by Steve Osborn

A letter to Rep. Larsen.

The United States lives under the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. Those documents are the core of our existence as a nation.

When you and the other members of the administration took your offices, you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That oath was taken by everybody from Mr. Bush on down and includes Senators and Congresspeople.

When a treaty has been ratified, it becomes a part of the body of United States law. The Constitution says that law will be obeyed.

We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners, therefore we are bound by that convention.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees, amongst other things, privacy to the individuals of the Untied States in their homes, communications, thoughts, etc.

It is imperative that you as representatives of We the People uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution you promised to protect and defend. You cannot permit Mr. Bush and his minions to continue to wiretap, eavesdrop, and open our communications without warrant, and you cannot permit any force of the United States to torture, isolate, imprison without trial, nor hold trials where the defendant cannot hear and respond to the charges and evidence against him.

Do not go along with the Bush regime's desire to retroactively OK all of these abuses, primarily to protect him from war crimes trials and increase his hold upon the citizens of the United States. Doing so will make you an accessory after the fact and likewise guilty of supporting war crimes.

Remember Nuremberg. The world, with us at the forefront, said that these sort of abuses would not be tolerated in a civilized society, and that "I was just following orders" was not an adequate defense. This goes all the way to the top.

Please think about this, then do what is right.

We, personally, will not vote for anyone that will excuse these abuses against human rights and the United States Constitution.

by Barbara H. Peterson

On December 24, 2007, I received a media release from the Lakota Nation. Here is an excerpt:

Lakota Freedom delegate and Oglala Lakota Cante Tenza - Strongheart Warrior Society leader Canupa Gluha Mani (Duane Martin Sr.) issued the following statement after discussion with the Strongheart Grandmothers:

The whole Lakota declaration of withdrawal from the treaty is vested on the power of the Lakota people and our children.

When we undertook the process of announcing the withdrawal, the capacity was far greater than most people anticipated about an individual. But throughout our history, the people have never excluded anyone within our own lifeway and when it becomes a listener's view that its about one individual, one individual does not represent the Nation itself, the Nation represents the individual, and that is Lakota.

The withdrawal is for the people, the Elders, mothers, fathers, and the children. 

Throughout our history and through the enforcement of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Congress said they would oversee the provisions of 1868 (Fort Laramie Treaty), but they failed to do so. Some minor provisions were kept, but overall the treaty was not honored. Because if the treaty was honored, we would not have this colonial catastrophe of alcoholism, drug abuse and poverty and we wouldn't have the overall high incarceration rate of the male and female in the prison populations. This leads to our children being taking away by Social Services, which puts our children out of balance from learning the traditional lifeway.

When the children can reconnect with who they are, they come back to the process of knowing what is Lakota in the true point of view. In this true point of view, Lakota is about being free and left alone, so we can govern and save our own with the teachings of the Animal Nations. (Reprinted with permission from Naomi Archer, Communications Liaison)

The struggle is for the freedom of a people who have been systematically slaughtered, subjugated, and extorted since America's beginnings. They are now declaring that they will take it no longer. The Lakota hit rock bottom, and are coming up fighting.

Shortly after receiving the media release, I interviewed Canupa Gluha Mani, who was instrumental in initiating this movement. Canupa Gluha Mani is an individual who believes that "a nation is never at its best when elders and children are not included."

He spoke to me in Lakota, which translated is: "In the future, when you stand, your people, do not forget about them." We spoke about how America has forgotten about its elders and children, just as it has forgotten about the native population it subjugated and tried to destroy. The Lakota nation has not forgotten. Canupa Gluha Mani's grandfather used to say, " When you remove a people from the forest, the people of the forest become unknown. What becomes unknown, you want to destroy."

This profound truth has guided Canupa Gluha Mani throughout his life, and directs his path towards truth and fulfillment for his nation. This truth has also given him a unique understanding regarding why his people are "the only human race not allowed to sit on the council of nations. That is genocide."

The American Indian has been subjected to a systematic pogrom of genocide ever since the white man set foot in America.

Canupa Gluha Mani spoke about how the United States government has not kept its promises to the Indian people. "If you give an oath, stand in it" (Canupa Gluha Mani). These broken promises are the impetus for secession from the U.S. The treaties were not honored. Promises were broken.

He also spoke about healing, and how this withdrawal from the United States is actually a step towards healing. This healing is not for the Lakota tribe only, but for all nations, and he told me that he hopes that this movement will be a blueprint for other Indian nations to follow.

The Lakota people have taken a big step towards healing their nation, as well as the entire American nation. I stand in awe of this brave people who are doing what most just talk about. Canupa Glupa Mani ended our conversation with this note: "We will speak again."

Keep pushing forward, my brother. I am with you in the return to Turtle Island.

Copyright 2007, Barbara H. Peterson

by John Thurman

The following links should put to rest any questions regarding the merger of Canada, America and Mexico!  The Democrat and Republican politicians [with the exception of Doctor Ron Paul] have been lying to the American people for the last three years about this merger.
 
Who, then dare we trust to be the president of America other than Ron Paul?  There is no doubt that within the first year of his inauguration (1) legislation will be enacted to due away with the current foreign policy and bring our military  service personal home to their families and then  (2) The IRS and the so-called "federal reserve" will be looking for another country to rob!!
 
Don't be surprised if the so-called "federal" communication's commission commonly referred to as the [FCC] apparatus which controls the oligarchy ownership of the media will be thoroughly investigated and most likely be re-instituted.  Some of them might even be jailed and/or deported like their former Soviet Union counterparts!
 
If, you ever wondered why you have rarely seen Ron Paul mentioned in the media; it's because less than ten (10) people and their inter-locking corporations, now control most of the radio, television and newspapers in all the Fifty States of America.
 
These elitist are well aware of what will happen to their control if a true patriot and Constitutionalists is elected to the become President.  They too will have to look for another unsuspecting and trusting people of whom they can take advantage.

Click on the following links:
The North American Union is well underway and has been in the planning stages for many years.  The sovereignty of these three countries (Canada, USA, and <exico) will merge and this will no longer be the United States of America. 

The first video link is a very short introduction.  The next two were created following Ron Paul's disclosures.  If interested in a more academic lecture on this project We can send other links.
 
NAFTA Superhighway Ron Paul's Imagination part 1 of 2

NAFTA Superhighway Ron Paul's Imagination part 2 of 2

by Cliff Carson

Comment to an Article by Carson Dugal "Privatizing the Public Road System" OpEdNews; 12-24-2007

To take what is mine and sell to another over my objections, even when they claim that it is for the greater good, is still thievery, plain and simple.  In Arkansas and I assume in other states, it has become legal to take private property, by the doctrine of eminent Domain, and sell to an entity that can generate greater tax revenues for the state from the same property, than the current owner in its current use. 

This thievery is represented as a "good for the people".  It's easy to see why it's good for the Corporation, seeing how it benefits me is a very murky thing indeed.

But the right of property is a guaranteed right of our Constitution isn't it?

