Will Obama Instill 'Martial Law'?

A friend of mine posted a link to my Facebook timeline of The Washington Post article by Charles Blahous where he purports to show President Obama’s Affordable Care Act will actually raise the deficit, not lower it. Turned out, as I responded to my friend, Blahous’ article was full of faulty math that, and if Blahous were so inclined, applying his conclusions to Paul Ryan’s budget proposal released two weeks ago, it would have shown Ryan’s plan also increases the deficit. I made light of the initial link exaggerating my complete surprise how a Republican might attempt to show the health care law as increasing the deficit.

But as these things are wont to do, another friend chimed in, on a completely different subject, asking me how I could support a President (Obama) who granted the illegal, indefinite detention of American citizens without habeas corpus. This friend, it should be noted, is a Ron Paul supporter. He was of course alluding to Obama signing the NDAA for fiscal year 2012, and “controversial” sections 1021 and 1022 which grant the government the authority to detain “persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism” indefinitely and without trial. Outrage and fear of Obama authorizing such a thing is something I’ve seen an awful lot of recently, especially from conservatives and the right-wing media (just do a search for “obama martial law” and you’ll see what I mean). The curious thing is that the precedent set forth in the NDAA has actually been law since the week after 9/11.

In responding to my friend’s inquiry, I told him that there were a variety of other reasons why I support President Obama, and do not and never have supported the illegal, indefinite detention of American citizens. The NDAA signed by President Obama provided, among other things, sanctions on Iran, Dept. of Defense funding for health-care costs for soldiers, counter-terrorism funding within the U.S., and military modernization. The detention section conservatives find appalling suddenly has been law since the terrorist attacks of September 11^th. On September 14, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (AUMF), complete with provisions granting the previous administration authority for indefinite detention of American citizens without habeas corpus.

Ron Paul voted for the AUMF Act.

Personally, do I think President Obama should have signed the bill? No. They should have stripped the provisions granting illegal detention out, which is exactly what the Obama administration attempted to do. According to Wikipedia: “The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,^[9] arguing in an executive statement on 17 November, 2011 that while ‘the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk.’" This amendment was rejected by the Senate and ultimately the text of the AUMF was never changed.

After signing the bill, the Obama administration released a statement to this affect, presumably prescient to the rancor it might cause with conservatives. In the President’s signing statement, he maintains “the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.” It continues, the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law".

Clearly, President Obama should in no way be held accountable for instilling ‘martial law’ or the ability of the military or government to illegally detain any individual. Ron Paul, champion of personal liberty and responsibility, is more to blame than any current presidential contender. President Obama has had this precedent at his disposal for 3 years already. President Bush had this law at his disposal for 7 years. What rational explanation, what rational reasoning can conservatives really argue that if President Bush didn’t illegally detain individuals that our current President would ever do such a thing? There’s a simple answer to this question, the Occam’s razor, not based on fear-mongering, not based on partisan ideology. Some people just ignore the simple answer.

Super Tuesday Not Super For Mitt Romney

Super Tuesday offered a chance for Mitt Romney to finally secure the Republican nomination. It didn’t happen, despite narrowly winning the all-important Ohio contest. Here’s a round-up of the Super Tuesday results:

Mitt Romney won the crucial Ohio race, but it was neck-and-neck with his top contender Rick Santorum. Romney beat Santorum by a slim 1% margin, further proof of anti-Romney sentiment. This win was much less impactful than if Santorum had been the one to eek out a victory, especially in light of other key losses. But the former Governor did manage to win his other “home” state, Massachusetts, with a resounding 72% of the vote. Vermont, Alaska, and Idaho also fell his way. Virginia should have been a solid win for Romney, but comes with a heavy asterisk: Romney and Rep. Ron Paul were the only two candidates on the ballot. Romney earned 60% of the vote, but Paul’s 40% again shows the public’s timidity when it comes to their trust of “two-Cadillac” Romney.

