LEAP: Learning for the Empowerment and Advancement of Palestinians

This post is a small, but related, divergence from the normal subject matter of this blog. I recently applied to be a volunteer English teacher for the Learning for the Empowerment and Advancement of Palestinians (LEAP) Program this summer in Lebanon. Last week, I received notification that I was selected as a volunteer to work in the Rashidieh refugee camp in Tyre, Lebanon. I am very excited to be able to use my skills as a teacher to help Palestinian children gain the skills they need to be successful and to imagine and hope for a better future for themselves and their families.

The time that I spent traveling around the West Bank brought me into contact with many Palestinian children and they have a great excitement for life, just like all other children. Unfortunately, their circumstances can lead them down a road of despair and possible hatred if they are not provided with the means to better their position. No matter what the politics are in any given situation, if we neglect the children, we have done the most damage and we have aided in the perpetuation of conflict for generations to come.

It is my hope to play a small part in ending the vicious cycle of hatred and intolerance that is perpetuated by neglect and indifference. I plan on continuing this blog this summer while I am in the refugee camp in order to provide updates on the work that is being accomplished and to share my personal experiences. It is my hope that you will be interested in following along with the events that will transpire.

Why I Decided to Vote for Gov. Mitt Romney

Anyone who has been following my posts on facebook and Twitter knows that I have been an undecided voter until recently. Many have been surprised and/or unhappy with my choice to back Gov. Mitt Romney and still others are baffled by my decision to not only vote for, but also to campaign for, him in the final days leading up to today's presidential election. I decided to write this post to explain my decision and recent actions. I know many close to me disagree fervently with my decision and have asked how I can support someone they can't. This post is an attempt to describe my thinking.

I actually became a Romney supporter in 2007, after I read Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know About Mitt Romney. Before reading this book, I was not supportive of his run for president. I wasn't going to be a campaign supporter just because I share the same religious faith. I take my civil duty of electing public officials seriously and I try to be as informed as I can be. Ultimately, I was convinced that Mitt Romney was the best choice for our next president and I was discouraged when he lost the race for the Republican nomination. I still wrote him in, however, on the ballot for the 2008 election because I was not impressed with either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama.

Over the past few years, I have become more and more moderate in my political thinking. I have also become far more informed about foreign policy, especially concerning the Middle East. There have been many times in which Romney has made comments about the Middle East that I have either considered inaccurate or potentially causing greater problems in the future if such ideas are followed. This has been the main reason why I became a fence sitter in this election and not a Romney enthusiast the second time around. Foreign policy--not Romney's but President Obama's-- is also one of the issues that led me back to supporting Romney.

I was already aware that both Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney had very similar foreign policies when it came to the Middle East and the last presidential debate made that clear. Certainly, there are differences between the candidates' complete foreign policies, but I'm most concerned with Middle East policy and I believe that carries the bulk of the concern for most Americans as well. Initially, I was willing to call a draw on this issue and focus on other issues to determine which candidate would receive my support. Unfortunately, on 11 September 2012, the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans during an attack on the Benghazi consulate, which has now been deemed a terrorist attack (click here for a Washington Post article synthesizing what we know about the attack).

It baffles me that there existed such a poor comprehension of the situation in Libya, especially with a post-revolution society that barely even has a governing body organized, let alone a security force that was supposed to help defend the consulate. I also can't fathom how there was such a break down in communication as far as mobilizing more security is concerned--not just as the attack was commencing, but also the repeated requests for an increase in security forces. The blame put on the House for only approving 90% of the budget doesn't explain this at all as the WP article explains above. It is impossible that the president was not made aware of the attack earlier than reported. In 1979, when the US embassy in Iran was being overrun, there was plenty of intelligence circulating the CIA, FBI and White House as those events were unfolding. 33 years later, with the advancements in technology and the president's propensity to use drones, there is no excuse for the delayed reactions outside of the consulate. I am not a conspiracy theorist or swallower, so I will not believe that the president did anything purposefully that resulted in the deaths during this attack. However, there is too much incompetence that was displayed during this attack for me to have any confidence that the president can be an effective Commander in Chief--the part of his job that concerns the control of the military and the protection of the US at home and abroad. It is one thing to work with legislators and generals to withdraw troops from an unpopular war and it is quite another to be able to make fast and quick decisions necessary to save American lives. Because my potential career path may include being in similar situations, this issue and major failure of the president and his administration is not something I can overlook. This earns Romney his first point. I don't know if he and his administration would have had a different outcome, but it is far easier to trust your life to someone who hasn't already failed the lives of others.

