Bad Government

2003-08-12T21:42:00.000-04:00

Bush is a Bad Roll Model for Our Children

We all want our children to become the best that they can be intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. We know that children learn from observing adults around them and from authoritative figures. They learn by example.

Seeing how the President of the United States is considered by our children and some adults to be one of the most authoritative people in the country, (even if he isn’t) what he says and does has some impact on the their values.

Americans must ask themselves this question: What are the children learning from this sad episode in our countries history? The sad truth is that our children are learning from the Bush Administration and the people who support him that it’s okay to tell a lie to get something you really desire. They’re learning not to let the real truth get in the way of their desires. If you have to tell more lies to cover for the first lie so be it. The only thing that matters is that you get what you want.

President Bush himself has never admitted to being a liar, but anybody with an open mind now knows or should know that the uranium from Niger story is nothing but a lie. Some in this Administration continue to call the lie technically correct and that President Bush didn’t know at the time of his State of the Union Address that the story was based on a forgery (another lie to cover for the first lie).

Who can forget the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair? Remember the uproar from the republicans about how Bill Clinton was destroying the values of this country. How his actions were sending the wrong message to the children.

By focusing on the private life of the president the republicans were the ones destroying values in this country. The children wouldn’t have received that wrong message if the republicans didn’t make a big deal about something that had nothing to do with how this country is run nor did it have anything to do with our national security.

In his Acceptance Speech for the republican nomination on August 3, 2000 at the RNC Convention in Philadelphia, Bush said, “Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values, to show we have grown up before we grow old. But when the moment for leadership came, this administration [the Clinton Administration] did not teach our children, it disillusioned them.” If Clinton disillusioned the children then so did Bush. He’s also unfortunately teaching the children that it’s ok to lie and that it’s ok to strike first at your perceived enemies to be sure that they don’t strike you sometime in the future. He is also teaching the children not to except personal responsibility and to search for a scapegoat instead.

In his Inaugural Address on January 20, 2001 in the U.S. Capitol, Bush said “America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected. Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats; it is a call to conscience.”

Too bad Bush doesn’t practice what he preaches. Who was responsible for those 16 words in his State of the Union Address? Bush most certainly didn’t take responsibility for those sixteen words. The scapegoats were George Tenet and Steven Hadley. I guess Bush thinks that personal responsibility is for others and it is not expected of him. Apparently he has no conscience. Is this what we want for our country? Is this really what we want our children to learn? I don’t think so.

Many Republicans want to force their morality onto others, but from what I've been seeing in the Whitehouse I don't want any part of their kind of morality.

2003-08-11T07:36:00.000-04:00

They Must Be Brought to Justice

Americans don’t like to be lied to especially on matters of war and peace. From the evidence available there is no doubt that we were lied to on a range of issues regarding the invasion of Iraq. The three lies of most importance are (1) Iraq’s supposed attempt to acquire Uranium from Niger, (2) The imminent Chemical and Biological Weapons that we knew Iraq had and according to Donald Rumsfeld where at least some of them were located (3) The al Qaeda link to Saddam Hussein.

These three lies led to the invasion of a sovereign country causing the death and severe injuries to many American troops and many innocent deaths and injuries among Iraqi civilians. This invasion did nothing to help eliminate terrorism as the Bush Administration insists and in fact will very likely cause more terrorism in the future. We are now bogged down in a guerilla war in Iraq and the troops now in Iraq are not available for where they are actually needed. We now have an unfinished war in Afghanistan and an unfinished war in Iraq.

Some are calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush; some are calling for his defeat in the 2004 presidential election. Neither impeachment nor loosing the next election is punishment enough for the crimes committed. The grave consequences of this invasion based on lies by the Bush Administration, calls for the severest of punishments. Because of the seriousness of the crimes this justice must be carried out just as swiftly as President Bush makes decisions about serious matters affecting this country and the world. There must be little room for debate and argument.

If we are to return integrity to the highest office of the land we must do what is necessary to prevent similar events from ever occurring again. Because of the blatant misuse of power an example must be made of those responsible for the lies. The message must be sent that the leaders of this country will be held accountable for their actions and that they are not above the law.

Those responsible for these crimes must be prosecuted for the murder of innocent people and the pain and suffering they caused. Anything short of that is a miscarriage of justice and further discredits the United States in the eyes of honest people here at home and around the world.

2003-08-10T03:41:00.000-04:00

Are We Really Winning the War

President Bush is patting himself on the back for the good job he thinks he’s doing fighting terrorism. Bush says we’re winning the war on terrorism and he’s confident were doing the right thing. He points to the number of suspected terrorist killed or arrested and the fact that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power as proof that we are winning the war on terrorism. Never mind the fact that there are thousands more that can be recruited as terrorist. Never mind the fact that there is no evidence indicating that Saddam was involved with terrorism and never mind the fact that Saudi Arabia probably was.

Using Bush’s criteria for determining who is winning the war, the terrorist could say they are winning by pointing to the number of Americans being killed and injured, the American military equipment being destroyed (which cost money, something we don’t have, we’ll have to borrow it) and the fact that Osama Bin Laden has not been found.

With the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, the bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Jakarta and Washington warning of more terror attacks in Indonesia, the continued unrest in Iraq, the continued unrest in Afghanistan, the continued attacks on American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and with reports that Al-Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, a good case can be made that it is too early to say we’re winning the war on terrorism.

It’s the same old don’t worry everything is going to be just fine optimistic outlook psychology that’s been used countless times by this Administration. This Administration and its followers are almost like a cult. The followers see a leader that can’t do any wrong even when the evidence is right there in front of their face and the evidence is plenty.

We were led to believe it would be a short war in Iraq, it’s not. We had the imminent WMD’s threat, still NO WMD’s found. We had the uranium from Niger LIE, it was a FORGERY. We had the mushroom cloud scare tactic, NO nuclear program found. We had the Al-Qaeda connection, NO Al-Qaeda connection has been found. We were told the major part of the war is over. If the major part of war took three weeks, why is it that after four months the minor part of the war continues with no end in sight? If the death toll continues at the present rate there will be more Americans killed in the minor part of the war then in the major part. Unless Mr. Bush doesn’t value American lives that would mean that the minor part of the war is actually the major part of the war and that would also mean that Bush was wrong when he said the major part of the war was over.

How much more proof do some people need before they realize they’re being misled and lied to and the deity that they adore and worship is nothing but a pathological liar who uses religion as a tool to manipulate the populace.

It’s called blind loyalty. Isn’t that exactly what happened in Germany under Hitler? To quote Thomas Jefferson: “When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny.” I don’t know about anybody else but I for one definitely fear the government.

The American people are being brainwashed and they don’t even know it. Of course that’s how brainwashing is supposed to work, you’re not supposed to know you’re being brainwashed.

Seeing how about 80% of people get most of their news from television it is the preferred propaganda tool. It worked very effectively as was seen in the run up to the war with Iraq. When you have a public that isn’t completely informed because of the incomplete, incompetent and biased news on U.S. television – which is more interested in taking a regional issue hyping it up and making it into a national soap opera then doing real indebt reporting of national interest - you have a public which is left ignorant of the real facts and can easily be misled.

Quote by Thomas Jefferson: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”

2003-08-08T02:50:00.000-04:00

Celebrity Bashing

Judging from the criticism some Hollywood celebrities are getting from conservative talk show hosts you would think they committed a capital offence. From Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity from Joe Scarborough to Bill O’Reilly they all took their turn blasting celebrities that didn’t agree with their line of thinking.

How dare mere Hollywood celebrities let it be known where they stand on political issues, they howled. They don’t know anything about politics, they moaned. How dare they use their fame for political purposes, they cried. Just who do they think they are? They’re just the loony left living in gaga land. Nobody listens to them anyway, was the often repeated line.

If nobody listens to them anyway than why are the conservative talk show hosts making such a big deal about it? If nobody listens to them, then it doesn’t matter what they say, am I right? And if it doesn’t matter what they say then it makes no sense to talk about what they say. It’s a non issue. It doesn’t matter. That means the conservative talk show hosts are wasting everybody’s time by talking about what the celebrities say when nobody’s listening to what the celebrities say anyway.

Bashing celebrities for their political view when they’re not there to defend themselves seems to be a Joe Scarborough specialty. Former Republican Congressman turned talk show host (and a quitter, he resigned from Congress before his term was up) Joe Scarborough joined the chorus of celebrity bashers and broadcast a whole week of MSNBC’s Scarborough country from Hollywood, bashing celebrities he labeled as liberals every chance he could. This from a man who starts his TV show with “No passport required, NO MEDIA BIAS ALLOWED.” He fails to realize he is part of the media and he is himself biased. If he doesn’t know that he is biased how can he possibly know if somebody else is biased? I would suggest that Mr. Scarborough look up the meaning of the word bias.

Now that Arnold Schwarzenegger - a republican - announced he is running for governor of California are the conservative talk show hosts going to bash him? Or is Schwarzenegger somehow different than the rest of Hollywood celebrities? Will he be derided for using his fame to try to be elected to a public office? Will his viewpoints on politics be ok if they agree with those of the talk show hosts?

There is nothing wrong with Schwarzenegger running for public office. That’s the way it should be. If a person is qualified they should be able to run for public office no matter what their occupation. They should also be able to express their views. Just be prepared to be bombarded by the media frenzy covering the story that's sure to occure.

The point is all the ruckus about celebrities and politics is ridiculous and nothing more than a ploy used by certain cliques to push their own political agenda. They complain about celebrities using their fame and notoriety to push their political beliefs, but all the while the cliques are using national TV on a daily basis to push their own political agendas.

2003-08-06T20:32:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the Lousy Eight Dollars Mr. President

Sorry folks but due to the present circumstances I won’t be helping the economy very much. I hope you accept my apologies. Don’t get me wrong I would really like to help, but my lousy $8 a week from the Bush tax cuts doesn’t go very far. That works out to $1.14 a day. Heck the tooth fairy pays better than that. Hey I guess I shouldn’t complain because after all that’s what some people in Third World countries make for a days work and here I am getting it for nothing, compliments of Mr. Bush. I don’t know about anybody else but it’s hard for me to feel any richer with an $8 increase in my weekly pay check.

How far does $8.00 go? Not very far. For eight bucks I could get a pizza as long as it wasn’t a large and as long as I didn’t get too many extra toppings. Eight bucks could get me into the movie theater but there would be nothing left to buy popcorn. If I were real careful in my selections I could get a meal for two at one of the fast food joints like MacDonald’s or Burger King and I might even get some change back. With eight bucks I could buy 5 gallons of gas and take a long drive in my car, but I wouldn’t have any money to spend along the way on the simple pleasures such as a burger and a cola.

I’m here to tell you $8.00 doesn’t go very far at all. In fact the extra $8.00 a week in my pay check is so imperceptible that I didn’t even realize I got a tax cut allowing me to “keep more of my own money.” The only way I knew I got a tax cut was by examining my pay stubs after hearing Bush say that all working Americans would be getting tax cuts. Upon checking my pay stubs, low and behold there it was an extra $8.00 per week.

“Every working American will get a tax cut” Bush said. Boy that sure sounds good doesn’t it? Bush should have said the average working American will get an insignificant tax cut while the millionaires will get a very significant tax cut.

While I get to keep an extra $450 a year or $8.00 a week of my “own money” the average millionaire gets to keep $93,500 a year or $1798 a week. That’s $1.14 a day for me and $256 a day for the millionaire. I guess that’s because some believe in their own mind that I’m not as productive as the millionaires, after all we can’t be taking money from the productive and giving it to the un-productive can we?

One thing is certain; I won’t be using my $8 a week to buy a new car or for that matter I won’t even be buying a used car. I won’t be using my $8 a week to take a fancy vacation or even a not so fancy vacation. I won’t be going on a big shopping spree or even a small shopping spree. I won’t be buying a new washing machine, dryer, refrigerator, carpeting, or any other big ticket household items. No I’ll probably just use the measly eight bucks to pay on my charge card which will have no effect on the economy at all.

So even though I’d love to take part in getting the economy going and help create jobs, at this time it is impossible for me to be of any help. I hope my apologies are accepted and I hope the millionaires have a good time in their endeavor of getting our economy going again. I’m confident they can do a much better job of spending money than an un-productive person like me. God Bless America.

