Criticizing Obama is pragmatic - Barack Obama - Salon.com

The "progressives" seem to be shocked and surprised and outraged thinking that Obama is betraying them. What's really going on is they put projections onto Obama to pretend that Obama was like them, and being like them his administration would undertake every pet change they thought was important. If they had listened instead they'd have learned he was more of a centrist than progressive. By criticizing Obama, progressives are modeling the behavior of social movement participants as diverse as the abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights advocates, feminists and proponents of GLBT rights. Progressive movements have never achieved their goals by peacefully acquiescing to the will of politicians. While successful progressive movements have undoubtedly made and accepted compromises, they have also condemned politicians when doing so was appropriate. The election of Obama does not provide a reasonable basis for abandoning this tried and tested historical approach to social change.

Source: http://www.salon.com/2009/12/22/obama_pragmatism_2/

Naomi Klein: 3 Biggest Blown Opportunities of Obama's Presidency | Politics | AlterNet

No President since FDR has been handed as many opportunities to transform the U.S. into something that doesn't threaten the stability of life on this planet. Is he blowing it? That's from Naomi Klein. She starts the article with the failure to get a groundshaking deal at the Copenhagen summit. If Obama had come to Copenhagen with a transformative commitment to getting the U.S. economy off fossil fuels, the other major emitters would have stepped up. The EU, Japan, China and India all indicated that they were willing to increase their levels of commitment, only if the U.S. took the lead. Instead Obama arrived with embarrassingly low targets and the heavy emitters of the world took their cue from him. But the 3 FAIL's listed are economic, the stimulus package, and bailouts of the auto and banking industry. No President since FDR has been handed as many opportunities to transform the U.S. into something that doesn't threaten the stability of life on this planet.

Article Reference: 

http://www.alternet.org/politics/144720/naomi_klein%3A_3_biggest_blown_opportuni...

Copenhagen climate conference: Emission impossible | Environment | The Guardian

According to this article the defining challenges of our time is climate change and "overcoming poverty" but that formulation leaves out the issue of peak oil aka energy supplies. The global society has gotten addicted to cheap energy, but that cheap energy is soon to become very expensive, which is a major challenge not addressed by the article. The article does a great job of posing these questions: Do we collaborate and act to reach a strong political agreement that both decisively cuts the devastating risks posed by climate change, and rapidly opens up the opportunities offered by low-carbon economic growth? Do we in that way set ourselves to overcome poverty and promote prosperity? Or, do we give way to narrow, short-term interests, quarrelling, lack of ambition and delay, thus allowing the risks to the climate to grow to dangerous levels which will derail development in both rich and poor countries?

Article Reference: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/stern-monbiot-copenhagen-deal

Revisiting the Declaration of Independence

It is July 4, 2007, 231 years since the original was declared.  In that time the U.S. was declaring independence from a tyrant, King George III of England.  I heard the declaration read by newscasters associated with National Public Radio .. and was moved to think of the tyrant President George W. Bush, and the parallels between the contents of the Declaration of Independence and todays situation.  The core of the Declaration is a listing of grievances, statements and assertions of crimes committed by King George III.  It is spooky the parallels between those crimes, and the crimes committed by George W. Bush.

The Declaration of Independence, of course, stems from events of that time, and the grievances listed in that document come from those events.  If there were a similar document written today we would list a wholly different list of grievances.  Perhaps, though, when a tyrant is abusing their power and ignoring the needs of their people, that it doesn't matter who that tyrant is, the powers they're abusing lead them to the same sorts of actions.

I think it is instructive to examine William Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and do a direct comparison with todays events. The National Archive has the definitive page. Here goes:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

That's a great start, and to be honest if I ever thought about this document it was these statements which stuck in my mind. The U.S. is founded on high principles as reflected by the Declaration of Independence.

The government derives their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Wow! And by gosh, just what Constitution did George W. Bush swear allegience to?  Okay, the country voted twice to approve his presidency, except it's actually rather questionable whether the votes were rigged or not.  But ignoring that, his presidency received approval by the people.

There is another form of declaration of consent.  It's from polling that results in "approval ratings" discussed widely in the press, and there are the results of other elections such as in 2006.  These show a weakening level of approval, with growing derision and rejection by the people.  One would think the President might look at that growing disapproval and tone down his actions.  But one would also think the slim margins under which this President was elected would would also cause him to tone down his actions.  Instead he has pushed forward with a bold and radical agenda, to lead the country towards theocracy, to lie, to cheat, etc.  Basically the behavior of the Bush Administration is that of a bully who is going to push and push to get his way.  From the very beginning bipartisanship was, for him, taken to mean "You vote for my proposals", not the normal meaning of "we work together to overcome our differences and come to a mutually agreeable proposal".

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that form of government, and to institute a new one.

Okay, I am on record since 2003 calling for: Proposal: Impeachment, G.W. Bush. In 2006 I did a lineup of other calls for impeachment. Today I think it would be disastrous to impeach Bush and leave Cheney in office to become the President.  It has to be a dual blow, to get them both out of office at the same time.

The wording of the Declaration suggests total revolution, to completely destroy the government and make a new one.  Perhaps that was needed in that time, but today I think we should use the government we have to achieve these ends.  The government we have is very good, we simply need to take up the powers vested in us the People of the United States of America.  The powers given us by the founders of our country is that our government derives its right to exist from us.  It is time for us to stand up and demand change, now.

All experience has shown that mankind are willing to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the system to which they are accustomed.

Yup. There's that adage about boiling a frog.  If you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll jump right out and save itself, but if you place a frog in cool water and slowly turn up the heat the frog won't notice until it's too late.

In todays age, it seems people are enthralled with the entertainment choices on TV. The news media is full of inconsequential stories, while the alarming news is either ignored or barely mentioned.  It's much easier to be consumed with the false drama on TV entertainment, than to pay attention to the real dangers posed by a government administration that's running roughshod over the constitution.

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of theocracy over these States.

I reworded the original a little, but it's curious how the theocratic direction being taken by President George W. Bush.  This country was founded with a separation between church and state as a core principle, and to rely on the rule of law.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

While President Bush has signed lots and lots of laws, and has rejected only a few, what has been done is very subtle and most people are probably not aware of the consequences. The issue are the Signing Statement's, which are an additional document signed by the President at the same time as he approves the law. The Signing Statement describes how the President will interpret or apply the law.

Consider:

• President Bush Signs the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006
• President's Statement on Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006
• President Signs H.R. 1815, the "National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2006"
• President's Statement on H.R. 1815, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006"

There's a law, and at the same time as signing the law President Bush signs this other declaration.  The other declaration discusses changes that will be made in interpreting the law being signed.  The changes are often radical, such as changing clear intent that Congress requires the President to do something or to make some kind of report to Congress, and that instead the President will take such requirements as advisory.

