The Real Meaning of Politics

Posted: September 25, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

Yesterday Pope Francis addressed a joint session of Congress.  In my view his speech, and indeed his entire visit thus far, was extraordinary.  Not just in seeing a Pope addressing Congress, although that alone was indeed extraordinary.  And not just in seeing the overwhelming positive reaction he elicits from celebrities and regular citizens, rich and poor, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.  It was in his message.

(As a footnote, we should note that he was not the first head of a religion to address a joint session of Congress.  Queen Elizabeth II was the first when she addressed Congress in May 1991 as she is the titular head of the Church of England.  Similarly, Pope Francis is also the titular head of state of the Vatican, which adds diplomatic overtones to the visit and resultant ceremonies.  But I digress.)

Some people may focus on his remarks at the welcoming ceremony at the White House and his remarks to Congress as being too “political.”  I disagree.  His public comments are not political, they are pastoral and totally in keeping with the long-held traditions of the Catholic church, and dare I say it, the Bible.  I had the opportunity to watch his entire speech live (you may find a transcript here) and thought it engaging, knowledgeable, and entirely within his “lane” as the current punditry likes to use the term. Likewise, he was animated in his delivery, which means to me that not only did he believe in what he was saying, but that despite speaking in a language that is not his own, he understood the subtleties of what he was saying.

Even though this is his first ever visit to the United States, as a life long citizen of the Americas, he understands the United States and the traditions of the Western Hemisphere.  It was a well thought out speech that understood the historical touchstones of this nation.  Rather than focusing on the individual policies and hot button issues of his speech, I took away that his over all message was one of reconciliation and an admonition that politics, to accomplish anything, means that there must be compromise for the common good.  Additionally, he gently reminded the members of Congress before him that they were not there for their own good, but rather for the good of the nation.  Or as he said right at the beginning of his remarks:

“Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.”

His remarks are particularly cogent given events today.  As I write, the Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he would step down as Speaker, and resign his seat in the House, at the end of October.  We have yet to hear from him personally (I am sure we will before the day is over), but those who heard the announcement in a closed-door Republican caucus meeting said that it was because of the divisiveness of his own party — in particular the roughly 30 or so Tea Party Republicans that have no desire to compromise on anything.  They are interested in their agenda rather than the essence of politics — as even the Pope understood — which is to compromise and, as Pope Francis said in his speech “(b)uilding a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best.”

“To do our best.”  What a concept.  I am disappointed that the tremendous atmosphere of good will and positive outlooks evident in the Pope’s visit yesterday — and it was clear that many of the Representatives and Senators in the chamber during the speech were moved by it — has evaporated in less than 24 hours.

I, among others, have been critical of Speaker Boehner and his leadership style.  However, his stepping down is likely to make things in our Congress even more chaotic and divisive.  The Tea Party element of the Congress will probably celebrate his departure and see it as some kind of victory for their viewpoint. They are aiming for another shutdown of the government, an outcome that the serious leaders in the House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, are seeking to avoid.  We shall see if they are succesful as things unfold.

None-the-less, such developments are the antithesis of the Pope’s message. Already seemingly lost is his plea to the Congress, and through them to all of us as citizens, that we remember our history and our purpose as a nation.  As he put it:

“I have sought to present some of the richness of your cultural heritage, of the spirit of the American people. It is my desire that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream.”

Pope Francis knows the real essence of politics.  I hope that in some way, our representatives, the candidates now vying for our votes for president, and each of us as citizens remembers that we are all here together and can only achieve our greatness by working for common goals.

“My visit takes place at a time when men and women of good will are marking the anniversaries of several great Americans. The complexities of history and the reality of human weakness notwithstanding, these men and women, for all their many differences and limitations, were able by hard work and self-sacrifice – some at the cost of their lives – to build a better future. They shaped fundamental values which will endure forever in the spirit of the American people. A people with this spirit can live through many crises, tensions and conflicts, while always finding the resources to move forward, and to do so with dignity. These men and women offer us a way of seeing and interpreting reality. In honoring their memory, we are inspired, even amid conflicts, and in the here and now of each day, to draw upon our deepest cultural reserves.”

Amen.

Sincere, But Just Plain Wrong

Posted: September 7, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 2 Comments

Rowan County (Kentucky) Clerk Kim Davis remains in jail over her contempt of court citation for refusing to issue marriage licenses in her county.  She refuses because she does not want to issue them for same-sex marriages.  Doing so, she believes, would violate her Christian convictions. However one views the issue of same-sex marriage, we should respect Ms. Davis and her willingness to go to jail for what she believes.  Likewise, regardless of how we view same-sex marriages, we should be very concerned about the way her case is being used by politicians shouting about separation of church and state and stating that she is being denied her rights and that she is being persecuted for her religious beliefs. Shame on them.  She is absolutely not being persecuted for her religious beliefs and it shows that those politicians (I’m looking at you Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and others) are either using her for blatant political reasons, or are shamefully unaware of the Constitution they say they support, and indeed would be obligated to follow should they win the election.

If Ms. Davis has true religious beliefs that prohibit her from fulfilling her duties (and I have no doubt that she is sincere), then as an elected official sworn to uphold the law, she should resign.  End of discussion.  She has exhausted her ability within the law to keep from issuing the licenses that it is her duty to do.  Protest all she likes.  Work to change the law.  Carry out her privileges as a citizen, but do so as a private citizen, not a sworn official of the county.  Tellingly, the United States Supreme Court chose not to hear her appeal.  They did so without comment, which means  that none of the nine Justices thought that she had any legal ground to stand on — including those Justices that voted against allowing same-sex marriages under the Constitution.  Game over.