2003-08-05T02:05:00.000-04:00

A Presidency Surrounded by Controversy

Just about every policy of the Bush Administration is surrounded by controversy. Even before Bush officially became president on Inauguration Day there was controversy surrounding the election that put him in power. There was the controversy of people not being able to vote in the Florida election because they were fraudulently removed from the voter registration list, in a state whose governor is George W. Bush’s brother and whose Secretary of State, Katherine Harris used to work for the Republican Party. There was also the controversy over the counting of ballots with “hanging chads” and voter intent. The Supreme Court finally stopped the vote counting, effectively giving Mr. Bush the presidency adding to the controversy.

Bush didn’t waste any time before starting another controversy by withdrawing the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol. Almost immediately after he declared his administration would not require industry to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, President Bush delivered another blow to the world's climate by refusing to support the global warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol. This treaty, negotiated by more than 100 countries over a decade, calls for the 38 largest industrial nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012 to 5.2 percent below the levels in 1990. President Bush has stated that conforming with the accord is not in the U.S. interests. That last statement in itself is controversial.

Then came 9/11 and the controversial Patriot Act. The Patriot Act remains controversial, a total of 118 cities, towns, and counties have passed resolutions urging repeal.

Now we have the Iraq war which is the most controversial policy of all time, even worse than the Vietnam War. Before the start of the war in Iraq the large anti-war protest around the world were unprecedented. Never before in our history have there been so many people all around the world protesting what they considered to be an unjust war even before the war started.

It’s been nothing but controversy since before the war in Iraq started and it continues to be nothing but controversy today. We’ve had the uranium from Africa controversy, which was caused by the Bush Administration using false intelligence. If the Bush Administration hadn’t used false intelligence there would not have been a controversy. There’s the controversy about the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq and the cost involved.

We have the WMD’s controversy. A controversy caused by Mr. Bush and his Administration. In their eagerness to go to war they used intelligence that is plain to see was not very good or it was hyped up intelligence, which leads to was Iraq an imminent threat to the U.S. mainland and its allies controversy. Mr. Bush went as far as to say Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Any reasonable person now knows that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies as the bush administration claims.

Finally we have the tax cut controversy, the tax cuts that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the working people. Even some of the riches people in the U.S. people such as Warren Buffet who calls the tax cuts on dividends “dividend voodoo” says the tax cut is unfair.

To be fair Bush doesn’t get all the blame for the unfair tax cuts because many in congress both Democrats and Republicans voted for the tax cut package. That really isn’t surprising when you consider that 40 of the100 Senators are millionaires, some many times over, not including the price of their primary residence, which in some cases may exceed $1 million by itself.

Mr. Bush campaigned under the guise that he would unite the nation, but with all the controversy surrounding the Whitehouse since Bush has become president the nation is more divided than ever.

2003-08-02T21:02:00.000-04:00

Legislating Morality

When the rulers of this country enact laws and try to amend the Constitution to make certain acts a crime - because they think it is immoral - we’re in big trouble. Yet that is exactly what some inside and outside of government want to do, they want to legislate their morality because in their mind they believe certain acts are sinful.

Just about everybody can agree on the need for laws. Without laws there would be complete chaos. Because human nature is towards wickedness. We need laws to try to prevent as much wickedness as possible. But what is wickedness? People judge wickedness by their moral beliefs. And what are morals? Morals are just someone’s assertion that something is true without evidence. One persons morals can be different from another persons morals. That doesn’t make either person’s morals any more right or wrong than the other.

Where do people get their morals? People are either taught their morals by their church, their parents, or society. They may also analyze everything they’ve learned and make their own decision on their morality.

So how should a society determine what is moral? Some believe religion and the bible should determine what is moral. If that’s the case, which religion should determine that morality? There in lies the problem. Nobody can argue definitively that their morals are correct and somebody else’s morals are wrong because they have no evidence to prove it, they only have their beliefs.

Our Founding Fathers realized this fact when they were drafting the Constitution. They also knew about religious persecutions for moral reasons in England by the state established church. That’s why the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

In a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut Jefferson wrote “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Building a wall of separation between church and state is pretty strong language. That certainly sounds to me like the Founding Fathers did not want the church deciding government policies and vise-versa. The Founding Fathers didn’t want a state sponsored religion and they didn’t want to deny the right of the people to believe in any religion that they choose along with the morals that that religion teaches.

The one moral concept that the vast majority of people can agree on is that it is immoral to cause harm to others. That’s it. That covers everything murder, rape, theft, destroying others property, purposely injuring another person, incest, and anything else that is harmful to others excluding hurt feelings. If we can’t say something because it might hurt someone’s feelings we loose the right to free speech. That’s the price one pays for living in a free society sometimes you hear or see things you don’t agree with.
That’s not to say that you can’t have other moral beliefs just that if everyone lived by the moral belief that a person does not cause harm to others the world would be a more humane place for everyone.

No one has the right to force their moral beliefs on anyone else through the enactment of laws, no matter how noble they believe it to be. Where does it all stop? Do we make contraception illegal because the church says sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin? Do we throw people in jail for oral sex and masturbation because religion says it is sinful and immoral? What about the ultimate crime in some fanatics minds of homosexual sex acts? Do we throw all homosexuals in jail? Or maybe they should be burned at the stake.

We already punish people just for using marijuana - a victimless crime - because some think it is morally wrong. In actuality marijuana is no different than alcohol use (which some also believe is morally wrong). So why are we wasting the time and taxpayer money throwing people in jail for a victimless crime just to appease people who’s morality differs from that of the victim.

Governments job is supposed to be to serve and protect the people, not controll the people because of religious beliefs. I just wish people would stop trying to govern how other people live their lives just because they don’t agree with those life styles.

2003-07-31T12:58:00.000-04:00

The Working Class Heroes

The working class are the ones who physically built this country and the working class are the ones who die protecting this country and its interests, including the interests of big corporations. The working class builds and uses the implements of war, under the command of the elite. The working class drilled the oil and gas wells and mined the natural resources. The working class built the roads, bridges, railroads and airports. The working class built the World Trade Center and every other skyscraper in every State of the Union. The working class built the hospitals, schools and churches. The working class built the dams, power plants and the entire electrical distribution network. The working class built the fresh water treatment plants and the waste water treatment plants and laid the pipes that move this water to its final destination. The working class built the automobiles, trains, ships and planes. The working class built housing, hotels and restaurants. The working class serves the people staying in those hotels and feeds the people eating at those restaurants. The working class supplies the food that ends up in the supermarket built by the working class. The working class protects our safety, puts out the fires, teaches our children and tends to our medical needs. The working class built the computers, radios and televisions now used to the advantage of the elite to spread their propaganda. The working class transports materials to where they are needed and loads and unloads those materials. The working class built the very machines that helped the working class become more efficient. The working class even built the Whitehouse the Pentagon and the mansions that the elite live in. It’s plain to see that without the working class there would be no elite class. The fact of the matter is somebody has to do the physical work, everyone can’t be a businessman or government official.

The elite need the working class more than the working class needs the elite. A society consisting entirely of working class people could survive because no matter what the elite think the working class do have a brain and are capable of coming up with innovating ideas. But a society consisting entirely of the elite cannot survive because most of the elite have no desire for physical labor or a desire to be on the front lines on the battle field. Because the elite are usually older - except the ones born with a silver spoon in their mouths - they are unfit to perform any hard physical labor or fight in a war. Look at the average age of the people running this country and the CEO’s running the big corporations. They’re mostly old gray haired men. Can you imagine Dick Chaney or George W. Bush - who both made their money in the oil business - actually involved in the physical drilling of an oil well? I can’t.

So after all that the working class has done for this country, after all the sweat and blood shed to help make this country what it is, what kind of thanks do we get? We get accused of being socialist and communist because we want affordable health care for our families and a decent wage for our labor. We’re told we’re lazy and our workmanship is shoddy. We’re told we must take pay cuts in order to remain competitive while the CEO’s are rolling in the dough. We lose our jobs to the cheaper labor - that is being exploited by the elite - overseas because there is no way to compete with their low wages. Then we’re told it’s our own fault for not having a decent job. We’re made to move around the country chasing a job and in the process our families are uprooted.

In the mean time the elite get giant tax cuts while the working class gets peanuts if anything at all. By some twisted logic we’re told that by giving the money to the rich it will help the working class. The rich can spend the money more wisely than the working class. That the rich deserve tax cuts because they pay more in taxes than the working class.

I have no problem if somebody comes up with a good idea for something that people want and that person pays a decent wage to the working class for helping implement that idea. I also have no problem if that person makes a decent profit in the process. After all that is what our system is all about. But when the only good idea is figuring out how to get cheaper labor to make more money no matter who gets hurt in the process even if it involves moving jobs overseas, that is wrong and will only hurt this country in the long term.

The real heroes in this country are the working class not the elite even though they like to think they are. The real heroes are the majority in this country and deserve more say in how this country is run. The real heroes in this country are the working class heroes.

2003-07-31T00:04:00.000-04:00

The Error is Apparent

When will it become apparent to the majority of American people that the Bush Administration is doing more harm to the United States than good? How much more deceit do they need to see before they say enough is enough?

The Bush Administration must be questioned over and over again about its misleading statements, lies (factually correct statements) and its secrecy until their own spin becomes so great that they spin themselves completely out of control.

You see that’s the trouble when you’re not truthful, it takes one lie after another to cover for previous lies until the web that has been spun becomes so large that you get caught up in your own web of lies. That seems to be what’s happening in the Whitehouse right now as witnessed by uranium gate and Saudi Arabia gate.

Thomas Jefferson once said “...when error is so apparent as to become visible to the majority, they will correct it.” Let’s hope he’s right.

In the mean time to those of us to which the error is apparent, we must do all we can to make the error so apparent that it becomes visible to the majority of the population.

2003-07-29T15:26:00.000-04:00

28 Blanked Out Pages or Is That 27 ?

Note: President Bush says 27 pages were blanked out. The news media says 28 pages were blanked out. When the news media and the President can’t agree on how many pieces of blank paper there are, we're in bigger trouble than I thought, especially since it's less than 30 blank pieces of paper that we're talking about.

A final report out by a Congressional panel investigating the intelligence failure of 9/11, headed by Sen. Bob Graham, and Rep. Porter Goss, had 27 pages blanked out (censored) by the Bush Administration. Congress formed the joint House-Senate panel last year at the urging of families of Sept.11, victims and lawmakers who believed a thorough review of the government's performance would help officials learn how to prevent future attacks.

The Bush Administration claims the 27 pages were classified because of national security issues, but Bob Graham, says about 95 percent of the blanked out pages could be released without compromising national security.
Graham told CBS’ “Early Show” that “the information showed that a foreign government was providing a variety of assistance to these hijackers.” He said he could not divulge the identity of the country but when asked he did not deny that the government was Saudi Arabia.

Graham also said “It is my conclusion that officials of a foreign government aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country. I would like to be able to identify for you the specific sources of that foreign support. But as you can see from these blank pages, the administration has determined to censor this information from the American people.”

Rep. Mark Foley, the West Palm Beach Republican who is seeking Graham's Senate seat, accused Graham of playing politics. "This is a cynical attempt to breathe life into a floundering presidential campaign," Foley said. "Sen. Graham should not campaign on the back of a national tragedy."

Because Bob Graham believes we need to get to the bottom of who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks he is accused of playing politics, on the back of a national tragedy no less. It seems to me Rep. Mark Foley and the entire Bush Administration are the ones playing politics on the back of a national tragedy.

So why is it so important to the Bush Administration that information in the report connecting Saudi Arabia to the support of terrorist groups be censored? (I won't even mention the financial relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.) Could the real reason be that the information implicates Saudi Arabia and not Iraq in the terrorist attacks of 9/11? Boy that sure makes a mockery of Mr. Bush and his seemingly references to Iraq and 9/11.

If it is exposed that Saudi Arabia is at least partly if not mostly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, it will be exposed that the Bush Administration incorrectly misled half the American people by inferring Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Although it was never stated directly it has been inferred by the Bush Administration that Iraq was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. That’s why in a poll 50 percent of the American people surveyed thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Why did half of the American people believe this? They believed it because President Bush sandwiched talk about a “brutal dictator” Saddam Hussein, between talk of terrorism and the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. He was inferring there was a relationship between Iraq and 9/11. The American people were being misled by the Bush Administration (with the help of the news media) by the spreading of lies and propaganda.