Clearly it's up to the Administration to interpret how to apply the law.  In the U.S. we have a separation of power, where the Congress only has duties and powers to pass laws and control the purse strings, where it's the Administration that executes those laws.  An executive who states, "well, that phrase is vague, this is the way I'll interpret it" but it's beyond the pale to completely change the intent of the law.  How can one say require is unclear, and instead to interpret it as advisory?

John Dean (yes, that John Dean) has a very good article on this:  The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration. And the Wikipedia has an excellent article on Signing Statements.

Until the Bush Administration, Signing Statements were rarely used by Executives. Of such statements signed by U.S. Presidents, George Bush has signed the vast majority of them.  John Dean suggests they raise a conflict of interest problem in the Justice Department.  Laws are presumed Constitutional until they are proven otherwise, and therefore the Justice Department ought to enforce the laws.  Specifically: The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.  But what happens when the Justice Department is defending the constitutionality of a provision which Bush has declared unconstitutional?

In particular the use of signing statements themselves are probably unconstitutional.  As John Dean discusses, the effect of these statements is that of a Line Item Veto.  Congress passed a law allowing for a Line Item Veto, but that law was later overturned by the Supreme Court saying that it's Unconstitutional.  The Presentment Clause declares that the President has two choices, to sign a bill or to reject it completely.  The President has no middle ground approach, the President does not have the right to reject part of a bill and sign the rest.

Yet, that's what the President has been doing during his whole Presidency.  That's what these signing statements do, is to reject parts of bills.

The phrase unitary executive branch is commonly used in these signing statements and this phrase, like many others, seems like so much lawyerese gobbledygook.  Thankfully legal scholars have already studied this issue, such as Jennifer Van Bergen:  The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?

The unitary executive branch is a form of governing theory going back to the experience of Vietnam and Watergate.  Recall that many in the Bush Administration also served in the Nixon Administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney.  Cheney in particular supposedly has an agenda to reestablish Presidential power which he believes was inappropriately undermined in the aftermath of Watergate and the Nixon Impeachment.  

According to Jennifer Van Bergen, this phrase is code for nearly unlimited executive power.  In particular the states that all three branches of U.S. Government have the right to interpret laws, therefore granting to the Administration the right and duty to do so.   But how much room does the Administration really have in interpreting laws?  It is long standing custom and legal precedent that the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of interpreting the law.  Is the Administration truly usurping the power of the Supreme Court, as Jennifer Van Bergen is asserting?

It's going to be difficult to properly address that question given the current membership of the Supreme Court.  According to the Wikipedia article on Signing Statements, the Reagen Administration began the Signing Statement practice (as an experiment) at the direction of one Samuel A Alito.  This is the same Samuel Alito who is today a member of the Supreme Court.  Clearly a challenge against the use of Signing Statements would be heard with forgiving ears by the current Supreme Court.

This all is especially curious given the current constitutional crisis facing the Administration.  In recent weeks Vice President made a strange claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch of Government and hence is not subject to an Executive Order requiring government-wide safeguarding of certain classified information.  Huh?  Not part of the Executive Branch?  The claim was quickly dropped and replaced with other weaselly ways to ignore the law.  And at the same time President Bush has invoked Executive Privilege to deny Congressional Subpoena of documents relating to the firing of U.S. Attorneys.

First, let's look at Vice President Cheney.  All through both terms of office Cheney has rebuffed demands for records about secret meetings he has held.  The prime example is from early 2001 in which he met with an unknown set of people for advice on the Energy Policy proposals the Administration made that year.  Those Energy Policies were extremely friendly to Big Oil, and it's widely assumed those secret meetings were with Oil company executives.  At issue right now is EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION, a law requiring the keeping and safeguarding of classified information.  Yet it's widely reported that he is thumbing his nose at this requirement, that he is routinely destroying records, etc. Don't Misunderestimate Dick Cheney is a very good overview of Cheney's current situation, and his outrageous behavior as Vice President.

Now let's look at President Bush and the recent invocation of Executive Privilege.  At issue is a subpoena of records concerning what the Administration calls a resignation of U.S. Attorneys.  The press reporting of this issue has made it clear, the Administration was conducting a hunt for U.S. Attorney's who were not playing along with Administration agendas, perhaps acting counter to the political directives coming from the White House, and that they were fired for political reasons.  The statement on Executive Privilege linked above contains two letters sent to Congress, each stating that the Administration was willing to cooperate in some ways with Congress, but not in the way Congress had desired that cooperation to take place.  Instead the Administration is denying all cooperation, potentially turning this into a Constitutional crisis between the branches of government.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

I was having a hard time with finding an analogy to the actions of President Bush.  Say what you will about President Bush's behavior, he hasn't asked U.S. Citizens to give up rights of representation and hasn't required that Congress meet in inconvenient places.

As I just discussed, however, Vice President Cheney has repeatedly acted to keep various records secret, to destroy records, etc.  Further there have been a vast reclassification of previously declassified documents.

But what came most strongly to mind is actions taken by not just President Bush, but a whole gamut of world leaders.  For quite some time there have been a growing set of quasi-governmental bodies having international scope, and which are interfering with the ability of individual nations to govern themselves. Those quasi-governmental bodies offer no course of appeal, no democratically aligned method of deliberating agreements, or of proposing new agreements, or of representation.  And increasingly the meetings of these quasi-governmental bodies are being held in remote locations.

I'm talking about the regular "G8 Summit" (formerly G7), the WTO meetings, etc. Each are attended by government leaders from around the world, and I suppose they are forums for inter-governmental meetings and collaboration.

These meetings routinely draw a bevy of protesters.  In 1999 the meeting in Seattle turned into a battle of sorts between Police and Protesters, and ever since that meeting these "summit" meetings have been held in remote facilities. Also the security leading up to each of these meetings is tight.  The whole picture is clearly meant to prevent the protesters from disrupting the meeting, but I suppose an argument can be made that the measures are being undertaken for the safety of the leaders.  The effect however is to silence alternative points of view.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

I'm again having difficulty finding a direct analogy to the actions of President Bush. Say what you will about President Bush's behavior, he has not dissolved Congress. Yet.

There have been repeated issues of increased invasions of privacy against U.S. Citizens and others.  The so-called PATRIOT ACT passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attack undermined a lot of privacy safeguards.  But beyond that there is increased use of warrantless wiretapping etc, which flaunt the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requiring that the President get a warrant from a FISA court to receive approval for conducting a wiretap.

The warrant-less wiretap issue was discussed at length in articles linked above.  Essentially this assertion of the unitary executive means that the Administration claims various laws do not apply to them, such as FISA.

Another issue I think of with this grievance is the establishment of governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.  In both cases the U.S. is embarking on "Nation Building" exercises in both countries, having destroyed the existing government in both countries, and working with the local population in both to establish new governments.

