I still support Sen. Obama but I am extremely disappointed in Sen. Obama's vote to support the compromise FISA bill; however, it is what it is - time to move on.
With the exception of a declaration of Martial Law when war or an overwhelming public disturbance makes the civil authorities unable to enforce the law, national security is not enough of a reason to circumvent civil liberties as mandated by the Constitution. I’m reminded of Hitler’s ‘national security’ argument to rise to power and then justify the profiling and eventual persecution of Jewish citizens.
In closing, please consider the messages contained in the following quotes with special attention to the last quote:
"My greatest fear is that too many members of the public will embrace the government's call to give up some freedom in return for greater safety, only to find that they have lost freedom without gaining safety." - ACLU President, Nadine Strossen.
"The trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both." - Christopher Hitchens.
"We've witnessed a fire sale of American liberties at bargain basement prices, in return for the false promise of more security... The America being designed right now won't resemble the America we've been defending... The danger isn't that Big Brother may storm the castle gates. The danger is that Americans don't realize that he is already inside the castle walls." - Wayne LaPierre.
"For those looking for security; be forewarned that there's nothing more insecure than a political promise." - Harry Browne.
Note: The following is a work-in-progress and not my final thinking on NAFTA. I'm struggling with this. Your comments would help a lot.
Sen. McCain supports NAFTA and Sen. Obama opposes it but supports Free Trade. Sen. Obama said, as President, he would revisit NAFTA to include appropriate environmental and labor standards and wasn’t unilaterally opposed to such pacts in the future, as long as they were in our best interests. I am leaning towards Sen. Obama’s position with a twist. Before we consider such pacts in the future, we need to fix our own house.
CEOs, of for-profit companies, are saddled with a profit/loss responsibility that mandates a continual increase in shareholder or Partner value, i.e., ‘make money or you’re gone’. In light of this, CEOs have to contend with increasing salary and pension costs, trade union contracts and/or staggering healthcare insurance costs coupled with the raising cost of raw materials. With this reality, CEOs would be violating their fiduciary responsibilities if they didn’t explore and take advantage of lower cost options. The next pragmatic and logical step would be to transfer selected production, goods and services to countries with lower raw material and labor costs. A resulting by-product is the loss of jobs in America causing Americans to cry ‘foul’ yet; CEOs are doing the job our socioeconomic system of capitalism mandates. Again, CEOs are being rewarded for increasing profits/revenue; not for protecting the sanctity of the American workforce. For all practical purposes, the American worker has become mere chattel to be dispositioned at the whim of capital necessity.
How did we get to this point?
Americans have become increasingly ‘high maintenance’, demanding higher salaries and benefits while, at the same time, demanding more services at lower costs; like a small child that ‘wants his/her cake and eat it too’. We can’t have it both ways and must shift the current paradigm in order to address this problem because we are continually pricing ourselves out of our own job markets.
Sen. McCain supported the troop increase and is against a troop withdrawal timetable; however if elected, he projected he could have most US forces home by 2013 (sounds like a timetable to me). Sen. Obama opposed the troop increase and, as President, would initiate a phased withdrawal to have US forces home in 16 months. Both candidates would leave a residual politico-military presence, without a direct combat role, in Iraq. I believe Sen. Obama’s shorter exit strategy is the most appropriate. Why?
Continued arguments on the rationale for being in Iraq are moot – we are already there. These discussions should be left to the historians and for future generations to learn from, i.e., ‘those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it’. The current and pressing issues are how do we leave Iraq and when? As such, the following Q&A is appropriate:
Q: When will Iraq be in a position to sustain itself politically and militarily?
A: Remembering the age old adage, “you’ll never know unless you try”, we must at some point allow Iraq to stand on its own feet. Iraq has a functioning government and a fledgling military/security force that is starting to hold its own in various Iraqi regions. With continued intense training, I believe that the Iraqi military will be in a position for the US to withdraw in 16 months; the key being the establishment of and meeting critical performance benchmarks. What am I basing my opinion on? Trust in Sen. Obama’s judgment.
Q: Is the current level of military involvement worth the casualties and $650B+ in funding, as compared to the need for our military presence in Afghanistan or elsewhere, to fight terrorism/Al Qaida, and redirecting much-needed funds to address our own deteriorating economy?
A: Again, Sen. McCain supports a longer-term military presence, in Iraq, and Sen. Obama believes it’s time to bring our troops home sooner. I agree with the latter. The costs and casualties are rapidly approaching or; if not, already have passed the point of diminishing returns.
