National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

Traditionally, the National Defense Authorization Act is a yearly spending bill that allows the military to operate for the year covered by the bill. The yearly renewal of this bill has traditionally been quick and non-controversial.

However...

This year the NDAA has provisions that basically allows for two things:

1. Military detention (without trial) of those suspected of links to al qaeda, taliban, or of planning or carrying out attacks against the U.S. and coalition partners. It states that this detention will be continuous until the "end of hostilities".
   
2. "Transfer of custody" of "covered persons" to any foreign entity.

These two sections are troubling to me.

The "military detention" provision has a "waiver for national security" which applies to "paragraph 1", which allows for the military detention. "Paragraph 1" refers to paragraph two, which contains the specific limitation to suspected terrorists.

My concern is that this waiver could be interpreted to allow the Secretary of Defense to "waive" the limitation to suspected terrorists. The bill only requires a written "certification" be sent to congress that the "wiaver" is necessary for "national security". If such a waiver to submitted, it is conceivable that this could allow the indefinite military detention of individuals that have no association with terrorist groups.

The "transfer of custody" section is worrisome because it allows the military to skirt U.S. laws pertaining to treatment of prisoners (specifically those prohibiting torture) by sending "covered persons" abroad for "detention". This practice, known as "extraordinary rendition", has been in practice for years. However the authority to do this is pieced together from pieces of different laws and disparate provisions of the "Patriot Act". Since this authority is piecemeal, the legality of that authority has been questionable. If this law passes, "extraordinary rendition" will be codified in law.

There is a provision that supposedly exempts U.S. citizens from military detention. There is another provision that supposedly exempts "lawful resident aliens" (green card holders) and their activities within the United States. I struggle with these exemptions because most lawmakers specifically state that this applies "American citizen or not" (quoted from Lindsey Graham and verified by calling his office in DC).

There is legal ambiguity as to whether or not current law allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and "resident aliens". The only institution that could clear up this ambiguity is the Judicial branch. However, the bill specifically removes judicial oversight by moving the entire process to military tribunals. The Supreme Court could take the extraordinary step of declaring that citizens are "resident aliens" are NOT subject to this law. However, considering the current makeup of the court, and the fact that the entire process will be outside their jurisdiction, that possibility seems quite slim.

When I called Senator Graham's office to inquire about this, his staff seemed unaware of the provisions exempting U.S. Citizens and "resident aliens". I asked about the constitutionality of this bill, I was told that is the job of the Supreme Court.

This bill passed the House of Representatives, but that version didn't have these troubling provisions. Now that the bill passed the Senate, it must be "reconciled" with the House version, then the "reconciled" bill must be passed by both houses.

Even if you agree with the indefinite detention provisions, the legal ambiguity of existing detention laws makes this very dangerous. Please contact your representative in the House of Representatives and ask them to vote against any "reconciled" bill that includes these harmful provisions. These provisions were slipped into a spending bill to force it through congress. Afterall, any representative who votes against it will be labelled "unamerican" and "against the troops". Our representatives need to know that we will support them if they vote this bill down because of these provisions.

Use the following link to contact your representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

You can also call the white house and ask the President to veto such a bill if it reaches his desk.

White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111

Response to Tony Perkins - Jesus Was a Free Marketer

My Take: Jesus was a free marketer, not an Occupier

To use the parable of the minas to claim that Jesus was a free marketer is simply political spin. Keep in mind that Mr. Perkins is the leader of the "Family Research Council", which is one of the most vile homophobic organizations around. The FRC has made it their mission to malign single mothers, poor people, and gay people.

When I read the parable of the Minas, I see industriousness being rewarded and sloth being punished. I see nothing of "free markets".

The reason I doubt Mr. Perkin's "free market" comparison is because of what Jesus actually said (not in a parable) to a wealthy young man who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matthew 19:21

The boy went away sad, unwilling to give up his vast wealth to help the poor. Then Jesus turned to his disciples and said:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

So, Jesus seems to deplore greedy people who horde wealth and do nothing for the poor. Keeping that in mind, the parable of the Minas (Luke 19) seems to be about rewarding industriousness and punishing sloth.