The deputies to the County Clerk began issuing licenses last week after Ms. Davis went to jail for contempt of court for refusing to follow the law and the instructions of the judge.  It is undetermined how long she will stay in jail, but she could be out today if she would either agree to carry out the duties she swore to uphold, or resign.  If one takes her logic to its end, then we would ultimately be a nation without laws.  She claims that she answers to a higher power and therefore does not have to follow the law of the land as it is superseded by her religious convictions.  It takes very little imagination to think what would happen should everyone of every conceivable religion take the same position.  Our country would fall into chaos.

As a reminder, the First Amendment was written to keep the state (in this case Ms. Davis, I’m sorry to inform you that the state is you) from imposing a particular religion or religious belief on any citizen. It was a reaction to the British crown imposing the Church of England on its citizens in the original thirteen colonies.  By the early 1700’s in those colonies, for example, there was no recognized Catholic parish or church.  They did not re-appear until 1789 (the ratification of the Constitution).  Here is what the amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No one is keeping her from exercising her religious beliefs.  They are only keeping her from imposing her religion on others.  This is a huge difference.  Those that argue that freedom of religion is being inhibited by our government should visit China, Iran, North Korea or a dozen other countries to find out what it really means to lose one’s ability to practice their religion.

Statements such as this one from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — posted on his campaign website — show that Ms. Davis’ situation is being deliberately distorted, or else Senator Cruz really did not learn much from his Ivy League law school and time as clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court.

Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.

Using words like “tyranny” and arresting a “Christian woman” for her faith may be red meat to his ardent supporters, but they do little to promote either the rule of law or religious freedom (oh by the way Senator,  there may be other devout followers of one God who are not Christian).  What is he saying? That we should do away with the Supreme Court?  That no one has to follow their decisions if one doesn’t agree with them?  What is he really saying?  And he will “support and defend the Constitution” by telling people to ignore it?  If he, and others, have a strong view that laws need to be changed, then use the system to change them.

Mike Huckabee — the former governor of Arkansas and running for president — said yesterday that one only has to follow the court’s orders if “it’s right.”  Who decides if it is right?  Mr. Huckabee?  Kim Davis? Me?  While I understand his concerns and those of others about defending the right to freedom of religion in our country, I have to say that as an individual, I do not feel threatened in the practice of my religion.  We truly need watch dogs that continually challenge the government on issues fundamental to our freedoms and our way of life.  But touting anarchy and setting themselves up as the sole judge of what is right and wrong — as Mr. Huckabee, Senator Cruz, and others do — seems to me to be a greater threat to my freedoms than anything the Supreme Court has done.

Ms. Davis may be sincere, but she is just plain wrong. She should resign and then she may protest and work to change the law in any legal way that she can.  I, for one, will work against the demagogues that set themselves up as arbiters of what is right and wrong for the rest of us based on their personal beliefs — or based on what their political ambitions tell them will “sell”.  That to me is a far greater danger.

Business As Usual

Posted: June 8, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

It is with some disappointment, but little surprise, that I note that it appears this Congress is going to do no better than the last several in seriously addressing our nation’s needs.  The elements of a “do nothing Congress” remain in place.  Sadly, this seems particularly true in the Senate with 5 Senators running for president (currently one Democrat and four Republicans) portending that there probably will be more grandstanding and less legislating in the months to come.

Three examples (there are other similar cases) outline my pessimism.  They are the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Highway Trust Fund (part of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Authorization Bill, known as “THUD”) and the Authorization for the use Of Military Force (AUMF or “Anti-ISIS Bill”).

At this point let me do a quick refresher on spending bills 101 in the U.S. Congress.  Authorization Bills set policy and funding limits for an agency or program.  They do not allow for the actual expenditure of money.  An Appropriations Bill is needed to actually spend money and sometimes, although a program is authorized, it does not receive the money — or at least all of the money — they thought they were going to have.  Authorizations have no real Constitutional basis but are the result of the way Congress has handled such issues since roughly the Civil War.  Appropriations are necessary under the Constitution in order for the federal government to spend money.   Authorizations usually cover two years (except for the Department of Defense which is done every year) while appropriations for all agencies and programs are done annually.

Throw on top of all of this that the Congress, and the federal government, are still operating under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 — commonly known as “sequestration” or the draconian spending limits Congress set for itself to force a compromise, and then did not implement one, thus leaving those draconian cuts in place.

So what, you may ask?  First let’s take a look at the 2016 NDAA, and unfortunately, we must dig into the weeds a bit more.  In order to bypass the sequestration spending limits the Republican Congress proposes to put $38 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account.  The OCO is used to pay for war fighting and counter-terrorism operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, the proposed bill directs the Defense Department to use the money (or at least a substantial portion of it) to pay for core costs that should be paid for under the regular budget accounts.  This is a direct attempt to over-ride sequestration for the Defense Department.  Why do this?  Because under the law, to increase Defense spending, cuts must be made in other areas of an already tight budget and the Republican leadership is not willing to do that.  Democrats are threatening to block the NDAA and the president is threatening to veto it for two reasons.  One, they think the hard choices should be made.  Two, and more importantly to them, they think there are domestic programs that need increases as well.  Part of the “deal” with the BCA was that all parties would suffer in order to force a compromise.  It didn’t happen and now, the Democrats argue, Republicans are trying to implement different rules for Defense than those that were originally agreed upon.  No one is sure what will happen in the coming days and weeks. Democrats do not want to look “anti-defense” and yet they cannot allow this budgetary legerdemain to stand as it will set a precedent that probably is not good for the long-term fiscal or policy interests of the U.S. And remember, this is just the authorization bill, they have yet to fully grapple with the appropriations bill that will actually spend money.

Similarly the Highway Trust Fund — used to build and maintain the nation’s federal highways, bridges and the like — is due to go bankrupt.  No agreement could be reached on how to fund it so for the thirty-third time (33!) in the past six years, a continuing resolution keeps it in operation until 31 July of this year.  The Highway Trust Fund was established with the Federal Highway Act of 1956 and resulted in the interstate highway system that became the backbone of commerce in our country. It gets its money from the federal fuel tax, which has not been raised in 22 years even though expenditures are outpacing income and our infrastructure crumbles. There is little agreement on how to continue to fund the program.  Many proposals made, none enacted.  There is little expectation that anything substantive will happen in July.

