Almost everyone who has ever picked up a comic book is familiar with the origin of “Batman.” The story of the ‘Caped Crusader’ is one of the most compelling in all the history of superhero stories, starting back around 1946 in Detective Comics [later “DC comics”] where a young boy of around the age of eight years old watches both his parents get robbed and murdered before his very eyes. The criminal named “Jack” who pulls the trigger sets in motion a series of events after sparing the life of the youthful eyewitness to the crime sets both of them on a collision course later in life. Jack become head of a crime syndicate as the “Joker” and Bruce Wayne dedicated the rest of his life to fighting crime. Batman was driven by a sense of justice, moral integrity or fairness, and a real hero, not someone seeking revenge or retribution; although his feelings about the Joker may be the exception to the rule.
Several actors have played the character of Batman on the big screen, including Michael Keaton, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, and Christian Bale and Adam West starred in the late 1960’s television series, still, none of them quite captured the essence of the man Bruce Wayne or his alter ego. Batman did not have super powers like his friend from the planet Krypton named Kal-El (Superman) or the Amazonian goddess Wonder Woman but his leadership served as a role model for others and was the ultimate team player. The noble ‘Caped Crusader’ of the past has morphed over the decades into The Dark Knight. It is as though Bruce Wayne suffers from a Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde multiple personality disorder, schizophrenia, and he is a brooding loner trying to exorcise his inner demons, keeping people at a distance, and someone who doesn’t always explains his actions or feel the need to do so. This Batman doesn’t trust anyone, even those closest friends who he has known the longest. Sometimes it is hard to tell if this Batman is one of the ‘good buys’ because more often than not, he blurs the line between protecting the public good and outright criminality. Batman seems to operate just ‘outside’ the law and in some ways he is no better than the character known as “The Punisher,” who is solely driven by revenge for the mob killing of his family and he makes no apology about it.
DC Comics have created a “batty” man instead of portraying the original Batman and Hollywood has taken it to the next level with the visual and sound effects that can only be reproduced on the big screen with unmatched quality and effectiveness. The thing though, is that such graphical imagery stimulate a part of the brain, perhaps the lower reptilian one or causes the secretion of brain chemicals such that it can serve as a trigger for someone who my already have a disconnect with reality or is at a borderline threshold between sane and insane, who is enticed into the latter and commits acts that to his mind is a blur between what is real on one hand and imaginary on the other. And while the movie industry or comic book illustrators or their publishers are not liable for the behavior of some disturbed individual yet thoughtful consideration must be given to whatever is presented to the public has to be done in such a way that it does not explicitly or implicitly influence anyone to act out a role that leads to hurtful or deadly outcomes. Such was the case with James Holmes who planned and carried out one of the most horrific crimes of domestic terrorism in recent years when he shot and killed about a dozen and wounded nearly fifty others at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado last week. Ironically, it was thirteen years ago that the massacre happened at Columbine High School that shocked the nation, which is about fifteen miles away.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 25, 2012
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Dr. Drew’s Life Changers segment on “Spanking”
Dear Dr. Drew:
I watched the segment on "Spanking" yesterday (July 24, 2012) and found it one of the more honest and sometime spirited discussions on television. I will get right to the point and state that all your guests were right and it is unfortunately that none of them appeared to see it. There are instances in which a 'spanking' is disciplinary and at other times it is abuse. There are children who will learn without receiving a spanking and others that no amount of spankings will do any good, except for the negatives that you and your other professional colleagues cited based upon years of clinical research. For those parents who spank their children this form of discipline is almost always used as the first resort instead of the last, with very few other options or alternatives. It is usually administered when one is angry, frustrated, irritated, tired, upset and is more punishment than corrective. It is usually accompanied by yelling, screaming or fussing and meted out in a wrathful fury.
Glozell and pastor Michael Pearl talked about the Biblical statement of "spare the rod" but it also says, "Train up a child in the way he/she should go" and this is NOT the same training one does with animals. If the Bible were written today the statements about a child might very well include putting the child on a "time out" as well as "negative reinforcement" (withdrawing privileges). What must be taken into account and you hit the nail right on the head Dr. Drew is when you mentioned about the environment in which the Bible was written came out of a warfare culture and people were disciplined in order to fit within the society that they were a part of. Also, the African-American professor's comments I found to be the 'least' credible because he, like so many others in the Black community and White apologists keep blaming everything on slavery to account for problems within Black families, especially with disciplining Black males. For one thing, slavery hasn't been practice in the U. S. for nearly 235 years and is too remote to be used as an excuse today.
I believe it is true that inflicting physical pain in the form of discipline does affect the chemistry of the brain along with physical/mental development and social skills and a child might start lying as well as terrorize others more vulnerable in the form of bullying, teasing, pranks, fighting or others forms of aggressive behavior including inflicting pain or harming [torturing] animals and insects. A child needs to hear more positives than the negatives such as don’t, can’t, etc, and the data suggests that while growing up the ratio of negatives to positives are astoundingly high [thousands to one]. A parent has to let their child know they are wanted and to feel safe and loved as well as hugged on occasion. Sadly, for many children the only time there is physical touching is when they are grabbed by the hand or arm for doing something wrong or breaking the rules.
As a final point, I found it most amusing at first, then later I was offended at Glozell because she was the most vocal person, rude, impatient, discourteous, disrespectful and the most animated when it comes to raising and disciplining children- that she doesn’t have any herself. My message to her is this: “How can you tell someone else how to raise a child or be a parent if you are not one?” Oh, by the way, I am a parent and know from which I speak [or write in this case].
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 25, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Saturday, March 10, 2012
A pill that will cure racism?
Dr. Sylvia Terbeck and her colleagues at Oxford University conducted a clinical study, which was recently published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology that “Propranolol,” which works to combat high blood pressure, anxiety, migraines, and a number of heart ailments, affects the same part of the central nervous system that regulates subconscious attitudes on race. Needless to say, these findings have created a lot of buzz on the internet as well as some activity among those in the medical community. There is concern among ethical issues raised by the use of medication to modulate or control human behavior; but wait, don’t we have doctors writing out prescriptions for drugs that our local pharmacist gladly fills that does the same thing anyway? Dr. Chris Chambers of Cardiff University School of Psychology postulates whether the drug influenced racial attitudes only or alters implicit brain systems more generally; especially reducing the heart rate.
Some have questioned the validity of the test because all the participants were White males. Experimental psychologist Sylvia Terbeck and her team gave two groups of 18 volunteers either a placebo or a dose of propranolol, then put them through a battery of tests designed to gauge racism, such as matching "positive and negative words and pictures of black and white individuals on a computer screen." More than a third of the propranolol takers scored negative, meaning they showed little subconscious racial bias; none of the placebo-takers [White??] scored negative. It seems that when one experiences anxiety and panic, the heart rate increases, stimulating a region in the brain called the amygdala; which processes emotions, including fear. The Oxford team posits that racism is tied to fear, so inhibiting the amygdala suppresses racist urges. However, Terbeck cautions that the drug had no measurable effect on "explicit racial bias." This seems to mean that although propranolol can alleviate or lessen the symptoms of stress and anxiety bylowerng blood pressure and heart rate, makng a person feel calmer, less intense and more subdued, it does not however, change overt racist attitudes or behavior.
According to one of the online posts, “This medication is a common Beta blocker. It has been in use for quite a while. It has shown excellent results to settle the effects of Traumatic stress. It is used to help individuals with PTSD be able to talk about what previously caused too much anxiety. Since racism is a conception based on stereotypes and generalizations which has with it an implicit anxiety, it is not surprising that it helps people with their subtle fears and phobias as they are related to [matters of] race.” Also, there was an interesting online comment that mentioned about the high numbers of African Americans who suffer from the symptoms of high blood pressure than any other ethnic group, so are they subconscious ‘racists’? Looking at the matter realistically, in all due respects to Dr. Terbeck and her esteemed Oxford research team, the test subjects could have been given a battery of tests where a strong emotional response other than racial bias could have been the end result; thereby stimulating the “amygdala.” Be that as it may, since race seems to get so much attention, I agree with the person who posited, “Do you have a pill to make people [us] forget all about race”?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 9, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Some have questioned the validity of the test because all the participants were White males. Experimental psychologist Sylvia Terbeck and her team gave two groups of 18 volunteers either a placebo or a dose of propranolol, then put them through a battery of tests designed to gauge racism, such as matching "positive and negative words and pictures of black and white individuals on a computer screen." More than a third of the propranolol takers scored negative, meaning they showed little subconscious racial bias; none of the placebo-takers [White??] scored negative. It seems that when one experiences anxiety and panic, the heart rate increases, stimulating a region in the brain called the amygdala; which processes emotions, including fear. The Oxford team posits that racism is tied to fear, so inhibiting the amygdala suppresses racist urges. However, Terbeck cautions that the drug had no measurable effect on "explicit racial bias." This seems to mean that although propranolol can alleviate or lessen the symptoms of stress and anxiety bylowerng blood pressure and heart rate, makng a person feel calmer, less intense and more subdued, it does not however, change overt racist attitudes or behavior.
According to one of the online posts, “This medication is a common Beta blocker. It has been in use for quite a while. It has shown excellent results to settle the effects of Traumatic stress. It is used to help individuals with PTSD be able to talk about what previously caused too much anxiety. Since racism is a conception based on stereotypes and generalizations which has with it an implicit anxiety, it is not surprising that it helps people with their subtle fears and phobias as they are related to [matters of] race.” Also, there was an interesting online comment that mentioned about the high numbers of African Americans who suffer from the symptoms of high blood pressure than any other ethnic group, so are they subconscious ‘racists’? Looking at the matter realistically, in all due respects to Dr. Terbeck and her esteemed Oxford research team, the test subjects could have been given a battery of tests where a strong emotional response other than racial bias could have been the end result; thereby stimulating the “amygdala.” Be that as it may, since race seems to get so much attention, I agree with the person who posited, “Do you have a pill to make people [us] forget all about race”?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 9, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
K-Mart Manager shot in robbery attempt
A lone gunman entered the Aurora Avenue North K-Mart store (Seattle, WA) on Saturday, February 25, 2012, near closing time, found a place to hide and waited until the store was nearly empty before he went to the office at the back of the store, and after brandishing a handgun, demanded money from the safe. According to the police report, the store manager, assistant manager and a clerk were the only remaining persons in the office. This happened around 9: 07 PM, which was only minutes after the store closed at 9: 00PM. Afterwards, it seems that the store manager and robber wrestled with one another and the manager got shot in the chest. The struggle continued between the two and moved to the front of the store where the manager, though critically wounded, was able to knock the gun out of the robber’s hand. In the meantime, the clerk dialed 911 the assistant manager was able to retrieve the firearm and ran outside, awaiting the arrival of police officers. The store manager was taken to Harborview Medical Center where he underwent surgery to remove his spleen and is scheduled for another surgery, but he is in stable condition as of Sunday morning, according to the police.
This is a relatively positive outcome from what could have been a much worse scenario, but some serious questions need to be asked, namely, what is the corporate policy regarding what is the responsible behavior or guidelines recommended when confronted with someone who robs the store and carries a firearm; is the employee to resist or not? Did the manager give the robber money from the safe as he requested, and then have reason to fear, by way of direct threat, implication or body language that the gunman was going to shoot him and his subordinates anyway? If such was the case then his struggle with the robber might have been justified, if not to protect himself, then at the very least to preoccupy the robber so that the others could perhaps get to safety and call the police.
It is curious that this incident happened within such a short time window (seven minutes) because there are usually customers in most retail stores after closing time as well as hourly workers and department managers who still have work to do. When the store closes managers make a final inspection of their departments and throughout the store and check for any thing out of the ordinary, so the robber must have found a really good hiding place. This is in addition to all the hidden cameras strategically placed in the store which are monitored by Asset Protection (store security), which is usually staffed by more than one person so it would be interesting to know what surveillance footage found; or more importantly, how the person was able to evade a system that costs the store thousands of dollars (including personnel) on a monthly basis; which apparently failed in this case. No doubt there will be an internal investigation, as there should be, and some kind of changes will be made at this store to prevent a future recurrence of this type of unfortunate incident from happening again.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 28, 2012
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
This is a relatively positive outcome from what could have been a much worse scenario, but some serious questions need to be asked, namely, what is the corporate policy regarding what is the responsible behavior or guidelines recommended when confronted with someone who robs the store and carries a firearm; is the employee to resist or not? Did the manager give the robber money from the safe as he requested, and then have reason to fear, by way of direct threat, implication or body language that the gunman was going to shoot him and his subordinates anyway? If such was the case then his struggle with the robber might have been justified, if not to protect himself, then at the very least to preoccupy the robber so that the others could perhaps get to safety and call the police.
It is curious that this incident happened within such a short time window (seven minutes) because there are usually customers in most retail stores after closing time as well as hourly workers and department managers who still have work to do. When the store closes managers make a final inspection of their departments and throughout the store and check for any thing out of the ordinary, so the robber must have found a really good hiding place. This is in addition to all the hidden cameras strategically placed in the store which are monitored by Asset Protection (store security), which is usually staffed by more than one person so it would be interesting to know what surveillance footage found; or more importantly, how the person was able to evade a system that costs the store thousands of dollars (including personnel) on a monthly basis; which apparently failed in this case. No doubt there will be an internal investigation, as there should be, and some kind of changes will be made at this store to prevent a future recurrence of this type of unfortunate incident from happening again.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 28, 2012
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Bill and Monica: The President and the Intern
The recent PBS documentary on former President Bill Clinton brought back memories of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Linda Tripp and who can forget a starry-eyed twenty-one year old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. The ensuing political intrigue, controversy, sex-lies and blue dress [will it be sold on eBay or donated to “The Smithsonian Museum” after being dry-cleaned?], as well as cast of characters is a Hollywood director’s and screenwriters dream-come-true. For First Lady Hillary Rodham-Clinton and Daughter Chelsea it was the painful public humiliation and betrayal of trust. Looking back on that time, it seems everyone came out of it relatively unscathed; that is, except poor “femme fatale” Monica Lewinsky, who had to leave America and take up residency in England. President Clinton has a private global Foundation in his honor which he runs; Hillary Clinton became a Senator from New York, and is currently Secretary of State in the Obama Administration; and Chelsea Clinton practically gets anything she wants.
