Revolution: My Vote

How does the United States have a revolution? It votes. In the case of our Civil war it votes, states decide they don’t like the vote, and they vote to secede. Don’t like what is going on vote for change.
President Obama ran under a slogan change you can believe in. The idea was/is palpable; people want a government that functions for the best interests of America. American’s at length debate those interests. So much so that it gets stuck in the debate between two sides. Compromise and middle ground are lost in our current era. Every issue is deemed a hill worthy to die on. Obama said change would come to Washington, but not the change he envisioned. Republicans and Democrats instead of seeking common ground became the antithesis of one another. The hard line divisions are deep. Donald Trump will not bring unity. Hillary Clinton disdains Republicans. Neither is going to bring a unity government.
We have seen this song and dance before. The American public has voted one party in only to be aggravated into action to vote the other party in. The parties have, instead of seeking moderate candidates, sought those more to the right of left of their political alignment. Bernie Saunders and Rand Paul exemplify those who think outside the party line but run with a party. Why? Power.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” ~ John Adams
Why is it the greatest political evil, denounced in speeches by an outgoing President George Washington? Because it creates rivalry instead of partnership. It divides the American public. Even in an election such as the one we are facing. Both options for the major parties are unpopular (so much so that both would qualify as the most disfavored choice). Yet the divide between Democrat and Republican pulls at us so that many feel the compulsion to vote for the sake of voting against the evil of the other. Fear plays a big factor.
 “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” ~G.K. Chesterton.
Many polled and interviewed on the evening news have said that they may not vote because they have such disdain for their options. Not vote? There are more than two options. The vote is the mechanism of change if used for that purpose. Most importantly if there was ever hope to break from the current disorder we face that was foretold and dreaded by our founding fathers the prescription is clear. DON'T VOTE THE SAME. Don't follow the same pattern of voting, don't vote for a party but vote for the person, don't vote against someone, and don't consider a vote wasted if it follows your conscience. America would be deemed clinically insane to vote for a Republican or Democrat and expect change, especially in the current political climate. The conversation for the two parties could discuss corruption, lobbyists, money, and pandering…oh the pandering. While the major candidates start to say more moderate things in the hope of landing the 39 percent of independent voters, they pander for votes they have no intention of adequately representing.
I am voting for Libertarian former Governor Gary Johnson. It is not because I agree with him on every issue. I agree with his fiscal responsibility, not spending more than you make. I agree that you help businesses grow by getting out of their way, but also not giving them handouts. I agree with not having government enter so many areas of our personal lives. I also find that government may not have all the answers to regulate us into reducing carbon emissions. I vehemently disagree with several of his positions, namely cutting off foreign aid to virtually all countries and his support of abortion. He is however very experienced with a good track record, a positive third voice, and a true moderate. His political spectrum is more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. He more than likely will not win the election but is well within striking distance of several electoral college votes (potentially forcing the house of representatives to vote for President). He is not front and center because American’s are stuck in the cycle of disbelief in third parties. Even though 39 percent are independent voters and could elect a third party all by themselves. He is the bridge between the melting pot that is America, and an escape from the spiral election path we continually choose.
Gary due to his platform is taking votes from both candidates. Both will attack him to get those votes back, but won't debate him. Fear of a disfavored candidate winning will cause some to vote for Trump or Hillary, and this line of voting is cowardice. I believe America needs a peaceful political revolution, Cowards don't start revolutions or see them through, there always afraid of what they might lose. 
Can you imagine a president outside the two parties addressing them as an independent voice? Can you imagine America expressing itself beyond more than the two polarized, lobbied, and financially tied parties. Can you imagine the revolution? The Power parties don’t want this. The Commission on presidential debates doesn't want this, which is why they exclude third parties with a 15 percent rule (which Ross Perot did not have). Perot by the way ended up with 19 percent of the vote after his debate participation. The media will stay focused on what will get them enough eyes. The American public has to become wise on how to fight for revolution.  
I believe America needs the third party revolution badly. I believe the best candidate for this job exists outside the major parties. I am voting in a state where he won't win, or come close. I am voting for Gary Johnson because I want America to be great and stronger together.                            

“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”  G.K. Chesterton

Iran my response to the statesman.

Defazio is a classy statesman. Merkely may not have defined his answer, or may have responded to me in a way to avoid upsetting a constituent. Wyden has responded today with a Merkely like response. Wyden is on the Senate Intelligence Committee and probably has more information to scrutinize than some of his colleagues.