The process of creating a new government in both these countries has been very tangled, and if I'm remembering right did involve sacking of government officials (at least in Iraq) chosen through elections because those officials were not acceptable to the U.S.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

It's interesting that immigration issues were an issue in the Declaration of Independence, just as it is today.  All through the Bush Presidency he has desired to enact Immigration Reform, including a big push this year.  Just recently Congress decided to abandon efforts to enact Immigration Reform, a slap in the face of the Bush Administration, etc.  The situation is that Bush has a certain agenda for Immigration Reform, one that's not widely shared by others.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

Well, just look at the discussion above about Signing Statements.  They are a challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

This is not an action President Bush has taken against Judges.  However there have been widespread firings of U.S. Attorney's because they were not following the political dictates of the Administration.

As for Judges, the Supreme Court under President Bush has had enough members replaced to swing the court towards the Conservative creed favored by the Administration.  There's nothing nefarious in this, every President selects Supreme Court nominations that match the opinions of the Administration.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

The analogy here is the Department of Homeland Defense, the realignment of Federal security forces, the nationalizing of airport security under the Transportation Security Agency, the suspiciously conducted "no-fly lists" which ban people from flying on airplanes, and an overall increased level of scrutiny.  All this was in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Clearly transportation security is very important, as there are various ways to use the transportation system against the people.  I'm curious why there isn't similar increase of security in train travel, as there has been in airport travel?  And I wonder if commercial air traffic gets the same scrutiny that civilian air traffic?  And I wonder if there is the same level of scrutiny of cargo containers, as there are for travelers in airports?

I think the effect of this grievance is about the harassment of the population.  My questions are about whether there is actual increased security, or whether it's just about harassment?

For example we are now required to remove our shoes so our shoes can be screened.  In other countries air travelers are not required to remove their shoes, only in the U.S.  This requirement comes from an event where someone tried to use their shoes as a bomb, a plot which fizzled horribly.  It doesn't increase our security for our shoes to be inspected, and any potential airplane bomber knows today they won't use shoes to transport bomb material, but we're still required to remove our shoes.  And, we're also required to drastically limit the liquids we bring on-board, because of another questionable bombing plot.

I think its purpose is more to do with harassment, and little to do with actual increased security.

And when one rides on an Amtrak train, do they get the same level of scrutiny?  Okay, it's tough to get a train to fly into a building, but wouldn't one be able to spray poisons in a train?

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Well, clearly the U.S. is in a time of war so these grievances do not have a direct analogy to current events.  And curiously today the U.S. has a longstanding principle of keeping a standing army, but it's no doubt with the consent of Congress.  Another thing which has not happened is military predominance, because the military is still subject to civilian authority.

We have seen a rerouting of the National Guard to participate in the Iraq war effort.  This is a military force meant to work at home in times of disaster or riots.  In the Katrina Hurricane disaster the police forces were unable to keep the peace, partly because of National Guard troops and equipment instead being in Iraq.  Also in Kansas there was a town destroyed recently by a Tornado, and the Kansas National Guard was hindered by their members and equipment being in Iraq instead of in Kansas.

We have seen extensions of tours of duty for soldiers. Again to get more troops for the fighting in Iraq.

We are also seeing a growing influence of the Military-Industrial-Complex which President Eisenhower warned us of.  This is a growing set of Military contractor companies, interlocking with Defense Department officials, Congressional officials, etc.

It is very likely that these companies are encouraging more war, more fighting, greatly heightened security measures, etc, because it's good for business. While it's unlikely that a military contracting company directly encouraged the original series of terrorist attacks, the military contracting companies are increasingly involved with the conduct of the war. A particularly worrisome issue is intelligence activities that are being staffed, not by U.S. Military personal, but by contractors. A contractor participating in intelligence gathering is able to help skew the intelligence such that it appears more troops, equipment, etc is required.

We have seen growing dissent against the war in Iraq, and a growing call to bring the troops home.  To a large degree the refusal of the Bush Administration to heed this dissent led to the huge loss of Republican party power in the elections last year.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

I've already talked of the quasi-governmental organizations. This is not an action new to President Bush, but has been an ongoing international process for decades.

A direct analogy here is the refusal by the Bush Administration to heed the International Court of Justice. Clearly the ICJ is another of these quasi-governmental bodies that attempts to interfere with the sovereignty of individual nations. In particular the Bush Administration claims that international justice systems, such as the ICJ, interfere with the ability of the U.S. Military to do their job, in a way which eerily echo's the grievance statement here.

We know that U.S. Military has been torturing prisoners etc, flouting laws, treaties and moral standards along the way.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

There is no direct analogy here with Bush Administration actions.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

Can you say Guantanamo Bay and Extraordinary Rendition and Outsourced Torture? And what about Habeas Corpus?

There is a whole system of non-justice which the Bush Administration has enacted regarding people whom have been captured during the conduct of this "War on Terror". To be honest this war is wholly different from previous wars, in that there aren't mass armies fighting each other in broad fronts.  Instead you have small teams acting in a guerrilla unit manner, working secretly to stage terrorifying events within the normal stage of daily life.  This includes train bombings, airplane bombings, suicide bombers, car bombs, etc. In many cases the people being fought are not members of a government-sponsored military, but are members of non-government forces.

But, when someone is held for years without rights of trial, without rights to challenge why they are being detained, well, this smacks the face of hundreds of years of laws and traditions.

The Guantanamo Bay facility is part of a military outpost held by U.S. forces on the Island of Cuba.  As a facility it is completely outside the jurisdiction of almost anybody but the U.S. Military.  Except the U.S. Military is, uhm, subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. civilian authority.

That is, unless the Military has been rendered independent of and superior to civil power.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

President Bush has not done this inside the U.S. That is, except in the manner of the discussions above concerning the Signing Statements and other ways which the Administration has flaunted the law.

Where President Bush has done this is the destruction of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Like them or not, they were sovereign governments, and the U.S. caused the governments of those lands to be destroyed and replaced. That's what Regime Change means. Further we know the neocon agenda is to take Regime Change all through the Mideast, and that Iran is the next on the list of countries who are to have their government destroyed and replaced.

The military contractors being used widely in Iraq are clearly the equivalent of mercenaries.

There are strong indications that in preparation for attacking Iran, that various efforts to to infiltrate domestic insurrection in Iran etc. Of course, Iran seems to be fomenting domestic insurrection in Iraq and similarly Turkey is considering invading Iraq so they can control insurgent activities by the Kurds.  

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

There are many, such as myself, in the U.S. who have protested the Bush Administration actions since the beginning.  We have not been silent, and yet our repeated petitions have only been answered by repeated injury. I say, too, that a President whose character is shown by the actions of President Bush is not fit to serve as the ruler of the United States of America.

It is up to the people of the United States of America to remember the principles for which we stand. It is up to the people of the United States to recognize when those principles are being violated, and to take action to correct this situation.

