JULIUS C. WILLIS JR: Our World, Today!

The boner – Speaker Boehner

The failure on the part of the House of Representatives to renew the farm policy law is both a sign of poor leadership on the part of the Republican Speaker of the House and an extremely divided Republican party caucus. The farm policy law expires every five years. Last year the House passed a stop-gap measure which the Democrat-controlled Senate went along with and that allowed the old law to be in effect for another year.

This year the House failed twice to pass a new farm policy bill and it is highly unlikely that the Senate will accommodate Republicans with another bailout. House Republicans are divided on the issue of food stamps and the amount of other cuts to the trillion-dollar farm bill. A new law is necessary in order to help balance the budget.

The problem is that Republicans are no longer members of a single political party. There are at least three ‘sects’ within the GOP – the Tea Party, the Evangelicals, and the Moderates – that are so politically and ideologically unique that it is impossible for them to act as one in almost any issue that comes up for a vote in the House.

Add to that division the poor leadership of the current House Speaker. It can’t be anything but poor leadership when the Speaker calls for a vote twice on a single bill that he was so confident of passing only to fail on both occasions – and miserably – in spite of the large Republican majority and the support of up to 40 Democrats.

The free movement of people

In this new, modern world the laws on immigration – rules that control the movement of people between national boundaries – should be more pragmatic. A nation’s geographic boundaries should only define that country’s physical size and location and not be a deterrent to the free movement of man and his commerce.

Market, political, and social forces should be the exclusive determinant of where people live and work. A nation may still award citizenship status to certain of its residents, but only for political reasons, such as the right to vote and to receive assistance. But citizenship should not be a requirement for residency.

People should be free to move around the world as they please, as long as wherever they are they are gainfully employed and are not otherwise a burden to the society. This is the new, modern world.

A family might want to live in Sweden for say ten years – they should be allowed to do so as long as they have the means, and can prove it, to support them in that country comfortably. A person might want to live and work in Japan – he or she should be allowed to do so as long as he or she can prove gainful employment and not be a burden to society.

This will all redound to the benefit of the human race, and to all societies on earth. Eventually, there will be competition among nations as they each work to make their country the best place to live and work in – all to the benefit of the human race.

A Deadly Nuclear Explosion (Time)

President Barack Obama this week (June 21) in Berlin proposed that the United States and Russia reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals. Under the New START Treaty, each country has about 1,500 nuclear missiles and bombs. The president proposes that each country get rid of 500 of those weapons each. The question is: would it make any difference that their numbers are reduced, and is that all we could or should do?

If at all there came about a serious military conflict between the U.S. and Russia, way less than 1,000 of those deadly weapons would be ten times more than enough to completely obliterate each other’s existence, plus some. Couple that with the fact that delivery systems have been developed by each side that allows these weapons to travel undetected, avoid obstacles and counter-measures, and accurately strike given, pre-programmed targets with deadly (sic) accuracy.

Even if only 50 each of these weapons struck the other side, it would definitely result in the end of the world as we know it. Stealth, global satellite guidance, and packed power would do the job of allowing almost all launched systems to succeed. And then what do we have? Probably half of humanity destroyed and the other half seriously without any hope of survival.

Not gonna happen? Just wait until we have another crazed demagogue like Adolf Hitler.

Since the end of World War II the human race has succeeded in “keeping the peace” – avoiding global, or seriously destructive widespread – conflict. But a war between two powerful nations is not totally inevitable. It is therefore necessary that we come to terms with reality and work for the destruction of ALL existing nuclear weapons and develop a means for detecting when such weapons are being produced. This way, nuclear weapons can become a thing of the past – nuclear weapons would have the same fate as the bubonic plague.

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden – the ex-NSA contractor/employee who leaked information that the government agency was spying on U.S. citizens – will definitely pay and pay dearly for his treasonous acts against the U.S. and the American people.

While some Americans may be grateful to Snowden for what he has revealed and exposed, Americans certainly could not admire him and consider him a “role model” or an ideal. Ratting that borders on treason is not admirable.

