Just today the price of gas has reached $2.73 in Sarasota, FL. A $.10 cent jump in one day.
This I believe, the rise in gas prices is not the economic market at play. It is not because of the cost of refining oil. It is not based on the principles of supply and demand. The reason is simple. The Oil Industries is criminally ripping every America citizen off! Just a few years ago the price for a gallon of gas was $1 buck. Can you afford to pay 3 times more for your normal trips? I sure as hell cannot.
What measures can we the people take when we’re are being ripped off? Our money says “In God we Trust”. Trust what? I tell you what; for the government to enforce fairness & justice especially in business & commerce. However our present government is not “Godly”, they are corrupt. Our government continues to fail to represent us. Every U.S. State and District Attorney should be investigating and suing Oil companies. All state governors and the President should be calling for Congressional regulation of the oil industry.
Here locally, I hope to organize protest at gas stations and even the offices of private citizens that own large shares in Oil Companies. I call for individuals to do the same. All I’m calling for is fair business and fair gas prices. What we’re seeing now is price gauging and frankly when this begins to hit peoples pocket books mixed with all the other crap going on with our government there may be an unexpected back lash to the detriment of Oil companies.
This is nation founded on people standing up for their rights and fair protections for their money. Remember the Boston tea Party? I believe its time for the people to take direct action against these Oil Companies carrying on the rebellious legacy of the settlers of our great nation. Big
Business is only out to turn a profit and the government is in different and helping them. CEO and stock holder efforts to seek profits which should balanced with fair prices, and consideration of the good of the public. A basic principle, of markets and trading not a far fetch idea. The cost place don consumers over the cost of production. The Oil Industry has been posting raced profits in the Billions ever quarter. Companies that simply break even are doing good. This clearly shows their prices are artificially inflated, literally ripping the American people off.
Too many things are costing more today than just a couple years ago. Hell in Florida insurance prices are rising. When the heck is Big Business gonna realize they have drained the pocket books of the average citizen enough? Even the government is out to get your money & disposal income, that is why there were proposed changes to Social Security.
Its all about disposal income. Big business wants your money, and so does the government. We have to stand up against these criminals.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Lets talk about immigration.
From first thought I would have to say I am in the middle on this issue and have not reached an opinion. Comments are welcome in the “comments” section of this blog. For what its worth I’ll also add that I am from Plant City FL, The Winter Strawberry Capital of the World so this issue of agriculture is home to me.
I continue to hear folk say that immigrants are doing jobs that Americans will not do. As a person that thinks outside the box my initial reaction to such remarks are that such statements are bloated with overtones of the superiority of Americans over Mexicans.
Why not bring these jobs to communities consisting of American citizens? Why not educate certain communities of these employment opportunities by building Job centers and Day Labor centers directly in the middle of certain neighborhoods. I speak specifically of neighborhoods within the African American Community.
I must say I am in the middle on this issue because I am fine with authorized or unauthorized law abiding, tax paying immigrants who are here to work. But frankly, I would rather see a push to fill these jobs with African Americans to further the economic base of this American community which would bolster the U.S. economy on a whole. Those who oppose giving these jobs to Americans are Big Business whom do not want to pay a living wage. Thus they employ illegal immigrants, which is tantamount to a new age of voluntary slavery.
So where do these more affluent Americans have to go? Are you telling me our economy is full of high paying jobs that the average Americans can obtain, so we can leave the dirty work to immigrants? I don’t think so! Took me about 6 months to find a job 2 years ago.
The Service sector, agriculture, construction, child care are all industries that at one time were held by blacks. Some say the African American community is becoming more affluent thus not needing these jobs and as the President of Mexico said “these are jobs even blacks don‘t want to do“. President Fox is also asking for more cooperation from the U.S. Let me tell you something the United States owes Mexico nothing and I believe that not one American tax dollar should be spent on Mexican infrastructure as President Fox is talking about. In addition, raising living standards of Mexican citizens is Fox’s job, not that of the United States. The black community does need and will do these jobs. I pray black leaders and communities will take serious notice to these immigrants whom are seeking jobs that should go to Americans first. We should join them or stand up to protect our jobs & families.