I guess you have to look at the bright side, at least 50 percent of the American people weren’t misled, on this point anyway. But how many were misled by those 16 words uttered by Mr. Bush about Iraq trying to obtain uranium from Africa?

Even if all the sentences Mr. Bush used in the run up to war are “factually correct” that doesn’t mean the message is “factually correct”. When Mr. Bush talked about 9/11 and terrorism then talked about Iraq and the “brutal dictator” Saddam Hussein and how he murdered his own people followed by more talk about terrorist and 9/11, Bush was misleading the American people into believing that Iraq, terrorism and 9/11 were all related. All the facts might have been actual facts that were correct or lies that were “factually correct”, but the message 50 percent of Americans received was that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

2003-07-25T14:54:00.000-04:00

Darn Good Intelligence ?

Before the war with Iraq the American people and the world were led to believe that Iraq was a direct an immanent threat to the main land of America and its Allies. This was supposedly the main reason for the war.

In a speech in Cincinnati Ohio on October 7, 2002 in 19 words President Bush said “Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.” If these photos were so reveling why haven’t we found even a trace of chemical and biological weapons yet, over four months after the start of the war?

We’re told Saddam was a master at hiding his Weapons of Mass Destruction. He must be a magician to hide something as large as those facilities revealed in the surveillance photos.

OK, I have to admit those 19 words don't say they were rebuilding those facilities to be used as chemical weapon’s facilities, only that they were rebuilding the facilities that “it has (Iraq) used to produce chemical and biological weapons”. I guess you could say that those 19 words are “factually correct” in that they were rebuilding facilities that were once used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Does that mean it was alright to include those 19 words in the speech?

If these facilities were so important that they justified going to war over, I would think these facilities would have been inspected by U.S. Government Officials by now. If no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found at these facilities, than what was the real reason for the rebuilding of these facilities? It must have been a legitimate reason otherwise I'm sure we would have heard about it by now from an administration desperately looking for signs of WMD's.

In that same speech Bush also said “We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas.” Mr. Bush went on to say “We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.” In actuality we found two unmanned aerial vehicles held together with duct tape and NOT equipped to disperse chemical and biological agents. That doesn’t constitute a fleet in anybody’s book, more accurately it is called a couple.

President Bush even went as far as to say “If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” He went on to say “we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Wow! That’s some scary stuff. The only thing is none of it is true. It is all based on conjecture.

Mr. Bush than went on to quote John F. Kennedy he said “As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.” This was said in defense of his preemptive policy. But there is a big difference between the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In 1962 there was undeniable evidence in the form of surveillance photos showing the missiles in Cuba. Also the Soviet Union was not denying having nuclear missiles in Cuba. In 2003 the satellite images were of trucks that could and probably did have legitimate purposes and buildings that didn’t prove anything. Also Iraq was denying they had nuclear and chemical weapons.

I don’t know about anybody else, but “Darn good intelligence” like this doesn’t make me feel any safer. In fact it is down right scary.

2003-07-23T15:10:00.000-04:00

The Feeding Frenzy Has Begun

Even before the peace has been won in Iraq, Big Business is fighting to get in on a piece of the action of rebuilding Iraq and exploiting its people. Fast-food giants Pizza Hut and Burger King have set up their first franchises inside war-torn Iraq, even as many aid convoys waited on the borders for the war to officially end. The two restaurants (WMD's) are inside giant trailers on a British military base near Basra. One high ranking officer said "I would prefer we got decent showers and toilets sorted out first." I guess he doesn’t understand that business interest comes before the interest of the soldiers.

The handing out of contracts such as the $34.6 million contract that could climb to $680 million dollars to the Bechtel company on Thursday 7, 2003 is just the beginning of the feeding frenzy that will only increase as time goes by. The bidding for this contract was limited to a number of companies that were invited by The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and were conducted in secret. Only U.S. companies are allowed to be the main contractors with foreign companies relegated to the role of subcontractors. Steven Weiss, communications director with the Center for Responsive Politics, said “The fact that the process was conducted largely in secret and involved only a handful of [U.S.] companies, some of which gave substantial campaign contributions, raised the questions about whether this process was open and fair”. Of the handfull of companies allowed to bid on the contract Bechtel was the largest contributor of campaign funds contributing $1.3 million. Is it any wonder that they were awarded the contract?

Another contract awarded to Halliburton’s Kellogg Brown & Root by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to put out oil fires in Iraq was awarded without competitive bidding. The total estimated cost of the two-year contract is $7 billion. Vice President Dick Cheney is the former chief executive of the Houston based Halliburton. Even though USACE spokesman Lt. Col. Gene Pawlik says that Kellogg Brown & Root will only be involved in the initial phase of the contract during the hostilities and that subsequent oil field repair would be open to competitive bidding and the final cost and duration of the contract would not hit anywhere near the $7 billion, two year limit. The fact remains that once they get their foot in the door this will put Kellogg Brown & Root in a very good position to win other contracts.

Peter Singer at the Brookings Institution author of Corporate Warriors, a book about the military contracting industry said “They know the contract in and out, they know what the client wants and they have people on the ground. It becomes very hard for a competitor to knock you off.”

Many other countries are staking their claims as well. The Polish Government (which has troops in Iraq) asked companies interested in rebuilding Iraq to make themselves know. Over 500 responded, and they now hope to get public works and oil industry contracts.

Italy, which supported the war, agreed to send thousands of police, nurses and architects to Iraq. It hopes for a post within the interim administration, sure to result in reconstruction contracts.

War supporters Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia are also said to be negotiating contracts with the U.S.

Where is all the money coming from to pay for these contracts? A good share is coming from the American taxpayer. That's in addition to the American taxpayer money being spent to prosecute the war for the benefit of big business. Some of the money will also be coming from profits from the sale of Iraq’s oil. The oil that Mr. Bush says belongs to the Iraqi people. Correct me if I’m wrong but if the U.S is making all the decisions on how that oil money is spent and Iraqi’s have no say in how that oil money is spent, doesn’t that mean that it is really United States oil?

2003-07-21T23:19:00.000-04:00

He Pleads Ignorance

The Bush Administrations admission that those misleading and now famous 16 words shouldn’t have been included in President Bush’s State of the Union Address, degrades the credibility of President Bush here at home and around the world. If you can’t trust what he says in his State of the Union Address when can you trust him?

Remember that line? "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." We now know that statement was based on forged documents and lies. I wonder who forged them and why? That’s two more questions that demand answers.

Mr. Bush our president pled ignorance in his defense of those 16 words. Well he didn’t actually plead guilty of ignorance; Whitehouse officials did it for him.

The pattern continues. Mr. Bush never accepts responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Someone else is always to blame. In this case Director of Intelligence George Tenet gets the blame. Imagine that, George Tenet gets blamed for Mr. Bush’s ignorance even after he tried to tell the Whitehouse that those 16 words should not be in that State of the Union Address. On top of that Mr. Bush said he “considers the matter closed”, without ever apologizing or showing any regret for using those 16 misleading words or demanding to know how they got into his speech. It seems Mr. Bush isn’t being completely honest about those 16 words.

The pundits say those 16 words in the State of the Union Address are no big deal, that there was plenty of other evidence to make the case for war. No matter what the pundits say it is a big deal. It is a very serious matter to be misled by the ignorance of the president. The people expect real facts in a speech as important as the State of the Union Address not made up facts. This wasn’t any ordinary old speech. It was the State of the Union Address (with millions of people watching) stating the reasons for going to war with Iraq where American soldiers and innocent Iraqi lives would be in jeopardy. The American people and the world deserve and expect better leadership from the President of the United States.

If Mr. Bush was ignorant about those 16 words in his State of the Union Address what else is he ignorant about? He says that he’s confident WMD’s will be found and he says he’s confident that he made the right decision to go to war with Iraq. Could his confidence be based on his ignorance?

2003-07-20T15:20:00.000-04:00

The Real Reason for the War with Iraq

It’s easy to see what the plan is for Iraq. The U.S. Government is paying the new Iraqi police $60.00 each in wages for one months work. That's $15.00 a week. When asked by reporters about the amount of pay they received the Iraqis said it isn’t much but they could use the money to buy food for their families. If that is all the U.S. Government feels Iraqi labor is worth, American Big Business must be chomping at the bit.

For anybody that doesn’t know, I’ll tell you what the plan is. The U.S. will give foreign aid to the puppet regime that they install. Some of the foreign aid will be siphoned off by that regime (knowingly by the U.S Government). This is the payoff for allowing American Big Business into Iraq. Fast food giants Pizza Hut and Burger King have already set up their first franchises in Iraq. American Big Business will exploit the people by paying them low wages. Because of Iraq’s vast oil reserves energy will be cheap further increasing the earnings of American Big Business. There will also be tax breaks for American Businesses operating off shore further increasing their profits.

The Iraqi people will not be able to compete with big American companies and will become reliant on American business and foreign aid. Foreign aid will then be used as a bargaining chip to black mail the installed Iraqi Government. If the installed government refuses to do what the US Government wants they will be threatened with the cutoff of the foreign aid. If the installed government still refuses to cooperate, the siphoning off of the foreign aid will be one of the reasons stated to remove that government.

That’s the real reason for the war in Iraq, not Weapons of Mass Destruction or the liberation of the Iraqi people as we are being told

2003-07-20T14:36:00.000-04:00

A list of some Neo-Cons who deserve to be punched in the face

Americans have tried to remember that they are on the same side, regardless of differences in skin color, nation of origin, religion or political viewpoint. It has not always been easy because, more than ever, those who are different can seem more threatening. But we're trying because what we have in America is worth keeping. It isn’t made any easier when some people are trying to divide the American people for their own cause.

The people on the following list need to be punched in the face for at least one and in some cases more of the following reasons, they are either both hateful and mean spirited, they are so full of being right that they don’t know what is good, they are liars, they try to force their moral beliefs onto others or they try to spread their hatred across America.
This list is by no means complete but it contains some of the more well know people who deserve to be punched in the face, some of them more than once. I do have respect for differing points of view but these people are extremist and should be consider dangerous to America and what it stands for.

President - George W. Bush, Vice President - Dick Chaney, Secretary of Defense - Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary - Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary for Policy - Douglas Feith, National Security Adviser - Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s political advisor - Karl Rove, Republican Senate Majority Leader - Bill Frist, Resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute - Richard Perle, House Majority Leader – Dick Army, media mogul – Rupert Murdoch, Fox’s - Sean Hannity, MSNBC’s - Joe Scarborough, Fox’s O’Reilly Factor - Bill O’Reilly, Mr. hate spreader himself - Michael Savage, and another hate spreader book writer and columnist - Ann Coulter. And still another hate spreader Rush Limbaugh

2003-07-19T00:02:00.000-04:00

Factually Correct

In reference to President Bush’s mistruth in his January State of The Union Address the Right Wing Neo-Conservative Hawks say it’s only “sixteen words”. It’s only one sentence they say. I’d like to ask them if a lie with fewer words is less of a lie then a lie with more words. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.

In five words the hawks, in defense of the untrue information in President Bush’s State of the Union Address, say “the information is factually correct”. Quit the play on words. They must think we’re all a bunch of morons.

The hawks are “factually correct” in making that statement. But they would have also been “factually correct” if they added a couple of words. In seven words they could have said: The information is a factually correct LIE. That’s right LIE. Even if Bush didn’t know it was a lie (which I doubt) still doesn’t mean it is not a lie. If something is untrue then it isn’t true. If Bush didn’t lie than he repeated a lie. That doesn’t make it any less of a lie. It is still a lie. And that is “factually correct”.

2003-07-18T01:32:00.000-04:00

American Troops Told to Stop Whining

Retired General Wayne Downing, who was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor by President Bush and quit 10 months later because of a disagreement with the Pentagon over Iraq Policy and is now a MSNBC military analyst said on MSNBC (July 17, 2003); that all the soldiers in Iraq volunteered for military service and should stop their whining.

That’s easy for Mr. Wayne Downing to say, someone who leaves his air conditioned house, gets into his air conditioned car, and drives to an overpaid job in an air conditioned studio to give his opinion about what he thinks is going on in Iraq, while the troops sweat it out in the 100 degree plus heat in the Iraq desert. Did I mention nobody’s shooting at him?

