Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, is petitioning Congress to STOP abusing the Bill of Rights. Here's the text:
Petition to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Congressman Conyers, Chairman
Whereas, the basis for the laws of this great Republic is the Constitution, adopted September 17th, 1789; and,
Whereas, that Constitution provided for a clear but difficult procedure for amending it; and,
Whereas, the founding fathers saw a need for Amendments to guarantee certain civil rights to citizens including the right to a free press, free religious expression, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from government seizure of their property, freedom from unlawful detention, the right to a prompt and fair trial by a jury, and protection from unreasonable bail requirements; and,
Whereas, these and other rights were considered important enough to be added as the first 10 Amendments and these have become known as The Bill of Rights; and,
Whereas, The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 remain untouched by Amendment for more than two centuries; and,
Whereas, the Executive branch of the Federal Government, through executive orders and other schemes has eroded many of these rights and still greater threats loom; Now therefore the undersigned citizens of the United States petition Congress to rise to its responsibilities and enforce and protect the Bill of Rights through any and all means at its disposal including but not limited to Committee Hearings and legal action through the courts.
July 30, 2008 will go down as the day President G.W. Bush signed a bill to hand out $300 Billion to people that made mistakes.
There are several reasons that caused the "housing crisis": Most of these people simply made ill-informed and bad loan decisions, others were given loans that they could not repay. These were bad decisions on the part of both the bank and the person getting the loan.
However, now, you and I will be forced to "help" these people out of their mistakes. While I have no problem helping someone, I do have a problem with being forced to help someone. One reason that this is bad policy is it takes away responsibility.
The banks are not being held liable for giving loans to people that could not repay; and the person getting a loan they could not repay will not be held responsible for making a bad decision. We now have close to 400,000 "homeowners" being "helped" thanks to this new legislation.
Luckily, for you and me (taxpaying Americans), not everyone will be given a handout.
The qualifications are:
Your current payment must equal at least 31 percent of your income
The home must be owner occupied. No second homes or investor properties. This eliminates homes bought by real estate speculators.
Lender must agree to drop balance to 90 percent of the homes' appraised value
There are other qualifications involved While this may look like a "compassionate" piece of legislation, it will not deter future problems of this kind. This will simply become a form of "welfare" for the "homeowner".
And anyone that has studied the history of welfare knows that we have thrown TRILLIONS of dollars into welfare programs and still have "poor people". Although few will admit that the "poor" in this country, still have a better standard of living than 85% of the rest of the world.
Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away; but forcing people to take responsibility makes people learn from their mistakes.
It's strong legislation. It directs the state Department of Public Safety and Corrections to NOT implement the REAL ID Act.
It's been a while since we've asked Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act. We've been focused on other things. Now is the time to hit them again. Let Congress know that you won't forget about this issue. Tell them you're aware that Louisiana just became the 21st state to rebel against the REAL ID Act. Tell Congress it's long past time to bow to the will of the people, who do not want a centralized national identification system.
Barack Obama and John McCain dispute the reasons for the decline in violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level in years. McCain emphasizes the effectiveness of the "surge" troops, 30,000 additional American combat soldiers. Obama appreciates the surge but emphasizes the political rapprochement between Iraqi factions. Neither Obama nor McCain give us the whole story and its implications for the future.
Before the 30,000 surge there were about 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq, mostly American and mostly combat soldiers. However, another 150,000 contractors were on the scene working for the US military, not in uniform but armed for self protection, feeding the troops, guarding US installations, repairing damaged sites, etc., doing what American uniformed soldiers have always done in past wars, but this time working for private contractors for high wages and corporate profits. The point is that the total Allied force was 300,000 making the surge increase only ten percent.
The decrease in violence was located in all of Iraq, yet the 30,000 surge was concentrated in Baghdad. In that city the troops concentrated on weakening the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric close to Iran who had already issued a cease-fire order to his minions.
The surge operation in Baghdad was aided by a new program called Sons of Iraq that employed Sunnis who were formerly insurgents, paying them $10 a day and giving them guns for their pseudo police powers. This strategy had already worked in Anbar province well before the start of the surge. There, the US military hired 90,000 Sunnis at $30 a month plus guns to maintain order and to disarm the few Al Qaeda partisans who had infiltrated into the country from foreign lands. Part of the Sunni motivation in accepting the American deal was to prepare themselves for the show-down when the US forces leave Iraq.
Iran may have been included in the arrangements. Neither the US command in Iraq nor their superiors in Washington are now accusing Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, quite a change from previous charges. In addition, cleric al-Sadr, still close to Iran, has shut down his militia. And the US does not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the first time in decades. The whole world has noticed that William Burns, the number three person in the US State Department, participated in a meeting with a representative of Iran, the first such meeting since 1979.
Has a deal been made? If so, the surge may have been the cover story for US home consumption, while the real story was investment in dollars and diplomacy.
Change is needed in America. Why, you ask? It is because there is too much inequality out there. That's what needs to be changed. How would you like to go into a grocery store and reach up to the shelf with all the canned beans, believing that the contents of each can are predictably the same, only to find out they are not? That's the way it is in America.
Pick any person off the street and compare them to someone else and, surprisingly, neither are the same. They are not the same age. They differ in race and gender. They are not equal in education. They do not look alike. Their health may differ. They do not dress alike. They do not even think alike. They have different interests, aspirations, talents and skills. They are different, yet they wear the same label as American and human.
We need to change all this. Their inequalities cause some to be more prosperous, and others to be more envious. The change we need is an equality of outcome. We must reduce inequalities down to two levels. We must have a superior elite few who are capable of managing the many others who will be equal in all respects.
Race, gender, appearance and age differences will be a problem, but education, intelligence, interests, aspirations, talents and skills must be managed down to the lowest common denominator in order that no one has more than another, desires more than another or is envious of others.
What happens without this needed change? People spin off into multiple inequalities, creating change on their own, bringing about what Joseph Schumpeter called "Creative Destruction." America began on that note and rose to heights of prosperity and freedom never experienced elsewhere in the world. It was awful!
People smiled, enjoyed themselves and improved themselves without regard for the poor folks imprisoned in other countries who were trying to achieve equality of outcome. America must change and abandon all that freedom and pick up their chains of change. We owe a great debt to Barack Obama and the Democrats for making this change possible.
The "political system" virtually guarantees that the most corrupt, the best liars, the most compromising, becomes the presumptive candidate. Both candidates are also the politician of their party most willing to violate the Constitution by continuing an unlawful war, and by initiating and approving the highest amount of unconstitutional Federal spending.
There's an old saying, "Actions speak louder than words." Said another way, "If you want to know what a person values, don't listen to what they say, only watch what they do." Think about it. The political system in America is populated with men and women who give lip service to the Constitution, but then go on to vote for every unconstitutional spending bill presented to them. They talk about the virtues of our constitutional republic, and then act to subvert and violate that very system of government.
A pure constitutionalist has no place, and no political base, in America in 2008. Consider the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul during the Republican primary season. Paul couldn't get arrested, much less have a legitimate shot at winning or even to be noticed by mainstream media.
President Bush has decided to abandon his long-standing position that his administration would not meet face-to-face with Iran until Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment program. A senior American official recently participated in talks with Iranian officials, the first such meeting since the seizure of the US Embassy by Iranian militants in Tehran in 1979.
This policy shift followed President Bush's announcement in late June that the United States would remove North Korea from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. This was in response to progress in the effort with Asian nations to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then met with the North Korean Foreign Minister.
In late July, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malakai insisted that the United States agree to a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. President Bush and General Petraeus agree with him in principle although not on a precise date.
These dramatic changes in administration policies have astonished the world and infuriated hard-liners -- many of whom once worked for Bush. The harsh rhetoric, the name calling, the military threats made against these nations have diminished. The "Axis of Evil" used by Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address is no longer part of his vocabulary.
The invasion of Iraq is now almost universally regarded as a mistake. The diplomatic maneuvers with North Korea and Iran are clearly the better road to solutions of long-standing differences, solutions with low cost in lives and treasure.