Besides being political footballs, these two bills represent many others that impact our economy and the ability to get things done.  Acquiring weapons, raising armies and navies and training the men and women to man them takes long-range planning, long-range contracts and long-range funding.  Building roads and bridges likewise takes long-range planning and funding.  When civilian contractors cannot expect to be reliably paid, they are reluctant to take on new work.  This hampers us all.  Most politicians agree that our defense is important (perhaps the most important thing that a national government does) and that our infrastructure needs significant upgrading and maintenance.  These programs also produce jobs, jobs, jobs, of which every politician of every stripe argues we need more. Just get on with it.

Not tied to spending is the dithering over the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that President Obama sent to Congress in February to authorize our current military action against ISIS and other terrorist organizations.  It is now ten months since we began air operations against them.  Experts predict the AUMF will never come up for a vote. The most important role of Congress is to authorize the use of force by our military under the president as Commander-in-Chief and they won’t even take it up in committee, much less bring it to the floor for a vote.  I fail to understand why.  If the president’s proposal is lacking in some way — and several argue that it is — then fix it!  Pass your own legislation to authorize military force against ISIS and other terrorists.  Many (all?) of the fifteen or so (I lose track) Republicans running for president are critical of our current policies.  Four of them are Senators.  Bring up some legislation to get things moving.  To be fair, there is resistance on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats complain that the proposal is too expansive and can get us involved in another Middle East war.  Some Republicans complain that the proposal is too restrictive and may preclude other courses of action should new developments occur. Okay — but I don’t see how doing nothing at all is productive. What it does do is allow the president to continue his current course of action — a good thing if one supports his policy.  Not so good if you don’t.  But the bottom line is the same either way — the Congress is abdicating its most important responsibility and has no immediate plan to do anything about it.

All I see is poor leadership.  All the way around.  Unfortunately, it is business as usual.

 

Just Get On With It Already

Posted: January 15, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

As many of you know, the first real order of business for the new Congress last week was to address the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.  This is the project that will bring Canadian shale oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico down the middle of the United States.  The project is 1200 miles of pipeline from the Canadian border to Nebraska where it will meet up with existing pipelines.

As I’ve written before, to me this is a tempest in a tea pot (and I do not mean Teapot Dome).  Let’s just get on with it and build the thing.  Too much time, energy, money and political capital have been spent on an issue that has not really been addressed on the merits, or lack thereof, of the issue, but rather on the symbolism attached to it by both those that support the project and those that oppose it.

Last week the House voted 266-153 on a measure that pushes the project forward.  The Senate is preparing to debate their version of the bill and it is likely to be a long and contentious session because in addition to the emotion surrounding the issue, there is a long list of proposed amendments to the bill ranging from the science behind climate change to the requirement to use United States produced steel in the construction of the pipes used.

President Obama has already threatened to veto any bill requiring its construction.  Primarily, the stated reason is that it violates the Constitutional powers awarded to the Executive Branch of our government. The argument is that the State Department makes the final recommendation to the president because it involves foreign nations and treaty obligations.  Perhaps.  Primarily, in my view, the president threatened a veto of an as yet unpassed bill in order mollify his supporters that have decided this pipeline is an affront to our national goals regarding the environment.

To this writer, the emotion surrounding the issue has taken over any modicum of common sense. Those that support the pipeline claim that it will rejuvenate the economy, create tens of thousands of new jobs, and support a renewed infrastructure.  Those that oppose it argue that it will be environmentally destructive and create Green House Gas (GHG) emissions of biblical proportions (well, maybe a slight exaggeration on my part).  As usual, the truth is somewhere else.

Both supporters and opponents point to the same impact study conducted by the State Department. The report, known as the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project  analyzes the “environment” in the largest sense — that is both the natural environment and the economic environment and the impacts the project probably will and will not have on the United States. (You can find the Executive Summary that contains the most pertinent facts here.)  Not surprisingly, supporters and opponents have cherry picked the facts that best support their argument.

In looking at some of the numbers bandied about, keep in mind that the Canadian shale oil deposits are already being used and that oil from them is already being transported to sites around North America. Not building the pipeline will not keep the Canadians from developing those sites.  There is also a fly in the ointment as I write this and that is the fact that the price of oil plummeted over the last few months. Good news for those of us at the gas pumps, but it may have an impact on the development of the oil shale deposits as estimates project that oil needs to be in the $65-$75 range in order to make a profit. However, such projects are not started and stopped in short order.  Currently experts do not believe that oil will stay at such low prices forever, and they are planning two to three years out when the price of oil is likely to be profitable again for these, and other similar deposits.

One of the most disputed facts thrown about is the number of jobs created with this project. Proponents argue that the State Department study says that 42,100 jobs will be created.  Opponents say that the study says that it will only be about 50 jobs.  They are both right.  The study says that while building the pipeline, 42,100 “direct, indirect and induced” jobs are created of which 3900 would be as a result of actual construction and last for about a year (or, the report says, half that number for two years, depending on how fast it gets built).  The 3900 would be “direct” jobs. The “indirect” are things such as the folks that manufacture the pipes for the line, or trucks to move dirt and the like.  The “induced” are things like restaurants, movie theaters and other businesses where people with money in their pockets from working on the line will spend their hard-earned cash. Note that they do not say that these will all be “new” jobs as is often argued.  The report actually says that there will be about 50 new jobs when construction finishes (45 permanent workers and 15 contractors). But for argument’s sake let’s use the 42,100 figure.  That equates to an increase of 0.02% to the annual economic activity of the country.  For one year.  Not exactly the savior of the economy it is made out to be.  For further comparison, there have been approximately 250,000 new jobs created each month for seven of the last nine months.  The Keystone pipeline is, at best, a drop in the bucket.