As is always the case, a policy formulated by a Government, initially for good (Dams, Roads, etc.) can denigrated by unscrupulous people in power, i.e., seized by Corporate interests, and you and I both know that those Corporations will make a profit from the transaction, no matter what it costs you. 

Theoretically no business can operate cheaper and more for the good of its members than an entity owned by those members whose "Non-Profit" policy of operation is for the good of its using members.  The policy of  "for profit" Corporations is garnered profit from external sources and if some of the membership purchase the service, that is just incidental and not a necessity for a Corporation to continue to exist. 

Any utility paid for by taxpayers, by all rights belong to the taxpayers, should be run by the taxpayers, as a "Non-Profit" enterprise and no Corporation can provide that service to those taxpayers as efficiently or cheaper to those users - the taxpayer.

by John Thurman

This article regarding the efforts of Ron Paul compiles one to dig deeper in order to understand why thousands of Americans are drawn to him. 

The other candidates and the media are puzzled as to how and why he is getting so much attention from all these people?  To their question he continues to exclaim, "It is not that they are drawn to me---but they are seeking the message and promises of the Constitution." 
 
Note: In the event you have not recently read the Constitution or don't have a copy, you can find it here.
 
The cost of a pocket-size booklet in 2000 was a $1.00 Federal Reserve Note.  Due to the declining value of the Federal Reserve currency it is now $2.75 to citizens within the U.S.  The International price is $3.85.
 
For whatever reason, most of us were not compelled nor encouraged in the government controlled educational system to read [or] study our Constitution.  Now, after the problems we are facing as a nation, we can clearly read in that document what the Founding Fathers were trying to shield us from experiencing. 

For your consideration:  The good Doctor St. Luke in the 9th Chapter of his report encourages us to examine some important observations he made in his Book.  Could it be that Doctor Paul has considered the Good Doctor's prognosis of our troubled times?

Hear Dave Lindorff make the case for impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and talks about the steps that are being taken to lay the groundwork for the imposition of martial law, in a talk given Oct. 21 in West Hartford, CT.

This program was organized by Connecticut activists Marge and David Schneider. The recording was produced by Dori Smith of WHUS Radio in Mansfield, CT.

by Cliff Carson

On propeller the other day, I came across a story, "Officer accused of stealing $1M in coke." This reminded me of a situation in Arkansas a few years ago where the head of the District Narco Group turned out to be the Drug Lord in his Night Job.  And what got him caught was stealing from the evidence locker.

He was known for marrying young women, then before long came the divorce (he was a wife beater) and it seemed his great joy in life was to visit his ex's and beat the crap out of them  - regularly.  He was always able to get away with the beatings because of who he was.  

His downfall came when one day he decided to go beat up on his ex who lived in Hot Springs.  While he was at her home whaling the daylights out of her, some Hot Springs cops went to calm him down and get him away from the scene. 

While they were at the home one of the policemen noticed a "Brick" wrapper stamped with the evidence number code. Since the head of Narco and his #1 Deputy were the only two who had keys, they were interested in asking the ex where she got the cocaine that came in the wrapper.

She proceeded to tell them that when she and the head man were married they would steal evidence from the locker that was confiscated from drug dealers who paid the "price" for it to get lost.  Of course with no evidence they wouldn't get prosecuted.  Investigation found that all the ex's were happy to testify since they were tired of getting the crap kicked out of them.  Once the investigation got underway, it really got ugly. 

Last I heard he was in the Iron Bar hotel as a guest of the State.  Should have hung him.  Several murders might have gone down because of him.  Two murders are described (and an attempted cover-up by officials) in the book "The Boys on the Tracks" by Mara Leveritt. 

They just might have come from his orders.  But that was never proven.  One of the boys lived a couple of blocks from my wife and I.  I recommend this book for anyone who is not squeamish. 

by Jerome Grossman

Forgive me for pursuing waterboarding torture now that the subject has slipped from public attention. I can't let it go because there is an outside chance that one of my ancestors was a victim of waterboard torture 700 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition.

That was pure evil then, it is pure evil now.

Beyond that motivating factor, I may have surmised an explanation for the illegal destruction of the videotapes by the CIA of interrogations of prisoners during which extreme methods were used, including prolonged exposure to cold, heat, nudity, physical discomfort, and waterboarding.

In waterboarding, water is poured over a prisoner's mouth and nose to produce a feeling of suffocation. Sometimes, in the absence of restraining equipment, the prisoner's head is pushed into a toilet until he says "uncle" or "Osama bin Laden" or whatever confession is sought by the torturers.

According to intelligence officials, interrogation tapes were destroyed out of concern for the physical and legal safety of CIA agents who appear on the tapes. However, the physical danger would be nil as long as the tapes remained in the possession of the CIA; the legal exposure would be protected by the secret legal opinions of the Justice Department that waterboarding and other pressures are not torture and are lawful acts.

These opinions rely on the President's wartime powers, enabling him to contravene the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual which protect prisoners of war.

Let me suggest alternative explanations for the unauthorized destruction of the videotapes, destruction in violation of government regulations and a specific court order. Isn't it likely that the repeated use of waterboarding that brings the prisoner to the verge of suffocation could actually have resulted in death by drowning or heart attack or fright?

In that case, destroying the tape would be a cover-up.

Another possibility is that the tapes might reveal that the punishing techniques were not effective. President Bush and other government spokesmen have claimed that CIA harsh interrogation has produced crucial information but experienced FBI agents have opposed the use of coercive techniques as counterproductive and unreliable.

For the tapes to decide these differences, they would have to prove that accurate information was obtained, information important for operations. If the tapes did not make the case, then the tapes had to be destroyed to protect the careers of those who've made wrong decisions.

The moral and legal questions about torture cannot be put aside. For generations, Americans have been appalled and sickened by the use of torture by other countries. We like to think that America is above such reprehensible conduct.

It will take a thorough housecleaning and change in policy to restore our self respect, the first step in achieving the respect of the people of the rest of the world.

by Steve Osborn

After sending my last comment on political correctness and hate crime legislation, I got to thinking. You can legislate "correct action" if the penalties are sufficiently draconian, but you cannot change the way a person thinks.

What this new hate crime legislation can do is keep all frustrations and feelings bottled up inside people with no means of expression, until it finally breaks out in automatic weapons fire in a mall, a school, or from a tower.

Our nation is getting sicker and more repressed every day and the outlets are systematically being closed off. You tie down a safety valve and eventually the boiler is going to blow.

We can create change for the better, but not through repression and restrictive legislation. We have to work on teaching people love, empathy, compassion and charity. Only when one can put himself in another's place, can he truly understand that person and his actions.

We the Sheeple seem to have lost that particular grace.

All of the great teachers and the great religions have said in one form or another, "Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you." A simple concept, but apparently so hard to grasp in this day and age.

by Cliff Carson

Isn't it amazing how things can get screwed around?  Across the Nation in 1957 Central High School became the focus for resistance to School Integration.  What probably 999 of every 1,000 Americans probably don't know is that in 1954 after the May 17, Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court Decision, a man who would later be vilified over the Desegregation fiasco, ran for and was elected as Governor of the State of Arkansas on a plank of submitting a plan of Desegregation so that the transition to desegregation would be orderly and smooth. 