Mr. Downing’s remarks came in response to remarks made by a group of soldiers in Iraq from the Army’s 3rd. infantry division that appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America.
The soldiers were complaining about the deteriorating conditions and their extended tour of duty in Iraq.

One soldier said “If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I’d ask him for his resignation.”

Spc. Zachary Watkins, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. told the AP news agency: “you’ve got soldiers who are already at their mental, physical and emotional limits and you’re going to keep them here another three months? It’s not a smart thing to do. You’re going to have lots of incidents going on.”

Sgt. Paul Roe, 24, of Middleburgh, N.Y., said he was due to leave the Army in a month and start college. He’s given up on those plans and sunk into dreaming about the life that’s on hold. “It’s hot and miserable here, back home, I’ve got a girlfriend, a family, the beach and freedom.” The soldiers said they were mostly bored. “There isn’t much going on.” said Roe. “Every now and then they take a potshot at you. I don’t see the point of keeping 160,000 men here.”

This comes after earlier reports about low morale among the troops. In a July 7, 2003 special to the Christian Science Monitor, Ann Scott Tyson reported, the open-ended deployments in Iraq are lowering morale among some ground troops, who say the constantly shifting time tables are reducing confidence in their leadership. It was also reported that some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. One soldier, who requested anonymity, wrote: “Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home.”

Another letter writer said “The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all.”

One Army officer said this, describing the mentality of the troops, “They vent to anyone who will listen. They write letters, they cry, they yell. Many of them walk around looking visibly tired and depressed. We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in].”

General John Abizaid, who recently replaced General Tommy Franks as the head of U.S. Central Command, said this about the latest dissent from American troops “None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the Secretary of Defense or the President of the United States. Abizaid said that in order to maintain the current 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the U.S. had no choice but to leave soldiers in Iraq for missions lasting up to a year. He also said troops who criticized Rumsfeld in comments to reporters faced possible “verbal reprimand or something more stringent” from their commanders.

What would one expect when a war is based on lies, of course some of the troops are going to speak out.

2003-07-15T15:00:00.000-04:00

What If ?

What if President Bush gave a speech before the invasion of Iraq explaining the different options offered by various groups to try to solve the problems in Iraq, instead of just carping on the war option? How many people even knew there were other options besides going to war? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace offered a proposal for a stronger military approach to arms inspections, including the use of selective force if necessary (instead of an all out invasion). A group of U.S. and British church leaders developed a plan for Middle East peace. In that plan they called for the prosecution of Saddam Hussein for war crimes, cooperation between the U.S and the United Nations in disarming Iraq, massive humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq, resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and an international campaign against terrorism.

What if Mr. Bush had said in that speech, that the British intelligence about Iraq trying to acquire uranium was based on forged documents and was unreliable? Which we now know is the case since the Bush Administration has finally admitted it. This is information that Mr. Bush would’ve had to have known well before the war. If he didn’t he must have been hiding under a rock or he's so far out of touch with reality he's dangerous.

What if he also said that his original statement about the aluminum tubes Iraq was trying to acquire have been determined by IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) not to be of the type needed to make centrifuges for use in a nuclear program?

What if he told the American people that Iraq might have Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we’re not really sure? And we don’t have any proof what so ever that he does have WMD's. We're just assuming that he does, and we have no idea where they are if he does have them?

What if he said there was no real proof that Saddam Hussein had a link with Al-Qeada and there is nothing linking Saddam to the three hijacked planes that flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

What if in that same speech he said that there was a good possibility that between 150,000 and 200,000 troops would be needed to occupy Iraq for an indefinite period of time, and that the occupation could last 5 years or longer and almost one American a day could be killed during the occupation?

What if he would have told the people of the United States that the occupation would cost almost $4 billon dollars a month?

If President Bush would have said these things, which anyone in their right mind now knows to be true, do you think that the majority of the American people would have supported the war in Iraq? I don’t and Mr. Bush didn't think so either.

2003-07-13T08:51:00.000-04:00

Delusional, Bad Intelligence, or Deliberately Misleading Americans?

With each passing day it becomes more and more obvious that the Bush Administration did not have adequate plans in place for the occupation of Iraq for after the war was over. The disgusting thing is they refuse to admit it and continue to say things are going good. Ask the families of the American soldiers being killed and injured if they think the war is over. Ask the troops being shot at if they think the war is over yet. Ask the families of the innocent Iraqi civilians being killed and the innocent Iraqi civilians being injure if they think the war is over. I’ll bet they don’t. To think that the war is over just because the U.S. military is occupying Iraq is wishful thinking on the part of this administration. I would say it is delusional.

When President Bush declared the major part of the war over on May 1, 2003 when in fact it was not and is not even close to being over two and a half months later, shows Mr. Bush and his administration are either delusional, the intelligence (some from dubious sources, like the (INC) Iraqi National Congress) is so bad that it is dangerous, or they are deliberately trying to mislead the American people. It seems to be a combination of all three.

Just before the war when Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was asked by Senators if he agreed with then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki’s estimate that more than 200,000 troops would be needed as an occupation force after the war he replied “way off the mark”. The one who was way off the mark was Paul Wolfowitz. Philadelphia Inquirer, foreign affairs analyst Trudy Rubin wrote, “Back in November Wolfowitz told me he believed that the London based Iraqi opposition (headed by Ahmed Chalabi and backed by the Pentagon) would return to Baghdad and assume the reins of power, just as Gen. Charles de Gaulle and the Free French returned triumphantly to postwar France.”

When experts of the region argued that U.S. troops would face as much hostility as gratitude from parts of the Iraqi population, the hawks in the Whitehouse replied that they (the experts) underestimated the attraction and political skills of a man like Ahmed Chalabi, who told them (the Whitehouse hawks) of his far-reaching secret network of informants and supporters inside Iraq. It sounds to me like Paul Wolfowitz is either delusional or relied on extremely bad intelligence, probably from Chalabi.

On July 2, 2003 in the Roosevelt Room the president, when faced with questions about the present number of troops in Iraq and the chaotic postwar scene said. "There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there," Extending his right hand for emphasis, he added: "My answer is: Bring 'em on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

The Pentagon is currently in a debate over whether more troops than the current 145,000 are now needed. Some retired officers, warning of a serious shortage of military manpower, have called on Bush to take the unusual step of activating National Guard divisions to relieve overtaxed troops. I’d say Mr. Bush is definitely delusional on this one. Need more proof? Mr. Bush defended the quality of CIA Intelligence by saying "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence". If Mr. Bush calls lies "darn good intelligence" I'd hate to see bad intelligence.

Vice President Dick Chaney said on television just before the war “I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.” Of course we weren’t, as least not in large parts of Iraq. Retired ambassador Chas Freeman, president of the Middle East Policy Council, a group of former U.S. officials and analysts who specialize in the region had this to say “It is fairly incredible that the civilians in the Pentagon inhaled their own propaganda about the welcome that the U.S. forces would receive from the Iraqis. No one who knew anything about the region ever bought the notion that U.S troops would be welcomed as liberators, but no one who knew anything about the region was invited to take part in policy discussions.” I would say Chaney in his delusion relied on bad intelligence.

When Donald Rumsfeld was asked, where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction two weeks into the war his reply was “They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north somewhat”. What kind of answer is that? Does that sound like a statement of someone who really knows where the WMD’s are? For all the rhetoric about knowing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and knowing where they are and in fact was the main reason for going to war with Iraq, this statement sounds like a statement from someone who is delusional or trying to mislead the people. As Rumsfeld once said, “We tend to hear what we expect to hear, weather it’s bad or good. Human nature is that way. Unless something is jarring, you tend to stay on your track and get it reinforced rather than recalibrated.” Mr. Rumsfeld sure proved that point. So did President Bush, Dick Chaney, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice along with many others in the present administration. The ideologues reinforced each other’s assumptions and attacked everyone, including the real experts, who disagreed with them. Mr. Rumsfeld sounds like a delusional man who used bad intelligence to mislead the American public.

2003-07-09T02:30:00.000-04:00

The Truth is Out Bush Administration Admits Using False Information

In his January 2003 State of the Union Address Mr. Bush said “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”. It turns out that that information was untrue.

In an article published in the New York Times
Sunday July 6, 2003 former US Ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in late February 2002 to investigate the allegation for the Central Intelligence Agency said it did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. Mr. Wilson arrived back in Washington in early March, 2002 and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. and later shared his conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau (well before Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address). In the article Mr. Wilson also stated that the Bush Administration had “twisted” data on Iraq to suit its case for war.

According to Wilson, his mission had been instigated by questions from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, and the results would have been reported back to that office.

"The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there," Wilson now says.

Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.

Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it (the State of the Union Address) was delivered.

How many more untruths were fed to the American public to justify the war with Iraq? Did the Bush Administration know more about the missing weapons of mass destruction than they’re telling us?

The Whitehouse has finally admitted that President Bush used information involving forged documents when he gave his State of the Union Address, but not until Mr. Wilson’s article appeared in the New York Times. Whitehouse national security spokesmen Michael Anton said the statement should not have been included in the president’s address to the nation because it rested on flawed intelligence.

This comes out of the Whitehouse when Mr. Bush is out of the country on a five nation tour in Africa. How convenient, this information comes out when the President is unavailable to answer questions. Of course this comes as no surprise. This Administration is the most secretive Administration of all time. So far Bush has only given eight press conferences in which he appeared alone. At the same point in their presidencies President Clinton gave 30 solo press conferences, Bush’s father 58, President Reagan 16, President Carter 45, President Ford 37, President Nixon 16, and President Johnson 52.

A Presidential press conference is the one time that the American public has the chance to determine whether their President is truly competent or just knows how to read a speech from a teleprompter. When the President allows reporters to ask unscripted questions, voters have the opportunity to tell whether the President knows what he's talking about, and ultimately whether he is worthy of re-election. If Bush's wealthy campaign contributors can have personal access to the White House, how come ordinary Americans can't even see the President on television in a live press conference once a month?

If President Bush had more press conferences the real truth would likely have come out a long time ago. Could that be the reason for so few press conferences? Is President Bush afraid the real truth will get out?

If Mr. Bush knew about Mr. Wilson’s report before his State of the Union Address than he lied to the American public. If he didn’t know about the report it shows the incompetence of the administration that he put in place and directly reflects on the incompetence of Mr. Bush himself.

2003-07-05T17:08:00.000-04:00

The Rights of Citizens of the United States Are in Jeopardy

The rights of the people of the United States of America are in jeopardy. Our rights are in jeopardy because some members of the Supreme Court, some members of Congress, the President, and many Citizens don’t understand what the Constitution of the United States is all about.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote a note to James Madison about the future possibility of a president who didn’t understand the principles on which America was founded. “The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present,” he wrote, “and will be for many years. That of the executive (the president) will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period.” It now appears that the remote period Jefferson wrote about has arrived.

Conservatives claim the right to violate citizens’ private lives because there is no “right to privacy” in the United States. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in 1965 “I could find no general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas (George W. Bush’s role model for future Supreme Court nominees) agrees. In his dissent in the Texas sodomy case, Thomas wrote, “just like Justice Stewart, I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.”

The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to eat, or to read, or to have children. Yet do we doubt these are rights we have?

The reality is that there are many rights that are not specified in the constitution, but which we enjoy daily and they cannot be taken away from us by the government.

The Constitution wasn’t written to grant us rights. We don’t derive our rights from the Constitution.

Rather in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable – inseparable – from humans themselves. We are born with rights by the simple fact of existence. As written by Thomas Jefferson “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the founders wrote. Humans are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…” These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.

The job of the constitution was to define a legal framework within which government and business could operate in a manner least intrusive to “We, The People,” who are the holders of the rights. In its first draft it didn’t even have a Bill of Rights, because the Framers felt it wasn’t necessary to state out loud that human rights came from something greater, larger, and older than government. They all knew this; it was simply obvious.

There had been discussion among the delegates to the constitutional convention about weather they should go to the trouble of enumerating the human rights they had held up to the world with the Declaration of Independence, but the consensus had been that it was unnecessary.

The Declaration of Independence, the writings of many of the Founders and Framers, and no shortage of other documents made amply clear the Founders’ and the Framers’ sentiments that human rights were solely the province of humans, and that governments don’t grant rights but, rather, that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic We, The People – the holders of the rights – grant to our governments what ever privileges our government may need to function (while keeping the rights for ourselves).