Likewise those predicting an environmental disaster use the State Department report to their advantage. But they also leave out some key data.  Remember, the oil is going to go to market. Regardless of U.S. environmental wishes, the Canadians are going to move that oil.  Currently, much of it goes by trucks and rail cars.  This is the “no action alternative” referred to in the report.  In other words, if the pipeline is not built.  According to the report, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions will increase by 28-42% if the pipeline is not built.  Likewise, it seems that moving the oil by pipe is safer to the community than having trucks and rail cars that are subject to accidents move it.  The report also addresses the possibility of oil spills via a leak in the pipeline, and while agreeing that it could have significant local effects, the overall chance of it is very small and the overall environmental impact would be small.  There is a lot of experience gained in building the tens of thousands of miles of current pipelines and the technology today is significantly enhanced.

To be clear, I think that our country must move to develop non-fossil fuel alternatives as quickly as possible.  I am not for pollution and I believe that we have significant work to do to clean up our environment, to which fossil fuels are a major contributor of pollution.  The reality, unfortunately, is that we are not there yet.  Perhaps some day, but not yet.  Building this pipeline will have little to no impact on cleaning up the environment as it will exist over the near future.  Likewise, building or not building this pipeline will have little impact on jobs in the economy.

Thus my point.  To me, this is indicative of the way the House and Senate operate today.  Little real progress occurs while litmus tests of purity on emotional issues take priority and pose as substantive measures supporting the “American people.”  The reality is that the arguments for and against the Keystone pipeline have little to do with the good of the country and a whole lot more to do with the well-being and financial gains of the members of political parties that take one side or the other and exploit it for their gain.

President Obama can move past this by announcing tomorrow that he has accepted the State Department’s report and approved the building of the pipeline.  No legislation necessary.  Maybe then we can move on to the issues confronting our country that have true bipartisan support such as tax reform and rebuilding our roads, bridges and other infrastructure that is the real lifeline of our economy.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Posted: December 11, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

Two recent Congressional committee reports made the news in the last few days.  The first was from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) on the events in Benghazi on 11 September 2012, and the second is the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program.  These reports show how well the system can work, as well as how sometimes the system fails itself and our nation.

The House report on Benghazi was the seventh such investigation into the events of that night when terrorists attacked the American Consulate in Benghazi Libya and four of our citizens died, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.  This investigation and the resulting report is meant to be the final and definitive report on the events surrounding that tragic loss of life.  It will not be. Influential Republicans in the House and the Senate do not like the results of the investigative report, chaired by a Republican and that garnered bipartisan support from the committee members, and therefore are going to open yet another committee investigation.  This is because it uncovered no evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up or any other devious behavior by the Obama Administration.  They are sure that it happened, even if there is not a bit of evidence to support their claim.  I am also sure that their desire for yet another investigation has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during that time and is likely to run for president in 2016.  They are merely trying to satisfy “the American people.”

Even a cursory reading of the Executive Summary of the report shows that the Select Committee exhaustively reviewed documents and diplomatic cables, conducted hearings and interviews and thoroughly reviewed the mountains of evidence surrounding the incident.  Their conclusion was that “appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night” and that contrary to rumors perpetuated for political purposes “the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.”  They also concluded that “there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”  Further, despite continued claims by those not involved, they found that “there was no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongfully forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi.”

That is not to say that there were no problems.  The Committee findings include the fact that “after the attacks the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate.” They state that the initial reports were confusing and conflicting (also known as the fog of war) and inaccurate information was disseminated prematurely.  The assessments changed after further investigation and the receipt of more information, about ten days after the event.  They also discuss the infamous talking points process that provided Ambassador Susan Rice information when she appeared on Sunday talk shows.  They call the process “flawed” but did not conclude that it was a deliberate attempt to cover anything up or to mislead the public.  It should also be noted that the Administration corrected the record as additional evidence came to light.  (As a side note, I continue to be baffled by the unprecedented and unremitting attention paid to these talking points by some political opponents of the president, rather than on the facts of what happened. Talking points?  Really?  That’s what is important?)

There is more to the report, obviously, but these are the key findings and directly rebut the persistent rumors that continue to exist about cover-ups and abandoning our citizens.  Yet, the report, crafted by a Republican majority committee and joined by Democrats does not satisfy conspiracy theorists, or those that blatantly use mis-truths for their own political purposes.  So, we will now, for the eighth time, have yet another committee investigate at a cost in time and money that could best be used to govern the country.

Perhaps more newsworthy was the Senate report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation techniques following the attacks on 11 September, 2001 — “enhanced interrogation” techniques or “torture” depending on one’s view.  This, again, was an exhaustive study which took many years of investigation and work to compile.  It has less bipartisan support than the House report, but it does have the support of some Republican Senators (notably John McCain (R-Arizona) who knows torture) and the opposition of some Democrats.

I am sure that debate over this issue will continue into the foreseeable future, and I am not sure that there is only one “right” answer.  There is a lot of criticism over the timing of the release of the report, with some asserting that it will lead to terrorist attacks on our men and women around the world. I am not sure what would be a “good” time to release the report.  To my knowledge, terrorists and those that work to undermine our nation go to work everyday and already, in their minds, have sufficient motivation to attack us regardless of any report from Congress.  Let me also short-circuit any claims that anyone in our country wants to coddle the terrorists or has any sympathy for them.  People I know hope they rot in hell, they are evil beings, so this issue has nothing to do with going easy on terrorists.

I have tremendous sympathy and respect for most of the key decision makers following the attacks. They were under tremendous pressure to make sure that no further attacks were imminent or planned and they were focused on the need to safeguard our country.  I get that.  I also think that the discussion over how much or what kind of intelligence was gained, or not gained, is misguided.  Few of us outside of positions of authority that require very high intelligence clearances knows exactly what was obtained or from what source or from what method.  (Although I will point out that members of the Select Intelligence Committee do meet that high bar, as obviously do CIA personnel.)  However, there are many experts that contend torture is counter-productive in the long run and generally leads to poor intelligence.  There are better and more productive ways to gain valuable intelligence from detainees and prisoners that do not include torture.