The NSA is one of this country’s tools in the fight against anti-American terrorism. Snowden committed a grievous wrong by turning against the agency that serves the country well, the agency for which he worked and to which he pledged loyalty. The NSA also needs to protect itself from employees and contractors like Snowden.

Snowden is currently hiding out in Hong Kong on a temporary visa while the FBI prepares its case against him and U.S. agencies investigate the company that hired him for failing to ‘vet’ him properly. He has very few options to save his skin. I suggest that his best move is to submit himself to the American people and let the people’s courts explain to him the gravity of his diabolical acts.

House Speaker John Boehner

Republicans in the House of Representatives passed the most “far-reaching ban on abortion” ever, a bill that also easily becomes the most serious assault on “women’s constitutional right to choose.” Hundreds of hours were spent by the lower house in an effort that will surely end in demise at the Senate. Meanwhile, important legislation aimed at addressing the country’s economic problems were held at bay.

The House abortion bill changes federal law and challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Ruling. The bill would ban abortion after a fetus has reached 20 weeks. Entitled the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (sponsors of the bill claimed that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks),” the bill was approved by the House today (June 18, 2013). Roe v. Wade legalized abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

The time-consuming, distracting House bill will be ignored by the Senate and by President Obama. House Republicans knew from the start that their abortion bill has no chance of becoming law. And even if it became law, it would run into mountains of successful lawsuits challenging its validity.

So what was the point? Obstruction, as usual – Republicans have very little appetite in taking up business that would help promote jobs and solve economic problems. They appear to be hell-bent into ensuring that the administration fails so that they could validate the platform that doomed them in the last presidential election.

Sarah Palin

There she goes again: former Republican Party vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has made one more of her “typically Sarah bone-bone” remarks. This time, she was addressing an issue which the whole world knows she’s completely ignorant about.

In a speech before the “Faith & Freedom Coalition” last weekend, Palin took up the issue of the people’s rebellion in Syria and said that the U.S. should not have anything to do in that country while Barack Obama is president. Implying that Obama knew very little about what’s going on in the Middle East, Palin added: “Until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing, let Allah sort it out.”

U.S. and European intelligence have agreed that Syrian president Bashar Assad was using chemical weapons in his fight against the rebels resulting in the death of thousands of people, including innocent civilians. Because of this, the U.S. had officially announced that it would start sending military assistance to Syrian rebel forces. It was this move by the U.S. that Palin was referring to in her speech.

Sarah Palin must believe that she knows a lot more about “what’s going on in Syria” than the whole of U.S. and European military intelligence. How else could she say that our current commander in chief doesn’t know what he’s doing? And if she did know more than our current commander in chief, could she please come up with her suggestions on what to do about the situation in Syria?

President-elect Hasan Rowhani

The wild celebrations that broke out in the streets of Iran (Saturday, June 15) following the landslide victory of reformist Hasan Rowhani in that country’s presidential elections may be a little too presumptuous. The expectation is that Rowhani will cause a loosening of the ruling clerics’ grip on power in that Islamic republic.

Rowhani declared “a new opportunity has been created . . . for those who respect democracy, interaction, and free dialogue.” In a state TV comment immediately after his proclamation as winner, Rowhani said “I’ve never been an extremist. I’ve always supported moderation.” Throughout his campaign, Rowhani expressed a strong stance against the international policies of the outgoing government led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,

Rowhani has somewhat of an edge in his new role. He is not exactly an outsider to the political establishment, having served in the government and as the country’s nuclear negotiator. But because he has taken strong positions against the international policies of outgoing president Ahmadinejad, he could no longer be trusted by the ruling clerics.

And there are other problems up ahead for the victorious moderate and his allies. All policy – and decisions – with respect to defense and foreign affairs are made exclusively by the ruling clerics who are protected by the country’s Republican (Revolutionary) Guard. We have yet to forget the repression of the massive protests that took place after the 2009 elections which the protesters claimed had been rigged to deny the reformists a victory.

