Prison Reform

 The statement has often been made that there are more 17-year-old black men in prison than there are in college.  Sometimes it is made more broadly as, "There are more young black men in prison than there are in college."  Either way, if true this would be a troubling statistic.  And would indicate that prison reform is certainly necessary.  

From what I've been able to find, this quote goes back to Ben Carson, who said there were more young black men in the criminal justice system than in college.  Politifact did a study on this and was able to identify nearly ten times as many young black men in college as were incarcerated, so this statistic appears to be untrue.

Does that mean prison reform is not necessary?  If that were the only measurement, possibly not, but we must also consider some other factors.  To begin, the sheer number of Americans in prisons is staggering.  China is the most populated country in the world with 1.4 billion people, followed closely by India with 1.3 billion.  The United States is third with 332 million.  Yet, China incarcerates 1.7 million of its citizens and India less than 500,000.  The United States, by contrast, leads the world in incarcerations with more than 2 million.  

When viewed by race, the numbers are not encouraging.  While whites are the largest group in prison, they are also the largest group in the general population of the country.  While roughly 60% of the country are white and 15% are black, whites make up 58% of the prison population, while blacks are currently at 38%.  And while 38% is certainly unacceptable, it is encouraging to see that the number is down slightly from the years before.  Although only by a small amount.

What is truly abysmal is that in 1970 the total number of people in prison in this country was less than 500,000; putting about where India is today.  So how did we go from that number to more than 2 million in such a short period of time?  Well, we did it by making several mistakes.

To begin with, we declared a war on drugs.  Now, this was a very bad idea because at the same time that we were decrying the evils of drugs, we had television commercials telling us to smoke (nicotine is a drug) and drink (alcohol is a drug).  So, the war on drugs was only on some drugs.  That will never work. 

Added to that, the war on drugs specifically targeted the poor, which in 1970 tended to also mean minority, especially blacks.  So, the majority of arrests for drugs was in the black community.  This creates a vicious cycle because men with a prison record have a harder time finding a job, and the jobs they often get pay much less than they need to live on.  This leads to more dependency on drugs, either as a means of making money or as a means of alleviating the drudgery of day-to-day living.  Which leads back to prison.

It's also important to notice that many of the people in the prison system are awaiting trial.  They are still in jail because they cannot afford to pay the bail to be allowed to be free.  Some of these people will not go to prison because they aren't guilty or their guilt cannot be proved, but they are still missing work, and will lose their jobs while they wait.  

And then came three-strikes laws, which put many people in prison for life even though their crimes do not warrant such harsh punishment.  And it should also be noted that sentences are often longer based on skin color.

Taking all of this into consideration, it is apparent that prison reform is desperately needed, but it is not a simple answer.  Legalizing drugs is a start, and that can be done easily enough.  That will eliminate about 20% of the current prison population.  We also need to eliminate bail (this can also be done), which will reduce the incarcerated population by about 25%.  These two moves along will reduce the population in our jails and prison by nearly half.

We need to get rid of bad laws, like three-strikes.  And we need fair sentences that are not based on race.  The purpose of prison is to rehabilitate.  If the prisoner has learned their lesson, it is time to release them, not keep them in for years, and in some cases, decades.  This is a waste of tax dollars and a waste of a life.  

We should be working toward bringing out prisons back to where they were in 1970; with one fourth of the prisoners that we have today.  And prison reform is dearly needed to accomplish that goal.

Reforming Taxes

Probably the biggest news for this week is the anticipated vote on Tax Reform that the House has already passed and the Senate is currently considering.  Restructuring taxes is something that is probably supported by most Americans, assuming the outcome for every American is the same -- that our particular tax bill will be lower than it has been.

Obviously reducing everyone's tax bill is not possible.  While some people's tax bills will definitely go down, others will undoubtedly go up, but not necessarily in ways that will be obvious to everyone.  For example, eliminating the deduction for home mortgage interest while raising the "standard" deduction may look like a wash but the only way to be certain is by comparing your particular situation from last year with what the potential outcome will be with the change.  That is difficult to do since the information on the bill that has been released so far does not contain specifics that one can apply to an individual situation.  In short, we probably won't know the benefits (or harm) until the measure is passed into law.  That's not very comforting.  One has to wonder why the Senate would operate under such conditions.

The other portion of the proposed Tax Reform bill is for corporations.  The current tax rate in the United States on corporation is 35%, which is the third highest in the developed world.  And business owners have fought against this every way they can, as one would expect.  Tax incentives abound for corporations and those savvier CEOs take advantage of every one they can.  With the proposed reforms, the tax burden of these companies would go from 35% down to 20%.  While that won't make America's tax rate for corporations the lowest in the world (Ireland and Great Britain, for example, are both lower than 20%), it would make this country more favorable to doing business here, and, the argument goes, increase the ability of all companies here to offer more and higher paying jobs, expand their operations in America and increase needed research and development.

All of these are good arguments and points that most Americans can support.  The problem is, they just aren't factual.  This last August The Institute for Policy Studies released their 24th annual report on Corporations and those corporations' current role in the tax paying drama.  The study looked at 92 publicly held American companies that a) reported profits every year from 2008 through 2015, and b) paid less than 20% in federal income taxes (less than the corporate tax rate proposed by the House and Senate Tax Reform bills).  Their findings don't give weight to the argument that cutting taxes increases job growth, expansion or research.

The median job growth between 2008 and 2016 of these companies was a negative 1 percent.  Among US companies as a whole in that same period the growth was 6%.  While 6% is not a large number, at least it's a positive.  For these studied companies, there was an overall job loss.

48 of these 92 companies (52%) eliminated a total of 483,000 jobs during this time period.  That hardly suggests job growth.  If these companies are paying less than the proposed new tax rate, why did they cut jobs?  Remember these companies posted profits EVERY YEAR.  Where is the job creation?  What did they do with those profits?

The average pay for the CEO of these companies increased to $13.4 million.  That's an 18% increase.  That compares to a 13% increase for CEOs in the S&P 500 and 4% in the private sector.  And for the CEOs of those 48 companies that slashed jobs, they enjoyed a pay of $14.9 million on average.

But those increases are worth it if these companies are expanding and doing research (since we know they are not using their profits to increase their workforce).  But, that doesn't appear to be the case.  In fact, the top ten companies that cut jobs also spent $45 billion EACH buying back their own stock.  Which is money well spent if your goal is to make it appear that your stock is worth more than it actually is but does nothing to add to the job market.  