To me there is only one bottom line argument.  The United States is different from other countries in the world, and thank God for that.  Most countries would not do such an introspective study of such a serious, contentious, and classified operation.  We do, and we try to learn from it.

More importantly, we are different because we act differently.  We don’t do torture.  I know all of the moral and ethical hypotheticals (if you knew you could shoot one person, even if illegally, and save thousands in the process would you do it?  Etc. Etc.)  I am talking about state sponsored, systematic, wide-spread, ongoing operations the scope and nature of which apparently was hidden for a long time from key elements of our government (seemingly including the president, Secretary of State and Congress).  We do not do it and we should not do it.  Otherwise, we are no different from the forces we aim to defeat.

I am no Pollyanna.  I know what goes on in the world and I have a good idea that bad things happen to bad people in our name as a nation.  This is different.  I am glad that it is in the public spotlight and hope that our nation can have an intelligent discussion about what we stand for as a country and where we should draw the line on official activities.

Just two examples of the good, bad, and ugly of life today.

Immigration

Posted: November 24, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

“We’re all very different people.  We’re not Watusi.  We’re not Spartans.  We’re Americans with a capital “A”.  You know what that means?  That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world.”  Bill Murray as “John Winger” in the movie Stripes.

President Obama’s speech last Thursday outlining an Executive Order regarding immigration raised a national hue and cry about the merits of his actions.  Some applauded it, some opposed it on Constitutional grounds and some opposed because, because, well I’m not quite sure why they opposed it, but they sure are vociferous about it.

I am not a Constitutional lawyer and so I will leave it to the experts (of which I’ve heard very few certified experts weigh in — and they seem to be split) as to the Constitutionality of his actions.  It seems from what I read that there is merit to his claim that it is within his power, as well as precedents by previous Republican and Democrat presidents, but I’ll keep an open mind about it as it plays out.  I’m more interested in trying to take the emotion out of it and trying to discern the facts surrounding the issue.

The Pew Research Center did significant research into the immigration issue and continues to do so.  Interestingly, they find that 75% of Americans surveyed believe that our immigration laws need “to be completely rebuilt” or have “major changes.” Only 21% said that the laws are fine or need only “minor changes.”  So it would seem that many United States citizens are looking for the laws to change. There is less agreement on what those changes should be, but still nearly 73% of those surveyed believe that there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally.  There is far less agreement on the means to allow them to stay, ranging from permanent residency only to the belief that there should be a path to citizenship, even if it isn’t an easy one.

They also reveal that there is a misperception on current enforcement of the border.  In recent years, over 400,000 undocumented immigrants were deported.  Significantly higher than for most of the last twenty years.  Conversely, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States also increased over those twenty years — although it is down over the last six years.  In other words, there are lots of ways to look at the numbers, but one cannot argue that there is no, or lax, enforcement at the borders.  To be realistic about it,  there will never be (or almost certainly a nearly non-existent chance) a time where no one crosses the border illegally.  We should also note, that not all of those undocumented immigrants are crossing the border illegally.  There is a significant portion that came to the United States legally, but never left.  Many of those are in college or in jobs that contribute to the American economy.  Indeed, according to the Pew Research Center, Americans are nearly evenly split on whether the presence of undocumented immigrants helps or hinders our economy.  According to their survey, 49% believe their presence “strengthens” the economy and 41% believe that they are a “burden.”

Canards that undocumented immigrants are a pathway to terrorism, and even the spread of Ebola, are merely the hysterical statements of those desperate to get elected, or to find themselves in the news. There is no evidence of either taking place.

I am sympathetic to the argument that our country should not condone illegal activity and, some argue, short change those immigrants that play by the rules and wait years to legally enter the country as workers or permanent residents.  I also argue that it is unrealistic to believe that we are going to round-up and deport 11 million people and send them to, to, where exactly is it that we are going to send them? And how?  To say “back where they came from” is hardly realistic.  And realism is what we need. Deportation, as has been accurately reported, will also tear families apart, as some family members are legal residents and some are American citizens.  How do we deal with that reality?  Talk about an impact on our economy and the militarization of our nation — try rounding up 11 million people from across every state in the Union and transporting them outside of our borders.  Not to mention the impact on the stability of the rest of the world.

This is a knotty problem.  There are no easy solutions.  I keep coming back to the idea that our country is a nation of immigrants.  I daresay many of us would not be upstanding, law-abiding citizens in our nation today if one of our ancestors had not immigrated from somewhere else.  And recall that for much of our nation’s history, all you had to do was show up and find your own way.  So what do we do today?

As you know, the Senate already addressed the issue.  In June, 2013, nearly 16 months ago, by a vote of 68 to 32 a bipartisan bill passed.  (Let us just note that in the current political climate, the Senate usually cannot muster 68 votes in favor of sending flowers on Mother’s Day.)  The bill is not perfect, and reflecting its bipartisan flavor has something for everyone to dislike or like.  It’s key provisions involve a pathway to citizenship that takes about twelve years and involves some very specific actions to make up for their previously illegal status.  It also addresses increased border security, an expansion of high skill visas, a guest worker program and employment verification.  All of the things that those serious about reforming our immigration laws, from both sides of the aisle, want to see.