Defazio is very optimistic. I appreciate someone who has not lost his zeal for belief in positive outcomes. Israel and its citizens don't agree it is in their best interests, like Defazio, to go with this deal. The premise is that Iran will honor their side of the deal.


Defazio claims the deal would have the Arak reactor filled with concrete. Russia is hoping to repurpose it. And Iran's Atomic energy head claims that Secretary of State Kerry was mistaken to make this assertion.
- http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150814/1025739066.html
- http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=248634

So I take this as Defazio taking the Obama administration information without further investigation. The claims of dismantling components and our ability to detect any rebuilding efforts rely heavily on our intelligence community. This is the same intelligence community that found weapons facilities in Iraq before our invasion. While that appears to be a slam on our intelligence community it is a fact that we don't always have all the facts. As Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said, just like North Korea, we will know Iran has the bomb when we detect their first test.

We have been through this before with North Korea Mr. Defazio. Our talks and inspectors ended with North Korea still getting the bomb and our relationship with them abysmal. Our military suggests that increasing their breakout time is the best option. I agree. However I disagree that a deal Iran likely won't follow, and that lifts economic barriers, is the answer.

Israel bombed the nuclear facility in Iraq. Many said it would further the resolve of the Iraqi's and not delay Iraq more than a year. Iraq never recovered their program. A military option also puts more pressure on getting a good deal. So your assertion that it will only delay them a few years doesn't follow historical references. It also doesn't address how long this deal will stop an unwilling Iran. Wouldn't the option be a military one if Iran doesn't follow the deal. if Iran gets the bomb do we even have a military option anymore?

Sanctions unilaterally may not have brought Iran to the negotiating table but they made our stance clear. The international community likely wants access to Iran's oil. Greed is a factor that I do not want to impact our security. I believe we do not follow our allies because they make a choice, but when they are correct. To follow those allies because they are wavoring is a poor decision. Following them also ignores Israel and our obligation to them as an ally.

You can not say sanctions will be snapped back into place quickly. As we do not control our allies decisions and we can not implement them quickly. Evidence will be needed to prove Iran did something wrong. I.E. Iran can back out of the deal and we would have no good evidence that Iran is doing anything wrong. We can back door sanction them for violating the Nuclear proliferation treaty, or for using oil to sponsor terrorism, but these sanctions are not going to be as impact as the ones currently in place. The concern is the 'snapback' will be impeded by Russia or China.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-worried-iran-sanctions-wont-snapback-2015-5

To make it clear I do not want Iran to have a R&D program of any kind. As long as they are a state sponsor of terrorism and hold American's hostage in their country where is the good faith?

we do disagree, and so do some of Defazio's fellow party members.

Schumer and Menendez both believe this is not the right deal. Schumer states plainly he doesn't trust Iran to live up to the deal. Given the evidence on hand, and what the Ayatollah has said to his own people, why would we?
- http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/democrat-senator-chuck-schumer-oppose-president-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-n405671

- http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/bob-menendez-corker-iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
Making matters worse is the fact the deal keeps showing new provisions that puts more trust in Iran. Provisions that allow Iran to inspect itself, and take pictures of nuclear sites and send them in. The logic may be that if we trust Iran they will rise to the occasion. It is leaving a jar full of cookies in my daughters room and telling her to restrain herself, you and I both know the outcome. Even if I tell her I will punish her, the pull for the cookie is most likely too strong. Similarly the pull to the bomb with self monitoring will not work.

- http://aclj.org/middle-east/how-the-iranian-nuclear-deal-keeps-getting-worse?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=newsletter

Our politicians are playing a dangerous game that has Cuban Missile crises like risk. We need to unite and not try to achieve an ideological goal of the Obama administration. We need security and peace that we agree. I wish we agreed on how to get there.

IRAN and the not so great deal.

I will address the responses of the letters in another blog post.

initially written for Senator's Wyden & Merkley and Representative Defazio. Sent July 24.