Loyalty has its rewards except when it comes to former “Valley Girl” Monica Lewinsky, who could have profited financially by writing a tell-all book about her ‘tryst’ with President Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton. However, one should not feel too sorry for Ms. Lewinsky because she was a former spokesperson for "Jenny Craig" and obtained a Masters degree in Social Psychology, and was an entrepreneur for awhile by launching a line of stylish handbags, but interest in them dried up and she went out of business. Nowadays, Monica manages to find available employment and lives in London in various condominiums owned by family friends and doubtless has an active social life. As a final thought, former President Clinton apologized to the country in 1998 after his impeachment hearing and took some degree of responsibility for his inappropriate actions but hopefully he also apologized to Ms. Lewinsky, who, at the time was an impressionable young woman, who noticed a man occupying the world’s most powerful elected office checking her out, and the temptation was just too great to say no to; even if she knew better.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 22, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Loyalty has its rewards except when it comes to former “Valley Girl” Monica Lewinsky, who could have profited financially by writing a tell-all book about her ‘tryst’ with President Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton. However, one should not feel too sorry for Ms. Lewinsky because she was a former spokesperson for "Jenny Craig" and obtained a Masters degree in Social Psychology, and was an entrepreneur for awhile by launching a line of stylish handbags, but interest in them dried up and she went out of business. Nowadays, Monica manages to find available employment and lives in London in various condominiums owned by family friends and doubtless has an active social life. As a final thought, former President Clinton apologized to the country in 1998 after his impeachment hearing and took some degree of responsibility for his inappropriate actions but hopefully he also apologized to Ms. Lewinsky, who, at the time was an impressionable young woman, who noticed a man occupying the world’s most powerful elected office checking her out, and the temptation was just too great to say no to; even if she knew better.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 22, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Is the anger over expensive gasoline prices somewhat one-sided?
The anger and frustration that car owners feel over the price of gas when they fill up at the pump doesn’t really tell the whole story. An internet search reveals some interesting facts about whether or not OPEC (specifically, Saudi Arabia) and the big oil companies have the consumer, “over a barrel” (pardon the pun,). The top fifteen countries that primarily feed nearly half of America’s 18.7 mbbl a day oil addiction (2011) are listed below in the following:
1. CANADA 2,157,000 bbl/daily
2. SAUDI ARABIA 1,180,000 bbl/daily
3. MEXICO 1,113,000 bbl/daily
4. VENEZUELA 893,000 bbl/daily
5. NIGERIA 826,000 bbl/daily
6. IRAQ 473,000 bbl/daily
7. COLOMBIA 364,000 bbl/daily
8. ANGOLA 323,000 bbl/daily
9. RUSSIA 246,000 bbl/daily
10. BRAZIL 225,000 bbl/daily
11. ECUADOR 203,000 bbl/daily
12. KUWAIT 164,000 bbl/daily
13. ALGERIA 204,000 bbl/daily
14. CHAD 54,000 bbl/daily
15. OMAN 39,000 bbl/daily
TOTAL 8,464,000 bbl/daily
Also, add to the fact that a typical 42 gallon barrel of oil only yields approximately 19.4 gallons of oil. The first 4 gallons are from straight-refining and the remainder is from a process called “cracking” which breaks the long hydrocarbon molecular chains into shorter and lighter ones of which the remaining extra 15 gallons can then be extracted. The price for a barrel of oil is set on the international markets by spot traders, commodities brokers and futures contracts who inflate the “real” cost on a barrel of crude oil by roughly fifty percent. Let’s say the cost at the pump is $3.50/gallon X 19.4 gallons=$67.90, and subtracting that amount from $100.00 (est. ppb crude oil) =$32.10; with the remaining 22.6 gallons to be refined into thousands of consumer products and goods, many of which we use every day. The thing that is not known is how much does it cost to refine each barrel of oil into gasoline and other petroleum by-products and how is the price at the pump determined, and by what organization or regulatory agency?
So, while all the outrage is over how much it costs at the gas station but what about the high prices at the grocery, hardware, department and sporting goods stores? Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil day each and some of the 6,000 products derived from crude oil are: Ballpoint Pens, Soap, Perfumes, Shower Curtains, Telephones, Detergents, Toothbrushes, Crayons, Shampoo, CD's & DVD's, Hand Lotion, Aspirin, Paint, Shoes, Panty Hose, Deodorant, Antihistamines, Clothing, Rubbing Alcohol, Umbrellas, Mops, Food Preservatives, Tool Boxes, Insecticides, Lipstick, Toilet Seats, Trash Bags, Electric Blankets, Shower Curtains, Luggage, Shag Rugs, Motorcycle/Football Helmets, Tennis Racket, Football, Basketball, ad infinitim.
Ironically, domestic oil production in the United States for 2010 was between 5.5 mbbl/daily and 9.688 mbbl/daily (est.), with exports to Mexico, Latin America and an OPEC country (Ecuador) of 1.92 mbbl/daily as of 2009.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 21, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
1. CANADA 2,157,000 bbl/daily
2. SAUDI ARABIA 1,180,000 bbl/daily
3. MEXICO 1,113,000 bbl/daily
4. VENEZUELA 893,000 bbl/daily
5. NIGERIA 826,000 bbl/daily
6. IRAQ 473,000 bbl/daily
7. COLOMBIA 364,000 bbl/daily
8. ANGOLA 323,000 bbl/daily
9. RUSSIA 246,000 bbl/daily
10. BRAZIL 225,000 bbl/daily
11. ECUADOR 203,000 bbl/daily
12. KUWAIT 164,000 bbl/daily
13. ALGERIA 204,000 bbl/daily
14. CHAD 54,000 bbl/daily
15. OMAN 39,000 bbl/daily
TOTAL 8,464,000 bbl/daily
Also, add to the fact that a typical 42 gallon barrel of oil only yields approximately 19.4 gallons of oil. The first 4 gallons are from straight-refining and the remainder is from a process called “cracking” which breaks the long hydrocarbon molecular chains into shorter and lighter ones of which the remaining extra 15 gallons can then be extracted. The price for a barrel of oil is set on the international markets by spot traders, commodities brokers and futures contracts who inflate the “real” cost on a barrel of crude oil by roughly fifty percent. Let’s say the cost at the pump is $3.50/gallon X 19.4 gallons=$67.90, and subtracting that amount from $100.00 (est. ppb crude oil) =$32.10; with the remaining 22.6 gallons to be refined into thousands of consumer products and goods, many of which we use every day. The thing that is not known is how much does it cost to refine each barrel of oil into gasoline and other petroleum by-products and how is the price at the pump determined, and by what organization or regulatory agency?
So, while all the outrage is over how much it costs at the gas station but what about the high prices at the grocery, hardware, department and sporting goods stores? Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil day each and some of the 6,000 products derived from crude oil are: Ballpoint Pens, Soap, Perfumes, Shower Curtains, Telephones, Detergents, Toothbrushes, Crayons, Shampoo, CD's & DVD's, Hand Lotion, Aspirin, Paint, Shoes, Panty Hose, Deodorant, Antihistamines, Clothing, Rubbing Alcohol, Umbrellas, Mops, Food Preservatives, Tool Boxes, Insecticides, Lipstick, Toilet Seats, Trash Bags, Electric Blankets, Shower Curtains, Luggage, Shag Rugs, Motorcycle/Football Helmets, Tennis Racket, Football, Basketball, ad infinitim.
Ironically, domestic oil production in the United States for 2010 was between 5.5 mbbl/daily and 9.688 mbbl/daily (est.), with exports to Mexico, Latin America and an OPEC country (Ecuador) of 1.92 mbbl/daily as of 2009.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 21, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, February 3, 2012
Response to Dr. Claire Brindis' sugar tax suggestion
Dear Dr. Brindis (UCSF):
I was listening to TALK Radio station KOMO NEWS, 1000AM in Tacoma, WA on Friday, February 3, 2012, and the moderator John Carlson was discussing with you and then later on with other listeners about the merit of taxing sugar. I did not call in to the show but I want to share with you my thoughts on the matter. First of all, the harmful effects [toxicity, addiction, etc.] from refined sugar and artificial sweeteners have been debated for the last twenty or thirty years; maybe longer. I do agree with the scientists and researchers who are alarmed about the over-consumption of sugar by Americans, roughly three times more annually per person than it was a generation ago. I am a sugar-holic who consumes more sugar than I should, and my maternal Aunt died from diabetes while undergoing dialysis treatments. I use sweets for self-medication due to boredom and depression since I am unemployed, and drawing an early pension before I qualify for SSI in a couple of years. I have one of those free blood glucose test kits and used it a few months ago and my results do not indicate I am a diabetic but high enough to be concerned about becoming hypoglycemic. Anyway, I must admit that I am addicted to sweets, especially cookies with HFCS, which causes me to crave them such that I can devour a three roll package in 3 days or less; and don't get me started on anything containing honey because I can give the bees a run for their money (smile).
I could go on and on but I digress from the main point, namely, that taxing sugar products is not the answer. Such legislation would not benefit consumers [addicts, yes addicts] like me because we would still buy these items at the higher price. I wonder if you and your colleagues have considered the extent to what products contain refined sugar or artificial sweetener. It all starts in infancy when our mothers put us on a diet of sugar-containing [artificial sweetener] baby products from decades ago, like SIMILAC, ENFAMIL, Gerber, Heinz, etc. Just think of all the breakfast cereal, desserts, fruit drinks, liquid medicines, confectioneries, breads, crackers, vegetables, meats, condiments [ketchup, salad dressing, etc.] and other items found on grocery shelves that contain some kind of artificial sweetener, including high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which has been suspected as affecting the adrenal glands just like sugar. So, "what is the answer, you may ask?" Well, perhaps the best place to start is requiring those companies who have products which contain sugar or artificial sweetener to lower the concentration or amount they put in, or eliminate the use altogether. Not everything has to contain sugar to taste good. Also, as it is with some breakfast cereals, why does a manufactures include sugar, brown sugar, honey, high fructose corn syrup, raisin paste, maple syrup, and molasses at the same time? Those companies, who offer alternative, natural sweeteners like fruit juice or evaporated cane juice (??), prune juice or raisin paste should receive some form of tax credit from the federal government.
Anyway, I thought I would contact you and encourage you and your colleagues to be the voice for those of us who are struggling with this problem, and things have gotten to the point now where the slightest morsel which contains sugar gives me a pretty significant headache. I wish you success in persuading members of the various State Legislatures and Congress to ignore the lobbyists and funding from the powerful sugar refiners, manufacturers and their PAC's for favorable subsidies and price controls, and instead, pass into Law a Bill that would help us overcome being victims of a lifestyle obsessed with consuming empty calories, which invariably lead to obesity, cancer or diabetes.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
I was listening to TALK Radio station KOMO NEWS, 1000AM in Tacoma, WA on Friday, February 3, 2012, and the moderator John Carlson was discussing with you and then later on with other listeners about the merit of taxing sugar. I did not call in to the show but I want to share with you my thoughts on the matter. First of all, the harmful effects [toxicity, addiction, etc.] from refined sugar and artificial sweeteners have been debated for the last twenty or thirty years; maybe longer. I do agree with the scientists and researchers who are alarmed about the over-consumption of sugar by Americans, roughly three times more annually per person than it was a generation ago. I am a sugar-holic who consumes more sugar than I should, and my maternal Aunt died from diabetes while undergoing dialysis treatments. I use sweets for self-medication due to boredom and depression since I am unemployed, and drawing an early pension before I qualify for SSI in a couple of years. I have one of those free blood glucose test kits and used it a few months ago and my results do not indicate I am a diabetic but high enough to be concerned about becoming hypoglycemic. Anyway, I must admit that I am addicted to sweets, especially cookies with HFCS, which causes me to crave them such that I can devour a three roll package in 3 days or less; and don't get me started on anything containing honey because I can give the bees a run for their money (smile).
I could go on and on but I digress from the main point, namely, that taxing sugar products is not the answer. Such legislation would not benefit consumers [addicts, yes addicts] like me because we would still buy these items at the higher price. I wonder if you and your colleagues have considered the extent to what products contain refined sugar or artificial sweetener. It all starts in infancy when our mothers put us on a diet of sugar-containing [artificial sweetener] baby products from decades ago, like SIMILAC, ENFAMIL, Gerber, Heinz, etc. Just think of all the breakfast cereal, desserts, fruit drinks, liquid medicines, confectioneries, breads, crackers, vegetables, meats, condiments [ketchup, salad dressing, etc.] and other items found on grocery shelves that contain some kind of artificial sweetener, including high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which has been suspected as affecting the adrenal glands just like sugar. So, "what is the answer, you may ask?" Well, perhaps the best place to start is requiring those companies who have products which contain sugar or artificial sweetener to lower the concentration or amount they put in, or eliminate the use altogether. Not everything has to contain sugar to taste good. Also, as it is with some breakfast cereals, why does a manufactures include sugar, brown sugar, honey, high fructose corn syrup, raisin paste, maple syrup, and molasses at the same time? Those companies, who offer alternative, natural sweeteners like fruit juice or evaporated cane juice (??), prune juice or raisin paste should receive some form of tax credit from the federal government.
Anyway, I thought I would contact you and encourage you and your colleagues to be the voice for those of us who are struggling with this problem, and things have gotten to the point now where the slightest morsel which contains sugar gives me a pretty significant headache. I wish you success in persuading members of the various State Legislatures and Congress to ignore the lobbyists and funding from the powerful sugar refiners, manufacturers and their PAC's for favorable subsidies and price controls, and instead, pass into Law a Bill that would help us overcome being victims of a lifestyle obsessed with consuming empty calories, which invariably lead to obesity, cancer or diabetes.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Does Mitt Romney really love America?
You heard it straight from the horse’s mouth. At a time when America is struggling with allegations about class warfare, a candidate for president from a major political party has the audacity to say, “I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there [for them]. You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.” Talk about confusing and contradictory. On the one hand Mitt Romney talks about having such love for this country and on the other hand he seems to want to ignore the very people who need the most help and attention; those American citizens living in the deepest grip of poverty. What safety net does the poor have except that which the federal government provides, because almost all state budgets have significant revenue shortfalls and a few are facing possible defaults. Romney wants to shrink the size of the federal government but this would impact the most vulnerable citizens, namely the poor, who depend on programs funded by the government for their survival. Romney is really out of touch with what is going on in the country because he still believes there is a “middle class” in America, which there isn’t anymore. There are the super-rich, multi-millionaires, upper class [some professional occupations and small business owners], blue collar [includes some working poor], the working poor [includes those whose income and family size meet the federal guidelines for poverty].