I would like to point out some fallacies that Mr. Perkins also attempts to pass in his article:

1. He states that "each of us is given the same opportunity to build our lives", which is demonstrably false. The child of an auto mechanic doesn't have the same opportunities as the child of a doctor. The child of a welfare mother does not have the same opportunities as the child of an auto mechanic.
2. He talks about "occupiers" who trash public property, and engage in anti-social behavior. I don't believe the intent of OWS is to "trash" anything. Many of the nasty pictures people see are AFTER the encampment has been trashed by the police. The OWS camps that I visited (in Seattle and Minneapolis) were clean and well organized. I'm not sure what anti-social behavior he is referring to. OWS is collaborative and sociable by it's very nature. Rioting is anti-social, but it seems to have only happened in Oakland. Oakland has a history of rioting, which cannot be associated with OWS.
3. He states that "wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual". If our "free market" system were truly merit / results based, there would be no reason for OWS to exist. OWS exists because of a peculiar blend of "laissez faire" / crony capitalism, and merit / results NOT being rewarded. OWS exists because the economic and political systems have been corrupted by power, influence and money.
4. He states that "[abuses] are not inevitable or intrinsic to free enterprise". I tend to disagree! Totally free markets are prone to consolidation and manipulation. Mr. Perkins must be living on a planet inhabited by a species much more noble and honest than homo sapiens. Free markets can be beneficial until they are consolidated and manipulated by powerful players. Once that happens the entire system is liable to crash. There are few forces on earth that can challenge the powerful players that manipulate markets, and government regulation is one of them. The fact is that Mr. Perkin's political party has meticulously gutted every state and federal financial regulatory agency.

He closes by saying: "our free market system works when bridled by morality. Not arbitrary morality that changes with political parties, but transcendent moral principles."

Mr. Perkins is again talking about his fantasy planet.

Perhaps on Kolob (planet where God lives according to Mormons), Mr. Perkins morality guides the markets. I suspect that morality guides those markets because Jesus is standing near the opening bell with a whip!

On the planet Earth, the morality of homo sapiens is easily over-run by greed when "no one is watching". Since Jesus isn't standing on Wall Street with a whip, we need some way of controlling the greed, consolidation, and manipulation.

Republicans like to champion the "self regulation" doctrine, while ignoring the complete and repeated failure of that doctrine.

I personally don't support overbearing regulations. But I support regulations that ensure the safety, sustainability, and fairness of industry and markets. Based on results, industry and markets are unable to properly enforce rules even if they make the rules.

I also don't support the idea that OWS should be sleeping in parks. Not only is it an eyesore, it tends to lead to unhygienic conditions. It also has a tendency to attract elements that most Americans would consider deplorable (drugs, prostitution, etc.). People will pay more attention to clean, organized, peaceful protesters than they will dingy, chaotic, rowdy protesters.

IMHO

Pictures from Occupy Oakland that make me nervous

I promised a friend that I would post these pictures I found. I am worried that the General Assembly of Occupy Oakland is being over-run by these communist and anarchist agitators. I'd be willing to be that they are the ones who scream the loudest about police use of force, while actively taunting the police.

Let me clarify that I am well aware the Oakland has a reputation for police brutality. I certainly don't hold the police, mayor, or city council blameless. But it does seem reasonable that certain subversive groups are stirring up trouble for their own political agendas. Whether the agendas are to discredit OWS, or to instigate revolution is not clear.

What is clear is that the General Assembly needs to keep the subversive elements under control. It wouldn't hurt for them to send representatives to the mayor and city council to work out an equitable solution to the safety and sanitation problems.

Here are the pictures:

Protesters disrespecting the flag, and glorifying Che Guerva (a Marxist).















Protesters rioting...














A sign purporting to be from the "international communist worker's party". Admittedly, their website looks like it was designed by a child. It is registered in Panama. It seems possible that this "group" is a ploy to discredit OWS. If it isn't, I want nothing to do with it.















I totally disagree with this sign. Capitalism works MUCH BETTER than communism. I want to reform the system so that jobs are created, economic bubbles are checked, wealth is distributed more evenly, military expenditures are reduced, and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.



















Again with the communist crap. OVER MY DEAD BODY!



















Vandalism...

















Vandalism and anarchist symbolism...













I understand that people are angry, but I don't think it is wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. Reform, not revolution!













My guess is that none of these communist agitators have actually lived under communism. Yet, they use the symbolism of communism, and associate communism with freedom. Perhaps they need a history lesson.











Rioters, and what appears to be a PLO style head covering on the guy on the right. While I support the rights of Palestinians, I don't believe we should be imitating the violence of the PLO or islamic fundamentalists in order to reform our system.












Again... what exactly do these people want to replace capitalism with? Reform, not revolution!











I'd love to find this bastard and slap him around a few hundred times. You may disagree with the state of things. You may want change. But when you trample on my flag, you'd better prepare yourself for a BIG FIGHT!








As stated before, OWS needs to reign in the crazy elements. Cool heads need to prevail, or this movement will drive away moderate people. When that happens, it will fail in a violent way.

Attention Congress, Repay Borrowed Social Security Funds

It is a well known fact that the government "invests" social security tax revenue in treasury bonds, which really means they put treasury bonds into the old age trust fund and put the cash into the general operating fund. Those funds are then used to fund the bloated federal budget.

