Democratic Club of Carlsbad-Oceanside

2006 Revisited, by Doug Hunter

2007-01-16T09:39:00.000-08:00

Of course, the most important political event of the year was the recapture of majorities in both Houses of Congress. The American people are finally getting wise to the criminals in the Bush Administration. Unfortunately the voters of Connecticut didn’t get it; the Majority of the Senate hangs by a tenuous thread, subject to the misguided judgment of Joe Lieberman.

Locally, the voters in East and North San Diego County also don’t seem to have seen the light. We have our work cut out for us if we are to capture Local, State, and Federal Offices in this area any time in the near future. Many of you worked hard in our fledging San Diego County precinct organization. I thank you for that, and implore you to continue to work with us in our ongoing effort to turn SD County into a Blue County . We have made significant progress in developing a precinct organization, and we need your continued support. I am advocating that in the interim before the next election, we use our growing precinct organization to conduct polls in conservative localities, to give us some insight as to why the electorate votes as they do, and just what characteristics our candidates need to garner more votes.

I must also express some concern with initiatives, which seem to be popular at this time with the progressive and liberal constituencies in San Diego and elsewhere.

1. Impeachment

I think our Progressive Community is acting emotionally on this issue, when it should act rationally and wisely. Let me explain why I feel this way.

I supported Impeachment Petitions before the November Election, not because I thought they would be successful, but because I thought the issues should be kept before the American Public. I now oppose Impeachment petitions for several reasons. One, many members of the public will view direct action on Impeachment as an act of revenge, and we will lose votes in 08. Two, just consider the mechanics of impeachment. It will take at least two years to hold hearings, draw up Articles of Impeachment, and hold the trial, and when the Senate votes whether to Impeach or not, we will not have the requisite plurality, so what do we gain. We could lose the White House again. Third, it will probably be necessary, because of wording of the Constitution, to Impeach Bush and Cheney separately, so in which order do we proceed? If Bush first, Cheney would be president for a short time, even if the proceedings were scheduled concurrently and the votes were taken back to back. Would you want Cheney to be president for even 10 minutes? If in the other order, Bush gets to appoint a VP, and even with a majority in the Senate, we wouldn’t get a good choice. Bush would probably choose McCain, and thus probably secure his victory in 08. And last, I say hold hearings, but don’t call them Impeachment hearings. In two years, if the Democrats do their job and the American public knows the truth about this administration, they will clamor for action, and at that time we should initiate criminal prosecutions.

2. Election Integrity

I fear that activists on this issue will impede progress in using technology to improve the integrity of our elections. We undoubtedly have had vote rigging in some locations (I do not believe in San Diego County ), and the electronic voting units currently in use are very vulnerable in that respect. However, scanned paper ballots are less vulnerable only because the paper is available for audit, the scanners are easier to hack than the Touch Screen Units, and the central tally process is also vulnerable. If the touch screen units are equipped with printers, so that an audit trail is available, the Touch screen units are inherently more reliable than the scanners, since their memories are encrypted, and the scanner memories are not. Further, any balloting process can be corrupted, and many have been. Lyndon Johnson won his first Senate race with ballot box manipulation, Kennedy is said to have won his Presidency because the Daley machine delivered fraudulent votes to carry Illinois .

I say, tongue in cheek of course, forget about the ballots, and just use the Exit Polls. There is an element of enlightenment in this statement, however. For me, a statistically significant audit or random monitoring of the election process provides greater assurance of the integrity of the process than any other mechanism. I will not elaborate on what a statistically significant sampling would entail, but if any one is interested contact me and I will forward a description of a relatively simple “Parallel Monitoring” procedure, which would do the job.

3. Iraq

I am very concerned that our newly elected representatives will cave in to the jingoist cries to “win in Iraq ” and “support our military”, and authorize funds for increasing troop levels. The vote of Joe Lieberman in the Senate is of critical importance on this matter, and I do not trust that unpatriotic hypocrite. What must we to get the politicians to understand that the citizens of the US want us out of Iraq ? Is the lesson of Vietnam completely lost to our elected officials? We must work to reform the Democratic Party, and PDA is the only organization with that goal as a core strategy.

4. Political Reform

In ranking income and expenditures, California ranks as the 5th or 6th largest organization in the world. After California comes a string of corporations, larger than most nations in terms of annual budget. Our founding fathers did not envision the growth and power of corporations, and the constitution does not provide for any limits on the excesses of corporations. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has chosen, circa 1887, to grant corporations personhood (certain privileges of personhood must be granted corporations so that contracts may be enforced) and further, subsequently the 14th Amendment was interpreted as providing corporations with “equal protection under the law”, as provided for citizens by that amendment. These decisions have resulted in corporations, which do not necessarily die, and which can accumulate wealth exceeding any that a real person can ever amass, being able to exercise unchecked and unlimited power. Conspicuous among corporations that use this wealth and power to influence public policy are the oil companies, the pharmaceuticals, and companies engaged in arms manufacturing. These companies have undue influence on legislation; in fact their lobbyists write many of the laws, which are passed by Congress. My basic belief is that the constitution must be amended to check the power of corporations, that being an unrealizable objective at this time, I believe that Congress must do something to limit the power of lobbyists to influence legislation.

5. Gerald Ford

I am greatly disturbed by the accolades given to Gerald Ford by politicians of both parties. This flood of praise serves only to illuminate the hypocrisy so rampant in our Capitol. My personal recollection of Gerald Ford’s tenure as House Minority Leader is that he was one of the most partisan, strident advocates of the republican policies of feed the rich, starve the poor, of any recent politician. Does anyone remember the Dirksen/Ford road shows? His pardon of Nixon was inexcusable. By doing so, he gave future presidents some assurance that they would not be held culpable for their crimes. We currently are witnessing unprecedented criminal behavior by the Bush administration because Richard Nixon was not held accountable for his crimes. Gerald Ford deserves only condemnation.

Peace,

Doug

John Dean at the University of San Diego

2006-12-01T09:54:00.000-08:00

John Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon, will present a lecture on "Spying, Secrecy, and Presidential Power" on Monday, December 11, 2006, 7 pm, at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice (click here for directions). There will be ample time for questions and dialogue. The event is free, and is sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and the National Lawyers Guild of USD School of Law.

Revelations about warrantless spying on Americans by the National Security Agency have sparked a nationwide controversy and sharp questions from lawmakers across the spectrum. Dean considers himself to be a "Goldwater conservative," but speaks passionately about the excessive secrecy of the Bush Administration and its consequences. With his Washington contacts and understanding of politics, he will present an analysis of the conservative movement's inner circle of radical leaders to describe the mindset and relationship of authoritarian leaders like Bush, Cheney, Gingrich and others with their followers.

John Dean, as Nixon's White House Counsel, became deeply involved in events leading to the Watergate break-in and later the scandal involving its cover up. He has been called the "master manipulator of the cover up" by the FBI, but became a star witness for the Watergate prosecution team after being fired by Nixon for refusing to continue to cooperate in the cover up. Dean is currently an author, columnist, and commentator on contemporary politics.

Mike Lewis, NAACP "Man of The Year"

2006-11-26T16:16:00.001-08:00

On October 27, 2006, at a gala dinner at Camp Pendleton, DEMCCO member T. Mike Lewis was named "Man of the Year" by the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Pamela Judice of Escondido was named "Woman of the Year."

Other DEMCCO members who have won these awards are Willie Little and Gwen Sanders.

Lewis was chosen as "Man of the Year" for his dedication and commitment as a volunteer in the branch's office.

"He's the voice behind the phone when it rings," said Reginald Owens, President of the North County NAACP. Owens described Lewis as a very determined person who learned how to use the computer and e-mail to be more effective as a member of the NAACP team. "He's instrumental in being a conduit of information," said Owens. "He's a go-to kind of person."

Mike has been an active DEMCCO member for nearly two years. As former Fundraising Chair Judy Wolf noted, "You can always count on Mike's putting in several hours of hard work at our fundraisers. He's among the first ones there and the last ones to leave."

We're proud of you, Mike, and very pleased to have you as a member of our club.

Interim Treasurer Needed

2006-11-26T16:16:00.000-08:00

DEMCCO Treasurer Joanne Gibson will be moving the end of December. We'll need an interim Treasurer right away. The office will be on the two-year-slate to be elected in March.

If you're interested, please contact President Bill Fischer at: 760-435-0046 (home), 760-585-5573 (cell), or email wcfischer [a] yahoo.com.

Help Wanted - Executive Positions

2006-11-26T16:12:00.000-08:00

Now that the November elections are over, it's time for elections for several DEMCCO Board positions for 2007-2009. Nominees are needed for the following positions:

President*
Second Vice President*
Treasurer
Political Action Chair
Communications Chair
Membership Chair
Fundraising Chair
*Incumbents have agreed to stand for re-election.

Members who are interested in any of these positions, or can suggest any other candidates, are urged to contact Nominating Chair Robin Friedheim at 804-2754 or rfiedheim [a] adelphia.net. This is a good opportunity to step up to the plate and help the Club and the Party. It’s also good training for leadership roles in business or politics, and the Club can provide recommendations for service.

Post Election: Looking Ahead

2006-11-26T16:06:00.000-08:00

Nationwide: not bad, not bad at all. A complex outcome, but we're a complex party, open to a healthy debate about degrees of difference among us. One thing for sure, the American electorate voted for change, and responsible productive change we must give them. This election outcome will, in my opinion, markedly shift the tone and emphasis of public dialogue for the better. How utterly refreshing this morning when I saw and heard senators-elect Jim Webb and Jon Tester on Meet the Press. They were both articulating crisp ideas about the immediate necessity for diplomacy abroad and for economic justice at home. Imagine that.

The country should benefit at all levels, from the depths of Washington DC's K Street, to the geography of Middle America, to the heights of our aspirations here in San Diego County. Or, as the wily hero of The Music Man sang out in the name of that troubled little town: "Right here in River City Junction!" To borrow a quaint phrase from the leadership, "Bring It On!"

Statewide it's a mixed outcome. Certainly the governorship is powerful and important, and I dislike having so much influence in Republican hands. But there's much to be grateful for. We hold all the other major elected offices, save the Insurance Commissioner. And it is particularly gratifying that Debra Bowen is the secretary of state elect. I am hopeful we can look forward to substantial election reform in California before November 2008.

In San Diego and adjacent counties we understandably feel disappointment. Many of the people for whom we worked so hard--candidates for Congress, State Assembly, City Councils, local boards--did not come out ahead. We are not, however, to feel in the least disheartened. Collectively they have contributed great strength and vibrancy, greatly amplifying the presence and voice of the Democratic Party in San Diego County. Where two years earlier the party was nearly mute and below the radar screen, we are now well and alive.

I would be remiss not to comment on local scoundrels. Ersatz Democrat Lawson Chadwick, Republican consultant Jack Orr, and a league of outside hired hands poured special-interest money into a disgraceful campaign to discredit Shari Mackin and George McNeil. It was the sort of lowball tactics we have come to expect from the likes of Carl Rove and his sad imitators. DEMCCO will be well advised to pay closer attention to the ongoing misadventures of the Oceanside City Council. As we look forward, I will urge that it be an active item on our agenda.

This brings me to my main point. Looking ahead, we have 18 months to gear up for the June 2008 Primary, followed by the all-important November 2008 Presidential. So revel for a moment in the midterm Democratic victory and take a short breather over the holidays. You've earned it. But then prepare to lace up your jogging shoes for the marathon ahead. One of our tasks will be to take advantage of the current momentum and register Democrats in San Diego County. Over the long haul we need to change the ratio of Democratic to Republican voters here.

Another task will be to build a strong support infrastructure for future candidates. San Diego Democratic Party chair Jess Durfee makes it absolutely clear that we have to project our commitment into the far future if we are to succeed here: "The County Party is committed to making longterm gains in San Diego. This is the time to fully implement our strategic plan, including the early development of strong Democratic candidates for every level of office." My good DEMCCO friends and colleagues, we are in a permanent campaign mode Now. The price we pay for not being us to the task is the calamity of another destructive neo-conservative takeover.

For the moment, then, we will gather at our Holiday Party on 10 December to relax and revel. We have an accomplished and famous guest speaker, Prof. Chalmers Johnson, who will talk about his forthcoming book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. He will remind us of what we must continually fight to preserve, as well as what we risk losing, as we rededicate ourselves in the months and years to come.

Finally, the Holiday Party is our great opportunity to express appreciation to the extraordinary human beings we have come to know so well over the past year or more: Francine, Jeeni, Roxana, and Cody; along with George McNeil, Judy Stratton, and Rod Shelton, who are more recent faces in our midst. These candidates have all been invited, not to give speeches but to bear witness to our gratitude for the sacrifices they have made to serve our greater good. These fine people have been supported by a host of hard-working DEMCCO volunteers who have toiled in the precincts and campaign offices. Come and show your appreciation to them as well. This is what the party is all about. This is what DEMCCO is all about. I look forward to seeing everyone on the 10th and sharing a glass--or two.

Bill Fischer

DEMCCO Holiday Party with Dr. Chalmers Johnson

2006-11-26T15:59:00.000-08:00

It's that time again. The DEMCCO Holiday Get-together. Sunday, December 10, 1-5 p.m., Carlsbad Woman's Club, 3320 Monroe St., Carlsbad.

Rake through your recipe file and bring along a favorite or do what I do and buy something cooked by strangers in a factory. To keep it simple, we're sticking to appetizers and desserts this year. Some of you will bring hearty fare that could pass for an entrée and we encourage that. We may have a considerable number in attendance; be generous with your portions; plan for 10-12 servings.

Surname beginning with AL: Bring Appetizer
Surname beginning with MZ: Bring Dessert

Suggested donation is $5 for members to help cover expenses. Drinks will be available at a nominal fee. Coffee is free.

At 2 p.m., internationally known author Dr. Chalmers Johnson will speak. Dr. Johnson was for decades a scholar at UC-Berkeley and UC-San Diego, with endowed chairs in Asian Politics at both. He is the author of 16 prize-winning books, including Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, about which he spoke to DEMCCO in early 2004. He has been a Navy Officer, stationed in Japan, and a CIA consultant. He is frequently featured on C-Span and has been an historical advisor for several PBS Emmy-award winning presentations.

The topic of Dr. Johnson's presentation will be his latest book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, to be published in February. It has already been picked up as a Book of the Month Club selection; excerpts will appear in Harper's Magazine.

His concerns in this book have to do with the challenges of a country, like the United States, that seeks to be both a domestic democracy and a foreign imperialist. History teaches that no country can do both. He believes we may be well along the path of losing our democracy. Dr. Johnson realizes this isn't a particularly happy holiday message, but believes it will interest our members. He likes a Q&Q period after.

Shortly after the main speaker, around 3 PM, Bill Fischer, DEMCCO President, will introduce and express appreciation to candidates in attendance, thanking them for the extraordinary effort and sacrifices they have made on our behalf. Bill will also acknowledge the many DEMCCO volunteers who helped them and the San Diego County Democratic Party in the course of the demanding campaign season.

We will have music on and off throughout the afternoon, but that hasn't yet been nailed down yet.

We always need help with decorating, food layout, hospitality, clean up. If you can participate, come a little early if possible.

Special Events Director Lynne Nash is in charge, 760-295-3882.

Meet Phil Angelides and Barbara Boxer

2006-11-03T11:40:00.000-08:00

Democratic big guns will be in Oceanside Saturday, November 4. Meet Gov. candidate Phil Angelides and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer at the Pacific Bakery, 624 Garrison St., Oceanside, 3-4 p.m. Saturday afternoon. Garrison intersects Oceanside Blvd.; first street west of El Camino Real. The bakery is owned by Democratic Activist Chuck Lowery, president of the North County Coalition for Peace & Justice, founded by DEMCCO members just before the Iraqi War began.

Carlsbad Faire

2006-11-03T11:39:00.000-08:00

DEMCCO's semi-annual Carlsbad Faire booth will be up this Sunday, Nov. 5th, 8 a.m.-4 p.m. It's on Madison St. just north of Grand Ave., #818, our usual spot. Look for the Grand Ave. Bar & Grill. We're behind that. Pre-election energy and fun will be much in evidence. If you're not already signed up to help, just stop by and offer your services.

2006 Endorsements

2006-10-23T16:16:00.000-07:00

Download the October newsletter for a printable version of 2006 endorsements.

President's Message -- Spread the Word: This Is a Crucial Election

2006-10-13T11:29:00.000-07:00

Crucial on every level: federal, state, and local. You all know this. The other day, a good friend and loyal Democrat here in San Diego County said to me she thought Schwarzenegger was looking pretty good. "Give me a reason why I shouldn't vote for him" she challenged. It raised every fear in me that many reasonable people, including some Democrats and middle-of-the-road unaffiliated voters, are probably leaning this way.

I gave her two reasons. First, state-by-state our democratic form of government is threatened by the arrogant and divisive lust for power of an extreme-right GOP. Even more to the point, the GOP’s monumental incompetence has put the country in great peril: the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, inadequate Prescription Drug legislation, unprecedented Tax Cuts, huge Wartime Deficit, and Presidential Spying Authority that circumvents our Constitution. Bluntly, it is a party incapable of governing in the interest of the common good. Instead, it grossly favors corporate and privileged interests to the detriment of the national welfare. Schwarzenegger is presently the governor of the most powerful state in the Union and also the sixth largest economy in the world. Maintaining him in office only strengthens this intolerable and destructive Republican influence.

Second, Schwarzenegger's chameleon turn toward liberal policy-making could, for the moment, seem reasonable and attractive. But we have only to think back to the distasteful conservative agenda he tried to foist upon us in the costly special elections last June. He cynically attacked nurses and first-responders as representing harmful "special interests." And he tried to suppress their influence by imposing restrictions on the political contributions of their public-service unions. This was a deliberate attack against California's hard-working middle class. Do not be deceived. The governor is not miraculously transformed into a kinder and gentler moderate Republican!

My good friend said, at last, that she was entirely convinced by these arguments and that she would vote for Phil Angelides. My plea is that you muster these and all the other good arguments you can. Tell your family members, tell your friends, tell the folks in the street. There’s plenty of fodder, a litany of GOP incompetence and abuse. For starters, all you have to do is advertise the short list of glaring names, the lurid likes of Randall Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Robert Ney. And now we have the sad spectacle of Mark Foley. But however tempting the bait, the GOP negatives are not, I repeat not, the election clincher for Democrats. The cheap Republican spin out there is that Democrats have no plan. Nonsense! Don't let them get away with this ploy!

Proclaim our positive Democratic policies and plans. Our values are those of social and economic justice for the greater good. We stand for diplomacy and leadership over reckless militarism, for national unity by responsible governance, as opposed to the divisive grab for absolute power. Important Democratic policies stem from these values: support for a higher minimum wage; a national healthcare plan that covers all citizens; an equitable and robustly funded system of public education; a constructive and cooperative diplomatic strategy; an intelligent and consultative tradition of military planning and implementation; and a repudiation of moralistic legislation that attempts to interfere in our personal lives—our right to privacy. With a Democratic Congress in power, we will enact these policies into carefully planned laws.

Republicans speciously attack Democratic social policy as a form of "socialism." Don’t be intimidated by this petty misrepresentation. Truth be told, in the absence of any iota of social or economic justice of their own, hard-line Republicans are among our most "unsocialized" citizens. They should get a life.

So what's the Democratic plan for Iraq, you ask? In the absence of any coherent Republican "plan" beyond "react and adjust," it is clearly time to put a party in charge that can rationally analyze the current military and human disaster created by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. We need a new government in Washington that will work out appropriate international solutions leading to a more effective redeployment of our resources against terrorism. Democrats, in their wisdom, will have to build a plan out of the impossible rubble of Bush’s ignorance and narrow ideology. We need to reposition the country to ably confront the global threats which actually exist, not the fantasies and deceptions the current administration would have us believe. Only then will we be more secure.

Here are some of the important candidates who represent Democratic values and policies: Phil Angelides for governor, Debra Bowen for Secretary of State, Jeeni Criscenzo for Congress, Francine Busby for Congress, Roxana Folescu for State Assembly, George McNeil for Oceanside City Council, Rod Shelton for Superior Court Judge, Cody Campbell for Vista School Board, Judy Stratton for Mira Costa College Board of Trustees.

By now you know them well. They have turned their lives upside down to run for office and fight for the values and policies we believe in. Most of them have come to DEMCCO meetings and events to tell you what they stand for and to answer your questions. Many of them will be at our meeting on October 28th, the last meeting before the election. Contribute to their campaigns, ring doorbells on their behalf, get out the vote for them, and make sure you go out and vote for them on November 7th.

Standing Up for the 49th District

2006-10-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

by Jeeni Criscenzo
Democratic Candidate for Congress, 49th District

I am running as a Democrat to represent the people of California's 49th District in the U.S. House of representatives. I have spent the past several months meeting with the people of my district and listening to their concerns and needs. Following is an overview of where I stand on the issues you've told me are important to you. I will be adding to this as new information or events bring facts and issues to light.

You may not always agree with my position - you will never find an honest candidate who agrees with you on everything. You WILL always know that I am telling you the truth, that I'll take the time to learn the facts, to listen to your opinions and ideas, and to learn what impact my decision will have on the people I represent. I will ALWAYS act in the best interests of the PEOPLE.

1. U.S. OUT OF IRAQ

The occupation of Iraq is bankrupting our country and provoking increased hostility towards America . Our presence is hindering a solution to the escalating civil war. The majority of the American people want a speedy end to this occupation. Nothing good can come from staying in Iraq one more day. Replacing American troops with a UN Peacekeeping Force will provide Iraqis with the support they need to transition to an independent, democratic government. Jeeni Criscenzo invites every candidate to join her in signing the Peacemaker Pledge, calling for a speedy withdrawal of the U.S. from

Iraq

. - A Proposed Exit Strategy

2. SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS

The best way to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is to work for their safe return and assist them in their transition to life in the United States . Returning veterans must be given all the benefits they have earned by signing up to defend us, including medical care and opportunities for education and employment. The families of those who have given their lives must be given the support and benefits they need and to which they are entitled.

3. NATIONAL SECURITY & DIPLOMACY

The most effective way to end terrorism is to change our foreign policy from one of global empire and pre-emptive war to one of cooperation with the community of nations. Our armed forces must return to the job of protecting our nation from attack rather than occupying foreign lands and engaging in nation-building. We must strengthen alliances with our traditional partners overseas and in this hemisphere, repair our reputation in the world, safeguard - and if possible eliminate - nuclear materials around the globe, and work to ensure the security of our ports, our borders, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities.