Newt Gingrich was criticized during the recent Florida debate about putting a colony on the moon but it seems that Mitt Romney is the ‘real’ space cadet because he is so out of touch with what the average person is struggling with, as some of his past statements demonstrate, in the following:
-- "There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New Hampshire)
-- saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in January)
-- and the ultimate release of his 2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than 15%.
–Also, Romney claims to not having received that much in speaking fees for 2011, only $370,000.
Perhaps Mitt Romney feels about the poor like the French Queen Marie Antoinette of the 1760’s, who, when told “the peasants have no bread” is reputedly to have said, “Then let them eat cake instead;” which was a mixture or paste made from oil and flour scraped from bakery pans called, “the poor man’s bread.” As a final point, when Mitt Ronmey later tried to do damage control over his remarks about the poor, this Bible-believing Mormon must have forgotten the words of Jesus, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matthew 12: 34b
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Newt Gingrich was criticized during the recent Florida debate about putting a colony on the moon but it seems that Mitt Romney is the ‘real’ space cadet because he is so out of touch with what the average person is struggling with, as some of his past statements demonstrate, in the following:
-- "There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New Hampshire)
-- saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in January)
-- and the ultimate release of his 2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than 15%.
–Also, Romney claims to not having received that much in speaking fees for 2011, only $370,000.
Perhaps Mitt Romney feels about the poor like the French Queen Marie Antoinette of the 1760’s, who, when told “the peasants have no bread” is reputedly to have said, “Then let them eat cake instead;” which was a mixture or paste made from oil and flour scraped from bakery pans called, “the poor man’s bread.” As a final point, when Mitt Ronmey later tried to do damage control over his remarks about the poor, this Bible-believing Mormon must have forgotten the words of Jesus, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matthew 12: 34b
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
Is the new X-47B unmanned drone an accident waiting to happen?
LA Times reporter J.W. Hennigan had an article that was featured in the Friday January 27, 2012, Tacoma News Tribune entitled, “Drone may drop bombs without human control.” There is little doubt that the deployment of unmanned, pilotless drones turned the tide in favor of the United States in its “war on terror” by killing almost all the top al-Qaeda leaders as well as crippling the Taliban in Afghanistan. Although this high-tech killing machine is not without its drawbacks because some innocent civilians have mistakenly been targeted as hostile insurgents and lost their lives after the drone unleashed death-dealing missiles and rockets upon their location. Now the Navy is about to test its newest aerial war toy, The X-47B. What makes this drone so remarkable is that it just might have the ability to indiscriminately initiate its own attack protocols without direct human involvement. A human operator would program it with a flight plan and could override its decisions or abort its mission; at least that is the plan in theory. Although this could certainly alter the face of warfare in the modern era but it should also be of great concern to everyone if something goes wrong and a malfunction of the world’s most sophisticated offensive, aerial war machine could prove a grave danger to those along its flight path. In case of such an incident, how soon could the military get control of or destroy a rogue mini-plane roaming the skies, probably flying at Mach speed and out of control, lacking the human capacity to distinguish between friend or foe?
This brings to mind several Sci-fi precedents: The movie, “The Day the World Stood Still” where the space traveler Klatuu mentioned that the United Federation of Planets have given all police duties over to robots like ‘GORT,’ which includes the ability to detect any form of aggressive behavior or hostility [through internal programming and sensors] and act automatically [by artificial intelligence] to completely neutralize any threat [unleashing a disintegration beam or ray through its visor. In the Sci-fi television series, “Star Trek,” Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise was in danger of losing his command to the super computer M-5, which had human-like sentiments (“ingrams”) incorporated into its AI (artificial intelligence) circuitry and it functioned in place of Kirk by making bridge decisions during Starfleet battle simulations. It later malfunctioned by destroying an empty space freighter, which could have contained human occupants, and then it took over the Enterprise. The movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey” where the super-computer ‘HAL’ developed self-awareness [sentience] and took control of the ship. The “Terminator” movies and television’s “Sarah Connor Chronicles” where advancements in computer technology leads to the creation of ‘SKYNET,’ which becomes the harbinger of doom and MAN vs. MACHINE Armageddon by manufacturing and unleashing the prototype cyborg-series terminator robots. The 2010 movie “Stealth” was about an AI (artificial intelligence) super-advanced, pilot-less Stealth fighter plane that went rogue after being struck by lightning.
So, many could argue that such comparisons are unwarranted and concerns to the contrary are mere paranoia because safeguards will be built into this super plane to prevent even the slightest loss of total human control. It is one thing to watch a movie or a television series but all comparisons stop there because fantasy is one thing but reality is quite a different thing altogether.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 27, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
This brings to mind several Sci-fi precedents: The movie, “The Day the World Stood Still” where the space traveler Klatuu mentioned that the United Federation of Planets have given all police duties over to robots like ‘GORT,’ which includes the ability to detect any form of aggressive behavior or hostility [through internal programming and sensors] and act automatically [by artificial intelligence] to completely neutralize any threat [unleashing a disintegration beam or ray through its visor. In the Sci-fi television series, “Star Trek,” Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise was in danger of losing his command to the super computer M-5, which had human-like sentiments (“ingrams”) incorporated into its AI (artificial intelligence) circuitry and it functioned in place of Kirk by making bridge decisions during Starfleet battle simulations. It later malfunctioned by destroying an empty space freighter, which could have contained human occupants, and then it took over the Enterprise. The movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey” where the super-computer ‘HAL’ developed self-awareness [sentience] and took control of the ship. The “Terminator” movies and television’s “Sarah Connor Chronicles” where advancements in computer technology leads to the creation of ‘SKYNET,’ which becomes the harbinger of doom and MAN vs. MACHINE Armageddon by manufacturing and unleashing the prototype cyborg-series terminator robots. The 2010 movie “Stealth” was about an AI (artificial intelligence) super-advanced, pilot-less Stealth fighter plane that went rogue after being struck by lightning.
So, many could argue that such comparisons are unwarranted and concerns to the contrary are mere paranoia because safeguards will be built into this super plane to prevent even the slightest loss of total human control. It is one thing to watch a movie or a television series but all comparisons stop there because fantasy is one thing but reality is quite a different thing altogether.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 27, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The controversy over WA State's impending Gay Marriage Law may be overblown
There are two sides on this contentious issue: those who are for it and those who are against it. But before getting into some of the particulars, one question needs to be asked, namely, “Is marriage a duty established as by social custom, history and tradition or is it instead, divinely ordained and ONLY approved or accepted before God as between a man and woman”? If the Judeo-Christian Scripture is the authority for this institution which some contend supercedes any civil legislation, how can this be reconciled if we live in a Representative Democracy separated between Church and State?” The Bible does not seek to change, incorporate or regulate the civil laws but rather is the rule or standard for those who belong to the community of faith and are citizens of the Kingdom of God [Heaven].
It is indeed puzzling why there is such outrage and furor among believers over this single issue because no church can be forced through passage of legislation to abandon their faith practice to accommodate adoption of this law, nor to do anything in violation of their conscience. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Right to the free exercise of Religion and no Law enacted by a state legislature, or mandated by an act of Congress as well as the Supreme Court, can legally force any religious denomination to accept Gay Marriage as a lifestyle. Practically speaking, this means Christian clergy cannot be sued for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple as well as for not hosting a reception for the couple if they were married at a courthouse or somewhere else.
On the other side of the issue, which is a valid legal concern, is the discrimination and unequal treatment in denying a marriage contract to same sex couples as well as the State’s interest in the matter. There was a same-sex couple in 2004 who sued in Superior Court, which challenged Washington State’s Civil Marriage Law, amended in 1998, as discriminatory because the statute ONLY recognizes marriage as “valid” between a man and a woman. The Plaintiffs contended that the law unfairly makes a distinction arbitrarily based ‘solely’ upon gender by denying privileges under the law that are not being made equally available to all citizens, whch is in violation of the Washington State Constitution (Art. 1, sects. 3 & 12) and Washington's Equal Rights Amendment, denying them the right of due process to liberty and privacy.
The first issue under review is if denyng marrage to same-sex partners burdens a ‘fundamental’ right of a suspect class, and secondly, [whether the goal or purpose being sought is deemed a "compelling state interest]." Since marriage is a contract with the state [civil authority], subject to the conditions and requirements of such a governing body imposes on its citizens, it would seem reasonable that the state would want to ensure that all citizens under its jurisdiction are treated the same. Even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that, "the moral views of the majority [in a pluralistic society] can never provide the “sole” basis for legislation and that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is insufficient rationale . . . to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons. Also, a Massachusetts Supreme Court noted, "It is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it has been historically. Be that as it may, Article IV Section 2 and Amendment XIV (part b) of The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all citizens of the United States and in each state respectively are to enjoy all the privileges and immunities as well as equal protection under the law.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
It is indeed puzzling why there is such outrage and furor among believers over this single issue because no church can be forced through passage of legislation to abandon their faith practice to accommodate adoption of this law, nor to do anything in violation of their conscience. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Right to the free exercise of Religion and no Law enacted by a state legislature, or mandated by an act of Congress as well as the Supreme Court, can legally force any religious denomination to accept Gay Marriage as a lifestyle. Practically speaking, this means Christian clergy cannot be sued for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple as well as for not hosting a reception for the couple if they were married at a courthouse or somewhere else.
On the other side of the issue, which is a valid legal concern, is the discrimination and unequal treatment in denying a marriage contract to same sex couples as well as the State’s interest in the matter. There was a same-sex couple in 2004 who sued in Superior Court, which challenged Washington State’s Civil Marriage Law, amended in 1998, as discriminatory because the statute ONLY recognizes marriage as “valid” between a man and a woman. The Plaintiffs contended that the law unfairly makes a distinction arbitrarily based ‘solely’ upon gender by denying privileges under the law that are not being made equally available to all citizens, whch is in violation of the Washington State Constitution (Art. 1, sects. 3 & 12) and Washington's Equal Rights Amendment, denying them the right of due process to liberty and privacy.
The first issue under review is if denyng marrage to same-sex partners burdens a ‘fundamental’ right of a suspect class, and secondly, [whether the goal or purpose being sought is deemed a "compelling state interest]." Since marriage is a contract with the state [civil authority], subject to the conditions and requirements of such a governing body imposes on its citizens, it would seem reasonable that the state would want to ensure that all citizens under its jurisdiction are treated the same. Even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that, "the moral views of the majority [in a pluralistic society] can never provide the “sole” basis for legislation and that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is insufficient rationale . . . to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons. Also, a Massachusetts Supreme Court noted, "It is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it has been historically. Be that as it may, Article IV Section 2 and Amendment XIV (part b) of The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all citizens of the United States and in each state respectively are to enjoy all the privileges and immunities as well as equal protection under the law.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Shaken and Stirred: Romney loses South Carolina Primary
This is not about how British super spy, James Bond, Agent 007, likes to have his martini served but rather a description of the two leading GOP Presidential nominees. Mitt Romney has been shaken by the recent reversal of fortune regarding his frontrunner status when he was almost guaranteed to be eventual presidential nominee over the other Republican rivals. Instead of winning the Iowa caucus as previously announced, when the last votes were counted, it was Rick Santorum who was announced the winner, instead of Romney. Add to that, following the New Hampshire primary, polls showed that Romney was enjoying a double digit lead among the electorate, however, because of negative campaign ads, especially from the Gingrich camp in particular, not only did his commanding lead rapidly began to erode but much of that support migrated to the Gingrich camp instead, and helped propel him to victory.
For Romney this has to be quite a devastating blow, irregardless of the statements he makes in public. For Gingrich, it as if new life has been breathed into his campaign and like a man on a mission, he is fired [stirred] up even more and will continue to launch a barrage of attack ads against his arch-rival and political nemesis Mitt Romney. Strange as it seems, Newt Gingrich used to be the "Angry White Man" but now it is itt Romney who is out for blood while Newt seems as innocent-looking as the Pillsbury dough boy. As a final thought, the Florida Primary should be a critical test, do-or-die for Romney as well as Gingrich because it is an "open primary" (voters can belong to any political party, or none at all), and will serve as a measure of support throughout the political spectrum; much like in a General Election. Since Florida has mail in ballots we may get a preview of voter preference before the January 31st deadline.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
For Romney this has to be quite a devastating blow, irregardless of the statements he makes in public. For Gingrich, it as if new life has been breathed into his campaign and like a man on a mission, he is fired [stirred] up even more and will continue to launch a barrage of attack ads against his arch-rival and political nemesis Mitt Romney. Strange as it seems, Newt Gingrich used to be the "Angry White Man" but now it is itt Romney who is out for blood while Newt seems as innocent-looking as the Pillsbury dough boy. As a final thought, the Florida Primary should be a critical test, do-or-die for Romney as well as Gingrich because it is an "open primary" (voters can belong to any political party, or none at all), and will serve as a measure of support throughout the political spectrum; much like in a General Election. Since Florida has mail in ballots we may get a preview of voter preference before the January 31st deadline.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 23, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Some reflections about The U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is a remarkable document and as the cornerstone of our grand experiment as a Democratic Republic, it has survived rather well for the past two-hundred and thirty-six years. It is unfortunate that the average citizen, and not some lawyer-turned-politician, does not take the time to become more familiar with its contents. There used to be a time when a Civics class was taught in school and students had to become quite familiar with The Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the Constitution as well as The Amendments, and recite verbatim, President Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” Looking at the way things are happening in America, this seems to confirm the worries expressed by some of the Founding Fathers, namely, the growing power of the Executive Branch of Government. Adding to this problem is the fact that the supposedly neutral and impartial U.S. Supreme Court is very politically partisan because each Justice is appointed by the President, who belongs to a political party and is later confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee; which is politically partisan and dominated by whoever is in the majority. Also, the Supreme Court may be exceeding the powers for which it has been granted. Here are excerpts from the U.S. Constitution as cited below in the following:
Article IV Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment X. The powers [explicit or implicit] not delegated to the United States [Federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it [Federal government], are reserved to [for] the States respectively, or to the People.
Amendment XIV. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge [lessen or take away] the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States [or the State where they reside]; nor shall any State deprive any person of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.