This is the fundamental difference between kingdoms, theocracies, feudal states, and democratic republic. In the former three, people must beg for their rights at the pleasure of the rulers. In the latter, the republic derives its legitimacy from the people, the sole holders of rights.

Although the purpose of the Constitution wasn’t to grant rights to people, as kings and popes and feudal lords had done in the past, Jefferson felt it was a necessary to be absolutely unambiguous about the solid reality that humans are the sole holders of rights, and that in no way was the Constitution or the new government of the United States to ever be allowed to infringe on those rights.

A letter written by Jefferson to Madison in 1787 said “To say, as Mr. Wilson does that a bill of rights was not necessary, might do for the audience to which it was addressed but it wasn’t enough. Human rights may be well know to those writing the constitution, they may all agree that governments may not infringe on human rights but, nonetheless, we must not trust that simply inferring this truth is enough for future generations who have not so carefully read history or who may foolishly elect leaders inclined toward tyranny. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

There’s good reason to believe – as the majority of the Supreme Court did in the Texas sodomy case and at least a dozen others – that the Founders and Framers did write a right to privacy into the Constitution. However, living in the 18th century, they never would have actually used the word privacy out loud or in writing. A search, for example, of all 16,000 of Thomas Jefferson’s letters and writings produces not a single use of the word “privacy.” Nor does Adams use the word in his writings.

The reason is simple: “privacy” in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, “I need a moment of privacy” as a way of excusing themselves to go use the “privy” or outhouse. The chamber pots around the house were referred to as “the privates,” a phrase also used to describe genitals.

It wasn’t until 1898 that Thomas Crapper began marketing the flush toilet and discussion of toilet functions became relatively acceptable. Prior to then, saying somebody had a “right to privacy” would have meant “a right to excrete.” This was, of course, a right that was taken for granted and thus the Framers felt no need to specify it in the Constitution.

Instead, the word of the day was “security,” and in many ways it meant what we today mean when we say “privacy.” Consider, for example, the Fourth Amendment: “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Similarly, “liberty” was also understood in one of its dimensions, to mean something close to what today we’d call “privacy.” The Fifth Amendment talks about how “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property” and the Fourteenth Amendment adds that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” And of course, the Declaration of Independence itself proclaims that all “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Nobody, not the Supreme Court Justices, the President, the Congress or anybody else has the right to invade the privacy of the citizens of this country.

Our leaders ignorant of or ignoring the history of this nation’s founding make a parody of liberty and with the so called “Patriot Act,” flaunt their challenges even to those rights explicitly defined in the Constitution.

Four of the nine Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court believe that government has the right to invade the privacy rights of Americans. If any of the present Justices of the Supreme Court retire President Bush will appoint another neo-conservative judge. With the appointment of another neo-conservative judge the neo-conservative judges will be in the majority and the American people stand to loose more of their rights. Once our rights are lost it is very hard to get them back.

Parts of this article are excerpted from an article written by Thom Hartmann entitled Dear Clarence Thomas: It Happened on July 4, 1776. The entire artical can be read here Dear Clarence Thomas

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," and a nationally syndicated daily talk show host. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

2003-07-02T00:32:00.000-04:00

A Reply from Rep Bart Stupak to My Recent Letter about the Flag Desecration Amendment and My Response to Him

I recently wrote my Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich) concerning an amendment to the constitution allowing congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. My original letter was posted on this web site on June 11.

I would first like to say I am not a flag burner, never was never will be nor have I ever desecrated the American flag in any way nor do I plan to.

Here is Mr. Stupak’s response to that letter.

Thank you for contacting me regarding desecration of the American flag. I appreciated hearing from you.

On June 3rd. the House of Representatives passed H.J.Res 4 proposing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I co-sponsored and voted for this resolution which passed by a vote of 300-125. Similar legislation passed the House during the last Congress, but this legislation did not pass the Senate prior to Congress’ adjournment.

I support this movement to protect our nation’s flag from desecration. The flag is an inspiring symbol that unites Americans. It crosses religious, social, economic, cultural, racial, and geographic barriers. It is a reflection of the American way of life in all forms. For these reasons, I believe the flag deserves special consideration.

I believe it is possible to protect our flag from physical desecration without violating our hallowed First Amendment rights. We have laws that regulate certain kinds of speech, including libel, slander, and obscenity. We also have laws against damaging the Washington Monument, burning draft cards, and defacing U.S. currency. We should do at least as much, if not more, for our flag.

If this proposed constitutional amendment is also adopted by two-thirds majority in the Senate this session, this amendment would then be submitted to the states for ratification. The measure would then have to be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states legislatures within seven years after passage by Congress.

My reply to Mr. Stupak.

Representative Bart Stupak

In your reply to my recent letter about an amendment to the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit flag desecration your defense for co-sponsoring and voting for the resolution is un-rational.

First you say we have laws regulating certain kinds of speech, including libel, slander, and obscenity. Libel and slander are falsehoods written or uttered by someone that unjustly damages another’s reputation. There is nothing unconstitutional about these laws. Common sense says you don’t tell lies about other people that cause harm to those people.

As far as obscenity laws go every state has laws against foul language, but the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have generally agreed that the words have to be used in a violent or sexually obscene context, says John Burkoff, associate dean and law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Uttering something vulgar or profane is not, in itself, grounds for arrest. In a case out of Michigan, (certainly you must remember this one Mr. Stupak) Timothy Boomer, a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling out of a canoe, was found guilty of violating a law against cursing in front of women and children. He was fined $75 and ordered to perform four days of community service. In April, 2002 though, an appeals court struck down the 105-year-old law and threw out the conviction. That’s one of the prices one pays for living in a free society, you sometimes hear things that you don’t agree with.

You say we have laws against damaging the Washington Monument. Of course we do, a person is not and should not be allowed to damage other peoples property or public property. This would amount to vandalism which is and should be a crime, thus this law is not unconstitutional.

About burning draft cards, the constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. The power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is "beyond question." Pursuant to this power, Congress may establish a system of registration for individuals liable for training and service, and may require such individuals within reason to cooperate in the registration system. The issuance of certificates indicating the registration and eligibility classification of individuals is a legitimate and substantial administrative aid in the functioning of this system. The reason for the law against draft card burning is it serves purposes in addition to initial notification. Many of these purposes would be defeated by the certificates' destruction or mutilation. Among these are:
1. The registration certificate serves as proof that the individual described thereon has registered for the draft.... Additionally, in a time of national crisis, reasonable availability to each registrant of the two small cards (registration and classification certificates) assures a rapid and uncomplicated means for determining his fitness for immediate induction, no matter how distant in our mobile society he may be from his local board.
2. The information supplied on the certificates facilitates communication between registrants and local boards, simplifying the system and benefiting all concerned.
Thus the draft card burning law is not unconstitutional because there is a valid reason to require the registrant to have the card available.

You still don't get it do you? The difference between the above laws and the flag desecration resolution is that the flag desecration resolution amends the constitution where as the other laws you mentioned do not. Desecration of the flag does no real harm to anyone nor is it detrimental to the well being of the nation. In fact flag burning doesn’t even happen very often. Why did you co-sponsor this resolution? Is it related to a recent flag burning or are you just trying to look patriotic? This is an unneeded change to the constitution. Our rights are already being violated under the Patriot Act. We don't need people like you trying to take away even more of our rights. Amending the constitution for something as trivial as flag burning sets a bad precedent. LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTION ALONE. There are a lot more important issues congress should be worried about instead of wasting time trying to amend the constitution just because it will make some people feel good.

2003-06-28T22:51:00.000-04:00

Mass Graves Do Not Justify War With Iraq

The Bush Administration is trying franticly to find a good reason for having gone to war with Iraq. The latest reason, finding mass graves, is as far-fetched as the other reasons; Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, they didn’t have one, weapons of mass destruction, we can’t find them, an Iraq Al-Qeada connection, the only evidence indicates there was no connection, liberating the Iraqi people, ask the Iraqi’s if they feel liberated, creating a democracy in Iraq, somebody please tell the Bush Administration that a democracy can’t be dictated otherwise it’s not a democracy.

This administration has told one proven lie after another. If we can’t trust the Bush Administration to tell us the truth about going to war how can we trust them to tell us the truth about anything else.

It’s not as if finding these mass graves is a surprising new revelation, these graves are from the early 1990’s when the first Bush Administration encouraged the Shias to rise up against Saddam, than failed to support the uprising. To now use these mass graves as justification for a war with Iraq, killing thousands more Iraqi’s is not only immoral but also despicable. Maybe if the Shias weren’t falsely led to believe that the US was going to help them they might not have been murdered and there would be no mass graves. The war was not instigated by the US because of any emotional or moral attachment to the suffering of the Iraqi people. If we were truly concerned with human rights in Iraq why did we wait 12 years before doing anything about it? Why wasn’t that the stated reason rather than the lies we were told?

The original first reason for this war was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction not mass graves. Remember; they were an imminent threat. I always thought we went to war for a valid reason, not to make one up or change the reason afterwards. Have most of our little wars been based on this type of fiction? We know the Vietnam War was. President Lyndon Johnson lied about American ships being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. This led to an undeclared war (they called it a police action) in which 58,000 American troops were eventually killed and hundreds of thousands injured and mamied because of that lie. We've gotten into another Vietnam type Guerilla War with Iraq because of lies by President Bush and his Administration. I hope it doesn't take 58,000 American troops killed in Iraq before we realize our mistake again.

This is the first time we’ve invaded another country and we’re still looking for a valid reason for the war two months after the major part of the war has been declared over, even after some in the administration insisted they knew where WMD’s were hidden.

It seems like many Americans don’t need any justifications for war. I guess they believe when might is right everyone else is wrong. Just remember those 58,000 lives wasted in Vietnam for nothing but a lie.

2003-06-24T09:41:00.000-04:00

Why Must There Be War?

Why must there be war? The answer to that question can be summed up in a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler. Butler was twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor (1914, 1917). General Douglas MacArthur described Butler as "one of the really great generals in American history."

Here is an excerpt from that speech.

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents”.

Nothing has changed since then. We are again involved in a war that will benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The war with Iraq was and still is based on lies. Some people just don’t learn from past mistakes. I take that back. I can’t blame the people for not learning from past mistakes if they don’t know about those past mistakes. We are taught in school that America goes to war to protect our country and our freedoms. We are taught that America is fair and just and always does what is right for the world. We are seldom told the real reasons behind the wars we fight.

It’s called blind patriotism. Your country is always right. Don’t question the government because they know what’s best for you and the country. If you question the government then you are un-patriotic.

The sad truth is that most Americans believe that our government won’t and never does anything wrong. That our government always tells the truth, even when there is plenty of proof to the contrary. That our government always does what is in the best interest of all Americans.

The media is full of rah rah headlines as if war is some kind of big game like the super bowl, as if the lose of innocent lives doesn’t matter. I’ve heard intelligent people say about the latest Iraq war, we kicked their ass. I’ve heard people say that Democrats were against the war because they are angry about the outcome of the last presidential election.

This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an America issue. We the people must take back control of our government and we must do it now before it’s too late. We must demand that the truth be told and past mistakes must be brought to light so we can indeed learn from past mistakes. We cannot let our government wrap itself in the flag and demand unquestioned loyalty. Until we the people are informed about what is really going on we will continual to fight wars for all the wrong reasons.

2003-06-11T09:20:00.000-04:00

An Open Letter to My Representative Bart Stupak Concerning the Flag Desecration Amendment

Dear Rep. Bart Stupak

By wrapping yourself in the flag and voting yes on the recent Flag Desecration Amendment you are trying to over-rule the Supreme Court. (Just in case you didn’t know, a Supreme Court decision in 1989 said flag-burning was a protected free speech right. In 1990, Congress passed another law protecting the flag, but the Supreme Court struck it down.)

Do you realize what you are trying to do is amend the First Amendment so that the only free speech is speech that you agree with? The First Amendment guards all speech, on the theory that none of us are all knowing enough to decide which speech should be heard. Free speech with restrictions isn’t free speech at all. Don’t you get it? If you and the 299 others who voted for this Amendment do not understand this basic fact you don’t belong in Congress and I hope you are removed as soon as possible. We need people in Congress who will up hold the Constitution of the United States, not people who are trying to destroy it.