4. ENDING THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

Our political system favors corporate donors and gives undue influence to corporate lobbyists. In such a system the needs of the average American take a back seat. We must eliminate the excessive influence corporations have on our government. The best ways to do that are to publicly fund elections, change the rules regarding lobbying, and remove corrupt politicians from Congress.

Standing Up for the 50th District

2006-10-01T01:33:00.000-07:00

by Francine Busby
Democratic Candidate for Congress, 50th District

Our government is broken, and the United States of America is at a crossroads. The elected leaders of this country have taken us in the wrong direction, a dangerous direction.

We need fiercely independent leaders who don't owe anyone anything - except the people they serve. We need practical, common-sense solutions instead of political payoffs. And most importantly we need to stand up for what makes this country great.

I am Francine Busby, and I'm running for Congress because the 50th District deserves a Representative who will have the courage to represent this District with only one agenda, what's best for the 50th District.

Our Founding Fathers were committed to creating a country that would live indefinitely and serve as a light of freedom and justice to the rest of the world. They created an elaborate system of checks and balances that would ensure that no one person, no branch of government, and no organization would have too much power. I imagine that they are turning over in their graves.

The people of the 50th District are some of the most patriotic people that I've ever met. We know that being an American means that we must work at keeping our country great by taking personal responsibility and participating in our Democracy. This country belongs to all of us, and that means that YOU and I have to change the direction of America.

I believe in the power of ordinary people, like you & me, to put this country on the right track again. It's up to us to turn it around NOW. We have the courage. We have the strength. And we have the power. It's not only our right, it's our patriotic duty.

I don't care if you're a Republican or an Independent, or a Democrat. Doing the right thing is not about party allegiance, and it's not about whether you're a moderate, conservative or liberal. It's about courage. This is what we do in America – what makes us great. When our leaders go wildly astray, it's up to us ordinary folks to fix the problem.

As a long time citizen and leader in the 50th District, I pledge to serve you with integrity, strength and common sense. I will speak up and cast my votes on your behalf. Even if I am the lone voice in the House of Representatives, know I will always stand up for you.

The stakes have never been higher. And, I am up for the challenge because I believe, as you do, that we have to act now. Join me as I stand up for you, the people of the 50th District. Join me, so together we will do our part to put this country on the right track.

Together there is no limit to what we can do. Thank You.

There is Fascism, Indeed

2006-08-31T17:11:00.000-07:00

Kieth Olbermann
MSNBC

Wednesday 30 August 2006

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis-and the sober contemplation-of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence - indeed, the loyalty - of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our employees - with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril-with a growing evil-powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the "secret information." It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's - questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England's, in the 1930's.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions - its own omniscience - needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all - it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic's name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History - and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England - have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty - and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute - and exclusive - in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today's Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count - not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago - we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we - as its citizens- must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism."

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that - though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral."

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular."

And so good night, and good luck.

Demeaning Democracy

2006-08-14T09:37:00.000-07:00

By Edward M. Kennedy
The Hartford Courant

Sunday 13 August 2006

Vice presidents are notorious for serving as an administration's chief attack dog, and time and again Dick Cheney has been unleashed to accuse anyone who is opposed to the Bush administration of aiding the terrorists. But this time he has gone too far.

The comments he made on the result of the Connecticut Democratic primary - that it might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task" - are an attack not just on Democrats, but on democracy itself.

What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people - not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.

Cheney's comments about the election were ugly and frightening. They show once again that he and his party will stop at nothing to wrap Republicans in the flag and to insinuate that anyone who votes against them is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. It's obvious that this administration lacks basic respect for our fundamental freedoms.

Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections - as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech - provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law - as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.

Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut scares Cheney for one simple reason: It demonstrates that a free and independent people can and do hold public officials accountable for their words and deeds.

If the terrorists are indeed paying any attention to the Connecticut primary results, they must be worried.

The people of Connecticut spoke out loud and clear in favor of change. Ned Lamont will stand strong for the people of Connecticut, and put tough and smart foreign policies ahead of the politics of fear and more "stay the course" failures. Republicans will stop at nothing to make sure that the November elections are not a referendum on their misguided policy in Iraq or on the way they have run our country for the past six years. Unfortunately, this time the facts are getting in their way.

The American people are ready to change an administration that let Osama bin Laden escape. They are ready to change a Congress that let precious years go by without demanding the implementation of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission to keep us safe.

They are ready to change a policy on Iraq that has drained our resources, weakened our security, stretched our troops and recruited new terrorists.

The November election will teach Dick Cheney and others of his ilk that they cannot use fear to cling to power. As Will Rogers said, "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't."

Fascists of All Varieties

2006-08-11T08:36:00.000-07:00

By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t - Perspective
Friday 11 August 2006

Reveling in yesterday's announcement that a plot to blow up American Airlines planes departing from British airports had been foiled by British authorities, George W. Bush leapt at the opportunity to sell his "war on terra" to whoever would listen. Using the best Madison Avenue technique money can buy, he was even ready to roll out a new slogan du jour on cue for the event. Today's phrase that pays: We are at war with "Islamic fascists."

First let me say that if British law enforcement did in fact do all of what the US mainstream press is implying they did, I thank them for finding an efficient, non-violent way to guard the public safety. "Efficient" and "non-violent" being the key words in the preceding sentence.

Efficiency and non-violence have been glaringly absent from US-British national security operations over the past five years. And that absence contributes greatly to the current atmosphere of conflict. War and a warlike mentality are espoused at every turn as the remedies of choice in dealing with all threats to Western security. As a result, Western security has suffered.

What worked in foiling the plot to destroy the airliners was good old fashioned police work and a solid investigation. Not military action. The tools used by British authorities are tools that were available on September 11th 2001. They were available the day the US invaded Iraq, and they are available today. We have always had good tools to safeguard our security. Launching massive invasions is not helping, it's adding to the rage that fuels the madness.

Fascism at Issue

Since, Mr. Bush, you have chosen to put the issue of fascism before the public, it begs a broader dialog on fascism's role in our lives today. I accept the challenge to enter that dialog. Frankly Mr. Bush, many Americans refer to you as a fascist. There really isn't any other way to state that than bluntly. Blowing up an airliner full of passengers is barbaric and completely unacceptable, regardless of the objectives of those involved, but it really doesn't fit the definition of fascism.

From Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language:

FASCISM: A system of government characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism, etc.

That's really the heart of the matter now isn't it, Mr. Bush. One might wonder if you are troubled by by the specter of fascism in your inner thoughts when you cast the accusation wildly into the public discourse.

What would the people of Iraq say about fascism if asked? But then they haven't been asked, have they - they've been liberated, of course. What would our founding fathers say about detention without due process, without end? Electronic surveillance of all Americans, without regard for the law? What is democracy if the citizens have no confidence in the integrity of their elections? Our military hurls five-hundred pound bombs all day and all night. They land on whom they land on. It is not an isolated act of madness, it is a coordinated act of state. All the while private corporations profit wildly.

Fascism, Mr. Bush, is not your strongest card. You should change the subject again.

Religion Takes A Left Turn

2006-08-05T15:06:00.000-07:00

An updated message for U.S. political debate:
Love your enemy, care for the poor

(CBS, July 2006)

At a church in Washington, hundreds of committed Christians met recently and tried to map out a strategy to get their values into the political debate.

But these are not the conservative Christian values which have been so influential lately. This is the religious left.

"Jesus called us to love our neighbor, love our enemy, care for the poor, care for the outcast, and that's really the moral core of where we think the nation ought to go," Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches told CBS News correspondent Russ Mitchell.

The National Council of Churches represents about 50 million Christians in America - the majority of them mainline Protestants.

"Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion," Edgar said.

He calls this movement the "center-left" - and it's seeking the same political muscle as the conservative Christians, a group with a strong power base in the huge Evangelical churches of the South.

But the left has its own Evangelical leaders, such as the Rev. Tony Campolo, right.

"We are furious that the religious right has made Jesus into a Republican. That's idolatry," Campolo said. "To recreate Jesus in your own image rather than allowing yourself to be created in Jesus' image is what's wrong with politics."

The Christian left is focusing on:

Fighting poverty;

Protecting the environment; and

Ending the war in Iraq.

"Right now the war in Iraq costs us $1 billion per week," said Rev. Jim Wallis, a Christian activist. "And we can't get $5 billion over ten years for child care in this country?"

To try to attract young voters and the attention of politicians who want their votes, leaders of the religious left are promoting issues like raising the minimum wage.

"Nine million families are working full time," Wallis said. "Working hard full time, responsibly, and not making it."

Three decades ago liberal religious leaders had a powerful influence on politics.

In the 1960s and 70s they led demonstrations against civil rights abuses and the war in Vietnam. But when those battles were over, the movement seemed to lose energy, while the Christian right had become well organized and committed to having its voice and concerns heard.
After years of sitting on the sidelines, it will take more than meetings and talking points to make the liberals into a political power again.

"The Christian right has a ground game," said Mark Silk of Trinity College's religious studies department. "Thus far the Christian left mainly has an air game: they want to throw positions, they want to talk to the media, but do they have the networks in place on the ground to get people out to vote?"

So, it remains to be seen whether there's any action behind the words. But there's no doubt they're on a mission.

"I've watched a generation die. And I watched them shift from idealism to a 'me' generation that was only orientated to consumerism and it hurt, and I wondered whether we ever would come back." Campolo said. "But the pendulum is swinging."

CBS Broadcasting Inc.

NCC News contacts: Rev. Dan Webster 212.870.2252, Rev. Leslie Tune 202.544.2350 ltune@ncccusa.org

DNC's Voting Rights Institute Calls for Busby/Bilbray Manual Count

2006-07-15T10:21:00.000-07:00

BradBlog.com

Friday 14 July 2006

Announcement comes as DNC Chair Howard Dean is set to address activists at election integrity convention in San Diego.

In a harshly worded statement, the DNC's Voting Rights Institute has issued a statement condemning the administration of the recent U.S. House race between Democrat Francine Busby and Republican Brian Bilbray, joining a growing national outcry in calling for "a swift and verifiable 'manual count' of all 150,000 ballots cast in California's 50th District's 'bellweather' June 6th special election."

"This is no longer about whether or not Busby or Bilbray won the election on June 6th," the just-issued statement reads. "This is about the importance of verifying the facts related to election and voting machine irregularities in this race and the need to ensure an accurate count of all votes cast in this election so that the electorate may have confidence in the announced results in future elections."

The long-awaited announcement of a position on the matter by the DNC comes at the end of more than a month of outrage from both national and state election integrity organizations, many of whom have declared "No Confidence" in the reported results of the race held to replace jailed Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Bilbray declared himself the winner on election night, and was sworn into office several days later, before all votes had been counted, and nearly three weeks prior to the election being certified by either state or county officials.

Massive security breaches were reported the day after the election, in regard to the deployment of the county's Diebold optical-scan and touch-screen voting machines as directed by San Diego County Registrar of Voters, Mikel Haas. The progammed, election-ready voting machines, poll workers have informed The BRAD BLOG, were stored unsecurely in home garages and cars, which Haas has admitted to us would "not be considered secure" in an earlier interview. Due to the presumed-contamination of the extremely hackable voting systems used in the race - as allowed via the lengthy, unsupervised "sleepovers" in the days and weeks prior to the election - nobody, even the Registrar's office, has been able to prove the accuracy of the results as announced by Haas.

CNN's Lou Dobbs, CourtTV's Catherine Crier, Tribune Media's Robert Koehler and the far-right conservative Rush Limbaugh fill-in host, Bilbray supporter and San Diego radio personality Rodger Hedgecock have been amongst the mainstream media figures to report on the debacle, decrying the security breaches in the election.

Hedgecock recently excoriated the way in which the electronic voting machines were used in the election, exclaiming on-air: "We now have allowed a system of counting our votes to be presented to us as a system that does it accurately, when it has manifestly been proven that it can be monkeyed with and the results tampered!"

Today's statement, posted by Greg Moore, Director of the DNC's Voting Rights Institute - citing "election irregularities" and several points of "new and disturbing information" concerning the mis-administration of the election - was issued this morning as DNC Chairman Howard Dean heads down to speak at DemocracyFest!, a grassroots activist gathering being held this weekend in San Diego.

"Very Deep Concerns" About Security and the Administration of the Election...

"Very deep concerns" are enumerated in the announcement, describing several of the problems found so far in the special election on which The BRAD BLOG has been reporting almost exclusively since June 6th, when we first revealed that the programmed, election-ready Diebold optical-scan and touch-screen voting systems used in the race were inappropriately sent home with poll workers before the election. The security breaches that occurred during those so-called "sleepovers" were in violation of new state and federal rules, laws and provisions issued in the last few months after recent discoveries confirmed dozens of extreme security flaws in the Diebold voting systems, confirming them to be exceptionally vulnerable to tampering.

Upon violation of the new federal and California state emergency security mitigation requirements, as issued in February and March of this year, the voting machines were effectively and immediately decertified and illegal for use in the election, according to provisions spelled out by both authorities.

The vulnerabilities in the particular Diebold systems used in the election, as referenced in the DNC statement, include: on the touch-screen systems, the ability to completely replace the election and operating system software, as well as the computer firmware in less than two minutes time with no password required or authentication by the system; on the optical-scan systems, the ability to hack the memory cards used to store vote tabulation which may result in a complete reversal of election results, as demonstrated by hackers during a mock-election test held at the end of last year in Leon County, Florida. Such a hack on the optical-scan systems could be accomplished without a trace being left behind, save for a manual count of the paper ballots used in the race.

Indeed, in the recent Iowa primary elections, held on the same day as the California CA-50 election, as many as nine Republican races had their results reversed after a manual hand count of optically-scanned ballots revealed that the original machine count had declared the actual winners to have been losers in their races. Only a hand count would have revealed the erroneous totals.

San Diego County Registrar Haas has stymied the effort by citizen election integrity advocates in San Diego to have the ballots in the Busby/Bilbray race counted by hand.

The election was the first federal race to have been run in the country since the new security mitigation requirements were mandated by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), the body tasked the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission as the federal voting machine certification body.

"A Single Person Can Reverse the Results of an Election"

Further underscoring the dangers of allowing unsupervised physical access to the systems is a landmark report released just weeks ago by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, detailing more than 120 security threats to e-voting systems. That study, widely reported by mainstream media outlets, led to a recent Washington Post article headlined "Single Person Could Swing an Election." The Brennan Center study picked up, in turn, on another recent study by computer scientist Harri Hursti and Security Innovation in March, revealing vulnerabilities that have been described by several experts as a "major national security risk" and "the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system." Those discoveries occurred during another landmark analysis of Diebold systems conducted by BlackBoxVoting.org in Emery County, Utah just two months prior to the election.

After the results of that examination were released, one of the leading computer scientists on the California Secretary of State's own voting systems technology advisory board, David Jefferson of Livermore National Laboratories, explained during an interview on the PBS News Hour : "You can affect multiple machines from a single attack. That's what makes it so dangerous." Jefferson was part of the team who advised the CA SoS on the new security mitigation requirements, which were then ignored by Registrar Haas' voting machine "sleepovers".

Demands for a Manual Hand Count Stymied by Registrar

Dozens of election integrity organizations, including California Election Protection Network, Progressive Democrats of America, Election Defense Alliance, the Commonweal Foundation, VelvetRevolution.us and many others, along with several candidates and journalists have previously called for a hand count of the paper ballots and "paper trails" in the Busby/Bilbray race to ensure accuracy and accountability in the election.

A request to hand count the ballots was filed by CA-50 voter Barbara Gail Jacobson, but was eventually stonewalled by Haas, who refused to commit to the production of chain of custody documents for ballots and voting machines. Haas also set what appeared to be wholly arbitrary charges for the requested hand count, quoting three different estimates to three different inquiries. His final estimate, as given to the hand-count requester, was for as much as $150,000 to count the election. The price of nearly $1 per vote is in contrast to neighboring Orange County, CA who recently charged just .14 cents per vote to hand count an election. Haas has refused to offer any accounting or explanation for the exorbitant and prohibitive pricing.

A public record request from Jacobson for the results of the state mandated 1% manual audit of ballots has also not been supplied. As of this date, we are unaware of anyone having seen the results of that mandated audit.

The Fight for Accountability Continues...

As citizens organizing to fight for accountability in the race are collecting donations towards the effort at VelvetRevolution.us, they are weighing the legal options in consideration of the next step which will certainly be expensive.

After weeks of frustration, waiting for national organizations such as the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to weigh in on the matter, the DNC's announcement will likely bring encouragement to the election integrity advocates (including The BRAD BLOG. The DCCC, we have learned from several sources, had advised Busby to stay away from discussion of electronic voting machine issues prior to the election, and has still failed to comment publicly on the matter.

This morning's statement by Greg Moore, Director of the DNC's Voting Rights Institute, is posted at the National Democratic Party website, and also posted below in full...

DNC Voting Rights Institute on CA-50 Special Election

For several weeks since the June 6th Special Election in California's 50th Congressional District there have been reports of election irregularities. The DNC Voting Rights Institute has been monitoring the developments since Election Day and has raised a number of concerns regarding new and disturbing information.

First and foremost is the fact that any election where there are allegations of machine tampering, break downs in chain of custody, security breaches and other such irregularities must be taken seriously. There are several facts in this race that raise very deep concerns.

On the facts:

1. We know for a fact that San Diego County election officials have admitted that a number of the voting machines were taken home in violation of the federal security regulations and guidelines and that a number of the machines showed evidence of tampering (broken seals, which should also have immediately disqualified those machines from use according to state laws implemented in just the last several months in response to new severe vulnerabilities discovered Diebold's optical-scan and touch-screen voting systems.)

2. We know that under state and federal guidelines, any such breach of security seals or the new "secure storage" requirements for these machines and their memory cards should have immediately disqualified those machines from use in the election for the reason that they became effectively decertified for use upon such security and chain of custody violations.

3. We also know that both the Diebold optical-scan and touch-screen (DRE) machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering in test after test by industry experts, including a team of computer scientists and security experts convened by California's Secretary of State in response to recent revelations concerning the hack ability of Diebold voting systems.

4. We know that serious security issues and efforts by Diebold to obfuscate problems with their hardware and software led California's former Democratic Secretary of State to decertify Diebold touch-screen systems in 2004, only to have the Republican Secretary who succeeded him reinstitute the machines over the objections of scores of computer scientists and experts and hundreds of election integrity advocates.

The San Diego County election official responsible for administrating post-election manual vote counts has given three different arbitrary cost estimates for conducting the hand count. The quoted fees are as much as six times the costs estimates for similar hand counts in surrounding counties. The estimates portray the expense of a manual vote count to be cost prohibitive.

This is no longer about whether or not Busby or Bilbray won the election on June 6th. This is about the importance of verifying the facts related to election and voting machine irregularities in this race and the need to ensure an accurate count of all votes cast in this election so that the electorate may have confidence in the announced results in future elections.

The VRI will continue to monitor facts as they become available and will call for a swift and verifiable "manual count" of all 150,000 ballots cast in California's 50th District's "bellwether" June 6th special election in order to ensure the integrity of November 7th general elections and the overall integrity of our country's voting systems in this still-untested age of computerized voting.

Greg Moore is director of the DNC's Voting Rights Institute.

Minimum Standards

2006-07-12T11:49:00.000-07:00

William Rivers Pitt
Tr u t h o u t - Perspective
Wednesday 12 July 2006

BBC News reported it this way: "All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions. The White House announced the shift in policy on Tuesday, almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees."

A small thing, one would think. We have been told time and again, after all, that we are engaged in a "War on Terror," and the rules of war should therefore apply. The fact that we are also fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan further simplifies the issue.

With the Bush administration, however, nothing is so straightforward. The administration argument, on the surface, has been that because "terrorists" are affiliated with no official government, they do not fall under the umbrella of Geneva protections.

The real reason for the denial of protections, though, was the Cheney-born insistence that the powers of the executive are plenary and not to be restricted in any way. Holding people indefinitely without trial while subjecting them to torture, therefore, was a marvelous way to establish the precedent of limitless power.

We caught a glimpse of the mind-set behind this whole process on Tuesday afternoon. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Hamden v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court ruling, the one that has ostensibly turned the Bush administration's war doctrine on its ear and has motivated them to grant minimum Geneva protections to prisoners.

Senator Patrick Leahy was grilling Steven Bradbury, acting head of Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, on the legal and ethical basis for Guantanamo in general and the treatment of prisoners specifically. Pressed into a corner by Leahy's questioning as to whether Bush was right or wrong in his decisions on the matter, Bradbury finally stated, "The president is always right."

Mr. Bradbury, it appears, did not get the memo.

Tuesday's Washington Post laid out the myriad ways in which, all of a sudden, the president is being forced to admit that he has been, almost comprehensively, always wrong. "Accustomed to having its way on matters related to the nation's security," reported the Post, "the administration is being forced to respond to criticism that it once brushed aside. The high court ruling rejected the White House's assertion that the president has nearly unlimited executive powers during a time of war, and now executive branch lawyers are reviewing whether other rules adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will have to be revised, especially those concerning the Geneva Conventions."

Much of this is, in the end, short-term analysis and observation. After picking through the detritus left behind in arguments over executive power, the inside baseball of political positioning, and the strange absolutism of Justice Department attorneys, we come around again to looking at long-term ramifications.

Granting minimum protection standards under Geneva to prisoners cannot and must not have anything to do with the exact circumstances of the detention of a prisoner, or the modern elastic definitions of war, or the desires of an administration to establish unlimited power. While the need to gather necessary intelligence and information on the disposition of terrorist elements is undeniable, the need for adherence to the rule of law on this issue goes far beyond constitutional platitudes.

The book Ghost Soldiers, by Hampton Sides, gives us all the reasons we need for stating, without equivocation, that adherence to Geneva protections is essential beyond any niceties of legal argument. Keeping to Geneva, simply, is a matter of national security and an absolute necessity whenever we have our own soldiers deployed in combat situations far from home.

