DEAR GOVERNOR ROMNEY

The enclosed check is the largest donation I have ever made to any political candidate.

I want you to win the election.

I want you to win because I think that the present administration is taking the United States of America down a path which Alexis de Tocqueville so eloquently described 200 years ago.

He said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

You must remind the American people that we are not a democracy, we are a republic.

We are not 300 million people ruled by a single government in Washington D.C.; we are fifty sovereign republics united under a constitution which gives only limited, necessary powers to those who conduct the affairs of our national union.

You were the Governor of Massachusetts. Remind the American people that every state has its own history, its own economy, its own weather, its own people and its own politics.

De Tocqueville told us that there are two things democracies find hard to do: start wars and end them.

Remind us that our constitution was made to provide for the common defense, not to police the world, nor export western style democracy.

Tell it like it is: we can afford to maintain the strongest military force on the planet for our defense, but we cannot afford to underwrite the military occupation of hostile nations all around the world.

Have the courage and integrity to tell the American people that you will bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan on your first day in office.

Have the courage to tell the American people that we need to reform our Congress; amend the constitution to prohibit omnibus bills, require that every bill address only one subject, require members to read what they vote for.

Governor, everyone keeps saying that this is the most important election in our lifetime.

It is not so important just because you are a more skilled and experienced executive than your opponent.

This election is important because we are inching down the road to become a one party nation, ruled by a political establishment with a collectivist mindset, abetted by a concupiscent media which coddles its heroes and impales dissenters with ridicule and scorn.

It the name of national security, your opponent assumes the power of life and death, maintains a Presidential kill list, authorizes indefinite detention of suspected troublemakers, and tolerates wholesale violations of the Bill of Rights.

You have to say so.

You have to tell us that when you take the oath of office to support and defend the constitution, you mean the constitution as it was written and ratified by the people, not some unwritten constitution that is supposed to have evolved because nobody objected.

This will be the most important election of our lifetime only if you make it a contest between a Republic and a Democracy.

A contest between freedom and collectivism.

De Tocqueville wrote: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

Ronald Reagan fought for Christianity against Godless collectivism.

So should you, Governor, so must you.

RACHEL MADDOW

I’m no fan of Rachel Maddow, though I admit to being sometimes titillated by her acerbic wit.

Recently however, she took a step to distinguish herself from the drooling disciples of Democrat despotism, and prove that she is, indeed, a principled constitutional liberal.

The occasion was a speech by the Chief Executive on Constitution Day, September 17th, in the hallowed halls of the National Archives within sight of the document written by our founders in 1787.

Take a minute to listen to what she says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbslm1h8xjI

Here is what the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I would think that Guantanamo Bay would be a “place subject to their jurisdiction” wouldn’t you?

So we’ve got all these ‘detainees’ at Gitmo.

Bush didn’t know what to do with them. Obama doesn’t know what to do with them.

The apologists of the status quo talk about ‘prisoners of war’ as though criminals who plot the murder of American citizens are somehow to be raised to the dignity of civilized enemies fighting for King and country.

Federal District Judge William Young got it exactly right when he sentenced Richard Reid. Here’s what he said:

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal.'

You are no big deal.

“Detainees.” I’d like to know who came up with that wimpy word. It sounds like you got stuck in a traffic jam.

I suppose that Nidal Hasan, who killed twelve people in Texas is now just another ‘detainee’. He has been a guest of the army brass for over three years.

If all these ‘detainees’ have committed crimes, then let’s get them convicted and punished.

The trials don’t have to be in New York, but the jury sure as Hell should be twelve good and true citizens of the Big Apple.

Try them at Gitmo, try them in Nebraska, try them on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

But if they are guilty, lets say so and treat them as criminals.

CORPORATE PROFITS

The guy’s name is Schiff. He’s a radio talk show host. I take it he’s a conservative, or at least a Republican.

Anyway, he went to North Carolina to get some footage of the Democratic National Convention. The result is on You Tube.

Microphone in hand, Schiff stops people entering the convention hall.