Then what can be done for tax reform?  For corporations, tax reform does not appear to be necessary.  Looking at the information above, 92 companies made profits every year for the past decade yet paid less than 20% in taxes.  They are already paying below the level that the Senate is proposing, so unless the tax incentives remain, these corporations will wind up paying more than they have in the past.  Given the current political climate in Washington, I highly doubt that this is the intended outcome.

Instead of rewriting the tax code, I would suggest passing two simple pieces of legislation.  The first is very simple; no publicly traded corporation in America is allowed to buy back its own stock.  This would eliminate the possibility of a company artificially inflating its stock price and in the example above, would have provided $450 billion for job creation, expansion and research.  

The second piece of legislation would change who can take advantage of tax cuts.  Put simply to qualify for any tax breaks a company cannot pay its highest paid employee more than eight times what it pays its lowest paid employee.  "Pay" would include all forms of compensation, including benefits, stock options, etc.  If, for example, a corporation pays a receptionist $20,000 annually, and values that employees benefits package at an additional $20,000, the total compensation for this position would be $40,000.  That would allow the corporation to pay its CEO $320,000 in total compensation.  If the benefits equal the salary, then the CEO would be paid $160,000 annually.  That's a far cry from the $13.4 million that the CEOs of the 92 companies above are paid (on average) and much less than the $14.9 of the 48 CEOs who cut nearly half a million jobs.  But look what this legislation would do for our workforce. If the CEO wants to keep earning $14.9 million (assuming this is total compensation), then the receptionist must be paid nearly $1.9 million.  This is probably not going to happen, but the lowest paid salary can certainly be increased while CEO pay is decreased to level out somewhere closer to the middle.  Offering salary and benefits totaling $80,000 to the lowest paid employee would make that position livable (and using my ratio of equal pay and value of benefits, this salary of $40,000 would essentially be an hourly salary of $19.24 (roughly)).  As an entry-level position or an unskilled occupation, that salary would certainly appeal to most job-seekers.  In this scenario the CEO would earn $640,000 annually, or $320,000 salary and $320,000 in benefits.  Most Americans would agree that this is certainly a livable wage.

This is reform that would actually make a difference.  While the current proposed legislation will make the rich richer, my scenario would lower the wealthy to a still wealthy position, just not as high while raising the lower paid positions to something that would benefit the people who truly need it the most; the rank and file who do the work that makes companies profitable.  And by cutting the executive salaries to something reasonable, there will be more money available for creating more jobs, expanding businesses and conducting research.  Under this proposal, there are more winners.

For anyone interested in reading the full report referenced above, a copy of it can be found here: http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EE17-final-embargoed-for-August-30.pdf

We Don't Need A Wall

The issue of immigration has always been contentious in this country but particularly now that President Trump is in office.  He ran on a platform of building a wall and keeping out illegal immigrants, but a wall does more than keep out illegals; it sends a signal to the world that "outsiders" are not welcome here.  That is probably not the message that most Americans want the world to receive.

So, rather than building a wall, why not just reform our immigration laws?  Right now we have a quota system, and it has never been a fair system.  From the very beginning it was designed to keep certain people out, not to be inclusive of those in need.  Jews, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Haitians, Cubans, Mexicans and many others have been singled out over the years as being groups who were undesirable and unwelcome in this country.  Yes, these people are now part of the fabric of this country and have added to the greatness of this nation.

Limiting immigrants to only "those we want" (wealthy, well-educated and from first-world nations) and not allowing "those we don't want" (poor, Latino/dark-skinned from third-world countries) is not the way we need to handle this problem.  But we also have to address the very real issue of Americans who feel that their jobs are in jeopardy from immigrants taking lower pay to do the same job.  Particularly in areas where unemployment is very high, seeing immigrants moving ahead is hard to swallow.  Those feelings are valid and must be addressed.

To that end, I propose an overhaul of the system that would be more fair to everyone; both immigrants and Americans.  For the immigrants, we have a more open system, but one that requires a paper trail.  Illegal immigrants will only be those who refuse to follow the administrative course that will be required for entry into this country.  For anyone who goes through the proper channels, they will be allowed in (with few exceptions) and will be allowed to stay so long as they obey the rules.

The process is fairly simple; anyone who wishes to emigrate to the United States would visit the nearest US Embassy (or its website) and complete and application.  That application would include a small fee that would be used to process the application.  Most importantly, a background check would be done on the applicant, looking for evidence of violent crimes.  Note that stealing food to feed the family is not a "violent" crime.  People with records of rape, attempted murder, assault, battery and the like are not the people we need in this country.  Those applicants would be denied.  Anyone without a record would be allowed in.

The next step is a medical checkup.  Immunizations must be up to date.  Those would be arranged through the embassy for a small fee.  We don't need sick people bringing disease into our country.  Lastly, the applicant must have a sponsor in America.  A person, family, church or organization that is willing to accept them.

Once the paperwork is done and accepted and the immunizations are completed, the person will be allowed to enter the country.  In their first week they must report to the local police station and register as a legal immigrant.  They will need an address and phone number where they can be reached, and if they move, they must report their new information within one week.  This registration will allow them to apply for a social security number and a driver's license.

From the date they enter the country, they will have six months to either begin working full-time or be accepted to school full-time.  No one will be allowed to stay in the country if they are not working to better themselves.  Every six months they must report to the police department and check in to ensure that we always know where they are and what they are doing.  They must file their income tax return on time every year, and that must be shown to the police.  Once they have filed fifteen federal income tax returns, they would be eligible for citizenship.

The major change in this system is what they cannot do.  No immigrant will be allowed to collect any public benefit until they have filed fifteen federal income tax returns.  This means ALL welfare programs are off limits.  Even if a woman comes into this country and gets pregnant from an American, unless he has custody of the child, she and the child are not allowed any public benefits.  No immigrant would be eligible for government grants for school, they could not apply for any Obama Care programs, they cannot collect any welfare.  If they have worked and they are laid off, they would be allowed to collect unemployment, but only to the amount that they have paid into the system.

This change in our system is more fair to the Americans while allowing immigrants to enter our country without the fear of being illegal.  It would allow them a path to citizenship while not taking benefits from hard-working Americans.  It would show us as a country that is welcoming to those in need, not a nation that builds walls to keep them out.