What is the real reason for your yes vote on this Amendment? If you voted for this Amendment in honor of the flag, what about the honor of the Constitution? By voting to unravel the First Amendment you desecrate what the flag represents and what many Americans have died for. If you contend that the burning of the flag is an act and not a form of speech, what right does the government have to tell me what I can or can not do with my own personal property? Were you afraid that a vote against the Amendment would be seen as a vote in favor of flag desecration rather than a vote for free speech? Did you vote yes for this Amendment so you could point to it to show how patriotic you are? A real patriot would never try to destroy the Constitution of their country. A real patriot would be fighting others who are trying to destroy the Constitution of the United States. Were you afraid that if you voted no, the Republicans would use it against you in the next election? If so you are a spineless individual unwilling to stand up for what is right and not worthy of representing me or anyone else.

Representative Bart Stupak it seems to me you either don’t understand what America stands for, you don’t care what America stands for, or you have sinister reasons for the way you voted on the Flag Desecration Amendment. The most important right we have as Americans is the right of free speech even if the majority disagrees with that speech.
Without the right to free speech we cease to be a Free Country. Do you understand that? I repeat: Without the right to free speech we cease to be a Free Country.

2003-06-10T02:39:00.000-04:00

Leave Our Constitution Alone
Ex President Bill Clinton thinks the 22nd. Amendment to the constitution of the United States should be changed. The 22nd. Amendment was ratified on February 27, 1951, six years after the death of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt who had been elected to a record four terms. Mr. Clinton says the Amendment should be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a life time.

Stacie Rumenap, Executive director for U.S. Term Limits, said this about Clinton’s comments: “By term limiting the president of the United States, the 22nd. Amendment provides that no matter how much power a given chief executive may gather, there’s a definite limit on how long he may wield it. At a maximum, a fresh face and a fresh perspective will be brought to the White House every eight years. Rumenap also said “Voters would be surprised to learn how many politicians have never held a real job in the private sector. For example, if it weren’t for term limits, Bill Clinton most likely wouldn’t have been looking for his first ever non-governmental job at the age of 54. The fact remains that all politicians face the same potential to be corrupted by power. And only term limits ensure that no single person can ever hold a monopoly on that power. Our country fought a revolution to get rid of a king, and we certainly don’t need another king, not Clinton or anyone else.”

Representative Randy Cunningham (R-California) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) have sponsored a bill [H.J.RES.4] that would authorize the congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The House reached the two-thirds majority needed to pass the constitutional amendment by a 300 to 125 vote. The bill still must be passed by the senate by a two-thirds majority and be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Supporters of the bill said burning an American flag shows disrespect for America, and the majority of the American people approve of legally protecting Old Glory. Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) said “If we allow its defacement, we allow our country’s gradual decline.” Mr. Chabot is dead wrong. Our country is stronger than people like Mr. Chabot give us credit for. If a few fools burning the flag bring this country into decline, we have much bigger problems to worry about other than flag burning. Those who favor the proposed amendment say they do so in honor of the flag. But in proposing to unravel the First Amendment, they desecrate what the flag represents, and what many Americans have died for to defend.

The amendment would directly restrict the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of political expression; something no other constitutional amendment has done before. Passage of the amendment will provide a dangerous precedent for future attempts to amend the Constitution, putting the essential freedoms it upholds at risk.

The amendment seeks to protect the flag as the symbol of the United States and everything it represents. At the same time, it fails to protect other important symbols of America. The President is also a recognizable symbol of America, yet the President is not protected from being mocked, ridiculed or scorned. The presidential seal is regularly misused on late night TV and presidents are regularly impersonated and made to look like buffoons by comedians hiding behind the same First Amendment that shields flag-burners.

As New York attorney James Ostrowski sarcastically says “The drafters of the proposed amendment need to rethink the purposes of the amendment and re-draft the amendment in a way that will permanently guarantee that no person will ever challenge those ideas or symbols. It might read something like this”: “The Congress shall have the power to prohibit any and all acts, words, or omissions, which could be reasonably intended to criticize, denigrate, disparage, mock, scorn, satirize, ridicule, or attack: the flag of the United States, or any image of it, the President, Presidential seal, or any image of these, the Congress, Supreme Court, or any image of these, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, in any form or image whatever, or the Armed Forces of the United States or any image or symbol of them whatsoever. To the extent they conflict with this amendment, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments are hereby repealed, and henceforth may be physically desecrated.”

The point is where do we stop? If burning the American flag is so detrimental to the United States of America that we need a Constitutional Amendment to prevent it, what about these other symbols of America? How long before someone decides we need another amendment to protect another symbol?

There's a reason our founding fathers made it difficult to amend the Constitution. By requiring two-thirds majority of both houses and three-fourths of state legislatures to pass a bill to amend the Constitution, shows our founding fathers knew the Constitution had to be protected from Law-Makers with half-baked ideas. The Constitution has served this country well for many years. Lets keep it that way. Leave our Constitution alone.

2003-06-06T04:09:00.000-04:00

It’s Not a Question of Were We Misled but Why Were We Misled
A lot of people are starting to ask the question, were we misled in the Bush Administrations quest to invade Iraq? Too bad more people (especially the media and members of congress) weren’t asking, are we being misled into a war with Iraq? If there would have been more questioning and investigating of the facts as presented by President Bush and his Administration prior to the war maybe we never would have gone to war.

Time and again there were indications prior to the war that maybe facts were being stretched or fabricated. That’s one reason why I was against the rush to war with Iraq. Mr. Bush and his Administrations insistence that specially designed aluminum tubes (none of which ever reached Iraq, American officials wouldn’t say why citing sensitive intelligence) were intended for use in centrifuges to enrich uranium was discredited time and again. Former U.S. weapons inspector David Albright told 60 minutes on December 8 that “people who understood gas centrifuges almost uniformly felt that these tubes were not specific to gas centrifuge”. On January 9 and again on March 7 International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed el-Baradei’s insisted that there was “no evidence” that the 81 mm tubes were intended for anything other than conventional rocket production. On March 7 Mohammed el-Baradei’s told the UN Security Council that the documents supporting the alleged attempts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger were forged. After all this expert opinion why did the Bush Administration continued to say Iraq had a nuclear program? As we see now they didn't.

In Newsweek’s March 3 edition John Barry reported that Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, who had run Saddam’s nuclear and biological weapons program, told the CIA and UN weapons inspectors in the summer of 1995 “that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and missiles to deliver them.” Maybe that’s why we can’t find WMD’s now, there aren’t any. Why did the Bush Administration continue to insist they were sure Iraq had WMD’s?

At Camp David where George W. Bush was meeting with Tony Blair, Mr. Bush cited a “new” report from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency that allegedly stated that Iraq was “six months away” from building a nuclear weapon. “ I don’t know what more evidence we need,” the president said. The only problem is there was no new report. On September 27, an article in the Washington Times by Joseph Curl pointed out that there was no “new report” by the IAEA saying Saddam was six months away from having a nuclear weapon and that the agency never issued a report predicting any time frame for Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons. When IAEA inspectors pulled out of Iraq in December 1998, spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told Curl, “We had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment.” The Bush administration was still insisting Iraq had a nuclear program.

It is clear that the Bush administration knew that Saddam Hussein didn’t have a nuclear program yet nuclear weapons was one of the reasons Mr. Bush cited to convince congress to authorize the use of our Armed Forces in Iraq. It is also clear that the Bush administration wasn’t positive that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So the real question is not were we misled but why were we misled. What are the real reasons for invading Iraq? Somebody better start asking some serious questions and the president better start giving us some serious answers. We don’t need anymore lies. This president has already done enough damage to this great country of ours and I for one don’t like it.

2003-06-03T17:14:00.000-04:00

The Lunatics are in Charge of the Asylum

Our rights are being taken away, an illegal war in Iraq, huge tax cuts for the rich, the monopolizing of the air waves, what’s next? I don’t known what’s next, but I would like to dwell on what has happened already.

The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States says; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

With the passing of the Patriots Act the Bill of Rights is being dismantled. The government now has the right to secretly snoop into the lives of its citizens without due cause simply by saying the citizen may be involved with terrorism, even with no proof what so ever that said citizen might be involved in terrorism. A citizen may now be arrested and held indefinitely without being allowed any legal representation. Every citizen of the United States should be extremely concerned about this assault on their civil rights, but are they? Apparently not, as witnessed by the lack of outrage by most U.S Citizens.

Why do I call it an illegal war? Joint Resolution [S.J. Res. 23] approved by congress on September 18, 2001 authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces states; “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” There is nothing in the resolution authorizing the use of force to remove dictators from power. There is nothing in the resolution authorizing the use of force to eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction. There is nothing in the resolution authorizing the use of force to Liberate people of a sovereign country. The only legal use of U.S. Military Force authorized by the Joint Resolution is against any nation, organization or persons responsible for the terrorist attacks related to 9/11. Neither the CIA, the FBI, or the President or anyone in his Administration, have offered any real evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11, 2001, making the war with Iraq illegal.

Why isn’t anybody in congress doing anything about this? I’ve heard it mentioned by some people that congress gave the President the power to attack any country he determines had anything to do with terrorism, but that just isn’t true, it must be related to 9/11 as plainly stated in the Joint Resolution. Maybe members of congress should go back and read the resolution they approved on September 18, 2001. I think they will indeed find the war in Iraq is illegal.

President George W. Bush has said “every working American” will benefit from this tax cut. Now we find out he lied again. The tax cut bill signed by President Bush completely leaves out the poorest working Americans, the ones making between $10,000 and $26,000 will not receive any benefits at all from this tax cut. This includes many military personnel who have been fighting in Afganhistan and Iraq. That's the thanks they get for their sacrfice for their country. This shows the coldness of the present administration. The same administration that said no child will be left behind is now failing to give tax cuts to the poorest working American families, affecting 12 million children. Some in the Republican Party say these people pay very little or no federal taxes, so they will get no tax breaks. At the same time U.S companies purposely move overseas to avoid paying income taxes, yet they get tax breaks. This only proves what many have been saying; this tax cut greatly benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. What about retirees? Most retirees or their surviving spouses will not receive any tax cuts unless they’re one of the 25 percent that have money invested in the stock market. What about the other 75 percent? Who cares? Not our present government that’s for sure.

The relaxing of media ownership rules by the FCC in a 3 to 2 vote along Party lines (3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) is another blow to American democracy. Media giants are now allowed to control 45 percent of a given market as compared to the 35 percent prior to the relaxation of the rules. What this means is less local news, less view points, less independently owned broadcast stations and more of a monopoly by present broadcasters. This in turn means what we see on television and hear on the radio will be determined by fewer and fewer people in the broadcast industry. This can only be bad for Democracy in the long run.

Judging by what is going on lately, I would have to agree with Representative Sherrod Brown of Ohio when he says “The Lunatics are In Charge Of the Asylum”.

2003-05-31T02:00:00.000-04:00

Sean Penn Should be Proud of Himself
I agree completely with the Sean Penn article in the New York Times. I hope he keeps questioning our government and speaking out when he feels our government is wrong.

On Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough said, in his usual whine, Sean was on pot, acid and Viagra. When you don't have a valid argument start the name calling like a little child, they (the right wing) will do it every time. He also complained Sean didn't mention certain things, which apparently Joe Scarborough thinks should have been in the article. That's one of the right wing tactics, when they don't have a good argument for something someone says, they bring up something they didn't say. I've seen the tactic used many times. It happened to me, I was accused of only seeing the bad in America and not the good which is ridiculous and a really stupid argument. Of course you can't mention everything and what would be the point? Nobody mentions everything, not the right, not the left, not the middle, not Joe Scarborough, nobody. They try to discredit the person for something they didn't say and not on the basis of what they said. Just how stupid do they think the American people are?

The whining Ann Coulter (who talks through her nose) compared Sean to a drunk and she had nothing of substance or intelligents to say, so I won't even "mention" anything else she said. What a useless and ignorant crackpot she seems to be.

Sean should be proud of himself. The best argument they could make about his article is what he didn't say in the article (because they know Sean is correct). I love it. I wonder if they know how stupid they look. I don't really think so. Those right wing conservatives must be getting scared. They know some of us are on to them and they are doing everything in their power to shut us up. People like Sean have to continue speaking out and not be intimidated by these right wing nuts. They hate him and others like him whose voices can be heard. It bugs the hell out of them and it drives them nuts, if you can get any nuttier than they already are. We need more people like Sean Penn. Don't let them shout you down. Don't let them intimidate you. Keep them on the defensive. If it's repeated enough times by enough people the real truth will be heard. Way to go Sean.