“Would you support a platform that would favor a ban on corporate profits?”
“Oh, yes.”
“Of course.”
“I could actually support that.”
“I favor corporate losses.”
“Obviously something I would be for.”
“At least a cap on profits.”
“And a cap on CEO salaries.”

Admittedly, Schiff pandered to the idea of supporting the ban. He painted a picture of corporate big wigs gouging consumers and lining their pockets with generous bonuses, and blamed it on corporate profits.

His tongue-in-cheek harangue against corporate wealth earned him unexpected kudos.

With a smile of appreciation and admiration, one delegate told Schiff, “You happen to be one of the smartest people I’ve met since I have been down here.”

Almost at the same time the Schiff You Tube interviews landed in my email, someone sent me an article by Deroy Murdock in the New York Post, entitled “Look Who Parks Their Cash At Bain.”

The article lists Bain Capital clients who have entrusted Mitt Romney’s firm with 1.56 Billion dollars to invest on their behalf.

Here are the beneficiaries of “corporate profits:”

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, $2.2 million.
Indiana Public Retirement System, $39.3 million.
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, $177.1 million.
Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, $117.5 million.
Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, $20.3 million.
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, $767.3 million.
Pennsylvania State Emplyees Retirement System, $231.5 million.
Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island, $25million.
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, $23.5 million.
Teacher Retirement System of Texas, $122.5 million.
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System, $15 million.

In addition, Bain has managed endowments for such educational institutions as Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Purdue, and the universities of California, Michigan, Virginia and Washington.

Couple of days ago, Polly and I saw the movie “2016, Obama’s America.”

I was left with the uneasy feeling that our President has a very third world concept of political leadership.

Everybody talks about the President of the United States as being the most powerful man on the planet. In the minds of simple folk, who think that corporations are greedy conglomerations of wealth, the man who occupies that office is empowered to bestow financial security, health and happiness on all his constituents.

They will be heard on November 6.

And so will the rest of us.

RAPE OR INCEST

It has become fashionable to label as a right wing fanatic anyone who does not approve of abortions in cases of rape or incest.

The Hippocratic Oath, taken by physicians since the fifth century, forbade abortive medications without exceptions.

I have not found any state criminal abortion law which excluded rape or incest.

The land mark case of Roe v Wade, by which the Supreme Court of the United States gave physicians carte blanche authority to perform abortions, said nothing about rape or incest.

But the ‘rape or incest’ issue has entered the abortion debate for a very real reason.

Those who favor legal abortions insist that theirs is the majority opinion in the United States.

They see it as an issue which will help re-elect the President.

In truth, there is no majority opinion about abortion.

If the question is whether abortion should be allowed as a means of gender selection, the public will say ‘No.’

If the question is whether abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother, the public will say, ‘Yes.’

If the question is whether abortion should be allowed as a means of placating an angry boyfriend or husband, or avoiding parental discipline or disapproval the public will say, ‘Maybe.’

The point here is that public opinion is visceral.

Public opinion supported the guillotine during the French Revolution as it has occasioned countless other atrocities throughout human history.

Which is why we have a constitution. And a Bill of Rights. And the rule of law.

And trial by a jury of one’s peers.

John Dethmers, an old timer who was a colleague of mine on the Michigan Supreme Court, often remarked that the first issue in every murder trial is “should the deceased have went?”

It was his folksy way of saying that jurors bring a certain gut sense of right and wrong to their task.

But a jury is not a mob.

They are required to sit still and listen to testimony, arguments by the lawyers, instructions by the judge.

Admittedly there are many examples of juries being swayed by passion and prejudice and despite the best efforts of trial and appellate judges, miscarriages of justice occur.

“Life,” as my son, the Professor, tells me, “is messy.”

But it seems to me that the noblest instincts of the human race are to rise above the mess, to temper the process of visceral decision making by clinging to proven principles and reach always for the unreachable perfection of truth and justice.

Which is why I cannot shake off the conviction that the destruction of an innocent human life to avoid embarrassment, expense, inconvenience, or discomfort is just plain wrong.

And to allow it is bad public policy.

