John Berman

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2022

Should the U.S. government continue to provide military aid to Ukraine (without putting U.S. soldiers on the ground)?

"It was clear from the beginning that this was WW III. The very short answer is that Ukraine and every other civilized country must oppose Putin's psychopathic foray. I was in Ukraine for 6 weeks in 2019. I know a fair number of people there, and have posted some messages on my site, including: 'I never thought that it may be possible in the 21st century. And all the world doesn't do anything, just watching this new blockbuster.' The bitcoin-boy NH candidate, Fenton, added another dimension to his ignorance-space by comparing Zelensky to bin Laden. I'd be glad to debate this simpleton on anything (or any other candidate on anything). Physics-types/hardware engineers (plus FAA powerplant and machining) always analyze the real-world and look for viable solutions. The risks for the world, of events in Ukraine, are still of a global catastrophe. There are few comparable events in world history (especially given instant pics by internet of the incinerations and other horrors there), and anyone shaping policy, who doesn't see that -- and who makes off-the-wall statements like Fenton's -- is a real hazard. And that doesn't even address Fenton's gross misunderstanding of bitcoin. And don't ask me what I really think. BTW, I'm not going to be nice -- Minnesota 'nice' or otherwise, in case you don't notice. The ruble at a 7 year high on oil prices, while Russia is thumbing its nose at its debut default, shows that there's no, simple external solution to this war. There may be a simple internal solution."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2022

Should the U.S. build a physical wall between Mexico and the U.S.?

"The fundamental problem with politicians (of both major parties) is that they redefine things: a border isn't a border if it's hopelessly porous; a student loan (or any other loan) isn't a loan if it's 'forgiven.' (This problem with definitions comes from lawyers, who are math/real-world incompetents in the huge majority; they think their 'rhetoric' -- such as it is -- outweighs logic, Dr. McCoy.) On the GOP side, 'free markets' and 'the rule of law' are myths. Ultimately, the views of Texas, Arizona, and California must be given the most weight on the wall. As a hardware engineer, I lean towards building a real (not virtual) wall, at least in stretches where remote sensing is less reliable and enforcement-response would be slow. I don't know all the technical details of real and virtual wall-building, but the simple solution -- and viable enough -- is to build the hardware, the solid wall; and add technology as necessary. There have been enough tragedies over the years -- such as an illegal-immigrant driving on the wrong side of an interstate and taking out a family (yes, multiple such events) -- and other costs, that those who don't account for such tolls simply want selective law enforcement; and they haven't experienced the brunt of lawless governments. They'd be happy in many countries that selectively-enforce their laws -- Russia and China, to name a couple. And many courts and prosecutors in the US, as well."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2022

Should the federal government continue to turn back migrants seeking asylum under Title 42, a public health law?

"The Title 42 pdf has 8191 pages, so I don't know where to even look for the relevant words. I gather (but am not sure) that it gives authority to the CDC to determine the conditions for turn-back. But I don't know what the words say. I am strongly opposed to people entering illegally. No borders = no country. (No membrane = no cell.) But what the law actually says (and how it's enforced) can be a mess. If the law does give the CDC the authority to start and stop a Title 42 turn-back, then if 'rule-of-law' Republicans don't like the CDC's rescinding the turn-back, they should either 1) find some actual violation by the CDC, or 2) rewrite the law, or 3) live with the CDC's decision. Twisting the law because you don't like what it says is not the (mythical) 'rule of law.'"

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2022

Should the government legalize marijuana at the federal level?