Dear Senator Wyden,

Thank you for your time. Is our deal with Iran a good deal? I urge you to consider the facts. Iran is a State sponsor of terrorism. Not only do they support Hezbollah, but they have also provided insurgents in Iraq with weapons against our armed forces. Iran has Army day parades that shout “death to America” and “death to Israel”. Even after penning the deal with America, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei returned to Iran vowing to maintain current State policy against the United States. He also vowed to oppose American Policies in the region. After these speeches the crowds proceed to chant their death mantra.
President John F Kennedy said, “'We cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.” Iran is not sacrificing anything of significant value if it is not willing to release the four US citizens detained and tortured in their prisons. It is not sacrificing its ideologies of destroying us or our allies.
The thought of Iran having a Nuclear weapon not being a big deal is a fallacy. Iran can pass of nuclear material for a ‘dirty’ bomb or simply have another plausibly deniable excuse for employing the weapon. Even if we could adequately track all nuclear material movements, we would be playing a very dangerous game. This is not to say that Iran does not have sovereign rights, but those rights come with responsibilities. Responsibilities of which do not indicate any value on American life.
The question is do we trust a nation that thinks we are evil? Do we think the first olive branch to that nation should be nuclear? In their eyes we are the enemy and to our former administration they were the axis of evil. If peace is to be possible they must sacrifice their hate for us and their active work to see us, and Israel, destroyed.
I am concerned for the safety of my family. I am concerned for our military personnel in the region. I am concerned overall for America and its well-being. I am concerned for our ally Israel. I implore you not to sign any deal that is not equally met by Iran, and that does not ensure safety for our nation.

Sincerely,
Skyeler Lewkowicz

 First response (winner in expediency). July 30.

Dear Skyeler,

Thank you for contacting me about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal negotiated with Iran. I appreciate hearing from you.

The United States, along with the group of international partners known as the P5+1 (the United States, Germany, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) struck a final nuclear deal with Iran on July 14, 2015, resulting in the agreement with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

The Iran deal is the culmination of nearly two years of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Under the terms of the deal, Iran agrees to adhere to a variety of limitations and inspections in exchange for relief from the crippling economic sanctions. 

I have strongly advocated both for sanctions initially and for space to allow the diplomatic process to play out. Now that a deal has been realized, I am carefully reviewing the terms and asking a series of detailed questions to fully understand how it will work and what the alternatives may be.

As you may know, Congress has 60 days to review JCPOA and vote on the deal. Please know that I will evaluate the strength of this agreement by a simple standard: whether the U.S. and our allies, like Israel, will be made safer with the implementation of this agreement or not. 

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts regarding Iran. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as circumstances develop.

All my best,

Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator

August 6

Dear Mr. Lewkowicz:

Thank you for your message in opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement. I appreciate hearing from you on this important topic.

After years of negotiations, the U.S., Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia, and China (otherwise known as the P5+1) have reached an agreement with Iran over their activities in pursuit of developing a nuclear weapon. This agreement referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was announced in July and Congress will have sixty days to review the agreement before voting on a resolution in September.

I share your concerns about Iran which is why I have voted numerous times in favor of legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. However, I believe the agreement that was reached represents significant progress and it is in the best interest of the United States, Israel, and our allies for Congress to support it.

Under this deal Iran would be required to halt their uranium enrichment program, cease their plutonium production, and eliminate their stockpile of highly enriched uranium. They will be required to fill the core of the heavy water Arak reactor with concrete, remove two thirds of installed centrifuges, as well as remove all the pipework and infrastructure that connects the centrifuges that enrich uranium. Experts say that these steps are not easily reversible and it would take Iran well over two years to rebuild that infrastructure and any efforts to rebuild it would be detected within a few days.

Additionally, Iran must permit 24/7 access by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to all their current production facilities and grant access when requested to any suspected covert facility. The inspection regime will enhance transparency on Iran's nuclear activities and sanctions will not be released until there is verification that Iran is complying with all aspects of the agreement. If Iran were to violate the terms of the agreement sanctions will quickly be snapped back in place.

Military experts agree that the best option to pursue is to increase the breakout time for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon which is what this agreement will do. There is no better alternative. A preemptive military strike against Iran could lead to a regional war in the Middle East that many experts and I believe would prove more disastrous than the Iraq war. Even worse, such a strike would likely compel Iran to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, eject international inspectors, and rapidly pursue a nuclear deterrent. There is wide consensus among experts that a strike would only set their program back a few years.

Additionally, the crippling sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table were successful because they were multilateral sanctions imposed by the international community under the leadership of the U.S. Unilateral sanctions by the U.S. over the years have had little impact on Iran's behavior. The international coalition was critical to bringing Iran to this point and without this deal it had become increasingly clear that some of our allies were ready to drop their support for the sanctions regime. This is an unfortunate reality that must be accepted and it is one of the reasons why we need to take seriously the diplomatic resolution that is on the table now.

While I'm sympathetic to those who say we should go back to the negotiating table and get a perfect deal or otherwise have no deal at all, no deal would allow Iran to continue their nuclear activities unchecked. Further, the U.S. and our allies will not lose any options down the road by implementing this deal. If Iran violates this agreement international sanctions or military force can be used.