The first child conceived in a petri dish was born in 1978. I have no doubt that the plastic placenta is not so far off.

In a day when human beings are manufactured without the discomfort of gestation or the pain of childbirth, what will become of the words, “all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Will children be chattels? Will they have owners rather than parents?

Or will they belong to the government?

GROSS INJUSTICE

August 20 was to be the trial date. Finally. Three years after Nidal Hasan gunned down thirteen people at Fort Hood, he was supposed to be brought before the bar of justice.

But he didn’t shave, so Col. Gregory Gross, the military judge presiding on the case did what he did back in June, the last time Hasan showed up with a beard.

Held him in contempt and fined him $1,000.

Not too much of an economic burden, since Hasan is still receiving his full military pay.

Now the August 20th trial date is off. Indefinitely.

Hasan is appealing Judge Gross’s “shave the beard” order. So, of course, there will be no trial until the appellate process creeps to some conclusion about the damn beard.

Back in November of 2009, Hilary Hylton, a staff writer for Time Magazine wrote an article headlined, “How the Military Will Try Nidal Hasan.”

Ms. Hylton predicted, “Justice is likely to be speedy. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has no provision for bail, and the prosecution is required to bring the case to trial in 120 days.”

She quoted Scott Silliman, a retired military lawyer and head of the Duke University Law School’s Center on Ethics and National Security, saying that the reason the code requires prompt prosecution is to screen the process from undue influence.

“The military is a hierarchical society,” says Silliman, who insists that there must be a way to prevent the brass from interfering with the prosecution. And “brass” includes the Commander in Chief.

Of course, there’s a catch. There always is.

The 120 days can be extended whenever the Judge grants a delay.

Enter Col. Gregory Gross.

Hasan was brought before Judge Gross in June, 2012. Three years after the crime. That was just to find out whether the defendant pleads guilty or not guilty. Of course, he’s charged with a capital offense, and under military law, he isn’t allowed to plead guilty.

So it would seem there wasn’t a lot to talk about in June.

But the defendant showed up with a beard. Against Army regulations.

Judge Gross, being a stern, uncompromising, defender of the Code of Military Justice, gave Hasan two months to shave his face.

And when he came back two months later, still unshaven, the mean old judge postponed his trial altogether.

Giving the defendant’s lawyers time enough to rush to the Military Court of Appeals and ask those higher ups for permission to keep the beard.

I’m sorry folks. I was a trial judge in Detroit some years ago. We had plenty of lawyers capable of jacking the court around interminably to avoid doomsday.

When you get counsel acting that way it’s time to hitch up your drawers and bang the gavel. It was time for Col. Gross to say, “Counsel, your client will be fined one thousand dollars for every day he appears here unshaven. A plea of Not Guilty will be entered on all counts. Now the bailiff will summon the jury panel and lets get started.”

Meanwhile, Time magazine and Hillary Hylton aren’t bothering to talk to Leila Hunt Willingham, whose brother, Jason Dean “J.D.” Hunt was among those killed on November 5, 2009.

"I stopped holding my breath a long time ago as far as expecting to get any closure regarding the trial," says Ms. Willingham.

What else is there to say? The system was supposed to prevent interference from the higher ups.

Is everyone waiting for a signal from the Commander in Chief?

I’d like to hear Governor Romney say that he will order the trial on the day after Inauguration.

RUMORS, RUMORS AND SNOPES

I recently received an email “revealing” the “truth” about Barack Obama’s Social Security number.

According to this account, Obama has a Social Security number which starts with 04, and that would mean that it was issued to somebody in Connecticut.

Since Obama never lived in Connecticut, the theory goes that his number was not duly issued in the regular course, but was in fact stolen somehow.

The email goes on to say that Obama’s grandmother worked in the Probate Court in Hawaii, where a man from Connecticut died without collecting Social Security benefits.

So the email claims that she stole the number and gave it to Obama.

Snopes debunks the whole tale, pointing out that the French born immigrant, whose number Obama supposedly stole, one Jean Paul Ludwig, died in 1981, long after Obama’s number was issued. And besides, he had a different number.