This is where I am critical of the opponents to any reform.  Speaker of the House John Boehner asked the president to “wait” and he will bring up the issue of immigration in the next Congress.  I am not sure why the president would think that Speaker Boehner would follow through on that statement (when specifically asked, Speaker Boehner would not promise to bring up the issue).  The House had nearly 16 months to act on a bill passed by the Senate and that the president said he would sign.  And nothing happened.  Nothing.  Not a hearing in committee.  Not a vote on the floor.  Not an alternative bill that addresses the issue and that could then go to negotiations.  Nothing.  There is no reason to believe that anything would be different in the coming Congress.  And by most Republican and Democratic polls, it would pass.  But since politics and not what is good for the nation seems to dominate everything in the House of Representatives these days, Speaker Boehner will not bring it up because he knows he would need Democrat’s votes to pass it and he will only bring up bills that will pass with only Republican’s votes.  I am not saying this hasn’t happened in the past or that Republicans are the only one’s to do this, but I am saying that in the past, both Republicans and Democrats brought important, but divisive within their own parties, bills to the floor that passed and the leadership did it because they thought it important to the country.

Those running around yelling “amnesty” should take another look at the Executive Order and at the Senate bill.  There is no amnesty as defined by the dictionary. (“A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.“) Amnesty means that there will never be any action taken against the perpetrators of the forgiven offense. This is not what the president did, and it is not what the Senate bill does. However, for those that just like to shout slogans, I suppose it gives them something to shout about.

I am with the president in this respect.  If certain members of the House and Senate do not like what he has done, then pass a bill.  They can undo what he has done.  However, I do not think that no action is the way to go.  In all the hand wringing and ‘toing and froing” I have yet to hear a serious proposal from the loyal opposition as to how they would deal with the issue.  To coin a phrase, I suppose those opposed to any action on immigration advocate “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  By doing nothing, they are endorsing the status quo.  If only they would say so.  However, I guess they can get more political mileage out of complaining rather than doing something.

Others more knowledgeable than I will decide the Constitutionality of the president’s actions.  But I remind everyone that it will become a moot point if the House finally acts.

 

And We Let These People Vote…

Posted: November 13, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 2 Comments

… but they don’t do it.  As you may have seen, it was widely reported that voter turnout for the election last week was the lowest since 1942, when the population may have been preoccupied by other matters. As tabulated by the United States Election Project , only 36.4% of the population eligible to do so voted. Within individual states there was a wide-ranging result.  Indiana had the worst voter turnout at 28% and Maine had the best at 59.3%.  While non-presidential election years are historically lower than when the presidency is up for election, such a low turnout is shameful.

There is much speculation as to why Americans do not vote and I cannot pretend to know why there is such low turnout.  Some speculate that the low turnout this year was the result of a voter “protest” — not voting so as to show displeasure with the candidates.  If this is the case, then I am not sure what impact those citizens thought that they were going to have.  Somebody is going to get elected whether or not everyone votes.  Non-voting only allows the respective base voters to dictate the results.  Anyone that did not vote (and allowing for the fact that there are some people who were truly unable to vote for circumstance beyond their control) has no right to complain about the course our country takes with its incoming crop of elected officials.  Not voting to protest the candidates is about as silly of a logic train as I can imagine in a democracy.  As the saying goes, elections have consequences, and not voting increases the likelihood that as a society, we are not going to like those consequences.

I also truly hope that in the next two years (until the next election) I do not hear any politician of any stripe saying “what the American people want” based on the outcome of this election cycle.  How can anyone possibly know what all of America wants (no one ever calls me to ask), especially when only about one-third of our fellow citizens participated.  The primary purpose of an election in this country is to allow the American people to indicate what they want.  I cannot believe that nearly two-thirds of the country simply does not care.

Some western nations — most famously Australia — have mandatory voting.  I do not advocate that as I am not sure that it would work in our society and I can think of some serious “cons” to the “pro” of getting everyone involved.  At least it would eliminate the need for the millions of dollars spent this year to get out the vote, money that could best be spent on other things, although I suppose it does help the economy, or at least the advertising industry and political consultants.  The biggest argument against it in my mind (besides our national aversion to mandatory anything having to do with government) is that it would lead to people voting for officials or ballot measures of which little to nothing is known by the voter. Although that happens enough as it is.

The irony of this low voter turnout was brought home to me on Tuesday with the celebration of Veteran’s Day.  Universally, people from all walks of life thanked our service men and women for their devotion to our country.  Many in their tributes mentioned the right to vote and how precious that right is to us.  A better tribute to our veterans than celebrity public service announcements would be for people to actually go out and vote.  The defense of that right comes at a high cost.  A visit to Arlington National Cemetery, especially Section 60 where many veterans of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried, is a stark reminder.  I have occasion to visit the National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland from time to time.  One only has to spend about five minutes in any part of the hospital to see the tragic results of sending our young men and women to war.  The results impact not only the lives of these young veterans, but also their families and friends.  All are easy to spot and none ask for our sympathy or for anything else.  I am amazed at their positive spirit and determination.

I often think of the young people I see there when I hear our elected leaders arguing for military involvement in this spot or another.  It becomes real when you visit Section 60 or the military hospital in Bethesda.  It would be good for all of our leaders to think beyond the political abstract and think in terms of real people being asked to sacrifice their future and their lives.  These young folks will answer the call to go in harm’s way, but to them such decisions are not abstractions or theories or political gamesmanship.  It is real.

And yet, we can only muster 36.4% of our eligible voters that manage to make it the polls.

A Big Storm’s A’Comin’

Posted: November 3, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 3 Comments

Or so they say in Maine.  And they did have a big storm this week that hit much of the East Coast. But that is not what I mean.

Tomorrow is Election Day and by all accounts it is very likely that the Republican Party will strengthen their majority in the House of Representatives and win a majority in the Senate.  Although the final result may not be known until much later (Louisiana and Georgia are very tight Senate races with multiple candidates and in those states at least a 50% majority is required), 2015 will likely dawn with the Republicans in control of Congress.

My hope for the country is that it is calm and smooth sailing for the next two years.  No storms.  That would require the Republicans in charge to actually govern and for the Democrats to work with the party in control to help them pass meaningful legislation.