As Winston Churchill remarked at a White House luncheon in 1954 at the height of the Cold War, "It is better to jaw - jaw than to war - war."
Thanking you especially for chairing the first important, perhaps the most important, Hearing on the potential and probable abuses of executive power by the Bush administration and potential remedies thereto, last Friday, July 25th.
A table has been set, so to speak. 39 Articles of Impeachment are on this table, presented to Congress by your esteemed and resolute colleague and friend, Rep Dennis Kucinich, and the esteemed Members of your Committee, and you yourself, and the very learned and distinguished witnesses have all submitted their statements and given their expert testimony.
Of course, time is short, only 4 legislative weeks left for the 110th Democratic Congress, but considering that the Constitution is a living and breathing document, and is in fact the very lifeblood of our Democratic Republic, we must most certainly devote each and every second that's available, even the last second, to its defense, and with high privilege to do so and with high honor.
In view of the above information, kindly submit to the full House for a vote, please, an Impeachment Inquiry Resolution alleging "failure to comply with congressional subpoenas" and the "excessive abuse and use of signing statements" by top Bush administration officials, especially Richard B. Cheney and George W. Bush.
My first thought on seeing the title for this article - Massive Economic Disaster Seems Possible -- Will Survivalists Get the Last Laugh? - was that in the 1930s depression the people that were affected the least were those people on the absolute bottom of society and those people at the very top. The dwellers of the absolute bottom had nothing before the depression and they had absolutely nothing during the depression.
Therefore, the depression did not affect them. The dwellers of the absolute top could wait out the depression in comfort because they were so well positioned they had a steady income no matter what happened to the economy. As a result, that they did not have to sell anything at a loss. Therefore, the depression did not affect them either.
It was the vast majority of the working class, and the lower and middle levels of the capitalist class, that were badly affected by the depression. For them the depression was traumatic.
Drawing on the experience of my working class family in the 1930s depression the best survival strategy is one that incorporates a very conservative lifestyle, maintains good communications with the community you are part of, and provides the ability to work cooperatively with your family, friends and immediate neighbors.
Obama and the liberals say no to nuclear energy, as well as coal and oil. If they had their way, we would be operating our naval fleet, carriers and submarines, with solar panels. Instead, they did not have their way and a part of our fleet is operated on nuclear energy. One carrier was used in Indonesia to provide power onshore. I wonder if we could park some ships offshore and light some of our cities?
How many nuclear ship reactors would be required to light and power the city of New York or Los Angeles? How fast could they be built, and how soon could they weather the greenie court blockades? When we talk about nuclear power plants, are we restricted to the big plants with the inverted cone steam chimneys, or could we actually make units such as are used so successfully aboard enclosed ships and subs. I see no reason why smaller nukes could not be used to contribute electrical energy to the grid, just as individual solar panels and wind generators do today. How can it be possible for one of those sources to do it and not small nuclear reactors like the navy uses spread over communities?
Does fear stop us from using that source? If so, are the crewmembers of our big flattops frightened to death over spending years aboard? How do crew on submarines live under the sea in such close proximity to a small nuclear reactor?
It is not fear of being close to one of them as much as it is fear by American liberals of America having cheaper sources of more energy available on which greater national prosperity is attained. It would really appear that liberals want more to starve America of additional energy sources in order to reduce prosperity and further growth, so the rest of the world can catch up. Why else would they reject using America's own oil, natural gas and coal, while advocating alternative sources far beyond the reach of Americans for the foreseeable future?
I think they just want to be liked by other nations and their dictators that they would hobble their own country in its ability to survive and prosper.
I noticed a pretty young thing on CNN gushing about the bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. She pleasingly says the House passed a bill now going to the Senate to spend $300 Billion to rescue 400,000 homeowners.
Lets see ... $300 Billion divided by 400,000 Homeowners = $750,000 per homeowner. Yeah, I could stand a little saving at that rate.
The $300 Billion will make 300,000 new Millionaires from the 400,000, many of whom got into a financial crunch by being stupid. Now its me being stupid.
That money is not going to Homeowners who need help, no its going Lenders, who got the F&F siblings in trouble because of their greed. So Joe taxpayer, that would be you and me, are going to help the fat cats get fatter.
King cat drew $20,000,000 in salary last year. Actually I guess he deserves it cause he's getting his stockholders manna from heaven.
I wonder how many taxpayers are going to suffer bankruptcy over such largesse?
If ever there was a rip off of the taxpayer, this is it!
But in a way they deserve it. They refuse to vote the bastards out.
Editor's Note: Here's Ron Paul's take on the "Mother of All Bailouts"
A year after hundreds of people marched on John Conyer's office demanding impeachment;
15 months after impeachment advocates gathered outside Congress to demand it start, supporting Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment on VP "Dick" Cheney;
30 months after illegal spying by the Bush regime became public;
4+ years after the whole world learned about the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib;
5+ years after Iraq was invaded on the basis of lies, leading to the deaths of more than one million people;
6+ years after Guantanamo opened; and almost 7 years after the Bush Justice Department's USA PATRIOT Act made a mockery of Constitutional protections for the people. .
..there will be a two hour hearing Friday in the House Judiciary Committee on Kucinich's latest article of impeachment against George Bush for lying about Iraq.
While you have to say to yourself that after 7 years, it's about time for a big fight over the crimes of the Bush regime, I'm not impressed, nor do I think we should be congratulating ourselves.
In the New York Times today, in a story about pardons Bush may issue: "As the administration wrestles with the cascade of petitions, some lawyers and law professors are raising a related question: Will Mr. Bush grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in controversial counterterrorism programs?"
As passionate as the arguments of impeachment advocates in and out of Congress, any openings this provides will come to something only with a determined movement of the people who reject the whole direction under the Bush regime.
So, let's keep going out among the people living in this country with truth about this criminal regime. Real hope comes in resisting, and through that resistance, forcing the powers that be to accede to our just demands.
Call in to talk shows, write your newspapers, talk to everyone you know. Hell yes, Bush & Cheney should be impeached, tried, and held to account for the crimes their administration carried out in our names.
A new abuse of our civil rights has apparently started in low income (read: inner city) areas in the state in which I live. Police are now stopping and demanding ID of anyone in a "designated drug neighborhood" without any probable cause or suspision of any wrongdoing.
(not aware of any stated curfews - this can happen during daylight hours)
And, they are using this terminology as their justification.
My girlfriend's son,who is 10 years old was stopped and had his dufflebag searched when he was coming home from school. He's an honor student and sure doesn't look or act like a street hood or gang member.
This has happened to her as well,and one cop mentioned the "DDN" not knowing she was an electrical engineer/progressive. Needless to say, we moved to the suburbs, and now only get harrassed for justifiable reasons.
By the way, the location of this area is only a few blocks from the Governor's Mansion in our small city. Anyone else hear of this kind of blatant violation of of our civil rights?
Is this part of the Patriot Act? Just wondering if this is occuring in other cities in Dick Cheney's America.
Bill Sardi has quite an interesting article about the US Banking industry over at LewRockwell.com. Here's an excerpt:
What IS going on is approximately 600 billion dollars' worth of subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) will go through rate-resetting between now and the end of 2008. About 15% of these ARMs are predicted to default, representing $75 billion of mortgages that banks will have as non-performing loans on their books, which will be reflected in their quarterly earnings reports. The stock price of these banks will then tumble and depositors will run to withdraw their funds from checking and savings accounts. Since most banks have no more than 10% of their depositors' funds in cash (the rest has been loaned out), even a small run on the bank could leave a bank with no cash.
I implore you to defend the Constitution and the rule of law--please commence immediate impeachment hearings on the 39 "privileged" Articles of Impeachment pending in your House Judiciary Committee, H.Res.333-3, H.Res.799-3, H.Res. 1258-35, and H.Res. 1345-1, presented to Congress by your colleague and friend Rep Dennis Kucinich.