The Constitution guarantees the minimal protections and privileges to the people and “NO” state can legally deny its citizens anything less than these. It is interesting that in the most often quoted Fourteenth Amendment, there is no precise definition of what “due process of law” is or even a hint at its intended meaning. The only thing that has language comparable to this is found in The Sixth Amendment, which pertains to persons involved in a criminal prosecution, and what the Rights of the accused [Defendant] are. Be that as it may, the one thing that gets lost in all of the anger towards government at the Federal level and in each State Legislature is the power of “WE THE PEOPLE.” Yes, it is a scary thing to think that we are not slaves to the powers that be [“Brutus to Cassius”], and the Tea Party and Occupy WALL STREET are prime examples. The problem with the former was that is became a platform for Sarah Palin to use it as a CASH COW to become rich, and when she could no longer milk KA-CHING from those political teats, she said, “Adios;” You betcha! As for the latter, without any real leader or guidance, it morphed into separate entities in each state, a headless body that attracted the homeless, anarchists [Eco-Terrorists] or just plain criminals who assaulted and raped people. There was no real referendum or strategy but only criticizing the wealthy and it became nothing more than a one-sided shouting match, a US vs. THEM [The 99% vs. The 1%].
In addition to all of that, The U.S. Supreme Court gets involved in way too many legal issues that could be decided in The Federal Appellate Courts or The Supreme Court in each State capitol. Even among those judges, some of their cases could be arbitrated in the lower Superior courts under judicial review, and in some cases, decisions reversed if an error in the initial trial court ruling was proven to exist. Of course, as it is with any statute, it is not so much what it says but rather what it means, and how should it be applied to a particular situation; and not only that, but no two set of circumstances are exactly alike, and therefore the court is governed by ‘PRECEDENT’ (prior ruling) to guide it in the present. As a final thought, the field of Republican candidates for President have mentioned on more than one occasion about some issue that should be left up to each State, an no one is more vocal in this sentiment than Texas Congressman Ron Paul. It is time to seriously consider curbing the over-reaching power of the Federal Government into our private lives and mettling in the affairs of private corporations, as well as Judges who legislate from the bench; but it may already be too late. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is hard to get him to go back in.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 18, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Article IV Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment X. The powers [explicit or implicit] not delegated to the United States [Federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it [Federal government], are reserved to [for] the States respectively, or to the People.
Amendment XIV. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge [lessen or take away] the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States [or the State where they reside]; nor shall any State deprive any person of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.
The Constitution guarantees the minimal protections and privileges to the people and “NO” state can legally deny its citizens anything less than these. It is interesting that in the most often quoted Fourteenth Amendment, there is no precise definition of what “due process of law” is or even a hint at its intended meaning. The only thing that has language comparable to this is found in The Sixth Amendment, which pertains to persons involved in a criminal prosecution, and what the Rights of the accused [Defendant] are. Be that as it may, the one thing that gets lost in all of the anger towards government at the Federal level and in each State Legislature is the power of “WE THE PEOPLE.” Yes, it is a scary thing to think that we are not slaves to the powers that be [“Brutus to Cassius”], and the Tea Party and Occupy WALL STREET are prime examples. The problem with the former was that is became a platform for Sarah Palin to use it as a CASH COW to become rich, and when she could no longer milk KA-CHING from those political teats, she said, “Adios;” You betcha! As for the latter, without any real leader or guidance, it morphed into separate entities in each state, a headless body that attracted the homeless, anarchists [Eco-Terrorists] or just plain criminals who assaulted and raped people. There was no real referendum or strategy but only criticizing the wealthy and it became nothing more than a one-sided shouting match, a US vs. THEM [The 99% vs. The 1%].
In addition to all of that, The U.S. Supreme Court gets involved in way too many legal issues that could be decided in The Federal Appellate Courts or The Supreme Court in each State capitol. Even among those judges, some of their cases could be arbitrated in the lower Superior courts under judicial review, and in some cases, decisions reversed if an error in the initial trial court ruling was proven to exist. Of course, as it is with any statute, it is not so much what it says but rather what it means, and how should it be applied to a particular situation; and not only that, but no two set of circumstances are exactly alike, and therefore the court is governed by ‘PRECEDENT’ (prior ruling) to guide it in the present. As a final thought, the field of Republican candidates for President have mentioned on more than one occasion about some issue that should be left up to each State, an no one is more vocal in this sentiment than Texas Congressman Ron Paul. It is time to seriously consider curbing the over-reaching power of the Federal Government into our private lives and mettling in the affairs of private corporations, as well as Judges who legislate from the bench; but it may already be too late. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is hard to get him to go back in.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 18, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Does the requirement of a photo ID violate the Voting Rights Act?
On the 83rd anniversary of MLK’s birthday, Associated Press reporter Jeffrey Collins had an article in The Tacoma News Tribune on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, mentioning about a throng of African-Americans who surrounded the South Carolina capitol to voice opposition to the state’s voter ID laws, which was rejected by the U.S. Justice Department last month. What is at issue, critics say, is that the new law is “discriminatory” towards African-Americans and poor Whites; and is especially meant to suppress the turnout and participation of Blacks in the voting process, undermining the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1966. In order to better determine if requiring a photo identification is “unequal” treatment and a violation of the U.S. Constitution, therefore it is necessary to get a historical perspective about the evolution of the voting experience in America.
When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier. Poll taxes enacted in Southern states between 1889 and 1910 had the effect of disenfranchising many blacks as well as poor whites, because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting. By the 1940s some of these taxes had been abolished, and in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disallowed the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections. In 1966 this prohibition was extended to all elections by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that such a tax violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.
1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1970 Literacy requirements are banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still have a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upholds the ban on literacy tests, which is made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act require states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.
REFERENCES:
Read more: poll tax — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/poll+tax#ixzz1jluxV0rD
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6rkwX1
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6RbQJ1
The recurring word in The Fifteenth Amendment as well as Twenty-fourth Amendment is “abridged,” which has the meaning of to weaken or take away and it is yet to be proven that such a requirement is in any way to be construed as an attempt to disenfranchise any ethnic, religious or social class/group of their rights under the Constitution. In fact, it could be argued that this procedure is in streamlining the voting process by discouraging fraud and proving the person’s citizenship and eligibility to vote; which would seem to be the intended objective of the 2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act. It seems reasonable to conclude that every legal and naturalized citizen of the United States, regardless of income, social status, level of education or any other consideration, ought to have on their person at all times [if possible] some kind of photo identification. To wit: any allegation to the contrary, no matter how passionate the argument, is without merit and should be rejected. As of this writing, Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin passed voter ID legislation in 2011. Texas has pending legislation before the Justice Department and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley vowed to fight the Justice department in Federal Court over rejection of their voter identification laws.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 17, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier. Poll taxes enacted in Southern states between 1889 and 1910 had the effect of disenfranchising many blacks as well as poor whites, because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting. By the 1940s some of these taxes had been abolished, and in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disallowed the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections. In 1966 this prohibition was extended to all elections by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that such a tax violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.
1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1970 Literacy requirements are banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still have a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upholds the ban on literacy tests, which is made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act require states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.
REFERENCES:
Read more: poll tax — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/poll+tax#ixzz1jluxV0rD
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6rkwX1
Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1jm6RbQJ1
The recurring word in The Fifteenth Amendment as well as Twenty-fourth Amendment is “abridged,” which has the meaning of to weaken or take away and it is yet to be proven that such a requirement is in any way to be construed as an attempt to disenfranchise any ethnic, religious or social class/group of their rights under the Constitution. In fact, it could be argued that this procedure is in streamlining the voting process by discouraging fraud and proving the person’s citizenship and eligibility to vote; which would seem to be the intended objective of the 2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act. It seems reasonable to conclude that every legal and naturalized citizen of the United States, regardless of income, social status, level of education or any other consideration, ought to have on their person at all times [if possible] some kind of photo identification. To wit: any allegation to the contrary, no matter how passionate the argument, is without merit and should be rejected. As of this writing, Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin passed voter ID legislation in 2011. Texas has pending legislation before the Justice Department and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley vowed to fight the Justice department in Federal Court over rejection of their voter identification laws.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 17, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Monday, January 16, 2012
How should the legacy of MLK be honored?
One of the things about revering a saint is that oftentimes such a person, as well as his words and deeds remains frozen in time, and are not able to save those who need help and guidance in moments of crisis or impending danger. Such is the case with slain Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who would be eighty-three years old this month. The birthday of this great African-American is a national holiday, there is a museum and national monument built in his honor, and his writings, as well as speeches, are taught in the most dilapidated and rundown classrooms in America as well as among the recommended curriculum in some of the most prestigious institutes of higher learning throughout the world, but the question remains that needs to be asked is whether or not he is still relevant? Of course, this is not to suggest that he is not an important historical figure and cultural icon, because he is, but on another level, is it heresy to suggest the MLK brand, especially the “I have a Dream” speech to be nothing more than a one-size-fits-all social template that is no longer useful or practical as it needs to be, especially in the complex world that we live in today? It’s like the what would Jesus do mantra that is just way too simplistic because things are not ‘just’ Black and White in the rainbow social universe of today.
To determine if such a statement is seen as disrespectful to the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., consider and think for a moment: What would MLK say about “Gitmo?” or the Iraq/Afghanistan War, the mortgage crisis, occupy WALL STREET, rap music and use of the "N" word, Oprah Winfrey, gay marriage and GLTB rights, 9/11, North Korea, Iran, water-boarding, the national debt crisis, political gridlock in Washington D.C., President Barack Obama, the recession, bullying, legalizing marijuana, the Arab Spring, the European debt crisis, Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, capitol punishment and the disproportionate number of minorities on death row, Herman Cain, Israel, Palestinian statehood, Lady Gaga, the Republican and Democratic political parties, pedophile clergy, Mormonism, Islam and the holy Koran, immigration, outsourcing jobs, The Bush Administration, Global Warming and the KYOTO Treaty, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, video games with violent and sexual content, suicide bombers, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, Mega-Churches, the economic power of China and India, NRA and gun control, reparations for descendants of slaves, reverse discrimination, Roe vs. Wade, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, birth control/contraceptive use, racial profiling and a host of other issues or people?
Since nobody is able to channel the spirit of MLK through some kind of clairvoyant trance, and even if someone could, it still doesn’t mean he would have the answers to the problems we face today. The legacy of MLK, it seems, is not for us to look backwards in time and become stuck in reminiscing about the past, but rather to look toward the future and use his example to become the MLK in each succeeding generation. One of the most poignant statements ever made by Dr. King is “If a man is not willing to give his life for what he believes then he is not fit [doesn’t deserve] to live.” Now, that is what having a mission in life is all about and if each person would take to heart these powerful words then the “Dream” will continue to live on in us. It is much more deeper than a mere festive annual holiday celebration, awash with drama and ceremony, but rather it is a life-affirming commitment to making the world a better place in which to live; it’s sacrifice without expecting recognition nor reward in return, absent of even the smallest trace of praise, glory or honor.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 16, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
To determine if such a statement is seen as disrespectful to the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., consider and think for a moment: What would MLK say about “Gitmo?” or the Iraq/Afghanistan War, the mortgage crisis, occupy WALL STREET, rap music and use of the "N" word, Oprah Winfrey, gay marriage and GLTB rights, 9/11, North Korea, Iran, water-boarding, the national debt crisis, political gridlock in Washington D.C., President Barack Obama, the recession, bullying, legalizing marijuana, the Arab Spring, the European debt crisis, Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, capitol punishment and the disproportionate number of minorities on death row, Herman Cain, Israel, Palestinian statehood, Lady Gaga, the Republican and Democratic political parties, pedophile clergy, Mormonism, Islam and the holy Koran, immigration, outsourcing jobs, The Bush Administration, Global Warming and the KYOTO Treaty, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, video games with violent and sexual content, suicide bombers, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, Mega-Churches, the economic power of China and India, NRA and gun control, reparations for descendants of slaves, reverse discrimination, Roe vs. Wade, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, birth control/contraceptive use, racial profiling and a host of other issues or people?
Since nobody is able to channel the spirit of MLK through some kind of clairvoyant trance, and even if someone could, it still doesn’t mean he would have the answers to the problems we face today. The legacy of MLK, it seems, is not for us to look backwards in time and become stuck in reminiscing about the past, but rather to look toward the future and use his example to become the MLK in each succeeding generation. One of the most poignant statements ever made by Dr. King is “If a man is not willing to give his life for what he believes then he is not fit [doesn’t deserve] to live.” Now, that is what having a mission in life is all about and if each person would take to heart these powerful words then the “Dream” will continue to live on in us. It is much more deeper than a mere festive annual holiday celebration, awash with drama and ceremony, but rather it is a life-affirming commitment to making the world a better place in which to live; it’s sacrifice without expecting recognition nor reward in return, absent of even the smallest trace of praise, glory or honor.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 16, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The 2012 Republican Presidential nomination still up for grabs
It is still way too early to crown Republican Mitt Romney as the party favorite to challenge Barack Obama for the 2012 Presidential nomination; as some of the political pundits are doing, while this long and grueling race is just getting started. Yes, Mitt Romney is doing better this time around than he did in 2008, but a brief historical recap from 2008 is in order. Romney lost the Iowa Caucus in Iowa with 25% of the vote and came in second to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Again, he placed second to John McCain in the New Hampshire Primary but came in fourth in the South Carolina Primary with only 15% of the vote. Also, Romney came in second to John McCain in the Florida Primary. Romney did however; win the Wyoming, Nevada and Maine caucuses, and in The Super Tuesday contest: won the Alaska, Michigan, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah caucuses and primaries; but John McCain won Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma. After the outcome on The Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses which were held on February 7, 2008, Romney suspended his campaign and decided, according to him, “to step aside for the good of the party and for the country.”
Romney is untested in a marathon political contest and it is uncertain what a protracted and bitter campaign filled with negative ads will have upon him because he just might want to quit again before reaching the finish line, and this time around it will cost a lot more than twenty million dollars of his nearly quarter billion dollar net worth to get his message out to prospective voters. Another problem that Romney faces is whether or not he can convince those true believers in “The Bible Belt” or red meat states (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, New Mexico and The Carolina’s) that he is a “true” born-again political Conservative instead of just masquerading as one. Aside from not being able to shake off the dogged question of ‘authenticity’ is Romney being able to relate to the average person struggling to keep a job when he is a son of privilege whose father was the CEO of General Motors. No, Mitt Romney doesn’t have anything in common with Joe Six-pack but rather with the aspirations of someone like Gordon Gekko [the movie “WALL STREET”].
