THE LAW DOES NOT OPERATE

WITH DOUBLE STANDARDS

 Dear president Barack Obama,      I, and some Americans were surprised to learn that as one of your official unannounced acts, you allowed the first missile attack of 2009 into Pakistan from Afghanistan, soon after you took office.   Of course, it is understandable that these attacks are deemed necessary to protect our forces in Afghanistan, but that does not detract from the fact they are illegal and contrary to the United Nations charter.     I am reminded of the Cuban missile crises of 1962, when Russia was shipping long-range missiles to Cuba.   President John Kennedy put the country on national alert and committed the country to war with Russia unless the Russian delivery ships did not turn back and put an end to this plan.   He may have done this under the claimed right of the Monroe doctrine which, by the way was nothing more than a pronouncement against foreign influence in the western hemisphere than a treaty or United Nations International agreement.   This action was taken merely because of the danger of a strike against the United States and no actual threat ever existed.     Recently, Hamas, the ruling faction in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, continued to lob missiles into Israel, day after day until Israel retaliated by invading the Gaza Strip to stop it.     It was not too long ago that another renegade faction in Lebanon did the same thing and caused a brief retaliation by Israel.  Both of these two latter actions and the retaliatory actions were condemned by the international world but in each case no action was taken by the United Nations, whose usefulness and cost is brought into question in many international incidents over the last 50 years.    Of course, former president Bush acted unilaterally against the country of Iraq when the U.N. failed to retaliate after Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, expelled the U.N.   Again Bush’s action have been both applauded and vilified for the last 7 years and the cost in lives and money is immeasurable.         President Bush, after 9/11, gave warning to the Taliban in Afghanistan to deliver the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist followers or the United States would attack them.   I believe the ultimatum was paraphrased as, “if you are not with us, you are against us.”  The result is that we are still in Afghanistan after 7 years of fighting an invisible enemy.     Peace has not come there any more than in Iraq and the progress hoped for has not materialized.     At the present time we have Iran nipping at our heels and threatening the production of atomic weapons and publicly vowing to destroy Israel, its archenemy.   In the meantime, North Korea has the atomic weapons and is threatening a war unless we feed its starving people.         We have Hugo Chavez of Venezuela calling us devils and threatening to cut off their exports of needed oil to the U.S.

     The action of the U.S. for the last 8 years has caused us to lose the respect of most nations that we have spent a lifetime to foster and expand.

      Our situation in Pakistan is akin to being damned if we do and damned if we don’t.   There is no question but the Taliban terrorists have found a safe haven in northern Pakistan and despite all our diplomacy and money to support this country they have failed to root this element from their midst’s, while admitting to their helplessness to control this tribal region.  If this country falls to the Taliban we can be assured the Taliban will inherit Pakistan’s atomic capabilities.         Maybe our ultimate plan is to invade Pakistan to root out and defeat the entrenched Taliban only to see them rise again in another sympathetic country, like Iran, Syria, Lebanon or Palestine.         I can understand the frustration of American and U.N. commanders in Afghanistan but admittedly we are breaking international law by bombing Pakistan without a declaration of war, or with permission of its rulers.  We are acting in the same way as the terrorists and our detractors.     It seems to me, that the best way to prevent this incursion into Afghanistan is to secure its borders.   Whereas the region is mountainous with few access routes, this plan is worthy of serious consideration.   The U.S. has the advantage of spy satellites, drones, anti-personnel and tank mines and plenty of other surveillance aircraft and techniques to adequately seal these borders.   If we had done this in Iraq in the first place we could have kept those terrorists from constantly entering and bringing in arms.   Many, many lives could have been saved.     In addition, when you are at war in a country, any field commander will inform you that he cannot protect his troops until and unless all the weapons are taken away from all the civilians.  This includes any type of firearm and sword that may be used against our troops.   This is what we did in Europe in W.W. II, and this was one reason we were spared from snipers once we took control of an area.   I can attest to this fact because, I was there and did just that.    Ultimately, it is fair to say that the fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were won in short order by our commanders and brave troops.    Unfortunately, we have failed to win the peace amongst the people.  Unless we win the support of the people and their hearts and minds, we have failed in our task as we did in Vietnam.   It is the people who must also rise up in support of our troops and help us defeat the enemies in their country.     When they do, we will win the peace, if they don’t, we have lost, and must abandon our mission.      Thank you for this opportunity to express my views.