The more jobs that goes to a non U.S. citizens robs from our nation and our families.
There should be a Law giving preferential employment to American citizens in all industries.
And to my immigrant friends, if your loyalties lie with another country and is not at least dually in the interest of America then go back!
After greater emphasize is placed on offering these jobs to Americans then of course let these law abiding immigrants legal or illegal contribute to the economy of our nation thought their labor.
All this blabber in Congress about a Guest Worker Program, Amnesty, etc... This is the fault of political leaders for letting this problem escalate to this point.
The practical thing to do first is to more tightly control the border. We cannot change immigration policy while thousands of illegal immigrants continue to enter our country annually. Deal with the border first. It is impossible to deport those here already so this is not an option.
A solution could be bringing troops home from Iraq and deploy them on the border to protect our Homeland and economic interest.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
CNN News & Fox Entertainment
I watch both CNN & Fox.
From observation I believe it is evident that CNN is a news outlet and that Fox is entertainment.
CNN reports the news. It does report more heavily on certain issues.
Fox presents news with opinion coupled with a partisan agenda.
I know first hand that Bill O'Reily and Sean Hannity are not news reporters but entertainers and frankly fabricators. They consistently present false information.
From living in Tampa Florida where O'Rielly has roots he sparked a controversy that cost a Muslim family their livelihood, whom was later found innocent in a court of law.
Sean Hannity is saying that “WMD's in Iraq were moved to Syria”. No government agency, the President nor the military has stated this.
I can respect a TV station that has a certain ideology, liberal or conservative but giving false information to the public while claiming to be news I can not respect.
From observation I believe it is evident that CNN is a news outlet and that Fox is entertainment.
CNN reports the news. It does report more heavily on certain issues.
Fox presents news with opinion coupled with a partisan agenda.
I know first hand that Bill O'Reily and Sean Hannity are not news reporters but entertainers and frankly fabricators. They consistently present false information.
From living in Tampa Florida where O'Rielly has roots he sparked a controversy that cost a Muslim family their livelihood, whom was later found innocent in a court of law.
Sean Hannity is saying that “WMD's in Iraq were moved to Syria”. No government agency, the President nor the military has stated this.
I can respect a TV station that has a certain ideology, liberal or conservative but giving false information to the public while claiming to be news I can not respect.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
In the name of a Soldier
The War in Iraq is such a complex issue that it would take a series of books to comprehensively discuss.
One conclusion has been reached by a significant portion of American citizens, whom let me say are paying for this quagmire; the conclusion that every single U.S. troop should be brought home immediately.
There could be 3 perspectives to view this War:
The liberals hope to see the War to End based on good American principles: that justification for going to War were false, too many American soldiers lives are being lost, too many innocent civilians especially children are being killed, liberals value domestic home town needs over interfering in the affairs of foreign nations, and because citizens of Iraq are rebelling against U.S. occupation of their land.
Conservative want the U.S. to stay because they believe we have blown the country of Iraq up and it is our responsibility to fix what we messed up. They also are not tolerate of the Arabian culture nor Muslim faith and live in fear of another 9/11 attack.
The Neo cons would want the U.S to stay in Iraq until the country is submitted under American influence similar to Israel to ensure U.S. economic and security interest.
And all Americans wanted too or believed we were entering Iraq to liberate its people, destroy any weapons of mass destruction, to get rid of Saddam Hussein and frankly all Americans at least thought of an opportunity to secure Oil for America. Now, we know all these things were utopian illusions.
So what’s the better way? The answer is the way that is best for the people of Iraq.
I have a simple analogy that some Christians reading this post may be able to understand.
Going to church as boy a friend always stayed after to help clean up after service. One day I saw him sweeping the church sidewalk. I walked up to him and asked him how much are they paying you? He said “nothing. I then asked “so why are you doing this”? He replied “cuz its our church” and he kept sweeping.
Sometimes you just have to do what’s right when its right with no self interest and that is what we as a nation must do with Iraq. We have wasted time, wasted tax money and squandered any beneficial opportunities. America needs to clean up and leave Iraq. Its that’s simple.