You signed an oath to defend and protect the Constitution--it's not too late to fulfill your obligation--please commence immediate impeachment hearings without delay.
Sincerely,
Lance Ciepiela
************
If you'd like to help me out and forward the letter to your officials, it's super easy to do. Just click the link below and follow the simple steps.
I am going to assume that the reference to a watermelon has nothing to do with the ethnicity of Obama. Even so, this post is an embarrassment.
I am quite doubtful that any of the politicians to whom the author made reference are planning to enact the collapse of American civilization by denying our infrastructure all sources of energy from which it can continue to operate.
Furthermore, it appears that the author has confused Marxism - which predicts a final state of humanity that springs from industrialization - with a social condition that is advocated by Green Anarchists, who eschew any form of sophisticated technology.
Therefore, to say that Marxists would destroy American modes of production in order to bring about a state of communism is preposterous and demonstrative of an absence of even a rudimentary understanding of social theory.
Finally, we, here, at the Populist Party of America celebrate diversity and publicize manifold viewpoints.
I only hope that our audience is sophisticated enough to realize that we do not necessarily embrace the perspectives that we publish.
"We ended the rule of one of history's worst tyrants, and in so doing, we not only freed the American people, we made our own people more secure." --Crawford, Texas, May 3, 2003
Ever see a watermelon scramble? It's not a way of cooking a watermelon, like eggs, but more like a dance. The watermelons are scrambling on the downhill slope of the collapsing global warming swindle. Who are the watermelons? They are the environmentalist greenies with the Marxist red core, helped by the Gorists who want to bring America down. How do they accomplish that goal? They must drain the energy out of the American public and its enterprises. Without energy, nothing moves. If nothing moves, the nation collapses and falls to the Marxists who, all along, said it would fail from the inside.
Once America has collapsed, the communal interest crowd, the Barack Obama's, Hillary Clintons', Nancy Pelosi's and all her San Francisco crowd can establish a new nation, founded on the belief that individual freedom, people free to do their own thing, is an evil, which must be stamped out. Are they really winning? It may look that way as they prepare to occupy all the controlling positions in Washington in 2009. Something may have come into the American awareness that could disrupt their plans, however.
The price of energy may be the key. The watermelons have prevented Americans from creating, designing and producing alternatives to oil, coal and nuclear energy by outlawing their use, and that has caused the prices to rise into view of every American, even those who may have felt, in their uneducated and caring hearts, that the planet is in peril.
Oil is readily available. In the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico, not yet tapped by the Chinese, is a ready supply of oil that, if not blocked by greenies in favorable courts, can be on line in a year. The coast off Santa Barbara has the holes already and can be producing within a year, curing the constant seepage problem they now face. Even some of the Alaskan opportunities, blocked by green-government, has been drilled and is ready, such as Gulf Island. If refineries can be expanded, or new ones built, not blocked by greenies and their favorite courts, we can be back in the drivers' seat by 2010. The prices from speculation will drop in the meantime, as was seen when Bush announced lifting the ban.
The high price has opened America's eyes to the damages being inflicted on them by the watermelons who have vowed to destroy America. Let us hope enough people see it to stop them from taking over all of the power in Washington.
The United States of America and the State of Israel are the closest of allies, sharing intelligence, weapons, military research, among many other joint ventures. They support each other's policies at the United Nations and other international venues with only rare exceptions.
Policy on Iran may be one of those rare exceptions. Responsible Israeli officials have made their positions clear: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian protestations that their development of nuclear power is only for civilian electricity is not to be believed. Furthermore, that Iranian President Ahmedinejad's threat "to wipe Israel off the map" represents Iranian policy.
Some Israeli leaders want to launch a preemptive attack. Israeli official Shaul Mofaz said recently, "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
In a New York Times op-ed, July 18, 2008, Benny Morris, an influential moderate and former Israeli official warned, "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months."
Recently, the Israeli Air Force conducted a massive war game over the Mediterranean that was interpreted as a demonstration of Israeli ability to mount a serious and effective attack on Iranian installations.
However, US policy now seems to be headed in another direction. In the past, American policy placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, condemned it as a terrorist regime, passed a resolution in the U.S. Senate demanding regime change, appropriated money for Iranian dissidents, and refused to establish any diplomatic contact with the Iranian government.
Now, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, "We are not planning for a war with Iran," Admiral Mike Mullin Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports him. Accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have diminished. Most importantly, the Bush administration is planning to establish an American diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since Iranian extremists seized American hostages and occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Is the US sending a message to Israel not to attack Iran? Is the US sending a message to Middle East nations disassociating itself from an Israeli attack? Has US intelligence decided that the Israelis are serious in their threats?
The effects of an Israeli - Iran war would be world wide. The Muslim world would explode and attack western interests everywhere they could. Rulers of Muslim nations friendly to the west and clients of the US might be overthrown. The price of oil would probably reach $400 per barrel assuming that any oil at all would be shipped to the west. Worldwide energy shortages and commercial disruption would likely cause a financial collapse.
The stakes could not be higher, considering that Barack Obama told the US Israeli lobby AIPAC on June 4, "My goal will be to eliminate the threat (to Israel) posed by Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Pause) Everything.
This article seems to call a spade a spade. Found it in GlobalResearch.ca.
Here's an excerpt:
The deepening of the war and security state has continued unabated. Under a US congress with a Democratic Party majority, nothing been done to stop, reverse or undo the world war, boundless US government criminality, open corruption, or the absolute and systematic rape of law itself. Now, particularly with a looming US presidential election, leading members of both political parties have shown their true colors: as flagrant proponents of military-intelligence/"homeland security", and enthusiastic destroyers of the Constitution.
Heil Bush, Heil Obama, Heil McCain. What the heil is the difference?
While reading Henry Hazlitt's classic, "Economics in One Lesson," I came across a quote that I felt was quite applicable today:
"...they put the blame for higher prices on the greed and rapacity of businessmen, instead of on the inflationary monetary policies of the officeholders themselves."
Long ago, the men who discovered how to make fire and the wheel were probably burned at the stake. They discovered those new tools to ease man's burdens, but frightened them with the change they created. Great thinkers, artists, scientists and inventors were curious and stood apart from their communities. Every creative thought, act and new invention was denounced. The men of courage and vision moved ahead in spite of the headsman's ax.
No creative individual was motivated by a desire to please community. Community despised and feared what he offered. His passion and curiosity were his only motives. His dream became his only goal. His dreams and genius drove him, not the benefits community derived from them. He held his interests above all things and against all men. He moved ahead whether others agreed with him or not. He lived for himself. By living for himself, he achieved great things. Man cannot survive except through his mind, his interests, aspirations, through his skills and talents exercised freely.
No such thing as a community brain exists. Individuals think and act on their own. Reasoning minds cannot conform to the interests of community under any form of compulsion for the needs, opinions and wishes of others. The creative individual stands by his own thoughts and acts; the envious, angry parasite lives in the opinions of others. The creative thinks while parasites copy. The creative invents and produces while parasites take. The creative are concerned with conquering nature, while the parasite's concern is the conquering men. The creative individual needs independence, neither serving nor ruling. He deals with others by free exchange and his choice. Parasites seek power to bind all men together in community and slavery. They claim man is a tool for the use of community and must think as community, living in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.
Throughout history, everything we have, every achievement came from the work of some independent mind. Every destructive horror came from force individuals into a herd of brainless, soulless robots, with no personal rights, aspirations, will, hope, or dignity. It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: ?Individual interests against the interests of community. America was based on the principle of individual freedom and man's inalienable rights to his own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In America, individuals were free to seek gain and produce, to prosper, not starve; to achieve without plunder; to have personal value and self-respect. Look at America and know this is what the communalists are asking you to change.
As recent news makes clear, an attack on Iran could happen before the election, driving the Bush Agenda into the next administration, no matter who the president is.
Who will stop an attack on Iran?
Not the Democrats who secretly authorized military operations George Bush already has underway inside Iran. Not the Democratic leaders - including Senator Obama - who insist, again and again, that "all options" remain on the table for military action against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons!