Four days after the Supreme Court decision the school boards in Fayetteville and Sheridan announced that they would desegregate in the fall of 1954.  On the desegregation plank, Orval E. Faubus was elected Governor, but before he even was elected, the first Arkansas school was integrated (actually it was the first school in any of the old Confederate States) on Aug 23, 1954 in Charleston, Arkansas when 11 black students were enrolled.

On May 24th of 1955, the Little Rock School Board and Superintendent Virgil T. Blossom, disclosed their plan to desegregate all Little Rock Schools.  This was 2 ½ years before the 1957 blow-up.  On July 14, 1955 North Little Rock's School Board adopted a plan to desegregate at the High School level in the fall of 1957.  Hoxie, Arkansas was the third Arkansas School system to integrate on July 11th, 1955.

The Virgil Blossom Plan was submitted to assure that all schools in Arkansas would be completely desegregated by 1963.  On August 28th, 1956, U. S. District Judge John E. Miller upheld the Little Rock School Board's desegregation plan. 

So what was the problem?  All the schools in Arkansas were to be integrated by 1963.  And the plan had been approved by the United States Courts.  On September 25th 1956 Adlai Stevenson a Democratic Presidential candidate campaigning in Little Rock's McArthur Park, said the Courts desegregation order was correct and asked Arkansans for peaceful compliance. 

On April 29th 1957, The U. S. Appellate Court uphold the previous August's District Court Approval of the Little Rock School Board's desegregation plan after a challenge to the plan was brought to the court by Black interveners.  Meanwhile North Little Rock, Ft. Smith, and yes Little Rock Central, announced plans for desegregation of their High Schools in the fall of 1957.  So why did Little Rock Central have to be forcefully integrated in the fall of 1957?

Well it appears there's money to be made in lawsuits, and rather than let the integration proceed peacefully, law firms recognized the bonanza awaiting since the determination was made that if a desegregation suit was brought, then the lawyers would be paid -win or lose.  You just can't beat a deal like that.  And as of today December 21, 2007, the same law firms are trying to keep lawsuits going after 50 years of integration. 

Several Millionaire Lawyers have been made from these lawsuits.  What fuels the fire is that fact where any entity bringing a (Now Civil Rights lawsuit) gets to collect fees and expenses whether or not their suit prevails.  So there is no incentive to try to end lawsuits even though integration has been accomplished.  Kind of like the Private armies in Iraq, the incentive is to keep the war going, that's how the money is made. 

This week, even though North Little Rock School desegregation has been ruled complete and compliant since in the 90's, there are firms trying to keep the suits going, because there's money in those suits.  The schools are just shells of their former academic reputations just as city schools across the Nation have become dangerous places for children to try to get an education. And the education with few exceptions is an inferior education. 

Private schools are the future.  Greed destroyed the schools.  Greed is always the great destroyer; our current Administration has proven that.

by Steve Osborn

I got a lot of stuff asking me to support the hate crime legislation, which sounded good to me. Make it illegal to hang a black from a tree, or bomb a synagogue, or throw a Molotov cocktail through a church window. I thought those things were already illegal, but what the hell...

Then I started reading the legislation. A mere thought, expressed where a stranger might overhear you, is a punishable hate crime, if it is critical of another ethnicity or sexual orientation. Printing and passing out a leaflet expressing a non-politically correct point of view will be punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Modern America says, "If I do not agree with what you say, I will defend the State's putting you to death for saying it."

Apparently, if this stuff is passed, no thought, expressed or written, no opinion of anything or anybody, if expressed or written, is exempt from being a hate crime, if someone wishes to claim it as such. And, for God's sake, don't ever make a joke!

If I weren't 70, and too poor to move, I would leave this country, and take my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights with me to remind me of what we once had. It would make a nice curio.

If this crap passes, I imagine many of us will be prime targets for what we have written trying to awaken the American Sheeple.

Perhaps we'll be in the same camp. At least we'll have somebody intelligent to talk to.

by Michael Boldin

Russell Cole had an excellent post over at the Midwest Populist Party website this past weekend, Time Magazine's False Characterization of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy.  In it, he discusses the difference between what Time calls "isolationism" and what the reality of Paul's position is - "non-interventionism." 

Here's an excerpt:

In actuality, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist; which is certainly a marked distinction from the foreign policy philosophy of an isolationist. Ron Paul does not want America to look inward, not taking an interest and a role in geopolitical affairs. Rather, Paul is opposed to a foreign policy that is modeled upon an international activist programme, whereby America feels obliged to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, even if through military force.

We have suffered - for the last 6 years - under a Presidential regime that has acted belligerently toward other nations, and has, indeed, militarily invaded non-aggressor states in order to install regimes that are favorable to the United States. It is precisely this militarism, which is the hallmark of the Bush Administration, to which Ron Paul is opposed.

Repeatedly, Ron Paul has clarified his position - that he wants to talk with other nations, trade with them, and engage them - but he doesn't want to use America's military might all around the globe.  In fact, he's calling for bringing home all US troops - from every country (it's currently over 130 countries worldwide).

The only point that I think should be added is the fact that this kind of foreign policy existed well-before the Bush Administration took power.  It's been the same, in varying degrees, under virtually every administration for the past 5-6 decades.  From Korea to Vietnam, to Panama, Libya, Iraq and more - it's been the policy of American presidents to invade for far too long.

I think Thomas Jefferson may have said it best:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

by Paul Kemp

In America, we're spoiling our kids with presents on Christmas Day.  We love our children and would do anything to protect them.
 
How come the Religious Right are absolutely gaga about preventing abortion, but most somehow don't blink at killing children every day in Iraq in the course of a war the President says is necessary? 

Are these people schizophrenic?  Is it a racial thing?  Or are they hypnotized so easily to believe that Dubya is doing God's Will, so whatever he says to do is all right?
 
Does anyone ask, WWJD? anymore?  Has some Bible scholar found the lost exception to "Thou Shalt Not Kill?"
 
Let's take America back from the religious extremists and give Iraqis the gift of peace.

by Cliff Carson

Elisa Massimino, the Washington Director for Human Rights First, was on C-Span this past Friday December 21, 2007.  I didn't catch all of her appearance, coming in as she was speaking of the torturing to death of detainees by American Forces.  It grabbed my attention since this was the subject of a recent article of mine, "The Evil that Men Do."

She took the calls from Republicans and Democrats, etc. with almost all of the Republican callers defending Bush and the use of Torture.  My question is how could any moral person and especially one that calls themselves a Christian, condone torture of human beings plus the death and destruction brought about by the Bush bunch through their lies and deceptions to start this war? 

Such a position is beyond reason.

Ms. Massimino said there were over a hundred documented deaths of detainees while in the hands of the American forces.  She said nothing about the hundreds who have just disappeared with no explanation.  Also she said there was actually one detainee who was tortured to death at Abu Gharib but I didn't hear her speak his name. 