But that isn't enough to satisfy the ravenous appetite we have for spending beyond our means. Our government then goes on and borrows hundreds of billions of dollars more to continue spending.

That's what this "debt ceiling" debate is all about. I believe that both parties are to blame for the massive debt caused by out of control spending.

The overall federal budget has grown since Obama took office. But let's take a look at the numbers more closely for 2007 vs. 2010. I chose 2007 because it was the last full year before the economy collapsed. I have stripped out some spending (defense, social security, medicare, and stimulus), for reasons described below. Here are the numbers:

2007 (millions of dollars):
Total Budget: 2,863,084
Defense costs (deduct) 625,835
Social Security (deduct) 588,962
Medicare (deduct) 385,008
Income Security (deduct) 368,026
Jobs Bill (deduct) 0.00
Adjusted Budget: 895,253 (895 billion, 253 million dollars)

2010 (millions of dollars)
Total Budget: 3,600,577
Defense costs (deduct) 722,138
Social Security (deduct) 723,504
Medicare (deduct) 462,087
Income Security (deduct) 664,559
Jobs Bill (deduct) 50,000
Adjusted Budget: 978,289 (978 billion, 289 million dollars)

If you take the "adjusted budget" from 2007 and adjust it for 2.28 (roughly 7% total), you get an inflation adjusted total of 957, 895 (957 billion, 895 million). That is only 20 billion less than the 2010 adjusted budget.

So, in reality Obama has only increased the size of the federal government by 2.13%. Keep in mind, this is using "official inflation" which excludes oil price fluctuation. Real inflation has been more than 2.28% per year since 2007. Oil prices alone increased 68% between Jan 2007 and Jan 2010.

Let me explain my reasoning for deducting some of these expenses. Keep in mind that these deductions were done for both 2007 and 2010 to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

Defense: This really isn't discretionary spending. The fact is, we have two wars going on. We should not place blame on Obama for properly funding our troops. That's why I removed the defense spending.
Social Security: If it were not for the "investment" of social security funds in treasury bonds, the social security system would not be part of the federal budget. It could be, and should be completely separate. These costs are not caused by Obama, but by relentless borrowing over the decades. Not even the increase can be attributed to Obama. That's why I deducted them.
Medicare: For the same reasons as social security.
Income Security: This includes a number of expenses for retirement, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, disability, and nutrition assistance. Most of the increases have been caused by the recession.
Jobs Bill: This was part of the overall stimulus. If you're against stimulus, I urge you to read about Hoover's role in the great depression. Stimulus was necessary to limit the catastrophe, regardless of what political talking heads say.

If you aren't a fan of Obama, that's fine. But keep these numbers in mind when you think about the fiscal outrage coming from the right. If you want low taxes, some of these expenses are going to have to be reduced.

However, it seems that Republicans want to eliminate parts of the national debt (or delay them a good while) by cutting social security and medicare. Since these programs are funded by taxes taken from the paychecks of average workers, and these funds were "borrowed" to keep taxes artificially low, I am absolutely opposed to cutting these programs to continue keeping taxes artificially low. If cuts must be made, they need to be phased in over a decade or more.

If you want a bloated military, fine. If you want massive subsidies to multi-national corporations, fine. If you want to deduct your mortgage interest, fine. If you want a deduction for your children, fine.

But you must be willing to pay the taxes to fund these expenses, deductions, and loopholes. If we continue to have artificially low taxes while we continue our spending binge, we will soon find ourselves insolvent as a nation.

Now let's talk about this debt ceiling debate. Republicans say that Obama isn't willing to compromise on increasing taxes. But the facts show that Obama has "sweetened the pot" for the GOP many times during these negotiations. Obama recently offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional tax revenue.

Economists agree that the budget cannot be balanced through spending cuts alone. The defense budget and "core" federal budget exceed tax revenues. Tax revenue must be increased, along with significant spending cuts in order to put our country on a sustainable financial course. If we also invest in small businesses, we will see the job market improve significantly.

FICA Tax, steal from average workers to cut taxes for the rich

Every wage earner in the United States pays FICA tax, which is the tax that funds social security. Your employer is required to match your contribution, bringing the total tax to 12.4%.

The problem is, there is an income limit of $106,000 above which there is no FICA tax.

The other problem is, the government issues IOUs to the social security trust fund and uses that money to fund the general government operations.

Now, let's look at the swindle:

Based on an IRS study of the 400 wealthiest American taxpayers, their "effective tax rate" was 16.5%. Effective tax rate is basically the final percentage after all deductions, write offs, and loop holes are taken into account.

Now take a taxpayer making $50,000 / year, who does the standard deduction. This taxpayer actually pays around 14% effective tax.