We need to bring our troops home quickly and Sen. Obama will make that happen – sooner than later. However, as President, Sen. Obama will need to demonstrate flexibility to adjust the timetable if the situation warrants it.
Indirectly referring to Sen. Obama’s willingness to unconditionally talk with Iran’s president, Pres. Bush challenged the judgment of all who would engage in direct talks with countries that are labeled terrorist regimes/factions; calling it appeasement and a show of weakness that would add credibility to these regimes/factions. Sen. McCain expressed similar sentiments as follows:
“Senator Obama has declared and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess.”
First, Sen. McCain does not explain why he feels there is a difference between past talks with the USSR and talking with Iran today? ‘To say it’s so does not make it so’. Secondly, to state that Sen. Obama’s judgment is reckless flies in the face of historical diplomatic precedent. Thirdly, without supportive historical or policy precedent (beyond the Chamberlain example), Pres, Bush and Sen. McCain are akin to Chicken Little fearing that ‘the sky is falling’ (an idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent) and their criticism borders on ‘fear-mongering’; “…… very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess”.
Consider the following:
· The following is an extract from a speech given, by former Ambassador Bruce Laingen, on the first anniversary of 9/11:
“…… Iran. A country, a government with whom we've had no direct diplomatic contact for more than twenty years. That makes no sense: It complicates our relations with every country in the region:
Iran. A theocracy for which I have no regard; I experienced personally a theocracy in action, and I didn't like it. But nonetheless a country with which we must find a way to talk about many things, not least its obligation to take account of the belief of the hostages that that government owes them both a fitting apology and some form of compensation………….”[end]
Amb. Laingen was the US chargé d'affaires when he was taken hostage during the Iran hostage crisis.
· Pres. Bush used Neville Chamberlain’s pre-WWII talks with Hitler to make his point. Yes, Chamberlain’s efforts were ineffective but was he wrong for trying? Pres. Bush should have remembered that hindsight is 20/20; hindsight not available to Chamberlain at the time. Pres. Bush failed to mention other precedents supporting such direct talks, i.e., one tree does not make a forest.
The US Supreme Court upheld the rights of Guantanamo detainees in regards to Habeas Corpus. Sen. Obama praised this decision and Sen. McCain called it one of the worst ever. Why would Sen. McCain not support a court decision that affirms an unalienable right?
If criminals can be set free due to violations of their rights (illegal search/seizure or other legal technicalities), challenge their detention (Habeas Corpus) in a civilian US court with access to legal advice/representation, why is it wrong to allow a captured civilian enemy combatant these basic rights of due process? There is precedent for this. The six civilian enemy combatants, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, were afforded these basic rights, tried in a civilian US court, convicted and sentenced to life in a US prison.
Does due process of law only apply to individuals we selectively choose or to all, regardless of citizenship? To answer this question, please note the following quote from our Declaration of Independence – the basis for our Bill of Rights/US Constitution and a vision of fair and just human conduct and jurisprudence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Both candidates support amnesty and some form of permanent legalization for illegal aliens. Both candidates support strengthening our borders by either constructing a fence along our southern border with Mexico (Sen. Obama) and/or increasing border patrols and associated infrastructure (both candidates). The difference between the candidates’ positions is in the details.
Philosophically, I take a very conservative law and order position, i.e., capture all illegal aliens, deport them and levy heavy sanctions on businesses that hired them. However, the reality of millions of illegal aliens already embedded within our infrastructure forces me to take a more practical position – I ‘flip-flopped’.
First and foremost, we must strengthen our borders to prevent the influx of illegal aliens. After our borders are secured, I agree with granting an amnesty but only for a short period of time. During the amnesty, all illegal aliens would be expected to surrender, submit to criminal background checks (see Note), agree to register and apply for lawful permanent residency (Green Card, etc.) or employment status; whichever is appropriate. Once registered, all would be allowed to apply for US citizenship and required to learn English. Note: All failing the criminal background check would be deported.
After the amnesty period, all non-registered illegal aliens would be subject to fines and/or imprisonment and then deported. US business owners hiring illegal aliens would be subject to severe sanctions, the possible loss of their business and/or imprisonment.
Since both candidates have yet to communicate a final position on illegal immigration, I will reserve judgment.
