E-mail me at:

[email protected]

Back to Liberty_blog

By Libby, 76

AUGUST 15, 2004

...AND SOME MORE LOOSE ENDS

POLLS, DO WE HAVE POLLS! They will validate any answer you seek. Want Bush to be a “strong leader”? There is a poll out there for you. Want Kerry to be leading in electoral votes? You may have to search a bit, but you’ll find it. And this roller coaster ride is going to continue right up to, during, and even after the election!

Polls will tell you why Bush won and why Kerry didn’t, why you voted the way you did, why you didn’t vote, and whether or not the winner will get reelected next time.

Let’s get real for a minute. We have a guy in office who is absolutely glowing at being a “war president” even though his little war is costing an average of 2.7 lives per day. Now you might not think that too many; unless your loved one is one of those 2.7 daily casualties. But we really don’t know if it is actually 2.7 or more, because those deaths are shrouded in a veil of secrecy - it could be a lot more but it certainly is not less. But polls say there is little difference in Our opinion about the handling of Iraq. Do we simply not care?

He also failed to stop a major terrorist attack on September 11, 2001; didn’t even bother to read the PDB that was practically yelling that the terrorists were coming; h---, we don’t even know who he designated to read it! And to top that off, he had to mull over what to do about planes crashing into buildings for about 30 minutes before he could move his heinie off an elementary schoolroom chair.

Apparently, the only decisive act his government could manage was to swiftly dispatch aircraft to pick up Saudi rich people and relatives of the guy who was responsible for the terrorist plot and whisk them to safety...while our firemen were still trying to put out the fires. But this one decisive act translated into polls that “proved” that we thought Bush was a “strong leader”!

You also have a guy surrounded by very rich loyal subjects, known as his “base” who give him millions of dollars at the same time their companies are outsourcing and laying off workers faster than during the Great Depression. It took over ten million jobless Americans before the polls began reflecting discontent with Bush’s economic plan. In spite of 2/3 rds of those polled thinking that the economy is bad, Bush continues to churn out economic data that is supposed to prove them wrong. How many positive polls will it take to prove those jobless Americans wrong?

And, in spite of being hated throughout the world, polls show that his opponent, Kerry has only a slight lead in foreign policy. The flip-flop issue is also big in the polls, seems Kerry is seen by more than 40% as the most likely to change his mind while less than 30% saw Bush as changing his mind. Polls seem to think that this is a good thing; however, Bush is the guy, when asked what mistakes he had made, stated that he couldn’t think of any. Give me a flip-flop over a “decisive” my-mind-is-made-up-don’t-bother-me-with-facts anytime.

There’s a time to be decisive, like when Kerry turned back to rescue one of his crewman, and a time to negotiate. I prefer someone who knows the difference and Bush’s take-no-prisoners attitude doesn’t assure me. He flipped and flopped over far more important matters, like do I take my National Guard physical or do I not? Well, perhaps he was decisive, can’t sent a grounded pilot to VietNam, can you?

But none of this stuff makes it to polls. I’ve never seen a question about how you feel about a guy who uses influence to avoid being drafted to VietNam, disappears for a year or so, gets an early release during time of war, then delights so much in the title of “commander-in-chief” that he promptly starts a war so he can go down in history as a “war president”. If those 2.7 daily casualties got to answer that poll question, what do you think they would say?

But, think about this, if those 939 Iraq casualties probably couldn’t even get to tell Bush what they think about his war. A just back from Iraq 23 year veteran of the National Guard, Tim Walz, went to see Bush during his stop in Mankato. But he obviously didn’t have the “right stuff” to get into a Bush event. Walz, a teacher, also escorted some teenagers to the event. During the interrogation process, one teen was discovered to have a *g*a*s*p Kerry sticker in his wallet (they check wallets before you can get into Public Servant Bush’s speech???) Not only were the teen ousted, but Walz, this veteran of Bush’s Iraq invasion, was threatened with arrest and subjected to a political investigation (there goes the secret vote!)

His objection to the teens treatment put him back in the trenches, so to speak. “You’re not welcome.” the Bush agent said. It was downhill from there until Walz asked if they really wanted to arrest someone who had just gotten back from Iraq because he wanted to see “the president”?

The guy’s “soft spot” for Bush’s army kicked in, Walz was told that if he behaved himself they would “do him a favor”! Some favor. The good news is that this act of censorship convinced Walz that he should work for Kerry’s election.

This CENSORSHIP by Our public servant isn’t a first. The handpicked crowd of 7,000, who provided the adulation that the clothless emperor requires, is just one of many staged events. Those disagreeing with our employee have endured almost four years of being shunted into barb wire enclosures, surrounded by guns and guard just as if we resided in some dictatorship. That notoriously behind “media” is just now beginning to report on the “no free speech events” orchestrated by the Republican party to protect the fragile ego of Bush.

You don’t have to be a card carrying Democrat or be waving anti Bush anti war signs to be booted from Republican events. A family of four was recently removed from a Bush appearance for carrying a a rolled up sweatshirt with a pro-choice slogan. The “villain” Barbara Miller, a Dow Chemical Co. chemist, said she thought she might get cold and obviously, her choice of sweatshirt was on the forbidden list. Her daughter, Theresa was just as guilty, she wore a t-shirt proclaiming “This is what feminists look like”.

The gestapo type guards weren’t any more gentle than they were with Walz, they grabbed the Miller’s tickets and violently ripped them up. “We don’t accept any pro-choice, non-Republican paraphernalia.” he snarled. Miller’s counterpoint to his claim was that, “This is Democracy under Bush.”

Yes it is. Which means it isn’t! Fortunately, Bush may be converting wavering independents to a new cause. After all, if the guy who wants to lead the country only talks to his “elite base” and that doesn’t include you, there are only two choices, give in and give up, or get rid of him. And Bush is making that choice easy, regardless of what the polls say!!

AUGUST 14, 2004

MORE THAN JUST AN INSULT

The “girlie” Schwarzenegger seems to think he bought the rights to Kah-li-fornia when he won the dubious recall election less than a year ago. Staging his own Hollywood premiere in Las Vegas, complete with rock music and star entrance where he emerged from a “cloud of smoke”; which seemed a rather odd choice considering that the state has a reputation for its lethal smog!

He then strolled along a “red carpet” like catwalk. He says it was to attract new business, and later did a publicity appearance by descending in a mechanical lift outside the mall where he posed for pictures in front of billboard plastered with him in a t-shirt with the slogan “Arnold says California wants your business”.

Hope he enjoyed his show, because it appears that he didn’t impress many people. Nevadans certainly didn’t seem to be impressed. One, Jason Young, who fled California to Las Vegas two years ago says he won’t be going back! “Why?” he asks, “It just seems difficult to live and work in California...I live in a house with twice the square footage I had in California, with a pool, for less money.”

Schwarzenegger seems to think that he can give Californians a strut and throw out a few phrases like “girlie men” and problem solved! And, from his public appearances on the Leno show, it appears that, like George W. Bush, if he doesn’t like it, it just didn’t happen! He thinks his “girlie men” reference was humorous, therefore, so should we. If we don’t, there is something wrong with us, not him!

Democrats are upset because he isn’t taking the budget crisis that concerns all Californians seriously enough; using derogatory name calling (girlie men) instead of negotiating budget problems. This same budget crisis brought about a Republican driven recall election that essentially refused to acknowledge that it was Republican run ENRON that had created it!

But, “playboy Arnie” doesn’t seem to really care; he is tossing off quips as if this is a movie script like, The Last Action Hero. He tells Jay Leno, “Who cares? They feel sensitive. I think maybe the truth hurts.” he chuckles, refusing to apologize for his “girlie men” remark, stolen from a Saturday Night Live skit. And he continues, “Everything is interpreted, you know, attacking gay people and lesbians and all that stuff.” I guess “all that stuff” is referring to his sexual misconduct against women; a criminal act when you or I do it, simply “a dash of humor” when he does it.

So why does Schwarzenegger’s behavior as governor affect anyone but Californians?

Because he has been given a prominent speaking roll in the Republican convention. Because George W. Bush visits him in California all the time. Because he has begun campaigning with Bush.

Because he has said that the Constitution should be changed to allow naturalized citizens to run for president. Because one of our legislators has introduced legislation for a Constitutional amendment to change that part of our Constitution. Because his political ambitions include running for president of the United States.

But most of all, because right after he took the oath of citizenship he went to Austria and campaigned for his Nazi friend Kurt Waldheim. Because he toasted Waldheim at his wedding and lamented his absence due to “this Nazi thing” that barred Waldheim from entrance into the United States. Because he said he “loved” Waldheim.

Because he has never repudiated his father’s Nazi service during World War II. Because he has never repudiated Waldheim’s responsibility for killing Greek Jews during World War II.

Because these acts would and have stripped anyone else of their citizenship. Because millions of Americans are still living who risked their lives fighting to stop “this Nazi thing”. Because admiring or assisting Nazis in election campaigns is mocking the sacrifice of Our World War II veterans. Because as long as We, the People remember, no Nazi admirer will become president of our Country.

AUGUST 13, 2004

WOOING NEVADA

Is Yucca Mountain Bush’s Waterloo? Seems the state, that Bush supposedly carried in the disputed 2000 election, just might be. He is not only facing a lot of unhappy Democrats and unaligned citizens, but a host of Republican party members who are volunteering to help Democrats defeat him in 2004!

And what, you may ask, brought this on? And the answer is: a huge nuclear disposal site that would fill Yucca Mountain with 77,000 tons of radioactive material and keep it radioactive for at least 10,000 years. Nevadians aren’t particularly enthusiastic about the idea of living on a pile of radioactive debris! Don’t say I blame them. We have a good crop of data developed by putting “atomic veterans” in the path of nuclear fallout for us to unequivocally decide we don’t want it in our backyard!

While scientists and artists are busy trying to design a

KEEP OUT

sign that will indicate poison to an evolved species we can’t even imagine, Bush is continuing with plans to fill ‘er up. The governor of Nevada has promised that it will not happen and has filed lawsuit after lawsuit to stop it. So far the courts have sided with Bush, so what is a state to do?

This one has decided to get rid of Bush. Adriana Martinez, chair of the Nevada Democratic party, says that Yucca Mountain is a “recruiting poster” as Republicans volunteer to help defeat Bush. And the Republican party is about as unhappy with that solution as the people of Nevada are with Bush’s storage solution. But does the Republican party blame Bush’s determination to contaminate Nevada?

No, it is the Democrats fault, namely Kerry, for “tapping into voter anger” over being designated a national repository for nuclear waste! Sig Rogich, a former aid in Reagan and Bush administrations, says that Kerry is “pinning his hopes” on that anger because, “there’s nothing else” for them to run on! Here’s the spot for, “Oh, really?” So Nevada is so shallow that they couldn’t possibly worry about the economy, war, poverty of their fellow citizens and would vote for Bush if it wasn’t for nuclear trash being buried in their backyards! Even if that were true, a mountain aglow with nuclear waste isn’t only Nevada’s problem.

Although the project is set to go forward, the consensus is that “Houston, we’ve got a problem”. A plethora of specialists have been consulted to try to contain the contamination. There is agreement that the biggest obstacle is that the future can’t be predicted. Consultations with futurists, archaeologists, materials scientists, astronomers, geologists and any other group that might be able to provide information, have produced only one consensus: You have a mighty BIG problem here.

The future is NOW. Geologists inform us that a crack in the mountain could release torrents of the evil poison into ground water and rivers. There is nothing they can do about it. If canisters of the deadly stuff erode and seep throughout the mountain, there will be no maintenance because this stuff too deadly to get close to. Materials scientists are going to be charged with the task of producing a container that will withstand ten thousand years. Even the pyramids aren’t that old yet. Yucca Mountain will be uninhabitable for more than 10,000 years! So many generations will have passed that we won’t even be a memory -- but our legacy will still be alive and dangerous to all who inhabit this planet.

Unfortunately, Bush & Co seem to be mired in the immediate now; mainly whether or not he can get enough votes in Nevada to give him the State’s electoral votes. Rather limited vision when faced with a mountain full of death.

AUGUST 12, 2004

TURNING A CORNER/HOPE IS ON THE WAY

John Kerry, presidential candidate, says that “hope is on the way” for those of us devastated by the past four years.

George W. Bush says that we are “turning the corner”, hopefully back to where we were when former President Clinton was being “strong leader” and not playing “war president”!

Without either candidate giving us solid promises of change, We, the People are forced to accept their words as possible facts and hope for the best - I guess that is the “hope” on the way...

But the one thing we can do, and that both parties can’t prevent, is to weigh their history in light of their promises. Since Kerry is coming late to the party, with a proven voting record that encompasses several administrations of both party persuasions; we’ll concentrate our search upon the deeds of the unknown, George W. Bush. Because no matter what the propaganda says, George W. Bush is the one with no experience.

What has transpired the past four years was a learning experience. He was shoved into office by the Supreme Court, who knew full well that the little upstart had NO political experience, no knowledge of dealing with foreign governments, and in fact, had failed as CEO of more than one company. Their choosing Bush over Gore was like a harassed parent placating a child having a tantrum, “My brother told me I won!”

For four years we have heard nothing but excuses and complaints that others have gotten in his way, refused to do what he told them, and when he didn’t get his way he used every means he could think of to take them out. He never listened, as a good leader should, to anyone but those chosen few whispering in his ear. He thought We, the People were just there to worship at his feet.

His vision is narrow and focused entirely upon himself. He says schools are “turning the corner” but doesn’t define the corner they turned. Teachers fired, no money for books, classes canceled, and school days cut to meet a bare bones budget Bush approved.

He says we have turned a corner when it comes to spreading the peace, “...we’re not turning back.”, although 2.8 soldiers have been killed every day this month. The Iraq Invasion has produced 936 dead citizens and every reason Bush has given for going to war has been proven a lie. So, Mr. Bush, why did they die so that you could “turn [this] corner”?

And as relevant as the needless deaths in Bush’s Iraq invasion, is his assurance that we have “turned a corner” economically. Senator John Kerry has said, “The last time we had a president who talked about turning the corner Herbert Hoover was in the White House as the country sank into the Great Depression in the 1930s.” Ah, yes, Hoover, tent cities, massive hunger, millions of jobless citizens, for a decade, crisscrossing the country in search of a job -- any job.

But Mr. Hoover, er, uh, Bush, believes that the loss of Our jobs to other countries is good for our economy. In fact, he believes in it so much that he has outsourced as much of his election campaign as he could. At a time when his economist are trumpeting a gain of 32,000 job and playing down almost a million and a half new unemployment claims during the same time period.

His inexperience has been shown in too many ways to count; in invading another country, insulting our allies, in giving huge tax breaks to his “elite base” because they need it more than We, the People do, in awarding no bid contracts to favored political friends, by allowing thousands of jobs to be outsourced without penalty and companies to keep billions in untaxed profits offshore and disposing of a trillion dollar surplus and creating the largest deficit in the history of this nation.

But never least, putting Our future at risk due to a massive increase in hungry children, whose parents fell from middle class into poverty by loosing their jobs through no fault of their own. Children, who will grow up lacking health care that Our parents could provide.

George W. Bush sets on a fat cushion of money given him by the richest people in our land; those who received his tax cut. Bush’s elite base believe they deserve that tax cut more than We, the People do. Bush’s naiveté about ordinary people has shifted focus to this extremely elite and wealthy base.

The Congressional Budget Office has just released a report saying that the tax burden is solidly on the middle class now. With our jobs less secure and wage increases non existent, We, the People will be paying more than our share of the tab for the Bush agenda. And in his mind, there is nothing wrong with shifting the tax burden to the middle class.

And he certainly doesn’t realize that the questions uppermost in our minds are: What’s next? Where does he plan to go from here? Does he plan to invade other countries? Cut out more social services and jobs? Do away with the social security pension that we have paid into all of our working lives and just make it another tax? How many of us, our sons and daughters will be dying in a far off war in the next four years?

And, if the terrorists come, will the “commander-in-chief” be able to handle them any better than he did in September 11, 2001; while he sat in a chair in a schoolroom and listened to a story read by schoolchildren and a plane flew straight into the second World Trade Center tower? And he made no “command decisions” that could have stopped that third plane from hitting our military command post. In fact, it was days before any “command decisions” were made by the “commander-in-chief”; they were made by Richard Clarke.

This is what we know of this man who was appointed president of the United States. The “experience” he has gained over the past four years does not qualify him for the office. At least Kerry knows the ins and outs of international storms. At least he is not reviled in every country he visits. At least he has the experience of working on legislation about health care, schools, social security, balancing budgets. At least he has been to war and seen his friends die and knows its terrible toll is more than just money. Perhaps this experience will keep him from going lightly where the inexperienced Bush has chosen to tread.

AUGUST 11, 2004

ECONOMIC REALITY

For all you potential voters out there; perhaps you failed to see this little economic article that could profoundly affect your future. It seems the “war president” is mulling over a national sales tax. George W. Bush told an “Ask President Bush” campaign forum in Florida, that,

“It’s an interesting idea. You know, I’m not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it’s the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously.”

Say what???

Republican economists (those responsible for those “good” economic numbers we’ve been hearing about) are saying that the Bush campaign has been looking into the idea, should Bush win the election, of overhauling the tax code as “part of their agenda”. Some legislators have also floated ideas of simplifying the tax code by a flat income tax rate or a national sales tax.

One of the most important facts that I took away from Economics 101 was that, unless I became a multimillionaire, sales taxes weren’t in my best interest. The second was that little recognized flat tax on INCOME!

Now, whenever I have met a flat tax proponent, the one little problem that I have raised with them is met with a wide eye stare that reveals wheels suddenly turning - and that is: Does the flat tax consist of taxing only earned income, like we pay taxes on? Or do those who receive their income from other sources, say stocks and bonds, trusts, etc. also pay a flat tax on their income? I have never yet met a person advocating “flat tax” who knows the answer about what defines flat tax “income”!

The answer to that question is extremely important for us wage earners because, as any economist worth his degree will tell you, those taxes are going to hit the poor and the middle class the hardest because we are all going to pay the same, whether our income is $20,000, $200,000 or $2,000,000 a year. Now, guess who is going to have less “disposable” income? You or the guy with a couple of million dollars?

While Bush is flying around the country in Air Force 1, attending parties paid for by his “elite base” who shower him with millions of untaxed dollars -- around 200 million at last count -- and in general living the good life at Our expense; we skip the vacations, that Bush is so fond of, for the reality of longer work weeks and less salary -- IF our job hasn’t been outsourced.

They are using the descriptive phrase, “Consumer (that’s We, the People) confidence has turned sour”, to indicate that while Bush may believe that we believe the economic hype, we don’t. It probably has something to do with what has been happening to our paychecks.

These politicians can say anything but they get into trouble when the statistical figures start pouring out of the government. Such as, Consumer Confidence for the latest week measured, August 1, show that only 39% of consumers express confidence in their ability to buy what they need or want. And that had fallen from 41% the week before. Are you beginning to see a downward trend here?

Just to emphasize the point, before Bush assumed the office of president in 2000, January 16, Consumer confidence stood at 80%. Only 20% of all citizens felt that they could not afford to purchase what they wanted or needed. That is a huge change in less than four years!

But times have changed. With the job market shrinking rather than expanding (32,000 jobs created last month but new unemployment claims standing at approximately 1,340,000 for the month.) it doesn’t take a statistician to figure out there is a negative number there! And, since the Bush government believes (or says they do) that those 32,000 jobs are going to employ all those out of work millions, there are no unemployment extensions, and those who are still working aren’t getting additional income.

Last Friday, August 6, the Labor Department release figures for the Consumer Price Index showing it had risen 0.1%. Now that may not seem so bad except those bills coming from your paycheck aren’t measured in that figure. No, the CPI (governmentese for “consumer price index) removed “volatile” (defined as: changeable, inconstant, fickle, explosive) food and energy cost. And the other figure released, showing an inflation gain of 0.3% is also suspect because during the month of May, the inflation gain was 0.6%. If we gain between 0.6% and 0.3% for just a few months, you are now dealing in whole percents! Just adding those two months and inflation has risen almost 1% in two months!!

Tearing it apart like this gives the impression that it is smaller than it is. Taking out food and fuel makes it appear smaller. But, as we know from the July report on income, wages fell, taxes did not. So the Consumer bottom line is that we are receiving less money to pay for food and fuel that has risen almost 1% in two months. No one but Bush needs a translation of that!!

But, according to their report, food prices increased 0.2% after a 0.9% gain in MAY. Housing rose 0.3% in June after gains, in April and May of 0.4%. Putting these increases together, they are over 1% for only a couple of months! And fuel, that commodity that is required, if we plan to continue working rose 3.2%. Natural gas and electricity prices also rose. There you have it. A real test of the economic gains made by We, the People, would be in the assessment of year to date compilations. By sectioning them out month by month, they don’t appear to be as bad as they are. January to July -- all it would take is addition and you have a true picture of inflation.

And the census department has given a true picture of what has happened to our economy since Bush was installed as our leader. Their latest analysis showed that income fell for the second straight year (2001 and 2002). The rise in poverty and the decline in median income was primarily caused by unemployment. Under the leadership of Clinton, unemployment stood at 4% in 2000 when Bush took office. By 2003, unemployment stood at 5.9%. And those numbers didn’t include the long term unemployed who have fallen off the unemployment rolls, or those who are no longer counted because they have taken lower paying jobs or part time jobs.

It also told us that for the third year in a row, the number of households experiencing hunger, and those worrying about having enough money to buy food has increased. Government figures estimate that 3.8 million families experienced hunger to the point of someone in the family skipping meals. That is an 8.6% increase from 2001. In 2002, 108 million families, or 11%, were skipping meals.

Food kitchens are telling us that the last two weeks of the month they see an influx of women and children who simply can’t stretch the paycheck to cover shelter and food for the month. They say their supplies don’t meet demand.

And some, like Second Harvest, are beginning to supply children with backpacks of food to keep them fed over the weekend. In some of these schools, as many as 2/3 of the students have subsidized lunches. These are the programs cut by Bush to increase the tax cuts for his “elite base.”

These families are going to pay the same sales tax as Bush or his “elite’ wealthy “base”. His base may spend more, and thereby pay more in sales tax; but then, who is to say what they buy will be U. S. products, or be purchased in the United States?

If the Bush twins are spending several thousand dollars on vacation on the Rivera, I don’t think We, the People, will be benefitting from whatever sales tax they pay!

AUGUST 10, 2004

TOUGH CROWD?

Uh, oh!
More than 7,500 “minority” journalists registered to attend Unity 2004 being held at the Washington Convention Center on Friday, August 6, 2004. It was the largest convention of “minority” journalist ever assembled in the U. S. and guess who was going to address them.

Yup! The man who avoids journalists like the plague, who won’t take unrehearsed questions and stalks out when they ask one he doesn’t want to answer, George W. Bush!

But let me digress just a minute. What exactly is the difference between minority journalists and other journalists? This is really bothering me, don’t they have the same education? Isn’t their experience in their field exactly the same as other journalists? Why were they called a “tough crowd” as opposed to other “media”?

I think I know the answer and I hope that you agree. Other “media” don’t really question Bush and stick to the script. These “minority” guys are true journalists and seem to be asking some pretty serious, gotta think hard questions. And we all know that Bush just can’t get his brain working that fast.

It was said that his “performance” was pretty dismal to the point of being frightening at times. I admit, when you hear a guy supposedly a “strong leader” and a “war president” fumbling around with , “You can’t read a newspaper if you can’t read”, it makes you wonder how he gets through all those intelligence reports piled on his desk every morning.

But he doesn’t, does he? He simply accepts whatever verdict he is given and gives a Patrick Stewart, “make it so” response. Is that how we got involved in Iraq? Isn’t his failure to read the PDB of August 6, 2001 one of the reasons the 9/11 attack fell through the cracks?

From what I’ve seen, it appears that these journalist ask a lot of questions, most of which Bush wasn’t prepared to answer, let alone answer in depth. In what must have been a truly baffling and scary response to a Native American journalist’s question about sovereignty for the Indians tribes of the United States, it was obvious that Bush didn’t have a clue. First of all, the journalist tossed off a three syllable word that it appears no one had briefed Bush on the definition of.

He stumbled and mumbled his way through what must be one of the most embarrassing statements of any president at any time. “sovereignty is well...sovereignty, and if you have sovereignty you are sovereign.” This wasn’t a spelling bee where you identified and defined words -- it was a question about a change in national policy; a policy issue that Bush didn’t appear to even know existed!

Uh, does that mean he is for sovereignty for the Native American tribes, not for sovereignty of Native Americans, or didn’t he know what the journalist was asking? Come on, Staff, isn’t this what you are paid to do. Next time, define sovereignty for the educationally challenged guy! This word is likely to come up the next time he meets a foreign leader!

Maybe next time we chose a leader we should give him one of those proficiency tests Bush demanded high school students take before they can graduate. How did this guy get into Yale? ...oh, l-e-g-a-c-y; another three syllable word that he probably does know the meaning of.

AUGUST 9, 2004

ALL THE NEWS THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW

You get a very different look at news without the prism of television interpreting for you. And if you are inclined to watch the television “pundents” who interpret the news for you, the facts you hear are usually filtered through that prism before you see that plastic “newsface” they put on.

But if; unlike George W. Bush who says he never reads but gets a synopsis from his staff; you glean your information from several sources, you will notice the difference in the spoken, and interpreted word, versus the flat printed word, and you put your brain in gear to sift through the information.

We are (or were) among the most literate and best educated countries in the world. Setting aside the recent decline in our schools due to lack of resources, there are millions of us out there educated by a system that was set up to get us, not only to the moon and back, but to be technologically capable of going beyond that moon.

It has been written that some of the saddest words are, “it might have been”. And right now, this country is in the middle of one of the biggest “might have beens” ever. We have gone from world admiration to the bottom level of third world countries. We have descended from the high road of enforcing the Geneva Conventions to the low road traveled by nations who torture their prisoners for “information”.

We have gone from a prosperous nations to a nation on the edge of reclassification from “industrialized”. We have descended from consuming compassion to feed the world to a nation that resents feeding our own hungry children. We are moving backwards from being a civilized country.

And all the while this is happening, our perky, smiling “media” ignores all of this. But the hard, cold fact rest in the words of government reports and out of the mainstream press, and are there if we wish to know them. No longer does the press deliver these facts to us. We must now have the knowledge and determination to ferret them out.

But we are extremely busy people. Unlike Bush, who spends at least half of his work year on vacation, we are slaves to jobs that pay a pittance for our labor, long days, longer nights, and early mornings. We are lucky to steal a quick glance at that bright, smiling face on the morning news program who is reporting all the positive spin that she and her handsome co-star are handed to read.

But in spite of spending our days surrounded by people, we are pretty much isolated in our own lives. We don’t discuss salaries, job security, overtime, with most of the people we see daily. And therefore we have no way of knowing if their lives mirror ours. Unless we peruse the census statistics, we don’t know that more and more Americans are worried about their own hunger; of being able to fee their children from paycheck to paycheck.

They hide their desperation at knowing their jobs are about to end, that they have just been outsourced, laid-off. They go about their daily lives, picking up groceries and dry cleaning, filling their car with gas and they are counting every dollar that leaves their hands because who knows when they will receive those riches again.

And yet the plastic faces smiling at them from their television set, brought by cable that will be one of the first expenses to go, are giving them false information about how great the economy is, how Bush is blameless, therefore it must be your fault that you can’t find another job.

And now you have time to read, want ads, internet employment sites, articles on the economy, and words written by others just like YOU....

AUGUST 8, 2004

MORE LOOSE ENDS...

The latest economic news appeared to have those Bush economists, who keep telling all of us unemployed and underemployed how great things are, must still be picking their jaws up off the floor! Now we really don’t expect Bush and his “base” to comprehend what happened when they released the latest “economic indicators” but those economists should be hanging their heads in shame.

Since the Bush propaganda began telling us that it wasn’t the economy, stupid! We, the People knew that the truth would out sooner rather than later. All those miraculous jobs Bush pulled out of thin air, all those “good” economic indicators he kept throwing out in his money-gathering-campaign-speech-to-his-elite-“base”, were going to implode in his face; and now they have.

Everyone knows that the unemployment figures that keep falling are more a result of the unemployed being kicked off unemployment rolls than the result of actually getting a well paid, full time job. The recent 5.5% is only an “improvement” if that 0.1% reduction actually reflected an increase in employment!

And, if the downward trend in consumer spending, in areas where you least expect cutbacks, like food, fuel and shelter cost, didn’t grab their attention, then nothing will. Stock market back down, the rosy job forecast reduced to a mere 32,000 added jobs for the month of July while first time unemployment claims stood around the same number they have since Bush lost all those jobs his first year in office. Oh, yeah, Bush certainly has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.

And while he’s at it, perhaps he would care to explain this article putting the lie to his highly touted,

ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM.

A study just released in April by The Environmental Protection Agency found that 159 million in 31 states live where smog levels exceed federal standards. Summer days where the air quality fails federal health standards could double by mid-century for people living in 15 eastern cities.

Unhealthy smog levels could rise from a scale of 12 to almost 20 in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago and Pittsburgh. We get an “orange” terrorist alert that produces nothing all the time; but the number of “red alert” days on the federal air-quality index is given little “media attention, although the forecast says that those “red alert” days will double in most of those eastern cities.

These alerts stop more people from going about their daily lives than do the terrorist alerts. Those with pulmonary disorders and asthma are constantly warned to stay inside during the ozone alerts and the “red alert” days. Children with asthma literally find themselves housebound during those days.

California took action many years ago to curtail the smog over their state but under Republican administrations, those “clean-up programs” for cars, factories and oil refineries have become as extinct as the dinosaur as companies were put on the “honor system”. Bush sees no reason to change that system and has gone so far as to deny the validity of the government’s own commission investigating Global Warming as a fact rather than a theory.

But then, fossil fuels (oil and oil products) are linked with respiratory problems. Oil is the source of most of the Bush income, the income of the elite Bush “base” who supports his election, and most of the officials he has appointed in government. Oil appears to be the reason he invaded Iraq, as those oil fields were provided protection before hospitals, museums and schools. We may only have the “duck theory” to go on, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is up to Mr. Bush to prove to us it isn’t a duck!

And, here is a “duck” of a different “quack”. George W. Bush owes his education at Yale University to YALE LEGACIES. The mediocre-at-best student, proudly told a college graduation class that he was a C student.

However, while the rest of us sweat blood to try to get into a college with a good reputation, George W. Bush was admitted to Ivy League Yale University not on his looks, his school performance, his athletic prowess, or his intellect. No, that coveted spot was given to him because of what they call “legacy admission preferences”, or, to put it bluntly, favoritism for the sons and daughters of alumni no matter how stupid they might be. Four generations of Bushes has attended Yale University, the latest, daughter Barbara. No word on whether or not she was a “legacy”.

In spite of his telling the “media” that he supports affirmative action to “get more minorities in...school” he also said that he opposes the quota system that guaranteed that colleges had to admit those same minorities. Seems he is confused about what he believes and what he doesn’t, because he recently opposed an affirmative action before the Supreme Court.

When put on the spot, the guy who; if he had attended public school instead of an elite prep school; would have ended up destined for auto shop instead of Yale, says he doesn’t believe in legacies. The guy who took advantage of every “legacy” offered him from admission to Yale to jumping the Texas Air National Guard list to keep out of VietNam, now says there should not be “a special exception for certain people in a system that’s supposed to be fair”!!! What is he hinting at?

Just imagine a world where George W. had not gone to Yale, had managed to get into VoTech training, and been drafted as a foot soldier in VietNam. Do you think he would be calling himself a “war president”?

AUGUST 6, 2004

IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

In November We, the People should be heading for the polls to vote for the man we wish to become the next president of the United States. Is it too late for us to make sure that this time every citizen’s vote will be counted?

Unfortunately, yes. After the Florida debacle known as the 2000 election, where Republicans ran roughshod over voting processes. (see 1965 Civil Rights Act Commission’s report) After the legal battles, the unconstitutional interference of the Supreme Court, and acts of violence committed by Republicans, who seemd to have lost their minds, during the legal recount process, legislatures across the country determined to “fix” things for the 2004 election.

Well, they have “fixed” them all right; but I don’t believe what has happend and what was intended coencide! First, because the duplicious Katharine Harris’ staff had assigned ancient punch card machines to the poorest Florida districts, an upgrade was ordered - to computerized voting machines with no paper trail. Unfortunately, those machines have already proved to be less reliable than those old punch card machines they used last time.

Report after report says the machines have crashed, that votes were lost, switched, not tallied correctly or just simply disappeared. In those states who refuse to provide paper trails there is no method of policing the machines for accuracy; you just take Diebolt’s word for it. The latest report, July 28, 2004, says that, in Florida, a computer crash erased detailed records from Miami-Dade County’s first widespread use of those touchscreen voting machines that were supposed to keep the vote safer than those old punch card machines.

Except for one tiny little problem. Barring Supreme Court interference, those punch cards can be recounted. The crashss that took out the Florida election votes from 2002 can’t be recounted - EVER! And here’s the real kicker, no one knew about it until the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition requested all of the data from the 2003 gubitorial primary! And, this was a common occurance all over the United States where computer voting was used during the 2002 elections AND THE CALIFORNIA RECALL ELECTION.

Even Katharine Harris’ notorous “felon list” could be fixed. This can not. Once the votes are gone, they are gone. As chairwoman Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, of Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition stated, “This is a disaster waiting to happen. Of course it is worrisom.”

I disagree with Rodriguez-Taseff; it has already happened. Those “machines” used in the wealthy Florida counties, we are told, worked perfectly during the 2000 election. They also told us they all showed Bush the winner. Only those living in the poor or “elderly” secitions of Florida were considered faulty. But the Republican run state, and the Republican who was in charge of the election, Katherine Harris, blocked every effort at a manual recount of the votes in those heavily Democratic areas. JUST WHAT WERE THEY AFRAID OF?

Something was rotten in Florida. And the inept person who should have been held accountable for that rotten election wasn’t fired but promoted, by the votes in those same wealthy Florida counties on those same touchscreen machines, to the House of Representatives in Washington, DC!!!

And according to the Commission report, something was rotten in a lot of the states that election year. The Commission has no power to file charges and their findings much be turned over to the Attorney General for action. And they did recommend legal action be taken, but when Ashcroft received the Commission report, the literally flipped them off, saying there was nothing in the report that required action. I guess he thought they were just a bunch of “un-chrisian liberals” biased against “Bush’s base.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups believe the stained reputation of Florida requires a paper trail to be in place to recount the votes. “I have concern about votes that are cast but not recorded”. Says Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU in Florida. Considering the lost votes from the 2000 election that changed the course of history, I would think so!

But with the 2004 election just months away what can We, the Voter, do to ensure that our votes will ALL be counted? I’m not sure that there is anything we can do to tack the machine votes.

We can all demand paper ballots be used; after all they have from November to January 2005 to count those ballots. Or, as thirteen members of the House of Representatives and the Senate recently petitioned. We can bring in election monitors like any other suspect “democracy” to make sure our vote is honest.

This election, we are at war and thousands have died because Our Senate didn’t have the courage to demand an honest count of the election. Florida managed to flout the law and shove votes to Bush after certification while denying Gore the same legitimate votes and our Senate saw nothing wrong with that.

When John Ashcroft was shriking for a recount in Missouri, after loosing to “a dead man” as they said, he was placated by his appointment as Attorney General. A great placed to be when the Civil Rights Commission’s report came out about the Florida election.

And never forget, some twenty members of the House of Representatives submitted a challenge to the Florida election in 2000 and not one senator thought it was worth the effort to sign that challenge. There is a very poinent scene in Fahrenheit 9/11; watching Democracy die. And Florida has been caught, once again, producing a “felon list” disenfranchising innocent Florida voters. So ask yourself, what, exactly, has changed?

AUGUST 5, 2004

DEFENDING DEMOCRACY

The catch phrase coming out of the 2004 election isn’t, “It’s the economy, stupid”, it is “defending Democracy” and it is on the lips of every politician involved in the selection process of our next president.

As usual, we lay it at the door of George W. Bush , who has whined since September 12, 2001 that he is a “strong leader” and that everything he has done was simply “defending Democracy”. I’m sure that phrase will be bandied about at the Republican convention as much as it was the Democratic convention; however, ole George, and the rest of his merry elite friends, don’t have any actual experience “defending Democracy”; only of avoiding “defending Democracy”!

Kerry and his group claim to have experience in “defending Democracy” by serving in VietNam. It was a major theme in his acceptance speech. And he has begun to back peddle away from his criticism of VietNam to suddenly declare that VietNam was a war where we were “defending our country.”
Shades of WMDs!!!!

We, the People aren’t that stupid. Almost 60,000 died in VietNam in an undeclared war whose purpose was to “fight Communism” which is now the government of VietNam. We inched our way up from a few “advisors” into a full scale Korea over sixteen years and a total of 8,744,000 soldiers and draftees. And none of these poor young, mostly minority, boys were “defending democracy”; they were defending a political agenda - whose we still don’t know.

The last soldiers who served truly defending our country was during World War II. There is no historical doubt that Nazi Germany did not plan to let an ocean stop them; they had every intention of crossing that barrier just as they had all the others. This country was at risk and every citizen -- man woman and child -- played a significant part in “defending democracy.” No accolades were expected, they were simply doing their civic duty.

But it took more than 50 years for those 16,112,566 veterans of the last war who truly defended Democracy to receive recognition from a grateful nation. Listen to these soldiers. Read their memoirs, or, if you are like George W. Bush, simply watch the mini-series “Band of Brothers” based on the lives of one company who fought and died in the German theater. Tarnishing their sacrifice, by calling what has been done in the name of “defending” our country, the same as the ill conceived invasion of Iraq diminishes those lives. We owe them more than that.

And we owe those poor men and women snatched from their safe civilian lives to be whisked off to Iraq more than that. They deserve the truth of why they fight and die on the sands of a country who never attacked us, in fact, had been our ally until the first George Busy went to war with Saddam Hussein in 1990. They deserve to know why their elected representatives did not do their duty and investigate the legitimacy of those claims that took us to war in 1990 and again in 2003. Both wars were begun on false information. The why of the political agenda we still do not know.

But, We the People, who tried so hard to stop Bush’s invasion, fervently hope that those 929 lives snuffed out in Iraq since March of 2003 were not killed just so Bush, as he proudly notes, could go down in history as a “war president.” Because this is no war “defending democracy”. And there is no honor in spilling the blood of our citizens, who have pledged to defend democracy with their lives, for some obscure political agenda. I thought that lesson had been learned in 1975. I thought it had been written in the blood of those almost 60,000 men who died in that far off jungle.

Kerry needn't defend his military service, his medals, or his “heroism”. In his entire life, George W. Bush can not point to one thing he has done that was heroic, not one action he has taken to “defend” this country which has given him so much. He has only taken. “Defending Democracy” it ain’t!

AUGUST 4, 2004

MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Republicans - and some Democrats - are busy trying to stuff Michael Moore in the closet at the same time they are trying to put former Governor Howard Dean back in. I suppose they shouldn’t have let him out for the Democratic Convention; but then, there are all those loyal Dean followers needed by the Democrats....

It appears that these two guys just don’t know when to speak and when to shut up! Moore was extremely useful to Democrats when he showed the naked emperor in his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, but Democrats weren’t grateful enough to invite him to their Convention. In fact, they carped that he wouldn’t come right out and support their favorite candidate and continued to tell all that it was simply a matter of supporting anyone but Bush and that, if Kerry was the candidate the Democratic party chose, then that was who We, the People would have to vote for whether We wanted to or not!

And it didn’t help that Moore was the real star of the Convention, constantly being trailed by “media” and fans! And it didn’t help that loyal Dean followers were saying the same thing; they weren’t really supporting Kerry, but anyone but Bush!! Both men drew an enormous crowd when they spoke at an overflowing ballroom at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in Cambridge, MA during the Democratic Convention.

Dean’s message not only ignited his constituency at the Convention, but the turnout at the ballroom was proof that the “Dean magic” was still there. More than 2,000 people gathered to hear the speech, and those who were kept out by fire marshals waited patiently until Dean emerged to give another speech to those who hadn’t been admitted.

Democrats certainly don’t mind using that loyal following to enhance Kerry’s poll numbers; but it appears to be a different story when Dean doesn’t follow the “party line”. The party faithful was all for putting their disagreements aside, and made much of Kerry seeking out Dean’s help before the Convention. They also didn’t mind co-opting much of what Dean’s followers were complaining about and putting it in Kerry’s campaign pledges. But, it is very apparent that Dean’s agenda is not the Democratic agenda.

And that was never more evident than when Dean criticized the Bush administration over their last “orange” alert; conveniently timed to remove the limelight from the just nominated Democratic contender for the office Bush is presently holding. Always telling it as he sees it, Dean remarked that “ample evidence” exists that Bush is using terrorists as a political pawn!

Since most of the information used to justify that alert was about an old plan al Qaida was contemplating before September 11, 2001; one wonders why it is suddenly at the forefront of our intelligence alerts; especially considering that Bush simply ignored a comprehensive PBD given to him on August 6, 2001 literally screaming that al Qaida was determined to strike somewhere in the United States.

But when Howard Dean pointed out that Bush seemed to be a little behind the times, he was criticized by both Republicans and his own Democratic party! While we expect Ridge, Cheney, and others from Bush & Co. to criticize anyone who points out the emperor’s unclothed state, it is eye opening to hear the criticism coming from the Democratic party that has vowed to save us from Bush’s incompetency.

Senator Joe Lieberman (and unsworn vice-president of the United States) seems to share more Republican views than Democratic. He states that “nobody in their right mind would believe that Bush would scare people for political reasons.” Oh, yeah, what do you call that State of the Union address where he told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on us and could deliver them in 15 minutes?

It is also said that Kerry; who sought Dean’s help in convincing his followers to not rock the boat and demand a Dean nomination; and other “prominent Democrats” have “distanced themselves” from Dean’s statements. Fortunately for We, the People, Dean still doesn’t seem to care if he doesn’t follow the party line. Described as unbowed and unrepentant, Dean pointed out:

“If it took three weeks for them to get this information, then they’re not doing their job protecting the United States of America. There’s one of two possibilities here. One, we need a

new president so we can really take care of intelligence needs and the defense of the United states of America against terrorism. Or two, they’re playing politics with their timing of the release of these document.”

Ever blunt and unequivocating, when asked if he believed Ridge when he said that politics played no role in the decision to raise the “alert level” to orange, Dean gave a one word response: “NO”. Dean continued, [Bush] “has said that he intents to run as a wartime president. If you say those kinds of things, then you’re going to have to expect your motives to be questioned.”

Bush’s campaign spokesman, Terry Holt sneered that [Dean] was “a bizarre conspiracy theorist” that “this is a shameful display of angry partisanship from Dean... and it’s not helping us win the war on terror.” and he ends HIS diatribe with “ We have a chorus of people that have discredited and repudiated the Dean statement.”

I’d like to know who. So far, the only “spokespeople” we’ve heard from are the same ones who ignored the terror warnings and PDBs BEFORE September 11, 2001, the ones who told us that Iraq was going to get us with WMDs, that Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and that we all have more money and more jobs even though outsourcing will stand around 40% by 2005!!

Oh, yeah, their bizarre assertions are much more reliable than Dean’s quest to know why the guy who ignored information about al Qaida prior to September 11, who refused to leave an elementary school classroom while those same terrorists bombed the seat of our military complex, who refused to accept any criticism from the multiple thousands of citizens who told him we didn’t want to go to war in Iraq, is suddenly obsessed with locking down the country over a plan he didn’t even consider relevant enough to read in August 2001!

And just as scary is the idea that the Democrats still won’t call his bluff!! They seem to care more about the vile names the Republicans call them than how We, the People view both parties. Dean’s still got the power because he still has the People.

AUGUST 3, 2004

RABID PROTESTER ESCAPES FROM FREE SPEECH ZONE

Yesterday, a rabid protester escaped from the “free speech” detention center and disrupted a political speech in Milwaukee, hurling epithets of “four more years”... oh, wait!!! It was a Democratic political rally and the demented protester was a Republican screaming Bush, Cheney, Bush, Cheney...

What happened? We know that there are “free speech” detention centers for all of those who disagree with Bush policies. We saw them during the Democratic Convention. And the Democrats certainly made it clear that they wanted their Convention free of “Bush bashers” so, naturally we just assumed that there were little prisions for Republicans who disagreed with Democrats also!

U. S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock called the little prisons where protesters are locked up “an affront to free expression” and a “festering boil”. What Republicans have labeled a “free speech” zone, others call internment camps.

Carol Rose, says they are really “gross and spooky” and from the photo I saw of three women, dressed as the Statue of Liberty, standing in a barbed - excuse me, razor-wired enclosure with water coming up to their ankles, it certainly wasn’t a place I would bring my children to experience the “right of the people to peaceable assemble” or demonstrate a government responsive to the individual voices of We, the People!

But putting aside the illegality of having your protest so far removed from the government official that should be redress[ing] your grievances, that he doesn’t even know your grievance exists, let’s investigate this Republican protester and his obvious escape from the designated Republican “free speech zone” that “disrupted” the Kerry political rally in Milwaukee.

Not that Democrats couldn’t handle him, they didn’t even have him removed or arrested! From the articles I have read, it appears that Mrs. Kerry simply put the oaf in his place. While the guy shrieked, “four more years” through a bullhorn from the back of the park, she addressed her audience with “They want four more years of hell.” At that, the crowd erupted in cheers and began chanting, “Three more months!”

Unfortunately, those quick police that usually hover over those demonstrators assembled at political stops, were really slow to make arrests that day, so the guy continued his diatribe over Kerry’s speech, yelling “Bush, Cheney, Bush Cheney.” Where was that detention center for Republican dissenters? And why wasn’t it being used?

Since Bush established the idea of We, the People being like the children of the Victorian era, seen (if we are well behaved) but not heard, anyone with a grievance to petition the government about can do so - in a cordoned off area where the government can neither hear or see you. Especially reporters. Reporters never go near the internment centers to ask the People penned there what they are petitioning the government about.

Bush and the “media” became especially fond of these internment camps during his quest to invade Iraq. There were far too many expressing contrary views that he didn’t want to see. It became routine for those few who supported his Iraq invasion policy to receive special status while those who preferred peace were sent miles away. He liked the idea so much that it was expanded to every speech he gave and he expected it every where he went.

Which is why most nations prefer him to stay out of their countries. They are forced to cordon off streets to shield him from the thousands of protesters who line his route, their legislatures aren’t under tight control, like Ours, and they are constantly giving him hell when he visits their parliaments. And don’t even mention their press! He got into such a snit over a reporter’s pre-approved questions that he provoked an international incident - and got the reporter in trouble with her own colleagues for asking pre-approved questions! He may not be trailed by protesters, but he is sure trailed by trouble!

So in this “free” society we live in, where our Rights are explicitly laid out in our Constitution, we have not only become a nation run by elites, for elites economically but our Right to “Freedom of speech...the right [to] peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” belong to a chosen few, like the bullhorn guy bellowing at the Kerrys

.
No detention center for him; he’s spewing the correct propaganda so while We, the People, have our Message buried under concrete and razor wire, he is free to “assemble” as close Bush’s “enemy” as he wishes and to say whatever he wishes. A government of the few, by the few, and for the few.

AUGUST 2, 2004

CHICKEN LITTLE TACTICS

Another terrorist threat just released. Almost three years after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the creation of a special agency, the gutting of the Bill of Rights, and Bush still can’t get it right. Why is it only the United States can’t get itself together enough to either deflect, anticipate, or plan for, terrorist attacks like other countries?

It took one event, and former President Bill Clinton was on top of it after only 76 days in office and without all the special agencies and acts Bush said he needed to “stop terrorism”. The first terrorists to try their hand at bombing the World Trade Center are setting in prison, convicted. As Clinton recalls ruefully, he just missed bin Laden when he bombed the Afghanistan camp in 1998.

Without benefit of special cabinet posts, legislation curtailing civil rights and a conglomerate of other surveillance techniques, Clinton’s terrorist czar, Richard A, Clark, reported in his book “Against All Enemies” that Clinton was well aware that al Qaida had to be eliminated. That he was emphatic in his “commander-in-chief” roll that they had to be gotten “rid of...once and for all.”

Unfortunately, for We, the People, the paramount problem being address by Our elected officials was instead, getting rid of Clinton once and for all. What a price we paid for that obsession!

Richard A. Clark also says that attention was focused on the invasion of Iraq rather than al Qaida. That is born out by the 45 minute work day of George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, just a short 37 days before the attack, when he received the PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” and chose not to read it.

Well, Bush did get his invasion; against the Will of We, the People. And he is still embroiled in it. Although, like VietNam, we have no idea of the true casualty count; the known causalities stand close to 1,000 and more are added each day. Thousands have been maimed from this ill conceived rush to battle. Bush still contends that this invasion was the “right thing” to do. But during the three years since September 11, 2001 and the year and three months of the Iraq invasion, it appears that Bush has been successful with neither. We all must accept the facts being denied by the Bush administration. Unless we withdraw or turn over control of Iraq to the United Nations, we may see another 16 year war and another 60,000 soldiers die.

Up until now, the soldiers have been reserve units, National Guard units, some career military units and some undefined “contractors” fighting in Iraq. Where will the new soldiers come from? The answer to that question is: the same place our VietNam soldiers came from. Young boys straight from their high school graduation, without the means to “avoid the draft” like many of our politicians, who voted to invade Iraq, did during that earlier war.

And with all our National Guard, established to keep us safe at home, gone who is left to help “fight terrorism”? Just yesterday, the head of Bush’s new creation, Homeland Security Tom Ridge, announced another “the terrorists are coming” orange alert. This time, he says, it is real. This time they know where they will hit - financial institutions -, this time they know where it will be - New York -, this time they know when it will happen - between now and...?

New York is becoming an armed camp, streets closed, ID’s checked, armed police everywhere. Three years of Bush “fighting terrorism” has produced no real gains. From the armed guard that patrol the nation, it looks like were are less safe than on August 6, 2001 when Bush was handed that first PDB. In fact, it looks more like the country under British rule before the Revolutionary War.

Shortly before the Democratic Convention, the mainstream “media” pointed out that it might be necessary to cancel elections in the fall due to a “terrorist threat.” Because of the “terrorist threat” is was necessary to throw dissenters into “free speech” detention camps during the Democratic Convention.

When Congresswoman Corrine Brown introduced the idea of election monitors because of the inexcusable disenfranchisement in the 2000 election, she was silenced as effectively as if the Republicans had used duct tape over her mouth. Is this, too, a part of a “terrorist threat”?

Let’s look at facts: We have given George W. Bush three years to get his “terrorist act” together. He hasn’t done so. If he can’t produce something in three years, it is definitely time for a change. And it doesn’t matter too much who we change to at this point.

Without all the billions and Congressional legislation President Bill Clinton stopped three major terrorist attacks, improved the economy, balanced budgets and improved the Welfare of We, the People -- all the while answering court summons and fielding interrogations.

Surely a president who has spent half his time in office on vacation could have found the time to create a better plan than we have now. Shouting “the terrorist are coming” chicken little style doesn’t seem to be producing results!

AUGUST 1, 2004

LOOSE ENDS....

Well, the Democratic Convention is over, Kerry gave his speech and now we know what the issues of the campaign culminating in November will be: WAR. Not just Iraq, but VietNam. Since Republicans call the tune that the Democrats dance to; Kerry’s appearance at the Convention was amidst his old war buddies, whose lives were literally dependent upon his judgment.

Bush, whose National Guard service borders on AWOL versus desertion, has managed to make Kerry’s “heroism” an issue. Personally, any Vietnam volunteer who puts his own life in jeopardy doesn’t have to defend himself -- and if he does, we certainly have failed those troops we put in “harms way” to fight our wars!

And we certainly have more to worry about than re-fighting the VietNam war -- take the new one. Both candidates express a desire to not only remain in Iraq, but to enlarge the war. More money, more bodies! Draft, anyone?

Both candidates see us embroiled in Iraq the same way we were embroiled in VietNam. VietNam involved the country in war for sixteen years; both Bush and Kerry see us in Iraq for an undefined number of years. When the poverty level in our country is rising as fast as the national debt, you would hope one of these guys would removed his brain from Iraq and check on what is happening at home.

Lip service isn’t going to work anymore; one of you guys had better come up with a quick fix (and I don’t mean study it for four more years!) for this economy and the unemployed millions in this country before we become embroiled in a war at home reminiscent of the burning ghettos of the late 1960’s. The Have Nots are increasing exponentially and “Bush’s base” may find themselves unwillingly sharing their wealth quite soon.

And speaking of “BUSH’S BASE”,

those CEO’s who are contributing all that money to Bush’s election coffers, are certainly going to have it to give! CEO raises at the nation’s largest companies (those so fond of outsourcing your job) more than doubled their raises in 2003. And, unlike your income as reported to you on your WD 40, their income consists of a base salary, annual bonuses, restricted stock, long-term incentive payout, value realized from stock options...and a BIG tax cut courtesy of the man who receives a generous “bonus” in campaign money, George W. Bush.

However, George W. Bush doesn’t define rich the same way you and I do. Addressing a group (who probably signed a “loyalty oath” to Bush before being admitted) he says that Kerry had plans to tax the rich to pay for trillions of dollars of new spending.

Bush doesn’t give a clue as to how HE plans to get his trillions of dollars to pay for the new spending, but he does say, “In the campaign, you hear, we’re only going to tax the rich, ... That’s what you’ll hear. Now, this from a fellow who has promised about $2 trillion of new spending thus far. And only taxing the rich, first of all, creates a huge tax gap, which means buyer beware...You see, if you can’t raise enough by taxing the rich, guess who get to pay next? YES, THE NOT RICH. THAT’S ALL OF US.”

HUH?

Not counting his inherited wealth, a 1,583 acre state-of-the art house, his stock portfolio; the guy still makes $400,000 a year and has all his expenses paid for by Our tax money! In the town where he delivered the startling news that he wasn’t one of his “elite base”, the average income is $34,600 and a good portion of that goes for taxes, a mortgage payment, health insurance (no helicopter ride to Walter Reed when they get choked on a pretzel) and food!

Considering the fact that during Bush’s four years in office, joblessness, homelessness, and hunger have set new records, I’d like to know if this one-of-us guys has ever visited a homeless shelter? A school where backpacks containing food for the weekend are distributed to hungry students rather than showcase classrooms for photo opts?

And while these companies are sheltering their billions tax-free off our shores, Bush has allowed our government spending to increase to the LARGEST DEFICIT EVER.

It is reported that the economy will be taking a backseat to terrorism this election. With the newly released IRS information saying that Our incomes have fallen since Bush was put in office in 2000, it looks like terrorism comes in more than one form. We, the People are terrified of loosing our jobs, our homes, our children’s future, but Homeland Security isn’t there to protect that.

Polls say that FEAR is shaping voter’s views. And a psychological study published in the December issue of the journal Psychology Science and the September issues of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin reports that their studies show that talking about death can raise people’s need for psychological security.

Sheldon Solomon (Skidmore College, New York) specializes in terrorism. He says, “There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat.” Yup, it has become so routine that it has become a joke; however, this study shows how easy it is to manipulate that fear to get the results you want.

The study participants who were asked to think about September 11 had a very different reaction to Bush’s agenda than those who had not thought about death. Bottom line, Solomon says, “...They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq.” He continues, “I think this should concern anybody. If I was speaking lightly, I would say that people in their, quote right minds, unquote don’t care much for Bush and his policies in Iraq.”

I can’t say that Bush & Co. have employed a psychologist for the purpose of instilling fear, but I agree with Solomon that voters should be aware of the psychological pressures and how they are used. I do know that The Third Reich relied heavily on psychological pressure and fear to turn ordinary German citizens against other citizens they marked for disposal.

And that reminds me, what is all this about John Kerry’s grandfather changing his name from Fritz Kohn to Fredrick Kerry? Why is the “media” bringing it up now? Kerry’s grandfather renouncing his Jewish religion surely isn’t as relevant as George W. Bush concealing his DUI from voters in the 2000 election. And why wasn’t anyone digging into the Bush past to publish his grandfather’s connection with Germany before and during World War II?

And why did the “media” choose to ferret out Kerry’s unknown Jewish heritage but refuse to investigate the dubious past of Bush’s grandfather? It seems to have taken a lot of investigative effort to dig out that information on grandfather Kohn; but the information on grandfather Bush is contained in Congressional records for all to see.

JULY 31, 2004

BUILT ON SAND

The gala Democratic Convention is over, the gala Republican Convention will soon begin. Until November 2, 2004 We, the People will be receiving glowing reports from the “media” about how well off we are, how the country is prospering, how wise one particular candidate is versus the “other” candidate. Dead soldiers in far off lands won’t be mentioned, hungry children and jobless citizens will just disappear; as will mention on our trashed international reputation.
The “media” will concentrate on bring us the perceived “shortcomings” of one candidate and the “experience” of the other and somewhere amidst all this prattle will lie the truth. So right now, before the rose colored glasses go on, let’s take a look at reality.

INCOME IS FALLING!!!

This is NOT a statistic that even George W. Bush can play with. It is an announcement from the most feared agency in the United States, the IRS. They have reported that Our income has fallen, for the first time since the current tax system was put in place during World War II (with the exception of one year in 1953), and it started falling after the stock market crash of 2000.

We didn’t need IRS statistics to convince Us. We, the People, have been aware, since shortly after Bush took office, that our disposable income was going down and that we have less to spend. We are also aware that when We lose Our job, we aren’t going to find another one soon. And we are very cognizant of the fact that our retirement has declined or disappeared!

And all these factors translate into the bottom line of that 1040 showing that you are going to be paying less taxes this year -- unless you are among the euphemistically titled “long term unemployed” which means you are off the tax scale and won’t pay anything.

Couple that with the recent tax cuts for “Bush’s base” and down the tax revenue goes!!!

Even those filing returns who earn between $25,000 - $500,000 are showing a “slight” drop in income; somewhere between 0.1% or a 2% gain depending on your income category. However, my guess is that those earning the pittance of $25,000 aren’t the ones seeing that gain!

The IRS says the decline was due to a combination of the big fall in the stock market and the loss of jobs and wages in well-paying industries as “the recession” started in 2001 and the tax cuts pushed by Bush in 2001.

And now we get to the real problem. This income decline has hit government tax collections because individual income taxes declined 18.8% between 2000 and 2002 which means less money for Greenspan to play with. Ergo, the biggest budget deficit EVER!

Today, the budget figures released by the Republican government show a record setting $445 billion. The projected “summertime” budget update forecast “shortfalls to $331 billion next year”. In February 2004, it was estimated that there would be a $521 billion budget gap; although the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted a $477 billion deficit.

Naturally, Republican government officials are putting a positive “spin” on these numbers, although the reality is that in 2001 Bush had projected a budget surplus of $262 billion if Congress would just approve his first tax cut. But this new “shortfall” is the third consecutive shortfall under Bush!

And no one has even asked where did the three trillion dollars Clinton saved went. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) member of the Senate Budget Committee says, “What we’ve got now is a president of the United States who is actively misleading the American people on the financial condition of the country...Shame on him.” Lead House Budget Committee Representative John Spratt (D-SC) says, “There’s no shock, there’s no shame, and there’s no solution.”

There is agreement that the deficit will continue to climb. Members of Congress say that this “new” projected budget does include the $25 billion recently approved for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but that there will be another request made early in 2005 that remains unknown. With vague promises of jobs in the “service sector”, companies planning to outsource even more jobs, wages kept low and prices of the “goods” needed for survival steadily climbing, the “good” economic news seems anemic.

As Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisers says, “As an economist, I’d hate to bet my career on three months of economic numbers, because they are so volatile and they get revised too often. Yet these politicians are betting their careers on three months’ worth of economic numbers.”

Phil Smith, national grassroots director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that promotes fiscal responsibility, says “Neither side is really doing anything to address the major long-term economic challenges facing this country, particularly entitlement reform.”

Isabel Sawhill, director of economic studies at the Brookings Institute agrees with Mr. Smith. “If you’re asking who is going to reduce the deficit more, based on what the two candidates have said, so far there isn’t a huge difference between them.”

And therein lies the truth between these two gala events. I view the economy like one of those beach houses built on stilts. At the moment it looks ok, but every day those waves eat away a little more sand those stilts stand on. Eventually, we’re going to have some waves big enough to bring that house down if we don’t do something to shore it up before those next BIG waves hit!

JULY 30, 2004

VALUES SPOKEN/ACTIONS TAKEN

The Democratic nominee for president, Senator John Kerry, seemed to cover all of the bases in his speech, didn’t he? But the one thing missing from it was his pledge to tear down “free speech zones” where We, the People have been relegated since George W. Bush seized Our White House.

A “stone’s throw” from the Fleet center where the Democratic party held their convention was a cage that U. S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock called “an affront to free expression and a “festering boil...an internment camp.”
You can find a photo of this internment camp atIt is a 28,000 square-foot area with two entrances, a chain link fence, nets and razor wire. Police officers and camouflaged individuals stand guard above it, constantly surveilling the inmates. Those citizens who came to exercise their First Amendment Rights of “freedom of speech ”..to “peaceably assemble”, and to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” peer out from the large cage as if they were “detainees” at Guantamano.

Carol Ross, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts states, “If this is a celebration of democracy, it’s pretty sad. The irony is that those [in the fleet center] are talking about hope and democracy.” The Democratic party theme is “hope is on the way.”

Last night, Kerry stated, “...in the city where freedom began, only a few blocks from where sons and daughters of liberty gave birth to our nation...on behalf of a new birth of freedom”, but what he either didn’t know, or didn’t mention was that in the city where freedom began, only a short few blocks from where he spoke, stood a 28,000 square foot detention center surrounded by razor wire, where the sons and daughter of liberty were not free to speak.

While he said, “...for all of you with great faith in the American people, I accept your nomination for President of the United States”. His speech was filled with great promises and great ideas. But his party constructed that detention center for the purpose of NOT hearing the voices of We, the People. And, claiming his place as a presidential candidate, he did not use his power to persuade his fellow party members to tear down that prison!

Picture By Tom Tomorrow

These detention centers built to house those who wish to “petition the government” are an invention of the Republican party who would not face We, the People who disagreed with “commander-in-chief” Bush. Bush was a public servant who wanted to be a king. And, as a king, he could order that We, the People be banned from his sight. And We were. The horror is not that Bush ordered us banned, but that no fault was found with him doing so.

But when Kerry speak of “the most important election in our lifetime” and quotes the problems that Howard Dean brought to his attention, he is not speaking of the shredding of Our Constitution by passage of a “patriot act” that is not patriotic, or the breaking of our First Amendment. He speaks of the stakes being high because we are a nation at war; a “global war on terrorism.” But we have come late to the battle the rest of the world had been fighting since the beginning of our last century.

And he tells us that his priorities are not to free Our People but to continue supporting the invasion of Iraq -- whose plans brought about the detention centers that the Republicans call “free speech zones.”

He says, “...I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities and I do believe some issues just aren’t that simple.” But, there is nothing complex about the detention centers just blocks away from where he is speaking. Issues may sound complex to Kerry, but they were crystal clear to our Founding Fathers. There is no negotiating room in our First Amendment, nor in our Bill of Rights. “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT...”

And We, the People agree with his statement that “For 4 years we’ve heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans.” So true, Senator Kerry. So how do you stand on the so called “free speech” detention centers? Are you in favor of them or do you oppose them? This convention was the perfect opportunity for you to take an action that would prove that your words aren’t just slogans.

Ask yourself this. If you were a member of the radical Continental Congress, where would you stand? Would you be with the zealous Thomas Jefferson who wanted slavery eradicated? With the larger number of those assembled who refused to ratify the Constitution if slavery was banned? Or would you be standing in the middle, doling out compromises?

You want the job, now convince We, the People, your boss, that you will restore the faith and honor of the United States. And you can start by stopping Democrats from using these cages, these prision-like detention centers!

JULY 29, 2004

DEMOCRATIC STAR

Amid the applause and the cheers of the Democratic National Convention, the real star goes unheralded -- at least formally! While it is business as usual on the Floor, this working class guy, dressed in jeans, t-shirt and baseball cap, looking more like he belonged in the Democratic “free speech” holding pens that a judge recently compared to an internment camp, instead of joining former President Jimmy Carter in his skybox.

But this particular guy from Flint, Michigan, looking totally out of place when compared to another guy from a working class background addressing the Convention, John Edwards, is unpretentious Michael Moore. Listening to Moore, you get the feeling that he is still in shock at what he has created. This is the guy who showed up in Cannes without a tuxedo and accepted his award for his documentary, “Bowling for Columbine”, in a borrowed one. (This year he said he did bring one.)

But, the unassuming Moore isn’t afraid of the the guys in VIP suits. He’ll tackle them all -- and he does! I doubt there is anyone except hermits and shut-ins who don’t know what Fahrenheit 9/11 is. He is one reason that the Democrats have revived their party after the 2000 election steal that they decided to not stop. But I’m not sure that this Democratic Convention knows or acknowledges that their party’s revival is because of those, like Moore, who dared to brave Republican ire.

Bottom line, Moore -- and Howard Dean -- can outdraw Kerry and Edwards in a heartbeat. Moore is not an official guest of the Democratic party, he wasn’t scheduled to speak. In fact, since Democrats are trying to “play down Bush Bashing”, he wasn’t even invited to the Convention. It is said that his blunt and spontaneous style would be too risky for a convention that is “more scripted than most Shakespeare plays.” I’m sure Our Founding Fathers Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and Ben Franklin wouldn’t be pleased to hear that!

One problem Democrats have with Moore is that he had not endorsed John Kerry BUT the movement to remove Bush from power. I have news for them; most of We, the People haven’t endorsed Kerry either. After the Dean Bashing, from the Democrats and the “media”, removed him from consideration, a new movement sprang up, called “Anyone but BUSH!”

Democrats could have run Lieberman, Gephardt, Clark, the local dog catcher, and most of us would have trekked to the polls to vote for him. We considered Kerry one of the weaker links on the Democratic chain of Ten; he simply went along with Republicans far too much for us to put too much trust in him.

And, there is that Iraq war invasion vote that just won’t go away. Now, he talks like we are going to be in it for a long haul -- like VietNam. Closing in on the first 1,000 casualties from the Iraq Invasion, We, the People, are looking down a long road that must include a draft and that will certainly take our children down it!
But take a look around that Convention Hall and you will see the spirit of We, the People is still heard. There were a lot of “politically correct” speakers on the program, but you could tell by the raucous cheers who the delegates’ favorites were: Al Sharpton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, and of course that much maligned and hidden until now, Bill Clinton.

But neither Howard Dean or Michael Moore need that Democratic podium; they can take their message to We, the People, anywhere, anytime and we will come! More than 2,000 people showed up in Cambridge to hear and see Howard Dean and Michael Moore. It was so crowded inside the banquet hall that seated 500 that fire marshals stopped entry. There were so many present, that Dean gave a speech to those outside after the event.

And wherever Michael Moore goes, massive crowds follow. They clog elevators, escalators, passageways; he travels in a swarm of “media” and fans. But party organizers aren’t acknowledging the tremendous following of either of these two men. But they should. This is the true voice of We, the People.

These are the People that the Democratic party should be listening to. They are the future of the Democratic party; they will control and shape it in the future. The time of the “Conservative Democrats” who don’t or won’t “bash Bush” is coming to an end. The future lies with those who challenge the House of Representatives to think of election monitors, in those Dean loyalists who will be running for low level offices for the first time, in Michael Moore’s defiant message of Fahrenheit 9/11.

JULY 28, 2004

CHARISMATIC DEAN

It’s all over but the cheering, and what is different? As the Democratic Convention winds down, Senator John Kerry will receive the delegates stamp of approval; there will be balloons and rousing music and then he will be off to do what he has been doing since the voterless caucuses anointed him as the nominee to run against Bush.

But it might have been different. Among those numerous Democratic candidates who came forth to express a wish to change Our country was a depth of vision and challenge that had not been seen in years. Even Candidate Clinton did not generate the fire of those Democratic challengers.

And they united We, the People, in a determined effort to change Our lives and Our country as never before. Yet, they were mostly blocked from the competition by the “media” and their own party. It was as if the Democratic party leaders didn’t want to hear what we were saying. They preferred the status quo, the John Kerrys and the John Edwards...not even “experienced” men like Dick Gephardt or Dennis Kucinich, or Joe Lieberman made the cut.

But the man who set the country on fire, the man who created a whole new movement with his concise truth, the man who was in the lead with more pledged delegates even as the “media” proclaimed Kerry number one, the man who would have brought millions of voters to the polls expecting Real change... OUR candidate never had a chance.

In the staid halls of the Democratic Convention, the “media” and party leaders are lauding the “rising stars” of the party Barack Obama, senatorial candidate for the state of Illinois; Governor Tom Vilsack; Representatives Arther Davis and Stephanie Herseth. No mention of the brightest star, Howard Dean.

Tuesday afternoon (July 27, 2004) Dean spoke to a crowd of 500 crammed into the ballroom of the Royal Sonesta Hotel in Cambridge, Mass. So many came to hear him speak that fire marshals stopped people from entering. After his ballroom speech, Dean gave a second speech to the crowd patiently waiting outside. He urged his loyal followers to continue the new way of campaigning that began with the grass roots movement for Dean, “The future of this country is about two-way campaigns, campaigns where candidates are not guided by focus groups and polls, they’re guided by blogs and people who go to Meetups”. Ordinary people like you and me.

He wants to use his political action committee to fund like-minded Democrats who will run for schoolboards and library boards. “The way the Republicans beat us is that years ago they started to make sure that somebody ran for the school board, somebody ran for country commission, and somebody ran for every single office you could think of, right up to the president of the United States. We didn’t do that... People say, ‘Jeez, Howard, I can’t believe you’re involved in a campaign of a guy who is running for library trustee’ Well, I think library trustees are pretty important positions in an administration where they like book burning better than reading books.”

And we should all remember, that librarians were responsible for Michael Moore’s latest book being published after it had been pulled, and that Fahrenheit 9/11 would not be in theaters today without the constant vigilance of those outside the mainstream “media” and political arenas.

It has been reported that Democrats inside the Beltway dreaded the thought of Dean winning the Democratic nomination. Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute has states, “I was going around last fall and winter before Iowa in a state of Dean-induced depression. Dean had clearly tapped into a deep vein of antipathy and anger toward Bush and was skillful in turning that against his fellow Democrats as well.”

What Marshall and most of the “Beltway Democrats” didn’t seem to realize is that We, the People were more than ready for Dean. We wanted someone to shake up the system. We wanted someone in the Democratic party to stand up and say that this emperor had no clothes! We wanted action and we wanted control, not limp responses to an aggressive Bush who refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission under oath and only if Cheney was there, too. We wanted someone with the backbone of the Black Caucus to talk back to Republicans who didn’t want to listen to us. And We, the People, want it NOW!

The harsh truth is in the words of Robin Battson of Columbia, South Carolina, a Dean supporter, “Well, it’s kind of a matter of we have to [support Kerry], this year, to change the administration...We all need to come together, Dean supporters, Kucinich supporters, previous Nader supporters.” And when asked if Kerry’s support for the Iraq invasion was a problem, she replied, “For some people it is...but we probably need to be pragmatic about what was going on in Congress at that time.”

The “media” says Dean “crashed and burned” in Iowa and New Hampshire in January but that is not so. Kerry was chosen OVER Dean by party caucus, not the votes of We, the People. We wanted someone with vision, someone who related to the problems of this nation and someone with the strength to stand up to Republicans and their destructive agenda.

We have no proof that Kerry will be able to do so. We have no proof that he will keep his promises to stop the killing in Iraq, stop the jobs from flowing to other countries, stop the loss of medical care for Our elderly and Our young; we’ve heard promises but we’ve heard them before. And, frankly, Kerry was not in agreement with most of the plans he now says he favors. Most of his agenda was taken from Dean’s platform which was based on the words of We, the People.
And so the bottom line of this Convention is that We, the People must wait another four years to see our fate. But the other bottom line is that We are listening to Dean, he still has our attention and our hope. No matter who is nominated to fill the office Bush now occupies, we are waiting. And we are taking Dean’s advice. We will take back our country; if not now, tomorrow.

JULY 27, 2004

CHOICES

There they stood. Three men of great stature, doing their best to convince us that John Kerry can right Our world. And amid the standing ovations and roars of approval, it was very clear that the man they wanted to lead our country out of the abyss was former President Bill Clinton. The president we are not allowed to choose.

And Al Gore, the man chosen in 2000 by We, the People, to continue the policies of President Clinton, was also greeted with enthusiasm and cheers. The president that the Supreme Court decided we could not choose.

And one of the most respected and admired leaders in the world, Nobel Peace Prize recipient former president Jimmy Carter. A man so well known for his honesty and integrity that the nations of our world ask him to help negotiate the way through crisis after crisis. The president the “media” decided we did not want to choose.

And they did their best to convince us that John Kerry could lead us as they had. And we hope that they are right because we have no other choice. George W. Bush must go; for the sake of our nation, for the lives of our people, for the continuance of our Democratic Republic and Our Constitution...for Our Future.

Former President Carter accused George W. Bush of squandering the international goodwill we received from September 11, 2001. After all, in spite of Bush’s declaration that no other country had been devastated in this way, the nations of the world have been under terrorist attack for many more years than our country has. And, they had the expertise and knowledge gained from the constant bombardment of terrorist acts. And they generously wanted to share it with us.

But Bush wanted to go it alone. And we have. And look what he has produced. A nation whose government is so paralyzed with fear over “what ifs” or “something is about to happen” that the only decisions made is to destroy our Constitutional Rights and create a spy network focused on We, the People instead of outward toward the terrorists.

President Carter is correct when he says “...in just 34 months...all this goodwill has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations... Unilateral acts and demand have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combatting terrorism.”

The leader we chose in 2000, former Vice President Al Gore, was well aware that bin Laden had set the goal of attacking the United States. If the Supreme Court, and a biased Katharine Harris, had stayed out of the 2000 election, President Al Gore would not have ignored PDBs and information from employees who were denied access to “upper management” and thus were responsible for ignoring their findings.

Except for use as propaganda, defending ourselves against al Qaida took a backseat to the Bush administration’s push for an invasion of Iraq. Former Vice President Gore (and president elect) stated that Iraq diverted attention away from the principle danger posed by al Qaida and asked this question during his Convention speech, “Wouldn’t we be safer with a president who didn’t insist on confusing al Qaida with Iraq?” Considering that the leadership of Iraq had been obeying United States “suggestions” since 1980, is seems a little farfetched that, after asking our permission to invade Kuwait, Saddam Hussein suddenly takes off in a totally independent and different direction to support al Qaida!

And Gore is correct, there is unfocused anger over the 2000 election.

We know that when he says, “Take it from me -- every vote counts”, that he knows of what he speaks. The “media” keeps reporting that Bush won by “537” votes; however, we know that after Katherine Harris refused to add 365 legitimate votes to Gore’s total because “the vote had been certified” that she allowed 65 votes to be added to Bush’s total to make that 537.

That leaves that old disputed number of 107 votes. The illegally disenfranchised black vote, in Florida numbered close to 100,000. Statistics show that 90% of the black vote went to Gore. The illegally counted 3,000 Republican “fixed” absentee ballots gave Bush 3,000 illegal votes. That was balanced out with 3,000 illegal ballots presented to elderly, mostly Jewish, voters who had the deceptive “butterfly ballot” placed in their hands.

Bush: First name, first circle

Gore: Second name, THIRD Circle

Bucannon: Third name, SECOND circle

Florida law: candidate Bush listed first, candidate Gore listed second. A reasonable assumption, whether you are old or Jewish is that the second circle would be a vote for Al Gore!

And the list goes on....

Gore says we must “make sure that this time every vote is counted.”
He asks, “Is our country more united today? Or more divided? Has the promise of “compassionate conservatism been fulfilled? Or do those words now ring hollow?” And he asks of us, “To those of you who felt disappointed or angry with the outcome in 2000, I want you to remember those feeling. But then I want you to do with them what I have done: Focus them fully and completely on putting John Kerry and John Edwards in the White House.”

And, our elected, but unsworn president, has put action to his words. He is creating a “media” network to combat the prejudicial and biased networks who now disseminate the news to We, the People. And he emphasizes, “Take it from me - every vote counts.”

But what he didn’t say is that every vote MAY NOT be counted!
It was reported that John Kerry’s team was urging speakers to go easy on the “Bush-bashing”. Why? The Bush team never backs away from bashing “liberal” Democrats or their supporters. It seems to always be open season on anyone who disagrees with Bush. And Democrats always seem to be “pulling their punches” when it comes to Republicans.

When we read something about the installation of voting machines without paper trails, they are silent. When the CEO of one of the largest manufacturers of voting machines, Walden O’Dell loudly proclaims with his words and his money that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the “president”” this year, Democrats are silent.

When we hear report after report that the voting machines have “voting irregularities” where votes are switched or dropped or added to certain candidates, Democrats are silent. When we know that Florida once again produced a “felon list” of voters that would disenfranchise legitimate voters, they are silent. Where is their united voice??

If the Democratic party is truly serious about putting our country back on course, they must do more than what they are doing at this Convention. They must stick their necks out and, not just take the punches thrown at them by Republicans, THEY MUST FIGHT BACK. IF REPUBLICANS NO LONGER USE “GENTLEMEN’S RULES”, DEMOCRATS MUST RESPOND IN KIND OR LOSE THE FIGHT.

BEING A LIBERAL OR A DEMOCRAT IS NOT A CRIME, AND DEMOCRATS SHOULD NOT COWER FROM THE REPUBLICAN DEFINITION.

No President, not even Richard Nixon, has ever been attacked the way President Bill Clinton was. But he refused to play by the Republican’s rules and continued to do his job while they wasted millions of our taxpayer dollars and the time we paid those civil servants for.

And that is why We, the People still adore him and would reelect him in a instant! He gave us what we paid him for. He brought peace and prosperity to a troubled country. He stopped terrorist attacks upon our major cities without bending or breaking one civil right or one color coded response. And he handled all this adversity with good humor, style and grace.

JULY 26, 2004

CROSSING THE LINE

Torture: The inflicting of intense pain (as from burning, crushing or

wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.

Sadism: Extreme cruelty, a delight in cruelty.

Civilization: An advanced stage of development in the arts and sciences accompanied by corresponding social, political, and cultural complexity. Polite, cultured, refined.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland recently turned its attention to a poll regarding the acceptability of torture of those captured by the United States during the Iraq invasion and its occupation. 66% believed that the United States should abide by international law that “governments should never use physical torture”, but 29% thought that was “too restrictive.” But 29% who find acceptable ways to justify torture are too many.

Throughout history, it has not required a majority to approve torture. In fact, throughout history, it is the majority which protest that eventually end up being tortured. The acceptance of torture is an erosion of morals, principles, and ideals over time. What happened in Iraq did not happen over night, nor was it “a few bad apples” that coincidentally received the unchecked power to produce “extreme cruelty” upon the inmates of Abu Gharib prison.

Civilized nations have turned their attention to the causes that produce such aberrations since the discovery of the atrocities committed in the name of government called the Third Reich. It is common knowledge that a sustained cruelty; the very definition of sadism, was widespread in Germany before the 1939 invasion of Poland. It was impossible to live in Germany during this time without being aware or experiencing the acts of torture and cruelty.

But what We, the People, may not be aware of is that what happened in Germany, which made liberal use of the field of Psychology to control the populace, is that the civilized nations of the world were obsessed with finding out why it had occurred; what had let to such an evil degradation of a nation. And they were not pleased with what they discovered.

The first experiment that led scientists to believe that “there, but for “the grace of god,” go I” was one involving test subjects who were given instructions to administer shocks to a subject they could not see.

The experiment was designed to see if the person would continue to deliver the shocks as directed when the unseen person registered pain. Although most of the participants registered unease, the majority of them continued to shock the unseen person even though they were registering pain responses. Those conducting the experiment were horrified to discover that, with the appropriate prompting, their test subject would continue to deliver the shocks, even though their information indicated it was a fatal shock.

The second experiment had even more appalling results. A college professor decided to try a little experiment with his consenting psychology students.
He divided the class into two groups: those with blue eyes and those with brown. The blue eyed group were considered “special” and given privileges over the brown eyed group. They began to consider themselves the elite group and to expect to receive preferential treatment, and as the experiment progressed, they became abusive to the brown eyed group. The professor’s intentions had been to switch groups and make the brown eyed group the superior but the experiment got so out of hand that it was terminated. But the results were already in.

The torture at Abu Gharib did not occur in a vacuum. The United State government and military has been on the verge of outright participation for generations. Since the 1980’s we have been overtly or covertly involved with the Central and South American governments who used arrest and torture as it’s main control over their people. Our government has condoned or assisted in its use in Nicaragua, Columbia, El Salvador, Chili, Brazil, Guatemala, and Argentina.

Ronald Reagan, praised as “great president” by Republicans just a month ago, was knee deep in an “arms for hostage deal” and “Iran-Contra” scheme that has never been thoroughly investigated. Much of the deception of the Reagan government is still classified “secret” and beyond the reach of those who would like to know just how involved Reagan and his vice president, the first George Bush , was in the torture and murder of thousands of citizens under the oppressive regime in these countries.

And the question must be asked; was it Our government’s secret involvement in Central and South America that has produced the torture mechanism churning out victims in Iraq today?

How could George W. Bush have immediately set his minions to work finding a way to ignore the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, and to keep himself from being tried for war crimes? The legal definition of these actions is known as “premeditation”. What, exactly, had he premeditated?

What, in his background, made him believe he was above, not only United States law, but the law of the nations of the world, and the laws of civilized behavior? What, in his background, allowed him to believe he could get away with it?

It is said that he once committed torture upon the members of his college fraternity; branding them with a hot coat hanger and then refusing to accept responsibility for any wrong doing. When the fraternity was suspended for the incident; he felt the judgment was too harsh, that it was a normal event. If you are on the receiving end of someone who inflicts pain by burning you, wouldn’t you deem it torture?

The Abu Gharib soldiers charged with the crimes of torturing prisoners say they were just following orders. Where have we heard that before? Those investigating say that the torture was committed by a mere six men and that the general in charge of the prison was lax; she says that she was under orders to not interfere. Those charged say that military intelligence, intelligence agents, and even “contractors” all were telling them what to do.

But while the trials of these few individuals proceed, we are hearing about routine torture, justification for the torture in order to “get information.” And now we have the assertion that the Pentagon has video tapes showing children being tortured. Of young children being used to “get information” from others. Of the rape of these children for this information.

The PIPA study says that 60% of We, the People, took the position that even if the prisoners are members of al Qaida, the United States should still give them the rights provided by the treaties. That is the behavior of a civilized nation; a majority.

So why are we at the mercy of a group of 30% who believe the ends justify the means? We, the People need to clean house. We need to sweep all of these uncivilized “elite” people from our House. And we need to demand an open investigation of all that has occurred since the year 2000.

Responsible: Legally or ethically accountable for the care or welfare of another. Capable of making moral or rational decisions on one’s own...of being trusted or depended upon...good judgment or sound thinking.

When the time comes for the nations of this world to pass judgment upon We, the People, and our country, where will you stand? And it will come. Remember, Germany, too, thought they were invincible and that might makes right. And look how far they fell.

JULY 25, 2004

SUNDAY AGAIN,

the day I tie all the little items into one long group ending in “what is going on here?” Today, I am starting with

IS IT THAT TIME AGAIN?

With the 2004 election right around the corner, with the self-proud, self-dubbed “war president” revving up his campaign to take the prize, we see this article which is essentially asking, Why bother?” It seems that it is already a “done deal” AND YOUR VOTE WON’T MATTER ANYWAY!!

First, consider this, the pollsters are basing the 2004 election data on the flawed 2000 data! Considering that Bush did not get voted in but was definitely appointed by the United States Supreme Court, that the legitimacy of the Florida vote was challenged by House members and ignored by Senators; if this had been a scientific study all the data would have been thrown out because it was contaminated!!

But, since the propaganda is perpetuated, they say that Bush has already got the electoral votes to be reappointed. John Kerry is trailing Bush and his states have fewer electoral votes anyhow, so there! Bush and Kerry need 270 votes to be declared president. It is said that Bush already has 25 states and 217 electoral votes. Poor Kerry only has 14 states and 193 electoral votes. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

It is reported that in 2000 Bush won 20 states and 271 votes (including Florida and Missouri; two highly states with highly disputed vote totals) and that, although Gore won 20 states and 267 electoral votes; the “media” played down the controversy and called Gore a “poor sport”. Actually, it was whiney Bush who was the poor sport, informing Gore that his brother, the governor presiding over the inexcusable Florida debacle had told him he had won! And it was his first cousin, John Ellis, reporting for Fox network who declared Bush the winner when every other network was saying Gore had won.

And we all know what the 1965 Civil Rights commission report concluded. And we also know that, in those states where Democrats won, the vote was sometimes counted three different times to try to turn the tide to Republicans - most of the time it failed.

However, in the most controversial area, Florida, a recount was never done. It is also a fact that Katherine Harris added 65 votes to George W. Bush’s total after refusing to add 365 votes to Al Gore’s total saying that nothing could be added after she had certified the vote. Those 65 votes she allowed in for Bush put his total over what they had allowed Al Gore by just a few; however, those 365 votes she refused to certify for Gore would have put him over the top by hundreds of votes. And that doesn’t include the black vote that was disenfranchised!

So how can they project the data that Bush is going to win? The same way they projected Bush was going to win in 2000, except they have another weapon now, those conniving voting machines that can tally and switch votes with a flick of a finger -- and We, the People will never know this time.

Because they don’t want outside election monitors to observe the 2004 election. Something to hide? And if, for some reason, it doesn’t work, why they will cancel the election.

But, how can the Electoral College even consider putting a guy whose first act was to set Justice Department Lawyers on a search of the Geneva Convention for a loophole that would keep him from being charged with

WAR CRIMES

I wonder about the morality of a country that has a leader who considers his own safety above that of We, the People. What sort of person begins a hunt for a way out of being charged with a crime before he has even had time to unpack his bags? And I wonder about the morality of its citizens when 1/3 of Americans do not share Our belief that physical torture of the people we invade and detain is wrong. Shades of Ghengus Kahn!

We’ve seen the photos, the government has seen the video tape. A limp investigation was begun regarding memos from Justice Department lawyers giving Bush scenarios on how he might escape blame for the torture and killing of prisoners of war. It will probably go the way of all the other government “investigations” such as the 9/11 Commission report. Plenty of blame to go around - except for Bush and Cheney who refused to give testimony under oath. At the moment, we are hearing that the government has video tape of the abuse and rape of children by intelligence and military representatives of our government. But where’s the investigation? It won’t be coming soon, after all we have to wait until Bush officially gets those 25 states and those 270 electoral vote; then it will once again be too late to do anything about it.

JULY 24, 2004

A BEWILDERED BUSH

Ole Bring It On Bush not only doesn’t get it; he just can’t get it! Like a schoolyard bully he can’t seem to understand why no one trusts him. He struts around the schoolyard (Our country) telling us how great he is, and how everything he is doing to us is for our own good.

And he is backed up by his gang who keeps saying, “Yeah, like it or lump it.”

While the “media” and most Democrats are willing to let Republicans tell them to “F••• It”, some of us are not willing to let Bush be King of Our hill. And they are mostly the ones who have been told to “Cheney it” all of their lives!” So Bush does what he always does; he turns tail and runs. In his almost four years as our “strong leader” and “commander-in-chief-” he has never faced the angry crowds of those who disagree with him.

When he wanted to invade Iraq, and We, the People told him NO loudly and constantly; he ran away. Not once did he have the courage to face us. The Government of the Free was forced to develop new methods of keeping We, the People out of his sight. Thus, the mini-detention centers created as “free speech zones” miles from where Bush might be disturbed by Our protest signs.

Back ways had to be created for his arrival in foreign countries to spare him the vision of thousands lining the streets to protest, not only his policies, but his audacity at visiting their country! The Australian parliament booed him so harshly that he has been too cowardly to face free foreign governments since then. He seems to only visit countries where crowd control is (i.e. invisible dissent) guaranteed.

And his refusal to face the NAACP, while trying to scrounge black votes, because they’ve said some nasty things about him, shows his complete lack of courage when faced with opposition.

According to what his staff says, he will deliver a speech to the Urban League in Detroit. I don’t think that is going to fix the Bush Credibility Gap. But let’s step back a moment and review the events that have Bush trying to convince blacks to vote for him while making sure they don’t disturb his “party of the elite”!

We all know what happened to black voters during the 2000 election in those “battleground” states he is campaigning in so hard for this election. We also know that the “media” poo-pooed their complaints that they were kept from voting, or their votes weren’t counted. A quick read on the 1965 Civil Rights Commission’s report on the 2000 election lays it out precisely - but not precisely enough for Attorney General John Ashcroft to take action.

But the general consensus is that just those disenfranchised from the notorious Florida “felon list” would have put Gore so far over the top that it would have been impossible for Gore to be reported as “loosing” the election. But being caught once and getting away with it just seemed to convince the Republican party that they could do it again. The 2004 Florida felon list surprised many a Floridian voter when they discovered that their name graced that new felon list. What was it that Bush said...fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...uh, er, uh, you can’t fool me again.

The same dirty tricks are in play, but with a new twist. The Bush government has put out feelers about canceling the election because of “terrorists”. When members of the House of Representatives brought the subject of election monitors to the floor, the Republican House leader of the day,Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) promptly shouted down and squelched the debate by censoring Congresswoman Corrine Brown’s remarks and removing all trace of them from the record. Ah, yes, free and open debate.

And then there is the remarkably insensitive “visit” that Bush made to the tomb of Martin Luther King this past year. He breezed into town like a potentate to pay a brief stop, lay a wreath and then get out of town quickly. It seems that the Secret Service proceeded his motorcade and interrupted a meeting at King’s old church, Ebinezer Baptist and told the group that they would have to leave.

It also appeared that the congregation and the civil rights leaders who were in the process of completing plans to honor King’s birthday took exception to the evacuation. In fact, when the old civil rights leaders started telling the assembled crowd how to use King’s tactics to protect themselves, the city decided not to remove the demonstrators and instead began parking city buses in front of of them so that Bush would not have to look upon the faces of the congregation, or those who lived in the neighborhood.

And Bush wonders why 9 in 10 blacks prefer Kerry to him! Representative Corrine Brown has stated that in the 2000 Florida election 27,000 votes were thrown out. The notorious Florida “felon list”, (Responsibility of Bush’s Election Committee Chairman, now Representative Katherine Harris) wrongly purged 57,000 from the voter list. And blacks say that, throughout the United States they were kept from the polls and there are estimates that one million voters were disenfranchised. In Missouri, where Bush keeps returning during this election, black voters told of being locked out of the polling places, of standing in line for hours and then being told that it was “too late” to vote.

A campaign aid said Bush will continue speaking “directly with the African-American community about how his agenda is worthy of their attention and consideration.” But he couldn’t accept an invitation to address one to the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States! Instead he went to Detroit to address what the “media” reports as “another influential back group that he views as less hostile.”

Less hostile... so now, the African-American community is being a split into two groups... “You’re either with me or agin’ me”, Bush has been quoted as saying. He also has said that he is the president, he doesn’t have to answer questions, he asks them. Back to the school yard bully, just shut up and do as you’re told.

The African-American community just doesn’t seem able to do as they are told. They keep fighting back, even if they loose. Whether it is in Congress challenging an election or refusing to leave the Ebinezer Baptist Church where Martin Luther King was minister. We, the People, once great fighters ourselves, would do well to follow the example of the Black Caucus, the black communities and question public servant Bush’s intentions. Remember, when you challenge a bully he usually runs.....

JULY 23, 2004

Gust Blog BY WHA?

Rant

For those of you still arguing about the Niger story. WHAT ARE
YOU STUPID! The U.S. has been in Iraq over a year and found
nothing.

No Nuclear plans no equipment the only nuclear related items
were from before the first Gulf war. So I ask you what the hell
was he supposed to do with the yellowcake? Bake it in a cake and
mail it to the White house?

Or do you think the Iraq’s had learned
how to process yellowcake with the power of their mind alone? Or
do think Saddam is such a bargain hunter he will buy early while
its cheap? Lets remember that Iraq already had yellowcake so why
would he need to squirrel away more? The answer is simple that he
wouldn’t.

The Israelis blew his first attempt to get nukes and that was
when Saddam had U.S. support. And despite the talk about Saddam
being a ”madman” the truth is was ruthlessly pragmatic which meant
he wasn’t going to waste money and risk pissing off the UN when
the Americans, British and Israelis were looking for targets.

Only a fool would believe that because somebody somewhere thought
that Iraq might want yellowcake that's legitimate evidence.

Watch
how its done: here is a rumor that Aliens are planning to disrupt
the supplies of coffee, so we’ll be to sleepy to resist their
invasion. Now how do prove its wrong? You have a source? You know
America would be helpless without coffee? It does make some sense
doesn't. Now if this rumor gets spread through the net and finds
it way into a DDB I want to get paid the same amount as Chalabi.

JULY 22, 2004

KNOW THEM BY THEIR DEEDS

Ronald Reagan, Jr. is returning to his father’s political roots, he is scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention this week. His speech made a news ”sound bite” about a week ago and disappeared off the tv screen. CBS, the network hounded into shelving a movie Republicans deemed critical of Reagan, Sr., has said they will not cover the speech. They say it is too short, only 8 minutes long. It is doubtful that the other networks will be able to squeeze it in either.

Last months, Ronald Reagan was hailed by the Republican party as “one of the greatest presidents” and they wanted to put his name or face on everything from Mount Rushmore to the coin of the realm. Obviously his son doesn’t share his father’s political loyalty to Republicans or he wouldn’t be speaking at the Democratic National Convention. But those rowdy Republicans don’t want too much attention focused on Junior’s defection.
The question I must ask is: If Ronald Reagan, Jr. was scheduled to speak at the Republican convention, on behalf of George W. Bush, would his eight minute speech get coverage?

But Republicans seem to have more problems from “defectors” than former President Reagan’s son. In June of this election year, a group of former diplomatic and military officials signed a statement condemning the Bush administration’s foreign policy. There are signatures from 20 former United States ambassadors, military commanders and former Chiefs of staff. They call the group Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change.