Not the Democrats who, in their majority, including Obama, not only sanctioned retroactive immunity for the large telecom companies who went along with Bush and spied on people, but have given them prospective immunity in expanded government spying.
This war now belongs to the Democrats no less than the Republicans. If it is left to McCain and Obama, the occupation will continue for years. It was wrong to go into Iraq, it's wrong to stay in Iraq, it's wrong not to get out now!
If there is not a strong showing from the anti-war movement against this whole direction outside the convention, it will signal those who make war and the victims of these wars around the world that the people of this country will go along with continued occupation, with McCain or Obama sending many more troops to Afghanistan, and with threats to Iran. The Bush regime promised a war to last generations. Are we against this, or not?
The anti-war movement must set a standard of resistance, not accommodate what is intolerable. Only the people - not the politicians - can force open debate over why the U.S. occupation must end now. Only we can act on our convictions, letting others know that an end to the illegal, unjust and immoral wars and occupations will not happen without massive mobilization of the people, and that putting all your hopes and energies into the elections will not bring the change millions desire.
Some people say protest does not work. They are WRONG! What does not work is passivity in the face of a government being more widely exposed as committing war crimes and a public increasingly sickened by what is being done in their name. If the anti-war movement was so ineffectual why did the New York Times have to call it the "other superpower"?
Whether one plans on voting for Obama or not, we all must be in the streets making our clear opposition to torture, bloody occupations and any new war against Iran vividly clear. People are traveling the country to campaign for Obama. With a strong call from the anti-war movement, some will be willing to bring an anti-war message to Denver.
Local Denver activists have gone to court for permits for political protest outside the convention, and have permits for nearby parks. Recreate68 plans a march against the war on Sunday August 24, the day before the convention starts. The Alliance for Real Democracy, another coalition, is currently not planning to join this march.
Whatever differences exist, they pale in comparison to the responsibility those of us who are not at peace with being at war have to stop the US occupation of the Middle East. The world needs to see us in the streets in Denver, marching together on the eve of the convention opening.
If you're concerned this protest will be too small, you're not alone. The people in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan whose lives may be lost to further US aggression share that concern. It is the responsibility of those of us who know the devastation and misery the continued occupation of Iraq and an attack on Iran would bring to the world to struggle to bring many more forward to participate in this.
This is a call to MARCH together with the demand Stop the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, and Stop an Attack on Iran! You could have separate rallies and speakers at different sites in the park, but call out the many thousands of people to march together.
We will join with others in mobilizing everyone who has ever been against this war, and all those who know in their hearts this is wrong, to be in the streets of Denver, standing with the people of the world and refusing to be party to these wars.
Here's a video of Ron Paul doing what he does best - talking inflation and monetary policy. See him questioning Fed-Inflation-Master Bernanke on how their policies are destroying the value of the dollar and acting as a massive tax on all of us.
The history of the world is full of examples of the one tried and true form of human governance. It began with the family, where father knows best. It expanded into relatives gathering into tribes for mutual defense and survival, and the wisest or mightiest chosen as chiefs and later, kings. Everyone agrees it existed and how it functioned, as most of the world still follows this model. There were always a few elite at the top managing the many on the bottom. This is the accepted form of governance.
The interests of the community were paramount, always above the interests of the individual. The elite who ruled established community interests, and few dared disagree. Individuals' thinking out of the box, making waves and disturbing the way things worked, was dangerous for the individual. Individuals had less value than the whole of community, and, if inconvenient, could be eliminated.
Not all rulers were sensitive to the needs of their subjects, like a Nero or Caligula. Some leaders were sensitive to only segments of their nation, such as Hitler's attempts to purify the Aryan race in Germany. Some were brutal in their methods of making sure people were alike in their thinking and behavior, like Stalin and Mao. I am sure there were some elite who intended to be compassionate, though ruthless in defending their right to rule.
Somewhere along the line, however, people discovered that they could and should stand on their own and rule themselves and care for their immediate families. A number of them settled in New England in 1620 with their guidebook of behavior and governance, the Geneva Bible. They traded with one another, wrote laws defining unjust behavior and for the protection of life and property. They grew in prosperity and changed the rules for how a society should be governed.
They grew so prosperous that some among them became envious of others who did better than they did, and wanted to renew the older form of governance so no person, except for the elite who ruled, would have any more than another would. They called for change. They agreed on a candidate who promised change, to bring America back to the old tried and true, proven method of governance. Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be proud to see America return to the Old World ways.
Why should we oppose Iran obtaining nuclear weapons? Why should we oppose any nation obtaining nuclear weapons?
Not only is it a violation of those nations' right to develop their own military...it is futile to do so.
Stopping the spread of Nuclear Weapons is like stopping the spread of any technology. The Internet is a good example. Sooner or later everyone is going to have access.
This is a good thing. This is progress.
Mutually assured destruction kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for decades. Mutually assured destruction made war obsolete because it made war unthinkable.
In the future, any conflict, anywhere on Earth will be able to become a nuclear inferno. Humanity will have no choice but to work towards peaceful compromise on every issue. Reason shall prevail as it has always done.
Imagine how much safer and peaceful our world shall become once every nation who wants an atomic bomb is able to have one.
These two companies should not exist. No private companies should have lines of credit to the U.S. Treasury, that is, U.S. taxpayers. No private companies should be linked to a government mandate that they facilitate affordable housing by buying up mortgages. No private companies should issue debts that investors believe may have an implicit guarantee provided by taxpayers.
Might not be the most "popular" idea these days, but I think his reasoning is quite sound.
Over 4,100 American soldiers were killed fighting George W. Bush's war in Iraq on "false pretenses", which are "unlawful deaths", each and every one, requiring that George W. Bush be "indicted" and "prosecuted" for "murder" and "conspiracy to commit murder" charges as noted and documented by renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi in his stunning, best selling true crime book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".
In view of the above information, I implore you, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the only person in the nation who can bring a President to Justice, to investigate the charges, and if warranted, impeach, indict, and prosecute George W. Bush accordingly.
Some insist the "spirit of freedom exists in every human breast." If that were the case, America pushed that proposition adequately in the 20th century, and not that many have grabbed the gold ring. When American politicians stand on their soapbox and insist we need to go here and there and spread the word, they are wrong. They are wrong, for one reason, because almost half the people in America, after growing up in an atmosphere of individual freedom, are now rejecting it and voting for Barack. So, why would we think Middle-Eastern people want it? All they know is family with parents and communities with dictators.
Following the defeat of the British in America, an excited and enthusiastic Tom Paine went to France and told Gilbert deLafayette of his vision, a dream where he sees George Washington, on his white horse, leading a great army of liberation across Europe. LaFayette told Paine it could never work; because Europeans have lived all their lives, back through time, in a culture where a few elite ruled the many. They knew and accepted their place. To get them excited about standing on their own two feet and making their own decisions would simply make them sick with fear.
America began with men and women coming from Europe to escape the elite few ruling their lives, and following the words of their Savior and the Bible, where individuals were responsible for their own thoughts and acts. From this start grew a great country of individuals pursuing their own interests, aspirations, using their own talents and skills, becoming prosperous, taking care of their families and immediate communities. They had no need to declare war on neighboring communities or go elsewhere to show others how they should live. They took the "live and let live" approach, although if a neighbor messed with them they struck back.
Such was the case when Jefferson lashed out at the Tripoli Pirates, giving them a lesson in how to be beaten, and then pulling back. We fought back when the British came at us again, but did not follow them home to rule their land. America has a right and duty to defend itself, but none when it comes to forcing our culture on those who do not seek its benefits. That is arrogance.
Whether Barack Obama or John McCain is elected president, it is difficult to imagine a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
McCain insists on complete victory, refuses to ask Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their own future, and has completely changed his own stated position that he would leave Iraq when the Iraqis ask us.
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has indeed asked for a set timetable for US withdrawal but the silence from Bush, McCain and Obama has been deafening. McCain has forsworn deadlines for troop withdrawal without support for al-Maliki's position.