Rick Santorum, by most counts, had a great night. He may not have won Ohio, but he came close, and it stands to reason if Newt Gingrich now drops out, Santorum will pick up most of the anti-Romney supporters. But what made Santorum’s night particularly noticeable were his wins in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, showing he still has the key evangelical vote. Santorum, however, is still having trouble garnering attention from more moderate republicans with his wild, dangerous social issues campaign. He has tried repeatedly to shift the message of this election from the economy to social issues. It worked in Tennessee last night and could be crucial for wins in the southern primaries next week.

Newt Gingrich had a terrible night. He won Georgia, his home state, a surprise to no one, but failed to make an impact anywhere else on the board. He might have shown strong in Virginia, but he wasn’t on the ballot, and his campaign is hurting financially. He needs wins in the next couple of weeks in key southern states: the Missouri and Kansas caucuses, as well as Alabama and Mississippi. However, Santorum is polling high in those states and it doesn’t look likely that Gingrich will muster enough votes for a victory. More reason the Santorum camp is urging Gingrich to drop out.

Ron Paul suffered a harsh blow on Tuesday night. He did well in Virginia, but didn’t persuade republicans that he can beat Romney head-to-head. In North Dakota, Vermont, and Alaska, he also performed well, but failed to win any of the decisions. He managed only 9.3% of the vote in Ohio, and only picked up 21 delegates. Paul has a strong backing, but it looks like he’ll never get the delegates needed for the nomination.

President Obama was perhaps the biggest winner of Super Tuesday. Republican voters are so un-energized and dissatisfied with their nominees that, come November it will be difficult for conservative operatives to rally behind just one person. Romney did inch closer to the nomination to face off against Obama this fall, but Romney is still not generating any kind of excitement from the republican base. This reinforces the fact that Obama’s reelection is in his own hands and he may just cruise to victory.

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker at AmericanLP

Rick Santorum's Theocracy

I'm really trying to wrap my head around a Rick Santorum presidential victory and what it might mean for the country. And I find it a frightening scenario. First of all, I honestly do not think it will happen. I believe Michiganders will finally start thinking again before next Tuesday's Republican primary and Mitt Romney will win out after being ahead, then drastically falling, only to come to a tie again the weekend before the voters cast their ballots (that is, if he stops talking long enough...). This win for Romney will once again set him up as the front runner and I don't foresee Santorum coming back again. Much of Santorum's fall, however, is based on his own missteps (more on that momentarily). But should Santorum come in a close second in Michigan, and perhaps steal a few more primaries along the way, he could potentially be the Republican nominee against Obama. And even though many voters claim their highest priority is the economy in 2012, for many more the simple expulsion of Obama from the presidency factors much more and it may mean the President is not elected, giving candidate Santorum the White House. And if this happens, the bitterness still stinging your tongue from the Bush administration will suddenly seem like the most decadent wine you've ever tasted.

The number 1 issue on voters minds right now is the economy. Santorum, to his credit, recognizes he doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to the economy, spending, and earmarks, and his opponents are hitting him hard on it. Santorum's plan of government cuts and tax reductions will actually increase the deficit, just as Gingrich's and Romney's plans will do. In actuality, Ron Paul's deficit reduction plan is the only plan of the 4 remaining Republican candidates that will effectively reduce the deficit. Knowing his economic past may come back to haunt him, Santorum has attempted a debate 'coup' to change what the candidates are talking about. He criticized President Obama last week of practicing a "phony theology," questioning the very nature of the President's beliefs. Many from both sides of the aisle criticized this statement, and those who are incredulous to President Obama's stated Christian beliefs, and excoriated them for their double-standards. Santorum has also loudly drummed the "contraception controversy" and spoken of the President's "war on religion". Santorum is playing to his strengths and what he perceives as his best chance to secure the nomination and the White House: social issues. But there is a larger pretext to all of this: Santorum's want to create law based solely on "biblical law".