We Need To Prevent More Mass Shootings

The story of the recent tragedy in Orlando was still unfolding when I started to hear the usual comments. “It could only come out of Florida,” or “More senseless violence by the Muslims,” or “Trump was right; we need to keep these people out of our country.” At first glance, these statements seem to be reasonable but looking deeper into the issue, we see a very different pattern emerging.

In order to discuss this it is first necessary to look at this crime. We label this a “mass shooting” and while it is the largest ever to take place in our country, it is not the first. Over the past 50 years there have been 14 such shootings with 12 or more victims. Until this incident the most lives lost in a single mass shooting had been the Virginia Tech Massacre where 32 people were killed. After that it was Sandy Hook with 27, Luby's Cafeteria with 23, and McDonald's of San Ysidro with 21. The remainder of the shootings had under 20 killed in each incident. This does not make them any less tragic. I just don't want to list each one here.

In all 14 shootings a total of 274 lives were lost at the hands of 18 killers. (There were two people involved in the San Bernardino shooting, two at Colombine and three at Wah Mee in Seattle). 76 of these (or 28%) lost their lives at the hands of Muslims. 102 of them (37%) were killed by Christians. It is entirely possible that this number is actually higher. I can only include those who I know were Christians, not those who I suspect were probably Christians. George Hennard, for example, was the perpetrator of the killing spree at Luby's Cafeteria in Texas but I have not been able to ascertain a religious affiliation for him. As such, I can't just assume he was Christian and include him. If he was a Christian, that would increase the number to 125 or 46%. James Huberty was the killer at the McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA where 21 people lost their lives. He might have been Christian as well. Patrick Sherrill in Edmond, OK killed 14 people at a Post Office and Aaron Alexis killed 12 at the DC Naval Yard. These men might also have been Christians. If these are added in, the total comes to 172 or 63%. But even without these victims in the tally, Christians have killed more people in mass shootings in this country than Muslims have.

Looking at it from a racial perspective, only four of the killers were Middle Eastern. Five were Asian. One was African-American. Eight were Caucasian. In every case of the Caucasians, they were all born in this country, as was the African-American. None of them were immigrants. Two of the Middle Eastern killers were also born in this country. They were U.S. Citizens as well.

While Florida is very sadly the scene of the deadliest of these shootings, until this happened, Florida was not even on the list. Two shootings were in each of four states; California, Texas, Virginia and Colorado. The others were in New York, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Washington (state) and Washington, D.C. There is no set pattern for where these types of crimes will occur.

And while Omar Mateen (of the Orlando shootings) and Tashfeen Malik (of San Bernardino) made claims to being supportive of ISIS, those claims appear to be mere lip-service. There has not been any firm evidence found that directly links either of these people to this hateful organization. Even assuming that such is the case, then 63 of the victims would be killed with allegiance to ISIS as the motive. That would be 23% of the total victims. The other most probable motive is mental illness, which accounts for 170 of the crimes. 62% of the victims lost their lives because the killers were mentally ill. If it is found that Omar Mateen also had this condition, that would raise it to 80%.

This number does not include the shootings at the Edmond, Oklahoma Post Office, as I have not been able to find evidence that Patrick Sherrill was mentally ill. It also does not include the Fort Hood killings or San Bernardino, as neither has been directly attributed to mental illness. The Wah Mee Massacre was a robbery and therefore also does not fall under this category.

What this tells us is that mental illness is the most common cause of this type of violence. But certainly not all people with mental illness are killers. Most live out very normal, peaceful lives. Many are under medical care and some are taking medications to control their disability. The problem stems from those who do not receive the care they need. I would also venture a guess that these particular people (those who perpetrated these crimes) probably had a tendency toward violence in their lifetimes. Omar Mateen and James Huberty both had histories of domestic violence. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook murderer had a long history of obsession with violent video games. Adding a violent nature on top of mental illness is a very deadly combination.

Finally, pour into the mix the availability of guns in our country. The radio program “Market Place” did a study after the Sandy Hook killings and found that there are more places to buy guns in the United States than there are Starbucks locations throughout the entire world. They did the same study after the Orlando shootings and found the same results.

If we wish to end these killings, we don't need to point our fingers at Muslims or Christians or any other religion. We don't need to look at the nationality of anyone or do any racial profiling. What we need to be concerned with is mental illness left unchecked and untreated, particularly in individuals who tend toward violence. And if such is the case, we need to restrict the weapons these individuals would have access to. These are the steps that must be taken because we must do all we can to not let this happen again.

And Now, Another Senseless Loss of Life

After 50 people were shot to death in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, there will undoubtedly be another call for gun control.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) will once again rally its membership to fight any forms of control with their tired chant, "They're trying to take our guns away."  But are they really?

Like most Americans, I own and drive a car.  Before I was allowed to drive a car, I first had to apply for a license.  The process involved being of a certain age, then getting a learner's permit, which only allowed me to operate a vehicle with a licensed driver in the vehicle with me.  Then I had to go to the state and take a written test.  Once I passed it, then I could take a practical test with a state representative in the vehicle.  Only after passing that could I get my license.

But that's only part of the saga.  Then I had to buy a vehicle and once purchased, I had to insure the vehicle.  This insurance was partly to insure my investment but really, it's mostly to protect others, as I have to carry liability coverage.  All of this had to be done before I could put my vehicle on the road.

Why can't guns be regulated (controlled) in a similar fashion?  First, establish a minimum age for gun users.  This would have to be debated.  Some would feel that 12 would be old enough, others will say 21.  Let's make it reasonable and say 13 but you have to be accompanied by an adult with a license and 18 to go solo.  Since 13 is a minor, they would still need the permission of a parent to apply for a gun permit.

Also, anyone with a history of mental illness or a record of incarceration for violent crime would probably not be the best people to be allowed to own weapons.  If they have a licensed adult who is willing to accompany them, perhaps there can be a special arrangement made for things like hunting.

Once the permit is received, the permit holders are allowed to shoot with a licensed adult.  That adult will train them in gun safety, etiquette and proper handling.  All of that will be done before learning to aim and pull the trigger.  Also, cleaning the weapon would be taught.  Once the permit holder is ready, they can then go and take a written test.  This test will demonstrate that they know how to properly handle a weapon.

After the written test is passed, they will then have a practical exam where they will fire the weapon, not showing that they are good marksmen but that they can do so safely.  After this, they will properly clean the weapon.

Now they can receive a license but only for that particular type (class) of weapon.  If they want another type, that's another test, just like getting a driver's license does not allow you to operate a motorcycle.  You have to have a motorcycle license for that.