A former deputy State Department spokeswoman for the Reagan administration, Phyllis Oakley, said the statement was “prompted by a growing concern, deeply held, about the future of the country’s national security.” Although it doesn’t endorse a candidate, it flatly states that “We are on the wrong track, and we need a fundamental change.”

Oakley says the group represents very senior, former government officials who have “spent their lives working to erect the stature and posture of the U. S. as a leader in the world... and we simply see that edifice crumbling.” She continues, “We’re all career servants who have never taken a political stand. What we want to get on record is our profound concern about the future of the United States.”

Among those taking this stand are William Harrop, who was appointed ambassador to Israel by the former President George H. W. Bush, Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, Commander in chief of U. S. Central Command for the Middle East in 1991, retired Admiral William Crowe, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1985-89. Oakley says that releasing that statement was not an easy decision for them.

It should not be considered a courageous act to fulfill the obligation to We, the People that they incurred when they took their oath of office; but in these time, in this climate of vitriol, it is. And we must acknowledge and salute this courage.

The Democratic convention will be held July 26 through 29th and the theme will be “Stronger at Home, Respected in the World.” Speakers will include presidents Carter, Clinton and Gore and the history making First Lady, Senator Hillary Clinton. Considering the very real need for Democrats to all “hang together” the real stars of the Democratic primary will also be speaking. They will shine a spotlight on the “rising stars” in the party also; such as Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, and Steve Brozak.

Brozak, is another Republican party “deserter” who changed his party registration after witnessing the Republican's treatment of Arizona Senator John McClain in the South Carolina primary in 2000 and the attacks upon another Viet Nam veteran, Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. The particularly vicious attacks questioning the triple amputee’s patriotism was simply too much for the retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who switched parties and is running for Congress in New Jersey.

It is an open secret that the Republicans, hoping to benefit from the September 11, 2001 “strong leader” image fostered by the “media” plan to hold their convention as close to the “Pear Harbor event” as they can. They are countering the Democratic lineup with such Republican “stars” as Senator John McCain and the former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor George Pataki and...Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It was said that Schwarzenegger campaigned hard for the spotlight. The unknown, untried Schwarzenegger received vast Republican support in the recall election of Governor Gray Davis of California. Amid more dubious voting reports from vote tallying machines and closed precincts in poor “minority neighborhoods”, they celebrated his “victory”.

Republicans refused to consider Schwarzenegger’s notorious history of crimes of sexual battery and sexual harassment. (Shades of an impeached Clinton - some of Schwarzenegger’s were even caught on tape!)

And We, the People, simply can not understand Republican refusal to investigate or address his past association with known Nazi war criminals! Why would Republicans embrace this man who campaigned for a Nazi running on a Nazi party ticket in Austria after he had become a naturalized American citizen, vowing to “renounce all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty...”?

And why would the Republican party proudly embrace and give a prominent speaking position to a man who professed Nazi sympathies when he lamented that his “good friend” Kurt Waldheim, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Greek Jews during World War II, could not attend his wedding because of the “Nazi thing” which had also put Waldheim on a world wide watch list when he was elected to office in Austria - with Schwarzenegger’s help!

If Republicans obsess over perceived foibles of Democratic candidates and our “media” constantly consider Democrats characters to be less moral than Republicans; HOW DO THEY RATIONALIZE THEIR SUPPORT OF THE NAZI TIES OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER? These ties may not be as relevant to a body building, aspiring actor BUT THEY ARE VERY RELEVANT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND TO SCHWARZENEGGER’S POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- even if he must change our Constitution to do so.

We, the People should be searching for the answers to our future when we watch these conventions. Just like you monitor the company your children keep, so should you monitor the company our two parties keep. Did you really think that George W. Bush wanted to play war with your children’s lives when he made all those promises on the campaign trail?

The lies that men tell in order to achieve power are always there; it is Our duty to uncover them. We must constantly chose from among the weak because the strong are not among them. We were a naive country then, even though it was there for us to see in 2000. It is even more clear in 2004. Now we know the results that come from listening to the slick words that men say; now We, the People know that we must judged them by what they do.

JULY 21, 2004

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A NAME MAKES!

We, the People, seem to be faced with a “breach of national security”. Every “media” source is trumpeting it in their headlines - both printed and audio. We’re going to be mired in a “criminal probe”. Republicans are in an uproar. They want answers; NOW.

No, it doesn’t involve another orange alert, it didn’t come from Ashcroft’s office nor “homeland security.” This crisis comes to us courtesy of the 9/11 Commission investigating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack upon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

It is being hysterically reported that Sandy Berger, former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor (think Condoleezza Rice) admitted to inadvertently removing documents he was reviewing for the 9/11 Commission during his search of the national Archives. Seems that during the 2003 search, he accidentally got some mixed in with personal papers and placed them in his briefcase. When notified by the Archive in October 2003, he returned them.

But suddenly, this event from 2003 is attracting the attention of Republicans who are demanding blood. House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, says the incident is “absolutely shocking.”, but he wasn’t so shocked when Texas Republicans were using Homeland Security to track down Texas Democrats who wouldn’t play along with their arbitrary redistricting to provide less representation for minority voters and would produce more “Republican districts” -- in fact, he provided a little assistance of his own and that was according to “mainstream media”!

One big difference, Berger’s attorney Lanny Breuer, emphasized was that, although against archival procedure, Berger’s mistake was not against the law and, the Attorney General’s office expressed no concern until now... hummm.

Perhaps Democrats are correct, the timing is suspicious.
But, just in case this turns into the full “Ken Starr treatment”, I think we should extend the “Ken Starr treatment” to include the Bush administrations own wrong doings which have fallen through the investigative cracks. Starting with:

1. The stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation.

2. Protection given by the Judicial System to Cheney allowing him to hide the members of his secret energy commission from both government and private investigators.

3. A State of the Union address that reported unsubstantiated information about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq that led to an invasion and caused the deaths of 901 United States soldiers and at least 112 contractors working for American companies.

4. Refusing to release memos which outlined a plan to ignore the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and

5. Giving the Justice Department lawyers the task of locating loopholes that would keep Bush & Co for being tried as war criminals.

6. The treasonous act of releasing a major CIA agent’s name by someone in the Bush administration in retaliation for her husband’s refusing to support false information to justify the Iraq Invasion to We, the People.

7. Bush ignoring the August 6 PDB which wasn’t “precise enough” to indicate a terrorist warning although it was titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U. S.”

8. A full investigation into the torture of prisoners of war by the American military and intelligence agents.

9. Refusal to investigate environmental concerns covering such diverse areas as clean air and factory pollutants.

10, Favoritism in the selection of certain contractors, i.e. “no-bid contracts” to Haliburton, which is still giving Cheney money every year.

11. Favoritism of Saudi nationals during and after September 11, 2001 in two major areas: 1) Being allowed to travel and leave the United States when American citizens were not allowed to and 2) financial ties between influential and royal Saudis and Osma bin Laden.

12. And last, but by no means least, a full, unbiased investigation into the illegalities and irregularities of the 2000 election that put George W. Bush in office -- including the favoritism of the United States Supreme Court.

And yes, I know there are many others ignored by Republicans and “mainstream media” but I’m not sure that this country has enough money left in Our Treasury to investigate all of the misdeed of the Bush administration!

But don’t hold your breath waiting for any investigation of anyone bearing the label “Republican” or “GOP” to happen . We already know that Washington, D. C. is a Republican “company town”! Even during the Clinton Administration, which is why Sandy Berger’s faux pas will be endlessly investigated, rehashed, and pontificated upon ad nauseum during this coming election. And while questions of Republican misdeeds, like military casualties, highest budget deficit in history, etc., will be met with silence or downright hostility.

However, one change I have noticed during the last few elections is that party names don’t appear on campaign signs any more. And then there is also the suspicious use of “GOP” lately. Sort of reminds me of the name change shady businesses make when they loose customers. Perhaps We, the People, are wising up to the “name-blame-game.”

But if your name is BUSH, you can get away with anything! Like being on vacation more days than you work, working 45 minute days while terrorists plan to destroy the financial district and the Pentagon, invasions of countries for their resources like oil, torture of prisoners of war... acting like a dictator... canceling elections... and getting away with it all....

JULY 20, 2004

NEW AGE POLITICS

A new political age has dawned, placating voters and influence peddling are things of the past. Politicians who want your vote want you to see how tough they are so they are using a lot of words, in public, caught on tape, that wouldn’t make it past the censors in most of TV land.

Dick Cheney may be credited with the movement since he was the first to dare to tell a Senator - on his own turf - to F*** himself; and it is true that he “outed” the new political wave by refusing to apologize and chuckling about his bad behavior and how good he felt afterwards; but he wasn’t the first. Obnoxious behavior has been slipping out of their mouths for years. During his campaign George W. Bush was also caught with an open microphone giving an ****expletive deleted**** opinion on someone he didn’t like.

Unapologetic bad behavior seems to be the norm now; and at least the Republicans don’t seem to give a Boulder Dam about it! The Watergate break in during the Nixon administration now seems to be a mild form of lawlessness when you consider the ciber crime of hacking a Democratic computer from a Republican legislator’s office and stealing their confidential files, or deliberately giving a CIA agent’s name to a source that you know will publish it.

And there is that little matter of using Our government to try to influence your vote by linking sites critical to John Kerry to government internet sites. When you need some information about the Department of Health and Human Services you get a Republican critique of Kerry’s fitness to be president -- oops, just another little mistake made by the Bush government!

Republicans have been insulting Democrats with name calling for years. And Democrats seem to have the attitude taught to us by society, “sticks and stones will hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me.” However, a lot of damage has been inflicted to the Democrats’ “bones” from the words hurled by the Republican “schoolyard bullies.” No question that a double standard of behavior exists when President Clinton is required to defend himself for eight years and those who are judging him are guilty of the same crime. It was sort of like having the jury box filled with members of a rival gang. No way was it going to be a fair trial.

But those politicians who should be needing our vote are no gang members. They are supposed to be held accountable by We, the People, for their actions. These privileged children of the “elite” who grew up to want to snatch Our Power, need to be put in their place.

Yesterday, Arnold Schwarzenegger, stood before a crowd to give a little political speech telling us how wonderful he was and that anyone who doesn’t think the way he does are “girlie men”.

Now, we all know Mr. Schwarzenegger doesn’t hold the highest opinion of women; otherwise he would not feel that he has a right to commit sexual battery upon their bodies. And we all know that the Republican party must share his view because they never rebuked him for his blatant criminal activity; in fact, they did everything they could to see him become governor of California!

Half of this country is made up of women. Most of that female half are Democrats. Most of those “girlie men” Schwarzenegger insulted are Democratic. How does this elite party of the, mostly male, rich expect to have anyone vote for them? Most of the voting public do not share their values - a theme Republicans talk a lot about but don’t practice much - or their goals. We, the People didn’t want our jobs outsourced to India or China, and We didn't want to invade Iraq. And We sure don’t want any more of our children dying there!!

We, the People sure don’t share the Republican values that allowed Abu Gharib to exist. Torture isn’t our thing. And we certainly don’t want a leader, no matter what he calls himself, “commander-in-chief or “war president” whose values include ordering the Justice Department to find ways to keep him from being tried for War Crimes before he ever started one!

Under Bush’s last four years, We have turned into a snarling, backbiting, belligerent nation that no one wants to call friend. We insult foreign leaders before the drop of a hat and call into question the patriotism of We, the People, and denegrate the military service of our war heros.

But the unsavory truth is that most of the Bush Team considered their lives too “precious” to risk loosing them in VietNam. So, convinced that it should be left to others to fight and die there, they simply ignored it. Cheney, decided to F*** it; he had more important things to do. Bush just got tired of playing “pilot” and went home. And all the others in his administration had reasons to not “play” war also. Perhaps that was why it was so easy to start another one - no risk, no personal pain.

So, this election, We, the People seem to be left holding a mixed bag of tricks. How do they plan to “win” this time? Have they played all of their cards? It appears so, since they are replaying the same ones they used in Florida and other states in 2000. But, there is one new one: Just “F*** ‘em”, if they won’t vote our way, we’ll just cancel it!

JULY 17, 2004

REAL DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Richard Armstrong, a Colorado software engineer is doing what our government should be doing. He is exercising his Right as a citizen to take matters in his own hands and stop the outsourcing that is bleeding our country dry.

He, and a group of volunteers are collecting signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would bar the state from firing We, the People from our jobs and then giving them to other countries. Mr. Armstrong, like millions of Americans, knows what he is talking about. He began pushing to stop the siphoning off of U. S. jobs in 2000, after he had lost two jobs to foreign competition. The last time, his company even required him to train his replacement before dumping him.

Mr. Armstrong says, “We feel that taxpayers have the right to decide where their taxpayer dollars are spent” Yes, we do. And we also believe that an economy won’t grow when citizens lose their jobs and companies keep their profits tax free in foreign countries. Not only is the income NOT returned to our economy, but it is reduced because those losing their jobs won’t have any income to buy the products produced by outsourcing, nor any earned income to pay taxes.

A little fact that our elected representatives seem to either be unaware of, or ignore. A state senate committee rejected a similar bill to Armstrong’s earlier this year, justifying their actions by saying that the computer system would have to be replaced because some of the jobs to maintain it are overseas. So why did they send the maintenance job to maintain it so far away? I’m sure they lost in tax revenue what they saved in salaries.

In spite of the economic hype, in this real world We, the People live in, things are getting worse. Millions of people are still unemployed, under employed (that’s part time or low wage jobs) and that falling unemployment figure Bush bragged about is rising to new heights. Consumer prices, at least those We, the People purchase every day, like energy and food, have shown the largest increase in 3 years! Try stretching unemployment for cover that!! There is a true disconnect between our elected officials who earn triple what we do in a year, when we have a job, and the reality of trying to keep a roof over our heads here in the “land of the free”.

A recent article said that raises for workers were low this year, around 3.3%. If you have been working at any job for the past four years, you probably haven’t seen a 2% raise, if you were lucky enough to get one. “Downsized” and “outsourced” people shop at WalMart. We know that department store sales have been down for about four years now; and now WalMart had joined them in the decline.

The movement to stop outsourcing that is not coming from our government, (Remember, George W. Bush declared that it was good for the economy without mentioning how it would be good for you!) but from the citizens who voted for those telling them that We, the People will benefit from it. In Georgia, Glen Jackson has started a similar movement to ban state outsourcing. Which state will be next.

Remember, a small band of radical thinkers got together to take control of their lives and their homes away from England and it resulted in the United States.

Remember that, in the late 1880’s a group of coal miners and factory workers decided they had had enough of unsafe working conditions and organized into groups that culminated in organized unions that created the safer working conditions and job guarantees we had -- until this newly created “outsourcing” was invented.

Imagine what would happen to our employment situation in this country if Armstrong and Jackson’s movement spread throughout the country? We might just get our jobs back.

It’s worth a try.

Guest Blog By The Wha?

July, 18 2004

Does anyone else find it odd that the same people who
demonstrated both their gullibility and incompetence are releasing
a report to the media about intelligence failures?

I knew even before the vote to authorize the war that every
piece of evidence was challenged in the media. But more
importantly the top experts on terrorism kept telling them they
were wrong on almost ever front. And what exactly did they think
those inspectors had been doing all those years anyway?

Considering that these people are in charge of intelligence
perhaps they should be aware that you can’t make weapons without
factories, materials, or scientists. Just the stuff that I saw in
the Net told me way before the War that Iraq had nothing.

I mean come on people, what do call someone who believed that
former U.S. allie (Saddam), under sanction, surrounded by enemies
was some how more dangerous to the United States than Iran or
Pakistan or North Korea; not even talking about Al Qadia; all of
whom are actively seeking WMD.

How Gullible was the Senate
that they didn’t start getting worried when Saddam allowed the
Inspectors back in? Did anybody really think he did that
expecting them to find weapons? If the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence had been doing their jobs they would have talked to
Richard Clark and the other experts. Hell, they didn’t even need a
hearing just have an aide listen to people bitching around the
water cooler would have done the trick. Now they put out a report
telling us what almost everybody on the net knew from the
beginning. But saving the stuff that Bush did till after the Election! Hey, I have an Idea instead of having a cabinet level
post why don’t we have several bloggers talk about it on the net
you get lots of free analyses Good and bad idea and you can still
have everybody ignore the information until after the disaster.

JULY 16, 2004

SILENCED IN THE CONGRESS

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...which shall be determined by adding the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound into Service for a Term of years. and excluding Indians not taxed....The number of representative shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative....Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business...Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member...”

“Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

When Congresswoman Corrine Brown, elected from the 3rd District of Florida, rose to bring an election issue before the House, she was rudely shouted down. They did not want to hear what she was saying. “Mainstream media” reported an “outburst” from her on the floor of the House.

But before she had finished her statement, she was shouted down with screams from the Republicans leaders of the House. True, she raised her voice, true she stated that the 2000 election had resulted in what she termed a coup d’etat, and true, she warned them that the same election scenario was once again being set up for the 2004 election.

But why did those words she spoke in an almost empty chamber, among very few House members, result in a purge of her statement, and a punishment of forced silence? And when did they assemble a quorum in order to impose such a harsh punishment? What was going on in that Chamber? Why did her words produce such fierce response?

The 600,000 Floridians represented by Congresswoman Brown deserve an answer as to why their Voice was silenced. Rep. Brown says that she was introducing debate on the request made by five Representatives to have the United Nations monitor U. S. Elections. The House leadership retaliated by introducing legislation forbidding any United Nations money be used to monitor elections in the U. S.

Representative Brown then informed the members present that they had participated in a “coup d’etat” in 2000 by stealing the election and that monitoring was necessary to keep it from happening again. At this point, the presiding leader of the house, Representative Mac Thornsberry, (R-Texas) began slamming the gavel and yelling for her to “get off the floor”. It seems he took umbrage at her accusing other members of “committing a crime.”

Coming from a state (Texas) only too happy to silence critics by mass redistricting to eliminate trouble spots, one must ask why Republican Thornsberry was so troubled by Representative Brown’s statements. The petition requesting that our 2004 elections be monitored has already been filed with the United Nations. It had already been signed by 13 of our elected representatives. It is a little late to censor Brown in our House of Representatives. Thornsberry can’t “unring the bell” by obliterating her words, but he has certainly given credence to the critics of the 2000 election.

Tom Kilgannon, president of Freedom Alliance, which says it is dedicated to protecting American sovereignty, criticized the signers of the petition. “Your appeal to the secretary general is alarming and embarrassing...it is disturbing...that you would entrust the most sacred act of American democracy...to an international institution...” he says.

What Mr. Kilgannon ignores is that the United States has already been embarrassed. In 2000. Where was Mr. Kilgannon when the blatant attack upon our “sacred act” of voting was going on in Florida; from the illegal “absentee ballots” fixed by Republican party members to the notorious “felon list” that was so successful in disenfranchising voters that it has resurfaced for the 2004 election? Where was he when the nations of the world decided that America be removed from the monitoring of dubious elections because of our own dubious election in 2000?

And many of those who signed the United Nations petition for election monitoring were present during the 2000 election. They were among those who stood and presented petition after petition after petition challenging the legality of the Florida election before the join session of the House. They were among those who saw John Ashcroft find “nothing” in that 1965 Civil Right Commission Report, that would require an investigation; let alone the legal action requested by the Commission.

They were silenced in that attempt also. And almost a thousand soldiers lie in their graves because of it. More than 3,000 of our citizens are dead because of it. The Supreme Court decreed that George W. Bush would be harmed by a recount of the Florida vote.

And when they decreed that, they were stating that We, the People who chose Vice President Al Gore to represent us, would not be harmed by that decision. The Join Session that cast their disputed electoral votes for George W. Bush decided that We, the People, would not be harmed by appointing George W. Bush president.

We, the People, knew better. And we are grateful for the efforts of these thirteen brave individuals like Representative Brown and Johnson, who are willing to take the vitriol spewed at them, to stand firm in the name of the People they represent. We thank them for upholding the Oath of Office they took when we entrusted them with the honor and the duty to represent us, to keep us safe.

They are not listed among the “wealthy elite” of Bush’s “base”, but they far better represent the “base” that provides the “Consent of the Governed” than those elite Republicans who constantly try to remove our “Right of Free Speech.” They have put their faith in our democracy and their reputations on the line to hold true to our Constitution. It is my belief that, when this chapter of history is written, their names will be listed among the patriots of this country who tried to keep our country free. And We, the People say to them, keep true to your ideals. We are with you. As are the spirits of those who have gone before....

J

JULY 15, 2004

THE NEW CONSTITUTION

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights”... except for homosexuals, lesbians, women, African-Americans, and voters who vote the wrong way.

Out with the old; in with the new.

There has never before been an administration so determined to eliminate the Bill of Rights and erode the substance of our Constitution. From the moment Bush stepped through the doors of Our White House, he has been determined to rewrite our Constitution.

I don’t think anyone took him seriously when he revealed his plans in December of 2000. BEFORE he had taken the presidential oath of office in January, 2001 to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States”, BEFORE he pledged to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”, he told us that being a dictator would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as he was the dictator.”

Contrast that with our first president, George Washington. He was not only given the opportunity to lead the country for life, but offered a crown that would have given him dictatorial powers. He declined, saying eight years was long enough to lead this nation.

Contrast that with John Adams, our second president. Our nation was still young, and he was leading us through the hostilities with England called The War of 1812; he could easily have taken what Washington refused. But he also declined.
Contrast that with Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the Republic and credited with the authorship of the Declaration of Independence, who wanted neither power nor glory but a free nation.

What historians have called “a collection of the greatest minds in history” came together to produce one of the most awesome document of history. And George W. Bush believes he can do it better.

Abigail Adams, wife of John, could have done it better. She had steadfastly stood behind the ideals that would come to be known as the Constitution of the United States, realizing that her life was on the line just as much as her husband’s was. And her reply was succinct and to the point, “Don’t forget the ladies.”
She wanted equal rights for all; she did not live to see it but the concept was there from the beginning; just voted down in the Continental Congress in order to get the Constitution ratified. It wasn’t until the ratification of Amendment XIX in 1920 that the “forgotten” ladies were finally remembered.

That simple amendment reads, “The right of citizens of the United States shall not be denied or abridged by the United states or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
When Thomas Jefferson and his committee of five, were outlining the offenses of the British Crown, he included a clause that censured Britain for imposing slavery upon the colonies of America. It was taken out. In spite of being a slave owner, Jefferson fought a long battle to eliminate slavery in the United States. He did not succeed in his lifetime, either. But, another president, Abraham Lincoln, completed Jefferson’s life long work in 1865 when the XIII Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, expect as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United states, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.In spite of the 1870 amendment XV that emphatically gave the freed slaves the right to vote,

Section 1. The right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, pr previous condition of servitude.
Section 1. The Congresses shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

that “enforcement” of equal rights did not come about until the 1960’s and it took more than our elected government to make it a reality. It took the idealistic youth of our nation; it took their commitment, their time, their idealism, and sometimes their lives.

It did not take a new Amendment to our Constitution; just the enforcement of one already there. It was these events involving the registration of black Southern voters that established the 1965 Voting Rights Act; which, in turn, created the Commission that investigated the disenfranchisement of African-American voters during the 2000 Florida election.

We expect our elected government to respect our Constitution, to honor the blood shed in it’s creation. There is no place for a private agenda among its 26 amendments. That was done once. It was a failure.

In 1919 we amended our Constitution to ban drinking in the United States by ratifying Amendment XVIII. It did not stop one person who wanted to drink; it only created a whole class of criminal activity and labeled millions of our citizens as law breakers. Twenty two years later, another Constitutional amendment rectified this mistake and Prohibition (as it was called) was repealed.

This excursion into legislating morality succeeded only in creating a divided country; Us and Them. And once again, our leaders are trying to use Our Constitution as the moral conscience of our country. Certain groups consider themselves the arbitrators of justice. Their judgments are based on personal beliefs they consider un-compromisable and the idea that those personal beliefs need to be legislated for your own good.
The idea that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

is not acceptable to them. They are the ones who rally behind George W. Bush’s proposed amendments to our constitution that will dispose of those rights written in the blood of our forefathers.

African-Americans are still struggling to overcome the second class status imposed upon them when those assembled in the Continental Congress chose to vote against the abolishment of slavery. Women are still struggling against the second class status imposed upon them by the denial of their individual rights against being the property of their husbands.

With the fall of the Separation of Church and State, more and more “different” religions are finding themselves on the receiving end of intolerance. Anti Semitic crimes have risen at an alarming rate since Bush let it be known which god his government favored. Public taxpayer funds have been used to enhance the programs, schools, and doctrines of Bush supporters. There was rhetoric among our elected legislatures that we should declare ourselves a “Christian nation”; thereby denying the legitimacy of whatever your religion is.

And now, the Republican agenda is pushing a Constitutional Amendment that would declare another segment of our society second class citizens. They want an amendment that would define, for all time, who can be considered married, who will be considered married, and what condition will constitute a marriage.

This collides with, “...these truths[are]...self evident...that they are endowed... with certain unalienable Rights....Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men....”

Do our public servants, elected by a vote of We, the People, plan to define a religious ceremony in our Constitution? That is all the marriage ceremony is. Different faiths have different ceremonies; there is no one religious ceremony - it totally depends upon your version of god. There is only a marriage registry complied by the state where you live. You register your dog, your car, your house, your children... why is it so wrong to register you fealty to another human being?

Why do Republicans feel that they can make better medical or personal decisions for the female half of our country? It was a long hard fight for women to achieve a semblance of parity with men. Why should legislation and amendments be enacted to take it away now? What has changed in the last 84 years to make them think we are no longer rational or intelligent? Why do we need them to write a “marriage amendment” to “protect” the sanctity of marriage. Isn’t that determined by your religious faith? One of the freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” Why isn’t your passing laws upon your individual religious convictions considered establishing a religion?

Why aren’t men subject to the same medical restrictions as women? Why isn’t their productivity as scrutinized as a woman's? What is wrong with legislation determining a male’s ability to procreate? Why should his doctor be allowed to determine what treatments he receives; after all, if a woman could be forced to bear a child and her medical condition is irrelevant; shouldn’t men’s medical conditions that might render them sterile also be irrelevant?

Our Constitution was meant to regulate whether gays can marry or whether women have the right to their own bodies. These are covered under our guarantees of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is meant to regulate such issues as whether men can arbitrarily go to war without the consent of We, the People. It is meant to hold accountable men who seek ways to protect themselves from charges of war crimes, while watching 892 citizen soldiers die in a war they say no longer exists.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

John Adams stated, “People and nations are forged in the fires of adversity.”

At this moment, to be recorded in our history, our “grand experiment” is engulfed in a “tyranny over the mind of man.” And our country is engulfed in “new fires of adversity.” We, the People, must hold tightly to the bonds of our Constitution and, as they say in the marriage ceremony, let no man pull it asunder!

.

JULY 14, 2004

THE DAY AFTER...

November 2, 2004 will be the beginning of a new era in American history. At this moment, We, the People have the power to determine our fate. After November 2, 2004, We, the People will not.

The person declared the president of the United States, by whatever means used; election or canceled election, will determine what happens to this country for the next four years. But We, the People already know some of the future. We will continue to ride the bucking bronco that is Iraq, and Iraq will continue to try to throw us off. More soldiers will die. Just like VietNam.

The economy will continue to deteriorate unless Our jobs are brought back home; it can not be stopped. And the candidates have not promised to stop outsourcing our future. An outsourced job brings no capitol to a capitalist system.

Without We, the People, returning our wages back into the system, it will run like a car without oil; eventually the engine will fail and it will stop. Our taxes are the oil lubricating the government, without them where will the money to pay for government spending come from? Not from wages paid to China. Not from taxes collected from India. Not from United States companies sheltering their billions in profits in foreign lands.

What we face without our citizens contributing to Our economic system is more horrifying to contemplate than the possibility of bin Laden launching another attack upon the United States. Already we see a deteriorating class system. It is common knowledge that the chasm is widening daily between the “haves” and the “have nots.” , or as George W. Bush calls them, “the elite...his base.”

Crime is already on the rise and it will continue to grow as more and more people find themselves without food or shelter. And soon, We, the People, will find ourselves protecting what we have from those who want it. Remember back, or read the history, of what went on in this country during the long hot summers of riots and the shouts of “burn, baby, burn....” There were troops in the streets then, but those troops are now in Iraq just trying to stay alive from day to day.

The narrow vision of not only the two presidential candidates but the Legislative branch of our government must be broadened to stop the corrosion of our Nation. But they appear blinded by their loyalty to a party rather than We, their employers. Daily, we read such items as:

•Government web sites, like Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services, linked to sites criticizing Kerry. Statements like this one by Rep. C. L. Butch Otter (R-Ohio) posted on the House Republican Conference at www.gop.gov, saying that John Kerry “would embolden environmental extremists to press an aggressive agenda of restricting access and responsible use of public lands.” This, at the same time that news articles say that logging restrictions have been removed by the Bush government.

•Bush, who left his duties in Washington to attend fundraiser after fundraiser while casualties in Iraq escalated, who collected over 200 million for this political campaign, who was said to have been on vacation more than 40% of his time in office, criticized Democrats over a fundraiser that included celebrities that were not Bush fans. He was indignant that they had used “off color language” and called him names.

A week before, his own appointed vice president, in the Senate, had directed what is euphemistically known as the “f” word at one of Our elected Senators because he did not agree with him. Cheney didn’t apologize for telling the Senator to “F--- himself”, in fact he chuckled about it in an interview and said it felt good. Why is it worse for those who earn their living in Hollywood to use foul language than it is for Republican government officials? Doesn’t the freedom to curse someone extend to Whoopie Goldberg who makes her living as an actress and a comedian?

•One candidate has refused an invitation to speak to the oldest civil rights organization. That candidate is George W. Bush. That organization is the NAACP. He has declined every invitation since 2000. He is also the one who has all but eliminated affirmative action. He is also the one who benefited from a Florida “felon list” that disenfranchised so many in Florida in 2000. The NAACP was the organizational Florida precinct when calls from black voters flooded into their offices telling of intimidation, harassment, and being refused the right to vote.

On July 1, 2004, 13 courageous members of Congress requested that the United Nations monitor our November election. On July 8, 2004 they held a news conference regarding their petition addressed to the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It went unreported in the mainstream “media.” Once before, courageous members of Congress stood before the join session of the Congressmen and senators, and their plea that we clean up our election mess went unheeded. So now we need an international cleaning crew.

The example of exemplary democracy that we held up to the world was not just tarnished but was broken. The 2004 election is a way of redeeming our system. The 1965 U. S. Civil Rights Commission Report, ignored by Attorney General John Ashcroft, states, “When the right to vote is infringed, whether by poor planning or intentional actions, the nation as a whole suffers.” And we have suffered these past four years!

Fortunately, we are not alone in our convictions that what happened during the 2000 election must never be allowed to happen again. During the July 8, 2004 news conference, Congresswoman Eddie Johnson declared,

“It is imperative that there be some type of independent monitoring for this fall’s election. The United Nations provides this assistance for other Member countries. Why not the United States? We are not above the law. Nor are we above asking for assistance....The right to vote, and have votes counted, in free and fair elections is a cornerstone of representative government.”

And these Representatives of our government are not alone this time. We, the People will not be taken by surprise again. The human rights community stands with us. The executive Director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development wrote, “We support the suggestion by Members of Congress that other nations send observers to our Presidential Election. The disenfranchisement of voters in Florida in 2002, and the further distortion of the democratic will in the aborted recount process, led to tragic consequences for people in many countries, including our own.”

Global Exchange, which has conducted election monitoring in 10 countries around the world, is also appealing to the international community to come and monitor our election. They believe it is crucial to a fair election and has plans to place at least 28 independently, international monitors in the United states as part of its “Fair Elections” initiative.

Although our patriotism has been questioned time and time again whenever we ask George W. Bush questions or disagree with him, remember those brave men questioning and disagreeing with England were also “unpatriotic”. They produced this “great experiment we are living. If, after the 2000 election, we have to prove ourselves, then so be it.

George W. Bush may believe, “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier”, but then, who gave him the idea that keeping democracy alive wouldn’t be hard?

JULY 13, 2004

SEEKING SAFETY

News reports tell us that We, the People, are searching for an illusive something that will guarantee our Safety. George W. Bush says he provided it when he invaded Iraq. He also says that he can keep it by postponing or canceling the November 2004 election.

George W. Bush can not guarantee it; no one can. But we can chose leaders who do not put us in harm’s way. And that is what our decision must be; who, among the scant choices we now have, can most likely keep We, the People, free and alive for the next four years.

Bush is resting on very thin laurels. Four years ago we were safe and prosperous and assumed that we would continue to be so. Today, the focus of our country is on a war in Iraq that has killed at least 887 of our citizen soldiers and there is no end in sight. Even after Bush declared in “over” three months after it began, and even after he said he returned “sovereignty” to Iraq last month, our soldiers keep dying.

Bush failed to provide safety when his actions led to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Long before that date, his focus was on a reason to invade Iraq, and therefore he failed to see that danger would be coming from bin Laden’s terrorist group, al Qaida. And when it came, he was frozen in fear. While a hijacked airliner tried to eliminate our concentrated military leadership, he did nothing.

The “commander in chief” who loves to call himself the “war president” took no action until our allies, NATO, told him that if he did not act, they would act without him. And thus, an invasion of Afghanistan began. Bin Laden was not found; Bush said it wasn’t important to find him. We rounded up prisoners of war and stuck them away on a military base close to Cuba.

The prisoners are still there, bin Laden is still free and planning his next attack. The Bush administration tells us so, that is why they are busy contemplating the canceling of the November election, so they say.

And while Bush reassures us that our country, facing a possible al Qaida attack of such magnitude that it could stop the course of a democratic election, is safer because of his decision to invade Iraq.

“We have removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists ben on acquiring them. In the world after September 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take.”

Saddam Hussein, the ruler of Iraq, was put in power by Bush’s fellow Republicans. Rumsfeld himself delivered the good news that we would supply Iraq with the chemical weapons that would cause the destruction of life that Bush now recognizes.

Saddam Hussein asked permission to invade Kuwait from the senior Bush. And it was given through a diplomatic reply sent through the American ambassador to Iraq. If Saddam Hussein is the monster that Bush portrays; he is a monster our own leaders have created.

Yet, according to an AP poll of 804 registered voters, 2/3 described Bush as “decisive”; a perceived character advantage over his rival Kerry. True, Bush never changes his mind or accepts responsibility for his mistakes; but standing on the railroad tracks while a train is bearing down upon you and making the decision not to move is decisive, but it isn’t a person I would want to decide for me!

I think Bush is decisive because he doesn’t think things through, like his John Wayne “bring it on” statement that inflamed Iraq militants. A true leader responds to events as they happen and can change his mind to fit a new situation instantly. Don’t take my word for it, watch children playing, watch the leaders.

George W. Bush doesn’t seem to know much about American history; therefore, he can’t learn from the mistakes or triumphs of those leaders who came before him. This isn’t the first time we have stood at the threshold of disaster; nor is it the first time an elected leader just didn’t have the skills to cope.

There is no “commander in chief” to get us out of Iraq like George Washington. There is no FDR to pull us from our economic disaster. There is no John F. Kennedy to defeat the terrorists as he did the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have no Clinton who can coordinate a thousand different actions from hundreds of nations. What we do have is a choice between two “elitists” from the society of the very rich.

What we must measure, if we are allowed to vote, is the actions of the man. Consider: A “good ole boy” persona from a family of enormous wealth and privilege or a man married to a woman of tremendous wealth and privilege, who risked his life in a war he did not have to fight in.
Neither of these men will ever know what it is like to see their children hungry, wearing clothes too small, without medical care when they are sick. Their children will never wait in a line at school for a backpack full of food to keep them fed over the weekend. They will never have to huddle in a shelter, or eat at a food bank. Their jobs will never be outsourced to a foreign country. Their sons or daughters will never be send to the forgotten war in Afghanistan to die an anonymous death. Never know the deprivations of fighting in far off Iraq.
But We, the People, will. And the decision you make in November, 2004 will determine just how safe you will be. The man you chose to lead us for the next four years will inevitably make mistakes. And that is why you must look at his mistakes along with the successes. Both men now have leadership records to look at. Don’t just accept the rhetoric. Kerry’s Senate votes tell a story about the man. Bush’s governorship of Texas and the last four years tell a story also.
And there are questions I would like to ask both men before giving them my precious vote.
To Kerry: Why did you vote to invade Iraq? And why do you say we have to stay? And what do you plan to do about that forgotten war in Afghanistan? Do you know how many soldiers have died there?

To Bush: Why did you set such a low priority to investigate the September 11, 2001 attacks? Do you ever question why your good Saudi friends never warned you about one of their own planning to attack the United States? You do know that they were funneling money to bin Laden, don’t you? Do you realize that most ordinary citizens have more accurate information about what is going on in the rest of the world than you seem to have? Why?

JULY 12, 2004

FEAR

The Bush administration is full of it. They want to pass it on to you. Nothing but fear has come from the government of We, the People, since 2000 - nothing except FEAR and death.

The dictionary definition of the word begins with “an emotion of alarm and agitation cause by the expectation or realization of danger” and finished with “To be afraid, frightened or terrified.”

We have lived in a world of fear, agitation, terror, anger, hurt and alarm since George W. Bush was given the office of president of the United States by Our Supreme Court in 2000. He has betrayed our Trust and his Oath of Office to “...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

He has usurped the powers granted to Congress and the Senate that provided the Checks and Balances between the Three Separate Branches of the Government. He has replaced the Bill of Rights granted in perpetuity to We, the People as an inalienable right, with an egregious patriot act that was never put to a vote of We, the People, nor a legal amendment to our Constitution ratified by Congress.
He has tricked the House and the Senate into giving him power to conduct an invasion with perjured testimony during a State of the Union Speech mandated by our Constitution “from time to time [to] give the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend for their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...”

And now, after two invasions of two countries for two very different reasons, we have been told that the Bush administration has failed in his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” and must consider the suspension of our mandated elections to thwart “the terrorists.”
Oh, Mr. Bush, how did you get us to this point? What did you do? What did you fail to do?

•••••••FEAR•••••••

George W. Bush, and those he appointed to work in his administration, are using fear as a weapon against We, the People; just as he used bombs in his invasion of Iraq. He wanted to persuade us that Iraq would terrorize us if we did not invade but our terror comes from the daily causality list that grows longer each day.

He created a new department to terrorize We, the People. He called it “Homeland Security” and uses it to provide us with terror alerts designed to keep us living with constant fear.

And he appointed DeForest Soaries Jr., a Republican former New Jersey Secretary of State and senior pastor of a Baptist Church, to head a new agency titled United States Election Assistance Commission. Another illegal creation. The Executive Branch of the Government has no authority to created this agency; no authority to appoint anyone to it.

The whispers have been in the wind for years now; ...just wait and see, after the fiasco of the 2000 election Bush will figure a way to stop the next one...
Paranoia gripped our country. It took Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 to focus our scattered concerns into one positive reaction. WE MUST STOP WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY.

It was right after Bush’s poll numbers began to drop that al Qaida once again took precedence over Iraq. With casualties and violence climbing, our soldiers spread so thin that replacements will have to come from a draft, we once more began to hear the “terrorist” rhetoric. In his zeal to invade Iraq, Bush said capturing bin Laden wasn’t important any longer.

Now, with an another uncertain election “win” staring him in the face, the Bush administration has pulled out the old terrorist card again. They are coming to disrupt our voting. Just like they did in Spain. Bush clings to the myth that the Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Sapatero was elected because the Spanish people caved to the terrorists even though the people of Spain had repudiated former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar from the moment he chose to join Bush’s invasion.

The Bush agenda is to put in place “guidelines” for canceling or “postponing” our Constitutionally mandated election. But these guidelines are coming from Bush appointees, not the Congress and Senate who have Constitutional responsibility for elections. (See July 9, 2004 for the specific Constitutional responsibilities of each Branch of Government - or peruse your own copy!) And, as Intelligence Committee member Senator Diane Finestein says,

“I don’t think there’s an argument that can be made, for the first time in our history, to delay an election. We hold elections in the middle of war, in the middle of earthquakes, in the middle of whatever it takes. The election is a statutory election. It should go ahead, on schedule, and we should not change it.”

The first Continental Congress gathered delegates from widely spread colonies to form a wartime government, declare their independence from Britain by creating the Declaration of Independence. Neither the British nor the Tories could stop its completion. If our forefathers could accomplish all of that during an occupation and spying Tory neighbors, certainly we can complete the task of voting George W. Bush out of office.

We can not allow Bush’s fear of his failing to stop the terrorist during our November election take away our Constitutional rights to chose who shall represent our country. But, wasn’t he quoted as saying,

“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” (December 18, 2000)

Now, they are trying to stop the election...............dissolving our Political Bands.......destructive of these Ends......through FEAR ......

JULY 11, 2004

ANOTHER SUNDAY, most of our television stations will have what are called “pundits” analyzing the news for you. If you are one who watches their pontificating about matters that profoundly affect your life, pay close attention to what they say and then e-mail me if you can find a truly positive, informative debate about whatever issue they are discussing. Unfortunately, you will probably find the same old mantra, “Republicans good...Democrats bad”. But, why should we expect any difference in what they say from what is printed?

Like this one.

On Wednesday, the “rich boy” who couldn’t make good without the assistance of “daddy’s friends” made this statement. “I’m going to carry the South because the people understand that they share -- we share values.” Now, we know campaign rhetoric gets carried away and that candidates often promise things they can’t deliver; but does Bush really think that most Southern people, especially blacks living on the edge of white society, consider Bush as sharing their values?

He may visit the South often, but he confines his visits to the wealthy homes and country clubs the “elite” belong to; or, as you saw caught on tape in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, Bush laughing as he gazed over his bejeweled and elegantly dressed audience, saying that some call them the “elite” but Bush calls them his base. And, from his campaign “war chest” we all know that Bush’s “base” consists of the wealthy, not poor Southerners!

As they say, the bottom line is that all four guys have more money than their grandchildren will ever need -- they are all “elitist” multi-millionairs, so that sort of cancels out the prospect of any one of these guys “sharing your values.” They can afford not to.

And then, there is the guy with NO experience; that was the “leader”; who calmly sat in a classroom while 3 airplanes commandeered by terrorists succeeded in their mission to take out our financial district and our military headquarters; having the audacity to say that John Edwards didn’t have the political skills and experience of Dick Cheney [to act as president]. By Bush’s own admission, Cheney has more “political skills and experience” than the guy the Supreme Court appointed to the presidency in 2000 -- oh, I forgot, it’s sort of common knowledge that Cheney IS the acting president, isn’t it?

However, whoever has been running the show for the past almost four years has botched everything from the response to the terrorist attack of September 11 to the two wars they are supposed to be supervising. I think a change of “commander in chief” is in order, and in THAT arena, Kerry beats both Bush and Cheney because he DOES have military experience and the Bush-Cheney team have none!!!

AND SPEAKING OF MILITARY EXPERIENCE...

Bush just can’t get away from the fact that all of his National Guard records have mysteriously “disappeared” so we have no “proof” that he did or didn’t show up for duty. A new article published July 10, 2004 once again tells us that Bush’s payroll records were unfortunately “damaged” for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972. C.Y. Talbott, of the Pentagon’s Freedom of Information and Security Review section has informed us that, “Searches for back-up paper copies of the missing record were unsuccessful.” Well, that settles that, doesn’t it?

From 1968 to 1972 Bush was supposed to be in the Air National Guard. How he got in, how long he was active, why was he allowed to just refuse a flight certification physical, when he showed up to “help” campaign for a Republican friend of his dad’s while your son was off to Viet Nam, how he got release early; all these problems have no answers because George W. Bush’s records have gone missing.

Now, these missing years would be a problem for you or me if you wanted to be hired in any capacity by Civil Service but not for assuming the office of President of the United States. Missing years of military service? No problem for a Bush!Could those missing records have anything to do with an article I read about a year before he started running for office that reported that a search was underway to seek and destroy all of Bush’s bad boy paper trail? Just who was involved in this mysterious disappearance of all things negative to George W.? And, the coincidences are just unbelievable! A complete disappearance of all of Bush’s official documents when the files are bulging with information on everyone all the way back to World War I and beyond!! Who could imagine such good -- err -- “bad” luck?

BUT MONEY WILL BUY YOU ANYTHING

Including the “media”, according to sources. It seems that most of our “liberal biased media” is owned by men or companies that prefer George W. Bush. And it also appears that the Bush family had deep and long term relationships with those owners of the supposed “liberal media.”

Rupert Murdoch, a name Americans are very familiar with by now, just about owns all of the “media” outlets in the United States; all of those “fair and balanced” “liberal” networks who insists on holding Bush accountable for all of his mistakes. He has upped monetary contributions to the Republican party from a mere 4.6 million pounds in 2000 to 7.56 million pounds in 2001 and 2002 !!

According to Center for Responsive Politics, a U. S. research group whose business is tracking the money that goes into politics, the “liberal biased media” is contributing heavily to Republican campaigns. Now there’s an oxymoron!!
News Corp’s donations show that 24% of their donations went to Bush personally, but their total contributions in “soft” money to the Republican party was close to 90%. Now, even those whose math concept are “fuzzy” should be able to realize that Democrats didn’t get much “hard” or “soft” cash from them!!

The owner of NBC, General Electric, and News Corporation, owner of Fox and Sky television networks AND the New York post, are said to be the most prolific at supporting the Republican party with huge donations. GE gave $1.9 million, almost 60% of ALL donations, to Republicans.

Various “whistleblowing” sites have traced the intricate web of connections between the Bush family and those who own the “media”.

Takeback the media.com has published those connections between the Bush family and Clear Channel. Clear Channel is linked with the Bushes through Lowry Mays, who is linked with Bush through the University of Texas Investment Management Company. The vice-chairman, Thomas Hicks, is a long time friend of George W. and bought the Texas Rangers baseball team from Bush for $250 million in 1998 for three times what Bush and his partners had originally paid.
And, horror of horrors, the Bush family has a connection with the cult known as the Moonies. Sun Myung Moon, whose recent “coronation” was attended by no less than 80 members of our Legislative Branch of the Government. And the Bush family is reported to have closely intertwined ties with the cult leader. The former President Bush is said to have received hefty lecturing fees from the Unification Church cult. Obviously, that tax evading cult leader must be “liberally biased” to pay Bush all that money to be called names!!

And we won’t even go into the financial ties of the Bush clan and the bin Laden family that remain unreported by the “liberal” media but found their way into Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11. That “liberal media” sure showed Bush that they weren’t in his corner by refusing to say one positive thing about liberal thinker Michael Moore’s documentary.

Any criticism of the Bush is met by the “liberal” media name calling or special programs presenting only the Republican point of view.

Oh, yeah, the “liberal media” connection is right there for all to see -- you just have to read between the biased reporting.

JULY 10, 2004

CONVOLUTED THEORIES FROM THE BUSH GOVERNMENT

I have a problem. That seems to come with trying to interpret the “news” given us anymore. My problem seems to be that my education included a little thing known as thinking. Unfortunately, my teachers expected me to not just regurgitate what they said, but to be able to reassemble it in an order that verified what they said. It was called “reports”, “term papers” or “debates”. They required more than one source and they required that I back up whatever determination I stated.

Last night was an example of what went “wrong” with my education.

I watched a portion of an interview conducted by Matt Lauer, the Today anchor, and one of Bin Laden’s 54 siblings, Yeslam bin Laden. Nothing much there until Lauer brought up Michael Moore’s new movie Fahrenheit 9/11. It was a discussion of Moore’s segment which told America that the Saudis were granted permission, by someone very high up in our government, to leave the U. S. after 9/11. Essentially, Lauer asked this rich Saudi when those relatives left the country and he said they didn’t land in Geneva until the 20th and that was seven days after the airports had opened.

And here is where my problem with thinking kicks in. Lauer DIDN’T point out that there was proof that those rich Saudis were flying above the skies of America before that ban was lifted. Nor did he inquire as to where those Saudis were from September 11, 2001 until they landed in Geneva on September 20, 2001. What we do know is that bin Laden’s rich relatives weren’t being interrogated by the FBI like so many other foreign nationals!

Moore’s movie gave us the proof that at least (no one knows for sure) 300 Saudis were gathered by chartered aircraft from various points across the U. S. and deposited in one secret location AND THAT THE AIRPORT LOGBOOKS DEFIANTLY SHOWED PLANES TAKING OFF AND LANDING SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 BEFORE THE BAN WAS LIFTED!

I am personally aware of more than one person who wasn’t flying on September 13, 2001. And it wasn’t a wealthy or royal Saudi. One was a businessman stuck in an airport and unable to get home for a week. This person got to the car rental counter too late, couldn’t get on a bus and couldn’t take a train. The question still remains: If it was “safe” enough to release Osama bin Lauden’s relatives, why wasn’t it safe enough for citizens to fly back home?

Ok. That one took more than a little thought. Why would the government provide preferential treatment for the relatives of the guy who was responsible for blowing up two buildings and the Pentagon and yet refuse to let you go home? As Michael Moore said in Fahrenheit 9/11; if it was a murder investigation (which is was) and it involved you, would they just let you fly away? You would be locked up as a “material witness” if you didn’t answer their questions, wouldn’t you? Yes, the difference is in that phrase Bush hates for you to use but uses in private himself: ELITISM. Money. Black Gold!

And here is another beauty that is taxing my brain. Before the terrorist attack, FBI agents and CIA agents were practically bouncing off the ceiling trying to get someone to pay attention. Memos flowed alerting the Bush government to the fact that bin Laden was planning something BIG!!

However Bush & Co were occupied with other pressing matters such as, how can we invade Iraq? More than one has testified that the Bush government was pushing and demanding that some agency come up with “proof” that Reagan and Rumsfeld’s old buddy Saddam Hussein was a “danger to our country.” When former ambassador Joe Harris could not provide “proof” that Iraq had nukes, but let We, the People know it also, someone in the Bush government promptly published his CIA wife’s name.

Now, you see... this is where my learning to think is at odds with what they are trying to get me to believe. This morning, out comes an article blaming the CIA for the false intelligence that Bush used to get us to invade Iraq.

For some reason, the same men who poo-pooed the information about the coming September 11, 2001 attack that culminated in 3,000 to 5,000 deaths (this administration is so secretive about casualties that I wouldn’t bet my life on any of their figures!) are the very ones who used every lie they could to try to convince us to invade Iraq.

These same men told us that they ignored the terrorist warning because it wasn’t specific enough, no time, no date, no mention of planes. And yet when news was brought back, by Harris and others, that didn’t fit the invasion plan, they ignored it also! They picked and chose what information to use and what to discard; for both events.

And they picked and chose that information from that supplied by the FBI and the CIA. The FBI is faulted because their information wasn’t “specific” enough (time, date, place, method used.) The CIA is faulted because the information they used (WMDs, nukes, chemical weapons) weren’t actually there, even though various sources would not or could not confirm their existence.

Oh, there is blame here, enough for everyone. But, ultimately, regardless of what agency did what, it rests with the Bush administration that was so obsessed with an agenda that We, the People knew nothing about! All three of our Branches of Government failed us. And no one is going to be held accountable.

9/11 happened because Bush’s brain was disengaged. The invasion of Iraq happened because it was planned before he ever took office.

They both happened because most of those elected didn’t care enough to do the job W, the People, elected them to do.

Almost 6,000 citizens have died because not one Senator had the courage to sign the document investigating the validity of the Florida election. Although I never voted for him, I wish we had just given Clinton four more years -- and this time he would have had my vote!

JULY 9, 2004

Hummmm.... I think I see a pattern emerging here. Yesterday, the head of “Homeland Security” announced that once again the “terrorists are coming” and they intend to stop you from voting!

Ridge solemnly declared that, although they had a steady stream of intelligence from militia-linked web sites that were “chattering” about disrupting the November election, he wasn’t serious enough about it to raise that famous “color code” back to orange. Just a little warning, a jolt of adrenaline for the masses to keep them on their toes.

Seems like we have come a long way since September 11, 2001, when the government ignored very specific warnings from the low level employees that were churning out memos declaring that bin Laden was doing something BIG, and PDBs alerting George W. Bush that bin Laden was planning something BIG.

Yup, for five seconds, Ridge, Ashcroft, or some other government VIP steps before a microphone to inform us that “the terrorists are coming” every time Bush gets his tush in a sling, things don’t go his way, or a rival gets a little too much positive publicity. And just as quickly it disappears. Those announcements can’t help but bring back memories of the childhood fable of Peter and the Wolf. When the wolf finally did appear, no one was buying what Peter was selling!

There may be a twofold reason to ratcheting up the fear level this time. One being the snit Bush showed by walking out of the room when a reporter dared to ask him about his “good buddy” Ken Lay’s indictment. But my first thought was what a friend had gloomily told me right after the Patriot Act was produced by Bush & CO. “Just wait, there will be another terrorist threat announced right before the next election and they will just not have one.”

Sounds a little paranoid, doesn’t it? Imagine my surprise at reading that Bush had appointed DeForest B. Soaries to head a “federal voting commission” to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling an election.” I didn’t even know a commission had been created! Did anyone know he was doing this? How can a member of the executive branch create or appoint anyone to produce guidelines to cancel or “reschedule” an election? It isn’t in the presidential job description!

Article I, Section 4 (Senate)

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof: but the Congress may at any time by Law alter such Regulations, except as to the place of Chusing Senators.”

Article I, Section 5 (Representatives)

“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business....

Article II, Section 1 (Executive)

“Each State shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State my be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United State, shall be appointed an Elector...The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

But then, who follows the Constitution of the United States anymore?

California, when deciding to hold a recall election, also decided that it just wasn’t worth opening all the voting precincts for that election; but did they close them in Schwarzenegger’s ritzy neighborhood? Did I need to ask? They cited the euphemism of “poor voter turnout” in poor ethnic neighborhoods as a reason to not open them for something as unimportant as the recall election of the governor of the state they lived in.

For some reason, those running this so called “recall” election thought it would be easier for poor minimum wage workers; who could have their wages docked for taking time off to vote; to run around their city trying to find an open polling place that would let them vote than it would be for wealthy people to be inconvenienced by a chauffeured drive to an open polling place in a another neighborhood.

If you think the California election was a freak event, listen to this story: During the last presidential election I spoke with a young mother waiting in line to cast her vote, kids in tow. Her husband wouldn’t be voting because his employer wouldn’t allow him time off to vote; plus he was expected to work overtime until the polls closed because of some “rush job”... when did we lose our right to time off to vote?

And we all know the example of Florida, multiple thousands of black votes not counted, intimidation, harassment at the polls. Gore would have won the election just by giving all these Gore “black votes” access to the ballot box. And of course the notorious felon list. Did we really “fix” things for the 2002, 2004 election? Of course not!! The new felon list is out and would have been a “November surprise” if someone hadn’t gotten a copy and published it. Almost as many surprised Floridians as in 2000!

And the “intimidation” factor of parking police cars in front of polling places has been taken care of. What better reason to have police patrolling precincts than to be watching for terrorists. The question is... who is being considered a terrorist?

FBI Director, Robert Mueller, said that “officials were taking security steps that we anticipate will continue all the way through the election.” Boston and New York authorities have already begun working to secure thousands of polling sites, said a “Senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.” Road and rail closures and “greater restrictions than usual” imposed on the convention sites. That’s the way to make a democracy work!

Considering how hard it is just go get on an airplane anymore; what do you think we will have to do to get to vote? Will we need more than a voter registration card and one form of picture ID? Will we need two plus a birth certificate? Do we get patted down like when we board a plane? Once? Twice? Will we be pulled from line for a special search? How fast will the lines be? If we go after work, will we have time to clear security and still get to vote before the polls close? Don’t know about you, but I would like some information in writing regarding this new “security”.

The last time, Homeland Security got involved with trying to provide protection from terrorists we ended up with the Patriot Act which negated the Bill of Rights I, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, and X. That only left three, and they were the one about guns, no soldiers being quartered in our houses and the jury trial where the controversy shall exceed $20! And these were rights that NO MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE SENATE, OR THE PRESIDENT COULD TAKE AWAY!!!!

But they did, so just how farfetched is it that Bush would declare no election in November?

Starting now, We, the People, who are really in charge of the government, need to hold those constantly telling us the wolf is at our door accountable for what they say. It is time to call a halt to all this fearmongering. We have been through some very tough and fearful times before September 11 and I’m sure we will go through many more. Sure, there are terrorists trying to kill us; there always have been and there always will be.

During World War II, German subs planned a landing on our shores that almost succeeded. There is no question that had England fallen, eventually Hitler would have come knocking on our door. But we didn’t curl in a ball and color code our response. Every man, woman and child could spot an aircraft’s origin, identify a ship close to our ports. It was our contribution to “keeping America safe.”

But looking at the fear on the face of George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, most of We, the People realized that our “leader” simply could not cope. He did not handle adversity well.

Has he never heard the famous quote of FDR? “There is nothing to fear except fear itself.” A very wise statement. Fear won’t protect you and in the end you will be facing that which you most fear. Personally, I prefer to go down fighting not huddled in a duct taped room!

And please, don’t let terrorist alerts stop you from voting. Even if they do attack the polling places and some die, remember this: 228 years ago, a lot of us died for the privilege to be free; this is just another sacrifice that we make for our country. If, as Bush keeps telling us, we are in a terrorist war, there is no safety. We must face our fears and go forth as our parents and grandparents did in World War II. We, the People, will keep our country safe. And to do that we must also safeguard our Constitutional freedoms and act as spotters for those who would take them away.

VOTE AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDED UPON IT; IT DOES!

JULY 8, 2004

WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?

During the VietNam era that question, immortalized in song, was on the lips of every American. Trying to find an answer to why we were in a far off land that had never threatened us and why thousands of our children were dying there, and why was our government lying to us about the terrible price that We, the People, were paying for that war, succeeded in dividing this nation as only the Civil War had done.

A young John Kerry dared to ask that question. A young George W. Bush did not.

But the result of that war with VietNam produced almost 60,000 deaths, countless scarred and maimed young men and women; both in spirit and body. The VietNam war was a shadow over this land from 1952 until 1975. It encompassed the administrations of four presidents of both parties. And we have carried the results of that war into the new millennium.

And now we are standing at the threshold of another war without end. George W. Bush declared it “over” three months after our troops invaded Iraq, but we stayed on. He handed “sovereignty” over in June, 2004 but we have stayed on. Both men, Kerry and Bush, who are asking to lead the nation through the next four years, vow they will stay in Iraq until some unfathomable reason tells them it is time to leave.

Realistically, we could be guarding the gates of Iraq longer than we occupied Germany and Japan.

Like VietNam, this invasion is draining our country of resources and citizens. Republicans and Democrats, are suddenly worried that our military is in deep trouble in Iraq, are finally asking questions. But they are not questions about WHY we are in Iraq, or WHY the “commander in chief” won’t leave Iraq but where will we be getting more bodies to put into Iraq!

In May of this year, while “commander” Bush is telling us how well his war is going, the Army National Guard reported that they were at 88% capacity, the Air National Guard was at 93%, and the Air Force Reserve was at 91%. Representative John McHuges, (R-NY) stated that it was not reassuring that most reserve “components” (They are HUMAN “components” - call them People.) were below recruitment goals for 2004.

Democratic congressman Ike Skelton says, “We are taxing our part-time soldiers...nearly to the breaking point. We have to be aware that the families...are paying a significant price. We don’t want to break the force.”

Another Republican, Rep. Duncan Hunter, (CA) the House and Arms Services Committee Chairman believes, “We’re concerned that insufficient force structure and manpower are leading the services to make decisions that I liken to eating the seed corn. That is, in order to make it through today, we do things that mortgage the future.”

Congressman Hunter is talking about things like the Army deciding to deploy units previously used to train other soldiers for combat. He also informs us that the ratio of reserves to active duty soldiers in Iraq is increasing and believes that “turnaround time” is too short for those who are being sent back to Iraq.

The Pentagon has ordered a “stop-release” program that literally refuses to allow troops who have finished their military obligation from leaving; a bondage of sorts. 5,600 of the military, who have recently completed their obligation or retired, are being recalled to active duty to be sent to Iraq.

Thousands of members of the Individual Ready Reserve, will probably be called up next year, according to the Pentagon. These Reservists are different from the National Guard because they do not attend regular training sessions and are not paid reservists. The Individual Ready Reserve are there for emergencies. Iraq is NOT an emergency, Bush tells us all is well and on schedule.

But this tells us that the one difference between the VietNam war and the Iraq invasion is that those fighting in this war are older men, with families and civilian careers. In VietNam, our youth did tours of duty and came home to begin their lives; in Iraq lives are interrupted and stopped for an undetermined time. But these men can not fight forever. Where will the fresh bodies required for this long term occupation come from? They are not being “recruited”, therefore, at some point, the must be drafted. Once again....

Bush has supplied a number of reasons why our county’s soldiers are in Iraq. None of them were true. But no one has had the foresight to ask him what his real reason is for invading a country that we have been supporting since Ronald Reagan’s presidency when Donald Rumsfeld delivered the good news that Reagan would supply the chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein used against the Iranians and his own people.

No one has asked why the Kuwait ambassador's daughter gave perjured testimony to the United States Congress before the “Desert Storm” invasion and on George H. W. Bush’s watch.

And no one seems to really care that George W. Bush perjured himself before Congress by swearing that we were in mortal danger from Iraq when it was not true. We, the People, and the nations of the World, tried to stop him and we failed.

When our country emerged from the long, costly, unsuccessful war with VietNam, We, the People echoed the phrase that emerged from the atrocities of World War II, we promised, “Never Again.”

It is a promise we did not keep. We hope that the nations of the world realize that We, the People tried to stop this invasion. We hope that they realize that Bush ran away from our demands that he not invade. And we hope that they learn that Bush assumed a power he did not have through intimidation and fear of consequences that could never have happened.

March 2003 will be recorded in our History as the day we invaded a country that had never threatened us and began, once more, a war involving thousands of our citizens, billions of our dollars, and once again we are asking, “What ARE we fighting for?”

And once again, the answers are as ambiguous as the number of corpses this “war” has created. Our democratic government hides the casualties from us, just as they did in VietNam. Are these dead soldiers held hostage because they might harm Bush’s chances of winning in November? To the best of our knowledge, on this date 876 U.S. citizens have died in Iraq. 106 “private contractors”. Thousands have been maimed.

FOR WHAT?

JULY 7, 2004

THE REPUBLICAN WAY

I know it seems as if I’m always picking on Republicans; but they are always standing up and having a little hissy-fit and then yelling “Hit me!” by doing the very thing they are having the fit about!! And, Democrats just always seem to be running a close second!

There is no better proof than the “close-the-barn-door-now-that-the-horse-is-gone” news articles describing the Schwarzenegger “administration”. If you recall, Gray Davis was vilified for not balancing the budget, for not stopping the ENRON Energy Scheme, and probably that last earthquake in California.

Schwarzenegger is also having trouble balancing the budget. Seems he can’t get it under control either but that is ok because he isn’t being held to the strict standards applied to Gray Davis. His first act, cutting taxes on those big luxury cars, like Hummers, began a new trend in California government which I shall call “Schwarzenneger elitism”. Jamie Court, a consumer activist with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights put it succinctly:

“For a governor who came to office saying he would cut the government, he seems to have really pumped it up, at lease salaries for his inner circle. It doesn’t show much respect for taxpayers.”

From all I’ve read, I don’t think respect for taxpayers was on the political agenda when Republicans began petitioning for Governor Davis’ recall. I think it had more to do with Schwarzenegger’s political ambitions to become president one day and the necessity of putting California’s big 55 electoral votes in the Republican column.

But the “hissy-fit” that removed Davis from office and put another man of dubious character in power, smacks of Republican artifice again. Elected by some of the people but not all of the people. Those people living in minority neighborhoods where the polls never opened were simply disenfranchised like in Florida; if you wanted to vote you had to find your way to an open polling place -- out of your precinct!

The “new” governor has really shaken things up; he is in up to his eyeballs in borrowed money to try and balance the state budget.

And, he has cut the budget but guess which programs he cut? Yes, he plans to balance it on the backs of the poorest taxpayers. Education and “other services” (?) is on the chopping block, union contracts are going to be reopened (Less money for blue collar workers?) “Everyone has to make sacrifices.” Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying.

Everyone but him and his staff.

First, although he points to a smaller staff than Gray Davis, that is suspect, because it appears that he has “outsourced” the cost of dozens of staff members to other government agencies. Although nothing has been released, you can’t help pondering how many Schwarzenegger staffers are paid from which budgets...like Children’s Welfare, fuel and energy programs for the poor (if they still exist), education and food programs for children... what has he cut and what has he kept?

Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, Margita Thompson says that the governor’s office is “traditionally exempt” from the hiring freeze that Schwarzenegger imposed on state agencies last year. So why all the complaints about Gray Davis? What changed except the classification of the governor from “democratic” to “republican”. Looks like business as usual to me.

Although, I would certainly like to know what has happened to the ENRON lawsuit Davis filed on behalf of California.

The bottom line on Schwarzenegger’s payroll is this:

•Although, on paper, Schwarzenegger appears to have a few less employees than Davis did, Schwarzenegger is spending 8% more on salaries than David did.

•Payroll records show that the average annual salary for employees in the government office has risen 22% during the 7 months Schwarzenegger has been in office. Wouldn’t you like to have a 22% raise in salary instead of facing job layoffs???

•Fourteen employees on the official governor’s payroll make $100,000 or more a year. That number is almost double the number of employees making $100,000 a year on Gray Davis’ staff.

•"Everyone has to make sacrifices” -- except Schwarzenegger. The governor’s office payroll has grown from $3.37 million to 3.63 million; a 7.7% increase.

So what does this mean to non-Californians? Who ever thought that one day whether we lived or died would be controlled by that Texas governor who couldn’t even remember the name of the guy next door and who instituted a slash and burn policy that left prosperous Texans gasping. It is no secret that Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, has designs on the presidency of the United States.

He has stated that the Constitution should be changed to allow foreign born citizens to run for the office; a Constitutional amendment was proposed by a prominent Republican who believes that Schwarzenegger is “presidential material”.

But, a short time after Schwarzenegger took the oath of citizenship making him an American citizen, he was off to campaign for his good friend Kurt Waldheim in Austria. By doing so he violated his oath of citizenship to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity of any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty....”

And another problem. Sexual battery and harassment is a serious crime. It should not be condoned in any form. Certainly, if we could impeach a president for consensual sexual conduct, the standards must be higher for nonconsensual conduct. But the Republican party, so obsessed with “getting” Clinton has totally ignored Schwarzenegger’s conduct toward the women he worked with. Another “hissy-fit” that simply doesn’t matter when the conduct belongs to a Republican.

And probably the most scary. Do you want any person in any government office who supports and admires a Nazi war criminal? Kurt Waldheim, when elected in Austria, with Schwarzenegger’s help, was put on a world wide watch list because he was the Nazi in charge of having Greek Jews killed during World War II.

Schwarzenegger has said he “loved” Waldheim, he toasted Waldheim at his wedding because “the Nazi thing” kept Waldheim from attending his wedding to reporter, Maria Shriver.”

The Nazi thing?

Our fathers and grandfathers did not fight and die on the sands of Normandy and throughout Europe to promote the Nazi agenda. Their memories of Nazi death camps would not allow you the option of even considering someone with a Nazi past or Nazi affiliation to become a governor, a president. You betray their sacrifice if you do.

And no matter what justification the Republican party may have for supporting this man’s rise to power, it is not sufficient for them to give him the Republican party’s support.

In seven months, Schwarzenegger has shown that he can not do a better job than Davis did. In seven months, the same Republican elitism has raised its ugly head.

And stirring in the shadows are the ghosts of more than 12 million people restlessly watching Kurt Whadheim’s good friend in his first position of power.

JULY 6, 2004

WE, THE LOSERS

Less than a year ago, We, the People had Hope spread like a banquet before us. We might not have a choice of Republican candidates, but we had a plethora of Democratic candidates to chose from. Ten men promised to bring our country back from the brink, to return us to prosperity and to honor their promises.

How did it happen that our choice of a new leader turned into the two men at the bottom of our list? How did it happen that those we most believed in are now gone? One by one we watched the strongest fall ... Dr. Howard Dean ... General Wesley Clark ... Congressman Richard Gephardt...

When, in the order of things as we saw them, did Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards, become our chosen candidates? Or were they chosen for us?

Although most of us have heard the stories about “stolen elections”, we were mostly satisfied with the results because they mirrored our own community’s votes. There were rumblings in 1980 when we wondered aloud that, if no one in our community would admit to having voted for the befuddled Ronald Reagan, how did he get that second term? But the idea of a blatantly stolen election had still not crossed our naive minds, we believed that our “media” would have investigated such a thing.

Since most of those we knew planned to vote for Dukakis, we were flabbergasted at extent of his loss. We knew it would probably be a close election; much closer that the supposed election of the son of Bush in 2000; but the absolute rout of the Democrats was beyond belief. I think that was the beginning of our suspicions about those machines that could distort the vote. Pull a lever, punch a hole -- but did the hole on that paper correspond to the name you thought you punched? The notorious “butterfly ballot” with the misaligned holes showed us how it easily it could be done.

When Clinton was elected to serve as our president, we also had numerous candidates. Clinton was at the bottom of the pack also. He came from nowhere to obtain the nomination and most of We, the People were still asking, “Who?” Was George H. W. Bush supposed to have won? Did something happen to make the man who shaped his public service on John F. Kennedy’s legacy appeal to us? Did that photo of a young Clinton shaking Kennedy’s hand speak to those of us who remembered Kennedy’s unfulfilled promise?

Why did Republicans, who had no problems with Reagan and Bush ineptitude, hate Clinton so? Was it because, in spite of everything they said, We, the People, chose him and refused to let the Republican House and Senate remove him from office?

And, he did prove himself. In spite of eight long years of criticism from Republicans, who will allow NO criticism of their protégée George W., Clinton put this nation back on course -- and he did it while fighting nuisance lawsuits that ate into Our time and he did it while a Republican Congress more concerned with “getting” Clinton than their duties to We, the People; impeached him. What could he have accomplished if he had been allowed to serve full time?

The 2000 election gave us choices. A strong Republican Senator, John McCain had decided to ask us to give him the job as President. Vice President Al Gore ask to be allowed to continue the job that Clinton had started. And from out of nowhere came George W. Bush, who had no political background, had somehow parlayed a partnership in a Texas baseball team into a governorship of Texas.

And, of course, the rest is history. This unknown, untried governor who couldn’t remember the name of the leader (Fox) of the country (Mexico) that bordered his state somehow wrested the nomination from the experienced war hero Senator John McCain and, with the help of the Judicial Branch of the United States government, took the legitimate election of Al Gore away from We, the People.

This is where most politicians make their mistake; the election is not about changing CEO’s or “going up the corporate ladder”. It is much more serious than that. It is about SERVING WE, THE PEOPLE. It is not a game, not something they “win” or “lose”. It is about the obligation they take upon themselves protect and serve the citizens of this country when they seek our vote. It is about carrying out their duty to obey the will of the People and to carry out what We, the People, decide is right for our country.

And there is nothing that We, the People, can say is right about the coming November election. Just as the Republican party disenfranchised thousands of Americans across the United States with dubious, if not downright dishonest practices, we are beginning to see a repeat of the suspicious 2000, 2002 elections. In spite of the Attorney General of the United States dismissing the 1965 Civil Rights Commission Report, thousands of minority voters in Florida were NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE.

They were removed by various methods from “felon lists” to closing or removing polling places, keeping polling places inaccessible to those with disabilities or whose only problem was age. Intimidating police cars were parked in minority neighborhoods to harass potential voters, and Republicans were allowed to add thousands of Republican absentee ballots by illegally “correcting” them and at the same time tossing “incorrect” Democratic absentee ballots in the trash. Witnessed, sworn to, reported to the highest authority, and ignored by all those who were

contacted months prior to the election. (Sworn testimony contained in the final report of the 1965 Civil Rights Commission report of 2000.)

The 2000 election was judged by a horrified world. Because of this visible corruption, the United States of America, once a bastion of honesty and integrity, was removed from participating in election monitoring in countries where “fixed” elections denied their citizens choices. Since George W. Bush was appointed to office, the United States has been removed from a lot of lists; to our shame.

If what we are discovering is true, Kerry will probably never become president and will go the way of Gore. We have voting machines that have been proven to switch votes, drop votes, and change winners into losers quicker than you can cast your vote. And the Florida felon search is once again on its way. The U.S. News reported on July 3, 2004 that the new Florida felon list has identified 48,000 people as being felons even though they have no criminal record!

The perpetrator of the first Florida Felon list was rewarded for her inexcusable failure with a job in Congress. Wonder what reward awaits the perpetrator of the 2004 Felon list. I suppose getting caught so blatantly altering the votes of We, the People, just convinced the Florida Republican party that they just need more practice. A spokeswoman for George W. Bush’s brother, Jeb, dismissed complaints about the “felon” list as “pure politics”. I guess accuracy isn’t a top priority with Jeb.

Ah, yes. If you’re black and want to vote you are simply using “pure politics”. If you are Jewish and can’t read the “butterfly ballot” you are doing it for “pure politics.” If you’re handicapped and can’t make it through a construction site to the polling booth, your complaint is naturally “pure politics”!

Only Republicans aren’t political. They have your best interest at heart. They know what is best for you and how you should vote. So shut up and accept your “felon” classification. Republicans NEVER make mistakes!

JULY 5, 2004

WANTED: ECONOMIC TRUTH

Just got the word; another friend’s job has been outsourced. This friend is a bright, intelligent, reliable to a fault, long-term employee. Why, after all these years, is this dependable, much praised and rewarded person; able to double production and cover many of the company’s areas; been cut loose so that the company can outsource the job to India or China, or whatever foreign country is undercutting American workers?

This word came at the same time George W. Bush is saying “We’re witnessing steady growth. We don’t need boom-or-bust type growth. We just want steady consistent growth so our fellow citizens will be able to find a job.” If Bush wants steady consistent job growth, why is my friend being outsourced?

Campaign rhetoric.

Mr. Bush knows this country is in deep economic trouble, but to admit it might cost him your vote. So, he continues to report that all is well, that their are no cracks in the economic dam that holds back the flood of poverty -- even though that flood of poverty is rising at an alarming rate in the United States.

Some of the signs of an economy in desperate trouble are there, if we chose to see them. Like the little known “backpack” program started by our schools, in conjunction with the foodbank America’s Second Harvest. Children who receive most of their food through school breakfast and lunch programs are given backpacks of food to eat over the weekend. (Article published April 15, 2003 by CNN.com)

This program is presently feeding approximately 12,000 students in 339 schools and is expanding to go nationwide. The problem of hunger among children in the United States is expanding - not shrinking under Bush’s economic guidance. But nowhere in the Bush rhetoric does he provide for the youngest economically deprived among us. The Census bureaus latest figures show that the number of households experiencing hunger has risen for the three straight years that Bush has been in power. Nothing has been done to help them.

Bush, with approximately $40,000,000 at his disposal, plus a $400,000 dollar a year salary, is having a hard time empathizing with unemployed and outsourced America. He has an economic budget of $18.4 billion dollars to pay for the Iraq invasion. He has already spent $366 million of that from our national Treasury. Money collected from We, the People - working citizens.

But, reading what is being said today and comparing it to what was said short months ago, you see an entirely different picture than what he portrays. Articles written short months ago report that jobs in the service industry are being outsourced, that there will be a 40% increase by the end of next year, 2005. The year after Bush plans to win the November election.

A Political News article of February 12, 2004 reported that 27,000 defense contractors had a total of $3 billion unpaid taxes. Those companies involved in manufacturing and outsourcing, like Intel corporation , have laid off thousands of U. S. citizens and rehired workers in the foreign countries where they build new plants; and then keep their profits off shore to keep from paying taxes in the United States, (Sheltered earnings of $7 billion in 2003, $700 million in 2002), further burdening ordinary citizens with the necessity of picking up the slack from their meager salaries.

In a news article by UPI February 26, 2004, it was reported that massive layoffs set records in January 2004. We have had no matching hiring records, (whose hiring, where they are hiring , and in what fields are they hiring), of all these “jobs” created by Bush -- nor why they haven’t they translated into a significant drop in the unemployed statistics? There are hundreds of articles out there contradicting Bush’s “economic” growth, but you will have to search hard for them.

You can do your own little investigation if you chose. Numbers are easy to play with when they aren’t real. But a good test is in your own income. Your paycheck. If it no longer covers what it covered just months ago, you have lost. If you didn’t have a job in January, 2004 and you still don’t have a job, “slow economic growth” isn’t going to produce one. You are going to get poorer until you get a job that gives you the same income you had before. But the jobs just don’t seem to be “there” for a great many of us.
The latest economic articles say that that elusive “growth” slowed in June as “employers cut the pace of new hiring.” The Labor Department said only 112,000 jobs were added last month. In his campaign speech, Bush has claimed to have added 1.2 million new jobs, and yet I have never seen a reduction of that figure to accommodate outsourced or eliminated jobs.

It was reported that June’s unemployed rate stayed at 5.6%; however, new unemployed claims rose to 351,000 -- they are just barely managing to keep it under that unacceptable 400,000 figure! And claims from those unemployed who have already received a week of unemployment assistance rose to 2.9 million.

And of course, that figure doesn’t include those categorized as long term unemployed, those who no longer receive benefits but have no jobs, or those who are working at temporary and low paying jobs. As he always has, he just doesn’t acknowledge these statistics. The Bush lexicon seems to be: Out of sight. Out of mind.

And now, the finale of the Bush economy: All those newly “created” jobs he is taking credit for are in lower-wage (read minimum?) industries. They have risen by only 1 1/2 %. Higher wage jobs (computers, tech industry) are slightly more than 1%. And here is the true measure of the Bush economy, almost 14% of those jobs added are temporary jobs where workers are paid lower wages!

And there you have it; your future. Just like my friend. Four more years of the Bush agenda. Can you afford to NOT hold both Kerry and Bush accountable? Neither of them know what is like to have to work for their money. Neither of them know the consequences of losing a job that is all that stands between you and being homeless. Neither of them have had sick children denied medicine or a doctor’s care because there is no money...DO YOU?

Then tell them!

JULY 4, 2004

Today we celebrate the founding of our country. Once again we will sing songs and wave flags. But we are no longer celebrating the country our founders fought to establish. When I wrote “Flag Music” it was in response to a change I could not understand. Today the country I see doesn’t resemble the country I grew up in.

The false “patriotism” displayed throughout our country has brought about endless grief from the needless deaths of 864 Americans, world wide shame from our leaders abandoning the principles of the Geneva Convention, and a palpable distrust of all things American by the nations of the world.

On this day marking the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, take a moment from the festivities to remember so many of our ancestors who fought and died for the privilege to wave that flag. Recall your duty to honor those Founding Fathers, not just with fireworks, but with determination to keep our United States strong and true to the principles they believed in.

You are celebrating the ratification of that Constitution which our present leaders seek to change; from the Bill of Rights to the Right to vote. Just as your ancestors fought to keep us from the bonds of British control, you must keep us free from the those who would institute new bonds of control by ignoring Our Constitution.

Let freedom continue to ring “o’re the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

SEPTEMBER 12, 2003

FLAG MUSIC

So many things changed after September 11, 2001. That was normal. But I never expected us to change our National Anthem. One moment we were struggling to reach the high notes of Star Spangled Banner and the next it seemed every political/public event was opened with God Bless America. Accompanying the change in our music was a flag waving, bumper sticker phenomenon! It seemed to snowball out of three little ribbons that an anguished and shocked people donned to show their defiance against the evil terrorists. It was quickly usurped by our government leaders and turned into neat little lapel pens that must have stood for something, but certainly not the same sentiment that those three little pieces of ribbon stood for.

We were blitzed by flags flying from every car. A national patriotic roar of support that gave you a thrill. America, the divided, was united...for awhile. During that first year of shock and dealing with the enormous loss of lives and livelihoods Americans stumbled about looking for a way to make it right again, we looked to our leaders for safety and answers. And when they did not come, we split apart again. We each went our own way. The flags flying in the breeze, on the cars, became tattered and the bumper stickers faded.

But God Bless America sang on. I don’t know how or why that song was appropriated. I know there are many others just as beautiful and more patriotic. America the Beautiful had even been mentioned as a replacement for those who complained about Star Spangled Banner’s high notes. Maybe it was chosen to tick off the terrorists because of the reference to God. But, in a country so proud of religious freedom, it is a song of exclusion. Sort of a my God, not yours, type of song.

I hadn’t realized how truly the Star Spangled Banner had been replaced until July 4, 2003 when I attended a firework event. It was a good, old fashioned celebration of our nation’s birthday. They passed out little programs detailing the entertainment and the time when the fireworks would begin. The National Anthem was to be sung. We picnicked, we visited, we waited for the big event. Finally, the announcer said, “....let’s all stand for the National Anthem”. And as the singing began people started to stand and place their hand over their heart, as we had been taught. Then, a look of confusion swept over the faces of most of the people in the crowd; it was God Bless America being sung! People all around me were bobbing up and down, not knowing if they were supposed to give this song the same homage usually reserved for our National Anthem. I didn’t stand, I sat. I felt cheated. God Bless America wasn’t the National Anthem.

We wanted the Star Spangled Banner to be sung. We wanted those words to soar over this celebration, the triumph of beating back the enemy, of standing firm against the most terrible odds. We wanted that unity that came from this nation of different faiths, different races, different cultures. We wanted our flag to fly “o’re the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.”

That song, and that symbol go together. They describe an event in our history that gave us this country. Without that symbol waving over the battle, without the inspiration behind the prisoner who stood on the deck of that ship and watched for it, would we be just another English colony? They are symbols of the “Grand Experiment” wrought by extraordinary men and that we take as our birthright today. Guard them well, because as ordinary men seek out war and impose “Patriot “ acts that oppose our Constitution, the newly patriotic are flying tattered flags across our land. Lay them to rest, raise new ones, and sing loudly and proudly,

O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,

What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming?

Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro’ the perilous fight,

O’er the ramparts we watch’d, were so gallantly streaming?

And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

JULY 3, 2004

CONSTITUTION A ‘LEFTY’ DOCUMENT?

We just made an interesting discovery, our little Constitutional essays are listed in a “lefty” directory. Now, there is nothing wrong with that; in fact, it is probably a good thing - sort of like having the word “liberal” spit at you by a Republican. However, we certainly never thought, never considered, that the Constitution of the United States of American could be considered as belonging to either the left or to the right!

This blog was started as a response to the ignorance that both the government and the media displayed regarding our Constitution. It offered a way of venting our ire that those responsible for upholding and enforcing our Constitution were blatantly, and without apology, violating their oath to do so.

Our Constitution has been under assault before, not only from government but also by We, the People. Most of us, during our lifetime, has seen the desecration of this most treasured document.

The McCarthy hearings, which succeeded in disenfranchising citizens, labeled without proof as Communists, was a great stain on our history. The McCarthy Hearings violated our Bill of Rights; Amendment I, IV, V, and VI. Some of the accused lost all their rights; some were hounded into leaving their country, some even went to prison, but all of those accused lost the lives they had previously led. And among those tyrants who blithely turned over the names of colleagues and friends or assisted in their persecution were men who subsequently became presidents: Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

And, as we all know, both men violated their oath of office and the Constitution while they were in office. Yet recently, we saw Ronald Reagan, who eagerly gave his colleagues names to McCarthy, receiving honors as a “great” president although his whole administration was shadowed by the largest number of prosecutions of any presidential administration.

We have a whole era of the 60’s and 70’s where states and citizens refused to accept desegregation. And during this same time we had an undeclared war, similar to the Iraq invasion, which cost thousands of lives and split our country into. We still see the repercussions of that split today in the way veteran John Kerrry’s service is being vilified by members of the Republican party who chose to avoid VietNam. The irony is that they vilified former President Clinton for not serving. There is no pleasing these “masters.”

It is this double standard not allowed under our Constitution; so apparent in the 2000 Florida election, the invasion of Iraq, the favoritism shown to pals who give vast sums of money to Bush, and the blindness of the “media” who ignores his mistakes and Constitutional violations; that compelled us to try to provide an understanding of the Constitution for all of We, the People.
This fragile document, both its paper and its concepts, is all that stands between We, the People and tyranny. We have witnessed the results of straying from its rules. Those brilliant minds knew what they created; every check, every balance was put in place for our protection. The Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of our government were never meant to agree. It was the dissent among the three branches which was meant to keep us free.

What has transpired under the leadership of George W. Bush not only

takes away our Bill of Rights, but jeopardizes our safety among all nations of the world. And it is not the anarchist terrorist that we must fear. There is growing international concern that the man leading the United States is out of control; that he may have to be stopped if We, the People do not remove him from office in November. We must remember that, historically, these other nations saw the rise, threat, and actions of a rogue country whose leader also cherished a god given destiny not so long ago.

And We, the People, must ask ourselves, nay, we must assume responsibility for, what has been done in our name. The World is holding all of us accountable, and we will live and our children may die, for what has been done in our name.

Our beacon still shines, in spite of the Patriot Act that seeks to put it out, but all of us must once again take responsibility for our Constitutions viability. We need to know what it says. It is a rather forceful and easily understood document. We all, or we should, have studied in school. We passed tests on it never dreaming how important those words would be to our lives in the new millennium.

Now is the time to familiarize yourself with it again. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the ratification of our Constitution, a perfect time to reclaim the knowledge of your rights and your responsibilities. For 228 years it has been tested and has never been found wanting. It is not irrelevant to our lives today, as some say. Those flags you display and wave represent the Constitution of the United States. They are a heavy burden constantly reminding you that you must be ever vigilant in defense of that Constitution. You must never shirk that responsibility through fear or manipulation of any man.‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created Equal, that they are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS -- That to secure these RIghts, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...”
That’s us. That’s We, the People. And that is all our government is given the right to do. George W. Bush, John Kerry, or any other candidate for office of president is only there to serve We, the People. They have no other responsibility.
So, if pointing out Bush’s dictatorial disregard for Our Constitution makes us a leftist, then so it must be, because violation of the presidential oath of office is treason and We, the People must never allow that.

JULY 2, 2004

WHAT HAS CHANGED?

On August 24, 1814; a scant 36 years after the ratification of the Constitution in 1776; British troops marched into the newly built Capitol in Washington, D.C and amused themselves by setting fire to it. It was said to be a low point equal to those dismal days of December 1776.

But We, the People rallied, dealt with it, and moved on to prove once again that we would not be defeated. We knew what we were fighting for and we were determined to triumph. Perhaps that is what has changed. We, the People, no longer feel in control of our destiny.

What did not change, was the will of those colonists, now citizens of the United States. It never occurred to them that fear would be a reason to change, or modify, their Constitution. But these independent, resourceful people who never quite achieved the certainty of safety had chosen their leaders carefully from among themselves, critiqued those they voted for, and held them accountable for all they said and did. That has changed.

Our leaders no longer feel the need to be accountable to We, the People. From the horrific conclusion of the Florida election controlled by one candidate’s brother, which was said to disenfranchise a proven 90,000 voters, to the Supreme Court deciding that a recount of the corrupted vote would “harm George W. Bush” but not his opponent, we have seen no investigation.

The Attorney General appointed, and confirmed by our Legislative branch of government, refused to peruse the 1965 Civil Rights Commission’s Report on intimidation, collusion and registered voters denied the right to cast their ballot. This is not paranoia, this is not accusations. It is in the testimony of thousands of Florida voters. And yet the whole government chose to ignore it.

When legally elected representatives from Florida, the Black Caucus (a majority of disenfranchised voters were black), and others presented a petition to the assembled Legislators to investigate the disputed Florida election before giving George W. Bush the executive office of president, not one Senator would sign the petition.

The men and women brave enough to sign that petition displayed the courage and conviction of those who created this nation. But they were dismissed by the larger group who did not share their bravery. And the cost of that dismissal was the lives of 860 soldiers and militia (National Guard members) over 5,000 wounded -- most who will never walk again on their own two feet or hug a loved one with their own two arms -- and 104 designated “civilian contract” workers sent to illegally invade Iraq.

That has changed. Never before has our country been involved in such blatant imperialism. Never before has our elected leaders ruled by fear of consequences they were elected to protect us from. Never before would We, the People allow an elected representative to preside over a terrorist attack which killed, by official estimates, three thousand people, destroyed the financial district of our largest city, and damaged the seat of our military power without demanding more than trite phrases.

And now, government representatives are using their inexcusable incompetency to cry for change of our Constitutional guarantees of our Right to Vote. George W. Bush, put in power under suspicious circumstances, has created a new “federal voting commission” and appointed DeFOrest B. Soaries as its head.

Mr. Soaries, appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by the man who benefited from the Florida disenfranchisement, has contacted National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Tom Ridge; another new position created by Bush to supposedly keep an eye on terrorists but who spends more time focusing on We, the People; to “establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorist strike the United States again”.

That is a change. Under the election laws prescribed by our Constitution there can be no guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections for any reason. What he is advocating is a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment would require approval of our Legislative Branch of government and a nation wide vote by We, the People! Condoleezza Rice, Tom Ridge, George W. Bush, nor any other member of the administration can change this with or without a terrorist act. It is a violation of our Constitution. It can not happen. If it did, we are no longer a free country. Heed your responsibility closely:

Article I, Section 4. “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives , shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof: but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of Chusing Senators.”

Article II, Section 1. “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors , equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Do they believe our Constitution is no longer adequate to handle elections? Why do they believe that it could not be done? We have experienced great fires, floods, hurricanes and earthquakes without anyone advocating tampering with our Constitutional Right to Vote? They say we need new rules established to take care of the problem of terrorism that Bush & Co. say they are “winning the war on.” But what sort of terrorist attack are they contemplating slipping through the shield that Bush tells us he has created???

Republican Soaries is worried that “If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications.”

Yes, Mr.Soaries, but not in the way you mean. If for some reason, our country is in such shambles that an election can not be held, THERE IS NO COUNTRY. If this country crumbles on your party’s watch, then We, the People will assume control of our own neighborhoods and States. We survived before the ratification as individuals. We, the People have the courage and the spirit to do so again.

Did you learn nothing from that September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that you use as an excuse to replace our election laws? The man who appointed you showed no leadership, the Mayor of New York was the leader during this time of crisis. We, the People,were the ones taking charge and organizing and efficiently putting our world back together. We, the People, organized rescue efforts, a search for the missing, the supplies needed by those obsessively working to save lives.

And if it becomes necessary to do so, We, the People can assume the leadership to see that free and honest elections are held. That is more than the current leader has done. We, the People will, once again, do fine.

JUNE 1, 2004

MISSING FROM THE NEWS

The Irish debacle. Did anyone see it, read about it, hear an interpretation of it?

I was astonished to find that here, in the land of the Constitutionally guaranteed free press, Bush’s NATO trip was reported as making the most of foreign policy and implying that he had managed to smooth the ruffled feathers of Europe. However...

The international press was busy publishing his faux pas and the number of anti-Bush demonstrators that turned out to meet him. We all know, or should know, that his visit to Italy was met with thousands of demonstrators showing their displeasure with him and his meeting with the Pope turned into a Papal lecture!

He fared no better in Ireland. It was said that 1/3 of Ireland’s police force was used to “protect” Bush -- from what I’m not sure. Perhaps it was the multitudes gathered to tell him he wasn’t wanted in Ireland. Two pictures tell the story. The first showed thousands gathered to greet President Clinton on his arrival there. Beside it was a photo of Bush’s arrival; no people, just tanks! I understand it wasn’t an easy job to route Bush away from all those thousands of Irish gathered to tell him to go home.

But, since the Bushes didn’t see all of the demonstrators, they will probably believe the same thing they did on their English state visit. Since the demonstrators weren’t allowed within their view, they simply thought they didn’t exist even though it was the largest demonstration in British history!

But... it was also hard for Bush to comprehend the free press of Ireland. Seems they aren’t like our “media” who only ask him easy, scripted questions. The interviewer, Carole Coleman’s questions not only required answers but took his responses and followed up with questions that weren’t on the “menu”.

Now, I just happened to see the video tape of that interview and I suddenly realized that I was cringing with embarrassment at Bush’s treatment of interviewer Carole Coleman. She kept her cool, a true reporter, in spite of Bush interrupting her, and sniping about her try at follow up answers. And he literally told her to shut up three times because it appeared he didn’t want to answer her questions. Between his non-answers, his rudeness, I was really ashamed that he represented the United States.

But his snit didn’t end there. His administrative lackey told the Irish Independent newspaper that the “White House” was “concerned that Coleman had overstepped the bounds of politeness.” After watching Bush, I didn’t know he knew the definition of politeness!! Because of Bush’s inability to handle an interview, an interview with Laura, (the intelligent one of the couple?) was canceled also. So much for Irish goodwill.

Whenever they let this guy out of his cage, our allies are beginning to get out the whips and chairs. While attending the NATO conference, he decided to interfere with the EU by informing them that they should let Turkey in. It was predictable to everyone but Bush & Co that the EU would not like his tone, nor his interference in the business of the EU. And that France, in spite of Bush’s efforts to be polite enough to get money and troops for his Iraq Invasion, would tell him to mind his own business.

And it goes on and on! I imagine the Statue of Liberty has changed her greenish hue to crimson. I have read that Bush is the most hated leader on the planet. He worked harder at achieving that title than he ever worked for We, the People. My prayer is that we have enough good will left among our former allies that, after Bush is gone, they will give us another chance. KERRY, DON’T SCREW IT UP!

JUNE 29, 2004

THE HITLER FACTOR

Back when we still had nine Democratic candidates to chose from, a little grass roots organization known as MoveOn.org held a contest. It asked We, the People, to participate directly in the election of one of these men. First, it held a pre-primary where We, the People could simply sign up and vote for one of the guys; and they promised to throw their support behind any one of the candidates that got 50% of the votes.
Well, former Governor Howard Dean didn’t get 50% but he came close. Senator John Kerry wasn’t even in the running! But, the sheer number of internet votes convinced MoveOn that there was a vast chasm that needed to be filled with action. So it held an internet contest for the best ads, which they intended to run just like the Republican and Democratic “packs” do.