YOU CAN PLEASE SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT YOU CAN’T PLEASE ALL OF THE PEOPLE
ALL OF THE TIME 

Dear president Obama,     I am sure you remember a similar quote attributed to our famous president, Abraham Lincoln.   This above saying is just as apropos today, as it applies to some of your official acts that are legally necessary but not morally in keeping with some very religiously determined Americans.        I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic and still hold to that religious faith.    I attended a Jesuit Law School, Boston College, where I was reminded that, all Catholic lawyers should not handle divorce cases since the Catholic Church did not believe in divorces and abortions.   Soon after I graduated from Law School and was admitted to the Bar in Massachusetts, I was offered a position as an associate in the Boston Law firm of my law professor, Monroe Inker, and his partner Joseph Crane, a former Dean of Northeastern University Law School, incidentally, both were graduates of Harvard Law School, also I felt flattered and welcomed the opportunity to learn the practice of law under these two experienced and competent men.    On my very first day at work I was handed a divorce case to handle.   Suddenly, I remembered the admonition of my Law School Dean, Father Drinan against handling divorces and, so, mentioned my problem to, Attorney Inker.   His advice was to contact Dean Drinan, also an attorney and try to solve the problem, upon contacting him by telephone and explaining my problem, he said, “…well, my advice is that morally you should not handle divorces but legally, as a lawyer, you are required to represent all your clients to the best of your ability and since divorces are legal in the U.S.A., you will never be a complete lawyer without this type of practice and experience.  But you should not handle divorces unless you need the job…”      Of course in my judgment I needed that job and from that point on, I was able to gain the experience and counsel of these two most experienced lawyers who I believe help me to become a good, all around lawyer.                That experience, early in my career, taught me that when it came to my legal responsibilities, the law should take precedence over moral or religious matters.     Therefore, when other matters, such as abortions and stem cell research come up, I feel the obligation as a lawyer in these United States to put the, existing law first and foremost in my mind before any possible religious beliefs.   This principal is compounded by present day decisions and interpretations regarding these issues under the U.S. Constitution, which you as a lawyer and president are under oath to defend.

     Therefore we applaud your recent, if not public, actions regarding these sensitive issues, which naturally cause both approval and disapproval simultaneously amongst the American people.  I believe it is suffice to say that you are following the law of the land, as you must under the constitution and the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  In addition, these acts were necessary because these rights have been neglected and denied many people for the last eight years under the previous administration, and must be granted to them now.

       Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.  

          Free trade sounded like a good idea about ten years ago, because of the prospect of consumers saving money on purchases.   Every country would allow goods to come into their country without tariffs and restrictions.  This opened up the export market for all American goods everywhere, in principle, while every other country could do the same.  It was no surprise that goods from china and many other undeveloped countries could be made cheaper and shipped long distances and still sell for less than developed countries, who had a higher wage rate.          The resulting competition with American made goods, brought into the U.S.A. cheaper goods from overseas and from Canada and Mexico and the consumer was happy with this arrangement.  As a result many, if not most American companies being hurt because of foreign competition chose to relocate their factories overseas, over a few years, to markets with a cheaper labor force in order to compete and stay in business.   The U.S. government even aided these businesses by granting them tax breaks, as a result few, if any manufacturing companies are left in business in this country and the former workers have been abandoned and left unemployed.   Now our steel industry is down to a few lone companies while our ship building industry cannot compete and are out of business.   Our automobile industries are in such bad shape because of foreign competition and high labor and fuel costs that the government was required to bail them out recently, to stay in business.   Our electronic and television production businesses are almost entirely located overseas and soon china and Europe will take over our last surviving, big business in the U.S., the aircraft manufacturing industry.        Without these businesses here, we are in danger of being unable to fight a war while depending on possible foreign enemy countries to supply us with our war tools and equipment.   Soon, except for local construction industry, this country will be reduced to supplying only services like health care, food and transportation services.   In addition, unemployment will increase weekly due to the breakdown of the construction industry due to abusive financing tactics.     With unemployment reaching above 7% and rising daily, stores selling consumer goods are closing due to the lack of sales and their employees are added to the unemployed.   All this has a domino effect on all businesses such as restaurants, clothing, furniture and auto servicing companies some of which are beginning to go out of business adding thousands more to the unemployed ranks monthly.   Banks and financial institutions, having overextended themselves with bad loans and the value of real estate falling precipitously for the last three years and continuing, more unemployment is in the forecast for this trade also until the real estate market stabilizes and the bank foreclosures stop.         With high unemployment we can expect more home and business foreclosures, which will cause municipalities, states and the U.S.  To lose their tax base from income, sales and real estate taxes and the short fall will mean more layoffs of public workers and less public services for the citizens.      All municipal, state and the U.S. governments operated with a deficit last year with the prospect of deeper cuts in their budgets, labor force and services this year.      The national debt is about ten trillion dollars, all of which has been accumulated in the last eight years, due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the weakening economy.   The prospect for this new administration is that a few trillion dollars more will be needed to bolster the economy and put people back to work in new jobs since the old ones have gone overseas.  We must first find work for the unemployed.       This free trade policy has unwittedly caused the balance of trade to rise to about a trillion dollars a year for imported manufactured goods while another trillion dollars is lost to the middle east countries for their foreign oil we are now 50% dependant.   It is obvious that both these problems and deficit spending must be addressed or all our U.S. assets will be in the hands of foreign countries in another ten years and the country will be bankrupt and our money worthless because of inflation.   Some say the problem is akin to what president Roosevelt faced in 1932, but really it is worse, because he was not faced with a two billion trade or ten trillion dollar deficit or a deficit spending budget when he took office.      President Obama will take office this week, in the unenviable position with an economy in ruins, with the highest debt owed ever, with a two trillion dollar yearly imbalance of trade and a budget of about three billion dollars of deficit spending, which is absolutely needed to just keep the country afloat and help unemployment.      Any and all solutions to these problems are as complex as painful, but solutions can and must be enacted to save our country and our way of life, if we desire to keep it.   A president and a congress, both of which realize, they and we must succeed in our tasks as Americans at this critical time, can enact the three following solutions, painlessly and quickly: 
1.                     All free trade agreements and policies must be terminated, immediately and a program of balanced trade enacted, whereby; all countries may sell us anything they wish, but must accept American made goods in return.   That alone will stop the trade imbalance and promote the manufacture and sale of American goods while helping the unemployed get back to work.   Of course critical items like oil cannot be included.   It is time for the powerful and wealthy labor unions to come to the aid of it’s workers and find ways to invest in projects to help their unemployed workers, instead of investing union funds elsewhere. 