Finally, when the person is licensed they can purchase a gun in the proper class, but they must also purchase gun insurance.  Gun insurance would be relatively inexpensive for things like hunting rifles and small handguns.  The insurance would pay for loss of the firearm as well as paying damages should anyone be injured by the weapon.  As the weapon increases in power, the insurance increases in cost.  While a 22 rifle might cost $25 a year for insurance, an uzi would be $1,000 annually.  This doesn't stop anyone from owning one, it just means you would have to really want one.

All guns would have to be recorded and licensed, just as cars are licensed.  They would be registered with the state so the owner would be on record.  They would have to be maintained and demonstrated to the proper authorities that they were in good working order at all times.  

This is gun control.  It's not a matter of taking weapons away, it's a matter of making them safer for everyone. 

What Happened to the Republican Party?

You hear it a lot these days; that this (the Republican Party) is not the same Republican Party that Ronald Reagan belonged to.  And I have to agree.  The Tea Party Republicans are so far to the right that they have pulled the entire party away from the center which ultimately led to the election of Donald J. Trump as their presidential candidate.  But how did this happen?

As I see it, it all goes back to a handful of people, starting with Rush Limbaugh.  Rush and his big mouth have spouted hatred for decades.  He had a captive audience that continued to grow as he maliciously lied to them day after day.  Democrats didn't have a way of countering this because as (Air America found out), Democrats don't listen to pundits.  The reason for this is simple; we can think for ourselves.  Just give us the facts and we'll make up our own minds.  Republicans aren't like us.  They want someone to tell them what to think and Rush was happy to do that.

Riding on this new-found conservatism came Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" in 1994.  Six years later, Edward H. Crane of the Cato Institute called it a failure: "the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%."  So, another lie by the Republicans but one that gave them control of the House and Senate.

On top of Rush Limbaugh we have Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, all spewing hatred against the Democrats and all making matters worse rather than better.  Every one of these people has spent decades swaying the Republican voters toward their agenda of hatred against liberals.  They don't like gays.  They don't like immigrants.  They don't like atheists.  They don't like anyone who can think for themselves because if everyone did, they would all be out of work.

And all of that has now come to it's most illogical conclusion; the election of Donald Trump.  While those of us who do think are scratching our heads at this, I can't say we're really surprised, given the way the GOP has changed over the recent decades.  We have watched it steadily going downhill and to see it crash and burn is what we would expect.  And that's pretty much where it is now.

And yet, the GOP members of the House (like Paul Ryan) are still supporting "their" candidate, even though none of them wanted him in the first place.  They still speak out against everything he says (which means everything he stands for) but they continue to back him because, in their words, he would still be better than Hillary Clinton.  In fact, Paul Ryan recently defined one of Trump's statements as "textbook racism" but insisted that Donald would still be a better choice than Hillary.  Apparently, Hillary is worse than textbook racism, somehow.  He didn't elucidate on that any further.

Which just shows how truly misguided ALL of the GOP are.  To put an egotistical, megalomaniacal, narcissist into the White House for no other reason than that he is NOT a Democrat truly shows how much these people do not care about our country.  They would rather ruin life for all of us but be able to say they have the White House rather than support the one candidate who has proven herself as the most presidential simply because of her political affiliation.

This is truly not our finest hour.

A letter to Lois Frankel, U.S. Congresswoman from Florida:

Dear Representative Frankel:

On February 17, 2016, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry requesting assurances that the Leahy law restrictions on assistance to foreign security forces are being applied to Israel and Egypt.  The letter, signed by nine other representatives and Senator Patrick Leahy, calls on the Department of State to investigate reports of human rights violations by Israeli and Egyptian forces, and to determine what action should be taken under the Leahy law.

In their letter to Secretary Kerry, the members of Congress express concern that U.S. military aid to military units in Israel and Egypt has not been subjected to the same rigorous tracking mechanisms that U.S. military aid is subjected to elsewhere in the world. This type of congressional oversight is absolutely essential to the success of our democratic system.

In addition to Rep. Hank Johnson (GA) and Senator Patrick Leahy (VT), this letter was signed by Representatives Andrè Carson (IN), Sam Farr (CA), Raúl Grijalva (AZ), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Betty McCollum (MN), Jim McDermott (WA), James McGovern (MA) and Chellie Pingree (ME).  What is most troubling to me, as a Floridian, is the lack of a signature by any of our representatives from the sunshine state.  You, Lois Frankel, did not sign this letter and as your constituent, I want to know why you failed in your duty to uphold the law.

Our laws are what make our country the great nation it is and failure to follow those laws is tantamount to anarchy.  When Israel and Egypt violate our laws, and use our funding to abuse the basic human rights of others, then we are responsible for those actions and must act.  I am very proud of those members of Congress who had the temerity to stand up and speak out against these egregious actions but I am ashamed that my own Representative would be so cowardly to not put her name on the paper.

Lois, I am calling on you as my elected Representative to Congress to do the right thing.  I want you to send a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry lauding the efforts of your fellow Representatives and adding your name to the list.  I want you to show that you respect our laws and our land and if you refuse to do this, then I am calling on you to resign your seat.  If you refuse to uphold the laws of the United States, including the Leahy law, then you must not remain a member of the U. S. Congress.

Sincerely,

Patt Gavin

The letter sent by the Representatives to Secretary of State Kerry follows:

February 17, 2016

The Honorable John F. Kerry
Secretary
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520 

Dear Secretary Kerry:

We commend you for your extraordinary efforts to try to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. We write today to request information regarding the application of the Leahy Law in Israel and Egypt. We are also inquiring about specific allegations of gross violations of human rights by the security forces of both countries.

According to information we have received, the manner in which U.S. military assistance has been provided to Israel and Egypt, since the Camp David Accords, including the delivery of assistance at the military service level, has created a unique situation that has hindered implementation of normal mechanisms for monitoring the use of such assistance. Please update us on what mechanisms are in place to monitor the use of such assistance by Israel and Egypt.

Additionally, while the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) is responsible for processing vetting cases, the Department’s regional bureaus and our embassies have a responsibility to help document and determine the credibility of information related to allegations of gross violations of human rights by foreign security forces. Please provide a description of the procedures used by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and our embassies in Israel and Egypt to investigate such allegations in order to enhance the quality of information being maintained and evaluated by DRL and made available to you.