So, when the wealthy complain about higher taxes they really aren't paying that much higher percentage after all their exemptions, write offs, and loop holes.

Then comes social security tax. Add the 6.2% paid by the $50,000 worker, and you come up with 20% tax. Add in the employer's portion (which puts downward pressure on wages), and you actually have a 26% effective tax rate.

With the exemption of wages over $106,000, social security tax has a negligible effect on the effective tax rate of the uber-rich.

Now you may be saying, "So what? Employees eventually get that money back".

Let me demonstrate some scenarios that will unfold as social security becomes depleted.

1. The government will raise the social security tax, as they have done many times. They will likely leave the income exemptions (but likely increase them for inflation). Since the government won't be able to borrow from social security anymore, income taxes will have to be increased to cover government operations.
2. They will phase out social security, leaving millions of American's out in the cold in retirement despite the fact that they paid into the system their whole lives.

In either case, social security taxes have been taken from average wage earners, then transferred to the general operating fund and used to fund the government. When the time comes to pay the IOUs, the government will either cancel the "internal debt" by eliminating social security, or it will raise the social security tax.

The reality is, after social security taxes are taken into account, average wage earners pay a higher percentage of their income to fund the bloated federal government than their wealthy counterparts. Social security taxes are taken disproportionately from average Americans, and those funds used to fund the government, while their wealthy counterparts stop paying into social security after $106,000.

Because the government borrows from social security to keep taxes artificially low, the social security tax is a defacto tax increase on the average American taxpayer. In essence, the wealthy get tax breaks on the backs of average American workers.

While I agree that we need to get our financial house in order, I see nothing being done by either party to fix this problem. We must stop borrowing from the social security trust fund, and we must raise taxes and cut spending to ensure that social security remains viable for current and future workers. If we can't get our financial house in order, we will see a drastic decline in American power, influence, and prestige.

What is behind high divorce rates?

From my experience watching my friends and family get married and divorced, I have made some personal conclusions about the reasons for failed marriages.

1. Ignored Red Flags: When we start dating, we are awash in puppy love hormones which seem to diminish our willingness to "read between the lines" when we see obvious red flags. Some red flags may indicate behaviors that are negotiable, while some may indicate behaviors that are deal breakers (non negotiable). The problem is that we often ignore the red flags because our reasoning capacity can be diminished by our biological responses to our new love interest.
2. Broken Wing Syndrome: You find a person who you perceive to be a diamond in the rough. Maybe they have a criminal history, or bad credit. Some well intentioned people look at their new love interest as a bird with a broken wing. They think: If I can just heal that broken wing, I will have a fabulous bird. The problem comes when we ignore the causes of the broken wing, which are often behavioral rather than circumstance. You can change another person's circumstances, but you cannot change their behavior. Only they can choose to change. Any attempt to change their behavior will exhaust you, and cause resentment from them.
   
3. Jumping Ship Syndrome: This is the opposite of ignoring red flags. These people are looking for an ideal person that they have conjured in their minds, and the moment their love interest deviates from that ideal, they jump ship. I don't have a cogent theory as to the cause of this behavior. But you can see how this type of behavior can cause a person to jump from one marriage to another.
4. The Marriage / Wedding Cult: Our culture has a preoccupation with marriage overall, and weddings in particular. It comes from our parents, religious leaders, friends, and relatives. All of them pushing and prodding us like the father from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding": "Get married, make babies. You look so old!".
5. Religious Pressure: I cannot speak to this at length because it is an alien concept to me. However, I have noticed a great deal of pressure from churches and religious organizations for early and "productive" marriages.

A possible solution?
In my opinion, we need to change our cultural view of marriage. We should encourage our friends and family to get into marriage after at least a year of dating. We should encourage a "full disclosure" session between the dating couple before they get engaged. The full disclosure session would include a history of: criminal charges and convictions, domestic violence, substance abuse, driving record, credit rating, bankruptcy, debt, job history, etc.

Also, a pseudo-marriage arrangement might make sense. I don't mean cohabitation before marriage, or premarital sex. I simply mean going through some of the mundane but important aspects of marriage. Paying bills, managing finances, managing the house, cleaning, decorating, cooking, groceries, childcare, etc.

You don't have to live together to go through the motions. But these are important factors in determining real life compatibility. Many marriages break up over such mundane things. Once the puppy love wears off, it's the every day things that either bring you together or drive you apart.

Those are my ideas on how the dating-engagement-wedding-marriage route should happen. I welcome your thoughts on the topic.

Common Misconceptions about U.S. immigration law

Over the years, I have heard so many people complain about "illegals". Some complain with a bitter tirade, while others wish the "illegals" would choose the legal option.

I was one of the "legal option" people for many years. That is until recently when the realities of American immigration law have become clear.