There is an interesting historical example of ‘flip-flopping’. From a biblical perspective, one could say that God ‘flipped-flopped’ when, in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible (Gen.8: 21, 22), he destroyed all life on Earth (with the exception of Noah and his entourage) and then made a covenant with Noah to never do it again
Senators Obama and McCain have repeatedly accused each other of ‘flip-flopping’ on several issues; the latest being Sen. McCain’s attack on Sen. Obama’s integrity because Sen. Obama changed his mind on accepting public campaign financing and the media’s accusation that he is equivocating on Iraq. In turn, Sen. Obama accused Sen. McCain of flip-flopping on off-shore drilling and the tax stimulus program. My response is “get over it and move on”. It is not uncommon for non-incumbent candidates to be very idealistic and reflect this in their initial positions on the issues. As they become more aware of the realities and facts, positions may be pragmatically adjusted.
Using Pres. H. W. Bush’s infamous proclamation, “Read my lips. No new taxes.”, if the facts change, minds will change; the key question being was it in good faith without the intent to deceive or out of political expediency to deceptively appeal to select voting constituencies? Since I believe both candidates are honorable, I choose to believe the answer is the former. However, if a ‘flip-flopping’ trend develops with either candidate, it would be appropriate to ask the integrity/character question and for me to reconsider my current position.
All of us have ‘flip-flopped’ based on our analysis of the current situation as compared to the past – ‘that was then, this is now’. For anyone to criticize either candidate, for ‘good-faith’ changes-of-mind, would be hypocritical. And, in the absence of a trend and if ‘flip-flopping’ continues as a campaign focus, it will only dilute the candidates’ respective messages and take away from much-needed debate on current issues, i.e. throwing the babies out with the bath water.
Out of all who have openly criticized Sen. Obama, for being a member of Rev. Wright’s former church where he made controversial comments that Sen. Obama repeatedly stated he didn’t hear and disavowed, how many are hypocrites?
How many present-day US Senators or Congressmen/women, business and civic leaders, who are in the mid-50s or older age group, actively supported and/or participated in Anti-Vietnam War protests, during the 60s and 70s; activities which included draft card and flag burning, violent civil disobedience, draft dodging and illegal drugs? How many attended rallies that displayed the North Vietnamese flag as a ‘flag of honor’ over and above the US flag? How many burned a draft card or flag or actively avoided the draft? During this time, unpatriotic and subversive rhetoric was pervasive and made Rev. Wright’s comments sound like lullabies. As young adults, how many heard this rhetoric and did not disavow it yet, decades later, profess to be staunch patriots and the epitome of responsible citizenship? If the shoe fits, look in the mirror before criticizing Sen. Obama.
The Holy Bible (King James Version 2000/Book of Matthew) provides the best advice:
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again…………………..”
Sen. McCain supports Pres. Bush’s tax stimulus rebate program after initially opposing it. Sen. Obama opposes this program. I am curious how Sen. McCain would react to the following example of related government waste.
Recently, I received a tax stimulus rebate check for $2.55. The reduced amount was calculated based on an equation for taxpayers with 2007 taxable income over $75,000 and $150,000 for single and married taxpayers respectively. This is disturbing for several reasons:
· The cost of the envelope, postage and the people involved processing the check cost the government considerably more than the $2.55 I received. Multiply this cost by the thousands or millions of taxpayers that fall into my income category………enough said.
· To the best of my knowledge, the income restrictions were not mentioned in media presentations. If I missed something, I apologize for not paying attention. Also, everyone I asked was not aware of these restrictions. Granted, this income limitation was explained on Web sites created to provide information in regards to the stimulus rebate checks, however, these Web sites weren’t widely publicized. I discovered these Web sites when I went to the Internet to ensure it wasn’t a hoax. Now, I wish it was.
I could support an income limit; above which no one would be eligible to get a stimulus check. This would give funds to those needing it versus sending $2.55 checks to us that don’t. I find it insulting that the government would send $2.55 as a ‘stimulus’ check. I tore it up. At least, I can save my government some money. After all, I can’t even buy a gallon of gas for $2.55.
After initially opposing off-shore drilling, Sen. McCain now supports it. Sen. Obama opposes it.
All agree that we need to eliminate our dependence on oil. This said, it begs the question why would we pour billions of dollars into finding more oil when we should be focusing on alternative fuel sources? If off-shore drilling could result in am immediate solution to the current oil crisis, I would support it. However, all agree that if we found new oil deposits, it would take 10 years before the first barrel of crude oil was realized. As such, we need to focus on long-term alternative fuel solutions; a position supported by Sen. Obama:
“Much like his [Sen. McCain’s] gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has 3% of the world’s oil. It’s another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil.”