There have been a disturbing number of reports of possible gross violations of human rights by security forces in Israel and Egypt – incidents that may have involved recipients, or potential recipients, of U.S. military assistance. We urge you to determine if these reports are credible and to inform us of your findings:

• Israel: Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have reported what may be extrajudicial killings by the Israeli military and police of Fadi Alloun, Saad Al- Atrash, Hadeel Hashlamoun, and Mutaz Ewisa. There are also reports of the use of torture in the cases of Wasim Marouf and Ahmed Manasra.

• Egypt: Human Rights Watch has described the August 2013 massacre in Rab'aa Square as “the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history.” Recent reports document what may be extrajudicial killings by Egyptian security forces of Sayed Dwedar, Nasser al-Hafi, Osama al-Husseini, Hisham Khifagy, Gamal Khalifa, Abd al-Fattah Ibrahim al-Sisi, Taher Abdullah, Muatasam al-Agizi and Hisham al-Dessouky. There have also been a number of reported cases of forced disappearance including Asma’a Khalaf, Islam Atito, Sabry al-Ghoul, Esraa al-Taweel, Omar Ali, and Souhaib Sa’ad,and Al-Sayed al-Rassed.

In light of these reports we request that you act promptly to determine their credibility and whether they trigger the Leahy Law and, if so, take appropriate action called for under the law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rep. Hank Johnson (GA), Senator Patrick Leahy (VT), Representatives Andrè Carson (IN), Sam Farr (CA), Raúl Grijalva (AZ), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Betty McCollum (MN), Jim McDermott (WA), James McGovern (MA) and Chellie Pingree (ME).

Letter to Representative Lois Frankel in Response to Her Vote Against Peace

My Congressional Representative, Lois Frankel voted against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which forces Iran to divest itself of nuclear weapons in return for having sanctions against it removed.  I feel that this deal should go forward and to have my representative vote against it does not meet with my approval.  To that end, I contacted her office (by email) and told her I wanted her to vote in favor of the proposal.  She did not, however the measure passed without her.

The following is her letter to me explaining her decision, as well as my response to her.  I apologize for the length but each letter is about two pages long.

Dear Mr. Gavin, Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the P5+1, European Union partners, and Iran.  I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond.  Let me start with the obvious: Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, lending support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Assad regime in Syria.  As disturbing, if Iran becomes a threshold nuclear state, it is expected that other countries in the Middle East will seek nuclear weapons, leading to proliferation throughout an already unstable and dangerous region. That's why the vote on the nuclear deal with Iran was one of most important votes I have faced in my public career.  In that regard I spent the 60-day review period, allotted to Congress by law, engaged in intensive and thorough hearings, briefings, and discussions with administration officials, colleagues, constituents, as well as global leaders.  I believe that a diplomatic solution is the best course of action and value the tireless dedication of President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the U.S.-led negotiating team in that effort. With that said, I voted against approving the deal because I felt that it legitimized Iran's nuclear program after 15 years and gave Iran access to billions of dollars without a commitment to cease its terrorist activity.  It was a price too high to pay. As members of Congress we placed ourselves in a complicated situation by weighing in after a deal had already been agreed to by top U.S. negotiators, five partner nations, Iran, and the United Nations.  It is an agreement that even ardent supporters admitted was far from perfect, but argued that rejecting it would entail sobering consequences, including isolating the United States on the international stage, unraveling sanctions without any gain, and allowing Iran back on the path of building a nuclear weapon. As wrenching as this vote was for some lawmakers, it does not compare to the agony of the men, women, and children suffering at the hands of Iran's terrorist regime.  With this nuclear agreement, the Iranians will receive billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and future revenues that undoubtedly will be available to intensify their support of horrific activity aimed at innocent human beings. Stripped of its technicalities, this deal essentially rewards—in fact, enables— a terrorist regime without extracting sufficient concessions. Concessions that could have made me support the resolution of approval would have been permanent nuclear disarmament and a cessation of non-nuclear terrorism.  The release of sanctions without requiring a stop to terrorist activities is disturbingly counterproductive. We will be releasing billions to a destructive terrorist regime, while spending billions trying to keep peace in the Middle East. And we will be financially rewarding high ranking officials of Iran's Revolutionary Guard who have rich interests in businesses that will profit from the sanctions relief.  The U.S. government classifies the Islamic Republic of Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism.  Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel.  Iran's proxy Hezbollah, the first terrorist organization to use suicide bombing in the Middle East, has killed hundreds of U.S. citizens and Israelis at home and abroad.  Iran also lends support to Hamas, the Taliban, and militias in Iraq.  By supplying weapons, bombs, and militia to Assad in Syria, Iran is in large part responsible for the greatest humanitarian crisis of recent times. There should be no doubt why Israel, our best friend and greatest ally in the Middle East, has determined that Iran poses an existential threat.  Iran's Supreme Leader has not only called for the annihilation of Israel, branding it a "cancerous tumor," but reportedly recently published a 416 page book detailing the means by which Israel's effacement should be achieved. In 2006, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets and missiles at towns and villages across Northern Israel.  With their augmented arsenal courtesy of Iran, Hezbollah now points over 100,000 missiles at Israel with launchers strategically placed in densely populated areas throughout Lebanon. Since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas terrorists have fired more than 11,000 rockets into Israel with Iran's support. Over five million Israelis are currently living under threat of these attacks.  In Sderot, located less than a mile from Gaza, children, 75 percent of whom suffer post-traumatic stress disorders due to the violence, have less than 15 seconds to seek shelter when rockets are fired.  New reports indicate that Iran is funding the rebuilding of Hamas' sophisticated tunnel network to attack Israeli civilians.  Despite sectarian differences, Tehran and Hamas are united in their call for the extinction of Israel. While the struggle of Israel has been at the forefront of the Iran deal debate, the horrific stories coming out of Syria must not be ignored.  Iran props up the brutal Syrian dictator Assad who carries out mass torture on his own population in order to maintain power.  Barrel bombs with nails and chlorine, sarin nerve gas, starvation, and rape are just a few of his sadistic methods of repression.  His regime is responsible for the deaths of over 250,000 people and the displacement of 10 million from their homes as they try to escape in terror, pouring into neighboring countries and Europe. The world has witnessed their desperate plight: thousands fleeing for freedom, children's lifeless bodies washing up on shore, refugees suffocating in trucks.  Along with the moral calamity, displaced Syrians are straining the resources of nearby countries and Europe. What's more, Assad's brutality has become a rallying cry for ISIL recruitment. Proponents of the Iranian nuclear agreement argue that it was never meant to address Iran's terrorist and expansionist activities—that only nuclear related sanctions will be lifted and those aimed at terrorism will continue to be enforced.  The tradeoff proponents advance is unsatisfactory: at best a 15 year delay on nuclear enrichment,  unlocking the next generation's door to a wealthier emboldened Iran on the threshold of nuclear breakout.  As you may know by now, after a vigorous and contentious review, Congress did not block the JCPOA. All parties to the deal are apparently moving forward with its implementation. Now, it is time for those of us on both sides of the debate to work together to make sure that Iran lives up to the agreement and stops its carnage of terrorist activity. Thank you again for sending me your thoughts.   I encourage you to visit my website at http://frankel.house.gov/ to read my policy statements and learn how I voted on past legislation.  It is a privilege to serve you as Representative for Florida's 22nd District.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with other issues that concern you in the future.  I welcome your input as I share ideas with my colleagues in the 114th Congress.     Sincerely,  Lois Frankel Member of Congress