Santorum's questioning of President Obama's beliefs and his advocating to outlaw birth control, as well as abortions, and prohibiting same-sex marriage are directly linked to the former Senator's strict Catholic upbringing. Where most candidates and public officials recognize and abide the Constitution's separation of church and state, Santorum seems to be wholly ignorant of it (something many Conservatives might find interesting), or willfully blind to achieve his own selfish ends. The former Senator is running on a campaign that would essentially be the most theocratic administration in power in over 100 years. Santorum has unequivocally stated that civil law should "comport with God's law." Here's a video of him saying just that:

Santorum believes that sex serves no other purpose than procreation. He thinks sex, unless in the act of conceiving, is immoral. He believes this so strongly that he does not think contraception should be legal. He believes this so strongly that he does not think abortions should be legal, even in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman's life is in danger. He believes this so strongly that, though he claims to have nothing against gay people and purports to "know" many homosexuals, he thinks homosexuality is a sin because there is no biological expedient to homosexual sex, therefore making it immoral. As President, and as a member of the "liberty loving" right wing, Santorum would make all of these things illegal because he believes more strongly in a book written 2,000 years ago than all of the literature, math, and scientific advancements achieved since. In the era where Republicans overwhelmingly bemoan the overreach of government in our daily lives, Santorum seeks to effectively control you to your very bedroom.

And did you notice that bit in the video right at the outset there too? He says, in Islam the civil law and the higher law are the same, what one Newt Gingrich might call 'Sharia Law,' but the United States is different because we have civil laws unrelated to higher laws but they ought to comport with the higher law... Um, what? So, basically, Rick Santorum is promoting that we should have 'Christian Sharia Law'? How is that any better than 'Islamic Sharia Law'? How would that be better than 'Jewish Sharia Law'? A theocracy is a theocracy. Maybe Rick Santorum doesn't exactly know his world history and that thousands of our American ancestors fled Europe to escape theocracies (and still found themselves plenty of theocratic colonies in the New World). But I doubt it. I think he knows full well what he's doing. And that scares me the most.

Obama and the Contraceptive Accommodation

I guess one of the things I find most appealing about Facebook is the access to information and opinion from my friends that I don’t find elsewhere. And I think the impersonal dialogue that exists through the site gives people incentive to write things they might not normally say during a conversation. For me personally it provides a gateway to my friends’ point-of-view that normally I do not think I would know. The contraception “controversy” dogging President Obama through the last couple of weeks has again provided a basis for some personal introspection on my part, some friendly banter on Facebook, and some evolving perspective on the issue.

It started with a link of mine to an article on Truthout.Org describing how this contraception issue is mostly being drummed by a partisan right-wing agenda to shift the upcoming presidential election towards social issues rather than the economy. The reason being this issue of having employers (including religious institutions) provide birth control care in their insurance plans has been law since 2000 and the Bush administration coming into office did absolutely nothing to appeal the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling that denying contraceptive care is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination based on sex. So, clearly, this was never a problem until a democrat was in office and then it became an ‘example’ of “government overreach by this administration”.

My point in linking the article was to highlight this GOP hypocrisy, but a friend commented about the ruling itself, having also fallen into the trap that the government is only now overstepping its bounds (and never did in the previous 8 years of the Bush presidency). He mocked that toothpaste will be the next thing the government will require employers to cover in their insurance plans. I responded that that was ridiculous because toothpaste is over-the-counter, and further tried to make my point that I was not addressing the contraception issue per se (for my views on it were initially that I think religious organizations should be allowed to deny birth control coverage based on freedom of religion), but, again, the hypocrisy of the GOP to make this an issue now. My friend then posted this:

“Here’s what I think. I read an article about how England lost their right to own firearms. It started slowly and pitted gun owners against each other. The government first outlawed automatic firearms. This only affected persons who owned automatic firearms so everyone else who owned semi-autos, bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Next the government outlawed semi-autos. So everyone that owned bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Then they outlawed bolt actions and so on and so forth. In England, all firearms owners should have stood together to fight the bans whether it affected them of not, but they didn’t and the government was able to break them down piece by piece. I see this contraception deal as the same thing. Non-Catholics are saying, 'Why do we care? We believe in contraception and preventative pregnancy.' What non-Catholics should be saying is, 'We do not share the Catholic Church’s belief on contraception, but we stand behind them in their Constitutional right to believe and practice their religious views.' This isn’t about me being Republican and you being Democrat. This is about a slippery slope. This is the first step toward the Government impeding the free exercise of religion. This isn’t some conspiracy theory,[sic] it’s just what governments eventually do.”

