Law Stands Above Religion

I saw the interview of Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence on Hardball. It is accurate to say that Chris Matthews was not the deferential Catholic. Mr. Matthews clearly disagrees with Catholic teachings. That aside the Bishop said something that was truly disturbing to me. He said of an elected official “His first commitment has to be to his faith. … No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith.” He repeated that second sentence twice saying the words precisely the same. In other words your religious beliefs takes a higher priority than faith to the laws of the country.

How does this philosophy differ from Jihadists and others holding extreme religious views? This bishop would make an excellent witness for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Maj. Nidal Hasan. I believe that the United States cannot survive as created by its founding fathers if we accept religious beliefs to hold a higher authority than the laws of our nation. Apparently I am not alone in this view. Chris Matthews is at least one other voice that believes law stands above belief.

War Criminals are not Civil Criminals

“We the people of the United States” are the first words of the Constitution. The basic law of this country was not meant to be the basic law of the world. Now strangely the Attorney General wants to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who is part of a sworn enemy of this nation to New York City for a trial. He was captured in Pakistan. Attorney General Holder argues, along with others that support his views, is that this trial will send a message to the rest of the world that we treat everyone the same. The argument is both flawed and erroneous.

First, the United States has never treated enemy combatants as law breakers. No enemies from other wars have ever been put on trial as law breakers. Those Prosecuted for war crimes have been convicted in military trials. Nuremberg felons are the leading example.

Second, the calls for dismissal of charges against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be based upon the fact that he was not read his Miranda rights, was not charged with any crimes in a reasonable period of time, and was the victim of torture while held in a prison for more than five years. I am not a lawyer and I understand these realities. It is not hard to imagine that a lawyer will have many other reasons to move for dismissal of this case.

Third, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has admitted guilt and under American civil law those pleading guilty are not put on trial. There is not presentation of evidence in cases where the accused pleads guilty. A judge issues a sentence.

For those who would argue that there is no war I ask: if there is no war why has the United States placed over 100,000 troops in Iraq and another 68,000 troops in Afghanistan?

NO to California Water Bonds Totaling $11 Billion

Of course we want to ensure our water supply and at the same time protect our environment. So every few years and sometimes more often the California legislature proposes more money to maintain the water supply. Unfortunately the actual amount of available water has declined. Many reservoirs are well below their capacity. Rationing of water has become a state wide fact. This would certainly be a time when Californians would approve a bond measure to improve the system.

Is that how the legislature decided on a $11.1 billion bond proposal? Apparently the answer is yes. The problem is that this bill appears to be more about building water projects we do not need rather than addressing the issue of water distribution. If passed, this bond issue will provide money for lots of contractors and $10 million for a Sacramento center for social tolerance that has nothing to do with water. This fact was exposed by Sacramento Bee reporter and columnist Dan Walters. Mr. Walters says this bond issue doesn’t address the issues. Traci Sheehan on the California Progress Report web site has identified other newspapers that oppose this waste of money.

Here is a list voter approved water projects from just this past decade I found on the internet.

Proposition 13. In March 2000, California voters approved Proposition 13 (2000 Water Bond), which authorizes the State of California to sell $1.97 billion in general obligation bonds to support safe drinking, water quality, flood protection and water reliability projects throughout the State.

Proposition 40. In March 2002, California voters approved Proposition 40, a $2.6 billion state bond measure for conservation, neighborhood parks, and coastline and watershed protection. Proposition 40 was the largest conservation bond measure ever approved in California.

Proposition 50. In November 2002, the $3.4 billion water bond measure, the largest in California history, was approved by voters. It provides $825 million in funding for CALFED for a variety of programs, including surface water storage studies, water conveyance facilities, levee improvements, water supply reliability projects, ecosystem restoration, watershed programs, conservation and water recycling. More on Proposition 50 is available at www.water.ca.gov/grants-loans.

Proposition 84. In November 2006 California voters approved this measure that will fund water, flood control, natural resources, park and conservation projects by authorizing $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The bonds will be used to fund various projects aimed at (1) improving drinking and agricultural water quality and management; (2) preserving, restoring and increasing public access to rivers and beaches; (3) improving flood control. See details of the law at http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/prop_84_text.pdf.

My calculator says these propositions spent more than $13 billion. The cost to pay back those bonds with interest will most likely be double that amount. Unless I hear some startling reason for this waste of tax dollars we should all vote NO to this give away of another $11 billion.

Negative Nabobs Live On

The President and the Democratic Party find themselves in a “no win” position in the world of politics now. The party of “no” is growing more extreme every day. The Republican Party has become the party of “negative nabobs.”

A little history is appropriate here.

-It was President George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, who rushed his proposal to give $700 Billion to the financial industry without any strings because it was believed that the nation was about to come to a grinding halt. -It was President George W. Bush who formulated the Bush Doctrine of preemptive military strikes that took the country into Iraq and neglected the situation in Afghanistan. -It was the Bush administration that ignored the warnings about the Katrina hurricane.

Now, just 10 months after entering office president Barack Obama is supposed to have solved all of America’s problems. Look at what has happened.