The difference was that these ads were submitted by ordinary citizens working in groups or alone, young and old - not PR firms hired to produce a slick image. And they got some great ones. You have probably seen one of them yourself, if you watch the political ads.

Among those ads was a submission that was good but not a subject that anyone wanted to touch -- back then. It interposed scenes of the little dictator wannabe George W. Bush, with scenes of big dictator Adolph Hitler. The firestorm was immediate and nasty. Republicans, with their usual disregard for researching the truth, said MoveOn was comparing Bush to Hitler. MoveOn retaliated by withdrawing the submission from the vote and disavowing it.

You might think that would be the end of it, but not for the Republicans. They had copied the submission and are now using it, without the creator’s permission we must assume, in an ad probably constructed by a Republican PR firm, to compare:

•the man really elected by We, the People to the office of president in 2000, Al Gore,

•the People’s candidate receiving the most support for the 2004 Democratic nomination for president, former Governor Howard Dean,

•and that “notorious” film producer of Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore to...

HITLER!!!

Imagine that! Guess it wasn’t so tasteless after all -- just depends who is calling who by the “H” word!

Since that one ad, the vision of Hitler just won’t go away. But that wasn’t the first time that Bush had been compared to Hitler. It was first noted in Europe, where Hitler had been experienced up close and personal; many of those who had been his “guests” during World War II distinctly remembered what it was like; and if they chose to compare our present government head to him perhaps we should at least listen.

After all, one of Bush’s first actions was to order the Justice Department to find a loophole that would prevent him, and his staff, from being tried for war crimes when they didn’t abide by the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war. When I read about this action, my first thought was of a mafia don telling his underlings to “take care of it” but don’t tell me how.

More and more comparisons are surfacing, and the minute they are made, apologies must also be made. Take Judge Guido Calabresi, a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan who made a remark that Bush’s rise to power was similar to Mussolini and Hitler. He says his remarks were extemporaneous and were “something which I did not intend, that is, take a partisan position.”

What he said was that Mussolini had not won an election but the King of Italy put him in power. And that is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in. He explained that what transpired was “a rather complicated academic argument about the nature of re-elections after highly contested original elections....”

And we all know what happened in the 2000 election; or if you don’t, just visit the 1965 Civil Rights Commission report on the Florida election -- if you can still find it, that is. Also remember that a complaint on the legitimacy of the Florida election was presented to the joint Houses, but never acted on, before the Electoral College confirmed Bush. That done, the context of Judge Calabresi’s remarks should be more clear.

But someone as sensitive to criticism as George W. Bush is shouldn’t allow others to use his name to toss around the Hitler label either! Once done, he loosed his right of protest for anything said against him, and that includes being compared to Hitler.

Since George W. Bush and the Truth don’t seem to have even a nodding acquaintance, perhaps we should all just give him the famous duck test based on our own beliefs. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is most probably a duck -- unless we prefer the parable of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

JUNE 28, 2004

WE WON!

Finally, after so many defeats, We, The People have at last won a battle over censorship! Michael Moore’s documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 has defeated those who tried to stop the release of his movie and censor the message it delivered.

But just as we “peaceably assembled” before George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq to let Bush know we did not want it; we “peaceably assembled” at the theater in our neighborhoods to show Bush that, in spite of his illegal “Patriot Act”, he could not stop us from exercising our Amendment I freedom to watch this movie.

The Bush administration measures everything in dollars; therefore, we have brought him proof of our resolution to have uncensored Truth, with our dollars. He may have run away from our Truth by leaving the country; just as he did when he left town during our demonstrations against the Iraq invasion; but he can not hide forever.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was the Number 1 movie at the theaters this week. This little ‘documentary” grossed more than the entertainment flick, “White Girls”. Because of the drive to censor the movie, it only opened in 868 theaters, but it was sold out, and in some theaters people stood for the 116 minutes of the film because there were no seats. When, if ever, have you have stood through an entire film just to see it?

Fahrenheit 9/11 had a box office of $21.96 million. White Chicks,second highest earner, only made $19.6 million. Even the “mainstream media” had to report on this historic happening. But what we didn’t hear in the “mainstream media were the comments from those who saw the movie. On the one NBC program I watched this morning, the only person they quoted gave a semi-negative comment about the movie. But you get a far different view from movie goers from the numerous sites inviting comments about the movie.

The people attending have one common theme which the “mainstream media” would do well to heed -- “I didn’t know this....” Why not? Why was it such news to ordinary Americans that the man the “media” dubbed “strong leader” had sat in a classroom listening to children reading while our financial district and our military headquarters in Washington, D.C. were being rammed by hijacked airliners? Moore simply included videotape of the event. It was always there for the “media” to use -- censorship, perhaps?
Why was it such news to ordinary Americans that, while they, or their loved ones, spent days in a closed airport unable to get home, that Bush saw that his wealthy Saudi buddies were picked up in charter airplanes and delivered to a secret location to be flown home. While our elected leaders, caught abroad in this crisis, and needed at home in the Congress and the Senate to conduct affairs of state (the Pentagon was attacked!), were denied permission to enter the United States!!!

The 9/11 Commission says the Saudis were “vetted by the FBI before leaving the country”, and didn’t investigate further. But they never investigated why the Saudis had a higher priority in our government than your elected representative in our government. Why didn’t the “mainstream media” inform you of that? Why did it take Michael Moore to tell you?

These are just two items in the movie that the “mainstream media” chose to complain about. The other is the heartbreak of a mother whose son had died in Iraq. She had supported Bush’s invasion. And she had paid the highest price possible for supporting Bush’s invasion; her son’s life. They say Moore should not have included her grief in the movie. I ask, why not? Obviously this lady needed to do something to lessen her grief. It was her choice. And if she felt it was something she wanted to do, no one has a right to stop her. Isn’t that what American freedom is all about?

And “mainstream media” has thousands of stories they could have told us and chose not to. Almost a thousand deaths, over five thousand wounded. Instead of statistics -- numbers easily overlooked and dispassionate -- “mainstream media” could have allowed us a glimpse of their stories, the heartbreak of the lives changed forever, by death or injury, of almost six thousand families during Bush’s one year and three month invasion. If the grief of just one woman is too much for us to see, then why has the “mainstream media” ignored the grief of the thousands involved in Bush’s invasion?

Instead, they have formed a “coalition of the willing” to keep We, the People, free of the Truth. And they denigrate and vilify those who would point them out. Michael Moore’s movie is like the little boy in the fairy tale, pointing out to a plethora of sheep, that the arrogant and vain emperor virtually has no clothes.

Let’s all go see the naked “strong leader” who prefers vacations to work and has no problem with killing thousands to prove his “strength”. Let’s let the “mainstream media”, the Republican party, and all of the Bush administration know that our eyes are open and that we are watching, and that Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened our eyes.

JUNE 25, 2004

AIN’T GONNA WORK!

You would think Michael Moore was running against George W. Bush for president instead of Senator John Kerry. The Republican pack of hound dogs that have been nipping at Kerry have stopped in mid-flight and changed directions to go baying after Moore and his movie Fahrenheit 9/11.

The more they bay, the more the public’s attention focuses on the movie. It was said the documentary’s pre-ticket sales have outsold the movie “Dodgeball” and “Spiderman II, and that says something that Republicans don’t want to hear. During its first two theater openings yesterday it broke records set by the movies “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Men in Black” - and those were blockbuster movies!

Documentaries not usually being date fare, you wouldn’t think it would be setting movie records but it is. After all that Disney did to keep it from being distributed to the public, after Republican websites inundating theaters with threats of boycott, it appears to be unstoppable. So this weekend we shall see the end results of a fed-up public’s response to it.

But, even though they were unable to keep it from the public, those hounds haven’t given up yet. They have used their Republican political and government clout to stop publicity for the movie by declaring it some sort of “political ad”. Here I hark back to that old Republican standard that it is ok to do or say anything about Clinton, but you can’t criticize Bush!

In order to stop this movie that is going to be seen whether they like it or not, the FEC is investigating Michael Moore’s movie for violating campaign finance law!! How about that, People. If you go see Fahrenheit 9/11 in a movie theater you are violating a campaign finance law!

The agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines “corporate-funded ads” as those identifying a candidate by “name, nickname, photograph or drawing...(making) it otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.”

All it take is 6 members of the FEC to enforce a ban on advertising of Fahrenheit 9/11. Where were these guys when former Governor Howard Dean was being trashed by the “media” prior to the primaries??

Where, also, was David Bossie, the president of Citizens United, who says Fahrenheit 9/11 violates federal election law and plans to file a complaint with the FEC. I didn’t hear any complaints from Citizens United when all the bad mouthing came from the Republicans. Shall we say that M

However, a voice of reason can be found with Commissioner Michael Toner,

“I think there’s evidence that when Congress created the press exemption they intended for it to cover media in all its forms. If a documentary produced by an independent company would be subject to restriction, or equally important, if efforts to promote the documentary would be subject to restriction, I think that is very problematic”.

He made this statement in response to the general counsel’s opinion that the media exemption was a “narrow” one and distinguished “corporations that are part of the media industry” from “other corporations not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public”. This exemption was supposed to apply to members of the press who discuss political candidates freely in the days before an election

I agree with Commissioner Toner, news organizations and political ads are a different breed of “media” from movies, sports events, etc.

They might have a problem IF the Republicans or Democrats wanted to show Fahrenheit 9/11 at their National Conventions; that might come under the campaign finance law; but NO ONE has the right to tell me that I can’t hear advertisements for a movie, whether it deals with George W. Bush, the environment such as “The Day After Tomorrow” (which also received it’s share of Republican ire) or the Manchurian Candidate!
Amendment I of the Constitution does not specify that The FEC or the federal government can ban actions critical of the present administration. It specifically states, “...no law respecting... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...”. Since Republicans seem to need a refresher course in the Bill of Right, let me interpret it for them.
Even though, when this was written, there weren’t movies, there were books. We have a right to see or read what we choose without government interference. Look at Fahrenheit 9/11 as Harreit Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Now, think about her novel being censored by not allowing the public knowledge of it. That censorship could have changed the course of history, but would we have wanted it that way?
Thus it is with this movie, it may not be an easy medicine for Republicans to swallow but it is necessary for the health of this country.

JUNE 24, 2004

KERRY... HELPING OUT THE REAGAN MYTH

It isn’t as of we have a real choice in November; we have Bush or we have “the other”, and according to both parties, “the other” can not include any third party candidate. So we who absolutely refuse to be a party to Bush’s trashing of America, are stuck with Republican lite.

That means we are being forced to vote for John Kerry because the negative publicity directed at the only other viable candidate, Ralph Nader, will produce the same results as the negative publicity directed against the people’s candidate, Dr. Howard Dean, did.

We had a protest vote once; it put Richard Nixon in the Oval Office instead of Lyndon Johnson. Because those of us old enough to remember living through all of the Nixon era, not just the Watergate scandal but his escalation of VietNam, his ending space exploration, his wage freeze that left prices soaring beyond the average American’s ability to buy... we remember the consequences of voting for Nixon because we didn’t want Johnson to continue the war.
And here we are again, with no choice to speak of, that choice snatched away by Democratic and “media” appointment of John Kerry as Bush’s opponent in the 2004 election. Kerry, and the other “party” candidates were always at the bottom of the polls. The People DID NOT want Leiberman, Gephardt, Edwards or Kerry. They had not disagreed with Bush enough. They rubberstamped too many of Bush’s ideas and his plans.
But, Bush is on a path of destruction that we simply can not ignore. Most of us now feel compelled to vote for Kerry even though we know he will not take us where we want to go. But we have no choice. And with every passing day, we feel the force of our ability to elect a leader receding farther and farther away.

The scales that balance Bush or Kerry against our responsibility to elect a good man do not convince many of us. And each day more weight is put upon Kerry’s scale that could tip voters away from him and toward the campaign of Nader because we simply can not bear to be a party to another Nixon-style protest vote. We simply can not bear the personal and moral responsibility of what might happen. We know Kerry has no plans to end the war. We know that the economic and health care agenda were not one of his major concerns during the primary campaign - that was Howard Dean’s agenda. And we know that there will be no reprieve at the Democratic convention; they have anointed Kerry and We, the People must live with it as best we can.

They will make Kerry or Bush our next president. But We, the People, will bear the burden here, and abroad, for their mistakes. And we know full well what Bush’s mistakes will be. And we get a glimpse of Kerry’s true alignment by his “honoring” Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for the looting of the American economy in the 1980’s that makes Nixon’s mistakes pale by comparison.

They are saying that Kerry is trying to contrast Reagan’s leadership with Bush’s to show Bush’s failure. There was no Reagan leadership. Reagan’s time as President was marred by numerous wandering stories and mistakes. He was involved or allowed treasonous actions, which were never investigated or the perpetrator punished for, during, or after, his 8 years.

He allowed corporate raiders and foreign countries to gut the American economy. His 8 years saw the beginning of the homeless phenomenon in our country as poverty rose to new heights. He said trees polluted the environment as much as toxic companies. He said that hungry children could eat catsup and mustard as vegetables. He almost destroyed our airline industry by firing overworked air traffic controllers who had the audacity to strike to correct working conditions that could have caused people to die.

His Alzheimer’s disease was so advanced that he could not even pretend to lead the country during his last four years. World leaders looked at him in bewilderment, much as they did Bush, at some of the nonsense things he said to them. He was never a “great leader” either, he was a disaster! He should have been removed from office because of his health, if not for his treasonous actions against the United States of America.

The horror is not just that Republicans have built a mediocre leader, at best, into some mythical person but that Kerry seems to think there was something to admire in what Reagan did. And, when he gave Reagan credit for “global leadership” he was booed and hissed by those who knew better.

And Nancy Reagan’s sudden discovery that her “Ronnie” might have been helped by stem cell research just points up the lack of empathy that the rest of government has for We, the People. The need was there long before Reagan, just like the need for research into the cause of AIDS was there and ignored during Reagan’s administration.

No, there was nothing to admire in Nixon’s “leadership” and there is nothing to admire in Reagan’s. We are still living with the results of those 23 years of Republican power. Republicans are fond of blaming Democrats for the state of the country; but all the downturns in our economy came during Republican administrations, not Democrats.

Carter’s four years as Commander in Chief did not do as much damage as Bush’s three. Clinton’s 8 years halted the downward slide of poverty and economic decline. Had Gore been allowed to serve his four years, what differences would it have made in our lives? Would those thousands of men dead and wounded in Iraq be alive and whole?

A question we must answer when we cast our vote in November. It is not an easy choice. We need someone strong, a powerful leader that can pull us back from the brink of decline, someone so moral that we can began earning back our country’s reputation. In that group of ten potential candidates that held our attention during the summer, there were many strong men of purpose, those who had openly fought the country’s direction.

None of them were considered worthy by our “media”. We have Kerry. We have Bush. We have Nader. And people are so frightened of Nader bringing about another “2000” that they do not consider him. But the third parties of this country did not stop Gore from becoming president. That mistake lies at the feet of the Supreme Court when they assumed that George W. Bush would be harmed by a recount but Al Gore would not. What they didn’t consider is that We, the People, might be harmed by their interference. That was a decision made for We, the People. But we live with the results.

Will our choice be any different this time? Will Bush simply seek Supreme Court appointment if our votes make Kerry the winner? Will Kerry follow a Republican path laid out by Nixon, Reagan, the two Bushes? Or does he have the courage to follow truly admirable men who made the hard choices and accepted the responsibility for them; FDR, Truman, Kennedy...

Kerry...Bush. No choice.

JUNE 23, 2004

MORE ON MOORE

It’s beginning to look like a personal vendetta, but not by Michael Moore but against Michael Moore! He must be telling a powerful Truth for the whole of the “mainstream media” to not have one positive thing to say about him or his movie Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven’t see such an assault since former Governor Howard Dean declared his candidacy for President of the United States!

It is hard enough to negotiate the negative publicity generated by a supposedly “liberal media” about the film, which won the Palm D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, to find a theater brave enough to violate the McCarthyism type censorship and show the thing; now they have labeled it with an R rating!

After all, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the movie that the “media” didn’t display on, during, or after, the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. If our kids could see all of this on the evening news, why is the movie banned with an R rating? This is history, People. You don’t get to rewrite it; you just get to live through it. And your opinion is as valid as that coming from the government!

A lot more so, I’d say, if you were one of those people walking the streets, in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers, searching for someone. “Strong leader” Bush was busy making himself scarce when the smoke and debris was wafting about those streets. He didn’t show up, on the news, or in person, until the clean up began.

It was quite easy for him to stand on the rubble still containing the bodies of those who died and speak in platitudes. Quite difficult for him to cough up the money to replace dead firemen and police officers, equipment, and to provide health care for those who were involved in that toxic clean up day after day.

They are still waiting.

In spite of efforts at censorship there is just as huge an effort to bring it to We, the People, so that we may judge instead of accepting the censor’s opinion. Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films, says that he hopes the R rating doesn’t have a large impact at the box office. “I’ve spoken to many parents, including some on the appeals board, who absolutely say they are going to take their children to see the film. We’ll just have to hope the teenagers...find their way in through parents or adult guardians.”
As Jonathan Sehring, president of IFC Films says, “Some of these images are disturbing, but in a year or two, if kids are off to war, they’re going to be faced with those disturbing images for real.”

Especially if Bush institutes the draft; 18 year olds will be prime targets for Iraqi service ... just like in VietNam. The kids either got a quick education in the art of combat or they joined the list of casualties.

But the censorship of this movie was never about the “violence” in the film. It is

almost a rite of passage in this country for teenagers to slip into R rated movies containing graphic violence. The censorship of this movie is about politics. Disney began this strange odyssey with it’s refusal to release the movie because it was “too political”.

This isn’t new; this is the third attempt that we know of, to censor material that Republicans don’t like. First, the Reagan movie portrayed Reagan in an “unfavorable” way. Forego the rhetoric that emerged when he died and look at the history. There is no way to put this guy in an “unfavorable” light that wasn’t true! It was too political for Nightline to simply read the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq. And now, Michael Moore’s movie is said to depict George W. Bush in a bad way.

If you are convicted with words right out of your mouth, it is a little too late to cry foul. If Bush’s words and actions can’t stand the scrutiny of this movie, then he should pack up and go back to his fancy “ranch” and play golf... that was where he was when he received the PDB telling him that the terrorists were on their way. And that report wasn’t done out of concern for the safety of We, the People, but because Bush was afraid a terrorist might try to “get him” at the G8 summit he was going to attend. Don’t know if Moore included that fact, but it is true. Check the Congressional testimony of Rice, the news articles detailing Bush’s daily schedule.

And, in just the last couple of months, enough has been unearthed on Bush’s conduct in office for Moore to make a sequel. I’ll be waiting for the next installment.

JUNE 22, 2004

A MOMENT OF PRIDE

On a sandblasted bit of desert, a new generation gathered to watch the lift off of strange looking aircraft that was destined to usher in a new generation of space flight. For that moment in history, we felt a pride in our country and our people. It gave us hope that we might regain some of our former spender and once again, travel among the stars.

Since the death of our space program during Nixon’s administration, the world has continued to progress without us. Our chief rival, Russia, continued to pursue an orbiting space station and succeeded where we never even tried. The “workhorse” space shuttle, designed to ferry building materials into space, was used for nothing except ferrying satellites into orbit. That great dream of a giant station in space by 1999 was forgotten. Nothing exists of that great dream any longer, except in the minds of people.

But the shadows of that dream have brought a new space age to reality. The idea of a private vehicle climbing beyond the boundary of space took hold and is now enchantingly close to reality. Yesterday, pilot Mike Melville, at age 63, achieved that dream while those gathered at Mojave, California watched him take that historic flight.

SpaceShipOne, designed by Burt Rutan, achieved 328,491 feet above the Earth’s surface. A scant 400 feet above what is considered the boundary of space. But those 400 feet ushered in a new era in space. This flight was not a government military flight. It was a civilian flight trying to break a commercial space flight barrier.

Mike Melvill, who has set world altitude and speed records and has logged over 66,400 hours in flight time, is now in the history books. Like Neil Armstrong’s words when he walked on the moon for the first time, Rutan’s words will also be remembered. “It was nothing like I’d ever seen before.” he said, “You really do get the feeling that you’ve touched the face of God when you do something like this.”

SpaceShipOne is at the beginning of its future. We won’t be lining up anytime soon to be taking space jaunts; but I bet the waiting list is already long. The ship, designed by two dozen teams trying to win the $10 million Ansari X prize, was built to meet or exceed their standards. It must be a three-seat spacecraft that will launch to an altitude of 62 miles twice in 14 days. SpaceShipOne will need to repeat yesterday’s performance to win the prize.

And there are other companies out there, eager to provide bigger and better service, close on the heels of SpaceShipOne. The true successor will be the first to provide service on a regular basis to tourists who wish to break the bonds of space and see the earth outside it’s restraining gravity. For now, that is ambition enough.

But we have come a long way toward making the science fiction of Jules Vern and Buck Rogers a reality. With ingenuity and time, we may travel to distant planets, colonize them, travel to distant galaxies like the Enterprise. When we see accomplishments like this, our future seems limitless. It has been far too long since We, the People, had this moment of success and pride in our achievements.

On this day when reports of war and deaths dominate the news, we can glimpse a shinning future soaring into the sky. We can focus our hope on this new adventure; in the determination of these men investing in that future with the production of new technology, new jobs, new tomorrows.

JUNE 21, 2004

WHERE THERE’S SMOKE....

Fahrenheit 9/11 hasn’t even hit the movie theaters and yet it has generated more heat than just about any movie made; and certainly the most for any documentary made. Most people don’t even know when documentaries are released, let alone spend the price of a movie ticket to see one!! All of this negative publicity hasn’t been produced by Michael Moore or his winning the Palm D’Or in Cannes. All this smoke to obliterate the movie before it gets off the ground comes directly from two sources; the “media” and the Republican party.

Republicans have stopped the 2004 campaign blitzkrieg against Senator Kerry to throw their panzer divisions against Michael Moore and his film. They have internet campaigns targeted toward any theater brave enough to acknowledge showing the film. Every “media” personality from Matt Lauer to Dan Rather seems to be pontificating about its meaning and its perceived bias - supplying proof of their own “media” political bias in the process!!

This leads to the question: WHY? What has Michael Moore put into this movie that would cause the whole Republican party and most of the mainstream “media” to lose it? It is a movie, similar to “Roger and Me” produced during that Reagan era of corporate raiders and downsizing. Moore simply wove his way through the automobile city of his hometown, Flint, Michigan, showing both unemployed auto workers and the social elite of Michigan. The contrast was startling. But then the Truth always is.

Moore has said that this new movie doesn’t contain much footage of him, that he uses a lot of contrasting images and words from the source; that is George W. Bush. If Bush comes off badly, it is his own fault. It is one thing for you to believe your own PR but quite another to expect all of We, the People to be suckers, too!

Not having seen the movie, (it isn’t released yet) I have heard that one of the most devastating scenes is the countdown scene of George W. Bush relaxing, and laughing, in an elementary classroom while the World Trade Center is annihilated and the Pentagon is attacked. Moore isn’t the only one this bothered. One of the “four moms” who battled so hard for the 9/11 investigation Commission , Lorie van Auken, stated in an interview with Gail Sheely in 2003, “I couldn’t stop watching the president sitting there, listening to second graders, while my husband was burning in that building.”

Republican rhetoric labels the movie as motivated by politics, as if this somehow negates its message. Every nasty thing said or published about President Clinton was motivated by politics. But Republicans seem to actually think that it is somehow “different” when they do it!

And since no political criticism was allowed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, most Americans have lived with frustration or redirected their anger toward sources that weren’t even involved. We, the People have every right to expect accountability from the Bush administration. It was their errors in judgment and their neglect of the intelligence that brought on September 11, 2001.

Every family of every victim should have received a personal heartfelt apology from Bush. As he is so fond of reminding us, he was at the helm when it happened. And forget that whinny “233” days, the same politicians excusing Bush for not stopping the attack, are quick to accuse Clinton of responsibility for the first World Trade Center attack that killed six

even though Clinton had only been in office for 76 days and the attack plans were recorded and ignored by the FBI during the first Bush administration.

It appears that the “media” in their interviews with Moore is trying to manipulate the facts to produce a different, favorable impression of what Bush did. Again, not having seen the movie, I must rely on what they are pushing. And it appears important for them to push this: In the movie Moore does a segment about the relationship between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia. Moore claims that bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country without being properly interviewed by “authorities”
The media representatives say that the 9/11 Commission says that 22 out of 26 people on those flights were interviewed. Quoting from the still to be finalized report, “The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security.”

Moore’s answer is: The whole report stated that over 140 Saudis were allowed to leave the country in these days after 9/11 and only 30 were interviewed.”

But I believe both Moore and the “media” are arguing the wrong point. In a time of national crisis, when all air traffic was stopped, when American citizens were spending endless days in an airline terminal because they couldn’t get home, 140 Saudi nationals, including bin Laden family members, were given carte blanch to just board a jet and go home!!

And, if that isn’t enough of an oxymoron, in a time of national crisis, when the only aircraft moving were jet fighters and Saudi aircraft, not one government official was allowed to fly back to the United States. Not one Senator. Not one Congressman. Not one ambassador. Not one former president. Not one former vice president.

The assassination of any one of these people would be a brilliant counterpoint to crashing into the Pentagon and taking out our financial district but the Bush administration, speeding the royal Saudi citizens on their way, did not feel it was necessary to allow the elected members of our government to return to their duties in Washington, D. C.

Moore points out that Bush was too busy allowing Saudi citizens out of our country to worry about keeping our country safe. It is now known that members of the royal Saudi family were financing bin Laden. What does Bush say about allowing them to flee the country? What does he say about the FBI “clearing” them? This is what Michael Moore is trying to make us realize. This is why Fahrenheit 9/11 was made. The rest of the world can see it. Why can’t Republicans?

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits abridging the freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. By the relentless pursuit of both Republicans, the “media” and the interference of corporations to stop the release of this film, we are witnessing what influence can now do to this country.

A dangerous precedent has been set. Less than a year ago, pressure was put upon a public television station to withdraw a biographical movie about Ronald Reagan because it was not flattering enough. And only a week ago, we witnessed a snow job on the Reagan years that Barmen and Bailey would have been proud of. The reading of a list of names of those who had died in Iraq during the month of May was labeled “political”. Now we have this assault, on a movie which is mainly taken from pubic films of events, in an effort to rewrite the horrendous history we have all just lived through.

I hope Michael Moore’s new film will expose these political frauds just as “Roger and Me” did in the 1980’s. I also think it is time to rerelease that one because today an AP poll says that 7 in 10 actually said that Reagan will be judged more favorable than Clinton!

All the Republican rhetoric seems to have convince them that somehow Reagan was more “moral” than Clinton, even though Reagan was involved in an Arms for Hostages deal which led to Americans hostages not being released until after the election in order to enhance his chances of winning. His administration was known for the Iran-Contra deal, and had more members of his administration found guilty of crimes than Nixon’s!(The Republican president who had to resign in disgrace but got pretty much the same whitewash treatment as Reagan’s when he died.)

And Reagan’s family “morals” weren’t any better. He neglected his children by his first wife, was estranged from his two by his second wife for years and yet preached morality to us!

If Republicans and the “media” can create a portrait of an inadequate president who wrecked the economy as this “great” man, what can they do; given censorship and time to rewrite history the way they want it. For those of you who believe there was any greatness associated to what Reagan did to this country, I suggest you take off those Republican rose colored glasses and watch “Roger and Me”. And when you finish that, get yourself down to the nearest theater and view Fahrenheit 9/11. And, after that, if you still buy the Republican mantra then by all means, go down with that Republican Ship. As for the rest of us, we’re heading for the lifeboats!

JUNE 20, 2004

MISSING THE POINT

Have you ever noticed how often a slight change of phrase, or an emphasis on one thing or the other changes the whole meaning of what is reported, what our political leaders say? It may be unfair to expect you to know whether or not someone is lying, to have to search a dictionary for the true meaning of something, but, if you don’t you run the risk of supporting something you really don’t believe it. Take the following innocent looking items a casual reading overlooks:

In every campaign speech, George W. Bush is telling us how great he has made the economy. Everyone seems to be doing well but you. After awhile, you begin to believe that something is wrong with you. But take a look at this information in the Business section that didn’t make news. June sales for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. are said to be “tracking” around the low end of its forecast.

Now this little statement says that Wal-mart sales are down, at the low end of their 4 to 6 percent increase predictions. In Bush’s “booming” economy you would expect to see sales going higher than predictions, not lower. It’s Father’s Day, kids out of school for the summer and needing new clothes; and here is where Bush’s prophecy doesn't “track”.

The company says that spending increased in the middle of the month, after getting that second two week paycheck! And they also said that food, hardware, paper goods, pet supplies and toys were the categories where sales went up. Their analysts determine that this is an indication that those lower and middle class budgets for American workers remain tight. Translate that into American workers still aren’t feeling any “improvement” in the economy - that still belongs to Bush and his elite rich friends.

And here is another one. A short time ago, the Senate filed Financial Disclosure Forms. Last week the House of Representatives did. The “media” picked and chose from among that list to try to present a picture of rich Democrats and not so rich Republicans. However, they did come to the conclusion that House members were poorer than the Senate. Now isn’t that a revelation! We all know that the two Senators are chosen to represent the state and that the party nominations usually go to someone with clout in their particular party. The last “ordinary” senator was the Minnesota teacher, Paul Wellstone and his election sent both parties reeling from the unexpected success of the “shoestring campaign” he had run.

The House of Representatives are chosen by population and usually represent the neighborhoods they come from. Thus, a poor area, say in LA, will be represented by someone who is not a neighbor of Schwarzenegger.

Remember during that infamous recall election that ousted Gray Davis that in the poor minority neighborhoods the precents remained closed? Those same neighborhoods that the courts said didn’t need their percents open to vote in the recall, are the same ones that elect a representative from among that area. You don’t expect to find Mr. Rich Person living in those areas, or they would have been allowed to vote in the recall even if “voter turnout” was considered small.

But, if you don’t care about a true representative democracy, you can always do what Texas did, and redistrict the whole area to include a few rich folks so that you disenfranchise the minority vote. If you look back at that scandalous behavior of the Texas legislature, you will discover that was exactly what occurred.
And last, but certainly not least, is what the 9/11 Commission has been turned into. The only thing it has proved is that you can’t get a straight answer out to the Bush administration and they only make statements that they can’t be held accountable for.

Cheney goes public with his disclaimer that al Qaida and Saddam Hussein were in cahoots, but refuses to back up his statement with documents or any sort of proof. He was twiddling his thumbs while the Pentagon was rammed by a hijacked airplane full of people, but we’re supposed to believe he was on top of the “WMDs in Iraq” situation!!

Nor does it help that Bush and Cheney presented themselves as Siamese twins when they testified before the Commission and that they absolutely, categorically refused to testify under oath. (No, Bush is NOT under oath to testify truthfully because he took the Constitutionally mandated oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”But his refusal to testify under oath and without his handler was ok with the Republican members of the Commission. I think they have their priorities screwed up!! Getting sworn testimony about the murder of over 3,000 people wasn’t nearly as important to them as it had been to get testimony under oath about former President Clinton’s adulterous affair!

I don’t know exactly when We, the People, became the enemy to our elected members of government. Or maybe it is just they think we’re too stupid to notice that we’re being conned. Either way, we’ve been drowsing too long. We had better wake up and pay attention to the agenda while we still can. We don’t live on words, and we don’t survive on promises. Even when the Truth hurts, it is better to know what it is and to face it. Ignoring a coming tornado won’t keep you safe, getting out of its way will.

JUNE 19, 2004

DON’T TOUCH MY CARGO

Yesterday I informed you of how the Transportation and Security Administration plans to keep track of every person planning to fly. They will do this by doing a thorough background check, and if you pass muster, you can join the long lines that lead you through 2 security checkpoints before you are allowed to board the plane. I also introduced you to their costly little plan ($3 million invested so far) to hire two companies to do the investigating.

If you agree to the aggressive background check, the fingerprinting, and iris scan, you will be allowed to join a special line and miss the final checkpoint. Companies, who are screaming about employees loss of work time while standing in line, still aren’t convinced that the plan will be cost effective from their point of view.

However, we all know the emphasis put on “safety” verses civil rights by this government and that We, the People should expect our civil rights to be violated if we want to take the kids to Disneyland. But I’m beginning to wonder just what’s going on here because today I read headlines saying that the House, which was in favor of restrictions placed upon passengers, rejected a bill -- 211 to 191 against the inspection of all cargo shipped on PASSENGER airlines.

Now, I don’t know about you, but logic tells me that it would be far easier to ship bombs, chemicals, etc. in the cargo hold of an airplane than to wear them. But the same rational for having you take off your shoes and spread eagle yourself after going through their security gate seems a little excessive considering that any dummy company can ship anything un-inspected in the same plane you have just been approved to enter!

The rational for their refusing to inspect cargo the way they do the human cargo, is that un-inspected cargo will only come from shippers the government knows and that it would be too costly.

This is the same government who allowed nineteen men on a government terrorist watch list to sail through Customs and enter the United States to reboard airplanes on September 11, 2001, seize control, and then not respond to multiple hijacking alerts from flight crews and passengers. And we’re expected to believe they’ve fixed the problems because they practically strip search elderly citizens and harassed parents toting young children through their electronic scans?

Republican Harold Rogers, Ky, says it would cost $700 million and an additional 9,000 workers to check all the cargo at the nation’s largest airports. Well, Bush has already set record deficits, and as stated before, the Iraq war costs about 9 billion a month, and we can’t oursource those 9,000 jobs, so what’s the problem? If public safety isn’t worth the money or the effort; why are they spending all this money to make a data base of all airline passengers?

Sorry, People, the bottom line has nothing to do with your safety. It is profit. You can be inconvenienced, your time and certain items stolen, your body and your luggage searched for nonexistent bombs, but don’t touch the company cargo! It has more civil rights than you do!!!

JUNE 18, 2004

HOW IT WORKS

If you want to see Republican democracy in action, there is no

better place to watch it than the recent Committee hearings where Bush’s attorney general John Ashcroft boldly told the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee that he wouldn’t supply them with memos detailing the Justice Department's search for ways to keep George W. Bush from being tried for War Crimes.

He made no pretense of using an excuse. He says that he decided that he didn’t have to release the memos based on the fact that he decided he didn’t have to release the memos.

That is an impeachable offense. No where in our Constitution does it say that the Attorney General has the authority to override the Senate’s right to information. But will we ever see an impeachment? The party so obsessed with impeaching President Clinton over a sex scandal thinks this isn’t such a big deal.

As usual, the Committee will be stopped in its pursuit of the truth because Republicans don’t want to rock Bush’s little boat. (“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier...” Bush, 12/18/00).

Thursday, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who had lectured Ashcroft on his Constitutional duties during the previous meeting, requested that the Committee issue a subpoena to Ashcroft requiring him to produce the memos outlining the U. S. position on torturing prisoners of war and suggestions on how the Bush administration could avoid those annoying War Crimes charges for doing so.
According to the articles I read, that led to a “spirited debate” among the Democratic and Republican members of the committee. Democrats finally conceded that it was unlikely that Leahy could muster enough votes to issue a subpoena but they intended to make sure the attempt got into the record.
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE???

There is NO excuse for Republican Senators to take their Constitutional duty so lightly. They are the check and the balance against someone becoming an “easy” dictator in this country. It not only puts their service to the public in doubt but makes it appear that their first loyalty is not to We, the People, but a crass individual who believes that torture is ok -- especially if he is the one ordering it. I believe that was one of his earlier excuses for invading Iraq; to take out a torturing dictator!

And torturing human beings for information puts the United States of America directly in line with the dictator they just ousted in Iraq, the dictators in Central and South American, of China, of Africa, of the world. That is not our country, that is not our Constitution.

No, this is not a power struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats. These individuals, just as George W. Bush does, represents the collective mindset of We, the People. And we don’t believe torture is the correct way to handle anything.

Since the Republicans hold a narrow Senate majority, they control this Committee. The Chairman, Orrin Hatch, plans to “talk” with Bush about trying to reach a compromise and obtain some of the information they need; however, when was the last time the Bush administration cooperated with any investigation?
•Cheney is still stalling the Energy crisis commission seeking records over who participated in secret meetings that eventually brought down the Democratic governor of California.

•Is there anyone unaware of the stonewalling over the release of the CIA agent’s name to “media” to get even with her whistleblowing husband?

•The 9/11 commission was required to question two of the most important witnesses, Cheney and Bush together, for a total of 2 hours!

Oh, yeah, we’re positive that Hatch will get all the cooperation he needs from Bush!

As serious scandal after scandal erupts from the Bush administration, I find myself longing for the good old days of Hillary bashing, coupled with a relentless pursuit of President Clinton’s sex life. At least the leaders of other countries could just snicker at our perceived prudishness at spending all that money and eight years investigating whether Clinton was an adulterer.

Now they are filing War Crimes charges against our Country. Now they are watching Bush, who called them names and insulted their integrity when he wanted to become a “war president”, come groveling for troops and money to sustain his occupation.

And they see photos of prisoners of war being tortured and humiliated in ways forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Like the citizens of Nazi Germany, We, the People are being judged for what is done by our government. And they are watching us, once again, drop the ball on the investigation.

JUNE 17, 2004

THE SORTING SYSTEM

As they used to say in the “old days”, before “media” supplanted snooping reporters determined to find what others wanted to stay hidden, THIS JUST IN.

Buried in the travel section was an article about the Transportation Security Administration (I didn’t know we had one!) which is becoming the arbitrator of your travel plans.

Since September 11, 2001, when four planes were hijacked and steered into the World Trade Center, air travel has been in chaos. Airlines have been driven into bankruptcy, most are in financial trouble, and Americans who can still afford to fly are systematically harassed beyond belief!

In the name of security we have endured lines requiring hours of waiting for a flight that would have been over by the time you reach your gate. Unclean hands (I have never seen one person changing those plastic gloves) paw through one traveler’s dirty laundry and then search through another’s clean, neatly pressed clothes. Do you ever wonder just what germs he/she has just deposited upon your garments obtained from another’s suitcase? And there’s some nasty stuff out there or he/she wouldn’t be wearing those gloves!

We are required to strip off our shoes, hand over our cell phones and other electronic paraphernalia, and stand, spread-eagle as they say, while a security guard waves a wand up and down over your body. Sometimes the search feels as intimate as time spent with your lover. But you had better not open your mouth to protest!

And in all those thousands of passengers, I have never seen or heard of one being taken away as a “terrorist”. I have friends abruptly relieved of their nail clippers, a finger nail file they had forgotten to remove and one poor lady, on a spur of the moment flight home to see an ailing parent, was parted from her favorite pair of embroidery scissors that she had forgotten to take out of her pocket.
Three years down the road from 9/11 and things have tightened up, not gotten looser. There were plans to use xray machines that would show you naked as you were forced to walk through them. A plan to put all Americans on a data base that determines if they could fly or not. (Look how well that worked in the Florida election “felon search”.)

So far, the only passengers removed from flights under this plan turned out to be a couple of nuns who protested the invasion of Iraq, and a few others on the “list” for peaceably assembling to protest the current policies of George W. Bush.

They still want that data base of We, the People, and they will bribe you to get it. Businesses who rely on air travel are complaining bitterly about the length of time the preflight security takes. Having their employees standing around an airport instead getting to the meeting and getting back to work isn’t cost effective. And we all know that the Bush administration is all for anything that will produce more profit for business.

So the TSA, as it is affectionately known as, has created what it considers a compromise. They will divide passengers into two groups, basically “the haves” and the “have nots.” The ones that “cooperate” by submitting to a background check, allow their fingerprints to be on file and give the government an iris scan, will be permitted to join a special line. After going through a security check as intense as the one for joining the CIA, they will receive their travel “papers” -- a registered card that allows them to jump the long line of common travelers and will put them in the preferred shorter one.

They will still have to go through the screening process, but in most cases, they won’t be forced to go through the second screening process where they remove shoes and spead-eagle for the wand. However, those very businesses this was supposed to help do not believe that the program will provide much relief. Garth Jopling, president of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives says, “Our members specifically support a system that get them out of the main line. Other than that, the guarantee of limited secondary screenings is the only other tangible benefit.”

So imagine what it is like for those of us who aren’t backed by huge corporations trying to travel today. Leisure travel is dead, no one can really afford to travel like they did pre-2000. Sometimes it is easier and more convenient to just drive, but now gas prices are so high that we can’t even do that. I have noticed an large increase of hitchhikers lately. Is that the wave of future travel in the United States? How does the government plan to regulate hitchhikers?

But I now know where all those other new Bush jobs he “created” are coming from. This new pilot program will be put in place at five major airports: Minneapolis-St. Paul, LAX, something called George Bush Intercontinental in Texas, Logan, and the former Dullus International airport now called Reagan Washington. Two companies have been hired; Unisys Corp. of Reston, VA has signed a $2.7 million dollar contract and REDS of Herndon, VA, received a $1.3 million dollar contract.

They think it can take the place of the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II program now being considered by Congress. This is the one requiring a background check every time you go see Grandma. All these tactics put in place by our government to “stop the terrorist” from using our airports have outraged the international travelers at the restraints put upon them.

There is talk of a boycott of the U. S. and already there are special “dispensations” for some countries. So, it is understandable that the faltering tourist industry would like a little less intrusive program for them. But how can registering all Americans provide security from all these international travelers? I don’t think they have thought that one through as yet.

According to this plan, it would not stop one terrorist from entering this country. It would not control one travel plan of theirs. In 2001 we had a list of known terrorists that were flitting in and out of this country at will. No one got into the United States unless they cleared Customs. That is a perfect place to put restraints on travel, even Americans coming back into the country from travel abroad.

Using police search methods on state to state travel won’t be producing any more terrorists than it has right this minute. You can’t get into an airport without an ID now. But, if you are the right person or group, you don’t need an ID anyhow.

When all air traffic was grounded after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, there was a wealthy elite group that not only didn’t have their airplanes shot down, but was allowed by our government to fly from place to place assembling special people so that they could be flown out of the country; among them the family of Osama bin Laden. While millions of us frantically searched for a rental car or slept in closed airports for a week, the same government who kept you from your home for “safety” reasons, allowed Saudi planes to fly out of the country.

It appears that We, the People are more of a threat to our government than the family of the man who orchestrated the September 11 attack with funds provided by the Saudis.

Amendment IV of our constitution still guarantees that every citizen has the right to be “secure in their homes, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....” Going to the airport for a flight should not rob us of those Constitutional guarantees. We, the People, are not the enemy. We, the People, do not need to be categorized. Our government failed to protect us from outsiders. We, the People, did not allow them in.

But it is We, the People who suffer the consequences. We, the People are the ones required to submit to a probing background search as if we wanted a secret government job instead of taking our kids to Disneyland. We, the People, are the ones who must submit our eyes to be scanned.

Shades of Nazi Germany! We now are required to carry “papers” to do anything in this country. Are they now planning to line us up and just have us meekly extend our arm for a microchip implant instead of a tattooed number? When, and where does this madness brought about by Bush’s inept leadership stop?

JUNE 15, 2004

GOT PROOF!

I have found the proof that George W. Bush will read anything they write for him. Republicans froth at the mouth every time the name Clinton is whispered. Doesn’t have to be Bill, they are even more apoplectic over Hillary, and yet an Associated Press article dated June 14, 2004 gives us this scenario! The world must surely be coming to an end.

During the unveiling of the official White House Clinton portraits, Bush was said to give “a forceful defense of Clinton’s presidency”. Listen to what he had to say:

“As a candidate for any office, whether it be the state attorney general or the president, Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need and the forward looking spirit that Americans like in a president.”

Did you ever expect to hear those words on the lips of a Republican?

Well, here’s more:

“Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer. Over eight years it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the president. He filled this House with energy and joy. He’s a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service.”

Wow! Considering that he accomplished all of this with just a couple of two week vacations while juggling investigations and court cases, that is quite an accomplishment. Didn’t the speech writers realized that the man delivering this speech was noted for being on vacation about half of the three years he’s been in Our White House? The only concession that Bush didn’t make was to confess what he did with Clinton’s three trillion dollar surplus.

It’s always good to see politicians put their foot in their mouth, and George W. Bush is great at that, but there is nothing more hilarious than seeing politicians polish their image by praising those they vilified a short time ago. George W. Bush isn’t so good at that.

So, did he believe it, or was he just reading a script? Makes you wonder about all those other things he’s read to us, doesn’t it?

JUNE 14, 2004

TO DRAFT OR NOT TO DRAFT

That is the question being whispered throughout the United States right now. There are still so many of us still living who have gone through the nightmare of war that we have no illusions of what George W. Bush has wrought. There are millions of us effected by the various wars we have lived through; those of us who have spent their entire lives living with the altered state of what those wars do to us.

And there are some of us who seem to have survived unscathed from the Conscription Law that no male between the years of 18 and 25 could avoid. Most of them have powerful government positions and one lives in Our White House. And not one of those responsible for the Iraq Invasion was required to face death at the hands of an “enemy” in service to his country.

An unease has rippled across this country as the Iraq Invasion is requiring more and more soldiers and money to control the occupation. We have felt this before. And the same men searching for those bodies to throw at our perceived “enemy” are the ones who scrambled so desperately for an excuse to avoid being one of the bodies in VietNam.

Government officials scoff at the idea that the dreaded draft will be re-instituted; however, they admit that they have denied retirements, extended reservist and national guard duty beyond their expiration dates, and rotate tired soldiers back into Iraq quickly.

Senator John Kerry calls this government method of “military service extensions” a “backdoor draft.” The “stop-loss” euphemism to delay retirements and preventing personnel from leaving the service when their time expires, is conscription. Once that barrier has been cross; a true draft is not so far behind.

Bush needs bodies. Those methods have added 30,000 troops to the number in Iraq. A new defense bill is expected to add 39,000 more. Where are these men coming from? According to military officials,

most of their recruiters are meeting their goals and yet other reports show that the National Guard recruitment is down by approximately 6,000.

Being “in the Guard” isn’t considered a “part time second job” that provided a little additional income, and mobilizes to meet the crisis of tornados, floods, hurricanes or fires, any longer. Recruiters, who are depending more and more upon high school students in need of any sort of a job, find these young men and women are reluctant to commit to service in the Guard after reading of the conditions and possibility of death in Iraq.

Today, the guard is composed of about 359,000 members. The Air National Guard that Bush chose to be a part of during the VietNam war, has about 107,000 members. Half of the Army’s National Guard are on alert or mobilized. Reginald Saville, a National Guard spokesman says, “We have gone from being a strategic reserve force to being an operation force.” And with that comes the loss of civilian life. No “weekend warriors” any more.

This is where George W. Bush chose to spend the VietNam War. This is where he was supposed to be serving when he skipped out and went AWOL.
But Bush didn’t even serve the weekends; he requested permission , and was denied, to spend his time campaigning for a friend of his father’s. He went anyway.

Those guard members in Iraq whose time has expired don’t have the luxury of just disregarding orders. They are there until George W. Bush, the “war president” who thought a political campaign more important than his oath of service to his country during another war, says they can come home.

Twice now, George W. Bush has announced that “the war” was over. Once aboard an aircraft carrier where he stood behind a banner supplied by his office which read, “Mission Accomplished” and now he says we are “turning over” Iraq to civilian authority at the end of this month. But he has no plans to bring any troops back; from all the information, it appears he plans to expand.

And that is why the whispers of the returning of the draft grow in number and are louder. Where will these men come from? The real “war on terror” is no longer being fought.

We have been dragged into an unwinnable occupation of a country which wants us gone. As we appoint government officials, they are assassinated. In spite of Bush’s feeble attempts to make amends with those countries he insulted; they still do not plan to participate in that war.

Two lawmakers have said that a military draft should be introduced. One, New York Rep. Charlie Rangel wants a comprehensive draft that would require mandatory service of all Americans - even the Bush daughters would not be allowed to evade the draft, as their father had done.

He points to the VietNam war being fought mostly by the poor and the minorities of this country, of the six Cheney deferments based on “I had other priorities”, of Bush, Jr. availing himself of his father’s influential friends to jump the waiting list to become a member of the Texas Air National Guard when his draft number would have sent him to VietNam. Who went in his place?

And all the government officials assure us that the rumors of a draft are not true. They have no plans to draft your son, or perhaps your daughter. But one thing this administration has taught us is that what is said today will be denied tomorrow.
And they can’t hold those National Guard men, those retired military in Iraq forever. And all those soldiers being killed daily in Iraq must be replaced by someone. Someone fresh and young. Someone inexperienced in war. Someone between the ages of 18 and 25 without influence to save them?

JUNE 13, 2004

WHO WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES?

Some of us seem to never suffer any consequences for our actions; no matter how heinous. Others of us seem to bear heavier consequences for slighter missteps. There seems to be no rhyme or reason why one particular person is held accountable while another committing the same offense is not.

Case in point: President Bill Clinton, considered by a large number of Americans as one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times committed offenses that neither harmed our country nor reduced our position in the world -- in fact, it is said that after George W. Bush had ruthlessly discarded treaty after treaty that the leaders of the world approached Clinton and ask if there was any way he could intercede.

Actually, depending upon your religious and/or moral beliefs, and comparing Clinton to some of the others, he was actually quite the saint! Look at the comparisons between the guy we have now and the one we did have. Republicans made much of Clinton’s “draft dodging”; however, during the VietNam war men were drafted according to a lottery involving their birthdates. Clinton, as well as many thousands of others, were never called to serve. Whether or not he would, or would not have, is a mute point.

But George W. Bush was said to have a number that would have swept him up in the draft and deposited him in VietNam. But this guy used his father’s wealthy friends to jump over the list of those waiting to get into the Texas Air National Guard and, despite really low test scores, was allowed to become a pilot. He certainly didn’t seem to appreciate his good fortune because he subsequently refused to take the necessary medical exam to be certified to fly and then went AWOL. Oh, and he put his “hell no, I won’t go” in black and white when he refused to volunteer for duty in VietNam.
Consequences:

Clinton: Eight years of being labeled as a draft dodger.
Bush: None.

Here’s another scenario. Clinton was welcomed into office with an al Qaida attack on the World Trade Center. He didn’t sit around whining that he had only been in office 76 days but created a task force that kept three other major attacks from happening. But no credit was given for that; they were too busy investigating the consensual adultery that more than a few Republican presidents also had engaged in.

But Bush, on his march to becoming a “war president” dismantled the terrorist task force Clinton created and then began an investigation into how Bush could invade other countries, torture its citizens, and still not be tried for War Crimes.
Consequences:

Clinton: The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on our financial district and the Pentagon was somehow “Clinton’s fault.”

Bush: Goofing off in an elementary school classroom while over 3,000 people were being incinerated was considered “leadership”.

Again, Clinton joined the United Nations in military action to try to stop the genocide occurring in the former Soviet Union. The operation was quick, smooth, and in and out. No American lives were lost.

On the other hand, Bush was determined to invade Iraq, his reasons were numerous and false. There were no WMDs, no danger to Americans, and yet he used the mandated State of the Union address to lie to the nation and scare uninformed citizens with the threat of being blown up by nuclear bombs. No one would sanction his war, he went it alone, bribing a few nations like Briton, Spain (whose people couldn’t wait to get their troops out of Iraq) and a few other small nations. Now his war is failing, and as more soldiers die, Bush is making the rounds with a semi-apology hoping to scare up some money and bodies from the same leaders he insulted.

Consequences:

Clinton: Was criticized for participating in the UN actions.
Bush: Was supported in his outrageous war to the point that elected legislators were talking about punishing those countries who refused to participate. No punishment for the man who made our 1950’s reputation as “ugly Americans” seem like praise.

And job focus. Clinton took a failing economy and breathed new life into it. He created millions of jobs, brought back middle class prosperity that had all but disappeared under the Reagan - Bush agenda, and left a legacy of three trillion dollars.

After loosing over 2 million jobs during his first three years, Bush now says he created 1.2 million. That still leaves us about a million jobs behind and we still don’t know what the jobs are, whose being hired, or where they might be located. The only thing we definitely know is that they are not coming to a city near you!

Everything from manufacturing to the service industry has taken a hit. Bush is actively pushing to outsource more jobs, creating more unemployed people who can’t find work. And a list of the top outsourcers, like Bechtel, shows contributions to the Republican party and Bush just shy of half a million dollars.

Consequences:

Clinton: Still being vilified for committing adultery.

Bush: No one even bothered to ask where the three trillion dollar surplus went. No one even bothers to ask why we still have the same number, approximately 10 -12 million, (depending on your source) of unemployed people month after month after month.

Why should President William Jefferson Clinton be held to higher standards than those set for George W. Bush? Why don’t we care? Why does it matter more who Clinton might, or might not have, had sex with than how many people are dead because of Bush’s lies?

Why is is more legally or morally wrong for Clinton to lie about having sex with “that woman” than for Bush to lie in a mandated State of the Union Speech about Iraq having nuclear weapons trained upon us?

Who are these guys who make these decisions for us? And why did they choose to crucify Clinton and not Bush? The sins are far from equal. In our judicial courts, adultery usually means the wife gets more money in the divorce settlement. Torture and murder is always considered a most serious offense. As serious as treason.

JUNE 11, 2004

POLLS ARE GETTING SCARIER

If you believe the “media”, it has taken We, the People a year, 2 months and 21 days to arrive at the conclusion that George W. Bush didn’t know what he was talking about when he told us that Iraq was coming to get us faster than al Qaida. That seems to be what the latest poll published in the Friday edition of the Times says. In a survey of 1,230 registered voters nationwide, 53% of those surveyed said that the situation in Iraq did not merit war.

Now, that was just over a year ago, rather recent history for the “media” to feel that they can replace actual memories with the “Stepford” version of what really happened. Without the need to consult any sources, I can recall the hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens waving their banners and raising their voices to indicate to the man who declared that, “if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” that we didn’t want his invasion.

I also remember that Bush left town every time We, the People tried to tell him through Peaceful Assembly that we didn’t want his invasion. And I remember the invention of a whole new interpretation of freedom of speech called “free speech zones”, where those of us who didn’t agree with his invasion were herded into inclosures miles from where he appeared, so that he was spared the necessity of seeing or hearing our displeasure.

And we had the support of the whole wide world. The United Nations rejected his pleas for approval to invade Iraq. He said their opinion was irrelevant. I’m sure it would have been a heck of a lot easier for Bush to invade, if he was the emperor of the world! But not having that title didn’t stop him either. He simply does what he wants and sets out to destroy those who would stop him.

He finally took his version of the truth before a joint session of Congress where he is compelled by the Constitution to give a report on the “State of the Union” and he used that to tell us lies about weapons of mass destruction and tried to frighten us into condoning his invasion. It may have taken this long for Congress to wake up from the nightmare of the Bush agenda, but far more than 53% of us weren’t fooled by his performance.

And with Iraq looking more like Dresden every day; the resistance to the invasion bolstered by devotees of that nemesis bin Laden that Bush was supposed to be pursuing; the unofficial casualty count stands today at 833 -- 949 if you included the duped coalition that aided his invasion, and almost 5,000 wounded and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians. The world and We, the People want to know why we are there. Surely, not to increase Haliburton’s profits! Surely not to take Iraq’s oil wells! Surely not just so Bush can look upon the destruction of a country and say, “I am a war president!” Surely not....

This poll says that less than 20% feel we should withdraw our troops within weeks. And to those other 80% we must ask: And why do you feel we must stay? What benefit will We, the People, or the world, gain from our staying? We have been there for almost a year and three months and the hospitals are underequipped and understaffed. Women, who once were free to hold jobs and walk the streets, are required to have chaperones when they go outside their doors.

The most secure site in Iraq are the oil fields, which are constantly bombarded by sabotage. Iraqi prisons, once containing victims of the oppressive Saddam Hussein that we invaded to “free”, are in the same prisions; only their captors have changed. The torture goes on at the hands of the United States Military. And the prisioners still die as they did under Hussein’s reign.

And one of the most appalling statistics to come from the poll is that 41% of these 1,230 American citizens found justification for Bush’s “handling of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal”. 41% of your friends, your neighbors, your relatives believe that George W. Bush’s justification for torturing unarmed prisoners of war was valid. Knowing what we know, that Bush sought a loophole to allow American troops to break the Geneva Conventions while protecting himself from War Crimes makes my blood run cold.

Have you ever read the excuses the “good” German people used to justify their allowing Hitler to do what he did in their name? Whatever the reason those 41% used to justify Bush’s “handling” of the “abuse scandal of Abu Ghraib”, you will find it among their defense for not protesting.

Think about that while you look around the people you know, who among those coworkers, friends, acquaintances are in that 41%, and who among that 41% who must believe that the ends justify the means would agree that “dictatorship...would be a heck of a lot easier” than the Democratic/Republic we now have.

A year ago We, the People were ignored when we said no war. Today We, the People are still being ignored. And our Legislative Branch of government is being ignored. When our Attorney General can tell Congress that he won’t turn over the memos researching ways of keeping George W. Bush from being charged with War Crimes simply because he doesn’t want to and gets away with it, is it already too late?

JUNE 10, 2004

DEFINING THE PARAMETERS OF TORTURE

I thought the issue had been settled at the Nuremberg Trials. I thought inhumane treatment was well defined. I thought my country was above all that. John Ashcroft has proved me wrong.

Yesterday Attorney General Ashcroft was called before Congress to explain the memos outlining various ways of keeping George W. Bush from being charged with War Crimes for the two wars he declared. Yesterday the Attorney General of the United States of America told our Legislative Branch of Government that he would not provide them with copies of the memos.

He said he was not claiming the euphemistic “executive privilege” nor the right of client/lawyer confidentiality, he just wasn’t going to give them to the Committee. This is what he said:

Sen. Ted Kennedy: “There are three memoranda, January 9, 2002, signed by John Yoo, the August 2002 Justice Department, the memo; and the March 2000, the inter-agency working group...will you provide those to the committee?
Att. Gen. Ashcroft: “No, I will not.”

Kennedy: “Under what basis? What’s the justification for not providing it?”
Ashcroft: “We believe that to provide this kind of information would impair the ability of advice-giving in the Executive branch to be candid, forthright, thorough, and accurate at all times.”

Kennedy: “We’ve been looking to about where the president -- because we know, when we have these kinds of orders, what happens (showing photos of torture at Abu Gharib) ...This is what happens when you have that kind of memoranda out there.” ... “General has the president authorized you to invoke the executive privilege today on these documents?

Ashcroft: “....I have not invoked the executive privilege today. I have explained to you why I’m not turning over the documents.” Kennedy: “Well, what are you invoking then?”

Ashcroft: “I have not invoked anything.”

Changing questioners to Senator Joe Biden, “Well, General, that means you may be in contempt of Congress then. You got to have a reason not to answer our questions, as you know from you sitting up here...but, you know, you have to have a reason. You are not allowed, under our Constitution, not to answer our questions. And that ain’t -- that ain’t constitutional.”

Correct, the Executive branch is the titular head of the military but has no military qualifications beyond the designation “commander-in-chief”. The main duties outlined in the Constitution are the power to make treaties with foreign nations, appoint Ambassadors, and other public Ministers and Counsels, Judges to the Supreme Court.

Essentially, his is a caretaker role, almost like an ambassador representing the United States. Every power granted to the president has an equal oversight power granted to the legislative branch of our government. Just about everything he does has to be agreed upon by our legislative branch. He does not have any right of refusal to include the Congress or the Senate. He is even required to make a report to the two Legislative houses; specified in the Constitution as the State of the Union address.

As far as Ashcroft’s “ain’t gonna let you have it” attitude, he has no right to do so.

Naturally, this stinks of another cover up by the Bush administration.
How long had George W. Bush been planning to redefine the rules of the Geneva Convention to suit his own desires?

We know that the invasion plan of Iraq was already solidified before Bush ever hit Our White House. We know this because the documents exist. We also know that those documents contained the idea that a “Pearl Harbor” type of event would be necessary for We, the People to be duped into supporting that invasion. That was provided on September 11, 2001.

The report of the investigation of that event deliberately ignored any mention of culpability by the Bush administration, placing the blame squarely on the FBI and the CIA. However, so many coincidences conspired to culminate in that disaster, that fixing the blame on FBI and CIA intelligence does not equate with the magnitude and numerous simultaneous events that transpired to allow that event to happen. Both agencies had employees frantically trying to get someone’s attention yet their superiors ignored their information.

That failure came from the highest levels of government where no heads rolled. Bush, obsessed with invading Iraq, dismantled the Clinton anti terrorist structure and never bothered to put anything in its place. His National Security Advisor, Condolezza Rice, simply couldn’t remember anything important about a PDB which essentially spelled out that the terrorists were coming.

And the 9/11 committee delicately dance around the issue of why, during a period when all civilian aircraft was grounded, special presidential permission was given to one, and only one , country to fly citizens (among them the al Qaida leader’s family) out of the United States. But permission to return was denied to our ex presidents and vice presidents and present members of the Senator and Congress; even though the power to respond to these attacks was not only the business of Congress, but their specific duty.

What was he thinking????

And, at the same time Bush was creating the structure to disassemble our Constitutional guarantees under the Bill of Right, he had the Justice Department busy trying to find loopholes to keep himself from being tried for War Crimes!! All this in 233 days, according to Condoleeza Rice.

What do you suppose he has planned for our future? The Justice Department, in the form of the present administration’s appointees, and some Republicans like Senator John Kyle of Arizona, believes that a “wartime” president is not bound by anti-torture principles. And they argue that the release of the memos might lead to misinterpretation about U. S. policy regarding torture, that it is not useful to provide a blueprint on how we go about interrogating them.

I’m sure Gestapo officers felt the same way about the prisoners in the basement of their headquarters. I’m sure Hitler felt that his “Jewish solution” was simply misinterpreted. After all, Hitler was overwhelmed by the opposition against his making the world a better, Aryan, place. As you can see, it is not in the words that men say but in the actions that men take. Therein lies the Truth.

JUNE 9, 2004

LEGACIES

Now that Republicans have built a Wall of Fiction around the presidency of Ronald Reagan perhaps Democrats will find the courage to speak the Truth about the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

The worse Republican leaders are; the more Republicans rally to their defense. There was significant reason to believe that Reagan and his administration committed treason against We, the People upon at least two occasions. He was forced to give testimony under oath regarding his role in the Iran-Contra debacle. If you saw the testimony, or simply read the transcript, you will realize that Reagan was no “great communicator” - he could barely communicate at all.

Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, could multitask a plethora of problems and still had time to defend himself against a Republican personal assault a panzer division would be proud of. And he did it all while supporting United Nations intervention into genocidal nations after the fall of Communism - and without one military death!

But no credit there, thank you, we’ll just rewrite Reagan’s history of bombing Kadafe and taking out Embassy Row. Or pretend that El Salvadorian government Death Squads didn’t come into our country and assassinate groups, receiving political asylum, in the streets where we walk. And got away with it just like ben Laden!! By the way, if that didn’t qualify as a terrorist attack, nothing does!

Remember Democrats, Clinton was in office 76 days when the first terrorist strike at the World Trade Center happened. Also remember that the cell had been caught on an FBI surveillance tape planning the attack. Our problems with “intelligence data” began long before Clinton was president. In fact, you can trace that terrorist cell’s operation back through the first Bush administration. But, mired in a plan to force him to fight a civil lawsuit, Clinton still managed to create a terrorist task force and stop three al Qaida plans to bomb the tunnels, subways and bridges of New York.

Ironic, isn’t it, that seven months after Clinton left office, al Qaida succeeded once more, after Bush had dismantled Clinton’s terrorist task force. More ironic, the Clinton Administration had warned Bush.

Republicans supported the gutting of the American economy in the 1980’s, just as they supported the gutting of the California economy during Reagan’s governorship. They praise his “trickle down” policy, popularly known as the “trickle-on theory” (which George W. Bush has copied) to feed the insatiable lobbyists and capitalists that roamed freely devouring We, the People.

But an outbreak of mass Republican apoplexy ensued when Clinton not only managed to whisk the “we stand for small government” mantel from them by cutting government, balancing budgets and creating a surplus of three TRILLION dollars that Republican Bush got rid of during his first six months in office.

And while they shrieked “moral turpitude” at Clinton, they conveniently forgot that their own Paragon, Reagan had more than his share of “turpitude”. He might have relied on “mommie” in his later years, but Reagan’s wild oats were associated with everything from pressuring one of his paramour to have an illegal abortion, to near abandonment of his two children by his first wife, to selling out his colleagues to the McCarthy Committee’s Communist witch hunt.

So why did Republicans have such as problem with Clinton? It certainly couldn’t be his morality. Reagan and the present Bush have problems of morality that go beyond anything we know of Clinton.

I have a theory that it must be because Clinton shared a vision with John Kennedy that he could somehow make a difference in the lives or ordinary people.

A little metaphor at this point. All of Clinton’ eight years was directed at pumping the bilge from the Ship of State and setting it back on course. The mutiny of 2000 is once again steering us toward the rocks of disaster.

Never a Clinton fan, I do not consider myself wrong to have not voted for him; but I am not so blinded that I can not see what has gone wrong with this country. And, if Democrats do not quit their internal squabbles and passivity and start to fight back, this Ship of State is going to go down without a struggle.

No doubt. They share the blame for allowing the Republican party, and their mediocre presidents, to bring our prosperous country down, but to continue to allow it through timidity and fear of baseless accusations must be their entire responsibility. Our Constitution guarantees them the power to stop all of this.
Yesterday I heard the absurd statement from a news announcer’s mouth that the executive branch holds the power in this country. READ YOUR CONSTITUTION! ONLY IF OUR LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ALLOWS ITS POWER TO BE SEIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. And so far, both political parties have allowed exactly what our Founding Fathers tried to prevent.

The Constitution is a powerful document, but one thing I’ve learned from Republicans over the decades since Nixon and Reagan, it’s power lies in those willing to enforce it. It is daily slipping away from us, not by outside attack, but from the neglect of those who ask us to be allowed to uphold it. Republicans and Democrats alike.

This..., for a lack of a better word, myth of Ronald Reagan’s “great presidency” must not be allowed to stand. He does not deserve the label, he does not deserve the accolades. You might as well honor Benedict Arnold for his treachery. After he left office, scholars ranking of all our presidents put him just above Ulysses S. Grant, considered the worst president ever to serve. Why are Republicans now trying to place him above John Kennedy, FDR? Nothing has changed, except the incessant drumming by Republicans to drown out the Truth. “Great” is simply another Republican hallucination!

JUNE 8,2004

Republicans are very good at two things; one, seeing only what they want to see, and two, trying to force you to see things the same way they do. Unfortunately, truth is not a part of the equation and often gets trampled by the Elephant Party on it’s way to pyric victory.

With the death of former President Ronald Reagan we see the creation of an individual who never existed; just as we did after Richard Nixon’s death. There was barely a mention of Nixon’s disgraced resignation, let alone the crimes he had committed against We, the People and our Constitution. Thus it is with Ronald Reagan’s four year occupancy.

No, that isn’t a mistake. The other four years Reagan was present in body but absent in mind. We, the People, have no idea who was running the country for those last four years; although it was common knowledge that during that time a power struggle ensued between Nancy Reagan and White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan, who had assumed control.

Mrs. Reagan won and the Chief of Staff was dispatched but who was in charge then? Rumor said it was Nancy Reagan who “helped Ronnie” with the remainder of his second term that a responsible Republican party would never have allowed. But obviously being in power is more important than competency. The Reagan years, from start to finish, was another shameful blot upon history. It began with him asking Iran to hold on to the hostages taken during the Carter administration until after the election to enhance his chances of winning. He is the perpetrator of the notorious arms for hostages deal which did bring about an investigation where he testified, probably truthfully, that he didn’t remember anything. Oliver North’s “black ops” incursion into the South American drug culture occurred under his watch, precipitating another investigation that produced little information and few convictions. This little project was “outed” by the crash of a CIA plane shot down over Nicaragua where one of the crew, Eugene Hossenfus, inconveniently survived.

That should have been enough to bring any administration down. After all, the same Republican party tried to have President Clinton removed for a consensual adulterous affair. Your would think such moral prudes would be a little more outraged by the Reagan Administration’s blatant disregard for human life! But no, that was ok.

The Republican party; who steadfastly looked the other way while Regan supplied the same Saddam Hussein with the same weapons they accused him of having in 2003; allowed the Reagan Administration to provide the means to kill all those Iraqis and Iranians that George W. Bush was so upset about last year. What we all should be demanding is why George W. Bush wasn’t aware that Reagan had provided the weapons and assistance to complete the job.

Then there is the myth of him giving a speech which persuaded a Russian leader to “tear down this wall”. Considering that he had made such huge blunders as giving an account of his military service during World War II which was actually a movie script he had acted in; and most of the world was asking what was wrong with the American president; I doubt Mikhail Gorbachov was so frightened he decided to do what Reagan said!

The unrest in the Soviet Empire wasn’t the result of Reagan’s leadership. It was an internal struggle going on, just as we have today. Jobs were scarce, food prices beyond the ordinary citizen’s means. Revolution was staring the Soviet Union in the face and Gorbachov was smart enough to know it. He did the right thing even though the seeds of Communism are beginning to stir again. For that decision, he was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and Republicans have pouted ever since believing that one comment by a speechwriter brought down the might Soviet Union.

What they should be heeding is the ignorance of the rulers who brought about the conditions for it’s fall. After all, under George W. Bush, we are rapidly following in their footsteps!

Another well established Republican myth about the “Great Communicator” (another oxymoron) is that he was good for the economy. Again, living through the experience, like the Great Depression, is the best history lesson. It is hard to not remember those things which changed or destroyed your life. There are millions of Americans, baby boomers, who were struggling to survive Nixon’s double digit inflation that somehow became Carter’s fault. And there are multiple millions still alive who were the recipients of Ronald Reagan’s economy.

Starting with his election, he systematically began disposing of any laws that put controls on business. First to go were the environmental laws which required companies to clean up their own “privies”.

Next, he specifically told Clarence Thomas, now a Supreme Court justice, to stop processing discrimination claims and to let them expire. They had the memo. Minorities, sex discrimination, age discrimination, those cases all sat there until they expired. And the man who broke the law was rewarded with a seat in the highest court of our land.

With Reagan in power, anything business did was great. The 1980’s became known as the Years of the Corporate Raiders. They looted business after business, stealing assets and pension funds of the employees and they got away with it.

It was like the Prohibition Era where the mobs ruled. There was no redress through the courts or the government. Millions of former middle class citizens became homeless. When told it was their fault they weren’t working, that the jobs were out west; millions of former auto company town employees moved west in a search for those jobs that never were. They ended up far from their roots, homeless, broke and defeated. They watched the last of their lives being bulldozed from parks and riverbanks in an effort to get rid of the “homeless problem” while their children stood crying by their side. I KNOW THIS, I SAW IT HAPPEN. And while Ronald Reagan continued to support the looting of companies by these corporate raiders, and never once provided for those former taxpayers in direst need. And try as they might to let those “tear down this wall” words epitomize Ronald Reagan’s term in office, the words I hear are addressed to hungry children when justifying what he has done, but Republicans never quote: condiments, like ketchup and mustard, “are vegetables”.

It is a sad legacy Ronald Reagan has left. He did not better our country; he helped to bring about a partial destruction of our middle class, he drove the first wedge into our lucrative airline industry by firing all air traffic controllers, he removed all constraints from business now culminating culminating in government protection of companies like ENRON and outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries to provide obscene profits for a few, and he refusal to protect our environment with his assumption that “trees pollute”.

We see this legacy in what is happening today as George W. Bush continues to relentlessly pursue the same tactics of the Republicans who came before him. It seems the Republican goal is to obliterate the eight Clinton years; to push us back down to the Reagan-Bush era. Clinton held back the decline, but it took all of his strength to do so. With the 2000 elections, the Democratic party seemed to capitulate and surrender to the Republican agenda. With Bush’s certainty that he alone has the right to torture prisoners, our reputation among the leaders of the world is gone.

This is Reagan's true place in history but it will not be mentioned. It will be revised, edited, until it bears no semblance to what really happened during those eight years he was entrusted with our welfare. A history revised; Truth obliterated by the stroke of a pen.

JUNE 7, 2004

ADMIRING THE LIE

Arnold Schwarzenegger, replacement for Governor Gray Davis in one of the strangest recall elections of all time, (California court ruled that precincts in poor, minority, neighborhoods did not need to open so that registered voters could cast their ballot in the recall election.), says in an interview that Ronald Reagan is “a hero and an inspiration.”

So the former president responsible for Arms for Hostages, Iran-Contra, and the corporate raiding phenomenon that devastated the American economy during the 80’s; joins the ranks of Kurt Waldheim, the Nazi officer responsible for the deaths of Greek Jews during World War II, as someone Schwarzenegger admires and/or wants to emulate.

Since Schwarzenegger also professed to love Kurt Waldheim and lament his being barred from entering the United States to attend his wedding and even went so far as to jeopardize his newly acquired citizenship to campaign for Waldheim’s election in Austria; thereby violating his oath of citizenship to the United States; his poor judgment of “heroes” demands closer inspection.

Leaving aside the obvious monumental problem of “loving” a Nazi killer of Jews, just concentrate on what he said about his “inspiration” Ronald Reagan’s term as governor of California. He says that it was a “blueprint for success”, and continues, “Many people forget what a tremendous force Ronald Reagan was for California as our governor.”

That is a double edged sword, that one, because they don’t. They remember his governorship every time one of their children goes off to college; they remember that before Reagan California was noted for it’s progressive schools and free colleges for all who wanted to attend. After Reagan California is noted for having some of the worst schools in the nation, and a college education is astronomical.
Every time they look at the “pink elephant” Ronald Reagan had built because the Governor’s mansion wasn’t good enough his wife Nancy, they remember the enormous expense incurred by the state and that those governors who came after Reagan refused to live in it.

Reagan devastated California financially and it has never recovered from the debacle of Reagan’s governorship. As much as I hate to say it, Democratic governors continued to pull California from the abyss only to be plunged back by other Republican governors. All you need is a little research to see the results of the different administrations, and you don’t need those ENRON tapes just released to know that Gray Davis was set up by Ken Lay’s company. (What was that secret meeting between ENRON and Schwarzenegger about?)

Schwarzenegger and Reagan did both have a sort of acting career. Does Schwarzenegger also “admire” the way that Ronald Reagan sold out his fellow actors to the McCarthy Witch Hunt during the 1950’s? Does he think all those blacklisted artists whose names Reagan turned over deserved their fate? But then, when you profess admiration for a Nazi killer of Jews of what consequence are a few careers? Certainly makes his credibility an issue, doesn’t it?

Fortunately, his political ambitions are stopped at the governorship in California. It will be up to California to control him and, hopefully, the rest of us can avoid the state ‘til he is gone! We, the People are protected by our Constitution that prohibits anyone but natural born citizens from becoming president.

There is a rumor that he plans to get rid of that little obstacle; but changing the Constitution isn’t easy. There have only been 26 amendments to our Constitution and not one has tampered with the basic structure ratified by the founders. If someone as insignificant as Arnold Schwarzenegger, lover of Nazis and inspired by a president tarnished by accusations of treason, does become president, then We, the People, will know that our country and what it stands for is definitely dead.

JUNE 6, 2004

HAVE YOUR HEARD.....

George W. Bush continues to crow about his “good” economy...BUT he seems to need to employ new statisticians or else exert more control over which articles are released when. Two days before the latest “good” economic news proclaiming unprecedented jobs growth (in spite of the fact that no new jobs have surfaced on any of the help wanted sites) of 284,000 jobs in May, an article in the business section proclaims that U.S. employers will cut 73,369 jobs for the second straight month. Both of these proclamations took place in May. One was used to show a “strong Bush economy” associated with hiring employees, one was associated with cutting jobs to increase business profits.

Now I know Bush is the only person ever to inhabit Our White House claiming to have an MBA but, even with his admission of having a fuzzy grasp of math, addition and subtraction should suffice. If you say you have 284,000 additional jobs in May but 73,369 no longer exist; a net deduction shows a gain of only 174,632 jobs. But is this real? Since unemployment has stayed the same, roughly 5.6% by the government’s figures, one must ask: Who is getting these jobs and what jobs are they? Do they really exist at all? Every time Bush gives a campaign speech telling gullible Americans that the jobs are out there, something pops up that discredits his statements; however, the “media” just can’t seem to put two and two either! Hey, guys, get your facts straight!

And just in case you did buy Bush’s service economy as a way out of our jobless “recession” here is more good news. The job you were looking for in retail won’t be there. Supermarkets are going to a scan it, bag it, give-a-machine-the-money-and-hope-you-get-back-the-right-change automated system.

When businesses began “downsizing” the first thing to go was the price sticker. Customers were promised that the prices would remain on the items so they would know exactly how much it cost. Try to find that now. Half the time those little plastic stickers attached to the shelf don’t contain the same prices that the computer rings up. Try getting that corrected by a machine. It will be like trying to speak to someone on an automated answering machine or finding a live person on voice mail!!!

But the real cost to We, the People, is jobs lost. All those unemployed clerks who check you out are passé. And so all those jobs in the “service industry” that Bush told you to “retrain” for won’t be there by the time you’re training is finished. Just remember, every time you take the shorter line (always the automated one because Business has downsized the number of employees checking you out) that you are putting another person out of work in an economy where there aren’t any “new” jobs to be had. And that person could be your teenage child, your spouse, your father or mother.

AND THE STATISTICS ARE....

It doesn’t take much economic “news” to make you realize that someone is playing games with our lives. Articles report that 900,000 new jobs were created so far this year. Nearly 3 out of 4 were created in the last two months; however, averaging the statistics says that 112,500 “new” jobs were created for each month of 2004. Now the economic news reports that job growth is “unexpectedly large” in May BUT says nothing about the number of JOB CUTS also rising for the second straight month.

Therefore, taking the average number of jobs per month (the only data we have) and subtracting all those lost jobs we have:

112,500 estimated “new” jobs

- 73,368 estimated eliminated jobs
________
39,131
Uh, oh!
Doesn’t look as impressive, does it?

JUNE 4, 2004

WHAT DOES IT TAKE?

Bush went Rome today. He visited with the pope. He met with the Italian leaders. And in the streets at least one half million Italians assembled to tell him what they think of him. On this, the 60th anniversary of the D Day. Doesn’t this tell you how much the world despised the Bush agenda?

In March, the people of Spain repudiated Bush and his war by voting out their leader who had joined his coalition and brought their men home. Bush said it was the influence of an al Qaida bombing before the election, refusing to acknowledge the millions of Spanish citizens who had protested joining Bush’s war from the beginning.

In England, during a state visit, Bush’s wife remarked that they saw few protesters, ignoring the fact that Bush was sheltered from the largest demonstration in British history and never even went near the clogged streets where the people assembled to tell him how they hated his war.

The Australian Parliament booed and hissed Bush’s speech and some chose to walk out. How can Bush pretend that these things never happened? How can he pretend he has the support of the world for his invasion of Iraq? How can he go begging to the United Nations for troops and money when he told them they were irrelevant? How can he go to France and pretend that he had not called them traitors for not participating in his personal war?

There are many sharp thorns among Bush’s rosy speeches. And every time he gives us his version of events, We, the People end up bleeding from those thorns. And, now that he fears he will be held accountable for the state of our country, our loss of honor among the civilized nations of our world, he gives us his view of what he has done for our country, trying to hide the poisonous thorns of what he has done to our country.

Put aside the international damage done by Bush to our good name and our honor; just consider what he has done to We, the People. He sees a country rich with profit, lower taxes, and a people willing to bow to his every whim.
We see a country full of desperate people seeking some sort of job that will feed their families and provide for their shelter. We don’t see tax cuts of seven to ten percent from our meager incomes. The thorns of low wages, no health care, hungry children scrounging backpacks of food from their schools to take home for long hungry weekends, dominate our existence.

We see our prime accomplishment of education for all, regardless of social status, disappearing as states squeeze more and more money from their budgets by cutting programs and school days; leaving those same hungry children to forage where they must for sustenance.

We see young men at the prime of their careers yanked from jobs and lives to be sent to a foreign invasion to satisfy the needs of corporations for more oil profits. As their lives crumble because of absence, the lack of income, their being maimed or killed in far off Iraq, profits rise for these companies that give generously to the Bush campaign that has now accumulated over $200,000,000 to defeat a presidential candidate they say can not win.

The thorn in that rosy $200,000,000 is covered with the blood of 628 lives. And George W. Bush has deemed it a worthy sacrifice. He plans for you to sacrifice more, both on the sands of Iraq and from your family.

But there are no sacrifices from the corporations that are rolling in their Iraq profits, their outsourcing of jobs, of George W. Bush who has spent almost half of his 3 1/2 year appointment as “president” vacationing. That sacrifice is required of you so that their lives of privilege can go on.

Bush does not see you, nor offer a helping hand, as you wrest your way through the thorns of the world of roses where he lives. He sees himself as a mighty “war president” never seeming to realize that with war, real people die. But, in the words of his mother, Barbara Bush:

“But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it’s gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose...So, WHY SHOULD I WASTE MY BEAUTIFUL MIND ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT.’

“Something like THAT” is the BODY of your child, your spouse, your loved one in that bag. Most of us are taught compassion by our mothers. No wonder George W. Bush shows no compassion for the lives he has taken; whether they are Iraqi children and their mothers, or the life of one of your own. No wonder our country is bleeding so profusely while he sees only roses. We simply don’t exist in his “beautiful mind.”

JUNE 3, 2004

A FAR DIFFERENT DESTINY

George W. Bush, who enjoys playing “commander-in-chief”, told the Air Force Academy graduation class of 2004 that the Iraq invasion was like World War II. Bush hates having his Iraq Invasion compared to VietNam and I assume the spin doctors on his staff are trying to wrap the mantle of that heroic epic around the debacle of the Iraq Invasion.

To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentson’s words to Vice President Dan Quale during a 1988 campaign debate after Quale had compared himself to John F. Kennedy;

Sorry, Mr. Bush. Your are no FDR, no Harry Truman. And Iraq is not World War II.

The sacrifices made by America’s 16,112,566 soldiers; ordinary citizens who mostly volunteered or were drafted, should not be compared with the sacrifices that you are requiring of our soldiers in Iraq.

It is true that both armies were ill equipped and poorly fed; but the reasons why are so very different. In World War II, we hadn’t even emerged from a devastating depression when we sent our soldiers off to combat. Bush inherited a good economy and a three trillion dollar surplus and still sent soldiers into battle without the necessary equipment.

In World War II, our army was divided into two forces, one in the Pacific, one in the German Theater. We fought alongside allies committed to remaining free from German rule. In Iraq, we ignored the wisdom of the nations of the world to go it alone except for one major ally. And now you beg the same countries you sneered at for soldiers and money.

Ordinary citizens fought and died everywhere throughout the world; on the beaches of Iwo Jima, Normandy. There were horrendous casualties in Normandy, Bastogne, Omaha Beach, Guadalcanal, too many to name....

The heroism of those who held the line at Bastogne, or deployed from tiny boats into the exploding beaches of Pacific islands, should not be compared with military intelligence and the guards who tortured prisoners of war in Abu Gharib; violating the same Geneva Accords that those World War II soldiers were counting on to keep them safe.

On this, the 60th anniversary of that other “war to end all wars” it is shameful to compare the defense of our country against the tyrant Hitler and his desire to purify the “master race” by killing 12,000,000 people with Bush’s insatiable desire to invade Iraq no matter what the price in blood.

This war of Bush’s defines no clear purpose. The first objective was to secure the oil fields, to get them up and running; not to provide food and medical assistance to the citizens known as “collateral damage”. He brought us into this war with lies yet to be refuted by those elected representatives who condoned it. Now he says it is for “Iraqi freedom” from a tyrant; and yet we have replaced the tyrant in the minds of Iraqis. Even the Germans and Japanese saw us as benign invaders who fed a conquered people.

Bush has taken our nation to war ill prepared and without reason. He arbitrarily extends military service in Iraq with a “stop -loss” program that literally holds our soldiers in bondage to him until he decides to let them go. These soldiers who volunteered to serve in the National Guard in times of national crisis can not go home until Bush decides the war has been won.

In VietNam we had a perpetual revolving door of soldier-bodies coming in and out of that country. The cost of war in dollars and human lives constantly rose. For sixteen years, we committed ourselves to an unwinnable war. It wrecked a booming economy and ended up taking the lives of almost 60,000 of our young men; mostly poor and black.

Perhaps that is why George W. Bush sees no consequences for his actions. Perhaps that is why he hates the comparison with Viet Nam.

That was his generation’s war and he chose not to go. From the information we have regarding his draft status; had he been poor or black; his destiny would have been in the jungles of VietNam but, because of the influence of his father’s friends and his own refusal to volunteer he never saw one of those 60,000 men die. Maybe if he had, he would he would feel differently about sending men to die.
Maybe he would see the difference between his whimsical war to provide oil wells for his CEO friends and World War II that liberated the conquered nations of our world. And maybe, if those World War II veterans were still young men, he wouldn’t have dared.

No, Mr. Bush, Iraq is not World War II, but it is giving every indication of being your VietNam.

JUNE 2, 2004

ARE WE THERE YET?

We’re like children huddled in the backseat during a looonng car trip. We really don’t know where we’re going, or why we’re going, but it sure is taking a lot of time to get there, and in the meantime, we’re uncomfortable and we need a pit stop! That’s what We, the People have been through the past three and one-half years while George W. Bush was in the driver’s seat.

Over and over we hear that we’re getting there, that we are enjoying the trip, that we really like the ride, but frankly, we think Dubya is lost. And we don’t think he even brought a map.

Since he did such a good job congratulating himself on his “success” in Iraq, let’s start there. I’m not even sure Bush believes that one. He keeps making timid forays into United Nations territory and is trying to make amends with “old Europe” who didn’t properly come to is aid when he wanted to invade Iraq. He wants bodies and money from the world to help him keep Iraq under control. He hasn’t come so far as to agree to share his control; just the load.

And he had the audacity to hold up the Iraq invasion as an example of the kind of “sacrifice” that We, the People, should be proud of; forgetting the symbols of sacrifice represented by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers where he laid that wreath. The wars those unknown soldiers represented were wars of Honor; there is no honor at what has been done in Iraq. We secured the oil wells first and lost the country’s treasures. We don’t even observe the Geneva Conventions and condone torture of its citizens.

Sending our soldiers to die in an invasion where the commander-in-chief orders War Crimes culpability researched dishonors our soldiers, living and dead, in the eyes of the world.

And just which road has he taken to drive the economy into a brick wall. At every campaign stop, he tells the unemployed that they are ok. He says the jobs are coming, that everything is great. But the reality is there are no jobs to be had. He boasts of returning 708,000 jobs (most seem to be in the production of war materials) and then ignores the 408,392 job cuts for the first 5 months of 2004. He extolls the virtues of letting American companies fire employees and hire workers in India or China for their jobs; in fact he outsources his own election campaign. And American companies, untaxed on foreign revenue created through tax loopholes, will be outsourcing more thousands and thousands of jobs now being held by you, your families and your friends.

And how is Bush going to keep gas in that economic vehicle to keep us driving blindly to that unknown destination. Whose going to pay for it? American workers, no raises, salaries reduced, no income, have already stretched their earnings as much as they can. Chain store sales declined in May; at the start of summer, with parents needing to replace children’s outgrown summer clothes and shoes.

The International Council of Shopping Centers and UBS says that increasing gas prices, war, the current “geopolitical environment” is on the minds of customers. It would be, with more and more of discretionary income going to purchase necessities like food and shelter, there is little left for the “niceties” of a civilization in survival mode.

And Bush, hands on the wheel, is blithely knocking down everything he sees; a little reduction in medicare here, a few environmental rules there, speeding through a school zone -- oops, another school gone.

There are signs that We, the People are getting cranky. Some are demanding that Bush pay more attention to the road and our destination, some are demanding that he just get off the road; and some have begun to wrest control from him.
In Sioux Falls, South Dakota they have had enough. They elected a Democrat to their one House seat. In Kentucky, voters chose a Democratic candidate in a special election. Republicans refute the idea that there is growing discontent among voters that could give Democrats control. But the Democratic party needs only 11 more seats to take away Republican control. There will be 228 Republicans and 206 Democrats in the House of Representatives when the South Dakota representative is sworn in.

In five short months, We, the People, will have to decide who is going to steer this country for the next four years. George W. Bush took control of our country without ever having learned to drive and you see where it has taken us; careening from ditch to ditch and never arriving anywhere. If you don’t want to end up stuck in that back seat forever, you had better wake up and either take back control or at least learn to steer, or we’ll be forever asking, “Are we there yet?”

JUNE 1, 2004

THE DAY AFTER

Yesterday George W. Bush marked our tribute to our veterans, who died in wars that our leaders chose to engage in, by telling us that “America is safer” because he invaded Iraq. He also says that, “Through history, America has gone to war reluctantly” and forgets that he eagerly chose to pursue an invasion of a country against the advice of the United Nations and world opinion.

Yesterday, as George W. Bush finished his Memorial Day speeches about his war, two more Americans soldiers had joined the count of the dead. He chose to single out a few soldiers who had died in Iraq to emphasize his view, “Because of their fierce courage, America is safer, two terror regimes are gone forever and more than 50 million souls now live in freedom.” he concluded, again ignoring that our 814 lost lives had bought an Iraqi “free government” that seems to change daily at the whim of the conquering nation - US.

And the Iraqi people do not see themselves as free. The cost, to them, of removing the dictator Saddam Hussein, is also measured by the lives lost; uncounted civilian lives said to number between 9,000 and 10,000. These are women and children, collateral damage in a war; but just as dead as the men who shoot at each other.

And while George W. Bush was trumpeting his “victory’ in Iraq among those many dead from two world wars; his chief rival, Senator John Kerry walked silently among the names of the dead from the war his generation fought and died in. “So young....” he was heard to say.

But the grief for those who died in wars created by others is not just felt one day a year. It is lived daily, through the years. You see it in the face of a woman who never knew her father; making a journey to a Vietnamese site where they say he died; to finally know how the father she never knew had died.

You see it in the faces of veterans now old, tearful and tenderly touching the names of friends they once knew that are now nothing but a memory. You see it in the faces of elderly parents who made their pilgrimage to that Wall to witness the carving that represents their son, their daughter.

And George W. Bush’s war produces the same results. Bush has never looked an enemy in the eye and seen his own mortality in the eyes looking back at him. But with every campaign speech he has chosen to judge those who have. Al Gore. John McCain. John Kerry. Your son or daughter? As John Kerry observed in a speech in Portsmouth, Virginia, Bush “didn’t learn the lessons of our generation in Vietnam.” Perhaps because he wasn’t there.Has George W. Bush ever visited the Wall? Does he have friends listed there? What does he feel when he sees the list of those who died? Does he regret his decision to decline to serve in Viet Nam; a decision that most of those listed on that Wall never had a choice to make? Has he ever watched the reverent silence of those who pay homage at the Wall? There you will find the patriotism of America. There you will find honor for those sent to die.

There are no names carved upon a wall for those now dying in Iraq. We do not know what their number will be. We only know that they will continue; and we know that it is not a proud legacy for any president to acquire.

MAY 31, 2003

A MEMORIAL FOR OUR NEWLY DEAD

If you want to visit the aftermath of war; go to The Wall in Washington, D. C. Stark and darkly beautiful, it contains no likenesses, no tributes to fallen leaders; it is simply a list of the dead etched in black granite.

It records for all time the names of the young lives lost in a far away country for a political decision they had nothing to do with. And the bitter truth is that today, without ever winning that war, our country seeks out this nation to conduct the business of making money; as if those young men had never gone there to die.

And the people of this country we fought so hard to gain control of continue with the lives they had led before we came and continued to lead after we were gone. What if every name on that wall had not gone to war? What if they still lived? What greatness did they have to contribute to our nation, lost forever by their death.

The administrations of the Bush Regime, father and son, have contributed to a legacy of death that stretches into the new millennium. George, Sr. began a war with Iraq in 1990, when he told the U. S. Iraqi ambassador to tell Saddam Hussein that there would be no interference if he invaded Kuwait. It was a lie. A private PR firm orchestrated false testimony from the Kuwait ambassador’s daughter testifying before Congress to get support for an invasion of Iraq. In 1991 we withdrew our troops from battle but did not bring them home.

Three hundred and eighty two lives were lost. Uncounted numbers have died of a mysterious illness known only as “Gulf War Syndrome”. There is no monument immortalizing their deaths.

George, Jr. came into Our White House determined to invade Iraq again even as we mourned the death of thousands of our citizens from an attack by a terrorist force known as al Qaida. And ignoring the Will of the People, he did so. One year, two months, and ten days after he called our citizen soldiers to invade Iraq, 813 are dead, almost 5,000 wounded can no longer lead the lives they did just months ago.

And it has not ended, this war rages on. And will go on far into our future. Bush, the “commander in chief” has said so. Kerry, the challenger, has said so.

We have no crystal ball; no mind reader can see our future; but history can help us understand where we are going. How many lives are We, the People, willing to trade for one man’s ambition to be a conqueror?

On this day, the man who proudly calls himself “the war president” but who refused to serve in his own generation’s war, will visit our national cemetery to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Will he also pay tribute at The Wall to pay homage to those who died in the war he wouldn’t participate in? What makes the men who sent his generation to die in the jungles of VietNam different from his sending this generation to die in the desert of Iraq?

An honor guard walks this site daily, even refusing the offer to abandon their post during a hurricane. There are many monuments built in our capitol to pay tribute to our war dead. Today we dedicate a monument to those 16,112,566 men and women who served and died in one of our nation’s greatest wars, World War II. A long time in coming....

But does our country have enough land to build the miles of soaring black markers to record all of those who will be lost to political ambition? There are already over 1,300 names to be inscribed on a new monument erected to remember the Iraq wars.

Would you trade the life of your son or daughter to secure the oil fields of Iraq? Would you trade mine? Your answer determines the fate of our nation; it’s survival with honor; it’s defeat in disgrace. There is a song by Willie Dixon, titled “Study War No More” where the lyrics inquire:

“Won’t that be one mighty day

When we hear world leaders say

We don’t have to cry no more

We’re givin’ it up, we gonna let it all go”

Ain’t gonna study, study war no more

Ain’t gonna study, study war no more....’