After pointing out that my friend should read Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came...” quote on the rise of Nazi Germany, I dove into an argument showing how I think President Obama’s shift to exempt religious organizations/businesses from this Affordable Care Act requirement was a “slippery slope” inclined the other way. (Note: the administration is now shifting the burden of covering contraception to insurance companies.) In my view, offering this accommodation to businesses with religious affiliations creates the opportunity for other businesses to deny contraceptive coverage, not only because they might have a moral/religious objection to contraception, but because they might want to save a little money instead of provide care to their employees. What were to happen if one of the largest insurance companies in the country decided that they had moral objections to contraception because some of their top executives suddenly became devout 'Catholics'? And when businesses are granted special privileges, why can’t a state or local government not be offered these same exemptions to discriminate against women for contraceptive use? And the current GOP front runner for the presidential nomination is Rick Santorum, who has been running on a staunchly evangelical platform and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning all contraceptives. This outcome seems like the next step in accommodating one religious group, or in reality what we should classify the Catholic Church as, this one business. The more I think about this issue, the more I side with President Obama’s initial take on this (and the one the EEOC deemed in 2000) is that no one group should be allowed to discriminate from any one group.

And I think it bears to mention, that Ron Paul, who has a strong backing all over the country for the GOP nomination, believes the Civil Rights Act was itself unconstitutional and should be repealed, and by extension would disagree with the EEOC’s ruling. Paul, a long-serving Texas Congressman, seems to me a very dangerous individual to have in office. Congressman Paul thinks that if a business, a person, or really anybody, wants to discriminate against a race, a sex, or any other group they have it within their rights to do so. Paul does not seem to understand that one individual’s freedom cannot be limitless. According to Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, individual freedom extends only to the cusp of infringing on another’s freedom. Sure, you have the right to own a gun, but if your right to have that gun to kill me infringes on my right to life, then you should have to relinquish that right. Such are the basis for laws. Such balance is the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to require employers to cover contraception. Government has an obligation to protect the citizenry no matter of race, religion, or creed. It has an obligation to thwart any person or entity who wishes to restrict the autonomy of another.

Allen West: The Personal Good

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) took place late last week in Washington D.C. All the biggest names in Republican politics were in attendance, and even some Occupy Wall Street protesters decided to join in on the excitement, or maybe just create some on their own. There were countless speakers throughout the conference, each offering up their litany of excuses not only as to why President Obama is such a bad president, but why he's such a bad person. Frankly, that's all anybody has heard who's been even remotely paying attention through the twenty-something debates the GOP primary has had so far, so as an outsider and liberal, none of that stuff really excited me. Mitt Romney didn't convince me any more than he did Sarah Palin that he's conservative. Rick Santorum gave a well received, though ultimately uninspired speech at the conference, and failed to hold the momentum he gained earlier in the week with a sweep of lat Tuesday night's caucuses. On Saturday, Santorum placed a distant 3rd in Maine's caucus. Ron Paul continues to hold his firm grasp of a decent-sized portion of the GOP electorate, narrowly beating front runner Romney in Maine. And Newt: I'm not too sure he's over the hill quite yet. But there was at least one thing I heard coming from CPAC that interested me.

Florida Congressman Allen West gave a speech on Friday night where he laid out this little tidbit, "We also realize that the public good is a misnomer, created by our liberal friends. It is not the public good that matters. It is the personal good."

I'm quite astonished by this statement. To me, this sounds like one of the most selfish things ever uttered by a man. It is made worse that Rep. Allen West considers himself a christian, a religion that teaches the practice of helping others in need, "do unto thyself as you do unto others," and to "bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ". Not only does this statement fly in the face of West's supposed religious beliefs, but it flies in the face of American values. We are the "United States," are we not? It's difficult to separate the inherent "public" of this nation when 50 territories (and thousands of others still within those) are bound by a simple doctrine of "We the people..." A statement such as West's is so callous and base that it makes me wonder how I grew up in the same society as a man elected to public office who would say this. Personal good means nothing without public good. If the public lacks freedom then the individual is bereft of it. If the public lacks goods and services then the individual is in want of these. If the public lacks safety, the individual is isolated in fear of everyone around them, and the more selfish they become the smaller the island to which they are immured.