A while ago, I wrote a post about Senate Bill S 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, focusing on section 1031, which specifically allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens. President Obama said that he would work to alter this later after the bill was signed, but he has done nothing to my knowledge in this regard. Add this to the president's use of drones to assassinate terrorists, even those suspected terrorists who are US citizens, and there go the red flags again about his competence and decision making on the war on terror. (click here to read about a study conducted by Stanford University and New York University on the effects of drone warfare) I personally believe that such drone tactics are creating a new generation of people who will grow up hateful of the US for treating their lives like they are worth no more than a video game scenario. I also think such drone policies will show an increase of other nations using drone warfare and bring us back to the days when CIA, KGB and other national spies fought the Cold War through assassinations. Gov. Romney does support the use of drones as well, but he hasn't used them so far and he hasn't used them to assassinate US citizens like President Obama has.

I also give Romney credit for how he explained reducing extremism in the Middle East. During the third debate, Gov. Romney suggested it was necessary to reduce the influence of Islamic extremism in the Middle East and that we can't just kill our way out of the situation. He didn't elaborate on his plan for doing this in his opening statement for this first section, but I began running through my head what needs to be done to accomplish this and the things I thought of were investing in education, economic development, and human rights. In Gov. Romney's follow up, he listed economic investment as #1 in his strategy, 2. education, 3. gender equality, 4. rule of law for civil society. I think this strategy is exactly the type a strategy needed to minimize the influence of extremists and prevent the youth in the Middle East and North Africa from joining extremist organizations. Stating this strategy also gave Romney points for me.

I honestly believe Mitt Romney has proven himself over and over again in his ability to turn things around and make them profitable. He did this with the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, making it the first profitable Winter Olympics in history. He had a rate of 4% unemployment in Massachusetts. Because I think the economy is one of the most important issues of this election, I really leaned toward Gov. Romney on this issue.

I do think Republicans opened Mitt Romney up for the scare tactics about women's reproductive rights. There have been some very ridiculous things said about contraceptives and rape, which people ran with. I know Gov. Romney said that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, but I don't believe he would ever do anything to make that happen if he became president. The biggest stretch was taking Romney's opposition to Obamacare's stipulation that employers needed to provide free contraceptive insurance for women and scaring women into thinking Romney wanted to deny them access to contraceptives. This wasn't the case as far as I understood it. The issue was not if women could have access to and use contraceptives, but rather if insurance companies should cover contraceptives at no extra cost to the insured, but to the added cost of the insurer. I personally feel that there is no problem with having contraceptives covered by insurance, but I do think that it should be an elective that is covered by an increased premium, unless the contraceptive is being used necessarily for other health issues (which I know happens often). I personally would like to see insurance become more like car insurance. There should be a limited amount of coverage that everyone should have, but then people can choose to add other types of coverage that would obviously raise premiums depending on what each individual wants covered.

I read many things recently that said a vote for Romney was a vote against civil rights for the LGBTQ community. I completely support the movement for marriage rights in this community and believe we will have equal rights within the next few years. I disagree a vote for Romney damages the possibility of gaining equal rights for the LGBTQ community. I don't think these rights will be granted by any action of the president. We are seeing states taking this issue into their own hands and many are passing laws legalizing gay marriage. There are four states voting tonight on this very issue. I am convinced that states, and then ultimately the Supreme Court, will decide to right the wrong of denying marriage equality to everyone.*

I'm not sure if I have now addressed all of the concerns that many have asked me. I went back to my facebook page to check, and it seems that some of the questions and comments have been deleted. Maybe people don't care anymore now that President Obama has been projected to win re-election. I still stand by my choice to vote for Gov. Mitt Romney for the reasons I have detailed here, but I now turn to a hope that the second term for President Obama is better than the first. I hope the change he promised in 2008 is realized within the next four years. For the sake of all Americans and many people across the world, I hope for a brighter and better future.


*(Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and probably Washington, which all had marriage equality on the ballot, have now legalized gay marriage according to predictions)

Bomb Iran!

It has been a great while since I last wrote a post for this blog.  I apologize to those of you who wish I would write more frequently, and I say you're welcome to those who don't.  I have been very busy and decided to put the blog on hiatus until I could spend the necessary time required to provide quality information.

I, however, decided to break the silence today after learning about a new billboard that is gracing the airspace of Salt Lake City.

© bombiran.org

This billboard is meant to awaken the people from the political warmongering comas to which we have all been subjected, especially during the GOP presidential debates.  The idea is to help people realize that military action against Iran, as has been strongly supported by many politicians, is an act of support for the military-industrial complex (so named by President Eisenhower) and has nothing to do with our own security.

I feel that this is an important message to spread and since I have the platform to get the message out to at least a few people, I figured I should do my part.  The website is very simple and provides very clear and basic information about why military action against Iran is not in the best interest of anyone.  I strongly suggest you take a look at the site and inform yourself of the situation that is threatening our involvement in another war that does not have to be.