My reply to her follows:

Dear Lois:

In response to your letter of October 2, explaining your reasons for voting against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), I have to say that I am appalled. Your reasoning and logic do not take into account certain relevant facts, and I have to wonder if you are truly that misinformed or if you choose to believe lies that support your opinions.

You mention Iran's support of both Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah was formed in Lebanon in 1982 as a reaction to the ILLEGAL invasion of that country by Israel. It was created as a direct response to Israeli hostility and were it not for Israel, that organization would not exist.

Hamas was formed in Palestine in 1987, coming out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. Again, this organization was created as a reaction to the ILLEGAL actions of Israel, this time in stealing land from the Palestinians.

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee it is vital that you understand this history and that you understand that the actions of Israel in the Middle East have exacerbated the hostilities in that region.

You claim in your letter that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Yet, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel, who is NOT a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) currently has 80 nuclear warheads. Why are we allowing ANY non-NPT country to have nuclear weapons? Why have we singled out Iran and completely ignored Israel?

You claim that Iran supports the Assad regime in Syria, which is true (Iran uses Syria to funnel weapons to both Hezbollah and Hamas), however Iran is not responsible for the crisis in Syria today. Syria is. This is a civil war and even if Iran were to completely divorce itself from that country, the war would continue. Iran did not start it. It was a dictatorship that is being fought by its own people. Civil wars are horrible things; our own country had one. But they can also be necessary and they resolve themselves over time. Iran's intervention in the war in Syria is no better or worse than our own. They just happen to be on the other side and there is no right or wrong side in this war. The best we can do for Syria is to open our own borders to the refugees. We should strike the Assad forces because of their use of chemical weapons, but beyond that, this is a war for the Syrians to fight themselves. We cannot prevent Iran from participating any more than we can prevent Russia from participating. What we could do is peacefully negotiate with Syria and Russia to step back and allow the Syrians to settle this themselves. Which means we should also stay out of it.

You cite that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has written a book calling for the effacement of Israel. You fail to mention the man's name, however, or the title of the book. The book is titled, "Palestine" and yes, he does call for low-level warfare against Israelis to remove them from the land and regain it for the Muslims. This is one person's opinion, not the work of the nation of Iran. And I would expect that as an American you would respect the constitutional right of all people to Freedom of Speech. Khamenei is entitled to his opinion, just as you are entitled to yours. To cite this as a reason to vote against this deal is anti-American at best and treasonous at worst.

You state that since 2005 Hamas "terrorists" fired 11,000 rockets at Israel. What you fail to mention is that the majority of "rockets" coming out of Palestine are homemade. Why not face the truth, Lois? From 2001 until April 2014 rockets out of Gaza killed a total of 44 Israelis. From 2000 until 2014 a total of 1,198 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks throughout the entire region of Palestine/Israel. By contrast, 9,151 Palestinians were killed. Nearly ten times as many.

Let's break those numbers down further. In Israel 129 children were killed. In Palestine, 1,523 children were killed. Palestinians killed 731 civilians compared to the 3,535 civilians that Israelis killed. In Israel, 596 people died on their own land. In Palestine 6,756 people died on their own land.

The numbers do not support your claims. Palestinians are freedom fighters, trying to keep their lands and their lives in spite of a much stronger army that is invading them. Israel are the terrorists who are stealing that land. Since 1948, when Israel first became a state, not one inch of land has been taken back from then. Considerable land has been stolen by the Israelis and remains occupied to this day.

You consistently support Israel, even though Israel has been the cause of unrest in the Middle East ever since the Zionist movement began illegally taking land from the Palestinians. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee you MUST know this. If you do not, you are not qualified to sit on this committee and I call on you, as your constituent to remove yourself from this panel. If you do know this information, then I expect to see legislation presented to move forward a peace process in the Middle East.

To begin with, we must stop financially supporting Israel. A country that is able to stockpile nuclear weapons is not a country that needs our support, either financially or militarily. Today we give $3 billion annually to Israel. This is far more than we give to any other country and this needs to be reduced to zero. There is no reason for the United States to continue to support a terrorist nation. And yes, Israel is a terrorist nation. History has already proven that. In fact, to date the United Nations has passed 79 resolutions against Israel for illegal actions, and that does not include the nearly 30 additional resolutions against Israel that the United States managed to veto.

We must lead the United Nations and other military forces in enforcing Israel's 1948 borders; which means the withdrawal of ALL Israeli occupation from Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and all Palestinian lands outside of those borders.

We must lead the United Nations in the establishment of a country of Palestine, respecting the 1948 borders of Israel and work with all nations in the Middle East to ensure that WITH THESE BORDERS these countries all have a right to exist. We must work toward ensuring that peace ensues.

We must impose the same sanctions against Israel that we imposed against Iran until Israel relinquishes its own nuclear weapons program. It must divest itself of its current stockpile of nuclear weapons and disassemble its plants so no additional weapons are created.

I will expect to see this legislation coming from your office, Lois. You claim that your vote against JCPOA was because of the potential for terrorism in the Middle East, then I expect you to live up to your words. Stop Israel's state-sponsored acts of terrorism. Prevent Israel from any further violence against the Palestinians and Muslims of the Middle East. Ensure that Israel is made to live by the same rules of war as the rest of the developed world, something Israel has never done.

Anything less than this is unsatisfactory and will be met with your dismissal at the next election. And all of AIPAC's money will not be enough to help you to win when your constituents are confronted with the truth.