We’re givin’ it up, we gonna let it go

We’re givin’ it up, we gonna let it go....”Honor the dead we have lost; but let us

give it up, let’s let it go. Another song, from the Viet Nam war by Country Joe and the Fish says it best: “What are we fighting for?” A timeless question we all should be asking.

MAY 30, 2004

We, the People are looking for another Clinton miracle; someone who can take a dying economy and breath new life into it; someone who can give our children a fighting chance in a world gone mad; someone who can get us out of Iraq before a draft and a war too similar to VietNam devours our country.

It will not be George W. Bush; it will not be John Kerry. It will not be allowed to be Ralph Nader nor Howard Dean. It will be no one.

Listen to the history of your family, listen to the tales told of surviving the Great Depression; there is your children’s and your grandchildren’s future. A shameful future that we have created for them by our negligent and selfish vote. It took many administrations to produce the end result that is the Bush legacy, and most were Republicans. It is our eternal shame and one that unborn generations must live with.AN ECONOMY SO FAR FROM REALITY

Every campaign stop George W. Bush emphasizes the gains of his “successful” economic policy. For him, yes. He successfully kept almost 10% more of his taxable income after he passed his much touted “tax cut”. In addition to his piddly $400,000 salary he receives, (Which he keeps by the way, not like another wealthy president, John F. Kennedy, who returned his mere $100,000 to the U. S. treasury!), Bush has accumulated over $21,000,000 without ever having held a job until he was almost 40 years old!!

How many of us can say that? Only those of us who have inherited accumulated wealth. We can look at inherited wealth differently if it has been used for good, to improve our world or to help the unfortunate people to live in it. A prime example is the Kennedy children’s dedication to public service. None of them ever never needed to work because of inherited wealth, yet almost all have chosen professions of low paying jobs in the public sector. Those who haven’t, such as Maria Shriver, still have careers.

But none of Prescott Bush’s grandchildren, George and Barbara’s boys, have done any public service. The closest they came was George W.’s service in the Texas National Guard where he went AWOL.

Bush does dabble in the stock market, most of the companies he has been associated with rewarded him with huge blocks of stock that proved very lucrative. Don’t know about your stocks but mine haven’t given me any huge “rewards” lately - I’m still trying to gain back what I lost after Bush took power! And right at this moment, most of the Dubya fortune is mostly invested is “safe” government funds.

CONTRAST THAT with the actual results of the much heralded Bush economy. He makes no excuses or apologies for allowing outsourcing to remove the few remaining jobs in the United States, telling us it is good for us. Bush is so enamored with outsourcing that he has outsourced to foreign countries all of his campaign work that he can instead of hiring out of work citizens to do the jobs!

As he flies in gas guzzling Air Force One from campaign stop to campaign stop, he says he has no plans to freeze gas prices. He has supposedly struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to bring the prices back down in June, but it’s June and I still see over $2.00 a gallon. Unfortunately, the three and a half years Bush has occupied Our White House, the has failed to see the consequences of his actions.

His refusal to impose price limits in a downward spiraling economy has produced a ricochet effect that is all citizens. He says he has given the elderly a “break” with his costly medicare plan. Even if true, he giveth with one hand and taketh away with another. By cutting programs to seniors across the board, he has made it harder for them to have decent housing, subsidies for utilities, and now, food.

Bush’s failure to control gas prices is putting the Meals on Wheels program in jeopardy. The volunteer drivers, some hardpressed to meet their own needs, can no longer afford the gas it takes to deliver the meals. If the program goes under, the ripple effect could force thousands of elderly, maintaining independent living, out of their homes and into institutions; with the indigent becoming the responsibility of the already cash strapped states. How does Bush plan to solve this problem, just put the infirm out on the street to fend for themselves?

Of course, the ripple effect also includes those small businesses he says he wants to “protect”, like florists whose businesses are already down because buying flowers in definitely a luxury on minimum wage or unemployment.

The trucking industry has also seen a decline in demand, after they instituted a fuel surcharge, in everything from clothes to machine parts. And that translates into higher prices or empty store shelves where people, unemployed, underemployed, or fearful of being unemployed, are counting every penny for the first time in decades.
This could account for the figures that show that factory orders of “big ticket” items fell sharply in April, and that durable goods also plunged. These are items like cars, refrigerators, televisions, etc. Things we don’t buy often, are expensive, and that we pray will last a very long time.
What they don’t measure, food, utilities, etc.; that come from your paycheck (or unemployment check, or savings) every month; have also fallen as prices rise. With minimum wages ranging from less than $3.00 an hour in some states and most states setting it at $5.15 per hour American workers are finding it more and more difficult for their paycheck to meet the basic necessities of life. With milk almost, or at, $4.00 a gallon, gas at $2.00 a gallon, you don’t have to be proficient at math to figure out the shortage between wages and prices -- unless you are George W. Bush.
AND HOW ABOUT THOSE JOBS?
Not only is it getting harder and harder to find jobs, it is also getting harder to keep the one you have. We all know how productive college educated employees, reaching that certain age, suddenly find themselves without a job and being told to “retrain” in an unspecified career. This country has lost at least 3,000,000 jobs. Less than 100,000 jobs are said to have returned. Companies plan to eliminate thousands of additional jobs through outsourcing next year. Even the low paying “service” jobs are disappearing. WHERE ARE THE JOBS GOING TO COME FROM? Neither Kerry nor Bush have an answer for that question. Kerry is mumbling about taxing companies who move offshore, but he has not made any firm pledges regarding extreme measures to stop the hemorrhaging. Bush doesn’t even seem to know we have a problem.
This situation needs prompt and drastic attention RIGHT NOW. It is going to take legislative action, a strong explicit demand from our legislature and whoever hold the office of president. They must destroy the favoritism legislation that has been put into place since the Reagan administration. They are going to have to tear it right down to the ground and start over. And their premise has to be that everyone deserves a job or the government must support them.
There are laws in place to protect the “over the hill” gang which are no longer enforced. Make companies pay when they ask information that allows them to figure out your age. Don’t let them base their hiring on a credit report rather than experience in a job. Don’t let them access your health information to determine if they want to hire you or not. And if there are no laws on the books to address the problem, put one with teeth there.
Pass laws that stop American companies from keeping billions of untaxed funds abroad while eliminating jobs in the United States. Make outsourcing as expensive for companies as hiring American workers. American workers are not the enemy; it is companies that see human beings as commodities to be exploited.
I HAVE MET THE ENEMY....
and it is indifference. Every time you allow a “media” untruth to go unchallenged, every time you ignore a wrong, every time you listen to the justification of torture done to an enemy, every time you do not challenge the message George W. Bush enforces with lies, every time you allow yourself to remain silent while civil rights slip away, you give the enemy of democracy an assist. Aiding that enemy of democracy is treason against the democracy. We, the People, are loyal to no man. Our loyalty is pledged to the representative personifying that Constitution. A violation of our Constitution voids all patriotic loyalty. Remember this when you enter that voting booth. More than you welfare is at risk. The State of our Union lies in your hands; use your Power carefully and do not abuse our Forefathers’ trust in your ability to keep it safe.
Remember, not so long ago, a People put a man in power who destroyed over twelve million lives. He did it legally. He did it with their consent. His name was Adolph Hitler. The country was Germany.

MAY 27, 2004

THE REAL “SPOILER”

One thing I have learned from listening to my grandparents and parents; the history they lived through is a lot different than the “official” version. Two versions of the same events, like the Great Depression, the Viet Nam protests, Reagan’s “great” economy, the 2000 elections.....

The Great Historical Myth being perpetrated is that somehow presidential candidate Ralph Nader was a “spoiler” in the 2000 election and now he is doing it again in 2004.

Democrats are supposedly so worried that Nader’s being in the election could draw enough votes away from the “presumptive nominee” Kerry to cause Bush to win. How convoluted! Before they spin off in all directions trying to stop Nader, they should reevaluate their own actions during the Florida Debacle and during the campaign that winnowed the field to Kerry.

IF Democrats are in jeopardy of loosing the election to Bush, it is their own fault. They had a candidate that a majority of ordinary (and I stress ordinary, not politically connected Democrats) citizens were zealously committed to: HOWARD DEAN. But the party leadership refused to support him and the “media” did everything in their power to bring him down.

And the same Democratic party realizes that Dean still holds tremendous power among We, the People so they have given him a strange role in the presidential election campaign. They want those supporters, and they want their cash, so Dean had been brought along on campaign jaunts to persuade voters to switch to Kerry.

The anti-invasion policies of Howard Dean are in direct conflict with Kerry’s talk of having to “stay the course” in Iraq. But, if they can convince enough voters that Kerry’s vote for the Iraq invasion and his determination to keep troops in Iraq doesn’t matter, they think Dean loyalist will vote for Kerry because they have no other candidate to vote for.

The truth is, there is no one allowed to be in the political race but Kerry or Bush. Also true, that we are so pushed to the edge by Bush policies that we have no choice. BUT DON’T BLAME RALPH NADER. He’s the victim, not the villain.

Ralph Nader and that other huge third party have a right to run for the office of President. But as soon as any third party is large enough to become a threat to either the Republicans or Democrats, they are taken down. Both parties had developed large followings. Before the 2000 election, the Green party was showing from 10% to 15% support in most states. With all the accusations of “spoiler”, the party is still said to have between 2 and 3 percent - a hefty percent considering all the bad publicity saying Nader is responsible for Bush’s political adventure.

Perot’s amalgamation of smaller third parties that produced the Patriot Party was wrenched asunder when a well known Republican who had run for office before, Pat Bucannon, decided to bring his supporters in. The consequent bickering among dissatisfied former Republicans and the other smaller third parties produced a split that was virtually unreported in our “media”. Anyone heard the “media” denigrating the Patriot party this year?

Voters like Jason Saltzman, a liberal Colorado Democrat, and former Nader supporter, created a website to urge Nader supporters to pledge to vote for a candidate “most likely to defeat” Bush in November; although he says he still supports the Nader ideology; are going after the wrong man. He should stop blaming Nader for the Florida debacle, stop believing the propaganda about Bush “winning by 537” votes and do a little research into the real reason Al Gore did not become president.

And he doesn’t have to dig too deeply. Katherine Harris, the Republican heading the Bush reelection committee added 65 votes to the Bush total after certification but she refused to add 365 legitimate votes to Gore’s total.

There were numerous court challenges to the legitimacy of more than 3,000 Republican votes that went to Bush that were never settled before Bush was installed as president. An election official, whose ultimate boss was Katherine Harris, challenged the legitimacy of three thousand votes through proper channels all the way up the chain to the proper authorities in Washington and, even though she had done this months before the election, her information was ignored by all!

Before the 2000 election Katherine Harris began what has become known as a “Felon Search” which set such broad parameters that it produced results which included innocent people having the same name but different birth dates being classified as convicted felons and having their names removed from voter registration lists.

When warned by the conservative company making the search of the error probability of such a search, she gave explicit orders to do it anyway and the results disenfranchised over 90,000 voters in Florida, most of them black and living in poor Florida neighborhoods. (For this horrible act, she was rewarded with a seat in our House of Representatives!) Nationwide, almost 2,000,000 people did not have their vote counted; more than half of those were disenfranchised blacks.

Include any of these numbers of disenfranchised voters and you can see how the results were structured to produce the results they did. Add in the results of the notorious “butterfly ballot” which violated Florida law by putting Al Gore’s name second (as it should have been) but putting the circle to vote for him third. As a result, at lease 3,000 elderly people, relying on the Florida election law which decreed that Bush would be first (Republican governor), Democratic candidate second, and Bucannon’s Patriot party as third dutifully checked the second circle which should have been for Al Gore.

Al Gore won the popular vote. If any one of these voter irregularities had not occurred, Al Gore would have had more votes than Bush and the electoral votes in Florida would have gone to him. But when, based on the numerous complaints of the voters and the inconsistency of the voting numbers and the records, he asked for a recount the Bush Cartel refused to listen to a regional federal court that refused to hear his complaint. But he was not going to let Gore recount those votes which would give Gore not only the popular vote and the electoral vote in Florida.

So he did something that We, the People had no chance of doing to challenge Our disenfranchisement; he went straight to the Supreme Court packed with judges appointed by his father who ended up ruling 4 to 5 that recounting the votes would harm George W. Bush but implying that NOT recounting the votes would not harm Al Gore!!!

Because of the numerous voter complains in Florida, challenging the legitimacy of the Florida vote was not only possible, but necessary. However, when members of the House of Representatives produced the documents to investigate the legitimacy of the Florida vote, they could not find one senator willing to sign their petition. They only needed one signature from the senate and not one would sign it. And that includes all the members of the Democratic party who scream that Ralph Nader is the “spoiler”. That includes John Kerry.

Nowhere in all of this is the name Ralph Nader mentioned. Except by Republicans who like the myth that Bush “won” because of Nader, and by Democrats that perpetrate the myth that Bush “won” because of Nader; when in truth, the vigorous fight to put Bush in by hook or by crook was not met with Democratic conviction that Gore had legitimately won the election.

With all the Diebolt machines installed, no vote paper trail, the evidence that votes have been switched and lost in every election they have been used in, from 2000, 2002, and the “recall” election in California, are we going to have a rerun of the Florida election? Is that why they are beginning to once more talk of Ralph Nader, the “spoiler” when, in fact, the Republican and Democratic parties are totally responsible for the last three and a half years.

Ralph Nader simply showed them the light. In 2000, the two so called “third” parties indicated just how fed up We, the People were with the “status quo” leadership. And the tremendous and immediate support of Howard Dean - and his other eight rivals - showed just how fed up we were with Bush. This election, there is only one choice, Senator John Kerry. For those hardcore disillusioned voters who would probably just stay home, Ralph Nader gives them a choice.

So don’t blame Ralph Nader if George W. Bush “wins” the 2004 election after all Bush has done to this country, blame yourself!

MAY 26, 2004

BUSH IN TROUBLE

With George W. Bush’s poll numbers in freefall, we once again drag out that old “terrorist alert” to scare We, the People into obedience once more. I’m not saying the terrorist threat isn’t genuine; but it supplies the same information that was ignored by the Bush administration before September 11, 2001 and does not contain one solid fact about who, what, when, or where.

The August 6 PDB gave essentially the same information as that which Homeland Security’s Tom Ridge announced Tuesday but without the orange alert which usually accompanies it. He says that “new information” on a terrorist attack against the United States, “talks about an attack” and reassures us that there is no need to raise the national alert level. Why?

After all those “orange” alerts since Homeland Security was founded, why have the last two “big” ones not been worthy of an orange alert? Probably because too many people noticed that the orange alert coincided with Bush being in trouble for something -- and right now Bush is in BIG TROUBLE!

The torture scandal that looks as if its approval went straight up the chain of command and the memos about how the “commander-in-chief” could avoid being charged as a war criminal have collided to send his “approval” rating spiraling downward to the 40th percentile. Not good; a short six months before he will be asking America to vote for him. The credibility of any pronouncements coming from Ridge, via Homeland Security, are now suspect.

It would be extremely easy to dismiss this information as just another way to take the focus away from Bush and his credibility problems, except for what is being said by the another “anonymous” senior counterterrorism official. This anonymous source is saying that it is extremely credible and backed by an unusual high level of corroboration.

Although it does not meet the Bush Test of naming a specific time, place, or method, it is considered among the most disturbing received by the government since the al Qaida attacks of September 11, 2001, according to this anonymous source, who concluded, “There is clearly a steady drumbeat of information that they are going to attack and hit us hard.” He also indicated that use of a chemical, biological or radiological weapon, all capable of causing more damage than a conventional bomb, was of special concern.

Counterterrorist officials are also concerned that some high profile event will be the target. They believe it could be a war monument dedication, an economic summit...or our political conventions. And other news we didn’t know, after three years, the unconstitutional Patriot Act put in force, and billions of dollars, they still believe that there are approximately 18,000 terrorists running free in this country.

Amnesty International has just issued a report condemning the United States for the way it has conducted “the war on terror”, saying:

“The global security agenda promoted by the U. S. administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle. Violating rights at home, turing a bind eye to abuses abroad and using preemptive military force where and when it chooses has damaged justice and freedom, and made the world a more dangerous place...Governments are losing their moral compass, sacrificing the global values of human rights in a blind pursuit of security.”

They cite growing human rights abuses directly linked to “stopping terrorists” in Europe, China, India, Asia, and of course, the Middle East. And they conclude that the combined attacks and states’ violations of rights has created one of the most serious assaults on humanitarian law and the humanitarian rights in half a century and has created a “world of growing mistrust, fear, and division.”

But Bush and his administration doesn’t see it that way. He is using the al Qaida attack on Spain before the March election to say that the people of Spain were scared into voting against the party in power although millions of Spaniards had marched in protest against Spain participating in the Iraq invasion and promising that those government officials participating in the invasion of Iraq would not be reelected.

And now that our Country is embroiled in the same sort of actions that we accuse terrorists of, the court of world opinion is judging us harshly. And I am not sure that all the changes that Bush has made can provide more safety than what we enjoyed under the previous administration that stopped three major terrorist attacks upon the bridges, subways and tunnels of New York. It appears that all he has done is make us, and our planet, less secure. And I do believe that all he wants is to be reinstalled as “commander-in-chief” to continue his “war on terrorism” at his whim.

Before we allow George W. Bush to be installed for another four years of what we have just been through, those in positions of authority should thoroughly investigate all the charges against him. Innocence is not an option. When they began trying to find ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, ways to avoid prosecution for War Crimes, they put themselves in direct conflict with our Constitution.

Article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

We know that George W. Bush has broken the Oath of Office he took January 21, 2001, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Any one searching for a way out of being charged with War Crimes is not upholding his duty to We, the People.

My only question is: You impeached William Jefferson Clinton on the basis of a consensual adulterous affair. Why hasn’t Impeachment proceeding begun against this group now occupying Our White House? Do our elected officials really believe torture and war crimes charges do not deserve censure? If they do, remember “...the President, Vice President and all civilian officers of the United States...” are included in Section 4.

We started over once and built a government from the ground up; we can do it again. And if the world opinion keeps shifting against us, we may have to.

MAY 25, 2004

WE HAVE A GENERAL!!

And not just any old general, but a female general; thereby killing two birds with one stone! Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski has been suspended from her command of the 800th Military Police Brigade due to, as Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba stated,

“What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that may of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce standard and principles among its soldiers.”

Leaving aside the fact that, if guilty, she was acting in exactly the same manner as her “commander-in-chief”, let’s deal with her statements detailing her lack of command. Since it takes months, even years, for the Bush government to do any investigation, why have they disposed of the Abu Gharaib torture scandal so fast? Was there a thorough investigation into her statements saying that control of the prison was taken away from her in November 2003 and given to a military intelligence unit? Did military and civilian leaders really ignore her requests for more troops to guard the prisoners?

Where’s the investigation into both the prison guards testimony and her statements that outside sources were directing, ordering and approving the torture. Every one of those charged says that military intelligence was in charge, that “civilian contractors” were issuing them orders, that other unnamed agencies were giving them directions on how to “soften up” the prisoners.

Is Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba saying that Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski had, or took, the authority to bring in all these outside groups without the military command in Iraq knowing about it? A highly unlikely event!

And what about the information, swiftly discarded as “untrue”, that Army Lt. Col. Ricardo S. Sanchez was present in Brig. Gen. Karpinski’s prison and witnessed what was going on. Or the additional information reported by a military lawyer in an open hearing April 2, 2004 that a certain Capt. Donald J. Reese had said that Sanchez and other senior military officers were aware of the abuse at the prison. Will there be an ongoing, intensive investigation there, or will it be over with Sanchez’ replacement July 1, 2004 -- one month after we are supposed to have “turned over” control of Iraq?

Is this going to be another invisible stain on George W. Bush’s botched administration? We all know that, at a time of crisis for our nation still trying to recover from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that devastated our financial district and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon, Bush and his lawyers were concentrating on how to keep themselves from being charged with War Crimes during the Iraqi invasion.

January 25, 2002, a scant 4 months after the attack on New York and Washington, D. C. memos were flying regarding how to get away with the violation of the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq and still avoid charges of being War Criminals. The level of tolerance for breaking the Geneva Conventions started at the top and worked its way down to those soldiers being tried. The climate that produced these results must be shared from the top down.

But I doubt we’ll see any more accountability from the Bush administration than we have seen so far unless the world decided to intervene. Those soldiers charged with the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib emphasized that they were just following orders like “good Germans” - er, “Americans” . And poor Big. Gen. Karpinski has been designated Scapegoat.

MAY 24, 2004

HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR

Ever had someone look you straight in the eye and lie to you and when you tell them so, try to twist it around and make it your fault? Call it the cookie jar syndrome. You know, like when your little one, hand in the evidence, looks at you with wide innocent eyes and denies he did it.

That is the whole of the three - almost four - years of the Bush administration. Holding that cookie jar tightly, Bush continues to deny it’s existence. And he keeps pulling out those cookies.

The biggest “cookie” was the Iraq invasion, absolutely smothered in falsehoods so thick that it took one year and almost 1,000 deaths to get close to the truth. There were no WMDs. There was no threat to the United States. There was no reason to choose that country over any other murdering dictator; other than idle oil fields in the desert.

Another “cookie”, plump with excuses was cooked up from the 9/11 recipe. It gives a plethora of reasons to have your hand in the cookie jar and can instill terror in the hearts of those questioning your actions by just shirking “terrorism” at high decibel. You don’t need to give reasons, a coherent plan; in fact, you can keep everyone else away from the jar by just whispering the words terrirorrisssmmmm....

Another favorite often plucked from that cookie jar is the “improving economy cookie”. That cookie jar is bottomless when it comes to proving that there is more in there than there really is. Hordes can stand in line waiting for a chance at that cookie jar but the Bush regime just doesn’t seem to see them. As long as his pals can get their grubby paws inside that jar all is well.

And then there is that corporate favorite, “the outsourcing cookie”. Bush & Co. lovvee this cookie. It isn’t in his cookie jar, but he frequently speaks lovingly of his longing to have it. According to him, if we just send all our cookies to the other jar, then we’ll have even more in our own cookie jar. And, of course, if you believe that, your cookies are gone for good.

MAY 23, 2004

NO EXCUSES

We live in times governed by excuses. There is an excuse which excuses everything done by George W. Bush and his appointed henchmen. But these excuses weren’t spur of the moment, they are premeditated excuses; the kind prosecutors use to say that the defendant planned the crime in advance.

With that in mind, peruse the memo issued January 25, 2002 by the White House’s top lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, regarding prosecution for war crimes due to new and unorthodox measures the Bush government was using against the “war on terrorism”. It contains advice for controversial detention methods for Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters that would exempt them from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Gonzales based this idea on a little known 1966 law that Congress had passed called “War Crimes Act” that banned any Americans, accused of committing war crimes of “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, of being held accountable. He felt that it would have no legal effect on this particular “president” because it would interfere with his “Commander-in-chief power” (see Constitution, Article II, Section 1 for rebuttal); however, one lawyer voiced the opinion that prosecution for war crimes was a possibility from the Justice Department unless there was clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan.

Misplaced concern, he was told, given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the justice department.” When reminded that political climates could change, and a new president might see things differently and prosecute both Bush and those loyal Bush appointees for War Crimes it was decided to rectify this little stumbling block by Gonzales telling Bush to say that the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply to Afghanistan (and later Iraq), and to keep saying it until it was accepted as truth. He felt that would alleviate the administrations concerns that Bush would be tried for war crimes.

Ironic, isn’t it? While Bush sputtered with rage that captive American soldiers being shown on Iraqi television was a violation of the Geneva Conventions; he gave tacit approval to naked prisoners captured during that invasion being piled in pyramids, made to simulate sex, forced to masturbate before their captors,raped, beaten, and killed.

Unfortunately, they didn’t understand, or care, that killing our participation of the Geneva Convention does one thing the Bush lawyers didn’t consider. It gives carte blanch to our enemies who capture American soldiers to have the same clear conscience when they torture and kill our guys!

AND MORE EXCUSES

During last week’s campaign tour of the states where Bush & CO. felt their “vote” was in jeopardy, he pulled out that same old economic data he uses to tell We, the People who aren’t working, that the jobs are there, we just must not want one. This weekend in that infamous radio address, he repeated all the positive economic data to assure us that “hard times” were a thing of the past. He should have made sure the Republican “media” reported the same thing.

Yesterday, in a mainstream dinner hour news program, they did a report on why teenagers are having a hard time finding summer work since Bush’s economic success “saved” them. It appears that several factors are preventing teens, desperate for summer jobs to provide everything from money for college to helping out with the rent! It seems competition is fierce in the world of unskilled service jobs.

Teens are becoming professionals at resume writing and profiling experience; however, most of the jobs seem to be going to college graduates with undergraduate or graduate degrees who can’t find jobs, or older workers desperately seeking some form of low paying job to help meet the mortgage payment, or the elderly who can’t seem to make it on retirement fund, or -- and here’s the really great one -- immigrate workers! Great economy you got going there, Mr. Bush when teens are slugging it out with dad and mom for a McJob!!!

How about an excuse for why SEGREGATION IS ON THE RISE? Article after article is telling us that schools and colleges are becoming more and more white. With your support against affirmative action, it appears that we’re going back to the past. Will we soon have national guard troops standing in the doorway to keep blacks out -- oops! They’re all in Iraq aren’t they?

There also seems to be a backward slide in employment also, In a “recession” with depression statistics, minorities are hard hit in the job market. What excuse are you using to explain that?

And what excuse do they use for 9/11 REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS going to the wealthy in New York City? City records show that much of the $8 billion program, dubbed “liberty bonds” that Congress appropriated to rebuild the devastated Ground Zero seems to have gone to wealthy developers of prime real estate in midtown Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Meant to rebuild the area, three years later, only 5% of the rebuilt apartments are for families of moderate means, defined as $80,000 for a family of three. Remember, most of these families were totally wiped out and/or lost breadwinners. They can’t compete with the wealthy who can afford a three bedroom apartment near Ground Zero that rents for $6,500 and sells for$1,000,000.

A lot of the money has gone to developers who have been given $650,000,000 to build an office tower for the Bank of America near Times Square -- miles from Ground Zero. Another developer received $113,000,000 for another office tower for Bank of New York in Brooklyn. Local political leaders, urban planners, and neighborhood residents are highly critical using the recovery money to build office towers, saying that wealthy developers shouldn’t need subsidies to build office towers in midtown!

State officials say that political favoritism played no part in their decisions and that loans were handed out on a first come-first serve basis. But I have to ask why

state officials couldn’t make one rule: Hand out the funds to the orphans and widows/widowers of the September 11, 2001 massacre first. NO EXCUSES!!!

MAY 22, 2004

BETRAYAL

Today 799 American citizens are dead because of the Iraq invasion. They were not all “professional” soldiers, not all paid mercenaries. Most were citizen soldiers, “weekend warriors”, young men and women who had jointed the National Guard to serve their country in a time of crisis. People just like you and me, thinking to do some good while supplementing incomes that were too small, ready and willing to risk their lives to assist in searches, firefighting, restoring order from chaos after tornados, hurricanes, floods.

What they did not know was that they would be betrayed by their government and sent to participate in an invasion of a foreign country and that they would be held beyond their term of service to fight in an undeclared war in the name of “stay the course”. How many of these 799 soldiers should have been at home in the United States when their blood soaked the sands of Iraq? How many of these men died because their commander in chief challenged the “enemy” to “bring it on”?

All 799 dead, all 4,512 wounded, were sent to Iraq because of George W. Bush’s obsession with invading this country and we still do not know why. Torturing a conquered people is not freedom, it is despotism.

And how many more will die or be maimed because that same commander in chief refused to honor the terms of the Geneva Convention and condoned the torture of prisoners of war? A most heinous act of betrayal. And worse, a betrayal covered over with a blanket of partisan politics.

Republican lawmakers met with Bush on Capitol hill in what is being termed a sort of “pep rally for the party faithful”. It is said that Republicans were effusive in their praise for George W. Bush when they left the for Republicans only meeting. There is no place in the government of We, the People for pep rallies to enhance political parties or separate “meetings” of party faithful.

When the Democratic House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, questioned Bush’s competence to lead and suggested his policy in Iraq is to blame for the loss of life, it drew a furious repsone from Republicans who called for an apology. Representative Pelosi came to her House leadership late and therefore bears little responsibility for much of what has transpired in the House under the Republicans and can only be judged by the way she has voted in the past; however, any time anyone has the courage to repeat the truth, critics should not silence her but listen.

Representative Pelosi is only repeating what We, the People have been saying since November 2000; she is only saying what we have been shouting since September 11, 2001, she is only saying what we have been demanding since March 21, 2003 and she is finally saying it for us in a public way that can not be ignored.
THIS EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. All his grand and glorious schemes have simply produced the naked truth. And his fawning court who tells him how fabulous he looks in his new garments are simply currying favor for their own personal gain. But the treasures they acquire are covered in the blood of our citizens. And the deepest betrayal of all is that the elected guardians of We, the People have ignored their duty and put us in the deepest jeopardy this nation has seen since the Cuban missile crisis that brought us to the brink of nuclear war, with obsequious behavior that precludes any criticism of the naked emperor.

When Pelosi was specifically asked if she was calling Bush incompetent, she replied,

“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader... I believe that the president’s leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers.”
And she would not back away from her statement, as so many critics have done

in the past. When asked if her comments would undermine Bush’s abilities as commander in chief, she replied, “His activities, his decisions, the results of his actions are what undermines his leadership, not my statement My statements are just a statement of fact.”

So true, so true.

MAY 21, 2004

SOME GOOD NEWS

A Michael Moore update concerning the distribution of his new film “Fahrenheit 9/11”. It seems that “a handful” of distributors are seeking to be the ones to release the film. I would love to say that these distributors are altruistic and want to release the movie because of patriotic dedication to free speech; but realistically, the one who grabs the prize will be raking in the money!

It is rumored that a division of Universal Pictures, Focus Features, and Newmarket Films (the distributor of the controversial “Passion of the Christ) are vying for the rights. However, Lions Gate films is also in the race. It seems, from the buzz, that distribution of the film is as hot a topic in Cannes Film Festival as the film itself. The speculation is whether or not Miramax can strike a deal before the festival, starting Monday, ends the following Saturday.

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the country known for its dedication to free speech is being so carefully watched by the world to see if this film will be released just because it shows George W. Bush as he is rather than the way he wants to be seen.

Bob and Harvey Wienstein (Miramax chiefs) are said to be finalizing a deal with Disney (who refused to distribute the film because of its politically “controversial” content) to buy back Miramax’s interest in the film with their own money.

You have to wonder what lies hidden beyond our view when that much power is thrown behind a movie that isn’t that violent (except for Iraq battle scenes), shows no offensive sexual scene but is stopped cold because it was dubbed “politically controversial”.

The majority of us aren’t Bush fans; what could you possibly show us that would shock us after what we have been through these past three years? Let’s give censorship a clout and free speech a boost and celebrate our Constitution July 4 by seeing Fahrenheit 9/11!!!

MAY 20, 2004

REFUSING TO GIVE UP THE RIGHT

Michael Moore.

In his jeans and slouchy baseball cap, he can’t hold a candle to natty dresser George W. Bush even when Bush dons his cowboy garb on his “ranch”. Perhaps that is why the elite Republican guard is so determined to shut him up. Or perhaps it is just because “working class” Michael Moore is so very good at speaking the truth while the Ivy League graduate of Yale stumbles and fumbles every sentence.

Two lives could hardly be more different. Michael Moore, son of an auto worker from Flint, Michigan, began to get noticed with his documentary “Roger and Me” during Reagan’s corporate raider policies in the 1980’s that took out our manufacturing base.

George W. Bush was puttering around with a baseball team his daddy bought him during the same time frame.

Michael Moore has never forgotten his working class roots. George W. Bush, whose genealogy has linked him to the mad King George of Revolutionary War fame, never had any.

So, just exactly why is it so important to silence Mr. Moore? His latest film, titled “Fahrenheit 911” is saying some truth that Bush & Company does not want us to hear. Moore has cut through all the bush.... isims and produced a film that shows our “emperor “ stark naked. And Mr. Bush’s knobby knees aren’t pleasant to see.

For the second time (Bowling for Columbine received critical acclaim and an Oscar) Moore has taken the Cannes Film festival by storm. He is receiving accolades from the “elite” of the film world with his documentary of George W. Bush’s performance in Our White House.

He says “Will it influence the election? I hope it just influences people to leave the theater and become good citizens.” And this movie, too, is said to provoke laughs and gasps. Moore is very good at this; there is a scene in “Roger and Me” at a garden party where the very wealthy guests discuss the economic situation in Flint; contrasted with scenes of laid off workers at their homes. You didn’t need words to convey that the very rich at that garden party showed exactly the difference between the rich and you and me.\
When you start with the attitude that you are privileged, you are an easy target for a satirist like Moore. “The material didn’t need...help. It was strong enough already.” Moore said of his movie. He appears to have use the same techniques he used in “Roger and Me”, actual footage of what comes out of Bush’s mouth. But Moore also digs into topics that are off limits to our “media”, such as the financial connection between the Bush family and the Saudis, and the lucrative “economic-development” zone for American corporations created by the invasion of Iraq.
Moore plans an appropriate date for the film’s release in the United States - July 4. However, We the People, who celebrate our freedom on that day, may never get a chance to judge Moore’s work. Another major “media” outlet, Disney (of all things!) is refusing to release it.

Miramax Studios plans to buy back the film from Disney and find another distributor but with all the “media” censorship going on, I do not intend to hold my breath waiting to see if there is a distributor out there with the courage to take the risk.

This is the third incident, in less than two years, involving the censorship of work that displeases Republican party members. They targeted an “unfavorable” movie about Ronald Reagan and succeeded in getting CBS to pull it from its schedule. The venerated Nightline was assaulted and censored for showing the names of the Americans soldiers who were killed in Iraq. And now Michael Moore’s movie. What next? In fact, what now? It makes you wonder what they are censoring that we aren’t made aware of, doesn’t it?

Michael Moore’s movie has received international recognition but, just like the photos of the Iraqi prisoners of war, without access to the internet ordinary Americans would never know these events were taking place.

Amendment I of our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” . But Congress didn’t prevent our freedom; a couple of companies did. Just how did they get the idea that they were powerful enough to do so? Perhaps the epic violation of our freedom that Congress did violate by passing an unconstitutional “law” called The Patriot Act.

For those of us illiterate enough to not recognized the meaning behind Fahrenheit 911, it is explained that, “The film takes its title from Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” which refers to the temperature needed to burn books in an anti-Utopia society.”

Perhaps Bradbury’s book, written in 1953, was inspired by an epic bookburning episode in Nazi German May 10, 1933. However, both the destruction of a University library in 1933, and the epic about a society that controls not just our reading material but our thoughts, remains a cautionary tale as to what happens when the freedoms our Founding Fathers enumerated in our Constitution are violated.

George W. Bush is constantly telling us that he is in Iraq to “free” the Iraqi people while totally controlling their “media” and while our own “media” censors our nightly news and our movies. He does not abide criticism and says he makes no mistakes. How can that be disproved if the only version of Truth we see is his and he has failed the “truthdetector” badly.

But there is something you, personally, can do to “fight for freedom” without ever leaving your home. You can keep your mind open, express your opinions in spite of the fear of being called “unpatriotic”, refuse to allow censorship from our media.

And you can go see a movie. Fahrenheit 911. The movie that Michael Moore says is the “temperature at which freedom burns.”

MAY 19, 2004

WHAT AMERICAN DREAM?

Two weeks ago, during the much touted “bus” tour of George W. Bush’s election campaign, he was crowing about how great the economy was. Two weeks ago, the “good news” was spread all over the “media”. Two weeks later, I searched and searched for the unemployment statistics and finally found them buried under a pile of business economic news on one web site. The question is why? Why were they shouted from the rooftops one week and ignored the next?

The answer lies in the data: JOBLESS CLAIMS RISE. That means the number of Americans filing for initial claims (newly unemployed) went up. Even with a vigorous massage of the figures, unemployment is still reaching upward toward that 400,000 figure they have tried so hard to reduce to make Bush’s job loss record look better.

Without that tweaking that “smoothes out weekly fluctuations”, the new figure for the week ending May 8, 2004 was 331,000. 6,000 more than the economists had predicted. And even more bad news, continued claims, that is people who still can’t find work, rose from 2,921,000 to 2,974,000. And there are no statistics on those who aren’t counted this week because they have exhausted their benefits but still remain unemployed. They just disappear.

George W. Bush, offshore advocate, also didn’t give a rousing speech about his success in moving jobs out of the country during his campaign visits to economically depressed states. Figures show that the service industry will be moving 830,000 jobs to India, China and other countries by the end of 2005 -- a whopping 40% increase! A report released by the Cambridge, Massachusetts based technology research firm, said that it projected 3.4 million jobs will be moved overseas by 2015. Does that projection include your working years? Where will you be in 2015? Where your parents are today?

Consider that just two companies, IBM and Accenture, Ltd. plan to have outsourched 9,000 jobs to India by the end of 2005. And here is why you will probably be unemployed before or by 2015. “After more than 30 years of continuous expansion in the services sector of the U.S. economy, offshoring will the the catalyst for turning attention from growth to efficiency.” says the author of the report, John McCarthy.

Since one of Bush’s campaign speeches says that it is your fault that you are unemployed, that you should retrain yourself, stop right now and ask yourself what will be available for you to retrain yourself in. In the 1980’s manufacturing jobs disappeared and the manufacturing workers were told it was their fault and that they should “retrain”. They did.

They were told that technology was where the jobs were. Now the technology workers are being told that they need to retrain. But for what? The service industry is what. We have engineers selling shoes, highly skilled technical workers working at One Hour photo shops.
Now we are being told 40% of the service jobs will be outsourced. What career do you plan to retrain in now? The only career on the horizon with unlimited job growth seems to be that of soldier; with no end in sight, and the casualty rate constantly increasing, it is definitely a growth industry.
The same week Bush was telling us how great he had made this country, a report was published saying that the United States was falling behind in the sciences, that our children simply weren’t going into the science areas.
Have you talked with young people lately? With so many of their parents losing their “professional” jobs and ending up taking temporary or low paying work to simply stay afloat, there simply isn’t much incentive to waste five to ten years of their lives and going into debt to get an undergraduate or advanced degree in a field that doesn’t pay and is essentially dead. As far as many are concerned, the American Dream isn’t just dead, there isn’t one.

(I know, I know, I’ve done this before, but someone has to point out the inconsistencies about what Bush says and the reality of the “massaged” figures coming out of the government statistics.

MAY 18,2004
THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM
I think Senator Kerry, “presumptive” presidential candidate for the Democrats, has finally found his voice, “It’s time we had a president who will lead in a way that benefits you.” he says. That Bush “stubbornly refuses to offer help” for ordinary citizens struggling with his version of a “strong” economy. Kerry quotes Oregon statistics that says that unemployment stands at 6.7% and it will cost a typical Oregon family an additional $1,006 a year just for gas.
Bush says, “We’re going to continue to do what we’ve been doing, which is stay in close contact with producers around the world to urge them not to take action that would harm our economy or hurt consumers here in America.” (Bush philosophy from the mouth of Scott McClellan. )
And that is the problem, “continuing to do what we’ve been doing”, which is -- nothing. Gas prices will continue to rise beyond the record setting levels of $2.00 or more a gallon, food prices will go up again, more jobs will be moved off shore, our poor will get poorer and our rich will get richer.
Bush was mighty quick to sanction Syria, can’t we apply sanctions to the Oil Cartel, or would that mean applying sanctions to the Bush Cartel also? If you think this latest gas price crisis is new, you are either very naive or too young to remember or not concerned enough to care.
We have had three major gas crisis under the Republicans. This one, which we are currently living through, the one under Bush’s father during the first foray into Iraq, and the one that literally “downsized” gas stations and created lines around the block during the Nixon Administration.
It isn’t the first time the Bushes have used their philosophy of “Do what I say, not what I do.” Remember when Bush #1 called on all Americans to “conserve” gas for the “war” effort and promptly took his boat out during vacation at Kennybunkport, telling reporters that he didn’t have to conserve gas. Elitist attitudes like that cost him an election, let’s hope Junior suffers the same fate! He certainly hasn’t cut back on his campaign trips using the fuel consuming Air Force 1!
The third was during Richard Nixon’s administration, during the oil crisis that created price gouging at the pumps and long gas lines. Nixon allowed the oil companies to shut down working wells and cut production until the oil companies squeezed stations and consumers to get what they wanted.
Bush 2 refuses to give consumers relief by doing what President Clinton did and open the oil reserves to keep us from being at the mercy of the Oil Cartel. Kerry wants to just stop filling the reserves temporarily to ease gas prices but Bush plans to just keeps pumping more in, but then he also refused to use Clinton’s terrorist information....
Our country seems to be caught in a conundrum of parables. (Alice in Wonderland, Chicken Little, etc.) This gas crisis reminds me of the Turtle and the Hare in their epic race. As the Hare, Bush, Jr. rushed to war in Iraq with with little or no information and absolutely no idea of what a real war entailed. And then he forgot about the race, totally ignoring the war and the economy, while he took a long rest. But it appears that the Turtle (Democrats) is catching up to him and the crowd of We, the People, are cheering them on. And like the Hare, soon Bush will have lost the race.

MAY 17,2004
THE LEGACY OF GWB

George W. Bush’s time in the office of president will certainly have a plethora of historical firsts. He has certainly changed our country and the way the world views us; unfortunately, not in the same way his predecessors did.

Looking at the history of our country is not always pleasant, we have committed genocide against Native Americans; done exactly what we accuse Israel of in Gaza by pushing into territory and making it ours; and we have conducted our own “witch hunts” in the form of McCarthyism in the 50’s. But we were a wild and young country. We tried to grow up and become civilized and respected among older nations whose own pasts were not without blemish.

We went a long way to establishing our validity as a civilized nation when we joined forces to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan. We proved to be benevolent conquerors; punishing as many of those responsible as we found and feeding and rebuilding the nations of the defeated citizens. And those men who invaded Germany and finally saw those death camps, that civilized nations refused to believe existed, were compassionate with the victims they found.

And it was said that the German soldiers ran toward the “American Sector” because they knew the Americans honored the Geneva Convention rules regarding prisoners of war. But George W. Bush and his administration have changed all that. The torture of men and women, perhaps children, will probably be the first thing Bush will be noted for. His refusal to designate those captured during the Iraq invasion as prisoners of war, and the inhumane treatment inflicted upon the conquered shown in photos and videotape from the prison camp will be his legacy.

The investigation is in its infancy and we don’t know the extend of what has been done in Our name; but we do know that they knew and we know that they approved. The documents are there. This investigation will, in all probability, spread beyond the boundaries of the United States and encompass our “allies” and the world. Bush may try to sweep this under the rug, but I don’t believe the world is willing to let it stay there. We have always made moral judgments against the dictators and conquerors of the world; they will not ignore these actions and insist we be held accountable.

History will also note that George W. Bush’s “media” coverage was carefully constructed; that our free press shirked their duty to investigate and report. During some of the worst scandals of the Bush term, the “media” simply reported what was handed out to them by the United States government. No other president had receive quite the same “pass” as Bush. No matter what corruption leaked from the doors and windows of Our White House, it went unreported, or twisted as to deny the truth.

They simply missed the exaggeration and lies that allowed Congress to approve of the Bush invasion of Iraq. They “embedded” themselves among the invading army and only reported “news” pre-approved from the military commander of their unit. They went along with the insults Bush hurled at the United Nations and countries who refused to do his bidding. Congress went so far as to, instead of demanding explanations, rename food in the cafeteria to show support for the invasion.

There can be do doubt that when the Bush administration enters the history books, careful analysis of fact, not myths, may place him beneath President Hoover in terms of economic prosperity. He began his term with a 3 trillion dollar surplus that disappeared, historically, overnight. We plunged into the largest record setting deficit in history, and poverty rose almost overnight during his first three years. Children under 18 living in poverty rose to 16.7% in 2002.

Viewed from the perspective of elapsed time, it will not look good for Bush, and the “improved” economic mantra he constantly refers to on the campaign trail will simply disappear with the distance of time. From that perspective, I can see the history exam that will ask the student, “Why did the Congress of the United States pour money into the Iraq invasion, which they were losing, to the detriment of the citizens?”

There are so many firsts, so many uninvestigated and unfinished scandals of the Bush administration for history to investigate and finish. There will be the descendants of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack who will still be investigating WHY? The timeline of Bush’s actions will be repeated and published over and over. The videotape of him laughing in a schoolroom while a second plane crashes into the World Trade Center will become as well know as the Zapruder videotape.

He will be known as the first “president” appointed by the Supreme Court; and high school students, college students, and law student will all be analyzing and debating what went wrong, why it went wrong, why it wasn’t “fixed” by the government; for more generations than we can imagine. It will be a “what not to do” for an eternity, or until Democracy

flourishes in this country no more.

And there will be others; some we know of and some will probably be discovered long after he is gone. Yes, the era of George W. Bush will haunt us for a very long time, whether he is impeached for his actions, or is allowed another term. And not just by historical investigation. The legacy he has left will be considerable, but not in a good way. We have violated so many of the rules the world has constructed to live by that they will no longer trust us. He has tarnished our reputation for truth and honesty and justice.

But he does not concern himself with these things. The man who will be remembered as the “president” who spent half of his term in office on vacation, has put these things aside. He truly believes that his place in history will be as a “war president”. But he does not see that he will also be remember for getting us involved in another unwinnable, VietNam type war, where the deaths of our soldiers escalated daily. All of these things, and more, will come back to haunt his “place in history.”

MAY 16, 2004

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

Why is criticism or questions of George W. Bush considered “bush bashing” while Republican accusations directed at Senator John Kerry are not considered “Kerry bashing”?

To paraphrase a sports phrase, “let’s go to the quotes”.

We all know that George W. Bush was born with two silver spoons in his mouth. John Kerry came from a similar background; but unfortunately, while World War II enhanced the Bush fortune (Thanks to Nazi contracts), it depleted the Kerry’s net worth.

An article appearing in the Associated Press, dated April 2, 2004 is titled: John Kerry: A ‘cheap’ aristocrat, indicates that although John Kerry had the blueblood names, his parents weren’t the wealthy scions of the Bush family. And although he grew up with “social prominence and affluence [which] etched Kerry’s early life” it leaves the implication that somehow Kerry’s “elite private school education and vacations on a French estate” should be held against him.

However, George W. Bush’s privileged background of “elite private school education” at Andover, Yale, and Harvard, and his ability to use influence to get himself out of scrapes with the law, and out of the VietNam draft, doesn’t imply “cheap aristocracy”?

I also remember hearing a lot of “media” coverage about Dr. Howard Dean (remember him?) being an elite member of the wealthy class. So, bottom line, the only candidates running for the presidency of the United States are elitist; not one common man in sight -- unless you count Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich. And they couldn’t even rate negative “media” coverage!!

And speaking of ELITIST GEORGE W. BUSH when is the last time we had a candidate running for office who has no past? Ever tried to find out how, or where, George spent his youth? There is a huge blank in the official biographies. You will find his college attendance, an oblique reference to military service, but this guy appears to have been born in 1946 and disappeared until he emerged fully grown in 1994 to become governor of Texas. And the mainstream “media”, which insists on publishing every rumor or fact they can find on any candidate (remember Clinton?), can’t even find out who his girlfriend was in the 70’s or if he was arrested for drug possession or drunk driving and why it took him until age 40 to find a job. No other candidate would get this kind of pass.

The question is: WHY?

MAY 15, 2004

CONTEMPLATING CHOICES

Do you ever wonder what it would be like to join that elite group of multimillionaires and billionaires who control your life? When you buy that lottery ticket on the remote chance that you will win, what are you first thoughts about what you will do with all that money? Almost every winner I have heard from says: Pay off my bills, my mortgage, buy a house, buy a new car, share with my family. That is your experience, your priorities, learned from the struggle of daily living with the need to provide for the necessities of life.

Now, try to imagine what it was like to be born without that need. From your birth, money flowed into your hands to buy everything you desired. Never having to work at anything; not responsible for household chores to do because you have “staff” to do them; no babysitting siblings after school because there is a nanny to do that. You have your own car without working to pay for gas or insurance, all the clothes you want, access to family boats, planes or whatever else your family wants to buy.

And school pranks, drug addictions, legal charges all magically disappear to leave you smudge free of their taint.

And college is a breeze, because of your family name ivy league schools are open to you; you don’t sweat the ACTs or worry about grades because granddaddy went there and admission is guaranteed. And you won’t have to work to pay for it either. In fact, you won’t have to get a job until you want it -- if you ever do. And you won’t start at the bottom, influence will set you up in the oil business, buy you a baseball team, or keep you from the heavy duty of having to put yourself at risk in a stinking jungle half a world away.

Without any hard work on your part, you can become anything you want because money will buy it; everything but integrity, compassion, empathy. That you have to earn yourself.

Like the advice the man running our country into the ground gave to recent college graduates at a school in Wisconsin. “True fulfillment comes with the responsibilities we assume to care for our families and to love a neighbor as we want to be loved ourselves.” Words of a speechwriter.
By now all Americans know that he shirked his responsibilities in Viet Nam when he allowed his father to use influence to jump ahead of a long waiting list to join the National Guard in Texas. His “fulfillment” consisted of campaigning for one of his father’s friends while his neighbor’s son died in VietNam.

“It is the foundation of a meaningful life.” he concludes. We all know the meaningless foundation of his life; booze, parties and no responsibilities until he was almost 40 - that is how this millionaire’s child found meaning.

And, in a antique car museum at Hunter Engineering Company, in St. Louis, Missouri, amid the cars once driven by the elite, he gave a campaign speech to l00 donors, handpicked to avoid any disturbance from protesters, “I think there’s lots of reasons to put me back in office for four more years...I have a reason to run: We have a war to win. We have a responsibility to spread peace and freedom around the world.” he said.

He is like a spoiled child, willfully taking what he wants. And it is not “peace and freedom around the world”. He created the “war we have to win” even though, as a young man, he wanted no part of war.
He took more money than our minds can fathom, and somehow lost it. We were regaining our strength when he took our economy and somehow lost over three million jobs; plunging 3 million “neighbors” into poverty. He has cut funding to schools that feed the hungry children of those “neighbors”, he has cut veterans benefits to the “neighbors” he is sending to die in his war.

He took our Honor and our Word and made it worthless among the civilized nations of our world. And he feels no responsibility, “I think there’s lots of reasons to put me back in office...”
And just what, exactly, might those be?

MAY 14, 2004

IT’S THE LITTLE THINGS

The big explosions receive all of the attention. Take the Abu Ghraib crisis that has just exploded in the news. Bush has been forced to give an apology -- of sorts; the military is “under investigation” for violating “interrogation procedure”, Rumsfeld has rushed to Iraq, 300 Iraqi “detainees” have been released and very soon the Bush government will go on the way it has for three years. The dust will settle, like the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and all will continue as it has before.

It is the little things that are drifting down upon us, like the ash from a volcanic explosion, that will eventually be our undoing. It will bury us and smother the life from our country, this ash that floats down upon us from the aftermath of the government’s conflagration.

Like the decision of the government to ground the 33 tanker fleet used to fight wildfires; just as the wildfire season begins.

Democrats are busy trying to undo the Catch 22 which grounded the tankers in the first place. The problem, the FAA says, is that they can not inspect and certify government aircraft - they deal with civilian. The Forest Service and the Interior Department say they are not equipped to carry out the inspections.

And George W. Bush has publicly stated that his plan to log the forests will stop forest fires. His plan is to allow private companies into government reserves to cut timber. His administration has terminated contracts with seven private tanker companies and their subsidiaries throughout the west. Senator Diane Feinstein,(D-CA) sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman on Thursday urging her to reconsider. The governor of New Mexico has also requested her to do something to lift the ban. Rep. Peter DeFazio,
(D-Ore) stated, “I don’t think we have an adequate substitute out there.”

\Is there anyone who isn’t aware of the wildfires that spread throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico every summer? California relies on 14 of the grounded aircraft to fight wildfires.
It would cost $26,000,000 to $40,000,000 to replace the tanker fleet just grounded. Bush is now asking Congress to appropriate another 50 billion dollars for the Iraq Occupation, and he has asked that he alone be allowed to designate how it is spent. Couldn’t he squeeze that $40,000,000 from the budget to stop the property damage and loss of life caused by an act of nature that he can’t control?

It’s the little things, like the Big Bus Tour meant to convince us that the economy is great - and our believing it even though buried deep among business/news/economics articles are tidbits of information that put the lie to his claims. Like, skyrocketing gas prices which have now reached an average $1.95 a gallon, $2.00 in 12 of our fifty states. Or the “news” that consumer prices have risen 4.4% during the last four months and that “core prices” (which do not include energy or food; our two main purchases) have gone up 3%.

And how does the wage earner meet these higher costs? The federal minimum wage still stands at $5.15 per hour; a standard set by the Clinton Administration at a time when our country was far more economically sound. At this pay, not deducting any taxes or social security, it takes 6 hours of labor to buy a tank of gas. Nine states have set a higher minimum of $6.75, which reduces the cost of a tank of gas to slightly more than 4 hours of labor. And two states have a lower minimum wage, Kansas - $2.65 and Ohio - $4.25. If you earn minimum wage in Ohio, a tank of gas will cost you 7 hours of labor, just short of a day’s wages. In Kansas it will take a day and a half of labor to buy a tank of gas at the average price.

And we have not touched the price of food or shelter in this country that the Bush campaign says, “Today’s unemployment report is further confirmation our economy is strong and continues to grow stronger and the tax relief the president advocated and passed is working”. For whom?

Little things, like the stock market sliding back down to almost 9,000, after all the celebrations about it’s rise from the bottom just a few short months ago. The “news” that the 708,000 jobs Bush claims to have created are mostly due to the costs of producing goods for the Iraq war and will disappear when the war ends.

And in items like the U.S. is loosing its prominence in fields of science and math. Statistics point out that in 2000 immigrates made up 38% of doctorates and 29% of master’s degrees in the American workforce. The report says we lag behind other nations in the numbers of students who major in science and engineering. The babyboomers, who entered the workforce in the 1960’s and 70’s, will be retiring sometime in the next 20 years and their children have not chosen careers in science and math.

Could it possibly be that industry and government policy is responsible for this inequity and lack of emphasis on science and math skills? (Remember MBA graduate Bush bolloxed by “fuzzy math” during the 2000 presidential debate.) Take a look at the number of Americans replaced by foreign workers since 1980. Do a count of the number of productive workers who were suddenly laid off in their late 40’s or early 50’s. Add in the number of outsourced technical worker to other countries and factor in the number of workers facing “retraining” for a second career when they enter their forties.

Remember the poor engineer who watched his coworkers being laid off one by one, and then forced to retrain their immigrant replacements before he, too, was dismissed. Our government’s constant mantra is to retrain into areas “where the jobs are” but when you look at the ads, the technical jobs are gone.

Why would our children watching their parents, who spent 6 to 10 years training for a science and math masters or Ph.D. only to become an unemployment statistic 20 years later, want to enter that arena? Our children won’t waste their time and money. So it will soon be gone, and with it our participation in the inventions and discoveries of the universe.

It will be left to historians to determine what caused the United States to decline. And it will be in the little things that they find the answer.

MAY 13, 2001

A mathematics professor I know was telling us about one of his adult students in his class; someone who put Algebra behind him as fast as he left high school and now found himself needing the class to complete his delayed degree. He entered the class with a high degree of “math angst” but at the end of the class he said that he had “seen the light”; that he had never realized how much math he was doing in his daily life and in his job - from balancing his checkbook to figuring out miles per gallon of gas to computing his salary and overtime.

I wish You, the People, could suddenly “see the light” regarding your daily lives and the Constitution of the United States which provides the security for that life. Everything you do, from the expectation of privacy while trying on clothes in the dressing room to knowing what the food you eat contains, is squeezed into that document. It is the foundation upon which you can return a car that is a “lemon” to protection from being seized and jailed without counsel for a traffic offense.

Like mathematics, we take it for granted and just assume it will always be there for us to use. But, every now and then, like Algebra, we need a refresher course; especially when we find our Constitution under attack from numerous sources. The Constitution isn’t some remote historical document reverently conserved in the Library of Congress. It has heart and soul and breath. Because those words written on that crumbling paper were the ideas of people who breathed life into concepts, We the People still reap the benefit from them.

Every day, like figuring out how much money you will need to fill your gas tank, you are surrounded by the benefits derived from our Constitution. And like your anger over the constantly increasing price of gas, you should also be angry over the increasing cost of keeping our Constitution alive.

When men with a private agenda decide it needs to be changed, they speak of it’s ambiguity, of it’s becoming outdated, of lacking relevance to our 21st century lives. And they use fear to enforce their views. Just like the Revolutionary cry of, “The British are coming!”, they cry “We must stop the terrorists!” The difference is that the “British coming” produced the Constitution, the cry of “terrorist coming” produced the Patriot Act; a convoluted, unreadable document totally against the ideals and concepts of the Constitution.

Our anchor to civilization is not ambiguous. It is succinct and clear. There is no equivocation in the Bill of Rights, nor in the Preamble to the Constitution that charges We, the People, with the obligation of protecting our country against tyranny. There is a clear cut distinction between our three branches of government. We get into trouble by allowing one branch to encroach upon the power of another.

Witness the insertion of the Judicial System into the election process. Witness the usurpation of power by the Executive Branch. Witness the lack of strength to challenge the “commander-in-chief” in our Legislative Branch.
We get into trouble when our Executive Branch redefines words to suit their own needs. Witness the recent demand, by the current office holder, to be allowed unfettered control over $25 billion dollars he plans to use in Iraq and Afghanistan to continue a war that does not officially exist.

Congress has never declared war, but has allowed the use of our military forces and our treasury to finance an invasion of Iraq. And it is not his first attempt to circumvent the Constitutional Authority of Congress as it is reported that he used earlier allocations of military funds to secretly fund preparations for the invasion of Iraq.

When an elected official with the title of “president” and “commander-in-chief” puts his will ahead of the needs of the People, it is the duty of the Legislative branches of government to intercede. They not only have the power, but the obligation to intercede. The Senate is charged with the sole Power to try all Impeachments. They have the power, with two thirds of the Members present, to remove the president and commander in Chief.

Three times, in our history, we have considered the removal from office of a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the United States.

The first took place in 1869, when Andrew Johnson was charged with 11 Articles - ten of those involving the Tenure and Army Appropriation Act, the eleventh was a charge of attempting to undermining Congress. President Johnson’s Impeachment was voted on twice, May 16, 1868 and May 26, 1868. It failed by one vote.

The second involved Articles of Impeachment were in the process of being drawn up against President Richard Nixon when he became the first president in history to resign. He was implicated in covering up crimes involving the break-in at the Watergate to steal documents from the opposition party, or tampering with the presidential election.

The Nixon Administration also made history by being the first to have both the president and vice president resign because of wrongdoing.

This brought about the first appointed president in history, when Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to fill the vacant vice presidential position; who subsequently pardoned Richard Nixon and thus saving him from further punishment.

Ironically, the third Articles of Impeachment were drawn up against President Bill Clinton and consisted of two charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. However, the perjury charge consisted of “lying about the details of his relationship” of a consensual affair with another woman to the grand jury and “obstruction of justice” by allegedly trying to influence the testimony of witnesses in a lawsuit against him that was subsequently dropped for lack of evidence.

Considering the charges brought against Johnson and the planned charges against Nixon, the Clinton Impeachment appears contrived and does not meet the high standards set for “high crimes and misdemeanors”; however, the Senate also failed to vote for removal in this matter.

With the bar lowered by the Clinton Impeachment, one must consider how the present executive, appointed by a Supreme Court decision of 5 to 4, continues to hold office. He had met and exceeded the standards of the other three men considered for impeachment. The 1965 Civil Right Commission Report on the Florida election clearly emphasized that something occurred in the 2000 election that disenfranchised millions of voters throughout the country. Our present “commander-in-chief” lied to Congress to persuade them to involve the United States in the invasion of another country.

Our Constitution, and our Honor, has been under attack by an illegal law known as the Patriot Act which infringes upon the unalterable Bill of Rights guaranteed by our constitution. The commander-in-chief has redefined “prisoner of war” in order to deny conquered people the internationally recognized Human Right to humane treatment.

By his actions and deeds he has given permission to our military to torture, maim and kill, our prisoners of war - both military and civilian. He exceeds his constitutional authority as Commander-in Chief to do so.

By his actions and deeds, he has place the United States outside the realm of civilized nations, and put us in danger from the other nations of the world.

By his words and deeds he has subjected us to war crimes accusations that could hold us accountable for those crimes committed under his orders.

The danger we face is not from the terrorist without but from the fear created from within.

And the only weapon we have is our Constitution. We rely on it every day, in every way to live safe, peaceful lives. It must not be warped. It must not be changed by whims. It must not be surrendered to the enemy within.

MAY 12, 2004

CHASING THE TRUTH, PART III

Mr. Bush, you and your administration, are notorious for your failure to provide security to our country. For example, although you told the 9/11 Commission that all you had was “historical” information about terrorist attacks, by the time September 11, 2001 had rolled around, there had already been two major security events for you to “cut your teeth on”.

Do you remember the USS Cole, Mr. Bush? It was in a Yemen port on October 12, 2000, a little over 3 months before President Clinton left office, when it was blown up by al Qaida? Seventeen sailors died, many injured. The investigative road led to al Qaida; in fact, intelligence data gathered during the twelve preceding months before the attack indicated that out of 127,000 pieces of threat information that was processed, 181 had something specific enough to take action. This attack on the USS Cole was among the “historical” information on your desk to take care of when you took the presidential oath of office.

Do you recall what happened April 1, 2001? That was the date that one of our Navy aircraft was “bumped” by a Chinese military plane, forcing it to land in Chinese territory; where they seized the crew and the plane and held them for ransom. This aggressive act by the Chinese, who demanded an apology and a 10 million dollar ransom, was met with a meek and mild response even though it was considered an act that could severely damage Sino-American relations and would have brought us to the brink of war with any other nation.

Did we pay the $10 million dollar ransom, Mr. Bush? Did we acquiesce by supplying them with “favored nation status”? Is that the reason we have given China a green light to invade Taiwan? Chinese Gen. Xiong, talking with our representative Charles Freeman, was said to have told him, “You aren’t going to threaten us again, because in the end, you care more about LA than Taipei.”, a reference to their new missiles that could reach the U.S. Is this why the shooting down (missiles were shot at the damaged plane before it landed) of a Naval aircraft was swept under the rug?

In spite of Condoleezza Rice’s complaining that you had only been in office for 233 days, you should have been acquiring experience with terrorists at a rate that no other president had equaled. President Clinton responded to the first al Qaida bombing after only 37 days in office, and he took the threat of terriorism so seriously that he thwarted three other scheduled major attacks. That “historical” information he left on your desk could have provided you with invaluable information about al Qaida. Did you bother to read it? If so, why was al Qaida such a suprise to you?

Your concern over terrorist attacks was the cause of the August 6, 2001 PDB, that warned that “Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States”. According to you and your staff, the August 6 PDB was prompted by your concern over intelligence that did not specify the type, time or place, but indicated that an “attempt to crash an airliner into the summit” might occur. Sir, was the August 6, 2001 PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States” actually prompted by your concern for your own safety at Genoa? Did you consider “planes crashing into buildings” valid enough to take precautions at the Summit?

We also know, from your released schedule that on August 6, 2001, you worked only 45 minutes. An analysis of your vacation schedule shows that you have been on vacation at various sites for approximately 40% of your term. Considering the amount of time you have devoted to contriving a reason to invade Iraq, do you feel that you have devoted enough time to the business of the country? Do you feel that your neglect of the domestic sector as compared to your devotion to becoming a “war president” (your terminology) is in any way responsible for the current record setting deficit and economic crisis?

You have told us over and over that Iraq was a danger to the United States and you, in your State of the Union speech, (which is supposed to inform Congress of the State of the Union) declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that we could be hit in fifteen minutes. Did you confuse Iraq with China? China had just developed a new missile that could reach us; yet you appear to not consider this a threat. Why was Iraq, under United Nations sanctions and monitored for twelve years, considered more of a threat than China, who had threatened us?

In your pursuit of the Iraq invasion, you proceeded to call our friends enemies and purchase the assistance of those who had never particularly been in our “corner”. Do you feel that your “go it alone” attitude and your constant baiting of the people of Iraq with phrases like “bring it on”, and “it’s over when it’s over” has been conducive to building a support base abroad or in Iraq?

Do you feel that you and your administration share any of the blame for the torture of prisoners of war? Do you feel that by designating captured Iraqi’s “detainees” rather than what they are, prisoners of the conquering armies, that you have contributed to the ambiguity of their status and thereby the erosion of the Geneva Convention? Do you feel that this has put our captured troops in danger of being tortured?

You issued a lukewarm apology to a government that doesn’t exactly represent Iraqis. Do you feel a personal apology to the country of Iraq would have been a better way to show contrition for the breaking of the Geneva Conventions by our troops?

I understand that there is talk of another investigation. Can you tell us how many formal investigations of your administration’s “faux pas” are underway? At last count, there was the 9/ll Commission, the investigation of the leaking of the secret service agent’s name to the press, an investigation into the falsehoods of the medicare bill, and plans to investigate the missing WMD’s of Iraq which begat the invasion.

Aggressive and immediate plans were made, by Republicans, to investigate allegations against President Clinton for a real estate deal his wife was peripherally involved in ten years before he had ever taken the Oath of Office. An in-depth and expensive investigation into allegations of a consensual affair with an intern was probed for the eight years Clinton was in office. This was done with the immediate aproval and pressure of the Republican party.

Can you tell us why it took longer to get an investigation into matters of National Security going than it took to start one on adultry? Why aren’t you being investigated for wrongdoing in the handling of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, or the torture scandal of Iraqi prisoners of war? Do you know why it is taking so long to investigate these issues? Do you know what progress has been made? Are you blocking the investigation into the release of the CIA agent's name to the “media?” Why hasn’t anyone been fired? Why haven’t “heads rolled”. Why are those responsible for some of the worst disasters in our history, not being held accountable?

Mr. Bush, you owe We, the People, complete and honest answers for what has gone on in your administration since your appointment as president in 2000. You do not deserve to run for office until these questions have been answered and investigated completely. To date, your administration is accountable for the loss of approximately four thousand lives, the injury to thousands of others. We deserve, no, it is our Right, to know what has been done in our name.

NO DEMOCRACY HAS EVER THRIVED FROM SECRECY.

MAY 11, 2001

CHASING THE TRUTH, PART II

Mr. Bush, there are some questions as to where your “economic” growth is coming from. Will you explain why; with unemployment so high and sales almost flat, inflation on the rise and gas prices jumping 45¢ since December, 2003; that you feel We, the People are enjoying a “good economy”?

We understand that for the most wealthy 10% of the country that this is so. Companies such as Haliburton enjoy lucrative no-bid government contracts, which in turn pass on some of their profits to your “second in command”, Dick Cheney. And those who are fortunate to have inherited or accumulated great wealth (such as yourself) received huge tax breaks of around 10% on their earned income (your salary) or interest income.

But how does that translate into real dollars for wage earners whose income is not only fixed but devalued by inflation? With census data showing that the most common wage paid to American workers as $27,000 (latest census figure available) how can they benefit from your tax reduction? Do any of your economist, charged with making you look good, actually look at what We, the People are left to live on when you finish carving up our salaries?

There are no tax loopholes that can be closed that will eliminate the federal, state, country, or city, taxes. FICA and Medicare are permanent and fixed deductions.

Health care is routinely paid for by a deduction from wages. Some employees simply can not have an additional deduction for their 401k pension funds -- and once that money is placed into that fund, a huge tax bite awaits anyone unfortunately enough to have to removed it! And these are the fortunate ones still working; imagine what it must be like to be living on unemployment totaling around $1,000 a month.

Yes, Mr. Bush, we realize that you have stated that your regime, er, administration, has produced 288,000 jobs in April. And we also know that you have said that puts job losses at Around 1.5 million. But again, we ask, where are

these jobs and what kind of jobs are they?

An article in the washingtonpost.com today is touting the increase in jobs also. However, the jobs listed in manufacturing seem to all be associated with the war in Iraq. Now, I realize that you have plans to keep the war going through at least 2006 - that would be halfway through the next four year term -- and some are hinting that you could stretch it out until the end of the term; but eventually, like VietNam, the fighting will stop. One or the other will be running out of troops, patience, or authority, and it will end.

Thus, we will be faced with what is called the “economic downside” of war. Most economists agree that war is an inefficient way to spend our money. They say that a dollar spent on improving highways or bridges is beneficial to all; providing work and a shared benefit to the economy. Money spent on the equipment needed to conduct a war is a loss, it soon wears out or is demolished and bombs and bullets are simply gone; even a recovered bullet is worthless.

There is also the problem of the hardship endured by the families of the activated National Guard Units. It isn’t like when your father used influence to get you into the Air Texas National Guard to keep you out of VietNam. It appears that is where most of the boys who had influence went to avoid the all inclusive draft of Viet Nam. High number? Safe. Low Number? Off to VietNam! (From all I have read you were on the fast track to VietNam when you were jumped to the head of the list.)

But your invasion of Iraq was slightly different; they were men and women just trying to earn a little extra income to make ends meet and never expected to fight in a war so far from home for so long. Since VietNam, the activation of the National Guard consisted of deployment in national emergencies like hurricanes, tornados, floods, or wildfires. The financial hardship on these families isn’t included in your economic data. Husbands and wives have lost the income from their civilian job and replaced it with the scant salaries paid by the government. And your budget cuts have reduced everything from benefits to health care.

Can you explain why there is increased spending for weapons of war but not for the care of those wounded in that war? And speaking of weapons for war, itappears, from the figures, that is the area where most of your “economic gain” comes from. More workers have been hired to turn out those Humvees we hear so much about. Armor Holdings, Inc. announced yesterday that it will be expanding again after receiving an additional $16.6 million contract from the Army. Although the company says employment has tripled, they still only employ 600 people; a drop in the almost 3 million unemployed bucket.

We are all aware that body armor has been in such short supply that families, wishing to provide as much protection for their loved one as they can, have been purchasing it themselves. The kilns that produce the armor are said to frenetic with activity trying to keep up with demand. The apparel industry, dead for so long, is now engaged in “24/7” operation in Arkansas, ALabama, Florida, and Puerto Rico. Idle textile mills suffering from the loss of 50,000 jobs last year have rehired 2,400 workers in April and another 500 in May. These newly hired workers are working the same hours to produce camouflage fabric for uniforms and are just glad to be working again.

Here is how they feel, Mr. Bush. A waitress, Debra Temple, near one of the Goodyear plants rolling out the tracts for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicles, says it best, “ They’ve taken husbands and wives and sons and daughters over there, and we’re working and struggling to make up for it.” And another worker sums it up, “Were only a pawn. You know that. Everybody in this community hopes like hell that Goodrich keeps this plant here. If the military drops out, we could be done. It’s a bad deal.”

The Commerce Department tells us that military spending rose to 15.1%, $537.4 billion. The Labor Department says it does not track defense contractor employment and it is impossible to determine how many of the 708,000 jobs you claim were created are simply the result of the ongoing Iraq war. Can you enlighten us? How much of this “gain” is a real gain? Those people who are working so many hours to produce the good of war are worried that it will come to a screeching halt and they will lose their jobs if the war stops?

Is that reason enough to continue with your ill fated Iraq invasion? Today, the public casualty rate is said to be 772. 31 of those have been in the first 11 days of May. We seem to be moving at a rate that will overtake April’s record setting casualty rate of 140 if it continues.

You have said that, “Freedom will prevail, so long as the United States and allies don’t give the people of Iraq mixed signals, so long as we don’t cower in the face of suiciders, or do what many Iraqis still suspect might happen and that is cut and run early, like what happened in 91.” Do you really believe your father made two fundamental mistakes; abandoning Iraq and not defeating the Democrats? Is this an indication that what has happened in Iraq is simply a father-son squabble? Are you out to show up Dad? Have you killed 772 American men and women, maimed thousands of others to show your father what a tough guy you are?

Mr. Bush, are you saying that you wreck our economy and invade a country against the opposition of the world to one-up your father??? And if you did, do you realize that having blood on your hands is not a good way to prove yourself a man?

MAY 10, 2004

CHASING THE TRUTH

Mr. Bush, oh Mr. Bush, could I have a moment of your time to answer some questions. I realize that you are on a busy ‘bus’ tour campaigning for election but these are important issues that We, the People need answers to -- and since you were appointed to hold the office of the President of the United States, I believe it is important for us to get some honest answers before you ask us to give you our vote...you do expect us to have a vote in the next election, don’t you? You aren’t planning another Supreme Court intervention, are you?

First, you are saying that you have “fixed” the unemployment problem, that 288,000 jobs were added in April. Can you explain these figures? In what area were these jobs added, were they “new” jobs or old jobs being recycled? Were jobs outsourced to foreign countries included in this figure, and if so, were these newly created jobs or old jobs? Specifically, what professions are these jobs in?
Are they going to long term unemployed, underemployed or workers who have never held a job before?

Also, under your “management” around 3 million jobs have been lost, and now figures released from your government says the losses have shrunk to 1.5 million. How can “improved” employment figures totaling under one million jobs reduce job losses to l.5 million?

Another problem; how can an unemployment figure released by the government months ago as 5.6% said to have “fallen” to 5.6%? From my mathematical background, it would appear that a figure announced as 5.6% and remaining at 5.6% would be classified as a steady figure -- unless the government is working from figures not available to the public.

You claim that manufacturing jobs ended 42 straight months of lost jobs with an increase of 27,000 jobs for the year. Last year, at the end of the year, figures showed that we were just above declassification as an industrialized nation with a mere 100,000 jobs. Around the beginning of 2004, you were considering reclassification of service jobs to boost the manufacturing job levels. Did you reclassify 27,000 jobs from “service’ jobs to “manufacturing” jobs to allow for this increase? If not, where did these manufacturing jobs come from? What areas are they in? According to figures in numerous business news accounts, manufacturing companies -- in fact almost all companies -- continue to move operations off shore or to outsource thousands of jobs. Are outsourced jobs included in this total? You, in fact, have not only approved outsourcing of American jobs abroad, you claim that it is good for our economy.
Can you explain how a citizens losing his job to...say, India, is a benefit to him or to our country? How will this provide income for his family, to buy items imported into this country from...say, India, or put money back into our economy?

The logical result of removing income from workers is that the worker does not spend as much, or any, thereby, taking money from the economy in the form of lost taxes, or by the loss of purchasing power and, as we see more and more, removing money from circulation by draining savings accounts, retirement funds, etc. And since that drain on savings will not, and can not, be made up by long term unemployed, underemployed and those receiving minimum wages, it will just not be available to circulate or to fund investment.

Think of it as a river during a drought. The water may keep flowing, but eventually it slows and shrinks. When the river shrinks past a certain point, it becomes a trickle and if it never receives any replenishing rain, it simply dries up. It won’t take too many more years of your brand of economic “recovery” before the money source will dry up and we’ll be left, once again, with a very dusty country!

MAY 9, 2004

HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY.

For 769 mothers it is not.
Their children will not be sending them flowers, beautiful cards, or take them out to dinner. And George W. Bush is responsible.

During Bush’s coming of age war, his mother had no fear or anguish that her son was in danger, that he might die. He was safely ensconced in the protection of his father’s influence. Far from danger, death was not real. Unlike men who had experienced bullets whizzing by and their comrades falling beside them, it is easy to tell your enemy to “bring it on”, to dismiss the survival of horrendous wounds, to not realize that those men and women sent to Iraq are not simply numbers in reports. Who feels the anguish of the death of those 769 children who will never return? Their friends, their families, their wives, their mothers.

***************************************************
Bush is very good about IGNORING IRAQ.

Ask him why we are there and he stutters about “bringing freedom” to the Iraqi people absolutely unaware that you never bring freedom with the barrel of a gun. He has told us so many lies about why he insisted that we invade Iraq that, if he did once have a valid reason, it is obscured by all those lies. Caught in another scandal promising more retribution from not only Iraq, but from the world, Bush feigns surprise about the torture going on in Abu Ghraib prison; thereby, he thinks, removing himself from all responsibility.

But he has proclaimed himself “commander in chief”; the person responsible for

all things done in his name. By his actions and demeanor, he has given our troops a green light. He is the man who kissed off the United Nations, calling them irrelevant. He is the man who called our allies “old Europe” and said we were responsible for saving their butts during World War II and they “owed” us. He is the one who said we should pull out of NATO. He is the one who said Spain was “giving in to terrorists” when the people elected a leader who removed Spanish troops from Iraq. And he is responsible for the torture and death at Guantanamo and at Abu Gharib prison.

His lame apology to the ruler of Jordan doesn’t exactly reach the Arab world as an abject apology. Nor does his promise to “investigate” hold much water considering all of the events his administration is investigating and just can’t seem to get to the bottom of.

Now we have another one. And, as “commander in chief” he is responsible for the decision to remove the commanding general of the prison, Brig. General Janis Karpinski, who publically stated that she did not have ultimate authority over Abu Charib, that she was subject to orders from “intelligent sources and even “hired contractors”.

Her statements have been backed up by the guards who were among those caught on camera and tape. Spc. Sabrina Harman, confessed that she and other members of the 372nd Military Police Company took direction from military intelligence officers, CIA operatives and from civilian contractors. Lynndie England, who appeared to be enjoying herself in the photos taken of her, also insists that the torture was done under orders. The “Good German” syndrome?

According to our military and civilian authorities, the “investigating” is moving swiftly; however, is this going to be another cover up? After removing Brig. General Karpinski, the resident scapegoat, it appears, Maj. General Geoffrey Miller was appointed “clean up man”.

But there is a significant problem with his appointment. He is the former commander of the U.S. Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay. “Gitmo”, as they call it, has been the subject of several investigations into abuse allegations, arrests of military personnel accused of spying and “aiding” the enemy within the prison (the charges were ultimately withdrawn) and holding innocent men, without benefit to a trial or lawyers, for years.

British citizens recently released from Guantanamo Bay reported abuse and the use of “brainwashing” techniques” that have left them unfit to stand the strain of public contact. Outraged family members and their lawyers insist the United States needs to be held accountable for the condition of these innocent men - pointing to the men’s release as proof that they were innocent.
If, as Maj. General Miller says, “alleged abuses and abuses we have discovered from the investigations appear to be due to leaders and soldiers not following the

authorized policy and lack of leadership and supervision”, is true; how can we be sure that he hasn’t implimented the same techniques he used to “break” prisoners at Gitmo? And how do we know that there was a complete investigation into the allegations of the commander of the camp being overruled by intelligence members, CIA operatives, and worse, some form of civilian contractors hired to torture prisoners?

There was nothing beyond his statement that he had “visited” all 14 prison facilities and that he would halt or restrict interrogation methods, especially 8 or 10 “very aggressive techniques” (torture?) ... without specific approval. Sounds like “business as usual” to me....

And BUSH PROMISES
“...we will learn all the facts and determine the full extent of these abuses. Those

involved will be identified. They will answer for their actions.”

Sure. Just like the complete investigation into why ENRON collapsed. Just like Cheney’s secret energy commission meeting that ultimately brought California to its knees. Just like the investigation about releasing the identity of a secret service agent to a “media” source, who published it to punish a whistleblower about Bush’s WMD lies. Just like the investigation into the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 produced all those answers to so many coincidences that allowed four planes to be hijacked. Just like the investigation into the election of 2000 that put him into office with a Supreme Court vote of five justices.

If our country is held accountable for refusing to uphold the Geneva Convention, it will not be done by the Bush administration but in the court of World Opinion. Bush’s philosophy of leadership is to cover his derriere at all times. The day will probably never come Bush will have to answer for his actions. But the day is not far off when We, the People will.

MAY 8, 2004

MEETING “THE ENEMY”

Yesterday, circumstances placed me in a small town, in close proximity to one of our larger military bases, where I grabbed a quick lunch at one of the local fast food places. They had a television on, no surprise, turned to that “fair and balanced” network which was showing Secretary Rumsfeld’s testimony before members of the Senate.

I idling watched about ten minutes, thinking same old - same old, when one of the employees sat down to take her break and provide some commentary upon the hearing which was in the process of winding down. She watched awhile and then asked, “But did they say why? Why they did it.” Since she was looking my way, I replied, “No, they haven’t said why, didn’t give a reason.”

She continued, “There was a reason...” She turned slightly away and I couldn’t hear what she was saying over the tv but it sounded like something about the Iraqi people, and then she turned back and said louder, indignantly, “Our guys have to defend themselves... our guys over there are scared to death!”

My eyebrows went up in surprise. I don’t know what “our guys” had to be scared of, those Iraqi prisoners of war were in the same prison that Saddam Hussein used to torture and kill dissidents, Abu Ghraib. The prisoners were stripped naked, blinded, tethered, and in a bare room containing numerous men with guns. If there is anywhere in Iraq that the military was safe, it was with those prisoners.

She continued to talk, repeating almost verbatim what Bush and the “media” have been reporting about Iraq and why we must “stay the course.” From her attitude of certainty, she did not expect to be challenged on her radical ideas expressed in that public place, with people in uniforms setting close enough to hear her. Finally, she glanced at me again and said, “Of course, everybody is entitled to their opinion.” and went back to work.

I watched the hearing wind down as I finished my lunch, saw the Republican chairman thank Rumsfeld for gracing their committee with his presence, congratulating him on being so forthcoming and the senators began to shuffle out while the “fair and balanced” moderators began the spin that would lead to that employee thinking that somehow the torture, maiming and death of those Iraqi prisoners was justified.

I though about her words even after I had left the area and I realized that there must be hundreds of people with her ideas around that small town, connected in some way to that military base. That they must gather together at some point, somewhere and confirm those ideas with each other. And if that woman and her community could be convinced that torture is ok to do to the “right” people, then there are probably other communities out there expressing the same idea.

And a terrifying thought bubbled to the surface. During World War II, one of the most feared words of every German was gestapo. No one was safe from the Gestapo; they picked up Germans and took them to their headquarters where they disappeared for weeks, months, forever. Those who were there testified to the horror, the torture, the rape. And those who escaped death wept over the information they gave up while the Gestapo “softened” them up. And those who didn’t died. But the Gestapo obtained the information they wanted.

And I wondered if this woman would cooperate with a government who might designate a class of people “evil”, like the German government labeled the Jews. Has the propaganda about Iraq been so insidious that she is willing to accept torture as a suitable defense against our perceived enemies? Does she have no concept of the Geneva convention which is supposed to protect our soldiers from torture?

And I wondered what her concept of the Patriot Act was. Does she see it as an invasion of our Constitution Rights or does she see it as a “defense” against ambiguous “enemies”? Would she be willing to sacrifice for this country or would she blindly go along with the government if they chose to designate a group “the enemy”?

Does she accept Rumsfeld’s version of events? Bush’s? Does she know that while Rumsfeld was visiting in Iraq that this torture continued? Does she know that the Red Cross was repeatedly asking U. S. authorities to take action to stop the torture of prisoners of war even while Rumsfeld was there?

I hope that this woman’s opinion is an aberration but I fear it is not. I only hope that there are more of us than of her because at some point in the very near future there will be a battle in this country and it will be her kind verses the rest of us for its soul. And if her kind wins, our kind will face a trip to a dark and dungeon-like building to be “softened up” by a government intent on proving that We are “the enemy.”

Both men planning to assume the presidency have plans for Iraq. Both men plan to leave our troops there indefinitely. Both euphemistically say we must “stay the course”. Both men do not expect us to voice any opposition. We, the People, will provide permission by our silence. But, we are living in times that try men’s souls. The judgments and decisions we make will last more than our lifetime. We are leaving a legacy to our children, and to their children’s children, that will write history. The children who died at the end of the VietNam war were unborn at its beginning. It will be an addendum to the freedom and democracy began with the ratification of our Constitution in 1776 or it will be written in the blood of those dying for a leader who is embarrassed, not by the torture of America’s prisoners of war, but because, he says, that he had not been told about it and was unprepared for a reporter’s question.The choice, and the responsibility, is yours. Choose well.
 
 
MAY 5, 2004 THE EVIL THAT MEN DO...AND THE EXCUSES THEY USE TO JUSTIFY IT In the year 2000, our lives changed. At the time we did not know, or understand, the significance of the Supreme Court’s intervention in our election process. Now we do. Three years after the historic decision that chose a president by declaring that George W. Bush would be harmed by counting all of the Florida vote; but that Vice President Al Gore would not be harmed by counting all of the Florida vote, we are seeing what those five justices have wrought.George W. Bush’s inattention, and preoccupation with invading another country, contributed to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 that devastated our financial district and crippled our military headquarters. His excuse is that he didn’t have the date of the planned attack so he couldn’t stop it. He shoves responsibility off on our constitution. Amendments I, II, V, VIII prevented him from entering private homes, spying on We, the People; and our legal system kept him from throwing us in prison and denied him the right to keep us there without charges.His party also blames Jamie Gorelick, a member of the 9/11 Commission investigating the attack of 2001. Both the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and other Republicans have stated that her memo, while working in the Justice Department under Clinton, hindered their ability to get intelligence information. All Ms. Gorelick did was to produce a memo, at the direction of her superior, establishing distinctions between intelligence that could be used for law enforcement purposes and intelligence that could be used for national security purposes. (A memo whose conclusion was validated by one of Ashcroft’s own people.) It was intended to be a safeguard against abuse of citizen’s rights. And because of that, she is accused of being responsible for a terrorist attack that happened long after her departure, and is the recipient death threats. The fact that her ultimate boss, President Clinton, had thwarted three major attacks on New York City’s bridges, subways and tunnels while keeping to the tenants of the Constitution seems to have escaped everyone’s attention!George W. Bush’s obsession with invading Iraq has gone through many metamorphoses. First, his excuse was danger to the United States, Saddam Hussein must be stopped because he had weapons of mass destruction aimed at us, access to nuclear weapons. Second, it was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, now we must “stay the course” because the terrorists will get us although the invasion unified the diverse terrorist groups with a common goal: Get America.He also excuses his massive tax breaks to the wealthy by saying they will “create more jobs”. How? The cities he visits are filled with those who have lost their jobs and remain unemployed or have taken low paying jobs that do not adequately provide for their families. At every campaign stop he tells us how great our lives are and how wonderful the economy is -- although the cities he has visited are overwhelmed with budget cuts which deny children health care and adequate schools. He says we don’t need environmental restraints, that it is better to log the forest and get rid of the trees that start forest fires; it is better to drill for oil in pristine Alaska than to find alternate fuel sources that would lower oil company profits. Global warming doesn’t exist, so we don’t need to fix the problem. And he, and his administration, continually push his brand of religion upon We, the People, in violation of Amendment I. And because he excuses all of the evil done
in his name; we must live with the results.When your leader turns a blind eye to injustice, or participates in it, there is always a segment of the population that will follow his leadership.In Nazi Germany, they said they were just being “good Germans”, that they were “just following orders”. Over twelve million people died because 1) they were too afraid to challenge their leader, 2) they agreed with what their leader was saying and doing. Is that our excuse when we hear that Americans are returning to old prejudices and ways of dealing with differences? Religious intolerance is on the rise and it isn’t only Muslims who are targeted. In our country, during the year 2002, anti Semitic incidences rose 8%. These “incidents” ranged from vandalism of cemeteries by smashing headstones and painting swastikas to splashing synagogues with painted Nazi symbols and swastikas. A Jewish family in Florida, last month, received death threats and buckets of paint thrown over their house, garage, and truck. Their “crime” was to file suit against the Manatee County School Board for refusing to substitute a non-denominational prayer instead of one with repeated Christian references -- a clear violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution.Racism has once again reared its ugly head. Bush pushed for the end to Affirmative Action, a program that was designed to “level the playing field.” They dispensed with it in California and discovered that the number of Asians admitted to colleges declined - not applications, admissions. And now studies are indicating that segregation is returning. Gary Orfield, Director of The Civil Rights Project, says that schools are more segregated now than at any time since 1968. With our nation in an economic crisis, unemployment figures indicate that the largest segment of the population without jobs are African Americans. And, in 2000, the Civil Rights Commission established by the 1965 Civil Rights Act, that investigated the Florida election, established a pattern of bias in the voting machines proportioned throughout Florida. Predominately black, and poor, areas of the state received voting machines that failed to work, invalidating thousands of votes. Wealthy communities received state of the art equipment. The office responsible for the distribution of funds for the federal election was overseen by Katharine Harris (rewarded for her ineptitude with a Congressional seat) who excused Florida’s debacle by saying that, even though it was her job, that she spent no time overseeing the department -- except to hire a firm to disenfranchise as many Floridians as possible by setting felon search parameters so broadly that it stopped almost 100,000 innocent people from voting in 2000.The other major disenfranchised group was a community composed of mostly Jewish retirees. They were given an impossible ballot, known as the infamous “butterfly ballot” which listed the names of the candidates according to state law, Bush first (because the governor was Republican) Gore second, and so forth; however, the holes to be punched did not coordinate with the names. By punching Gore’s name, the vote went to Bucannon, whose name was third. The excuse for the ineptitude of the State of Florida was varied, “they were too old...got confused...couldn’t see well...and a few Republicans even commented that they were “too old to vote anyway.”And they make it sound more like a nuisance than a horror that George W. Bush is being forced to acknowledge the torture of Iraqi prisoners of war (no, I will not use that euphemism “detainee”). Yes, it may, and it should, harm his chances to
be elected. How could he let this happen? Did the soldiers see the coldness of his attitude toward Iraq when he was still trying to get us to let him have his war? Was it something in his cocky manner when he snarled, “bring it on” that tipped them over the edge of civilized behavior? What happened to men who were ordinary citizens, working at an ordinary job, until Bush sent them off to war? How did they lose all compassion and see these prisoners as dehumanized?  
And, if they could do this and find it amusing, will they return to civilized ways when they come home? Or will the dangerous attitudes emerging in our country be enhanced by their experience? Will their behavior spread to others, will intolerance breed more intolerance? At this moment, Bush is pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage and make abortion a crime. Does he have a right to change our
 
constitution and disenfranchise two segments of our population? And if he does, what is next? Who is next? I have used this quote before but the truth is so profound that I must say it again.First they came for the Jews and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew.Then they came for the Communists and I did not speakbecause I was not a Communist.Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.Pastor Martin NiemollerLet us hope that we never wait that late. Let us hope that we have the courage of Jamie Gorlick: “The threats were scary...but (I am) not intimidated enough to resign from the commission.” Or Spc. Joseph Darby, a 24 year old Army Reserve member, credited with being the whistleblower about the torture of Iraqi prisoners. Let’s hope that we have the courage to face the evil that men do and refuse to excuse ourselves from acting. Whatever small step you take moves us away from the edge of evil. That small step can be as simple as to repudiate the man who has led us with falsehoods and fears. Or as bold as to march in the streets against his agenda. But whatever action, or inaction, you may take, remember, if you do nothing they will eventually come for you.
 