Obama's reaction is loaded with hedges:" If current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground."
Obama approaches his consultations with the military in a defensive position. "Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform." Does this sentiment weaken the historic civilian control of the US military?
MSNBC's crack reporter David Gregory interprets Obama: "When Obama says we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, that's the line, that's a signal that says he's not yanking (troops) out right away." Careless is a gross understatement, leaving unsaid the misrepresentations and lies on intelligence, on weapons of mass destruction, as well as the US ignoring the refusal of the Security Council of the United Nations to give legal sanctions to the US invasion.
In any case, both McCain and Obama plan for a residual US military force to fight Al Qaeda and insurgents, to train the Iraqi military, and to protect the US Embassy and US military bases in Iraq. That is the likely key to US policy in Iraq under either administration. The US is the dominant military, economic and political power on the planet and surely wants to remain in that position. It is inconceivable that the US would give up its control of the Middle East, an area that contains more than 40% of the oil reserves on earth. We now know that the supply of oil is finite, that modern society cannot function without oil, that the price of oil can be stretched to extraordinary heights. We cannot and will not walk away from the trillions of dollars involved and the power over all other nations we can exercise by control of oil.
After the investments the US has made in life, treasure and reputation, after the incompetence of the Bush administration in destroying the system it had in place for dominating the area without US troops, the American empire is surely not going to divest itself of this incalculable asset. No other empire in human history has done that. We won't either.
Bob Barr had an excellent article on his website this past weekend - "Protecting liberties, fighting terrorism?" In it, he takes a strong stand against the many violations of liberty that we've seen since 9-11 (and in many cases, before then as well).
Here's an excerpt:
Throughout U.S. history, the American people have balanced liberty and security. Finding the right mix isn't always easy. But policy-makers must never forget that they are duty-bound to protect a free society.
Liberty is far more than just a bank account, e-mail or Social Security number. Liberty defines a free people. It is our birthright to keep personal affairs private from others, and especially from the government. It is our constitutional right not to have our privacy invaded and evidence gathered against us without the government having a good reason for doing so and securing a warrant. It also is our constitutional birthright not to be arrested except through the due process of law. And it is our duty to hold those who exercise power accountable for their actions.
This is not a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It is an American issue.
The framers of the Constitution attempted to balance the power of the President as commander-in-chief with that of Congress, the representatives of the People.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation's armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war.
Presidential candidate, Bob Barr has taken a strong stand in support of the Constitution in a recent post on his website:
"Former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher have proposed a new statute to encourage the president and Congress to cooperate in going to war. But the Constitution already sets forth a clear rule: Congress, and only Congress, is tasked with declaring war," explains Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. "Absent exigent circumstances, like defending against a surprise attack, only Congress has the authority to take America into a conflict."
When crafting the Constitution, the founders weighed the individual will of the Executive against the deliberative function of the Legislature, whose constituents would bear the full costs of any war.
Thus, the framers deliberately separated the powers of declaring and waging war; they confined these powers in such a way so as to thwart the tyranny of kings.
Isn't it great to watch TV every day and see one or both of the major party salesmen on the stump, promising Americans everything, except that given us over 200 years ago. The media, citing extremism, will properly dress down the first one mentioning the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. It's OK, however, to stand for the Marxists liberation theology and the Marxists environmental theology, but never for individual freedom. Neither major party candidate has seen fit to recognize the interests of individuals over those of the community.
Barack has his feet firmly rooted in Marxist thinking and his church's liberation theology, but he can depart from it long and far enough to attract voters from the uncaring, uneducated middle. McCain is also trying to attract votes from the middle, but has a difficult time of it because he is not firmly rooted in anything resembling a political thought process. His votes and positions in Congress have proven it, as well as his stand on global warming. It might be proper to say McCain is a "Gorist."
They are both like snake oil salesmen offering promises and pledges of one gift or another to whomever goes their way. In American politics, however, it was always the norm for candidates to pledge to keep Americans and America free, as a nation, as states and as individuals. It was never the purpose of candidates, at least before the 20th century, to promise gifts taken from the treasury, of bringing one kind of person down to satisfy the envy of another with more communal clout. What makes it even more absurd is that the problems they promise to cure; they created, along with their grubby compatriots from both political parties.
The only thing that would attract me is a candidate who says, I'll push government back to the Constitution, back to the state and local levels, back to the control of the people being governed. I'll vote for him or her if they say they'll vote against any law that takes control of my property and bank accounts from me, and vote yes for any law that gives them back, once taken. Ill vote for any politician supporting how great I am, not that he or she is greater.
The following articles were the most-read last week by the PopulistAmerica.com community. Stats are updated every Friday AM, and posted on the Populist Party home page.
Greetings, and thanking you greatly for defending the Constitution by presenting to Congress today, your Article of Impeachment against George W. Bush, Article I, "Deceiving Congress With Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
Most certainly, by leading an unsuspecting United States to war with Iraq on entirely "false pretenses", George W. Bush, with command responsibility, is directly and solely responsible for the "unlawful deaths" of over 4,100 American soldiers, requiring that George W. Bush be impeached and removed from office, "indicted" and "prosecuted" on "murder" and "conspiracy to commit murder" charges, as noted and documented by renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi in his stunning, best selling true crime book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"
Your outstanding leadership and unrelenting boldness on the impeachment of Cheney and Bush has insured that the constituents in your District and all Americans today, and all future generations, will take notice forever of the dastardly high crimes and treason committed by an imperial president, George W. Bush, unaccountable to the American people for anything, and an abomination to a free and peace loving nation.
Very best wishes and regards to you and Elizabeth,
Looking at the see saw, I'd have to ask, "Who's up and who's down now?" Let's see, on the left side are the Hamiltonian liberals and on the right side the Jeffersonian conservatives, and in the middle is the fulcrum. The middle is the center, the part of the political spectrum everyone looks to for votes. Middle-of-the-roaders know nothing about Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian views and couldn't give a rat's behind about the principles of either. They like quick sound bytes, crowd-attracting excitement and misleading publicity. To the easy-riders in the middle, the whole thing isn't worth that much attention. Since they are not moving anywhere, someone else can carry the load, and why not?
The Hamiltonian liberal side believes most people need them and their expert elitism to make it through life. They see most people as just smart enough to pick them so they can be properly managed in the way they live. It's much harder for the Jeffersonian conservative side to convince people they need to stand on their own two feet and make their own life-managing decisions, and not leave it to some attractive politician with meaningless rhetoric in the stratosphere.
For almost 400 years, the political see saw was up on the Jefferson conservative side, where individual freedom was the core principle of America. While it was up, America grew prosperous, and those with great ideas and persistence made out well. Now, the Hamilton liberals' side is up, because they have convinced so many Americans that the interests of community are much more important than those of individuals. They serve and lead the efforts of the community, giving it the interests they believe most worthy. Of course, this is a reflection of Old World principles, which provided 80% poverty, mostly illiteracy and starvation, throughout the world. In America, prosperity only came from individual freedom, the Jefferson side.
Most people want nothing to do with the up and down struggles of politicians, up today and down tomorrow, so they grab hold of the center and quit thinking about how they live politically, leaving it to others. Life is easy in the center, until one side goes so far up it rules and makes changes based on that rule, which shakes the foundation of their culture.
OK? So, pick a side and struggle for your principles, or the center and let the winners of either side decide for you.
That pesky 4th amendment has been getting in the way of what our glorious leaders have wanted for quite a few years (decades). But, we needn't worry any longer -- our great "change" candidate, Mr. Barack Obama, has just voted to eliminate it.
Barack Obama voted for cloture on the bill to give Bush all he wants on illegal warrantless surveillance. And then he voted for the bill. Hillary Clinton voted against cloture, then voted against the bill. All it took for Obama to become less civil libertarian than Hillary was getting the nomination. What will he do as president?