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 12, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Romney is untested in a marathon political contest and it is uncertain what a protracted and bitter campaign filled with negative ads will have upon him because he just might want to quit again before reaching the finish line, and this time around it will cost a lot more than twenty million dollars of his nearly quarter billion dollar net worth to get his message out to prospective voters. Another problem that Romney faces is whether or not he can convince those true believers in “The Bible Belt” or red meat states (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, New Mexico and The Carolina’s) that he is a “true” born-again political Conservative instead of just masquerading as one. Aside from not being able to shake off the dogged question of ‘authenticity’ is Romney being able to relate to the average person struggling to keep a job when he is a son of privilege whose father was the CEO of General Motors. No, Mitt Romney doesn’t have anything in common with Joe Six-pack but rather with the aspirations of someone like Gordon Gekko [the movie “WALL STREET”].
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 12, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The Doctrine of Ron Paul
The Republican field of presidential candidates has been whittled down to the gang of six, with the possibility of one or more dropping out of campaigning in the coming weeks. Ron Paul has been largely ignored, almost unnoticed and under the radar for the most part and now he has been receiving more and more attention, so it just might be the time to take a closer look and see what kind of America Ron Paul believes in and what is his view on some of the more pressing issues of the day.
On the National Debt, Congressman Paul wants to slash nearly half its spending and shut down five Cabinet-level agencies and end spending on existing conflicts as well as no longer allocating any resources and money toward foreign aid. This seems rather shortsighted and ignorant of the value and impact of this assistance on a global basis. As far as The Economy is concerned, Paul wants a return to the “GOLD STANDARD” and total elimination of The Federal Reserve as well as abolishing most federal regulations. Of course, he hasn’t said which regulations need to be axed and which ones are to be kept. The implication of replacing the dollar with gold as the currency standard and eliminating the “Fed” is so radical as to not even merit further comment because the impact on world economies, including in this country is too serious to imagine. On Education, he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and sees no role for the federal government in education; so that presupposes refusal to accept any assistance in the form of Pell Grants and low-cost Stafford Loans for college tuition.
Although, like most Americans, the idea of paying taxes is a hard pill to swallow but Congressman takes it to another level when is comes to Taxes by completely eliminating the Department of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] and paying all federal income taxes. He is an avid proponent of ‘States Rights’ and believes that Abortion, The Environment and Gay Marriage/Rights are matters that should be settled by the states and not federal legislation or The U.S. Supreme Court. Congressman Paul has an Immigration policy that is non-apologetic and forceful as he believes, “Do whatever it takes [BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY]" to secure the border and end right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as well as deny social services for illegal immigrants. He also wants aggressive deportation of undocumented citizens no matter how long they have lived here and raised families, or worked and paid taxes or served in the military. As far as positions on Terrorism or The War/Foreign Policy, Ron Paul believes that America’s military presence overseas [Pacific Rim or Middle East] is what provokes or incites terrorists to attack America or our troops in these regions and pulling our military from remote places should be the highest priority. He wants to slash the Pentagon budget and opposed the intervention in Libya but it would be interesting to know how he views the outcome now.
There is an article by syndicated Columnist Michael Gerson, which was featured Tuesday, January 3, 2012, edition of the Tacoma News Tribune, Section A9, listed some of the more interesting comments by Texas Congressman Ron Paul:
He accused President Lincoln of “causing a senseless war” and regarded the presidency of Ronald Reagan as a “dramatic failure.” He once proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin and promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection in South Korea. He believes that 9/11 was a government “cover-up” and published in a newspaper that the 1993 WTC [World Trade Center] attack was a set-up orchestrated between the U.S. government and the Israeli Mossad.
He would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the “Holocaust” and freeing over six-million Jewish men, women, boys and girls from the horrors and atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis. Congressman Paul believes that forced [government-mandated] “integration” is evil. He obviously doesn’t agree with the outcome of Brown vs. the Board of Education in which the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed segregation as unconstitutional. He sees no problem with former slaveholders treating human beings a “property” and can treat them in any way as they please, and he believes that the federal government has no “legitimate“ authority to infringe upon the sovereign rights of the states and their citizens. Congressman Paul has disparaged Martin Luther King Jr., former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and has referred to the MLK holiday as “Hate the White Man Day.”
Finally, since this nearly octogenarian [76 year-old] is vying for nomination to represent this country on the international stage as well as occupy the most powerful elected office on planet earth, and sit at the head of government of world’s only true military “SUPER POWER” it is imperative that a window into what he really believes in is important, and after getting a glimpse into his inner psyche [past and present], there are a few things that should concern all of us but each person has to make up in their own mind about which of his personal perspectives that concern them the most.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
On the National Debt, Congressman Paul wants to slash nearly half its spending and shut down five Cabinet-level agencies and end spending on existing conflicts as well as no longer allocating any resources and money toward foreign aid. This seems rather shortsighted and ignorant of the value and impact of this assistance on a global basis. As far as The Economy is concerned, Paul wants a return to the “GOLD STANDARD” and total elimination of The Federal Reserve as well as abolishing most federal regulations. Of course, he hasn’t said which regulations need to be axed and which ones are to be kept. The implication of replacing the dollar with gold as the currency standard and eliminating the “Fed” is so radical as to not even merit further comment because the impact on world economies, including in this country is too serious to imagine. On Education, he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and sees no role for the federal government in education; so that presupposes refusal to accept any assistance in the form of Pell Grants and low-cost Stafford Loans for college tuition.
Although, like most Americans, the idea of paying taxes is a hard pill to swallow but Congressman takes it to another level when is comes to Taxes by completely eliminating the Department of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] and paying all federal income taxes. He is an avid proponent of ‘States Rights’ and believes that Abortion, The Environment and Gay Marriage/Rights are matters that should be settled by the states and not federal legislation or The U.S. Supreme Court. Congressman Paul has an Immigration policy that is non-apologetic and forceful as he believes, “Do whatever it takes [BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY]" to secure the border and end right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as well as deny social services for illegal immigrants. He also wants aggressive deportation of undocumented citizens no matter how long they have lived here and raised families, or worked and paid taxes or served in the military. As far as positions on Terrorism or The War/Foreign Policy, Ron Paul believes that America’s military presence overseas [Pacific Rim or Middle East] is what provokes or incites terrorists to attack America or our troops in these regions and pulling our military from remote places should be the highest priority. He wants to slash the Pentagon budget and opposed the intervention in Libya but it would be interesting to know how he views the outcome now.
There is an article by syndicated Columnist Michael Gerson, which was featured Tuesday, January 3, 2012, edition of the Tacoma News Tribune, Section A9, listed some of the more interesting comments by Texas Congressman Ron Paul:
He accused President Lincoln of “causing a senseless war” and regarded the presidency of Ronald Reagan as a “dramatic failure.” He once proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin and promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection in South Korea. He believes that 9/11 was a government “cover-up” and published in a newspaper that the 1993 WTC [World Trade Center] attack was a set-up orchestrated between the U.S. government and the Israeli Mossad.
He would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the “Holocaust” and freeing over six-million Jewish men, women, boys and girls from the horrors and atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis. Congressman Paul believes that forced [government-mandated] “integration” is evil. He obviously doesn’t agree with the outcome of Brown vs. the Board of Education in which the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed segregation as unconstitutional. He sees no problem with former slaveholders treating human beings a “property” and can treat them in any way as they please, and he believes that the federal government has no “legitimate“ authority to infringe upon the sovereign rights of the states and their citizens. Congressman Paul has disparaged Martin Luther King Jr., former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and has referred to the MLK holiday as “Hate the White Man Day.”
Finally, since this nearly octogenarian [76 year-old] is vying for nomination to represent this country on the international stage as well as occupy the most powerful elected office on planet earth, and sit at the head of government of world’s only true military “SUPER POWER” it is imperative that a window into what he really believes in is important, and after getting a glimpse into his inner psyche [past and present], there are a few things that should concern all of us but each person has to make up in their own mind about which of his personal perspectives that concern them the most.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 3, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Monday, January 2, 2012
Which Republican presidential candidate would you vote for?
Several weeks ago, Associated Press writers Brian Bakst and Chris Tomlinson listed the political positions of the contenders for the GOP nomination for president of the United States. They are Republicans: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Since the Iowa Caucus is Tuesday, January 3, 2012, it is important to review what stand the candidates have taken on some of the more important issues and the nation’s first early voting process will serve as a bell-weather indication on the effectiveness of each candidate to get their message across to the electorate and how it has been received; now that the debates are over.
Although the results of this event may be overstated as such but for those who do not finish in the top three positions it, especially Bachmann, who is in the single digits, it may very well be the death knell of their long journey and their campaigns may come to and end by Wednesday, or not too long afterward. Although there aren’t any real specifics in these points that are listed, still, there is enough information to get a glimpse of perhaps the moral leanings or character of a few of them and one can make a determination as to whether or not if this is the person who merits any further support and of whose values you can identify with.
ABORTION:
Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry, Santorum and Romney are for a constitutional ban on abortion.
Gingrich is against federal subsidies to fund abortions while agreeing, along with Paul, Romney and Perry that the states should decided their own abortion laws.
FEDERAL DEBT:
Bachmann and Santorum opposed the federal bailout of the financial industry (TARP) which averted a default on the U.S. debt and raising the debt ceiling by Congress, While Huntsman supported it.
Romney supported the financial bailout but criticized GM and Chrysler receiving government assistance. Romney wants to cap federal spending at 20% GDP while Perry favors 18% of GDP.
Paul would eliminate five Cabinet-level agencies [which ones??], end spending on existing conflicts [post-war Iraq and Afghanistan] and end foreign aid.
Perry wants to cut the pay of the members of Congress [like that’s really going to make a big difference].
Gingrich, as well as Romney, is for a balanced budget but didn’t mention specifics.
ECONOMY: Bachmann feels the best way to create jobs is to eliminate all the excessive overregulation by the federal government [the same as Santorum, Huntsman, Perry and Romney.
Paul wants to eliminate most federal regulations] which limits capital investments and proposes, along with Gingrich, Perry and Romney, the repeal of financial-industry regulations enacted in response to the sub-prime housing crisis.
Gingrich feels that the Federal Reserve’s power to set interest rates artificially low is what is stifling the economy, and Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve altogether.
Huntsman, along with Santorum, believes in eliminating corporate subsidies, lower corporate taxes [same as Romney], and spur jobs through energy development [the same as Santorum], seek repeal of President Barack Obama's health care law [the same as all candidates], break up big banks [financial institutions and insurance companies] as hedge against future bailouts. He also wants to break up big banks as a hedge against another financial bailout.
Paul wants a return to the gold standard instead of using the dollar.
Romney more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts.
EDUCATION: Bachmann, along with Paul [and Romney, who later changed his mind in bowing to the interest and demands of teachers’ unions], believes in abolishing the Department of Education while Gingrich and Santorum favors shrinking it. She says the federal government doesn't [shouldn’t] have a role in education; jurisdiction is with state and local governments.
Huntsman says, “No Child Left Behind hasn't worked for this country. It ought to be done away with." He favors more school choice [charter and private schools??].
Perry opposed No Child Left Behind law, whereas Romney and Santorum support No Child Left Behind law.
ENERGY: Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman and Paul advocate reducing regulatory restrictions to drilling.
Gingrich wants oil and natural gas industries to drill offshore for reserves now blocked from development by federal regulation, and end restrictions on Western oil shale development.
Huntsman wants to phase out (eliminate) energy subsidies and subject fuel distribution network to federal review to "break Big oil's monopoly" and expand opportunities for natural gas development and production.
Paul wants development of coal and nuclear power, eliminate gasoline tax, and provide tax credits for alternative fuel technology [wind, solar, geothermal, etc.].
Perry proposes more development on restricted federal lands to spur drilling.
Romney supports drilling in the Gulf, the outer continental shelves, Western lands, offshore Alaska; and exploitation of shale oil deposits.
Santorum, Perry and Romney favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
NOTE: These proposals would provide many thousands of jobs and stimulate the economy but at what cost to the environment?
ENVIRONMENT: Bachmann wants to repeal "radical environmental laws that kill access to natural resources." She voted to bar EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. She, along with Romney, opposes cap and trade.
Gingrich, along with Perry, wants to convert the EPA into "environmental solutions agency" with no enforcement powers, devoted to research and "more energy, more jobs and a better environment; although he once backed tougher environmental regulation.
Huntsman wants to end the EPA's "regulatory reign of terror." Yet, he acknowledges the scientific evidence that humans contribute to global warming.
Paul says emission standards should be set by states or regions. He, along with Huntsman and Romney, believed human activity "probably does" contribute to global warming; now later, he, along with Perry and Romney, says that there isn’t conclusive evidence [it hasn’t been proven] that human activity contributes to global warming and calls such science a "hoax."
Santorum also believes the science establishing human activity as a likely contributor to global warming is "patently absurd" and "junk science."
GAY MARRIAGE: Bachmann, Romney, Santorum and Perry [who earlier was against it before he was for it] support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Gingrich says, “If the Defense of Marriage Act fails, you have no choice except a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
Huntsman supports same-sex civil unions, with many of the rights of marriage, and says states should decide their own marriage laws and not the federal government [the same as Paul and Perry].
HEALTH CARE:
Bachmann favors limits on medical malpractice lawsuits as a way to control health care costs, and she voted against expanding Children's Health Insurance Program.
Gingrich wants to prohibit insurers from canceling or charging hefty increases to insurance holders who get sick [or have a preexisting health condition??]. He wants a "generous" tax credit to help buy private insurance, although he previously supported mandatory coverage [like ObamaCare].
Huntsman says,"Let the states experiment," and he is open to restricting or limiting Medicare benefits for the wealthy [like Perry].
Paul opposes compulsory insurance and all federal subsidies for coverage.
Perry wants to raise eligibility age [to what??] for Medicare benefits, offer federal aid (“subsidies”) to help elderly buy private insurance instead of getting Medicare benefits.
Romney opposes federal mandate to obtain coverage [ObamaCare]; introduced health insurance mandate in Massachusetts [RomneyCare or is it ObomneyCare??]. He also proposes "generous" subsidies [like Perry] to help future retirees buy private insurance instead of going on Medicare.
Santorum wants Congress to defund Obama’s Health Care Law if passed, and supported Bush administration's prescription drug program for the elderly.
NOTE: All the candidates would seek repeal of Obama's health care law.
IMMIGRATION: Bachman favors a fence all along the 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexico border, not just the 650 miles built, and she opposes government benefits for illegal immigrants and their children [no matter how long they have lived in the U.S. and are law-abiding and pay taxes].
