Let the sacrificing begin

It's time to show our "support for the troops." The guns or butter debate will heat up in Congress over the budget for next year. It seems that in order to support our 600 BILLION dollar defense budget, we face cuts in so-called "entitlements." The choice will become clear that we at home, through cuts in the social services that support US, will be asked to sacrifice so that our military will continue to be the biggest, baddest, and most expensive in the world. American Progress reports:

Next week, President Bush is expected to call for deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in this year's budget, as lawmakers will have to work to "spare doctors from a 10 percent cut in Medicare fees that would otherwise take effect on July 1."

What other sacrifices will our President and the Congress ask from us in the coming year? Will we be asked to give up health care services? Will we be asked to carry more of the burden of Medicare and Medicad? Will we be asked to live with an infrastructure that is ever more worn and fragile? Will we be asked to sacrifice the environment in order to create new energy sources? Will more veterans be forced into even greater sacrifices as they try to heal themselves from war? How many will be asked to sacrifice their homes as the morgage lenders and banks scurry to cover their losses?

Here's the sacrifice I wish we as a nation could make: Couldn't we sacrifice a fraction of our military budget to alleviate both our suffering and the suffering in the world? Couldn't we sacrifice a no-bid contract or two in order build high-quality levees in New Orleans, or to help the poverty level residents to return to their homes? How about a true attack on poverty, hunger, and homelessness in America? Why do we have to sacrifice so many things that would increase the quality of life in America to maintain our militaristic society? Who will even raise this issue? Courage anyone?

Sam Rasoul on "MIDDLE CLASS SERVANTS TO THE WEALTHY" - with commentary

Sam Rasoul sent this column in an email today. How refreshing to hear a politician in today's hot political climate write with clarity on one of the BIG issues in the election that NOBODY is talking about. Sam is ready to address the hard questions. He seems willing and able to tackle this one in spite of the certain blowback to be expected from political opponents.

Sam Rasoul:

In a free society, inequality of income is inevitable. But inequality of income if not moderated becomes a force which both destabilizes and disables a society. Not only is excessive inequality morally offensive; it is dangerous.
We have concrete data from 2005 delineating the severity of the income gap in the United States. In that year, the top 1 percent of Americans, those earning in excess of $348,000, pulled in a larger proportion of the national income than at any time since 1928. To be exact, those at the top took in 21.8 percent of all income, almost reaching the 1928 level of 23.9 percent. To offer some comparison, in 1980, the top 1 percent earned 8 percent of the country's income, a far cry from the 2005 21.8 percent. Those receiving more than $100,000 in 2005, the top 10 percent, also reached pre-Depression levels.
Reported income rose 9 percent in 2005, but for the bottom 90 percent, incomes dropped 0.6 percent. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw income increases of about 14 percent. In other words, the gap continues to widen with a few becoming wealthier and the vast majority poorer.

One can only wonder if the disparity has become greater in the last two years. It also is important to note that Republicans talk about our robust economy and we must remember, It IS a good economy for them. Their intent is NEVER to address the income disparity, but only to maximize wealth and encourage "free enterprise."

In another way to look at the income disparity, the bottom 150 million Americans' total income roughly equaled that of the top 300 thousand. To break that down to the individual, an average person from the top group receives 440 times as much income as someone from the the bottom group. If most of us multiply our income 440 times, the moral offense becomes obvious.
However, the ethics of income inequality is only part of the picture. Historically, when the share of pre-tax income has risen above 20 percent for only the top 1 percent, those economic systems have crashed. As a reminder, we are dangerously close to pre-Depression levels. But such danger existed long before the last century. Plato warned that "An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." More recently even Alan Greenspan admitted "income equality is where the capitalist system is most vulnerable."

When a Democrat like Sam raises this issue, the snickering begins almost immediately from the so-called "fiscal conservatives." Unrestricted capitalism is the benchmark of the Republican Party, especially as advocated by our current Representative, Bob Goodlatte. When will ANY Republican mention the income disparity? Most avoid the whole discussion by endlessly repeating the standard talking points about our dynamic economy.

The good news is that extreme inequality of income is a choice. Even if a society has slipped into that danger zone, the choice to adopt a remedy exists. I don't suggest trying to abolish inequality of income, but only returning to moderate inequality, such as the 1970s when executives made 30 times more than the average worker. Today the executive makes 400 times more than the average employee in his company, obviously an immoderate inequality.
Is it any surprise we no longer do better than our own parents? A recent study said that, adjusting for inflation, men in their 30s make 12 percent less than their fathers did in 1974. We work more hours with fewer benefits and find saving almost impossible.

Of course we have a choice. Sam! What will the fix look and feel like? Has it ever been done before? Does it mean a Recession or worse a Depression? What specific policies or programs will you support that addresses this problem? I know that acknowledging the problem is a big part of the solution and there's a lot of convincing to be done, but what can be offered as a fix? If it's a choice, what do we choose?

We have moved closer to that place where economic systems collapse, and to move us away from that danger zone, the middle class must have a voice our leaders and elected representatives cannot ignore. Today, the voices of the bottom 90 percent have been drowned out by the special interests and lobbyists who have a disproportionate influence in Congress. The lobbyists are the paid representatives of the top 10 percent influencing the representatives we elected. There are twice as many registered lobbyists in DC now than there were in 1980; as the income disparity widens so does the influence disparity. We must get the special interests out of our system before we can move on to other reforms, before we can assure that we can save ourselves from collapse. Doing so is our moral and economic responsibility.

Step one, get rid of lobbyists? Whoa...Is there really any way to do that? How many legislators will "buy" into that, literally! Raising their own money honestly? I agree emphatically that the "K street" phenomena of the Bush administration has profoundly multiplied the problem, but how will we EVER minimize the importance of PAYOLA! A big job my friend. Bring it on!

Hardball or Hope?

Now that it's all over but the cryin', what do you make of the South Carolina Democratic primary?  Billary taking on Obama with "hardball politics?"  Is it good "inoculation" for both candidates to wage a "vigorous" campaign in light of the bloody partisan politics to come or, as we all hope, will the campaign change into a hot rhetorical battle of issues with the "personal" attacking being left to the right-wing attack dogs. Are we really ready to change the way politics is played? Are we at last tired of the "divide and conquer" mentality that has been parlayed so successfully by the Clintons and the Bushes into 16 years of rule?

The results of the South Carolina primary indicate that "hardball" lost and "civility" won. Hillary got on Face the Nation this morning and pretty much argued that hardball is the name of the game. It's the way to WIN. It's the way the game has evolved over the past 30 years. Partisanship wins the day. All is fair in love, war, and politics. She was unapologetic even as she was touting her ability to unite everyone. The only disclaimer was her statement that the Democratic Party will stand together as one after the political battles are done.

Her tone and statements were defensive, argumentative, and unapologetic. She stands for the past and the politics of partisanship. She epitomizes "Hardball." She's lost her voice to husband Bill. South Carolina showed us that "Pit Bull Bill" was not helpful to Hillary, in fact it pretty well smashed the politics of the past for the time being unfortunately. There was Bill, giving the concession speech. Where was Hillary? Who's running for President? From the New York Times:

As Mr. Obama’s supporters gathered in a downtown convention center here and Mrs. Clinton was on the plane to Tennessee, former President Bill Clinton gave what amounted to the campaign’s concession speech, a reflection of how he emerged as the proxy candidate as his wife campaigned in other states. In that address, at a rally in Missouri, he said of Mr. Obama: “Hillary congratulated him, and I congratulate him. Now we go to Feb. 5, when millions of Americans can finally get into the act.”

Obama was more conciliatory on This Week. He seemed to be a cautious but confident winner as he fended off the questions of George Stephanopolos.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They look at everything through racial lines, gender lines, geographic lines. They tend to segment people.

They say that it was your campaign playing the race card.

OBAMA: George, I'm not going to continue sort of the tit-for- tat. I think that the results yesterday spoke for themselves, that people wanted to move beyond some of these old arguments, and they want to look forward to figure out how we pull the country together and move forward, and that's what we're going to do during the remainder of this campaign.

Later in the interview, Obama again refused to take the bait:

STEPHANOPOULOS: The longer this campaign goes on and the nastier it gets, the more pressure that's going to be on both you and Senator Clinton to come together and show a united front in November. Are you open to having Senator Clinton as your running mate, and vice versa serving with her?

OBAMA: Oh, you know, I think it's premature, George, to talk about running mates. I mean, we've got a lot of election left here. So all of us, I think, are competing vigorously. Senator Edwards is running a terrific campaign as well.

And what I want to do is try as much as possible to spend the remaining weeks and potentially months of the campaign talking about the issues that all Democrats should be concerned about, and I think all Americans should be concerned about.

Obama is learning the ropes of a presidential campaign when he answers baited, leading questions with talking points. It's frustrating but should remind us all that there are issues to discuss folks! He is the candidate right now who is doing the best job of focusing on the issues and reminding us that he's running for President of ALL of us, not just the Democratic Party.

Hope won in South Carolina... by a lot. Stay tuned and stay hopeful. Maybe Barack Obama CAN be a winner using the politics of the future. Maybe he CAN get the younger generation to give up their apathy and cynicism regarding "politics as usual" and get involved enough to put him over the top.

The Case against Ron Paul

Ron Paul's time has come. It's time to figure this guy out. He's gone on long enough. Democrats! Wake up! Here are some of his policies and legislative actions:

No to Stem Cells.

No to women's right to choose.

Wants to repeal citizenship rights of children of illegals. Supports the MOST xenophopic faction of the anti-immigration crowd.

Voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Has voted FOR voter suppression bills.

He's published a newsletter with many blatantly racist views.

Supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

Thinks Hillary is ""a far leftist with very close female friends."

Wants to keep "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and co-sponsored the school prayer amendment.

Won't acknowledge that genocide exists in Darfur.

Has a lower score from PeacePAC than ... Joe Lieberman!

One of only six members of the house to get an "F" rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

One positive: He's against the Iraq War.

It's time to quit wishing and get serious! Let this guy fade into oblivion!

Good News for Sam Rasoul

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MOORE ENDORSES SAM RASOUL
1/23/08

PRESS RELEASE
MEDIA CONTACT-DAVID LIPES

DAVID@SAMRASOUL.US

540.580.7599

Roanoke, VA- Charlotte Moore, a member of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, has endorsed Sam Rasoul, candidate for the United States House of Representatives in Virginia's 6th Congressional district which includes Roanoke, Lynchburg, Staunton, and Harrisonburg.

The respected community leader choose to endorse Rasoul as they both share the common passion of enhancing the quality of life for the local citizenry and the effectiveness of government.

"Sam is very passionate about making a difference for the common good of all people", wrote Moore. In regards to Rasoul's bid for elected office, she proclaimed "we need more people like Sam Rasoul in our government."

Rasoul stated, "I look forward to working with local leaders, such as Charlotte, to improve the lives of middle class citizens in western Virginia. With the recent downturn in the economy, middle America needs help the most."
###

Imperialism and Impotency

Glen Greenwald in Salon yesterday, writes a column that is both on the mark, and very disturbing. Go read the whole thing. He points out the impotency of President Bush's recent trip the Middle East and especially his inability to make any forceful policy statements or speak to any of the leaders with any kind of power or authority. His meek request of the Saudi Monarchy to lower oil prices was only met with a smile. Bush's words? "Could you um, please lower the price a little? I mean, look what effect you are having on best customer!" This from Mr. "Dead or Alive?"

Greenwald:

"No matter what else is true, our sprawling imperialism -- as has been true for every Empire in history -- is simply unsustainable. The very idea of staying in Iraq for the next several decades with tens of thousands of American troops, while we lavishly fund the grotesquely corrupt and un-American Private Republican Army of Blackwater, is both infeasible and self-destructive. Here's what Pat Buchanan -- who, whatever else one might think of him, has been warning of the unsustainability of American imperialism for years -- said about all of this earlier this week:

To stave off recession, the Fed appears anxious to slash interest rates another half-point, if not more. That will further weaken the dollar and raise the costs of the imports to which we have become addicted. While all this is bad news for the Republicans, it is worse news for the republic. As we save nothing, we must borrow both to pay for the imported oil and foreign manufactures upon which we have become dependent.

We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy. We borrow from the nations we defend so that we may continue to defend them. To question this is an unpardonable heresy called "isolationism."

One of the aspects of the presidential campaign that makes it so tiresome and depressing is that virtually none of this is even part of the debate, nor can it be. There are some differences about what to do about Iraq, but the basic thrust of American foreign policy is unchallenged by any of the remaining viable candidates in either party.

Yet until we stop operating on the premise that the world is our playground to run and control through military force -- for invasions, bombing campaigns, wars and occupations to be commenced whenever we perceive it to be in our "interests," however broadly that might be defined -- the only real question is how quickly these problems are going to worsen, how severely the accompanying erosion of our national character will become. A country that is defined by endless war and world military hegemony is inevitably, unavoidably, the Nation of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Torture and Renditions and Limitless Presidential Power and Secret Black Sites and Blackwater."

Screwing up a War

It's all Bremer's fault. Harken back to the early days of the Iraq invasion when Bush Administration officials proudly proclaimed that "we make our own realities." This in a nutshell is the way big corporations do business. It's quite common of for a company to simply proclaim that the new CEO is in charge, clean house, and commence with profit making. Bremer treated Iraq like he was the new CEO in charge, cleaned house, but in this case, along with the profit making, complete chaos ensued. It's a price we're still paying. From the Progress Report on Jan. 16:

On May 16, 2003, just four days after then-U.S. administrator of Iraq L. Paul Bremer arrived in Baghdad, he issued a sweeping order that outlawed Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and dismissed all senior members from their government posts. Bremer's order, the first he issued as the top American in Iraq, "led to the firing of about 30,000 ex-Baathists from various ministries" and ended "up affecting a lot more people than intended and turning a lot of people into enemies" of the United States. Before issuing his order, Bremer had been warned by the CIA's Baghdad station chief that the move would "drive tens of thousands of Baathists underground by nightfall," but Bremer said that "it's not open for discussion." Days after issuing his initial de-Baathification directive, Bremer issued a second order dissolving Iraq's 500,000-member military and intelligence services. This pair of orders is considered "the original sin that led to Iraq's current turmoil," as it "crippled Iraq's institutions of governance and security and created half a million angry and jobless people in the process," ripe "for recruitment by insurgent and militia groups."

Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding all the way around. Here are some comments from President Bush yesterday.

"But yeah, look, I'm sure people view me as a warmonger and I view myself as peacemaker."

"I mean, when this democracy in Iraq solidifies and emerges and is whole, people will understand what I meant about the democracy agenda."

Bush said he still believes that freedom and democracy are possible in the region, and will ultimately be the way to bring an end to terrorism against the United States.

"Look, I know I've been accused of being a hopeless idealist. On the other hand, I don't see any alternative, if you believe it's an ideological struggle. . . .

Bush said he had something to prove on his trip. But, he said, "it's not so much to prove for my sake. It's really to prove for peace."

How does he intend to turn his image around? "You just have to fight through stereotypes by actions," he said, adding that he intends to let "the results speak for themselves. . . .

Seems that Bush is still searching for a "legacy." He's very sure about what he intends it to be. He seems to be absolutely sure that his version of reality will win the day. He's the CEO of the largest corporate entity in the world and he's the decider. If he's says he's a peacemaker, then by God, he's a peacemaker! To echo this very same wise man, "the results speak for themselves."

Good News?

Good News from Iraq! Squire Duncan breathlessly reports in an editorial in the Daily News Record today on the endless stream of (largely unreported) good news from the American Imperial Colony of Iraq. The surge has worked. The OIL refineries are online! Total victory has been won! So much so that the good Squire can proudly report:

With banking and housing problems in this nation, American officials can now start thinking about solutions to our economic problems.

Read on: Daily News Record Jan 16, 2008:

Americans know there is success in Iraq because news from the conflict has been basically obliterated from nightly and morning news broadcasts. If things go badly, there's a story every night and every morning. If things go well in Iraq, there's stone-cold silence on the airwaves.

Except for Fox News... and the Daily News Record editorial page who are working overtime to fill in the gap. Today's editorial is exhibit A.

Although Secretary of State Rice and Prime Minister Maliki did not discuss timetables, they both talked of a reduction of American and multinational forces this year.

Just like they've "talked about" political benchmarks, military strategy, bringing the troops home, ending the war, bringing democracy to the Middle East, etc etc... How is this meaningful?

As Sens. John McCain, R-Az., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., have noted in a recent column, the amazing success of the "surge" can be lost if too many American forces withdraw too quickly but, with the diminishing of violence, it seems possible to withdraw some of our troops.

Crooks and Liars has this equal but opposite reaction:

Today has been the anniversary of Bush’s surge in Iraq. Clearly there is no political reconciliation in Iraq so the surge is and always will be a failure no matter how many times Joe Lieberman and John McCain proclaim it so. This has been an immoral war started by neocon warmongers and the end result at this point is that the Iraqi people have suffered dearly for our sins.

The "amazing success of the surge" is described in the latest posting of the National Security Network:

The troops have performed bravely and violence in Iraq appears to be diminishing. But there is still no political plan to turn the recent tactical gains into lasting strategic success or a plan for bringing our troops home. There has been no progress on any of the key political benchmarks so critical to bringing Iraq together and producing last stability: the oil law, de-Baathification reform, the Constitution and provincial elections are all stalled. If anything, the political situation has gotten worse. The Administration’s regional diplomacy remains woefully inadequate as it has failed to constructively engage Iraq’s neighbors. Moreover, the President’s decision to fund and arm local Sunni militias will likely exacerbate sectarian strife as the Sunnis become increasingly frustrated with the Shi’a central government’s refusal to integrate them into the government and security forces.

Changes in military tactics can lead to short term gains, but only a comprehensive political strategy to bring Iraq’s warring factions together can lead to a permanent solution to the conflict. One year since the President announced the “surge,” it remains clear that he has no such strategy.

Juan Cole posts on the cost of the war to the Iraqi people:

One of the arguments warmongers gave for overthrowing Saddam Hussein was that his regime was responsible for the violent deaths of some 300,000 civilians between 1968 and 2003. That estimate now appears exaggerated, since the number of bodies in mass graves has not borne it out. But what is tragic is that in 4 1/2 short years, a foreign military occupation has unleashed killing on a scale achieved by the murderous Saddam Hussein regime only over decades. Bush did not kill all those people directly, of course, but he did indirectly cause them to be killed, since these are excess deaths beyond what you would have expected if there had been no invasion and occupation.

I am often struck by how clueless the American public is to the vast destruction we have wrought on Iraq and its people, directly or indirectly. It strikes me as a bitter joke that 4 million are displaced, often facing hunger and disease, and the rightwing periodicals and presidential candidates are talking about how the "surge" has "turned things around." For whom? How many orphans have we created? How many widows? How many people who weep and cry every night while trying to fall asleep on straw mats? I estimate on the basis of a UN study of refugees in Syria that as many as 600,000 or 700,000 Baghdadis were ethnically cleansed from the capital under the nose of the American troops implementing the surge. There is an old Chinese proverb, "Children throw stones at frogs in jest, but the frogs die in earnest."

How anyone can think that the horror this tragic war has brought to the Iraqi people can be good news is a horror in itself. America invaded this country, pounded it to rubble, uprooted, injured, killed, and tortured its citizens. It is truly despicable that there is still a strong faction of war-lovers, militarists, and sufferers of Bush Admiration Syndrome that truly think that this is "good news." What kind of depraved thinking is it celebrates the destruction of a country and proudly proclaims, "more rubble, less trouble?"

When the number of displaced civilians is over 4 million, the number of orphans over 5 million, the number of killed and injured is in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, when all we can do to stop violence is arm one of the sectarian factions that will be the enemy of the government WE support, when the official casualty reports don't even count many of the the injured, how can any sane, human being, congratulate themselves on a job well done?

To the good Squire... You sir, need to shut up. Your warmongering, hateful, spiteful, self-righteous, insanity needs to stop. Do not congratulate America for joining the ranks of the most despised nations on earth. Do not congratulate yourself for beating the drums of war so loudly. Consider the cost, sir. Consider the lives that have been lost, the soldiers that have been maimed and scarred for life, the millions of Iraqis whose lives have been uprooted or destroyed. Then consider your simple comment that

Another bit of good news is Iraqi oil production, once crippled by the terrorists, has returned to pre-war levels.

For the OIL,sir?? For the OIL??

A Stark Reality

In light of President Bush's largely ceremonial visit to the Middle East and his purely symbolic attempts at peacemaking, here's an account of a Jan. 8-21 delegation to Hebron, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and at-Tuwani Co-sponsored by On Earth Peace and Christian Peacemaker Teams. These folks have been on the ground in Palistinian neighborhoods and their stories reflect a more realist picture of the horror, the racism, the reactionary politics, and the utter difficulty of the Mid-East peace process.

A small team of peacemakers visited in the home of Hasham & Nizreen Al-Azzah. They, and their two young children, live in Tel Rumeida. Their backyard is a settlement - their walls and settlers' walls are less than 10 meters apart.

* Their young nephew was accosted by a settler (in his own backyard) who put rocks in his mouth and forced it shut, wearing the enamel off of his teeth such that they will probably not survive.
* Five days ago a neighbor went into labor, and was not allowed to pass through a checkpoint to get on the waiting ambulance. She gave birth in the checkpoint, and her baby is still in the hospital after suffering so long in the cold.
* For the past six months, their daughter's school only meets four days a week because each Saturday settlers attack students and teachers leaving the building in the afternoon, with soldiers standing by.
* The Al-Azzah's grapes and fruit trees have all been cut and olives stolen, with soldiers standing by. There are many more stories.

Accounts like this and the sorry state of the Bush Administration's foreign policy only deepen sadness and despair in the Middle East. Yet another cost of the war-making, militaristic, cowboy diplomacy of this government is the pure human suffering that we, the United States of America, are largely responsible for in this part of the world.

I'm not "blaming America first" as some might angrily fire back as a response, only making an honest attempt at claiming responsibility for what our government has been allowed to do. We're paying now for mistakes that have been made in the past. The current administration has multiplied these mistakes and made certain that the next administration will be forced by Bush's hand into largely cleaning up the mess, instead of being able to build on a workable policy. Counting the Cost....

Costs of War (UPDATED)

An interesting report came in on the AP this morning, (and the DNR) reporting that "121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have committed a killing or been charged in one in the United States after returning from combat." Add this to the "349 homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans in the six years since military action began in Afghanistan, and later Iraq." The article that originated in The New York Times, went on to say that this represented an 89% increase over the previous 6 year period.

Chalk this up with yet another cost of the war that wasn't anticipated. We've always known that returning veterans from war zones have carried risks associated with their job. That they are not being adequately cared for medically or mentally is an issue and a cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we will be paying for a very long time.

This article shows that even when we are able to bring our troops home, there will still be very high costs yet to pay.

UPDATE

In the Daily News Record today, the editor addresses this question.

My reply:

The crime rates by veterans quoted by the editor do show lower rates that the population at large. He conveniently leaves out another statistic from the article stating that the rate of violent crime in the last 6 years represents an 89% increase over the preceding 6 years. It is also true that our returning soldiers by the nature and training of their job are considerably more dangerous than typical young civilian men and women who turn to crime and violence. I agree with the editor in that proper care for both mental and physical effects of war are necessary and efforts in that area need to be improved especially with regards to the mental effects of war.

The editor shows an unhealthy, worshipful attitude of all things military. The military has a job, mandated by society, worthy of respect, but certainly not worthy of being held up for hero worship and adulation. This false patriotism and hyper-adulation of the military is a major cause of our falling status in the world and our deteriorating reputation as a nation. It is especially saddening when the after-care of veterans when they return home is so dismal. This is yet another cost of war that is never anticipated.

Who really wants "Change?"

What is this "Change" that everyone's talking about?

John Kerry this morning on "This Week" says that it will be paradigm shift in politics from hyper-partisan ship, to an era of truly working together. He thinks that Barack Obama's vision, personality, and ability to govern effectively is the change we need.

Hillary Clinton thinks that all we need to change is the party in power. She thinks that SHE can start governing on day one, and that SHE has the RIGHT kind of experience necessary for presidential decision making.

Michelle Malkin thinks we all need a BIG attitude adjustment and quit being such big sissies.

Bob Goodlatte thinks we should all change the way we think about "earmarks" and simply realize that this is the way things work and accept all the largesse that HE'S brought back to the district.

Republicans in the House of Delegates want us to change our attitude about government "efficiency" and just be quiet while they kill bills secretly in clandestine sub-committee meetings.

The Valley Family Forum wants to change our society into a monastic village with "walls that protect us" from secular society.

It's ALL business as usual! None of this represents anything different that what we've experienced in our generation. We're still playing out the issues of the 40's, 50's and 60's. We're mired in talk of the political horse race. None of the candidates, pundits or members of the media want to address the issues that would represent a real change in our society, the political "Elephants in the room."

Which candidate will dare stand up to the Military Industrial Complex and say that we really could downsize the defense budget to ... say... only half of what the rest of the world spends on the military, COMBINED! Will any candidate stand up and say that we need to value Peace and Justice more than War and Imperialism?

Who will dare stand up and say that it's really all about Energy and the Environment! Can we please talk about the waste of time that is the debate about Corn Ethanol and talk a little about conservation and better sources of alternative energy? Can we change our "automobile culture" from bigger, stronger, faster to smaller, farther, cheaper? Can we change our economy to something other than how much more stuff we have to buy to keep us from a recession?

Now... Who wants to really talk about "CHANGE" ?

Obama and Huckabee, Off the Plantation

For seven years we’ve lived on the plantation, both in a racial sense, as well as politically. The rich (corporate wealth, defense conglomerates, private national security contractors) are in their big fine houses raking the fruits of our labor. Money rules the government. The government has turned into a cash cow for those willing to walk in with their hands out. Everything works as long as we stay “down on the farm,” “keep our heads down” and just “work our butts off.” Any dissent is disloyalty or treason, as in “you are doing great, be glad we’re rich or you wouldn’t have a job,” or “stay in line, be loyal, and don’t worry about a thing, you’re with us.”

Then came Obama and Huckabee. Now the election is about hope, charisma, and anti-partisanship. What they both lack in specifics regarding the issues, they more than make up for in a refreshing new political rhetoric. They are saying that it is the responsibility of government to work hard for “We the People” instead of servicing the plantation owners. It’s the opposite of the fear-mongering, strident, hard-nosed, completely partisan politics of the past seven years.

The scrambling has begun. Right wing pundits are squirming and starting to throw stones. Watch as the full-scale assault from the right-wing noise machine begins. Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head. He’s followed the right wing blogosphere for years and has found a thread that bears watching. From Jonah Goldberg at the National Review: (my emphasis)

Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee — and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008. Forget Hillary's inevitability. Obama has a rendezvous with destiny, or so we will be told. And if he's denied it, teeth shall be gnashed, clothes rent and prices paid.

So it will be race riots if Obama teases us and loses? Or will it be riots like this? (Go to the link and check out #3). Who do you think the certain segments of society are? Who will become completely unhinged? Whose teeth are knashing, whose clothes rent and WHAT price will be paid? There are so many layers of paranoia and fear on display.

I have a feeling that the tactics the Republicans are guaranteed to use during the few months before elections will get me to vote Democrat. Just sitting around listening to people call Obama a “secret Muslim” or Hussein Obama like either of these things means he can’t run our country, makes me want to do everything I can to make sure the Republicans do not stand a chance to further ruin our country. - Ryan Hartman

Greenwald:

As Andrew White, who also posted that Free Republic piece, wrote: "If Obama continues and becomes the presumptive Democratic nominee (and his chances got a lot better last night) it is going to get ugly. Real ugly." It would be just as ugly with Clinton or Edwards as the nominee, but that's the point. Scare tactics and fear-mongering are all the Right knows, and their whole electoral strategy since Richard Nixon has been grounded in culturally tribalistic and racial appeals. The kind of subtle bile pouring forth from Limbaugh, and from Goldberg and Reynolds last night, is just a tiny preview of what is to come.

That this is basically a racially-based fear is obvious. More than that it’s the palpable fear of the rich, politically connected punditocracy, and the corporate benefactors of government largesse that is coming out in spades.

The only thing that can keep us “down on the plantation” is our fear of those in power. The right wing will hurl thunderbolts, rain down upon us with all the wrath they can muster. They fear the loss of empire, but more than that they fear the loss of POWER. Calling them out, identifying their fear, their racism, their hostility towards those who disagree is how both Obama and Huckabee will win the day.

The plantation owners are looking out at their vast estates and seeing trouble, my friends, trouble!

Mark these words well.....

These are the closing comments from Iowa Caucus winner Barack Obama. Mark them well. These words will be remembered simply because of what he has accomplished so far. If he makes it all the way to the White House, please don't be surprised. This is historical and hugely important. Pundits, media courtiers, members of the MSM elite, Fox News, columnists, and Beltway voices all got it wrong.

With Mike Huckabee being so far outside the Republican Party mainstream and Barack Obama deflating the "inevitability" of the old school politics of the Clinton machine, the caucus attendees in Iowa have sent a message loud and clear. They and we are simply tired of the politics of fear, of corporate payoffs, of pseudo-patriotism, military worship, and machismo bluster. Hopeful friends, read on...

"This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long; when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who have never participated in politics a reason to stand up and to do so," Obama said. "This was the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.

"Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.

"It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.

"Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar Rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill. A young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.

"Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn't been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq. Who still goes to bed each night praying for his safe return.

"Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire. What led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. What led young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause.


"Hope -- hope is what led me here today. With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.

"Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

"That is what we started here in Iowa and that is the message we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond.

"The same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can save this country, brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand -- that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things.

"Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again."

The Last Straw

In addition to the impeachment charges filed against Vice-President Cheney, the following articles of impeachment should be brought against President Bush:

1. Deceiving Congress and the people in taking the country to war in Iraq.
2. Directing an illegal domestic wiretapping program and other surveillance of Americans.
3. Permitting and condoning the use of torture or cruel treatment of detainees.
4. Showing reckless indifference to human life in the face of Hurricane Katrina, in inadequately equipping U.S. Soldiers, and insufficiently planning for the occupation of Iraq.
5. Covering up his war deceptions with the leak of misleading classified information, an act that became entangled with the outing of a CIA agent, a possible crime.

Perhaps another article of impeachment will be added in the near future. A special prosecutor has just been named to look into the disappearance of the the CIA Torture Tapes . Many commentators and bloggers seem to think that the order to destroy came from the White House high command. The New York Times via Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com has reported that the CIA and the White House are at least guilty of obstruction in the matter.

(Greenwald) The bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, jointly published an Op-Ed in today's New York Times which contains some extremely emphatic and serious accusations against the CIA and the White House. The essence:

"[T]he recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes -- and did not tell us about them -- obstructed our investigation."

(Greenwald) More strikingly still, they explicitly include the White House at the top of their list of guilty parties:

"There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. -- or the White House -- of the commission's interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations."

(Greenwald) To underscore the seriousness of their accusations, Kean and Hamilton end with this:


"What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the (sic) greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."

Once again President Bush has declared himself King. He has shown that he considers himself above the law and is willing and able to exert his imperial power without and consideration of the Constitution, the Congress, or the American people. Impeachment is a necessary power of the people to check the power of the executive branch. So far, the Congress has shown no courage in standing up to King George.

The constitution is clear. Impeachment proceedings can be brought at any time. The bar is high. The Bush Administration has brazenly fallen far below any standard of acceptable performance for an executive branch of government.


Elizabeth Holtzman , former four-term member of Congress, has written about the impeachment process:

The question of impeachment does not rest on "high crimes and misdemeanors" only, but also to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States; preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; and take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

In addition, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not limited only to criminal acts, but also applies to conduct that is "a grave abuse of power or a subversion of the Constitution."

Our silence has given President Bush our consent. Impeachment proceedings should start NOW. At the very least, President Bush would be distracted into defending himself rather than leading our nation into further catastrophe.