Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Defending the New York Times

These Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House are corrupt idiots.

President G.W. Bush, Attorney general Gonzalez, Press Secretary Tony Snow and Senator Peter King have made comments alluding too legal action against the New York Times for simply providing information to the public.

Straight to the point, such an action would not be supported by George Washington himself. This move by Mr. G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney screams of a cover-up. Freedom of the Press supercedes all issues, and trumps concerns of Security even during war times except in the case when such reports seek to or causes harm.

The reporting on a program that may impede on the Rights of Privacy and the civil liberties of U.S. citizens is clearly acceptable and responsible.

The primary concern with this program and the NSA wire tapping program is evident. How are these programs used upon U.S. citizens? U.S. are provided rights & protections as outlined within the Constitution. The government cannot use the same programs and procedures on a U.S. citizen as it does on a foreign person linked to terrorist.

What, and how many other controversial programs is the Administration attempting too hide. What laws have they broken that they are seeking to hide form the People. If the Administration were operating within the word of the Law then the need to keep these programs secret would not be present. If the Administration were operating within the word of the Law then regular citizens whom work for the government would not be compelled to reveal these programs to the public.

These actions bring me to the conclusion the G.W. Bush Administration has several programs that maybe blatantly illegal.

The true patriots in these matters are the U.S. citizens who risk loosing their jobs to protect the Constitution. I pray that all civil servants whom are asked to perform a task they believe to be illegal and outside the Constitution to report it.

Our nation is founded not on the principle of a powerful president but on Freedoms & Liberty. Key is freedom of the free press.

The President and especially Mr. Dick Cheney insist on operating in secrecy. Congress has to do its job in providing oversight to such ‘secret; programs.

These Republicans should be ashamed. They believe that covering their asses is more important than respecting the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Sarasota: Gas Station Rally

Gas Station Rally on Wednesday

Wednesday, June 28, 2006
SITE GAS STATION, 17th & Honore, Sarasota

*** Event Wed., June 28, 5:00pm ***

At Site Gas Station, Local Residents To Expose Rep. Harris as “Caught Red Handed” Taking Big Oil Money, Doing Big Oil’s Bidding
As Gas Prices Rise, National Day of Action Will Pressure House Republicans To Stand With Constituents & Stop Taking Campaign Money From Big Oil

Sarasota – On Wednesday, June 28, residents of Sarasota will hold a Rally For An Oil-Free Congress at SITE Gas Station, where they will expose Rep. Katherine Harris and other Republicans in Congress as “caught red-handed” accepting campaign contributions from Big Oil companies and then doing their bidding.

This is part of a National Day of Action that will feature events in over 250 locations around the country. As families across the country prepare to travel for July 4, rising gas prices are a big concern.

Big Oil companies have spent millions in campaign contributions to get Rep. Harris and other Republicans to hand over billions in taxpayer subsidies. Republicans have consistently rejected Democratic attempts to move toward energy independence and a national clean energy policy – instead voting to keep America dependent on oil and subsidize Big Oil at a time of record profits.

“Gas prices are soaring out of control, and that affects my family’s budget in a big way,” said local resident Anthony Brooks. “One big reason we haven’t moved toward energy independence is that Rep. Harris and Republicans in Congress are in the pockets of Big Oil – taking millions in campaign contributions and then giving billions in favors. It’s time for change in Congress.”

Since 1990, Big Oil has given more than $190 million to members of Congress – 75% of which ($142,635,314) has gone to Republicans. Republicans have then consistently done the bidding of Big Oil, rejecting Democratic proposals for clean energy.

Caught Red-Handed “Rally for an Oil-Free Congress” Details:

Who: MoveOn members in Sarasota
Where: [SITE GAS STATION, 17th & Honore, Sarasota]
When: Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 5:00PM
What: Local residents demand Rep. Harris stop taking campaign contributions from Big Oil companies.

Available for phone interview: Nita Chaudhary, National Political Action spokesperson. Contact Trevor Fitzgibbon, 202.246.5303

***Excellent visuals.***

**Residents at local gas stations with signs and flyers, talking with fellow residents about Republican Big Oil campaign contributions and corrupt Big Oil agenda.**

Friday, June 23, 2006

USA Election Reforms Needed

C&B urges Congress & State legislators to act in:

Making Law that all Election Officials (Supervisors of Elections and Secretaries of States) are non-partisan professional positions.

Improving ALL electronic voting systems: providing zero room for error, in addition it is definitely not unreasonable to be able to easily audit these systems.

Make it easier for U.S. citizens to vote. Disenfranchisement especially in African American communities was far too excessively used by the Republican Party. Every eligible citizen’s vote should be counted. If someone has an ID and is registered to vote therefore being deemed eligible should have their vote counted. With all this technology why can’t it be this simple?

Should there be made LAW recourse for a citizen whose vote was not counted when it should have been?

Party officials whom seek to discard the vote of an eligible citizen should be put in jail. Public officials whom do not assure that every vote is counted should also be put in jail.

I heard of a story in Jacksonville Florida where an African American whom happened to serve in the military was designated an ineligible voter. He however was eligible to vote. His vote was never counted. Partisan politics should NEVER be allowed to enter into America’s voting system! Reforms must be made.

Get involved, sign the below petition:

Petition for Verified Paper Ballots in Sarasota County:

Great American:John Murtha

"To all the Republicans who sit in their air-conditioned offices and talk of the courage it takes for them to keep young kids in harm's way - I say enough. Karl Rove talking about "cutting and running" while he sits on his big, fat backside-saying "stay the course." I say enough! That's not a plan! We've got to have a new direction, and it's clear we need more Democrats in Congress to get that done.

No matter how obvious the mistakes in Iraq become, or how many Americans get fed up, Republicans in Congress and the White House will label you a traitor to your country if you stand up and question them.

I'm not naïve enough to think it won't be an issue in the election year but accusing people of being unpatriotic cheats good Americans out of any chance for a real resolution to the mess in Iraq. And while this issue of war is neither a Democratic nor a Republican one, the need for new leadership in the House is clearly an issue.

While the Republicans have been busy name calling, the situation in Iraq has only gotten worse. The insurgency has grown exponentially. IED attacks, where our troops are sitting ducks for an enemy they can't even see, have increased steadily. And the patience of the American people for this flawed policy is running out.

We need to put an end to these outrageous attacks on people who disagree with Bush and his Rubber Stamp Republican Congress's "sit and watch" plan for Iraq.

With a Democratic majority, we would have an honest debate about the war. The American people's concerns and opposition would be recognized.

Last week, during the House floor debate, I hoped the Republicans would have realized that the majority of the American people do not support this war. I hoped that they would have recognized that the American people need more from their government than a Republican Congress that asks no questions and demands no answers. But that didn't happen, and it's clear we need a Democratic majority to chart a new course.

When I offered a concrete plan to get our troops out of harm's way, where they have become the target, I didn't expect every member of Congress or every candidate to agree with my specific proposal in this debate. But I did expect them to acknowledge that there is more to be done than sitting and watching.


Jack Murtha
Member of Congress
Pennsylvania's 12th District"

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Daily Rant: Iraq, Iraq, Iraq!

Republicans have gone crazy. Democrats are asleep.

Republican Congresspersons support the War in Iraq based on the premise "they rather be fighting the War on Terror in Baghdad and not in the streets of New York. "

According to C&B the United States of America is spending too many tax payer dollars in Iraq & Afghanistan and not enough on domestic homeland needs.

How in the world can you couple spending in Iraq with Hurricane Katrina relief? These Republicans have gone crazy. And where are the Democrats?

If you were in Congress, couldn't you come up with countless common sense ways to help with these problems are nation is facing. I certianly could.

We have no leadership, just partisan politicians and corrupt incompetent politicians. ALL of Them!

I see one politician, Rep. Murtha screaming about this crap. This man has my respect.

Mr. G.W. Bush is either drinking on the job or has utterly sold out to the Oil Companies and the Military Industrial Complex.

Let me tell something; the lives of the people of the Middle East is worth no less than the quality of life of Americans. So how can we have the audacity to take a war to their streets?

The issue is Iraq, not the War ion Terror. Al-queda was not in Iraq before the U.S. military invaded. The terrorist are in Iraq because of America. It is fact that Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor were they producing terrorist.

The Bush Administration told us one thing, WMD’s to persuade the People to support a War in Iraq and now they are telling We the People many, many , many different justifications for continuing the War. This is America, we believe in Justice, so how just is it for our troops to remain in Iraq?

Mr. Bush and Republican politicians attempt to relate the War on Terror to Iraq. We all know this to be blatant misinformation. Iraq is a quagmire created by Mr. Bush and his incompetent administration.

Lets agree as seen with 9/11 there is a real ‘War on Terror‘. Why then are we not fighting this War? Why then are we diverting resources to Iraq? And even why has the full military of the United States of America been employed to fight a full scale War on Terror against sporadic Al-queda cells throughout multiple nations?

Hein sight is indicating that Iraq was a mistake diverting focus from the real ‘War on Terror’. A ‘War on Terror’ which does not call for the full American Armed Forces but which calls for targeted intelligence & law enforcement operations, along with international cooperation.

Personally as a voting tax paying American Florida born and raised, I strongly desire to see our wonderful nation, The United States of America withdraw completely from Iraq immediately.

All confidence having faded away with Mr. Bush, Congress has the POWER to do this by cutting the budget for the Iraq War.

Measure Tying Iraq to Terror War Passes House:

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

A Reality-Based Graduation Address

June 12, 2006

'In the season for graduation speeches, Day to Day resident humorist Brian Unger offers this year's graduates some candid advice that they aren't likely to hear at their commencement ceremonies. The gist: Get ready to be forced to fix all the world's problems, but also be prepared to enjoy the words "rent to own."'

Thursday, June 08, 2006

A word from God

What America needs today is a literal word from God.

For reasons I cannot understand I have been inspired to write this brief post, days after 6/06/06.

The word of God says:

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” (Rev 13:18).

Just yesterday Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed near Baghdad Iraq. A man called the Prince of Al-queda in Iraq.

After “666” the very next chapter in the Bible speaks of Babylon, which today is known as Baghdad Iraq.

“And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” (Rev 14:8).

Many theologians, preachers, and intellectuals teach that of spirits. Some believe that different countries are influenced by a peculiar spirit. Also known as “Princes of Nations”.

As I sit back observing all that is happening in America I too believe that the United States is being undertaking by such negative supernatural influences. Other spiritual folk would call such influences as negative energies. Christians however believe in actual sentient supernatural forces.

One can reach no other conclusion when those that claim to be the most Conservative of Christians also support killing innocent children in Iraq. No Christian heart can find justification in such an act.

I do not believe the leaders of America who are supported by Christian Fundamentalists are actually true Christians. Evangelist Churches are mistakenly giving them their support.

Multiple Christian Churches no longer use the traditional Bible during services.

We do not need laws banning gays from marrying for they are no threats to the union between man & woman as ordained by God.

We do not need unjust Wars for they are contradictory to the very mission that Jesus Christ left to his disciples. Spread the Word of God. Today we are not only killing innocent men woman and children in Iraq thus taking lives that could be brought to Christ. But we are also giving ammunition to the growth of the Muslim Faith, decreasing the number of souls truly saved in Christ. We forget to relate the fact that Muslims respect martyrs, those that die while killing infidels.

What relationship do I speak of? We too Christians respect a martyr. Jesus Christ. Our entire faith is built on his shoulders and it is in his name we pray to God.

I see all these things as evidence of a void of spiritual leadership in America and through-out the World. There is neither pure leadership nor ethical balance coming from the Catholic Church, the Christian Church, Jews, the Muslim Faith, nor any of the great world powers.

I pray that America shall receive a word from God.

A word from God.

Ann Coulter: Chief Talking Head

Self proclaim “Conservative” Ann Coulter had the audacity to disrespect the honorable widows of 9/11 Victims.

She claims that liberals are sending out “humane shields to make political points”. How absurd, these are free American citizens whom have the right to speak their mind. These specific women from New Jersey happen to be liberal and also victims of 9/11. They are not talking heads part of some political establishment as Ann Coulter is.

It angers me at how Conservatives, whom hold the reigns of Power, continue to attempt to silence and discredit those that oppose their “heart less” agenda.

I’m happy that the Honorable Senator Hilary R. Clinton called her out.

Ann Coulters remarks have greatly diminished her already dubious credibility.

CNN Reports:

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Iraq Soldiers Protest War

“Latest polls show a clear majority of Americans are now against the campaign in Iraq.

Some soldiers who have returned from Iraq are disillusioned by the experience. Inigo Gilmore reports from the US. (BBC)”

U.S. soldiers are trained to desensitize themselves from Iraq civilians. The soldier said the Iraqi civilians “aren’t people, they are animals”.

To be clear this solder was not talking about terrorist but ALL innocent Iraqi citizens.

View the clip

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Impeachment: Nixon, Clinton, Bush?

I would like to bring attention to this speech in regards to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. Presently the United States is engaged in a discussion of impeaching our current leader Mr. G. W. Bush. History tells us that Congressmen whom vote to impeach the President do not necessarily want the President removed from office. Impeachment can be a means for the People to seek answers to paramount questions , such as those that are currently not known to the public nor Congress.

Barbara Jordan: Statement on the Articles of Impeachment
delivered 25 July 1974, House Judiciary Committee

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."

Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.

"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men."¹ And that's what we're talking about. In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that.

The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."² The framers confined in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.

The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: "We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other."
"No one need be afraid" -- the North Carolina ratification convention -- "No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity." "Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "We divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused."³ I do not mean political parties in that sense.
The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term "high crime[s] and misdemeanors." Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We're told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.

The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know on the 23rd of June was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving. The words are: "If the President is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."

Justice Story: "Impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute complete direction on September 3rd when the President indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in Dr. Fielding's office, after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."4 Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."
James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice.

"A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.
Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

*I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.*”