Gingrich supports option of giving legal status to illegal immigrants who have sunk roots in the U.S. and lived otherwise lawfully, and supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants' children who perform U.S. military service. He also wants to make English the official language. He wants to divert more Homeland Security assets to the Mexican border.
Huntsman thinks it is unrealistic to deport all illegal immigrants out of the country. In Utah, he threatened to veto a bill to repeal cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants [so that means he is in favor of cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants].
Paul says, “Do whatever it takes to secure the border and end the right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [even if they served honorably and with distinction in the Armed Forces]"; and he wants no social services for illegal immigrants and aggressive deportation [like Bachmann].
Perry opposes a complete 1,900 mile U.S.-Mexico border fence [what about the 650 mile one that’s already built??], but instead wants more border agents [like Gingrich]. He supports continued U.S. citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [like Gingrich].
Romney favors complete U.S.-Mexico border fence [like Bachmann and Santorum], opposes education and social service] benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, Romney and Santorum].
Santorum supports complete border fence [like Bachmann and Romney], opposes education and social service benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, and Romney].
SOCIAL SECURITY: Bachmann wants to keep Social Security for older workers [what age??] and wean everybody else off. The age for retirement benefits will have to go up for new workers [like Huntsman and Perry].
Gingrich wants to give younger workers the "option" of diverting Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts [privatizing social security benefits in risky equity investments??].
Huntsman and Perry want to restrict benefits for the wealthy.
Paul, like Gingrich, says younger workers should be able to "opt out" [diverting Social Security taxes to risky private retirement accounts or other savings] of Social Security taxes and retirement benefits.
Perry previously branded Social Security a "disease," now says it should be saved. He supports private accounts [like Paul, Santorum and Gingrich].
Romney says that reducing inflation adjustments for rich retirees are among options that should be considered [Huntsman and Perry differ on that matter].
TAXES: Bachmann wants a tax holiday [no one is taxed on their personal income??] followed by 5% corporate tax rate for U.S. companies operating overseas that invest their profits back in the U.S. economy.
Gingrich wants to offer the American taxpayer a “choice" of filing under the current system or paying a 15% tax rate, preserving mortgage interest rates [prevent them from rising] and allow charitable deductions. He also wants to cut corporate tax to 12.5%.
Huntsman favors lower income tax rates coupled with the elimination of deductions [including charitable in opposition to Gingrich] and cut corporate tax to 25%.
Paul wants to eliminate the entire federal income tax system and the IRS, and defund half the government.
Perry, like Gingrich, wants to offer the American taxpayer a "choice" between the current system and 20 % tax on income, preserving mortgage interest rates and charitable deductions. Also, for each individual or dependent, he wants to exempt them from paying taxes on the first $12,500 in income.
Romney wants no one with an adjusted gross income under $200,000 to be taxed on interest, dividends or capital gains and to cut corporate tax rate to 25% [like Huntsman].
Santorum proposes zero corporate tax. "If you manufacture in America, you aren't going to pay any taxes." He opposes any national sales tax.
NOTE: All candidates support eliminating the estate tax and keeping Bush-era tax cuts.
TERRORISM: Bachmann wants to expand Guantanamo [like Gingrich], and no Miranda or constitutional rights for foreign terrorist suspects [enemy combatants]. She approves the use of “waterboarding” [torture or extreme interrogation techniques] and probably ‘rendition’ as an option in prisoner interrogations.
Gingrich supports extending and strengthening investigative powers of Patriot Act and creation of the Homeland Security apparatus. In 2009, he said of waterboarding: "It's not something we should do."
Huntsman said Homeland Security Department has been heavy-handed, conveying a "fortress security mentality that is not American [unlike Gingrich]," and opposes waterboarding [unlike Bachmann and the 2009 Gingrich].
Paul opposes Patriot Act as an infringement on liberty [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich], and says: "Waterboarding is torture, it's illegal under International Law and under our law, and it's also immoral [unlike Bachmann,Perry and Santorum and like Huntsman and Gingrich 2009]."
Perry said it was "unprincipled" for Republicans to vote for creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich and Santorum]. Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann], and that U.S. interrogators should "use any technique" short of torture, which he did not define [Is "waterboarding" torture according to Perry??].
Romney wants no constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects [like Bachmann]. His campaign says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture [like Bachmann, Santorum, Romney and Perry and unlike 2009 Gingrich and Paul].
Santorum defends creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Gingrich and unlike Huntsman and Paul]. He voted to reauthorize Patriot Act [unlike Paul]. And says airport screeners should employ racial or ethnic profiling; "Muslims would be someone you'd look at, absolutely." Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann and Perry]. He says waterboarding has proved effective [and is not "torture"??].
WAR: Bachmann opposed intervention in Libya and said that might help terrorists there, and called Afghanistan a war "we must and can win" with sufficient troops and money [now that Osama bin-laden is dead, is it worth staying there just to fight the Taliban and pump billions of dollars into a corrupt Karzai government??].
Gingrich supported the Iraq war and opposed early U.S. troop withdrawal and said U.S. forces should not have been used in the Libya campaign, after he had called for such an intervention at the onset [he was "for" it before he was "against" it]. He opposes "precipitous" [all at once??] pullout from Afghanistan.
Huntsman proposes reducing U.S. involvement in conflicts around the globe and, unlike most rivals, says Pentagon budget should be cut. He opposes any U.S. military assistance of new Libyan government and says no more than 15,000 U.S. troops should be left in Afghanistan [for how long; indefinitely??].
Paul wants to bring most or all troops home from foreign posts "as quick as the ships could get there [like Huntsman]." He opposed U.S. intervention in Libya [like Bachmann and Gingrich at first] and wants to cut the Pentagon budget [like Huntsman].
Perry criticized planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq this year and Afghanistan next year but has not said how many troops should stay or for how long.
Romney has not specified the troop numbers behind his pledge to ensure the "force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully" [whatever the mission is] in Afghanistan.
Santorum said in September that 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops should remain in Iraq and that troops should withdraw from Afghanistan "a little slower" [Gingrich's 'precipitous' pullout??] than the timetable Obama is planning.
NOTE: Some of Texas Congressman Ron Paul's political solutions seem to be a bit too 'Draconian' or just plain crazy.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
.
Although the results of this event may be overstated as such but for those who do not finish in the top three positions it, especially Bachmann, who is in the single digits, it may very well be the death knell of their long journey and their campaigns may come to and end by Wednesday, or not too long afterward. Although there aren’t any real specifics in these points that are listed, still, there is enough information to get a glimpse of perhaps the moral leanings or character of a few of them and one can make a determination as to whether or not if this is the person who merits any further support and of whose values you can identify with.
ABORTION:
Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry, Santorum and Romney are for a constitutional ban on abortion.
Gingrich is against federal subsidies to fund abortions while agreeing, along with Paul, Romney and Perry that the states should decided their own abortion laws.
FEDERAL DEBT:
Bachmann and Santorum opposed the federal bailout of the financial industry (TARP) which averted a default on the U.S. debt and raising the debt ceiling by Congress, While Huntsman supported it.
Romney supported the financial bailout but criticized GM and Chrysler receiving government assistance. Romney wants to cap federal spending at 20% GDP while Perry favors 18% of GDP.
Paul would eliminate five Cabinet-level agencies [which ones??], end spending on existing conflicts [post-war Iraq and Afghanistan] and end foreign aid.
Perry wants to cut the pay of the members of Congress [like that’s really going to make a big difference].
Gingrich, as well as Romney, is for a balanced budget but didn’t mention specifics.
ECONOMY: Bachmann feels the best way to create jobs is to eliminate all the excessive overregulation by the federal government [the same as Santorum, Huntsman, Perry and Romney.
Paul wants to eliminate most federal regulations] which limits capital investments and proposes, along with Gingrich, Perry and Romney, the repeal of financial-industry regulations enacted in response to the sub-prime housing crisis.
Gingrich feels that the Federal Reserve’s power to set interest rates artificially low is what is stifling the economy, and Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve altogether.
Huntsman, along with Santorum, believes in eliminating corporate subsidies, lower corporate taxes [same as Romney], and spur jobs through energy development [the same as Santorum], seek repeal of President Barack Obama's health care law [the same as all candidates], break up big banks [financial institutions and insurance companies] as hedge against future bailouts. He also wants to break up big banks as a hedge against another financial bailout.
Paul wants a return to the gold standard instead of using the dollar.
Romney more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts.
EDUCATION: Bachmann, along with Paul [and Romney, who later changed his mind in bowing to the interest and demands of teachers’ unions], believes in abolishing the Department of Education while Gingrich and Santorum favors shrinking it. She says the federal government doesn't [shouldn’t] have a role in education; jurisdiction is with state and local governments.
Huntsman says, “No Child Left Behind hasn't worked for this country. It ought to be done away with." He favors more school choice [charter and private schools??].
Perry opposed No Child Left Behind law, whereas Romney and Santorum support No Child Left Behind law.
ENERGY: Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman and Paul advocate reducing regulatory restrictions to drilling.
Gingrich wants oil and natural gas industries to drill offshore for reserves now blocked from development by federal regulation, and end restrictions on Western oil shale development.
Huntsman wants to phase out (eliminate) energy subsidies and subject fuel distribution network to federal review to "break Big oil's monopoly" and expand opportunities for natural gas development and production.
Paul wants development of coal and nuclear power, eliminate gasoline tax, and provide tax credits for alternative fuel technology [wind, solar, geothermal, etc.].
Perry proposes more development on restricted federal lands to spur drilling.
Romney supports drilling in the Gulf, the outer continental shelves, Western lands, offshore Alaska; and exploitation of shale oil deposits.
Santorum, Perry and Romney favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
NOTE: These proposals would provide many thousands of jobs and stimulate the economy but at what cost to the environment?
ENVIRONMENT: Bachmann wants to repeal "radical environmental laws that kill access to natural resources." She voted to bar EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. She, along with Romney, opposes cap and trade.
Gingrich, along with Perry, wants to convert the EPA into "environmental solutions agency" with no enforcement powers, devoted to research and "more energy, more jobs and a better environment; although he once backed tougher environmental regulation.
Huntsman wants to end the EPA's "regulatory reign of terror." Yet, he acknowledges the scientific evidence that humans contribute to global warming.
Paul says emission standards should be set by states or regions. He, along with Huntsman and Romney, believed human activity "probably does" contribute to global warming; now later, he, along with Perry and Romney, says that there isn’t conclusive evidence [it hasn’t been proven] that human activity contributes to global warming and calls such science a "hoax."
Santorum also believes the science establishing human activity as a likely contributor to global warming is "patently absurd" and "junk science."
GAY MARRIAGE: Bachmann, Romney, Santorum and Perry [who earlier was against it before he was for it] support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Gingrich says, “If the Defense of Marriage Act fails, you have no choice except a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
Huntsman supports same-sex civil unions, with many of the rights of marriage, and says states should decide their own marriage laws and not the federal government [the same as Paul and Perry].
HEALTH CARE:
Bachmann favors limits on medical malpractice lawsuits as a way to control health care costs, and she voted against expanding Children's Health Insurance Program.
Gingrich wants to prohibit insurers from canceling or charging hefty increases to insurance holders who get sick [or have a preexisting health condition??]. He wants a "generous" tax credit to help buy private insurance, although he previously supported mandatory coverage [like ObamaCare].
Huntsman says,"Let the states experiment," and he is open to restricting or limiting Medicare benefits for the wealthy [like Perry].
Paul opposes compulsory insurance and all federal subsidies for coverage.
Perry wants to raise eligibility age [to what??] for Medicare benefits, offer federal aid (“subsidies”) to help elderly buy private insurance instead of getting Medicare benefits.
Romney opposes federal mandate to obtain coverage [ObamaCare]; introduced health insurance mandate in Massachusetts [RomneyCare or is it ObomneyCare??]. He also proposes "generous" subsidies [like Perry] to help future retirees buy private insurance instead of going on Medicare.
Santorum wants Congress to defund Obama’s Health Care Law if passed, and supported Bush administration's prescription drug program for the elderly.
NOTE: All the candidates would seek repeal of Obama's health care law.
IMMIGRATION: Bachman favors a fence all along the 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexico border, not just the 650 miles built, and she opposes government benefits for illegal immigrants and their children [no matter how long they have lived in the U.S. and are law-abiding and pay taxes].
Gingrich supports option of giving legal status to illegal immigrants who have sunk roots in the U.S. and lived otherwise lawfully, and supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants' children who perform U.S. military service. He also wants to make English the official language. He wants to divert more Homeland Security assets to the Mexican border.
Huntsman thinks it is unrealistic to deport all illegal immigrants out of the country. In Utah, he threatened to veto a bill to repeal cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants [so that means he is in favor of cheaper in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants].
Paul says, “Do whatever it takes to secure the border and end the right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [even if they served honorably and with distinction in the Armed Forces]"; and he wants no social services for illegal immigrants and aggressive deportation [like Bachmann].
Perry opposes a complete 1,900 mile U.S.-Mexico border fence [what about the 650 mile one that’s already built??], but instead wants more border agents [like Gingrich]. He supports continued U.S. citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants [like Gingrich].
Romney favors complete U.S.-Mexico border fence [like Bachmann and Santorum], opposes education and social service] benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, Romney and Santorum].
Santorum supports complete border fence [like Bachmann and Romney], opposes education and social service benefits to illegal immigrants [like Paul, Bachmann, and Romney].
SOCIAL SECURITY: Bachmann wants to keep Social Security for older workers [what age??] and wean everybody else off. The age for retirement benefits will have to go up for new workers [like Huntsman and Perry].
Gingrich wants to give younger workers the "option" of diverting Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts [privatizing social security benefits in risky equity investments??].
Huntsman and Perry want to restrict benefits for the wealthy.
Paul, like Gingrich, says younger workers should be able to "opt out" [diverting Social Security taxes to risky private retirement accounts or other savings] of Social Security taxes and retirement benefits.
Perry previously branded Social Security a "disease," now says it should be saved. He supports private accounts [like Paul, Santorum and Gingrich].
Romney says that reducing inflation adjustments for rich retirees are among options that should be considered [Huntsman and Perry differ on that matter].
TAXES: Bachmann wants a tax holiday [no one is taxed on their personal income??] followed by 5% corporate tax rate for U.S. companies operating overseas that invest their profits back in the U.S. economy.