Most American's believe that the spirit of the following poem (from the statue of liberty) still lives in our immigration laws:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I am sorry to tell you that this beautiful poem, which exemplified the welcoming virtues of our republic, is no longer representative of our immigration law.

Today the "poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to be free" are denied any possibility of immigration. To immigrate legally to the United States, an individual MUST be sponsored by an employer, OR have a U.S. Citizen (who is a close blood relative) sponsor their immigration. To have an employer sponsor an immigrant is a time consuming, expensive task. Most employers won't go through the trouble unless it is a high profit / high demand position. Ask an immigration lawyer if you don't believe me.

So, for those of us who throw our hands in the air asking, "why don't they come here legally", hopefully this will give you an answer.

Despite the lack of legality, why do these people risk their lives to come here? The reasons are vast and varied. But for the most part they come to work, make money, and support their families back home. Some actually do want to stay, but there is no legal way of doing so.

As a result, when they arrive they live in the shadows. Illegal immigrants are brutalized and victimized by gangs and thugs on a massive scale compared to citizens. The thugs know they can get away with it because the illegal immigrants won't go to the police for fear of being deported.

I also hear many people complain that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, which is absolutely false. Click here to read the article discussing taxes for illegal immigrants.

It is true that some of them come and have large families, and the children born in the U.S. are American citizens. I have heard many people complain about this fact. They apparently forget that their ancestors likely benefited from that very same amendment. However, most illegal immigrants live meager lives, and remit their savings to support their families.

Another reason why people come here illegally: there is a need. Certain jobs are hard to fill with American workers (farm labor, housekeeping, janitorial, fast food, etc.). The fact is that these jobs don't pay well, and few provide benefits. Not many Americans want them.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that citizens get jobs first. But if an employer runs an ad and gets no applicants, what are they do to? What if they applicants they get don't fill all their available positions? They could raise prices and offer better wages. But then these same industries have lobbied heavily against minimum wage increases, so that seems like a non-starter.

A few questions that every American has to answer in their own minds:

• When there is a demonstrated need for low wage labor, why do we rail against a migrant worker program?
• When people come here to fill the need, and have NO OTHER LEGAL OPTIONS, why do we then punish and demonize them?
• Why do we treat these hard working people as subhuman?
• Why do we reward our political leaders for either supporting the status quo, or for passing draconian "enforcement only" laws?
• Considering how illegal immigrants are treated, how much better do we treat them than we did slaves before 1864 or blacks before the civil rights act?

I recognize that not everyone will feel the same as I do. I just hope this information can provide a more informed public discourse, and perhaps a bit of kindness toward our fellow humans.

Rampant Racism in Illegal Immigration Discourse

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/17/navarrette.immigrant.hunters/index.html

If you look at the comments at the bottom of the page, you see the rampant racism that has seeped into the national discourse on this issue.

I am certainly not happy that people enter this country illegally, or overstay their visas. I am not happy that many of them end up on welfare. I am not happy that the presence of illegal immigrants puts downward pressure on wages. I am not happy that my old elementary school has all classroom window decorations in Spanish.

There are plenty of things I am not happy about when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I am horrified at the putrid stench of racism that has worked its way into the public discourse on this issue.

I have some questions for my fellow citizens who would crucify the "illegals" and "illegal aliens".

1. Where was your outrage when Bush and the GOP controlled Congress did nothing?
2. Where was your outrage when employers were not punished for hiring illegal immigrants?
3. Where was your outrage when your beloved Reagan signed the amnesty law of 1986?
4. Where is your constitutional outrage over Arizona SB 1070, which clearly violates the 4th amendment?
5. Why has immigration come to a head when the GOP lost both houses of Congress, and the Presidency? Doesn't that timing seem strange?
6. What do you say to people like commenter "Arizona444" who refers to Latinos as "poop colored" people who "multiply like flies"?
7. Do you think that all illegal immigrants should be put through the same punishment? Should a mother trying to feed her family face the same punishment as the drug dealer and gang banger?
8. Why are you so eager to believe unsubstantiated claims (i.e. that illegal immigrants started the Arizona fires), when there is no evidence of that.
9. Why do you assume a hostile intent on the part of every individual that comes illegally?
10. Do you honestly believe that white people will be stopped in Arizona and asked to prove their legal immigration status?
11. Do you support a guest worker program?
12. What would you do to "secure the border"?
13. What other rights are you willing to give up in the hopes of rounding up a few illegal immigrants?
14. What will it take to open your eyes to the rampant racism involved in this issue?

I certainly hope that my fellow citizens will open their eyes to this evil cancer of racism before it gets out of control. I will not be silent while other human beings are dehumanized and demonized for political gain.

UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution

UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution

The headline of this article is a bit misleading. Here is what the UN Human Rights Commission website says about the resolution:

Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner.