Wait a minute, says my old high school pal, do you really believe Snopes? They’re a bunch of liberals financed by George Soros.

Factcheck.org says otherwise. Snopes is owned and operated by David and Barbara Mikkleson. Barbara is a Canadian citizen, David a registered Independent who was a registered Republican in 2000. Their site is financed by advertising.

OK. So Snopes is legit.

Still, they don’t have all the answers, and not being an official government agency, they probably can’t see all the records.

Snopes says that Obama’s Social Security number is 042-68-4425. I don’t know how they found out his number. I certainly hope they can’t find mine.

Anyhow, Snopes says that the 042 means that when Obama applied for a Social Security number he asked that his card be sent to an address with the 06814 area code.

That’s in Dansbury, Connecticut.

Was Barack Obama then living in Dansbury Connecticut?

Snopes doesn’t think so.

In fact, Snopes says that the President’s Connecticut Social Security number is “something of a curiosity.” Then Snopes tells us that Obama lived at an address in Hawaii with the zip code 96814.

06814 versus 96814?

Well, the zero and the nine are right next to each other on the typewriter. Could be a typo.

Could be. Maybe it was. Probably was.

Still, the man is the President of the United States. Someplace in the bowels of the federal government’s archives, there has to be a record of the address to which Barack Obama’s first Social Security card was mailed.

Wouldn’t you think?

I have no doubt that if a Hawaiian branch office of the Social Security Administration mailed a letter with a Hawaiian street address and a Hawaiian city in a Hawaiian branch of the U.S. Post Office, that the Hawaiian postal clerk would assume that the 06814 zip code was a mistake and he would route the letter to the Hawaiian address.

Conjecture? Yes. Theory? Admittedly. But it shouldn’t be.

Frankly, I’m a little weary of the whole Barack Hussein Obama fairy tale. The President and his campaign managers seem to revel in the narrative of mystery that surrounds him.

Birth records, academic records, travel records, everything is secret. They love it. They love the speculation, the intrigue.

They love to keep the birthers digging. Maybe they hope the diggers will discover that there were angels singing, “Peace on Earth …”

SUNDAY IN THE BASEMENT

I should be upstairs watching the golf tournament. Tomorrow, I’ll wish I had been. All the guys will be talking about it and I won’t even know who won.

But here I am at the computer, Googling for a fare thee well, and all because someone took the trouble to post a detailed comment on my last blog.

So here’s what I found out:

NIST stands for National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

The agency operates in two locations: Gaithersburg, Md., (a 578-acre campus) and Boulder, Colo., (a 208-acre campus). NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel..

NIST has an annual budget of nearly a billion dollars.

Derek Israel, the correspondent who commented on my blog, insisted that a final report determined that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire. Period. No mystery, nothing strange or questionable.

So I dug up the report. It came from NIST. Here were its goals:

•Investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the disaster;
•To serve as the basis for:
o Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained and used
o Improved tools and guidance for industry safety officials
o Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices, and,
o Improved Public Safety.

And here were the Specific Objectives:
1.Determine why and how WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed following the initial impact of the aircraft and why and how WTC7 collapsed.
2.Determine why the injuries were so high or low depending on the location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation and emergency response
3.Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, and,
4.Identify, as specifically as possible, areas of current building and fire codes, standards and practices that warrant revision.

Pardon me, but I find all that stuff bureaucratic gooble de goop. “How and Why the building collapsed?” Not “Did it collapse or did it implode?”

They found no evidence of a blast, and no reason to suspect that a blast occurred.

Still, the Executive Summary of their report starts with this:

“This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building due to fire. The fires in WTC7 were quite different from the fires in 1 and 2. WTC7 was not doused in jet fuel. Large areas of floors were not ignited simultaneously. The fires were similar to those in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers failed. Those other buildings did not collapse, while WTC7 succumbed to its fires.”

Finally, the Executive Summary concludes:

“However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before Congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned, and thus are uncertainties in this accounting.”

Not mysteries, folks. Just “uncertainties.”