"Ghost Soldiers" describes the horrifying ordeal endured by the American soldiers captured after the Japanese takeover of the Philippines in 1942. Tens of thousands of soldiers were trapped on the Bataan peninsula after the surrender of American forces, and the survivors were corralled into wretched prison camps after enduring the infamous "Bataan Death March."

During that march, and for years afterwards, these American prisoners were subjected to unspeakable acts of torture. They were starved, denied medicines for basic illnesses, beaten, shot, and eviscerated with bayonets. Many were killed because they were deemed to be less than human by their captors; the Bushido warrior code of Japan considered the surrender of any soldier to be beneath contempt, and any soldier who did so was unworthy of anything resembling humane treatment.

The Japanese Imperial Army, in the end, was playing a very dangerous game. By allowing its soldiers to consider captives less than human, by allowing the torture and murder of prisoners to take place on a large scale, Japan opened itself up to potentially terrifying reprisals. Any captured Japanese soldier faced the immediate threat of being the receptacle for outraged revenge at the hands of an American who knew what happened at Bataan.

So it is today. America has soldiers in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those soldiers run the risk of capture, and further run the risk of capture by individuals who know all about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Thus, we enter into a tit-for-tat game where the stakes are paid out in blood and screams. You torture us, so we torture you.

The Bush administration, under duress, has finally decided that the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions are worth paying attention to. They did not do this because it is right, because it is moral, or because they know that doing so affords a small margin of security to troops in the field. They did so because their hand was forced, and there is no guarantee that their words on the matter will be followed up by actual deeds.

We have all, it seems, come to accept minimum standards these days. There is no need for the rule of law, no need to adhere to the constitution or to Geneva, no need to think about the safety of our soldiers should they be captured, no need to consider the bloody wheel of history where torture and mistreatment have been involved. The president, after all, is always right.

On the Fourth, Read the Declaration of Impeachment

2006-07-03T08:20:00.000-07:00

David Swanson
AfterDowningStreet.org
Sunday 02 July 2006

Veterans for Peace has drafted a Declaration of Impeachment using nothing but excerpts from the Declaration of Independence (plus a few words in parentheses). It reads as follows, and should be read at picnics and protests on the Fourth of July:

"... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

... all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... design(s) to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

... The history of the present King (George)... is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny ... To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has ... deprive(ed) us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury ... transport(ed) us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us ...

He is at this time transporting large Armies ... to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens ... to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

A (President) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore ... do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People ... solemnly publish and declare, That these ... Free and Independent (People) ... are Absolved from all Allegiance to the (Bush Administration), and that all political connection between them and (this Administration), is and ought to be totally dissolved ... And for the support of this Declaration ... we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

NOTE THAT THE COLONISTS DIDN'T JUST WRITE THESE WORDS - THEY ALSO FOUGHT AND DIED FOR THEM.

Supporting our troops and working to ensure that they not have died in vain are notions that no longer apply to the soldiers who died in the fields around my house in Virginia. The statute of limitations has expired, and the 4,435 who died to rid America of a King George are now in fact required - as a matter of patriotic duty - to have died in vain.

In vain their deaths to free us of a unitary executive.

In vain their deaths to establish freedom of assembly.

In vain their deaths to separate church and state.

In vain their deaths to create freedom of speech.

In vain their deaths in the cause of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

In vain their blood spilled in rivers to establish the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

In vain their ultimate sacrifices to create a representative democracy based on checks and balances.

In vain the heartache of their families suffered in the name of an end to empire.

All in vain, all unsupported. Welcome to the world of free speech zones, detention without charge, no access to a court of law, no prohibition on torture. Welcome to the end of the veto and the birth of the signing statement. Welcome to an executive branch that neither obeys Congress nor so much as informs Congress of its actions. Welcome to wars of aggression for a theocratic plutocracy. Welcome back, King George.

King George is opposed by almost all Americans who identify themselves as democrats or Democrats. Only 9 percent of Democrats approve of his "handling the situation with Iraq," according to a CBS poll. The so-called Republican Party, on the other hand, is split. 71 percent of Republicans approve of the king's war, a number that is steadily declining. So, I have to say it annoys me a teeny little bit when the military industrial media complex calls the Democratic Party split and makes that alleged split the focus of reporting.

What they mean is that a little band of plutocratic leeches living in the swamps of the District of Columbia displays different tendencies from the citizenry. Within this inbred sect, Republicans are almost united and Democrats quite split on the question of whether to slaughter more Iraqis indefinitely. All the Republicans are for it, and half the Democrats are for it too. But half the Democrats have come over to the side of the American public to receive the scorn of the pundits and preachers of Objectivity.

What nobody is making note of, though, is that the anti-war Democrats in Congress can balance the scorn that the media bestows on them with the implicit gratitude of the soldiers of the War for Independence, the war in which we were opposing, not creating, a foreign occupation.

I fully expect, one day soon, to wake up to this headline: "Dems split on torturing grandmothers," followed by words to this effect: "Republicans forced a deeply divided and uncertain Democratic Party onto the defensive this week, bringing to a vote their long-planned GT bill. The Grandmother Torture Act of 2006 provides the President with the freedom he needs in handling the rising threat from seniors engaged in terrorist activities, said several Republican leaders. The defeat is expected to hurt the Democrats in November, Diebold executives reported.

Of course, on the question of building permanent military bases in Iraq, it is the Dems in Congress who are united and the Republicans in Congress who are very much split. But that story is not a story, so it doesn't really matter who's split or not split or anything else. Nor is historic justice being served the way it should. Every member of Congress working to create permanent bases in Iraq for unwanted and illegal foreign troops should have two dozen reenactors of the American Revolution occupy their office and live off their campaign funds while endlessly reciting the Declaration of Impeachment.

Happy Fourth!

Bush Administration Stomps on Our Constitutional Rights

2006-06-27T07:36:00.000-07:00

By Rhonda Chriss Lokeman
The Kansas City Star
Sunday 25 June 2006

As we, the American people, approach the anniversary of our independence from tyranny in 1776, it pays to consider the Bill of Rights threatened by the secrecy-obsessed Bush administration.

Freedom of the press and religion, the right to peacefully assembly, freedom from unlawful searches and seizures have all been endangered by this administration's reckless conduct in the global war on terror.

The Clinton administration brought us the end to welfare as we knew it.

The Bush administration has brought us an end to the Constitution as we knew it.

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, must examine the Bush administration's excesses, misconduct and unlawful agenda affecting individual liberties and democracy.

To paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, the Bushvolk have defended democracy abroad and denied it at home. They have out-Nixoned Nixon.

In the next few weeks, expect several columns that celebrate our independence by describing our threatened liberties.

Let's have an open and honest public debate about issues of importance to our national identity.

We should all question why the federal government silenced librarians until after Congress renewed the USA Patriot Act.

Librarians who had wanted to speak publicly or testify before Congress during hearings were prohibited from doing so. They were threatened with federal imprisonment if they did. Once the Patriot Act was renewed, the gag was lifted.

We should question why animal-rights groups, environmental organizations and civil rights interests fall under the label "domestic terrorism." Since when is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals equal to al-Qaida?

Since when does telling the public about global warming threaten national security? Expect to learn why this White House considers your phone calls and e-mails the government's business not yours.

This White House has sought to quell debate by invoking such things as "executive privilege," "state secrets" and "national security." It has made the U.S. attorney general, sworn to uphold the Constitution, its lapdog.

It has made citizens fearful of writing signed op-eds and letters to newspaper editors that might get them labeled as subversive or "anti-Bush."

The Bushvolk are goose-stepping their way into history. They're trampling the Constitution. They have slandered jurists as "activist judges." They have misinterpreted Congressional intent and bent and/or broken laws.

Through indefinite incarcerations of people not charged with crimes, they have deprived people of the right to outside legal counsel and privileged communications.

With the oversight of an emasculated Congress, the administration has abused its powers to establish an imperial presidency.

We escaped one King George only to have crowned another.

We can keep America safe and free. We must confront terrorism and resist tyranny.

We, the people, must let freedom ring. To do anything less is to lose America.

Missing the Target

2006-06-19T13:27:00.000-07:00

Editorial, The Eugene Register-Guard
Friday, June 16, 2006

As the United States passed another milestone with word that 2,500 American troops had been killed in the Iraq war, Congress engaged in a sham debate Thursday about the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq.

A transparently partisan election-year resolution drafted by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives essentially endorsed President Bush's open-ended plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until the "mission is completed." Laden with references to victory, Sept. 11 and the sacrifices of brave soldiers, the sole purpose of the meaningless resolution was to force Democrats to vote against "the troops" and for "cowardly surrender to the terrorists."

The political stalemate prevents Congress and the administration from dealing with larger problems that will continue to fuel global terrorism no matter what the outcome in Iraq.

A significant study released this week by one of Britain's leading independent think tanks concluded that the United States' single-minded focus on fighting terrorism has raised, not lowered, the possibility of future large-scale terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the Oxford Research Group report says the U.S. obsession with terrorism is diverting precious human and financial resources from even more serious threats to global security.

The Oxford Group's conclusions were supported by a separate survey of 100 leading American foreign policy experts. The analysts included an ex-secretary of state and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. The bipartisan panel of experts listed the war in Iraq, the detention of terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay, U.S. policy toward Iran and U.S. energy policy as key reasons why the United States is less secure today than it was before the Bush administration launched its unrealistic "war" on terrorism.

The costly and destructive military response to terrorism is counterproductive as a long-term strategy because the collateral damage of war generates a continuous supply of new recruits to the terrorist cause. Short of a permanent occupation, it is still an open question whether a conventional military victory is possible in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Oxford Group ranks climate change higher than terrorism as a threat to global security. Other threats to peace that are likely to cause future international conflict are competition over dwindling resources, particularly fossil fuels; the widening gap between rich and poor people and nations; and the worldwide arms race, especially the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons.

In terms of widespread loss of life, the Oxford Research Group says the threats it has identified are potentially far deadlier than international terrorism. Even the Pentagon acknowledges that climate change vastly eclipses terrorism as a threat.

A 2003 report from the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment concluded that climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

The report's authors argue that the risk of abrupt climate change should be "elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."

Climate change is at the top of the threat pyramid because it has the potential to cause the greatest and longest-lasting harm. Fortunately, many of the most effective strategies to address climate change also mitigate other threats identified by the Oxford Group study.

Reducing gasoline consumption, switching to alternative fuels, emphasizing conservation and developing renewable energy sources all reduce greenhouse gas emissions as they relieve pressure on oil supplies. Those efforts also reduce the importance of oil in the geopolitical power balance.

Combined with more aggressive initiatives to address global poverty and to rechannel money from militarization to more humanitarian goals, the Oxford Research Group strategy offers an alternative to the Bush administration's increasingly dubious approach to confronting terrorism.

Instead of trying to frighten the American people into accepting a perpetual state of war, wouldn't it make more sense for Bush to embrace a truly international security strategy, one that endeavors to avert global disaster even as it addresses some of the root causes of terrorism?

Instead of asking only the U.S. armed forces and their families to sacrifice, wouldn't it change the dynamic of the struggle if the president enlisted every American in a campaign to combat global warming, reduce gasoline consumption and actively fight poverty?

If the current Congress is incapable of having a real debate on issues that affect the lives of every citizen, it will be up to voters in November to replace them with representatives who can.

BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS for JUNE 6 PRIMARY / RUN-OFF

2006-05-23T14:09:00.000-07:00

SAMPLE COMPLETED BALLOTS
click on your District to view a sample of a ballot completed with DEMCCO's recommendations:

49th Congressional District (Oceanside, Vista, Fallbrook, Temecula)

50th Congressional District (Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Marcos, Escondido)

Greetings DEMCCO members,
Here are the Board's ballot recommendations for the June 6 Primary. If you've already sent in your absentee ballot, share this with people who haven't yet voted. Absentee Voters: Use a pen with dark ink only (no red ink). Questions? Contact President Bill Fischer, 760-435-0046; wcfischer@yahoo.com.

FIRST, please note, there are two Democratic write-in candidates:

1) Judith Jones, of Orange County, for the CA 73rd Assembly District; and

2) Barbara H. Mead, DEMCCO member from Carlsbad, for the CA 38th Senate District.

They are the only Democrats running for those seats. Spell their names correctly on the appropriate line and BE SURE TO FILL IN THE BUBBLE. Five thousand people who wrote in Donna Frye's name didn't fill in the bubble. She lost the run-off for San Diego mayor. Judy needs about 1,500 valid write-in votes to qualify in November. Barbara needs about 2,000. Your write-in votes are critically important!

Oceanside members will be able to write in both names on their ballot. Most other members will only be able to write in Mead for the 38th Senate District.

SECOND, for voters in the 50th Congressional District, Francine Busby is on the ballot in two places:

1) Once against Bilbray for US Representative, 50th Congressional District Special Run-off Election; and

2) Once for US Representative, 50th Congressional District, Primary for Regular Term.

Be sure to vote for her in both places! The 50th Congressional District race is a bellweather for the November election. The whole country is watching us. So let's do it right!

Now let's get down to the rest of our voting business:

PARTISAN OFFICES

Governor - No recommendation. The State party endorsed Angelides. Some of our members are working also for Westly.

Lt. Governor - John Garamendi (No State Party endorsement for this race, DEMCCO pick)

Secretary of State - Debra Bowen (DEMCCO & State Party pick)

Controller - Joe Dunn (No State Party endorsement for this race, DEMCCO pick)

Treasurer - Bill Lockyer (DEMCCO & State Party pick)

Attorney General - No recommendation by either DEMCCO or the State Party

Insurance Commissioner - No DEMCCO recommendation (State Party endorsed Cruz Bustamente)

Member, Board Of Equalization, 3rd District -Mary Christian-Heising (DEMCCO & Party pick)

U.S. Senator - Diane Feinstein (DEMCCO & Party pick)

U.S. Representative, 49th District - Jeeni Criscenzo (DEMCCO member, DEMCCO & Party pick)

U.S. Representative 50th District Special Run-off Election - Francine Busby (DEMCCO & Party pick)

U.S. Representative 50th District, Primary for Regular Term - Francine Busby (DEMCCO & Party pick)

State Senator, 38th District - Write-in for Barbara H. Mead - FILL IN BUBBLE.

State Assembly, 73rd District - Write-in for Judith Jones - FILL IN BUBBLE.

Member of the State Assembly, 74th District - Roxana Folescu (DEMCCO & Party pick)

County Central Committee, 74th District (Vote for no more than six) - DEMCCO's pick-six:

Dale Ordas (DEMCCO Member, 74th Assembly District chair)
Douglas Hunter (DEMCCO Member, Criscenzo team)
Brian Van Riper (Political Consultant, NC Unity supporter)
Seena Seward (DEMCCO Member, Busby team)
Wayne Seward (DEMCCO Member)
Xavier Martinez (DEMCCO Member, Region 20 Chair)

NONPARTISAN OFFICES

Judge of the Superior Court, Office #16 - Randa Trapp (DEMCCO & Party pick)

Judge of the Superior Court, Office #36 - Rod Shelton (DEMCCO & Party pick)

Judge of the Superior Court, Office #49 - David Rubin (DEMCCO & Party pick)

State Superintendent of Public Instruction - Jack O'Connell (DEMCCO & Party pick)

County Board of Education, District 5 - No DEMCCO or Party Recommendation

Member, Board of Supervisors, District 5 - No DEMCCO or Party Recommendation

Assessor/Recorder/Cty Clerk - No DEMCCO or Party Recommendation

District Attorney - No DEMCCO or Party Recommendation

Sheriff - No DEMCCO or Party Recommendation

Treasurer/Tax Collector - No DEMCCO or Party Recommendation

MEASURES

Prop. 81, Reading, Literacy, Library - YES (DEMCCO & State Party pick)

Prop. 82, Preschool Education - YES (DEMCCO & State Party pick)

County Prop. A, CharterAmendment - YES (DEMCCO & State Party pick)

County Prop. B, Charter Amendment - NO (DEMCCO, State Party Yes)

Tri-City Healthcare (Prop. F) - YES (DEMCCO & State Party pick)

Busby Leads by 7% with 19 Days To Go

2006-05-18T10:54:00.000-07:00

The Buzz
www.BusbyForCongress.com

Dear Friend,

New Polling Data Shows Busby Up 7%

Great News! We released a new poll today that shows Francine at 47% to Bilbray's 40%. The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners. Here are excerpts from the polling memo.

We have completed our tracking research for California's 50th Congressional District run-off election. The poll was conducted May 12-15, 2006, with a random sample of 400 likely June run-off voters. Sampling error is +/- 4.9. Methods parallel the run-off benchmark poll of April, 2006.

With three weeks to go before Election Day, Francine Busby has opened up a lead over Brian Bilbray, with 47% for Busby and 40% for Bilbray, with 1% for minor candidates Libertarian Paul King and Independent William Griffith and 12% undecided. These data represent a swing from the benchmark of 9 points toward Busby from the benchmark poll, taken when Busby was the object of relentless attack ads.

There are several indicators of Busby's strength, as well as structural factors that will work to her advantage:

1. Busby's favorability has increased to 53% while Bilbray's has remained stagnant at 48%. There are nearly twice as many voters with a strongly favorable opinion of Busby (33%) than Bilbray (18%). Both candidates are universally known.

2. Busby leads despite the significant Republican registration advantage reflected in our sample of 50% Republican to 32% Democrat.

3. A clear and expanding majority of independent voters supports Busby over Bilbray, and Bilbray's share of Republican votes has continued to deteriorate since our early polls.

4. Busby holds an even wider edge among those voters deemed most likely to vote based on their past voting record.

Now we know why the National Republican Congressional Committee has now spent over $2.7 million trying to defeat Francine.

Labor Unions Threaten Boycott over Proposition 82

2006-05-16T10:18:00.000-07:00

Go to Original

Unions Threaten Gap Boycott Over California Ballot Measure
By Laura Mecoy
The Sacramento Bee

Thursday 11 May 2006

Los Angeles - Employing a new political tactic, two large labor unions are using the threat of a consumer boycott to try to curb corporate contributions to groups opposing the universal preschool initiative on the June ballot.

The Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees sent a letter last week threatening a national boycott of all of the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic stores.

They said they would launch the boycott if the Gap, its affiliates or any members of the family which founded the Gap donated to groups opposing actor and director Rob Reiner's preschool initiative, Proposition 82.

"It is our hope that you come to the conclusion that opposing preschool for every child in California is bad for kids and bad for California," said the letter signed by SEIU's and AFSCME's presidents and SEIU's secretary treasurer.

The two unions, AFSCME and SEIU, represent more than 2.7 million members nationwide. They are likely to gain more members if Proposition 82 is approved because it would allow collective bargaining among those working in the preschools the initiative would fund.

In their letter, they cited a $25,000 donation made by John Fisher, one of the sons of the Gap's founders, to one group fighting Proposition 82.

They also cited a second organization opposing the initiative, the California Business Roundtable, saying the Gap is a "leading member" of it.

None of the Fisher family members returned calls seeking comment.

Don Fisher, who founded the Gap, serves on the Business Roundtable's board, and he, his wife and his son, Robert Fisher, serve on the Gap's board. But John Fisher is not a member of the Gap's board.

Gap spokeswoman Stacy MacLean said the company hasn't taken a position on the initiative, hasn't given to either side and doesn't plan to get involved in the campaign.

"Some people are misrepresenting the contribution of an individual as reflecting the views of the company," she said.

Proposition 82 would raise upper-income Californians' taxes to pay for a free, half day of voluntary preschool for all the state's 4-year-olds by 2010.

The California Business Roundtable, the California Chamber of Commerce and several other business groups have said they oppose the measure because it is "badly flawed" and could ultimately hurt K-12 education funding.

Kathy Fairbanks, "No on 82" campaign spokeswoman, called the boycott threat and the union's statements "unfortunate," saying the opposition is widespread.

Nathan James, "Yes on 82" campaign spokesman, applauded the boycott threat and said the Fisher family patriarch, Don Fisher, has been soliciting donations for opponents.

"He's not been outspoken publicly," James said. "But in donor circles ... he's committed to fighting it by raising money against it."

Bob Stern, Center on Governmental Studies president, said he'd never heard of a group seeking to halt campaign contributions by threatening a boycott.

He said he had mixed feelings about the threat: He was pleased to see publicity about large campaign contributions but troubled by attacks on a company that was staying out of the election.

Bob Witeck, a Washington public relations executive who has worked with several large corporations facing boycotts, called the union's boycott threat "novel."

He said corporations take boycott threats very seriously because of the impact the negative publicity can have on a company's reputation. But he said boycotts are "very tough" to carry out because most consumers are unaware of them.

"The notion of getting into a boycott as a political tactic is very interesting," he said. "But I think it's going to be hard to convince and educate enough people to boycott the stores.... It's harder than people think."

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

2006-05-13T16:11:00.000-07:00

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t - Report
Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.

As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

Neighbor-to-Neighbor Outreach Day

2006-05-12T07:30:00.000-07:00

SATURDAY, MAY 13

SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY * GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING TEAM

Please sign up now for our Neighbor-to-Neighbor Outreach Day this Saturday afternoon, May 13, when Democrats will be walking and talking to voters in our own communities. Whether you're a first-time volunteer or a seasoned canvasser, we need your help to win.

The County Democratic Party will provide mini-trainings, maps, and precinct lists so you can talk to voters in your area. We'll be meeting in eight locations around the county (below), with the goal of developing the best County Democratic organization in California. After a short orientation we will head out to walk, then regroup a few hours later to debrief.

Even if you can't help on Saturday, let us know if you're interested, and we'll be sure to tell you about other opportunities to organize.

Please RSVP immediately for one of the events below so we can have your precinct list and packet ready. Just e-mail Ryan Hurd at ryan@sddemocrats.org or call (858) 277-3367.