So, this resolution is to document, discuss, and study. It does nothing (yet) about violence and discrimination against LGBT people.

What is interesting is that the following 19 countries voted against even studying this issue:

Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda

Not surprisingly, most of these countries are in Africa and the middle east. Their excuses: respect for religious sensibilities, respect for "democracy", lack of precedent in current international law. One idiot actually claimed that being gay is a matter of "choice", so it is not a human rights issue.

There were three countries that "abstained": Burkina Faso (africa), Zambia (africa), China

The countries that voted for the resolution (23):Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay

It is interesting how CNN did not specify which countries voted which way...

I found this information on the following page:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11167&LangID=E

Kansas Rep. Pete DeGraff: Raped? Pregnant? Get a spare tire, you baby!

While debating a bill that would ban healthcare insurance companies from paying for abortions, debate started on exclusions which would allow insurance companies to pay for certain abortions. The proposed exclusions were in cases of rape, and health risk to the mother.

During this debate, Rep. DeGraff argued to remove the rape exemption from the bill. He then argued that women would not be harmed by removal of the exemption, because they could buy "abortion only" policies. He then went on to compare being impregnated by a rapist to getting a flat tire. The solution, get a spare!

GOD DAMNIT! Is this what you pro-lifers want? Do you really want to force rape victims to carry the demon spawn of their rapist? If so, you probably blame the victim.

The bill passed without the rape exemption, and was signed by the governor.

This article on the "national right to life" website does not even mention the rape exemption being removed. It goes on to LIE, saying that the bill "protects women from dangerous abortion clinics". The danger at abortion clinics are the pro-life loons shooting and bombing the place.

Abortion, especially early abortion is a proven safe procedure which removes a zygote from the uterus. It is not dangerous. What is dangerous is forcing rape victims into the hands of witch doctors and back alleys to get unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the "dangerous clinics" that have come into the news lately in PA were the result of lax regulation and unwillingness for regulators to follow up on NUMEROUS complaints. The "house of horrors" described by pro-lifers is an accurate description. But comparing that to legitimate, legal, well regulated women's health facilities is just shameful lying. The best response to this kind of horror is regulation, not abortion bans to satisfy the pro-lifers on the right.

Regardless of your stance on this emotional issue, very few would argue that a woman should be forced to carry the spawn of a rapist.

How to balance the federal budget - my opinion

I grow very tired of the partisan mud slinging and posturing going on in Washington D.C. Even though I am a "liberal", I believe both parties share equal blame for this debt.

Tackling the budget is politically sensitive, but especially during an election year. Each party is putting forward ideas that serve only their narrow political interests. Politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups do what is in their best interest, even if it is bad for the country.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are some ideas I have for balancing the budget and avoiding the political pot holes involved in the process.

1. Separate tax revenue by source. Gasoline taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, import taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.
2. Divert gasoline tax revenue to infrastructure improvement, building highways, and developing clean energy technology.
3. Divert cigarette taxes to health care, spending the money to offset the health damages caused by smoking.
4. Divert corporate taxes to paying down the national debt, placing Social Security and Medicare first in line to be replenished.
5. Take the remaining tax revenue, and set that amount as the federal budget for ongoing operations. Determine what percent would need to be cut to fit the government into this budget, and cut EVERYTHING EQUALLY. Nothing should be "sacred", not welfare, and certainly not military spending.

Let me explain a bit of my reasoning behind each of these ideas.
1, 2, 3: Separate taxes by revenue source. I have always thought it odd that gasoline taxes and cigarette taxes should go into the general fund. Afterall, we're paying these taxes to support / improve transportation infrastructure, and to offset some of the health costs of smoking. It is astonishing to me that these funds are not being used for those purposes.

4. Divert corporate taxes to servicing debt: I personally believe that corporate interests have been the main drivers of increased public debt. Corporate interests have been the root of most military interventions in U.S. history. I also think that corporations control the "job market", and are able to set "prevailing wages" low enough to keep employees on welfare, while providing obscene executive compensation and issuing huge dividends to investors. Corporations have managed to gain the status of "legal persons", so why not let them take responsibility for their actions as "legal persons".

5. Take what is left and shrink government to fit: I firmly believe that government should be as small and efficient as possible. As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. If the federal bureaucracy is handed a slimmed budget that necessitates invention and innovation, I am certain they will find ways to work more effectively within the new budget. What bothers me about the current debate is that military spending seems to be "untouchable", while things like child healthcare and school lunches for poor children are touchable. You won't hear any complaint from me if military spending is cut equally to the other programs. But to leave that massive expense intact, and gut spending on Americans is unconscionable to me.