Mitt Romney Wins New Hampshire

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won a decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary tonight. The numbers as of press time show Romney with about 36% of the vote, about 11% more than his closest rival, Ron Paul. While that is a large margin, and CNN was able to call the primary just after 8 pm eastern time for the former governor when the polls were officially closed, it was not necessarily a decisive one. The Huffington Post splashed as their headline tonight, “5 Years Campaigning, Less Than 40%?” Romney has ostensibly never quit his 2008 presidential bid in New Hampshire, keeping offices open, continuing to build support over the last 4 years, much like what Congressman Paul had done down in Iowa (yet it still couldn’t get him a win). Romney did win, but he was only able to garner roughly 36% of the primary voters. With a lasting campaign as he had had, one might have thought New Hampshire would be a runaway victory for Governor Romney.

In all likelihood, Romney will win the nomination. There really is nobody in the field who can match his campaign when it comes to spending and donations. Through his own resources and the capital of the Pro-Romney Super PACS, he can fend off any surge by the other candidates in the race. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, they all rose and fell without Romney needing to do much. They had no chance when it came to Iowa, or New Hampshire. They beat themselves. Newt Gingrich, however, was a different story. With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich saw a huge shift in support from likely voters. And with the holidays coming up, and the focus shifting off Iowa for a hot-minute, Gingrich looked poised to roll into the final week with a commanding lead. Sensing a shift in momentum, Romney (and his Super PACS) stepped in. They blanketed the airwaves with attack ads on the former House Speaker calling into question his integrity, his record, his marital strife. And it worked. Gingrich’s popularity plummeted and Romney went “all-in” in Iowa hoping to shut down this roulette wheel of Republican flavors-of-the-month. It didn’t quite work. Former Sen. Rick Santorum played well with Iowa voters with his social conservative issues and nearly pulled off an upset. Without a decisive victory, Romney would still have a large field of contenders to bat off in New Hampshire.

It’s a week later, and I don’t see that much has changed. Sure Romney won by more than 10% (with a field of five), but it’s not a knockout punch. Rick Perry, after tonight, should really drop out. But he was never focused on New Hampshire and has instead been looking to South Carolina’s primary on Jan. 21. But his showing was so bad tonight, and his campaign has been running on life-support for weeks, that he should just give up while still ahead. Of course, I probably could say the same thing about Jon Huntsman, but he never even bothered with Iowa. His focus was New Hampshire and it worked – to an extent. Huntsman will likely finish a strong 3^rd in New Hampshire, but with no base whatsoever in South Carolina to speak of it’s difficult to say how he can press on from here. Huntsman really did need a 1^st or 2^nd place tonight to get the momentum he needed in the coming weeks. With only about 15-18% of the vote in New Hampshire, and a significant distance to catch Ron Paul, this does not bode well for his campaign in the coming weeks. But then this all comes back around to Romney and how poor his numbers were for the evening.

Without breaking the 40% margin, Romney has to be wondering what is missing from his campaign to draw in new voters. There must be some consternation on his part that the anti-Romney popularity has not yet finished weaving its way through the field of contenders. About 30% of voters this past weekend were still undecided going to the voting booth and Romney's final tally were fairly consistent with his polling numbers, meaning he still has not done what's needed to sway the undecided to his camp. If given a few more days, or another week, might Huntsman turned more support his way? We can't say for sure now. South Carolina might still have something to say for Jon Huntsman. It may have something to say for all the other candidates as well. Rick Santorum's social issues might play better in SC. Newt Gingrich is from neighboring Georgia. Ron Paul's libertarian base seems to be holding steady between 20-25% of republican voters. If New Hampshire is indicative of South Carolina in its population of undecided voters, we might not be any closer to solidifying a republican nominee for the White House in 11 more days. And the longer this strings along, the worse it will be for Romney.