Rep. Jack Martha a Democrat has presented an alternative plan that is available on his web page. I agree with his plan. I would like to see all troops withdrawn except approximately 20,000 remaining to conduct specific projects with the approval of the Iraqi government. We should complete the construction of the U.S. Embassy but remove all other military basses. And we should continue to provide economic and reconstruction aid.
In regards to Iran, it takes no idiot to know that Iran is directly adjacent to Iraq. We must not be tempted to invade Iran nor continue to agitate this sovereign nation.
Call this pacifism, but the United States is under the leadership of an incompetent & corrupt Administration. We must bring our troops home and sort out this mess we have made led by independent non partisan citizen commissions beginning with President G.W. Bush to the intern that made copies of false intelligence reports leading to this tangled web of a War in Iraq.
What we as American citizens must do is demand that Congress end the War in Iraq by cutting its budget, if not then we should take to the streets in civil disobedience in the name of innocent Iraqi children and if this not good enough for you, then in the names of our fallen men and women in uniform.
-Anthony T. Brooks
Honorable Rep. Jack Murtha:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/statement_051117iraq.html
Monday, March 13, 2006
Censure now, Impeach next
I’ve been pushing for Impeachment but Censure is good enough for now.
Censure is defined as Less severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.
Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold Introducing a Resolution to Censure President George W. Bush
March 13, 2006
“Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.
The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.
All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.
And we must do that. The President’s actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.
At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.
This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President’s conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.
Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.
As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances:
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president’s actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.
This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the Patriot Act, and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. In both of those instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President’s actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.
That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law. If there were a demonstrated need to change that law, Congress could consider that step. But instead the President is refusing to follow that law while offering the flimsiest of arguments to justify his misconduct. He must be held accountable for his actions.
The facts are straightforward: Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as “FISA”, nearly 30 years ago to ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also protect innocent Americans from unjustified government intrusion. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil. The President has broken that law, and that alone is unacceptable. But the President did much more than that.
Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions, and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program.
He has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people.
The President’s own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.
We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after September 11th. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way in several speeches to assure the public that the government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States – something that he now admits was not the case.
On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.”
In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn’t being upfront with the American people.
Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: “Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”
Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”
In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn’t telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political battle during the presidential campaign, and later over Patriot Act reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a systems of checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration’s performance.
This conduct is unacceptable. The President had a duty to play it straight with the American people. But for political purposes, he ignored that duty.
After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress until February, but the President’s surrogates held press conferences and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted lawfully.
Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign. In the State of the Union address, he implied that the program was necessary because otherwise the government would be unable to wiretap terrorists at all. That is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t need a warrant to wiretap terrorists overseas – period. You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rules for these types of domestic wiretaps.
FISA created a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. They are the judges who review applications for business records orders and wiretapping authority under the Patriot Act. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. It has used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time it asserts that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” in this age of terrorism and can’t be complied with. Clearly, the Administration can and does comply with it – except when it doesn’t. Then it just arbitrarily decides to go around these judges, and around the law.
The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could remove if it wanted.
FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.
The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.
This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.
In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.
The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.” A letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.” The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.” And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.” Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.
The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.
But it is one thing to make a legal argument that has no real support in the law. It is much worse to do what the President has done, which is to make misleading statements about what prior Presidents have done and what courts have approved, to try to make the public believe his legal arguments are much stronger than they are.
For example, in the State of the Union, the President argued that federal courts have approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. I asked the Attorney General about this when he came before the Judiciary Committee, and he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.
In the same speech, the President referred to other Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course, those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch could no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. I asked the Attorney General about this issue when he testified before the Judiciary Committee. And neither he nor anyone in the Administration has been able to come up with a single prior example of wiretapping inside the United States since 1978 that was conducted outside FISA’s authorization.
So the President’s arguments in the State of the Union were baseless, and it is unacceptable that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.
The President also has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.
Finally, the President has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program.
Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.” Nor does the latest agreement to allow a seven-member subcommittee to review the program comply with the law. Granting a minority of the committee access to information is inadequate and still does not comply with the law requiring that the full committee be kept fully informed.
In addition, we now know that some of the Gang of Eight expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. One of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.
None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do.
And perhaps that is what is most troubling here, Mr. President. Even more troubling than the arguments the President has made is what he relies on to make them convincing – the credibility of the office of the President itself. He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply because of the office he holds.
But Presidents don’t serve our country by just asking for trust, they must earn that trust, and they must tell the truth.
This President hides behind flawed legal arguments, and even behind the office he holds, but he cannot hide from what he has created: nothing short of a constitutional crisis. The President has violated the law, and Congress must respond. Congress must investigate and demand answers. Congress should also determine whether current law is inadequate and address that deficiency if it is demonstrated. But before doing so, Congress should ensure that there is accountability for authorizing illegal conduct.
A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the President thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable. If Congress does not reaffirm the rule of law, we will create another failure of leadership, and deal another blow to the public’s trust.
The President’s wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future, but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.
Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive’s conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities. Both of those alternatives are ways for Congress to affect future action. But when the President acts illegally, he should be formally rebuked. He should be censured.
The founders anticipated abuses of executive power by creating a balance of powers in the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, require us to preserve that balance, and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious transgression by the President with a serious response. We must work, as the founders urged us in Federalist Number 51, to control the abuses of government.
The Constitution looks to the Congress to right the balance of power. The American people look to us to take action, to speak out, with one clear voice, against wrongdoing by the President of the United States. In our system of government, no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks. I yield the floor. “
# # #
Senator Finegold:
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html
Daily Kos Reports:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/92636/8829?bcsi_scan_F2E1FCD5D87E8CA5=4A2AkvM+u0RpxFb/qLQ67wIAAADu/wEB
Censure is defined as Less severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.
Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold Introducing a Resolution to Censure President George W. Bush
March 13, 2006
“Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.
The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.
All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.
And we must do that. The President’s actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.
At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.
This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President’s conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.
Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.
As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances:
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president’s actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.
This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the Patriot Act, and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. In both of those instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President’s actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.
That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law. If there were a demonstrated need to change that law, Congress could consider that step. But instead the President is refusing to follow that law while offering the flimsiest of arguments to justify his misconduct. He must be held accountable for his actions.
The facts are straightforward: Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as “FISA”, nearly 30 years ago to ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also protect innocent Americans from unjustified government intrusion. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil. The President has broken that law, and that alone is unacceptable. But the President did much more than that.
Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions, and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program.
He has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people.
The President’s own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.
We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after September 11th. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way in several speeches to assure the public that the government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States – something that he now admits was not the case.
On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.”
In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn’t being upfront with the American people.
Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: “Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”
Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”
In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn’t telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political battle during the presidential campaign, and later over Patriot Act reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a systems of checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration’s performance.
This conduct is unacceptable. The President had a duty to play it straight with the American people. But for political purposes, he ignored that duty.
After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress until February, but the President’s surrogates held press conferences and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted lawfully.
Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign. In the State of the Union address, he implied that the program was necessary because otherwise the government would be unable to wiretap terrorists at all. That is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t need a warrant to wiretap terrorists overseas – period. You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rules for these types of domestic wiretaps.
FISA created a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. They are the judges who review applications for business records orders and wiretapping authority under the Patriot Act. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. It has used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time it asserts that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” in this age of terrorism and can’t be complied with. Clearly, the Administration can and does comply with it – except when it doesn’t. Then it just arbitrarily decides to go around these judges, and around the law.
The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could remove if it wanted.
FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.
The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.
This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.
In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.
The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.” A letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.” The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.” And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.” Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.
The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.
But it is one thing to make a legal argument that has no real support in the law. It is much worse to do what the President has done, which is to make misleading statements about what prior Presidents have done and what courts have approved, to try to make the public believe his legal arguments are much stronger than they are.
For example, in the State of the Union, the President argued that federal courts have approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. I asked the Attorney General about this when he came before the Judiciary Committee, and he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.