The social security and medicare laws would have to be changed to allow investment of those funds in non-treasury securities with lattered maturity dates. With a conservative mix of investments, and ensuring adequate "cash on hand" to handle economic shocks, the Social Security fund should remain solvent forever. Excess revenue from this fund could be accumulated and used to fund economic stimulus when it becomes necessary.

That's my humble opinion anyway...

Financial Burdens Forced on Gay and Lesbian Couples

Most Americans understand the overall gay rights issues, but one specific area is largely unknown.

So, as an insider to the "homosexual agenda" (what a joke), I will provide some details on the extra burden gay and lesbian couples face because we cannot get married. Keep in mind that there are legal means to alleviate these extra burdens without sanctioning equality through marriage. I think most people would agree that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be taxed differently than our straight counterparts.

Some of you will say, "but you choose to be gay, so it is fair". To that I say, BULLSHIT! Some people may be "attracted" to both genders, and they can choose. These people are called bi-sexual. But the vast majority of people cannot choose, and that includes most gay and lesbian people. We only choose companionship and affection over celibacy and loneliness. We cannot "choose" to fall in love with someone we are not attracted to. If we were to enter into a "traditional marriage", it would be a lie and neither partner would be happy (in bed or otherwise). Unless you are bi-sexual, you did not "choose" the opposite gender, so please don't assume that gay and lesbian people are any different.

Now, on to the extra taxes and fees we "homosexuals" are forced to pay:

Inheritance: Many states, and the federal government place massive taxes on inheritance. There is an exemption for married couples, which currently stands at 100%. For married couples, they share their lives and build wealth knowing that they won't be "double taxed" when one of them dies. Afterall, they already paid taxes on the wealth when they earned it!!! The estate passes 100% tax free to the spouse. For gay couples, we share our lives and build wealth, only to have half of it taken away for taxes when our partner dies.

Survivor Benefits: Social Security provides benefits to any surviving spouse beginning at retirement, and to surviving children. The surviving spouse can immediately claim survivor benefits regardless of age if they have a dependent child with the deceased spouse. Gay couples, even married ones, receive no survivor or child care benefits. Their beloved partner dies, and the money their partner paid into social security is given to others who were afforded the benefits of marriage.

Pensions: Most pensions will not pay survivor benefits to same-sex partners of deceased pensioners. Of the few that do, the benefits are taxable at the inheritance tax rate. Then the remaining amount is taxed at the surviving partner's individual tax rate.

Taxes: There is a tax benefit to being married, which becomes more beneficial the higher your combined income. Some people say this is to encourage couples to have children, but they forget about the tax credit for children. Given the existence of the child tax credit, this "for the children" idea loses all credibility. In reality, it is an additional tax on single people. But even straight singles have a hope of breaking loose from this discriminatory tax by getting married. Gay and lesbian couples, on the other hand, cannot break free. We are taxed as single, even after decades of loving companionship.

Employers Sponsored Health Insurance: Straight married people can get health insurance through their spouse's employer. All the costs of providing those benefits are provided to the employee and family completely tax free. Many companies have started to provide health insurance for gay and lesbian couples, which seems fair. But, when the gay or lesbian employee gets their W-2 for the year, the cost of their partner's insurance (the employers actual cost) is ADDED TO THEIR WAGES! That extra "income", which the employee never sees, is now taxable at the higher single rate.

Employer Sponsored Health Savings Accounts: Employers often fund "Health Savings Accounts" or "Flexible Spending Accounts" with tax free money, to be spent on health related expenses. Even if an employer provides funds for an employee's same-sex partner, the government does not allow the use of those funds for the benefit of the unmarried partner.

Insurance: Most insurance companies provide a significant discount on most types of policies, if the policy holders are married. The underlying logic is, if you're married, you are more settled and less risky. I believe that is true for the most part, even for same-sex couples. Just as straight couples settle into a comfortable, safe routine; so do gay and lesbian couples. So, why should we be charged higher premiums for insurance? Why should we pay an average of 22% more for the same thing? And for homeowner's policies, why should one partner be treated as a "renter"?

These are just a few of the more expensive burdens, which are forced on gay and lesbian couples because we cannot be legally recognized as a couple.

It is true that gay and lesbian couples can inherit (at massive tax rates), assuming the deceased partner's family doesn't sue for the estate. In the event that the family sues, even more of the estate is lost to attorney's fees and court costs, regardless of the outcome.

Many gay and lesbian survivors lose everything when their beloved companion dies. We either lose everything in a lost court battle, or are forced to sell everything to satisfy the massive tax bill from the inheritance. After years of loving companionship, our surviving companions are often left destitute and homeless.

Losing your lifetime companion is emotionally very painful. A dying spouse can rest easier knowing their surviving spouse will receive federal and pension benefits on their behalf. Imagine losing your companion, losing their income, and facing a massive tax bill and court battle...