CHULA VISTA
Saturday, May 13, 1:30 p.m.
Bob Filner Campaign Headquarters
240 Woodlawn Ave., #18
Chula Vista, CA 92112

ESCONDIDO (Martha is coordinating this location, along w/ the Busby Campaign doing targeted precincts)
Saturday, May 13, 11.30 a.m. (after the North County Dem. Unity mtg, which starts at 9a)
Communications Workers of America
1525 Simpson Way
Escondido, CA 92029

EL CAJON
Saturday, May 13, 1:00 p.m.
Denny's
2691 Navajo Road
El Cajon, CA 92020

KEARNY MESA
Saturday, May 13, 1:30 p.m.
Democratic Party Headquarters
8304 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite 108
San Diego, CA 92111

NORTH PARK
Saturday, May 13, 12:30 p.m. (after the Progressive Dems meeting, which starts at 10a)
North Park Adult Center
2719 Howard Avenue
San Diego, 92104

OCEANSIDE
Saturday, May 13, 1:00 p.m. (after the Criscenzo for Congress "Living Room Forum", which starts at 10:30a)
3270 San Thomas Dr.
Oceanside, 92056

POINT LOMA
Saturday, May 13, 1:00 p.m.
1168 Devonshire Dr.
San Diego, CA 92107

POWAY
Saturday, May 13, 1:00 p.m.
12448 Whispering Tree Lane
Poway, CA 92064

7 Days To Go....Support Francine Busby!

2006-05-05T10:21:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

Just a quick reminder: There are only 7 more days in our online vote that will determine which Democratic House incumbent and challenger will be featured in the next fundraising emails from PAC for a Change.

We've already heard from thousands of Americans -- including you. Thanks so much for casting your vote!

But we want to hear from thousands more Americans before voting ends. Please forward this email to your friends and family now!

Here's a look at the current standings of the top 15 House candidates... but remember, there's still a full week of balloting left, and anything can still happen between now and the close of voting on May 12th:

Current Vote Leaders (5/5/06):

Incumbents:

Rep. Chet Edwards (TX - 17th) ..............27%
Rep. Melissa Bean (IL - 8th)....................17%
Rep. John Salazar (CO - 3rd)...................16%
Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD - AL)..........11%
Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA - 3rd).............10%
Rep. Rick Larsen (WA - 2nd).....................8%

Challengers:

Francine Busby (CA - 50th)..........27%
Nick Lampson (TX - 22nd).....................15%
Tammy Duckworth (IL - 6th)..................9%
Lois Murphy (PA - 6th).............................7%
Diane Farrell (CT -4th)..............................7%
Patsy Madrid (NM -1st)............................6%
Ron Klein (FL - 22nd)................................5%
Charlie Wilson (OH - 6th)..........................4%
Eric Massa (NY - 29th)..............................4%

www.barbaraboxer.com/vote

Remember, because we'll send a fundraising email out to the entire PAC for a Change community on behalf of the two Democratic House candidates who win this online vote, our community's decision can mean tens of thousands of dollars of critical financial support for their deserving campaigns.

We saw the power of our PAC for a Change community at work in March when, thanks to your support, a similar fundraising email raised more than $68,000 for my friend and colleague Sen. Bill Nelson in his race against Katherine Harris in Florida.

Now we can do the same thing for two Democratic House candidates (one incumbent and one challenger) in key, competitive races across America -- two races that may well determine whether we pick-up the 15 seats we need to take back Congress this November.

Please invite your friends and family to make their choices now -- before our online polls close on May 12th!

www.barbaraboxer.com/vote

In Friendship,

Barbara Boxer

P.S. Thanks for casting your vote at www.barbaraboxer.com/vote. Now please invite your friends and family to cast their votes as well. Help us gather as much input as we can from citizens across America!

Cast your Vote | Visit BarbaraBoxer.com | Contribute Today!

Paid for by PAC for a Change, www.barbaraboxer.com, Treasurer Sim Farar, FEC#C00342048.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee

Arctic Refuge Drilling Fight Is Not Over Yet

2006-05-04T14:12:00.000-07:00

A Message from Robert Redford

Dear Friend,

We made them blink! Over the last two days, thousands of people like you deluged Senate offices with phone calls of outrage at the Republicans' phony proposal to deal with rising gas prices by sending out $100 checks.

Thanks to an astonishing nationwide outcry, Senate leaders are backpedaling as fast as they can from that insulting offer, which would pass even more of our taxpayer dollars to the oil companies.

But here's the bad news: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still in grave danger. Both the House and the Senate are teeing up new bills that would exploit high gas prices by sacrificing America's greatest wildlife sanctuary.

We can stop these pro-oil bills, but we've got to reach millions of Americans with the truth: that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would save consumers only one cent per gallon at the pump -- and that's 20 years from now!

I'm asking you to help us get the word out. It will take you less than 60 seconds. Go to

http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/redfordarctic/tellafriend.asp

right now and forward a pre-written message from me to six of your friends and family members.

Be sure they know that sacrificing the Arctic won't do a thing to ease their pain at the gas pump. Be sure they know our nation has the power to cut gas prices by reducing demand through cleaner, more efficient cars and renewable fuels.

Let's make sure Congress hears from the vast majority of Americans who want to solve the oil crisis by saving, not destroying, our natural heritage.

Thank you for playing such an important part in this campaign.

Sincerely,
Robert Redford
Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund

A Message from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

2006-05-02T07:52:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

Our generation faces the greatest moral and political crisis in human history. Will we take the steps necessary to avert catastrophic global warming or will we doom our children to a new Dark Ages in a world that is biologically and economically impoverished and defined by ever diminishing quality of life?

According to the grimmest forecasts, extreme global warming could give us a future where erratic and chaotic weather, rising sea levels, and melting snowpack usher in an epic of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions - and the political instability that invariably accompanies dwindling resources. Millions of environmental refugees uprooted by these calamities will challenge the existence of democracy, freedom, justice and human dignity in every corner of the globe. Our grandchildren may look longingly at our era as the apex of civilization and human progress.

This all may sound to some like absurd exaggeration, but climate change is real and you don't need a weatherman to know which way the mercury is already headed. The evidence is all around us. The polar ice caps, permafrost and glaciers are already disappearing faster than any of the early models could predict. Fresh water supplies are dwindling and deserts are growing. Oceans are rising, violent and unpredictable storms are ruining our coasts. Some island nations are already disappearing. Coral reefs and their fish populations are dying, worldwide. Unprecedented heat waves are already killing tens of thousands. Fires and endless droughts are already decimating vast expanses of once productive agriculture and timber lands. We are already experiencing mass extinctions and animals and plants are altering their behaviors to adapt to the rapidly changing climate. Disease organisms are expanding their ranges. The scientific debate is over, except among a few polluter-financed junk scientists and ideologically blinded flat-Earthers.

There is good news. First, we have the technology to avert catastrophic global warming. We only need to muster the political will. We must require our leadership in Washington to once again mobilize our country's scientific and technological capacity the way America did to win World War II against the Nazis in 1945, to put a man on the moon in 1969, and to fix the ozone crisis in 1988. Today, we need an Apollo project to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, we need our leadership to muster America's capacity for invention and innovation, our entrepreneurial energies and our willingness to sacrifice and deploy our invigorated nation to rescue human civilization. Second, all the actions we must take to avert this global warming are things America ought to be doing anyhow to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, our entanglement with petty dictators, our vulnerability to price shocks on the international oil markets, and to improve our national security, modify our trade deficits, reduce our national debt, stimulate our economy, create new jobs, and give our children clean air and water, robust health and safer, more wholesome communities.

Immediate dramatic action on global warming will restore America's global leadership and our moral authority among the nations of earth. We are asking you to help us express your own commitment to stop global warming through a single act of community - a giant petition drive that we call the "Stop Global Warming Virtual March on Washington." Over the next year, we will mobilize millions of Americans to join our march and make their personal commitment known by joining together to urge Washington to begin taking the steps necessary to derail global warming. Our mandate to stop global warming transcends politics. It is a moral imperative.

The battle to save the planet is the ultimate human rights struggle and, as with America's civil rights movement, the first steps must be to mobilize citizens to remind our elected leaders of their moral obligation. Global warming is a theft of our children's future. It is criminal and sinful. If we fail to take action, both our children and our divine creator will certainly have the right to ask us some very difficult questions. Please do your part join the march and give us the chance to make your voice heard.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Join the march at:
www.stopglobalwarming.org

Largest Antiwar Labor Turnout in U.S. History

2006-05-01T07:37:00.000-07:00

350,000 March for Peace, Justice, Justice and Democracy in New York City
United for Peace and Justice
Saturday 29 April 2006

Oscar Winners Susan Sarandon, Mercedes Ruehl and Jonathan Demme, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton, Hurricane Survivors, Iraq War Veterans, Military Families, Immigrant Rights Activists, Religious Leaders and Labor Unions Join Together to Call for New Priorities.

29 April 2006, New York, New York: The streets of New York City echoed today with the chants, songs and shouts of at least 350,000 people from across the United States. Mobilized around the calls to end the war in Iraq, to say no to any attack on Iran, and to support the rights and dignity of all people, including immigrants and women, the marchers brought a renewed urgency to the clear demand for change. The march featured the largest antiwar labor contingent in US history.

Initiated by a historic alliance linking a diverse coalition of national organizations - United for Peace and Justice, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the National Organization for Women, Friends of the Earth, Climate Crisis Coalition, US Labor Against the War, Veterans for Peace, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, People's Hurricane Relief Fund - the March for Peace, Justice and Democracy embodied the understanding that all those working for such goals must come together to right the reckless, dangerous, and wrong-headed direction the U.S. government has been following.

The march kicked off at noon on a sunny Saturday in Manhattan. The lead contingent included Oscar winning actors Susan Sarandon and Mercedes Ruehl; Oscar-winning film director Jonathan Demme; writer/actor Malachy McCourt; NYC Transport Workers Union leader Roger Toussaint; Air America host Randi Rhodes; Michael Berg, whose son was the first U.S. civilian hostage killed in Iraq; Reverend Jesse Jackson; Reverend Al Sharpton; Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan; Faiza Al-Araji, a peace and women's rights advocate from Iraq; John Wilhem, president of UNITE/HERE; National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy; and Anne Wright, the first State Department diplomat to resign protesting the Iraq War.

At the march's conclusion in Foley Square, a vibrant sea of flags, banners and signs welcomed marchers to the "Peace and Justice Festival." Issue tents featured speakers, literature, t-shirt sales, food and music highlighting the key issues of the wide-ranging March coalition: the war in Iraq and threats of war and U.S. nuclear attacks on Iran, a Palestine tent featuring Q&A on Israel/Palestine and folkloric dance in an Arab-style "cafe", counter-recruitment campaigners, a Labor tent featuring the NYC Labor Chorus, and others. A special Children's Peace Tent featured puppet-making and peace crane art projects, "Putt for Peace" and other games, face-painting, musicians and jugglers. Films, music, performances by the Raging Grannies and many other activities were featured as well.

According to Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of the 1,500-organization strong United for Peace and Justice Coalition, "An unprecedented range of organizations, committed to varied constituencies and a wide range of priorities, came together to march today. We all recognize that until we end this lethal war in Iraq - a war that is destroying so many lives in Iraq and here, and costing so many billions of dollars so desperately needed for rebuilding lives, cities and countries - that we cannot succeed at reclaiming our democracy."

Making Democracy Transparent

2006-04-25T16:02:00.000-07:00

David Dill
TomPaine.Common Sense
March 7, 2006

David Dill is a professor of computer science at Stanford University and founder and board director of the Verified Voting Foundation. In 2004 he recieved the Electronic Frontier Foundation's "Pioneer Award" for "spearheading and nurturing the popular movement for integrity and transparency in modern elections."

Public trust in our elections is eroding. While the general public still seems to accept election results, there is an undercurrent of bitterness that has grown tremendously over the last few years. There is a rapidly expanding body of literature on the Internet about the "stolen election of 2004," and several books on election fraud have recently been written. More are in the works.

Theories of widespread election fraud are highly debatable, to say the least. Some people enjoy that debate. I do not. It encourages a sense of hopelessness and consumes energy that could instead be focused on long-term changes that could give us elections we can trust.

The election fraud debate frames the problem incorrectly. The question should not be whether there is widespread election fraud. It should be: "Why should we trust the results of elections?" It's not good enough that election results be accurate. We have to know they are accurate - and we don't.

In a word, elections must be transparent. People must be able to assure themselves that the results are accurate through direct observation during the election and examination of evidence afterwards.

U.S. elections are far from transparent. Instead, winning candidates and election officials alike tend to put all their efforts into suppressing recounts. That attitude has led to increasing bitterness with each national election, at least since Florida 2000.

But we can conclusively win a debate about election transparency. And while making elections more transparent will be difficult, it is more feasible than solving many of our other national problems. All that is required for success is a long-term strategy and a commitment from many citizens at the grassroots level, since politicians and election officials are not going to solve the problems on their own.

Here are some initial thoughts on how we can do it. I propose a four part solution: We need to ensure that voting technology is transparent; election procedures need to be rethought to emphasize openness, security and checks and balances; election laws need to be revised to support these points and to make it easy for candidates to get reliable, manual recounts; finally, citizens need to participate in witnessing elections and making sure they are conducted properly.

Questions about voting technology have been in the spotlight in the last few years. The first concerns were about accuracy, inspired by the problems with punch cards in the 2000 election. The supposed solution to that problem lead to plans for the widespread adoption of paperless electronic voting. But paperless e-voting is totally opaque - no one can observe the handling of the (electronic) ballots. The hardware and software of modern computer systems are designed and built by thousands of specialists: Decades have passed since a single person could comprehend an entire computer system. As a result, there is no way to ensure that such voting systems are accurate or honest.

Right now, the only feasible solution to the insecurity of electronic voting is a universal requirement for voter-verified paper records of all ballots (VVPR). We also need to pass laws that enable candidates to obtain manual recounts easily and inexpensively. There is now a national movement to make sure this technology is used, and it's winning, slowly but surely. Since the 2004 election, state after state has passed laws requirement VVPRs, and others have required VVPRs by administrative decree. In most states, this is the result of grassroots activism by citizens groups with support from national groups. A recent example of an outstanding success is New Mexico's law requiring paper ballots, marked by the voters, which was signed March 2.

There remains much to do on the technology front, including converting hard-core e-voting states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia to VVPR (or, better, adopting a nationwide law, such as the one proposed by Rep. Rush Holt in the House or the one proposed by Sen. John Ensign). Also, the system for certifying voting technology at the state and national level is completely broken. But these problems can be solved with time and dedicated activism.

Election procedures need much greater attention, from the storage of equipment before an election to the storage of ballots after the last recount. Currently, inadequately tested voting machines break down on Election Day. Uncertified and sometimes buggy software is routinely used. Votes are counted behind closed doors. Machines and ballots are in the custody of a single individual, and are sometimes misplaced. Recounts are conducted with rules that are often made up on the spot.

Detailed election procedures need to be defined, taking into account the differences between jurisdictions (including differences in technology). These procedures need to be followed rigorously, even in remote locations with underfunded and understaffed election offices. Procedures need to be improved from election to election, and experiences with new procedures need to be shared among different election offices.

Many of the reforms in technology and procedures need to be codified in election law, including requiring VVPRs. There should be a law requiring the mandatory auditing of election results by manually counting paper ballots from a random sample of the precincts. Routine manual audits depoliticize recounts because they do not have to be requested by a candidate, and because they must occur regardless of whether an election is close or which candidate won. With routine audits, election problems can be discovered and addressed when the outcome of the election is not in dispute.

It is critical that candidates (or, even better, members of the public) be able to obtain manual recounts easily and inexpensively. In recent years, putative winners of close elections have often alluded the "chaos in Florida 2000" for the purpose of suppressing a recount. Recounts conducted under clear rules would not be so chaotic. It is simple common sense to take a close look at the ballots when there is a question about an election. A little cost or effort to satisfy a disgruntled candidate (and his or her supporters) pays huge dividends for democracy.

Finally, these improvements will have little effect unless citizens are more involved in elections. Citizens have to generate grassroots pressure for reforms. There need to be observers to take advantage of any increased openness in election procedures. Indeed, many procedural improvements depend on the presence of independent witnesses to be effective. Citizens need to be see what procedures are actually followed in an election, and compare that with the procedures that should be followed. We have seen time and time again that election laws are routinely ignored - unless someone is watching.

Many of our current problems stem from a "quick-fix" attitude - leading to fresh problems, such as the idea that new touch-screen machines would solve all our election woes. To have the kind of elections we need will take hard work and many years, and there will be setbacks along the way. But if we follow a long-term plan, we'll see that each election is better than the previous.

Go to Original.

Abuser of Science Nominated for Top EPA Job

2006-04-25T10:22:00.000-07:00

President Bush has nominated William Wehrum to be Assistant Administrator for Air & Radiation at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A former lawyer with Latham & Watkins, Wehrum currently serves as Acting Assistant Administrator for Air & Radiation.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/), William Wehrum has acted to weaken public health and environmental protections, run afoul of the Clean Air Act, and distorted objective analyses in favor of political agendas. In his five years as a political appointee at the EPA, he has distorted scientific analysis on toxic mercury emissions and attempted to marginalize the role of agency scientists in protecting the air we breathe.

Tomorrow, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will decide whether or not to confirm Wehrum as the EPA's top air quality official. Senator Barbara Boxer is a member of this committee.

Call today, April 25, 2006, and ask your senator to oppose Wehrum's confirmation.

Senator Barbara Boxer can be reached at (202) 224-3553.

Scientists Say They're Being Gagged by Bush

2006-04-19T17:09:00.000-07:00

By Juliet Eilperin
The Washington Post
Sunday 16 April 2006

White House monitors their media contacts.

Washington - Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.

Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.

These scientists - working nationwide in research centers in such places as Princeton, N.J., and Boulder, Colo. - say they are required to clear all media requests with administration officials, something they did not have to do until the summer of 2004. Before then, climate researchers - unlike staff members in the Justice or State departments, which have long-standing policies restricting access to reporters - were relatively free to discuss their findings without strict agency oversight.

"There has been a change in how we're expected to interact with the press," said Pieter Tans, who measures greenhouse gases linked to global warming and has worked at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder for two decades. He said that although he often "ignores the rules" the administration has instituted, when it comes to his colleagues, "some people feel intimidated - I see that."

Christopher Milly, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, said he had problems twice while drafting news releases on scientific papers describing how climate change would affect the nation's water supply.

Once in 2002, Milly said, Interior officials declined to issue a news release on grounds that it would cause "great problems with the department." In November 2005, they agreed to issue a release on a different climate-related paper, Milly said, but "purged key words from the releases, including 'global warming,' 'warming climate' and 'climate change.' ''

Administration officials said they are following long-standing policies that were not enforced in the past. Kent Laborde, a NOAA public affairs officer who flew to Boulder last month to monitor an interview Tans did with a film crew from the BBC, said he was helping facilitate meetings between scientists and journalists.

"We've always had the policy, it just hasn't been enforced," Laborde said. "It's important that the leadership knows something is coming out in the media, because it has a huge impact. The leadership needs to know the tenor or the tone of what we expect to be printed or broadcast."

Several times, however, agency officials have tried to alter what these scientists tell the media. When Tans was helping to organize the Seventh International Carbon Dioxide Conference near Boulder last fall, his lab director told him participants could not use the term "climate change" in conference paper's titles and abstracts. Tans and others disregarded that advice.

None of the scientists said political appointees had influenced their research on climate change or disciplined them for questioning the administration. Several researchers have received bigger budgets in recent years because President Bush has focused on studying global warming rather than curbing greenhouse gases. NOAA's budget for climate research and services is now $250 million, up from $241 million in 2004.

The assertion that climate scientists are being censored first surfaced in January when James Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the New York Times and the Washington Post that the administration sought to muzzle him after he gave a lecture in December calling for cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (NASA Administrator Michael Griffin issued new rules recently that make clear that its scientists are free to talk to members of the media about their scientific findings, including personal interpretations.)

Two weeks later, Hansen suggested to an audience at the New School University in New York that his counterparts at NOAA were experiencing even more severe censorship. "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," he told the crowd.

NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher responded by sending an agency-wide e-mail that said he is "a strong believer in open, peer-reviewed science as well as the right and duty of scientists to seek the truth and to provide the best scientific advice possible."

"I encourage our scientists to speak freely and openly," he added. "We ask only that you specify when you are communicating personal views and when you are characterizing your work as part of your specific contribution to NOAA's mission."

NOAA scientists, however, cite repeated instances in which the administration played down the threat of climate change in their documents and news releases. Although Bush and his top advisers have said that Earth is warming and human activity has contributed to this, they have questioned some predictions and caution that mandatory limits on carbon dioxide could damage the nation's economy.

In 2002, NOAA agreed to draft a report with Australian researchers aimed at helping reef managers deal with widespread coral bleaching that stems from higher sea temperatures. A March 2004 draft report had several references to global warming, including "Mass bleaching ... affects reefs at regional to global scales, and has incontrovertibly linked to increases in sea temperature associated with global change."

A later version, dated July 2005, drops those references and several others mentioning climate change.

NOAA has yet to release the coral bleaching report. James Mahoney, assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, said he decided in late 2004 to delay the report because "its scientific basis was so inadequate." Now that it is revised, he said, he is waiting for the Australian Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to approve it. "I just did not think it was ready for prime time," Mahoney said. "It was not just about climate change - there were a lot of things."

On other occasions, Mahoney and other NOAA officials have told researchers not to give their opinions on policy matters. Konrad Steffen directs the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, a joint NOAA-university institute with a $40 million annual budget. Steffen studies the Greenland ice sheet, and when his work was cited last spring in a major international report on climate change in the Arctic, he and another NOAA lab director from Alaska received a call from Mahoney in which he told them not to give reporters their opinions on global warming.

Steffen said that he told him that although Mahoney has considerable leverage as "the person in command for all research money in NOAA ... I was not backing down."

Mahoney said he had "no recollection" of the conversation, which took place in a conference call. "It's virtually inconceivable that I would have called him about this," Mahoney said, though he added: "For those who are government employees, our position is they should not typically render a policy view."

The need for clearance from Washington, several NOAA scientists said, amounts to a "pocket veto" allowing administration officials to block interviews by not giving permission in time for journalists' deadlines.

Ronald Stouffer, a climate research scientist at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, estimated his media requests have dropped in half because it took so long to get clearance to talk from NOAA headquarters. Thomas Delworth, one of Stouffer's colleagues, said the policy means Americans have only "a partial sense" of what government scientists have learned about climate change.

"American taxpayers are paying the bill, and they have a right to know what we're doing," he said.

Senate Hearings on Bush, Now

2006-04-18T19:22:00.000-07:00

By Carl Bernstein
Vanity Fair
Monday 17 April 2006

In this VF.com exclusive, a Watergate veteran and Vanity Fair contributor calls for bipartisan hearings investigating the Bush presidency. Should Republicans on the Hill take the high road and save themselves come November?

Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans - including some of the president's top lieutenants - now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans - nearing fifty percent in some polls - who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq....

Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.

In terms of imminent, meaningful action by the Congress, however, the question of whether the president should be impeached (or, less severely, censured) remains premature. More important, it is essential that the Senate vote - hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties - to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.

How much evidence is there to justify such action?

Certainly enough to form a consensus around a national imperative: to learn what this president and his vice president knew and when they knew it; to determine what the Bush administration has done under the guise of national security; and to find out who did what, whether legal or illegal, unconstitutional or merely under the wire, in ignorance or incompetence or with good reason, while the administration barricaded itself behind the most Draconian secrecy and disingenuous information policies of the modern presidential era......

Karl Rove and other White House strategists are betting (with odds in their favor) that Republicans on Capitol Hill are extremely unlikely to take the high road before November and endorse any kind of serious investigation into Bush's presidency - a gamble that may increase the risk of losing Republican majorities in either or both houses of Congress, and even further undermine the future of the Bush presidency. Already in the White House, there is talk of a nightmare scenario in which the Democrats successfully make the November congressional elections a referendum on impeachment - and win back a majority in the House, and maybe the Senate too.

But voting now to create a Senate investigation - chaired by a Republican - could work to the advantage both of the truth and of Republican candidates eager to put distance between themselves and the White House.

The calculations of politicians about their electoral futures should pale in comparison to the urgency of examining perhaps the most disastrous five years of decision-making of any modern American presidency.....

A voluminous accumulation of documentary and journalistic evidence suggests that the policies and philosophy of this administration that may be illegal and unconstitutional stem not just from Bush but from Cheney as well - hence there's even greater necessity for a careful, methodical investigation under Senate auspices before any consideration of impeachment in the House and its mischievous potential to create the mother of all partisan, ideological, take-no-prisoners battles, which would even further divide the Congress and the country....

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their colleagues have successfully evaded accountability for the dire consequences of their policies through a tried-and-true strategy that has exploited a situation in which the press (understandably) has no subpoena power and is held in ill repute (understandably) by so many Americans, and the Republican-controlled Congress can be counted on to ignore its responsibility to compel relevant, forthright testimony and evidence - no matter how outrageous (failure to provide sufficient body armor for American soldiers, for example), mendacious, or inimical to the national interest the actions of the president and his principal aides might be.

As in Watergate, the Bush White House has, at almost every opportunity when endangered by the prospect of accountability, made the conduct of the press the issue instead of the misconduct of the president and his aides, and, with help from its Republican and conservative allies in and out of Congress, questioned the patriotism of the other party. As during the Nixon epoch, the strategy is finally wearing thin. "He's smoking Dutch Cleanser," said Specter when Bush's attorney general claimed legality for the president's secret order authorizing the wiretapping of Americans by the N.S.A. - first revealed in The New York Times in December....

As in the Nixon White House, the search for leakers and others in the executive branch who might be truthful with reporters has become a paranoid preoccupation in the Bush White House. "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country," Bush added. (The special prosecutor's revelation that Bush himself - through Cheney - was ultimately behind Scooter Libby's leaking to undermine Joseph Wilson has ironically caused Bush more damage among Republican members of Congress than far more grievous acts by the president.)

Literally dozens of investigations have been ordered at the C.I.A., the Pentagon, the National Security Agency, and elsewhere in the executive branch to find out who is talking to the press about secret activities undertaken in this presidency. These include polygraph investigations and a warning to the press that reporters may be prosecuted under espionage laws....

In the wake of the death and devastation in New Orleans, President Bush refused to provide the most important documents sought by Congress or allow his immediate aides in the White House to testify before Congress about decision-making in the West wing or at his Crawford ranch in the hours immediately before and after the hurricane struck. His refusal was wrapped in a package of high principle - the need for confidentiality of executive branch communications - the same principle of preserving presidential privacy that, presumably, prevented him from releasing official White House photos of himself with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff or allowing White House aides to testify about the N.S.A. electronic-eavesdropping program on grounds of executive privilege.

The unwillingness of this president - a former Texas governor familiar with the destructive powers of weather - to deal truthfully ("I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," he said in an interview with Good Morning America three days after the hurricane hit) and meaningfully with the people of the Gulf Coast or the country, or the Congress, about his government's response ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job") to Hurricane Katrina may be the Rosebud moment of his presidency. The president's repeated attempts to keep secret his actions and those of his principal aides by invoking often spurious claims of executive privilege and national security in the run-up to the war in Iraq - and its prosecution since - are rendered perfectly comprehensible when seen in relation to the Katrina claim. It is an effective way to hide the truth (as Nixon attempted so often), and - when uncomfortable truths have nonetheless been revealed by others - to justify extraordinary actions that would seem to be illegal or even unconstitutional.

Is incompetence an impeachable offense? The question is another reason to defer the fraught matter of impeachment (if deserved) in the Bush era until the ground is prepared by a proper fact-finding investigation and public hearings conducted by a sober, distinguished committee of Congress.

We have never had a presidency in which the single unifying thread that flows through its major decision-making was incompetence - stitched together with hubris and mendacity on a Nixonian scale. There will be no shortage of witnesses to question about the subject, among them the retired three-star Marine Corps general who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war's planning, Gregory Newbold.

Last week he wrote, "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat - Al Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy." The decision to invade Iraq, he said, "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results." Despite the military's determination that, after Vietnam, "[W]e must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it.… We have been fooled again."....

In Watergate, Republicans were the ones who finally told Richard Nixon, "Enough." They were the ones who cast the most critical votes for articles of impeachment, ensuring that Nixon would be judged with nonpartisan fairness. After the vote, the Republican congressional leadership - led by the great conservative senator Barry Goldwater - marched en masse to the White House to tell the criminal president that he had to go. And if he didn't, the leadership would recommend his conviction in the Senate and urge all their Republican colleagues to do the same.

In the case of George W. Bush, important conservative and Republican voices have, finally, begun speaking out in the past few weeks. William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the modern conservative movement and, with Goldwater, perhaps its most revered figure, said last month: "It's important that we acknowledge in the inner counsels of state that [the war in Iraq] has failed so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure." And "Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq.… If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of this jam." And "The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country."

Even more scathing have been some officials who served in the White House under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's father. Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy aide in the Reagan administration, a deputy assistant treasury secretary for the first President Bush, and author of a new book, Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, noted: "A lot of conservatives have had reservations about him for a long time, but have been afraid to speak out for fear it would help liberals and the Democrats" - a situation that, until the Senate Watergate Committee hearings, existed in regard to Nixon. "I think there are growing misgivings about the conduct of the Iraq operation, and how that relates to a general incompetence his administration seems to have about doing basic things," said Bartlett.

After Nixon's resignation, it was often said that the system had worked. Confronted by an aberrant president, the checks and balances on the executive by the legislative and judicial branches of government, and by a free press, had functioned as the founders had envisioned.

The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush - at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard.

There was understandable reluctance in the Congress to begin a serious investigation of the Nixon presidency. Then there came a time when it was unavoidable. That time in the Bush presidency has arrived.

Read the entire article here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041806Z.shtml

Confronting Iran

2006-04-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

Dianne Feinstein
The Los Angeles Times
Saturday 15 April 2006

Will we learn from our mistakes and apply tough diplomacy - or rely once again on the failed doctrine of preemption?
--Dianne Feinstein, California's senior US senator.

Tehran this week claimed that it had enriched uranium, a first step toward nuclear weapons capability. The question now is whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or will it set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran?

No one concerned about U.S. national security wants Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. It would be a destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world. That's exactly why we need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution.

Instead, the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned.

The doctrine of preemption, first articulated by President Bush at West Point in June 2002, was spelled out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy: "The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves."

Just a few weeks ago, the doctrine was reiterated in the latest National Security Strategy. According to this document, the U.S. may use force before it is attacked because the nation cannot afford to "stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Yet it is the doctrine itself that is dangerous.

First, it demands that our intelligence be right - every time. This is difficult, if not impossible, in the shadowy world of terrorism and WMD. As we've seen in Iraq, intelligence not only can be wrong, it can be manipulated. Our nation's credibility and stature have taken a huge hit as a result, and the U.S. is in no position to garner support in the international community for military confrontation based on preemption.

Second, the doctrine of preemption may lead to a less stable world in general - especially if our adversaries believe they are safe from preemptive action only if they possess nuclear weapons. Iran has no doubt noted the difference in our dealings with North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which the administration believed was still developing them. So the administration may have encouraged the very proliferation it is seeking to prevent.

Third, an overreliance on preemption can lead to the downplaying of diplomacy. By the administration's own account, Iran is years away from possessing nuclear weapons; there is time to engage in forceful diplomatic action.

The dangers inherent in preemptive action are only multiplied by reports that the administration may be considering first use of tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons in Iran: Specifically, nuclear "bunker busters" to try to take out deeply buried targets.

There are some in this administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons more "usable." They see nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional weapons. This is pure folly.

As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East.

This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.

There is no question that in the post-9/11 era, a full range of policy options for dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my view, nuclear options cannot be considered as an extension of conventional options.

So what steps should the United States be taking?

The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.

We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.

At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

The United States should learn the lesson of Iraq. It should not make the same mistake twice. There is broad agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community. Now is the time for tough diplomacy, joined by our allies, not a premature military confrontation that could include nuclear devastation.

Enough of the D.C. Dems

2006-03-30T09:45:00.000-08:00

By Molly Ivins
The Progressive Magazine
March 2006

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don't know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don't jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

I can't see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can't even see straight.

Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They're talking about "a lobby reform package." We don't need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift - a perfect lesson on what's wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don't mess around with little patches, and fix the system.

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it's a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.

2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.

3) Single-payer health insurance.

Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, "unpatriotic" by a bunch of rightwingers.

Take "unpatriotic" and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? "Unpatriotic"? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.

Who are these idiots talking about Warner of Virginia? Being anodyne is not sufficient qualification for being President. And if there's nobody in Washington and we can't find a Democratic governor, let's run Bill Moyers, or Oprah, or some university president with ethics and charisma.

What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let's get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has "all the money sewed up."

I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money.

We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain't chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let's go find a good candidate early and organize the shit out of our side.

Molly Ivins writes in this space every month. Her latest book is "Who Let the Dogs In?"

New Congressional Pledge of Allegiance

2006-03-30T08:40:00.000-08:00

A Plan to Establish a National Political Movement to Clean-Up Congress

And Restore Public Faith in our Democracy
by Ira Lechner

I. Overview

The Jack Abramoff-Duke Cunningham-Tom DeLay affairs have entangled national lawmakers in the worst scandal in years, reminiscent in scope and seriousness of Watergate and Absam. The scandal has highlighted the incestuous, mercenary, and too often corrupt nature of politics in Washington today. Abramoff and DeLay, in particular, have come to personify the "pay-for-play" culture that has overtaken Congress.

The origins of the Abramoff-DeLay scandal can be traced to the early days of the "Republican Revolution" when the new Republican majority in 1995 gave lobbyists an unprecedented role in shaping policy in the US House of Representatives. Lobbyists representing such corporate interests as oil and gas, timber, pharmaceutical, and insurance interests literarily set up shop in Tom Delay's office when he later became Majority Leader. In exchange for this unique access, lobbyists were pressed into making additional campaign contributions or address their deficiencies in contributions to Republican candidates, an arrangement referred to as "the K Street Project." These activities quickly spilled over into special interest travel and other favors, some legal and others illegal.

Of course, lobbying abuses predate 1995. When Congress enacted gift bans in the 1990's in reaction to the abuses under Democrats, they crafted the ban to include enough loopholes, especially when it comes to travel, to render the bans ineffective.

Now Congress is scurrying to pass changes in the lobbying rules and laws in the wake of the Abramoff lobbying scandal. However, most of the "reform" items are simply designed to give members cover in an attempt to take the issue off the table for the 2006 congressional elections.

America was founded, in part, on the principle that representative democracy would produce a government that, in fact, represents the people. We believe the only way to minimize the political-corporate-lobbying complex that currently drives policy decisions in Washington is for the people to demand fundamental change in the way members of Congress interact with corporate interests, their lobbyists, and other well-funded special entities.

II. The Pledge Fund

We therefore propose creating a public interest vehicle to embark on a comprehensive public affairs campaign to generate overwhelming public and media support to "Clean-Up Congress" with a simple, concise, and irrefutable set of Congressional Rules changes that fundamentally would sever the direct flow of money to Members of Congress, other than through lawful campaign contributions. (The plan anticipates that separate "Clean Money" campaigns on a national and state-by-state scale will continue to attempt reformation of campaign financing laws.) We plan to establish a non-profit 527 organization whose purpose includes raising public integrity as a critical issue in the 2006 Congressional elections. But, more importantly, the organization's purpose is to create an environment in which candidates are compelled by public pressure to support fundamental changes in the way Congress conducts its business, and, in particular, to create enormous public and media pressure on all candidates for Congress - including incumbents - to take "The Pledge" to clean-up Congress.

The Pledge Fund will embark on a public affairs campaign that first coincides with the public and congressional debate on lobbying reform, and secondly, holds candidates accountable for their position on lobbying and related congressional reform throughout the 2006 election campaign, and through the 2008 election cycle as well. The ultimate goal will be to create a national public interest movement to remove the corrosive influence of the direct flow of money, gifts, entertainment, free meals, and travel on national policy making. The campaign will include non-paid communications in the media, national television advertising on cable news stations, broadcast television advertising in targeted congressional districts, internet advertising on progressive blogs, and mass voter e-mail communications by utilizing national e-mail data bases.

III. The Pledge

We will be asking all 2006 candidates and incumbents for the House of Representatives and the Senate on a bi-partisan basis to commit to supporting fundamental changes in the way Congress does business by changing the Rules of each legislative body on the first day of the new session in January, 2007. This effective strategy bypasses the "trap" of attempting to enact bi-cameral legislation that needs to be approved by both Houses and signed into law by the President. The Rules changes will not only curb abuses of power involving the flow of money but also will make other needed congressional reforms in the way that the Congress does business. Candidates will be asked to demonstrate their support for such reforms by taking this public "Pledge" to clean-up Congress by voting for the following changes:

Limiting the Corrosive Influence of Money

1. Ban all Gifts and Favors. No Member of Congress and no staff employee of any Member, or of congressional committees, shall accept any thing of value from any member of the public (other than legal campaign contributions or personal gifts from family members who have no financial interest in any legislative matter). Members and staff shall pay the full retail value of any meal and attendance at sporting and entertainment events, etc.

2. End Congressional Committee Financial Conflicts of Interest. All members serving on any committee or subcommittee must recuse themselves from voting in committee or subcommittee on any measure if they have received any campaign contribution in excess of $1,000 during that election cycle from any industry, business, corporation, union, lobbyist, or other interest that specifically stands to gain a direct economic benefit from the measure pending before the committee or subcommittee.

Curbing Abuses of Power

3. Abolish Special Interest Funded Travel. Any Member of Congress or staff traveling on any airplane, or other mode of transportation, will pay the full retail cost or value of such flight or transportation, including on any non-commercial airplane, unless approved by Congress for congressional work and paid for by tax dollars, with immediate public reporting of the approval of such travel.

4. Hold Members to the same standards as everyone else. Any member of Congress who receives a security clearance must be subject to the same financial scrutiny by independent Inspector Generals within the career civil service of the Justice Dept of the members' personal bank accounts and financial transactions that Civil Service employees of the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. are subjected to who receive the same level of security clearance (this is particularly appropriate for members on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees and subcommittees, all of whom receive security clearances).

5. End special interest "Christmas ornaments". Each "earmark" to appropriations measures shall be voted upon separately by the full House and Senate as if they were separate amendments to the measure.

"What the Hell Are We Voting On?"

6. Post All Legislation in Advance of Votes. The House and Senate will not consider legislation (including Conference Reports) unless printed copies of such legislation have been available to all Members and the public via internet posting for a period of at least 48 hours. This rule can be waived only if two-thirds of the House or Senate votes to approve such a waiver.

7. End Secret Additions To Legislation. No provisions may be added by the Majority Leadership to legislation approved by conferees of a Conference Committee after the conferees have concluded voting on the measure under consideration.

"Effective Enforcement To End Abuses of Power"

8. Avoidance or evasion of these Rules changes by use, or substitution, of campaign contributions to a Member to pay for travel, entertainment, meals, attendance at sporting events, etc. instead of direct gifts or payment shall be treated as a violation of the Rules and punishable by criminal penalties (criminal penalties have to be enacted by separate law).

9. An independent Office of Public Integrity as recommended by Senators Lieberman and Collins that would report to the Ethics Commission, or an Independent Ethics Commission composed of retired Federal Appellate Judges (one from each United States Circuit Court of Appeals appointed by the Chief Judge of each Circuit Court) to consider complaints lodged by any elected Member of Congress and to award appropriate penalties for violation of the Rules including censure, monetary fines, stripping of leadership positions and/or membership on committees and sub-committees, and referral to criminal authorities for investigation and ultimate prosecution if warranted.

10. No Exceptions !

IV. The Public Affairs Campaign

We propose a comprehensive paid and free media communications and public affairs campaign to be conducted both in "waves" and on an on-going basis. The first waive would kick off the "Take the Pledge" campaign as Congress returns to work in February and as lobbying reform proposals are considered by the House and Senate. The purpose of this "wave" will be to inform the public, opinion leaders, and elected officials about the "Take the Pledge Campaign" and seek support for the campaign. The second "wave" would coincide with scheduled voting on alleged "reform" proposals in the Congress. The purpose of the second flight will be to influence and pressure members of Congress to vote for as comprehensive and fundamental change as is possible. The final wave would occur during the fall campaigns for House and Senate seats. The purpose will be to inform voters about the record of support of "The Pledge" by the candidates for the House and Senate. Free media and web communications will be on-going throughout 2006.

(A) National Cable Television - A national television advertising campaign on cable news channels, including CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox, and MSNBC, will be conducted in several flights. The first flight of two weeks will be a part of the "Take the Pledge" kick-off campaign. Another two to three week flight will occur during congressional debate of proposed reforms leading up to votes. A final flight of three weeks will be scheduled during the fall 2006 congressional campaigns.

(B) Broadcast Television in Targeted Congressional Districts - Broadcast television advertising in ten to twelve targeted congressional districts will be conducted during each of the three "waves." The purpose of the advertising will initially be to put pressure on incumbent members to "Take the Pledge" and support reform, and later to inform voters about the records of reform of the candidates. Districts will be chosen on the basis, in part, on which members are most susceptible to public pressure and districts in which the members are most vulnerable for refusing to support reform.

(C) Internet Advertising - Advertising on the top progressive internet blogs will be conducted to generate support for the "Take the Pledge" campaign and to put pressure on members of Congress to support comprehensive reform. Internet advertising will coincide with other paid advertising.

(D) Mass E-Mail Campaign - A mass e-mail campaign to registered voters nationally and in targeted districts will occur in conjunction with the other paid communications.

(E) Live Web Casting of Press Conferences - Press conferences will be web-cast live on the "Take the Pledge" Web site and other interested web sites. Press conferences will be designed to announce the "Take the Pledge" campaign and apply continued pressure on members of Congress to support The Pledge.

V. Budgets

The Pledge Fund's budget is $7.7 million dollars for this strategic communications issue campaign. These resources will be allocated as follows:

Polling (2 national polls/ten targeted polls) $125,000

Cable Television (4 weeks @ $500,000 per wk) $2,000,000
Internet Advertising (8 wks @ $25,000 per wk) $200,000
Mass E-Mail Campaign $200,000
Website creation and maintenance $50,000
Live Web casting $25,000
Administrative/Legal $150,000
TOTAL $2,750,000

VI. Organizers

This effort will be managed by individuals with a combined 80 years of public policy and public affairs experience.

Ira Lechner - "Senior Strategist". Former U.S. Senate staff member to Senator Paul Simon, former Member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and longtime Democratic strategist in a multiplicity of Presidential and other Federal and State campaigns, Ira has been a driving force behind creation of "The Pledge" campaign He will continue in that role as an unpaid volunteer.

Russ Lehman - As an attorney Russ represented a wide array of clients including individuals and institutions. As a public affairs professional, Russ has played critical leadership roles in political campaigns for local, state and federal offices. Together with Chris Sautter, Russ created the nationally recognized and highly successful independent campaign which ousted U.S. Senator Slade Gorton in 2000. Because of his passion for and commitment to integrity and quality in public policy making, Russ has been for the last 10 years a highly valued Instructor at the graduate level in two universities.

Chris Sautter - Chris Sautter, President of Sautter Communications/Sautter Films, is an award-winning political media consultant, attorney, and filmmaker. Campaigns & Elections magazine included Sautter in a feature on "Rising Stars: A Telescopic View of Emerging Kingmakers." Sautter has advised and produced media for dozens of progressive Democratic candidates from coast-to-coast. Sautter has won several Pollie Awards for excellence in creative media in political races, including a spot for EMILY's List on behalf of Jane Harman's election to a Los Angeles area congressional district. In addition, Sautter has directed and produced two award-winning documentary films: The King of Steeltown: Hardball Politics in the Heartland (2001) about machine politics in a campaign that sent six public officials to federal prison on public corruption charges (winner of "Best Political Documentary" at the New York International Independent Film Festival), and So Glad I Made It about an obscure singer songwriter living on the margins of the music business (put on the 2005 GRAMMY ballot by the Recording Academy).

Three Events on Friday, March 17th

2006-03-14T06:37:00.000-08:00

Three Events This Friday, March 17th in Oceanside Feature Iraqi Blogger Speaking Out on Living through President Bush's Failed War

Join Francine and Hundreds of Volunteers For Our Buses for Busby Weekend

2006-03-14T06:31:00.000-08:00

Absentee ballots will be mailed this week and voters will have them in hand by Saturday. It is vital we are walking this weekend convincing absentee voters to vote for Francine. If we turn our voters out, we can win in April!

Please join volunteers from all over California who are bussing to North County to support Francine's campaign. Hundreds of volunteers will be knocking on doors all day to ensure Francine's victory on April 11th.

We only have four weekends left! This weekend will be one of the most important weekends, so please come join us as we walk our way to victory.