My fear is that both Republicans and Democrats will take the “paybacks are hell” approach to governing.  The Republicans by passing legislation they know the President will veto (repeal of the Affordable Care Act, increased restrictions on immigration, and many other issues or worst of all, attempt to impeach him), while the Democrats in the Senate will use the same tactics currently used by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and use the arcane rules of the Senate to block every Republican initiative.  In my view either approach (or worse, both) is bad for the country. We cannot afford two more years of partisan bickering with little to nothing getting accomplished.

There are too many problems facing our country that could be solved through genuine bipartisan cooperation such as rebuilding our infrastructure (jobs, jobs, jobs!), refining the tax code in a meaningful way, removing the sequester (which in 2015 kicks back in and there is universal agreement that it will put a big hole in government operations, especially for the Armed Forces, without a meaningful assessment of where funds need to be spent), genuine immigration reform, determining a coherent Middle East policy (our troops are in combat and the Congress went home without debating whether to put them in harm’s way), approving the Keystone Pipeline and other issues worth the time and huge amounts of money spent on getting elected to Congress.  If they want the job so badly, then they should do it.

Reality being what it is these days in Washington DC, there will inevitably be some bills passed by the Republican Congress that they know in advance the President will veto.  This is so they can use the issues for the 2016 Presidential race.  And for some of those issues, the Democrats will be happy to say that the President vetoed them in order to clearly draw the line between the positions of the two parties.  But let’s hope that these showmanship evolutions are kept to a minimum and the Congress decides to do its job.  They should keep in mind that the Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are at their lowest level of public approval in memory.  No one is happy with them, primarily because not much gets accomplished other than one or another “gotcha” activity.  Come the new Congress in January 2015, let’s just get on with it.

There will of course be wild cards.  One already making noise is Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who we will remember as the architect of the government shutdown last fall.  In the Washington Post today, Senator Cruz said the first order of business should be a series of hearings on President Obama, “looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration.”  He further would not say that he will support Senator McConnell when/if he takes over as Senate Majority Leader.  Look for more Tea Party inspired insurrections in the House and Senate that will sorely test the leadership of Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell. If they do not get support from their more moderate party members, coupled with middle of the road Democrats, then we are in for a long two years.

Let’s hope the current election cycle is the storm before the calm, rather than the other way around.

Tuesday’s Random Thoughts

Posted: September 30, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

So much is happening in our nation and in the world that often events move so fast that many of us cannot keep up with it all. Here are a few quick thoughts about some of these happenings.

  • Syria and Iraq.  The President gave a good speech at the United Nations General Assembly last week.  (You can read it here.)  However, in his remarks there and to the American people, he has assiduously avoided the use of the word “war.” For those flying the combat missions and on the ground in Iraq, legal definitions of “war” make little difference.  For them, we are at war.  As a minimum, the Obama Administration should have the Department of Defense and Central Command come up with a name for the operation.  From the Middle East to Panama we have over the last few decades named all of our significant military undertakings.  This one should be no exception and would, psychologically, help the American people to understand the nature and seriousness of our commitment.  Something like Operation Desert Lightning might work.
  • White House Security.  As many of you are aware, the Secret Service has had a series of revelations of breakdowns in their procedures for protecting President Obama and his family.  So far, most of the suggested changes to improve that security involve expanding the security perimeter around the White House and making it harder for normal citizens to access the area.  Indeed, the security perimeter along Pennsylvania Avenue has already been expanded.  Wrong answer.  Review and follow the protocols.  The failures of the Secret Service cannot be fixed by imposing increasing restrictions on the people. One of my biggest disappointments in recent years is going to Philadelphia to see the Liberty Bell and Freedom Hall.  The security procedures required to get into the building were worthy of any security check for any airport in the world.  Bad news that our symbols of freedom are hidden away behind tight security.
  • Congress.  Whether or not we are technically at war, Congress has an important role to play in making sure that our Armed Forces are not sent needlessly into harms way.  Although the last time that Congress actually passed a resolution declaring war was long ago (in June 1942 against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), they have debated and passed resolutions supporting significant military operations.  Other than authorizing funds to begin to train Syrian fighters, Congress left town last week for campaigning without addressing the current actions against ISIS.  (Incidentally, this is the earliest Congress has left town for mid-term elections in fifty years — after having worked only eight days following a five-week summer recess.  Nice work if you can get it.) There is no more important matter for our government as a whole and for Congress in particular than national defense.  The only good news here is that it was a bipartisan agreement. Perhaps the only one of the past year.  Neither party wanted the “operation” against ISIS to get in the way of the campaigns surrounding the mid-term elections.  In other words, most Representatives and Senators did not want to have to go on record with a vote either for or against military action in fear of having to explain it during the campaign.   Shameful.
  • Baseball.  On a more positive note, at least in this area of the country, both the Washington Nationals and the Baltimore Orioles won their divisions and are in the playoffs.  It is too much to hope that they will meet in the World Series, but the locals can dream.  Already the debate is underway as to what to call it.  Battle of the Beltways?  The Parkway Series?  It would be fun.  And no comment on baseball could be complete without a comment on the retirement of Derek Jeter.  As a rehabilitated Boston Red Sox fan (Jetah — you suck!) I tip my hat to the man.  It is too easy to get carried away about what our various sports teams mean to the country and one can question what role it should play.  But all of the leagues and those in sports would be well served if their players were as consistent — on and off the field — in grace and leadership as Derek Jeter.

I could go on, but this is enough for today.  It is a fast paced world that we live in, indeed.

Enough!

Posted: May 28, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 3 Comments

With yet another mass shooting in our nation, it is with some trepidation that I venture once again into the conversation about what to do about gun violence.  Trepidation only because it is such an emotional issue on all sides.  However, I continue to come back to the fact that as the only major country in the world that has so many violent deaths by guns, we are clearly doing something wrong.  As I have written before, the usual explanations of mental illness, video games, movies, TV, etc. as the cause of such actions do not resonate with me.  I am sure that all or some of those factors are at play, but in those respects our country is not different from Canada, the UK, Japan, or other modern nations and yet it is rare for them to have an incident of gun violence and they certainly do not suffer them on the scale or with the frequency that we do here in the United States.  And let me make an even finer point.  Canada in particular has a culture and a heritage that is very similar to ours, including sport shooting and hunting, and yet they do not suffer from the same indignities and deprivations resulting from gun violence that we do in this country.