Even worse than Hillary. Is this the kind of "change" his supporters had their "hope" and sights set on? I doubt it, but that's just what we'll be getting. (from McCain, too).
$12 Trillion in debt is just the "Short Term" problem. Long term the accrued debt is probably knocking on $60 Trillion.
And have you noticed the negative job growth in the first six months of this year? 438,000 so far.
In a country where the population is growing say at about 1%, there would be about 250,000 new people going into the labor market each month, so a balanced labor market should generate about 250,000 new jobs per month.
A loss of 438,000 jobs over 6 months is actually a shortfall of about 325,000 jobs per month or almost 4 million on an annualized basis.
In other words, the job market is lagging about 1/2 of 1 % with population growth per month.
How can freedom and the prosperity it generates be harmful? It hurts the self-centered people who envy the success of others. Their envy grows and festers, becoming anger. Their whole demeanor reflects their angry state, and their lives narrowly focus on joining with others of like mind and assaulting the source of the anger, those who have done more and have more. They become today's democrats! They gather as a community, sharing their envy and anger, seeking a leader who will take over their lives and remove the source of their anger.
The problem with this is that those they envy and hate, because of their differences, their happiness and prosperity, are the ones that make it possible for them to share some of their happiness and prosperity. They are the employers and the purchasers of their efforts. Those who focus on their pains of envy and anger seem to forget that their associates of like mind are not the ones who guide, create and generate the prosperity on which they live and prosper. The unemployed and homeless are not the ones who hire people to work and pay them for their efforts.
A part of the community has always been envious and angry, often coming together into angry mobs seeking to destroy the life and property of the successful. In America, many in community are successful at what they do and very few fall into that mind-set of envy. The envious and angry, however, have increased with the growing persuasion of the communists, socialists and fascists coming to America from the Old World, to the extent those groups are working through the Democratic Party, recruiting the folks who hate and envy.
America has proven that prosperity only comes out of individual freedom. Freedom is that which allows individuals to pursue the things that turn them on for which they have the drive, talent and skill to achieve. Those people, who never find that which turns them on, do not educate themselves for success, or chase golden dreams. They become rooted to the place where they stand, looking for others of like failure to join. They become the army on the barricades seeking to punish those they envy and to bring them down to their level. Only then, in their misery, can they feel happy. Yes, it hurts to watch others be happy.
I just re-read my article, Contract with America: Bill of Rights. I wrote it shortly after the mis-named Patriot Act was voted in, then revised it when the Dims took "charge." Perhaps I should now list some of the other draconian pieces of legislation since then?
Isn't it tragic that the Congress gave to the Executive, through misguided PATRIOTism, an ACT that would unconstitutionally repeal those rights guaranteed by the Constitution and turn it all over to Homeland Security?
Read your Constitution and Bill of Rights, then read the text of the Patriot Act and the amended Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the amended FISA Act, the legislation allowing torture, banning habeas corpus, and the many Executive Orders giving the Executive ever more dictatorial powers over We the People, then think about it. We the People of the United States have been virtually stripped of those freedoms that the founders of our nation fought so hard to secure from an earlier King George.
Everybody heaved a great sigh of relief when the "Democrats" were back in power, but things quickly returned to business as usual. The rich get richer, the poor and middle class get poorer and the government gets still more power to do as it wills.
We have got to impeach and remove the cancer that has infected our nation before it becomes inoperable. We are facing widened wars of desperation as Bush and his gang looks desperately for a way of regaining control. They are not beyond a "Black Op" against the United States (remember the Maine, Tonkin Gulf, the WMD lies and the jury is still out on 9/11) followed by a declaration of martial law. The groundwork has been carefully laid and is available to review on many sites.
We must hold Congress to the Contract that We the People made with them over two centuries ago, restore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, intact and functioning to the halls of government, and return to using them for the rule and guide of our actions.
Does that about cover it?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson
Kane Webb of the Arkansas DemocratGazette, offered a Commentary "When Barack Called Bill" Sunday and, in his words, all the conversation is fictionalized except for the NY Times info stating that Bill and Obama had met. From there Webb presented his ficticous diatribe about Obama. Seems Webb won't see the forest for the trees.
There is a battle for the Drug Trade going on in Columbia between the Government, FARC, and the AUC. FARC is the group who had kidnapped the hostages rescued last week. The AUC helped the Government rescue those hostages. The AUC is a paramilitary (Mercenary) Army that is battling FARC for control of the Columbian Drug Trade. The corrupt Columbian Government also wants to run that Drug business.
Carl Linder, McCain's Ohio Campaign Guru and a major Financier is dealing Ammo, etc. to AUC to help them take over the Drug Trade from FARC. McCain's selection for the Republican Convention Chair, Doug Goodyear, is representing Exxon and other Oil Concerns who are at this very moment participating in the stealing of Iraqi Oil.
Is that why over 4100 American soldiers and at latest count 1.2 million Iraqis died?
And of course there is the corrupted Congress. And remember McCain's "Senior Adviser", Charlie Black? He has worked for some of the worlds worst dictators, mass murderers, tyrants , and was connected with the Angola Guerillas who over the years have killed several opposition leaders to steal Angola's mineral resources.
McCain has connections with Arms Dealers, Drug Lords, Anti-Government Insurgents, Mercenary Armies and all Webb can do is write a fictionalized account to denigrate Obama.
To cancel the Declaration of Independence is not like repealing a law, except that the Declaration was the core of our founding and our laws, which will be repealed upon cancellation of that document. The Declaration of Independence was an announcement to the world that people living in America, at the time, discovered individual freedom better than the tyranny of the Old World.
They told the rest of the world that their Creator gave them the right to pursue their own individual interests, aspirations, using their own talents and skills, to make a better life for themselves and their families. The few elite, who ruled the many, did not give those rights, only took them away when they surfaced.
We hear many references to our Founding Documents, our state constitutions, the first three national constitutions, the Northwest Ordnance, the Federalist Papers, all those words that have tried to put a face on what America has created.
No written document has done more to describe America's big change in how people live in society than Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence, once the foundation also of the Democratic Party before it switched to Marxism and the Old World ideals of community interests being superior to individual interests.
When you look at the history of man on earth, up to the great American experiment and change, you see a few self-styled elite ruling and abusing the many, and life was pretty raw and threatening. America's great change created a bright spot on the planet that showed all humankind there was a better way to live.
Individual freedom became the focus of society and people used their Creator-given rights to be different, pursuing their own interests, aspirations, talents and skills to improve theirs and their family's lives. It worked well, and the comparisons with the rest of the world demonstrate the difference.
Americans today, however, want to change all of this. They demand change and are voting for it. The change they want is to cancel the Declaration of Independence and all its influences, so Americans can get back on-stream as part of the Old World, where the few elite rule the many and community interest is superior to individual interests. It is called getting back to life in the raw with all its threats.
Tomorrow, July 8th, could mark the beginning of official condoning of warrantless surveillance of law-abiding citizens in the US, not to mention foreign nationals. Much of this information has been covered by Glenn Greenwald in the past week.
In the video below, I talk about what every American needs to know - and do in the next 24 hours - about the new FISA (Federal Information and Surveillance Act) amendments. The interview, and below partial transcription, answers questions like.
-I don't have anything to hide. How does this affect me? -What if this type of surveillance is what has prevented another 9/11 from happening? -What are common inaccuracies about FISA reported in the media?
Find below how you can make a real impact in less than 60 seconds. Every person counts - the Senators who will vote are watching the numbers. 41 Senators can block the bill, and it's not too late.