Date: Saturday, March 18th
Time: 10:30 AM
Location: 1525 Simpson Way in Escondido

After walking, join Francine and volunteers for food, drinks and a big send off to all the volunteers with SoCal Grassroots.

To RSVP email volunteer@busbyforcongress.org

Directions:

From the South: Take I-15 N and exit W Valley Parkway and turn Right, turn Left on N Tulip St., turn Left on N Hale Ave, turn Right on Simpson Way

Commemoration of Fallen and Protest of Bush's Failed Foreign Policy in Balboa Park

2006-03-13T08:51:00.000-08:00

Join with Progressives from Our Communities at Commemoration of Fallen and Protest of Bush's Failed Foreign Policy in Balboa Park on Saturday, March 18th.

Click here to visit the NCCPJ's event web page for full details, including maps and details for traveling by train, as well as the agenda for the protest.

Click here for NCCPJ's "Contact Us" page to send an e-mail to one of their board members with any questions or concerns on coordinating travel by train.

Click here to view the website for the San Diego Coalition for Peace & Justice, the primary coordinator of the vigil and protest, where you can download and print several fliers for the event.

YOU can help give greater voice to those who oppose the President and his corporate cronies and congressional followers who have brought our nation the greatest foreign policy failure and economic catastrophe in a generation!

Busby Presents PartyResponse to President's Weekly Radio Address

2006-03-03T10:12:00.000-08:00

"Francine Busby, the North County Unity Coalition's Endorsed Candidate in the April 11th Special Election for the 50th Congressional District is Delivering the National Democratic Party Response to President Bush's Weekly Radio Address on Saturday, March 4th at 12:00PM"

Forgive this late notice - the Vice-President of one of our North County Unity Coalition's affiliated clubs just informed us that Representative Nancy Pelosi called to invite Francine Busby to deliver the nationally broadcast official Democratic Party response following the President's Weekly Radio Address this week! The Democratic response airs in San Diego on several stations, including KOGO AM-600 radio, and is broadcast live at 12:00 Noon, PST.

The radio station's website includes a live streaming audio capability so you can listen from anywhere in the country - click here to visit their "home" page and select the "Listen Live" graphics on the right hand side of the screen.

In fact, the response will be broadcast on stations across the nation and around the world, including ABC, AP, AURN, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, NPR, American Forces Radio, Voice of America, BBC, CBC, among many others.

You can also log onto the Democratic Party's official website and hear audio of recent Democratic Weekly Radio Addresses, as well as read transcripts of the presentations. Francine's address should be posted at the site by late Saturday afternoon. Click here to visit the Party's "Democratic Radio Address" webpage and click on the link with Francine's name, which should appear at the top of the page once available.

So tune this Saturday at noon to AM-600 and hear our endorsed candidate provide an alternative to the president's plan to allow US port operations be taken over by a United Arab Emirates-owned company. Francine will emphasize the importance of protecting all of America's ports from terrorism to a national (and international) audience!

And please forward this e-mail message on to friends, coworkers, family, and members of your religious congregation or community group -- especially those in the 50th Congressional District!

Please join other North County Unity in supporting our 50th Congressional District candidate's radio broadcast to the world - our voice will be heard!

Matt O'Connor

Communications Chair

More Filibuster Information

2006-01-28T15:18:00.000-08:00

Since last night, PFAW activists poured well over a quarter-million faxes into the offices of key senators who can provide critical support to a filibuster of Samuel Alito's nomination.

A growing number of senators have joined the effort to stand up for the rights of ordinary Americans. We've flooded fax machines -- now swamp your senators' offices with calls asking them to support the filibuster!

(202) 224-3121

Tell us how your calls go by visiting http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/CallReport

FILIBUSTER ALITO NOW

2006-01-28T15:13:00.000-08:00

Harry Reid met with progressive lobbyists on Tuesday and told them he has nearly 44 votes against Alito, but there are 8 Democratic Senators who will not support a filibuster.

Only 41 votes are needed for a filibuster. If Reid has nearly 44 votes against Alito, every one of those Senators should support a filibuster or their vote against Alito is meaningless.

So call the Democrats who are leading this battle and demand a united Democratic filibuster:
Harry Reid (NV)
Dick Durbin (IL)
Chuch Schumer (NY)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Pat Leahy (VT)

Use these toll free numbers to call the Capitol: 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir

Reid would not name the "Alito 8" who are blocking a Democratic filibuster - so we need to identify them and tell them not to betray the Democrats who funded them and voted for them.

The most likely suspects are the "Red State" Democrats:
Tom Carper (DE)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Mark Pryor (AR)

Also call these "Blue State" and pro-choice Republicans:
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Susan Collins (ME)
Lisa Murkowsky (AK)
Bob Smith (OR)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)

For extra credit, call all the 2008 Presidential candidates who are sitting Senators - Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry - and tell them to either LEAD THE FILIBUSTER or FORGET ABOUT YOUR SUPPORT.

You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).

Share what you learn with Democrats.com members here:
http://www.democrats.com/alito-8

AB 583 -- CLEAN MONEY/FAIR ELECTIONS -- FINAL PUSH IN THE ASSEMBLY

2006-01-28T15:00:00.000-08:00

It's working!! On Thursday, January 19, the Assembly Appropriations Committee passed AB 583, the Clean Money bill, out of the committee. It will go now to an Assembly floor vote. In order for AB 583 to remain viable, it must pass out of the Assembly to the Senate by January 31.

Legislative support, as measured by the number of coauthors of the bill, continues to grow. There are now 31 coauthors. AB 583 has also been amended so that it needs only a majority vote of each House and a subsequent vote of the people.

ACTION NEEDED: Keep the pressure up and again please contact Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and your Assembly Member to ask them to support AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. Every member of the Assembly needs to be reminded that people across California want them to change the way elections are financed in California by passing this sweeping reform. Please complete your calls before January 27.

Here is a list of members of the Assembly that we feel are close to supporting this bill and need an extra nudge from Leaguers. If one of them is your representative, it is especially urgent for you to act now! In order of priority:

Barbara Matthews, Rebecca Cohn, Juan Arambula, Keith Richman, Dario Frommer, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Ted W. Lieu, Ed Chavez, Ronald Calderon, John J. Benoit, Tom Harman, Juan Vargas, Simon Salinas, Jerome Horton, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Joe Baca, Bill Maze, Carol Liu, Rudy Bermudez, Lynn Daucher, Shirley Horton, Nicole Parra, Sam Blakeslee

POINTS TO MAKE: Read our earlier Call to Action on AB 583 (http://lwvc.org/lwvc/action/call/ab583_2006-01-06.html) for "points to make" for your letter or call.

But remember that it can be as easy as saying "I'm calling to ask that Speaker Nunez strongly support AB 583, the Clean Money bill." It just takes a minute!

For a simple way to write a letter, visit www.caclean.org and click on Take Action Right Now! to generate letters you can print and then mail or Fax.

SPREAD THE WORD: We hope every Assembly Member will receive an official message from each local League in his or her district. In addition, legislators need to have as many contacts as possible from individuals. Spread the word to your friends, colleagues, and other groups with whom you work.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Go to www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html for contact information, or see below for the Speaker of the Assembly. Note: Fax numbers for Sacramento offices are the same as the phone numbers except that the fifth digit is a "1" instead of "0." For example, Assembly Member Barbara Matthews' phone number is (916) 319-2017 and her Fax is (916) 319-2117.

Contact information for Speaker Fabian Nunez:
(916) 319-2046 or (213) 620-4646, Fax: (916) 319-2146
speaker.nunez@assembly.ca.gov

Countdown to Special Election - Make a Difference!

2006-01-20T11:38:00.000-08:00

There are 81 days until the Special Election on April 11 for the 50th Congressional District Representative, a seat vacated by the resignation of Randy Cunningham, marking the first race in 2006 for Congress in the United States. The entire country is watching with great anticipation, as the tip of the pendulum can be swung right here and now. We are in fortuitous times for our District, one of those special moments in history where each person has a real opportunity to make a difference in the direction of our government.

The 50th District stretches from Carlsbad south to La Jolla and also includes Carmel Valley, Sorrento Valley, Mira Mesa, Miramar, Clairemont Mesa, Rancho Penasquitos, portions of Rancho Bernardo, Escondido, and portions of San Marcos.

Francine Busby has been campaigning for this seat for over a year. She ran in 2004, losing to Cunningham (59% to 37%) and was the only candidate in the race to call on Cunningham to resign. She's been a strong voice for ethics reform, proposing her own legislation to clean up corruption in Congress. Her far reaching Change Legislative Ethics and Attitudes Now (CLEAN) House ethics reform proposal calls for banning outside financial relationships with government contractors, eliminating anonymous appropriations, and banning all privately funded congressional travel, and is more ambitious than any currently introduced in Congress.

Francine's outsider status (she's worked in the business and non-profit sectors) sets her apart. A self-described Encinitas "soccer mom", she is a Cardiff School Board trustee and teaches at Cal State San Marcos. Her other policy priorities include reducing the national debt, developing an exit strategy from Iraq, defeating terrorism, strengthening our economy, environmental protection, health care reform, and immigration reform. She is an honest, approachable, hard-working individual with boundless energy who will faithfully serve as the people's representative in the 50th District.

Although the District may be viewed as Republican, the crowded field of Republican candidates, most of whom are sitting officeholders, may weaken their advantage in the April 11th Special Election. EMILY's List, the nation's largest grassroots political network with over 100,000 members, considers this to be one of the most dynamic races in the country, and has strongly endorsed Francine Busby.

Republicans in Congress have made an ethics reform proposal now that their hands have been caught in the cookie jar. What sets Francine Busby apart is that she understands this race is about more than merely Democrats vs. Republicans; it's about being a true people's representative, restoring ethics, responsibility, and accountability in government, and building a strong nation from the foundation of its people.

We urge you to seize the opportunity to really make a difference and send a loud wake-up call to Washington. Contributions are needed for the advertising costs required to maintain visibility. An important key to a successful campaign is for each person to be involved at the neighborhood level, such as to:

a) ensure that all registered Democrats make it to the polls or submit absentee ballots;

b) recruit registered Independents to vote for Francine Busby; and

c) convince registered Republicans who are fed up with the corruption in Congress.

Precinct lists can be obtained from DEMCCO, your local Democratic Club, or through the first link below. An essential ingredient of success is good voter turnout!

Please check out these links for information on the Busby campaign and how you can get involved in really making a difference. This is indeed a special opportunity knocking!

http://www.francinebusby2006.org/

http://www.busbyforcongress.org/wycd_grassroots-groups.php

http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20051130.html

Under Fire, Tom Delay Steps Down

2006-01-07T12:08:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press
Saturday 07 January 2006

Washington - Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay decided Saturday to give up his post as House majority leader, clearing the way for new leadership elections among House Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal, two officials said.

These officials said DeLay, R-Texas, was preparing a letter informing fellow House Republicans of his decision. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the formal announcement.

DeLay is battling campaign finance charges in Texas and was forced to step aside temporarily as majority leader last fall after he was charged in his home state. He has consistently maintained his innocence and said he intended to resume his leadership post once cleared.

His about-face came amid growing pressure from fellow Republicans who were concerned about their own political futures in the wake of this week's guilty pleas by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the party whip who temporarily has filled in for DeLay, was expected to run for majority leader.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, a former member of the leadership, is also likely to run.

Elections are likely the week of Jan. 30, when lawmakers return to the Capitol.

DeLay intends to remain in Congress, these officials said, and plans to seek a new term in November.

DeLay acted hours after a small vanguard of Republicans circulated a petition calling for leadership elections and citing DeLay's legal problems as well as his long ties to Abramoff.

The Constitution in Crisis

2005-12-22T20:57:00.000-08:00

Executive Summary of Report By House Judiciary Committee Minority Staff

The Downing Street minutes and deception, manipulation, torture, retribution, and coverups in the Iraq war

This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this request in the wake of the President's failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122 Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate. Mr. Conyers asked staff, by year end 2005, to review the available information concerning possible misconduct by the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War and post-invasion statements and actions, and to develop legal conclusions and make legislative and other recommendations to him.

In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.

In addition, we believe the failure of the President, Vice President and others in the Bush Administration to respond to myriad requests for information concerning these charges, or to otherwise account for explain a number of specific misstatements they have made in the run up to War and other actions warrants, at minimum, the introduction and Congress' approval of Resolutions of Censure against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Further, we recommend that Ranking Member Conyers and others consider referring the potential violations of federal criminal law detailed in this Report to the Department of Justice for investigation; Congress should pass legislation to limit government secrecy, enhance oversight of the Executive Branch, request notification and justification of presidential pardons of Administration officials, ban abusive treatment of detainees, ban the use of chemical weapons, and ban the practice of paying foreign media outlets to publish news stories prepared by or for the Pentagon; and the House should amend its Rules to permit Ranking Members of Committees to schedule official Committee hearings and call witnesses to investigate Executive Branch misconduct.

The Report rejects the frequent contention by the Bush Administration that there pre-war conduct has been reviewed and they have been exonerated. No entity has ever considered whether the Administration misled Americans about the decision to go to war. The Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet conducted a review of pre-war intelligence distortion and manipulation, while the Silberman-Robb report specifically cautioned that intelligence manipulation "was not part of our inquiry." There has also not been any independent inquiry concerning torture and other legal violations in Iraq; nor has there been an independent review of the pattern of coverups and political retribution by the Bush Administration against its critics, other than the very narrow and still ongoing inquiry of Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

While the scope of this Report is largely limited to Iraq, it also holds lessons for our Nation at a time of entrenched one-party rule and abuse of power in Washington. If the present Administration is willing to misstate the facts in order to achieve its political objectives in Iraq, and Congress is unwilling to confront or challenge their hegemony, many of our cherished democratic principles are in jeopardy.

This is true not only with respect to the Iraq War, but also in regard to other areas of foreign policy, privacy and civil liberties, and matters of economic and social justice. Indeed as this Report is being finalized, we have just learned of another potential significant abuse of executive power by the President, ordering the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying and wiretapping without obtaining court approval in possible violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

It is tragic that our Nation has invaded another sovereign nation because "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," as stated in the Downing Street Minutes. It is equally tragic that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have been unwilling to examine these facts or take action to prevent this scenario from occurring again. Since they appear unwilling to act, it is incumbent on individual Members of Congress as well as the American public to act to protect our constitutional form of government.

Get the Full Report here: http://www.truthout.org/3.122005ConRes.pdf

Senate Blocks ANWR Drilling

2005-12-21T13:58:00.000-08:00

By H. Josef Hebert
The Associated Press

Wednesday 21 December 2005

The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a must-pass defense spending bill where supporters positioned the oil drilling issue to garner broader support.

Drilling backers fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.

The vote was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who for years has waged an intense fight to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He had thought this time he would finally get his wish. During the vote, a grim-faced Stevens, 82, who had fought to open the refuge to drilling since 1980 and is the most senior Republican in the Senate, sat midway back in the chamber, watching his colleagues. When it became apparent that he had lost, he briefly talked with Frist, presumably over what move should be taken next. He briefly shook his head, a signal of his disappointment.

Democrats, conversely, accused Stevens of holding hostage a military spending bill that includes money to support troops in Iraq and $29 billion for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

A decade ago a Republican-led Congress used a parliamentary maneuver to get an ANWR bill successfully past a filibuster, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. This time President Bush has made ANWR drilling one of his top priorities and is eager to sign a bill.

Drilling opponents long have argued that ANWR's oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain's fragile ecosystem and its wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

Read the whole story here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122105Y.shtml

Bill Frist Shows His True Colors

2005-12-20T21:35:00.000-08:00

1. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) threatened to use a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the "nuclear option" to stop a filibuster over the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, should the Democrats attempt to exercise one.

Robert Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat, said "If the senator wants a fight, let him try it. I'm 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven't been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined."

"I will do everything I possibly can if your side chooses, if the Democrat side chooses to filibuster," Frist said.

2. Senator Frist renewed his call for passage of legislation to immunize the drug industry from legal accountability for death, disability or sickness caused by the use of pandemic flu vaccines and pharmaceuticals. The legislation has been tacked on to the Defense Authorization Bill and has never been debated or voted on in either the House or Senate.

Frist has utilized the public fear of avian flu to push this sweeping liability shield through for the drug industry. Frist's plan is especially troubling because it provides no means for victims who are seriously injured to seek compensation, unlike other federal vaccine programs. Frist wants to shield companies from legal responsibility when their negligence, recklessness, deceptive claims - or even intentional failure to warn users about potential dangers - sicken or kill the people who take their pandemic vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

Frist's claim that drug companies need the incentive of a liability shield because the vaccine business is not lucrative enough is simply not true. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) already has the authority to exempt drugmakers from liability under the kind of "hazardous" circumstances that would be present during a disease pandemic.

3. Senator Frist spoke today of the importance of passing the Defense Authorization Bill "without any more obstruction" because of the urgency to protect Americans from terrorism. He failed to mention that his special-interest giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry and Senator Ted Stevens' provision that would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling have been unethically tacked on to the bill.

4. These recent actions of Senate Majority Leader Frist, a doctor, have demonstrated how far he has strayed from the principles of first preventing harm to patients, and how profoundly he has stooped to pandering to special industry interests. His position in the Senate has apparently transformed him into a deceitful megalomaniac.

House Opens Way for Artic Oil Drilling

2005-12-19T14:57:00.000-08:00

On Sunday evening, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) succeeded in adding a last-minute provision to the Defense Authorization Bill that would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. House lawmakers opened the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as one of their last acts of an all-night session Monday bringing their legislative year to a close.

Senator Stevens is leading the charge in the Senate to sacrifice the Arctic Refuge and hand the oil industry a billion-dollar gift for the holidays. He and other pro-drilling Senators have failed to pass their Arctic giveaway through legitimate legislative means.

So now they're hijacking the defense bill, and funding for American troops, to ram through their special interest agenda. Our Senators are under enormous pressure to vote Yes on this "must-pass" defense spending bill.

In an attempt to garner support for the provision, the added language also ties money for Katrina relief to drilling revenues. The House passed this version of the bill early this morning, and the bill is now moving to the Senate, which will vote in the next two days on a defense spending bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

It is outrageous that Arctic Refuge drilling has been slipped into the Defense Authorization Bill. The issue of oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge is too important to the American public and future generations to be snuck through in an attempt to circumvent the established process. It should be fully debated and brought to a vote on its own merits.

Drilling ANWR is not the solution to our energy problems. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would spoil this last great wilderness for an extremely insignificant amount of oil which would have little effect on high gas prices. It will also take 20 years for this oil to even enter the market.

Please call our Senators now and tell them to get Arctic drilling out of the defense bill (H.R. 2863), where it does not belong, and to use a filibuster if necessary.

Senator Dianne Feinstein: (202) 224-3841
Senator Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, denounced the ANWR provision. "There is something especially outrageous about the willingness of the majority party leadership to allow the Defense Department bill, in a time of war, to be held hostage to totally unrelated special interest items," Obey said.

Read the whole story here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905Y.shtml

Bush Pal O'Dell Resigns as Diebold CEO, Chairman

2005-12-14T14:37:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press

Monday 12 December 2005

Diebold Inc., a maker of automatic teller machines, said Monday that Chairman and Chief Executive Walden W. O'Dell has resigned "for personal reasons."

The company named President and Chief Operating Officer Thomas W. Swidarski to the additional role of chief executive and named him a member of the board. In addition, the board elected John N. Lauer, who has been a director since 1992, as non-executive chairman.

Diebold reiterated its outlook for the fourth quarter for earnings between 50 cents and 60 cents per share, including restructuring charges of 13 cents. Full-year earnings are still expected to range from $1.70 to $1.80 per share, including 30 cents in restructuring charges, 8 cents in manufacturing start-up costs and a one-time gain of 18 cents.

Analysts project fourth-quarter profit, excluding certain items, of 64 cents per share and full-year income of $1.91 per share.

In October, the company reported third-quarter earnings slid 45 percent to $26.4 million, or 37 cents per share, on softer demand and customer installation delays. Revenue rose 3 percent to $622.3 million. On Sept. 22, Diebold shares dropped sharply when the company lowered its outlook for the third quarter and analysts panned the stock, saying the company was executing poorly in a positive market.

Diebold shares fell 73 cents in aftermarket activity, after closing up 11 cents to $37.73 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Voting Facts They Don't Want You To Know

2005-12-08T09:41:00.000-08:00

VOTING FACTS WHICH AID THE REPUBLICANS IN WINNING ELECTIONS

ES&S, based in Omaha, Nebraska, is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: ES&S and Diebold, Inc. of Canton, Ohio.

The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.

Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, which, however, do all log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.

Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.

Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.

Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States.

None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.

California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it.

30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.

All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.

The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother.

Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.

Today only Florida, Kentucky and Virginia permanently deprive felons of their franchise once they have cleared parole. Ten other states restrict those rights in various ways. But especially in Florida, that ban remains a major key to Republican supremacy.

Some ten percent of the black population in Florida---possibly more---remains effectively disenfranchised. Since the black community now regularly votes 90% for Democratic candidates, this represents a huge and vital windfall for the GOP. Without it, Al Gore would have carried Florida 2000---and thus the presidency---by tens of thousands of votes, rather than allegedly losing it by several hundred.

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was the Ohio chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign.

Ken Blackwell was at the same time Ohio's Secretary of State. As such, he set the rules for the election by issuing directives to the boards of elections in Ohio's 88 counties.

He also decided every disputed issue on which the local boards of elections had a 2-2 vote.

Franklin County (Columbus) Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder, former head of the county's GOP, said that in an average year he cancels 200-300 felons voting rights. But he said in the 2004 election he cancelled the rights of 3500 alleged former felons to vote. Many of their convictions date back to 1998, and some who received letters had merely been indicted, and had never been convicted of any felony at all.

There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.

Voting Machines Under Scrutiny

2005-12-07T14:33:00.000-08:00

By Brian Bergstein
The Associated Press

Wednesday 07 December 2005

States face a January 1 deadline to meet reliability standards.

The potential perils of electronic voting systems are bedeviling state officials as a Jan. 1 deadline approaches for complying with standards for the machines' reliability.

Across the country, officials are trying multiple methods to ensure that touch-screen voting machines can record and count votes without falling prey to software bugs, hackers, malicious insiders or other ills.

These are not theoretical problems - in some states they have led to lost or miscounted votes.

One of the biggest concerns - the frequent inability of computerized ballots to produce a written receipt of a vote - has been addressed or is being tackled in most states.

An October report from the Government Accountability Office predicted that steps to improve the reliability of electronic voting "are unlikely to have a significant effect" in the 2006 off-year elections, partly because certification procedures remain a work in progress.

"There's not a lot of precedents in dealing with these electronic systems, so people are slowly figuring out the best way to do this," said Thad E. Hall, a political scientist at the University of Utah and co-author of "Point, Click, and Vote: The Future of Internet Voting."

In North Carolina, more stringent requirements - which include placing the machines' software code in escrow for examination in case of a problem - have led one supplier, Diebold Inc., to say it will withdraw from the state, where about 20 counties use Diebold voting machines.

A different type of showdown is brewing in California, where Secretary of State Bruce McPherson says he might force makers of the machines to prove their systems can withstand attacks from a hacker. One such test on a Diebold system - Diebold machines were blamed for voting disruptions in a 2004 California primary - is planned.

The state has been negotiating details with Harri Hursti, a security expert from Finland who uncovered severe flaws in a Diebold system used in Leon County, Fla. (He demonstrated how vote results could be changed, then made screens flash "Are we having fun yet?")

Similarly, elections officials in Franklin County, Ohio - where older voting machines gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a preliminary count in 2004 - recently asked computer experts to test newly purchased touch-screen voting machines from Election Systems and Software Inc.

Such designated hack attempts might be a flawed approach, because a failure proves only that a particular hacker could not break into a machine under certain conditions. That is not the same as opening things up to a broader group of researchers, as software developers sometimes do. Many critics of touch-screen election computers argue that the software should be publicly examined to make sure vote tampering could not occur.

A McPherson spokeswoman said the hacking test would be one of many factors in deciding whether to approve the voting machines. McPherson has released a 10-point plan for certification efforts, including a software code escrow system.

The scrutiny is likely to make California miss a Jan. 1 deadline set under the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002.

That law was aimed at phasing out the punch-card ballots and other old-fashioned systems that proved problematic in 2000. It requires states to improve disability access at polling places in addition to standardizing electronic voting systems.

A report by Election Data Services Inc., a political consulting firm, for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission determined that 23 percent of American voters used electronic ballots in 2004, a 12 percent increase over 2000.

Since then, largely because of warnings from computer security experts and grass-roots activism, many states have began requiring the machines to produce paper receipts that voters can examine. At least 25 states have such rules and 14 more have requirements pending, according to the Verified Voting Foundation.

"There's a long way to go - making our elections truly trustworthy in this country is a multifaceted problem," said David L. Dill, a Stanford University computer scientist and founder of the foundation. But he added that he expected a "much better situation in 2006" and noted that improving electronic voting has become "a delightfully nonpartisan issue."

Manufacturers insist that their voting machines are reliable and that critics have made too much of isolated problems.

"Anytime there's an issue that happens with a particular voting system, all vendors are painted with the same broad brush," said Michelle Shafer, a spokeswoman for Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. "There are differences from product to product. You need to look at the track record of particular companies."

A Real Exit Strategy

2005-12-06T16:52:00.000-08:00

By Gus R. Stelzer
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Monday 05 December 2005

Despite much talk about an exit strategy from the Iraq quagmire in which our nation is embroiled, the No. 1 exit strategy has not been proposed. Let me fill that void. First you have a right to know where I'm coming from.

When I reached the legal voting age of 21 in 1936, I voted for Republican Alfred Landon against Franklin D. Roosevelt. I continued voting Republican through 1980, when I founded a PAC in San Diego with my own money to help Ronald Reagan defeat Jimmy Carter.

But I didn't vote for Reagan in 1984 because of his misguided trade and fiscal policies.

Whereas the United States enjoyed a $28 billion trade surplus and only $700 billion in federal debt in the previous 36 years, in eight years Reagan piled up $1.042 trillion in trade deficits and $1.692 trillion in federal debt. That was 186 percent more than all 39 prior presidents.

I haven't voted for a Republican or Democrat candidate since because I have no desire to vote for the lesser of two evils. I retired in 1976 as a senior executive of General Motors, with responsibility for more than 35,000 employees, and have been a member of the World Affairs Council, the Institute for the Americas at the University of California, the Advisory Board of the School of Education at the University of San Diego, a Rotary Club president, etc. I've traveled widely and lived in many states.

Any CEO of a corporation who screwed up as many things as George W. Bush would have been fired by its board of directors. Here's a few of the ways:

Invasion of Iraq, which is the biggest strategic blunder and scandal in US history. Saddam Hussein never initiated a belligerent act of aggression or terrorism against us. The buildup to that war was based on fabrications, deception and lies.

Death of 2,100 US soldiers, wounding 15,000 more, and the death of 30,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

Immoral and unconstitutional trade policies that caused $2.824 trillion in trade deficits in just five years.

The worst fiscal performance in our history, piling up $2.472 trillion in added federal debt in five years en route to a major economic collapse.

Tax policies that are an insult to working people who make dividends possible but who are required to pay a higher marginal tax rate than those who collect dividends without working.

Foreign policies that have alienated most of the rest of the world.

A misguided attempt to turn future Social Security pensions over to Wall Street.

In typical arrogance, Bush said we must stay the course in the Iraq war, which means continuing his tragic record while killing and wounding more US soldiers. That has no more credibility than to say a fox should be put in charge of maintaining order in a hen house after he has just created mayhem therein.

Earlier this year, Terri Schiavo lay in a permanent coma connected to a feeding tube. Her husband said she would have wanted that tube removed. But Republican members of Congress passed a resolution to maintain the tube, causing Bush to fly from his ranch in Texas to Washington to sign that legislation.

As his pen was poised to sign the document, Bush said, "If there is an error in this matter, it is best to err on the side of life."

Why didn't Bush make that same judgment in early 2003 when millions of Americans protested against a possible invasion of Iraq, as did many foreign leaders? Bush had no qualms about killing and wounding thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians.

In view of his miserable record, his arrogant lack of good judgment and his failure to understand the gravity of his record, President Bush (and Vice President Dick Cheney) should be shown the exit door with a proviso to never darken the Oval Office again.

That should be exit strategy No. 1!

I was a Republican, but never a knee-jerk Republican.

Now is the Time to Support Francine Busby

2005-11-29T08:34:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's resignation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham has jump-started the race to replace him in Congress as the 50th District Represenative. Francine Busby has been consistently campaigning to restore sorely-needed integrity and ethics in our district and in Congress. This is the best chance that Democrats have had in 15 years to win this seat and send a message to Washington that voters, Democrat, Independent, and Republican, are fed up with rampant corruption and want a true representative.

Last week Francine introduced her Change Legislative Ethics and Attitudes Now (CLEAN) House Act, a proposal tougher than any in Congress at this time, at a gathering in Mira Mesa. The CLEAN House Act has 4 main elements:

1. Ban All Outside Financial Relationships with Government Contractors;
2. Ban Members Promoting Specific Businesses for Government Contracts of Regulatory Favors;
3. Eliminate Anonymous Appropriations; and
4. Ban All Privately-Funded Congressional Travel.

There is no reason why members of Congress should not be subject to the same standards that we impose on ourselves.

As we wait for the timetable for a special election to come from the Governor's office, there are things we can do to support Francine's campaign. A good first step is to visit her website at:

http://www.busbyforcongress.org/

There are menu selections for what you can do to support her campaign such as volunteer (many activities) or intern, sign up for her newsletter "The Buzz", and most important, register to vote! You can also learn about your precinct through DEMCCO and pass out information to residents in your area while geting to know them. You can hold an event in your home or local public building where Francine can speak to your neighbors and local residents. The main thing to do is to get involved! Please feel free to contact DEMCCO for more information.

The "Duke" Pleads Guilty

2005-11-28T13:02:00.000-08:00

Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy

By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press Writer

Monday, November 28, 2005

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham admitted taking $2.4 million in bribes as part of guilty pleas Monday in a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques.

Cunningham, 63, entered pleas in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.

Cunningham answered "yes, your honor" when asked by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns if he had accepted bribes from someone in exchange for his performance of official duties.

After the hearing, Cunningham was taken away for fingerprinting. He will be released on his own recognizance until a Feb. 27 sentencing hearing. He could receive a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

He also agreed to forfeit to the government his Rancho Santa Fe home, more than $1.8 million in cash and antiques and rugs.

In a prepared statement, prosecutors said Cunningham admitted to receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes paid to him by several unnamed conspirators through a variety of methods, including checks totaling over $1 million, cash, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees and vacations.

"He did the worst thing an elected official can do; he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there," U.S. Attorney Carol Lam said in the statement.

The case began when authorities started investigating whether Cunningham and his wife, Nancy, used the proceeds from the $1,675,000 sale to defense contractor Mitchell Wade to buy a $2.55 million mansion in ritzy Rancho Santa Fe. Wade put the Del Mar house back on the market and sold it after nearly a year for $975,000; a loss of $700,000.

Cunningham, a Republican, is an eight-term congressman and former Vietnam War flying ace known on Capitol Hill for his interest in defense issues and his occasional temperamental outbursts

Cunningham has been under investigation since his sale of the home attracted the attention of federal authorities.

He drew little notice outside his San Diego-area district before the San Diego Union-Tribune reported last June that he'd sold the home to Wade.

The house sale was just one in a series of too-friendly deals for Cunningham. Though he denied wrongdoing when he announced in July that he wouldn't seek re-election, Cunningham himself acknowledged it didn't look good.

Cunningham's pleas came amid a series of Republican scandals. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, had to step down as majority leader after a Texas prosecutor indicted him in a campaign finance case; a stock sale by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is being looked at by regulators; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was indicted in the CIA leak case.

In addition to buying Cunningham's home at an inflated price, Wade let him live rent-free on his yacht, the Duke Stir, at the Capital Yacht Club. His firm, MZM Inc., donated generously to Cunningham's campaigns.

Around the same time, MZM was winning valuable defense contracts, and Cunningham sits on the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense dollars. In 2004 the little-known company based in Washington, D.C., tripled its revenue and nearly quadrupled its staff, according to information posted on the company Web site before Wade stepped down as president and the company was sold to a private equity firm.

An associate of Wade, Brent Wilkes, president of a Poway company called ADCS Inc., also gave Cunningham campaign cash and favors. Wilkes reportedly flew Cunningham in a corporate jet to go hunting in Idaho and golfing in Hawaii, and a charitable foundation Wilkes started spent $36,000 hosting a black tie "Tribute to Heroes" gala in 2002 that feted Cunningham with a trophy naming him a hero.

ADCS, which specializes into turning paper records into digital files, has received tens of millions in Defense Department contracts since the late 1990s. In some years, lawmakers on Cunningham's spending panel added the money themselves, even scolding the Pentagon for not requesting it in the first place.

Unlike Wade and Wilkes, the third man federal investigators focused on, Thomas Kontogiannis, apparently wasn't in the defense business. Like them he had a mutually beneficial relationship with Cunningham.

Cunningham wrote to prosecutors in 2000 on behalf of Kontogiannis, a New York developer then under investigation in a bribery and kickback scheme involving school computer contracts. Two years later, Cunningham made $400,000 selling his 65-foot flat-bottom riverboat to Kontogiannis.

Also, a company run by Kontogiannis' nephew and daughter helped Cunningham finance a condominium in Alexandria, Va., and his house in Rancho Santa Fe.

Kontogiannis ultimately pleaded guilty to fraud charges. He told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Cunningham gave him advice on attorneys to contact to explore getting a presidential pardon.

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this story.

A Memorable Thanksgiving Memorial

2005-11-28T02:50:00.000-08:00

Monday, November 28, 2005

A Memorable Thanksgiving Memorial

The Bring Their Buddies Home event of November 25 was a memorable experience for every one of the several hundred participants who stood shoulder to shoulder along Carlsbad Boulevard in silent memorial to our troops who have died in the war. Each participant was dressed in black with a Memorial Page of one of the fallen troops pinned to the front of his/her shirt. The event provided a solemn, living visual image of the human cost of war.

In the words of Bill Fischer, President of the Democratic Club of Carlsbad/Oceanside:

"I was deeply moved to be standing there with a young man's name pinned to my chest, knowing that he had given his life for his country. I wanted his name to be known. I wanted people to respect his sacrifice. I wanted people to feel solemn, to stand quietly in honor of the dead, not to speak or socialize in any way. I am grateful to Jeeni Criscenzo for creating that reverent moment to personalize the loss of life which has been otherwise overlooked by the majority of citizens. It brought the war home, where it needs to be keenly felt."

The event was organized by Jeeni Criscenzo who is campaigning to become the Congressional Representative for California's 49th District. More information is available at:

http://www.dreamofjeeniforcongress.com/

The Bring Their Buddies Home memorial was well received by onlookers and those passing by. Those showing approval outnumbered the naysayers by approximately 40 to 1. Several Marines who had asked about the event during the day expressed their appreciation of what the participants were doing. It will never be forgotten by those who were there.

The Differences Between The Parties

2005-11-28T01:49:00.000-08:00

In Saturday's Local News, the free Copley newspaper serving Carlsbad, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos and Vista, The Jack List had an interesting juxtaposition in its first two entries - "Republican Club" and "Democratic Club." Having these announcements side by side demonstrates some of the fundamental differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Republican Club: The Escondido Republican Women Federated's officers installment luncheon is set for 11:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Escondido Country Club, 1800 Country Club Lane. Laura Sumrall, chairwoman of the Republican Voter Registration Task Force for the California Republican Party, will talk about voter registration. State Assemblyman Mark Wyland officiates at the installation. Cost: $13.50. RSVP Information/reservations: Mary Ann Fulton at (760) 746-9917.

Democratic Club: The Democratic Club of Carlsbad-Oceanside's Christmas potluck party features introductory comments by Lester Cohen and a talk on finding peace in Iraq by 51st Congressional District Representative Bob Filner from 3 to 6 p.m. December 4 at the Carlsbad Women's Club, 3320 Monroe Street, Carlsbad. Donation baskets will be available for aid to local military families. Members are requested to bring warm items for the needy. Open to the public. Information/reservations: Judy Wolf at (760) 434-0061.

For more information on the Democratic Club event, go to: http://www.demcco.org/meeting.html

New York Times Editorial

2005-11-27T15:39:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from today's New York Times Editorial by Frank Rich:

Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt ...

Neither man (George W. Bush or Dick Cheney) engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for "victory." Instead, both impugned their critics' patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war.

There is more going on here than politics...The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.

The cover-up is failing, however. No matter how much the president and vice president raise their decibel levels, the truth keeps roaring out. A nearly 7,000-word investigation in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times found that Mr. Bush and his aides had "issued increasingly dire warnings" about Iraq's mobile biological weapons labs long after U.S. intelligence authorities were told by Germany's Federal Intelligence Service that the principal source for these warnings, an Iraqi defector in German custody code-named Curveball, "never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

Right after the L.A. Times scoop, Murray Waas...reported in the nonpartisan National Journal that 10 days after 9/11, "President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."...More damning still, Mr. Waas finds that the "few credible reports" of Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts actually involved efforts by Saddam to monitor or infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups, which he regarded as adversaries of his secular regime.

What these revelations also tell us is that Mr. Bush was wrong when he said in his Veterans Day speech that more than 100 Congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraqi war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" he did. They didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief that Mr. Waas uncovered. They didn't have access to the information that German intelligence officials spoke about to The Los Angeles Times. Nor did they have access to material from a Defense Intelligence Agency report, released by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan this month, which as early as February 2002 demolished the reliability of another major source that the administration had persistently used for its false claims about Iraqi-Al Qaeda collaboration.

As Scott Shane reported in The New York Times last month, Vietnam documents are now off limits, too: the National Security Agency won't make public a 2001 historical report on how American officials distorted intelligence in 1964 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident for fear it might "prompt uncomfortable comparisons" between the games White Houses played then and now to gin up wars.

"We're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," the vice president said of his critics. "We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them." But according to a Harris poll released by The Wall Street Journal last Wednesday, 64 percent of Americans now believe that the Bush administration "generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends." That's why it's Mr. Cheney's and the president's own words that are being thrown back now - not to rewrite history but to reveal it for the first time to an angry country that has learned the hard way that it can no longer afford to be without the truth.

Read the entire editorial here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112705Y.shtml

Bring Their Buddies Home Vigil

2005-11-21T13:51:00.000-08:00

CARLSBAD EVENT THIS FRIDAY (the day after Thanksgiving)
PARTICIPATE IN THE THANKSGIVING MEMORIAL
TO OUR TROOPS
BRING THEIR BUDDIES HOME VIGIL

What: 2-Mile Long Vigil of men, women and children standing shoulder to shoulder all dressed in black, with the name of one of the fallen pinned to their chest. It's a living art form and a lasting visual image of what it means to lose over 2,000 lives.

Where: Carlsbad Blvd. (Highway 101) between Pine St. and Cannon Rd. (approach at Tamarack Ave. and Carlsbad Blvd)

When: 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM (if you can only come part of the time: 3:00 to 4:00 PM)

A stack of Memorial Pages will be at the event for each of the troops who have died. When you arrive, come to the table at Tamarack Park (a grassy area on the ocean side of Carlsbad Blvd. at Tamarack Ave.) and you will get a Memorial Page and pin for you to attach the Memorial Page to your shirt.

The most important time to be there is before 3:00 and until 4:00. That's when the press and photographers will be there who will be recording this event as art.

Please come dressed in black or other dark, solid colors such as dark brown, navy blue or charcoal grey. Please don't wear anything bright, with a pattern or image, signs, or T-shirts with cute sayings.

Sign up for this event at:
http://www.bringtheirbuddieshome.com/signup.htm

Will Diebold Machines make CA a Red State?

2005-11-20T17:28:00.000-08:00

This appears to be an attempt to steal the vote in California in 2006. An additional step taken is that the trustworthy Editor of the Los Angeles Times was replaced with a right-wing, Republican advocate. This appears to be a coordinated attempt to deny Californians their Constitutional rights. Any vote on a Diebold machine is suspect.

WE CAN NOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE 2006 ELECTION!

Filed by Miriam Raftery

On Monday, November 21st, California's Voting System Panel (VSP) was slated to hold public hearings on whether to re-certify Diebold TSX touch-screen machines. The California Election Protection Network (CEPN) issued a press release inviting concerned citizens to speak at the 10 a.m. hearing and attend a rally at Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's office to encourage state officials to "send Diebold packing before Turkey Day."

But when CEPN spokesperson Sherry Healy called to verify the hearing date and time, she received startling news.

"I asked Bruce McDannold in the Secretary of State's office if the hearing is still on for Monday," she told Raw Story. He said "You're half right. The VSP has been disbanded." I asked why. He said, "I can't speak for the Secretary of State."

According to Healy, McDannold stated that a stenographer and recording device would be on hand to record any public comments.

CEPN issued a blistering press release criticizing the Republican Secretary of State, for the last-minute change in procedures. The release questioned the sincerity of those in government to publicly discuss issues with their constituents. "Is this the new government trend for public hearings - just give the people a room and a tape recorder?" the release asked.

Activists also contend that McPherson's office failed to provide the 30-day notice required by law for a public hearing.

"We had to be full time detectives to find out when this hearing would be held" Healy stated, adding that CEPN discovered the hearing announcement posted on an obscure portion of the Secretary of State's website, not the usual location for public meeting notices.

Election reform experts who had filled out cards at prior meetings asking to be notified of future events received no notification, she added.

Machines Need Public Scrutiny

Healy expressed concern over a "secret" test done recently on Diebold TSX systems, without the public present. That test found only a 2% error rate, Healy said.

According to an analysis done in July of this year by Dr. David Jefferson of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory at the University of California, however, the error rates were much higher.

Jefferson, who is also a member of California's VSP, found that software crashes and printer jams totally ten times higher than permitted by federal standards.

"They're trying to slam dunk this hearing, the certification. They're just going to ram it through," Healy fretted. "The prize is 2006. We don't trust this manufacturer. They are the worst in class. They are the Enron of voting systems."

Read the whole story here:

http://rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1487

SpeakOut

2005-11-14T14:34:00.000-08:00

MoveOn.org is holding "SpeakOut" protests at the local district offices of key GOP House members across the country on Wednesday morning to protest their leadership's efforts to slash vital services from the federal budget, and No Co Unity is helping to build a crowd for the protest they are organizing outside Duke Cunningham's Escondido office!

I apologize for the short notice -- we are sending an e-alert message to our 3,000 subscribers to the Activist system tomorrow, and if you could you post details on your club website's "calendar of events" or "news" pages, as well as forward an alert to your members direct by e-mail at your first opportunity, that would help build a crowd for the news media MoveOn is inviting to cover
this event!

Here are the details:

Last Wednesday, House Republican leaders scuttled a planned vote on their budget in the face of a revolt by lawmakers over scaling back Medicaid, food stamp and student loan programs -- this was a major setback for the GOP on Capitol Hill and for President Bush, too, who has made cuts to benefit programs a central pillar in his budget plan!

But GOP leaders are planning a vote on their budget again this week, and the internet-based progressive organization MoveOn.org is organizing protests at key Representatives' local district offices around the country on Wednesday.

They have selected North County's Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- after all, his record of slashing federal programs for the neediest of Americans in the face of numerous charges of illegally amassing personal wealth through his congressional connections is the epitome of reverse Robin Hood politics -- robbing the poor to pay back the rich!

The North County Unity Coalition has been invited to promote and attend the event -- and they have requested members of their affiliated clubs join them -- you can help show Republican leaders WE ARE UNITED in opposition to any final budget package that slashes vital services to the poor while handing out tax breaks to their wealthy corporate donors!

WHAT: Protest of House GOP $50 Billion Cuts in Health and Education Program Funding at Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's District Office

WHEN: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM

WHERE: Protest to be held across the street from Rep. Cunningham's District Office in Escondido (at 613 West Valley Parkway in the Merrill-Lynch Building) at the NCTD's Escondido Transit Center, at Valley Parkway and North Quince Street in Escondido -- it is one block west of Centre City Parkway
- From the I-15 Fwy, exit Centre City Pkwy and head South or North
- Head West on Valley Parkway
For parking, follow the signs for "Public Parking" at the front of the Center on West Valley Parkway (use the "Short-Term Lot" if available, and the "Long-Term Lot" doesn't require permits for under 72 hours if not).