 
MAY 4, 2004
“PROSPERITY FOR THE PEOPLE...” The words of George W. Bush as he took time away from his busy vacation schedule to continue the grueling campaign grind through Michigan and Ohio. In a state suffering from unemployment that has doubled since Bush assumed the role of president, he told them:“Peace and freedom depend upon this election. Prosperity for the people depend upon this election.” And he asked the people of this suffering state for their help while offering them none. “With your help, there is no doubt in my mind I can carry Michigan and I will be re-elected for four more years.” And he tells them that the “best way to generate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money...”However, you must have money in order to be allowed to keep it. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have money, and they were allowed to keep more of it. Their income taxes were reduced almost 10%. They were allowed to keep more of the income generated by their stock portfolios because of reduced taxes. Corporations were allowed to keep more of their income because they either had reduced taxes or indefinitely deferred income tax on their profits earned overseas. ..“No, ... The tax cuts we passed came at the absolute right time.” For Bush and Cheney they did, for the 7% unemployed in Michigan, it makes no difference. O + 0 = 0. Ironic, isn’t it? Bush had a 7% reduction in taxes, Michigan had a 7% reduction in jobs.And speaking of jobs, “The Center for American Progress” (www.americaprogress.org) recently published a report with some interesting job statistics. Did you know that for the decade prior to January 2001(1991- 2000) the United states and Canada had similar economic growth statistics? The United States economy had slightly less than 35% expansion while Canada had slightly more than 36%. During that ten year period, most of which was under President Clinton’s administration, jobs grew 22% while Canada had lightly more than 16%. That meant that the “rate of new job creation was on the average about 1/3 higher over the course of the decade in the US than in Canada”; however the trend abruptly changed in 2001. I know what you’re thinking. But the growth continued for the first three months of 2001 and began declining in April, 2001, three months after Bush was installed as president. Someone must have seen the handwriting on the wall because jobs declined at an average rate of 135,000 a month until August 2001. As expected, after September 11, 2001, job loss accelerated to approximately 185,000 a month. And here we are, three years later and job losses number almost 3 million! But, if the United States had kept pace in job creation with Canada from January 2001 to the present, we would have created 9 million additional jobs. Bush says nothing about this in his campaign speeches; in fact rhetoric concerning job loss is conspicuously ignored. The Workforce Development Center has recently completed its new survey of national Work Trend which consists of compiling data from the opinions of workers and employers on a number of economic and workforce policy issues. What they have discovered, repudiates Bush’s claims of “economic success” and his optimism about “where the economy is headed.” From the survey of working America, it appears to be headed in the opposite direction than the one Bush is going. The workers surveyed during the month of February and March believe they have been left to their owns means to cope with the recession and job loss and that unease, not optimism, is the dominate feeling. More than half of the labor force is very concerned about the job security of those currently working and this is the highest number they had found since the survey started in 1998. 2/3 of American workers feel that now is a bad time to find a a quality job while only 16% felt this way three years ago.The worker pessimism was created by the worker’s own experiences. 1 out of every 5 workers, at some time during the last three years received a lay-off notice. And of those who weren’t laid off, 1/3 worked with, or knew someone, who was. 54% of current workers believe there are no steps that they can take to reduce the possibility of their being laid off over the next 3 to 5 years!! Those conducting the survey were even more surprised to discover that employers are even more pessimistic than the workers; less than 30% believe they can reduce the probability of having to lay off people during the next five years.Additional signs of the chasm between Bush and We, the People, comes from other statistics. Recently, an article was written about the downturn in sales from Supermarkets. People are shopping less in supermarkets, buying from cheaper discount stores to save money on food. With workers putting in so many hours at their jobs and then putting in a second shift either at home, or at another job, time is at a premium so spending that time searching out a cheaper place to shop rather than stopping at the local supermarket on the way home is a major economic indicator! Another ugly fact was raised in this article also. It was that we have begun making choices of buying gas or buying food. And gas is winning. (As I said before, no transportation, no job, no money at all!!) The national gas price has reached a record high, $1.844 a gallon. That is a 33¢ rise in one year (U.S. Energy Information’s Weekly survey of stations.)
Our wages are pretty much static. Taxes taken from our wages have continued
to rise (in spite of Bush’s claims), inflation has taken a large bite from our paycheck, utility costs have increased as has insurance on both our health and our cars.Census data claims that the most common wage paid in the United States is $27,000 a year. That is $13.50 an hour without deductions for federal, state, local taxes and Social Security and Medicare deductions and without the deduction for your health care. It takes approximately two hours work for a tank of gas. That leave 6 hours of work a day to divide over your other expenses - not including all those deductions or your house and car payments. And Bush continually pats himself on the back for his “success” in Iraq. He defends his decision to invade Iraq saying that he had “warned” Saddam Hussein to completely disarm and “I’m the kind of fellow that when I say something I mean it.” He seems to completely forget that he got us to war with lies and that the United Nations refused to support his invasion. The cost of maintaining this occupation is 6 billion dollars a month and expected to rise. The cost in lives,which Bush avoids mentioning in his campaign rhetoric, has been 755 Americans, 116 “coalition”. 140 of those deaths occurred in April, for the four days of May 14 have died. The average number of deaths per day in Iraq stands at 5; the average number of deaths per day in VietNam were said to be 10. He should not be proud of this war. At the moment he is telling us that his war in Iraq is going so well the world is condemning us for the treatment of prisoners of war that Bush dubbed “detainees”. We have all seen the photos of the torture of these men. Even the general who ran the Iraqi POW camp felt it necessary to repudiate the actions of those involved. There is more to this episode than what we have seen. The general says that she did not have full authority in her own “prison”, that she was under the control of other secret authority. Does the absence of any action by the Bush administration beyond a headshake and the word “disgusting” indicate that he feels no responsibility for what has been done in his name and the name of the United States of America?
“I’m the kind of fella that when I say something I mean it.”
So what have you said, Mr. Bush? That you think the country is fine the way it is? That supporting your wealthy friends with tax breaks is more important than creating employment for millions of ordinary citizens? That your “conservative compassion” does not extend to feeding the hungry children of our nation? That you can not perceive of yourself making any mistakes? That you tolerate bigotry? Torture?Or, “I’m the kind of fella that when I say something I mean it.”, like when you checked off that box refusing to volunteer for VietNam, or when you promised to defend the United States with service in the Texas Air National Guard, or when you said, “I’m counting on you, just like you’ve been counting on me.”
But you are counting votes. We are counting lives.
 
MAY 2, 2004 DENIAL, that “river in Egypt” is a popular place to be right now. With the month of April producing a total of 140 casualties, and 3 MIA’s, Bush greets the anniversary of “Mission Accomplished” with a speech defending his invasion of Iraq and his hasty declaration that the war was over. He maintains that the fertile ground he plowed is not responsible for the growth in terrorist activity in Iraq -- yet he appoints one of Saddam Hussein generals to stop it. And he saves his accusations for his former allies who are dropping by the wayside as the cost in money and lives goes up. “It is in the interest of every nation to fight and destroy terrorism.” he proclaimed, “Any sign of weakness or retreat validates terrorist violence and invites more violence for all nations.” He pushes for “bolder action”. Bush either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that the nations he accuses of being soft on terrorism had already fought long, bloody battles with terrorists before he entered the fray in March, 2003. Perhaps he should shut up and listen to the voice of Experience for once!And we should all look squarely at THE COST OF WAR.
That taboo subject that the Bush government refuses to talk about, is said to be costing our deeply in debt country 6 BILLION dollars a month to wage war in Iraq. The cost of that forgotten war in Afghanistan is unknown. Commanders are complaining that their equipment isn’t adequate for what they are required to do. Soldiers are mutilated and die because they are short flack jackets and supplies. Bush is constantly telling us that the troops will get what they need -- but so far they haven’t! There are stories about families buying body armor to send to their relatives in Iraq.
And there isn’t anyone who doesn’t realize that the cost of Bush’s invasion is going to go even higher. The problem, as we see it, is where is the money coming from? Bush’s personal fortune? Certainly, We, the People, are running out of funds. With unemployment so high, hungry children at an all time high, and the Bush tax lowering the tax bite of the wealthy (Bush and Cheney each receive a 7% and a 9% reduction on their taxes.) and American companies are keeping untaxed profits out of the United States, We, the People ask: where is the money to sustain the country -- let alone two wars -- going to come from? We already have a record setting deficit in spite of the previous administration leaving us a record setting surplus. Tell us, Mr. Bush, where do you plan to get 6 billion dollars a month to pay for this war? Will you tap the Iraqi oil fields???? Or are they off limits to all except Haliburton?AND WHAT ABOUT THE COST IN BLOOD?Today, the web site that tries to keep track of the death toll in Iraq,
http:lunaville.org/war casualties/Summary.aspxreports 747 casualties to date, 106 “coalition” casualties, 140 for the month of April, and on this second day of May we begin a new month with 6 deaths. The site admits that the totals may not be accurate, that it is hard to verify and that they check multiple sources before they add a death. Their sources are the press, both foreign and domestic. They have to resort to this because, just like VietNam (how the Bush administration hates that comparison) the government doesn’t release much information. And just like VietNam, the death totals of those killed could be much higher. Unlike VietNam, they make no estimates of Iraqi civilian or military deaths.And, WHY IS IT “UNPATRIOTIC” TO HONOR THE IRAQ CASUALTIES?
Bush, whose constant refrain before and during the Iraq invasion was “support the troops” refuses to acknowledge their sacrifice. Until April, the bodies seemed to be slipped back in secrecy, the families mourned in silence, and Bush continued on his merry way with vacations and campaign fundraising dinners. We could call Iraq, like Afghanistan, the forgotten war. But something happened in that bloody month of April. It was as if America suddenly woke up as Iraq demanded Bush’s attention again. Photos of rows of flag draped coffins made their way into the public; families who lost their loved one in battle began to criticize the war openly; and war protesters, whose leaders had participated in the invasion, repudiated those leaders by voting them out of office. And We, the People, who protested this war were finally vindicated from the label “unpatriotic.” We knew this was so when censorship reared its ugly head. The highly respected program, Nightline, wanted to honor all the casualties from the Iraq war; after all Bush had declared it ‘over’ exactly one year ago. It was to be similar to the 9/11 anniversary program where a list of all the victims was read. The Nightline program planned to read the names in the same way, no music or graphics.Apparently this was too much for the Sinclair Broadcast group, who owns 62 TV stations and covers 24% of US homes. They refused to air the broadcast honoring our soldiers, saying that the program was “motivated by a political agenda.” How can honoring those who died in the service of their country be perceived as “political”? Programs have been pulled before for various political reasons; recently the Reagan movie Republicans called unfair was dumped because of political pressure; so I assume Sinclair didn’t expect retaliation for his pro Bush stance. But it came.It came from all sources; the relatives, media “watchdog” groups, senators, representatives, and ordinary citizens.Josh Silver, managing director of Free Press, a national media reform group, sent a letter stating that they believed Sinclair had violated the federal rules governing “stewardship of the public airwaves” and promised that his group would encourage viewers served by Sinclair stations to express their views when TV license renewal hearings were held. Robert McChesney, President of Free Press, stated bluntly, “It’s a politics/business decision that Sinclair made because they don’t want to anger the White House” and they hope that the White House will bolster chances of gaining changes in station ownership rules that would benefit Sinclair, “the stench of corruption here is extraordinary.” he concludes. Whatever the political motive of Sinclair, the facts seem to show that if there are any “political agendas” Sinclair has more to answer for than Nightline does. Sinclair has been a heavy contributor to Bush’s political party; giving 98% of their donations to Republicans and only 2% to Democrats. That’s quite a bias in contributions. And there is agreement that calling attention to the previously secret casualty figures from Iraq could have a negative impact on Bush’ election chances.Military Families Speak Out, an organization formed by family members who relatives in Iraq, condemned Sinclair’s decision, saying it was “dishonoring our troops and their families.” Jane Bright, West Hills, CA. , whose son Evan Ashcraft was killed in July, wrote a scathing letter, “The Sinclair Broadcast group is trying to undermine the lives of our soldiers killed in Iraq. By censoring Nightline they want to hide the toll the war on Iraq is having on thousands of soldiers and their families, like mine...”Senator John McCain, and Representative Maurice Hinchley voiced their concerns over the censorship also. Rep. Hinchley said that Sinclair’s decision seemed motivated by its own political agenda. “This decision by Sinclair...to keep this program off its stations is being made by a corporation with a political agenda without regard to the wants or needs of its viewers...This move may be providing a chilling look into the future if we allow media ownership to be consolidated into fewer and fewer hands.”Since George W. Bush assumed the office of president of the United States after a biased media portrayed Bush’s search for votes in a positive light while accusing Gore of being a “poor looser” we have seen more and more censorship in our press. The portrayal of the nine Democratic candidates versus the positive “spin” of George Bush’s constant round of money collecting parties and vacations, woke many of us up to the fact that we weren’t receiving all the news.We wondered how the Republican hysteria over the Reagan movie could cause another network to pull it from its schedule. And we wondered why Robert Novak was giving classified information regarding a CIA agent to “get back” at her husband who told us the truth about Bush’s State of the Union Address. And for months there was the grumble about unknown casualties and injuries from Iraq. And now it is in the open. Our media can want to inform us, but their business owners can stop them. As Ted Koppel said, This was never intended to be about us and for all the controversy swirling around the program, tonight is just going to be about the men and women who have died in the war in Iraq... Our goal tonight was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism...the reading of the names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war, nor was it meant as an endorsement.”No, it was a way to honor the soldiers who had, George W. Bush said, died to bring freedom to the people of Iraq. And the censorship of that program honoring our dead did more to open our eyes to the knowledge that, while they die in Iraq, the people that sent them there are busy undermining our freedom at home."Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." -  Harry S. Truman
 
 
MAY 1, 2004
 
ACCOUNT-ABILITY We knew George W. Bush’s grasp of mathematics was bad; he told us so during his debate with Vice President Al Gore. While Gore was busy giving us facts and figures about everything from terrorists to economics, Bush shuffled, leaned on the podium and gave us that famous little sneer and drawled that it was all a bunch of “fuzzy math” to him.As accountants say, the bottom line is that the man who possessed an undergraduate degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, still can’t understand the “fuzzy” mathematics of what it takes to run a profitable business, let alone a profitable country. And for that, we are paying a high price.

Two days ago I filled my car with gas and I bought groceries. There was absolutely nothing fuzzy about that! Milk, a staple in almost every household, was way over $3.00 a gallon. For a minimum wage worker, that one gallon of milk and one loaf of bread cost one hour of labor. How much of a mathematical bite does it take from an unemployment check in the state where you live? How long will that bottle of milk and bread last your family? You just did math, People, and I doubt it was fuzzy to you -- but then you have to balance your checkbook before you spend, Bush does not.Gas has been steadily creeping up for months but when I drove by the same station where I had filled my car two days ago, my jaw dropped. In two days gas had jumped over 14¢ a gallon. When I bought gas Wednesday, gas had risen 4¢ a gallon. I don’t know what gas costs in the area where you live, but that is a 18¢ rise in less than two weeks. At the beginning of April, it was 23¢ cheaper!!This doesn’t include the rise in utility costs that I have received over the past three months. Each additional cent that I pay means one of two things: 1. I’ve gotten a raise and the higher prices are being offset by that or, 2. I’ve lost income because my salary doesn’t stretch as far as it did. Which category do you fit into? If we have a job, or if we are looking for a job; the one thing we need is cash. Cash to get us to the job. Cash to find us a job. Cars need gas; busses won’t take credit; wear our shoes out and they will need to be replaced (stores won’t even let you in if you’re shoeless, let alone hire you). You are rapidly facing a Catch 22, can’t get it if you don’t have it, don’t have it if you can’t get it!You would think that economists with all their degrees would be able to see the mathematical results of a broke nation as well as we could. But it’s an election year, People, and image must be maintained at all costs (sorry). They have worked extremely hard at playing with their numbers to come up with an “improving” economy that will be emerging as a “solid” economy by election time. But, let’s do a little “fuzzy” math. Huge headline, “Personal Spending, Income Up.” They say that both measures of “family economics” (a new one for me!) is up 0.4% in March. First, 0.4% is a very insignificant number. Inflation could certainly account for it, could cancel it out -- or (gasp) even show a negative rise in spending when calculated by those “fuzzy” math concepts called Algebra.One thing economist do is exclude everything you have to purchase. The don’t include energy prices, or food prices. Why, you ask. Because that would show a giant inflation in relationship to the wages you earn. Anthony Crescenzi, a bond market strategist at Miller Tabak & Co. says, “Many people can relate to the idea that the inflation rate has accelerated, when they take trips to gas station or buy food or health care -- so many products and services.” Yes we can, and we also know when our bottom line is in the red. Although we are told that the “good news” is due to job creation and reduced layoffs, I haven’t seen a particular decline in layoffs during the month of April. At least four major companies have announced layoffs involving thousands of people, and I may have missed counting some. Then there is job creation. Long term unemployed and underemployed workers continue to total around 10 million people. Most of these workers are no longer counted in the unemployment figures. But let’s do a little “fuzzy math” on the latest unemployment figures that include just new claims. For the week ending April 24, the Labor Department released this figure, 338,000. The revised the figure for the week ending April 17 from 356,000 unemployed to 345,000. So let’s take the lowered figure of 345,000 and the new figure of 338,000 and add them up. 701,000 people were newly unemployed for two weeks in April. Again, we know that, for the rest of April the news was not that good, so we can use a calculation known as estimating a total from the two weeks we have. There are slightly more than four weeks in April, but, since math is so fuzzy, I’ll just count four weeks. That means doubling the 701,000 figure to come up with approximately l,402,000 new jobless people for the month of April. Now you can begin to see the reality of the situation. There are approximately 140 million workers in this country. That means that approximately 10% of working Americans were unemployed during the month of April and that figure doesn’t include those of you who took part time jobs to pay for that gas and bread we talked about! Those drop-in-the-bucket jobs (308,000 new jobs created) don’t look so great now, do they?And extrapolating from this mathematical data, supplied by the United States government, we can calculate the yearly figure of the number of Americans who can be expected to be laid off at some point during the year as at least 6% of the work force. And, just like the ripples produced by a rock thrown into water, the numbers are constantly increasing!Looking a little grim here, not good for the election chances of George W. Bush if the math isn’t so fuzzy.And here are some more “fuzzy math” figures that Bush won’t want clarified. The positive “economic figures” he is bragging about come from government spending (your tax dollars at work). But the spending isn’t on such things as the environment, entitlements, or health care. National Defense spending rose at a rate of 15.1% marking the biggest increase since the second quarter of 2003. Two wars take a lot of defense spending, but here’s the horrific part. What calculation do you do to find the cost analysis of one life. 742 American lives in Iraq + 106 coalition lives = 848 lives ÷ by economic profits of defense contractors. How much do you consider your child worth?  
APRIL 30, 2004 TESTIMONY George W. Bush described his testimony to the 9/11 Commission as “marvelous”. Chilling. Bush sees his contribution to the investigation into the terrorist attack on our financial district that wiped out 3,000 citizens as “marvelous”? His staff could certainly have put a more compassionate word in his mouth; perhaps informational, enlightening, satisfactory, obligatory, defensive... truthful. Why did they chose “marvelous” -- because he got through it without any big faux pas? The one thread that ran through the secret meeting seemed to be more concern about protecting Bush’s political image than in finding out the truth about how the attack on September 11, 2004 happened. Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan, said that Bush greeted the commission in the Oval Office by expressing his disappointment in the commission and said that he did not want to be part of “finger pointing.” If you don’t point some fingers, then no one can be held responsible. I doubt Bush is unfamiliar with the phrase, “heads will roll”, but it is possible. And another phrase that he seems unaware of also comes to mind: THE BUCK STOPS HERE (Harry Truman, referencing his decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. He told the pilots that flew the planes that they were just following orders, that the responsibility was his!)From the scant information released about this strange “testimony” of Bush and Cheney, nothing new surfaced. An unnamed source stated that the “answers were somewhat predictable.” A second unnamed source said that Bush was “clearly aware” of other accounts and was very critical of his former counter terrorist, Richard Clarke. Understandable, since Clark had incriminating evidence that the Bush administration dropped the ball where al Qaida was concerned but was intently playing a fierce game over invading Iraq.George W. Bush insisted that he saw little new in the August 6 PDB suggesting that al Qaida was planning a new attack upon the U.S. Perhaps Mr. Bush, on vacation August 6, was preoccupied with his golf score. After all, he spent less than an hour dealing with the problems of the nation. Or perhaps he though his Saudi connections would provide a game plan of al Qaida’s moves for him.President Clinton, 37 days after taking the presidential oath, was confronted with an al Qaida attack on the World Trade Center. He created a Cabinet post and appointed Clarke, who had served several Republican administrations, as terrorist czar. Perhaps if Bush had not ruthlessly disposed of all of the previous administration’s information, he wouldn’t have been so shocked that an al Qaida threat existed. Part of the problem that produced two attack on the United States in the 233 days of the Bush administration seemed to be a disconnect between the life Bush was living and the requirements of being a president. Previous administrations did not require copious amounts of time off from the job. In fact, the most successful of our presidents tended to be workaholics. Bush was not one of them.It is estimated that 40% of his time in office was spent on vacation; no one has done an estimate of the amount of time he has spent collecting $180 million dollars for his campaign, but estimating only 20% (and I do believe it is more) that leaves only 40% of his time to devote to preserving, protecting and defending We the People and our Constitution. And speaking of oaths, I disagree with Bush, McClellan, and probably Cheney, when they emphatically stated that Bush was the “president” and was always under oath. Not so. When the Supreme Court appointed Bush and gave him the oath of office, it came from the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1 and was written as follows: (yes, I copied it before)“Before he enters on the execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Oath of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”That’s it, People. The whole thing. You can argue whether or not he has kept it, but the bottom line is that the words “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” does not appear in the presidential oath of office. You will also notice that the oath makes no mention of god at all. Nada. Zip. The oath you take to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth usually includes the phrase, “so help me god.” What Bush told the 9/11 Committee holds about as much weight as the acquaintance you meet on the street and exchange the greeting, “How are you?” and receive the answer “Fine” even though the person looks as if a collision with a semi has taken place!Does he really think We, the American People are that stupid?Bush also says one concern was the number of international flights headed toward the United States that...suggested (they) might have been hijacked or were not responding to efforts to communicate with the pilots. I find it extremely hard to swallow that so many flights were not communicating! Thousands of international flights arrive daily throughout the world. If large numbers of flights weren’t “communicating” we wouldn’t have need of terrorists! This is a nightmare scenario for every air traffic controller and there are checks and redundant checks to keep this from happening. If, as Bush says, we had untold numbers of unidentified aircraft flying around up there at any time those emergency systems would have been activated long before the final crash into the Pentagon. Just what are you saying, Mr. Bush, that our government was so out of control that we no longer had an air traffic control system? There were thousands of us in the air on a daily basis that depended on that system to keep our planes from crashing into each other. And you tell us that it was so defective that you couldn’t tell if a plane was controlled or not???And what is this about authorizing the U.S. military to shoot down planes that did not follow FAA grounding orders or respond to communications. That order came a long time after the terrorist attack was over. Read the reports, read the published books. And if, as you say, a shoot down order was in effect, why wasn’t the Saudi airplane carrying the bin Laden family and Saudi royals out of our country, when all air traffic was grounded, shot down?These questions come from just the released information about what Bush said or did. Wouldn’t you like to know if any of those commission members pressed Bush and Cheney about these inconsistencies? And what questions remain unasked and unanswered. The New Jersey women who pressed for this investigation must be deeply disappointed with the results the 9/11 Commission has been able to get. True, the Clarke bombshell produced a lot of insight into what went on, but it was coming out anyway. And the bitter denunciation by Bush and Cheney, lend more credence to what he testified to and has written. But what we really need to know is will our government allow this sham to stand? During the last three Republican administrations we have been lied to and witnessed cover-up after cover-up from Reagan’s “arms for hostages” deal to the fake testimony of the Kuwait ambassador’s daughter, to the obsession of invading Iraq before Bush was even appointed to office by the Supreme Court. We have seen our Democratic/Republic destroyed by illegal laws negating our Bill of Right, our very votes stolen by a cabal with an agenda of war, and thousands of American lives lost in the process. Just how much is too much for We, the People to take? It is past time to force Bush to testify in public, under oath, and before the very people he harmed, the families of the victims of September 11, 2001.
 
 
APRIL 29, 2001 REFUSING ‘THE OATH’ Both of the men who claim to be the leaders of the United States of America, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission under oath. And in spite of the Republicans carping that the commission is “partisan” and “political”, they are the ones who insisted that former President Bill Clinton give his testimony regarding a consensual affair with a White House intern UNDER OATH.Surely, the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 deserves at least as much accountability as an adulterous affair! But not according to the Double Standards of the Republican party. No, not only will Bush and Cheney be having a little unsworn “chat” with committee members, it will not be recorded and no one will be taking notes -- although members can take notes of their own; let’s hope they can write fast. What could Bush and Cheney possibly say that the families, whose loved ones died, can not hear? And most of those families would like to hear it setting in the Commission meeting room, under oath, and looking straight into George W. Bush’s eyes!But that won’t happen.
It is pretty obvious to all of We, the People what Bush was doing and what actions he took while terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center. As they say in sports, let’s go to the tape! There it is for the world to see. George W. Bush, setting with legs crossed, his serious “presidential” face he wore for the photo op at the Florida elementary school, slipping now and then with a laugh and inane comments to the classroom. And he knew citizens were dying and he kept smiling while the suicide bombers dived two planes into the Towers and horrified Americans watch bodies plunging from the top to the street , and while another group dove into the Pentagon. Bush, who has spent at least 40% of his time in office on vacation, was unprepared to deal with the crisis, unprepared to lead this nation, or it’s military, with a response. The same person who began to prepare for the Iraq invasion before he had even taken the presidential oath of office, could not produce a response to a devastating attack on our cities until NATO bluntly told our government that, if we didn’t do something, they would! One of the questions the commission wants to ask is: Why did the Bush administration downgrade the importance of terrorism? Why didn’t Bush pay more attention to the August 6, 2001 PDB that outlined “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”? (He was on vacation playing golf at the time.) Former Representative Timothy Roemer would like to know why the warnings weren’t given a higher priority “Given the threat levels in spring and summer 2001...why didn’t the August 6 memo cause more people to man the battle stations in the month before the attack?”Bush’s public answer to this question is that there was “nothing in the memo that specified the type, time or place of an attack on America”.Did Bush really expect bin Laden to mail him a detailed plan? Maybe so, since the government immediately allowed citizens of Saudi Arabia and bin Laden’s family members to fly out of the country when the only planes aloft were military fighters. The government even refused permission for the aircraft carrying members of Congress, former presidents and former vice presidents to enter the U.S. I’m sure the families of the victims of September 11, 2001 are eagerly waiting for Bush’s answer to why it was so important to allow the Saudis to leave the country when no other foreign nationals were allowed to do so. But will he answer?The members of the families of the victims who died on those four planes, and all those on the ground that lost their lives when those planes crashed into them, must see this reluctant, arranged, oathless meeting for what it is. Thomas Mann, an analyst at the Brookings Institution said, “The president is basically placing his reelection on the argument that he is the commander in chief of the war on terrorism. Anything that calls that into question is potentially damaging.” Ah, politics! There will be no answers because Bush must protect his political image as a “war president”. Bush and Cheney were said to be distracted from the real threat to the United States by their desire to invade Iraq. And We, the People, know all about his obsession to gain public support to invade Iraq. We know that this “war president” lied to us, to the United Nations and to the world about the “danger” of Iraq. There will be no investigation under oath about that either. In any court of law or commission hearing, sworn testimony is required. You really don’t have an option of refusing. Nor does it allow for you to testify together. Bush even wants to do away with the constitutional guarantee of legal representation -- except when he is involved. Although the commission had every right to expect to have separate testimony from Bush and Cheney, they insisted on giving their testimony together and not under oath. And their lawyers will be present for the duration of the “chat”.If the Commission insisted that they testify separately, they placed restrictions of only two commissioners meeting for only an hour. Can you imagine any of us getting away with this? Under Bush’s “Patriot Act” we aren’t even guaranteed a trial or legal representation! James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, says, “They need to have one story and it’s easier to have one story when they’re in the room together... it protects them both if they’re both in the room at the same time.” Well, any criminal can tell you that he would rather have his alibi set in during questioning!I’m sure the families of the victims appreciate the candor of “having the same story” to protect them from the facts of why their wife, husband, children, father, mother, and other relatives and friends were wiped out in a fiery, crumbing building. This investigation wasn’t to salvage George W. Bush’s political career. It was meant to explain why George W. Bush’s government failed to protect We, the People.An under oath, public, heartfelt apology is a good place to start. Richard Clarke was brave enough to give it; but the man who claims to be commander in chief, a war president, and a strong leader will not. There are too many unexplained coincidences which lined up to bring about the fall of the Towers in New York city. This commission has not even scratched the surface of all the strange incidents that led to the destruction. The private investigation of four women in New Jersey, who lost their husbands in the World Trade Center, has produced a better understanding of what went wrong than that which has come out of our government. And all they used were public newscasts and public documents. They sat up a remarkable timeline that shows what was going on in our country and just exactly what George W. Bush was doing while the attack was going on. They have asked some very pointed questions of FBI officials, such as: If you knew nothing about the terrorist attack, how come you were able to pinpoint the video of one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, at an ATM from among the thousands and thousands of ATMs in this country if you didn’t know where to look? Think of the man hours involved in processing all those tapes and you begin to wonder....These are the four women who pushed so hard for the investigation.In essence, the 9/11 commission is their creation. Kristen Breitweiser. Patty Casazza. Mindy Kleinberg. Lori van Auken. Mothers of seven fatherless children, fighting to know why their husbands died. As Lorie van Auken told Kristen Brietweiser, “I can’t look at these timelines anymore. When you pull it apart, it just doesn’t reconcile with the official storyline. There’s no way this could be. Somebody is not telling us the whole story.”The New York Observer published this column by Gail Sheehy August 25, 2003, profiling these four women responsible for the commission that Bush and Cheney will be talking to today. In it they complained about the JICI report and the redacted 28 pages on the Saudi royal family’s financial support for the terrorists that carried out the hijackings on September 11, 2001. They consider Bush’s administration stonewalling job of far greater importance than Watergate. That it concerns the refusal of the country’s leadership to be held accountable for the failure to execute its most fundamental responsibility: to protect its citizens against foreign attack.I wonder what Ms. Sheehy and those four women think of this brazen refusal to testify before the 9/11 commission, under oath, in public and completely, about what Bush and Cheney know about the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. How do they feel about Bush and Cheney putting their chances to be elected ahead of testifying truthfully about how the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack was allowed to happen? Was it gross negligence of an administration still trying to remove all trace of President Clinton? Simple ineptitude? Miscalculation? The desire to invade Iraq that superseded all else? Or something more sinister? I don’t believe we’ll find the answers in the “chat” going on today; not when covering your derriere is your first priority.
 
APRIL 28, 2004 SLAVERY = LACK OF CHOICE
 
It is reported that a million women, men, and children gathered in Washington, D.C. this weekend to protest George W. Bush’s attack upon the rights of half of our population to make reproductive decisions for themselves. No laws or constitutional amendments are being contemplated for the other (male) half of the population. They can procreate, or not, at will.They gathered in such numbers that even the sightless “media” was forced to acknowledge their presence. But did Bush? The “leader”, who leaves town when descent arrives, had no schedule reported for that Sunday. I know where he was Thursday, touring a nature preserve in Maine with Mom to celebrate “Earthday”. Friday he was in Florida lecturing on “wetlands” and Saturday he was telling us what a great environmental policy he had. Was he in Washington to see the assembled people spread out over the mall or was he on vacation again?It would be nice to see him face the music for once, but I fear he was hiding in the same place he always goes when We, the People want to give him a public lecture about his bad behavior. He sent an attack dog in his place, though -- a female attack dog. Karen Hughes, a presidential advisor, made this statement in response to a question on “Late Night Edition with Wolf Blitzer”, as the protesters gathered for the March for Women’s Lives. “I think that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life...particularly at a time when we’re facing an enemy and really, the fundamental issue between us and the terror network is that we value every life.” I didn’t hear Blitzer’s response to her answer but I bet the follow up question didn’t include these:1. If Bush values every life so much, why doesn’t the Iraq death toll bother him? There have been 122 deaths during April, and the month isn’t over!!2. If Bush values every life so much, why did keep his photo op at a Florida elementary school when he knew Americans were dying in the World Trade Center and Washington, D.C? Lorie van Auken’s (one of four wives from New Jersey battling Bush for answers about the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001) perspective of his reaction says it best: “I couldn’t stop watching (the tape of) the president sitting there listening to second graders while my husband was burning in that building.” All four of the women, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Klienberg and Lorie van Auken , have put more time in trying to find answers than George W. Bush has -- but then it was their husband who died on that day.3. If Bush values every life so much, why do we have so many malnourished and hungry children in our country? Information obtained from Census data showed that, for the third year in a row, there has been an increase in the number of households who experienced hunger. The figure released for 2002 said 12 million American families worried about having enough food. It has gotten so bad that the charity America’s Second Harvest has joined with the public school system in several states to provide backpacks of food for the students to take home with them so that they will have food over the weekend. The problem is so vast that America’s Second Harvest is trying to establish a nationwide program to provide backpacks of food for all these hungry children.One of the directors of the food band in St. Joseph, MO. tells the story of a student who had moved to a new school that didn’t provide backpacks. The first Friday, after waiting patiently for a backpack, he began to cry when a school employee told him that his new school didn’t hand out backpacks. “It’s so tough” Nicholas Saccaro, executive director of America’s Second Harvest in St. Joseph, Mo. said. Most of us find it very tough to hear children cry from hunger. Does George W. Bush? If so, why the drastic cuts in the programs that would feed these precious children who already live?
Terrorism is not responsible for all the ills inflicted upon this country during the past three years. Our three trillion surplus wasn’t wiped out by terrorists. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney receiving a 7% to 9% reduction in the taxes they pay was not caused by terrorists. Loosing over 3 million jobs to outsourching and plant closings was not because of terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was being planned long before September 11, 2001. The prices of food and gas and heating oil rising to historic sights has not been caused by terrorism.Terrorists are not responsible for Bush refusing to testify before the 9/11 commission under oath and alone. 3. John Ashcroft, attorney general under the Bush administration, brought court cases against hospitals and Planned Parenthood to obtain the names of women who had had abortions. He said the government has the right to this information to determine if they had been medically necessary under the recently passed “partial birth abortion ban” signed into law by Bush.They had their anti abortion bill signed. Why did he need these names and what did he plan to do with them? Why isn’t the privacy of their medical records included in the “need for policies to value the dignity and worth of every life”? Did these women lose the right to “value” in the eyes of Bush and Ashcroft and Hughes?
As Gloria Feldt stated, “Indeed, it is because we value life and human dignity that we support a women's right to choice.” But, according to Hughes, the judgment of the “value of every life” lies in the hands of George W. Bush. If Hughes truly believes her boss shows how he values the dignity and worth of every life by his actions, she needs a lesson in compassion.Witness the 828 dead soldiers because he invaded Iraq. Witness the hungry masses of living children who live without enough food.
 
 
APRIL 27, 2004
NO COMPARISON
 
Why does George W. Bush, the Republican party and some of the American people think Bush is more qualified to be “Commander in Chief” than John Kerry... or Howard Dean... or Dennis Kucinich ... or Richard Gephardt or Joseph Leiberman, for that matter!Bush does nothing but squawk that the sky is falling in on us (Iraq attack) and fly in circles on Air Force One collecting as much money as he can from those buying favoritism. Does he really think money will patch that hole he tells us is there?Bush and reality seem as far apart as you can get. And the fact that the Republican party buys his reality is more than scary. As mentioned before, Bush’s brazen behavior in characterizing, not just Kerry, but all veteran’s service as somehow inadequate compared to his own is downright ludicrous!Sunday, April 24, his spokesperson, Karen Hughes, said she was “offended” by Kerry’s antiwar activities. If not supporting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson’s war in VietNam “offends” her, why is she not “offended” by Bush’s behavior? She prefers someone who hides behind his father’s influence to leap to the head of a waiting list to join the Texas Air National Guard, where he refused to take a medical exam which was mandatory. A pilot so busy partying and electioneering that he can’t be bothered to fulfill his military obligation that keeps him from the VietNam war??? And they have the audacity to say Kerry isn’t qualified to be Commander in Chief??The Republican whine that Kerry’s wounds were not sufficient to receive a Purple Heart just begs someone to ask the question: If spending your life carrying shrapnel in your leg doesn’t qualify as a “wound” how can George Bush, grounded from flying and absent without leave declare that he “fulfilling his commitment to the National Guard”?There is an extremely old saying, “Never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.” Bush judges all veterans by the standards he sets but never attempted to emulate. He didn’t consider military service important enough to even show up! If he received any “wounds” they must have been from falling off a bar stool because his reputation is not one of valor but as a “party animal”. He never risked his safety by taking that airplane he loves to portray himself as pilot of, into combat, never flew protection for John Kerry’s swiftboat. Never evacuated wounded or dead soldiers. Never faced any danger except at the ballot box. If Karen Hughes and the Republican party believe that they can propagandize Bush into this strong military “leader” they should rethink their plan -- unless they are expecting the Supreme Court to appoint him again!
 
 
APRIL 26, 2001 UNDER ATTACK For over 200 years the Constitution of the United States has stood up against the assault of despots, ineptitude and the politically ambitious. In less than four years, George W. Bush, along with his selected group of henchmen, have managed to rip at its contents as no other. Not since the Civil War that divided this nation over the right of the states of secedes from the Union, have we found ourselves in such personal danger.Bush keeps proposing Constitutional amendments and passing laws that are illegal, all the while claiming to be “protecting” us. Everything his government has done to us has been done in the name of protecting us from another terrorist attack like the one on September 11, 2001. And yet he has ignored the Will of the People over and over.Bush is a caretaker. He was appointed by the Supreme Court, true, but he took the same oath of office as our elected leaders. And because of that oath, he is obligated to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And he has done a poor job of it!He immediately began to disassemble the terrorist protection assembled by President Clinton, so he was obligated to put another protection in place. He did not. He was too busy assembling his cabinet of War. Between vacations, he invaded Iraq. Although the Will of the People was loud and visible, he ignored it. And that ignoring the Will of the People has cost thousands of lives and over 700 of them are from our own families. But, with the invasion of Iraq, he had only started his plan to change our country. He gambled a three trillion dollar surplus away, destroyed our manufacturing base, and produced hunger and poverty at levels that this country had not seen since the Great Depression. And he has changed the meaning of Right and Wrong. What was once wrong and deserving of censure, has been declared right and rewarded. He punishes those who reveal the cost of the Iraq war with photos of the anonymous dead being shipped home for burial. He rewards those who hide them. He punishes those who reveal the lies he told to invade Iraq and reward those who vilify the whistleblowers who dare to speak publicly. He attacks those with honorable military records and refuses to discuss his own inadequate military record. He refuses to believe that he had turned world opinion against us. He still believes he can, with threats or money, gain their cooperation in his Iraq invasions. He pouts because the people of these countries dismiss their leaders who followed his path of war. And he reveals his frustration that, now that the war is not following his script, the nations of the world won’t bail him out. And what passes for the press in our country virtually ignores all these things. They are guaranteed, under Amendment I, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”So what do they fear? Why do they attack all who disagree with Bush and his officials? Why were they silent about this war? Why are they silent about the destruction of our jobs? Why don’t they refute the economic claims constructed from fake statistics that Bush quotes in his campaign speeches? Why won’t they tell us the truth?The “media’ has even denied us the choice of our next presidential candidates. No one bothered to challenge the inept Bush, and there was a daily dose of harmful propaganda directed at the front runner against him. When the “media” finished their biased primary coverage of the nine candidates who wanted to replace Bush, the only candidate left standing was the one with the least support from the People. And now they report the Bush propaganda about his honorable military service without comparing it to the military service record of Bush!I have no answers for you. I do not know why all of our leaders have deserted us now. I only know that they have. And I also know that even though we “peaceably assemble... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, this government represented by George W. Bush does not acknowledge us. No matter how many millions march against the Bush agenda, they go unreported, unseen. We, the People are invisible to the Bush administration. It becomes a dictatorship when the Will of the People is not only denied, but ignored.
What do you plan to do when you are no longer free to assemble, free to speak?
 
 
APRIL 25, 2004
 
HARMING AMERICA, THE BUSH WAY
 
First, Do No Harm We all know that this physician’s motto has been around since Ancient Greece flourished. It is time for us to demand that our leaders -- chosen or appointed -- follow those dictates. Our Constitution decrees that our government derives their power from We the People, our elected leader gives his word and honor with the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
I don’t think our founders envisioned someone whose “best of my Ability” was so mediocre that he would actually bring harm to Our Country. Or maybe he doesn’t feel the oath is worth the paper it is written on. Whatever the intentions, the United States of America has been harmed and our citizens live in danger and fear because of it. SUPERPOWER?
It was said that, after the fall of the USSR that we were the lone superpower. That the mantel of protecting the rest of the world was our responsibility. If so, we have failed badly. The honorable conduct that gave us that mantle after World War II is tattered and misused. We alienated countries and leaders by name calling and insults. We have defiantly invaded another country against world opinion and now find ourselves begging for the World to come rescue us with money and troops.
And not only are they demanding that we turn over Iraq to United Nations’ control but the “coalition” that George W. Bush put together is falling apart as those same people who protested his invasion, are using their free vote to turn the leaders out of office while Bush must use more name calling to try to persuade the new leaders to follow his Iraq plan. But they fall like dominos as they leave him (and us) to our fate. You can’t abuse Superpower status. CHECKS AND BALANCES It is no secret that Bush used the Supreme Court to control the vote in 2000. Did we think that was an aberration? Once the separate but equal power of the Judicial branch of the government had been breached, like a broken dam, more will follow.
In 2000, lower federal courts said they could not interfere with the election in Florida, and against all precedent, the Supreme Court held a special session to intercede for George W. Bush. Their decree that Bush would be harmed by recounting all the votes in Florida but that the other candidate, Gore, would not be harmed by not counting all the votes in Florida, showed a decided bias in favor of Bush winning. Now, after a cozy hunting trip with Supreme Court Justice Scalia and Dick Cheney, the Supreme Court is once again set to rule on whether or not Cheney can keep secret records regarding an energy policy that affects We, the People.
It is said that the secret energy meetings were almost exclusively made up of energy industrial executives like Bush’s pal Ken Lay (CEO of ENRON and the man responsible for the California energy crisis.) The Bush administration’s complaint is that it is a matter of maintaining Executive privilege; however, the right of the People to be informed supersedes executive privilege. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Ultimately, We the People hold the responsibility for all that government does in our name. And if we are kept in the dark of secrecy, we can not make wise choices for ourselves or for others. This is energy policy! ENRON was responsible for recalling a state governor and installing a Nazi sympathizer in power. This is no small matter! ENRON changed the course of our country in more ways than one. It plunged people into poverty, took away their life savings, created hungry children.
No one in that company should be proposing energy policy -- anc certainly not secret energy policy. This case has already been lost in two lower federal courts. Records were ordered to be turned over two years ago. Why is Cheney taking it to the Supreme Court for a hearing before his “good friend” Scalia? Experts and scholars agree that the concept of Executive power would not be harmed, that it is mainly political fallout that is the concern. But a considerable number of citizens were harmed by the secret energy policy that came out of that secret meeting. Can we trust the Supreme Court to put aside their prejudices this time?
And what will the next Constitutional issue they rule on be? CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT -- A NEW CAN OF WORMS Suddenly, after 228 years, proposed Constitutional amendments are flying around everywhere!! Consider this: We have a total of 26 amendments to our constitution, 7 of them ratified at the time our Constitution was signed. 10 of these were done in 1791, a scant 15 years after the ratification of the Constitution. One, Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21 and sort of canceled itself out; although it serves as a warning about ill conceived amendments! Two rectified the overlooked civil rights of slaves and women (Amendments 13 and 19) That leaves a grand total of 9 Constitutional amendments since 1879 to the present. These dealt the term and duties of the vice president, setting term limits for a president, eliminating obstacles set up to keep minorities from voting, and voting age. (During VietNam, we were sending young men to die in VietNam who were too young to vote.) Not one of the proposed Constitutional Amendments were passed since Amendment 26, which lowered the voting age to 18.
There was a major concerted effort to get an Equal Rights Amendment passed which simply stated that the rights of an individual could not be abridged due for race or gender. For some reason, legislators thought this Amendment was too controversial. Now, legislators and the guy who thinks he runs our country, have proposed a marriage amendment that will define for all time who can and can not get married! They wouldn’t pass an amendment saying women are equal, but they see nothing wrong with passing an amendment that defines her marriage. They color it with the (horror!!) notion that it would prevent marriage between homosexuals and lesbians but once it is defined and in our constitution it is the law.
By defining marriage pro or con for a group of people, they will also be defining the parameters of marriage for women. Don’t buy into it, it’s another Prohibition Amendment in the works -- and it took 14 years to undo that one. A definition of marriage, which is simply a legal or religious contract, can make women property again, if we aren’t careful!!! The other one that is worrisome is changing our election laws. They use the threat of terrorism as an excuse to amend the constitution and speed the election of House members.
Their reasoning is that the House Speaker (Haster?) could declare “exceptional circumstances” when 100 or more seats in the 435 -seat body are left vacant by a catastrophic event, triggering special elections in affected districts that must be held within 45 days. Somehow, they say they are also protecting the voting rights of military personnel under this new system. How I don’t know!! 1. If our country is in such mess that it wipes out the legislature, I imagine the rest of the country will be in the same shape. How are you going to set up polling places to accommodate all the voters?
If our country is in such a mess, how are you going to reach all of the military to “protect their voting rights”? Won’t they be pretty busy? 2. Florida couldn’t even hold a proper election without a national catastrophe. How would all of these government people responsible for the ballots, the records, the polling places, be able to provide adequate services to all of the people? Look at the debacle that was the California recall election. Pandemonium, voting shortcuts, polling places closed in poor minority neighborhoods so that all of the People could not vote. A shameful sham of an election! 3. What’s wrong with the “quick fix” proposed by the 17th Amendment which allows the governors of the state to appoint a temporary replacement for a Senator? It wasn’t in the original amendment to the Constitution either. It has been used for 91 years so it has met the Constitutional test of time. 4. I just can’t see our country running around trying to elect 100 representatives in 45 days at a time when we have a catastrophic breakdown! The presidential campaign starts before the last year of a president’s term ends and is the most chaotic, unproductive event ever produced! I don’t particularly want our Legislative Branch not participating in our government; but this smacks of that little government handbook put out during our cold war nuclear standoff with Russia during the 50’s and 60’s with all the instructions about what to do if the U.S. received a nuclear strike. Complete with how to pay your taxes!! I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen; just that “business as usual” is not going to happen. If the House of Representative is wiped out, there is a very good chance that the Senate will also be. If the event is so catastrophic that the Legislator believes we will need to elect new representatives, I’m afraid we’ll be starting over.
And what about those nuclear evacuation plans? Dust them off. And above all, remember that the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 is not the first time we have been in danger. We have survived them all and without resorting to Patriot Acts, Homeland Security, or changing the liberty and freedom of We, the People. That historical “first” will belong exclusively to George W. Bush. During the War of 1812, 36 years after we ratified our constitution, Britain succeeded in invading our country and in burning our Capitol. They did not succeed in destroying our country. And from that war, we have the true story of a First Lady, wife of President James Madison, who refused to seek safety until she had snatched a portrait of George Washington from the wall.
We could use some of Dolly Madison’s steadfast courage in the face of the enemy today. Actions speak louder than words; except those of our Constitution.
 APRIL 24, 2004
 
UNFAIR COMPARISONS
Republicans are always denigrating the military record of those who oppose their political candidate. We know why they do it; it is rather hard to brag about someone’s military record when their candidate has a suspiciouslack of one; but why does the “media” let them get away with it?Republicans get a little crazy when you mention George W. Bush’s disappearance at the height of the VietNam war during the middle of his National Guard Service. They don’t want to talk about it. When the pressure got too great, they released a couple of pay stubs and a dental record and said, “There, that proves it!”, totally ignoring the facts that he refused to take a medical examination that was required, that he was grounded from flying because of it, or that this did, or should, have brought about military discipline. Not exactly stellar service!So why are they nit picking at John Kerry’s three purple hearts? They guy was in VietNam, he was on a dangerous swiftboat taking fire from the enemy, he was wounded. I don’t think I would want to draw any comparisons between George Bush being eligible for disciplinary action and the severity of John Kerry’s wounds!And it isn’t just Kerry. When former Senator Max Cleland ran for the Senate, Republicans groused that his military service wasn’t so great either. That it was his own fault that he lost an arm and both legs to a grenade in VietNam. A little less “stupid” than asking to be released from safe duty in Texas to campaign for a friend of your daddy’s! And then there is Al Gore. Bush’s daddy provided the influence to jump Junior over hundreds on the waiting list of the Texas National Guard to keep him out of VietNam. Junior could barely wait to check off the box that he wouldn’t volunteer for VietNam. Al Gore’s father could have applied the same influence to keep his son from VietNam but the former Vice President went. He served. But Republicans denigrated Gore also. Well, they huffed, he wasn’t in combat, he was working on a newspaper in Saigon. I guess none of these Republicans were in Saigon during the height of the war. There was shooting there, boys, buildings blown up; Saigon was not a “safe harbor” for the military. Ask some of the guys who were there, they’ll tell you. But I’m sure that Bush was in more “danger” from all those politicians trying to defeat the candidate he supposedly worked for than Al Gore was from the Viet Cong!!And who can forget the way his own party let Bush tear into John McCain, VietNam war hero and prisoner of war for six years. Since Republicans judge military records so harshly, it would seem they would have gleefully backed the irreproachable record of John McCain over the scant, and controversial, National Guard Service of Bush. But they didn’t...makes you wonder, doesn’t it?And who can ever forget all the attention paid to Bill Clinton, who never came close to being drafted but, for eight years, was accused of draft dodging, not supporting the the troops in VietNam, and just about anything else that occurred to Republicans -- however, Bush’s little draft dodge didn’t seem to bother them at all when they nominated him for president during the Republican convention for the 2000 election. Funny, isn’t it?It is ironic that all the men who are running Bush’s administration never served in VietNam. They all had excuses not to go. And it is ironic how they judge the service of those who did go. It is also ironic that all these men without combat experience are the very ones who committed us to a long and costly invasion of Iraq.They are also the ones who don’t want pictures of returning casualties published, the ones who don’t like the casualty figures released. Never having experienced war, perhaps - like Reagan - it seems like a movie script, the carnage not real, the participants getting up after the scene is finished. Perhaps, instead of belittling their service, they should listen to someone who has been there.
 
 
APRIL 23, 2004 It’s been done before. Most of us alive today have lived through it once. But it still tears at the heart, whether you have lost someone or not. All those flag draped coffins coming home. And those politicians know it. And it has been done before; the deliberate secrecy of the arrival of those coffins, the lies about the number who died, the way they died, playing games with the statistics in order to make a leader look better politically. And it works on some.
I doubt that the man who sent the “remains” in those coffins to their death remembers anything of the media coverage of the VietNam war. Most of us do. We grew up with those picture of bloody soldiers being evacuated in a noisy helecopter. We saw the results of what naplam did to civilian women and children who just happened to be in the way of an army’s advance. George W. Bush says, “We must not waver.” Lyndon Johnson said, “We will not grow weary.” Colin Power says, “We must not suddenly lose the energy...by dragging out old labels, such as, “This is VietNam.” Senator Kennedy says there is no assurance that we will ever be able to leave Iraq, that this is “Bush’s Vietnam.” He is right. We could not force VietNam to conform to our beliefs and our way of thinking.
Almost 60,000 American lives were lost trying to convince the “enemy” that we knew what was best for them. But in the end, they became what we so desperately tried to stop with guns and lives. George W. Bush says we must “stay the course” until thepeople of Iraq accept our way of thinking. The people of VietNam never did accept our way of thinking. 60,000 American lives later, Communist VietNam is where our American companies are doing business. With the same men who were our enemy and provided all of those names we carved in black marble in Washington, D.C. Our former enemy, VietNam is being sought out by American companies. What was gained, what was lost? Washington says Iraq is different. The scale is different, there were five times as many troops in VietNam as there are in Iraq. That VietNam was a clash of political ideologies and that the soldiers dying in Iraq are from a volunteer army and not draftees like in VietNam. They point out that we failed in our VietNam objective after twelve years (16 when you count the “advisor” portion) but Saddam was “ousted” in 21 days. They call the Iraq war going on right now “post war problems”. Bush says failure is unthinkable, that “every enemy of America in the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadense, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.”
That is the reason we were told that we needed to stay in VietNam for 12 years. The fighting ended in VietNam when we removed our troops from VietNam. The fighting in Iraq will not be over until we remove our troops from Iraq. We can go further back in history for proof of this. France was defeated by the Germans and yet it’s soldiers fought on until they marched into Paris with our troops. Poland, conquered by the Nazis, allowed the Jewish citizens to be pushed into a ghetto where they fought and died rather than surrender.
Denmark, conquered also, defied the Nazis and risked death by refusing to mark their Jewish citizens with the cloth brand of the star of David when every Danish citizen wore the same patch. Just like VietNam, our vision is not theirs. They see Bush as a conqueror, they do not see freedom. They see a country trying to foist their way of life upon them. They see a “Christian” country trying surplant their Muslim faith. They see a conqueror that doesn’t respect those religious traditions. They see men in armor killing their women and children. And they see their cause drawing in large numbers of other Muslim factions to help them eliminate “the enemy”. Just like VietNam. The Communist gurellas saw us as the invaders and a threat to their ideology. They saw our bombs and bullets distroying their culture and their way of life. The surface differences between these wars does not matter. It is the fundamentals of this war that are the same. The Bush administration called their invasion a “cakewalk”, and for a few weeks it seemed it was. (But it took Bush more than a month to get himself organized to retalliate against al Qaida after the destruction of the New York Trade Center.) The Iraq invasion is in it’s infancy. A year has not passed since Bush took us to war. He did not declare it over until May 2003.
 
But it is a funny thing about war, both sides must cease fighting for it to be over. And this war is far from over. Unless Bush does bring the troops home at the end of June 2004. He says failure in Iraq is unthinkable. So was failure in VietNam. We really don’t know why all that time, money and lives were wasted on VietNam. We really don’t know why all the time, money and lives are being wasted in Iraq. Our political leaders are saying the same thing. In VietNam it was to save the people from Communism and bring them freedom. In Iraq it is to save the people from Saddan Hussein and bring them freedom. Freedom never comes from the end of a gun. Statistics say that for every soldier lost in Iraq, more than 80 died in VietNam. I suppose they divided the number of soldiers who died over the 12 years in VietNam. Not a very accuarte statistic when you realize that the acknowledge death toll in Iraq stands at 706 for less than a year, or that 105 of those died in the first three weeks of April. Bush’s casualties are more than
 
APRIL 22, 2004 REMEDIAL CLASS CONSTITUTION 101 Good Morning, Class. This is Remedial Constitution 101. We will be discussing the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. Class, come to order! Dubya, keep you hands to yourself, don’t violate other’s space. Rummy, stop talking and I saw you sneak that note to him. Karl, Dubya does not need you to help him sit up straight! Condi! Condi! Pay attention like Colin. John, can your put down your bible right now and focus on the class. This is important. Why is it important? Because you failed the test, that’s why!First, it has come to our attention that Dubya is going around telling everyone that the Bill of Rights needs to be replaced with something called the Patriot Act. Dubya, why do you believe that Amendment I, IV, V, and VI should be replaced? We’d all like to hear your reasoning.  
So, you think that the Patriot Act “is making America safer”...“one path of action” that we must “continue to stay on the offense when it comes to chasing these killers down and bring them to justice”? You are going to have to give us more than platitudes, Dubya.
All right, let’s examine your explanation that “We can’t return to the days of false hope...The terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and the Congress must give law enforcement all the tools necessary to protect all American people.” 
Can anyone tell me why Dubya’s reasoning is untrue? Anyone? No one?? Well, I can certainly see why you’re all in this class! (Oops, shouldn’t have said that out loud.) First, let’s deal with the fact that we need a new Patriot Act to defend us against terrorists who, you say, declared war on the United States. Since terrorists are, by definition, anyone who uses intense, overpowering fear and that a group that promotes violence to instill intense fear are terrorists. If you compile the terrorists acts that have been spread over the world you will note that they do not all have the same objective or report to the same command structure. They are rather fragmented. For years, Ireland was overrun with terrorists who targeted England, frequently set off bombs and shot innocent people. Japan has it’s Red Army, and now a new group that recently threw Saran gas into the subway. Every South American country has it’s own particular brand of terrorists. None of these terrorist work with the other groups. And they all have separate agendas. So, our “war” with terrorists is not global nor inclusive. We are the object on one particular hate group - al Qaida. This group is composed of extremely militant religious factions. Their desire is to wipe out all infidels. Since most of these factions reside all over the middle east, and seem to be gathering in Iraq, how can your Patriot Act keep us “safe”? Add the point that your invasion of Iraq seems to have given them a common rallying point, you may soon have your “terrorist war” that you speak of.As far as We, the People, know there have been two al Qaida attacks upon our country -- both involving the World Trade Center. The first was 37 days after President Clinton took office; the second was 233 days after you took office, Dubya. Now, who can tell me the difference between these two acts of terrorism? Is it that you don’t know, or just don’t want to admit what happened? All right. In 1993, the terrorist group known as al Qaida, tried to drive a truck bomb into the World Trade Center. Although the attempt produced chaos, and six people died, the perpetrators were caught, tried, and convicted under our Constitutional law -- no special powers, no suspension of civil rights or tribunals. There were three other major attempts after 1993; until they succeeded in 2001. Plans to bomb the tunnels, the bridges, and the subways of New York City were thwarted under the old Constitutional statutes.
And an anti-terrorist Cabinet post was set up to monitor all intelligence information throughout the world. Tell us, Dubya, why was one of your first acts to do away with that information gathering operation and substitute the convoluted Patriot Act? Since most of the terrorist acts after 2001 have occurred in other countries and your new creation, Homeland Security, seems to deal more with regulating American citizens in this country?
What? I didn’t quite hear you. Karl, are you trying to answer for Dubya?
\
Sigh.All right, we’ll continue. Condi, Johnny, why do you feel that it is necessary to violate Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights that states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”
What do you mean, Johnny that “Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions and starved for basic information technology.” How can you say a government, which thwarted three major attacks, kept Dubya from thwarting a terrorist attack; remember, it was he that excluded the head of the terrorist group from his cabinet.
Yes, yes, Dubya, I know that you were concentrating on invading Iraq, but you see, that produces another Constitutional problem...
Wait a minute, Condi, I heard you, you are saying that you knew nothing about anything! Rummy, we aren’t discussing your running of the Iraq invasion. Colin, I know you were just doing your job...
Class, come to order!
(No wonder things don’t get done!)
We’re discussing why we should replace our Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act, not why Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power! Can any of you give me any reason why giving Johnny access to women’s medical information would have any bearing on defending ourselves against terrorists? No, Johnny, I don’t want a bible lesson. I want a Constitutional analysis of why your access to women’s medical information would help defeat terrorists. It is in Amendment IV, the one all of you have so much trouble with. “The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects...” Yes, that would include medical records.
Ok, Dubya, you want a list of all the books that all the Americans have checked out. Do you realize that our population is over two hundred million? Do you really think that access to the records of over two hundred million people is going to turn up a few dozen terrorists?
Yes, I know you name won’t be there, but that doesn’t make everyone who reads a book a subversive. That means someone who intends to overthrow or undermine an established government. No, the terrorists you are so worried about just want us dead, they don’t want to take over our government. Yes, there is a possibility that there are some disgruntled Americans who want to overthrow our government, but...
Let’s get back on the subject of the Constitution. There is, in the Preamble to the Constitution this statement “...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government...” Calm down! Calm down! Haven’t you ever read the Constitution? Don’t you know that the men who founded this government realized that absolute power corrupts absolutely? This was their way of making sure that we never have a dictator. What do you mean, what’s wrong with that?Enough! Back to the provisions of the Patriot Act that violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Patriot Act, which you believe should be made permanent, allows for what is called “sneak and peek” searches to surreptitiously enter and prowl at will. Why is this a violation? I don’t see the logic in that answer. If you didn’t have anything to hide you wouldn’t mind the search. You do realize that a lot of the items in the Patriot Act were the same acts that the British committed against the colonies, don’t you? Do you see any connection between what was Constitutionally mandated and the way the British ruled their colonies? Sigh. Why don’t you give this some thought, write a paper about it. No, Karl, you can’t do Dubya’s. No, you can’t either Dick. Dick? Where did you come from? An undisclosed location?
 
 
APRIL 21, 2004
 
THOSE WHO SERVED Mention how much the Iraq war resembles the VietNam war and Bush officials begin to hyperventilate. They don’t want any deja vu comparisons to that war which produced almost 60,000 causalities and escalated from American “advisors” to a full scale war that ended up lasting 16 years and that we did not win. The only war we lost. So far.Nor do they want you to ask the really hard questions that the protesters of VietNam era asked: Just WHY are we there? Our government told us that we were “fighting to stop the spread of Communism” when we began to “help” VietNam. Now that the WMDs haven’t turned up, our government is telling us that it is to “stop terrorism” in Iraq. There are other parallels of the two wars. The two men who are vying for the office of President of the United States of America. Both of these men were also shaped by the long struggle in VietNam. How they each handled their civic responsibility is a sort of test of their character.
John Kerry, upon graduation from Yale, went to Viet Nam. George W. Bush, upon graduation from Yale, did not. John Kerry requested service on a Navy swiftboat in VietNam. George W. Bush’s father requested that his friends jump his son to the head of the Texas Air National Guard list to keep him from going to VietNam; and when they did, George W. checked NO on the box that asked if he would volunteer to go to VietNam.John Kerry sustained three separate shrapnel injuries that required medical treatment during his sojourn on a Navy craft called a swiftboat. George W. Bush was supposed to fly planes but he refused to take a medical examination required to maintain flight status and was grounded.John Kerry was rotated back to the United States after his third injury and requested duty in Boston, New York, or Washington. George W. Bush requested that he be released from his duties in the National Guard to work for the election of one of his father’s friends.John Kerry followed his conscience and gave testimony in public hearings about what he has seen and heard in VietNam. George Bush disappeared from his assigned post for several months and, when he finally reappeared, he requested to be relieved of his National Guard duty six months early so that he could attend graduate school.John Kerry, along with thousands of others, received the Purple Heart for his injuries, the Bronze Star for heroic achievement, the Silver Star for gallantry in action. It is documented that he helped save the life of one of his crew after he had been thrown overboard when his swiftboat came under intense fire.
George W. Bush has no medals, no combat experience, no complete service record. But his supporters belittle Kerry’s medals and say his wounds were slight. Who are they to judge?Republicans, without the benefit of experience, always seem to challenge the military service of men like Senator John McCain, who spent years as a POW in VietNam, Senator John Kerry, who patrolled the river in VietNam, or former Senator Max Cleland, who lost an arm and two legs in VietNam. (It was his fault for being where a grenade was.)Just what would these men without military service consider adequate? Their admired leader has none. Not even a wound from a papercut to measure against those who served. If their service isn’t adequate, what does that say about their leader, George W. Bush?It isn’t the first time, nor the last, that a veteran’s “patriotism” is challenged by Republicans whose own candidate’s record of service is besmirched with favoritism and collusion. While the daily sacrifice of American lives goes on in Iraq, 705 at the last count, the Bush supporters continue to say that the “commander in chief” who has no military experience is doing a “good job” in Iraq. Unfortunately, we’ve heard it all before. Too bad so many citizens must die to prove a point.
APRIL 20, 2004 “EITHER YOU’RE WITH US OR AGIN’ US” With those words, George W. Bush opened up a chasm between the United State of America and the world. At first, world leaders views Bush with puzzled looks and astonishment that a man who couldn’t even put a sentence together was suddenly in charge of diplomacy and negotiating. After silence over the Chinese incident, the lack of leadership when terrorists struck at the heart of Our capitol, and the incessant mantra that Iraq must be invaded, a kind of numbness settled over the civilized nations of the world. They wanted to be on our side, they had always respected and fought beside us, they wanted to believe in us. But Bush and his henchmen made it perfectly clear that there was no room for negotiating -- not with Iraq, not with the United Nations, and not with our allies. “Either you’re with us or agin” us.” he said belligerently, and therefore this Country, known for its steadfastness and honor, alienated all of our former allies. Oh, there were ambitious leaders who saw a chance to advance themselves politically or financially by “helping” our invasion of Iraq. One was Spain.It’s political leader, Aznar, went against the will of the Spanish people to participate in the invasion of Iraq. And the people held him accountable. They voted for Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero because he promised to take the 1,300 Spanish troops out of Iraq. But the man who calls himself a “strong leader” and a “war president” expected and ask that Prime Minister Zapatero renege on his pledge to the Spanish people and not bring the troops home. This, from a man who claims to protect and serve the Will of We, the People! He has been vindictive before; insulting our allies by calling them “old Europe” and calling the United Nations irrelevant because they would not sanction his invasion. Bush and our elected officials showed the same mean streak by vilifying France with childish antics like renaming French Fries! So I am sure it was not unexpected that the new Prime Minister received a cold reception, nor that an “irate” Bush answered Zapatero’s first telephone call by telling him that his campaign promise to withdraw the troops would give “false comfort to terrorists.” But it was not just his cold reception to the new Spanish government; it was his insinuations, during a campaign speech in Heresy, PA , that Zapatero’s election was a result of the Madrid bombings that killed 19l people. He stated, “The terrorists used violence to spread fear and disrupt elections. They want us to panic. See, that’s their intent...”, even though the terrorists said that Spain was on their hit list because of Aznar supporting Bush’s invasion of Iraq and Zapatero’s campaign, from the start, was based on getting Spain out of Iraq. But Bush isn’t the only presidential hopeful blaming Spain, John Kerry, the man the Democratic party has told us can save us from the Bush agenda, also believed the new Spanish Prime Minister should not keep his promise to the people who elected him. “Spain and the world have an interest in rebuilding an Iraq that is not a haven for terrorists and a failed state. I had hoped the prime minister would have reconsidered his position, and I hope that in the days ahead the United States and the world can work with him to find a way to keep Spain engaged in the efforts in Iraq. Rather than loosing partners, I believe it’s critical that we find new coalition partners to share the burden in Iraq.” George W. Bush could not have said it as well. Neither Bush nor Kerry plan to disengage from Iraq. Both are encouraging the leader of Spain to break a campaign promise to the people for their own benefit. Will they keep any campaign promises they make to us?
 
***And by the way, 104 deaths have been acknowledged for the first 20 days of April, 2004. That is an average of 5 a day. The total may seem small to those who didn’t receive the notification that it was their loved one who had died but it is huge when one of that number belongs to you.***
 
 
APRIL 19, 2004
 
THESE THINGS I KNOW I know the secrecy that shrouds our democratic form of Government of the People, for the People and by the People is not the way of a democracy. An administration that runs on secrecy and lies and unable to accept the responsibility for it’s mistakes is not a democratic form of government. A government that holds it’s secrets close and does not disclose the information necessary to allow an informed vote of the People is not a democratic form of government.We are not infants to be protected. Our founding fathers gave US the responsibility of keeping this nation free. They did it by declaring that all men were created equal, and that they were endowed with certain unalienable Rights. They did it by ratifying the document that guaranteed these rights and spelled out in the Preamble to that Constitution that “to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed”. We are the Governed.And they obtain that consent by our vote. Take away our ability to make decisions based on Truth and Honor, and the democracy is no longer. An aborted election, such as that in the year 2000, is an extremely hard lesson on what happens when that Will of the People is thwarted. All of the decisions that brought crisis to our country stem from that one election, snatched from the votes of We, the People. We now see why our Founding Fathers used a redundant system of “checks and balances” to prevent what did happen in 2000.Who among We, the People, thought that all three branches of our government, Judicial, Legislate, Executive, would collude to produce the fraudulent election results of 2000? Who ever thought their misguided actions would lead to a destruction of our Honor among the nations of the world. Who among us ever thought that we would be embroiled in another VietNam so quickly by the actions of an obsessed leader running amok, unchecked by the two branches of government whose job it was to monitor the executive branch of our government. Under our Constitution, the executive power consists of acting as Commander of Chief of the army and Navy, and of the Militia when called into actual service of the United States. He has the power to make treaties, with 2/3rds of the Senators concurring. He can nominate, and with the advise and consent of the Senate, appoint Ambassadors and other public Ministers and Counsels, judges to the Supreme Court. When the Senate is not in session, he can fill vacancies but only until the next session. He must give a State of the Union address to the joint houses. And that is the limit of his power, our Founding Fathers did not want a King, a sovereign, nor a dictator to assume control of this country. All things must be done in the open for We, the People to judge and to approve.I know that George W. Bush took his oath of office:I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will, to be best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (You can find this Oath under “Oath of Office” Article II of our Constitution. You will note that there is a conspicuous lack of any mention of “so help me god” or that it be taken with the hand placed upon the bible -- later additions and NOT constitutional amendments, therefore, not required.)I know that he did not take this Oath of Office very seriously. I know that he came in with an agenda to invade Iraq and that the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 was used to push the Iraqi invasion. I know that; contrary to the Bill of Rights amendments I, IV, V, VI; he used the same terrorist attack to legislate the Patriot Act and to create an insidious, creeping Homeland Security that eliminates those rights. And I know that he, and the Legislature, did not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Those Amendments were inalienable Rights. The Government is instituted among men to secure these Rights. I know that he violated his Oath by bringing false information to the joint houses in a Constitutionally mandated State of the Union Speech that led to our Legislative branches agreeing to invade another country. And for that they are all responsible for not listening to the Will of the People demonstrated by the millions that objected to this invasion. I know that, because of his relentless push to conquer, 702 American’s no longer live; no longer require a Bill of Rights to keep them free.
 
 
APRIL 18, 2004 CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED...Right now we are getting about as much truth from our government as we get from a used car salesman -- oh, excuse me, a “pre-owned” car salesman. And that pretty much sums up the new euphemisms describing the same old cover-up coming out of our government.Take the September 11, 2001 investigation of events leading up to that tragic attack on New York City and Washington, D.C. I am reminded of those old reruns of Hogan’s Heroes where the camp guard always “knew nothing” and “saw nothing”. That pretty much sums up the Bush administration. As evidence mounts to dire predictions and warnings about al Qaida and their plot to blow up buildings by ramming hijacked planes into them, Bush just shakes his head and denies that he “knew anything”. In her testimony before the 9/11 commission, his security advisor states that they had no specific inform as to time, place, date, or method. However, since 9/11/01 the hodgepodge called “homeland security” has sounded many alarms that invoked the color orange with less information than they had available on the attack that took place September 11 -- in fact, last Christmas they practically shut down the whole world’s transportation system on less substantial rumors! How lax was he? The day of the now infamous August 6 memo declaring “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”, George W. Bush was enjoying a month long vacation at his Texas ranch. Sensitive to the statistics that he was taking the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, Bush’s schedule for that day included a 45 minute workday discussing “security matters.” The rest of the day was supervising a new “nature trail” out of public view, and a four mile run. August 7 shaped up to be just as exhausting. After playing Gulf, he managed to publically comment, “Saddam Hussein is a menace, and we will do --he needs to open his country up for inspection -- so we can see whether or not he;’s developing weapons of mass destruction.”By the time bin Laden has instigated his attack and over 3,000 of our citizens were dead, Bush had spent a quarter of his time in office on vacation. No one expected him to be the same workaholic president Bill Clinton was, calling staff at three in the morning because he had lost track of time, but when you whimper the excuse that you have only “been in office 233 days” and you were gone on vacation 137 of them one must question the wisdom of putting a playboy president in Our White House. Especially when Bill Clinton had been president only 37 days when al Qaida struck the first time. No one gave him a pass for being new to the job!Oh, and his administration is credited for catching and convicting those guys.DOES HE REALLY LIKE US?George W. is also very fond of spending money. He throws it around like water, unless it is destined to help We, the People. We are all aware that while our soldiers are being slaughtered in Iraq -- 93 so far this month -- Bush has been cutting back all forms of veterans benefits. Just to prove how much he supports our troops, on April 7, 2004, he urged an appeals court to overturn a judge’s order awarding nearly $l billion in Iraqi money to 17 Americans taken prisoner by Saddam Hussein’s government during the first Iraqi war. The money was to come from assets frozen in this country and not planned to be used for “rebuilding” Iraq when -- or if -- it is ever pacified. Our judicial system ruled these soldiers were entitled to compensation; their government says they are not.AND THEN THERE IS THE RETALIATION FACTORNo, not against al Qaida. Against those brave whistleblowers who have pointed out the obvious fact that “the emperor has no clothes.”There is no question that the Bush administration is extremely busy pointing in all directions and at everyone who gets in the way of that pointing finger. About Iraq. About 9/11. During his news conference last week (one of only 3 -- but who has time to inform the public while on vacation?) a reporter asked him if he had made any mistakes during about 9/11..Iraq? Bush stuttered out a reply that sounded suspiciously like he couldn’t think of any he had made and the question should have been written our and given him ahead of time if he wanted an answer. It took a few days but Karl Rove finally came up with one, the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner hung in the background behind George W. Bush when he gave his “It’s Over” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. But he also says it was misinterpreted and that it was meant to acknowledge the completion of the carriers 10 month mission. Since when does a “leader” as busy as Bush take time out of his busy vacation schedule to greet returning naval ships? It always amazes me how Republican conservatives can dig up every little nitty gritty detail about an issue they want revealed and reviled but find it so difficult to even see their own debacles. I guess that is the forrest for the trees syndrome. Although Bush takes credit but not blame for what has happening, and is still happening in Iraq; he knows nothing about what went on before or after September 11, 2001 (the Sergeant Schultz syndrome) but can he pinpoint those responsible for not hitting him over the head until the information penetrated!He sent Condoleezza Rice out to do his fencing for him; thereby creating a Sergeant Schultz clone. Amazing that her job was to seek and distribute this stuff and yet she managed to negotiate the corridors of Our White House without one fact drifting into her mind. Wouldn’t you like to be able to ignore your work problems like that???Anyhow, it appears that in retaliation for putting Dr. Rice on the hot seat, the conservatives have attacked one of the commission members, Jamie Gorelick. It seems that in the mid-nineties, Ms. Gorlick was deputy attorney general of the United States and that she was assigned the take of writing a “memorandum” (report) to establish distinctions between intelligence that could be used for law-enforcement purposes and intelligence that could be used for national security purposes. That may sound confusing, but the essence is that it was to provide a safeguard against abuse of citizen’s rights by government investigative agencies. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with following our constitution, or in putting it in memorandum form. But it appears to be causing some controversy among “conservatives” who are saying that this “work” may have contributed to the failures leading up to the attacks!” I’ve never heard the rational that following the Constitution of the United States could be blamed for terrorist attacks, but there you have it!!It is their belief that the euphemistic “wall” defining intelligence is a main obstacle to better intelligence sharing information in regard to the September 11 attacks. Not the obsession with Iraq, not the absentee “leader”, not an administration too dumb to listen to it’s chief terrorist czar, but that nasty old Constitution.And we’re all aware that “compassionate conservative” will always be helpful and forgiving, guess what has happened to Ms. Gorelick?She is receiving death threats at her office and her home. The bomb threat came to her home. She is receiving “vile” e-mails and phone calls. But she is refusing to be intimidated, saying, “The threats are scary” but she “was not intimidated enough to resign from the commission.” She has recused herself from reviewing any actions that occurred while she was at the Justice Department. But this is apparently not enough for conservatives.Her memo was brought up by Attorney General Ashcroft during his testimony before the 9/11 commission hearing; I guess because he felt it would reflect badly on the Clinton Administration. But no administration following the letter of the Constitution is guilty of anything. Passage of the Patriot Act has eliminated the necessity for a memo defining the parameters of Amendment IV, Amendment V, Amendment VI or the Bill of Rights. So I guess bomb threats to Ms. Gorelick fits right in to the new view of civil rights.
 
APRIL 17, 2004 BIGOTRY A mighty powerful word when applied to someone. The dictionary definition of a bigot is a person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.We have a lot of bigots in this country right now and most of them are the religious kind. They are more active now than they have been for a long time and that is because they feel that our government no longer enforces our Constitution. Bigots love to expound on the theory that this nation was founded by religious zealots; specifically zealots of whatever faith they profess.It is true that every little religious splinter group that washed up on our shore wanted their particular religion to be sacrosanct BUT they sat up little fiefdoms that were suspicious of their neighbors who didn’t believe as they did. The overriding fear was that they would be as persecuted here as they were where they came from . That included those much admired Pilgrims, Quakers, and a grab bag of other religious groups that never made it into your elementary school history lesson.But those groups had absolutely NOTHING to do with the founding of the United States of America. That was done by a group of discontented businessmen and landowners who didn’t like the way England was handling their lucrative colonies. Those who forged this great nation were rebel rousers, inventors, authors and publishers and the majority of those responsible for this great nation were not particularly religious. Thomas Jefferson was an agnostic, Benjamin Franklin was an acknowledged atheist, John Adams was a progressive thinker who thought women and slaves should have civil rights -- not a popular idea at the time!We almost didn’t become a nation at all because every colony represented at the Continental Congress had their own ax to grind. And some of those axes were the promotion of their religion as the official State Religion. Naturally that idea didn’t set well with their neighbors who preferred their own particular brand of religion to the one State Religion. But, those Founding Fathers who wrote the constitution weren’t considered the largest collection of the greatest minds in all of history for nothing. They had to “level the playing field” and protect all those little religious groups from persecution by the others. England’s history was a pretty good example of what happened in a country where one individual decreed what religion the country was to follow. Thus, Amendment I of the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
These guys certainly didn’t speak governmentese. That is perfectly clear. If you can’t make a law establishing a religion, you certainly can’t enforce a law making one religion dominate, or the only, religion of this country.Which brings us back to the bigotry running rampant through Our government. Since the day George W. Bush stepped through the door of Our White House he has been hell bent on establishing his version of religion for the United States of America. Bush appointed an attorney general who was more concerned in setting up “prayer” groups in government buildings and covering “offensive” (to him) statues than investigating the Civil Rights Commission Report of voter disenfranchisement in Florida, or investigating the religious fanatic that succeeded in destroying most of our financial district.
Bush’s first decrees were to undo any executive orders and legislation that did not suit his religious beliefs. He was “establishing a religion” by forcing laws upon us that, in his opinion, did not conform to those religious beliefs.And in spite of overwhelming American, and world, opposition to his invasion of Iraq; he told us that his god had told him to do it. George W. Bush’s god decreed that (at this moment) 689 of our citizens must die. And the irony is that Osama bin Laden’s god decreed that 3,000 of our citizens must die to appease his deity. After 3 l/2 years of George W. Bush pushing his religious beliefs and agenda upon We, the People; the bigots are becoming more bold. Instead of skulking in shadows and hiding their true feeling of those “others”, they are suddenly a threat to our own religious beliefs and practices. It goes beyond the Supreme Court case about the added phrase “under god” in our Pledge of Allegiance; a phrase added by Congress during the McCarthy era witch hunt mentality.We could populate another planet with the people who have been killed in the name of religion. And, if what I have been reading is true, our own country may very shortly be contributing to that population. Last Tuesday, a Roman Catholic priest delivered the morning prayer to the House of Representatives. He used it as a political soapbox to say that too many politicians have followed the example of the nation’s first Catholic president by pledging to separate their faith from politics.“Almighty god, please change and convert the hearts of all the representatives in this House. May they be the antithesis of John Kennedy, may they be women and men of god, and may their faith and influence and guide every vote they make.” ---------Rev. Bill Carmody -----------
Do you realize the implication? Do you realize that this Catholic priest, in your House of Representative, is asking that his god supersede your god and change and convert your representatives to his faith??
If you find this upsetting, just remember that the man who calls himself the president of the United States has been doing this same thing for over three years! Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry, is being criticized for saying that “I’m not running to be a Catholic president. I’m running to be a president who happens to be Catholic.” That is exactly what President John Kennedy said when he was seeking the office of President of the United States. Neither Bush nor Kerry nor any other candidate has any business running for any office on the basis of establishing their religious beliefs as the law of the land. If their only desire is to establish their religion as a State Religion, we don’t want them. The ultra conservatism of George W. Bush’s god, which he hid from voters, has brought us nothing but turmoil, hostility, and death. We want no more of it. This is where we are heading. A Jewish family, living in the state run by George W. Bush’s brother, is suing to stop the use of prayer at school board meetings. It was supposed to be a “non-denominational” prayer, but the family says that it contains repeated Christian references. In February the Rosenauers sued to block the Manatee Country School board from opening the public meeting with this Christian prayer. Since then, the family has received threatening phone calls, vandals have thrown red paint over their house and their truck. No swastikas were reported, but can they be far behind?The wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Establish no religion, make laws to protect “the free exercise thereof” and you will have no religious wars. But we need our politicians free from a religious agenda to keep religion free.
 
 
APRIL 16, 2004
 
BACKPACK BUDDIES Today is the day after we have filed our tax forms. I wonder how many new members of jobless or underemployed Americans filled in that blank at the end of the form with a zero. None paid, none refunded. I would certainly like to see an accounting of how many tax payers dropped off the tax rolls due to less, or no, taxable income. That would be a truer picture of the Bush economy than that rosy picture painted by the government over 308,000 jobs they say were added in March. But further study of the data shows that part of that “rise” came from the California grocery store strike and that it was unclear how many temporary workers would lose their jobs as a result of the settlement. It further shows that there was no rise in manufacturing employment, although it remained unchanged in March after 3 years and 7 months of uninterrupted decline in jobs. The unemployment rate; after falling from a 6.1% high to 5.6% due to job seekers giving up the search; has begun increasing again to 5.7% -- due in part to the “news” that there are more jobs out there. More data shows that in March part time workers have increased from 4.4 million to 4.7 million also. As workers unable to find full time jobs are forced to settle for part time jobs, tax revenues will also follow a downward trend.And April 12, 2004, three days before our taxes were due, another large industry announced yet another layoff. DuPont cut 3,500 jobs. Coupled with just the April job layoffs and job outsourcing, those 308,000 “new” jobs have already been reduce by multiple thousands of newly unemployed workers joining the 8.35 million workers who have been looking for work for more than 20 weeks! And those unemployed millions represent a 20 year high. Do you remember who was president 20 years ago? Ronald Reagan. But George W. Bush, hot on the campaign trail now that the Iraq crisis has been taken care of to his satisfaction, is traveling from state to state at taxpayer expense ( just imagine the cost of jet fuel) spreading word of his economic success to the Republican elite. And no one is challenging that economic “success”. But let me show you the face of Bush’s “success”.
It is the face of hungry children.Perhaps companies can increase their profits a hundred fold by outsourcing their jobs to India or China, but they do so at the expense of our future. Feeding these hungry children comes under the government budget heading of Entitlements. George W. Bush has cut all Entitlements across the board; from Veterans Benefits, during the Iraq war, to school breakfasts for children. And the results of a depressed economy that has no jobs, no FDR type programs to help the unemployed and the homeless, is that our children go without. In Arkansas, Rice Depot (a Little Rock-based statewide food bank) was approached by a school nurse at an inner city school who asked for help because the students were coming to her with stomach aches and dizziness. The children weren’t sick, she said, they were hungry. And that is how the foodbank started giving out food at the nurse’s school. Some of the schools began sending food home with the students on weekends so that they would have food to eat over the weekend.The program, or similar programs, are now serving thousands of children in more than a dozen cities and it is spreading across the United States. The Roadrunner Food Bank in Albuquerque, New Mexico decided to start sending food home with the students in the Spring of 2001. It provides backpacks to about 1,500 school children.In St. Joseph, Missouri, they call it Backpack Buddies. Two-thirds of the students at Noyes Elementary school get subsidized lunches. The children line up on Friday and pick up backpacks filled with canned fruit, cereal bars, and other single serving foods, so they won’t go hungry over the weekend. The children don’t like to talk about being hungry, says Joyce Starr, in charge of the backpack program, so the teachers try to notice things, like students who eat quickly, or are sorry when the weekend comes.For these students so poor that they get most of their meals through the government subsidized breakfast and lunch programs; weekend and holidays mean being hungry. Started in January 2003, with 40 students, the program has grown to 140 students but America’s Second Harvest of Greater St. Joseph said the need is as much as 20 times higher. America’s Second Harvest in Chicago, Illinois, is trying to raise money to help more of its 214 food banks and rescue groups who are offering the program. Last week, the Hasbro Children’s Foundation (a charity supported by Hasbro, Inc.) has given a $95,000 grant to help America’s Second Harvest with a national backpack pilot program.Like the program Habitat for Humanity that builds homes for those who have none; America’s Second Harvest is filling a desperate need that our government has neglected. George W. Bush believes that we, unemployed and underemployed, can take up the slack that his Entitlement cuts have created. But the need is huge and growing. As he travels the country in comfort on Air Force One with a well stocked larder to eat from, and millions of campaign dollars to advance his economic “success”, schools are struggling to send children home with enough food to keep them, and perhaps their siblings, fed over the weekend. The food banks and school officials say that it is important that the funding remain stable because the children have begun to rely on those backpacks of food. The St. Joseph food bank realized just how important that backpack of food was when one child, having moved to a new school, waited patiently for a backpack on his first Friday. When a school employee told him the school didn’t hand out backpacks, he burst into tears. Now, the food bank delivers one backpack to the boy’s new school every Friday. “It’s just so tough.” Nicholas Saccaro, executive director of America’s Second Harvest of Greater St. Joseph said.
In one of the richest nations of the world, a little child cries for food. Are you listening, Mr. Bush?
 
APRIL 15, 2004 TABULA ROSA George W. Bush seemed to think he entered our White House with a blank slate; that he could write upon it whatever he chose. When you are so out of touch with what is going on in the world, when others censer the news for you and your work day starts and ends in about four hours, you miss out on a lot. Delegating authority is fine, but refusing to accept responsibility for what you and others did in your name is not. During Bush’s 3rd news conference in 3 1/2 half years, he couldn’t admit to any mistakes, excusing himself with “I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could’ve done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet....I hope, I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes...I just haven’t -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”Tabula Rosa. Wiped clean of all responsibility for September 11, 2001; for Iraq; for all the lies he told in a mandated State of the Union address to a joint Session of Congress that was filled with information about an Iraqi threat that didn’t exist. Most of Bush’s rare press conference was devoted to his justification of the Iraq invasion. He still plans to stay in Iraq until he determines it is time to go. While everyone is bellowing that more troops are needed, that we need to remove ourselves and let the United Nations put the shattered nation back together, Bush stands firm in his belief that only he knows how to do it. But his answers to reporter’s questions about the event that shattered our own nation, the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, lack the same resolve to “stay the course.” He thinks that tightening up a few of our Bill of Rights, such as Amendment I, Amendment IV, Amendment VI, Amendment VIII and Amendment IX, by passing the Patriot Act which allows citizen’s rights to be violated but does nothing to prevent terrorism, will prevent terrorism. I kept wondering how he felt that by controlling travel on airplanes it would prevent another terrorist attack and then I hear Dr. Rice’s testimony regarding the PDB of August 6, 2001 and Bush’s assertion that, “...It’s easy for a president to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were certain things in place...The country wasn’t on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us.” Tabula rosa!We all knew who al Qaida was. One of the cell leaders involved in the 1993 World trade Center bombing, the conspirator known as “the blind Sheik”, was in prison in Springfield, Missouri. The day he was brought to Springfield to begin serving his sentence at the prison hospital located in that city, there was a lock down at the airport, and increased police presence because of fear that a terrorist attempt to free him.But Bush entered the Oval Office with a broom that swept clean as many of the previous administration’s policies as it could. Richard Clarke’s (author of the book, “Against All Enemies”) found that his Cabinet level position no longer existed, and that terrorism had been put on the back burner; even though the previous administration under the leadership of that workaholic, Bill Clinton, had identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat. But, dogged by a relentless political attack by the very people who helped create the candidacy of George W. Bush, he could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, or the FBI to sufficiently deal with the threat*Bush’s failure to acknowledge this as one of the major mistakes of his brief administration -- not building and expanding upon the information and organization left by the Clinton Administration -- is further proof that he felt he could make decisions about our lives without benefit of any other experience but his own desires.When asked specifically about the August 6 PDB, “Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration?...” Bush replied, “I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas...part of it had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference that I was going to attend. And that is what triggered that report.” Personal safety? His own safety at the Genoa G-8 conference, is what he was concerned about?Bush continued, “The report itself, I’ve characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it, you’ll see that it was talking about a 97, 98, and 99... It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane...Now, in the -- what’s called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden’s desires on America. But, frankly, I don’t think there was anything new.” But because it didn’t directly refer to hijacking airplanes or state a timetable you didn’t take it seriously? That should have been a powerful indication that something was up. Did it ever occur to him to peruse Clinton’s terrorist information or perhaps go over the intelligence “chatter” from other countries collecting terrorist information:? It was part of his job. But the invasion of Iraq seemed to take precedent over all else, even the destruction of our seat of military power and our financial institutions.
Another reporter mentioned Clark’s apology to the American people during his 911 committee testimony where he admitted that our government had failed us and asked Bush if he felt that he owed We, the People an apology. His reply was not an apology. It was an avoidance of responsibility. “Look, I can understand why people in my administration are anguished over the fact that people lost their life. (reference to Clark’s apology). I feel the same way...I’ve met with a lot of family members, and I do my best to console them about the loss of their loved one... I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen...” And here is where he placed the blame, “Here’s what I feel about that: The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden.”Yes, he was responsible, but Bush took on the job of “protecting and serving We, the People. It was not bin Laden’s responsibility to keep us safe in our home, in our workplace. When he went to war with Iraq he told us that he was “commander in chief”. As “commander in chief”, his responsibility for the safety of We, the People extended beyond the invasion of Iraq
.
If he hadn’t entered our White House with a blank slate; he would have had had many historical examples of what it takes to make the hard choices and to take the burden of responsibility. Harry Truman, with the motto “The Buck Stops Here” on his desk, made the decision to use atomic weapons for the first time. His message to the men flying those plane that brought such death and destruction to our enemy was that they should remember that they were just following orders, that the responsibility, whether good or bad, was upon his head. The “Buck” stopped with him.Facing nuclear annihilation during the cold War, in his brief three years, John Kennedy faced them and also took responsibility. Even though he had been given false information from the CIA regarding the Bay of Pigs incursion, when the debacle was over, Kennedy ripped into those responsible in private and faced us squarely and took the blame. When Russia put missiles 60 miles off the Florida coast, he made the decision to risk nuclear war with Russia and prepared We, the People with the truth. There are many more courageous examples that run throughout the vein of our history; Bush only had to look to see what great leaders do. But courage and fortitude do not seem to be his strong suit. When asked by a reporter, “why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 911 commission?”, he seemed to not understand the question.
“...because the 911 commission wants to ask us questions, that’s why we’re meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions” When pressed as to WHY Cheney and Bush were not testifying individually but as a unit, before the committee he repeated his first response! “Because it’s a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 911 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I’m looking forward to answering them. So we still don’t know why the man , who declared that he made the decisions about Iraq and we could essentially like it or lump it, needed a chaperone to answer the questions put to him about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.Another question, “...you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It’s pretty somber...But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don’t have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?”
Bush replied, “I guess, if you put it into a political context, that’s the kind of thing the voters will decide...They’ll take a look at me and my opponent and say...which one of them can better win the war on terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges a free society?” Is this the sum total of a president’s duties? To engage in a war on Iraq while our country crumbles?

And he told us that his message that day, April 13, 2004, was to those in Iraq was, “...we’ll stay the course, we'll complete the job. And my message to the loved ones who are worried about their sons, daughters, husbands, wives is, your loved one is performing a noble service for the cause of freedom and peace.” Cold comfort for the acknowledged 688 families who have buried their loved ones, almost 90 of them the week he gave this conference.And not one word about We, the People, he has sworn to defend and protect -- against job losses, poverty, loss of pensions from corporate and social security, affordable medical care and education, and the terrors of watching our children cry from hunger. Tabula Rosa. His slate is blank.
 

APRIL 13, 2004 WAR FOOTING? Oh, my gawd!!! George W. Bush gave a news conference!!! What could possibly tear him away from vacationing to address We, the People? Neither terrorist attacks, negative world opinion, nor Iraq exploding had produced a news conference -- had we been invaded by aliens from outer space or something??? Nahh, his poll numbers had dropped and someone, perhaps Cheney, had told him he better get out there and set us straight before we went to the polls in November. His speech writer chose the theme, “We weren’t on a war footing.” for him to focus on. The 9/11 terrorist attack was because “we weren’t on a war footing.” The Patriot Act, which took away several of our civil rights, must have put us on a “war footing” from the sound of things; so why is his Iraq occupation such a mess? He got everything he asked Congress for, got his troops, his extra money, his invasion, extra money, no bid contracts for his campaign contributors, extra money, hired mercenaries, more extra money... if that ain’t “war footing”, what is???They warned us, too. No brief ten minute talk; he planned to “oratate” for a full 18 minutes and then -- GASP -- take questions from reporters. True, the question askers appeared to be the same reporters that had followed the party line since day one of his administration. And he did criticize one of the reporters for not submitting his question asking what Bush considered his biggest mistake regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, saying “I wish you’d have given me this in written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.” Considering that he indicated that his strongest complaint about 9/11 was that bin Laden hadn’t furnished him with the plans of the attack, it seemed quite in character for him to expect reporters to not ask any questions he hadn’t been prepared for! By the way, the answer to that reporter’s question, after mulling time, is that there was nothing he regretted doing or considered a mistake. Ain’t it grand to be “perfect”.George W. Bush came slinking to the podium, looking about as comfortable as a seventh grader called upon to read a report that he forgot was due. He gave his prepared speech and then began taking questions. I was curious to see the sort of questions the “media” lobbed at him. As expected, the reporters pretty much divided the questions between Iraq and the 911 commission, although Bush kept turning his rhetoric back to Iraq. That man has a one track mind and it is definitely on the Iraq track. He answered almost every 911 question by chugging down that Iraq track! You would have thought he had been appointed president to do nothing but make war on Iraq.The excuse for the failure of the Bush administration is that the United States wasn’t on a “war footing.” Who gave him the idea that the purpose of the United States of America was to constantly be at war with someone? We’ve had an awful lot of peaceful years between Republican administrations. Most of the “wars” we have been involved in were under Republican presidents.
Since our country began, we have had 7 major wars (Not counting the Civil War or the Barbary Pirates clash which helped produced our army and Navy!): The Revolution, The War of 1812, Mexican, Spanish-American, World War I, World War II, and the only one we lost, VietNam. But after Reagan, we have constantly been at “war” with someone -- especially terrorists! Under Republican administrations we have invaded Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. We have bombed Lebanon, Lydia, the Sudan, Kosovo, threatened to bomb or invade others, and furnished the “weapons of mass destruction” to Saddam Hussein for his war on Iran. It is incredible to me that Bush thinks he has done a good job of leading our country. When asked, “...you’ve made it very clear tonight that you’re committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet...increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?”, Bush snapped back “I don’t plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I’ve got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they’ll stay with me. They understand the stakes.”Yes, Mr. Bush, we do. But the stakes we are facing are far different from those indicated. The war on terror waged by the Bush administration is leaving the “homeland” vulnerable in a way that armies can’t prevent. It is a terror we have experienced once in our history and one we don’t want to repeat.
“Well, the oil revenues, they’re bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren’t. They’re now up and running.”While you are busy worrying about the Iraqi oil fields being destroyed We, the People are living with a country deep in depression. We aren’t worried about your Iraqi oil fields; they will not feed or cloth our children. We are worried about how long you plan to keep our National Guard in Iraq; their families are suffering greatly for lack of the additional breadwinner in a country where jobs are impossible to find. You say, “We’re making progress. There’s no question it’s been tough...it’s been a tough, tough series of weeks for the American people...it’s been tough for the families...it’s been tough on this administration...”
How tough on the administration? When Iraq exploded with death and destruction, the kidnapping of between 40 - 60 civilians of all nationalities; you were fishing with a guy filming a television program. How tough was that when compared to the 83 lives lost in the first fourteen days of April 2004? How tough on their families? You say we know why we’re in Iraq. You’re wrong. We don’t.
APRIL 11, 2003
 
I started this blog in September 2003, when I realized that our country has lost its way. I had hoped that by pointing out the absurdity of what was happening to We, the People that I might, in some small way, contribute to awakening our distracted citizens to the unethical and illegal violations that tarnished our Constitution and that they, in turn, would demand accountability from a government that no longer put the needs of the People they serve before their own ego. But I have taught myself something also.WE NO LONGER HAVE A FREE PRESS

1. Our so called “reporters” no longer investigate or publish information that the government, in the form of the Bush administration, does not want released. They simply report verbatim from the new releases. Examples of their failure to inform the public are as varied as they are numerous. No one questioned the “strong leader” title that was given to Bush after September 11, 2001 even though he took no leadership role at all. 2. The “media” never investigated the reason ENRON’s Ken Lay, pal and major campaign contributor of Bush, was never held accountable for his roll in the illegal activities that brought down not only the company but the economic solvency of the state of California. 3. For three years, the “media” has ignored the information that Bush was an economic disaster for our country. What happened in the 80’s under Reagan was a preview of the job losses which wrecked the lives of the common man and sent many spiraling into such poverty that they will never recover. The concept of the richest nation in the world becoming a “third world” country of poverty and despair was never mentioned by the loyal Bush “media”.4. The “media” ignored Bush’s use of his position to bring about unconstitutional promotion of his religion at the expense of our religious beliefs. 5. He used the power of his office to tell us lies in State of the Union Speeches so that he could invade another country although millions did not want his war and the “media” went to bed with Bush’s government and refused to print any information but that approved by the government of Bush.6. The “media” chose which party they would promote, and which candidate they would promote, for the election that We, the People, were guaranteed would be our choice. THE SLACKER1. From the day George W. Bush told Vice President Al Gore that his brother, Jeb Bush, had told him he had won an election; he has refused to follow the Constitutional mandates of the President of the United States. He took the election results out of the hands of We, the People, and placed them in the hands of a Supreme Court appointed by his father. They, in turn, without the authority to do so, gave the office of President of the United States to George W. Bush by stating that to count all of the votes would harm Bush and by those words implied that by not counting all those votes, it did not matter that the other candidate, Al Gore, would be harmed. 2. In spite of being heralded in the press as a “strong leader” against terrorism, George W. Bush was not present and took no strong positions on terrorism from the day he took the oath of office. He bowed before China during the first crisis of his administration, did not even bother to get up from his chair in an elementary classroom even as We, the People, watched in horror as plane after plane hit target after target. And now we know that the warnings the Bush government denied they had were definitely put before them on August 6, 2001 -- a scant 37 days before the New York Trade Center was finally destroyed by al Qaida.3. In direct conflict with our Constitution, Bush initiated a virtual grab bag of laws he calls the “Patriot Act” that subvert or ignore the mandates of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. 4. He began, and continues, an illegal occupation of another country that he swore had weapons of mass destruction although none have ever been found. He threatened to destroy our alliance with the United Nations, with NATO, and has begun a military program to produce more efficient weapons of mass destruction to use against and unidentified enemy of the United State of America.5. He is lax in his duties of Commander in Chief by not acknowledging the causalities, both wounded and dead, in his very private and undeclared war. He has usurped the powers and responsibilities that Constitutionally belong to the legislature.6. He abuses his power as acting president by his constant absence from duty on vacations that account for at least 40% of his time and absence from duty for an almost equal amount of time on campaign fundraisers. He is paid a salary of $400,000 plus all expenses and transportation cost anywhere he wishes to travel. HAVE WE FAILED?
We, the People of the United States of America, charged with the responsibility of being ever vigilance over a Government whose only function is to serve and protect, have sadly neglected that responsibility. We have allowed elected and appointed officials, holding office by our Consent, to stray from the dictates of our mandate. There is no Power in the United States of America except the Power held by We, the People. We have the Power to transform or dismiss our government -- in whole or in part -- when they do not follow our wishes. The administration of the unelected George W. Bush should never have been allowed to happen. Our whole country suffers because there was no elected official strong enough to challenge the group of men seeking the power of the presidency for their own gain. This is not only our legislature’s shame, but our shame. We disbelieved our own anger, distrusted our own thoughts and hearts; and for that our children’s children’s children will suffer. Once before, in our past, brave men spoke out and challenged and fought and died so that we could control our own destinies. We have failed them also. We must stop what is happening in our country now, today. If we can’t get it together, we can’t hold it together. It is our obligation to undo the evil that powerful men have done.
 