Lastly, if Congress rejects this deal, it will play into the hands of Iran's hardliners who don't want to see it succeed. We should not provide the Iranian hardliners any opportunity to further radicalize Iran. I'm hopeful that a younger generation of Iranians will reject the leadership of the past and be more open to changing their attitudes towards the U.S. and the rest of the world. This deal has the potential to open a dialogue that could help resolve other issues with Iran.

Although we disagree on this matter, I appreciate you taking the time to write in and having the opportunity to respond to your concerns. I will continue to support policies and legislation that deter the Iranian regime from pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER DeFAZIO
Fourth Congressional District, Oregon

 Senator Wyden. August 24th.

Discrimination is

  Indiana recently passed a law that violates the constitution of the United States of America. This bigoted state is narrow minded and only focused on keeping homosexual's from pursuing their dreams.....  you have likely heard the news about Indiana passing a Religious Freedom Law. However freedom isn't what is being mentioned. From the NCAA, to Apple CEO, to Angies List, major organizations of voiced concern and outrage at this new law and its potential to discriminate.
  What are the primary concerns? Even though the Indiana law mirrors the federal law passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and the 20 other states that have it, it does have two principle differences. This law applies to for profit companies (other versions of the law only apply to individuals) and allows for a seemingly wishy washy defense in court by claiming religious conviction. The fear is this inclusion of corporations will expand the Supreme Courts ruling from the Hobby Lobby case, which sided with companies being able to claim religious exemption from providing contraceptives in their medical plan offerings. Many fears abound.
  The fear for the LGBTQ community is of discrimination at work and in everyday life. As a state that allows homosexual marriage, and that should make you pause right there by itself, Indiana has progressed further than many states. Could I be fired because of my sexuality in Indiana? Yes. Same as I could be fired for being Jewish/White/Christian/Straight. You live long enough you see people terminated for many reasons at places of employment, but they are not stated as such. This opens up a world of lawsuits to the business in question, because that is discrimination. So the real answer is actually a no, but if they wanted to they could have made it happen anyway. The law won't work out that way because it is not the design of the law, but we will get to that later. First lets finish this thought with another example.
  You have the right to drink alcohol in Oregon. if you disclose that you like to drink on the weekend in a job interview, that may be the reason you don't get the job. The interviewers might have a bias toward alcohol. Bias exists. What also exists is a persons ability not to disclose every detail about their life.
  Hypothetical, A pastor and a homosexual couple comes and says they want the pastor to perform the wedding. If the pastor say no he will be claimed discriminatory (though many pastors say no to heterosexual couples). The Indiana Law guarantees a protection for that pastor. It goes one step further and protects the business leader from having to do something questionable to his or her faith. We recently had this happen in Oregon where a baker refused to bake a cake for a couples wedding, the court decided the baker discriminated and fined them 150,000 dollars.The dangerous precedent is now represented by the man who decided to put hateful messages on cakes, to which another baker refused. Its okay if someone says no, go somewhere else! Your right to get a cake, an officiant, and whatever else still exists. In fact I think the right to refuse service to anyone makes perfect sense. I also think the baker isn't endorsing a marriage by baking the cake.

  We have taken what we believe to be tolerance to a whole new level. All of this brings us back to the original point...what are we afraid of? To me it seems less of an issue of discrimination and more of wanting everyone to be accepting of another's life practice. The fear is that avenues are being created to keep people from accepting LGBTQ lifestyles and choices.
  What is the laws goal? As alternative lifestyles continue to become more prevalent, those with religious practice want their rights protected too. No one wants to be discriminated against, whether you are LGBTQ, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim. The laws fundamental wasn't to be used as an outlet for discrimination, but to further guard against it. The fear I have is that I will be told what I must accept.
  Is the law poorly written? It was written by politicians and will be enforced by a government....so probably. This blog is about the bigger picture than this law. It is about understanding that discrimination is not acceptable, but we all make judgments and have the right to do so.
  The bottom line for Christians is where is the love? Love has to be in the decision to say no. If I refuse a service I must have a reason based in love to do so. I believe your best good is.... Love might also dictate that you say yes to things you never thought. Maybe love is baking the cake, not for the endorsement of the wedding but to show love to the customers.
  In the end the concern must be between freedom and love. The freedom must exist to express beliefs, which likely means someone is not going to get their way.

Inconvenient truth and money

Inconvenient truths are often kept from the public. Doesn't matter if your Brian Williams, a republican, a democrat, or anyone in between.