Sincerely,

Disabled American Veterans

Today I received a mailing from the Disabled American Veterans.  This group routinely sends out address labels and holiday cards and then requests a donation, and they apparently do quite well with this endeavor.  The money they raise is then supposed to be used to assist disabled veterans here in the United States.

I say "supposed to be used" because I have often heard allegations from veterans stating that the organization does not help vets.  While I can neither prove nor disprove this, I can do a little research on my own.

Disabled American Vets (DAV) is a non-profit organization and as such, they are required by law to file a Form 990 with the IRS every year.  This form must list the salaries of the board members and highest paid employees of the organization.  For years now I have relied on this form to let me know if I should give to a charity or not.  My criteria is quite simple; if the organization is paying exorbitant salaries they don't need my money.

How do I define "exorbitant"?  I define it with a dollar amount.  I don't see that anyone working for a non-profit needs to be paid more than $75,000 annually.  Even in a major city, this salary is more than enough to live on.  Anyone who can't needs to take a class in money management because they're living beyond their means.

DAV does not do well based on my criteria.  The three highest paid members (based on their 2013 990 form, which is the most recent I was able to find) were paid more than $300,000 each.  Christopher Clay was paid the most at $354,139, followed by Barry Jesinoski ($320,055) and Marc Burgess ($319,888).  Of the top ten salaries, seven of them are paid in excess of a quarter of a million dollars per year.  In addition to those already named, the others are Arthur Wilson ($289,761), Joseph Violante ($276,574), Anita Blum ($273,137) and Susan Loth ($272,511).  Rounding out the top ten are Brian Coward ($234,112), Larry Palzin ($130,303) and Joseph Johnston ($117,781).  

These figures are all pulled directly from the Form 990 filed with the IRS for 2013.  Since this document is filed by the organization it is reasonable to assume that the information is accurate.  $2,588,261 that was donated to the organization was used to pay salaries of only ten people.  

I'll use the address stickers, and I might even use the holiday cards, but I will not be sending any money to this organization.  Any organization that would use my contribution to make its board of directors wealthy does not need my support.  Nor does it deserve my support.  An organization like this should be put out of business and I do hope that more people learn of how they spend their money.  Maybe that will help to eradicate this scourge on the public.

Immigration Reform

With the unrest in Syrbia and the economic difficulties of both Greece and Puerto Rico, there is a sudden surge in immigration throughout the developed world.  While the bulk of these are coming from the Middle East, the people of Puerto Rico are leaving their island and coming to the United States in larger numbers.  This has once again brought immigration back into the spotlight.  While Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, it is not a state and as such, its people should be treated the same as any other people entering this country.

Our current immigration system is broken and it has been for years.  It simply does not work and it's long past time to revise it.  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," are the famous lines from the poem, "The New Colossus" which is engraved on a plaque and is part of the Statue of Liberty.  As a nation, we should live by these words.  Living by these words must be done in such a way to be fair to the immigrants and fair to the Americans who welcome them.  I suggest the following:

Anyone who desires to come to America for a better life must do it legally.  They should visit their local American Embassy and fill out an application.  That application will then be reviewed, mostly for past criminal activity.  If there is a history of violent crime, the application is denied.  We do not need the criminals of other countries coming here to commit their crimes.  Those are not the tired, poor, huddled masses.

This background check should be completed within two weeks.  It does not take any longer than that to run a background check and extending that period only makes illegal entry easier than legal.  Run the background check immediately and be done with it.

Once the background check is complete and assuming no violent crime has been found, the application will be approved.  Approval means a visa to live and work in the United States.  The person then has 30 days to find a place to live and register with their local government with their American address.  Once they have done this, they will be able to apply for a Social Security number and a driver's license.  

Within the first six months the person must report to the local government that they have found employment or are attending school on a full-time basis.  They must report every six months to update their information and if they move, they must immediately notify their local government office.

In order to make this fair to the American people, no public benefits will be available to anyone who has not paid taxes for a minimum of ten years.  In the event of a child born in the United States, benefits are not available until their parents have paid taxes for ten years.  This includes welfare, medical, food stamps and all other public benefits.  If the person has not been working in this country and paying taxes, they are not eligible for benefits. 

Lastly, before any public benefits are paid to any immigrant, they must be granted citizenship.  If they do not choose to become a citizen of this country, they are not eligible to receive benefits from this country.  

This is the simple plan of immigration reform that I propose.  It would be equitable for all involved, it involves a path to citizenship and it eliminates the need for illegally entering this country.  

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  This is the wording of the second amendment as passed by Congress.  When it came to the states to ratify this amendment, it was changed slightly to; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Slightly different but the same general idea.

For decades organizations like the National Rifle Association have touted their "right to bear arms" as being a constitutional right.  In looking at the amendment, it certainly does give the right to bear arms but it does not give that right exclusively.  Look at the beginning of the sentence.  The part that organizations like the NRA ignore.  It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  Remember, this was written at a time when the United States did not have much of a standing army.  We were not the most powerful nation on the planet yet.  And many people lived in what we would now call the wilderness.  They needed to be able to protect themselves.

All of that has changed.  Today we have a military.  We have police departments at the city, county and state levels.  We have a national guard.  We are very well protected and we no longer need individual citizens to make up our militia.  However, there is a large population of our citizens who believe that they still have the right to bear arms.

So, in all fairness, we must follow the amendment as it is written.  I propose that all gun owners must register their weapons with their local police department.  That registration is to be sent to the federal government where a listing will be kept of who has which weapons and where they live.  Once that information has been compiled, then it will be disseminated to the military recruiters throughout the country, who will then go to the homes of the gun owners and escort them to their nearest military base for basic training and to begin their service to their country.  

A militia is an organization of citizens who are required to assist the military in time of need.  Our citizens cannot assist the military if they are not properly trained and basic training will take care of that.  Of course they will be paid for their time.  They will receive the exact same payment as anyone else going through basic training.  Once the training is complete, they will be allowed to return to their homes and their jobs and their lives but they must report to their commander once per month the way any reserve soldier would.   They will report, gun in hand and serve their country.  This service is until death or for as long as they own a gun, whichever comes first.

This is the price for owning a weapon, as is spelled out in the constitution.  Since the gun lobbyists and activities insist on calling upon their second amendment rights, let them live up to what the second amendment actually says.  

Why I May Not Vote For Hillary Clinton

Like most progressives I was very excited to see Hillary was going to run for president.  I believe it is long past time that we see what a woman can do as the leader of the free world and Hillary is the most qualified by far.  When she finally announced her candidacy, I was a little disappointed that her website did not have bumper stickers.  I went to another site (www.carryabigsticker.com) and they had Hillary stickers for $3.50 with free shipping.  I bought one and put it on my car.