Gingrich wants to offer the American taxpayer a “choice" of filing under the current system or paying a 15% tax rate, preserving mortgage interest rates [prevent them from rising] and allow charitable deductions. He also wants to cut corporate tax to 12.5%.
Huntsman favors lower income tax rates coupled with the elimination of deductions [including charitable in opposition to Gingrich] and cut corporate tax to 25%.
Paul wants to eliminate the entire federal income tax system and the IRS, and defund half the government.
Perry, like Gingrich, wants to offer the American taxpayer a "choice" between the current system and 20 % tax on income, preserving mortgage interest rates and charitable deductions. Also, for each individual or dependent, he wants to exempt them from paying taxes on the first $12,500 in income.
Romney wants no one with an adjusted gross income under $200,000 to be taxed on interest, dividends or capital gains and to cut corporate tax rate to 25% [like Huntsman].
Santorum proposes zero corporate tax. "If you manufacture in America, you aren't going to pay any taxes." He opposes any national sales tax.
NOTE: All candidates support eliminating the estate tax and keeping Bush-era tax cuts.
TERRORISM: Bachmann wants to expand Guantanamo [like Gingrich], and no Miranda or constitutional rights for foreign terrorist suspects [enemy combatants]. She approves the use of “waterboarding” [torture or extreme interrogation techniques] and probably ‘rendition’ as an option in prisoner interrogations.
Gingrich supports extending and strengthening investigative powers of Patriot Act and creation of the Homeland Security apparatus. In 2009, he said of waterboarding: "It's not something we should do."
Huntsman said Homeland Security Department has been heavy-handed, conveying a "fortress security mentality that is not American [unlike Gingrich]," and opposes waterboarding [unlike Bachmann and the 2009 Gingrich].
Paul opposes Patriot Act as an infringement on liberty [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich], and says: "Waterboarding is torture, it's illegal under International Law and under our law, and it's also immoral [unlike Bachmann,Perry and Santorum and like Huntsman and Gingrich 2009]."
Perry said it was "unprincipled" for Republicans to vote for creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Huntsman and unlike Gingrich and Santorum]. Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann], and that U.S. interrogators should "use any technique" short of torture, which he did not define [Is "waterboarding" torture according to Perry??].
Romney wants no constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects [like Bachmann]. His campaign says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture [like Bachmann, Santorum, Romney and Perry and unlike 2009 Gingrich and Paul].
Santorum defends creation of the Homeland Security Department [like Gingrich and unlike Huntsman and Paul]. He voted to reauthorize Patriot Act [unlike Paul]. And says airport screeners should employ racial or ethnic profiling; "Muslims would be someone you'd look at, absolutely." Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists [like Bachmann and Perry]. He says waterboarding has proved effective [and is not "torture"??].
WAR: Bachmann opposed intervention in Libya and said that might help terrorists there, and called Afghanistan a war "we must and can win" with sufficient troops and money [now that Osama bin-laden is dead, is it worth staying there just to fight the Taliban and pump billions of dollars into a corrupt Karzai government??].
Gingrich supported the Iraq war and opposed early U.S. troop withdrawal and said U.S. forces should not have been used in the Libya campaign, after he had called for such an intervention at the onset [he was "for" it before he was "against" it]. He opposes "precipitous" [all at once??] pullout from Afghanistan.
Huntsman proposes reducing U.S. involvement in conflicts around the globe and, unlike most rivals, says Pentagon budget should be cut. He opposes any U.S. military assistance of new Libyan government and says no more than 15,000 U.S. troops should be left in Afghanistan [for how long; indefinitely??].
Paul wants to bring most or all troops home from foreign posts "as quick as the ships could get there [like Huntsman]." He opposed U.S. intervention in Libya [like Bachmann and Gingrich at first] and wants to cut the Pentagon budget [like Huntsman].
Perry criticized planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq this year and Afghanistan next year but has not said how many troops should stay or for how long.
Romney has not specified the troop numbers behind his pledge to ensure the "force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully" [whatever the mission is] in Afghanistan.
Santorum said in September that 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops should remain in Iraq and that troops should withdraw from Afghanistan "a little slower" [Gingrich's 'precipitous' pullout??] than the timetable Obama is planning.
NOTE: Some of Texas Congressman Ron Paul's political solutions seem to be a bit too 'Draconian' or just plain crazy.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 2, 2012
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Is Mitt Romney really the best the GOP has to offer?
President Barack Obama and the political gods of the Democrats must be secretly smiling, quite amused as the GOP struggles to find its soul because right now they look like the blind leading the blind, stumbling all over each other. First there was Romney, then Bachmann, Perry, Cain and even Gingrich seems more like Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men won’t be able to put him back together again. So, it seems that all of this invariably leads back to Mitt Romney, who is probably the biggest vacillator or flip-flopper since Senator John Kerry. This is apparently the best that the Republican Party can produce from within their ranks to run for this country’s highest elected office; which is a sad tragedy in and of itself. Romney is not the unOBAMA or noBAMA but rather he is nothing but ObamaLITE. The most noticeable distinction between the two is that Barack start singing a different tune after he got elected and Mitt is telegraphing all his political “rope-a-dope” moves to the electorate and somehow thinks he is going to fake us out, trying dazzle us with his fancy footwork, float like a butterfly and sucker punch us into voting him into the Oval Office; but we can see all this coming a mile away and it’s the same old song.
Mitt has had to reinvent himself several times on the campaign trail, even contradicting earlier positions as well as in some instances excerpts from his book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” Romney spent 25 million dollars of his own money and lost to John McCain for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, so why would Republicans want him to lead the party into the 2012 Presidential campaign, now; what has changed to make them want to? Mitt Romney likes to try and relate to the average American but he co-founded Bain Capital, a venture capitalist firm, which is just what those people in OCCUPY WALL STREET are demonstrating about. Sure, Romney can boast about the businesses and jobs he helped create but talks very little about the hundred of millions that he is worth or what he does with all his wealth-outside giving a tenth to the Mormon Church. No, Mitt, like John Kerry, was in favor of it before he was against it-or rather before he decided to run for President and as the old saying goes, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 26, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Mitt has had to reinvent himself several times on the campaign trail, even contradicting earlier positions as well as in some instances excerpts from his book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” Romney spent 25 million dollars of his own money and lost to John McCain for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, so why would Republicans want him to lead the party into the 2012 Presidential campaign, now; what has changed to make them want to? Mitt Romney likes to try and relate to the average American but he co-founded Bain Capital, a venture capitalist firm, which is just what those people in OCCUPY WALL STREET are demonstrating about. Sure, Romney can boast about the businesses and jobs he helped create but talks very little about the hundred of millions that he is worth or what he does with all his wealth-outside giving a tenth to the Mormon Church. No, Mitt, like John Kerry, was in favor of it before he was against it-or rather before he decided to run for President and as the old saying goes, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 26, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Saturday, December 24, 2011
X Factor’s first season grand finale was xcellent
X Factor got it right because Melanie Amaro was better than Josh Krajcik, but just barely. Josh reminded me of a cross between Joe Cocker and Otis Redding and perhaps if he were younger or looked a little different he may very well have been the winner. Chris Rene certainly had mad skills (rapper/singer, songwriter, dancer and musician) like Justin Timberlake and Ne-Yo, and his commitment to kick his drug habit certainly made him the emotional favorite. Nevertheless, fans voted for who they thought was the best and I think the telephone voting wasn't rigged like on “American Idol” season 1, when Tamyra Gray was a better singer than Kelly Clarkson and all the judges, including Simon Cowell, were surprised that she was eliminated so early in the final competition.
Ironically, Melanie was booted off the show earlier by the very Simon Cowell, who later felt in his heart that he had made the wrong decision and asked her to come back, and it seems that he made the right choice after-all; considering that he had put himself on the spot by the prediction that she would win the competition at the finale on Thursday, December 22nd before the votes were cast. The only thing that perhaps changed the tone of the evening was the booty-shaking and gyrating dancers on stage during the montage by Fifty-Cent and other rappers which almost made X Factor seem like XXX-rated factor, instead.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 23, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Ironically, Melanie was booted off the show earlier by the very Simon Cowell, who later felt in his heart that he had made the wrong decision and asked her to come back, and it seems that he made the right choice after-all; considering that he had put himself on the spot by the prediction that she would win the competition at the finale on Thursday, December 22nd before the votes were cast. The only thing that perhaps changed the tone of the evening was the booty-shaking and gyrating dancers on stage during the montage by Fifty-Cent and other rappers which almost made X Factor seem like XXX-rated factor, instead.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 23, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Peace on Earth and goodwill toward men?
Col. Robert Thieme of Barachah Church in Houston, TX penned this unforgettable quote decades ago in one of his many books, which was: “Ritual without reality is meaningless,” and considering the state of things, especially in America, this statement could not be truer. If those hopeful words in the gospel of Luke are to have any real meaning then what it requires of us is to look at the world in which we live through radically different lenses. The intervention of transcendent God into humanity as a fleshly being called Jesus Christ was so much more than teaching superior moral values or starting a new religion, but rather to inaugurate or herald the coming Kingdom [government] of God to the earth.
This divine theocracy will supplant all human political, social and economic institutions which are now under the power or dominion of Satan and sin, however, under the new celestial administration with the eternal Father and Jesus [Yeshua] at His right hand on the throne of power, the earth will be a place where righteousness dwells and God will wipe away all our tears, and there will be no more pain or sorrow and no more death because the former things will have all passed away. All the bickering and controversy over displaying overly religious and for that matter, non-religious holiday symbols in public buildings or private homes misses the point entirely because all these things will be destroyed anyway. The thing that will endure is what we have done with our lives in the time God has allotted to us, and what we have done by emulating Jesus in love to unselfishly or unconditionally make a stranger’s life better and as a result of our good deeds and works our name will be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 22, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
This divine theocracy will supplant all human political, social and economic institutions which are now under the power or dominion of Satan and sin, however, under the new celestial administration with the eternal Father and Jesus [Yeshua] at His right hand on the throne of power, the earth will be a place where righteousness dwells and God will wipe away all our tears, and there will be no more pain or sorrow and no more death because the former things will have all passed away. All the bickering and controversy over displaying overly religious and for that matter, non-religious holiday symbols in public buildings or private homes misses the point entirely because all these things will be destroyed anyway. The thing that will endure is what we have done with our lives in the time God has allotted to us, and what we have done by emulating Jesus in love to unselfishly or unconditionally make a stranger’s life better and as a result of our good deeds and works our name will be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 22, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Navy’s “First Kiss” tradition a non-event?
The article by Associated Press reporter Brock Vergakis which appeared in the Thursday edition, December 22, 2011, of the Tacoma News Tribune about the Navy allowing a sailor to share a ‘kiss’ on the pier with a significant other after returning from 80 days active duty at sea. Ordinarily this would be a true non-event but with a repeal of former President Clinton’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy regarding gays/lesbians serving in the military, this practice may be reevaluated. Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta of the USS Oak Hill amphibious landing ship hugged and kissed her partner, also a Navy sailor, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell upon disembarking from the craft. According to the commanding officer David Bauer, said the crew’s reaction to who was selected for the coveted privilege was ‘positive’ but that could be just putting on a particular game face just to cover up the surprise or embarrassment. Was Commander Bauer and his crew unaware of Officer Gaeta’s sexual orientation as well as other sailors who might be GLBT, too? And secondly, if all of this was known, were there any attempts to discourage or disqualify any and all non-straight sailors or officers from participating in this lottery/selection process? These particular women are probably attractive but what if it were two men kissing, or maybe a couple who are the stereotypical “dike-looking” or short-haired, masculine-looking female (“Butch”) who was participating in this storied kiss?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 22, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 22, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, December 16, 2011
Was the Iraq War worth the cost?
President George W. Bush declared “The War in Iraq is over” aboard an aircraft carrier six weeks after his pre-emptive invasion of the country when superior U.S. airpower decimated Saddam Hussein’s Army and Republican Guard and American troops entered Baghdad unopposed by insurgent fighting forces and were greeted with cheers by Iraqi citizens. That was nine years ago so this declaration by President Barack Obama must be the “official” end of America’s combat role as military forces leave the country. Of course, there is still a large diplomatic corps of 16,000 personnel and 4,000 security contractors; not to mention the largest embassy in the world that is operational and located right in Baghdad. The thing is, there is no closure in the deaths of 4,500 soldiers and 33,000 injured troops who have suffered traumatic injuries both physical and mental. One cannot help but reflect on the nonsense of it all because there were no WMD’S that posed a “CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER” to America’s national security, no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, no hijacker was linked to Iraq, and come to think of it, how far is Iraq from the United States; I mean, its not like Cuba 90 miles off the coast of Florida?
One cannot forget about Bush administration officials who dragged us into this ‘quagmire’ (un-winnable war) like George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and George Tenet. Osama bin-Laden was cornered in the mountains of Tora-Bora in Pakistan but instead of American forces going in to get him the Pakistani military was given that responsibility and somehow he was able to get away. Ironically, this is the same country where Osama bin-Laden was eventually killed by U.S. Special Forces nine years later, so Iraq wasn’t even necessary and the blood of thousands of our soldiers didn’t need to happen. Not only that, but a weaker Iraq divided among Sunni, Shiite and Kurds means a stronger Iran only emboldens the regime toward the development of an atomic bomb; which will not only be destabilizing to the Middle East but the uncertainty or unpredictability will also rattle financial markets worldwide.
So, what was or is the price of victory- Saddam Hussein and his sons are dead, Iraqi political elections (Democracy Middle East style/“Nation building”), access to Iraqi oil? America may have won the battle but the thing is when a War is over normally there is a formal declaration of surrender, so either one of two things must be true: The enemy is still continuing to fight or there was never any ‘real’ war in the first place. It is a painful thing to say, but it appears that those brave and patriotic soldiers who gave the fullest measure of devotion were just “cannon fodder” and incidental pieces or pawns on a chess board to fulfill the agenda of those ‘special interests’ who are powerful, influential and wealthy and who manipulate world economies and governments, and unfortunately the deaths of other people is just the cost of doing business.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 16, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
One cannot forget about Bush administration officials who dragged us into this ‘quagmire’ (un-winnable war) like George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and George Tenet. Osama bin-Laden was cornered in the mountains of Tora-Bora in Pakistan but instead of American forces going in to get him the Pakistani military was given that responsibility and somehow he was able to get away. Ironically, this is the same country where Osama bin-Laden was eventually killed by U.S. Special Forces nine years later, so Iraq wasn’t even necessary and the blood of thousands of our soldiers didn’t need to happen. Not only that, but a weaker Iraq divided among Sunni, Shiite and Kurds means a stronger Iran only emboldens the regime toward the development of an atomic bomb; which will not only be destabilizing to the Middle East but the uncertainty or unpredictability will also rattle financial markets worldwide.