2.                     A comprehensive accelerated alternative energy program, backed by the U.S. government must be passed within six months to free us of dependence on foreign oil and eliminate the trade deficit in this area also at the same time, within five years.   This plan must promote free competition in the energy field and, since it will compete with oil, no oil companies or affiliates can be allowed to participate in this project but may take part, independent of it, the tax relief package passed by the Bush administration must be repealed because this money needs to be used to help the economy.   The people most affected by this repeal can afford it more than anyone else in this country at this time and should gladly make this contribution to help the economy.   This action will help lessen the deficit in the budget and/or the treasury deficit in which must be reduced in all events.

3.                     The war in Iraq and Afghanistan must be concluded and ended as soon, as possible, within the next year.   So the troops may come home and the country may save the huge cost in money and lives expended.    The money saved will help reduce the budget deficit spending and the national debt and some may be needed to help the economy and returning service personnel.    

     There are many more problems to be solved, as soon as possible, but those listed above, should have the first priority to turn the economy around, create employment and stop the bleeding of our country’s assets to foreign countries.   It is time all Americans do their duty, to serve and sacrifice as our military men do every day in the Iraq and Afghanistan war and elsewhere in the world.

3.    U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY IS IN CONFLICT
 WITH OUR UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM

 

      The alarming rise in unemployment in the U.S., this year must be reconciled with our immigration policy, concerning, both legal and illegal immigrants.   There is no question that, because of our high rate of unemployment, which is rising every day, we must adjust our attitude and policy toward legal immigration to fill critical jobs.   Bill Gates and others have appeared before congress, recently, advocating a raise in the number of these employment visas granted each year for the employment of workers supposedly to fill positions Americans are not qualified to fill.    It is obvious to even the most casual observer, that Bill Gates and other proponents of this policy, punctuate their desires with substantial contributions to many of the congressmen concerned with immigration.   As a result the country is presently flooded with such workers most of whom have overstayed their visa permits and are among the missing in the populace.   

     It is time for these congressmen to stop this abusive practice and turn these jobs over to an American who can be easily trained to do this work    those persons with working visas, both current and expired must be rounded up and returned to their country of origin.     With regard to our fence jumping illegal immigrants, they are taking jobs away from American workers these days regardless of the minimum pay scale since many Americans are willing to work for such low pay, just to have a job as a starter and keep their self-respect.         The U.S. passed an immigration amnesty bill in 1985, keeping those millions of illegal immigrant here, only to see million more jumping over our borders, confident that the U.S. will again grant them amnesty.   This has become a habit that must be corrected and the correction must be to send these admittedly hard workers home to give Americans the preference they deserve in these trying times.  It is suggested that this action will provide at least ten million job opportunities for unemployed Americans at a time of critical need, those illegal aliens must be sorted out and expelled from our country.     It may be argued that some seasonal workers are needed in the agricultural fields of America to pick crops in season when a flood of workers is needed.  This practice may be allowed to continue, but it must be carefully monitored and controlled to avoid taking a job opportunity away from an American.      There are those politicians that see a political advantage in keeping this type of immigrant here, whether it is for political support or of a monetary nature.   This practice must stop in the interest of providing jobs for Americans first and foremost.        The outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries to handle telephone inquiries, reservations and aircraft repair and maintenance, as delta airlines and others are presently doing, must be stopped and the work performed by Americans only.

     Changes must be made in the immigration services obligation to keep tabs on foreign visitors with visas, many of who overstay their visa time limit and continue to work and live in the U.S.  This problem also applies to many Canadians and Europeans as well as South Americans who brazenly are competing with Americans for jobs every day.    These people must be rounded up and deported.   It is in our national interest to keep track of foreign visitors, for security reasons anyway.    We probably have more Canadians visiting and working here than you can imagine.   Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to work here taking work away from Americans.

 

                Why the Hullabaloo Over Obama’s Replacement?

           The U.S. Constitution provides for the procedure to replace a U.S. senator who may resign during his term in office.  The 17^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Illinois law provides that, when a vacancy occurs, the governor of that state may fill such vacancy, until the next election for said seat (Until 2010).      Although governor Rod R. Balgojevich has been indicted recently by the U.S. attorney’s office under charges of corruption including the possible attempt to profit from such an appointment, any court or the Illinois legislature has not diminished his power, in the interim.       On Tuesday December 30^th the governor publicly announced his choice of a replacement for former senator, now president-elect Obama.   He named attorney Roland Burris to the seat and immediately he and Burris were met with opposition from many political leaders throughout the country, but without any legal basis.  First, the Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, indicated he would not certify any of the governor’s appointments, next, senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada and his leadership in the U.S. senate issued a statement stating that they would not vote to seat attorney Burris, although respecting his years of public service.    Suddenly, president elect Obama, unexpectedly, thrust himself into the controversy, by issuing a statement stating he agreed with the senate leadership’s stance against seating senator designee Burris.   Not one objector cited any legal reason.     Of course, each objector, was careful to explain their objection was not because of attorney Burris’s qualifications but only because they felt the governor, being under a legal cloud accused of attempting to sell this seat should not make any appointment, should resign or call for a special election, instead.   This stance is of no legal significance.         The conclusion is, that we have a basic legal question as to the seating of a legally selected person to the U.S. senate, every one of the objectors, some very knowledgeable lawyers, including the former senator Obama, an attorney and former editor of the Harvard Law review and a teacher and expert on constitutional law, are knowingly flouting the law they are sworn to uphold under the U.S. constitution as a senator, president elect and lawyer.       These objectors have decided to play the same political game they have been playing for years in congress and elsewhere, and continue to contribute to the justifiably bad reputation and scorn of the American people, who are fed up.      There are many possible reasons why these objectors are acting so illegally and threatening.  One reason may be that the democrats fear that they may lose a general election for the seat to a republican, which might hurt their solid majority status.   Another is that many are holding out hope that if the governor is made to resign, they or a person of their choice, or they themselves, may be appointed by the new governor, and, they may have politically arranged for that very possibility.   In that event all are exposed, as acting solely for political motivation instead of the legal rights of the candidate or law involved.         Attorney Burris admittedly, meets all the qualifications necessary to be seated as a duly appointed U.S. senator from Illinois, under the provisions of article I, section 3, of said U.S. constitution.  No one has questioned these qualifications and no one would dare to do so.  Instead, the objections are reaching for stubborn, unwarranted and threatened illegal action to prevent this appointee from taking his lawful place in the senate of the U.S. along side other senators.   Illinois is entitled to have two senators in the senate at all times not only one, as proposed by these politically motivated, or numbskull objectors.   These congressmen objectors, have chosen to attack an innocent, public servant of longstanding reputation, instead of acting against a recently convicted felon senator and representative for bribery in their midst, a convicted homosexual bathroom encountered and solicitor, several molesters of congressional pages and a couple of known and habitual drunks and drug addicts in congress also.   This displays their obvious participation in a buddy system, to protect their fellow guilty congressmen at all costs rather than perform their legal obligations in such situations.    There is absolutely no question but senate designee, Roland Burris should and will be seated in the U.S. senate and we challenge those objectors to come up with any real legal questions against him.      Lastly, this is just another example of the corruption of our congressmen and also in the notoriously exposed state of Illinois, which has helped elect a new president of dubious intentions and value.   He is making his intentions perfectly clear by his opposition to the governor’s legal actions in this case; he has chosen to act politically, instead.   Since he admits he had a replacement choice for this position, any action on his part, like that of the governor’s, is suspect as a motivated one also.   If this is an example of his leadership as president, he has already lost all credibility with the American people.