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

"It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps." The article details 10 steps to turn a free society into a dictatorship. These steps have been taken over and over in countries around the world and have been demonstrated to work. Most recently they were taken following the Coup in Thailand that overthrew the Democracy there.

Article Reference: 

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

The sliming of Barak Obama

It's still 2006 but the 2008 national elections have already begun. It seems silly that we're already sizing up the Presidential candidates when we're still 2 years from the election. But here we are. Maybe it's a reflection of the revulsion we have for the Bush years that we just want to get them over, but time ticks at it's own pace and we're left with over 2 years until the inauguration.

The story I'm interested in is the sudden popularity of Sen. Obama, and at the same time the sliming that's coming from the vast right-wing conspiracy, as Hillary Clinton called them. While that phrase was laughed off it's clear there is a right wing who has an evil narrow minded agenda that would lock down the country into fundamentalist Christian ideals, and outlaw anything else. And of course the person who Sen. Obama is would be so far outside the scope of what those people want, that they're going to target this guy and wear him down.

Consider: Obama... Osama

Gimme a break. The worst they can come up with is similarity in names? And in any case The Hussein name is obviously widely used in the middle east. One thing this video clip does show is how much out of touch typical Americans are, if they cannot realize a non-issue when they see it.

Next: CNN Analyzes Barack Obama's Clothing

Because of his choice of clothes they're going to slander him with a connection to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So, uh...?

Next: The swiftboating of Obama begins considers itself with a rather minor land deal with a shady real estate dealer in the Chicago Area. The story is covered in a Washington Post article. The series of events is that a Syrian born businessman, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, whose primary business is running a chain of Panda Express restaurants and real estate developments, and who is politically active serving on some commissions, bought land adjoining a mansion that Sen. Obama bought in 2004. The only suspicious item in the story is that Obama's purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price, which one might consider to be a political favor, or one might consider Sen. Obama a good negotiator, or one might consider that the asking price was inflated.

In any case this story appears to be blown out of proportion with trying to overly connect Obama to Rezko's shady dealings.

Next: Revving Up For 2008, Carl Cameron Files Hit Piece on Barak Obama is a report from NewsHounds, a group founded by Director Greenwald as one of the research arms for his movie Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on Journalism. This is a group of bloggers who have continued scrutinizing Fox News reporting, documenting all the slanted stories which appear on that network. This posting details a profile by Carl Cameron on Barak Obama, which apparently tried to depict Sen. Obama as disconnected from the people and instead living in the circles of the Elites.

The profile also trotted out this supposedly shady land dealing, and in the same piece reminded the viewers of the Clinton's supposedly shady deal with the White Water group which we were all subjected to in the mid-90's.

Something to watch is their Barak Obama category, as no doubt they'll publish further stories on him.

Next: How Long Will The Right Let Us Love Obama? gives us the question.. how long before the vast right wing conspiracy really lets loose with the cannons and sinks Obama? What of the fate of John Kerry, for whom the Swift Boat campaign was named. John Kerry came to the campaign full of zeal as a Vietnam veteran, but the Swift Boaters unleashed a series of lies which Kerry was unable to counter. And the stench of that sliming operation still clings to Kerry when he should really be honored for almost beating a sitting wartime President.

The article contains an interesting point about psychological manipulation.

And then there's Al Gore. Al Gore is one of the most remarkable leaders our country has had over the past twenty-five years. A Vietnam veteran, Congressman and Senator, Al Gore was visionary on Global Warming and the environment, actually did lead the development of the Internet, was an active Vice President fully participating in the administration that gave this country its finest years of the last forty.

Next, look at the background of Gore's opponent in the 2000 Presidential Election. And imagine that, remarkably, when all was said and done character emerged as the dominant theme of the 2000 campaign and it was Vice President Gore's character that was being called into question!

Just think about that for a minute - consider what kind of psychological manipulation of the public had to happen before that could be the case.

What kind of Character does Al Gore have? Consider his performance following the 2000 election. Rather than lead the country into a constitutional crisis he followed the letter of the law. He has moral standing, moral will, and on and on, far more than Bush and his cronies demonstrate.

So, I agree with that claim, that for it to have been Gore's character quality that was called into question, massive psychological manipulation of the public had to have been perpetrated. Which just calls to my mind the faked scandals of the Clinton era, because it was those scandals which dogged Gore as well. But most of that scandalry was either fake, propped up by false claims, or else so completely minor in comparison to the highly impeachable acts by the Bush Administration. Which is worse, to lie about sex or to lie about the justifications for a war?

Another form of this psychological manipulation, the depiction of the Democratic party as weak on national defense:

Did you know that George McGovern was a World War II bomber pilot? And remember, in the debate on Iraq, we have John Kerry, Jack Murtha, Max Cleland, Joe Sestak, Chris Carney, Patrick Murphy, Richard Holbrooke, Wesley Clark, and more - all veterans. Our party collects war heroes as leaders. Their leaders collect deferments. And yet? They're perceived as the party of National Security. Why? Because they have spent billions telling us that it is so.

He didn't mention Pres. Kennedy and his experiences as a PT Boat captain and his survival of his boat being shot out from under him.

To be sure the Republican party has some honest war heros. Dwight Eisenhower for one, and Pres. G.H.W.Bush (#41) for another. But the current crop of Republican leaders including the whole of the current administration has not one iota of actual military experience.

Senator Dodd acts to restore Habeas Corpus

Waycool! Senator Dodd of Connecticut has found some cajones, and has introduced a bill that would, among other things, restore Habeas Corpus. However the bill has a bunch of other aspects, so maybe we should carefully look at the rest of it to make sure he's not bringing in some nefarious other stuff under the guise of restoring something we all want restored.

Dodd Introduces Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act; Brings Terrorists to Justice, Honors America's Good Name

The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act is said by Dodd's web site to have these nice sounding characteristics.

• Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
• Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
• Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
• Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
• Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
• Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
• Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

Democrats sweep into power, Rumsfeld resigns, and Gates as new Defense Secretary

Maybe I'm too much of a geek but the name "Bob Gates" brings to mind another Gates who runs a certain evil software company who I do my best to avoid. Anyway, before one spends all their energy cheering the departure of Rumsfeld from power one ought to think about Bob Gates, his anointed replacement. It's been long enough since last hearing his name that I'd forgotten what he'd been involved with in the past. It seems he is another in the string of Bush appointments that veer to the dark side of the Force.

Fortunately Democracy Now has a long memory. Their show of November 9, 2006 is a great non-mainstream analysis of the power shift, and in particular remembering the prior history of Mr. Gates. When he was proposed as Director of Central Intelligence by GHW Bush (#41) he received more NO votes than all the prior DCI appointments before him. During the 1980's he was heavily involved in the impeachable Iran-Contra activities, that directly violated laws passed by Congress which directly demanded that Administration not do what they ended up doing. Oh, and to enrich the irony the Nicaraguan leader that the Reagan administration was fighting, Daniel Ortega, has just been re-elected as President of Nicaragua. And finally on the show they allege he was involved with politically skewed Intelligence, rather than presenting Intelligence that shows the Truth whatever the Truth actually is.

