it would indemnify Christian or other religious institutions. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise [of religion] thereof.  Any Christian organization, parochial school or institute of higher learning engaging in the functioning of their responsibility, in practicing and teaching their religious traditions in faithful commitment to the Bible as the inspired word of God is protected under the Constitution.

This is not to ignore the fact that some individuals among the community of faith are not welcoming to LGBTQ individuals and show extreme intolerance, bigotry, discrimination, and the love of Jesus Christ is certainly absent in their behaviors. Having admitted this, though, any believer has the right to express whatever they feel but the institution itself cannot be blamed for the actions of a few misguided, insecure, neurotic, over-zealous, and fanatical troublemakers. Be that as it may, one’s religious convictions cannot be ignored as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case. In June 2013 the nation’s highest Court upheld the ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision the Justices agreed that co-founders David and Barbara Green were not required to provide against their religious beliefs (practices) insurance coverage for prescription drugs or medical devices that could be used by female employees who wanted to get an abortion. The green’s argued, and quite successfully I might add, that forcing them to include the provision in the company insurance plan “substantially” burdened their religious belief in violation of federal law- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

RFRA (1993??), passed into law by Congress, prohibits any government agency, department, or official of the United States or any State government from “substantially” burdening a person’s exercise of religion – even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, “except” the government may burden a person’s exercise of religion “only” if it demonstrates [can demonstrate] that the application of the burden to the person [organization/institution??]

·         furthers a compelling government interest [NOTE: not the same thing as ‘substantial’ as it pertains to a “suspect class];

·         and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, I believe Justice Breyer opined, “Americans do not lose their religious freedom when they run a family business.” So, if Christian owners of a business that has a secular activity can be protected from government intrusion under RFRA [and the First Amendment . . . emphasis mine], then what about the same should be for Christian and all other institutions whose activities serve a religious function?  To punish these schools or threaten with punitive action, when as with Antigone by the poet Sophocles, one must be guided by a higher law [law of conscience or to deity], would be obscene indeed, and not worthy of our founding principles.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 6, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com