"To quote the Car Guys on CO poisoning: 'it makes you stooopid, and you don't know you're getting stooopid.' In my blogs, I quoted this with respect to 'low temperature delirium' (hypothermia), as the hospital psych described my bad judgment at 9000 ft, preceding my plane crash. I've seen enough behavior over time (especially decades ago) by those who messed with pot, to see that it obviously dulls one's faculties with residual effects. No one I knew (and saw) in the hard sciences and labs where I was a summer student (and then through grad school; and in machining and FAA powerplant classes I took) messed with it. And I never had any desire to. Those who want to understand how the physical world works (and want to build and fix real things) must pay close attention to what's going on. Pot dulls the very faculties that must be as sharp as possible to build and fix things; and therefore to move civilization forward. A doc recommended CBD oil for my neuropathic agony (prior to my getting to Loma Linda for their outstanding neuropathy-treatment program), but I didn't go for the CBD because: 1) FAA regs mandate loss of pilot license for any such thing; and 2) I was focused on getting to Loma Linda; and 3) prior to Loma Linda, I was managing the oxycodone opioid at a minimal dosage, only as needed, as I accepted, but battled, the neuropathic agony (torturously imposed on me by lawyers extortionately withholding my money from me, which I needed for the treatment). The bottom line is that pot dulls judgment and has residual effects. It is correctly disqualifying for aircraft operations. It should be disqualifying for on-road vehicle operations and anything where attention, sharp-thinking, and quick reactions are required. For medically-prescribed relief from pain (and I know relentless, agonizing neuropathic pain and praying for any measure of relief), it is probably legit, but there are obvious problem-loopholes. At this time, we have enough problems with drunk driving and resultant tragedies, which are enormous burdens on states and individuals. Adding to those burdens with federal legalization doesn't, at this time (if ever) make sense. I acknowledge that the uncertainty resulting from conflicting federal and state laws is un-Constitutional: a 'statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.' (Connally 1926.) A 'statute [that] prescribed no standard of conduct that it was possible to know…violated the fundamental principles of justice embraced in the conception of due process of law.' (Collins, 1914.) The same principle necessarily applies to a conflict between federal and state law, which must ultimately be resolved."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2022

Should the federal government limit certain firearm purchases to residents over age twenty-one?

"The goal here is to prevent or substantially-reduce mass shootings by those 18-20. Before the feds look at abridging the rights of this age group -- and it is their existing right to purchase and own, whether people like it or not -- they should analyze the evidence in the shootings. In the Ulvalde and Boulder, CO shootings, there were strong indicators of aberrant behavior. One solution (or a good step towards a solution) is to make it easy to report aberrant behavior in schools anonymously -- with statistical safeguards. I've been working on an solution, and will say more when I have it in prototype. I'm going to submit this survey even though I'm not done with it, because it appears that one has to submit it in order to get any responses posted. I will see if I can go back and answer the omitted questions. If not, I'LL POST MY ANSWERS AT MakeUSAgeeky.com ."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2022

Should the federal government eliminate qualified immunity, which generally shields law enforcement officers from lawsuits?

"Before qualified immunity should end for police, the so-called 'absolute immunity' for judges should end. (And it is not actually absolute, but because judges judge the judges, they do whateverTF they want.) As I identified in Hennepin County, Minneapolis on the public record on April 15, 2020, there was a 'military regime' operating in Minneapolis, where a twerp-dictator, corrupt phony-judge would simply make royal declarations, and the Minn. appeals court would 'affirm' them as NOT an 'abuse of discretion.' Such absolutism is, by definition, an abuse of discretion and is the province of despots, not US judges -- in theory. The reality is that judges do whatever they want, and they get away with it. Six weeks after my April 15 declaration, Mr. Floyd was dead under the 'boot' of the Minneapolis military regime. I have written a ton about this on my sites; and how I declared for US Senate in Kansas and Minnesota, the week following Mr. Floyd's death. Also, I was falsely arrested in a jurisdiction where the 4th Amendment is ignored, and the federal courts don't do a thing (a fact I identified prior to my arrest). This isn't over, and I'm practicing some circumspection right now, but the bottom line is that bad cops have their antennae up to receive the 'anything goes' signal from corrupt judges, like Burke in Hennepin. Good cops -- like the heroes who rescued me after my plane crash -- suffer retribution. They retire (en mass as in Minneapolis) rather than risk blowback as a result of the lawless, corrupt courts letting bad cops do whatever they want. The courts and their abuses of power and corruption -- rooted in 'absolute immunity' -- are the root cause. Getting the press to pay attention is very difficult. They and the lawyers are, in the great majority, incompetent problem solvers; they like extolling their power in influence while ignoring that they have no practical understanding of the real world. They are polysci majors who do their homework in a bar, arguing useless political theories. The vast majority of lawyers and judges have no contact with real-world problems and solutions. They believe their so-called 'rhetoric' ends debate and 'resolves the case' -- logical contradictions be damned. Anyone who has a real-world job -- cutting metal, troubleshooting engines, electronic or electro-mechanical hardware (and more) -- knows that words count for diddly. Solutions are in diagrams, numbers, and the equals sign -- the garlic and wooden stakes of the vampire lawyers and their brethren, the media. With the lawyers infecting government, media, and finance it's no wonder that problems multiply along with corruption. Judges with 'absolute immunity' have absolute power to do anything they want -- like put a false arrest warrant out on me, across country where the judge had no jurisdiction -- so the absolute power leads to absolute corruption, quelle surprise."