2003-05-29T13:00:00.000-04:00

Striking Similarities
There are some striking similarities between Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush and his Administration. The scariest similarity is Hitler misled the people of Germany so that they would agree with his policies. That is exactly what seems to be taking place right now in the Bush Administration. I’m referring to the weapons of mass destruction we were told Saddam Hussein definitely possessed, the imminent threat Iraq supposedly posed to the U.S and the supposed connection between Iraq and Al Qeada. So far none of them have been proved to be accurate. The little proof the Administration says it has is actually no proof at all. Their so called proof would never stand up in a court of law and the Bush administration knows it. That’s why the administration is presently putting so much emphasis on the removal of the “brutal regime” of Saddam Hussein. President Bush and his Administration are trying to sway the public into believing that the originally stated justifications for the war with Iraq doesn’t matter as long as Saddam Hussein was removed from power, which was the original plan all along. We were more than misled we were downright lied to.
Hitler marched with the troops to win their approval and gain their respect so they would fight for his good cause. Mr. Bush gives speeches at marine bases, army bases, naval academies, coastguard academies and lands on aircraft carriers, praising the troops patrotism and their fight against evil, but very seldom holds a press conference. Is he scared the press will ask tough questions that he won’t be able to answer or that the real truth will get out? All his speeches are scripted and are patriotic in nature.
Hitler believed God was on his side just as Mr. Bush believes god is on his side. How could Bush possibly loose this war on Iraq when he had God on his side? After all God had already selected him as the chosen one to eradicate “Evil” around the world, at least Bush thinks he did.
Hitler wanted allegiance not disagreement, community not individuality. Boy does that sound like the present administration or what? When someone disagrees with this administration the name calling and put downs begin, from the republicans in congress to the conservative talk show host on radio, television, and the newspapers.
Which brings us to Hitler ending freedom of speech and the free press. When people are afraid to speak what they believe, because they’re scared of the put downs and being ridiculed, their free speech is being stifled. While Hitler banned freedom of speech and the free press outright here in the U.S it is being done more discreetly. The media in the U.S is becoming more and more monopolized. It looks like the FCC is going to loosen the regulations on the ownership of media companies on June 2, so the media will be even more monopolized by a few of the biggest media giants.
Under Hitler the people were deprived of rights and they didn’t mind. The same thing is going on in the U.S with the Patriots Act. The name of the act implies that if you’re a patriot it won’t affect you. The vague language of the Patriot Act could very easily lead to misuse of the act against you. The Patriot Act is set to expire in 5 years (unless it's made permanent like the Bush Administration wants). Even if it is allowed to expire, not the entire act will expire. Some of the laws will remain so no matter what happens we already lost some of our rights. There is talk now about Patriot Act II, where we stand to lose even more of our rights. The sad part is people don’t seem to mind.
The people of Germany wanted a leader who was strong, someone for peace and harmony, someone who would take action, someone who would save Germany. That sounds eerily close to what I’ve been hearing some people say about Mr. Bush. He has resolve they will say. So what! A bank robber can have resolve, that doesn’t make him right. Remember Mr. Bush was going to unite this Nation. It looks like we're more divided on every issue than anytime before. People believe Bush will bring peace to this country and the world. It seems to me the route he is taking is only going to bring less peace to this world in the long run. Some say at least he’s not afraid to take action. Nothing wrong with taking action if it is the right action, but lying to the people to justify your actions is wrong.

2003-05-28T10:06:00.000-04:00

We Have Become the Bullies of the World
We all remember the bullies from our school days. You know the ones I’m talking about. The loud and belligerent ones, the name callers, the ones who always had to have their way, the ones always looking to pick a fight with somebody smaller and weaker than them, the ones who were never wrong. Boy they sure enjoyed their self inflated egos didn’t they?
In bullying situations, there is a power difference between the bully and the victim. The bully may be bigger and stronger or have the power to exclude others from their social group. Bullies are seeking power and prestige. They sometimes use this power to gain something of monetary value from their victims, such as threatening someone to give them their lunch money or simply just taking their lunch money.

Bullies have certain personality traits.Dr. Sam Samenow describes these as:
1. Greater than average aggressive behavior patterns
2. The desire to dominate others
3. The need to feel in control, to win
4. No sense of remorse for hurting others
5. A refusal to accept responsibility for their behavior

Let’s look at these traits of a bully as it relates to President Bush and his Administration.
The first trait, Greater than average aggressive behavior patterns, is seen in the Presidents eagerness to use force. It is witnessed in the rush to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and threats against Syria, North Korea and Iran. When was the last time the U.S. was involved in a war and threatening war with so many other countries all at the same time? Never before in our history has this occurred. The war with Afghanistan was probably justified. I’m not so sure about the war with Iraq. At the very least, war with Iraq could have been delayed to give diplomacy a chance to work, because there was no imminent threat to the U.S. as President Bush led us to believe. The Bush administration didn’t want to delay the war with Iraq, because that would have meant about a one year delay until the weather conditions were again favorable. The Bush administration seemed to be saying, why take a chance that things can be worked out peacefully when we can use our overwhelming force.
The second trait, the desire to dominate others, is plainly seen in Mr. Bush’s dealings with the U.N. When he said “you’re either with us or against us” he was really saying we’re going to do what I want, there is no room for negotiations and if you don’t go along with me there will be a price to pay so you better go along. Even our good neighbor to the North, Canada was demonized. The Bush Administration also tried to dominate the American public by calling anyone who disagreed with it un-American and using false information to get the American public to agree with the Administrations war in Iraq.
The third trait, the need to feel in control, to win, is demonstrated by Mr. Bush declaring the war in Iraq over when in reality the war is far from over and still going on. U.S troops are still dying in Iraq. More than 30 U.S troops have died in Iraq since Bush declared the war in Iraq over (8 in the last 3 days). Iraqi civilians are still being killed and injured, many are afraid to be on the streets, looting and other crimes continue. In other words Iraq is in chaos. If this is considered a win I hate to imagine a loss.
The forth trait, no sense of remorse for hurting others, is verified by Mr. Bush’s failure to show any sign of remorse for the death and injuries of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has never apologized for any of these deaths or injuries and he has never apologized for the pain and suffering caused to family members of the dead and injured. He acts as if it didn't happen. As a man who believes God is on his side and regularly says God bless America, you would think he would at least ask the American public to remember the innocent victims and their families in their prayers. You think he would at least show some remorse for the pain and suffering of innocent people that he is at least partly responsible for. Nope! he would rather pound his chest and brag about how good a job he is doing eliminating "Evil" in the world.
The fifth trait, a refusal to accept responsibility for their behavior, is confirmed by Mr. Bush blaming Saddam Hussein, Al Qeada or someone else for anything that goes wrong with his war on terrorism. He has never accepted responsibility for the dead and injured American troops. Oh he might have thanked the families of the troops for their sacrafice, but he hasn't accepted responsibility for their deaths. Mr. Bush also refuses to accept any blame for the fracture of the United Nations and places the blame squarely on the United Nations, for doing just what it was set up to do. Mr. Bush sees no connection between his actions and his own behavior with the present situation with the United Nations.
Our president, Mr. Bush, meets all the criteria of a bully. Since his personality is reflected in U.S policy that makes the United States of America a bully. If you don’t believe this, just listen to what people around the world are saying about our adventures in Iraq. If you still don’t believe this is true, that makes you a bully too. Remember trait 5 is a refusal to accept responsibility for your behavior.
I never thought I would live to see the day my country would be considered the bully of the world. I never though I would live to see the day my country would invade another country under false pretenses. I never though I would live to see the day my fellow countrymen would so blindly follow its leader down the path to endless war. All I can say is God Bless America.

2003-05-27T02:22:00.000-04:00

Why do They Hate Us
1993 World Trade Center bombing, six killed and 1000 injured. 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, 5 US military personnel killed. 1996 Al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, 19 killed 200 injured US military personnel. 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, 257 killed and 5,000 injured. 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, 17 killed and 3 injured. September 11, 2001 high jacked planes are flown into the World Trade Center twin towers, 3,000 killed.
These terrorist must really hate us. How many of these terrorist attacks had a connection with Iraq? How many were Iraqis? The answer is zero. There is absolutely no evidence at all that Iraq was evolved in any of these terrorist attacks. Even President Bush himself never said outright that Iraq was responsible for any of these attacks. Although he did mention 9/11 and Iraq many times, making it sound like Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Why do these terrorist hate us so much? Is it because they hate our freedom like Mr. Bush says? Why would they hate our freedom? That doesn’t even sound logical. Why would they even care about our freedom? Our freedom has no effect on them. Do they hate us just because were Americans? That doesn’t really make any sense either. Do they hate us because of the way we live? I don’t think they hate us just for the way we live, but I do believe that if the way we live affects the way they live they might hate us.
Maybe if we didn't play one country against another we wouldn't be hated right now. The Bush Administration is talking about doing that right now, using a "terrorist" group based in Iraq to try and topple the present regime in Iran. That's the same group the State Department labled as a "terrorist group" and we declared war on. We did it in the Iran Iraq war when we supplied Iraq (our friend) with weapons to fight Iran (our enemy). That means more money spent creating more chaos in yet another sovereign country.
Maybe if we didn’t try to stuff our Big Business and our form of democracy down their throats they wouldn’t be fighting us right now. Who got the oil contracts? Suprise' A Big American Oil Company with ties to the Whitehouse. Who is telling the Iraqis who or who may not participate in the setting up of their Democracy. Suprise again' It's Big American Government.
Maybe if we showed more respect to the rest of the world we wouldn’t have as many enemies right now. Does anybody really believe that what we're doing now won't have an adverse effect on future relations with the rest of the world?
By the way how did our oil get under Iraq?

2003-05-24T22:22:00.000-04:00

Unfair Tax Cuts Approved By Congress
The $350 billion tax cut has been approved by congress on 5/23/03. Remember the saying if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Well that saying is definitely true with respect to this tax cut. Everyone likes the idea of a tax cut. The only problem is we can’t afford it. Sure it sounds good, like getting something for nothing but somebody has to pay it back.
I’d be 100 percent behind tax cuts if they were done justly and if wasteful spending was being cut to pay for the tax cuts. With this tax cut that is not the case. The average worker will get $217 while someone making $1 million would receive $93,000. That doesn’t sound fair and just to me.
America is going into debt to pay for this tax cut and that is a bad idea. The Bush Administration says this will create jobs and it probably will. But how many jobs will be created and will the economic benefits from those jobs offset the price of the tax cuts and the interest incurred on the borrowed money to pay for the tax cuts? I really don’t think so.
If you really wanted to create jobs, as Mr. Bush says this tax cut will, give tax breaks to businesses that hire new employees. That way the only ones who get a tax break are the ones that actually create jobs. That would be better than giving tax breaks to all businesses and people who hold stocks in the hopes some of the money will be used to create jobs. You know as well as I do that a lot of the money from the tax breaks will never be used to create jobs. It will be used to add to the pleasures of the already over pampered life styles of the rich at the expense of the working class. You see that’s where the jobs come in, somebody has to put in those swimming pools and tennis courts, somebody has to do the remodeling and build those yachts.
What about retirees? It has been in the news lately about how a lot of senior citizens can’t afford the prescription drugs they need. The present tax cut doesn’t help senior citizens at all, unless they’re one of the minority who made enough money in their working years and had money left over after expenses to invest in the stock market. This country has sunk so low that we refuse to help our senior citizens live out their life in dignity. What a disgrace we are. We complain how other governments treat their people and we fail to see what we do to our own people. It’s a shame the way we treat our elderly and it speaks volumes of just what we have become. Our government and the people who allow this to happen are nothing but cold hearted, money grabbing, mean spirited, uncompassionate monsters. How can we be so cruel? It makes me want to cry that there is nothing I alone can do about the situation. I am thoroughly disgusted. Why can’t we at least make sure our senior citizens can afford the prescription drugs they need? Why? Why? Why?
William Raspberry has an interesting artical about the tax cuts that was published in the Washington post on Monday, May 26, 2003 titled "Does the Public Really Believe"

2003-05-22T09:54:00.000-04:00

America is Going Into Debt for Israel

America's national debt is being increased by 1 billion dollars so that Israel can build up its military. That’s right folks; the U.S Government is going to borrow 1 billion dollars (we don’t happen to have a billion dollars sitting around) and give it to Israel. Three quarters of which will go for weapons procurement and one quarter for weapons research. The U.S Government is also giving Israel 9 billion dollars in loan guarantees (which we the U.S taxpayer must pay if they default on the loan). The new aid package comes on top of existing U.S. commitments to Israel. Israel is already the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid, receiving close to $3 billion in mostly military assistance each year. In other words U.S taxpayers are giving money to Israel (that we can’t afford) which it in turn uses to purchase weapons from U.S. defense contractors. That’s good news if your a defense contractor but bad news if your not. So you see we (the U.S. taxpayers) are going into debt to pay for increased military spending at home and we’re also going into debt for more military spending in Israel. Guess who pays the interest on these loans? That’s right me and you the American taxpayer. I think something really stinks here and I don’t like it.
President Bush says Israel needs the money because of its bad economy. What about our economy? The stock market is in the toilet, unemployment keeps rising, the schools are falling apart, senior citizens can't afford the high price of prescription drugs, just about every state is in the red and cutting services and we're giving Israel an extra one billion dollars because of their bad economy. Give me a break please, what’s more important our economy or Israel's economy.
What's going on here? Why does Israel need to spend that kind of money for its national defense? Who and what are they defending against? Israel already has the strongest military in the Mideast. Could it be the need to defend themselves against terrorist attacks from the Palestinians? I don’t think so, how are weapons procurements going to protect Israel from terrorist attacks by the Palestinians? The truth is it won't. Israel already has enough weapons to wipe every Palestinian off the face of the earth. Why are the Palestinians attacking Israel anyway? Maybe it has something to do with Israel occupying former Palestinian land backed by weapons paid for by U.S. tax payers.
I'm not only picking on the Bush administration here because both parties support extra aid to Israel. A joint letter written by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle stated that Israel is facing severe challenges in both the economic and security spheres, and that, given the decline in the Israeli economy over recent years; the United States should provide support. The letter stated, "We are concerned that, if not addressed soon… Israel is in danger of "mortgaging" its future qualitative military edge. We cannot allow this to happen." The letter also stressed that the Israeli economy must undergo far-reaching reforms in order to extricate itself from its current malaise. Similar letters have been sent to Bush by the speaker of the House Rep. Dennis Hastertt (R-Ill) and house Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca).
Why I ask should we be "mortgaging" the future of our children so Israel doesn't have to mortgage its future military edge? I don't have an answer to that question and I don't know who does. The American public better start asking questions of their government and questioning the answers they receive for those questions before it's too late for all of us. We cannot continue going into debt giving military aid to foreign countries and attacking other nations under false pretenses for the sole purpose of controlling the world.
All real Americans need to contact their representatives in congress and let them know where they stand on the issues and start asking questions before its too late. It really amazes me that it seems more people are interested in who will be the next American idol than what's going on in their own government. Call me a pessimist if you want but the way things are going I don't have any reason to be optimistic.

2003-05-20T03:35:00.000-04:00

A War That Can’t Be Won

Here we go again! Fighting another war that can’t be won by brute force alone. Remember Vietnam? We were fighting communism back then, now were fighting terrorism. We couldn’t beat communism with brute force in one small country then and were not going to beat terrorism with brute force now.

Afghanistan is pretty much in chaos. People are being killed every day in continued fighting between rival factions. There are signs that the Taliban and Al-Quada are regrouping and the drug trade is rising. We still have about 11000 troops there being shot at. In other words the environment is ripe for breeding terrorism. There will most likely be more U.S. troops killed, maimed or injured in Afghanistan as time goes by. First Mistake??? Invading Iraq when the real problem is somewhere else. By the way where is Osama Bin Laden?

That brings us to Iraq. To begin with Colin Powell used fake documents implicating Iraq with trying to obtain yellow cake (uranium) from Nigeria for their nuclear program. He used these fake documents to help persuade Congress into voting for joint resolution [S.J. Res. 23]. That’s the resolution rushed through congress authorizing the use of force against those nations, organizations, or persons he (the President) determines planned authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. The resolution clearly states “the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” There is not the slightest bit of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11, 2001, absolutely none at all. The other pretenses for the war with Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, regime change and democracy don’t meet the criteria of resolution [S.J. Res. 23]. So that means fake documents were used to start an illegal war.

Meanwhile in Iraq the killing and looting continues. Hatred and Anti American protest are growing. Iraq is looking more and more like a country in anarchy. In other words the environment is ripe for breeding terrorism. Second Mistake??? Invading Iraq when the real problem is somewhere else. By the way where is Saddam Hussein and all his Weapons of Mass Destruction?

We might just as well get used to terrorist attacks like the recent ones in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. With all the hatred we created in the Muslim population around the world by invading Iraq, terrorism is bound to continue. The Iraq war served as a rallying cry encouraging Muslims world wide to join terrorist groups and strike back at American interest. We are no safer from terrorist attacks today than we were on September 11, 2001. In other words the present administrtion has lost all credability for doing what is right for this country. President Bush said today the war on terrorism isn’t over and that it can be won. He didn’t say how long it would take to win this war, he didn’t even offer an estimate. He didn't say how this war would be won, as we have seen the present policy has not worked and will not work. Let’s see so far we went to war with Afghanistan and it is now in chaos. We invaded Iraq and Iraq is now in chaos. How many more countries do we invade and throw into chaos before terrorism ends? I have news for everyone. Throwing a country into chaos will not end terrorism but will only breed more terrorism. The present Bush Administrations policy is one of a never ending war on terrorism.

2003-05-17T03:06:00.000-04:00

Less Government Doesn’t Really Mean Less Government
When politicians say they want less government for the people don’t believe them. What they really mean is less government for Big Businesses. They don't say that directly but look at the record. When has there ever been less government in the lives of the average citizen? There has never been less government in our lives and in fact there is more and more government in our lives.
The recently passed USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA) is a case of more government in our lives not less. Notice the act is named so it sounds patriotic and doesn’t raise suspicions. Why didn’t they name it the anti-terrorism act? Could the law be used to spy on citizens that the government determines are not patriots? What is patriotism and who makes that determination? There seems to be a debate now-a-days about just exactly what patriotism is.
Under USAPA the government can now spy on the internet usage of innocent Americans. Watch out what you type into that search engine it could come back and haunt you in the form of a government investigation and you won’t even know you’re being investigated. You could even be arrested and held secretly without the consultation of a lawyer. It’s very frightening to me to imagine the potential misuse of this law. It's the secrecy that scares me.
The USAPA also allows the government to serve a wiretap order on any person nationwide, regardless of whether that person is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation.
Also under the USAPA the government can acquire the records of patrons of libraries and book stores. The librarians and book store owners cannot release the information that the records were confiscated. No matter which books a person reads or buys it isn’t an indication of any wrongdoing, so why the law? It seems to me it’s a way for government to ban certain books without really banning the books. It’s chilling to me that my government can frighten people into not reading certain books for fear they may be investigated by the government. Most librarians and book store owners are against this law.
We have seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws (at least in Michigan we do). When the seat belt law was first passed a motorist could not be pulled over just because he/she wasn’t using a seat belt. If they were pulled over for some other reason only then could they be ticketed if they weren’t using a seat belt. Now the law has been changed so that a motorist can be pulled over simply for not using a seat belt. Do you see how that works? They take your rights away little by little that way people don’t complain too loudly. The only reason we have seatbelt laws and helmet laws is because of the clout of the big insurance companies and it’s a way for states to take more of our money by issuing citations. Just who is being hurt if someone decides not to use a seat belt or wear a helmet? It’s a victimless crime and the only one that might be hurt is the person not using the seat belt or wearing the helmet. Some studies even suggest helmets will only protect a rider when traveling less than 15 mph and may cause serious neck injuries because of the weight of the helmet. There are also circumstances where you would be better off if you weren’t using a seat belt. I just don’t see where it is governments business to tell people which dangerous acts (as deemed by the government) they are not allowed to do. How about skydiving do we make that illegal because it is too dangerous? What about ice fishing? Many people drown after breaking through the ice or have to be rescued by the coast guard. Do we make ice fishing illegal?
Where is the outrage? Why do we let government take more and more of our rights away without even putting up much of a fight? People tend to think that it doesn’t affect me or I can live with it, but does it really not affect you? It may affect you, if only indirectly, if for example government misuses the patriot act for political purposes. What’s to stop a corrupt government leader from spying on the political opposition? There is just too much secrecy involved in the patriot act and I don’t think our government can be trusted with that secrecy. The USAPA was rushed through congress without much debate, just as the resolution for war with Iraq or any other country that the President determines had anything to do with terrorism was rushed through congress without much debate.
The Bush Administration now wants Congress to pass the USA Patriot Act II which will even further erode our rights as a free people. We can fight terrorism without infringing on peoples rights. I urge anyone who is concerned about loosing our freedoms and our rights to contact your representatives in congress and let them know where you stand. If we don’t stop this continuous taking away of our rights one day we won’t have any rights.

2003-05-16T13:49:00.000-04:00

I Say No To The FCC Easing Of Regulations On Media Ownership
As an American citizen and tax payer I am part owner of the public air waves. As part owner I do not want any one media company becoming so large that it infringes on my right to a free press. It’s happening right now, as was demonstrated by the media coverage of the war with Iraq and people who spoke out against the war. Americans really had to work to find both sides of the war story, most never did. The Dixie Chicks uproar (orchestrated by a certain media giant) just for speaking what they believe, comes dangerously close to censorship if it isn’t censorship already. When people are afraid to speak out we have no democracy. A true democracy depends on informed citizens to make the best political decisions. When too few media giants own all the media, big money will decide what we see, hear and read from the media. There is already too much monopoly in the media we don't need any more. Instead of making rules that will further monopolize the media and diminish competition, rules of the exact opposite should be enacted.

2003-05-16T12:09:00.000-04:00

Tax Cuts In Present form Are Wrong
A tax cut in the present form is wrong and insane. Eliminating the tax on dividends is unfair. Most working class people don't have money in the stock market. If they have money invested it is usually in mutual funds in a 401 K. Any dividends paid are used to purchase more shares of the mutual fund which is taxed when the money is withdrawn. So most working class people pay tax on their dividends, while those who can afford a broker and invest in the stock market directly would pay no taxes on the dividends they receive. How many working class people can afford to fully fund their IRA's plus have money left over to invest in the stock market? I believe it is just a clever way for the rich to recoup some of the losses they suffered in the stock market collapse, on the backs of the working class.
As far as the argument of dividends being taxed twice, what a lame argument, it happens all the time in other areas. Just one example; if for instance I am a used car salesman I pay federal taxes on my profits from selling used cars. The original auto maker paid taxes on their profits from selling the same car when it was new. Double taxes paid for selling the same vehicle, why is that any different than double taxes on dividends? The only difference being the person selling used cars is a working class citizen trying to make an honest living, while most of the people who would benefit from the elimination of taxes on dividends are wealthy and in control of this country. The only tax cuts on dividends should go to retirees whose income is below a certain level.
It also makes no sense to me to give the wealthy a huge tax cut while the working class gets peanuts. They say this will stimulate the economy because the wealthy will invest the money from the tax cuts thus creating jobs (trickle down theory) - I guess they don't like to call it that anymore because it sounds too much like what it really is - but that's exactly what it is, a small amount will eventually trickle down sometime in the future in the way of jobs. How much of this actually trickles down and how long does it take to trickle down? Why not give the working class a big tax cut? They will immediately spend the money and perhaps even invest some; businesses will have to ramp up production to meet demand thus creating jobs and stimulating the economy (trickle up theory). In this situation the working class wins and the enterprising business man wins (a win win situation). Of course that would mean business would have to compete for the consumers dollars and that is exactly what they don't want. They would rather have a government hand out.
In closing I'd just like to know what's wrong with my way of thinking. To me it seems more logical than the present tax cut proposal on the table. It would help people who could really use the extra money (it's called compassion as in compassionate conservative). I guess compassion for the right wing conservatives only applies to the wealthy and Big Business.