Although his declarations could improve the relationships between Iran and the West (including Israel) Rowhani will have to work hard within his own political orbit to control (or moderate) the ruling clerics. Hopefully he does not inherit the political fate of his ally, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had been banned by the ruling clerics from running in this last election.

President Obama

There is a lot of talk about the high cost of President Barack Obama’s forthcoming week-long trip to sub-Saharan Africa. The president and his entourage leave June 26 for the region where he will visit Dakar in Senegal, Johannesburg and Cape Town in South Africa, and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania.  Attention to this “high cost junket” was brought about by a Washington Post report (Document: Major resources needed for Obama Africa trip) that sets the price tag for the trip at between $60 and $100 million.

The implication in all the discussion is that the trip is unnecessary and that the amount of money to be spent on it is obscene in the face of the government’s current economic situation.

Much of the trip’s cost will be to pay for security. According to the Post story, a total of 56 vehicles will be used (not counting President One and support aircraft). Of these vehicles, 14 will be limousines. Air Force jets will be flying in airspace over the president’s location at all times. There will also be vehicles ferrying bullet-proof glass panels and other protective equipment for use at wherever the president and his entourage get located. Large numbers of Secret Service personnel will be flying to each of the four cities in the three countries the president will visit. The Post does not give the exact number but to say that “hundreds” of agents will be needed for the trip.

All of these allocations and preparations are typical of any presidential travel. Every presidential trip, even if only here in the U.S., requires security and travel resources. The only reason the question on costs is being brought up in the case of this particular trip is because it comes in the face of sequestration.

The president is visiting the African region not just for the sake of traveling. He is visiting the three sub-Saharan countries to strengthen partnerships and to establish stronger cooperation on matters of health, trade, and security. The United States needs to keep its friends and allies. The trip and its costs are necessary.

Ann Coulter

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter appears to have stuck her foot in her mouth, once again, when she proclaimed that the Republic Party will “die” if it supports immigration reform. She made the claim in a column that appeared this week in her website (If The GOP Is This Stupid, It Deserves To Die, published Wednesday, June 12).

Once again, Miss Coulter has it all wrong. The GOP will not die – it is their ideas, their party platform, their ultra-conservative stand on almost everything – that will die. The party will live on, but most likely in shame as it tries to change, get in touch, and identify itself more with the people.

Miss Coulter asserts that the Grand Old Party’s demise will be caused by an increase in the number of Latino voters. In earlier writings, Miss Coulter claimed that Latinos are “lazy, poor, and government-dependent” and thus could simply not vote for conservatives. She goes on to say that the nation as a whole will be destroyed along with the Republican Party with an increase in Latino voting power.

As usual, the right-wing writer has got it all wrong. Even 15-year-old kids know that what she says doesn’t make any sense. But then, who can name a Republican that makes any sense?

The United States Supreme Court

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to issue a couple of historic decisions on gay marriage this month, pundits are predicting that the court – ever cautious and conservative – will be “politically” smart and give both sides of the issue something to cheer about.

The prediction: The justices will limit the expansion of gay marriage rights to California and boldly strike down the Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on federal benefits for same-sex married couples. Such moves by the court would not only be “politically smart” – it allows them not to make “political decisions” for the country.

In the California case (Hollingsworth vs. Perry), the court could rule in favor of the two couples involved in the case or it could apply its ruling to the entire state. It is possible, of course, for the court to throw out the case on the ground that the marriage ban’s supporters do not have any legal right to appeal the lower court rulings; if this happens, the earlier appeals court ruling striking down the law banning gay marriage will stand. In the Defense of Marriage Act case (United States vs. Windsor), the court could go all the way and declare the law unconstitutional.

The country moves on as the most civilized and democratic nation on the face of the earth. Much has yet to be done by way of civil and political rights, but change for the better is happening and will continue to take place.