If true, and if this fellow is accepted by Congress, then we can look forward to a couple more years of irresponsible leadership at the Pentagon. Oh, and the Bush Administration wants this appointment to be handled by Congress during the "lame-duck" session that happens before the swearing in ceremonies in January. It is during this lame duck session that Congress is still Republican-controlled and despite the sweeping rejection of the Bush agenda, that isn't in legal effect until the new Congress is sitting.

The danger of voting for "Anybody but 'X'"

The Democrats have won the 2006 elections. Yay? In 2004 I made an interesting posting, The energy of "anybody but X" that seems even more appropriate today.

Okay, the Bush administration has done abysmally especially in the last two years. They go from one unconstitutional act to another. When will someone wake up and get the nerve to impeach these traitors to America? Finally with the Democrats taking control of Congress we could possibly see that happen, if they get up the courage to do so.

But, in the voters rage against the Bush administration .. what are they getting. This is clearly a vote against Bush and his failed policies. But .. what are we getting?

As I noted in 2004, if you vote against X you have not made a positive statement. There are a zillion people who are not GW Bush. But in your rush to rid yourselves of the Bush administration, have you instead ushered in a different set of crooks and liars?

Maybe you think all Politicians are crooks and liars, and it doesn't matter who's in charge. I like to think there are upstanding people in every profession, just as there are crooks and liars in every profession. While it seems the power of holding office tends to corrupt, not everybody falls prey to the enticing voice of the dark side. Some remain the upstanding people they were going into office.

What this leaves us with is still needing to be activists standing for the world we want to have around us. Rather than sit back and think, "We won, the Democrats are in power, they'll take care of everything" we should instead take the attitude of "We have an opportunity, with the sea change of power structure, to have real change happen, so let's work with the new power structure and cause change to happen".

Otherwise it's a "The King is dead, long live the King" situation where no real change happens, just a change of the names filling the grey pinstriped suits with red ties.

"Hacking Democracy", an HBO special looking into election fraud in the U.S.A.

Hacking Democracy is an HBO documentary showing the work of Black Box Voting to investigate the reliability of elections in the U.S.A. The special has been posted, in its entirety, on video.google.com which you can get to on the above link or view below. The special shows several astonishing things about electioneering in the U.S.A. and shows that the vote can be changed (hacked) surreptitiously. And the special shows suspicious behavior on the part of certain election officials.

If we wish our Democratic system to remain true to the will of the people, our elections must be fair and honest. We've seen time and again that in countries where elections are not honest, the people routinely are suppressed and abused by their governments. It is our duty as citizens of a Democracy to ensure the system represents our will.

In the 2000 election one astonishing result was in Volusia County, Florida, the election showed a negative vote total for Al Gore. Negative! That's ridiculous, the count should only come out positive because when a vote is cast it can only increase the total. How could one end up with negative numbers? But because the vote recount was ended in Florida before the recount was finished, that anomaly was not investigated.

In the 2004 election Black Box Voting filed Freedom of Information requests for the polling records from across the country, so that they could investigate the results in detail. One county they especially focussed on was Volusia County, and they found strange happenings. First the results "tapes" they were given were not the official record, but were printed two weeks after the election. They demanded the original results tapes, and were told those were at the County warehouse. So they went to the warehouse, and found that the workers there were in the process of throwing out some trash, trash that contained votes, election material, and the original results tapes. By federal law the results tapes are supposed to be kept preserved for 22 months, so why were they throwing them in the trash? More astonishingly the results tapes they found, in the trash, differed from the results tapes which the county claimed were the actual results.

In other words, Volusia County was at it again, apparently, reporting fraudulent results.

The documentary showed several ways which, on the Diebold voting machines, the vote results can be easily changed without any hint of tampering.

One way is to change the results database on the central tabulator computer. The votes are stored onto memory cards which are collected from precincts. On the election night the memory cards are then read into a central tabulator computer, and software on that computer tallies the results and reports the totals. This is pretty straightforward in concept. While the tabulating software has several checks and boundaries that prevent tampering, there is nothing to prevent tampering with the data files from outside that software. The data files are just some kind of database file, probably built around Access. One can double click on the database files and edit the results tables directly. Or one can write a program that directly modifies the file contents. Both methods were demonstrated in the documentary.

Another form of tampering is to rig the memory cards ahead of time. The documentary showed a small test election conducted by Black Box Voting using the voting machines owned by a different Florida county. They set up a test election, used a rigged memory card to record the election results, filled out a known number of optical scanned ballots with known results, ran the ballots through the machine, and ended up with a fraudulent result.

The Crisis in our Nations Pants

Okaaaay... we have recently had a revelation of a Congressman trying to have sex with the Pages who come to the Capital as youngsters to work in Politics. But this Congressman was hooked on having sex, and being a homosexual Congressman wanted sex with young men. This scandal has been grabbing a whole lotta attention in Washington DC and in the news media. As creepy a story this is, should we be distracted by it from other stories of more importance such as nuclear proliferation?

Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) has a funny bit here on this crisis. And a very illustrative look, through satire, on the real issues facing the country.

Such as the destruction of our liberties and American way of life by the Bush Administration.

I previously wrote a shocked and horrified post about this sex scandal. Today I'm seeing this in a larger perspective. Every so often a bit of news comes along which crashes the real news off the front page, and instead causes a mania about whatever fake news event is being promoted that week.

The real news right now? Congress destroyed Habeas Corpus! The NSA and other government agencies are illegally spying on Americans! The war in Iraq is illegal, was launched under false pretenses, has been continued under false pretenses, and is totally failing! The Taliban are regaining Afghanistan! Pakistan (our supposed ally) was involved with proliferating nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran, both of which countries we are threatening with military action!

All that going on, those extreme failures of the Bush Administration, and we have a sex scandal rocking the boat instead??????

Taxpayers for Common Sense

URL: 

Taxpayers for Common Sense

Description: 

Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) is an independent voice for American taxpayers. TCS is dedicated to cutting wasteful government spending and subsidies in order to achieve a responsible and efficient government that lives within its means.

Our vision is for a federal government that costs less and lives within its means. We seek to transcend ideological and partisan differences to build support for common sense reforms. How do we do it?
We work with Congress. TCS works extensively with elected officials from both political parties. TCS positions are often cited during floor debates and TCS testifies frequently before congressional committees.