APRIL 10, 2004
George W. Bush is off again - on vacation that is. Although he did manage to squeeze in a little campaigning and a nice photo op with Richard Martin, host of the Outdoor Life Network program, “Fishing with Roland Martin.” Friday Bush and Martin whiled away a few hours trolling for bass. “The president was very relaxed.” Martin said. He also indicated that Bush was “a very accomplished fisherman. He handled the tackle real well and caught three fish...he complains that he doesn’t fish there enough; so he misses that a lot.” Unfortunately, Bush had to cancel the scheduled fishing with Martin and his father, telling him, “Hey Roland, sorry it didn’t work out. I had things to do.” Like going bicycling Saturday afternoon. Martin indicated that, although he has known the Bush family for a very long time, he was “mystified” about how the even came about because Bush had contacted him about taping the segment. The Bush administration is “sensitive” to charges that Bush is loafing at a time of bloodshed and chaos in Iraq. And they should be. Some people who know more about that “fuzzy math” thing than George W. Bush has done a little analysis and stated that Bush had been on vacation 40% of his time. Now, this is a little fuzzy math of my own, but I ruminated about all the fundraising events that Bush has attended over his tenure and think they must amount to another 40%. That leave about 20% left to do the job he is getting paid to do.That is probably why, in spite of having no Constitutional authority to assume any power at all, Bush leaves Cheney to guard our White House while he vacations. News articles report that Cheney is monitoring the Iraq hostage while Bush fishes for TV. In three and one-half years, Bush has never been in Washington, D. C. during any crisis. And no matter what the crisis is, he doesn’t return! He started this Iraq war and now that it has imploded and is taking down our soldiers and civilians caught in the cross fire, he’s off fishing! While 50 of your sons and daughters died, he is idling away the warm spring days cavorting with the fishing crew of a TV show. Why are we paying this guy $400,000 a year to go on vacation when he can’t even keep us working enough to pay his salary?? Just exactly why haven’t we fired this guy?? What are We, the People waiting for??
APRIL 10, 2004 NO SILVER BULLET; JUST A SMOKING GUN
Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, said “there was no silver bullet”. The Bush administration might not have been able to find the bullet, but there was definitely a smoking gun!Dr. Rice, under oath; and testifying before the commission investigating the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 as to what the Bush administration knew and when they knew it; was as dumb as Katherine Harris was about her state job of overseeing Florida’s 2000 election! Ms. Harris, now a Florida representative from one of those Republican districts, claimed that she focused her time on tourism and knew nothin’ about no elections; Ms. Rice claims that they had only been in office for 9 months and besides, they didn’t have specific information about when and where terrorists would strike.Unfortunately for Bush & Co. that smoking gun, in the form of classified memo dubbed a PDB (presidential daily briefing) , was delivered to George W. Bush August 6, 2001. And in spite of it’s eye catching title “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES”, it rang no bells of alarm with anyone in the Bush Administration. Rice dismissed all the “chatter” as insubstantive. People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than our government had about a terrorist plan of attack before it occured on September 11. In fact, since Ms. Rice felt 270 days was a very short time to “get up to speed” about terrorism; one must ask how President Bill Clinton got himself “up to speed” after only 37 days in office when the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center February 26, 1993!Those terrorists were captured, tried, and convicted during the Clinton Administration. And an interesting discovery came out during their trial. This plot had to have been hatched under Daddy Bush’s administration and, not only did they have an informant in the group, but the plans for the bombing were recorded by the FBI and shown during their trial!! If the Bush administration didn’t feel that was sufficient indication that Bin Laden had plans to strike in the United States, I doubt the precise information that Rice insisted they need would have convinced them!The Bush administration had been briefed by the Clinton Administration; they must have had access to the terrorist plots against the United States. I remember news reports of at least three being thwarted during Clinton ‘s two presidential terms; one on the tunnels, one on the bridges, and one on the subways.
And I realize that George W. Bush doesn’t read newspapers, books or watch news reports and that all his information gets filtered through another source that determines the importance of the news; but in 2000, the Millennium, was he really unaware of all the terrorist plots to mark that date? The French foiled a plot to blow up the Eiffel Tower, rumors spread like wildfire that the “terrorists” were planning to use planes to blow up something here. The whole planet was on a higher alert than we had ever seen. Was he distracted by the Y2K scare that our money wouldn’t be accessible?I’m not going to refute Rice point by point; others have done a great job of that. I just wanted to point out that, if an ordinary citizen had this information by simply watching the news, the Bush administration had access to all those classified documents and insiders like Richard Clark to question about terrorist events that had already happened. They could have compiled a pretty accurate picture of what was happening among terrorist groups. We knew the first bombing of the Trade Center was an al Quaida attempt. Can’t these people even put 2 and 2 together? Did they even try? According to Rice’s testimony, the answer is NO. Clark sent them memos, requested meetings, turned in reports (which were returned for him to “do over” like graded homework), and neither Rice, nor her cohorts felt it important enough to dig into although they had to know that bin Laden had already struck once. They didn’t even have to dig out the information - it was in court records in New York!!So while the Bush administration preoccupied themselves with finding a way to invade Iraq, bin Laden marched his group of terrorists right into the United States, hijacked airplanes even though no one had succeeded doing that since the 1970’s, and took out the New York financial district and the seat of our military power totally unopposed. The series of mistakes and coincidences that had to occur to lead to the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans is simply unacceptable! Investigations must be done; someone must be responsible. EVEN IF THAT SOMEONE IS THE INDIFFERENT GEORGE W. BUSH!!Bush had taken his oath of office a full nine months before this happened. If it takes that long for a change in administrations to get themselves “up to speed” why was he so quick on the Iraq thing, why did he undo everything Clinton had put into place during his first weeks in office, jump on the abortion issue, start his funding of “Christian” charities so fast? It appears he is only “slow” on certain issues, like investigating corporations like ENRON, unemployment, terrorism.
APRIL 9, 2004 TAKING IT EASY It’s a beautiful spring day in Crawford, Texas. George W. Bush is taking another week long vacation, enjoying the luxury of his state of the art ranch, and inviting a few friends to drop by for fishing and hunting. And while he, and his lobbyist pals, fish and hunt and bask in the beauty of a Texas day; the men and women he sent to Iraq were busy fighting and dying in one of the worst attacks since he declared the war “over” in May, 2003.
While he fritters away the hours listening to “wildlife conservation groups” who view the invitation as “provide(ing) direct lobbying and grassroots coalition support to protect and advance the rights of hunters, fishermen, trappers, and scientific wildlife management professionals”, the Sunnis and Shiites have banded together in a coalition that has seized partial control of three Iraqi cities. While Bush vacations, Japanese civilian aid workers have been kidnapped and threatened with being burned to death, military casualties have reached an all time high in just three days and the U.S. military is engaged in pitched battles to regain control. And the generals who run Bush’s Iraq war are insisting they need more troops. Perhaps the hunters Bush is entertaining might care to lend a hand and help him hunt down Iraqi militants -- probably not.While Bush is otherwise engaged, two thoughts are emerging from the chaos of Iraq:
1. Getting more men to the generals to bring the fighting under control. This requires activation of more men from somewhere. Since most of the National Guard --who should be defending the euphemistic “homeland” under Bush’s Patriot act -- are now in Iraq that leaves the dreaded “D” word, which no one plans to use this close to an election. Plus, it would take time to activate, train, and ship a group of young boys to Iraq to relieve the weary National Guard troops already there. So far, they have just refused to bring the National Guard troops home after their tour of duty, or their enlistment, is up. This solution can not be sustained indefinitely.2. Hire mercenaries! This appears to have already been underway. Those “civilian” contractors killed in Fallujah were “private security employees” hired by the United States government. There appears to be approximately 20,000 security firms hired by the U.S. government and it appears that the U. S. government is supplementing the army with these private firms.
We know that the men who were killed were from the security firm of Blackwater, and that all of those men had military connections before joining that firm. A news article on the MSNBC website says that the firms are being hired by the U.S. government to protect its employees in Iraq and that the contracts are managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority (?) and that coordination between the CPA and the U.S. military is limited.Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military command headquarters in Baghdad, stated: “There is no formal arrangement for intelligence sharing. However, ad hoc relationships are in place so that contractors can learn of dangerous areas or situations.”The need for a private security force increased after the war ended and is expected to grow to 30,000. With the latest rebellion, it may take more than that. Right now the private security firms have banded together and are in the process of organizing what may be the largest private army in the world, with its own rescue teams and pooled intelligence. They say it is because they can’t rely on U.S. or coalition troops for intelligence or help. What this will mean for the military in Iraq is yet to be seen. A force this large, and under nonmilitary control, may have different goals than the U.S. military. And now the generals must be cognizant of two very large factions; the united Iraq militants and the private security force who doesn’t plan to wait for military orders before they act. This will definitely insure further destabilization.
But it appears that, just like when Bush said, “Bring it on”, when he says, “it’s over”, it is over. No matter how many Americans and “coalition” forces get killed. But those 647 known casualties in Iraq are far, far away from Bush and his Texas ranch. The war’s over, folks, now move on!

 
APRIL 8,2004
THE “WAR PRESIDENT
”The cowardly man who refused to go to the VietNam war, or to speak out against it, was plenty eager to go to war with Iraq and to tell everyone that he was a “war president”. But the image I found at .michaelmoore.com/ says more profoundly that any words what George W. Bush’s need for war has wrought. Every photo represents a real life that no longer exists. Every photo represents a family that is in mourning; lives forever altered.
And although the images of Bush’s sacrifices may not be imprinted upon his face; they are surely imprinted upon his soul.
Please take a minute out of your busy day and visit this site at amleft.blogspot.com/ and look at the faces who make up the face of Bush. With close to 650 dead, it is very possible that you may recognize some of them.
 
 
APRIL 7, 2004 SOLVING UNEMPLOYMENT -- BUSH STYLE Consider the mass of unemployment over. George W. Bush has just released his plan to put America back to work and you won’t believe it! We are all going to become auto mechanics or health care workers!!I can see the field of auto mechanics picking up since most of us will not be buying any new cars soon; however, I don’t think 10 million mechanics is a real solution to the unemployment problem. And, according to what I’ve read, these jobs are supposed to fill the gap for student’s graduating from high school or trade schools.
In fact, Bush is very vague on what sort of careers a college degree in engineering, technology, teaching, the sciences or the arts will get you. He is so vague that it isn’t even mentioned; and although he plans to give $5,000 grants to poor students who “emphasize math and science”, he also plans to impose new restrictions on Pell grants that might help those “poor students who emphasize math and science” get a college degree!! Critics say that Bush’s plan would only serve about 5 students per campus if spread across the nations traditional colleges and fewer, if trade schools were included. Since approximately 5 million children are presently living in such poverty that they don’t get enough food, how can they get job training on the pittance Bush proposes?Bush, who probably couldn’t pass a high school proficiency test, is planning to mandate one for every high school senior. And after these high school seniors pass that proficiency test, he is directing them to vocational schools. He wants to cut the Perkins Vocational Education program from approximately $1.3 billion this year to just $1 billion -- once again, fewer funds for those “poor” students needing a little help with their training. He wants to replace the Perkins program with the “Secondary and Technical Education” program; whatever that is. He says, “When kids are coming out of vocational training programs, they’re going to need to do more than just what’s taught at the vocational training level. They’re going to need to be able to think.” Uh, considering Bush got to be appointed president with nary a cognitive thought, who gave him this brilliant idea. And when I was in school, we began “thinking” before first grade; not after we graduated!!Totally leaving aside the massive loss of manufacturing jobs, the death of the technology industry, outsourcing everything from mail order to computer work, the downturn in all service sectors from fast food to the travel industry, just what’s left? Bush, unemployed and living off trusts and allowances until he was almost 40, has no concept of “working for a living”. It shines through everything he proposed or legislates. These children he has relegated to “trade school” don’t have fathers with rich friends who can suddenly supply a job to them when they decide they want to run a football team or start an oil company. Their families don’t have the resources to support them in their educational pursuit. Most workers today have faced numerous job losses through downsizing, corporate takeovers, and now the new evil -- outsourcing. They have taken salary cuts and watched their retirement funds plummet. The reality of the Bush “job plan” is that it is too little and almost four years too late. He’s not only going to have to turn lose a lot more of our tax money to educate and “train”; he’s going to have to create new categories of jobs to replace what we have lost. Auto mechanics, and health care workers in a country where people can’t even afford gas or a doctor’s visit ain’t gonna do it.Or he could get tough on outsourcing and just bring back the old ones -- nah, he won’t do that.
APRIL 6, 2004 WE TOLD YOU SO Mr. Bush, do you remember a year ago when We, the People, content with the peace and prosperity of eight Clinton years, told you decisively, and loudly, that we did not want you to invade Iraq? Do you remember the world wide demonstrations against your invasion of Iraq? Do you remember your United Nations’ rebuke when you requested their aid; your sneering attitude toward “old Europe” and veiled threats and promises of retribution if they did not assist you?We do. AND WE REMEMBER TELLING YOU THAT WE DID NOT WANT YOU TO INVADE IRAQ. We told you with millions upon millions of demonstrators that you ran away from. The world told you, and they are still telling you. The people of Spain told you last month. If you had been a smarter, a more learned man, you might have foreseen the consequences of your invasion, as we did. But with your blindness and greed, you placed our country’s honor and our reputation in jeopardy to secure oil fields in Iraq so that your campaign contributors would acquire more money. No bid contracts to Cheney’s Halliburton who inadequately supplied our soldiers. You lashed out at your critics and those who blew the whistle on the WMD lies you used to invade Iraq. You continued to destroy lives and reputations to try to keep your myth of danger from Iraq viable.Well, Mr. Bush, you have succeeded. American lives are very much in danger from Iraq -- now. Since you began your invasion one year and 18 days ago, we have lost approximately two soldiers a day. (I have to say “approximately” because you keep a secret tally of casualties and wounded.) If you count the countries you have dragged into your war, it is more than two a day. And even as I write this, more are dying. Within the past two weeks, you have done something that Saddam Hussein, the leader you deposed, could not do. You have united two religious factions, the Shites and the Sunnis, in a common cause. And that cause is a holy war against the citizens of the United States of America. Now you have another leader to depose, a religious leader that the Iraqi people have united to protect.Just yesterday you unleashed the might of the U.S. military, with bombs and guns. In a country where women and children have no rights, you killed sixteen children and at least 8 women. 12 of our Marines died. How many more will die before you pacify Iraq? An old Iraqi man was quoted as saying, “...so we will keep killing them...we found our way, just now. We gather together now.”Perhaps if you had not refused to serve in VietNam you would know the blood price of a war. Perhaps, if you had witnessed the deaths of your comrades who became your friends in that terrible war, you would not have been so eager to taste the blood of war. Wars never change, Mr. Bush, real people die for someone else’s “cause”. And their families live with the results of war for generations. What is our “cause” in Iraq? Not to “free the people”, they are fighting your version of “freedom”, just as the Viet Cong did. Take a short walk from our White House sometime, to the black granite wall with the names of over 58,000 men and women who never had a chance to live their lives. Do you know one person who has their name engraved on that wall? Stand awhile and watch those who visit. That war and its consequences has never ended for them. Nor will the Iraq Invasion. Not even after its monument is built to those who died on the sands of Iraq, by your hand. APRIL 4, 2004
They must call themselves political parties because of all the waltzing around they do. George W. Bush is busy tap dancing from issue (bad economy) to issue (Iraq invasion) to issue (overturning Roe v Wade) to issue (doing away with social security and medicare). Kerry is always two steps behind and dancing faster and faster just to catch up with the Bush Spin! And there really isn’t much difference between the two. Both arrived where they are by the good fortune of being born into families with money and social connections. Both went to Yale and both were members of the elitist Skull and Bones. Both went into some form of military service; Kerry to VietNam and Bush to a purchased position in the Texas National Guard. Kerry spent the VietNam years in a gunboat; Bush spent them campaigning for one of Daddy Bush’s Republican friends. Kerry came home and testified before a 1971 Senate Foreign relations committee and Bush decided to skip his final year of military commitment to go to grad school for an MBA (fuzzy math???)Here’s where their paths diverged, while Kerry was out there telling it like it was in VietNam; Bush was still partying. But, after law school and a lot of political work, Kerry became a Senator, and after numerous failures in business ventures supported by Daddy’s friend, Bush used his political influence to steal the presidency from Al Gore.So they both ended up employees of We, the People and we must ask the question: Are they worth the money we pay them? If your answer is yes, then you like being poor, spied upon, manipulated with lies and dying for the Bush/Cheney oil fields. If you answer no, then you had better get off your duff and demand results just like your boss demands from you! Because neither Bush nor Kerry has a plan to get us out of the chasm Bush has pushed us into!VIETNAM 2Bush can’t handle Iraq. In May 2003, he declared the war over, did a little strut across an aircraft carrier off the coast of the U.S. to prove it, and now, almost a year after he told us the war had ended, after his “bring it on” speech, the ripples of death spread wider and wider as the casualty count grows to 616 Americans dead. He wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein more than he wanted Osama bin Laden, and all of our energy and our military forces are now engaged in a war without end.Those of us old enough to remember VietNam, know what comes next; more bombing, more killing and more body bags coming home uncounted. They hid the body count in VietNam, too. Those were young boys with their lives ahead of them. Bush has targeted a different group; men whose careers were in mid stride, who had wives and young children, and young college age kids seeking funds by National Guard Service for a college education they could not afford.
We are now fighting a war with the whole country; not a despised dictator. We have united religious factions, labeled one of their religious leaders an “outlaw.” This invasion of Bush’s may continue for a decade because you can not pacify an inflamed people. You can only kill them. And they tell us daily that we must increase our military strength, that our military is spread too thin. Where do you think those soldiers will come from? Your sons. There will have to be a draft to fight this one small country. Your sons will die. And for what?
“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
-------John Kerry, 1971-------
APRIL 3, 2004 CONVINCE ME
The article said that prominent “liberals” were pleading for Ralph Nader to withdraw his candidacy for president. They call his bid “quixotic and destructive”, and accuse him of being responsible for the Florida Debacle in 2000. They say Vice-President Al Gore would have won if Ralph Nader, running on the Green party ticket, would have not been there.Convince me that Nader, and Nader alone was responsible for those stolen Florida votes. Convince me , that when those members of the House of Representatives brought their formal challenge to the validity of the Florida election results to the floor of the House and Senate before they confirmation Bush, that it was Ralph Nader who stopped the process. Convince me that Chairman Berry of the 1965 Civil Rights Commission gave a comprehensive report of the illegalities perpetrated in Florida to Ralph Nader. Convince me that it was Ralph Nader who refused to investigate the charges and not John Ashcroft. Convince me that it was Ralph Nader who went whining to the Supreme Court when the vote totals did not go his way.And convince me that it was Ralph Nader’s Green party who surreptitiously corrected all those absentee ballots that were incorrect and should never have been to Bush. Convince me that it was Ralph Nader who stated flatly that no votes would be added to the certified totals and then added an additional 65 votes to push Bush above Gore while refusing to add 350+ legitimate Gore votes that would have given Gore a decisive win over Bush.Convince me that Ralph Nader isn’t running for president because he is doing what he has spent a lifetime doing - protecting citizens and consumers from powerful people. And convince me that Nader is the one who trashed the People’s candidate Dr. Howard Dean.Ralph Nader was one of fifteen candidates listed on the ballot in 2000. Although it was said that he had at least 10%, perhaps as much as 15% of the vote, he barely eked out 3% when all the votes were counted. 2,831,066. He did not qualify for federal matching funds.A bigger “spoiler” was Ross Perot, who disliked the first Bush so much that he formed his own political party in 1992. With none of the political hysteria that went on in Florida; because Jeb Bush had told his brother, George W., that he won the election even before all the votes were counted; Ross Perot raked in 19,741,065 votes for a percentage of 18.87%. Ross Perot was a dissatisfied Republican, and when he left the Republican party and formed his own, he took a lot of well to do Republicans with him. The first Bush received only 39,102, 343 votes. Perot’s vote total would have put him above Clinton’s total of 44,908,254. Clinton had done such a good job as President that the 1996 election lowered Perot’s percentage to 8.4% and his total votes to 8,085,402. Adding those votes to the Republican candidate Dole’s totals would still put him 8,203,594 votes away from a win though. (We liked Clinton.) And, with Clinton’s term in office drawing to a close, Vice President Al Gore faced one of the most vile and dishonest elections in our recorded history. It was NOT Ralph Nader who muddied the waters with strange ballots, closed voting precinct, lost voter registration records, counted illegal absentee ballots, or did such a broad search for “felons” that 94,000 Floridians -- more than half black voters -- were not allowed to vote even though they should never have been removed from the registration list. Nor was it Ralph Nader who mounted court challenge after court challenge to keep Vice President Al Gore from being declared the winner. The Republican party did that all on their own; and with the help of appointed individuals whose loyalty lay with the Republican party rather than We, the People, who they were charged with keeping safe from harm.In spite of the Republican push to remove President Clinton from office, we were content with his leadership. He returned us to prosperity and made sure we could find jobs. He stopped several terrorists attacks. Vice President Al Gore told us, during the debates, that terrorism was a high priority for our country, and he had a lot of experience in handling it. George W. Bush didn’t think it was important, that Iraq was the problem, not terrorism. And he said so during his campaign. Perhaps Ralph Nader is being held accountable for that also because the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country occurred under George W. Bush’s watch. Thousands of people lost their lives. Could President Gore have stopped it? We’ll never know because those same “liberals” decrying Nader’s candidacy stood aside and let George W. Bush assume control of our Nation. Our Constitution is a wonderful document; it provides many opportunities to address wrongs. When Richard Clark stood before the 911 Commission and said, “Our government failed you.”, he was right. All those elected officials in the Senate and House of Representatives failed you when presented with an opportunity to investigate the Florida Debacle and it was ignored. The Supreme Court failed you by getting involved with election results after Bush’s suit to stop the vote recount was rejected by lower federal courts. The Florida courts failed you by not allowing the challenges of illegal voting practices to be heard.
And now, in 2004 we are having a replay of the same problems, unfixed, unsolved. Democratic “liberals” who so venomously attacked Howard Dean and selected John Kerrie from the pack of nine candidates (through the party caucus process) has turned the campaign back into a “politics as usual”. We are faced with a nationwide voting system that has not been fixed, with “updated” machines that produce no paper trail for a recount and who can tabulate and fix “incorrect” votes without us even knowing it. Who will win? The person the voting machines are set for? And what passes for liberal Democrats can continue to place the blame on Ralph Nader and refuse to see their culpability. Nader didn’t cost Al Gore the presidency, Democrats who refused to fight the Republican cabal did.
APRIL 2, 2004 FALSE ADVERTISING It’s official! The Bush government is continuing it’s “economic efforts” to convince we unemployed people that we really have jobs. The “latest” government figures show that payrolls “rocket” higher in March. They say U.S. firms added 308,000 workers -- much more than had been forecast. Look back to when unemployment was 6.1% and tell me if I was right or wrong when I said that by election time the economy and unemployment would be at acceptable limits whether or not anyone had jobs.Right alongside the “news” of the improving economy were these headlines: ‘SUN CUTS 3,300 JOBS, ‘GATEWAY TO CLOSE ITS 188 RETAIL STORES’, ‘RADIO FLYER TO BUILD ITS WAGONS IN CHINA’ and ‘SNOW: OUTSOURCING CAN HELP THE ECONOMY’. My question is: What kind of jobs? 308,000 “created” jobs is like a drop in a bucket with over 10 million people looking for work. There are no details about these new jobs. Are they in the dead tech industry where outsourcing to India and China is planned? With sales at department stores, and from the above headline, computer stores, so low; are they really hiring people? Walmarts have installed electronic checkout lanes; so I doubt their increased profits have brought on a spate of human hiring. Let’s see, cars, no, in spite of all the gimmicks, I doubt unemployed and underemployed are tempted to trade in that old car. Last month I read that housing construction had fallen off, so they probably won’t the hiring construction workers.Where are the jobs coming from???
My theory is: Bush’s imagination. This is the guy who created a whole arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” that have never been found and couldn’t be found by satellite surveillance systems that can uncover ancient cities buried for thousands of years. Why, this very day, Bush has torn himself away from the recent atrocity in Iraq to visit the depressed state of West Virginia before moving on to greener pastures in Georgia. After a pit stop at Marshall University, to give West Virginians the “good news” about the economy, he will be greeting some of his biggest campaign donors in Georgia who seem to care more about contributing to Bush’s election campaign than creating jobs for the unemployed. The state of West Virginia, that Bush wants to persuade to vote for him come November, has lost 20,000 jobs since Bush took power. Many of the unemployed there have simply stopped looking for a job, thereby lowering the state’s unemployment rolls to an acceptable Bush level of 5.4%. Their long time senator, Robert Bryd, wrote in the Charleston Gazette, “Fewer jobs. No pension protection. No health care plan. Gambling with the future of Social Security and Medicare.” That is Bush’s legacy to West Virginia, but he didn’t talk about that.
Bush does talk about how outsourcing American jobs is good for us. But he never talks about the billions of untaxed earnings accumulated by companies who have taken their jobs out of the United States. A couple of examples: Merck and Company did away with 3,200 U.S. jobs in 2003. They have plans to lay off an additional 1,200 workers in 2004. Their sales were up 5% last year but those profits didn’t help those 3,200 workers keep their jobs. Instead, Merck hired 1,300 new workers outside the United States! And they have a cumulative $18 billion dollars in foreign untaxed earning at the end of 2003!! And, according to their annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, they have no intention of ever paying U.S. taxes on that ever expanding amount.We all know that the tech industry that has developed new products and kept the economy going for so many years is now almost dead. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why. Intel Corporation, “downsized” 3,300 American workers in 2003, but they hired 4,300 workers abroad. And by the end of 2003, Intel has $7 billion in cumulative foreign earning, $700 million more that it has not paid taxes on in 2002. This giant semiconductor firm intends to reinvest theses earning indefinitely in operations outside the United States.How many more businesses are leaving the tax burden to We, the People who earn a pittance compared to their untaxed billion? Taxes on just one company would have paid the entire cost of the Iraq war Bush started.What can we do to stop the madness and make America a right to work country again? For a start, get rid of Bush; second, get rid of the legislators who allowed this to happen; and third, take a leaf from Martin Luther King’s book. Bring those millions out of work, under employed men and women to Washington in a giant march that will cover the capitol. Do it before the election. Let each one stand before our White House and make George W. Bush acknowledge them what he has done to this country in three short years. He works for us, fire him!!
APRIL 1, 2004 THEY ‘BROUGHT IT ON’, NOW WHAT?Mr. Bush,
You dared the people of Iraq to “bring it on” when the killing of American soldiers began. Wednesday they “brought it on” in a terrible, horrific way. It was not the first time such desecration of bodies has happened. A few years ago, an Israeli soldier was caught and beaten to death and when his wife called his cell phone, the perpetrators were only too happy to inform her of the details of his death. And it also will not be the last. As long as men such as these put their religious fever anger, and greed first, it will happen.Your ill conceived decision that you had to invade Iraq sealed the fate of those men as surely as if you has signed an order with a flourish of your pen. Bad leaders go to war and bad leaders bring death upon two populations; those who invade and those who fight the invaders. No one would have faulted you for pursuing Osama bin Laden and al Qaida to the ends of the earth. But you didn’t. You hesitated and he made his escape. Did you turn our direction to Iraq to prove something to We, the People? Or, is it true that you and your cohorts had planned to invade Iraq long before you were awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court?Whatever your reason, you seem to have abandoned both Iraq and al Qaida. Deanna Hubert, Bonney Lake, Washington, was quoted as saying that she considered voting for Kerry, but has more confidence in your ability to combat terrorism. She seems to represent a dwindling number of Americans who still believe that tough talk will conquer our enemy. Instead of accepting “media” hype about your “strong” stance on terrorism, Ms. Hubert, should consider that since you declared war on Iraq -- against world opinion -- that you have preoccupied yourself with pursuing an election campaign and nothing more. As your supervisor, she should count the number of days you were gone from your job and realize that you were out of town during every major crisis our country has faced. You have been on vacation more days than any other presidential employee in history. And you are constantly out there hitting up your friends for campaign donations while a conquered people in Iraq simmer with rage.Ms. Hubert also stated that she thinks you will take action and that she doesn’t know enough about Kerry to say that he would do as good a job or a better job on terrorism.
You did NO job on terrorism . While you finished a photo op in an elementary school, terrorist expert Richard Clarke was handling the terrorist attack that killed thousands of our citizens. You are good at ferreting out photo opts, like the aircraft carrier stunt, the lip service visit to Martin Luther King’s tomb; but while the tough handle crises, you just get lost. And while the Iraq war was ratcheted up to new levels by the killing and dismemberment of civilian contract workers in your oil war, you were busy campaigning against a war hero who had been there and done it. You did the same with your opponent, John McCain, also a POW and war hero, while you frittered away your days in the National Guard trying to get a Republican elected, John McCain sat in a bamboo cage in VietNam.You have created a religious vendetta in Iraq; with the United States and Israel on top of their hit list. And while you are flying around the country promising jobs that can not come, and speak of prosperity that only a wealthy few know, the Pentagon officials, under your command as “Commander in Chief”, are saying that the Mogadishu “incident” is a disaster that may be a turning point for American policy, that Falluja should open your eyes to the facts that your idealistic picture of happy Iraqis greeting U.S. soldiers with smiles and flowers will not happen. The world waits for your response. What will you do? We have bombed the country to rubble, killing thousands of civilians and creating this anger against us. Can you send more troops to “pacify” the Sunni Triangle using the same methods that Saddam Hussein was accused of using? Will you institute a draft now instead of “after the election” as expected. Are those the jobs you are promising America? Iraq is now a hotbed of so many different terrorist elements that finding them and rooting them out will be a formidable task requiring someone with far greater energy, intelligence, and strength than you possess. You will have to suspend your money raising activities and your vacations and your election campaign to deal with this. Will you? I don’t think you know how to deal with this mess. You are good at snarling, “Bring it on.” but when they do, you don’t seem to have any sort of plan to deal with it except to ignore it. You, and your administration are the ones guilty of trying to hid the physical results of your invasion of Iraq. There are no pictures of returning bodies. No respectful show of mourning. No accurate number of the casualties. I don’t know if you even bother to check how many have died since you went to war one year ago. For your information, according to unofficial counts, your war has taken the lives of 704 human beings. 603 were American lives. And every day it increases. How strong does a leader have to be to say,
ENOUGH!!
MARCH 31, 2004 NO ONE AT HOME “Strongleader” Bush wasn’t the only one MIA during the terrorist attack September 11, 2004. If you have read, or heard anything about, Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” you know that no one was minding the store! While planes hurtled into the World Trade Center, the men who were supposed to “protect and defend” were either unaware of what was happening or safely tucked away. The most astonishing thing Clarke revealed was that he was the acting president during this time of crisis. He didn’t say this, but he was the one making those life and death decisions that effected us all. While George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about a goat, Clark was three blocks away from our White House when he was notified that an aircraft had struck the world trade center. His first action was to activate the Counterterrorism Security Group, composed of the leaders of each of the federal government’s counterterrorism and security organizations. That was at 9:03. Remember the well known timeline of Bush setting in that school? Remember that his only public comment was, “That was some bad pilot.” While the CSG began rolling and life or death decisions were being made by Clarke, Bush finished up his photo op at the elementary school. In spite of the “Strongleader” stuff that emerged after the attack was over, the facts are that Clarke, and Joint Chief of Staff Richard Meyers, were the ones implementing and seeing that the plan of action was carried out. Bottom line, the Bush-Cheney team wasn’t put into office to carry out the duties of the executive office. They were there to invade Iraq for oil. And they were in over their heads when al Qaida finally succeeded in a terrorist attack that they had been trying to carry out before Bush, Junior’s father left office. Ironic, that a plan conceived under the father’s rule succeeded under the son’s. Clarke tells of the erie feeling of being alone in the vast corridors of our White House, of being stopped and frisked by guards at the bunker door where Cheney, Rice, Cheney’s wife and assorted other staff members such as Mary Matalin , White House Chief of Staff Josh Brolten, and Deputy White House Director Karen Hughes, were. And while Clarke was in charge of making the decisions that would save or destroy our country, Mrs. Cheney was busy turning down the volume of a crisis conference so she could hear CNN reporting on the disaster, and offering advice and opinions on how to handle the situation. There is more, much, much more, that we all should read and remember before we allow another individual to run roughshod over our democracy like Bush and his supporters have done. But this glimpse of the vulnerability that We, the People, face when ignorance, inattention, or party agendas override our Constitution should be a wakeup call for all Americans. Our very lives depend upon that person who assumes control of our country.Richard Clarke, in his testimony before the 911 commission that Bush & Co. did not want, apologized to the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. He said, “Your government has failed you.” Yes, it did. But the failure would have been much greater if it has not been for Mr. Clark and his 30 years of experience in government and his constant monitoring of terrorists activities even after Bush had demoted him. When the bewildered elected “leaders’ who had not done their homework looked to him to save them, he knew what to do, and he did it. . And, along with those remarkable men and women of Flight 93, he save many thousands of lives and our White House.
MARCH 29, 2004
SOFT ON TERRORISM
The Polls proving that the people of the United States believe George W. Bush would do a “better job on terrorism” than Senator John Kerry just keep grinding out of the propaganda mills.These polls contradict the fact that George W. Bush was ineffective against terrorism and attacks by a foreign government; no, not Iraq, CHINA. His inability to make a fast decision and follow it through seems to have escaped his staff, the “media” and all those who have forgotten that this man was “at the helm” when the new millennium began.You can’t blame President Clinton for George W. Bush’s mistakes. Clinton took the oath of office January 21, 1993, al Quaida bombed the New York Trade Center for the first time February 26. Those responsible for the bombing were caught and are in prison right now. During his 8 years, he foiled at least three al Qaida plots that we were told about - all this while defending himself in court and fighting the Republican push to impeach him. Republicans who whine that, if Clinton had been doing his job, he would have “gotten bin Laden” just emphasize the fact that George W. Bush has a credibility chasm that wouldn’t fit in the Grand Canyon.The Republican mantra of “Clinton did it” reminds me of one sibling accusing the other of something to distract the parent from his own actions. The man in charge, George W. Bush, points to his predecesor every time he fails at something! It is true that Clinton faced multiple terrorists attempts and attacks. All the more reason for CEO Bush and his top executives to pay close attention to the “terrorist spreadsheet” the Clinton Administration had complied. However, we now know that Bush ignored any terrorist information the Clinton Administration gave to him and his staff. Our country and our citizens have paid a high price in blood for Bush’s decision. If Clinton can be considered soft on terrorism and not aggressive enough, then Bush & Company can be said to have ignored the whole issue. His claims of being “tough” on terrorism are not born out by reality.The 1998 attacks, and/or plots on US embassies in Kenya, Tanzania and around the world should have pointed out the seriousness of terrorism to Bush and his team. But, from the date he assumed power, January 21, 2000, the United States has been under attacks which were not caught or stopped. Nor were they handled with any sort of expertise. For a man who invaded another country to tamper with its leadership, he showed extreme reluctance -- to the point of groveling -- to confront China when it shot down one of our military aircraft over international water. He was quite content to use “diplomacy” to settle that confrontation!! Nor did he get too excited when terrorists bombed the USS Cole October 12, 2000, ten months after he had taken a presidential oath of office. Republicans, so obsessed with Clinton’s private life that the terrorist bombings in Tanzania and Kenya took a back seat to trying to define a sex act, were content to let the Africans handle that terrorist attack. And, those responsible for those 1998 bombing were caught and convicted. The US government, in the form of George W. Bush, seemed sit on their hands while Yemen authorities gave us one huge run around as to who bombed the USS Cole!!Now, think back to that day, the day that joined Pearl Harbor in infamy; to the chaos, the smoke...the leadership. Whose face stands out? Who was the voice directing those operations? Do you remember the tape of George W. Bush setting in a classroom and smiling while the Pentagon was bombed? Do you remember the face of a stiff and scared man being brought to a microphone long after the world knew the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack had ended?What stands out in my mind was not any member of the Bush administration; not Cheney, not Rumsfeld, not Rice, not Powell -- not any of those who took us to war in Iraq. I see New York mayor Giuliani, I see the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Henry Shelton, determination written on his face when he tells us he will find and punish those responsible for the New York and Pentagon attack. Nineteen days later, he was unexpectedly retired. In spite of the Bush rhetoric about punishing the perpetrators, nothing much was done for a month. It took NATO intervention to prod Bush to begin “finding those responsible”. NATO representatives flatly stated that, if the United States wasn’t taking action, they would! These aren’t the actions of a “strong” leader. These are the actions of someone who either can’t make a decision or is so lazy that none is intended. The families of the victims of September 11, 2001 see through Bush’s image. They also see through the propaganda that is being used to let the Bush administration off the hook. They don’t like the memory of their loved ones being used to barter another term for the “leader”, as we now know, was far more culpable than the “media” reported. The terrorist attack which took down our financial district and damaged our seat of military power was no accident, no random act. The responsibility for its success must be shared by an arrogant administration who was obsessed with destroying everything President Clinton had done even if it helped to destroy the United States of America. And for that George W. Bush and all of his administration must be held accountable. They failed We, the People just to score “points” for their party. The blood of thousands covers them all.
MARCH 28, 2004 WHAT A FINE MESS...Bush has gotten us into! I do know that there are people out there who see absolutely nothing wrong with Republicans pressing Clinton for a “confession” about adultery and accusing him of lying under oath about an affair that was really none of our business AND spending millions of our tax money to do it; BUT sees nothing wrong with George W. Bush invading another country that disrupts the lives of most of the country and causes the reported deaths of almost 600 citizens in one year.WMDs? Hey, Bush had to get those reluctant Americans riled up enough that they wouldn’t mind a few casualties and who really cares that one of those expendable CIA agents was “outed” to get revenge on her whistleblowing husband. Don’t know who did it, and really don’t care -- after all, what is a lie or two when you are in pursuit of oil fields for Cheney’s company Haliburton?
And who cares about a double standard regarding WHISTLEBLOWER CLARK After all, National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, has every right to go on every “talk” show and give her opinion about Clark and Clark has absolutely no right to write a tell all book that calls attention to the Bush deficit -- and I don’t mean the economy! And further, Clark has no right to show her up by giving his testimony under oath while she prefers an informal little chat with the 911 committee members to deny Clark’s bulk of evidence. In spite of having been caught in the tangled web of their own deceit not one member of Bush’s “team” sees any reason to be held accountable for their lies and the subterfuge that has killed people. It truly amazes me how “efficient” the Bush administration is at producing information and “proof” about their critics; but just can’t seem to get it together enough to find out anything about who disregarded the terrorist information supplied by the Clinton Administration, or who was responsible for the false intelligence (?) information about Iraq’s WMDs, or just which White House source gave secret intelligence information to Robert Novak. Come on, we all know people like that, and we wouldn’t trust them to give us the correct time! Who do they think they’re fooling -- oh, right, there’s one born every minute, isn’t there?And then there seems to be
SOMETHING WICKED BREWING IN CALIFORNIA
Schwarzenegger is being accused of incorporating a “private nonprofit group” to help advance his political goals, where the source of the money will be kept secret. This “nonprofit” group will be allowed to raise money, lobby lawmakers and conduct polls in order to legally avoid disclosure under a number of circumstances.Question number one: WHY DOES HE NEED THIS SECRET SLUSH FUND? Question number two: WHAT DOES HE PLAN TO USE IT FOR? Question number three: CAN WE, THE PEOPLE, OF CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATE THIS OR STOP IT??It is said that this new entity will give the governor “a powerful new weapon in hs arsenal” but it raises a variety of legal and ethical questions. Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause stated, “No governor has ever had anything like this before; no one has even thought of this before. Like many other things about this administration, he’s taking us into new ground.” According to the bylaws, its mission is to “educate the public about the need for government reform and efficienty.” This is not a matter for a money gathering organization to address. It is a matter of legislature. If California want to “address government reform” they have the means to do so without Schwarzenegger setting up a money laundering scam. He has already began the money dance by moving $100,000 from his recall campaign to the corporation and another $50,000 from his newly created “California Recovery Team”. So far the money put into this strange new corporation was said to pay for mail, research, consulting(?) and public rallies to pressure the Legislature. The excuse for the moves were that, if the campaign was audited, it would be easier to distinguish between the parent committee and the non profit arm, but the experts are puzzled by the transfers, saying if the two are the same, there would be no reason to move money between the two. Yup!
Just where does Schwarzenegger thinks he can go politically? Even if he is content with the governorship of California, eventually he’s gotta go. He can only serve two consecutive terms and then what? Move on to the Senate, the House of Representatives? Does he get to take his “nonprofit” fund with him? Does it stay in California? There are rumors that he thinks our Constitution should be amended so that he could run for president. The amendment has already been introduced by a Republican. The thought chills me. Not just that the Constitution might be tampered with; but that a man who, three years after his oath of allegiance that gave him U.S. citizenship, went to Austria to campaign for a Nazi who was seeking election. That he publically stated, in his wedding toast, that he love this man who was responsible for deporting Greek Jews to Nazi death camps.
But you know what bothers me most? That the citizens of California preferred this man to Governor Gray Davis. That the Bush administration has embraced him by running to visit him in California at least twelve times. That our legislature was silent during his whole recall campaign. That the media ignored the Nazi issue. And that the United States of America just doesn’t seem to care.
Such was the first step taken by Austria before the rise of the Third Reich.
MARCH 27, 2004 SOME CHOICE!! This morning I have been seeing polls asking We, the People which is most important to us: Jobs or Terrorism. With all the hype, and “Chicken Little” screaming that the “terrorists are coming”, I had expected to see a lean toward terrorism but to my surprise, JOBS came out ahead in every poll.
This tells me something that the pollsters didn’t intend to measure, and that is that “it’s the economy, stupid!!” Being unemployed and without the hope of earning money is terrorism also. What do you do when the money is gone? When your home is being foreclosed, your car payments unmade, your credit cards maxed and your 401k’s - or what was left of them after the stock market crash -- is gone and family and friends are in the same situation as you. There is nothing more terrorizing than to have a sick child and no money for doctors or medicine. Know any pharmacies that give credit?
Faced with the prospect of visiting food banks to feed your children would terrorize any middle class worker who never expected to have to go there. During President Clinton’s first campaign he was inundated with stories of devastated families who had lost everything they had during the Reagan-Bush years. Things got better under Clinton but it took Bush, Junior only three years to not only undo everything Clinton had accomplished with the economy, but to make it infinitely worse!!Since 2000, fear and terror have become a way of life in this country. And it is also producing an anger against the government who was managing the economy when this happened to us. We have been laid off, outsourced, downsized, taken cuts in pay and worked longer hours and told to retrain ourselves to fit into a “new” service economy where most of the jobs are also slowly going away as airline industries and tourism crumble. Those who were “downsized” in the 80’s and retrained in the computer industry find those jobs are now in India and China. What’s left?Economists polled by Ruters say they expect joblessness to stay around 5.6% with approximately 130,000 new jobs being “created” in March, 2004. With long term employed numbers still hovering at around 10 million, that leaves approximately 9 million 870 thousand jobs to go. What year do you expect to get your “new” job?? Considering that weekly unemployment is now being reported as under that 400,000 “magic” mark but still way over a quarter of a million new unemployment claims being filed each week; how many years will it take to get to you? But there is also growing speculation that employment growth is not strong enough to sustain consumer spending, which makes up 2/3 of the U. S. economic growth. So true, how do you spend what you do not have? In fact, how does the government tax you if you have no income; therefore, tax revenue must also be down. I think we can all see this domino effect.And here’s a little fact that no one is really talking about yet. Gas prices are now hovering at $2 a gallon, with no government freeze in sight. And, just this morning, a news report said crime at the gas pumps was rising - in other words, there has been a noticeable increase in people filling their tanks and driving off without paying. Watch as the crime statistics rise. Survival instincts do kick in, and most will (and studies support this) commit crimes to survive. Becoming reclassified as an unindustrialized nation; which we are so close to that Bush is planning to reclassify service jobs as industrial jobs; is just one indication of our slide down the “civilized nation scale”. There are more; such as infant mortality, lack of health care, and approximately three million children going hungry in this country of enormous wealth. And all of these factors can be traced to the dearth of jobs and inadequate salaries. You would expect that the two men who want to be elected president would have drastic plans to stop this. Bush plans to make the tax cuts for corporations, inheritances, and companies who have moved their plants abroad, permanent. He says outsourcing American jobs is good for the economy. That we will benefit from it - but he doesn’t say how we can benefit from it or how it will create jobs in the United States. Kerry’s plan includes creating 10 million jobs and eliminating “tax loopholes” that “push jobs overseas”. He doesn’t tell us how he plans to create those jobs, what areas they will be in or how he plans to retrain a workforce that had been told to reeducate themselves in the technical field which, everyone agrees, is dead in this country. And he also plans to cut corporate taxes by 5%. Whether this is in addition to the Bush corporate tax cut or in place of it, is unknown at this time.
What is known is that We, the People are going to be the big losers whoever wins. Bush is depicting Kerry as soft on terrorism and says Americans believe he is the better “protector” against terrorism. How unbelievable that we have forgotten that Bush did not challenge China when they shot down our aircraft, that he didn’t move from his chair at an elementary school while our nation was in crisis or that letting the Saudis leave this country after September 11, 200l was more important than getting our elected leaders back home. Or that he went against world opinion to invade a country that had been under the United Nation’s eye for twelve years by terrorizing us with threats of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. After a Democratic “unity” dinner to raise money for candidate Kerry, it was reported that former President Bill Clinton outshone it’s “star”, that he gave a “virtuoso” speech. Clinton has proved one thing, to us that he can, and will, deliver on his promises. I say, let’s just skip all this rote election stuff and invoke the Constitutional clause that says our government derives their “just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” and appoint Bill Clinton as president again. After all, there is a Supreme Court precedent for appointing someone president, so why can’t We, the People use it also.
MARCH 26, 2004 MORE THAN BAD TASTE Yesterday four parents were notified that their two children were dead. They died in Iraq. The day before another set of parents learned that their son was dead. And while these six parents and their families cope with the aftermath of death, notifying all of the family members - the brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends and favorite teachers, employers -- and winding their way through miles of red tape that accompany a death, to plan funerals and find burial plots; George W. Bush was entertaining a gathering of radio and television journalists with as slide show narrated by himself. While these families were busy with the shock and disbelief of grief, Mr. Bush, in slide after slide, pretended to look around the oval office for weapons of mass destruction. “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere.” he joked to the audience while showing a slide of him looking under his desk. To their shame, the audience applauded. He also joked about the strained relationship between Europe and the United States because they refused to participate in his invasion of Iraq and poked fun at the secrecy that shrouds his administration so tightly that we really don’t know how many American citizens were maimed or died in Iraq; how many Iraqi civilians were killed in his bombing raids. The callousness of Mr. Bush’s “joke” was witnessed by a group of reporters. They could have shown him how shameful his “joke” was, but they applauded him. Just like all our legislators applauded when he gave the State of the Union Speech telling us that Iraq had WMDs. All through the WMD lies, the intrigues, the accusations, that led up to that “war”, they had the power in their pens to question the actions of Mr. Bush and to give We, the People, the truth. But they didn’t. Even today, they hold no one accountable, do not investigate the allegations. They sat through the despicable depiction of a White House “hunt” for WMDs that showed just how far removed from the consequences and the reality of the war Bush is.It is reported that 589 Americans have died so far because of Bush’s hunt for those WMDs. Because of his penance for secrecy, which he joked about with the reporters, we do not know if this is an accurate total or just what they can not hide. How the news of George W. Bush’s little “joke” must hurt them today. There are l,l78 parents and countless stepparents, brothers, sisters, wives, children, and other family members and friends who still mourn those lost to create Bush’s “jokes”.Bush should emulate Richard Clark instead of vilifying him and apologize to, not just the families of the victims of September 11, but to the American people whose lives he has interrupted or stopped because of his narcissistic hunt for weapons of mass destruction. This is not something to be proud of, not something to joke about. To We, the People, it shows a lack of compassion and caring that every American leader should have.It takes enormous gall to ignore the pain and suffering you have inflicted upon the people you have asked to protect. What sort of man then provides jokes about the reason he sent you to die? Like dancing on their graves, isn’t it?

MARCH 25, 2004

THE HITLER FACTOR

It seems to have started with the MoveOn.org contest asking ordinary citizens to submit 30 second ads; the winner to be used as a political advertisement against George W. Bush. Among the fifteen hundred submitted for consideration was an ad calling attention to the similarities between the Third Reich and the Bush agenda.

It set off a firestorm of Republican indignation and condemnation of MoveOn.org but it also seemed to have inspire the Republican party in a new direction - comparing critics to Hitler. Such statements as Congressman Tom Cole (R, OK) made to supporters, “If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election.” and concluding that a vote against Bush was like a vote for Adolph Hitler.

Unfortunately for Congressman Cole, and other Hitler invoking Republicans, the Truth is out there and it doesn’t take much research to find it.

Hitler considered himself a very religious man; god was on his side. he established a “correct” German religion, just as he established a “correct” German race. Catholic priests, who desperately tried to save Jewish children through baptism and concealment, ended up in labor camps or shot.

One of George W. Bush’s first acts as “president” was to establish a religion. Clearly against our constitution, he started funneling money into churches espousing HIS religious beliefs. His United States Attorney General showed his bias by starting “prayer groups” held in the government office building. They both moved forward from there to try to overturn Roe v Wade by decrees and withholding of funds for women’s clinics in the United States and international programs through the U.N. With aids rampant in Africa, he yanked all support for programs that remotely involved abortion; most of which concentrated on education and birth control.

In three short years, he has proposed the removal of rights to two groups - women and homosexuals - by promising to implement a constitutional amendment that would define and structure the legal and/or religious contract of marriage.

And, the Republican party worked overtime and spent millions of dollars on a recall election of the California governor, Gray Davis, to put into place a naturalized citizen who repudiated his oath of allegiance to the United States by supporting and campaigning for a Nazi candidate in his native Austria!

But it didn’t bother the Republican party that Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to address his father’s Nazi service; or lamented “this Nazi thing” which kept his good friend, Kurt Waldheim, from attending his wedding due to U.S. sanctions or that he had been put on a world wide watch list in case Waldheim planned to start a Fourth Reich. It bothered Schwarzenegger not at all that there was proof that Waldheim had deported Greek Jews to Nazi death camps during World War II. He publicly stated that he loved the guy. And Bush is obviously not bothered by Schwarzengger’s Nazi bias either, he spends a lot of time in California now that Schwarzenegger is in the governor’s mansion.

And then there are the financial ties that George W. Bush’s grandfather had with Nazi Germany. Here, too, the investigation can be found in the Congressional Record for those who can’t or don’t want to believe it. From what I have read, his grandfather was close to being tried for treason, and he did lose a lot of the Bush fortune to sanctions.

There is also the mark of arrogance. Hitler flouted world opinion and invaded Poland. Bush flouted world opinion and invaded Iraq. Hitler said he was doing it for the good of the world. George Bush also says he is doing it for the good of the world.

Hitler began his crusade by eliminating the “feeble minded” and the ill who could not survive on their own. George W. Bush refuses to consider universal health care for those who can not take care of themselves. And a good portion of the population of the United States thinks this is all right.

Hitler moved on to homosexuals, denying them rights and then just eliminating them. George W. Bush’s new crusade to get a constitutional amendment to ban certain marriages. And the Bush government has just ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from their federal jobs because of sexual orientation. The Bush administration had stated that they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. Government websites have begun deleting information about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.

We know the term “liberal” is spit out in the same way the “n” word once was. Hitler could not tolerate “liberals” in his country or in the churches. Neither can Bush or the men who serve as his mouthpieces in the public news forum.

Hitler’s “press” reported what he wanted reported. The “media” in the United States is guilty of the same thing. At a conference analyzing the “media’s coverage leading up to, and including, the Iraq invasion, reporters admitted that pressure and fear at appearing to be unpatriotic prevented journalist from doing their job. Michael Massing, whose article in the New York review of Books, found the Washington Post and the New York times particularly at fault for not investigating but relying on the Bush administration leaks that were false. He stated bluntly, “The press did not do their job.”

But the lack of media investigation didn’t start with the Iraq Invasion. The catastrophe that struck New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 was skewed from the start. Not one journalist picked up on the fact that the man they were depicting as a “strong leader” sat in an elementary classroom while terrorists tore apart buildings and our seat of military power. No one criticized Bush for grounding all air traffic -- except for the Saudi planes that took bin Laden’s family out of the country. There was no criticism of the fact that it took about a month and a NATO threat to act without the United States before Bush decided to take on Afghanistan.

Hitler died where he had lived throughout the war, in a bunker, out of harms way. When the Allies, the United States, the British, the French, and the Russians, were closing in, he chose suicide and left a devastated country behind. And the legacy the Allies discovered were Auscwich, Triblinka, Birkenau, Belzec, Dachau, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek; Nazi death camps responsible for killing at least 6 million Jews, and over 6 million others. When the German people were questioned the soldiers said, “I was just following orders.” The German people excused themselves by saying, “I was a good German.”

Those death camps haunted not only the survivors freed by the Allies, but the soldiers who found them. It is a horror we do not want to forget, but most of those old soldiers are long gone. And some of their memories have gone with them. But there is much to remember if we chose to do so. The one lesson that was learned from the atrocities committed in the name of God, of protecting the people , should never happen again.

We live in a Democracy. We live in a free society. What has happened in the past three years takes us too far down a road that we do not want , and should not, travel. George W. Bush is not omnipotent, he was not chosen by anyone’s god to be the standard bearer for our world. His own past is too shadowed with secrets and lies. And, We, the People do not want, in some not so distant future to excuse ourselves and our country by saying, “We were good patriotic Americans.”

APRIL 24, 2004

UNFAIR COMPARISONS

Republicans are always denigrating the military record of those who oppose their political candidate. We know why they do it; it is rather hard to brag about someone’s military record when their candidate has a suspiciouslack of one; but why does the “media” let them get away with it?

Republicans get a little crazy when you mention George W. Bush’s disappearance at the height of the VietNam war during the middle of his National Guard Service. They don’t want to talk about it. When the pressure got too great, they released a couple of pay stubs and a dental record and said, “There, that proves it!”, totally ignoring the facts that he refused to take a medical examination that was required, that he was grounded from flying because of it, or that this did, or should, have brought about military discipline. Not exactly stellar service!

So why are they nit picking at John Kerry’s three purple hearts? They guy was in VietNam, he was on a dangerous swiftboat taking fire from the enemy, he was wounded. I don’t think I would want to draw any comparisons between George Bush being eligible for disciplinary action and the severity of John Kerry’s wounds!

And it isn’t just Kerry. When former Senator Max Cleland ran for the Senate, Republicans groused that his military service wasn’t so great either. That it was his own fault that he lost an arm and both legs to a grenade in VietNam. A little less “stupid” than asking to be released from safe duty in Texas to campaign for a friend of your daddy’s!

And then there is Al Gore. Bush’s daddy provided the influence to jump Junior over hundreds on the waiting list of the Texas National Guard to keep him out of VietNam. Junior could barely wait to check off the box that he wouldn’t volunteer for VietNam.

Al Gore’s father could have applied the same influence to keep his son from VietNam but the former Vice President went. He served. But Republicans denigrated Gore also. Well, they huffed, he wasn’t in combat, he was working on a newspaper in Saigon. I guess none of these Republicans were in Saigon during the height of the war. There was shooting there, boys, buildings blown up; Saigon was not a “safe harbor” for the military. Ask some of the guys who were there, they’ll tell you.

But I’m sure that Bush was in more “danger” from all those politicians trying to defeat the candidate he supposedly worked for than Al Gore was from the Viet Cong!!

And who can forget the way his own party let Bush tear into John McCain, VietNam war hero and prisoner of war for six years. Since Republicans judge military records so harshly, it would seem they would have gleefully backed the irreproachable record of John McCain over the scant, and controversial, National Guard Service of Bush. But they didn’t...makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

And who can ever forget all the attention paid to Bill Clinton, who never came close to being drafted but, for eight years, was accused of draft dodging, not supporting the the troops in VietNam, and just about anything else that occurred to Republicans -- however, Bush’s little draft dodge didn’t seem to bother them at all when they nominated him for president during the Republican convention for the 2000 election. Funny, isn’t it?

It is ironic that all the men who are running Bush’s administration never served in VietNam. They all had excuses not to go. And it is ironic how they judge the service of those who did go. It is also ironic that all these men without combat experience are the very ones who committed us to a long and costly invasion of Iraq.

They are also the ones who don’t want pictures of returning casualties published, the ones who don’t like the casualty figures released. Never having experienced war, perhaps - like Reagan - it seems like a movie script, the carnage not real, the participants getting up after the scene is finished. Perhaps, instead of belittling their service, they should listen to someone who has been there.

APRIL 23, 2004 It’s been done before. Most of us alive today have lived through it once. But it still tears at the heart, whether you have lost someone or not. All those flag draped coffins coming home. And those politicians know it. And it has been done before; the deliberate secrecy of the arrival of those coffins, the lies about the number who died, the way they died, playing games with the statistics in order to make a leader look better politically. And it works on some.

I doubt that the man who sent the “remains” in those coffins to their death remembers anything of the media coverage of the VietNam war. Most of us do. We grew up with those picture of bloody soldiers being evacuated in a noisy helecopter. We saw the results of what naplam did to civilian women and children who just happened to be in the way of an army’s advance. George W. Bush says, “We must not waver.” Lyndon Johnson said, “We will not grow weary.” Colin Power says, “We must not suddenly lose the energy...by dragging out old labels, such as, “This is VietNam.” Senator Kennedy says there is no assurance that we will ever be able to leave Iraq, that this is “Bush’s Vietnam.” He is right. We could not force VietNam to conform to our beliefs and our way of thinking.

Almost 60,000 American lives were lost trying to convince the “enemy” that we knew what was best for them. But in the end, they became what we so desperately tried to stop with guns and lives. George W. Bush says we must “stay the course” until thepeople of Iraq accept our way of thinking. The people of VietNam never did accept our way of thinking. 60,000 American lives later, Communist VietNam is where our American companies are doing business. With the same men who were our enemy and provided all of those names we carved in black marble in Washington, D.C. Our former enemy, VietNam is being sought out by American companies. What was gained, what was lost? Washington says Iraq is different. The scale is different, there were five times as many troops in VietNam as there are in Iraq. That VietNam was a clash of political ideologies and that the soldiers dying in Iraq are from a volunteer army and not draftees like in VietNam. They point out that we failed in our VietNam objective after twelve years (16 when you count the “advisor” portion) but Saddam was “ousted” in 21 days. They call the Iraq war going on right now “post war problems”. Bush says failure is unthinkable, that “every enemy of America in the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadense, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.”

That is the reason we were told that we needed to stay in VietNam for 12 years. The fighting ended in VietNam when we removed our troops from VietNam. The fighting in Iraq will not be over until we remove our troops from Iraq. We can go further back in history for proof of this. France was defeated by the Germans and yet it’s soldiers fought on until they marched into Paris with our troops. Poland, conquered by the Nazis, allowed the Jewish citizens to be pushed into a ghetto where they fought and died rather than surrender.

Denmark, conquered also, defied the Nazis and risked death by refusing to mark their Jewish citizens with the cloth brand of the star of David when every Danish citizen wore the same patch. Just like VietNam, our vision is not theirs. They see Bush as a conqueror, they do not see freedom. They see a country trying to foist their way of life upon them. They see a “Christian” country trying surplant their Muslim faith. They see a conqueror that doesn’t respect those religious traditions. They see men in armor killing their women and children. And they see their cause drawing in large numbers of other Muslim factions to help them eliminate “the enemy”. Just like VietNam. The Communist gurellas saw us as the invaders and a threat to their ideology. They saw our bombs and bullets distroying their culture and their way of life. The surface differences between these wars does not matter. It is the fundamentals of this war that are the same. The Bush administration called their invasion a “cakewalk”, and for a few weeks it seemed it was. (But it took Bush more than a month to get himself organized to retalliate against al Qaida after the destruction of the New York Trade Center.) The Iraq invasion is in it’s infancy. A year has not passed since Bush took us to war. He did not declare it over until May 2003.

But it is a funny thing about war, both sides must cease fighting for it to be over. And this war is far from over. Unless Bush does bring the troops home at the end of June 2004. He says failure in Iraq is unthinkable. So was failure in VietNam. We really don’t know why all that time, money and lives were wasted on VietNam. We really don’t know why all the time, money and lives are being wasted in Iraq. Our political leaders are saying the same thing. In VietNam it was to save the people from Communism and bring them freedom. In Iraq it is to save the people from Saddan Hussein and bring them freedom. Freedom never comes from the end of a gun. Statistics say that for every soldier lost in Iraq, more than 80 died in VietNam. I suppose they divided the number of soldiers who died over the 12 years in VietNam. Not a very accuarte statistic when you realize that the acknowledge death toll in Iraq stands at 706 for less than a year, or that 105 of those died in the first three weeks of April. Bush’s casualties are more than

APRIL 22, 2004

REMEDIAL CLASS CONSTITUTION 101

Good Morning, Class. This is Remedial Constitution 101. We will be discussing the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. Class, come to order! Dubya, keep you hands to yourself, don’t violate other’s space. Rummy, stop talking and I saw you sneak that note to him. Karl, Dubya does not need you to help him sit up straight! Condi! Condi! Pay attention like Colin. John, can your put down your bible right now and focus on the class. This is important. Why is it important? Because you failed the test, that’s why!

First, it has come to our attention that Dubya is going around telling everyone that the Bill of Rights needs to be replaced with something called the Patriot Act. Dubya, why do you believe that Amendment I, IV, V, and VI should be replaced? We’d all like to hear your reasoning.

So, you think that the Patriot Act “is making America safer”...“one path of action” that we must “continue to stay on the offense when it comes to chasing these killers down and bring them to justice”?

You are going to have to give us more than platitudes, Dubya.
All right, let’s examine your explanation that “We can’t return to the days of false hope...The terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and the Congress must give law enforcement all the tools necessary to protect all American people.”

Can anyone tell me why Dubya’s reasoning is untrue? Anyone? No one?? Well, I can certainly see why you’re all in this class! (Oops, shouldn’t have said that out loud.)

First, let’s deal with the fact that we need a new Patriot Act to defend us against terrorists who, you say, declared war on the United States. Since terrorists are, by definition, anyone who uses intense, overpowering fear and that a group that promotes violence to instill intense fear are terrorists. If you compile the terrorists acts that have been spread over the world you will note that they do not all have the same objective or report to the same command structure. They are rather fragmented. For years, Ireland was overrun with terrorists who targeted England, frequently set off bombs and shot innocent people. Japan has it’s Red Army, and now a new group that recently threw Saran gas into the subway. Every South American country has it’s own particular brand of terrorists. None of these terrorist work with the other groups. And they all have separate agendas.

So, our “war” with terrorists is not global nor inclusive. We are the object on one particular hate group - al Qaida. This group is composed of extremely militant religious factions. Their desire is to wipe out all infidels. Since most of these factions reside all over the middle east, and seem to be gathering in Iraq, how can your Patriot Act keep us “safe”? Add the point that your invasion of Iraq seems to have given them a common rallying point, you may soon have your “terrorist war” that you speak of.

As far as We, the People, know there have been two al Qaida attacks upon our country -- both involving the World Trade Center. The first was 37 days after President Clinton took office; the second was 233 days after you took office, Dubya. Now, who can tell me the difference between these two acts of terrorism?

Is it that you don’t know, or just don’t want to admit what happened?

All right. In 1993, the terrorist group known as al Qaida, tried to drive a truck bomb into the World Trade Center. Although the attempt produced chaos, and six people died, the perpetrators were caught, tried, and convicted under our Constitutional law -- no special powers, no suspension of civil rights or tribunals. There were three other major attempts after 1993; until they succeeded in 2001. Plans to bomb the tunnels, the bridges, and the subways of New York City were thwarted under the old Constitutional statutes.
And an anti-terrorist Cabinet post was set up to monitor all intelligence information throughout the world. Tell us, Dubya, why was one of your first acts to do away with that information gathering operation and substitute the convoluted Patriot Act? Since most of the terrorist acts after 2001 have occurred in other countries and your new creation, Homeland Security, seems to deal more with regulating American citizens in this country?
What? I didn’t quite hear you. Karl, are you trying to answer for Dubya?
\

Sigh.

All right, we’ll continue. Condi, Johnny, why do you feel that it is necessary to violate Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights that states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”
What do you mean, Johnny that “Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions and starved for basic information technology.” How can you say a government, which thwarted three major attacks, kept Dubya from thwarting a terrorist attack; remember, it was he that excluded the head of the terrorist group from his cabinet.
Yes, yes, Dubya, I know that you were concentrating on invading Iraq, but you see, that produces another Constitutional problem...
Wait a minute, Condi, I heard you, you are saying that you knew nothing about anything! Rummy, we aren’t discussing your running of the Iraq invasion. Colin, I know you were just doing your job...
Class, come to order!
(No wonder things don’t get done!)
We’re discussing why we should replace our Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act, not why Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power! Can any of you give me any reason why giving Johnny access to women’s medical information would have any bearing on defending ourselves against terrorists? No, Johnny, I don’t want a bible lesson. I want a Constitutional analysis of why your access to women’s medical information would help defeat terrorists. It is in Amendment IV, the one all of you have so much trouble with. “The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects...” Yes, that would include medical records.
Ok, Dubya, you want a list of all the books that all the Americans have checked out. Do you realize that our population is over two hundred million? Do you really think that access to the records of over two hundred million people is going to turn up a few dozen terrorists?
Yes, I know you name won’t be there, but that doesn’t make everyone who reads a book a subversive. That means someone who intends to overthrow or undermine an established government. No, the terrorists you are so worried about just want us dead, they don’t want to take over our government. Yes, there is a possibility that there are some disgruntled Americans who want to overthrow our government, but...
Let’s get back on the subject of the Constitution. There is, in the Preamble to the Constitution this statement “...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government...”

Calm down! Calm down! Haven’t you ever read the Constitution? Don’t you know that the men who founded this government realized that absolute power corrupts absolutely? This was their way of making sure that we never have a dictator. What do you mean, what’s wrong with that?

Enough! Back to the provisions of the Patriot Act that violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Patriot Act, which you believe should be made permanent, allows for what is called “sneak and peek” searches to surreptitiously enter and prowl at will. Why is this a violation?

I don’t see the logic in that answer. If you didn’t have anything to hide you wouldn’t mind the search. You do realize that a lot of the items in the Patriot Act were the same acts that the British committed against the colonies, don’t you? Do you see any connection between what was Constitutionally mandated and the way the British ruled their colonies?

Sigh.

Why don’t you give this some thought, write a paper about it. No, Karl, you can’t do Dubya’s. No, you can’t either Dick. Dick? Where did you come from? An undisclosed location?

APRIL 21, 2004

THOSE WHO SERVED

Mention how much the Iraq war resembles the VietNam war and Bush officials begin to hyperventilate. They don’t want any deja vu comparisons to that war which produced almost 60,000 causalities and escalated from American “advisors” to a full scale war that ended up lasting 16 years and that we did not win. The only war we lost. So far.

Nor do they want you to ask the really hard questions that the protesters of VietNam era asked: Just WHY are we there? Our government told us that we were “fighting to stop the spread of Communism” when we began to “help” VietNam. Now that the WMDs haven’t turned up, our government is telling us that it is to “stop terrorism” in Iraq. There are other parallels of the two wars. The two men who are vying for the office of President of the United States of America. Both of these men were also shaped by the long struggle in VietNam. How they each handled their civic responsibility is a sort of test of their character.
John Kerry, upon graduation from Yale, went to Viet Nam. George W. Bush, upon graduation from Yale, did not. John Kerry requested service on a Navy swiftboat in VietNam. George W. Bush’s father requested that his friends jump his son to the head of the Texas Air National Guard list to keep him from going to VietNam; and when they did, George W. checked NO on the box that asked if he would volunteer to go to VietNam.John Kerry sustained three separate shrapnel injuries that required medical treatment during his sojourn on a Navy craft called a swiftboat. George W. Bush was supposed to fly planes but he refused to take a medical examination required to maintain flight status and was grounded.

John Kerry was rotated back to the United States after his third injury and requested duty in Boston, New York, or Washington. George W. Bush requested that he be released from his duties in the National Guard to work for the election of one of his father’s friends.

John Kerry followed his conscience and gave testimony in public hearings about what he has seen and heard in VietNam. George Bush disappeared from his assigned post for several months and, when he finally reappeared, he requested to be relieved of his National Guard duty six months early so that he could attend graduate school.

John Kerry, along with thousands of others, received the Purple Heart for his injuries, the Bronze Star for heroic achievement, the Silver Star for gallantry in action. It is documented that he helped save the life of one of his crew after he had been thrown overboard when his swiftboat came under intense fire.
George W. Bush has no medals, no combat experience, no complete service record.

But his supporters belittle Kerry’s medals and say his wounds were slight. Who are they to judge?

Republicans, without the benefit of experience, always seem to challenge the military service of men like Senator John McCain, who spent years as a POW in VietNam, Senator John Kerry, who patrolled the river in VietNam, or former Senator Max Cleland, who lost an arm and two legs in VietNam. (It was his fault for being where a grenade was.)

Just what would these men without military service consider adequate? Their admired leader has none. Not even a wound from a papercut to measure against those who served. If their service isn’t adequate, what does that say about their leader, George W. Bush?It isn’t the first time, nor the last, that a veteran’s “patriotism” is challenged by Republicans whose own candidate’s record of service is besmirched with favoritism and collusion. While the daily sacrifice of American lives goes on in Iraq, 705 at the last count, the Bush supporters continue to say that the “commander in chief” who has no military experience is doing a “good job” in Iraq.

Unfortunately, we’ve heard it all before. Too bad so many citizens must die to prove a point.

APRIL 20, 2004

“EITHER YOU’RE WITH US OR AGIN’ US”

With those words, George W. Bush opened up a chasm between the United State of America and the world. At first, world leaders views Bush with puzzled looks and astonishment that a man who couldn’t even put a sentence together was suddenly in charge of diplomacy and negotiating.

After silence over the Chinese incident, the lack of leadership when terrorists struck at the heart of Our capitol, and the incessant mantra that Iraq must be invaded, a kind of numbness settled over the civilized nations of the world. They wanted to be on our side, they had always respected and fought beside us, they wanted to believe in us.

But Bush and his henchmen made it perfectly clear that there was no room for negotiating -- not with Iraq, not with the United Nations, and not with our allies. “Either you’re with us or agin” us.” he said belligerently, and therefore this Country, known for its steadfastness and honor, alienated all of our former allies. Oh, there were ambitious leaders who saw a chance to advance themselves politically or financially by “helping” our invasion of Iraq. One was Spain.

It’s political leader, Aznar, went against the will of the Spanish people to participate in the invasion of Iraq. And the people held him accountable. They voted for Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero because he promised to take the 1,300 Spanish troops out of Iraq. But the man who calls himself a “strong leader” and a “war president” expected and ask that Prime Minister Zapatero renege on his pledge to the Spanish people and not bring the troops home. This, from a man who claims to protect and serve the Will of We, the People!

He has been vindictive before; insulting our allies by calling them “old Europe” and calling the United Nations irrelevant because they would not sanction his invasion. Bush and our elected officials showed the same mean streak by vilifying France with childish antics like renaming French Fries! So I am sure it was not unexpected that the new Prime Minister received a cold reception, nor that an “irate” Bush answered Zapatero’s first telephone call by telling him that his campaign promise to withdraw the troops would give “false comfort to terrorists.”

But it was not just his cold reception to the new Spanish government; it was his insinuations, during a campaign speech in Heresy, PA , that Zapatero’s election was a result of the Madrid bombings that killed 19l people. He stated, “The terrorists used violence to spread fear and disrupt elections. They want us to panic. See, that’s their intent...”, even though the terrorists said that Spain was on their hit list because of Aznar supporting Bush’s invasion of Iraq and Zapatero’s campaign, from the start, was based on getting Spain out of Iraq.

But Bush isn’t the only presidential hopeful blaming Spain, John Kerry, the man the Democratic party has told us can save us from the Bush agenda, also believed the new Spanish Prime Minister should not keep his promise to the people who elected him.

“Spain and the world have an interest in rebuilding an Iraq that is not a haven for terrorists and a failed state. I had hoped the prime minister would have reconsidered his position, and I hope that in the days ahead the United States and the world can work with him to find a way to keep Spain engaged in the efforts in Iraq. Rather than loosing partners, I believe it’s critical that we find new coalition partners to share the burden in Iraq.”

George W. Bush could not have said it as well. Neither Bush nor Kerry plan to disengage from Iraq. Both are encouraging the leader of Spain to break a campaign promise to the people for their own benefit. Will they keep any campaign promises they make to us?

***And by the way, 104 deaths have been acknowledged for the first 20 days of April, 2004. That is an average of 5 a day. The total may seem small to those who didn’t receive the notification that it was their loved one who had died but it is huge when one of that number belongs to you.***

APRIL 19, 2004

THESE THINGS I KNOW

I know the secrecy that shrouds our democratic form of Government of the People, for the People and by the People is not the way of a democracy. An administration that runs on secrecy and lies and unable to accept the responsibility for it’s mistakes is not a democratic form of government. A government that holds it’s secrets close and does not disclose the information necessary to allow an informed vote of the People is not a democratic form of government.

We are not infants to be protected. Our founding fathers gave US the responsibility of keeping this nation free. They did it by declaring that all men were created equal, and that they were endowed with certain unalienable Rights. They did it by ratifying the document that guaranteed these rights and spelled out in the Preamble to that Constitution that “to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed”. We are the Governed.

And they obtain that consent by our vote. Take away our ability to make decisions based on Truth and Honor, and the democracy is no longer. An aborted election, such as that in the year 2000, is an extremely hard lesson on what happens when that Will of the People is thwarted. All of the decisions that brought crisis to our country stem from that one election, snatched from the votes of We, the People. We now see why our Founding Fathers used a redundant system of “checks and balances” to prevent what did happen in 2000.

Who among We, the People, thought that all three branches of our government, Judicial, Legislate, Executive, would collude to produce the fraudulent election results of 2000? Who ever thought their misguided actions would lead to a destruction of our Honor among the nations of the world. Who among us ever thought that we would be embroiled in another VietNam so quickly by the actions of an obsessed leader running amok, unchecked by the two branches of government whose job it was to monitor the executive branch of our government.

Under our Constitution, the executive power consists of acting as Commander of Chief of the army and Navy, and of the Militia when called into actual service of the United States. He has the power to make treaties, with 2/3rds of the Senators concurring. He can nominate, and with the advise and consent of the Senate, appoint Ambassadors and other public Ministers and Counsels, judges to the Supreme Court. When the Senate is not in session, he can fill vacancies but only until the next session. He must give a State of the Union address to the joint houses.

And that is the limit of his power, our Founding Fathers did not want a King, a sovereign, nor a dictator to assume control of this country. All things must be done in the open for We, the People to judge and to approve.

I know that George W. Bush took his oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will, to be best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

(You can find this Oath under “Oath of Office” Article II of our Constitution. You will note that there is a conspicuous lack of any mention of “so help me god” or that it be taken with the hand placed upon the bible -- later additions and NOT constitutional amendments, therefore, not required.)

I know that he did not take this Oath of Office very seriously. I know that he came in with an agenda to invade Iraq and that the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 was used to push the Iraqi invasion. I know that; contrary to the Bill of Rights amendments I, IV, V, VI; he used the same terrorist attack to legislate the Patriot Act and to create an insidious, creeping Homeland Security that eliminates those rights. And I know that he, and the Legislature, did not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Those Amendments were inalienable Rights. The Government is instituted among men to secure these Rights.

I know that he violated his Oath by bringing false information to the joint houses in a Constitutionally mandated State of the Union Speech that led to our Legislative branches agreeing to invade another country. And for that they are all responsible for not listening to the Will of the People demonstrated by the millions that objected to this invasion. I know that, because of his relentless push to conquer, 702 American’s no longer live; no longer require a Bill of Rights to keep them free.

APRIL 18, 2004

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED...

Right now we are getting about as much truth from our government as we get from a used car salesman -- oh, excuse me, a “pre-owned” car salesman. And that pretty much sums up the new euphemisms describing the same old cover-up coming out of our government.

Take the September 11, 2001 investigation of events leading up to that tragic attack on New York City and Washington, D.C. I am reminded of those old reruns of Hogan’s Heroes where the camp guard always “knew nothing” and “saw nothing”. That pretty much sums up the Bush administration.

As evidence mounts to dire predictions and warnings about al Qaida and their plot to blow up buildings by ramming hijacked planes into them, Bush just shakes his head and denies that he “knew anything”. In her testimony before the 9/11 commission, his security advisor states that they had no specific inform as to time, place, date, or method. However, since 9/11/01 the hodgepodge called “homeland security” has sounded many alarms that invoked the color orange with less information than they had available on the attack that took place September 11 -- in fact, last Christmas they practically shut down the whole world’s transportation system on less substantial rumors!

How lax was he? The day of the now infamous August 6 memo declaring “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”, George W. Bush was enjoying a month long vacation at his Texas ranch. Sensitive to the statistics that he was taking the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, Bush’s schedule for that day included a 45 minute workday discussing “security matters.” The rest of the day was supervising a new “nature trail” out of public view, and a four mile run.

August 7 shaped up to be just as exhausting. After playing Gulf, he managed to publically comment, “Saddam Hussein is a menace, and we will do --he needs to open his country up for inspection -- so we can see whether or not he;’s developing weapons of mass destruction.”

By the time bin Laden has instigated his attack and over 3,000 of our citizens were dead, Bush had spent a quarter of his time in office on vacation. No one expected him to be the same workaholic president Bill Clinton was, calling staff at three in the morning because he had lost track of time, but when you whimper the excuse that you have only “been in office 233 days” and you were gone on vacation 137 of them one must question the wisdom of putting a playboy president in Our White House. Especially when Bill Clinton had been president only 37 days when al Qaida struck the first time. No one gave him a pass for being new to the job!

Oh, and his administration is credited for catching and convicting those guys.

DOES HE REALLY LIKE US?

George W. is also very fond of spending money. He throws it around like water, unless it is destined to help We, the People. We are all aware that while our soldiers are being slaughtered in Iraq -- 93 so far this month -- Bush has been cutting back all forms of veterans benefits. Just to prove how much he supports our troops, on April 7, 2004, he urged an appeals court to overturn a judge’s order awarding nearly $l billion in Iraqi money to 17 Americans taken prisoner by Saddam Hussein’s government during the first Iraqi war.

The money was to come from assets frozen in this country and not planned to be used for “rebuilding” Iraq when -- or if -- it is ever pacified. Our judicial system ruled these soldiers were entitled to compensation; their government says they are not.

AND THEN THERE IS THE RETALIATION FACTOR

No, not against al Qaida. Against those brave whistleblowers who have pointed out the obvious fact that “the emperor has no clothes.”

There is no question that the Bush administration is extremely busy pointing in all directions and at everyone who gets in the way of that pointing finger. About Iraq. About 9/11. During his news conference last week (one of only 3 -- but who has time to inform the public while on vacation?) a reporter asked him if he had made any mistakes during about 9/11..Iraq? Bush stuttered out a reply that sounded suspiciously like he couldn’t think of any he had made and the question should have been written our and given him ahead of time if he wanted an answer.

It took a few days but Karl Rove finally came up with one, the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner hung in the background behind George W. Bush when he gave his “It’s Over” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. But he also says it was misinterpreted and that it was meant to acknowledge the completion of the carriers 10 month mission. Since when does a “leader” as busy as Bush take time out of his busy vacation schedule to greet returning naval ships?

It always amazes me how Republican conservatives can dig up every little nitty gritty detail about an issue they want revealed and reviled but find it so difficult to even see their own debacles. I guess that is the forrest for the trees syndrome.

Although Bush takes credit but not blame for what has happening, and is still happening in Iraq; he knows nothing about what went on before or after September 11, 2001 (the Sergeant Schultz syndrome) but can he pinpoint those responsible for not hitting him over the head until the information penetrated!

He sent Condoleezza Rice out to do his fencing for him; thereby creating a Sergeant Schultz clone. Amazing that her job was to seek and distribute this stuff and yet she managed to negotiate the corridors of Our White House without one fact drifting into her mind. Wouldn’t you like to be able to ignore your work problems like that???

Anyhow, it appears that in retaliation for putting Dr. Rice on the hot seat, the conservatives have attacked one of the commission members, Jamie Gorelick. It seems that in the mid-nineties, Ms. Gorlick was deputy attorney general of the United States and that she was assigned the take of writing a “memorandum” (report) to establish distinctions between intelligence that could be used for law-enforcement purposes and intelligence that could be used for national security purposes. That may sound confusing, but the essence is that it was to provide a safeguard against abuse of citizen’s rights by government investigative agencies. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with following our constitution, or in putting it in memorandum form.

But it appears to be causing some controversy among “conservatives” who are saying that this “work” may have contributed to the failures leading up to the attacks!” I’ve never heard the rational that following the Constitution of the United States could be blamed for terrorist attacks, but there you have it!!

It is their belief that the euphemistic “wall” defining intelligence is a main obstacle to better intelligence sharing information in regard to the September 11 attacks. Not the obsession with Iraq, not the absentee “leader”, not an administration too dumb to listen to it’s chief terrorist czar, but that nasty old Constitution.

And we’re all aware that “compassionate conservative” will always be helpful and forgiving, guess what has happened to Ms. Gorelick?

She is receiving death threats at her office and her home. The bomb threat came to her home. She is receiving “vile” e-mails and phone calls. But she is refusing to be intimidated, saying, “The threats are scary” but she “was not intimidated enough to resign from the commission.” She has recused herself from reviewing any actions that occurred while she was at the Justice Department. But this is apparently not enough for conservatives.

Her memo was brought up by Attorney General Ashcroft during his testimony before the 9/11 commission hearing; I guess because he felt it would reflect badly on the Clinton Administration. But no administration following the letter of the Constitution is guilty of anything. Passage of the Patriot Act has eliminated the necessity for a memo defining the parameters of Amendment IV, Amendment V, Amendment VI or the Bill of Rights. So I guess bomb threats to Ms. Gorelick fits right in to the new view of civil rights.

APRIL 17, 2004

BIGOTRY

A mighty powerful word when applied to someone. The dictionary definition of a bigot is a person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

We have a lot of bigots in this country right now and most of them are the religious kind. They are more active now than they have been for a long time and that is because they feel that our government no longer enforces our Constitution. Bigots love to expound on the theory that this nation was founded by religious zealots; specifically zealots of whatever faith they profess.

It is true that every little religious splinter group that washed up on our shore wanted their particular religion to be sacrosanct BUT they sat up little fiefdoms that were suspicious of their neighbors who didn’t believe as they did. The overriding fear was that they would be as persecuted here as they were where they came from . That included those much admired Pilgrims, Quakers, and a grab bag of other religious groups that never made it into your elementary school history lesson.

But those groups had absolutely NOTHING to do with the founding of the United States of America. That was done by a group of discontented businessmen and landowners who didn’t like the way England was handling their lucrative colonies. Those who forged this great nation were rebel rousers, inventors, authors and publishers and the majority of those responsible for this great nation were not particularly religious. Thomas Jefferson was an agnostic, Benjamin Franklin was an acknowledged atheist, John Adams was a progressive thinker who thought women and slaves should have civil rights -- not a popular idea at the time!

We almost didn’t become a nation at all because every colony represented at the Continental Congress had their own ax to grind. And some of those axes were the promotion of their religion as the official State Religion. Naturally that idea didn’t set well with their neighbors who preferred their own particular brand of religion to the one State Religion. But, those Founding Fathers who wrote the constitution weren’t considered the largest collection of the greatest minds in all of history for nothing. They had to “level the playing field” and protect all those little religious groups from persecution by the others. England’s history was a pretty good example of what happened in a country where one individual decreed what religion the country was to follow.

Thus, Amendment I of the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
These guys certainly didn’t speak governmentese. That is perfectly clear. If you can’t make a law establishing a religion, you certainly can’t enforce a law making one religion dominate, or the only, religion of this country.

Which brings us back to the bigotry running rampant through Our government. Since the day George W. Bush stepped through the door of Our White House he has been hell bent on establishing his version of religion for the United States of America. Bush appointed an attorney general who was more concerned in setting up “prayer” groups in government buildings and covering “offensive” (to him) statues than investigating the Civil Rights Commission Report of voter disenfranchisement in Florida, or investigating the religious fanatic that succeeded in destroying most of our financial district.
Bush’s first decrees were to undo any executive orders and legislation that did not suit his religious beliefs. He was “establishing a religion” by forcing laws upon us that, in his opinion, did not conform to those religious beliefs.

And in spite of overwhelming American, and world, opposition to his invasion of Iraq; he told us that his god had told him to do it. George W. Bush’s god decreed that (at this moment) 689 of our citizens must die. And the irony is that Osama bin Laden’s god decreed that 3,000 of our citizens must die to appease his deity.

After 3 l/2 years of George W. Bush pushing his religious beliefs and agenda upon We, the People; the bigots are becoming more bold. Instead of skulking in shadows and hiding their true feeling of those “others”, they are suddenly a threat to our own religious beliefs and practices. It goes beyond the Supreme Court case about the added phrase “under god” in our Pledge of Allegiance; a phrase added by Congress during the McCarthy era witch hunt mentality.

We could populate another planet with the people who have been killed in the name of religion. And, if what I have been reading is true, our own country may very shortly be contributing to that population. Last Tuesday, a Roman Catholic priest delivered the morning prayer to the House of Representatives. He used it as a political soapbox to say that too many politicians have followed the example of the nation’s first Catholic president by pledging to separate their faith from politics.

“Almighty god, please change and convert the hearts of all the representatives in this House. May they be the antithesis of John Kennedy, may they be women and men of god, and may their faith and influence and guide every vote they make.”

---------Rev. Bill Carmody -----------
Do you realize the implication? Do you realize that this Catholic priest, in your House of Representative, is asking that his god supersede your god and change and convert your representatives to his faith??
If you find this upsetting, just remember that the man who calls himself the president of the United States has been doing this same thing for over three years!

Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry, is being criticized for saying that “I’m not running to be a Catholic president. I’m running to be a president who happens to be Catholic.” That is exactly what President John Kennedy said when he was seeking the office of President of the United States. Neither Bush nor Kerry nor any other candidate has any business running for any office on the basis of establishing their religious beliefs as the law of the land. If their only desire is to establish their religion as a State Religion, we don’t want them. The ultra conservatism of George W. Bush’s god, which he hid from voters, has brought us nothing but turmoil, hostility, and death. We want no more of it. This is where we are heading.

A Jewish family, living in the state run by George W. Bush’s brother, is suing to stop the use of prayer at school board meetings. It was supposed to be a “non-denominational” prayer, but the family says that it contains repeated Christian references. In February the Rosenauers sued to block the Manatee Country School board from opening the public meeting with this Christian prayer. Since then, the family has received threatening phone calls, vandals have thrown red paint over their house and their truck. No swastikas were reported, but can they be far behind?

The wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Establish no religion, make laws to protect “the free exercise thereof” and you will have no religious wars. But we need our politicians free from a religious agenda to keep religion free.

APRIL 16, 2004

BACKPACK BUDDIES

Today is the day after we have filed our tax forms. I wonder how many new members of jobless or underemployed Americans filled in that blank at the end of the form with a zero. None paid, none refunded.

I would certainly like to see an accounting of how many tax payers dropped off the tax rolls due to less, or no, taxable income. That would be a truer picture of the Bush economy than that rosy picture painted by the government over 308,000 jobs they say were added in March. But further study of the data shows that part of that “rise” came from the California grocery store strike and that it was unclear how many temporary workers would lose their jobs as a result of the settlement.

It further shows that there was no rise in manufacturing employment, although it remained unchanged in March after 3 years and 7 months of uninterrupted decline in jobs. The unemployment rate; after falling from a 6.1% high to 5.6% due to job seekers giving up the search; has begun increasing again to 5.7% -- due in part to the “news” that there are more jobs out there. More data shows that in March part time workers have increased from 4.4 million to 4.7 million also. As workers unable to find full time jobs are forced to settle for part time jobs, tax revenues will also follow a downward trend.

And April 12, 2004, three days before our taxes were due, another large industry announced yet another layoff. DuPont cut 3,500 jobs. Coupled with just the April job layoffs and job outsourcing, those 308,000 “new” jobs have already been reduce by multiple thousands of newly unemployed workers joining the 8.35 million workers who have been looking for work for more than 20 weeks! And those unemployed millions represent a 20 year high. Do you remember who was president 20 years ago? Ronald Reagan.

But George W. Bush, hot on the campaign trail now that the Iraq crisis has been taken care of to his satisfaction, is traveling from state to state at taxpayer expense ( just imagine the cost of jet fuel) spreading word of his economic success to the Republican elite. And no one is challenging that economic “success”.

But let me show you the face of Bush’s “success”.
It is the face of hungry children.

Perhaps companies can increase their profits a hundred fold by outsourcing their jobs to India or China, but they do so at the expense of our future. Feeding these hungry children comes under the government budget heading of Entitlements. George W. Bush has cut all Entitlements across the board; from Veterans Benefits, during the Iraq war, to school breakfasts for children.

And the results of a depressed economy that has no jobs, no FDR type programs to help the unemployed and the homeless, is that our children go without.

In Arkansas, Rice Depot (a Little Rock-based statewide food bank) was approached by a school nurse at an inner city school who asked for help because the students were coming to her with stomach aches and dizziness. The children weren’t sick, she said, they were hungry. And that is how the foodbank started giving out food at the nurse’s school. Some of the schools began sending food home with the students on weekends so that they would have food to eat over the weekend.

The program, or similar programs, are now serving thousands of children in more than a dozen cities and it is spreading across the United States. The Roadrunner Food Bank in Albuquerque, New Mexico decided to start sending food home with the students in the Spring of 2001. It provides backpacks to about 1,500 school children.

In St. Joseph, Missouri, they call it Backpack Buddies. Two-thirds of the students at Noyes Elementary school get subsidized lunches. The children line up on Friday and pick up backpacks filled with canned fruit, cereal bars, and other single serving foods, so they won’t go hungry over the weekend. The children don’t like to talk about being hungry, says Joyce Starr, in charge of the backpack program, so the teachers try to notice things, like students who eat quickly, or are sorry when the weekend comes.