Please do the following: How I ask you to spend 60 seconds
1. ALL AMERICANS: Go to the EFF website here and put in your zipcode to find your Senator's phone number. Call them and read the short script on the same page. If no answer, click the link at the bottom of the page to e-mail them. (Tell others verbally to go to "www.eff.org" and click "take action")
2. OBAMA SUPPORTERS: Go to My.BarackObama.com here and join the group requesting he oppose (as he did earlier) the amendment. This takes about 30 seconds. I suggest changing "ListServ" in the bottom right to "Do not receive e-mails." (Tell others verbally to search "obama please vote no" on Google and My.BarackObama.com will be in the top 3 results, currently #1)
Watch the video:
Some Highlights of the interview:
1. Why does the vote this Tuesday, July 8th matter to normal people who have nothing to hide?
Ordinary citizens who want to live in a democracy - including those with nothing to hide - should be concerned about the ability of the government to use private, sensitive personal information to blackmail, manipulate, and intimidate their representatives, journalists and their sources, potential whistleblowers, and activists or dissenters of any sort.
2. Couldn't it be argued that this type of surveillance ability has prevented another 9/11 from happening? Isn't it possible that this type of legislation has saved American lives?
The administration has claimed that is has, but without presenting a single piece of evidence that this is so, even in closed hearings to Senators with clearances on the Intelligence Committee. The FISA court has granted warrants in virtually every request that's been made of it that has any color of helping national security. The administration's decision to bypass that court, illegally, leads to a strong suspicion that they are abusing domestic spying, as some of their predecessors did, in ways that even the secret FISA court would never approve.
3. What are the most important factual inaccuracies about FISA found in the media?
Advocates of the bill take pride that it makes this amended FISA the exclusive basis for overhearing citizens, but that exclusivity is, in fact, in the current 30-year-old FISA bill already. President Bush simply ignored it in bypassing FISA, and there's not reason that he and his successors would not continue to do the same here.
It's been inaccurately stated that if this amendments didn't pass, FISA would expire. This is flatly false. FISA is open-ended and will continue as it already has, adequately for 30 years. What would expire are some blanket surveillance orders authorized last year, which the majority of Democrats, including Senator Obama, voted against.
The current bill does include one useful amendment to FISA, which could be passed with virtually unanimous approval in an afternoon, to allow warrantless interception of foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to pass through the United States. No one opposes this.
Various administration officials have claimed that the requirement of applying for a warrant from the FISA court deprived them of speed and flexibility. This is false. The FISA allows for surveillance to be implemented in an emergency situation before a warrant is sought, and that could undoubtedly be extended with Congressional approval without controversy.
What the administration seeks, and this bill provides, is permanent warrantless surveillance.
4. Let's consider an analogy: police officers have the legal right to stop you if you're going 56 mph in a 55-mph zone, but this right isn't often abused or applied to harass citizens. What makes you think the administration would abuse their surveillance powers if this amendment is approved?
The abuses of surveillance to which governments are drawn are those that keep them in office, used to intimidate and manipulate their rivals, and to avoid debate and dissent on their policies. These are exactly the abuses that the Church Committee discovered in 1975, which had been conducted on a wide-scale by the Johnson and Nixon administrations, and in some cases even earlier, which is what lead to FISA in the first place.
To remove judicial oversight, which this amendment would effectively do, is to invite the same kind of repressive abuse that lead to FISA in the first place.
5. Why would the current administration want this amendment to pass, if not for safety of citizens and prevention of attacks?
Using NSA to spy without judicial oversight or constraint on American citizens provides the infrastructure for dictatorship. George W. Bush has frequently said what other presidents may only have thought: "It would be a heck of a lot easier in a dictatorship, if only I were the dictator."
Other presidents have violated the law and the Constitution in much the same way as Bush, so long as they could do it secretly, but they haven't proclaimed that as a right of their office as Bush, Cheney and their legal advisors have done.
The oath of office they took, along with all members of Congress, was to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. I believe that, in the matters we've been discussing, the Founders had it right, not only for their time but for ours.
"The Us is not a Republic Anymore" is a good article for those that do not understand what made America a republic and that do not understand why it is that our republic has been lost.
The question then becomes what has replaced our republic. My answer is a de-facto fascist state. This is because American government under the Bush regime fits the definition of fascism. Part of that fitting the definition of fascism is the Bush regime has assumed dictatorial power without being challenged by Congress.
The original definition of fascism by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile is as follows:
Fascism, a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
Giovanni Gentile's definition of fascism was the source for the definition of fascism in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language which is as follows:
Fascism, a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Folks, take it seriously. Our republic has been destroyed. Also, that the best explanation for our present situation is that we are now living in a de facto fascist state.
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight D. Eisenhower
President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- was a Republican who most so-called GOPers on the far right would call a RINO and would not respect nor probably even vote for today.
Despite the shadow of the Cold War during his presidency and his extreme dislike of and concern about what he considered to be the threat of communism, Eisenhower was not inclined to be a saber-rattler. Part of his platform for his first presidential campaign was the ending of the Korean War -- which he sought and achieved.
He is quoted as having said numerous times that as someone who had been to war, he hated war, would avoid war, and would go to war only in defense of the country against a clear threat.
Eisenhower is reported to have sought and achieved a reduction in defense spending (not counting strategic arms and delivery systems due to the Cold War scare). Democrats, liberal Republicans, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and much of the press clamored for drastic increases in defense spending, but Eisenhower focused on the long term, slowing the arms race and keeping the economy intact in the process.
He was the only 20th century president to have presided over eight years of peace and prosperity as well as a balanced budget and an economy with negligible inflation.
It would seem likely, in view of what Eisenhower believed in and achieved and said, that the Pentagon today -- plus George Bush's military budgets -- plus the "unwarranted influence" of the military-industrial complex that now exists despite Eisenhower's having warned against it would amount to Ike's bane were he still alive.
In America, the Fourth of July is the day we celebrate the announcement, to the world, that a new kind of governing ideal had come to stay. It celebrates a letter, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, sent to King George III and the rest of the world telling them a new way of life has proven itself in America, and Americans want to retain that way.
That letter, rippling across the world, caused furious opposition toward America, disturbed all the rulers and elite who managed the lives of their subjects. It told the world that, no longer would the rule of the few over the many be the only way a nation existed. It said a new kind of government, from the people up, growing in America, that individual freedom was superior to the interests of the tribe as defined by its ruler.
It said Americans held these truths sacred, that though we grow and thrive in our inequalities, we are born equal before our Creator and the law. Each individual had the right, given by God, to live free, pursue his or her own interests, aspirations, talents and skills as long as they hurt no one. Furthermore, men are not subject to the rule of a few and no man was superior to another.
The world had never known this kind of condition. It was shocked by it. How could it be possible that ordinary men and women could be as great as the ruler, the aristocracy and the elite? What gall! What kind of preposterous notion was this? Everyone knew there were the few better people who were meant to rule the majority of uneducated, uninspired riff-raff. How can anyone even conceive of the ordinary riff-raff deciding for themselves what is in their best interests? However, the letter went out and a war was fought in an effort to cancel its provisions, which failed.
Did America's new idea of how to live prove itself? America, with only five percent of the world's population controls over twenty-five percent of the world's wealth and has been the one nation, among all, setting the standards for the rest of the world.
Today, Americans are on the verge of cancelling that letter. Too many today prefer to be managed riff-raff and no longer responsible for themselves. The task of living free is too difficult. We have arrived at a time when Americans are rejecting the contents of that letter, the Declaration of Independence, and want to return to the Old World ways, where the few elite rule the many. In the coming election, we are looking for the return of the elite few who will shape and manage our lives as they see fit.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the superb article that I read this morning by Paul Craig Roberts - a very well-known Columnist and former Assistant Secretary to the Treasury in the Reagan Administration - "We Take Precedence".
Here's an excerpt:
This slaughtering of foreigners doesn't seem to bother the American public. Americans take it for granted that Americans are superior and that American purposes, whatever they be, take precedence over the rights of other people to life and to a political existence independent of American hegemony.
The Bush regime has come up with a preemption doctrine that justifies attacking a country in order to prevent the country from possibly becoming a future threat to the US. "Threat" is broadly defined. It appears to mean the ability to withstand the imposition of US hegemony. This insane doctrine justifies attacking China and Russia, a direction in which the Republican presidential candidate John McCain seems to lean.