Here is a report from KSL news in Salt Lake City with one of the creators of the billboard and website bombiran.org:

Billboard creator hopes people will stop and think about message, war | ksl.com

Senate Bill S 1867, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

This Bill is 680 pages long, but the section of greatest concern is section 1031.  Please read it.  I have listed sections 1031 and 1032 in order to show the contrast between the two.  In section 1032 there is an exemption for US citizens and Resident Aliens, however, this same exemption does not apply to section 1031.  It is easy to read section 1031 thinking that you are not one of those people, so there is no need to worry.  You may even agree that people who engage in the terrorist activities described deserve the measures taken.  However, ask yourself who gets to make the decision whether a person falls into this category or not?  The individual described in this section has not been tried and found guilty and then submitted to the detention described.  Anyone (including US citizens) suspected of these acts can be detained indefinitely without a trial.  Do you have enough faith in the government that innocent citizens won't be apprehended?  Can you live with the fact that they could be locked away indefinitely without charges or a trial if they are?  This section is an egregious attack on the liberties of US citizens and I hope enough people will voice their disapproval to at least have the same exemption as section 1032 amended to section 1031.  There is enough fodder already for us to be dissatisfied with our legislators, do we really want to add a removal of our liberties to that list?

Pg. 359

3 Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED

5          FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN

6          COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-

7             THORIZATIONFOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-

9 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate

10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military

11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the

12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-

13 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition

14 under the law of war.

15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under

16 this section is any person as follows:

17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-

18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred

19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-

20 sible for those attacks.

21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially

22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces

23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United

24 States or its coalition partners, including any person

25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 360

•S 1867 PCS

1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

2 forces.

3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-

4 position of a person under the law of war as described

5 in subsection (a) may include the following:

6 (1) Detention under the law of war without

7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the

8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United

10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-

11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–

12 84)).

13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or

14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the

16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-

17 try, or any other foreign entity.

18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-

19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President

20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military

21 Force.

22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—

23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress

24 regarding the application of the authority described in this

25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 361

•S 1867 PCS

1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of

2 subsection (b)(2).

3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF

5 WAR.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-

7 graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States

8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who

9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by

10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public

11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition

12 under the law of war.

13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in

14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de-

15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de-

16 termined—

17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-

18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-

19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of

20 al-Qaeda; and

21 (B) to have participated in the course of

22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted

23 attack against the United States or its coalition

24 partners.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 362

•S 1867 PCS

1 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For

2 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per-

3 son under the law of war has the meaning given in

4 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise

5 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be

6 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec-

7 tion 1033.

8 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The

9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the

10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In-

11 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if

12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in

13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security

14 interests of the United States.

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS

16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-

18 ment to detain a person in military custody under

19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

20 States.

21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-

22 ment to detain a person in military custody under

23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident

24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct

25 taking place within the United States, except to the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 363

•S 1867 PCS

1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United

2 States.


Contact your Senators and your Representatives and urge them to amend section 1031 to include an exemption for US citizens and legal Resident Aliens.

The Death of Muammar al-Qadhafi

It has been a while since I have written a post and I felt that it was time to at least submit something.  For the next few weeks, I will try to post links to articles that I feel are important regarding current events in the Middle East and North Africa.  Obviously, the news that the rebel forces of Libya captured and killed the more than four decades long dictator, Muammar al-Qadhafi, is very important news.  I do not have the time to put in a lot of thought or give a detailed analysis of the situation and for the next few weeks that will be the same for all of my posts, but I hope you will follow the links I provide and inform yourseves of the major events that are affecting the region and will also affect the US and its involvement.

I will say a few quick things.  I hope that the new Libyan government is stabilized quickly with free and open elections.  The military forces of the rebellion will probably want to be a part of the governing body at first in order to provide stability, but it is clear from the situation in Egypt that the military does not provide stability when it is a part of the governing body, but it inflicts martial law on the people and becomes an entity that oppresses the voices and actions of the people because it wants to demonstrate who has the power.  Egypt had a peaceful revolution to depose Hosni Mubarak, but the military has almost crushed the spirit of the people with its brutal attacks and its fabricated stories in an attempt to maintain the sectarianism between the Muslims and the Copts.  I don't think all is lost in Egypt, but the military needs to be removed soon from its control before it reverts into the same nation the people sought to change.  Because Egypt slipped so easily back into a militarized situation, I fear that the same thing will happen in Libya, especially since their regime change came through armed conflict.  It will be vital to watch the developments in Libya in the coming weeks in order to see in what direction the new Libya will go.

Here is a link to an article from the New York Times about the circumstances surrounding the death of Muammar al-Qadhafi.