In case she didn't, one for sure was Hamad Al Jamadi on November 4, 2003. 

Of course she didn't mention any who died whose names were unknown (and there were several), and she was even wrong about the "one" case.  On the very same night that Al Jamadi was tortured to death (very well documented) there was another detainee also tortured to death at Abu Gharib, (also well documented) but his name was never known. 

So obviously he didn't count.  But he is just as dead as any one of those whose names are known.

Over one million Iraqis have perished to boost Bush's arrogance.  These people were innocent before the invasion of any crimes against America.  The Bush Bunch on the other hand is not innocent.  This war was planned and implemented to seize the assets of Iraq. All the rhetoric around the WMD, Regime change, etc. ad infinitum is just there to confuse the issue and to fool some of the people all the time. 

From the call in this morning on C-Span to Ms. Massimino, it would seem that Bush can fool most of the Republicans nearly all the time.  But I truly wonder, is this accurate? 

Or is it that many of the moral Republicans (those like Ron Paul) are ashamed to admit that they are Republicans?  Or that they ever supported Bush? 

For the record, I was a supporter of George Bush in the 2000 election.   I worked hard against him in 2004 because I realized by then he was nothing but a murderous scoundrel.

Vice President Richard B. Cheney has blackened the White House with numerous high crimes and misdemeanors - from misleading America into preemptive war to illegal wiretapping to setting the stage for aggressive action against Iran.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich stood up and proposed articles of Impeachment against Cheney, and since then nearly two dozen additional congressmen have joined him in this movement.

Most recently, Congressman Robert Wexler has begun a petition for average Americans to sign on in support as well. His goal is at least 250,000 by the end of 2007.

We're just days away. With your help this goal is achievable. Sign the petition, pass it on to at least 10 friends and/or family members and be a part of bringing Richard Cheney to justice!
 
Visit:
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/

by Steve Osborn

This link here is to Cindy Sheehan's Website. She says they have received 7,000 letters so far.

The minimum target is 10,000 handwritten letters to Pelosi demanding impeachment of Cheney/Bush.

Let's do it! Let's either force Pelosi to put her money where her mouth is, or expose her for a hypocrite.

Here is the text of Cindy's message:

Dear Friends
Instead of sending your Impeachment letters for Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi's office, send them to my office so we can get an official count.

Please send them to:

Nancy Pelosi
c/o Cindy for Congress
RE: Impeach Dick Cheney
1260 Mission St
San Francisco, Ca 94103-2706

We are extending the deadline to gather as many letters as possible. Please send your letter by December 31st.

We will be delivering the letters to Nancy Pelosi's office in San Francisco on January 3 2008

We currently have 7,000. We NEED to take 10,000. Please encourage your friends to participate.

Spread this far and wide so we can take sacks of letters to her.
Don't include anything besides the letter (like a contribution) because we won't be opening the envelopes.

Love
Cindy

Most of us have gotten out of the habit of snail mail, especially to Congress as it takes forever to get through their bug screening, before it is dropped into an aide's wastebasket, but this is different. They will be hand delivered, tallied up.

Pelosi said she would put impeachment back on the table if she got 10,000 handwritten letters demanding it. Let's do it! 

Pass this on to everyone you can think of that is concerned about where our government is taking us.

7,000 and counting!

by Barbara H. Peterson

Is the United States taking a step backwards in the area of women's rights? It would seem so. Violence against American women goes un-prosecuted, and women who have suffered remain traumatized with no justice in sight.

"Millions of women throughout the world live in conditions of abject deprivation of, and attacks against, their fundamental human rights for no other reason than that they are women." Shall we count America among the oppressive governments that violate an entire segment of their population's basic human rights?

Stephen Fox posted an article on OpEdNews regarding Jamie Leigh Jones: "Waiting for Justice for two years, and nothing.... Jamie Leigh Jones, gang raped by Halliburton employees in Iraq." When questioned regarding laws that govern American military contractors in Iraq, President Bush expressed that he had no clue, and dodged the question.

The video documenting this callous behavior can be seen here.

Notice how everyone at the Johns Hopkins school, including the President, thought the fact that he professed to not know the answer was hilarious. An American woman working for an American contractor, allegedly raped by her fellow employees and held against her will for 24 hours, now faces an extended battle to get a court, any court, to hear her case.

When questioned regarding accountability for the contractors who are accused of committing the atrocity, the President of America and everyone at the conference has a good laugh. Where is the outrage? Where is the demand for accountability?

Our U.S. government is actually condoning this type of violence against women by its failure to provide an adequate system for dealing with the problem. I doubt seriously that this is an isolated case. When women know that they will be subject to an abusive legal system that only serves to compound the trauma, they will naturally be afraid to complain. Of the women who do complain in the U.S., those who make it to court get little satisfaction from the justice system. The U.S. 1994 conviction statistics for the crime of rape are 188 convictions out of 1000 cases.

Even with this appallingly low conviction rate, the Jamie Leigh Jones case stands out as a serious step backwards for women's rights. And why should we be surprised? America gives aid and assistance on a regular basis to governments that subjugate women and promote violence against them, with no regard for the abused.

Abuses against women are relentless, systematic, and widely tolerated, if not explicitly condoned. Violence and discrimination against women are global social epidemics, notwithstanding the very real progress of the international women's human rights movement in identifying, raising awareness about, and challenging impunity for women's human rights violations.

We live in a world in which women do not have basic control over what happens to their bodies. Millions of women and girls are forced to marry and have sex with men they do not desire. Women are unable to depend on the government to protect them from physical violence in the home, with sometimes fatal consequences, including increased risk of HIV/AIDS infection. Women in state custody face sexual assault by their jailers. Women are punished for having sex outside of marriage or with a person of their choosing (rather than of their family's choosing). Husbands and other male family members obstruct or dictate women's access to reproductive health care. Doctors and government officials disproportionately target women from disadvantaged or marginalized communities for coercive family planning policies.

"Cultural relativism...argues that there are no universal human rights and that rights are culture-specific and culturally determined." This is simply justification for acts of aggression against a weaker segment of society. While each culture has its own unique way of life, that way of life should not include a free pass to torture and subjugate women.

Women's lives matter, whether they are overseas or at home. The appalling apathy expressed by the President of the U.S. and the Johns Hopkins school is unacceptable. Human rights violations committed against both domestic and foreign women are never acceptable, and a lack of accountability for acts of aggression against women is never amusing.  

Copyright 2007, Barbara H. Peterson

by Steve Osborn

How long do you think this technology will take to find its way into the domestic databases Cheney/BushCo has compiled? We all know how accurate this stuff is, don't we.

From Consortium News - Mobile Labs to Target Iraqis for Death

U.S. forces in Iraq soon will be equipped with high-tech equipment that will let them process an Iraqi's biometric data in minutes and help American soldiers decide whether they should execute the person or not, according to its inventor.  (read more)

Ah well, it would probably cut ration costs and upkeep at the Halliburton Concentration Camps.