Congressman Foley, Child Pornography and official hypocracy

GOP Accused Of Covering Up Rep. Foley Scandal It was recently revealed that former Congressman Mark Foley (Republican of Florida) has been engaging in sexually explicit messaging with former pages. These Pages are generally high school juniors, hence around 16 years old, who come to Washington to serve as assistants to politicians. Since these messages have been revealed he has resigned, and reportadly entered into some kind of treatment program, hence he is now a former Congressman.

Especially amusing (shocking really) is that Foley was co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and that Earlier this year President Bush signed legislation that Foley introduced to bolster penalties against sex offenders and increase efforts to target Internet predators as reported by Democracy Now (at the link above). That makes this another one of those strange twists of politics. He, as a Congressman, was active in legislation that would have penalized people like himself.

Who knew what when? is a blog entry based at the Houston Chronicle going over some of the conflicting claims. As was reported on Democracy Now, and in this blog entry, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert initially said the House/Republican Leadership had not known about this stories. But the truth is that Rep. Tom Reynolds had told Hastert about the complaints. Which leads one to believe the House/Republican Leadership is trying to cover this up.

House speaker asks Gonzales to probe lurid Foley case gives a lot of interesting details. Hastert has written a letter to Attorney General Gonzalez asking for a very thorough investigation that can include members of Congress. However the article quotes an FBI spokesperson saying they'll have to review whether they can conduct an investigation. One should remember that Congresspeople are immune to prosecution over various sorts of crimes, for some reason, and for that matter there is an issue of separation of powers between the branches of government so how can the Administrative branch of government hold an investigation against people in the Legislative branch?

The article contains quotes from several, Democrats primarily, decrying the obvious cover-up. Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, also called for an investigation of his party's leadership. "If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership," Shays said Sunday.

Rep. Foley was up for re-election and heavily favored to win. It would have been his seventh term. One possible theory is the Republican Leadership covered this up so they could retain the Republican seat .. e.g. let the news come out after the election so they know the seat is in Republican hands. As it is he has resigned, the Republicans in Florida are scrambling to find a replacement candidate. But a replacement candidate would have to be a write-in (presumably) and the history of write-in candidacies is very poor. So it looks like the Democratic challenger in this race has gotten a windfall.

How long did this coverup go on? The article says Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio Boehner learned about allegations against Foley from Rep. Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican, in the spring. So, um, that's about six months.

FBI to Examine Foley's E-Mails Covers more details. Along the lines of pondering just how long this cover-up has been going on, this article states most of the emails had been sent in 2003 and that an email sent in 2005 resulted in "a quiet warning to Foley to leave pages alone" and "the speaker did not dispute his colleague, and Hastert's office acknowledged that some aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the youth". Hurm, since they knew something was up for over a year what's going on?

Especially troubling is it appears the normal procedure is to refer such cases to a three-member panel, but in this case they left it to the Chair of that panel to confront Foley directly.

The article quotes a former House page said that at a 2003 page reunion, he saw sexually suggestive e-mails Foley had sent to another former page who said at the time "If this gets out, it will destroy him". But, why would that person not publicize those emails? Why wait?

Especially creepy is this:

Foley was known as an exceedingly friendly House member to young pages, most of whom are 16- and 17-year-old high school juniors who come to Washington for an intensive, year-long civics lesson. Unlike most House members, he memorized their names and talked politics with them during lulls in late-night sessions. Foley was the only House member to attend the Class of 2002's graduation, according to McDonald, and he wore a tuxedo.

Elsewhere it's stated that Foley was unmarried. So, isn't this the stereotypical naughty man who preys on young boys for sex? Wouldn't such a person go out of their way to do things like memorize their names and show up at a graduation ceremony?

The GOP's State Of Denial starts off by saying that Foley's sexual preferences were an open secret.

The New York Times and every major newspaper in Florida had been writing articles on the congressman's agonizingly inept attempts to remain closeted for years. Indeed, it was the embarrassing manner in which he had attempted to cloak his sexuality that prevented Foley from securing his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and again this year.

But, if his sexual preferences were an open secret, was the open secret inclusive of his fondness for young men?

Foley interest in pages seen in speeches Details excerpts from some of his speeches that illuminates his special interest in the Pages.

Analysis: What did GOP know about Foley?: Is an analysis of the effects of this revelation, including a rundown of the congress races that are probably affected. Factoid: Democrats need to gain 15 House seats and six in the Senate for control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

These are:

• Mark Foley versus challenger Tim Mahoney: Obviously this is a seat that's very likely to be lost to the Democratic Party. The Republicans have chosen a replacement candidate, state Rep. Joe Negron.
• Rep. Tom Reynolds versus challenger against Jack Davis: He played a role in the cover-up and he is up for re-election this year. The race has been "close" for months, so obviously this issue could easily tip the race.
• Rep. Deborah Pryce: Is said to be "facing questions" and is part of the House Leadership.
• Hastert, Boehner and others in leadership but not in close races, the ramifications could spread beyond November and into House leadership elections should Republicans hold the House

And a bit of history:

Three decades ago, Republican Richard M. Nixon was dogged by the question of what did the president know about the break-in of Democratic headquarters at the Watergate and when did he know it.

In November 1974, Democrats capitalized on the scandal, seizing scores of congressional seats as the Watergate class swept to office.

The Road to Clean Elections

In the U.S. candidates for office are routinely bought and paid for. For years and years U.S. Presidential campaigns, and especially news media coverage, have been more about who raised the most money, and not about issues and reaching voters. In the 2000 election cycle on the Republican side the candidates were clearly chosen based on their money raising, with George W. Bush having a home-grown advantage in that regard. This is dirty, and it leads to politicians who owe favors to the lobbyists who've brought them their money. When a politician meets with a lobbyist who is pushing for some legislation etc, that politician knows that in 2 yrs when its time to run again they may have to go to that lobbyist for more campaign money.

Is this democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people? Nope. It's pandering.

If we are going to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the election system must change. There's a number of important changes, and election finance is one of them.

Election finance reform to remove any form of private donation may be the vital change to make. If a candidate takes any private donations, the candidate may feel some obligations to the donors. Possibly only by removing private donations will candidates be free to actually represent the people they are supposed to represent. Otherwise they are, as today, clearly feeling pressured to represent corporate interests because they're the ones with the money.

This video covers a "clean election" system put into place in Arizona and Maine. The same system is on the ballot in California as Proposition 89.

89now.org is the home of the California ballot initiative.

buckthesystemnow.org is doing fund raising for proposition 89.

publicampaign.org is the national movement.

Complete 9/11 Timeline

URL: 

Complete 9/11 Timeline

Description: 

Open-Content project managed by Paul Thompson. This is a series of events, researched and recorded through the Cooperative Research web site, of the precursors to the September 11, 2001 attack, the events of that day, and resulting events. It is extremely detailed and comprehensive.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the American People

President Eisenhower is famous for many things, including his last speech as President. In that speech he talked long about the morality of modern times, and warned of unwarranted power gained by the military industrial complex. I think our current situation is a direct result of the growth of that very military industrial complex. A big aspect of the problem if this stupid illegal war in Iraq is the war profiteering, of which Halliburton is a prime example.