I am not advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment — although I think that it is wildly misinterpreted — and I am not advocating the removal of all guns in the country. I hunted as a boy, served a career in the military and enjoy the occasional outing to go skeet shooting.  My thought is simple.  If gun owners have a “right” to own their weapons, don’t all citizens have a “right” to walk down a street on a beautiful evening and not get gunned down?

And please, do not insult my intelligence by arguing that private citizens “need” to have their guns to keep the government in line.  How is that a factor?  And just who do those “patriots” think they are going to go up against?  The police?  The United States Army?  The United States Marine Corps?  “Obama/Democrats/liberals/communists/fascists (pick one) want to take your guns.”  Puhleeez.  Fantasy aside, there is little chance of gun-toting civilians over throwing the government.  And even if there is a chance, who elected them as the only individuals deciding what is right and good in this country?  The last time I looked it up, an armed insurrection was considered treason.  This was settled early in our history over several incidents starting with the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794) where President George Washington (yes that George Washington — aka “founding father”) rode as Commander-in-Chief at the head of a 13,000 man militia to end the armed uprising of farmers and distillers in western Pennsylvania protesting the imposition of a tax on whiskey.  This set the precedent that the national government has the right and ability to enforce the law and to suppress armed insurrections.  If that is not enough of a precedent, and there are others from our early years as a nation, it was put to rest permanently with the Civil War and the preservation of our country.

Of particular concern to me is the concerted effort by “pro-gun” advocates to suppress or prevent the sale of “smart guns.”   Smart guns are, at present, hand guns that have a computer chip in them that prevents their use without some other identifying presence.  From my understanding, the most reliable thus far are the smart guns where the shooter wears a wrist watch style device that communicates with the weapon and allows it to shoot.  No signal, no shooting.  While there may be legitimate arguments as to why this is or is not a good idea in certain scenarios, it seems to me that a large number of gun owners have their weapons for sport, either hunting or target shooting.  It seems to me that having such a gun would cut down on spur of the moment violence, suicides, and children coming across an adult’s gun and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else.  It’s a start, not a panacea.

Unfortunately, two gun dealers recently found themselves in the news when they offered smart guns for sale.  One was in California and one was in Maryland.  Both received personal threats to their own and their families’ well-being including death threats.  Additionally, there were threats to burn down their shops and other over the top reactions for merely offering them for sale along with the usual assortment of weapons in their stores.  They both decided not to sell them fearing for their safety.  So much for free market capitalism.  I have no idea whether they would be a good seller or not or whether there is a market for them.  I do know that the zealots that somehow equate guns with their own self-worth are preventing us from finding out. The ruckus comes primarily because of a New Jersey law passed and signed into law in December 2002.  The law requires that all guns sold in New Jersey be “smart guns” starting three years after the state approves a workable smart gun.  Law enforcement is exempt from the statute.  To date, New Jersey has not approved a smart gun, however, gun advocates and the National Rifle Association fear that the sale of such a weapon (see above) would cause New Jersey to implement the law.  As they see it, this is the first step in “taking our guns away.”  I disagree, but then what do I know?  Legislators in New Jersey have offered to repeal the law if the NRA will agree not to oppose their introduction into the market place.  So far, the NRA stands by their opposition to the guns.  Curious.

There are so many myths about the right to bear arms and what it means that a rationale discussion is hard to come by.   But I agree with Richard Martinez, the father of one of the students gunned down Friday night at the University of California Santa Barbara when he says that our motto concerning gun violence should be “Not one more!”  Not one more child in an elementary school, not one more college student sitting in class, not one more person minding their own business walking down the street. Not one more.

Ironically, in some perverse way, the continued senseless acts of violence may in the end radicalize a new generation of young Americans that decide enough is enough.  As more and more of our young people gain first hand experience through these tragedies it may actually spur them to action.  God help us, but perhaps we need more of these senseless killings in order for people to finally act to change our behavior and our attitudes towards guns.  I am especially tired of the macho baloney some of our politicians espouse in order to garner votes. It needs to change.

I see no reasonable argument against the requirement that gun owners take a certified course and get a license in order to own a gun.  I see no reasonable argument against universal background checks.  I see no reasonable argument against a national data base of gun owners to aid in the solving of gun crimes.  And there are many more steps that can be taken to allow reasonable people to own guns and to pursue their hobbies and/or give themselves a sense of security in their homes.  To do nothing other than offer our sympathies on the loss of loved ones accomplishes nothing.

I am not naive.  Nothing will change over night, or perhaps even in my lifetime.  I am encouraged however when I think of other cultural changes that did occur in my lifetime.  I am of an age where when I was growing up smokers were everywhere, and I mean everywhere. Efforts to curtail smoking were impugned as a threat to every American’s freedom to do what they want.  The term “nanny government” began in this era.  Over time, with education, thoughtful laws and an understanding of the health hazards, not only did the rules change, but people’s attitudes changed as well.  Non-smokers no longer have to put up with smoke-filled rooms in the name of “freedom” for smokers to do as they please.  Smoking is not outlawed, merely regulated to protect the health of non-smokers. Likewise, drinking and driving laws and attitudes have changed equally dramatically in my lifetime.  The danger to innocent people and consistent campaigns of education and enforcement have drastically reduced the number of people killing themselves and others through drunk driving.  Why not take the same approach to guns?  My family should not be in danger of a random shooting.  I do not want to take your guns away.

We have done it before when as a nation we came to realize that this was not the type of culture or threat to our well being we want to deal with anymore.  It is time that we move away from this culture of guns and violence.   Enough!

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →