Not just a third term... it's Bush squared

Eight years ago, the election was close enough to steal because so many people voted for the guy they'd rather have a beer with.

The administration's modus operandi has been to stonewall, attack the patriotism of the opposition, and deny any obligation to cooperate with either Congress or the courts. Only in the last few months has anyone in Congress supported the effort by Dennis Kucinich and a few others to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for abuses of power and disregard of international law.

Now John McCain has selected a running mate who

• didn't know quite what the vice-president's job is a couple of weeks before accepting the nomination.
• thinks that public schools should teach creationism along with evolution
• is neither allowed nor expected to answer questions about domestic or foreign policy from the press "until the campaign decides it's time. On CBS's Face the nation today, Senator McCain would not respond directly to an invitation for her to appear on the program next Sunday.
• resists inquiries by other branches of government into her actions as governor, particularly firing people who don't toe the line.
  

Haven't we seen enough of this the last eight years from George Bush?

We don't need any more candidates who disrespect the rule of the law or the right of the people to be informed about candidates' positions and actions on the issues.

The press have been falling all over themselves since the convention racing to see who can praise her first -- but only on style. There has been no examination of substance -- and the campaign wants to keep it that way. When all the focus is on style and feelings, people can easily forget the facts. There's no one challenging the statements or asking tough questions.

It takes a proactive citizen to find the answers. The fact-checking sites have them, but you need to know where to look. Here are a couple of political fact-checking sites:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
http://www.factcheck.org/

And a couple for rumors and urban legends:

http://www.snopes.com/
http://urbanlegends.about.com/

Compare candidates' positions to yours

Do any of the candidates represent your positions? Whose views are closest to yours?
Check out this site where you can compare the candidates' positions on various issues. Then go here to enter your own positions. Note which are important and which are "key". Submit, and voila -- you'll see which candidates are most in line with your positions on the issue and which are not, complete with a listing of the issues on which you disagree with each candidate.

The Man Who Should Be President

Today, the Current Occupant admitted before the white house press corps that he couldn't remember what he was doing back in 1980 or 81.

We need a president with his brain intact, a sense of humor and the foresight to prepare for unpredictable situations.

We need a president who acts from peace and strength rather than a smirk and a cowboy-style bravado.

To see what I mean, check out Dennis Kucinich's appearance on the Colbert report Monday, the 15th.

You can see it on Comedy Central or on You Tube.

Only the one who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible.
-- Miguel de Unamuno

Keep asking questions and get tasered. by police

A University of Florida student was pinned to the ground, shot with a taser gun, and charged with a felony (resisting arrest or inciting a riot, depending on the source) . His crime? Insisting on asking John Kerry questions about the 2004 election, alleged vote suppression, impeachment, and Kerry's membership in Skull & Bones when event organizers wanted him to stop. Kerry was saying that he wanted to answer the student's "important question" when the organizers of the event turned the student's microphone off and the police grabbed him. Kerry continued to talk about the allegations but never asked the police to stop or leave the man alone.

You can read about it at the New York Times web site
You can watch the video another student took with his cell phone here.

The student was certainly obnoxious, but last time I checked that wasn't a felony. I've got my doubts about the health of free speech in this country.

Great moments in government regulation, or 3 cheers for the FDA

The current regime is so dedicated to public safety. Recently , FDA approved the marketing of a home water purification device to be used by patients with end stage renal (kidney) disease (ESRD) who do their own dialysis at home. Because Medicare covers patients with ESRD, it pays for such items.
CMS , the federal agency that handles Medicare, states that the device that FDA approved does not have the ports needed for the patient to test the water and the dialysis fluid. Testing of both the water and the dialysate is necessary for patient safety and required by law.
Because FDA had previously approved other dialysis testing devices, it compared the new product to them rather than treating it as a new device. Someone must have forgotten about the published standards for water purity and testing of medical equipment. According to CMS, FDA stated that it only regulates the manufacturer and the marketing; patient safety is left to CMS.
Aren't you glad the FDA is looking out for us?

Yet another assault on the First Amendment

Maybe you know about the march on Washington scheduled for this weekend, September 15th. The organizers' purposes are to stop the war and impeach Bush and Cheney.

Well, the Powers that Be in Washington know about it, and they would rather that you didn't. Last month, the organizers were threatened with a $10,000 fine for putting up posters with adhesive that allegedly did not meet regulations. So they announced a press conference at which they placed posters on public property with media present.

D.C. police broke up the news conference by march organizers last week, with mounted officers charging on the media present to disperse them. You can see that here.

Thank you, Agence France Presse and You Tube, without which we would never have known about this.

Don't settle. Go for the best. Kucinich for President

During the 2004 campaign. I liked what Dennis Kucinich had to say, but figured he'd never win the nomination, let alone the election. So I settled and worked for Kerry after it was clear he would be the nominee.
I believe that Kerry lost, in part, because he was so worried about the polls that he didn't have the gumption to stand up for what he believed.

This past week, in the debate in Chicago, Dennis just wowed me. He was so on target. He didn't pander, unless calling himself the worker's candidate is pandering. He didn't condescend.

And he spoke his truth without fear that he might go "too far" and alienate the middle. Instead, he showed that our ("leftist") values are really the values we used to think Democrats shared -- fairness, taking care of each other, learning to live peacefully.

I am so tired of campaigning for candidates who are nominated because they "can win" -- Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore as he was in 2000. And I'm really tired of holding my nose to vote (Rod Blagojevich)

Tuesday's debate convinced me that Dennis Kucinich can get folks interested and active. Imagine electing a president we can trust to base his decisions on positive principles rather than the next election or his friends' financial interests. We deserve nothing less.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention

Did you know that President Bush and his Justice [sic] Department now have the power to monitor phone calls and communications whenever one party is reasonably believed to be outside the United States? The so-called Protect America Act of 2007 (PubLNo. 110-55) withdraws these communications from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA.
They don't need to get court approval. They don't need to have anyone outside the Attorney General's office review the surveillance. And it appears that there does not have to be evidence that the person being monitored is an agent of a foreign power or an agent of international terrorism.

Should we stay or should we go? Let the Iraqis decide

Ellen Goodman has a great idea. Let the Iraqis have a referendum on whether the U.S. occupation should continue or end within a year, and abide by their decision.

The Current Occupant, the Bush-Hamilton report, Senator McCain and others keep telling us that the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own destiny and that Iraq will free-fall into chaos if we're not there to help.

Let me get this straight. We invaded three years ago, destroying their water supply, power grid, schools, health care system and economy. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead as a result. Now they need to take responsibility for themselves, but they'll fall apart without us?

That Man and his advisers need to understand that the great majority of Iraqis want us out within a year. Nearly half of them support attacks on American soldiers.
Whose interests are served by our continued presence? The invasion has done more harm than good. The longer we stay, the more damage we do. Saddam may be gone, but freedom has not arrived. If we and they are to get out of this hole we've made, the first thing we have to do is stop digging.

Let's make one last attempt to bring democracy to Iraq by asking the people what they want.

One positive step -- Let's take another

It's great that we will have a majority of Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It's a start.

Now, we need to have investigations into the administration's disregard of the constitution, the rule of law, and the value of human life: the warrantless wiretaps, the secret renditions of "suspects" to countries where they will be tortured, the detentions at Guantanamo and elsewhere of people not shown to have any connection to terrorism, the lies that got us into Iraq, putting profit before security, supporting their friends' fraud in contracting with the government...

I can understand that Nancy Pelosi, who will be 3rd in line for the presidency, does not want to pursue impeachment. However, John Conyers, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, can call for investigation as to whether Cheney and Bush have committed misconduct serious enough to warrant censure, if not impeachment. Other committees can investigate the abuses within their jurisdiction. The investigations may not necessariy lead to impeachment; censure is another option for a response to misconduct.

To those who say that the country doesn't need to be put through investigation and possible impeachment, I ask:

Does the country deserve a precedent for accepting the willful disregard of the constitution and the law without question or consequences?

The administration must be held accountable for its actions.

Who deserves to be investigated, or the fox guarding the henhouse

Let me get this straight. Newborn infants have to prove their citizenship and identity to get Medicaid, but funding for the Inspector General investigating the billions of dollars of theft and corruption among the contractors in Iraq is terminated.
The Current Occupant and his cronies give themselves immunity from prosecution for any crimes they might have committed, abandon habeas corpus, rewrite the Geneva Conventions, and publish diagrams for making an atomic bomb on the Internet, and no one mentions impeachment?

One of That Man's evangelical advisors, who campaigns against gay marriage, pays a prostitute of his own gender for "massages" and illegal drugs, and That Man doesn't have a word to say. But John Kerry makes a stupid mistake and the administration is all over him.

When and how are people going to decide we've had enough?

When will we ever learn?

The other night at the end of the News Hour, PBS showed the names and pictures of 24 of the latest Americans to die in Iraq.

Some of them were only 19 or 20 and looked as though they were playing dress-up in Daddy's uniform. Many of the photos showed people vibrant and filled with life, bright smiles,eyes lit with humor, kindness, and idealism. Each one of those lights is extinguished. None of those boys will ever reach his promise or potential. We've lost powerful, intelligent women and men who had much more to give to the world.

It's such a waste, and for what? So the "coalition" could replace a dictator with chaos, unemployment and sectarian violence in the hope of keeping access to their oil.

If Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld think this war is worthwhile, they should go.
How can they ever atone for what they've done?

Betraying its beginnings

It breaks my heart to see Israel lose all sense of perspective in responding to the Hezbollah attacks. After centuries of oppression, pogroms, the Holocaust, the Jews got our own country. But it's beginning to look more like an oppressor than the oppressed.

To respond to the capture of two soldiers by bombing civilian areas and airports is simply wrong. It's outrageous. As of July 19th there had been 25 Israeli deaths, about half of them military, and 230 or more deaths in Lebanon. Shouldn't a Jewish country remember that "an eye for an eye" means "don't do more harm than was done to you"?

When Israel was attacked in the 6 day war of 1967, its decisive victory made us so proud. At last, folks said, we're fighting back and defending ourselves. Outnumbered, Israel was David beating Goliath. And if Israel wound up controlling some Arab territory, well, hey, they started it.

But did anyone making decisions think that 39 years later Israel would still be in control of any of that territory, policing a hostile Arab population? With Israel bombing airports, bridges and a Christian neighborhood in Lebanon, Golda Meir must be spinning in her grave. It's a shame. And Israel was not supposed to be like this.

Occupation isn't working (either for Israel or for the United States) because it doesn't work. The people whose home is occupied are naturally going to resist, and the longer the occupation lasts, the more just their cause appears.

The Zionists claimed that we Jews had a right to return to the land we were dispersed from 1900 years ago. If that makes sense, then it also makes sense for the people who were turned out in 1948 to have some rights. The partition was drawn largely according to land ownership. Most of the land allocated to the Jewish homeland had been bought by Jews. Much more land went to Jordan than went to Israel. Both groups have legitimate claims to land.

Many of the Arabs who left Jewish territory in 1947-48 did so with the aim of "driving Israel into the sea" --so I was told in Sunday school. though that account is disputed. Under those circumstances, it's understandable that Israel would refuse to let them return after the war. Those who were displaced should be compensated for lost homes and businesses, as was done, belatedly and inadequately, for Jewish property after World War II.

Over the last 60 years, both sides have committed unnecessary violence. Neither is totally at fault, and neither is an innocent victim. But this mutual destruction has got to stop, just like the nuclear arms race, and slavery, and genocide. It's time for Israel to do justice, to love mercy, care for the stranger, the widow and the orphan, and to remember that we, too, were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Democrats or democracy? What's the message?

There has been a lot of talk about whether the Iraq war should divide Democrats, how "we" can take back Congress and the White House, and staying "on message". Yes, the results of Republican control are awful. But what can we do to make sure that Democratic control is better than "not quite as bad"? Let's not forget that the Dems brought us the Viet Nam war and welfare reform as well as the Civil Rights Act. Some day, the Iraq war will be over. If ending the war is our main focus, what will we focus on then?
If "we" take back Congress, what will "we" do with it? Would the Dems repeal the USA PATRIOT Act? Most of them voted for it. What will we do about global warming?
The Dems have been too worried about the right wing labelling them as soft on crime, terrorism and "moral values" to present any message at all.
We must articulate a positive vision that calls on our better nature rather than our fears. A culture of caring. Respect for the dignity of every individual and the potential of every child. Statewide or nationwide funding for schools would allow kids in the city to have the education all of us want for our own children. Encouraging achievement and cooperation rather than competition would build self-esteem on a more solid foundation than giving everyone a trophy just for showing up.
Moral and religious values (for those who feel their religion makes them better people) are about caring for the orphan, the widow and the stranger, sharing with the poor, respecting those who work for you, making peace with your neighbor, and considering the effects of our choices on the rest of the world and our grandchildren's grandchildren, not just the next election.
Imagine what this country could be like if our government reflected those values. Let's make it happen.
Hey, Democrats, can you get behind this vision?

Fiddling while the earth heats up.

Recently, I saw Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." He has done a great job of explaining the science behind global warming in a way that the intelligent nonscientist will understand. I highly recommend that you see it, especially if you don't enjoy reading about science. Gore is passionate and engaging. Check out the trailer. He has convinced me that the earth's climate is changing rapidly. The mess humans have made of this planet becomes more dangerous day by day.

As with energy independence, the US has been in denial and avoided taking necessary action. Learn a bit more about the Bush administration's policy by watching this news story that played on the BBC but not here.


Thank you to Shakespeare's Sister for the heads up.

This is too funny

If you ever thought that GW Bush was a tool of big business, here is your "proof". I just wish they had told us who hired the pilot.

Now will Congress do something about those signing statements?

Maybe you heard recently about the Inspector General appointed to investigate fraud, waste and the complete disappearance of $9 billion appropriated for Iraq reconstruction. That Man in the White House has emasculated the Inspector General with another signing statement. Get this:

Section 2215(b)(4) of the Act calls for a report on "the progress being made toward indicting and trying leaders of the former Iraqi regime for" specified crimes. The executive branch shall construe the provision as calling for a report on the activities of the relevant systems of justice, and not on whether any given individual has committed any of the enumerated crimes, which is a matter to be determined by an appropriate tribunal according to applicable law.

Title III of the Act creates an Inspector General (IG) of the CPA. Title III shall be construed in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The CPA IG shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department of Defense related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security. The Secretary of Defense may make exceptions to the foregoing direction in the public interest.

Provisions of the Act that require disclosure of information, including section 3001(h)(4)(B) of the Act, shall be construed in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

In other words, Congress passed a law creating the IG with the intention that it investigate seriously, have subpoena power, and perhaps result in criminal prosecution. The president's statement removes the subpoena power, essentially prohibits any criminal prosecution and exempts from disclosure anything that might affect the president's thinking process.

Though we are hearing about it now, the law was passed and the statement signed in 2003. No one has challenged Bush's authority to amend the laws Congress has passed. Will Congress please do somethiing? The courts can't step in, but Congress can act. I can't imagine that any court would uphold such a drastic revision of the bill presented for signature, nor would any respectable constitutional scholar.

You knew this.... Someone succinctly put it to music....

Bush needs a brain, Cheney needs a heart
and the Demos need some nerve.

Dems need a backbone implant

President Bush's approval ratings are at a new low of 29%. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa) has called for hearings on the NSA's phone snooping. John Murtha has been traveling the country to tell us why he was wrong to support the Iraq war, (see a video of his appearance in Evanston here). and there is a nationwide campaign to put the House of Representatives back into Democratic hands.

So Nancy Pelosi, (D. Cal.), House Minority Leader, says that impeachment is "off the table."
Her focus on energy policy is admirable. Still, does she not get the connection between our energy policy and the needless death and destruction in Iraq? Could she at least keep the option open? It's a bit odd, I think, that Bush can't rule out a nuclear attack on Iran, but Pelosi's strongest statement is that you never know where an investigation might lead...

It would be so much more helpful to let the administration know that we will not tolerate its disregard of the law, for the suffering of others and for the deaths its lies have caused. We ought to let her know, don't you think?

We weren't paranoid. We were right.

After the 2004 election, a few people wanted to investigate allegations of tampering with the electronic voting machines, especially Diebold's. The response from Democrats and Republicans alike was, "Get over it. Bush won." Stories of precincts with more votes for Bush than registered voters were ignored. So were allegations of tampering with registration.

It turns out that the Diebold machines actually are vulnerable to hacking, and the results could be changed without any evidence of tampering. Diebold has informed states of a problem, but there is no fix for it.

According to Ion Sancho, Leon County, Florida's supervisor of elections, it is actually possible to have both an electronic vote and a paper trail with optical scanners. Sancho has devoted his career to making elections voter-friendly and accurate. Naturally, some of the Powers That Be in Florida's Bush administration don't like his stance on the Diebold machines. Read more about that here.

Curiouser and curiouser, or "just say no"

The Justice Department has dropped an investigation of the conduct of the lawyers who approved the NSA's domestic surveillance program because the investigators were denied security clearances. Is there no one in government willing to stand up to abuses of power? Even the Nixon administration had John Dean.

Ma Bell is now Big Brother

Three of the 4 largest phone companies have been supplying the National Security Agency with the phone calling patterns of tens of millions of Americans on request. AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth all cooperated, Qwest didn't.

W says they're not fishing or trolling, and they're not listening without a court order. Of course, under his official signing statements, limits on government snooping don't apply to him when he feels national security is involved.

Some of these companies are also internet service providers, and they want to decide which links appear when you search the net -- and which don't. Congress will vote soon on whether to let them. Opponents of this bill would require internet neutrality, where all sites are equally accessible. More information is available here.

Is "big Mo" beginning to push BushCheney out?

Remember when George HW Bush bragged that Big Mo[mentum] was with him during the primaries when he ran for president? Maybe, just maybe, Mo is moving toward impeachment. W's polls continue to go south. This week he lost the support of a radio talk show host, Don McIntyre, who had supported him for the last 5 years. McIntyre apologized and said he was wrong to have supported W for president.

"In the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11^th."

There are several organizations and coalitions working on impeachment by passing state and local resolutions, buying ads in major media, and circulating petitions on paper or online. Check out the online petition. See if your representative in Congress is a cosponsor of any of these resolutions:

HJR 635: to investigate Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
HJR 636: to censure President Bush.
HJR 637: to censure Vice President Cheney.

Chicken-hearted George decides which laws apply to him

Rather than veto a bill he disagrees with, or negotiating with Congress, That Man signs the bill into law. Then, after the cameras are gone, he tries to add his own "fine print", signing a statement that the law does not apply to him as president. or as commander in chief. According to the Boston Globe, Bush has done this 750 times. Several times, he has retracted in the signing statement agreements he had negotiated with Congress. He doesn't have either the gumption to veto the bill or the integrity to keep his word.

The man who thinks the constitution is just a piece of paper also places his interpretation over that of Congress or the courts, and takes an action that prevents either of them from carrying out the role assigned to it.

Keeping the Internet Open and Free

The best thing about the Internet is our ability to find and share all kinds of information and ideas as we choose. Most of us have tolerated ads as long as we could get to the sites we wanted. The House Energy and Commerce just sent a bill to the full House that would let the major telecommunications companies control both the speed and availability of our access to internet sites. So, if you want to access your news through Common Dreams or read a progressive blog, you may have to wait much longer than you would for a site these companies own or agree with.

The Committee defeated a "network neutrality" amendment that would have required equal access. The details are here.

Thank you, Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) for voting for the amendment and against the bill. Jan's interview on NPR explained the issues well. To find out how other committee members voted, look here.

Contact other House members.

Two birds with one stone: making a profit on detention centers

Common Dreams reported that Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), a Halliburton subsidiary, had been awarded a contract to build "temporary detention and processing" centers for immigration control and enforcement (ICE) , to supplement existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in case of an "emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The article quoted directly from Halliburton's press release announcing the $385 million contract on its web site. Somehow, the document is no longer available at the Halliburton site. Lots of other links work, but not that one.

So, having overcharged the U.S. and Iraqi governments for its services in Iraq, Dick Cheney's [former] firm can overcharge us to round up immigrants into camps if the administration declares martial law. For more on the corporate gravy train here and in Britain, look here.

They're equal opportunity exploiters, though, avoiding health insurance benefits for American workers and abusing "third party nationals" in addition to bilking Iraq and the U.S.

Movement on impeachment

Public sentiment for impeachment is growing, and Illinois is a leader. Last week, Rep. Karen Yarbrough introduced a joint resolution in the Illinois House of Representatives to impeach the Occupant. As of today there are 17 cosponsors.

California is considering a resolution to impeach both Bush and Cheney. Cheney must be charged in any articles of impeachment because otherwise he would succeed Bush -- meaning that he would be president in name as well as in reality.

It appears Vermont is next.

Most of the cosponsors of the Illinois House resolution are from the south side of Chicago or the south suburbs. Ask your representative to sign on and to introduce an amendment to add allegations against Cheney. Contact information is available here for the House and here for the Senate.

Iran -- Deja vu all over again

A middle eastern country developing nuclear technology, a possibility that it will have a nuclear bomb at some future time. The administration claiming it doesn't want to attack but may be forced to do so preemptively. Defense Department predicting an easy victory, though military analysts express doubts. Haven't we seen this movie?

Colin Powell has confirmed that the Bush League cherry-picked and distorted intelligence to justify invading Iraq. It's clear that Dick Cheney deliberately leaked classified and sensitive information about Ambassador Wilson's trip and his wife's connection to the CIA. Suddenly W remembers that he had declassified that information three years ago, before the leak.

We were fooled once. We can't let it happen again.

Yet another reason for censure, if not impeachment

Did you know that when The Occupant signed the renewal of the Patriot Act, he added a written statement:

'The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

Congress can make laws governing law enforcement or torture, but The Occupant gets to decide whether government agencies in the executive branch have to follow them.

If you remember your high school civics, you know that we have three co-equal branches of government. W's position is a usurpation of the legislative and judicial powers to make laws and to decide whether those laws are consistent with the constitution. In other words, he's disregarding the constitution.

Bush has said before that the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" and we should "stop throwing it at" him.

Should a man with this attitude ever have been president? If folks had known in November 2004 what we know today, he would never have been "re-elected". Amazing, isn't it, how far spin, smoke and mirrors can take us?

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has the right idea: impeachment. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has an idea that may be more likely to fly: censure. If you missed his eloquent explanation on the Daily Show, you can see it here.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing next Friday.