During the G.H.W.Bush Administration, when Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary, he caused plans to be made around outsourcing military functions to contractors. And then fast forward 10 years, and as Vice President he gets to implement the plans he had made before. And in the intervening years he was CEO of the company that's the major recipient of those very outsourced military functions, Halliburton, of which he still owns zillions of shares of stock.

Anyway, back to Eisenhower.

A recent movie was made which used his final address as its theme: "Why we Fight", a movie you must see It's an excellent movie, and as I said before you must see it. I absolutely require that you see it. That movie is now available on DVD: Why We Fight

This is a complete version of Eisenhower's speech:

Washington Insider says Powell's Speech was a Hoax

February 2003 and Colin Powell appears before the United Nations to lay the case for the subsequent invasion of Iraq. A big multimedia presentation purporting to show secret evidence that Iraq's government was full of bad people, and that counter to United Nations resolutions and embargo's Iraq had managed to collect several forms of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear, biological, chemical, rockets, unmanned aircraft, etc. The problem is that it was all a lie. A lie which has not received much official attention.

The following video allows Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's senior aide at the time, to speak out about this. He feels like he was part of a hoax played upon America, the International Community, and the United Nations.


I've covered this story before:

The "case" for War: was written in the summer of 2003. I took each point Powell laid before the United Nations and showed that, near as I could tell, every single one of them was known to be false. Further that the administration knew at the time that these points were false. But they put Powell up on the international stage and had him say those things.

Now, if I, an individual with a busy life, can discover in 2003 that everything Powell said was false -- why the heck hasn't the media figured this out ??? Why hasn't the media made a big stink about this???

Is the Gulf War II Impeachable?: Consider the previous President. He was hounded by the press, and eventually impeached for lying about sex. Consider this President, being given carte blance while he commits high crimes and misdeameanors of hugely greater scope and magnitude than lying about sex.

The Man who Knew: More about the Lies: I wrote in October 2003, "The steps to create a war are ones which ought to be taken carefully, because people will be dieing as a result of your decision. Thousands of people have died since the decision to launch this war. I would wish that the claims he made that day were true, and that I did not have to be writing this. I would rather know that those people had died in a just cause, not a misbegotten lie."

"being able to have some freedom to be an individual rather than just a puppet."

Kansas Republicans evolve -- into Democrats: This is a story about the hard-core conservatives in Kansas, and a schism in the Kansas Republican Party. For some of the Republicans in Kansas the hard-core line being followed by some is too extreme. So they are ditching out of the Republican party and joining the Democratic party. This switchover is being led by the Governor, Kathleen Sebelius.

One factoid to consider is the geographic localities at play here. Most of the switchers, that is most of the moderates who feel out of place in todays Republican party, are from Johnson County. In case you don't know Kansas geography, Johnson County is just outside Kansas City, just south of Kansas City Kansas, and is the home to Overland Park and Lenexa. The local high-tech boom in the Kansas City area is largely occuring in Johnson County, and Johnson County is also a well-to-do bedroom community for Kansas City itself.

For what it's worth, I grew up in Lenexa and Overland Park but it's been 35 years since I was last there. I'm sure a few things have changed. The article describes Johnson County as "cupcake land", a dizzying maze of highways and shopping malls and upscale suburbs. Yup, that sounds like my memory of Johnson County alrighty.

This is a longish article with many ideas to ponder:

"There's been a long series of Republican infighting over issues that do not affect people's daily lives," Parkinson explains. "I'm 49. I got tired of fighting about whether Charles Darwin was right when I was 14 or 15. I'm not spending the rest of my life on that issue."

This theme is returned to over and over in the article. There are these fundamentalist Christians who call themselves Conservative and have taken over the Republican Party. They are intent on battling the good fight for their right to insist that Charles Darwin was wrong, that Evolution is just a theory, that the Bible says God created everything, that the Bible is right, and perhaps there is some Intelligence at work Designing the Universe, oh and that God is highly offended by Abortion and that even though God is immensely loving he is going to damn us all to hell for being sinners especially if we take part in baby killing rituals like Abortion.

Whew, that was a lot of memes to go through. But it seems these moderates are sick and tired of fighting over those issues and want to deal with real problems. They are fiscally conservative, not socially conservative. Fiscal conservatives are more concerned with balancing the books etc. Oh, and these people value education very highly.

So, for example, when social conservatives won control of the state Board of Education and started injecting Intelligent Design and other fundamentalist Christian ideals into state eductation, that offended these moderates.

An interesting factoid is that 1/5th of the population of Kansas lives in Johnson County.

This seems to follow a split you see if you closely examine the voting results in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Don't look at state level results, but look at the results per county within each state. Overwhelmingly it is the urban and suburban areas that have been voting for the Democratic presidential candidate. Not in every state and not in every urban area, but the vast majority of the times the rural areas in each state is voting for the Republican candidate, and the urban/suburban areas are voting for the Democratic candidate.

Johnson County, being suburban, is just following that pattern.

Interesting ...

Rumsfeld's attack on American Dissent

The Neocons badly need something to bolster the popularity of their failed war on terror. The war is without moral merit and is going extremely badly. They are failing at achieving the first goal, flipping Iraq to become a moderate Democracy, while at the same time the schedule dicttates they enter into an expensive and foolish war against Iran. The idiots are steering the world into believing Iran is an utterly evil and dangerous state which needs to be destroyed, just like four years ago they steered the world into believing Iraq was an utterly evil and dangerous state needing to be destroyed.

But we since learned that Iraq was a feeble state who had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks. Yet it was the spectre of that attack, and the spectre of mushroom clouds, which fogged the wisdom of the American people and led the U.S. into this folly of a war.

And, in this setting we have Secretary of State Rumsfeld insulting the Americans who disagree with his policies, calling us Nazi Appeasers. In Address at the 88th Annual American Legion National Convention: As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tuesday, August 29, 2006 he talked to the American Legion about Mom and Apple Pie type issues, and in the middle of the speech he invoked memories of World War II saying:

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

So, um, let's see if I get this straight. We're not allowed to practice dissent? If we practice dissent then we're appeasers of the ilk who allowed Hitler to become strong, who allowed England to become weak in the face of a growing military strength in Germany?

Well, gosh, I think it's dissent which makes this country strong. Especially when you have government leaders as inept as the ilk of Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, who have lied to us at every turn, and who have totally mismanaged this war they foisted on us. Not only did they lead us into an illegal war, lying to us the whole way, their mismanagement of the war has cost untold grief and excess suffering of the Iraqi people. Further that excess suffering has only served the cause of the Islamic Militants, turning the people of Iraq against the U.S. because the people of Iraq see us as occupiers. What is the national duty of anybody who loves their country? To fight and drive out occupiers!