That is one reason why we "homosexuals" complain so bitterly at being denied marriage. We don't seek to destroy marriage as an institution, we seek to protect our loved ones and the assets we build thoughout our shared life.

Even if you are opposed to "marriage" for same-sex couples, you have to agree that these grievances are valid, and need to be resolved. If you really want to "protect marriage", please write your state and federal representatives and demand redress of these grievances. Laws can be passed to eliminate these disparities, even if they don't give us "marriage". Another option would be to allow us to have "civil unions", which would have similar benefits and responsibilities, but still reserve "marriage" for straight couples.

I understand that some people will never want "homosexuals" to have any legal standing, as individuals or as couples. However, I believe that the majority of Americans accept, respect, and support fairness for their "different" neighbors, coworkers, friends, and relatives. I urge this "silent majority" to stand with us in solidarity to demand redress of these grievances.

Misinformation on Illegal Immigrants

There seem to be two sides of the immigration debate, and citizens are expected to choose one side or the other. I believe both sides are wrong, and are purposely misleading the public.

Side One: Conservatives, tea partiers, and most Republicans use rhetoric like "illegal aliens", and "illegals" when referring to individuals in this country illegally. They lump everyone, regardless of circumstance, into this group of "illegals". People who overstay visas, and parents coming to work to feed their families are lumped in with the criminal, gang, and drug elements. They seem to focus on enforcement, without any regard to the 4th amendment (which guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure).

Side Two: My fellow liberals often like to refer to illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers". While this seems to be more politically correct than "illegal aliens", I don't think it accurately describes the situation. It sounds very much like someone who just "lost" their immigration papers, rather than someone who overstayed their visa or illegally entered the country.

The truth is, people come to this country illegally for many different reasons. Some people cross the border illegally to make money to send home so their family can survive. Some do it in search of a better life. Others come to join gangs and sell drugs.

There is another group of "illegal immigrants" that also get lumped in with the other groups: People who overstay their visas. These people come into the country legally on a visa, and don't leave after their visa expires. There are many reasons for this. Some people are fleeing oppression, rape, genocide, or murder in their own country. They may be in the process of filing for a green card when their visa expired. They may have had children, gotten married, or just fell in love.

So, is it reasonable or moral to lump all these different circumstances into one group? Is it reasonable to punish these crimes as though all of them had the intentions of the drug / gang / criminal elements? Should a gang banger be put through the same process and punishment as the mother working to support her family? Should the person who overstayed their visa be put through the same process and punishment as the drug dealer?

Illegal immigrants also fall into five categories when it comes to taxes.

Group One: Those who's employers have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude. They work "under the table", being paid cash. They haven't stolen anyone's ID. Their employer has to pay taxes on that money because the expense is not deductible from the employers taxes. The employer receives a benefit from their labor, and often generates revenue from their labor. The employer has to pay taxes on those funds. The only taxes that are not always fully paid are the FICA tax and medicare, because of taxable income limits for those taxes.

Group Two: Those who make up a social security number, and give that number to their employer. These individuals pay taxes, including fica and medicare, which are taken out of their paychecks. From time to time, they may accidentally make up a social security number that actually belongs to someone. This fact comes to light when the "real" owner of the SSN gets a notice from the IRS saying they didn't claim all their income.

Group Three: Those who knowingly steal or purchase a real SSN and SS card. Again, they pay taxes out of their checks. The difference between groups two and three is the intent. One group knowingly steals an identity, while the other does not.

Group Four: Those who get an EIN (employer identification number) from the IRS, which issues these numbers to businesses for tax reporting. These individuals also pay taxes out of their paychecks.

Group Five: Those who do not "work" perse. They support themselves by engaging in gang / criminal / drug activities. These individuals do not pay taxes either directly or indirectly.

As you can see, not all these groups are the same. Except for groups three and five, there is no intent to harm or defraud another person. In all groups except five, taxes are paid directly from the worker's paycheck, or as part of the employers (usually higher) taxes.

I firmly believe that lumping all these disparate groups into one, and labeling them "illegal aliens" or "undocumented workers" does a disservice to the public, and applies the punishment and social stigma of the criminal / drug / gang elements to otherwise good, hard working people.

If we are going to remain a welcoming, compassionate beacon of freedom in the world, we must insert some truth in the immigration debate. Otherwise, we empower evil and racist elements in our culture. These evil and racist elements are a danger to all liberties and human dignity, not just those of illegal immigrants.

I beg my fellow citizens to call out politicians, news organizations, and talk show hosts when they spread misinformation and demonize illegal immigrants. We must not allow the public discourse to be hijacked by evil, xenophobic, racist elements.