The callousness of Americans toward the lives of other peoples is stunning. How many Christian churches ask God's forgiveness for having been rushed into an error that has killed, maimed, and displaced a quarter of the Iraqi population?
Coming from a former Reagan Republican Government decision maker, and reflecting on the current state of Republican popularity, or lack thereof, I think it speaks volumes. I do know that it reflects my beliefs. And I also recommend the Charlie Reese article linked in Robert's piece.
I would also like to share a quote I once ran across, maybe from Tolstoy:
"Every war - with all its ordinary consequences - the murder with the justifications of its necessity and justice, the exaltation and glorification of military exploits, the worship of the flag, the patriotic sentiments - and so on, does more in one year to pervert men's minds than thousands of robberies, murders, and arsons perpetrated during hundreds of years by individual men under the influence of passion."
And one more from Tolstoy to go along with Robert's mention of Anticipatory Wars in that context
"What an immense mass of evil must result from allowing men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen."
Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.
According to the Thursday, 3:26 PM, June 30, 2008, issue of Information Clearing House, the slaughter is as follows, 1,225,899 Iraqi's killed, 4113 U.S. military personnel killed. The 4113 U.S. military personnel killed statistic is the official figure from the fascist American government. All official US statistics from the fascist American government are highly suspect. This is because the fascist American government lies about everything.
In addition, we do not have any information on how many American civilians were killed. This is because we do not know how many American paramilitary, that is people serving in American private fascist armies, were killed.
Next, who is big oil in this Iraqi oil resource rip-off? They are Exxon-Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum and Total. Total is a French oil company, and one of the six "Supermajor" oil companies in the world.
Now, why is all of this happening? It is because Iraq has oil and the fascist American government's function, as a fascist government, is to secure that oil for the pro-fascist American interests, and their pro-fascist American oil companies. After all, it was they who financed both Democratic and Republican political campaigns that put pro-fascist Democrats and pro-fascist Republicans into power.
That is, to support their backers, it is the "function" of the fascist American government to declare an illegal war and illegally invade Iraq, kill over 1.2 million Iraqis, maintain an occupying army in Iraq far into the future, sacrifice over 4100 Americans, incur over $532,000,000,000,000 in debt, all for the benefit of these four oil companies.
Bottom line: Any American that votes Republican or Democrat in the 2008 national elections deserves the screwing the fascist faction that controls the Republican Party, and the fascist faction that controls the Democratic Party, are sure to give them.
We pride ourselves as the prime purveyors of equality, the distinguishing characteristic of Democracy. More than a century ago, in 1879, Matthew Arnold reminded us that "Inequality has the natural and necessary effect, under the present circumstances, of materializing our upper class, vulgarizing our middle class, and brutalizing our lower class."
The Wall Street Journal tells us that "The gap between the winners and losers in the US is growing.. that even excluding capital gains, 75% of the pretax income growth (in years 2002 - 2006) went to the best-off 1% of American families."
Harvard Magazine features a study entitled "Unequal America, the growing gap", relating inequality of income to the US decrease in life expectancy in absolute terms and in comparison to other nations. Harvard University, with its endowment of some $35 billion, is surely expert in inequality
Warren Buffett, patron saint of American capitalism, repeatedly expresses his personal guilt at the injustice of his secretary paying her income tax at a rate much higher than he pays on his billion-dollar income. Does this astute collector of insurance companies' sense a potential revolt of the 99% against the one percent, remembering 1789, 1917, and 1948?
We are currently engaged in a great political battle to determine the direction of our great nation. But the basic question about fair distribution of the economic benefits of our enormously wealthy society is not being seriously addressed. How does inequality affect our national health, our rate of crime, our pursuit of happiness, our level of education, our economic productivity? And above all, what does it portend for the future of our prized Democracy.
When some Americans earn billions, their taxes, their fair share of the cost of maintaining our society-must rise dramatically. When some Americans earn less than a poverty wage, their benefits must rise dramatically. In a stable society in which the rich can enjoy their wealth, in which all will have sufficient benefits to motivate support for that society, some form of redistribution of income will be necessary. But we may not have to put a camel through the eye of a needle to accomplish this.
The candidates for the presidency must address these basic questions. Their supporters must demand answers. Inequality is a crisis for Democracy and the political process is the way to a solution.
We can look at people in America, as it relates to society and politics in three ways. Let's start with the smallest faction. First, there are people who are self-centered and without moral inhibitions who care nothing about anyone else or themselves. They are the reason we need laws, law enforcement, courts and jails. They have always been a small minority and a nuisance.
Second, there are people who believe, to the extent of their education, experience and achievements allow, they can stand on their own two feet and make their own way in the world, and believe everyone else is equally able to do the same. They feel they are all right and everyone else is too. They like and serve each other with their interests, talents, skills and aspirations, and are rewarded by others if they produce. All they need and want is the freedom to be what they can be.
Third, there is a faction consisting of two kinds of people, a few who believe they have all the answers and the many that are looking for help from them. This is the Pied Piper faction, the elite leader and the many followers.
America grew mighty and prosperous because, initially, we had more of the second faction, those who could do best for themselves who saw everyone else equal to the task. They simply did not want anyone from the other two factions getting in their way. Today, we call these people conservatives, libertarians and some republicans, and they will usually vote for people who agree with them.
The third faction is today's American liberals, a few wise and elite and the many that worship and look to them for help and guidance. They vote for those who agree with them. They are the communists, socialists and democrats. They will vote for the Pied Piper who promises to take care of them, taking from those who did well to give to those who will not be what they can be.
In America today, that third faction has grown and is open to the promises of the Pied Piper, in this case, Barack Obama and his cadre of socialists.
Common Cause is running an interesting petition called "Recapture the Flag." Here's a brief overview:
We The People believe in the Constitution, the rule of law and justice for all. We will not stand by as our democracy suffers at home and our nation's reputation is tarnished abroad.
The U.S. flag has long stood as a symbol of liberty, justice and freedom - a beacon of hope in a troubled world. We pledge to work to Recapture the Flag by demanding a government that respects human rights, leadership that rejects all forms of corruption, and elected officials who fiercely challenge anyone who seeks to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The problem is not bailouts per se, it is the popular notion that "democracy" is good for all that might ail us as a nation.
Creeping democracy is allowing the voters to grant themselves indemnification from all of life's hazards, and our willing politicians are more than happy to go along to get (re)elected since they can use other people's money to pay for it all!
History teaches us the fate of all democracies is the same -- they eventually fail when voters demand so much that the treasury is bankrupt.
Debra Sweet's article, Threats, Blockades, Sanctions, Airstrikes on Iran, ALL wrong, leaves out the real intent in punishing Iran. Iran must be punished or destroyed because it is a Sovereign Nation, that wishes to pursue its own path, follow its own destiny.
Under Cheney/Bush, that is the ultimate crime.
Not to be subservient to the nation with the greatest number of WMD's and the most hubris on the planet. If you do not agree with us and do our bidding, then, as der Bush said so long ago, "If you are not with us, you are against us."
In Cheney/Bush terms, that means subversion, or elimination.
The deaths of millions means nothing to them, as long as it improves profits and power.
Since We the People are allowing this to happen without any checks and balances, by electing legislators (our alleged representatives) who will rubber stamp whatever the Oligarchy and its minions insist upon, we, too, are complicit in this global rape, theft and murder, carried out in our name.
In reading, "The Coming Catastrophe," I am reminded of pre-World War One Czarist Russia. The czars and their ruling economic/political/military elite had absolutely no concept of how totally unprepared, and therefore vulnerable, Russia was for total war in the Twentieth Century.
How fragile their whole feudal economic system really was. They were completely ignorant of how precarious their hold on the reins of power were. What sort of forces existed within their own society that could seize political power the moment they faltered. They had no idea of how far they could fall from power.
To me, the ruling American fascist elite are in a position very similar to that of the pre-World War One Russian Czars. The ruling elite are about to embark on a military adventure that potentially could devastate American capitalism and in the process destroy their own hold on power.
Yet, they apparently have no idea of what may lie before them.