In any case, let me offer you a very potent critique of Rumsfeld (transcript youtube.com):

Rumsfeld's speech is simply part of a larger effort by the Administration to focus attention on the danger of "Islamic Fascism".

Republicans target 'Islamic fascism': Gives an interesting overview of various statements by political leaders about the danger of Islamic Fascism.

It's interesting to read some of these statements and ponder how they apply to the speaker just as strongly as it presumably does to these Islamic Fascists.

"The key is that all of this violence and all of the threats are part of one single ideological struggle, a struggle between the forces of freedom and moderation, and the forces of tyranny and extremism," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters traveling with Bush aboard Air Force One.

Uh... Let me see, the Bush Administration has been routinely tromping on the Freedom of the American people. How? Warrantless wiretapping, in violation of U.S. law for a start. And there's the increasingly invasive searches at airports, and in all other aspects of our lives.

Moderation? This administration is anything but moderate! They are more at the extreme conservative edge of American political life. They are the very definition of extremism, of the Christian Fundamentalist variety.

I think what we're facing is a war between two sorts of Fundamentalist religions. Namely, Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism. Both seem to think they have a monopoly on The Truth, and that their religion and practices are clearly superior to everybody elses.

Discussing the emotional impact and strength of using the word Fascist, the article says this:

"It helps dramatize what we're up against. They are not just some ragtag terrorists. They are people with a plan to take over the world and eliminate everybody except them," Black said.

Uh... Let me see, the Neocons (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) had published a plan in the 1990's through The Project for a New American Century. That plan? Well, their stated aim was that as the Worlds Primary Superpower, the United States had a moral obligation to create peace in the world. The form of that peace? It was to begin with the Middle of the Middle East, and reshape the Middle East to have Moderate Democracies rather than the extremism which has been growing popular there. They would, uh, begin with Iraq, and topple the government of Iraq. Then after being greeted with open arms and showers of flowers by the greatful Iraqi's, and after establishing a moderate Democracy in Iraq, they would move on to either Syria or Iran. The establishment of a moderate democracy in Iraq would prove enticing to the other countries in the Middle East, and between toppling governments and the allure of moderate democracy, the other governments of the Middle East would too join the ranks of moderate democracies.

Seems to me that is a plan to take over the world and to eliminate every ideology except their own.

And just who was it who concocted that plan? It was the Neocons, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.

The new GOP buzzword: Fascism

Tyrrell: The Rumsfeld Horripilation

Democrats raise Rumsfeld attacks to put GOP on defensive

UPDATE (Sep 4, 2006): Frank Rich, a columnist with the NY Times, wrote another scathing rebuttal along the same lines. (NY Times Select, Mother Jones reprint)

It's interesting, he notes, how Rumsfeld hit the nail on the head contrasting Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill and how it relates to the current era. Neville Chamberlain pretty much ignored the rise of the German war machine, and prevented Great Britain from arming itself in response. Chamberlain wanted to appease Germany hoping that would prevent later wars. At the same time Churchill was a hawk, calling for Great Britain to prepare itself for war, etc. History showed Churchill to be more prescient.

Rumsfeld, in his speech, wants to place himself and the others in the administration in the role of Churchill. He wants to claim their position as being prescient, warning against this danger from Islamo-Fascism. He wants to call the rest of us appeasers who will allow the Islamo-Fascists to eventually destroy us.

But, as Frank Rich reminds ... there is an interesting juxtaposition to consider. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain was famously photographed warmly shaking Hitlers hand in Munich. In 1983 Donald Rumsfeld was famously photographed warmly shaking Saddam Hussein's hand in Baghdad. In both cases the governments in question knew very well the evildoings of the person in question, it being very well known that Saddam Hussein was a very nasty ruler with a lot of nasty deeds to his credit even at the time Rumsfeld met him. But did Rumsfeld do anything about those nasty deeds? No, Rumsfeld was there on a mission to reestablish diplomatic relations between Iraq and the U.S. so that Iraq would be aided in its disastrous war against Iran.

Who is the appeaser?

How can we trust the guys we have leading our country?

On the separation of Church and State (in the U.S.)

Katherine Harris is running for Senate in Florida, and was interviewed by the Florida Baptist Witness. Who's Katherine Harris? She was President Bush's campaign manager for Florida, while at the same time was the Secretary of State for Florida. The Secretary of State oversees elections, and of course isn't it an interesting conflict of interest that the person overseeing the election is also the campaign manager for one of the major election contestants? And isn't it interesting that not only did this pattern happen in Florida in 2000, it also happened in Ohio in 2004.

But, I digress.

The important part of this interview is:

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. So it’s really important that members of the church know people’s stands. It’s really important that they get involved in campaigns. I said I’m going to run a campaign of integrity. I’m not going to run it like all of the campaigns that I’ve seen before…. And you know, it’s hard to find people that are gonna behave that way in a campaign and be honorable that way in a campaign. But that’s why we need the faithful and we need to take back this country. It’s time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit. And that’s why I’ve gone to churches and I’ve spoken in four churches, five churches a day on Sunday and people line up afterwards because it’s so important that they know. And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back?

So, um, it's clear from the article and her background that she is one of these Conservative Republicans who loudly proclaim their Christianity so that everybody knows that's their faith.

The question I have for her is, since when did anybody say that people who practice a Religion were disallowed from participating in politics?

That has never happened. Never was it disallowed for the Religious to also practice Politics. Never. So why does she claim this happened? Oh, wait, her association with G.W. Bush probably makes it easier for her to be a liar.

The principle of the Separation of Church and State is not that Religion is disallowed from Politics. It's that the State cannot establish a State Religion, and that the State cannot favor one religion over another.

Maybe in Florida "everybody" goes to church on sunday, and "everybody" is Christian ... actually, I highly doubt this ... but that pattern isn't true everywhere in the U.S. In California the white folk are a minority, and there are many non-Christian religions that are widely practiced in California. And, I'm not talking about New Age weirdos here (of which I am one) but Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, etc. All those are ancient religions with long histories to them, sometimes longer history than Christianity.

Given that, why should there be favor of one religion over another? Why should the State give a rats ass about which religion someone practices or which religion is better than the other? Obviously it's a matter of personal preference which religion is better, or which religion suits one person better than it does another. And just as obviously the State should butt out of such distinctions.

But, to read Katherine Harris and her ilk, they want to establish Christianity as the dominant religion and have the State embody Christianity as the dominant religion.

Um, this is the United States. A country founded on a group who was escaping religious persecution. Why would our founding fathers have wanted the United States to engage in religious persecution? That's what it would be if the State were to begin giving preference for one religion over another, it would be a form of religious persecution.

The United States I grew up with does not practice religious persecution, but instead gives space for all religions to be worshipped on an equal footing.