Does anyone else remember the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or am I just getting old and senile?

by Dave Lindorff

A massive outpouring of angry mail and phone calls to the nation's leading newspapers led to editors calling Congress members Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), after having turned down an op-ed by the three calling for immediate hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

At least one of those papers, the Miami Herald, which is in Rep. Wexler's congressional district, reversed itself and decided to run an edited version of the editorial it had rejected only days earlier.

Wexler, speaking on Florida Progressive Radio Thursday night, said it was clearly grassroots pressure and reporting on the Internet (inclulding by this site!) that forced editors at the Miami Herald to change their position on the editorial.

He is calling on Americans who want to see Congress begin impeachment hearings to put even more pressure on Congress to also change its position.

"I think it's obvious that Congress is way behind the people on this," he said, "and it's quite obvious that in this case the people have gotten it right."

Wexler said, "If the people in Congress could come up with reasons why the abuses of this administratiion are not serious to impeach, then I'd say Congress should not listen to the grassroots, but I don't think anyone in Congress could say that with a straight face. In fact, it's the opposite. They're saying, `Even though this administration has committed these crimes against the constitution, we can't do anything about it.'"

Wexler said that he thought Democratic leaders in Congress, who have been aggressively blocking any effort to begin impeachment hearings, even to the point of pressuring state and local party activists into not passing impeachment resolutions, are risking alienating progressive voters--both Democrats and independents--next November by failing to act on impeachment.

"If Congress were really popular, with say 58 percent favorable ratings, then maybe they could do that," he says, "but the fact is that this Congress is very, very unpopular."

Wexler urged activists in favor of impeachment to put increasing pressure on their own congressional representatives, on their local news outlets, and on other members of the Judiciary Committee to support hearings on Cheney's impeachable actions, and vowed to bring a petition he has set up on line, which has garnered 120,000 signatures in less than a week's time, to show every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "I will be asking every Democrat on that committee to support immediate hearings," said the six-term Congressman.

Wexler praised his colleague, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, for pressing forward with the impeachment issue, and for submitting a bill (H Res 799) for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney.

by Cliff Carson

Responding to: "Minding our own Business"

by Dave Lindorff

Over this weekend and by noon Monday, 82,000 Americans signed a petition sponsored by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) and two other members of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), calling on that committee and its chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) to begin immediate hearings on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

There was no report in the nation's corporate media on the three Judiciary Committee members' call (they are three senior members of the House Democratic Party), and no report on the remarkable public response to their petition.

As always when the story involves impeachable crimes by the Bush administration, the corporate media have been silent, devoting their pricey news minutes and their precious column inches to meaningless stories about the twin horseraces for the presidential nomination, which themselves have blacked out any word of the main crowd-pleasers in those campaigns: Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Kucinich.

Impeachment is the elephant in the room. Everyone knows that this country is being run by a criminal syndicate that has rigged elections, hidden its knowledge of the 9-11 attacks, lied the country into war, plotted to out an important CIA undercover operative and then obstruct a criminal investigation into that treasonous act, subverted most of the articles of the Bill of Rights, emasculated the Congress and the Courts (which it has also shamelessly packed with shameless hacks), betrayed veterans, surrendered a major American metropolis to the devastation of a hurricane, plotted to enable the declaring of martial law, tortured kidnapped and killed people in violation of international law and obstructed efforts to deal with the unprecedented crisis of global warming for an unconscionable seven years.

But the media won't allow any talk of holding this administration to account. It's not just that we are being told that the only power and duty we as citizens have is to vote once every two or four years (after which we are supposed to shut up and consume), but that we are not to be told about, or are being encouraged not to talk about these larger crimes that are occurring, and worsening, day by day.

Impeachment isn't just off the table in the Congress. It is off the table in the media and thus in public discourse.

This is intolerable. It is only because of the alternative media that those 82,000 citizens knew of and signed onto Rep. Wexler's courageous call for impeachment hearings on Kucinich's equally courageous bill.

We as citizens should not just be haranguing our representatives to demand that they support impeachment hearings. We should be picketing our local news organizations and deluging them with calls and letters demanding that they stop the censorship and report the news honestly without fear or favor, as they are supposed to do.

by Steve Osborn

RE: Save the World! Mind Your Own Business

Boy, ain't it da trut'?

Will anybody listen? Do you remember, I believe it was Asimov's robot trilogy, where the robots gradually took over control and they were governed by the three laws of robotics?

It has been decades since I read them, but I remember one where the people were finally restricted from doing virtually anything.

You couldn't ride a bike, drive a car, take a mountain hike, swim in a pool or the ocean, cook on a stove (you could get burned), etc. The ones who tried to maintain some freedom of action wound up in a rubber room, on soporifics, playing with a soft toy, but perfectly safe from harming themselves.

God! I'm glad I'm seventy!

I grew up being able to do fun things, and I'll be dead before I'm not allowed to anymore.

by John Thurman

In just a few days, the Federal Communications Commission plans to open the floodgates to further media consolidation across America.   If, FCC Chairman; Kevin Martin gets his way all the Newspapers, Radio and Television Broadcasters will be controlled by less than a dozen interlocking corporations. 

Is this the way to promote an un-opinionated so-called "free press"?  It should be crystal clear to everyone by now that the currently controlled news media does not recognize that Doctor and Congressman Ron Paul is a viable Presidential candidate.  They rarely print or say his name.  WHY?

Do we want to put more control into the hands of these current corporate media owners?  Or, is it time we make efforts to break-up the tight-fisted grip these corporate owners and their investors have on ALL the public information sources?  Is it time we need to demand from the lobbyist-owned politicians, who pledged on their oath to represent us with our proxies to defend our Constitutional contract with the other States of America?

Perhaps it time for a binding law or a Constitutional Amendment; whereas..

Establishing a non-amendable and irrevocable law that requires that all media owners and their investors declare their interlocking personal convictions, obligations and ethnicity be printed in bold; underlined; 72font print on the front page and/or cover of all their printed and broadcast communications with the public; and that said notice must be conspicuously displayed proceeding any spoken or visual broadcast over the publicly owned airwaves.
 
Be it further resolved; that, these owner's and investor's current residential addresses and their telephone numbers be readily accessible public information published and recorded in the Congressional Record and updated every six-months and be made a part of the general public information on file with the Library of Congress.
 
Be it resolved this ___ day of ______, 2007

by Clay Barham

Many well meaning people want to change America to a more community-centered better designed and managed nation than it is now or was when it began.  We must be certain, however, that the changes made are not the cure that is worse than the disease.

The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the behaviors of free, faith-based men and women defined America from its beginnings.  Are these the kinds of things to change for the 21st century?

Jefferson described principles of government in the Declaration, followed by how it had been working under the King and Parliament. Jefferson and the other founders believed it was self-evident that our Creator created us equal and that He gave us our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not government.

Further, that good government only secures these rights and governs by the consent of the governed. He defined bad government as destructive of these ends and that it should be abolished.  He went on to cite examples of what best describes the conduct and meddling of bad government. 

Americans rose to the occasion, abolished the rule of Britain over America, then founded a new nation based on principles of small government and individual freedom.  Our nation grew beyond all previous experiences and achieved what none other before could even have dreamed of achieving.