While I was on Hillary's site, I did sign up to be kept informed and I made a donation to her campaign.  A few weeks later, I received an email from her site that they now had merchandise, so I went to look.  They did have bumper stickers, two for $5.00.  I decided that even though I already have one, I would like an official one, so I ordered it.  Or them.  Or I would have.  When I got to the shipping page I was informed that it would cost $5.87 for the shipping.  Of two bumper stickers.  When other sites ship them for free.  Two bumper stickers would easily fit in an envelope and could be mailed for less than fifty cents.  Why is the cost $5.87?

I asked the Hillary campaign this.  I received an email in return (without a person's name on it) stating that this is the way the fulfillment center is set up but that they are working on correcting it.  That was on May 27, 2015.  Today is June 11, 2015 and I went back and looked at the site again and the cost for shipping two bumper stickers is no longer $5.87.  It is now $6.09.  So, the way they fixed the problem was by charging more.

I told them that if they could not get the fulfillment center to ship the merchandise at a reasonable cost, then they should order the bumper stickers themselves and keep them in their office and if anyone is only ordering bumper stickers, the office can send them out for fifty cents (even though carryabigsticker.com is free) and that would be acceptable.  They never responded on why that was not possible, only that they were working to correct the problem, which they have by making it worse.

Is this a major problem?  No.  Is it a problem?  Yes.  Did Hillary fix the problem?  No.  Do we want a president who does not fix problems?  I don't think so.

But wait.  There's more.  Remember I said I signed up to be kept informed of her campaign?  What a mistake that was.  Three emails in one day.  And the campaign season hasn't really started yet.  And none of them gave me any indication of her platform or why I should vote for her.  They were all either to buy merchandise, to give more money, to enter a contest to meet Hillary, to host a party (Hillary would not be coming to it) or some other lame excuse to send an email.

Thank God for unsubscribe.  I am no longer receiving Hillary's emails.  At this point, I wonder if I am going to vote for her.  I seriously think if she wants the American people to vote for her, she needs to get in touch with us and reduce her shipping prices to reasonable pricing.  $6.09 to mail two bumper stickers is beyond excessive.

I think Hillary Clinton is out of touch with America.

A Not-So-Long-Ago Story

An invading army entered a country, killed many of its inhabitants and occupied the territory.  A small group of the people who lived in the country eventually rose up against the invaders and, using whatever means they could, fought back and drove them from their land.

This happened in the 2nd century BCE in Jerusalem when the Seleucid Empire attacked Jerusalem and occupied it as part of their country.  A small group of Israelites know as the Maccabees retaliated against them and were successful in driving them out.  This event is commemorated to this day in the festival of lights that we commonly call Hanukkah.

In 1987, after years of having their land confiscated from them by an invading force, a small group of Palestinians called themselves Hamas and began fighting back against the Israeli army.  The same geographic area and the same scenario yet the ancient fighters merit a festival while the modern fighters are branded as terrorists.

The men and women of Hamas are freedom-fighters trying to liberate their land from the hands of an invading force that would take it from them.  If someone tried to take your land, wouldn't you fight back?

It is disgraceful that in a nation that values freedom as highly as we claim to, we do not rush to the aid of the Palestinians.  Instead, our government financially supports Israel and places Palestine on a Terror Watch List.  These people are not terrorists.  They want to live in peace just as we do but Israel will not allow it.

It is long past time to end this.  Our financial support of Israel must end.  Our branding Palestinians as terrorists must end.  Our military support needs to be sent to Palestine to push Israel back behind the borders that were established in 1948.  Israel is not entitled to any land beyond those lines.

As the leader of democracy in the free world, it is our duty to protect the innocent men and women of Palestine and give them back their land.  It is our duty as peace loving Americans to help these people in their time of need.  

Anyone who does not know about this conflict and the true reasons for it, should read Arabs & Israel For Beginners by Ron David.  Also check out the website http://www.imemc.org for news on the Middle East told without the bias of American news organizations.  In other words; for the truth.

Another Case of Fraud In The Justice System

This is probably one of the worst cases of fraud that has ever blemished the American Justice System.  A jury in New York awarded $218.5 million in damages to the families of victims of suicide bombers in Israel in the early 2000s.  On the surface, this looks like a good thing but we need to see what's truly happening here.

The defendants in this case were the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority, which is now known as the State of Palestine (since 2013).  The jurors found that these two entities are liable for the deaths of Americans and under the Anti-Terrorism Act, they awarded them monetary settlements.

In the first place, did the bombers act under orders of the PLO or the State of Palestine?  Nothing in any of the news articles I could find proved that they did.  If these were lone bombers who were attacking Israel, then these organizations cannot be held responsible, any more than the United States is responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Second, the PLO did not exist until 1964 and the Palestinian Authority until 1993.  Both were formed out of a need due to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians.  How, then, is Israel not being held accountable for their part in this?  Had they not stolen Palestinian land, these organizations would not exist, and therefore no trial could have been held.  Israel is the proximate cause of this action, yet Israel is not being charged, as they should be.  Israel is a nation of state-sponsored terrorism and the United States continues to support them.

Third, how many of the jurors were Palestinian-Americans?  In our country, a defendant is entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers.  If Palestine is on trial, then Palestinians should be in the jury box.  If the Israel Law Center is allowed to represent the plaintiffs, then the jurors need to be Palestinians.  Otherwise, a fair trial cannot be guaranteed.  In this case, it certainly was not a fair trial.

Fourth, assuming that awards are merited (which is not certain by any means), how did they come up with this amount?  If all 33 victims were 35 years old and earning $60,000 per year, and all received a 5% salary increase annually until their retirement at 65, they would have earned a total of $131,548,923 or 60% of what the jurors awarded.  Why such a hefty increase over their lost earnings?

This is just one more example of Americans being uninformed and lied to.  Palestine has been the victim for decades and our government not only allows it, they sponsor it.  The Israelis need to be held accountable.  The Israelis are the root cause of the problems in the Middle East and the Israelis need to pay their fair share for damages done.

I say bring Israel to trial for these crimes.  Let the actual perpetrator of the unrest in the region be held liable for their actions.  I doubt very much that Attorney Yalowitz or the Israel Law Center will be much of a help in that regard.  They certainly don't care about justice.  They only care about harming Palestine.  Again.