So, what was or is the price of victory- Saddam Hussein and his sons are dead, Iraqi political elections (Democracy Middle East style/“Nation building”), access to Iraqi oil? America may have won the battle but the thing is when a War is over normally there is a formal declaration of surrender, so either one of two things must be true: The enemy is still continuing to fight or there was never any ‘real’ war in the first place. It is a painful thing to say, but it appears that those brave and patriotic soldiers who gave the fullest measure of devotion were just “cannon fodder” and incidental pieces or pawns on a chess board to fulfill the agenda of those ‘special interests’ who are powerful, influential and wealthy and who manipulate world economies and governments, and unfortunately the deaths of other people is just the cost of doing business.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 16, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, December 2, 2011
Send members of Congress into the unemployment lines
What a radical concept, that is, people can have a “voice” in the way that they are treated by their ruling authorities. Because the history of America is rooted in civilian government, this rules out Martial Law through the military or a police-state implemented through local jurisdictions. Barney Frank, House of Representatives member from Massachusetts made an interesting comment recently on McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS that, “If Americans are dissatisfied with the performance of Congress, then we are the ones to blame because we are the ones who elect them.” His statement should be taken seriously because it is ‘right-on-the-money’ and instead of the benign and unfocused energy as well as the non-platform of OCCUPY WALLSTREET or even the Tea Party’s initial momentum, the answer to our grievances is right before our very eyes. All the 535 members of Congress will be up for reelection in 2012 and according to the latest Gallup and other opinion polls, members of Congress have a favorable rating in the single digits (9% or so). There should be slogans on tee-shirts with the caption of a broom, symbolizing making a clean sweep in Washington D.C. There could even be the picture of a mop, which depicts cleaning up all the mess in the nation’s capitol.
Americans have been held hostage far too long amid all the legislative gridlock and partisan politics and “enough is enough!” In reading the inspirational reasoning preserved in the words contained in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, several key phrases seem to leap from the page, namely: “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . all men [they] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness- to that end Governments [branches of government] are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [people]; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive [ineffectual] of these ends, it is the “right” of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government [or political representation], laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [which] shall seem most likely to effect [secure] their safety and happiness.” Although this treatise sounded the clarion call to rebel against the abuses of power by King George of England and Parliament as well as the military superiority of British Royal Navy on the high seas, nonetheless, the principal is that when the legitimate needs and expectations of a free people are unfilled or ignored by their government, The PEOPLE have the right, due to legal precedent, cultural experience, social values and history, to effect “CHANGE” in the way they [the majority] deem that suits their needs to insure domestic tranquility; which at this stage is anything but that with all the protests and high unemployment.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Americans have been held hostage far too long amid all the legislative gridlock and partisan politics and “enough is enough!” In reading the inspirational reasoning preserved in the words contained in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, several key phrases seem to leap from the page, namely: “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . all men [they] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness- to that end Governments [branches of government] are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [people]; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive [ineffectual] of these ends, it is the “right” of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government [or political representation], laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [which] shall seem most likely to effect [secure] their safety and happiness.” Although this treatise sounded the clarion call to rebel against the abuses of power by King George of England and Parliament as well as the military superiority of British Royal Navy on the high seas, nonetheless, the principal is that when the legitimate needs and expectations of a free people are unfilled or ignored by their government, The PEOPLE have the right, due to legal precedent, cultural experience, social values and history, to effect “CHANGE” in the way they [the majority] deem that suits their needs to insure domestic tranquility; which at this stage is anything but that with all the protests and high unemployment.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Mother of fifteen children is now homeless
Just when you think things couldn’t get any weirder in America, another event happens to come along, unexpectedly, from somewhere out-of-the-blue. Although this is an old story that reporter Keith Morelli, The Tampa Tribune, broke way back in April 21, 2010, still, it has reignited the contentious debate regarding family planning and the responsibility of social services agencies. The woman is an African-American, 37 years old, unemployed mother of fifteen children, and a longtime Florida resident. Her fiancé is currently serving a prison term on unspecified charges and he is the father of ten of the children. Three of the children are emancipated adults, or “aged out,” meaning they are past eighteen years old and living on their own. Angel Adams did have an $800-a-month, two-bedroom apartment that was paid for by Hillsborough Kids, but she was evicted last week. Ms. Adams, who doesn’t work, believes that her “work” is to have babies, which she says are ‘gifts’ from God. While no one can hold that sentiment against her, it doesn’t seem rational to think an All-Wise God and Creator would place the sole responsibility upon one woman to have more children than she can reasonably and adequately provide for their needs. But as she boasts, “I can have as many as I want to” what is even more outrageous is when she also asserts that somebody owes her. She goes on to say, “Somebody needs to pay for All My Children, somebody needs to be held accountable. . .” The only “ALL MY Children” that comes to mind is a soap opera that is almost as old as she is, and Angel and her family failed to make the casting director’s cut.
It is believed that Ms. Adams has at least three baby daddies out there who have fathered these children and it appears from her living situation that Child Support is not received at all or very little; and who knows, these men may be incarcerated also? The youngest is a 6 month old baby and the family now stays at the Economy Inn on East Busch Boulevard, in Tampa, FL. There is a microwave and mini refrigerator. No stove. One sink, one toilet, one shower. Everyone's barefoot, walking on a dirty, stained green carpet. The living quarters also consist of two beds where the girls sleep on one bed and the boys sleep on the other; and Angel sleeps on the floor. A relative paid for the hotel room for a week, but beyond that point, who knows what will happen. Hillsborough Kids, which manages child welfare in the county, through spokesman Elaine Olszewski, said they are working with Metropolitan Ministries to arrange a place to stay for Adams and should have one ready by next week. The children were taken away by sheriff's deputies two years ago, but were reunited with Adams six months ago, when she was set up in an apartment off North Boulevard near of Columbus Drive. A home-study report was completed to the satisfaction of everyone involved, she says.
Olszewiski goes on to say, “All the children of school age are enrolled and going to school, although Adams says they have not gone to school since she took up residence in the hotel. She says she can't get them to school. Typically, single moms in similar situations have frequent visits by case workers, who work with charities in the community and coordinate grant money to pay for services. "It's on a case-by-case basis," she says. "It's not that we would financially support them, but we are connected to community partners that provide assistance." The goal when children are removed from the home is to get them back with biological parents, she said, and caseworkers try to work to that end, she says.
"Children always are better with their biological parents," she says. If, according to Ms. Olszewiski, social workers and the make sure all the requirements of a safe and wholesome environment exist for the children, then this present situation is untenable and the court will have to intervene and a judge may have to sign an order to remove the children temporarily until a more suitable arrangement can be made. There is another issue that needs to be addressed, namely, what to do about the mother? Should Angel Adams be allowed to continue having children just because she in biologically fertile and able to do so, even when she cannot financially provide for them and sees herself on a mission from God to replenish the Earth? In China, “one” child is the limit and any woman having more than that number is forcibly sterilized by officials of the government. Of course in China’s case, they have a population of nearly 2 billion people, too.
So, what should be the role of the local social service agencies, federal government, community outreach sources, churches and the taxpayers in providing assistance and public resources without any strings attached? The country was shocked a couple of years ago when Nadya “Octomom” Suleiman had all those multiple births from fertility treatments but in her case she became sort of a celebrity and was the flavor-of-the-week; at least for awhile. Now that Nadya has almost faded from memory Angel has risen to take her place in the talk around the water cooler. It is doubtful that Ms. Adams will or has received the attention that Nadya has because with her it was more surprise and fascination and a slight resemblance to actress Angela Jolie, of whom she was a fan, only helped feed the mystique. In Ms. Adams case it just may well be the old racial stereotype of a promiscuous or sexually-active, Black welfare mom having all these babies with different men and the tab is being paid on the taxpayer’s [mainly White] dime.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
It is believed that Ms. Adams has at least three baby daddies out there who have fathered these children and it appears from her living situation that Child Support is not received at all or very little; and who knows, these men may be incarcerated also? The youngest is a 6 month old baby and the family now stays at the Economy Inn on East Busch Boulevard, in Tampa, FL. There is a microwave and mini refrigerator. No stove. One sink, one toilet, one shower. Everyone's barefoot, walking on a dirty, stained green carpet. The living quarters also consist of two beds where the girls sleep on one bed and the boys sleep on the other; and Angel sleeps on the floor. A relative paid for the hotel room for a week, but beyond that point, who knows what will happen. Hillsborough Kids, which manages child welfare in the county, through spokesman Elaine Olszewski, said they are working with Metropolitan Ministries to arrange a place to stay for Adams and should have one ready by next week. The children were taken away by sheriff's deputies two years ago, but were reunited with Adams six months ago, when she was set up in an apartment off North Boulevard near of Columbus Drive. A home-study report was completed to the satisfaction of everyone involved, she says.
Olszewiski goes on to say, “All the children of school age are enrolled and going to school, although Adams says they have not gone to school since she took up residence in the hotel. She says she can't get them to school. Typically, single moms in similar situations have frequent visits by case workers, who work with charities in the community and coordinate grant money to pay for services. "It's on a case-by-case basis," she says. "It's not that we would financially support them, but we are connected to community partners that provide assistance." The goal when children are removed from the home is to get them back with biological parents, she said, and caseworkers try to work to that end, she says.
"Children always are better with their biological parents," she says. If, according to Ms. Olszewiski, social workers and the make sure all the requirements of a safe and wholesome environment exist for the children, then this present situation is untenable and the court will have to intervene and a judge may have to sign an order to remove the children temporarily until a more suitable arrangement can be made. There is another issue that needs to be addressed, namely, what to do about the mother? Should Angel Adams be allowed to continue having children just because she in biologically fertile and able to do so, even when she cannot financially provide for them and sees herself on a mission from God to replenish the Earth? In China, “one” child is the limit and any woman having more than that number is forcibly sterilized by officials of the government. Of course in China’s case, they have a population of nearly 2 billion people, too.
So, what should be the role of the local social service agencies, federal government, community outreach sources, churches and the taxpayers in providing assistance and public resources without any strings attached? The country was shocked a couple of years ago when Nadya “Octomom” Suleiman had all those multiple births from fertility treatments but in her case she became sort of a celebrity and was the flavor-of-the-week; at least for awhile. Now that Nadya has almost faded from memory Angel has risen to take her place in the talk around the water cooler. It is doubtful that Ms. Adams will or has received the attention that Nadya has because with her it was more surprise and fascination and a slight resemblance to actress Angela Jolie, of whom she was a fan, only helped feed the mystique. In Ms. Adams case it just may well be the old racial stereotype of a promiscuous or sexually-active, Black welfare mom having all these babies with different men and the tab is being paid on the taxpayer’s [mainly White] dime.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
An Economic Recovery may still be years away
Despite the recent Department of Labor statistics regarding an increase in output from factories and the manufacturing as well as the latest drop in the unemployment rate from 9.0% to 8.6%, one shouldn’t start celebrating just yet. President Obama is touting the latest news that his economic agenda is working and for Americans not to give up but keep persevering and making personal sacrifices. Of course, president Obama will take credit for any good news about the economy, even if it is just a slight bump in the positive column. Now, he and former President Bill Clinton are encouraging the creation of well over a hundred thousand “Green” Construction jobs that involve painting roofs white on all residential houses and public buildings to make them more energy efficient. What bolsters this ambitious plan are perhaps those surprisingly lower unemployment statistics as well as better-than-expected “Black Friday” sales figures, but numbers can be misleading. For one thing, the “real” unemployment rate is much closer to between 12% and 15% because individuals who have been fired, quit their jobs or their UI claim is in dispute are not included in the data; as well as the people who have already exhausted their benefits and the many who have just simply given up looking for work altogether. Also, it is believed that the 315,000 reduction in the workforce is probably due to retirement; as opposed to any other significant factor.
Now, as far as the early holiday gift on “Black Friday” to the nation’s retailers from consumers who spent more money in 2011 than in the past two years, merchants shouldn’t uncork the bottles of champagne just yet. Lackluster or slumping sales has forced many merchants and stores to offer deep discounts by slashing prices 50% or more, resulting in lower margins, usually below their cost, on average, just to make a sale. When all the accounting is done it will show that a few of the more well known stores actually made a profit because they lowered their target for the year-end quarter, but the majority of others will do poorly and lose a substantial amount of money. President Obama wants Congress to not let the Bush tax cuts expire because, once again, the ‘detached-from-reality’ political thinking is that this is the same thing as a rebate, of sorts, and people will spend this extra money on big ticket items to stimulate the economy. The thing is though, the Congressional Budget Office or some other governmental agency should conduct a study in conjunction with the IRS and issue a report on how much the average American taxpayer or family will save because in an economic downturn because most individuals who are struggling to keep a job and hang on to their homes will use any and all discretionary income to pay for necessities like utility bills, groceries and medicine and not on other non-essential goods or services. And to wrap this up with a final point, it is like the old adage, “A recession is when everybody else is out of work, and a depression is when you are out of work.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Now, as far as the early holiday gift on “Black Friday” to the nation’s retailers from consumers who spent more money in 2011 than in the past two years, merchants shouldn’t uncork the bottles of champagne just yet. Lackluster or slumping sales has forced many merchants and stores to offer deep discounts by slashing prices 50% or more, resulting in lower margins, usually below their cost, on average, just to make a sale. When all the accounting is done it will show that a few of the more well known stores actually made a profit because they lowered their target for the year-end quarter, but the majority of others will do poorly and lose a substantial amount of money. President Obama wants Congress to not let the Bush tax cuts expire because, once again, the ‘detached-from-reality’ political thinking is that this is the same thing as a rebate, of sorts, and people will spend this extra money on big ticket items to stimulate the economy. The thing is though, the Congressional Budget Office or some other governmental agency should conduct a study in conjunction with the IRS and issue a report on how much the average American taxpayer or family will save because in an economic downturn because most individuals who are struggling to keep a job and hang on to their homes will use any and all discretionary income to pay for necessities like utility bills, groceries and medicine and not on other non-essential goods or services. And to wrap this up with a final point, it is like the old adage, “A recession is when everybody else is out of work, and a depression is when you are out of work.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)