In 1863, during a great civil war in America, Abraham Lincoln reaffirmed our nation's dedication to what our founders had established as America.  He reminded Americans that, in 1776, "Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." 

He went on to conclude his short, 272 word speech with these words; ".that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  For him, it was a time for all of us to reaffirm our dedication to the principles of American freedom, growth and prosperity.

Political speeches today more likely promise great rewards and benefits rising from the center of a great social managing government, built upon the age-old principles of all the monarchies and dictatorships of history. 

We must abandon the ideals of individual freedom and the prosperity it creates in favor a well-managed social system promising an equality of outcome for all, at the price of liberty.  We are told the ideas of Jefferson, the Founders and Abraham Lincoln no longer apply to our modern world, as the promises of community interests first will give us more security and comfort. 

We have only to hand the keys to our future to those who claim to know better than we, ourselves, how to live our own lives.  Do we want this cure?  Could it be worse?

by Michael Saunders

Comments in reponse to Harry Browne's article, Freedom from the Income Tax

I read the article and found that it is clearly one-sided. 

Without our tax dollars how will our government be able to support the poor in other countries when we have so many people dying in our own streets?  How will the government be able to raise an army so large - with an unlimited supply of weapons - that, for 'fun,' they arm terrorists and then 8 to 10 years later declare war on those same people?  But yet, they can't defend our own cities against violent crimes? 

Without our tax dollars they won't be able to hire their family, their friends, their 3rd grade teachers to jobs that they are not qualified for - and are completely unnecessary to begin with.  Without our tax dollars, the government won't be able to watch and regulate everything we do...and we all know the "benefits" of that. 

Look how well it has worked in previous societies: Germany (twice), USSR, Red China, Cuba.  Those countries had complete surveillence and things worked out great for them, right?

Repealing the income tax is what needs to be done.  We don't need to reduce the size of government.  Without money to operate as is, the government will have to reduce itself. 

This year of presidential elections has brought forth only one candidate that actually has a plan to do exactly what this country needs, instead of just saying that we'll throw more money at the problem and hope it goes away. 

Ron Paul.

by Cliff Carson

A Post on Propeller recently: "Credit Card Industry Threatened with Regulation" touched on one of the largest scams currently going on in our society.  The post was quite interesting but failed to really expose what is going on with these greedy companies.  I recall the very often running ad of Capitol One "What's in Your Wallet".  I found out where they were.  I found them in my wallet and they wanted such a bite that they might get some skin with it.

Lorraine Woellert of Bloomberg News had an article in my newspaper this week " Card Firms fighting for rate-raise rights".  The thrust of the article was a proposed measure to crack down on predatory companies by banning interest rate changes on existing balances among other fixes.  What a lot of people don't understand is that all kinds of "excuses" are found to get more money. 

Ryan Schneider, president for card services at Capitol One Financial Corporation spoke at a Senate hearing last Tuesday along with other Financial Industry officials and it was their mission to convince the Senate that they were good Samaritans doing every thing they could for the public.  Oh yeah!

Schneider went on to state that Capitol One won't raise an Interest Rate for a customer unless he pays three or more days late twice in a 12 month period.  But I know from personal experience that the statement is an absolute lie.  When I read this I sent a message to the Oversight hotline.  Everybody out there that believes I will get an honest reply (if I get one at all) please raise their hand.  And keep it up until all is counted.

My experience went like this.  I had an account with Capitol One for five years.  Had a good low interest rate, 6.9%.  Never was late on a payment, not even one time in those five years.  Always paid double to triple the minimum monthly payment.  Was very pleased with Capitol One.  My Credit Score was in the Excellent range.  One day when my monthly statement came there was a notice that my Interest rate was going up to 12.9%.  I paid off the account. 

Wondered how many of their 48 million cardholders got it stuck to them like me.  I tried to find a Law Firm who would help me instigate a Class Action suit against Capitol One but had no luck.  Every Law firm told me that it would take years and loads of money with no guarantee of success.  Capitol One just has too much muscle I learned.

Bruce Hammonds, president of Card Services at Bank of America Corp. said that company data showed that customers faced with higher Interest rates tend to pay off their debt faster.  He sure is right about that.  Seems like a good way to bleed some cash to build a reserve for another assault on mankind. 

And they want to get it from customers who can afford to pay the balance off.  It worked on me.  Of course I get a couple of flyers from them each week wanting me to borrow some money at 6.99%.  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. 

But how about the poor souls who just can't make that extra payroll drain that the bloodsuckers want?  They have a plan for him too.  Place penalties on his balance until he just slips under. 

I was stunned to see a C-Span program on this credit scam where some lady testified that her loan payment interest rate had been raised to 29%.  The monthly payment stayed at $200.00 to help her stay afloat.  Of that $200, seventy-five cents went to reduce the principal each month. 

The Company was proud of itself for being so kind to the "poor lady".

by Clay Barham

The rift between left and right, liberals and conservatives in America boils down to whether society is based on the supremacy of community interests or of individual self-interest.  Nowhere is this more in focus than the concept of private property.  Can there be private property, individual ownership of property, in a society based upon community interests being superior to individual interests? 

Every communist ruled nation has prohibited individuals from owning property, as, for the most part; all property belongs to the state.  The private ownership of the means of production has always been an enemy of the socialist state.  In America, however, private property has always been seen as a sacred right of each citizen individually or corporately.

The right of individuals to own and do with their own property as they see fit, as long as it does not harm their neighbors, has been viewed as a legal foundation since America began almost 400 years ago.  It is only now, in recent years, that private property in America is questioned. 

Questions about the propriety of property have risen because many in today's America believe our nation should move from one of individual freedom and prosperity, to community interests as defined by elite who care.  It is for the purpose of equality of outcome, position and wealth, that modern American liberals want private property eliminated as an inherited right.

No one can deny that Americans are all unequal.  Whether it is inequality in age, experience, intelligence, physical health, education or just plain excitement over pursuing a dream, vision or idea, none of us is equal.

What we earn from what we do, and what we accumulate as a result, furthers the inequality. Where we are equal is in the rights we enjoy and our equality before the law. One of those rights has always been an ability to earn, keep and use property of all kinds to secure our prosperity and enjoyment of life.

There are many, however, who trade on their own envy of those who have, and anger at not sharing in what others have earned, whether they have or have not tried equally to become prosperous and failed.  The envious and angry in society appeal to the elite for their compassion and support, to control society and punish those who have lived well in doing, accomplishing and taking up the opportunities presented to them to achieve and succeed. 

The elite know that the corruption and elimination of private property is the best step to conquer America and create, in its place, a community-based system where they rule and all others follow in a forced equality of outcome.  The elite desire to rule, and their army are the discontented and disenfranchised, to which they appeal.

by Steve Osborn

The following is a letter I sent to my alleged Reps regarding the power to spy as listed in the "Protect America" Act.

Subject: Oppose the renewal of the Protect America Act (S. 1927).

Congress needs to uphold their oath to "support and defend the Constitution."  The Protect America Act is in direct violation to the pillars of liberty that are enshrined in the 4th Amendment.  I know you have the power to stand up to this unconstitutional legislation, and let it expire - fully and completely - on February 1, 2008. I urge you to do so.

I can see no justification, whatsoever, for extending this legislation.  I'm telling my friends and family the same, and I look forward to your response on how you are intending to vote on this issue.

The "Protect America Act" is just a further expansion of the "Enabling Act" that Allowed Hitler to suspend constitutional freedoms in Germany after his SS set fire to the Reichstag.

In this case, the Enabling Act  is the misnamed "Patriot Act," which suspended most of our constitutional rights in the USA after the questionable 9-11 attack. Cheney/Bush is not satisfied with that and the "Military Commissions Act" which also removes the even older right of Habeas Corpus from US Law. They want to extend and make permanent the alleged "right" to spy on Americans at will.

If the Senate and House are willing to go along with the continued erosion of our Constitution and the Cheney/Bush march toward world domination, then you should pass binding legislation to put a swastika on our flag and end the hypocrisy.

by Cliff Carson

There was an article in the Arkansas DemocratGazette today by one of their Columnists Bradley Gitz, A College Professor, entitled "The Populist Disease".  It was a diatribe against the populist movement. 

Gitz is a full blown Bushie and doesn't even have the sight of Ray Charles when it comes to anything anti-Bush. 

Anyway, I wrote a Letter to the Voices page ( Limit approx 250 words and state residents only ):

In Voices Sunday December 9, Bradley Gitz attacks Populist causes and sums up his column by painting Populist believers as "stupid", essentially promising all Americans who aren't rich a free lunch, and "the Republican kind" featuring a depiction of "two Americas" one in which church-going, law-abiding white America is beset by broad forces of multiculturalism and secular humanism.

WOW!! I didn't know I believed in all that.  Gee, just think, me a Populist, don't have a clue about what I believe in.  Mr. Gitz I invite you to find out about the Populist Party by examining our 10 Planks.   You obviously have no clue or your diatribe was in spite of facts you could have easily found had you searched a Populist Party position.  Ms. Oakley, would you allow a real Populist to provide an article about Populism in the Gazette?

Thank you Mike Masterson for your excellent follow up on Brian Riedl's "Oink! Oink! Oink", an Article that ran on the DemocratGazette Editorial page December 3rd.   Mike, could you get Bradley Gitz to read his own paper?  Specifically the Editorial page?  Have him look in the Archives and read this article. 

There Mr. Gitz you will find what a Populist Party member is against.  As to what we stand for, one of our 10 Planks:  "We support a Constitutional Amendment which will create sanctions and/or criminal liability on politicians who violate the Constitution while in office".  There is not room allowed to place all Ten Planks in a voices letter.

Bradley, follow the advice you hopefully present to your students:  Secure a full and well rounded education, and live by what you learn, not by drivel that some agenda driven columnist wants to force feed you.

by Stephen Neitzke

Arlen Specter, pillar of the Republinazi community in the US Criminal Senate, has stepped forward with a brave new piece of predator elitism dogshit. It's soft and gooey, stinks to high heaven, and is loaded with dangerous political pathogens.

The Republinazi community intends that the American people eat their big bowls of Specter dogshit. Republinazis and Demofascists everywhere are, of course, trumpeting Specter's piece of dogshit as the Great Compromise in the telecom immunity controversy.

The fact that Specter's solution makes the US government the defendant in the telecom-related lawsuits means many courtroom advantages for the telecoms. But the primary advantage is that any fines and penalties adjudged by the courts will be paid in tax-payer dollars, not telecom dollars.

Here's your bowl, sucker. Eat up.

And don't forget that zero-accountability for corporate criminals is a big-money business for Congressional criminals. They must already have kick-back dollar signs spinning in their eye-ball sockets. This is war-chest farming writ large. And the telecom industry has very deep pockets.

Specter's Great Compromise is just a more-twisted ex post facto law. It does not ordain blanket immunity for the corporate criminals who conspired with the criminal Bush regime to violate the Constitution and felony conspiracy laws.

However, Specter's solution would be ex post facto law nonetheless. It retroactively changes the legal status of facts and relationships that existed at the time of the felonious warrantless wiretapping. Pure ex post facto, baby.

There is no telecom immunity controversy. There is no such thing as legal retroactive immunity for crimes already committed. Any immunity for them is anti-Constitutional and felonious.

Those responsible for the telecoms' criminal violation of citizen personal privacy rights and 18 USC 241 -- Bush, Cheney, White House staff, DOJ staff, and NSA staff included -- should be criminally prosecuted, given a fair trial, convicted, and imprisoned for up to ten years -- as specified in 18 USC 241, felony conspiracy against citizen rights.

In the meantime, federal lawsuits should rip the telecoms apart financially and deliver their infrastructures into the hands of people who can be expected to conduct communications business in accord with our Constitution and laws.

Clearly, the people now doing business through the telecom infrastructures cannot be trusted to change their evil ways.

by Cliff Carson

I was recently turned on to DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act" and feel that it could become one of the most important legislation items to stop the encroachment on our liberties in our lifetime, if enacted.

I sent the following message to my senators and represenative.  I urge everyone to write theirs too.

My personal comments:

This bill is as American as Apple Pie.  And the bill enforces Fidelity and Morality of our Government.  To pass any legislation without having read what you are voting for, or against, is inexcusable.

And yet, our Representatives have adopted this practice with gusto.  It's time to put a stop to it.  I am asking you to introduce this at your first opportunity, preferably at your next session.

Anything less than adopting the stewardship that we have entrusted in you is an indication that you do not have our best interests as your priority.

If you won't represent your people you don't deserve our support.  This bill will end Pork and bring honesty back to governance.

by Stephen Neitzke

Lyrics from "American Anthem"

All that we've been given by those who came before, The dream of a nation where freedom would endure. The work and prayers of centuries have brought us to this day. What shall be our legacy, what will our children say? Let them say of me, I was one who believed in sharing the blessings I received. Let me know in my heart when my days are through, America, America, I gave my best to you. America, America, I gave my best to you.

It was a Norah Jones haunting melody in the background of horrific battle scenes in Ken Burns' "The War". Most of those I asked later didn't remember having heard the song.

For me, dreams swirled through it for several nights. Not specific lyrical phrases one after the other, of course. But the lilt of Norah Jones' remarkable voice hitting the first 'America', humming through the second, and then tailing off into the haunting, "I gave my best to you".

Provacative words and music (all by Gene Scheer) to frame the film images of thousands of deaths, the American sacrifice of hundreds of thousands.

Usurper Bush's anti-Constitutional regime -- and the 3-branch fascist despotism that is our national govt -- mocks that American sacrifice.

Jones' haunting lilt was still on the screen as I realized that similar sacrifice -- massive, nearly unimaginable -- will be the necessary core of how we get our Constitution back from the fascists who now own it. The sacrifice might not be in deaths, but it will be potentially terrible.