One such truth that is now coming into the public eye is a port situation that has been brewing for quite some time. For the last nine months port employees on advice from their unions have been running slow downs and have even left work for a given day. The port of Portland has a backlog of ships and containers. This news story is just now starting to become news worthy to the media.

Every media has a bias. In this case the liberal bias constitutes itself in the absence of reporting. A liberal politician is backed by union money generally. Liberal media are sometimes likely to follow suit. What we are left with is a situation that strangles are economy so a few thousand longshoreman can get a demand fulfilled (more pay, no copay insurance, vacation time, or some other demand). The average longshoreman makes upwards of $98,000. That is almost three times the national average for a wage.

The meat industry believes they are losing 30 million dollars a week due to the slowdown. Agriculture is losing money, as I work for a company that is having immense difficulties moving product to Asia. Some customers that are being lost will never be regained. This is bad for the US economy as the cost to our economy is huge. Which brings us back to the liberal comments. A liberal president supported by Unions is not going to force union laborers back to work. It is not in the best interest to bring a story to the forefront that demands your attention when your political opponents can use it against you.

Many industries are begging for a resolution. I believe the longshoreman's union was banking on these pressures to get their demands met. Hanjin decided that they have had enough of this. Hanjin is the biggest shipper at the port of Portland. 65-80 percent of Portland's operation runs through Hanjins ships. Hanjin is ceasing use of all port operations March 3rd and transferring service to Seattle. Not only will this cause massive further shipping delays, but it ultimately backfires the union plan. This union thought the pressure would be on. I have little sympathy to their plight. You have a silver spoon that you want to be gold. You left too many Hanjin ships in the water and too many containers sitting at the dock. You now have a news story worth reporting (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/02/news_of_hanjin_leaving_port_of.html).

Now not only are some of the same businesses still in a bind, but the longshoreman also are not going to win.Unless they come to an agreement and win Hanjin back, but we will move on from this potential gamesmanship.

This is a classic example of a major problem swept under the rug until it explodes. Don't feel sorry for the greedy union. The longshoreman weren't in need of government health care of subsidies, though some may be come March 3rd. Don't feel sorry for the liberal governor or the president, they chose their union money bed to lay in. Feel bad for the many U.S. Businesses and their employees who have been victimized and are currently facing worse news by the minute.

Don't side with a terrorist

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been spun in many directions. For the first time Israel is fighting the decades long media campaign from the Palestinians. Constant decrees of war crimes, images of injured/dead civilians, and the perception of Israel being the bully and the aggressor. This is not to say Israel is not aggressive, hasn't killed civilians, or used its formidable might. However, we often pass judgment without placing ourselves in their shoes.



Hamas is a terrorist organization that has stated its aim is the destruction of the Israeli state. This is the organization we are expecting to make peace with Israel? If we are supporting them we are supporting an organization the fires missiles on a civilian population, kidnaps, and uses its civilian population as martyrs.

Israeli generals have stated there is no justification for the killing of civilians. This statement would not be echoed by Hamas. If not for the Iron Dome missile system this wedding party would have ended in death instead of just a panic. How would you deal with such a situation?  For example,  Osama Bin-Laden was in the country of Pakistan when he was killed by US special forces. We invaded another country's sovereign border without concern or care for how Pakistan would feel. Our defense was the number one priority. We are not happy that his kids and family had to witness the bloodshed, or be put in harms way, but we needed to eliminate the threat. Our defense came first.

Israel does not make money of the war with Hamas. Israel has no desire to kill civilians. Like us, their concern is defense of their people and the elimination of terrorism.

Israel goes a step further by warning people of their military targets. They phone a house, fire a dummy missile at it, and then minutes later destroy it. Israel has gone to great length to develop munitions that create pinpointed destruction to limit blast radius. Collateral damage happens when war is waged in civilian areas and it is horrible. The fact is that Israel is dealing with one of the most densely populated areas on earth trying to pick out a terrorist hiding among civilians

No one will be happy that their house is destroyed. The fact that people rush into a house, or stay in it as an act of defiance, is not civil disobedience when paired with housing a terrorist organization.

Now comes a different statement. Palestine needs their own state. It is a need that I believe many Israeli's see as such. However, it is impossible with Hamas. Prior attempts to make such a state happen have routinely been derailed by terrorist organizations. A cease fire can't happen with a terrorist organization (unless they run out of munitions and need to regroup). Israel tried, 6 hours and over 150 rockets later, Israel did exactly what we would do, they responded with force.