-3.5% GDP growth is artificial. It’s all the result of government programs. Are those the programs that the GOP said would not work? Isn’t the point of the programs to stimulate the economy? -Medical costs are rising at about 10% annually. The cost of insurance and care is taking at least 15% of American earnings. Obama proposes a Federally run insurance plan and the GOP says no but offers no alternatives. -The war in Afghanistan is going badly and the president is considering a new strategy. The former VP, Dick Cheney, calls the president’s evaluation “dithering” and the GOP faithful applaud. -Swine Flu vaccine has been quickly developed and the news media is scornful of medical lab care in assuring a quality product is produced. -Improved relations with nations that have historically been our allies and reduced tensions with other nations has been a hallmark of Obama’s presidency. It is scorned by the GOP. Their answer is let’s fight. Rush Limbaugh hopes the “president fails.”

Unfortunately Democrats are not willing to grant Republican successes. It’s the negativity of the minority party that ought to be condemned. It is rarely about what is good for America. The last time we all came together was the week after 9-11. We all need to ignore the nabobs of negativism.

The American War Machine

We are using the wrong strategy in our Afghanistan battle. United States armed forces along with international armed forces and Afghan security forces and police are now reported by the Associated Press to outnumber Taliban rebels by 12-1. There are currently about 104,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 Americans. Americans are dying at an alarming rate thanks to IEDs. Our fight ought to be with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups that threaten the United States. They are the group that was responsible for 9-11.

The American army is made up of volunteers. As a consequence most American families are not affected by the injuries and loss of life. The military-industrial complex couldn’t be happier because the war is making money for military manufacturers and the commanders have a cause that is difficult to dispute.

My contention is that the United States needs an alternate strategy that uses an undercover, quick deployment methodology that will deter attacks on the United States and its allies. We cannot bring Jeffersonian democracy to people who have no conception of our way of life. Many of the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are living in a 12^th century world. Our occupation of Iraq proves that we cannot contain terrorists. Our final success in that country remains in doubt as proven by the latest bombings in Baghdad that have killed 153 people.

Like the continued manufacture of C-17 aircraft, the industrial complex that manufactures war materiel will lobby Congress to support the McChrystal request for more forces. I fear that Obama does not have the backbone to say “no” to those who love war.

The President’s Vision

President Obama has already made history by being the first non-White to be elected to the presidency. That was a significant accomplishment. However, it is not enough for our new president. He wants to make significant changes to our relationship with the rest of the world and wants to re-make parts of the American economy. The changes he wants to accomplish are dramatic. Given his lack of experience, his objectives seem unrealistic. After all many Democrats as well as most Republicans hold historical views that are contrary to his ideas.

Obama’s allies are operatives who seem to see everything through a political spectrum. Those associates are driven by political motivation. They understand that their best opportunities to change America and its relationship to the world must be accomplished in the earliest part of the Obama presidency. That is the reason for the hard push for health care reform and the very aggressive foreign policy. It is not clear that his closest supporters even understand his vision.

I am not saying that his ideas are wrong. They are just views that do not conform to historic philosophy. It appears he may be correct in his views of the 21^st century.

In foreign affairs Obama wants the United States to step down from its position of supremacy. His calls for greater participation of other countries in resolving international issues is a view that was actually started by President George W. Bush. There is a good reason for this change of philosophy. This country currently has 300,000 soldiers in 150 countries and 820 bases in 39 countries. The U.S. military budget is approximately $500 billion. Starting with George Washington there has been an idea that the country would be better off with limited foreign entanglements.

In domestic affairs Obama wants to involve the federal government in more of the things that impact most citizens. Reform of health care is just the first step of his agenda. He wants the federal government to become more involved in the educational systems and the industrial system of our nation. I believe his objective is U.S.A. Incorporated. He sees this as the avenue to competition in a global economy. His list of books to read in 2009 includes Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. The recent decline in the value of the American dollar is a good thing when you are trying to compete with the low cost nations of the world.

It’s a scary set of objectives. I think I can see where he wants to take this nation. Many people will fight him because they are living in the past. The problem is too few have taken a really good look at where the nation is right now. Those resisting his ideas could easily stop him. The question is what is their vision?

A Political Conservative

the right wing are a hysterical name calling group

President George W. Bush was no conservative. Conservatives are those who stand for the status quo, do not spend more than they earn and don’t want the government to spend more than its income. They view the bible and the constitution as documents to be both respected and honored. They are the group of people who are the accountants, bankers, business owners, and others who make decisions in a calm and deliberative manner. George W. Bush met only some of those expectations.

Is a political conservative the same as a member of the right wing of the Republican Party? In my view the answer is no. William F. Buckely Jr. offered his views in this statement from his National Review magazine. Those of the right wing are a hysterical name calling group who have become a gang of gun totting haters that are praying for Obama’s failure and his early death.

In the current battles in Congress, Republican conservatives are living up to their standards when they say no to changing the health care system, no to new climate change regulations, and no to war when have not been attacked. OK, they have it right on two out of three. It is President Obama who is taking a deliberative approach to committing more troops to Afghanistan and conducting talks with Iran before attacking.

As a Moderate with both Liberal and Conservative views it is impossible to actively participate in any political party. I do understand how someone can be part of one party. Those people have to accept the idea that the majority rules and besides so many people in the party are their friends. Perhaps I am not part of either party because neither party has been friendly enough. Perhaps I am just too conservative for any party.