The fascists are most of the nation's employers. They've been players in the decades-long social engineering of this economy and its restrictions on political change. They know what they're doing. They're not kidding around.

We the people are clueless, still trying to elect better Democrats who will be one spit in the ocean of anti-Constitutional corruption machines.

To honor American sacrifice that has been, to honor American sacrifice that must be, essays posted to my blog relating to regaining the rights, freedoms, and liberties packed into the Constitution will carry the tag, "AAIGMBTY" (America, America, I gave my best to you).

Hope you'll make it a quiet determination of yours too.

by Steve Osborn

Once in a while I get something that forces me to "lighten up." This is one.

Montana cowboy was overseeing his herd in a remote  mountainous pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of  a dust cloud towards him.  The driver, a young man in a Brioni  suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the  window and asks the cowboy,

"If I tell you exactly how many cows  and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a  calf?"

The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then  looks at the peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure,  Why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook  computer connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs  to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite  navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he  then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an  ultra-high-resolutionphoto.

The young man then opens the  digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image  processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.

Within seconds, he  receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been  processed and the data stored.

He then accesses a MS-SQL  database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on  his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report  on his hi-tech,  miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns  to the cowboy and says,

"You have exactly 1,586 cows and  calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my  calves," says the cowboy.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young  man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will  you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a  second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

You're a U.S.  Congressman", says the cowboy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the  yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required."  answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called  you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a  question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows .

. . . this is a  herd of sheep.
 
Now give me back my dog.

That really could be my own Congressman, unless they are all that way.

by Cliff Carson

Aaleyah's world is fairly typical for any 4-year-old girl.  She and her buddies, Dillion her Poodle, and her kitten Sampson, depend on Daddy and Mommie's love and protection.  She absolutely loves "School", marching off every morning to meet her friends and to learn new things. 

But in a few short years, Aaleyah and those contemporary children of her world will face an uncertain future, one left due to the sins of her parents, and the sins of the rest of the world's parents.  What were those sins? 

They will have failed to address the condition of our failing democracy.  They will have left her a staggering, and yes growing debt, for them to somehow overcome, a corrupted system of separation of the "Haves" from the "Have Not's"  - those who for various reasons, whether avoidable or not, or excuses-not reasons, don't have the wherewithal to provide for their 4 year old's future.  Will that be our legacy to them?

Aaleyah is fearless.  She loves riding the roller coaster and climbing up the pump-it-up, swimming and aerobics ( the balance beam especially ).  But at this age she is completely oblivious of what is to come.  She can read and count and is so good at consoling any of her little classmates when they get a boo-boo and have to cry, " It will be OK" she encourages as she places her arm around the child, and to her that is gospel.  She needs some of us adults to be able to say to our children "It will be OK" and we need to make sure that what we have said is backed up by our actions.

The point is that we need to prepare a safe future for our children.  They will have to adapt to events as they unfold just as we have to do.  But it is criminal to push off solutions to problems, for them to inherit, so that we don't have to deal with them in the here and now. 

Such irresponsibility on our part.  And a special brand of selfishness.  They don't deserve to have to pay for the sins of their parents.

In 2008 we must come together and make a difference.  For our children if for no other reason.

by Clay Barham

Throughout history, the interests of community, as seen by its rulers, have always been superior to the interests of single individuals.  Most all societies operate upon this foundation.  For most of the world, this is still the case.  The few rule the many. 

Managers rule society from the top down, like any good corporation.  Those on the bottom have the least say and least power.  Americans were different, however, which accounts for their great prosperity.  The only community in America superior to the individuals in it has been the family.

America's prosperity came from individuals who were free to use their own interests, skills and talents to pursue their own aspirations. The only time individuals would sublimate their own self-interests to a community was to their own family. 

They ruled their family and shaped the values, interests and skills of the younger members of their families.  They did not extend that rule beyond to the outside community, however.  If the needs of the family required them to set their own interests aside, they did.  Family was the most important community, and still is. 

The notion that a few educated, experienced and concerned elite should rule a community came from this model, the family.  The family grew into a tribe, and the leader of the tribe was usually the most honored and experienced.  As the tribes became nations, the leaders became kings and queens and ruled the nation, as they believed it should.  As the distance between ruler and subject increased, the concern for individuals decreased, and tyranny was established.

In America today, we are asked to allow a few rulers of the many to manage our national community better than we can as individuals.  We are told the good old days of self-interest are gone, and community interests are superior to individual interests. 

We know, however, that prosperity comes from individual interests and freedom, not from an ordered community. In the modern corporation, innovation and positive change are discouraged in favor of the status quo, and that the only challenges to the accepted and established ways come from free individuals. 

Challenging what the managers and rulers say is best, is dangerous to the stability of the community.  It cannot be tolerated without proper bureaucratic examination, which by its nature discourages change.

by Steve Osborn

Well, I've been beating the drum on this one for a loooong time. This spells it out pretty succinctly. Got it from Downsizer.

Recruit friends to support the "One Subject at a Time Act." Forward this to others.

Subject: The One Subject at a Time Act

DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA) is designed to prevent outrages such as these by requiring that each bill that comes to a vote be about one subject, and one subject only. Any legislation passed in violation of this requirement will be considered null-and-void before the nation's courts. But that's not all...

read more here

The only way we are going to get accountability in Congress is to make sure the Read the Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act are introduced and passed.

I've written several times on the subject. Here are some links, should you wish some ammo for the quest.

• No Pork, No Side Issues and No Riders!
• It is Way Past Time to End Sneaky Legislation

This link was published on Alternet.  It is an interview with author Naomi Wolf, whose new book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," may confirm your worries about democracy in America. It is pretty long, but well worth the read in my estimation. She is not afraid to look critically at history and to draw some conclusions thereby.

Yours with still a glimmer of hope for peace and sanity in our time...

by Stephen Neitzke

SEC "Republinazis" Squash Shareholder Rights For Looming Battles Over Subprime Mortgage Disaster

Washington DC, Wed 28 Nov 2007 -- It was a 3-to-1 vote, with two Democrats not there to vote. It was three Republinazis against one Democrat. Finally, after months of tantrums against excess democracy in corporate governance, the Republinazis got their way.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's 3-to-1 vote formally rejected the 2006 court order that allowed shareholders to nominate board members to protect their investments, pension funds, and unions.

As the bizzaro mismanagement of the Subprime Mortgage Instruments continues to punish shareholders, their rights are increasingly suppressed. Not even the threat of a US credit collapse and another Great Depression can scare the the good ol' boy Republinazi network into sharing power.

Anybody know the Republinazi history from the 1929 stock market crash to FDR's 1932 election? With about 4,000 banks gone bankrupt? They were still hollering about having laissez faire, right? They were still shouting, Stay the course.

For the "Republinazis", any democracy is excessive democracy. Always has been. Always will be. What's remarkable now is how much support the Republinazis are getting from their co-fascist wing, the Democrats.

See especially, "SEC Votes to Limit Shareholder Rights", by Carrie Johnson, Washington Post, Thursday 29 November 2007.