For these students so poor that they get most of their meals through the government subsidized breakfast and lunch programs; weekend and holidays mean being hungry. Started in January 2003, with 40 students, the program has grown to 140 students but America’s Second Harvest of Greater St. Joseph said the need is as much as 20 times higher.

America’s Second Harvest in Chicago, Illinois, is trying to raise money to help more of its 214 food banks and rescue groups who are offering the program. Last week, the Hasbro Children’s Foundation (a charity supported by Hasbro, Inc.) has given a $95,000 grant to help America’s Second Harvest with a national backpack pilot program.

Like the program Habitat for Humanity that builds homes for those who have none; America’s Second Harvest is filling a desperate need that our government has neglected. George W. Bush believes that we, unemployed and underemployed, can take up the slack that his Entitlement cuts have created.

But the need is huge and growing. As he travels the country in comfort on Air Force One with a well stocked larder to eat from, and millions of campaign dollars to advance his economic “success”, schools are struggling to send children home with enough food to keep them, and perhaps their siblings, fed over the weekend.

The food banks and school officials say that it is important that the funding remain stable because the children have begun to rely on those backpacks of food. The St. Joseph food bank realized just how important that backpack of food was when one child, having moved to a new school, waited patiently for a backpack on his first Friday. When a school employee told him the school didn’t hand out backpacks, he burst into tears. Now, the food bank delivers one backpack to the boy’s new school every Friday. “It’s just so tough.” Nicholas Saccaro, executive director of America’s Second Harvest of Greater St. Joseph said.
In one of the richest nations of the world, a little child cries for food. Are you listening, Mr. Bush?

APRIL 15, 2004

TABULA ROSA

George W. Bush seemed to think he entered our White House with a blank slate; that he could write upon it whatever he chose. When you are so out of touch with what is going on in the world, when others censer the news for you and your work day starts and ends in about four hours, you miss out on a lot.

Delegating authority is fine, but refusing to accept responsibility for what you and others did in your name is not. During Bush’s 3rd news conference in 3 1/2 half years, he couldn’t admit to any mistakes, excusing himself with “I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could’ve done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet....I hope, I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes...I just haven’t -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”

Tabula Rosa.

Wiped clean of all responsibility for September 11, 2001; for Iraq; for all the lies he told in a mandated State of the Union address to a joint Session of Congress that was filled with information about an Iraqi threat that didn’t exist.

Most of Bush’s rare press conference was devoted to his justification of the Iraq invasion. He still plans to stay in Iraq until he determines it is time to go. While everyone is bellowing that more troops are needed, that we need to remove ourselves and let the United Nations put the shattered nation back together, Bush stands firm in his belief that only he knows how to do it.

But his answers to reporter’s questions about the event that shattered our own nation, the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, lack the same resolve to “stay the course.” He thinks that tightening up a few of our Bill of Rights, such as Amendment I, Amendment IV, Amendment VI, Amendment VIII and Amendment IX, by passing the Patriot Act which allows citizen’s rights to be violated but does nothing to prevent terrorism, will prevent terrorism. I kept wondering how he felt that by controlling travel on airplanes it would prevent another terrorist attack and then I hear Dr. Rice’s testimony regarding the PDB of August 6, 2001 and Bush’s assertion that, “...It’s easy for a president to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were certain things in place...The country wasn’t on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us.”

Tabula rosa!

We all knew who al Qaida was. One of the cell leaders involved in the 1993 World trade Center bombing, the conspirator known as “the blind Sheik”, was in prison in Springfield, Missouri. The day he was brought to Springfield to begin serving his sentence at the prison hospital located in that city, there was a lock down at the airport, and increased police presence because of fear that a terrorist attempt to free him.

But Bush entered the Oval Office with a broom that swept clean as many of the previous administration’s policies as it could. Richard Clarke’s (author of the book, “Against All Enemies”) found that his Cabinet level position no longer existed, and that terrorism had been put on the back burner; even though the previous administration under the leadership of that workaholic, Bill Clinton, had identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat. But, dogged by a relentless political attack by the very people who helped create the candidacy of George W. Bush, he could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, or the FBI to sufficiently deal with the threat*

Bush’s failure to acknowledge this as one of the major mistakes of his brief administration -- not building and expanding upon the information and organization left by the Clinton Administration -- is further proof that he felt he could make decisions about our lives without benefit of any other experience but his own desires.

When asked specifically about the August 6 PDB, “Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration?...” Bush replied, “I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas...part of it had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference that I was going to attend. And that is what triggered that report.”

Personal safety? His own safety at the Genoa G-8 conference, is what he was concerned about?

Bush continued, “The report itself, I’ve characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it, you’ll see that it was talking about a 97, 98, and 99... It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane...Now, in the -- what’s called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden’s desires on America. But, frankly, I don’t think there was anything new.”

But because it didn’t directly refer to hijacking airplanes or state a timetable you didn’t take it seriously? That should have been a powerful indication that something was up. Did it ever occur to him to peruse Clinton’s terrorist information or perhaps go over the intelligence “chatter” from other countries collecting terrorist information:? It was part of his job. But the invasion of Iraq seemed to take precedent over all else, even the destruction of our seat of military power and our financial institutions.
Another reporter mentioned Clark’s apology to the American people during his 911 committee testimony where he admitted that our government had failed us and asked Bush if he felt that he owed We, the People an apology. His reply was not an apology. It was an avoidance of responsibility.

“Look, I can understand why people in my administration are anguished over the fact that people lost their life. (reference to Clark’s apology). I feel the same way...I’ve met with a lot of family members, and I do my best to console them about the loss of their loved one... I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen...” And here is where he placed the blame, “Here’s what I feel about that: The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden.”

Yes, he was responsible, but Bush took on the job of “protecting and serving We, the People. It was not bin Laden’s responsibility to keep us safe in our home, in our workplace. When he went to war with Iraq he told us that he was “commander in chief”. As “commander in chief”, his responsibility for the safety of We, the People extended beyond the invasion of Iraq

.
If he hadn’t entered our White House with a blank slate; he would have had had many historical examples of what it takes to make the hard choices and to take the burden of responsibility. Harry Truman, with the motto “The Buck Stops Here” on his desk, made the decision to use atomic weapons for the first time. His message to the men flying those plane that brought such death and destruction to our enemy was that they should remember that they were just following orders, that the responsibility, whether good or bad, was upon his head. The “Buck” stopped with him.

Facing nuclear annihilation during the cold War, in his brief three years, John Kennedy faced them and also took responsibility. Even though he had been given false information from the CIA regarding the Bay of Pigs incursion, when the debacle was over, Kennedy ripped into those responsible in private and faced us squarely and took the blame. When Russia put missiles 60 miles off the Florida coast, he made the decision to risk nuclear war with Russia and prepared We, the People with the truth.

There are many more courageous examples that run throughout the vein of our history; Bush only had to look to see what great leaders do. But courage and fortitude do not seem to be his strong suit. When asked by a reporter, “why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 911 commission?”, he seemed to not understand the question.
“...because the 911 commission wants to ask us questions, that’s why we’re meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions” When pressed as to WHY Cheney and Bush were not testifying individually but as a unit, before the committee he repeated his first response! “Because it’s a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 911 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I’m looking forward to answering them. So we still don’t know why the man , who declared that he made the decisions about Iraq and we could essentially like it or lump it, needed a chaperone to answer the questions put to him about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.

Another question, “...you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It’s pretty somber...But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don’t have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?”
Bush replied, “I guess, if you put it into a political context, that’s the kind of thing the voters will decide...They’ll take a look at me and my opponent and say...which one of them can better win the war on terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges a free society?” Is this the sum total of a president’s duties? To engage in a war on Iraq while our country crumbles?

And he told us that his message that day, April 13, 2004, was to those in Iraq was, “...we’ll stay the course, we'll complete the job. And my message to the loved ones who are worried about their sons, daughters, husbands, wives is, your loved one is performing a noble service for the cause of freedom and peace.” Cold comfort for the acknowledged 688 families who have buried their loved ones, almost 90 of them the week he gave this conference.

And not one word about We, the People, he has sworn to defend and protect -- against job losses, poverty, loss of pensions from corporate and social security, affordable medical care and education, and the terrors of watching our children cry from hunger.

Tabula Rosa. His slate is blank.

APRIL 13, 2004

WAR FOOTING?

Oh, my gawd!!! George W. Bush gave a news conference!!! What could possibly tear him away from vacationing to address We, the People? Neither terrorist attacks, negative world opinion, nor Iraq exploding had produced a news conference -- had we been invaded by aliens from outer space or something??? Nahh, his poll numbers had dropped and someone, perhaps Cheney, had told him he better get out there and set us straight before we went to the polls in November.

His speech writer chose the theme, “We weren’t on a war footing.” for him to focus on. The 9/11 terrorist attack was because “we weren’t on a war footing.” The Patriot Act, which took away several of our civil rights, must have put us on a “war footing” from the sound of things; so why is his Iraq occupation such a mess? He got everything he asked Congress for, got his troops, his extra money, his invasion, extra money, no bid contracts for his campaign contributors, extra money, hired mercenaries, more extra money... if that ain’t “war footing”, what is???

They warned us, too. No brief ten minute talk; he planned to “oratate” for a full 18 minutes and then -- GASP -- take questions from reporters. True, the question askers appeared to be the same reporters that had followed the party line since day one of his administration. And he did criticize one of the reporters for not submitting his question asking what Bush considered his biggest mistake regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, saying “I wish you’d have given me this in written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.”

Considering that he indicated that his strongest complaint about 9/11 was that bin Laden hadn’t furnished him with the plans of the attack, it seemed quite in character for him to expect reporters to not ask any questions he hadn’t been prepared for! By the way, the answer to that reporter’s question, after mulling time, is that there was nothing he regretted doing or considered a mistake. Ain’t it grand to be “perfect”.

George W. Bush came slinking to the podium, looking about as comfortable as a seventh grader called upon to read a report that he forgot was due. He gave his prepared speech and then began taking questions. I was curious to see the sort of questions the “media” lobbed at him. As expected, the reporters pretty much divided the questions between Iraq and the 911 commission, although Bush kept turning his rhetoric back to Iraq. That man has a one track mind and it is definitely on the Iraq track. He answered almost every 911 question by chugging down that Iraq track! You would have thought he had been appointed president to do nothing but make war on Iraq.

The excuse for the failure of the Bush administration is that the United States wasn’t on a “war footing.” Who gave him the idea that the purpose of the United States of America was to constantly be at war with someone? We’ve had an awful lot of peaceful years between Republican administrations. Most of the “wars” we have been involved in were under Republican presidents.
Since our country began, we have had 7 major wars (Not counting the Civil War or the Barbary Pirates clash which helped produced our army and Navy!): The Revolution, The War of 1812, Mexican, Spanish-American, World War I, World War II, and the only one we lost, VietNam.

But after Reagan, we have constantly been at “war” with someone -- especially terrorists! Under Republican administrations we have invaded Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. We have bombed Lebanon, Lydia, the Sudan, Kosovo, threatened to bomb or invade others, and furnished the “weapons of mass destruction” to Saddam Hussein for his war on Iran.

It is incredible to me that Bush thinks he has done a good job of leading our country. When asked, “...you’ve made it very clear tonight that you’re committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet...increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?”, Bush snapped back “I don’t plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I’ve got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they’ll stay with me. They understand the stakes.”

Yes, Mr. Bush, we do. But the stakes we are facing are far different from those indicated. The war on terror waged by the Bush administration is leaving the “homeland” vulnerable in a way that armies can’t prevent. It is a terror we have experienced once in our history and one we don’t want to repeat.
“Well, the oil revenues, they’re bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren’t. They’re now up and running.”

While you are busy worrying about the Iraqi oil fields being destroyed We, the People are living with a country deep in depression. We aren’t worried about your Iraqi oil fields; they will not feed or cloth our children. We are worried about how long you plan to keep our National Guard in Iraq; their families are suffering greatly for lack of the additional breadwinner in a country where jobs are impossible to find. You say, “We’re making progress. There’s no question it’s been tough...it’s been a tough, tough series of weeks for the American people...it’s been tough for the families...it’s been tough on this administration...”
How tough on the administration? When Iraq exploded with death and destruction, the kidnapping of between 40 - 60 civilians of all nationalities; you were fishing with a guy filming a television program. How tough was that when compared to the 83 lives lost in the first fourteen days of April 2004? How tough on their families? You say we know why we’re in Iraq. You’re wrong. We don’t.

APRIL 11, 2003

I started this blog in September 2003, when I realized that our country has lost its way. I had hoped that by pointing out the absurdity of what was happening to We, the People that I might, in some small way, contribute to awakening our distracted citizens to the unethical and illegal violations that tarnished our Constitution and that they, in turn, would demand accountability from a government that no longer put the needs of the People they serve before their own ego. But I have taught myself something also.

WE NO LONGER HAVE A FREE PRESS

1. Our so called “reporters” no longer investigate or publish information that the government, in the form of the Bush administration, does not want released. They simply report verbatim from the new releases. Examples of their failure to inform the public are as varied as they are numerous. No one questioned the “strong leader” title that was given to Bush after September 11, 2001 even though he took no leadership role at all.

2. The “media” never investigated the reason ENRON’s Ken Lay, pal and major campaign contributor of Bush, was never held accountable for his roll in the illegal activities that brought down not only the company but the economic solvency of the state of California.

3. For three years, the “media” has ignored the information that Bush was an economic disaster for our country. What happened in the 80’s under Reagan was a preview of the job losses which wrecked the lives of the common man and sent many spiraling into such poverty that they will never recover. The concept of the richest nation in the world becoming a “third world” country of poverty and despair was never mentioned by the loyal Bush “media”.

4. The “media” ignored Bush’s use of his position to bring about unconstitutional promotion of his religion at the expense of our religious beliefs.

5. He used the power of his office to tell us lies in State of the Union Speeches so that he could invade another country although millions did not want his war and the “media” went to bed with Bush’s government and refused to print any information but that approved by the government of Bush.

6. The “media” chose which party they would promote, and which candidate they would promote, for the election that We, the People, were guaranteed would be our choice.

THE SLACKER

1. From the day George W. Bush told Vice President Al Gore that his brother, Jeb Bush, had told him he had won an election; he has refused to follow the Constitutional mandates of the President of the United States. He took the election results out of the hands of We, the People, and placed them in the hands of a Supreme Court appointed by his father. They, in turn, without the authority to do so, gave the office of President of the United States to George W. Bush by stating that to count all of the votes would harm Bush and by those words implied that by not counting all those votes, it did not matter that the other candidate, Al Gore, would be harmed.

2. In spite of being heralded in the press as a “strong leader” against terrorism, George W. Bush was not present and took no strong positions on terrorism from the day he took the oath of office. He bowed before China during the first crisis of his administration, did not even bother to get up from his chair in an elementary classroom even as We, the People, watched in horror as plane after plane hit target after target. And now we know that the warnings the Bush government denied they had were definitely put before them on August 6, 2001 -- a scant 37 days before the New York Trade Center was finally destroyed by al Qaida.

3. In direct conflict with our Constitution, Bush initiated a virtual grab bag of laws he calls the “Patriot Act” that subvert or ignore the mandates of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

4. He began, and continues, an illegal occupation of another country that he swore had weapons of mass destruction although none have ever been found. He threatened to destroy our alliance with the United Nations, with NATO, and has begun a military program to produce more efficient weapons of mass destruction to use against and unidentified enemy of the United State of America.

5. He is lax in his duties of Commander in Chief by not acknowledging the causalities, both wounded and dead, in his very private and undeclared war. He has usurped the powers and responsibilities that Constitutionally belong to the legislature.

6. He abuses his power as acting president by his constant absence from duty on vacations that account for at least 40% of his time and absence from duty for an almost equal amount of time on campaign fundraisers. He is paid a salary of $400,000 plus all expenses and transportation cost anywhere he wishes to travel.

HAVE WE FAILED?
We, the People of the United States of America, charged with the responsibility of being ever vigilance over a Government whose only function is to serve and protect, have sadly neglected that responsibility. We have allowed elected and appointed officials, holding office by our Consent, to stray from the dictates of our mandate. There is no Power in the United States of America except the Power held by We, the People. We have the Power to transform or dismiss our government -- in whole or in part -- when they do not follow our wishes.

The administration of the unelected George W. Bush should never have been allowed to happen. Our whole country suffers because there was no elected official strong enough to challenge the group of men seeking the power of the presidency for their own gain. This is not only our legislature’s shame, but our shame. We disbelieved our own anger, distrusted our own thoughts and hearts; and for that our children’s children’s children will suffer.

Once before, in our past, brave men spoke out and challenged and fought and died so that we could control our own destinies. We have failed them also. We must stop what is happening in our country now, today. If we can’t get it together, we can’t hold it together. It is our obligation to undo the evil that powerful men have done.

APRIL 10, 2004

George W. Bush is off again - on vacation that is. Although he did manage to squeeze in a little campaigning and a nice photo op with Richard Martin, host of the Outdoor Life Network program, “Fishing with Roland Martin.” Friday Bush and Martin whiled away a few hours trolling for bass. “The president was very relaxed.” Martin said. He also indicated that Bush was “a very accomplished fisherman. He handled the tackle real well and caught three fish...he complains that he doesn’t fish there enough; so he misses that a lot.”

Unfortunately, Bush had to cancel the scheduled fishing with Martin and his father, telling him, “Hey Roland, sorry it didn’t work out. I had things to do.” Like going bicycling Saturday afternoon.

Martin indicated that, although he has known the Bush family for a very long time, he was “mystified” about how the even came about because Bush had contacted him about taping the segment.

The Bush administration is “sensitive” to charges that Bush is loafing at a time of bloodshed and chaos in Iraq. And they should be. Some people who know more about that “fuzzy math” thing than George W. Bush has done a little analysis and stated that Bush had been on vacation 40% of his time. Now, this is a little fuzzy math of my own, but I ruminated about all the fundraising events that Bush has attended over his tenure and think they must amount to another 40%. That leave about 20% left to do the job he is getting paid to do.

That is probably why, in spite of having no Constitutional authority to assume any power at all, Bush leaves Cheney to guard our White House while he vacations. News articles report that Cheney is monitoring the Iraq hostage while Bush fishes for TV.

In three and one-half years, Bush has never been in Washington, D. C. during any crisis. And no matter what the crisis is, he doesn’t return! He started this Iraq war and now that it has imploded and is taking down our soldiers and civilians caught in the cross fire, he’s off fishing! While 50 of your sons and daughters died, he is idling away the warm spring days cavorting with the fishing crew of a TV show. Why are we paying this guy $400,000 a year to go on vacation when he can’t even keep us working enough to pay his salary?? Just exactly why haven’t we fired this guy?? What are We, the People waiting for??

APRIL 10, 2004

NO SILVER BULLET; JUST A SMOKING GUN

Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, said “there was no silver bullet”. The Bush administration might not have been able to find the bullet, but there was definitely a smoking gun!

Dr. Rice, under oath; and testifying before the commission investigating the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 as to what the Bush administration knew and when they knew it; was as dumb as Katherine Harris was about her state job of overseeing Florida’s 2000 election! Ms. Harris, now a Florida representative from one of those Republican districts, claimed that she focused her time on tourism and knew nothin’ about no elections; Ms. Rice claims that they had only been in office for 9 months and besides, they didn’t have specific information about when and where terrorists would strike.

Unfortunately for Bush & Co. that smoking gun, in the form of classified memo dubbed a PDB (presidential daily briefing) , was delivered to George W. Bush August 6, 2001. And in spite of it’s eye catching title “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES”, it rang no bells of alarm with anyone in the Bush Administration.

Rice dismissed all the “chatter” as insubstantive. People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than our government had about a terrorist plan of attack before it occured on September 11. In fact, since Ms. Rice felt 270 days was a very short time to “get up to speed” about terrorism; one must ask how President Bill Clinton got himself “up to speed” after only 37 days in office when the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center February 26, 1993!

Those terrorists were captured, tried, and convicted during the Clinton Administration. And an interesting discovery came out during their trial. This plot had to have been hatched under Daddy Bush’s administration and, not only did they have an informant in the group, but the plans for the bombing were recorded by the FBI and shown during their trial!! If the Bush administration didn’t feel that was sufficient indication that Bin Laden had plans to strike in the United States, I doubt the precise information that Rice insisted they need would have convinced them!

The Bush administration had been briefed by the Clinton Administration; they must have had access to the terrorist plots against the United States. I remember news reports of at least three being thwarted during Clinton ‘s two presidential terms; one on the tunnels, one on the bridges, and one on the subways.
And I realize that George W. Bush doesn’t read newspapers, books or watch news reports and that all his information gets filtered through another source that determines the importance of the news; but in 2000, the Millennium, was he really unaware of all the terrorist plots to mark that date? The French foiled a plot to blow up the Eiffel Tower, rumors spread like wildfire that the “terrorists” were planning to use planes to blow up something here. The whole planet was on a higher alert than we had ever seen. Was he distracted by the Y2K scare that our money wouldn’t be accessible?

I’m not going to refute Rice point by point; others have done a great job of that. I just wanted to point out that, if an ordinary citizen had this information by simply watching the news, the Bush administration had access to all those classified documents and insiders like Richard Clark to question about terrorist events that had already happened. They could have compiled a pretty accurate picture of what was happening among terrorist groups. We knew the first bombing of the Trade Center was an al Quaida attempt. Can’t these people even put 2 and 2 together? Did they even try?

According to Rice’s testimony, the answer is NO. Clark sent them memos, requested meetings, turned in reports (which were returned for him to “do over” like graded homework), and neither Rice, nor her cohorts felt it important enough to dig into although they had to know that bin Laden had already struck once. They didn’t even have to dig out the information - it was in court records in New York!!

So while the Bush administration preoccupied themselves with finding a way to invade Iraq, bin Laden marched his group of terrorists right into the United States, hijacked airplanes even though no one had succeeded doing that since the 1970’s, and took out the New York financial district and the seat of our military power totally unopposed. The series of mistakes and coincidences that had to occur to lead to the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans is simply unacceptable! Investigations must be done; someone must be responsible. EVEN IF THAT SOMEONE IS THE INDIFFERENTGEORGE W. BUSH!!

Bush had taken his oath of office a full nine months before this happened. If it takes that long for a change in administrations to get themselves “up to speed” why was he so quick on the Iraq thing, why did he undo everything Clinton had put into place during his first weeks in office, jump on the abortion issue, start his funding of “Christian” charities so fast?

It appears he is only “slow” on certain issues, like investigating corporations like ENRON, unemployment, terrorism.

APRIL 9, 2004

TAKING IT EASY

It’s a beautiful spring day in Crawford, Texas. George W. Bush is taking another week long vacation, enjoying the luxury of his state of the art ranch, and inviting a few friends to drop by for fishing and hunting.

And while he, and his lobbyist pals, fish and hunt and bask in the beauty of a Texas day; the men and women he sent to Iraq were busy fighting and dying in one of the worst attacks since he declared the war “over” in May, 2003.
While he fritters away the hours listening to “wildlife conservation groups” who view the invitation as “provide(ing) direct lobbying and grassroots coalition support to protect and advance the rights of hunters, fishermen, trappers, and scientific wildlife management professionals”, the Sunnis and Shiites have banded together in a coalition that has seized partial control of three Iraqi cities.

While Bush vacations, Japanese civilian aid workers have been kidnapped and threatened with being burned to death, military casualties have reached an all time high in just three days and the U.S. military is engaged in pitched battles to regain control. And the generals who run Bush’s Iraq war are insisting they need more troops. Perhaps the hunters Bush is entertaining might care to lend a hand and help him hunt down Iraqi militants -- probably not.

While Bush is otherwise engaged, two thoughts are emerging from the chaos of Iraq:

1. Getting more men to the generals to bring the fighting under control. This requires activation of more men from somewhere. Since most of the National Guard --who should be defending the euphemistic “homeland” under Bush’s Patriot act -- are now in Iraq that leaves the dreaded “D” word, which no one plans to use this close to an election. Plus, it would take time to activate, train, and ship a group of young boys to Iraq to relieve the weary National Guard troops already there.

So far, they have just refused to bring the National Guard troops home after their tour of duty, or their enlistment, is up. This solution can not be sustained indefinitely.

2. Hire mercenaries! This appears to have already been underway. Those “civilian” contractors killed in Fallujah were “private security employees” hired by the United States government. There appears to be approximately 20,000 security firms hired by the U.S. government and it appears that the U. S. government is supplementing the army with these private firms.
We know that the men who were killed were from the security firm of Blackwater, and that all of those men had military connections before joining that firm. A news article on the MSNBC website says that the firms are being hired by the U.S. government to protect its employees in Iraq and that the contracts are managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority (?) and that coordination between the CPA and the U.S. military is limited.

Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military command headquarters in Baghdad, stated: “There is no formal arrangement for intelligence sharing. However, ad hoc relationships are in place so that contractors can learn of dangerous areas or situations.”

The need for a private security force increased after the war ended and is expected to grow to 30,000. With the latest rebellion, it may take more than that. Right now the private security firms have banded together and are in the process of organizing what may be the largest private army in the world, with its own rescue teams and pooled intelligence. They say it is because they can’t rely on U.S. or coalition troops for intelligence or help.

What this will mean for the military in Iraq is yet to be seen. A force this large, and under nonmilitary control, may have different goals than the U.S. military. And now the generals must be cognizant of two very large factions; the united Iraq militants and the private security force who doesn’t plan to wait for military orders before they act. This will definitely insure further destabilization.

But it appears that, just like when Bush said, “Bring it on”, when he says, “it’s over”, it is over. No matter how many Americans and “coalition” forces get killed. But those 647 known casualties in Iraq are far, far away from Bush and his Texas ranch. The war’s over, folks, now move on!

APRIL 8,2004

THE “WAR PRESIDENT

”The cowardly man who refused to go to the VietNam war, or to speak out against it, was plenty eager to go to war with Iraq and to tell everyone that he was a “war president”. But the image I found at .michaelmoore.com/ says more profoundly that any words what George W. Bush’s need for war has wrought. Every photo represents a real life that no longer exists. Every photo represents a family that is in mourning; lives forever altered.
And although the images of Bush’s sacrifices may not be imprinted upon his face; they are surely imprinted upon his soul.

Please take a minute out of your busy day and visit this site at amleft.blogspot.com/ and look at the faces who make up the face of Bush. With close to 650 dead, it is very possible that you may recognize some of them.

APRIL 7, 2004

SOLVING UNEMPLOYMENT -- BUSH STYLE

Consider the mass of unemployment over. George W. Bush has just released his plan to put America back to work and you won’t believe it! We are all going to become auto mechanics or health care workers!!

I can see the field of auto mechanics picking up since most of us will not be buying any new cars soon; however, I don’t think 10 million mechanics is a real solution to the unemployment problem. And, according to what I’ve read, these jobs are supposed to fill the gap for student’s graduating from high school or trade schools.
In fact, Bush is very vague on what sort of careers a college degree in engineering, technology, teaching, the sciences or the arts will get you. He is so vague that it isn’t even mentioned; and although he plans to give $5,000 grants to poor students who “emphasize math and science”, he also plans to impose new restrictions on Pell grants that might help those “poor students who emphasize math and science” get a college degree!!

Critics say that Bush’s plan would only serve about 5 students per campus if spread across the nations traditional colleges and fewer, if trade schools were included. Since approximately 5 million children are presently living in such poverty that they don’t get enough food, how can they get job training on the pittance Bush proposes?

Bush, who probably couldn’t pass a high school proficiency test, is planning to mandate one for every high school senior. And after these high school seniors pass that proficiency test, he is directing them to vocational schools. He wants to cut the Perkins Vocational Education program from approximately $1.3 billion this year to just $1 billion -- once again, fewer funds for those “poor” students needing a little help with their training.

He wants to replace the Perkins program with the “Secondary and Technical Education” program; whatever that is. He says, “When kids are coming out of vocational training programs, they’re going to need to do more than just what’s taught at the vocational training level. They’re going to need to be able to think.” Uh, considering Bush got to be appointed president with nary a cognitive thought, who gave him this brilliant idea. And when I was in school, we began “thinking” before first grade; not after we graduated!!

Totally leaving aside the massive loss of manufacturing jobs, the death of the technology industry, outsourcing everything from mail order to computer work, the downturn in all service sectors from fast food to the travel industry, just what’s left?

Bush, unemployed and living off trusts and allowances until he was almost 40, has no concept of “working for a living”. It shines through everything he proposed or legislates. These children he has relegated to “trade school” don’t have fathers with rich friends who can suddenly supply a job to them when they decide they want to run a football team or start an oil company.

Their families don’t have the resources to support them in their educational pursuit. Most workers today have faced numerous job losses through downsizing, corporate takeovers, and now the new evil -- outsourcing. They have taken salary cuts and watched their retirement funds plummet.

The reality of the Bush “job plan” is that it is too little and almost four years too late. He’s not only going to have to turn lose a lot more of our tax money to educate and “train”; he’s going to have to create new categories of jobs to replace what we have lost. Auto mechanics, and health care workers in a country where people can’t even afford gas or a doctor’s visit ain’t gonna do it.

Or he could get tough on outsourcing and just bring back the old ones -- nah, he won’t do that.

APRIL 6, 2004

WE TOLD YOU SO

Mr. Bush, do you remember a year ago when We, the People, content with the peace and prosperity of eight Clinton years, told you decisively, and loudly, that we did not want you to invade Iraq? Do you remember the world wide demonstrations against your invasion of Iraq? Do you remember your United Nations’ rebuke when you requested their aid; your sneering attitude toward “old Europe” and veiled threats and promises of retribution if they did not assist you?

We do. AND WE REMEMBER TELLING YOU THAT WE DID NOT WANT YOU TO INVADE IRAQ. We told you with millions upon millions of demonstrators that you ran away from. The world told you, and they are still telling you. The people of Spain told you last month.

If you had been a smarter, a more learned man, you might have foreseen the consequences of your invasion, as we did. But with your blindness and greed, you placed our country’s honor and our reputation in jeopardy to secure oil fields in Iraq so that your campaign contributors would acquire more money. No bid contracts to Cheney’s Halliburton who inadequately supplied our soldiers.

You lashed out at your critics and those who blew the whistle on the WMD lies you used to invade Iraq. You continued to destroy lives and reputations to try to keep your myth of danger from Iraq viable.

Well, Mr. Bush, you have succeeded. American lives are very much in danger from Iraq -- now. Since you began your invasion one year and 18 days ago, we have lost approximately two soldiers a day. (I have to say “approximately” because you keep a secret tally of casualties and wounded.) If you count the countries you have dragged into your war, it is more than two a day. And even as I write this, more are dying.

Within the past two weeks, you have done something that Saddam Hussein, the leader you deposed, could not do. You have united two religious factions, the Shites and the Sunnis, in a common cause. And that cause is a holy war against the citizens of the United States of America. Now you have another leader to depose, a religious leader that the Iraqi people have united to protect.

Just yesterday you unleashed the might of the U.S. military, with bombs and guns. In a country where women and children have no rights, you killed sixteen children and at least 8 women. 12 of our Marines died. How many more will die before you pacify Iraq? An old Iraqi man was quoted as saying, “...so we will keep killing them...we found our way, just now. We gather together now.”

Perhaps if you had not refused to serve in VietNam you would know the blood price of a war. Perhaps, if you had witnessed the deaths of your comrades who became your friends in that terrible war, you would not have been so eager to taste the blood of war. Wars never change, Mr. Bush, real people die for someone else’s “cause”. And their families live with the results of war for generations.

What is our “cause” in Iraq? Not to “free the people”, they are fighting your version of “freedom”, just as the Viet Cong did. Take a short walk from our White House sometime, to the black granite wall with the names of over 58,000 men and women who never had a chance to live their lives. Do you know one person who has their name engraved on that wall? Stand awhile and watch those who visit. That war and its consequences has never ended for them.

Nor will the Iraq Invasion. Not even after its monument is built to those who died on the sands of Iraq, by your hand.

APRIL 4, 2004

They must call themselves political parties because of all the waltzing around they do. George W. Bush is busy tap dancing from issue (bad economy) to issue (Iraq invasion) to issue (overturning Roe v Wade) to issue (doing away with social security and medicare). Kerry is always two steps behind and dancing faster and faster just to catch up with the Bush Spin!

And there really isn’t much difference between the two. Both arrived where they are by the good fortune of being born into families with money and social connections. Both went to Yale and both were members of the elitist Skull and Bones. Both went into some form of military service; Kerry to VietNam and Bush to a purchased position in the Texas National Guard.

Kerry spent the VietNam years in a gunboat; Bush spent them campaigning for one of Daddy Bush’s Republican friends. Kerry came home and testified before a 1971 Senate Foreign relations committee and Bush decided to skip his final year of military commitment to go to grad school for an MBA (fuzzy math???)

Here’s where their paths diverged, while Kerry was out there telling it like it was in VietNam; Bush was still partying. But, after law school and a lot of political work, Kerry became a Senator, and after numerous failures in business ventures supported by Daddy’s friend, Bush used his political influence to steal the presidency from Al Gore.

So they both ended up employees of We, the People and we must ask the question: Are they worth the money we pay them? If your answer is yes, then you like being poor, spied upon, manipulated with lies and dying for the Bush/Cheney oil fields. If you answer no,

then you had better get off your duff and demand results just like your boss demands from you! Because neither Bush nor Kerry has a plan to get us out of the chasm Bush has pushed us into!

VIETNAM 2

Bush can’t handle Iraq. In May 2003, he declared the war over, did a little strut across an aircraft carrier off the coast of the U.S. to prove it, and now, almost a year after he told us the war had ended, after his “bring it on” speech, the ripples of death spread wider and wider as the casualty count grows to 616 Americans dead. He wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein more than he wanted Osama bin Laden, and all of our energy and our military forces are now engaged in a war without end.

Those of us old enough to remember VietNam, know what comes next; more bombing, more killing and more body bags coming home uncounted. They hid the body count in VietNam, too. Those were young boys with their lives ahead of them. Bush has targeted a different group; men whose careers were in mid stride, who had wives and young children, and young college age kids seeking funds by National Guard Service for a college education they could not afford.
We are now fighting a war with the whole country; not a despised dictator. We have united religious factions, labeled one of their religious leaders an “outlaw.” This invasion of Bush’s may continue for a decade because you can not pacify an inflamed people. You can only kill them. And they tell us daily that we must increase our military strength, that our military is spread too thin. Where do you think those soldiers will come from?

Your sons. There will have to be a draft to fight this one small country. Your sons will die. And for what?
“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
-------John Kerry, 1971-------

APRIL 3, 2004

CONVINCE ME

The article said that prominent “liberals” were pleading for Ralph Nader to withdraw his candidacy for president. They call his bid “quixotic and destructive”, and accuse him of being responsible for the Florida Debacle in 2000. They say Vice-President Al Gore would have won if Ralph Nader, running on the Green party ticket, would have not been there.

Convince me that Nader, and Nader alone was responsible for those stolen Florida votes. Convince me , that when those members of the House of Representatives brought their formal challenge to the validity of the Florida election results to the floor of the House and Senate before they confirmation Bush, that it was Ralph Nader who stopped the process.

Convince me that Chairman Berry of the 1965 Civil Rights Commission gave a comprehensive report of the illegalities perpetrated in Florida to Ralph Nader. Convince me that it was Ralph Nader who refused to investigate the charges and not John Ashcroft. Convince me that it was Ralph Nader who went whining to the Supreme Court when the vote totals did not go his way.

And convince me that it was Ralph Nader’s Green party who surreptitiously corrected all those absentee ballots that were incorrect and should never have been to Bush.

Convince me that it was Ralph Nader who stated flatly that no votes would be added to the certified totals and then added an additional 65 votes to push Bush above Gore while refusing to add 350+ legitimate Gore votes that would have given Gore a decisive win over Bush.

Convince me that Ralph Nader isn’t running for president because he is doing what he has spent a lifetime doing - protecting citizens and consumers from powerful people. And convince me that Nader is the one who trashed the People’s candidate Dr. Howard Dean.

Ralph Nader was one of fifteen candidates listed on the ballot in 2000. Although it was said that he had at least 10%, perhaps as much as 15% of the vote, he barely eked out 3% when all the votes were counted. 2,831,066. He did not qualify for federal matching funds.

A bigger “spoiler” was Ross Perot, who disliked the first Bush so much that he formed his own political party in 1992. With none of the political hysteria that went on in Florida; because Jeb Bush had told his brother, George W., that he won the election even before all the votes were counted; Ross Perot raked in 19,741,065 votes for a percentage of 18.87%.

Ross Perot was a dissatisfied Republican, and when he left the Republican party and formed his own, he took a lot of well to do Republicans with him. The first Bush received only 39,102, 343 votes. Perot’s vote total would have put him above Clinton’s total of 44,908,254.

Clinton had done such a good job as President that the 1996 election lowered Perot’s percentage to 8.4% and his total votes to 8,085,402. Adding those votes to the Republican candidate Dole’s totals would still put him 8,203,594 votes away from a win though. (We liked Clinton.)

And, with Clinton’s term in office drawing to a close, Vice President Al Gore faced one of the most vile and dishonest elections in our recorded history. It was NOT Ralph Nader who muddied the waters with strange ballots, closed voting precinct, lost voter registration records, counted illegal absentee ballots, or did such a broad search for “felons” that 94,000 Floridians -- more than half black voters -- were not allowed to vote even though they should never have been removed from the registration list.

Nor was it Ralph Nader who mounted court challenge after court challenge to keep Vice President Al Gore from being declared the winner. The Republican party did that all on their own; and with the help of appointed individuals whose loyalty lay with the Republican party rather than We, the People, who they were charged with keeping safe from harm.

In spite of the Republican push to remove President Clinton from office, we were content with his leadership. He returned us to prosperity and made sure we could find jobs. He stopped several terrorists attacks. Vice President Al Gore told us, during the debates, that terrorism was a high priority for our country, and he had a lot of experience in handling it.

George W. Bush didn’t think it was important, that Iraq was the problem, not terrorism. And he said so during his campaign. Perhaps Ralph Nader is being held accountable for that also because the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country occurred under George W. Bush’s watch. Thousands of people lost their lives. Could President Gore have stopped it? We’ll never know because those same “liberals” decrying Nader’s candidacy stood aside and let George W. Bush assume control of our Nation.

Our Constitution is a wonderful document; it provides many opportunities to address wrongs. When Richard Clark stood before the 911 Commission and said, “Our government failed you.”, he was right. All those elected officials in the Senate and House of Representatives failed you when presented with an opportunity to investigate the Florida Debacle and it was ignored. The Supreme Court failed you by getting involved with election results after Bush’s suit to stop the vote recount was rejected by lower federal courts. The Florida courts failed you by not allowing the challenges of illegal voting practices to be heard.
And now, in 2004 we are having a replay of the same problems, unfixed, unsolved. Democratic “liberals” who so venomously attacked Howard Dean and selected John Kerrie from the pack of nine candidates (through the party caucus process) has turned the campaign back into a “politics as usual”. We are faced with a nationwide voting system that has not been fixed, with “updated” machines that produce no paper trail for a recount and who can tabulate and fix “incorrect” votes without us even knowing it.

Who will win? The person the voting machines are set for? And what passes for liberal Democrats can continue to place the blame on Ralph Nader and refuse to see their culpability. Nader didn’t cost Al Gore the presidency, Democrats who refused to fight the Republican cabal did.

APRIL 2, 2004

FALSE ADVERTISING

It’s official! The Bush government is continuing it’s “economic efforts” to convince we unemployed people that we really have jobs. The “latest” government figures show that payrolls “rocket” higher in March. They say U.S. firms added 308,000 workers -- much more than had been forecast. Look back to when unemployment was 6.1% and tell me if I was right or wrong when I said that by election time the economy and unemployment would be at acceptable limits whether or not anyone had jobs.

Right alongside the “news” of the improving economy were these headlines: ‘SUN CUTS 3,300 JOBS, ‘GATEWAY TO CLOSE ITS 188 RETAIL STORES’, ‘RADIO FLYER TO BUILD ITS WAGONS IN CHINA’ and ‘SNOW: OUTSOURCING CAN HELP THE ECONOMY’.

My question is: What kind of jobs? 308,000 “created” jobs is like a drop in a bucket with over 10 million people looking for work. There are no details about these new jobs. Are they in the dead tech industry where outsourcing to India and China is planned? With sales at department stores, and from the above headline, computer stores, so low; are they really hiring people? Walmarts have installed electronic checkout lanes; so I doubt their increased profits have brought on a spate of human hiring. Let’s see, cars, no, in spite of all the gimmicks, I doubt unemployed and underemployed are tempted to trade in that old car. Last month I read that housing construction had fallen off, so they probably won’t the hiring construction workers.

Where are the jobs coming from???
My theory is: Bush’s imagination. This is the guy who created a whole arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” that have never been found and couldn’t be found by satellite surveillance systems that can uncover ancient cities buried for thousands of years.

Why, this very day, Bush has torn himself away from the recent atrocity in Iraq to visit the depressed state of West Virginia before moving on to greener pastures in Georgia. After a pit stop at Marshall University, to give West Virginians the “good news” about the economy, he will be greeting some of his biggest campaign donors in Georgia who seem to care more about contributing to Bush’s election campaign than creating jobs for the unemployed.

The state of West Virginia, that Bush wants to persuade to vote for him come November, has lost 20,000 jobs since Bush took power. Many of the unemployed there have simply stopped looking for a job, thereby lowering the state’s unemployment rolls to an acceptable Bush level of 5.4%. Their long time senator, Robert Bryd, wrote in the Charleston Gazette, “Fewer jobs. No pension protection. No health care plan. Gambling with the future of Social Security and Medicare.” That is Bush’s legacy to West Virginia, but he didn’t talk about that.
Bush does talk about how outsourcing American jobs is good for us. But he never talks about the billions of untaxed earnings accumulated by companies who have taken their jobs out of the United States. A couple of examples:

Merck and Company did away with 3,200 U.S. jobs in 2003. They have plans to lay off an additional 1,200 workers in 2004. Their sales were up 5% last year but those profits didn’t help those 3,200 workers keep their jobs. Instead, Merck hired 1,300 new workers outside the United States! And they have a cumulative $18 billion dollars in foreign untaxed earning at the end of 2003!! And, according to their annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, they have no intention of ever paying U.S. taxes on that ever expanding amount.

We all know that the tech industry that has developed new products and kept the economy going for so many years is now almost dead. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why. Intel Corporation, “downsized” 3,300 American workers in 2003, but they hired 4,300 workers abroad. And by the end of 2003, Intel has $7 billion in cumulative foreign earning, $700 million more that it has not paid taxes on in 2002. This giant semiconductor firm intends to reinvest theses earning indefinitely in operations outside the United States.

How many more businesses are leaving the tax burden to We, the People who earn a pittance compared to their untaxed billion? Taxes on just one company would have paid the entire cost of the Iraq war Bush started.

What can we do to stop the madness and make America a right to work country again? For a start, get rid of Bush; second, get rid of the legislators who allowed this to happen; and third, take a leaf from Martin Luther King’s book. Bring those millions out of work, under employed men and women to Washington in a giant march that will cover the capitol. Do it before the election. Let each one stand before our White House and make George W. Bush acknowledge them what he has done to this country in three short years. He works for us, fire him!!

APRIL 1, 2004

THEY ‘BROUGHT IT ON’, NOW WHAT?

Mr. Bush,
You dared the people of Iraq to “bring it on” when the killing of American soldiers began. Wednesday they “brought it on” in a terrible, horrific way. It was not the first time such desecration of bodies has happened. A few years ago, an Israeli soldier was caught and beaten to death and when his wife called his cell phone, the perpetrators were only too happy to inform her of the details of his death. And it also will not be the last. As long as men such as these put their religious fever anger, and greed first, it will happen.

Your ill conceived decision that you had to invade Iraq sealed the fate of those men as surely as if you has signed an order with a flourish of your pen. Bad leaders go to war and bad leaders bring death upon two populations; those who invade and those who fight the invaders. No one would have faulted you for pursuing Osama bin Laden and al Qaida to the ends of the earth. But you didn’t. You hesitated and he made his escape. Did you turn our direction to Iraq to prove something to We, the People? Or, is it true that you and your cohorts had planned to invade Iraq long before you were awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court?

Whatever your reason, you seem to have abandoned both Iraq and al Qaida. Deanna Hubert, Bonney Lake, Washington, was quoted as saying that she considered voting for Kerry, but has more confidence in your ability to combat terrorism. She seems to represent a dwindling number of Americans who still believe that tough talk will conquer our enemy.

Instead of accepting “media” hype about your “strong” stance on terrorism, Ms. Hubert, should consider that since you declared war on Iraq -- against world opinion -- that you have preoccupied yourself with pursuing an election campaign and nothing more. As your supervisor, she should count the number of days you were gone from your job and realize that you were out of town during every major crisis our country has faced. You have been on vacation more days than any other presidential employee in history. And you are constantly out there hitting up your friends for campaign donations while a conquered people in Iraq simmer with rage.

Ms. Hubert also stated that she thinks you will take action and that she doesn’t know enough about Kerry to say that he would do as good a job or a better job on terrorism.

You did NO job on terrorism . While you finished a photo op in an elementary school, terrorist expert Richard Clarke was handling the terrorist attack that killed thousands of our citizens. You are good at ferreting out photo opts, like the aircraft carrier stunt, the lip service visit to Martin Luther King’s tomb; but while the tough handle crises, you just get lost.

And while the Iraq war was ratcheted up to new levels by the killing and dismemberment of civilian contract workers in your oil war, you were busy campaigning against a war hero who had been there and done it. You did the same with your opponent, John McCain, also a POW and war hero, while you frittered away your days in the National Guard trying to get a Republican elected, John McCain sat in a bamboo cage in VietNam.

You have created a religious vendetta in Iraq; with the United States and Israel on top of their hit list. And while you are flying around the country promising jobs that can not come, and speak of prosperity that only a wealthy few know, the Pentagon officials, under your command as “Commander in Chief”, are saying that the Mogadishu “incident” is a disaster that may be a turning point for American policy, that Falluja should open your eyes to the facts that your idealistic picture of happy Iraqis greeting U.S. soldiers with smiles and flowers will not happen.

The world waits for your response. What will you do? We have bombed the country to rubble, killing thousands of civilians and creating this anger against us. Can you send more troops to “pacify” the Sunni Triangle using the same methods that Saddam Hussein was accused of using? Will you institute a draft now instead of “after the election” as expected. Are those the jobs you are promising America?

Iraq is now a hotbed of so many different terrorist elements that finding them and rooting them out will be a formidable task requiring someone with far greater energy, intelligence, and strength than you possess. You will have to suspend your money raising activities and your vacations and your election campaign to deal with this. Will you? I don’t think you know how to deal with this mess. You are good at snarling, “Bring it on.” but when they do, you don’t seem to have any sort of plan to deal with it except to ignore it.

You, and your administration are the ones guilty of trying to hid the physical results of your invasion of Iraq. There are no pictures of returning bodies. No respectful show of mourning. No accurate number of the casualties. I don’t know if you even bother to check how many have died since you went to war one year ago. For your information, according to unofficial counts, your war has taken the lives of 704 human beings. 603 were American lives. And every day it increases. How strong does a leader have to be to say,
ENOUGH!!

MARCH 31, 2004

NO ONE AT HOME

“Strongleader” Bush wasn’t the only one MIA during the terrorist attack September 11, 2004. If you have read, or heard anything about, Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” you know that no one was minding the store! While planes hurtled into the World Trade Center, the men who were supposed to “protect and defend” were either unaware of what was happening or safely tucked away.

The most astonishing thing Clarke revealed was that he was the acting president during this time of crisis. He didn’t say this, but he was the one making those life and death decisions that effected us all. While George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about a goat, Clark was three blocks away from our White House when he was notified that an aircraft had struck the world trade center. His first action was to activate the Counterterrorism Security Group, composed of the leaders of each of the federal government’s counterterrorism and security organizations. That was at 9:03.

Remember the well known timeline of Bush setting in that school? Remember that his only public comment was, “That was some bad pilot.” While the CSG began rolling and life or death decisions were being made by Clarke, Bush finished up his photo op at the elementary school.

In spite of the “Strongleader” stuff that emerged after the attack was over, the facts are that Clarke, and Joint Chief of Staff Richard Meyers, were the ones implementing and seeing that the plan of action was carried out. Bottom line, the Bush-Cheney team wasn’t put into office to carry out the duties of the executive office. They were there to invade Iraq for oil. And they were in over their heads when al Qaida finally succeeded in a terrorist attack that they had been trying to carry out before Bush, Junior’s father left office. Ironic, that a plan conceived under the father’s rule succeeded under the son’s.

Clarke tells of the erie feeling of being alone in the vast corridors of our White House, of being stopped and frisked by guards at the bunker door where Cheney, Rice, Cheney’s wife and assorted other staff members such as Mary Matalin , White House Chief of Staff Josh Brolten, and Deputy White House Director Karen Hughes, were. And while Clarke was in charge of making the decisions that would save or destroy our country, Mrs. Cheney was busy turning down the volume of a crisis conference so she could hear CNN reporting on the disaster, and offering advice and opinions on how to handle the situation.

There is more, much, much more, that we all should read and remember before we allow another individual to run roughshod over our democracy like Bush and his supporters have done. But this glimpse of the vulnerability that We, the People, face when ignorance, inattention, or party agendas override our Constitution should be a wakeup call for all Americans. Our very lives depend upon that person who assumes control of our country.

Richard Clarke, in his testimony before the 911 commission that Bush & Co. did not want, apologized to the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. He said, “Your government has failed you.” Yes, it did. But the failure would have been much greater if it has not been for Mr. Clark and his 30 years of experience in government and his constant monitoring of terrorists activities even after Bush had demoted him. When the bewildered elected “leaders’ who had not done their homework looked to him to save them, he knew what to do, and he did it. . And, along with those remarkable men and women of Flight 93, he save many thousands of lives and our White House.

MARCH 29, 2004

SOFT ON TERRORISM

The Polls proving that the people of the United States believe George W. Bush would do a “better job on terrorism” than Senator John Kerry just keep grinding out of the propaganda mills.

These polls contradict the fact that George W. Bush was ineffective against terrorism and attacks by a foreign government; no, not Iraq, CHINA. His inability to make a fast decision and follow it through seems to have escaped his staff, the “media” and all those who have forgotten that this man was “at the helm” when the new millennium began.

You can’t blame President Clinton for George W. Bush’s mistakes. Clinton took the oath of office January 21, 1993, al Quaida bombed the New York Trade Center for the first time February 26. Those responsible for the bombing were caught and are in prison right now. During his 8 years, he foiled at least three al Qaida plots that we were told about - all this while defending himself in court and fighting the Republican push to impeach him. Republicans who whine that, if Clinton had been doing his job, he would have “gotten bin Laden” just emphasize the fact that George W. Bush has a credibility chasm that wouldn’t fit in the Grand Canyon.

The Republican mantra of “Clinton did it” reminds me of one sibling accusing the other of something to distract the parent from his own actions. The man in charge, George W. Bush, points to his predecesor every time he fails at something! It is true that Clinton faced multiple terrorists attempts and attacks. All the more reason for CEO Bush and his top executives to pay close attention to the “terrorist spreadsheet” the Clinton Administration had complied. However, we now know that Bush ignored any terrorist information the Clinton Administration gave to him and his staff.

Our country and our citizens have paid a high price in blood for Bush’s decision. If Clinton can be considered soft on terrorism and not aggressive enough, then Bush & Company can be said to have ignored the whole issue. His claims of being “tough” on terrorism are not born out by reality.

The 1998 attacks, and/or plots on US embassies in Kenya, Tanzania and around the world should have pointed out the seriousness of terrorism to Bush and his team. But, from the date he assumed power, January 21, 2000, the United States has been under attacks which were not caught or stopped. Nor were they handled with any sort of expertise. For a man who invaded another country to tamper with its leadership, he showed extreme reluctance -- to the point of groveling -- to confront China when it shot down one of our military aircraft over international water. He was quite content to use “diplomacy” to settle that confrontation!!

Nor did he get too excited when terrorists bombed the USS Cole October 12, 2000, ten months after he had taken a presidential oath of office. Republicans, so obsessed with Clinton’s private life that the terrorist bombings in Tanzania and Kenya took a back seat to trying to define a sex act, were content to let the Africans handle that terrorist attack. And, those responsible for those 1998 bombing were caught and convicted. The US government, in the form of George W. Bush, seemed sit on their hands while Yemen authorities gave us one huge run around as to who bombed the USS Cole!!

Now, think back to that day, the day that joined Pearl Harbor in infamy; to the chaos, the smoke...the leadership. Whose face stands out? Who was the voice directing those operations? Do you remember the tape of George W. Bush setting in a classroom and smiling while the Pentagon was bombed? Do you remember the face of a stiff and scared man being brought to a microphone long after the world knew the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack had ended?

What stands out in my mind was not any member of the Bush administration; not Cheney, not Rumsfeld, not Rice, not Powell -- not any of those who took us to war in Iraq. I see New York mayor Giuliani, I see the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Henry Shelton, determination written on his face when he tells us he will find and punish those responsible for the New York and Pentagon attack. Nineteen days later, he was unexpectedly retired.

In spite of the Bush rhetoric about punishing the perpetrators, nothing much was done for a month. It took NATO intervention to prod Bush to begin “finding those responsible”. NATO representatives flatly stated that, if the United States wasn’t taking action, they would!

These aren’t the actions of a “strong” leader. These are the actions of someone who either can’t make a decision or is so lazy that none is intended. The families of the victims of September 11, 2001 see through Bush’s image. They also see through the propaganda that is being used to let the Bush administration off the hook. They don’t like the memory of their loved ones being used to barter another term for the “leader”, as we now know, was far more culpable than the “media” reported.

The terrorist attack which took down our financial district and damaged our seat of military power was no accident, no random act. The responsibility for its success must be shared by an arrogant administration who was obsessed with destroying everything President Clinton had done even if it helped to destroy the United States of America. And for that George W. Bush and all of his administration must be held accountable. They failed We, the People just to score “points” for their party. The blood of thousands covers them all.

MARCH 28, 2004

WHAT A FINE MESS...

Bush has gotten us into! I do know that there are people out there who see absolutely nothing wrong with Republicans pressing Clinton for a “confession” about adultery and accusing him of lying under oath about an affair that was really none of our business AND spending millions of our tax money to do it; BUT sees nothing wrong with George W. Bush invading another country that disrupts the lives of most of the country and causes the reported deaths of almost 600 citizens in one year.

WMDs? Hey, Bush had to get those reluctant Americans riled up enough that they wouldn’t mind a few casualties and who really cares that one of those expendable CIA agents was “outed” to get revenge on her whistleblowing husband. Don’t know who did it, and really don’t care -- after all, what is a lie or two when you are in pursuit of oil fields for Cheney’s company Haliburton?
And who cares about a double standard regarding

WHISTLEBLOWER CLARK

After all, National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, has every right to go on every “talk” show and give her opinion about Clark and Clark has absolutely no right to write a tell all book that calls attention to the Bush deficit -- and I don’t mean the economy! And further, Clark has no right to show her up by giving his testimony under oath while she prefers an informal little chat with the 911 committee members to deny Clark’s bulk of evidence. In spite of having been caught in the tangled web of their own deceit not one member of Bush’s “team” sees any reason to be held accountable for their lies and the subterfuge that has killed people.

It truly amazes me how “efficient” the Bush administration is at producing information and “proof” about their critics; but just can’t seem to get it together enough to find out anything about who disregarded the terrorist information supplied by the Clinton Administration, or who was responsible for the false intelligence (?) information about Iraq’s WMDs, or just which White House source gave secret intelligence information to Robert Novak. Come on, we all know people like that, and we wouldn’t trust them to give us the correct time! Who do they think they’re fooling -- oh, right, there’s one born every minute, isn’t there?

And then there seems to be
SOMETHING WICKED BREWING IN CALIFORNIA
Schwarzenegger is being accused of incorporating a “private nonprofit group” to help advance his political goals, where the source of the money will be kept secret. This “nonprofit” group will be allowed to raise money, lobby lawmakers and conduct polls in order to legally avoid disclosure under a number of circumstances.

Question number one: WHY DOES HE NEED THIS SECRET SLUSH FUND? Question number two: WHAT DOES HE PLAN TO USE IT FOR? Question number three: CAN WE, THE PEOPLE, OF CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATE THIS OR STOP IT??

It is said that this new entity will give the governor “a powerful new weapon in hs arsenal” but it raises a variety of legal and ethical questions. Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause stated, “No governor has ever had anything like this before; no one has even thought of this before. Like many other things about this administration, he’s taking us into new ground.”

According to the bylaws, its mission is to “educate the public about the need for government reform and efficienty.” This is not a matter for a money gathering organization to address. It is a matter of legislature. If California want to “address government reform” they have the means to do so without Schwarzenegger setting up a money laundering scam.

He has already began the money dance by moving $100,000 from his recall campaign to the corporation and another $50,000 from his newly created “California Recovery Team”. So far the money put into this strange new corporation was said to pay for mail, research, consulting(?) and public rallies to pressure the Legislature. The excuse for the moves were that, if the campaign was audited, it would be easier to distinguish between the parent committee and the non profit arm, but the experts are puzzled by the transfers, saying if the two are the same, there would be no reason to move money between the two. Yup!
Just where does Schwarzenegger thinks he can go politically? Even if he is content with the governorship of California, eventually he’s gotta go. He can only serve two consecutive terms and then what? Move on to the Senate, the House of Representatives? Does he get to take his “nonprofit” fund with him? Does it stay in California?

There are rumors that he thinks our Constitution should be amended so that he could run for president. The amendment has already been introduced by a Republican. The thought chills me. Not just that the Constitution might be tampered with; but that a man who, three years after his oath of allegiance that gave him U.S. citizenship, went to Austria to campaign for a Nazi who was seeking election. That he publically stated, in his wedding toast, that he love this man who was responsible for deporting Greek Jews to Nazi death camps.
But you know what bothers me most? That the citizens of California preferred this man to Governor Gray Davis. That the Bush administration has embraced him by running to visit him in California at least twelve times. That our legislature was silent during his whole recall campaign. That the media ignored the Nazi issue. And that the United States of America just doesn’t seem to care.
Such was the first step taken by Austria before the rise of the Third Reich.

MARCH 27, 2004

SOME CHOICE!!

This morning I have been seeing polls asking We, the People which is most important to us: Jobs or Terrorism. With all the hype, and “Chicken Little” screaming that the “terrorists are coming”, I had expected to see a lean toward terrorism but to my surprise, JOBS came out ahead in every poll.
This tells me something that the pollsters didn’t intend to measure, and that is that “it’s the economy, stupid!!” Being unemployed and without the hope of earning money is terrorism also. What do you do when the money is gone? When your home is being foreclosed, your car payments unmade, your credit cards maxed and your 401k’s - or what was left of them after the stock market crash -- is gone and family and friends are in the same situation as you. There is nothing more terrorizing than to have a sick child and no money for doctors or medicine. Know any pharmacies that give credit?
Faced with the prospect of visiting food banks to feed your children would terrorize any middle class worker who never expected to have to go there. During President Clinton’s first campaign he was inundated with stories of devastated families who had lost everything they had during the Reagan-Bush years. Things got better under Clinton but it took Bush, Junior only three years to not only undo everything Clinton had accomplished with the economy, but to make it infinitely worse!!

Since 2000, fear and terror have become a way of life in this country. And it is also producing an anger against the government who was managing the economy when this happened to us. We have been laid off, outsourced, downsized, taken cuts in pay and worked longer hours and told to retrain ourselves to fit into a “new” service economy where most of the jobs are also slowly going away as airline industries and tourism crumble. Those who were “downsized” in the 80’s and retrained in the computer industry find those jobs are now in India and China. What’s left?

Economists polled by Ruters say they expect joblessness to stay around 5.6% with approximately 130,000 new jobs being “created” in March, 2004. With long term employed numbers still hovering at around 10 million, that leaves approximately 9 million 870 thousand jobs to go. What year do you expect to get your “new” job?? Considering that weekly unemployment is now being reported as under that 400,000 “magic” mark but still way over a quarter of a million new unemployment claims being filed each week; how many years will it take to get to you?

But there is also growing speculation that employment growth is not strong enough to sustain consumer spending, which makes up 2/3 of the U. S. economic growth. So true, how do you spend what you do not have? In fact, how does the government tax you if you have no income; therefore, tax revenue must also be down. I think we can all see this domino effect.

And here’s a little fact that no one is really talking about yet. Gas prices are now hovering at $2 a gallon, with no government freeze in sight. And, just this morning, a news report said crime at the gas pumps was rising - in other words, there has been a noticeable increase in people filling their tanks and driving off without paying. Watch as the crime statistics rise. Survival instincts do kick in, and most will (and studies support this) commit crimes to survive.

Becoming reclassified as an unindustrialized nation; which we are so close to that Bush is planning to reclassify service jobs as industrial jobs; is just one indication of our slide down the “civilized nation scale”. There are more; such as infant mortality, lack of health care, and approximately three million children going hungry in this country of enormous wealth. And all of these factors can be traced to the dearth of jobs and inadequate salaries.

You would expect that the two men who want to be elected president would have drastic plans to stop this. Bush plans to make the tax cuts for corporations, inheritances, and companies who have moved their plants abroad, permanent. He says outsourcing American jobs is good for the economy. That we will benefit from it - but he doesn’t say how we can benefit from it or how it will create jobs in the United States.

Kerry’s plan includes creating 10 million jobs and eliminating “tax loopholes” that “push jobs overseas”. He doesn’t tell us how he plans to create those jobs, what areas they will be in or how he plans to retrain a workforce that had been told to reeducate themselves in the technical field which, everyone agrees, is dead in this country. And he also plans to cut corporate taxes by 5%. Whether this is in addition to the Bush corporate tax cut or in place of it, is unknown at this time.
What is known is that We, the People are going to be the big losers whoever wins. Bush is depicting Kerry as soft on terrorism and says Americans believe he is the better “protector” against terrorism. How unbelievable that we have forgotten that Bush did not challenge China when they shot down our aircraft, that he didn’t move from his chair at an elementary school while our nation was in crisis or that letting the Saudis leave this country after September 11, 200l was more important than getting our elected leaders back home. Or that he went against world opinion to invade a country that had been under the United Nation’s eye for twelve years by terrorizing us with threats of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

After a Democratic “unity” dinner to raise money for candidate Kerry, it was reported that former President Bill Clinton outshone it’s “star”, that he gave a “virtuoso” speech. Clinton has proved one thing, to us that he can, and will, deliver on his promises. I say, let’s just skip all this rote election stuff and invoke the Constitutional clause that says our government derives their “just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” and appoint Bill Clinton as president again. After all, there is a Supreme Court precedent for appointing someone president, so why can’t We, the People use it also.

MARCH 26, 2004

MORE THAN BAD TASTE

Yesterday four parents were notified that their two children were dead. They died in Iraq. The day before another set of parents learned that their son was dead. And while these six parents and their families cope with the aftermath of death, notifying all of the family members - the brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends and favorite teachers, employers -- and winding their way through miles of red tape that accompany a death, to plan funerals and find burial plots; George W. Bush was entertaining a gathering of radio and television journalists with as slide show narrated by himself.

While these families were busy with the shock and disbelief of grief, Mr. Bush, in slide after slide, pretended to look around the oval office for weapons of mass destruction. “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere.” he joked to the audience while showing a slide of him looking under his desk. To their shame, the audience applauded.

He also joked about the strained relationship between Europe and the United States because they refused to participate in his invasion of Iraq and poked fun at the secrecy that shrouds his administration so tightly that we really don’t know how many American citizens were maimed or died in Iraq; how many Iraqi civilians were killed in his bombing raids.

The callousness of Mr. Bush’s “joke” was witnessed by a group of reporters. They could have shown him how shameful his “joke” was, but they applauded him. Just like all our legislators applauded when he gave the State of the Union Speech telling us that Iraq had WMDs.

All through the WMD lies, the intrigues, the accusations, that led up to that “war”, they had the power in their pens to question the actions of Mr. Bush and to give We, the People, the truth. But they didn’t. Even today, they hold no one accountable, do not investigate the allegations. They sat through the despicable depiction of a White House “hunt” for WMDs that showed just how far removed from the consequences and the reality of the war Bush is.

It is reported that 589 Americans have died so far because of Bush’s hunt for those WMDs. Because of his penance for secrecy, which he joked about with the reporters, we do not know if this is an accurate total or just what they can not hide. How the news of George W. Bush’s little “joke” must hurt them today. There are l,l78 parents and countless stepparents, brothers, sisters, wives, children, and other family members and friends who still mourn those lost to create Bush’s “jokes”.

Bush should emulate Richard Clark instead of vilifying him and apologize to, not just the families of the victims of September 11, but to the American people whose lives he has interrupted or stopped because of his narcissistic hunt for weapons of mass destruction. This is not something to be proud of, not something to joke about. To We, the People, it shows a lack of compassion and caring that every American leader should have.

It takes enormous gall to ignore the pain and suffering you have inflicted upon the people you have asked to protect. What sort of man then provides jokes about the reason he sent you to die? Like dancing on their graves, isn’t it?

MARCH 25, 2004

THE HITLER FACTOR

It seems to have started with the MoveOn.org contest asking ordinary citizens to submit 30 second ads; the winner to be used as a political advertisement against George W. Bush. Among the fifteen hundred submitted for consideration was an ad calling attention to the similarities between the Third Reich and the Bush agenda.

It set off a firestorm of Republican indignation and condemnation of MoveOn.org but it also seemed to have inspire the Republican party in a new direction - comparing critics to Hitler. Such statements as Congressman Tom Cole (R, OK) made to supporters, “If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election.” and concluding that a vote against Bush was like a vote for Adolph Hitler.

Unfortunately for Congressman Cole, and other Hitler invoking Republicans, the Truth is out there and it doesn’t take much research to find it.
Hitler considered himself a very religious man; god was on his side. he established a “correct” German religion, just as he established a “correct” German race. Catholic priests, who desperately tried to save Jewish children through baptism and concealment, ended up in labor camps or shot.

One of George W. Bush’s first acts as “president” was to establish a religion. Clearly against our constitution, he started funneling money into churches espousing HIS religious beliefs. His United States Attorney General showed his bias by starting “prayer groups” held in the government office building. They both moved forward from there to try to overturn Roe v Wade by decrees and withholding of funds for women’s clinics in the United States and international programs through the U.N. With aids rampant in Africa, he yanked all support for programs that remotely involved abortion; most of which concentrated on education and birth control.

In three short years, he has proposed the removal of rights to two groups - women and homosexuals - by promising to implement a constitutional amendment that would define and structure the legal and/or religious contract of marriage.
And, the Republican party worked overtime and spent millions of dollars on a recall election of the California governor, Gray Davis, to put into place a naturalized citizen who repudiated his oath of allegiance to the United States by supporting and campaigning for a Nazi candidate in his native Austria!
But it didn’t bother the Republican party that Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to address his father’s Nazi service; or lamented “this Nazi thing” which kept his good friend, Kurt Waldheim, from attending his wedding due to U.S. sanctions or that he had been put on a world wide watch list in case Waldheim planned to start a Fourth Reich. It bothered Schwarzenegger not at all that there was proof that Waldheim had deported Greek Jews to Nazi death camps during World War II. He publicly stated that he loved the guy. And Bush is obviously not bothered by Schwarzengger’s Nazi bias either, he spends a lot of time in California now that Schwarzenegger is in the governor’s mansion.

And then there are the financial ties that George W. Bush’s grandfather had with Nazi Germany. Here, too, the investigation can be found in the Congressional Record for those who can’t or don’t want to believe it. From what I have read, his grandfather was close to being tried for treason, and he did lose a lot of the Bush fortune to sanctions.

There is also the mark of arrogance. Hitler flouted world opinion and invaded Poland. Bush flouted world opinion and invaded Iraq. Hitler said he was doing it for the good of the world. George Bush also says he is doing it for the good of the world.

Hitler began his crusade by eliminating the “feeble minded” and the ill who could not survive on their own. George W. Bush refuses to consider universal health care for those who can not take care of themselves. And a good portion of the population of the United States thinks this is all right.

Hitler moved on to homosexuals, denying them rights and then just eliminating them. George W. Bush’s new crusade to get a constitutional amendment to ban certain marriages. And the Bush government has just ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from their federal jobs because of sexual orientation. The Bush administration had stated that they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. Government websites have begun deleting information about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.

We know the term “liberal” is spit out in the same way the “n” word once was. Hitler could not tolerate “liberals” in his country or in the churches. Neither can Bush or the men who serve as his mouthpieces in the public news forum.
Hitler’s “press” reported what he wanted reported. The “media” in the United States is guilty of the same thing. At a conference analyzing the “media’s coverage leading up to, and including, the Iraq invasion, reporters admitted that pressure and fear at appearing to be unpatriotic prevented journalist from doing their job. Michael Massing, whose article in the New York review of Books, found the Washington Post and the New York times particularly at fault for not investigating but relying on the Bush administration leaks that were false. He stated bluntly, “The press did not do their job.”

But the lack of media investigation didn’t start with the Iraq Invasion. The catastrophe that struck New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 was skewed from the start. Not one journalist picked up on the fact that the man they were depicting as a “strong leader” sat in an elementary classroom while terrorists tore apart buildings and our seat of military power. No one criticized Bush for grounding all air traffic -- except for the Saudi planes that took bin Laden’s family out of the country. There was no criticism of the fact that it took about a month and a NATO threat to act without the United States before Bush decided to take on Afghanistan.

Hitler died where he had lived throughout the war, in a bunker, out of harms way. When the Allies, the United States, the British, the French, and the Russians, were closing in, he chose suicide and left a devastated country behind. And the legacy the Allies discovered were Auscwich, Triblinka, Birkenau, Belzec, Dachau, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek; Nazi death camps responsible for killing at least 6 million Jews, and over 6 million others. When the German people were questioned the soldiers said, “I was just following orders.” The German people excused themselves by saying, “I was a good German.”

Those death camps haunted not only the survivors freed by the Allies, but the soldiers who found them. It is a horror we do not want to forget, but most of those old soldiers are long gone. And some of their memories have gone with them. But there is much to remember if we chose to do so. The one lesson that was learned from the atrocities committed in the name of God, of protecting the people , should never happen again.

We live in a Democracy. We live in a free society. What has happened in the past three years takes us too far down a road that we do not want , and should not, travel. George W. Bush is not omnipotent, he was not chosen by anyone’s god to be the standard bearer for our world. His own past is too shadowed with secrets and lies. And, We, the People do not want, in some not so distant future to excuse ourselves and our country by saying, “We were good patriotic Americans.”

MARCH 21, 2004

CONSPIRACY THEORY

Any time two critics of George W. Bush get together to talk about September 11, the Iraq Invasion, loss of jobs, lack of health care and the scary tampering with the Social Security Pension Fund, or the largest deficit in history, it is dubbed a “conspiracy” against the “great” man and his Republican cohorts. If we believed the political rhetoric coming from the Republican party leadership and financiers, the United States and the planet Earth is filled with conspirators who tell lies about George W. Bush.

I wonder how they do it.
Faced with several million demonstrators encircling the globe, George W. Bush and his band of merry henchmen, fail to see the significance of their unity. During his state visit to England, Bush & Co. failed to attach any importance to the largest demonstration in English history against his just being in their country, admitting only that they saw “a few” people with signs. During his rush to invade Iraq, he was hustled out of town every time demonstrators against the war came to Washington - and even though they filled all the major cities by the hundreds of thousands, Bush would point with pride to the few hundred who demonstrated for his invasion and ignored the multiple thousands against it.

It happened again March 20, 2004. Exactly one year after Bush invaded Iraq, millions of people marched in hundreds of cities to tell George W. Bush what they thought of his dirty little oil war. And he gave a speech about Iraq’s “day of deliverance”! One defender of the Bush policy, wrote that there are billions of people on the planet and they all didn’t protest the war. Unfortunately, this defender doesn’t seem to realize that many of these billions of people don’t know who George W. Bush is, and have no idea what, or where, Iraq is. Those that do, took to the streets.

Bush refuses to believe that the “coalition” he built on lies and bully tactics is falling apart. Even though nations; like Australia, Britain, Spain, Italy; reluctantly joined the invasion Bush simply could not understand that the people of those countries repudiated his war and were very angry with their leaders for joining him. After Spain so soundly defeated the man who joined Bush’s crusade against Iraq, other “allies” have begun to pull away.

Tony Blair is in so much hot water, that it is all he can do to stay afloat. The backlash of the minority Liberal Democrat party winning an election is staring him in the face. Poland is “rethinking” its position and believes it was “misled”. Two million people gathered in Rome to protest the Iraq Invasion, including members of the police. The leader who supported Bush is in deep political trouble.
But again, it is reported as only “hundreds of thousands gathered worldwide”. Hundreds of thousands gathered in various cities throughout the United States, millions gathered throughout the cities of the world. But to George W. Bush, it is a conspiracy against him and doesn’t really reflect the “true “feelings of We, the People.

Another “conspiracy” is brewing even as he “celebrates” the deaths of 583 Americans who died for a war the world protests. After almost three long years, Government critics are finally surfacing, questioning his conduct during the worst terrorist attack upon the United States on September 11, 2001. While he flits from air base to money raising events, those men whose advice he scorned are finally going public.

There was former Ambassador Joseph Harris and his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. He had the audacity to challenge Bush’s “Iraq has nukes” lie and his wife was used to punish him.

Then Paul O’Neill told the world that Bush just didn’t seem to get it that the country was in grave financial trouble because of what Bush & CO were doing; a three trillion dollar surplus simply gone, heading toward the largest U.S. deficit in history. He was vilified for speaking, threatened with charges.

And now there is Richard Clark, once a Cabinet member heading the U.S. investigative unit on terrorism. He tells us that Bush was intent on invading Iraq, even after the destruction of September 11, 2001. He tells us no one really cared about terrorism; all their attention was focused on invading Iraq. His terrorist reports kept being returned with the notation that he wasn’t giving the right answer.

Do these men provide the answers to why Bush could not rouse himself from his seat in an elementary school, while thousands of Americas were dying, until the attack was all over? Is that why he gave the Saudi’s permission to fly out of the country with bin Laden’s family when no other aircraft was in the air? Is that why he was focused on invading Iraq even though Clark was telling him that al Qaida was based in Afghanistan? Is that why General Henry Shelton was replaced September 30, 2001, after he declared that he would not stop until those responsible were caught and punished by the might ot the United States military?

Is that why NATO began a response against al Qaida while Bush spent a month waiting?Call it a “conspiracy theory” if you will, but if all the ghosts of all the citizens who have died since George W. Bush assumed the office of president, came back to haunt him, the Capitol would be filled with wraiths.

MARCH 20, 2004

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, MR. BUSH

George W. Bush is celebrating today; it has been exactly one year since be began the invasion of Iraq which his assembled henchmen dubbed a “cakewalk”. One year later, Bush’s “cake” has been frosted in the blood of 577 dead American soldiers, 10l deaths of our “allies” and over 3,300 wounded and maimed. But Bush’s Iraq commandeer, now retired, Tommy Franks gave a speech January 29, 2004 before a Kansas Chamber of Commerce event where he declared, “If it costs 500 that’s ok, or 5,000, or 50,000 that’s ok with me.” Would 5 million be too many?

We will never know the blood price of the Iraqi citizens; as the invasion commander Tommy Franks, when asked about civilian casualties, retorted, “We don’t do body counts.”

But We, the People do honor our military dead, even when they are sent to die for oil. They hid the blood price for VietNam from us also. They denied the deaths of those young boys that were sent off to die for we know not what. And someday, there will be another memorial inscribed with the names of all those American citizens that George W. Bush and his “band of brothers” Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, and Franks sent to die for Halliburton’s profits.
Bush, the National Guard pilot who checked off that he would not serve in Vietnam, is as good at celebrating “pretend” courage as Ronald Reagan, who often confused World War II movie scripts with actual service. Bush “pretends” that he served as a pilot in the National Guard although he was grounded and disappeared for more than a year. He dressed up like a pilot and flew a “pretend” mission to aircraft carriers off the coast of San Diego and “pretended” to have Thanksgiving dinner with troops stationed in Iraq.

He also stood in front of a Joint Session of Congress to give a Constitutionally mandated State of the Union Speech and pretended he was invading Iraq to “save” America. And although a Congressional uproar had ensued over one blue dress, there was no uproar of protest over a “blood for oil” war.

While Bush & Co have been busy playing their little war game; the real threat to America and the rest of the world continues unhampered. While Bush fiddles with Iraq, al Qaida roams the globe, bombing in Bali, Morocco, Baghdad, Spain... piling up more bodies on the pyre of the World Trade Center.

When the citizens of the world roared in protest against the Iraq Invasion, they were ignored. And now their leaders are being repudiated one by one. The million protesters in Spain had warned their prime minister that if he joined the invasion that they would not stand for it. And they did not. The new prime minister of Spain was elected on his pledge to bring their troops home by June unless the United Nation assumes control of Iraq.

Bush is disappointed, he sees this as a weakness. He warns that it will cause more terrorism. Just as he couldn’t understand why; when he declared the “war” over in May, 2003, the fighting continued; he can’t understand why his “iffy” coalition is falling apart. And he stubbornly refuses to deal with the truth. Yesterday he paid a obviously political visit to “thank the troops” for their service. He gave a televised speech calling the anniversary of the Iraq Invasion a “day of deliverance” and painted a picture of the war and reconstruction as a “success story”.

And on the day he spoke, explosions were heard across Baghdad, setting off sirens in the “green zone” where the U.S. coalition headquarters were. U.S. troops killed another reporter. American soldiers were killed. More Iraqi civilians died. Ah, yes. A day to celebrate; more blood to ice the “cake.”

MARCH 19, 2004

IN SEARCH OF A (POLITICAL) PARTY

The mainstream news “media” may have disposed of Dr. Howard Dean’s presidential candidacy with their constant bad press; but he is not gone and certainly not forgotten. Every one of his followers remain true to him; and if Senator John Kerry is elected the next president, he will surely owe much of his win to Dean’s generous support.

Dr. Dean is not your typical politician. He could have blamed the “media” for their constant belittling of his campaign and his supporters, but he has a greater vision than just to “win”. By his magnanimous generosity he has proven to me that he really should be on the ballot instead of Kerry. “I will do everything I can to ensure that the 2004 Democratic nominee runs as a true progressive, as a champion of working Americans and their hopes for a better future. Because -- I will say it again -- that is the way to win in 2004.”

Kerry is the epitome of the status quo, but at this point, he is all we have. Whether Bush or Kerry wins we can’t hope for progressive change. The Iraq war will continue, jobs will still be outsourced, and more manufacturing jobs will disappear. Bush has plans for these things to continue. Kerry has given us no viable option to them.

But, we do have Howard Dean. Yesterday he announced the formation of a new advocacy group DFA, formerly Dean for America, now called Democrats for America. At this point, Dean followers are being urged to support Kerry for president on the premise that we have to get rid of Bush. But the ultimate goal of this group is to return political power to the people; starting at a local level.
The Dean website has posted this statement: “We will show solidarity in our continued campaign to take back the core of power from backrooms and special interests to a political ethos based in, and built from community.” The process has already begun. Just this week, Dean has asked supports to contribute to Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr's. reelection campaign.

The innovative campaign methods of Dean, have swept the internet and the two political parties. Dean plans to continue this base to promote his new organization. The “media” is dubbing this new way of promoting candidates as the “online citizen” Forty-nine percent of Democrats are using the internet, and blogs, to get information, state their opinions and support their candidate. Republicans, still using the tried and true method of donor luncheons, were slow to catch on to the rapid rise of the internet campaign.

But Dean is leading them all with his early entry into the grassroots movement of internet connections. There is no way diverse people in so many different locations could get together to form the huge Dean network without the chat rooms and blogs that have sprung up. There is no way to move news faster. And Dean’s political success over the internet shows just how vast the distance is between what traditional politicians plan and We, the People want.

Democrats are desperate for Dean’s e-mail list. They want those 600,000 people who signed up for the Dean campaign on their team. But, most of those joining the Dean team had doubts about the Democrats, or had been members of now defunct third parties. They gave Dean their support because he was a DIFFERENT Democrat. They don’t want the old party representation.
Dean’s people are staying with him because he has promised to continue to “work to transform the Democratic party and to change America....This party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process...The truth is change is tough...The fight that we began can and must continue...from the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back.”

Dean has emphasized the need to work within the Democratic party to defeat George W Bush; however, he sees as clearly as we do, the need to also change the Democratic party to be less like Republicans and respond more to the wishes of the Democratic political base. If the Democratic party can not, or will not, change, we will move on.

The DFA has the beginnings of a great Third Party. If the Democratic party won’t embrace Dean; then let Dean take his followers and create a party of our own. The political base is there. Rallies are being planned in Seattle and San Francisco, enthusiastic Dean supports still show up at meeting like the March Meetup in Burlington. It is not over. Dean’s idealism did not end when he withdrew from the traditional campaign arena. Build the DFA into a Third party, and we will come.

MARCH 18, 2004

CHEAPER AND QUICKER

On February 26, 1993, thirty- six days after William Jefferson Clinton took office, the World Trade Center was bombed. The men who were responsible, including a blind Muslem cleric, were tried and convicted and are still serving time in the United States prison system.

On September 11, 2001, almost a year after George W. Bush assumed control of the government of the United States, the World Trade Center was distroyed and the Pentagon damaged by three hijacked airplanes crashing into the buildings; thousands of people died. There has been no investigation, no blame fixed except for the nineteen men on board those aircraft. And yet we know that such a venture required a large organization and a network that allowed those men to slip through all of our defenses. We also know the person who masterminded this plan: Osama bin Laden.

We know that many nations warned that an attack was eminent, we know that Bush receive terrorists briefings from the Clinton Administration, we know that he received some sort of briefing in August, approximately a month before the hijacking plan was implimented. And we know that the defense of the United States was botched from the moment those planes were seized, that Bush sat in a classroom while plane after plane zoomed in on it’s target and killed and maimed thousands of American citizens.

We know that when George W. Bush finally made a decision, it was to ground all aircraft except for the Saudi planes that flew Saudi officials and bin Laden family members out of the United States. But Bush has never said why he chose to let them go but denied entry to our former presidents, vice presidents, congressmen and senators.

And this is why, when George W. Bush decided to use the deaths of all those American citizens killed during that attack in his campaign to be elected that the families of those victims roared their disapproval at his callous disregard for their feelings. Remember, as one widow so elequently stated, while her husband burned in one of those towers, Bush sat reading a goat story. And he knew those people were dying - he had been told before he walked into that classroom. Those are not the actions of a leader.
George W. Bush had also promised that he would not exploit 9/11 for his own purposes. Another lie in a sea of lies. The agency which produces ads for his campaign re-enacted the well known scene of firefighters carrying flag draped stretchers form the rubble. Firefighters and their union were offended that the Bush campaign would hire actors and re-create the respectful, final journey of their fallen co-workers for political advertisement. But Bush media advisors retorted that, “there’s many reasons not to use real firemen... mainly, it’s cheaper and quicker.”

Bush supporters also arrogantly tell us “There’s no way you can talk about George W. Bush without talking about September 11...it’s like talking about Franklin Roosevelt without mentioning World War II.” Ah, but FDR never allowed the Germans to invade our shores or bomb our buildings. They also characterize Bush as having made the country “safer, stronger”. But no one trust us anymore.

And Kristin Breitweiser, a leader of a 9/11 family group, called it hypocritical of the Bush team to use the September 11 tragedy when Bush has refused to turn over intelligence documents to the commission investigating 9/11. The family members of the victims have fought long and hard for an investigation that is still to be held.

Like his fathe; who inherited the December 2l, 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 from Alzheimer ridden Ronald Reagan; George W. Bush has done little to answer the question, what went wrong? Like 103, most of the hard investigative work has been done by the families themselves, and they have circumvented many roadblocks thrown in their way to find the knowledge we have today.

Bush is showing an uncaring, callous attitude toward those families and toward We, the People. He approved those “cheap and quick” ads. He is not a strong leader, he is not a man to imulate or to admire. If you want a hero, look to the families of the dead who defy him.

MARCH 17, 2004

THE MONEY WELL IS DRY

Everyone asks me for money. The Democrats send pleas to contribute to their campaign fund because Senator Kerry doesn’t have the funds to compete with Bush. The Republicans want money because Kerry is getting “help” from “activist” organizations. The activist organizations want money so they can help defeat George W. Bush.

Yes, everyone wants me to contribute to their political cause. But I am unemployed. My job was outsourced to India. I have been out of work for almost two years. My unemployment has run out and I have children to feed and cloth. My spouse is facing downsizing and I don’t know where the mortgage payment will come from after the layoff. My 401k was hit bad in the stock market crash and still hasn’t recovered. When I use it to meet expenses, I pay a huge federal tax penalty on it and will have no retirement at all after they “revise” Social Security.

My credit cards are maxed out, I’m behind on my car payment, and bill collectors are threatening me. My son has asthma and no medical insurance. His medication costs over $100 a month, plus doctor visits and emergency room visits. My daughter no longer takes dance classes, dropped out of Little League because we can’t afford new baseball shoes; both of their college funds are gone.

I don’t know where we will go when we lose our house. My parents live in a two bedroom condo and are struggling with their own finances. They lost a lot in the stock market and must watch every penny. My father’s heart condition takes a lot of their cash for prescriptions. My spouse’s parents lost the family farm during the 80’s and have struggled to survive ever since. We had been helping them out. Now we can’t.

I would turn to my brother, but he is in Iraq. His National Guard unit was called up and his family is as hard up as ours, because his wife is working a minimum wage job just to keep the kids fed. And we all worry every day that he won’t come home. We all dread the casualty reports from Iraq, never knowing if he will be among them. His boss wants to lay him off as soon as he gets home. I don’t know what is going to happen to us.
I listen to Kerry and Bush. Bush tells us how great everything is since he took over. Kerry tells us how bad Bush is and that he has the answers. I don’t think either one, born with silver spoons in their mouths, identify with our desperate need. We can’t wait until Kerry “fixes” things, it will be way too late for our family. And we’ve heard these promises before; from Reagan, from Bush, and now from another Bush.

Nothing changes. It’s as if Clinton’s eight prosperous years never happened. I followed the American dream. I have an education, I was considered middle class, I bought the expensive home, the right car, I attained all those things that I was promised. And now they are gone. Soon, I will be living a new life, among homeless people who forage for shelter and food on the streets of one of the richest countries in the world.

They won’t ask me for money then because I will no longer be a real person to them; just a statistic. But I would give one of them my last dime if I thought they would, or could, fix this country again. But I’m keeping that dime. I will probably need it more than they will.

MARCH 16, 2004

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW....

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

The power to do so is not given to the president. Therefore, his bigoted “marriage act”, using his religious belief as the basis for a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional at best, an act of treason at worst. The president can establish no religious rules for marriage, no civil rules for the marriage contract. Congress can not impose religious laws defining marriage.
George W. Bush has meddled with this separation of church and state by directing our tax money to individual religions for charity work and for religious schools. Congress has allowed him to do so. Both are violations of their oath of office and beyond the scope of their powers as laid out in the constitution. But, for the three years of Bush’s reign, religion can pretty much do what they want.

So why did Ulter County District Attorney Donald Williams arrest New York ministers for performing marriages? Because, Mr. Williams decided that the marriages they were performing were “drastically different” from religious ceremonies and that he considered them “civil ceremonies”! As defined by what church, Mr. Williams?? He has decided, although churches have been performing marriages without state licenses for centuries, that Two Unitarian ministers, Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey should be charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license.

Let’s back up here. A license is required as a registration of a marriage, a minister is not required to perform a religious ceremony after the license is obtained but ministers can be arrested for performing a religious ceremony without a license?

Could it be that is isn’t the Unitarian church performing marriages that they have a problem with? Could it be it isn’t the religious ceremony sans license they have a problem with? Could it be that their own religious beliefs have interfered with the separation of Church and State because those getting married were gays?Ah ha!!

Critics say that the arrests are unprecedented and that they are a violation of religious freedom. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism stated, “The Constitution’s promise of religious freedom, and the doctrine of church autonomy should permit clergy to officiate at religious ceremonies without state interference.”
I guess the violation of Amendment I is a one way street. George W. Bush and his government can violate it at will for his beliefs but We, the People aren’t supposed to have access to “freedom of religion”. It isn’t the first time Mr. Bush has imperiously violated our Constitution, it appears it won’t be the last. Perhaps Mr. Bush should be given one of those tests he insists teachers take, to see just how much he understands of his oath of office to serve and protect.

MARCH 15, 2004

OUT OF IRAQ

Although George W. Bush pointed to Spain as one of the major supporters of his coalition to invade Iraq; the people of Spain gathered in protest numbering a million strong. Throughout 2003 their anger at Aznar for involving Spain in Bush’s conquest simmered. They had told Jose Aznar that they wanted no part of the war; he ignored them. Sunday, they repudiated him. Conservative Aznar’s successor, socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez was swept into office on his pledge to withdraw Spain’s 1,300 military force by the end of June unless the United States put Iraq under United Nations jurisdiction.

Aznar is also blamed for the terrorists attack which killed 20l Spanish citizens. By backing Bush’s invasion of Iraq, they feel they were made a terrorist target.

In October 2003, a taped message from Osama bin Laden stated, “We reserve the right to respond at the appropriate time and place against all the countries participating in this unjust war, particularly Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan, and Italy.”

Most of the world was united against our invasion of Iraq, the United Nations refused to sanction it; why, with Osama bin Laden still free, with al Qaida still a viable terrorist group; did Bush set his sights on Iraq? There was nothing going on in Iraq that required our attention. Instead of focusing on eliminating the al Qaida threat, we did a diffident invasion of Afghanistan after NATO told Bush that if he didn’t do something, they would.
Why this redirection of our attention, our military, our resources, and our soldiers lives, to Iraq and let bin Laden go free? The consequences of that mistake is costing the lives of civilians throughout the world. And the anger against the war, expressed by massive demonstrations in those countries whose government gave “support” for the Iraq invasion, has not diminished.

In Britain and Australia, where Bush has made official visits, he could not be shielded from their anger. Everywhere he went he was greeted with signs and boos - even in the Australian parliament. In Britain, they were so fearful that he would be met with the same treatment that he didn’t even address parliament. It was said that he wondered where they all came from. They were there all along. Bush ignored the antiwar protests in the United States and in the countries of his “allies”. No one wanted this war. Everyone wanted the focus to be on the terrorist threat that has continued to kill hundreds of people throughout the world.
Even if George W. Bush is never held accountable for the Iraq invasion, he is held responsible in the court of world opinion and that opinion is being expressed in election results like Spain’s. The people of Australia want their leadership changed, Tony Blair is hanging on by a thread. The largest antiwar demonstration in England’s history took place during the Bush state visit.

Yes, Bush has changed the world; but not in the way he thought he would. Our nation is reviled, we are threatened with war crimes charges, we are no longer a respected superpower. Our people are poor, our children hungry and without medical care. And we let him to this to us. No wonder the world trusts us no longer.

How did it happen? It began in the year 2000 when the highest court in the land declared that George W. Bush would be harmed if all our votes were counted, but Vice President Al Gore would not be harmed if they were not counted. And then that Supreme Court justice who made that ruling administered the presidential oath of office January 20, 2001. The rest is now tragic history.

MARCH 14, 2004

SOME BAD, SOME GOOD

This is the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, A year ago George W. Bush changed the course of United States history and defied the United Nations by standing in front of television camera and our elected leaders to tell us that Iraq was more of a threat to our country than al Qaida, that Saddam Hessuin was more of a threat ot our country than Osama bin Laden.
Bush’s Iraq obsession has maimed thousands and taken the lives of 564 of our citizens. This is too high a price to pay for his ego. Both Kerry and Bush see a “long commitment” in Iraq. I see deja vu. Almost 60 thousand lives lost in a far away country that we were supposed to “save” from Communism just as we are now “saving” the Iraqi people. Now American companies scramble for VietNam’s business and a chosen few companies are getting rich off Iraq. Do those who died in VietNam rest easy knowing they “kept America free” so that companies could do business with VietNam? Do those who died in Iraq?

BEING HUNGRY
The meddling Bush administration, who has set up shop in your bedroom by defining marriage, has now put it’s fingers in your plate to inspect your food. The rich guy who pretends to run the country; has a chef, unlimited food budget, plenty of time for exercise and vacations; thinks your food choices aren’t correct. So he is going to change them.

I have a theory that if the lazy Mr. Bush was broke and lived in a tenement, he might be a tired, fat guy who just wants to grab a ‘burger and get to bed early. Approximately 1/5 of our work force no longer works. Their jobs are GONE. They exist on approximately $200 - $300 a week to pay rent/mortgage, utilities, transportation, food, clothing, and medical care. Let’s see spendthrift George W. Bush stretch that to pay for his weekly consumption!
When government economists say that those drawing benefits have dropped to a 2 1/2 year low, they don’t mean all those people found work -- they mean that unemployment compensation has run out. So, in a society that is getting increasingly poor, due to no jobs or low paying jobs, how do they get the money to buy the expensive food George W. Bush and his family eats? Remember the Great Depression? Listen to the stories of those who lived through it. You’ll hear a lot about surviving on beans, potatoes, flour and such because they were cheap! Now visit a food kitchen where all our millions of poor end up when the cubboard is bare. Lots of bologna and white bread, potatoes and such.

And just to write finish to this blame the victim, also remember this. Bush’s Christian coalition may not believe in evolution BUT, for centuries people have been dealing with famine. Our bodies are efficient machines that convert excess food to storage, or, fat. When food is scarce, we use up that stored supply. If we don’t get the food to replenish it, we die. Maybe we’re getting fatter because our bodies are smarter than our minds at this point. Storing up for the lean times ahead.

WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON DOWN THERE??
Guantanamo. Our little island amid Cuba. That is where we chose to incarcerate the POWs of the Afghanistan war that was supposed to find and eliminate bin Laden. We have adults and children down there. Our government tells us that they are al Qaida agents, that they don’t deserve to have access to a lawyer, or a public trial. A few have been released and they tell tails of torture, of brainwashing techniques like those used by the North Koreans during the United Nations police action in Korea, of interference with their prayers to their god.