In the same speech, the President referred to other Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course, those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch could no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. I asked the Attorney General about this issue when he testified before the Judiciary Committee. And neither he nor anyone in the Administration has been able to come up with a single prior example of wiretapping inside the United States since 1978 that was conducted outside FISA’s authorization.
So the President’s arguments in the State of the Union were baseless, and it is unacceptable that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.
The President also has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.
Finally, the President has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program.
Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.” Nor does the latest agreement to allow a seven-member subcommittee to review the program comply with the law. Granting a minority of the committee access to information is inadequate and still does not comply with the law requiring that the full committee be kept fully informed.
In addition, we now know that some of the Gang of Eight expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. One of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.
None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do.
And perhaps that is what is most troubling here, Mr. President. Even more troubling than the arguments the President has made is what he relies on to make them convincing – the credibility of the office of the President itself. He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply because of the office he holds.
But Presidents don’t serve our country by just asking for trust, they must earn that trust, and they must tell the truth.
This President hides behind flawed legal arguments, and even behind the office he holds, but he cannot hide from what he has created: nothing short of a constitutional crisis. The President has violated the law, and Congress must respond. Congress must investigate and demand answers. Congress should also determine whether current law is inadequate and address that deficiency if it is demonstrated. But before doing so, Congress should ensure that there is accountability for authorizing illegal conduct.
A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the President thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable. If Congress does not reaffirm the rule of law, we will create another failure of leadership, and deal another blow to the public’s trust.
The President’s wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future, but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.
Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive’s conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities. Both of those alternatives are ways for Congress to affect future action. But when the President acts illegally, he should be formally rebuked. He should be censured.
The founders anticipated abuses of executive power by creating a balance of powers in the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, require us to preserve that balance, and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious transgression by the President with a serious response. We must work, as the founders urged us in Federalist Number 51, to control the abuses of government.
The Constitution looks to the Congress to right the balance of power. The American people look to us to take action, to speak out, with one clear voice, against wrongdoing by the President of the United States. In our system of government, no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks. I yield the floor. “
# # #
Senator Finegold:
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html
Daily Kos Reports:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/92636/8829?bcsi_scan_F2E1FCD5D87E8CA5=4A2AkvM+u0RpxFb/qLQ67wIAAADu/wEB
The White House is Crying Wolf
I believe the White House is releasing hyped-up information to the media and to the public in regards to Mad Cow Disease and Bird Flu for the purpose of fear and distracting attention from its political problems.
From observation I also believe President G.W. Bush is using the Department of Health & Human Services & NASA as a sounding board to mislead the public.
I know I cannot be alone in my observation that when things are looking bad for the President that either DHHS or NSA comes out with a series of far fetched announcements.
Trips to the Moon & Mars, Bird Flu, Mad Cow. Hell I know I’m not the only one noticing these patterns. Comedians have made countless jokes about such information coming from the government during times of waning public support.
These abuses of power in the dissemination of exaggerated and manipulated information is just one of another exhibits adding to the case for the absolute removal of this corrupt administration.
Yahoo Reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313/ts_nm/madcow_usa_dc
NPR Reports:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4949542&sourceCode=gaw
From observation I also believe President G.W. Bush is using the Department of Health & Human Services & NASA as a sounding board to mislead the public.
I know I cannot be alone in my observation that when things are looking bad for the President that either DHHS or NSA comes out with a series of far fetched announcements.
Trips to the Moon & Mars, Bird Flu, Mad Cow. Hell I know I’m not the only one noticing these patterns. Comedians have made countless jokes about such information coming from the government during times of waning public support.
These abuses of power in the dissemination of exaggerated and manipulated information is just one of another exhibits adding to the case for the absolute removal of this corrupt administration.
Yahoo Reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313/ts_nm/madcow_usa_dc
NPR Reports:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4949542&sourceCode=gaw
Sunday, March 12, 2006
The Race to unseat Katherine Harris
Its apparent the current political climate is a great benefit to Democrats. Corruption is rampant within the Republican Party. Many forget that these patterns of corruption coupled with bending the rules for ones political advantage began with Ms. Katherine Harris, then Republican Secretary of State whom awarded Florida’s electoral votes to G.W. Bush under the governorship of his brother, Jeb Bush.
Politics is a sport about people & winning. The Republicans have relentlessly held onto to this principle in jeopardy of the integrity of their party.
Rep. Katharine Harris, the GOP poster child of corruption is challenging Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. She is currently no competition to this veteran senator. Harris’s decisions as Sectary of State have always cast a shadow on her tenure and now evidence is coming to light linking her to Jack Abramoff.
Surely the Democratic Party can win this 13th Congressional seat?
The Democratic Party moves at the speed of a turtle. Politics as usual will not win Democrats this seat in Sarasota County where the number of registered Republicans is double that of Democrats.
People say its all about money and fundraising. I disagree. The GOP has and will always out fundraise the Democrats. So why haven’t they always been in power? Because fundraising can be trumped by organization.
I differ with the folk who claim to be political experts and whom are in the leadership of the DEMS. Why do I? These are the same folk that were in charge of the Party in 2000 and 2004.
The Democratic Party has lost ground to the Republicans not on a monetary level but on an organizational level. The GOP has found a nitch with churches. The DEMS must work harder to build its organization and prove to churches they’re interest is best vested in the Democratic Party. Many liberals right off people of faith for reasons I don‘t understand. Such a perception of these voting Americans will once again cost liberal candidates votes.
When it comes to politics in Florida where there’s a church on every corner you can’t win without paying your dues to the Churches. The GOP paid its dues with their Faith Based Initiatives while in addition too winning favor in the African American community. The DEMS must too pull and/or propose such powerful political maneuvers to win.
The Democratic Party from the local to national levels has 2 major problems that needs to be solved before Summer 2006: appealing to people of faith and Organizational cohesiveness.
From observation one can see as depicted in the recent break of a private firm from the DNC to build a voter data base that turning the Democratic Party into an organization that works more like a political machine is required.
The War in Iraq, Jobs, Healthcare, the Economy, Education. These are all Democratic values where we can gain ground. I hope the top contenders for the 13th Congressional District will take a lead an not continue campaigning as usual. I hope they will not mimic the likes of John Kerry, speaking empty substance less rhetoric which would result in not a win, but just another lost opportunity.
Politics is a sport about people & winning. The Republicans have relentlessly held onto to this principle in jeopardy of the integrity of their party.
Rep. Katharine Harris, the GOP poster child of corruption is challenging Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. She is currently no competition to this veteran senator. Harris’s decisions as Sectary of State have always cast a shadow on her tenure and now evidence is coming to light linking her to Jack Abramoff.
Surely the Democratic Party can win this 13th Congressional seat?
The Democratic Party moves at the speed of a turtle. Politics as usual will not win Democrats this seat in Sarasota County where the number of registered Republicans is double that of Democrats.
People say its all about money and fundraising. I disagree. The GOP has and will always out fundraise the Democrats. So why haven’t they always been in power? Because fundraising can be trumped by organization.
I differ with the folk who claim to be political experts and whom are in the leadership of the DEMS. Why do I? These are the same folk that were in charge of the Party in 2000 and 2004.
The Democratic Party has lost ground to the Republicans not on a monetary level but on an organizational level. The GOP has found a nitch with churches. The DEMS must work harder to build its organization and prove to churches they’re interest is best vested in the Democratic Party. Many liberals right off people of faith for reasons I don‘t understand. Such a perception of these voting Americans will once again cost liberal candidates votes.
When it comes to politics in Florida where there’s a church on every corner you can’t win without paying your dues to the Churches. The GOP paid its dues with their Faith Based Initiatives while in addition too winning favor in the African American community. The DEMS must too pull and/or propose such powerful political maneuvers to win.
The Democratic Party from the local to national levels has 2 major problems that needs to be solved before Summer 2006: appealing to people of faith and Organizational cohesiveness.
From observation one can see as depicted in the recent break of a private firm from the DNC to build a voter data base that turning the Democratic Party into an organization that works more like a political machine is required.
The War in Iraq, Jobs, Healthcare, the Economy, Education. These are all Democratic values where we can gain ground. I hope the top contenders for the 13th Congressional District will take a lead an not continue campaigning as usual. I hope they will not mimic the likes of John Kerry, speaking empty substance less rhetoric which would result in not a win, but just another lost opportunity.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Oprah Helps Katrina Victims
The Republican's government has failed the South after Hurricane Katrina. This Republican dominated government has failed to secure our Homeland therefore it is apparent that affluent blacks must work to fill this void of leadership & lack of compassion.
It is disheartening to see blacks of influence like Condi Rice and Colin Powell not demand swift efficient action in response to Katrina. Both persons I once had respect for. But now it is sparklingly clear they both might as well be Uncle Toms. Condi if nominated for President deserves not one black vote because of her silence on this matter.
There are however blacks that are rich & powerful but still remain in touch with their heritage and people. Like Oprah Winfrey, a Great American.
"Back in September, Oprah promised families displaced by Hurricane Katrina new homes and a new community."
Oprah is keeping her word through the Angel Network.
http://www.oprah.com/uyl/katrina/uyl_katrina_help.jhtml
NSA Domestic Surveillance Program
"I think that where these Democrats who are calling for this ought to spend their time is on what was the source of the unauthorized disclosure of this vital, incredible program in the war on terrorism," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I really don't think there is any basis for a special counsel. ... But the fact that this information was disclosed about the existence of this program has given the enemy some of our playbook."
This matter must be discussed in context of the public having knowledge of what the government is doing and in matters where secrecy is needed via the Congress. These elected representatives of the people should be as privileged to such information as White House, intelligence or military officials.
Whistle blower laws also shield and encourage government employees to reveal such information.
No act within the U.S. Government should be done in the dark without at the least oversight of Congress. The only involvement of Congress is this specific program were vague reports to a few in leadership. It is absurd to hold the position that the White House can authorize such a program side sipping the Courts, the stated rule of law, and circumventing Congress.
Not only is such an authorization absurd, but it is illegal, unethical, criminal and un American.
Report:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/27/eavesdropping.ap/index.html
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Defund the Iraq War
I’ve listened to Conservative leaders for some time like Scott McClellan, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Sean Hannity to seek some reason, but no more! I have come to the conclusion they are all PIGS.
Here’s what I say:
Congress must bring an End to the War in Iraq by defunding it, cutting its budget to allow for approximately 20,00 troops to remain in order to execute specific projects. The U.S. would continue to provide economic support for Iraq reconstruction. Do this by April 1, 2006.
Cut the entire Dept. of Homeland Security then place these saved funds into education, economic incentives to alternative & renewable energy industries and for rebuilding New Orleans. Cut all incentives to Oil Companies give these saved funds to companies that work in alternative energy sources.
Fire Mike Chertoff, Fire Donald Rumfesld and replace him with Colin Powell. Dick Cheney must step down. G.W. Bush must be investigated. Fire the Heads of the CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, and National Intelligence.
Burn the entire Patriot Acts
End the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program and put everyone who approved it in jail.
Charge all foreign detainees then give them a fair trial or return them to their country of origin, and end all practices of torture.
Here’s what I say:
Congress must bring an End to the War in Iraq by defunding it, cutting its budget to allow for approximately 20,00 troops to remain in order to execute specific projects. The U.S. would continue to provide economic support for Iraq reconstruction. Do this by April 1, 2006.
Cut the entire Dept. of Homeland Security then place these saved funds into education, economic incentives to alternative & renewable energy industries and for rebuilding New Orleans. Cut all incentives to Oil Companies give these saved funds to companies that work in alternative energy sources.
Fire Mike Chertoff, Fire Donald Rumfesld and replace him with Colin Powell. Dick Cheney must step down. G.W. Bush must be investigated. Fire the Heads of the CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, and National Intelligence.
Burn the entire Patriot Acts
End the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program and put everyone who approved it in jail.
Charge all foreign detainees then give them a fair trial or return them to their country of origin, and end all practices of torture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