All things we have fought against, signed treaties against, condemned countries for.

And after more than two years, five British citizens have just been released from there. There are no charges against them, no apologies for stealing two years of their lives, they just got to go home. Although they were taken into custody when they arrived, they were released without any charges in Briton also. The British lawyer for two of the men, Steven Watt, called their arrest by the British authorities, “...just window dressing for the benefit of the U.S. government.” Watts also stated that this “...makes a complete nonsense of Guantanamo. I think they are owed something by the U. S. government, but whether they will ever be able to get it is another thing.”

Another lawyer, Robert Lizar, said his client wanted U.S. authorities “to answer for the injustice which he has suffered...He has been treated in a cruel, inhumane and degrading manner, he wants the authorities to answer for that.”

Louise Christian, representing another returning POW, said attention should now be focused on the other four men left behind, saying that “...the British government has betrayed their promise to bring all nine British citizens back again.” Britain is insisting that it’s nationals either receive fair trials or be returned home. But there are over 600 other POWs in Guantanamo, what are their countries saying? George W. Bush just keeps getting our country in hot water, doesn’t he?

AND SOME GOOD NEWS
Looks as if at least one of our courts intends to continue to follow our Constitution. Federal Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that it would be a violation of the right to privacy to turn over medical records of Planned Parenthood patients. She urges Ashcroft’s office to not continue to seek the files. But Ashcroft, like Bush, thinks he gets his ideas by divine revelations from his god so....

MARCH 13, 2004

THINGS TO LAMENT

We developed a reputation for tenacity and honor during and after World War II which followed us into the 21st century. It was an awesome responsibility, and true, we had our embarrassing moments during the latter half of the 20th century; but nothing compared to the disgrace we face among civilized nations today. The previous century ended with our nation in recovery, a three trillion dollar surplus to return to the looted FICA retirement fund, terrorists bent on destroying our country tried and convicted, and an economic expansion that could conceivably return us to the booming era of the 60’s and early 70’s BR (Before Reagan).

Our world reputation, damaged by the long involvement “fighting Communism” in VietNam, was on the mend. Regardless of what the Republican party, under the leadership of the so called “Religious Right” chose to think of President Clinton, the nations of the world embraced him and our leadership status was enhanced.

And now, four years into this new century, we are in a pit bull fight for our lives. Civilized countries despise us, no matter what their leaders may say. When George W. Bush was administered the oath of office by the same Supreme Court that gave him the office, the world looked to us and asked, “How did this happen?” We had no answers because We, the People did as we always had done. We had no expectations that our votes could be tampered with, that vile rants could influence our courts to cease to uphold the law. But as challenge after challenge was thrown out of court, we were in shock.
As the man who usurped the power of the presidency, slashed and burned our Constitution and our reputation, we called on the men of the Senate and the House to do their duty and block his path with the checks and balances so carefully crafted in our Declaration of Independence to stop such a power grab. And they failed us.

While civilized countries watched in dismay, we allowed China to shoot down one of our airplanes without penalties; refused to acknowledge the terrorist threat that culminated in the blowing up our trade district and our seat of military power; invaded Afghanistan in a search for Osama bin Laden and ended up with almost a thousand Taliban prisoners, held in a concentration style camp, and where the nations of the world believe we torture and kill these POWs. And we can not refute their claims because we refused to acknowledge them as POWs, refuse monitoring agencies admission, refuse legal representation, or repatriation.

But to the world, the most untrustworthy and heinous act was to bomb Iraq into rubble on the basis of falsified “intelligence.” We don’t even have a number of children and women civilians killed during that invasion. Nor do we have any idea of the true cost in money and lives of those Americans sent to invade Iraq. We are more than halfway, 436 only, to the first causality count of 1,000. And there is no end in sight. George W. Bush declared the war over in May 2003 and the deaths continue. Six were added to that death toll today -- 564 are acknowledged dead, thousands maimed for life.
And while our government still pretends that Iraq was a “threat” to this country the real threat continues to operate across the world. The fear of al Quada and Osama bin Laden, used to scare us into obedience, is a growing menace spreading their terrorism from country to country Bali, Iraq...Spain. The nations of the world grow weary with the excuses of our leaderless state.
They see our rudderless direction, in a boat steered by the Captains of Industry (Halliburon, Bectal, ENRON) upon a tsunami of violence, and they no longer trust us. Our leaders lie to them in our name, denigrate their status and dismiss them as “unimportant” in the name of our superpower status.

We are no longer a superpower.
We have no industry, our people are becoming more and more poor. Our children go hungry and without health care in a nation rich enough to provide for them all. Our schools and infrastructure are crumbling. Those still left with jobs work longer hours, for less income, and no time off. Studies show that, as a nation, we are so sleep deprived and tired that we are an angry society ready to explode into violence against each other.

How can this describe a superpower? It doesn’t.
Can Senator Kerry bring our country back to it’s former glory? Probably not. Kerry often reminds us that he has had 35 years in the Senate, 35 years to protect and defend We, the People, and the Honor of the United States of America. In 35 years he has not shown any vision, and his vote was counted among those who brought this country to this state.

But, if those who decide who can and can not have the nomination for President of the United States give us a choice of Kerry or Bush, then there is no choice. We, the People must vote for self preservation. But, is the choice truly ours to make?
We shall see. We shall see.

MARCH 12, 2004

AMERICAN TOLERANCE

We have a problem. It is more than the lack of concern exhibited by those elected officials, who promised to defend and protect We, the People, but instead greedily stuff their pockets with our tax money. It is more than the pompous assumption that their version of “god” is controlling our destiny. It is the arrogant action of the group of people who laid claim to our Constitution and began to twist it to fit their convoluted theory of what is morally right and what is morally wrong with our country.
From the zealot Ashcroft who shoved his religion into the office of Attorney General with employee “prayer breakfasts” and costly curtains to hid his version of “offensive” to the man who loves to describe himself as “Commander in Chief”; too cowardly to attend his own generation’s war but brave enough to send your children to die in his quest for oil to reward to his political supporters.

The steps toward one man’s ideology are chilling. With the help of both Republicans and Democrats, he passes preferential legislation supporting his religious interpretation and allows tax money to flow into his religious affiliation and by overturning legislation that does not fit with his supporter’s religious views.

And his bias spills over into changing our Constitution. This failure of a man, who somehow believes he is better equipped to frame our Constitution than our Founding Fathers, plans to amend it to determine for all time his version of a “marriage law”.

This is not an inclusive law, “All men are created equal”. A guarantee of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He will decide what marriage is, based on another conversation with his god, not yours. He will define the parameters of marriage that will cascade into women’s rights (women are subservient under his version of the Christian god) racial rights (at one time almost every state forbade marriage between the races) and criminalize sexual orientation. All men are created equal, except under the proposed “marriage act.

”
But another troubling issues involving We, the People, is how quickly Schwarzenegger was embraced by George W. Bush and the Republican party. Bush refused to help the state of California during their energy crisis created by his good friend Ken Lay’s ENRON. But since the recall election that gave the governorship of California to Schwarzenegger he has visited that state over eleven times.

The Republican party doesn’t seem so interested in “womanizing” now that Schwarzenegger is the accused. His history of sexual battery and assault was well known by Republicans when they put him up for the governorship of California. Although they spent 8 years and over $50 million dollars investigating Clinton’s consentual affairs; not one dime was spent investigating Schwarzenegger’s non-consentual sexual battery against women.

Nor did it worry them that this naturalized citizen left this country to campaign for his Nazi friend, Kurt Waldheim, in his native Austria in violation of his oath of citizenship that he had taken just a couple of years earlier. And one of their own party members has plans to introduce legislation to change Article II of our Constitution,

“No persons except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.

Schwarzenegger himself has gone on record stating that he thinks naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for the office of president. It appears that the main reason to push for this Constitutional amendment is because Schwarzenegger, the man who campaigned for a Nazi who deported Greek Jews to death camps in World War II, is not eligible to run for president.
Since the “media” and the Republican party is so incensed with the thought of someone without “experience” being in charge of the country, one wonders why they chose to promote Bush and Schwarzenegger, both men without experience and both men whose families have old World War II ties to Nazi Germany. Something to think about.

But in spite of all the attacks upon our Constitution, perhaps there is still reason to hope that We, the People have not been broken into religious factions. Although there is a lot of religious intolerance in our country today; as shown by the desecration of a synagogue in Denver, Colorado; there is also the American spirit reasserting itself.

Approximately 300 people of all faiths -- Christians, Jews, Muslims and even non-religious people -- showed up to help clean swastikas and Nazi symbols from the Denver synagogue before the Jewish holiday Purim. There were so many that they had to stand in line for a turn at removing the offensive graffiti. As one citizen volunteer, Doug Mix, not a member of the synagogue, so eloquently stated, “This is a place for everyone. That is why everyone is here... we all came out here because America is still America, and we don’t tolerate this.”

And yet, in 2002, anti-Semitic incidents rose 8% over 2001. I have yet to see statistics on “gay bashing” but they will come. Unfortunately, they will come, unless we stop this Constitutional incursion NOW.

There is an old saying, that those who do not pay attention to history are domed to repeat it. Our attention has been diverted by the witch hunt for Osama bin Laden which never ends and the government’s terrorist warnings that increasingly squeeze our Constitutional freedoms and rights. A country which must live in fear and without liberty to believe themselves safe from terrorist acts needs to recall our history. When faced with the might of the British Empire we stood firm. Patrick Henry’s ringing cry, “Give me liberty or give me death.” helped to unite a nation with divided loyalties.

There has never been a challenge to our nation such as the one we face today. Never before has the sanctity of our constitution been so violated. And all of our elected representatives stood mute while it has occurred. We can not depend upon those elected officials for protection. We must show the spirit embodied in those men, women and children who united to obliterate the Nazi beliefs at that synagogue in Denver. We must show that we do not tolerate men who believe that Kurt Waldheim should be the leader of a country. We must convince our leaders that we will not tolerate exclusion of segments of our population from the right to exist freely in our free society. “Good Germans” did not protest when rights were taken away from the mentally handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies and Jews.

At this moment, our history is being rewritten because of the men who lead this country. The honorable reputation we gained after World War II has been tarnished by preemptive wars and insults directed at our allies. We threaten countries who won’t follow our dictates with invasion.
The course of our lives has been changed forever, and not just by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack but by the attacks upon the very foundation that has always set our nation apart and provided protection for We, the People. We must stand firm, we must not let them take away, or tarnish, the most perfect document ever written, The Constitution of the United States of America.

MARCH 11, 2004

PLAYING THE POLITICAL “GAME”

Politicks make you feel just like being back in high school; you see the same old clicks, the same old group scrambling to be number one whether cheerleading, sports, or “political” offices like class president. And most aren’t above a little nasty gossip and accusations to get what they want.

Welcome to Political Election 2004. Those who dare to challenge the status quo are gone and the rivalry for supremacy is between Kerry and Bush. They come from the same background, both members of the notorious Skull and Bones secret society associated with their Yale college years, both have great wealth with which to buy influence if needed. (And George W. Bush seems to have needed to buy a lot!) And, according to Bush, they share the same political ideas.
Why do I say this? Because I have listened to Kerry’s campaign speeches since he started his run for the nomination. When he first entered the race with seven other candidates, he was at the bottom of the barrel, percentage wise that is. Dean was so far ahead that it provoked a media storm reminiscent of the Republican’s eight year investigation of Clinton, and Dean was just one of seven candidates!

Over the course of the campaign, Kerry metamorphed into a Dean clone, telling us exactly what we wanted to hear. He didn’t even consider the economy and dearth of jobs important enough to talk about when he began his campaign even though he told us he was the candidate with “experience.” In fact, Bush’s spokesperson, Steve Schmidt, whined that “His campaign trail promises (regarding a broad tax cut that would affect all taxpayers) mean he is going to raise taxes...” and that “John Kerry has voted for higher taxes 350 times...”

But Kerry seems to be following in Dean’s footsteps to get our votes. When a supporter urged him to “take on Bush’” Kerry responded, “Let me tell you, we’ve just begun to fight. We’re going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I’ve ever seen. It’s scary.” It is scary, and it was scary in 2000 when all of you “experienced” representatives of We, the People, sat on your duffs and let the Supreme Court appoint Bush president. The responsibility for the state of the country lies with almost all of you.

Now, you want us to give you a chance to clean things up. While the administration rife with corruption (shielding ENRON, Halliburton, Bectal, et. al); who tampered with our Constitution with unconstitutional “patriot act laws” and flagrant disregard for religious freedom; pouts that Kerry statement “was unbecoming of a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.”
I love these pot calling the kettle black statement, don’t you?
While Kerry is busy accusing the Bush administration of lying (Iraq WMDs), being crooked (no bid contracts in Iraq for the Bush-Cheney cartel) Bush is busy showing that “strong leadership” nonsense with his 9/11 commercials.

Bush is using images of his “response” to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that some investigations are pointing toward prior knowledge of. Considering that he spent 30 minutes with a book about goats in a Florida classroom while the Pentagon burned, I’m not sure where he got his images, but I don’t think he chose that one to depict his “leadership” qualities.

It has been reported that he didn’t use actual footage of bodies being removed from the New York Trade Center area but “recreated” them for the commercials. I wouldn’t think that a recreated scene of a flag drapped stretcher being removed from the devestation of the World Trade Center would depict “leadership” qualities, since his only admitted comment regarding the three planes that crashed into two different sites was, “that is some bad pilot.”

But I guess the aircraft carrier shot couldn’t be used with all the outrage over his skipping National Guard duty when all those young boys were dying in VietNam. And I’m sure he doesn’t want to give the Democrats any chance of reminding us that, after he declared the Iraq invasion over, our causalities are still rising and on this date stand at 555, over the halfway mark to our first one thousand in a war he still needs to explain.
Nor did the families of the victims appreciate the reenactment of the firemen bearing the flag draped stretcher that he used to enhance his “leadership” image. Bill Doyle, who lost his 25 year old son criticized the image Bush used in his commercial of the flag draped remains being carried from ground zero. “I have a problem with exploiting death for political gain” he stated, “I’d have the same problem if Democrats used images of body bags coming back from Iraq in one of their ads.

Bush’s ignorance at using this anguish of those who lost their loved ones will probably provoke a backlash against the 9/11 images. I can’t imagine the four widows from New Jersey, who began their own little investigation of September 11, 2001, have changed their minds. I keep coming back to the words of Lorie van Auken, who researched the timeline of Bush’s actions on that day. “How, after he had been specifically told by his chief of staff that, ‘We are under attack’, could the Commander in Chief continue sitting with second graders and make a joke.” She ran the video over and over. “I couldn’t stop watching the President, sitting there listening to second graders, while my husband was burning in a building.”
But he sees the world in terms of his own selfish pursuit. This man, who will leave the new victim’s memorial site at ground zero to attend more fundraisers to accumulate more money to use in his attacks on Democrats and Kerry, just doesn’t comprehend what he has done to our country. The other victims dealing with the deaths of their loved ones from the Iraq Invasion, the millions who can no longer feed their children because they have no income, the obscene wealth of Bush’s elite supporters who support his campaign with enough money to feed all the hungry children in this country.

And Bush’s campaign organization is filing legal challenges against a group called MoveOn.org who collected small donations from their members to call attention to the Bush lies of the last three years. With his deep pockets, he can do it; and he will probably win in the biased judicial arena who declared him president. All we have is our anger and our determination that things must change. I, for one, appreciate the victims of 9/11 who have come forward and repudiated George W. Bush’s attempt to use their loved ones to try to win an election.

MARCH 7, 2004

GETTING STARTED

on Campaign 04 now that all the candidates have been dispatched except Kerry (what happened to Kucinich and Sharpton - did they drop out??) is focusing a great deal of the “media’s” attention toward the political wrestling match that passes for earnest debate in this country.
And George W. Bush is zealously turning his attention to collecting more money from his wealthy political base. Now that the California governor with Nazi ties has taken over that state; Bush has practically moved in. So far he has made 11 visits and was there for fundraisers that criss crossed the state from LA to Bakersfield to Santa Clara. And from that marathon money gathering trip, he plans to go to his state-of-the-art ranch in Texas for a little R&R -- how does that man find time to do the job he is paid for????
But while Bush gives speeches to the converted,

KERRY TAKES ON BUSH
over his failed economic policies. Stealing Dean’s platform right out from under him; Kerry has told an audience that “George Bush is a walking contradiction and a walking barrel of broken promises” He told the country that Bush is bad for the environment, bad for the economy and bad at leadership. Undeniable.

Bush’s weak retort was that “our economy is getting stronger” and that “raising taxes will make it harder for people to find work.

”
Kerry replied that “Once again Bush has told one of those tall Texas tales. The people I’ve met here in Texas and all across America aren’t asking for much. All they want is a government that honors their values and helps them build a better life.” Thank you Dr. Howard Dean, for giving Senator Kerry this insight.

When Kerry talked with a women who had lost her son in Iraq, he said, “The first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who have worn the uniform of the country...”

Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel, immediately retorted that Kerry voted against money to pay the troops.” So, Bush and Kerry were in league against giving more money to the troops. So whose the pot and whose the kettle here?

SEEING RED
Bush runs around collecting money from all his wealthy friends, claims that giving his buddies tax cuts will help stimulate the economy and doesn’t even bother to try and see it from our point of view. Our bottom line is: You can’t stimulate economic growth without income. And we don’t have any. He can keep the unemployment figure at 5.6% forever, but even the dumbest American can figure out when his paycheck is less and when he isn’t getting up to go to work in the morning.

Bush’s “improving economy” which is supposed to add jobs isn’t. The unemployment rate is holding at 5.6% because PEOPLE HAVE STOPPED LOOKING FOR WORK. EMPLOYMENT HAS PLUMMETED. Chris Low, Chief economist at FTN Financial described the government report on unemployment as “unambiguously ugly.” Wall Street is shaky, the dollar is down, pay gains are down. The last time we saw joblessness like this it was in January, 1984 during Ronald Reagan’s administration.
But here’s the real fear, economist can’t explain why job growth has fallen so far short of expectations . Some economists say that the dearth of hiring twenty seven months into an “economic recovery” is unprecedented. David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at Merill Lynch said, “We are in uncharted territory.

”
I agree we are in uncharted territory, but look who got us there? George W. Bush continues to rake in millions of dollars in campaign cash while creating the largest deficit in history. He lost a three trillion dollar surplus and allowed so many jobs to flee the country that we are broke, not only individually, but as a nation. And there are still people out there willing to vote for him! That’s the answer to your economic dilemma!!!!

AND SPEAKING OF THE ECONOMY
More “good news” on the economic front, Kraft Foods, Inc. has just paid out more than $10 million to the executives who run the company. Former CEO Betsy Holden got $3.5 million, North American President Davis Johnson got $1.3 million, international boss Hugh Roberts received a paltry $900,000 but Executive Vice President Franz-Josef Vogelsang got a big fat bonus of $1.2 million.

At the same time, Kraft Foods, Inc. announced that they would be closing 20 plants and laying off 6,000 worker. Imagine those 6,000 workers with 26 weeks of employee benefits that total $200 -$300 a week, depending which state the plant is located in. And since COBRA insurance can cost between $600 -$1,200 per month, they’ll be unable to afford health care, too. And, just to ice their cake, the unemployment extension bill failed to pass, so at the end of those 26 weeks, these same 6,000 are going to the out there with the other long-term unemployed just looking for a way to keep food on the table. But those executives won’t be sharing their bonuses with any of them.
Think about it.

MARCH 6, 2004

A PLACE IN HISTORY

George W. Bush will be remembered for three things.
1) He was the second person appointed to the presidency. (Gerald Ford was the first, being appointed by Richard Nixon and then becoming president after Nixon’s resignation for being involved
in the same illegal snooping into Democratic files that Republicans engaged in during the last two years.) Bush receives the classification because of a Supreme Court appointed him to the office after at least 1 - 2 million votes went missing during the 2000 election.

2) He is the first person sworn in as president to invade a foreign country by convoluted lies in a State of the Union speech before a join session of the House of Representatives and the Senate and We, the People. And to hide these lies, they keep growing and changing and involved tarnishing and endangering the lives of the innocent “whistleblowers” and their families.

3) He is the laziest president - appointed or elected - in our history! George W. Bush is good for two things, partying and raising cash for his campaign fund. He hadn’t been in office one year before he had surpassed every other president in days off. He works harder “on the road” attending fundraising parties among the rich social elite of our country than he ever has at his job.

During the worst terrorist attack in this country (yes, I said worst, not only) he couldn’t be bothered to get up off his butt and move himself from an elementary classroom to see why three planes had just taken down the financial district in New York and plowed into our national defense headquarters. After it was all over and buildings were collapsing and civilians, firefighters and port authority and New York policemen , were dying, they put him on Air Force 1 - out of harms way - and flew him around for several hours.
We, the People were left leaderless and bewildered until he finally put in an appearance many hours later.

His only major decision (I guess he made it) during this time was to ground all flights in or out of the country, except the Saudi Arabia airplanes which crisscrossed the country picking up bin Laden’s family and the Saudi elite before flying back to Sauid Arabia. And our ex-presidents and representatives of the Congress and Senate were refused permission to fly in. Shows his bias, huh?

There are many other reasons why his place in history is assured at the bottom of the presidential rankings, alongside Grant and Reagan.
I’m sure you have your favorite. One of mine is the “strong leader” tag. The man so scared to go to VietNam that he checked off NO on the National Guard form asking if he would serve in VietNam, then that “one of you guys” strut across that aircraft carrier when he declared the Iraq Invasion, which so far has killed 550 National Guardsmen and soldiers, over.
But there is one thing he has done that he will go down in history for as Number 1:
He has done more to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America than all the other presidents put together. Like his ancestor, King George of England, he will be remembered for a kind of madness that has swept the land.

March 5, 2004

A CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION

State Attorney Generals have come out against gay marriages. Although many do not agree, they say they have to uphold the law. The New Mexico Attorney General said, “The law itself precludes it.”
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, rumored to be a candidate for governor, says the law is clear and same-sex marriages break it -- although he really sides against the ban. Kelly Clark, lawyer for a group of pastors and conservative lawmakers, says “You don’t change 4,000 years of tradition.”
Oh, really. Let’s take a look at that “tradition” involving the concept, and institution, of marriage. Until the 20th century, women were simply property, usually bought and sold to the highest bidder by her guardian male relative. Women virtually had no legal existence. She could not hold property, have custody of her children, could not disobey her father, husband, or male guardian. She had no say in anything regarding her life that existed outside of the kitchen and the social arena. Her husband could commit adultery with impunity, she could not. Financially she was at his mercy. He could, if he wished, refuse to support her and their children or quite literally toss them out of the house if she displeased him. She had no control over her body, could not refuse to “service” her husband on demand.

Her stature was given to her by her husband; if he was kind and good she led a better half-life. If he was abusive and cruel she led a life of hell. It took a lot of courageous women spending their lifetimes in civil disobedience and prison before the marriage laws were changed to make women even semi equal. Remember, pay inequity still exists today.

And although we supposedly ended slavery with a Civil War, blacks weren’t equal until the Civil Rights Movement began in the late l950s. African Americans weren’t allowed to attend white schools, use the same restroom facilities, drink form the same water fountain, attend the same theaters, eat at the same restaurants, or sit where they wished on a bus.

If they couldn’t even be seen in “white” establishments, they certainly weren’t allowed to marry. That “tradition” was also a law. 40 of our 48 states prohibited interracial marriage. There was strong public opposition when the Supreme Court declared the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional in 1948. There was still 38 states who banned interracial marriage and 6 of those had a constitutional ban against intermarriage.
Is there anyone in the United States who doesn’t know that the Civil Rights Movement during the 60’s and 70’s was brought about by those unwilling to comply with the Supreme Court striking down those discriminatory laws left on the books and the push to register blacks to VOTE?

Listen to what the Supreme Court declared and then say 4,000 years of “tradition” (whose tradition?) supersedes the Constitution of the United States.

1) The freedom to marry belongs to all Americans.

2) Marriage is a vital personal right.

3) The right to marry is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.
guarenteed in the bill of rights.
Contrary to the Christian Coalition’s propaganda that this country was founded on Christian principles, that is not true. Most of our founders did not follow a certain religion, they were agnostics or atheists like the well known Benjamin Franklin. The ratification of our constitution got into trouble because each little Christian fiefdom wanted to be on top. Thus, we denied women equal representation, kept slavery and compromised to get that constitution passed. It is the shame of the Contenital Congress that they did not put aside petty differences of religion and money to eliminate salvery, as those non-religious founders wanted. And yet, it is still among the clearest and greatest documents ever written.

Changing our constitution to define or ban marriage of any individual takes us backwards into an uncivilized past. IF there are specific laws forbidding marriage between individuals then they are unconstitutional and should be dealt with under the Supreme Court ruling of 1968. So all you AG’s get with it, enforce the LAW of our Constitution, not some religious interpretation of “right” and “wrong”. Religious fanatics were given the right to worship as they please, but they weren’t given the right to make us worship their version of God!

MARCH 4, 2004

JOBS OF THE FUTURE
Well, the candidates are off and running; but don’t think whoever emerges the victor will have much impact on your life in the immediate future. I was perusing a job site and discovered this list of jobs of the future. It said that, if you were looking for a job, these are the industries where they would be found.

Among the traditional jobs requiring a college degree were education and government, but don’t waste your time if you don’t plan to do one or the other. And with cutbacks and states cutting the school year short and/or going to a four day week, and parents expected to do fundraising to meet budget needs, education isn’t looking so hot.

No, your best bet would be vocational school -- or perhaps a return to the days of apprenticeship would be even better. Transportation, warehouse, retail, furnace, wholesale, and even information might be better served by on-the-job training. And, you can receive money while you train instead of borrowing money to get the training!

Some other industries they mentioned seem a little iffy, too; definitely tied to other things. Like health care. With so many people out of work and without insurance a lot of over-the counter-do-it-yourself-diagnosis-and-treatment occurs. If your kid needs new shoes and you need a dentist, guess who wins? Unless there is an immediate change, we might even see less need for doctors, let alone medical technicians, record keepers and nurses. Congress, government employees, and Bush supporters have the insurance and the money to pay; but there aren’t enough of them to increase that job category by much.
An expected increase in leisure and hospitality is even more remote. The travel and airline industry has just about hit bottom; they have no where to go but up. Leisure travel in the United States is rare with flights so expensive, no vacation time, and gas prices outrageous! And foreign visitors are so irate with all they have to go through just to get into the country (registration, fingerprints) that it is much more pleasant to be a tourist somewhere else. And that doesn’t take into account the hostility now felt because of our highhanded tactics known as “foreign policy”. European friends already feel sorry for Americans because they work long hours and never get any time off. Even the working class hop trains and visit foreign countries that are unrealistic dreams to us so why would they put up with “Homeland Security” just to see the Grand Canyon?

Another very HUGE area missing from this list is technical and computer jobs. Remember when we were told that computer technology was the “wave of the future” and a degree in Computer Science, data processing, or fixing the things, would be a guarantee of permanent employment? Or the “Tech Industry” which couldn’t hire enough people to meet their needs? NO WHERE IN SIGHT! If you want to work in these fields you will have to immigrate - and I’m not sure that right now the market is very good for Americans abroad since other countries have a “hire at home” policy.
More than a decade ago, a friend’s father advised his children to find work in other countries after they graduated from college. It sounded radical at the time; but they followed his advice, and you know what, while the rest of us are sitting here wondering if we will ever find a job again, they are secure in their jobs, still making money and not spending down their retirement funds to live. Father knew best. He saw it coming. He’s long retired and doesn’t need to worry about income. His kids are fine. How did it happen that we who stayed in America ended up the losers?

MARCH 2, 2004

IRAQ BURING

Not even a year ago George W. Bush declared war on Iraq and sent an invasion team composed mostly of our National Guard troops into that country to occupy and pacify it. It was going to be a “cakewalk” and our troops would return home triumphant and America would save the world from weapons of mass destruction and bring democracy to Iraq.
Ten months later, our casualties in terms of deaths has gone over the thousand halfway point and in terms of injured and maimed, it stands in the thousands -- and Iraq has not been pacified, democracy as not come to Iraq, and there is no end in sight.

Yes, we have no choice but to compair it to our longest running war, VietNam. Our government representatives chose the wrong path, we knew it, but Bush would not listen. And like VietNam, the casualty numbers are hidden, ignored. And now that the photo-ops of our troops in the desert, astride calvery of steel, are gone we are left with the same situation we had in VietNam.
And our government must reap what has been sown. They say our troops won’t be home any time soon. They have taken civilian National Guard troops whose purpose was to defend our country, and semi-permanenty stationed them in a country that has exploded into a civil war.

Today, Baghdad and Karbala experienced coordinated attacks against Shite Muslems, and others, who were attending religious festivals. At least 141 are dead, another 233 wounded. By rippling up the political structure that was keeping the extreme factions under control and not replacing it, the government of our country has left the door wide open for terrorists, extremests, and rival factions to start their own little war -- all within the occupation structure of the United States military.

Iraqis are already beginning to blame the U.S. military for not providing better security on the Shite Muslem’s most holy day of Ashoura. Angry pilgrims threw stones at the U.S. appointed Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers.

The attacks on Baghdad and Karbala appear to be linked. Both attacks took place around 10.a.m. Although the evidence is not been fully examined, it seems that mortor rounds had been fired and the Karbala attack occurred in a five minute period, with 6 explosions heard.

MARCH 1, 2004

FAKE DEBATES?

Yesterday I watched the Democratic candidates debating on one of the Sunday news shows. For those of you who haven’t had a chance to watch any news except the mainstream “media”, there are four candidates left. The are Rev. Al Sharpton, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Senators John Kerry and John Edwards.

Although I didn’t see the whole debate, what I did see showed a bias toward Kerry and Edwards. During the debate, there were moments when you actually thought the moderator was going to tell Representative Kucinich to shut up. Kerry, and to some extent Edwards, were allowed to drone on and on although we had heard the platitudes many times before.

Sharpton, aptly named, was as sharp and focused as always, but Kucinich’s fact filled, analytical discussion seemed to be just too boring for the questioners. Kucinich evokes images of Abraham Lincoln and his rhetoric is to the point and accurate. Watching and hearing the four, I found myself wondering if We, the People just might take to Kucinich’s intelligent response to whatever question he was given, and Sharpton ‘s witty style of answering whatever was thrown at him. They might make a good team....

No doubt about it. These men are smart. They are knowledgeable. And they tell you truths that politicians want to circumvent. And they don’t equivocate or stumble around.

I have yet to hear any plans of substance from Kerry or Edwards. I hear Edwards telling us what needs to be fixed, but I don’t know how he plans to do it. I hear Kerry give the circular political answers that leave you wondering just what you have heard. I still don’t know IF or WHEN Kerry will get us out of Iraq. I still don’t know what Kerry plans to do to get us working NOW, not sometime in the future, and government subsidized insurance premiums for EMPLOYERS isn’t going to get one person, who doesn’t already have insurance, health coverage!

But Kerry has been anointed, a reporter even called him “President” Kerry. A vote for Kerry is not a vote for change. He may slow down the Bush agenda but he has no plans to stop it. He is not Clinton, he does not have the aptitude or the ability to keep the economic juggling act going.
The “media” is predicting that Edwards is going down. In yesterday’s debate much was made of his “lack of experience” but the experience of Kucinich was ignored. There is absolutely NOTHING that Kerry has done that Kucinich can not do better.
But “the media” doesn’t even portray him as a “serious” candidate. And I wonder why. Is it because he is considered a “liberal”? Is it because Senator Paul Wellstone and Congressman Kucinich were in agreement about what would be necessary to save this country?

Liberals aren’t such bad people. They brought you the civil rights movement that finally got the African American citizens in this country a seat on the bus; service in restaurants and the right to drink from the same fountain as “white folks”. They also died for freedom when they went into the South to register black voters. John Kennedy was a liberal, his brother Bobby was a liberal, Martin Luther King was a liberal. So was the man who brought us out of the great depression, FDR, so was Jimmy Carter, who now builds houses for the poor.

You could do a lot worse than being tagged a “liberal”. Those responsible for this Crisis in America were not liberals. They are men like George W. Bush.

FEBRUARY 29,2004

REALLY SCARY STUFF

Do you remember the Republican message a few years ago when they declared that Democrats were responsible for putting big government into our lives and into our bedrooms? Well, we have had eight full years of Democrat Bill Clinton, who endured Republicans in his bedroom, but managed to keep our bedroom doors closed. And three years of George W. Bush, who is not only in our private lives, our bedrooms and our files, but is trying to rearrange our thought processes also!

PRODUCE THE FILES

John Ashcroft, head of the Justice Department, has better things to do than pursue prosecution of terrorists. He is after Planned Parenthood. He has subpoenaed the records of women who received services in Pittsburgh, San Diego, Los Angeles, New York City, Kansas-Mid-Missouri and the Washington metropolis area. He is on a hunt to ferret out women whose doctor’s used the procedure called “intact dilation and extraction”. He thinks his office is more knowledgeable about women’s health than their physicians!!!

I don’t know if this is punishment for the Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the partial-birth ban that was passed by non-doctors and signed by non physician George W. Bush or not. Ashcroft says
this information is vital to his defense of the law which was signed in November. But the ultra-religious non-doctor, who found Greek statues so offensive that he spent over $20,000 of taxpayer money to
cover up the female forms.

Planned Parenthood in Pittsburgh says their seven affiliates saw 18,000 patients and 20,000 received educational information. They plan to fight the subpoena and keep the records confidential. A Chicago judge has already refused the request as unconstitutional.

But what if the courts eventually uphold the law and Ashcroft uses those files to bring criminal charges against the doctors and the women? I hope Margaret Sanger comes back to haunt him; and brings some of the victims of “coat hanger abortions” with her!

AND SPEAKING OF DOUBLE STANDARDS....

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the man now calling himself governor of California, must consider himself above the law. He reneged on his pledge that, if elected, he would investigate himself for sexual harassment and sexual battery complaints that exploded during the so called “recall” election. Not only does he consider the matter closed, but he called it “old news.” They register sexual offenders in California for sexual abuse. If convicted of one incident, Mr. Schwarzenegger will find himself on that list, no matter how he considered it to be just fun. (Fun for him, not for them!!)

And although 80% of Californians surveyed in a recent poll said it did not raise concerns about his ability to govern, how would they feel it it had been their mother, their wife, their girlfriend, their daughter!
Remember, President Clinton was harassed for eight years and investigated at a cost of over $50 million dollars for a consensual affair that was no ones business but his wife’s! How can Schwarzenegger’s wife, a reporter, condone and support this type of criminal behavior in her husband? Makes you wonder about objectivity, doesn’t it?

AND AS LONG AS WE’RE ON THE LEGAL SUBJECT....
Bush may think he has the anti-war movement stifled in the United States, but the International Anti-War Movement coalition is alive and well, and still working to bring Bush and Blair to justice. The group is taking legal action for “mass murder” against both men. Six hundred members are in London organizing a mass march of an estimated one million people on the anniversary of the Iraq Invasion.

Chris Coverdale, spokesman for the group, has told the press that they have asked police, the prosecution service and the nation’s top legal official, Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, to investigate the accusations. He said that under the statute establishing the ICC if such requests are refused, the movement was “entitled to approach the Hague to ensure and ask him to initiate an investigation and a criminal prosecution of the offenders”. The movement claims that at least 20,000 Iraqis have died and what has happened is mass murder. He also states, “The war with Iraq was illegal but furthermore, crimes were committed. Therefore you want to ensure that people who have committed the crimes answer for them in court.” The push for prosecution comes at a time of mounting pressure on Mr. Blair to explain the basis on which the country went to war.

In the United States, no one is holding Bush accountable. 539 casualties have occurred after his decree that the war was over. There is no end in sight. Iraq is in shamble’s terrorist forces have taken over. Perhaps the Hague can sort it out. We, the People of America are ignored.

FEBRUARY 28, 2004

NEITHER RHYME NOR REASON

From the very first moment George W. Bush took possession of Our White House, he planned to invade Iraq. Nothing new had been discovered, no political or military moves had been made since the United States government gave Saddam Hussein permission to invade Quate under the previous George Bush administration. Twelve long years had passed under United Nations sanctions and inspections. There was no need to rush to war and yet documents have been found showing that the planned Iraq invasion began before he was ever given the oath of office.

On October 12, 2000, just before the end of President Clinton’s second term in office, and less than three months before George W. Bush took office, the USS Cole was blown up in the port of Adan, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors died and 37 were injured. It was George W. Bush’s duty to continue the investigation and punish those responsible.

In April 2001 The U.S. Navy EP-3E plane carrying classified equipment was shot down by a Chinese military aircraft in international waters. It was considered a deliberate attempt to force the plane down and gain access to the classified equipment. The military had been warned by the Japanese that such an attempt would be made. The crew of 24 successfully brought the plane down in Chinese territory, while trying to dispose of the classified documents and equipment.

China held the crew and the plane hostage, demanding an apology and compensation of 10 million dollars in damages. After Bush gave an apology of “regret” the crew was released. The plane stayed. Eventually it was returned to the United States in pieces, with some of the parts missing. And Bush rewarded them for this act with “favorite nation” trade status.
September 11, 200l, while George Bush was kept apprise of the situation from a classroom where his attention was held by a goat story, nineteen terrorists hijacked four airplanes and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and he did not move form that classroom until it was all over! In spite of the fact that most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, he allowed the Saudi government to gather up certain of it’s citizens, including the family of Osama bin Laden, and fly out of the United States even though he refused permission for elected government officials and former presidents to be allowed to fly into the United States.

In March, 2003 he made the Iraq invasion plans a reality, calling up our National Guard troops during a time when we were told terrorists were still threatening the United States and sent them out of the country to invade Iraq. Leaving us venerable and defenseless, relying on an understaffed, underfunded police force. He told the United Nations that he didn’t care if they didn’t like it, he was going to do it anyway. He, and his government, insulted the members of the United Nations by calling it irrelevant and Europe by a sneering reference to “old Europe.” To date, 549 citizens have died in Iraq, Bush is begging the “irrelevant U.N. and “old Europe” to help him in his conquest because there is no end is in sight.
It is hard to understand his priorities. He negates long held treaties, refuses to acknowledge scientific reports about global warming, urges the development of more and better nuclear bombs, and has his eye turned toward a military conquest of space.

And he has literally told China that he will not stand in the way when they invade Taiwan. And China believes Taiwan belongs to them and have repeatedly threatened to take it by force. But Taiwan is fighting back the only way they can. Over a million people gathered across Taiwan to form a human chain across their country. The demonstration was meant to show many things, national pride,(Retired dentist Wayne Wu, “I am Taiwanese. I am not Chinese), determination, a participation in what they consider an historical demonstration, and support for the election that will ask them to approve an increase in their antimissile defense system if China refuses to withdraw the missiles they have pointed at the island.

But while Bush’s gaze is fixed on collecting campaign money, forces are at work that could involve the world, and our country in another world war. He fiddles, the world burns.

FEBRUARY 27, 2004

ON THE ROAD AGAIN

George W. Bush has hit the road again, this time to the south; specifically to ISCO Industries in Louisville, Ky. But he wasn’t meeting with just anyone. Bush has problems with controversy. I haven’t decided if it is because he doesn’t know how to answer questions or because he gets so angry when someone disagrees with him.

So, in order for him to look his best, he either attends ultra rich luncheons and dinners, or appeared in “public” at hand picked events and “preaches to the choir”. The most controversial thing he has done in his three years in office was to pay a visit to Martin Luther King’s tomb where Secret Service agents tried to shoo away residents and members of King’s former church and almost provoked a new Freedom March on the spot!

However, all his photo-ops have gone awry. The carrier landing provoked questions about his own National Guard Service, the Iraq Turkey Incident is still providing fodder for comedians, and of course, the King incident.

Whoever schedules these events must have been told to keep the territory neutral because the latest Bush appearances have been confined to friendly audiences. ISCO, a plastic pipe factory (does Iraq need pipe?) is described as “thriving” and employees believe we are seeing a turnaround in the economy. Must have missed the 4,600 AT&T layoff in the news yesterday.

And Bush can’t put in a presidential visit to the “little people” without rushing off to another luncheon to collect more money. From ISCO Industries he went to an elite Republican event where he gave another speech before 1,000 GOP contributors who paid $2,000 for the privilege of dining with him.
But it’s getting harder to shield him from a ever increasingly belligerent public. In spite of the “free speech zones where they try to park critics, he was forced to face demonstrators waving signs with one word: JOBS. It appears that the approximately ten million long term unemployed don’t buy his “the economy is improving” mantra.

But it isn’t just jobs. A new poll of 800 public school parents, who are paying a good portion of their income in school taxes, say they are also expected to participate in fund raising activities to pay for teacher’s salaries, sports equipment, art supplies, etc. These busy parents, paying state, federal, country, and sometimes city taxes to support public schools are expected to find the time between work and their own homework, to participate in five, or more, fundraisers just to provide what our tax money used to pay for.

We know that schools are in deep trouble. More than ten states have indicated that they will be cutting the school year short; or in many cases, the school week has been cut to four days. All during the term of George W. Bush, the man who promised a vote for him “would leave no child behind” educationally, he is still telling us how wonderful things are, how he as improved the country and that the economy is growing.

And the whole time more and more citizens are faced with digging deeper into empty pockets for change to keep it going. As 9 out of 10 parents surveyed for this poll stated, they intend to choose the candidate they vote for in November by their stand on education.

But here is our problem. Just what candidate to choose? We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric from both sides but very few substantive plans to really change anything! Kerry says all the right words, Edwards promises he change things. The candidates with real vision and programs for change are either long dismissed (Dean) or getting no coverage (Kucinich). Do you know where they stand on the issue of Teachers as terrorists? Neither do I.
Just last week the Secretary of Education, Ron Paige, met with the nations governors in a closed door meeting where he called National Education Association that represents 3 million teachers a terrorist organization! I know the Bush agenda has been to keep us in a state of fear reminiscent of Chicken Little’s “sky is falling” crusade, but I think we are overusing the word “terrorist” when we apply it to the the people our children spend their day with! Is Paige implying that Bush’s refusing to fund his own “No Child Left Behind” program is just a way to shut down this terrorist organization called “schools”? You would think, by now, that we would be immune to the strange and radical proposals coming from George W. Bush and his crew of jolly rogers, but governors were said to be shocked by Secretary Paige’s comments.

They must not have shocked the senators running for president on the Democratic ticket, though, because our “media” either didn’t report their comments or the candidates didn’t see the outrage. Either way, business as usual among the elite representing We, the People. Guess it’s back to the Little Red Schoolhouse where the parents took up collections and boarded the teachers in their homes during the school year.

FEBRUARY 26, 2004

MISHANDLING AMERICA

George W. Bush has never been the “strong” leader he claimed to be. He never worked, was never held accountable for any wrong doing, was allowed to get away with not following through with his National Guard Commitment at a time when our young men were not allowed to use deferments to get out of the draft. And there was absolutely NO reason why any sane person would have the remotest idea that he could run a country!

That is why it is so difficult to understand why George W. Bush was selected over John McCain, war hero, public servant, to be the Republican nominee for the 2000 election. That is why it is so difficult to understand why George W. Bush was the focus of the tremendous, and illegal, effort to put him in Our White House!

He didn’t assume the title of President alone. It took a calculated, determined effort to get that man into office. And all those concentrated efforts have culminated into an invasion of a country that requires a blood sacrifice of an American life a day, an economy in ruins, and many people living lives of poverty as during one of the blackest days in history, the Great Depression, and there is no relief in sight.

You would think this was enough for those who chose Bush to see that this mishandling of America was the road to ruin but they appear blind to what is happening. In spite of all the bad things that have taken place during the three years Bush has inhabited Our White House, criticism is still seen as “unpatriotic”. George W. Bush is involved in another election campaign, financed by enormous sums of money from the upper 10% of the most wealth in this country, just as if the devastation of September 11, 2001 had not happened on his watch.

The only opposition party, which had a rich variety of candidates who pushed forth issues that the Senate and the House virtually ignored, has winnowed the field to two. And in spite of the issues put forth by those other, now dismissed, candidates we hear nothing but the same weak rhetoric from the chosen two. Thus, the blame for the decline of our country, must be spread among those who reside in the halls of justice, the senate and the congress as well as Our White House.

From all appearances, those elected or appointed representatives see their loyalty to someone other than We, the People. Yet their only duty is to us. This is affirmed in the Preamble to the Constitution:

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the seperate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
Perhaps those who wish to run for an office representing We, the People should have to pass a test on our Constitution. It might eliminate those with other ambitions and allow others, such as the late Senator Paul Wellstone, room to do the job they sought.

But a quick read of the news today says that the policies that have brought us so low will be continued. I read that worker layoffs continue, AT&T alone is cutting 8% of it’s workforce -- 4,600 new people will be seeking jobs that are simply gone.

Parents, in addition to paying special taxes to support public schools, are now involved in fundraising in order to keep their schools open. Our state and local government’s are no longer able to afford to do so.
Government deals struck with insurance companies have made health care unaffordable, our representatives are trying to pass legislation to stop citizens from buying cheaper Canadian and Mexican drugs. Medicare insurance for our elderly is being changed and will take more money from their meager incomes.
And yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that “soaring budget deficits from out of control entitlements could be very debilitating...and threaten the economy in coming years”.
The crux of this is that he wants to change your Social Security. And the bottom line is that THE FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT (FICA, or SOCIAL SECURITY) is NOT an entitlement - it is a TAX!!! A 7.2% tax that is deducted from your salary just like income tax. A 7.2% tax that your employer contributes as a benefit, just like paid holidays, insurance contributions, or (if you are that lucky) a pension plan. You also have a tax of 2.9% taken out of your income for Medicare. You do not have a choice in paying these taxes. It is to make sure that you have some income when you are too old to work even if the country falls into decline such as we have today.

If it is true that the Social Security fund is broke, then it was embezzled by the government who had access to it; not by We, the People.
And, although those who represent us and need our vote, are backing off from reducing or eliminating Social Security during this election year, please remember that this plan was first proposed by Ronald Reagan during his first administration. The plans to eliminate the Federal Insurance Contribution Act do not mention removing that 7.2% tax imposed upon your salary. George W. Bush plans to keep pushing his Social Security plan if he returns to the White House.

Mishandling this issue can mean generations of our citizens living in abject poverty. Also remember, that many without jobs are older citizens. Laying off workers in their fifties has been a policy since the Reagan Administration. They no longer have much chance of earning money for retirement. They have lost their homes, their savings, and their retirement funds. Remember ENRON?

We must force these public servants who wish the opportunity to represent us to do more than speak in platitudes and tell us what we want to hear. We must judge them by more than their words; we must look at their deeds - their votes. Not many will be left standing.

FEBRUARY 25, 2004

AMENDING OUR CONSTITUTION

George W. Bush has frivolously proposed amending our constitution to include the concept of “marriage”. Don’t go down that road. It has nothing to do with whether or not you approve of “gay marriages”; that is none of your business unless that constitutional amendment alters or infringes on your basic rights.

Our constitution states emphatically that all (euphemism) men are created equal. That they are endowed with their creator (no specified god - it could mean mother nature) with certain unalienable rights and that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Many people bent on diminishing the Constitution make reference to nothing being included about abolishing slavery. But that was the intent of the founding fathers and it brings to mind that old saying, “Stay silent and be thought a fool or open your mouth and remove all doubt.” So let’s just be kind and say they weren’t paying attention the day they discussed the Constitution as a document of compromise. To get the whole ratified, the Founding Fathers had to appease the slave states, and accommodate their refusal to allow women the vote. They made the decision that England must be defeated and reluctantly dropped the slavery issue.

And although it wasn’t perfect, it was the nearest to perfect the world had ever seen. It has seen very few amendments since its ratification. It has stood the test of time well. The last amendment was in 1971 which changed the voting age from 21 to 18. This impetus for this was that most of the young men fighting and dying in VietNam were not old enough to vote. The cry of, “You can die for your country but you can’t vote for the person sending you there” got this approved.

Another amendment, a simple one known as the Equal Rights Amendment which stated that under the Constitution women were equal, was defeated - probably by the same forces at work to force the “marriage amendment” upon the very women who weren’t considered equal! Why would any woman want a Constitutional amendment that defined their roll in a marriage? Down that road lies more than just the “gay marriage ban”. Once they have defined marriage, they will define rolls. Do you want the government deciding who you can marry, if you can marry, if you MUST marry? ...life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... defined and enforced by a “marriage amendment”.
We must all become aware and remember that marriage has never been about protecting women’s right. It has been about women being a man’s property. From the inception of the marriage contract, men traded women for property, for wealth, for territory. Women had no rights in marriage. Until as recently as the 19th century women could have their children and property snatched away upon the death of her husband. Custody of the wife, children, and property would be given to the husband’s closest male relative. In some religions and most societies , a widowed woman could be forced to marry someone of her guardian’s choosing.

Under this imperfect Constitution, women were more free than in any other civilized society of that time. Betsy Ross, the woman credited with making our national flag was a widow who inherited, and ran, her husband’s business until she died. Her daughter inherited the business and continued to run it after her mother’s death. We have been through many legal battles to arrive where we are today. Do women really want to return to an era where their lives were defined by the definition of property? Think carefully before you decide you want a marriage definition in the Constitution of the United States of America. Depending on its wording, you may loose the ability to define your marriage yourself.

Amendment XXI shows exactly what happens when amendments like the proposed “marriage amendment” passes. Amendment XXI is the one we call “Prohibition” and was passed by those opposed to drinking. It created a new class of criminal activities that produced a bloody revolution of sorts during it’s enforcement. Passed in 1919, it was repealed in 1933. And during it’s enforcement not one person who didn’t want to, gave up drinking.

These are a few of the reasons why we shouldn’t tamper with our constitution for any sort of “marriage” regulating amendment. Those who wish to follow religious doctrine can, those who don’t should not be forced to.

All marriages are registered by the state, we pay a fee, we sign a paper, it gets recorded. What is so difficult about that? We do the same thing when we buy a car, license a car, rent a place to live. We have babies and record much the same thing, name, date of birth, father, mother. None of this has religious significance. Whether we put a father’s name on that certificate or not has nothing to do with marriage. Whether you approved of the parent's marriage, or lack of, makes no difference. We pay the same fees for having that baby.

BUT, once you define marriage by a Constitutional act, it requires another to change it. And whenever we use the Constitution for a negative act (i.e. Prohibition) the consequences are enormous. As Senator Kennedy said, Bush would “go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution.” He stated, “We have amended the Constitution only 17 time...(it) has often been amended to expand and protect people’s right, never to take away or restrict their rights.” And we must keep this record pristine.

There are those in government, Democrats and some worried Republicans who believe the proposal of an amendment to ban gay unions is simply a smokescreen to keep attention off Bush’s abysmal performance. Some believe defining marriage should be left up to the states, saying the granting of civil marriages would give couples most of the same rights as “man and woman” marriages would.

However, after three years of hearing that George W. Bush believes his god tells him what to do, his extreme religious ideas, and the appointment of another religious extremist, John Ashcroft , to interpret the law of our land we all need to pause and ask ourselves just what is going on here. And, if we do not think, act or worship the “correct” way, will we be targeted next? We are in an unwinnable war, our children go hungry, and he is concerned about what is happening between consensual adults in their own homes.

The last time a nation concerned itself about these matters, the world found itself facing the Third Reich. They started small, too. First the “mentally defective” and “crippled”, then homosexuals...the rest is history.

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

SCHWARZENEGGER’S COMING....

I think I understand a little better why We, the People are in such deep trouble in this land of the free. I just read a couple of articles about the celebrity who supposedly unseated Governor Gray Davis in a recall election that rivaled the Florida Fiasco of 2000.

Not only was Schwarzenegger “schmoozing” with ENRON officials before he declared his candidacy, but he has NO EXPERIENCE AND A QUESTIONABLE PAST that both Democrats and Republicans ignored in the political fray to unseat Governor Davis.

He also “won” with the dubious distinction of being the second candidate put into office by voting chicanery - All of the polling precincts were not open for this recall election; they were kept closed in “low voter turnout” areas of California; namely those in poor and/or Hispanic neighborhoods. So, like his pal, Bush (State of the art voting machines in wealthy neighborhoods, junk in the poor neighborhoods!), Scwartzenegger has the distinction of being the second person “elected” by chosen “elite” voters.

And, although Governor Davis received nothing but bad publicity from the “media’ over California’s financial plight, Schwarzenegger’s financial problems mirror Davis’ yet don’t get the negative coverage. While Davis concentrated on fixing the problems by suing the perpetrator of the energy crisis, Schwarzenegger has removed the tax on luxury cars and plans to balance his budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor. His idea to put California back in shape is to pass a bond issue to produce more cash. Since bond issues are borrowed money, it will have to be paid back. And if you are too dumb, as Schwarzenegger thinks you are, to realized that bond = tax increase, then I guess you will just have to pay up!
He is already in legal trouble for playing games with the law and transferring money from here to there faster than you can hide the pea in a shell game. But, at the National Governor’s Convention being held in Washington, it seems “celebrity” overrides “governor” and most of the other governors just secretly want his autograph!
Huh?

Various governors from New Mexico, Arizona, and other states have told Reporters, that Schwarzenegger is just like the other governors, but not.” You can take this statement many ways, but it appears that they are referring to the fact that he has made some movies, not his lack of knowledge. Reporters seem to be showing much more interest in this governor’s conference than past ones, but are more of them from Entertainment Tonight than Nightline?
Not much seems to be expected of Schwarzenegger except autographs and “cute” statements like calling himself “the Collectionator” or telling a photographer to wait a second because some of the governors need makeup.

They also seem to admire the fact that he showed up! Republican Governor Bob Taft of Ohio says he is “impressed that he’s here, that he is actively coming to the meeting.” They call that dammed by faint praise. But it proves the point: If Schwarzenegger had been held to the high standards demanded of Gray Davis, he would be long gone by now.

I don’t know what they pay him in California, but it is too much for a governor who gets praise for showing up, cutesie statements and outlandish ideas.
The most outlandish is that Schwarzenegger thinks he has a better brain that our Founding Fathers. He wants to change our constitution. Not content to try to define the marriage contract for certain citizens, he thinks we should also do away with the requirement that the leader (note I said leader, not king, not emperor, not dictator) of the United States of America be native born. I wonder why?

Mr. Schwarzenegger came to this country twenty years ago seeking fame and fortune. This country has been good to him. We didn’t ask him to come here, and we certainly didn’t ask his opinion of what we needed to change when he swore an oath of allegiance to the United States of America in 1983.

He has not fought for this country, he has never spoken out against injustice and even proposes, in his official capacity as governor of California, that one segment of California society not be allowed the full rights guaranteed in our constitution. And that is what worries me.
Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to be held to a different standard than most of our immigrant citizens. When he became a citizen in 1983 he had to renounce allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which he had heretofore been a subject or a citizen. That especially includes Austria and it’s political system. He swore to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.
Citizenship can be taken away and you can be deported for a lot of reasons. After World War II many Nazis lied and slipped into this country. They are caught and deported as recently as a couple of years ago. So why was Schwarzenegger allowed to go to Austria before the l986 Austrian election and campaign for the Nazi Kurt Waldheim and not have his citizenship stripped ???
Just to refresh your memory, Waldheim was elected President of Austria and served from 1986 to 1992. During World War II he was a member of two Nazi organizations and the German Army Commander that deported Greek Jews to death camps. Papers have surfaced that also indicate he was a Nazi Intelligence Officer. How did Schwarzenegger get to know this man and why did he campaign for his election after renouncing all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty?

After Waldheim’s election, the world was so alarmed that he was put on a watch list and denied entrance to the United States and other countries. And that is when Schwarzenegger lamented, in a toast made at his wedding, that his good friend Kurt could not be at his wedding because of this Nazi thing.” And Republicans preferred this man to Gray Davis?
And of course, that episode that would have caused any other naturalized citizen to be deported has never looked into. Republicans prefer a man with Nazi sympathies and a history of sexual batter, and sexual harassment lawsuits? These are the same men who impeached President Clinton for a concentual affair!!! Where did their “moral standards” go?
And now Schwarzenegger wants to change our constitution to suit his ambitions. He says naturalized citizens should “absolutely” be able to become president. Republican Senator Orin Hatch agrees and has already proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow Schwarzenegger to qualify.
But he is neither qualified for president, or governor, or to be an American citizen. We fought five long, costly, hard years against the Nazi regime. Our men and women are buried in cemeteries all across the world because of Adolph Hitler and his ideas.

To support a Nazi candidate in any respect, by word or deed, breaks the oath he took to become a citizen of our country. Our elected leaders have ignored this and welcomed Schwarzenegger into the fold of our government. We need to know why. He does not deserve it. He does not belong.
NO MAN WHO EXTENDS GREAT EFFORT TO CAMPAIGN FOR SOMEONE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEPORTING GREEK JEWS TO DEATH CAMPS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NO MAN WHO DOES NOT CONDEMN WALDHEIM AND CALLS HIM HIS GOOD FRIEND SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - and this is where he wants to be.
His political presence in our country is an insult to the memory of every American killed in that war Kurt Waldheim, and Schwarzenegger’s father, participated in.

DO NOT TAMPER WITH OUR CONSTITUTION. BETTER MEN THAN THOSE WHO REPRESENT US TODAY FORGED THAT DOCUMENT IN BLOOD.

FEBRUARY 23,2004

ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY

When Ralph Nader, Green party candidate for president, announced that he would be running again in 2004 it set up a chain reaction worthy of a nuclear meltdown. Democrats were quick to express worry and fear that his candidacy would split the Democratic votes and put Bush back in as president. Republicans indicated that it would be advantageous to them.
Both parties seem to have lost sight of a fundamental truth that transcends both statements.

1) Al Gore DID NOT lose in 2000, so it could not have been Ralph Nader’s fault. Considering that right before the election, Nader’s share of the vote had topped 10% and after the election it was said to only be 2.7%, one of two things happened. Those who said that they planned to vote for Nader changed their minds at the last minute and swung to Gore, OR Nader received the ten percent and it was reduced the same way Gore’s votes were reduced. Considering the games that were played in 2000 that doesn’t seem unreasonable because if Nader was under the 10% his party would not be eligible for matching funds in 2004.

2) And we have proof that Gore lost many thousands of votes from the felon list that removed LEGAL voters, through the Republican “fixing” of absentee ballots, unreadable ballots in senior communities, voting machines that dropped more thousands of votes, intimidation methods in black neighborhoods, missing motor voter registrations, delayed processing of college students voter registration, removal of traditional voting preceints without proper notification, and inaccessible handicapped voting preceints.
And this was just in the state of Florida. The l965 Civil Rights Commission found that these same problems existed in many other states. But Attorney John Ashcroft has never investigated or prosecuted these complaints. (The Civil Rights Commission has no power to file charges, they must turn over their finding to the Justice Department.)

And, while Al Gore was fighting in Florida, where were all the Democrats? Certainly not down in Florida in mass like the Republicans! Every night on the news we were treated to Republican demonstrators but nary a Democrat. And these “demonstrators” were the party enforcers, sent in to intimidate and bludgeon officials who crossed them. Remember those Republicans who invaded the sanctity of the counting rooms to break up the recount? Where were the Democrats who knew that this “demonstration” was rigged?
When the biased Supreme Court ruled that George W. Bush would be harmed if the recount continued, and Al Gore would not be harmed if the recount was stopped, where were Democrats? They meekly accepted Bush’s installation. Where were the Democrats when members of the House of Representatives presented their challenge of the 2000 election. Less than thirty members of the House and NOT ONE SENATOR, INCLUDING KERRY, WOULD SIGN THAT DOCUMENT. And thus we live with the results today. Our citizens dying in a war without end, no jobs, our elderly citizens living in fear of losing both their health insurance and their social security. None of this is Nader’s fault.
Neither Democrats or Republicans want to see change. They want to keep things the way they are. Listen to Kerry’s muddled message which does not contain the firm promises of Kucinich or Dean. And yet the Democratic party has anointed him.

But Nader has a loud persistent voice and people do hear him. The idea that he might inspire others to speak out must be squelched. And both Democrats and Republicans do that by accusing, belittling, shifting responsibility away from themselves onto others. But while we still have a semblance of democracy, know that all of us are free to express what we wish. There has never been a third party allowed to flourish enough to compete with these two. Every strong third party has been brought down. I guess it is time to take out the Green party because of it’s message and it’s strength were not stopped in 2000.

We need change. Kerry or Edwards will not provide it. Nader can not win. But we all know that Bush must go. What a dilemma. What a sad state of affairs. Who can save us? No one. We must find a way to save ourselves. We can’t give up. We can’t give in. We must take back our lives. We must survive the world they have forced us to live in.

FEBRUARY 22, 2004

Now that Democrats have dispatched all but two of the nine candidates running for office of president of the United States, they can get down to business as usual. Back in their familiar rut with Kerry and Edwards, two “experienced” candidates fighting it out for the nomination, they can concentrate of WINNING rather than Reform.

We, the People who hire these guys see it slightly differently. Number 1, is that there are still two candidates out there; Congressman Kucinich and Reverend Al Sharpton. What did they do with these two? Just fling them into the void? I know they don’t have many delegates, but they are still running and believe me, they certainly have more for us to listen to than Kerry and Edwards together!! How do I know?

KERRY V BUSH

Bush has already begun sniping at Kerry, the proclaimed “front runner” of the Democratic party. You would wonder what Bush could use to denigrate Senator Kerry with, since he voted for the Bush agenda but Kerry has something Bush doesn’t - a spotless record of military service during another unwinable war, VietNam.

It must be hard, after declaring yourself an “experienced” Commander in Chief, “one of you.” to suddenly have it pointed out that you only served in the National Guard of Texas by your father’s influence, that you firmly checked off the box that you would not serve in VietNam, and decided campaigning for a Republican senate candidate was more important than fulfilling your duty during time of war.

And while you enjoyed a comfortable life among the wealthy elite, Kerry was sweating and being shot at in VietNam. And so you trundle out the old spin machine, and manufacture a photo of Kerry at a rally where Jane Fonda is giving an antiwar speech. PROBLEM: The two photographers who took the photos at separate events more than a year apart discovered the hoax when it was printed in the New York Times with the headline, “Conservatives Shine Spotlight on Kerry’s Anti War Activities.” Although retracted by the paper, it had been widely circulated on the web and just how many conservatives will believe the lie?

“I don’t know why all these Republicans who didn’t serve in VietNam are fighting a war against those who did.” Kerry states. That’s easy. You guys who did the fighting and dying in VietNam show up their cowardliness. You guys who put your lives and safety on the line to protest our involvement in VietNam show up their cowardliness. They burrowed inside influence and money for protection against making any sort of choice. And now they have taken us directly into the same situation they avoided in VietNam - an unwinable war in Iraq that has claimed 547 on this date.
And Bush has decided to call himself a “wartime president” even as his past military history proves he couldn’t even complete his National Guard commitment! And, in spite of all the economic hype, We, the People do know IT IS THE ECONOMY!!!

The latest Newsweek poll is finally catching up to what we who live in the real world have known all along. Nine out of ten people they surveyed say the most important issue right now is JOBS. 55% disapprove of the way George W. Bush has handled jobs and foreign competition. When asked who would be the best at handling the job issue, 35% said Bush, 31% said Kerry, 18% said Edwards, and 16% didn’t think any of these could handle the job issue well. I suppose Newsweek didn’t think to ask what they thought about the former Vermont governor Howard Dean’s standing on the jobs issue, though. But the biggest surprise is that 4 out of 5 say that greed is the problem; that executives want more profit and just don’t care where it comes from. So watch out, Kerry, the “solutions” you have given the American public won’t be much help in fixing the problem. Better come up with something quick.

MY WAY, OR I’LL CHEAT!
And more news of sneaky doings by the Bush government. They can’t get their biased, right wing, bigoted judges through the the legislative vetting process so they have begun to take advantage of Congress and the Senate being in recess to appoint their choices. The first was Pickering, now it’s Pryer. How many more will there be and just what damage can they do to blind Justice in a year?

The Constitution does give presidents the power to make recess appointments but circumventing the vetting process isn’t what they had in mind. Only 300 judges have been appointed since 1789. Bush has gone way beyond the average of one per year over the span of 215 years!! As Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the senior Judiciary Committee members stated, this is “a flagrant abuse of presidential power. This is an outrageous appointment of a nominee who has questionable commitment to the authority of the Supreme Court and the rule of law.” True, but isn’t that exactly how George W. Bush was appointed president????

GETTING OUT OF HAND
Bush started it, I have absolutely no reason why, except his “god” is always telling him to do the strangest things. But now we are in the process of trying to redo one of the most brilliant documents ever written - the United States Constitution. He wants to make marriage a Constitutional amendment. If we couldn’t get the ERA approved, why should he think we would tamper with it for that?

After all, a marriage license is simply a contract. It used to convey that property (female) had exchanged hands; ie, buyer (husband) from seller (father or male guardian). It is now more often interpreted as protection for the wife and children of this contract. But with more and more women assuming half the burden of supporting the family, the contract has given the female more access to the profits of her labor during the marriage. So why are we refusing to let same sex partners sign the same legal contract?
Because some religions in this country that guarantees the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, wants to limit those rights to those they feel are worthy. I, for one, want all religions to keep their hands OFF my constitution! That definitely includes George W. Bush and John Ashcroft’s interpretation of “god”!! And Schwarzenegger, too.
Considering that Mr. Schwarzenegger has campaigned for a Nazi candidate in a former Nazi country in the past, I am leery of anything he proposes. Refusing to admit his Nazi father’s culpability during World War II enhances my desire to know what motivates him to strike out against the City of San Francisco for allowing Gays to sign a marriage contract. If it is strict religious beliefs, he is Constitutionally forbidden to do so.
If it is his Nazi leanings, then we have a much bigger problem. Perhaps you didn’t pay much attention in History class when they discussed the rise of the Nazis during the 30’s but Hitler didn’t start with the Jews. He started with the mentally “defective”, the chronically ill, homosexuals...and a host of other groups before he got his Jewish disposal system going. So I must ask the question, where is Schwarzennegger going with this? And where will it end????

FEBRUARY 20, 2004

HAVE YOU HEARD?

Now I am not a news junkie but I have known some. They can give you the most interesting tidbits and facts that don’t appear in the mainstream press and sometimes they sound so incredulous that you just have to search them out. And then, for someone like me, occasionally you see, or hear, or read something that just makes you stop and do a double take -- how can something like that happen without it being reported on? So, here are some facts, some from mainstream sources, some from diligent research by those who reported them, and some straight from their origin!

Some of the strangest articles are coming out about our “economic growth.” First, we have the Bush report showing how great everything is for everyone; totally oblivious to the fact that all those unemployed people have not found work. But does it matter? Certainly not when you are putting together a report to make Bush look good for his election bid. On February 9, 2004, with great flourish, he signed an economic report promising to create 2.6 million jobs by the end of 2004.

Good news for those whose resume output is approaching the thousand mark, but this week, the AP is reporting that he is “distancing himself” and refuses to answer questions about the prediction. Scott McClellen, the latest Bush mouthpiece, got down right testy with reporters when they repeatedly asked him why. So the Bush economic agenda seems to be promise them anything and deliver nothing - no meeting with the unemployed for photo-ops, no extension of unemployment benefits. And no new jobs.

And more bad news for the Bush economic agenda just reported. Seventy CEOs from the nation’s largest companies express confidence that the economic growth “will accelerate in 2004” and yet half of these have no plans to “speed up” hiring. And 83% expect unemployment to fall to 5.5% or even 5%. without the return of the jobs lost, creation of new ones, or a ban on outsourcing. The only way for us to reach this optimistic figure is for a whole lot of people to just disappear.
Did any of these guys pass elementary math?

And the final item that puts to rest the “good” economy that Bush is taking credit for, is the one they constantly point to show that we aren’t hurting that bad, is: Housing starts have fallen 7.9% since December 2003. They told us they were up, remember. It had been the “strongest” economic sector due to the low interest rates that everyone who could was taking advantage of to buy or refinance homes.

But I went grocery shopping yesterday, prepare to increase your food budget - if you still have a job to pay for it!

And this is another item that has received little attention from the mainstream “media”. They have given the Bush medicare changes positive coverage but as usual, they present half a picture and half the facts. Let’s start with Health Care Action Day, which is March 4, 2004. This group’s agenda is to call attention to a growing movement for a national health care plan that will cover anyone.

Health care in this country is OUT OF CONTROL. We know that because we ultimately pay the cost. Some of us have chronically ill children and have no choice. Some of us let illnesses slide, hoping they will get better on their own. And some of us have no health care at all. No dental visits, no new glasses, no check ups. We’re the ones with no jobs.

But those still employed are also losing health care. Employers are demanding that worker (who haven’t seen an increase in income in years) must pick up more of their health care cost or at least some of the increase. At the same time employers are cutting employee benefits, the Bush government is making huge cuts in public and private health care funding.

Working families are paying more in taxes, fees, co-pays and premiums. And this is all coming from a salary so small that it takes two workers to support a family today. Given a choice of feeding your children or paying for insurance, which would you choose?

And, in addition to higher health costs for your family, there is a very real possibility that you are going to have to help pick up costs for your parents, too. Bush’s new medicare plan will also end up hurting everyone as he encourages companies to cut back, or drop, retiree benefits, “locks in” high drug prices and introduces “privatization” of medicare. And just to insure you have no health care relief, he is trying to close off the cheaper avenue of getting drugs from Canada and Mexico, where senior citizens have been buying their drugs for years.

And here is one reason that our nation is in so much trouble. George W. Bush has refused to acknowledge, or “go after” his big time campaign contributors who are sacking America. A prime example of two companies that have done so is ENRON, who destroyed their employees’ pension funds and put the state of California in such trouble with their energy scam that the people actually tried to counter the devastation by electing a governor with a history of campaigning for the Nazi party candidate Austria!!

The other is Dick Cheney’s company, which he still receives income from, Halliburton. With no bid contracts assuring millions - perhaps billions - of dollars from the United States government it reigns supreme in Iraq. Last week, a former employee testified at a congressional hearing that he was repeatedly told not to worry about price, that it didn’t matter because the United States government was paying the bill.

There are additional investigations of the company by the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Treasury Department. The latter two involve the time period when Dick Cheney was running the company. We know that Cheney has stonewalled the energy investigation and refused to give up records. Back during the Nixon administration, Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign from office for income tax evasion. Cheney, still receiving money from Halliburton, should at least be held to the same standard of honesty and integrity!

And today news sources predicted that the United States of America will be keeping troops in Iraq for years. They plan to maintain a force of at least 100,000. Think of all the billions of our tax money that George W. Bush has wasted on this invasion. Think of what those billions of tax payer money would do for this country. Think of all his cuts in domestic programs while he shovels billions to Cheney’s Halliburton. Think of all the universal health care it would provide, the school it could run, the jobs it could create. Think of how different your life would be in a country without war. Think of 546 dead citizens; with years left to produce more.

So, whether Bush or Kerry is elected in 2004, be prepared to tighten your belt. Bush has no plans to change. Kerry can’t fix this mess without Bill Clinton’s brain. Without jobs, we will fall off the middle class rung of society’s ladder. Without peace, expect you, or your sons and daughters to face a draft to provide an endless supply oftroops to Iraq. Either way, we are the loosers.

FEBRUARY 19, 2004

HAVE WE LEARNED OUR LESSON?
Dr. Howard Dean just withdrew as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. Because the remaining candidates get no “media” coverage, he is leaving the field to Senators Edwards and Kerry. We should have known...

For some time now, We, the People have realized that what was going on in Washington, D. C. was not in our best interests. We have tried to counter this by forming third parties that would offer a real alternative to the Republican and Democrat parties that seem to be morphing into the same thing.
There are approximately 54 third parties listed on the internet source http//www.politics1.com/parties.htm. We know there are more. Some of these parties represent a single issue, like tax reform, others are broader based. But they all have one thing in common; they are a reaction to the helpless feeling We, the People have about our government’s response to our voices.

We have been trying since the presidency of Ronald Reagan to acquire enough clout to get the political machine humming along in Washington, D. C. to listen to us. In 1995, multiple thousands flocked to a disenchanted Ross Perot, and formed one of the most viable third parties. Candidate Perot’s party had so much influence on the election held in l996 that he was allowed to participate in the Presidential Debates; a political resource denied the Green party in the 2000 election even though it met the qualifications.
Several smaller parties came together with the Perot party to form a much larger, vocal and viable third party under the name “Patriot Party”. There was a real threat that it would become a rival of the established two parties until the divisive infiltration of Pat Bucannon and his associates. The friction of Bucannon’s wresting the party away from its base, caused it to splinter into two separate groups, taking it’s political clout with them. Although both groups ran a presidential candidate, Bucannon for one group, the physicist Haglan (formerly Natural Law candidate) for president for the other group.

Although I have heard that Bucannon has returned to the Republican fold, in the Spring of 2002, a group known as the “Bucannon Brigade” formed the America First party. Since it has never been covered by the “media” where it is headed and if it is running a presidential candidate is unknown at this time.

The other faction of the original Petrot Party returned to the label Reform Party and is presently trying to reorganize and regroup. But they are virtually a nonentity in the political arena at this time. And although some of it’s members have defected to the Green party, the base of Ross Perot’s party seems to remain in tact.

The Green Party. I am sure that everyone is aware of this one. It is still very viable and winning elections on a local level. Ralph Nader was an extremely viable candidate for president in two elections but isn’t being covered by the “media” this year. I’m sure we all know the reason why.

At one point, polls showed that the Green party had over 10% of the popular vote. But, after the fiasco that was the 2000 election, it was reported that Nader received only 2.7% of the vote and would be denied matching funds for the 2004 election. Ralph Nader’s candidacy was also cited as a reason that Vice President Al Gore lost the election. Considering all the illegal chicanery that went into putting George W. Bush in office, I doubt he bears any responsibility!

2.7% of the population is a large number of voters for a third party candidate. Considering the number of citizens denied the vote in 2000, a popular vote that showed Al Gore significantly ahead of Bush, I doubt the Nader candidacy did much more than show how disenchanted we are with the political system we are stuck with.

Another well established third party is the Libertarian Party. This group has been around a very long time and maintains its basic concept of individual liberty; which includes the abolishment of all taxes. It consistently elects candidates for local offices, over 400 to date, but has never gained enough momentum to go national by inclusion in the debates; although they always run a presidential candidate. It receives little “media” notice; usually of the “poking fun” variety. But of all the third parties, Libertarians have been around since the 1970s; always run a presidential candidate and, without publicity, maintains viability and growth.
So, in spite of all these third parties out there, there is room for more.
Howard Dean has pledged to support the Democratic nominee because he feels strongly that we must get George W. Bush out of office. And, in spite of all the bad news now coming out, we must consider the very real possibility of another 2004 election that could bring in the Supreme Court again -- and remember their conclusion in 2000 that George W. Bush would be harmed by not being declared president. That situation has not changed!
But Dr. Dean has been the front runner in this election because of a huge grass roots movement of We, the People. He has raised 41 million dollars, from donors who can’t afford more than a few dollars from their wages. There are far more of them than of the small, elite donors who attend George W. Bush’s fundraising parties.

Dean has pledged that, although he no longer sees himself as having any chance of defeating the Democratic party - and “media” -candidate, he will continue to “build a new organization using our grass roots network to continue the effort to transform the Democratic party and to change the country.” If he wants to build a Third Party, they will follow.
Senator Leahey, (D. VT.) has said, “The party is very different than if he had not run.” Perhaps so. But as of Tuesday Dean had pledges of 201 delegates. Edwards had 190. All the “media” says Dean is “far behind” and Edwards and Kerry are in the lead. Not so, not true.
There was no support for Dean in the Democratic party when he was “front runner” and Kerry was at the bottom. Kerry was a candidate made by Democratic support and “media” hype because his policies and plans are more like Bush’s. He has no plans that will bring back real jobs, no health care reform plans, no plans to get us out of Iraq even though the death toll now stands at 546.

Have we learned our lesson about challenging political parties? No. But they have learned how to stop us. Now we have to learn how We, the People, can bring about real change.

FEBRUARY 18, 2004
KEEPING FOCUSED

I was surprised to hear the “C” word slipping in among the candidates’ rhetoric. I thought the Democrats had decided to refuse to acknowledge either President Clinton or Vice President Al Gore. But there he was, during the debate about lost jobs and economic instability, being used as an example. One quote by Dean said, “I believe the middle class people would gladly pay the same taxes they paid when Bill Clinton was president if only we could have the economy we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Yes, we would gladly go back to those days.
I paused in the discussion of the Wisconsin debate just as they began tackling the hard questions of when and where jobs would return to the United States, and what about the “leave no child behind” plan that has ended up closing schools early in many states and that subject of health care for the un-wealthy has again reared its head.

Lester Holt, MSNBC anchor and “Weekend Today” co-anchor, asked the question on everyone’s mind. Can you bring those jobs back?
To me, that was the real test for the candidates. Their honesty could be judged on this alone. When Mr. Holt asked, “be specific as how you would bring them back beyond canceling NAFTA?” he was asking the question that frightened Americans the most. And that was, will we ever be able to return to what we had just three short years ago?

Reverend Sharpton answered succinctly, “I think we bring the jobs back...by creating manufacturing jobs; three, by creating jobs.” His plan is to create jobs for our skilled workers and put them to work doing what they were trained for, like rebuilding highways, roadways, bridges, tunnels, rebuild the ports. He believes the path toward putting America back to work is to cut off the trade agreements and bring the manufacturing companies back, then you will be bringing the workers back too.

During the Great Depression, none of our jobs were lost because of “outsorcing” to foreign countries. FDR work projects created jobs for those who couldn’t find any. It worked. Coupled with import penalties for foreign manufactured goods by American companies, it would work again.

Moderator Gousha asked Senator Edward if We, the People should just be told the truth, that many of these jobs are not coming back. Senator Edward responded that, yes, the truth should be told, that Americans would just have to realize that “we are not going to get them back.” He continues, j”...the very idea that we give tax breaks to American companies, who are leaving and going overseas and taking jobs with them, is absolutely crazy when we are losing millions of jobs. We should...give tax breaks to American companies that...are keeping jobs right here in America.” BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PUT AMERICANS BACK TO WORK? TAX PENALTIES AND TAX BREAKS AREN’T GOING TO BRING BACK JOBS!

No one else was directly challenged for a PLAN to put America back to work. But we know that Kucinich and Dean do have plans. And Dean HAS proven that he can run a solvent, employed state. That is more than Kerry and Edwards, the front runners, have proved.

Then, the debate turned to Health Care. Moderator Gousha decided to ask Kucinich first,, what would you do first? What health care needs would you take care of first as president?

Rep. Kucinich began by stating that he had already introduced legislation, H>R> 676, to create a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system. He also added that we are paying $1.6 trillion for health care spending and that equivalent to a universal standard of care. “The American people can have that if they have a president who is ready to show the leadership...and I am, and I will be.” The audience applauded his promise.

Next, Craig Gilbert from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked Senator Kerry what he would take care of first. Senator Kerry gave the standard answer that, next to creating jobs, this was the single most important priority in the country. He wants the same health care plan as Senators and Congressmen have to be available to all Americans. What I failed to hear is: Do We, the People pay for this plan, does government subsidize it, or are unemployed Americans expected to pay for this? He also says he will cover every child but doesn’t go the distance as Kucinich has with his promise to include dental, vision, mental health care, long term care, and a fully paid prescription drug benefit.

Kerry also plans to lower the cost of health care for businessmen by taking all catastrophic cases out of the system and paying for it with the tax cut George W. Bush passed. He says it will lower the premiums for all Americans --- but what about those people who can’t afford premiums???

Gloria Borgor, co-host of CNBC ‘s Capitol Report and columnist for the U.S. News and World Report, questioned Senator Edwards about encouraging cutting deals with Canada for prescription drugs, like The governor of Wisconsin had done. Edwards gave an emphatic, “Absolutely.” He continues with, “I listen to the candidates talk about health care. They say..."we’re going to cover 97%. Everybody is going to be covered. All the kids are going to be covered. We’re going to give all these tax cuts for the middle class, and oh, by the way, we’re also going to balance the budget in the next four years...I mean, let’s face it. It’s either buy America or it’s bye bye America.

Next on the agenda was asking how to solve the Iraq Invasion crisis.
For this question, Gilbert zoomed on former Governor Dean with the question that Dean had stated in a recent debate ...that those soldiers were sent there by the votes..of Senators Leiberman, Edwards and Kerry. Do you believe that because of the way they voted to authorize force in Iraq, that they share some degree of responsibility for the war...it’s cost and casualties?
Dean’s answer, “Sure. I think any of us who support...anybody who votes to support that...I think we ll bear responsibility for the votes that we cast...”
Gilbert then turned to Kerry, “you said...because your vote wasn’t a vote for what the president ultimately did. ...You did vote to give him the authority...do your feel any degree, any degree of responsibility...?”

Kerry spoke of his war experience and said that is why he wanted to beat Bush because it was “one of the lessons I learned, being an instrument of American policy.” But he must not have learned the lesson well enough if he gave carte blanch to Bush in Iraq. When pressed on if he feels responsible, he dredged up President Clinton’s going into Kosovo without Congressional approval. But I was under the impression that Kosovo was not an invasion but an international force backed by the United Nations. And he concluded that “My regret is not the vote. It was appropriate... My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war...” In other words, Senator Kerry would have invaded Iraq also, he would just have done it differently!

Gloria Borgor gave the WMD question to Kucinich, asking if he believed that Bush knowingly lied to the AMerican people, and if so, why would he do that?
One thing about former Governor Dean and Representative Kucinich, ask a question; get a blunt answer. “I think this administration knew full well that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, with al Qaeda’s roll in 9/11, with the anthrax attack on this country, that Iraq had neither the capability nor the intention of attacking the United States, that Iraq was not trying to get uranium from Niger and that, in fact, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.” He also emphasized that he alone, of the candidates qualified to vote for or against the war, had voted against that invasion and against the Patriot Act. He also said that AS A RANKING DEMOCRAT ON A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER NATIONAL SECURITY, HE NEVER SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS A REASON FOR THIS COUNTRY TO GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ!

He is the only candidate to emphatically state that it was wrong, it is wrong to stay and that we need to bring our guards men and women home. Stop the war, get out. But Burger needed to reconfirm what he said, stating, So I take it the answer is yes that the president knowingly lied to the American people. Kucinich: “The president lied to the American people.”
There was much more to this debate, some important, some not. But the salient facts that emerged in my mind are these:

1. Rev. Al Sharpton is a great speaker; he puts things in perspective in a way most of us can understand. He shares his experiences with us and some we can nod agreement with. His plans for our country are solid and good. I do believe he can do the job of president; although the “media” tell us otherwise.

2. Senator Edwards likes to portray himself as a man of the people. That is not a bad thing. He speaks in platitudes and experiences that we can all understand, but he is short on real plans which appear vague and unformed. IF he becomes the Democratic nominee I will vote for him because to do otherwise, risks another four years of the Bush agenda. But I don’t feel he will make sweeping changes in our government or in our lives.

3. John Kerry leaves me cold. His statements could have come from any mouth on Capitol Hill. I get the feeling that he is telling us what he knows we want to hear but there is little passion behind his words. I truly feel that if Kerry is elected; and again, I will vote for him if he is the candidate against Bush; we will have four years of paper pushing status quo. His plans for reform do not represent real reform but maintain much of the status quo. His plans all incorporate existing government ideas and there is nothing new there.

4. Former governor Howard Dean is a burst of real passion with tried and proven ideas that he has used to keep Vermont from plummeting to the level of so many states under George W. Bush’s agenda. I believe him when he says he will bring us universal health care, give us jobs and bring back pride in being American. Vermont may be a small state but it is successful under his governorship. I’ll take "small" improvement in the United States if it is all we can get.

5. Representative Dennis Kucinich has impressed me with his ideas and his honesty. Although coming from a humble background, he does not use it to score points. He has real plans for change in America. I believe he has the intelligence and the will to do so. Does he have a chance? No. The “media” that has consistently given Dean bad press, has virtually ignored Kucinich.

So, the three candidates with the real ideas for changing our country will not succeed. We will be left with Edwards and Kerry who have no real ideas at all. We will elect one of them because we know we can not survive four more years of George W. Bush and we will muddle through the next four years debating health care , education, and how to stop job losses. The Iraq war will go on, just as it did in VietNam.
And We, the People will wait for 2008 and another chance to elect another leader. But what will change?

FEBRUARY 16, 2004

I WANT TO KNOW

Things are always happening that grab our attention and cause us to pause and ask, “I’d like to know how that happened!” Things like, how does the accused child molester Michael Jackson get to keep his kids in his custody when we know that ours would be long gone; or why Janet Jackson gets her own congressional investigation for exposing one breast during last month’s Superbowl half-time program but Congress can’t get it together and investigate Novak’s publishing of a CIA agent’s name after all these months. Or why Brittany Spears’ brief Las Vegas marriage got more mainstream press coverage than Bush’s WMD lies in his state of the union speech!

“Media” tell us that it is because we’re too stupid to care about “real issues” that put our lives in jeopardy -- like invading Iraq. They tell us it is because we have a “short attention span” and really don’t care what methods were used to seize the Florida election. And so they must feed us a steady diet of pap and pabulum to keep our attention.

Is it true that you’re just too dumb to understand the ramifications of all our jobs being outsourced to India and China or is it the old Roman notion of keeping We, the People occupied with “Bread and Circuses”? I vote for the latter, with a pencil and paper ballot where erasure marks can be seen.

Some things I wish real reporters, (you know, the kind that go out and investigate and dig up stories instead of printing press releases) would find out for me are :
Just why National Guard Lt. George W. Bush checked off that he would not volunteer for VietNam have absolutely no qualms about sending National Guard members to invade Iraq and keeping them there for an undetermined amount of time?

And while we’re on the subject of Iraq, just why didn’t the “media” point out that, after he started the war, Bush lazed around on vacation and attended fund raising parties while those same National Guardsmen were dying in the desert? Or just exactly what the (blank) are we doing there?

I’m also puzzled as to why no one but American workers find it frightening that our jobs are disappearing faster than you can say “outsourcing”! And why none of the candidates (with the exception of Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton) have mentioned the matter in their campaign speeches and have put forth no plan to fix it?

Or take the environment, how did it happen that Bush has threatened, demanded, and signed legislation that would put our whole world in extreme jeopardy and the guardians of our lives appeared not to care. Why was arsenic in the water termed good, cutting trees would prevent fires (but not landslides or floods) and going back to fossil fuels (read Bush oil money) would be good for the atmosphere? (Remember Ronald Reagan’s declaration that trees polluted?)

And why is Osama bin Laden no longer important to George W. Bush??

Why is the Bush government stalling a total and complete investigation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack upon New York City and the Pentagon? We know Mr. Bush did not acquit himself well, that his leadership skills were non existent; that, in fact, the authority for responding to that attack was left to just about anyone who would step forward and respond. And that the period before the attack, information that could have stopped it was leaking like a sieve from every agency! So why didn’t the “media” challenge the image of a tough take charge Bush that never existed??

And why didn't they investigate those Saudi planes that took off, with Bush’s approval, to fly out Saudi citizens, when permission to fly in our former presidents, vice president, and members of Congress and the Senate was denied???

And I really want to know who thought those photo ops of Bush flying to an aircraft carrier off shore to declare the “war” over, or delivering a “secret turkey” to Iraq wouldn't end up fodder for comedians!

But most of all, I want to know how Kerry and Edwards, the “experienced” candidates running for the Democratic nomination, were so far at the bottom that they were slightly above Mosely Braun and Sharpton, and with all their positive “media” coverage couldn’t get into double digits poll-wise; yet suddenly surged ahead of front runner Howard Dean who was receiving nothing but negative “media” coverage!

All those real reporters should be out there investigating this phenomenon intensely. Howard Dean, former Vermont governor, who has kept his state budget balanced, provided health care for Vermont citizens, and kept unemployment down, is considered unworthy of the Democratic nomination! Why??? Don’t We, the People deserve a candidate with a proven track record?

Why doesn’t some enterprising reporter, with visions of Watergate’s Woodward and Bernstein in their mind, set out to do a little investigative reporting and give us the inside dope on why it is Kerry winning all those caucus and not Dean? Bet it has something to do with “party politics”....

And most of all, I want to know why We, the People, just take this stuff. Are we too tired to care that Bush has created the largest deficit in United States history, that he did this with the help of both house? Are we too worried about where our children’s next meal will be coming from to worry that he has squandered a three trillion dollar surplus that would have provided $l0,000 for every citizen of this country? Are we too frightened by “Orange Alerts” to assert ourselves? Do we really accept the politicians lies that they spoonfeed us through the “media”? Are we really too frightened by “orange alerts” to assert ourselves?

Are we really so far apart that we can not unite to stop the madness that has gripped our country? I want to know!

FEBRUARY 15, 2004

Today is the day that I gather up all the little tidbits the “media” puts forward in one light and change the direction the light is shinning. I hope today’s offering will show you a new way of looking at some very old news.

A NEW CHART

Yesterday I did a blog on the report recently released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Today I came across a more detailed chart of our “jobs of the future”. After reading it you may be sorry that you wasted all those years following your parents’ - and government’s - advice to GET AN EDUCATION.
We all know that the United States is no longer a “manufacturing” economy but a “service” economy. The new jobs prove it. Predicted growth in janitors and cleaners (but not housekeepers) is predicted to be 414,000, General and operations managers will increase 376,000.

Waiters and Waitresses are reported as an increase of 367,000. And in that burgeoning “health care” catch all, nursing aids, orderlies and attendants, the increase will be 343,000. Today, most of these jobs are not required to have a college education. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with working at these professions except our society has designated most of these as minimum wage, unskilled labor.

And one they haven’t added to the list that is consistently the lowest paid profession is that of child care. Considering the wages being paid to workers, and the necessity of having two full time workers in a household just to supply food and shelter, there should be a tremendous need for someone to take care of the children - or else we’ll be reaching 0 population growth!

AND MORE “GOOD” NEWS....

Coupled with the Bureau’s “inspiring” report on our predicted job growth, comes economic news about consumer buying during and after the holiday season. Seems our economists are having some trouble interpreting basic math; i.e. If We, the People, get income that meets basic needs, (food, clothing, shelter) we tend to spend and/or save the left over. When you don’t have “leftover” and you are maxed out on credit, you tend to contract your spending - or in the words of non-economists, WE DO WITHOUT!!

Taking a look at the data, that is what we have been doing for the last three years, shrinking our buying to fit our incomes. Economists are puzzling over the fact that WalMart seems to be keeping it’s sales up, while other retailers are not. This isn’t hard to understand. If you are having income flow problems, you go where what you need is the cheapest. Get used to is. Take away more jobs and more income and sales are going to fall again, guys. WalMart raises its prices and we’ll find somewhere cheaper to shop.

The government’s retail sales data which was published Thursday was worse than expected. Sales of items costing a lot of money was listed as abysmal, while items making up a good “core” number, such as the food and energy sector (stop buying these, stop living) was due to the higher cost of these items. You really don’t need an economics degree to figure this one out.

Income in
- expenses out
= left to spend
Negative or positive number determines if you go shopping.

IRAQ: THE NEW FRONTIER IN TERRORISM

George W. Bush told us he was “saving” the Iraqis from Saddam and that God told him to do it. God has obviously put him on another crusade to stop the “spread of weapons of mass destruction” according to his latest radio broadcast.
He hasn’t let his new campaign get in the way of our breaking nuclear treaties and beginning to manufacture new “weapons of mass destruction” though. He has pushed new spending for nuclear weapons through congress and they have complied without restraint or criticism.

This man is scary. He says the United States, represented in the form of George W. Bush, has shown its willingness to use force when necessary and that no one can doubt the determination of America to oppose and end these threats to our security. Uh, just a minute. I don’t recall ANY referendum concerning nuclear war.

He wants international cooperation of law enforcement organizations to act against these perceived WMD fanatics who would blow up the world. He is urging the “irrelevant” Security Counsel of the United Nations to pass a resolution requiring all states to criminalize proliferation, and enact strict export controls. Uh, isn’t this the same organization that Mr. Bush ignored when he decided on his own to invade Iraq? If they couldn’t stop us, how does Bush propose the Security Counsel can enforce their will on other sovereign nations. With force?

Ah, yes. They will listen to force, and Bush’s America can provide that, can’t it? Mr. Bush is determined to make us safe from terrorism by controlling the world - except, our ally, Pakistan, has admitted that they gave nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea and perhaps others and we did nothing. In fact, this good ally that was supposed to deliver Osama bin Laden (remember him?) to us, has pardoned the nuclear scientist who produced Pakistanis nuclear program and confessed to giving away nuclear secrets. And Bush hasn’t let out a peep!
But Mr. Bush is notorious for his ignoring the behavior of his friends while criticizing the same behavior in others. (Enron, Halburton). And these biases sometimes lead to consequences detrimental to not only We, the People, but to the world. Take Iraq.

Since the “war” was official declared over in May 2003, the opposition against the military forces in Iraq keeps growing and getting better organized. Saturday, a professional, coordinated attack on an Iraqi police station west of Baghdad killed 23 people, wounded 37 and released dozens of prisoners. The rumors circulating was that the attack was organized by Shiite Muslim militia.

Last week 100 people were killed in a guerrilla attack on Iraqis who
had joined the police or military in Baghdad. More rumors believe that the attacks are by outside forces, like Arabs or Syrians or al Qaida. The Kurds are also demanding a Kurdish state. Mr. Bush has stirred up a hornets nest, and the victims are our sons and daughters, mostly from National Guard units like the one Bush joined to keep out of VietNam.

Ironic isn’t it? His father used influence to get him into the Texas Air National Guard by jumping a list of 500, and now he is sending thousands of National Guardsmen to a similar war in Iraq. And he has occupied himself with vacations and raising over 130 million dollars for his private “war chest” while 540 Americans died in his war. The war he would not fight in took over 58,000 lives. He is well on his way to his first thousand casualties.