HOW: No need to RSVP -- just show up! If you have any questions contact MoveOn's Regional Coordinator in San Diego, William McRae direct at 619/757-6691 or by sending e-mail to MoveOnSD@yahoo.com

And click here for the link to MoveOn's online petition to members of Congress and virtually" "sign" your name before the GOP's House leaders try to push a budget bill with billions in cuts to vital services through again this week:
http://political.moveon.org/budget/

Thanks in advance to all of you for your help with promotion -- hope to see lots of our members at the protest on Wednesday morning!

In unity,
Matt

Matt O'Connor
Communications Chair
619 647 9306
moconnor@NCUnity.org

North County Unity Coalition
P.O. Box 2302
San Marcos, CA 92079
760 690 4015
www.NCUnity.org

North County Democratic Unity Meeting

2005-11-11T08:52:00.000-08:00

Hello! Thanks to all of you and your club's dedicated volunteers, WE defeated the formerly invincible Governor on all 4 of his initiatives yesterday! Yes, the defeat in the San Diego Mayor's race was tough to accept...but the fight for accountable government downtown is far from over!

So I just wanted to remind all of you that our next North County Unity Coalition meeting is this Saturday -- and, of course we hope AT LEAST 1 MEMBER of each of our club's executive boards can participate...after all, we are only truly UNIFIED when we all participate in UNITY!

I have pasted the details I sent with last month's meeting minutes below -- and please feel free to invite all of our club's members, too -- we hope to get them involved with our year-round coordinated "Grassroots Organizing (GO)" plan...we need to start preparing for the coming "special election" to fill Duke Cunningham's soon-to-be-vacant seat!

Plus, as always, the meeting is an opportunity to share your club's latest news and information with our coalition, too! Let me know if you would like me to have Xavier add you to our agenda to make a brief announcement on your priority events or activities...and of course, feel free to bring flyers and notices to distribute to the meeting's attendees!

So here are the details for the meeting:
----------
WHEN: Saturday, November 12th, from 9:00am to 10:30am

WHAT: Monthly general meeting to discuss political action opportunities -- speakers include the editor-in-chief of the online news source "Voice of San Diego" -- plus, the Coalition will discuss the success of its "Grassroots Organizing" (GO) plan in mobilizing voters to defeat Governor Schwarzenegger's "Special Interest Election" agenda, and details for the Unity "holiday party" to be held in December will be reviewed!

WHERE: Communication Workers of America Local 9511 Union Hall, 1525 Simpson Way, in Escondido
-- exit VALLEY PARKWAY from the I-15 Fwy and head EAST toward downtown Escondido
-- turn LEFT onto N TULIP ST
-- turn LEFT onto N HALE AVE
-- turn RIGHT onto SIMPSON WAY

HOW: Contact North County Democratic Unity Communications Chair Matt O'Connor at 619/647-9306 or send e-mail to moconnor@NCUnity.org with any questions.
----------
Thanks once again to all of you for your efforts in our victory at the polls yesterday -- I look forward to seeing you Saturday!

In unity,

Matt

Matt O'Connor
Communications Chair
619 647 9306
moconnor@NCUnity.org

North County Unity Coalition
P.O. Box 2302
San Marcos, CA 92079
760 690 4015
www.NCUnity.org

Food Country-of-Origin (COOL) labeling killed

2005-10-30T13:11:00.000-08:00

We will not know the origins of our meat because the House killed this bill.

October 27, 2005

Politics and Money to Blame for Killing Consumer-Friendly Food Labeling Program

Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director of Public Citizen's Food Program

The long battle over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) has reached a disappointing finish, with a decision last night by the House-Senate Conference Committee on the agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2744) to wave a white flag of surrender to the food and grocery industries. The committee effectively killed a mandatory program that would require labels on foods sold in grocery stores to state where and how the food was raised or produced.

As is typical of this Congress, this final move was made behind closed doors. Even though Public Citizen tried to attend this so-called public meeting, no one who was standing in line to attend the meeting was allowed to enter the room. Despite polls showing that consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, lawmakers have killed the idea through budgetary gimmicks because they favor a weaker, voluntary labeling program. A mandatory program would not have cost the government any money; that cost would have been borne by the food industry.

As outlined in the recent Public Citizen report Tabled Labels, available at http://www.citizen.org/documents/COOL.pdf, big agribusiness used millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, and a network of Washington insiders with close connections to the Bush administration and Congress, to thwart COOL. This latest effort to kill COOL was led by U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), who has received more than $167,000 from COOL opponents in the past three election cycles, making him their top beneficiary. The Food Marketing Institute, which represents the grocery industry, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents the meat industry, have been the biggest opponents of mandatory COOL. It is apparent that our elected lawmakers' main concern is to protect industry, not consumers.

While the appropriations bill delays mandatory COOL for meat to September 2008, this move effectively kills the program because this new implementation date is beyond the expiration date - 2007 - of the 2002 Farm Bill that originally mandated it.

Rules for voluntary COOL are already in effect, yet most consumers are not getting information about where their food was produced. For nearly four years, Congress has stalled on this issue. Most people can earn a college degree in four years, but apparently it's not enough time for Congress to institute a simple program that would have been useful to every consumer in the United States. Congress has failed us again.

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

Grassroots Organizing Workshop

2005-09-05T15:01:00.000-07:00

Sponsored by the San Diego County Democratic Party
Supported by the Democratic Club of Carlsbad/Oceanside

The workshop is part of the local party's strategic grassroots organizing plan. In cooperation with the clubs, its goal is to build a community-level organization to support the party's candidates in the important election cycles that we face now and up through the 2008 presidential race and beyond. We are in a permanent campaign to take back the country and restore faith in our government.

The workshop will train precinct workers in the basics of voter contact, provide scripts and "stories" for effective telephone and face-to-face contact, demonstrate the use of voter lists (with specific voter information for your area), encourage people to work in pairs, and offer other specific guidelines for getting out the Democratic base for the election this November.

There are two training sessions accessible to DEMCCO members. Please choose the time and place most convenient for you and help San Diego County make an indelible blue Democratic mark.

Sunday, 11 September, 4:00-6:00 pm
Open Door Wellness Center
1024 2nd Street, Suite B
Encinitas

Thursday, 15 September, 7:00-9:00 pm
Joyce Beers Community Center
3900 Vermont Street
Hillcrest, San Diego

Bill Fischer
DEMMCO President

The Duke Stir and the Contractor

2005-06-20T07:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601313.html

Friday, June 17, 2005

IF ANY MORE PROOF were needed that it's imperative to resolve the standoff preventing the House ethics committee from functioning, it arrived this week in the form of news stories about Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a San Diego Republican.

When Mr. Cunningham wanted to sell his house in 2003, he didn't bother to put it on the market. Instead, according to reporting by Marcus Stern of Copley News Service, Mr. Cunningham -- who sits on the defense appropriations subcommittee -- turned to a defense contractor. The contractor, Mitchell Wade of MZM Inc., bought the house for $1,675,000. He then put the house back on the market, where it languished for 261 days before selling for $700,000 less than the original purchase price.

Mr. Cunningham, meanwhile, upgraded to a $2.55 million house, with 7 1/2 baths and a five-car garage. MZM, one of Mr. Cunningham's top campaign donors, obtained millions in government contracts; the congressman, who also sits on the House intelligence committee, acknowledged to Mr. Stern that he had helped MZM win contracts, as he said he has helped other firms. Government contracts for the company, whose Web site describes it as helping solve "enigmatic problems . . . in the areas of intelligence collection and analysis," grew from $41 million in 2003 to $66 million in 2004, according to Washington Technology magazine.

Mr. Cunningham said in a statement that he didn't do anything wrong. He said the sale price was based on "comparables from an independent source" -- but it turns out that source was a real estate agent whose family also has contributed heavily to Mr. Cunningham; Mr. Wade simply paid the asking price. "I have no reason to believe the value of the house was inflated then, and I have no reason to think so today," Mr. Cunningham said. So why did Mr. Wade take such a loss, when the San Diego housing market was booming? And why does Mr. Cunningham, when in Washington, live on a yacht, the Duke Stir, owned by Mr. Wade?

These questions cry out for an ethics investigation. Unfortunately, the committee is sidelined by a dispute between its chairman and ranking Democrat. The chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), wants his longtime chief of staff to serve as staff director; the ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), says that contravenes committee rules that require bipartisan agreement on committee hiring. As we've said before, on this one, Mr. Mollohan has the stronger argument; the last thing the committee needs is another whiff of politicization.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) this week called the gridlock "unconscionable" but said he won't get involved in trying to end it. "Two adult chairmen ought to be able to sit down and hire staff and go to work without somebody meddling in how they operate," Mr. Hastert said. Maybe so, but since they can't, and since the House needs a functioning ethics committee, it's time for the speaker to lead.

Tell Arnold to Call It Off!!

2005-05-13T16:29:00.000-07:00

Rick Jacobs, newly appointed CDP Deputy Chair, has asked that we in San Diego County make a special effort to collect signatures on a petition to stop Schwarzenegger's Special Election in November.

Signatures can be filed electronically by going to CDP Home Page at www.cadem.org and clicking on Sign our petition and tell Arnold to "Call it off!" The window for signing closes on 25 May.

Let's send everyone we know to www.cadem.org to sign the petition!!

Some Who Got Checks via DeLay Gave to His Defense

2005-04-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/politics/28delay.html

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT ASHINGTON, April 27 - Dozens of Republicans who have received sizable campaign donations from Representative Tom DeLay's political action committee have also donated to his legal defense fund, in a few cases making the contributions within months of receiving their campaign checks.

There is no evidence that House members were pressured to pitch in or invited to make donations to Mr. DeLay with the promise of reciprocity. But Mr. Delay, the House majority leader, has benefited from the generosity of peers he helped elect with his Americans for a Republican Majority PAC, campaign finance records show.

In February 2004, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, took in $5,000 from Armpac for his re-election bid. Between October and December of the same year, Mr. Rohrabacher gave $5,000 to the Legal Expense Trust that Mr. DeLay is using to pay for lawyers' fees related to inquiries about his fund-raising and overseas travel.

Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr., of Florida has received $30,000 from Armpac over the last three election cycles, including $5,000 in June 2004. He returned the sentiment last fall, giving $5,000 to the DeLay legal fund in the final quarter of 2004.

A Wiccan invocation and the Fourth Circuit ruling

2005-04-28T11:17:00.000-07:00

COLUMN By TIM GORDINIER, Ph.D.
Humanist Network News
April 27, 2005
Complete Article

A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled last Thursday that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors could deny Cynthia Simpson, a Wiccan spiritual leader, permission to deliver a religious invocation before the start of their board meetings.

In the past, the board had approved and heard invocations from ministers, priests, rabbis and even Muslim imams, but it drew the line at witches, enforcing a time-honored policy that restricts "acceptable" clergy to monotheistic faiths.

Body Double

2005-03-25T18:12:00.000-08:00

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8359.htm try to visualize this and you will see the infinite hypocrisy of Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, GW Bush, Jeb Bush and the rest of their wretched gang. I lack the words to express my infinite contempt for these…creatures. Also, notice how our “liberal” media is ignoring this angle of the story?

By Chris Floyd03/25/04 "Moscow Times"

Far from the hurly-burly in Florida, where the Bush brothers and their shameless minions have sought to milk maximum "political capital" from the ravaged body of a brain-dead woman, the true moral values of these gilded hypocrites were on stark display last week in a quiet corner of the Bushes' adopted homeland: Texas.

This week, U.S. President George W. Bush melodramatically cut short one of his innumerable vacations and flew back to Washington to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo when a Florida court granted her husband's request to cut off her life support after she had spent 15 years in a vegetative state. But days before, even as the president was supporting his brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush, and congressional Republicans in "defending the culture of life" in the Schiavo case, doctors in Houston were pulling the breathing tube from the throat of an ailing infant. The boy suffocated within seconds, legally killed -- against the wishes of his anguished mother -- in accordance with a draconian law signed as a "cost-saving" measure by the state's former governor: George W. Bush.

There were no frenzied protests, no camera-friendly prayer vigils, no preening politicians at Texas Children's Hospital when 5-month-old Sun Hudson took his last breath. There was only his mother, Wanda, holding him in her arms as he died, the Houston Chronicle reported. Sun suffered from an extreme form of dwarfism, which is incurable and usually fatal. Early on, doctors recommended cutting off the breathing tube that kept his undersized lungs working. He was inert, they said, unresponsive -- essentially comatose.

Wanda Hudson disagreed. "I talked to him," she said. "He was conscious." Moving, looking around, he responded to her. Although the odds were long, she wanted to give him more time to develop, not give up on him after just a few months. Wishful thinking, a despairing parent's denial? Perhaps. But the law signed by Bush in 1999 took the decision out of her hands and gave it to hospital bureaucrats, allowing them to shut down a patient's life support -- even against the wishes of the patient's family or guardian -- if the medical brass decide that treatment is "nonbeneficial," the Chronicle noted.

Indeed, why throw away good money pumping air down the gullet of some defective infant, just to mollify his nobody of a mother? For, unlike Schiavo -- a nice middle-class white woman, a political marketer's dream -- Wanda Hudson was just another worthless black woman living in poverty, unable to afford prenatal care. Who would waste a dime on trash like that? It's much more beneficial to funnel that cash into the coffers of your political patrons -- like George and Jeb, now wallowing happily in the swamp of campaign grease they get from giant medical corporations. In return, they push government policies designed to keep Big Medicine's profits sky-high while gutting public obligations to provide health care for the hoi polloi.

So the hospital invoked the Bush Law on Sun Hudson. Just as in Florida, a local judge ruled that life-support systems must be removed, and the patient allowed to die a natural death. But strangely enough, the Texas judge was not reviled in the halls of Congress as a would-be murderer, as was his counterpart in Florida -- even though the latter was carrying out the wishes of Terri Schiavo's husband, her legal guardian, while the Bush Law used state power to override a mother's choice. Nor was the Texas judge subjected to death threats like the ones the Florida judge received from Bush's "armies of compassion."

No, Sun's mother stood alone. Those compassionate armies and congressional kibitzers failed to materialize on her behalf. President Bush -- usually so eager to wade in a with a few scripted words of pursed-lipped piety about "family values" and "defending life" -- kept his big mouth shut. The hospital would not allow the media to see Sun or interview Wanda Jackson -- again, against her wishes. "I wanted y'all to see him for yourselves," she told the press after Sun's death. But so what? When nobodies die, nobody cares.

Why the stark contrast between the two cases? Simple: There was no political hay to be made from Sun Hudson's plight. Spotlighting his situation might reflect badly on the Dear Leader -- and on the religious extremists now banking millions in contributions from their slick campaign to "save" Schiavo. For it turns out that the spearhead of Bush's Christian army in Florida, the "Right to Life" organization, actually helped Bush craft the 1999 law that took Sun Hudson's life, the Chronicle reported. The family-bashing measure was drawn up in backroom sessions between the Right-to-Lifers, Bush staffers and Big Medicine. It seems the "culture of life" ends where power politics and corporate money begin.

Bush doesn't care if Schiavo lives or dies. Her body -- like the bodies of the 100,000 Iraqis he has killed, like the bodies of the American soldiers being chewed up every day in his Babylonian conquest, like the bodies of the poor and working people whom he is methodically and remorselessly cutting off from medical care, financial protection against catastrophic illness, and legal redress against corporate predators -- is just a means to an end, the only end Bush cares about: increasing the power and wealth of his own rapacious circle of privileged elites.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, he will not do to serve this end. He'll wage war on false pretenses, he'll pervert the democratic process, he'll spit on the Constitution -- and he'll exploit the private suffering of families facing hideous dilemmas of life and death. There is no honor, no morality, no values in his "culture."

FLORIDA BILL TARGETS "DICTATOR PROFESSORS"

2005-03-25T18:10:00.000-08:00

Our own local rightwingnutjob Bill Morrow has introduced an “Academic Freedom” bill in the State Senate. See: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_5_bill_20041206_introduced.html

It turn out that this is part of an orchestrated nationwide effort by David Horowitz and the organized far right. See, for example:
+++++++++++++++
EDUCATION – FLORIDA BILL TARGETS "DICTATOR PROFESSORS": Conservative Florida legislators are pushing a bill that aims to stamp out "leftist totalitarianism" by "dictator professors" in the classrooms of Florida's universities. The so-called "Academic Freedom Bill of Rights" legislation is yet another state spin-off of right-wing activist David Horowitz's campus crusade to prohibit public and private college professors from introducing "controversial matter" into the classroom and shift oversight of college course content to state governments and courts. "According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities," the University of Florida's student newspaper reports. Students would also have the right to sue if they believe their professor is "singling them out for 'public ridicule' – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class." The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.
+++++++++++++++++

We might ask what is “conservative” in mandating that the state (AKA “big government”) control what is said, no, even what CAN and CANNOT be said, in college classrooms? This assault will link up with the ongoing assault against teaching science—at least any science that contradicts the right wing’s certainty that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (evolution, geology, astronomy). I’ve even read that the Bush mis-Administration decided not to mount a rescue mission for the Hubble Space Telescope because fundamentalist leaders, whose support he needed in 2004, wanted it gone, and with it, public exposure to an immensely old and large cosmos.

Morrow at least can be targeted among Republicans for being the agent of a “big government” agenda.

Cheap Aids drugs under threat

2005-03-25T18:04:00.000-08:00

Body blow to developing states' fight against disease as Indian MPs ban copying of patented products Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi

Wednesday March 23, 2005 The Guardian

The days of cheap treatments for millions of Aids patients around the world are coming to an end, health agencies warned last night, after the Indian parliament passed a bill that makes it illegal to copy patented drugs.

The practice of copying patented drugs has made medicines affordable for patients around the world. The parliament's move was to fulfil India's commitment to the World Trade Organisation's intellectual property regime.

Article continues
The copycat drugs industry in India has forced down the annual cost of Aids treatment from $15,000 (£7,900) a patient to a little more than $200 in less than 10 years.

The country's "generics" pharmaceutical industry now provides treatment to half the 700,000 HIV-infected people in developing countries.

The supply of cheap medicines was only possible because Indian law hitherto had no product patent constraints.

Critics say the new law will cut off the pipeline of inexpensive future drugs, such as the "three-in-one pill" of anti-retrovirals for Aids sufferers.

"Under the new legislation we will see new medicines only available for the rich, while old treatments will be for the poor," said Ellen't Hoen, the director of policy advocacy and research at the relief agency Médecins sans Frontières.

Many people are building up resistance to the first generation of drugs and will need the newer treatments. But without the Indian drugs industry, where will they get cheap drugs from?"
Campaigners say African countries, where health budgets are already stretched will find it almost impossible to fund the new medicines.

In Cameroon we pay $200 a year for each Aids patient's treatment, which is an Indian generic manufacturer's product," said Fatima Hassan of South Africa's Treatment Action Campaign. "The latest drugs are only supplied by western multinationals and they cost $4,800 a year. We cannot afford those prices."

Under the legislation, if a generics manufacturer wants to copy a patented drug, the Indian government will have to issue a compulsory licence. The patent holder gets a royalty, but does not have to consent.

But, Ms Hoen says, there are two big problems with the new regime: pharmaceutical companies can tie up such licences in court for years, and there is no ceiling on royalties.
"In South Africa, Glaxo tried to charge a 45% royalty. What we are looking at is a lot of work for lawyers."

Activists were hoping for a review of the bill and a longer public debate on the issues - Indian MPs were given only a weekend to read the bill and a couple of days to debate it.
Although there were last-minute concessions, many within the industry say the bill bears the footprint of multinational drug companies who considered Indian generic manufacturers to be "pirates".

Ranjit Shahani, managing director of Novartis India, said: "[The bill] will move India towards the patent mainstream and support and encourage innovation and investments in research and development."

Many in the generics industry say what is being given away goes against the national interest. Yusuf Hameid, the head of Cipla, one of the main generic manufacturers of HIV drugs, says India can "not afford monopolies".

He added: "Medicines in India used to be unaffordable until we adopted our patent laws in the 1970s.
"Our population and pattern of diseases means we have to increase affordability and accessibility."

Special reportsAids Medicine and health
Special investigationFebruary 2003: Saving Grace - why 30m people with Aids can't get the drugs they need
Full textUN Aids report, November 2002 UN report into Aids, July 2002
Useful linksNHS Direct: HIV/Aids
British HIV Association
Eldis HIV/Aids guide
National Aids Trust
Terrence Higgins Trust
Elton John Aids Foundation
Children with Aids
Médecins Sans Frontières

Watching America (dot com)

2005-03-25T18:01:00.000-08:00

By WilliamPitt,

Thu Mar 24th, 2005 at 10:50:30 AM EST :: Media ::

It is safe to say that America's view of itself, as formulated by the mainstream news media, is mypoic to say the least. The major corporations that own such entitities as CNN (AOL/TimeWarner) and NBC (General Electric) don't have much use for the journalism and opinions being produced around the world.

A new website has been created to try and cut through the information wall that has been erected between this country and the rest of the planet. The site is called WatchingAmerica.com, and describes its mission as follows:

WatchingAmerica reflects global opinion about the United States, helping Americans and non-Americans alike understand what the world thinks of current issues that involve the U.S. This is done by providing news and views about the United States published in other countries. It is not our purpose to find favorable or unfavorable news and commentary, but to reflect as accurately as possible how others perceive the richest and most powerful country in the world. WatchingAmerica makes available in English articles written about the U.S. by foreigners, often for foreign audiences, and often in other languages. Since WatchingAmerica offers its own translations, regular users of our site will be able to enjoy articles that are not available in English anywhere else. We are a unique window into world opinion. In addition, by integrating the latest translation technology into the site, visitors are able to surf all of the content of foreign-language news outlets at the push of a button - in English.

Take a long look at the content of this page, and where it comes from. The translation feature is especially helpful. Add this to your bookmarks and pass through it on your daily news patrols. Some of the opinions and information will surprise you. This page will serve as an excellent supplement to the international news translations provided by TO's own Leslie Thatcher.

Challenging our Constitution

2005-03-25T17:56:00.000-08:00

By Mike Byron

Whatever our personal feelings about the case, the Schiavo special-purpose federal legislation raises significant Constitutional questions for all of us.

As this case was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, it was properly adjudicated in the state court system for Florida. Indeed, no one called for a change of venue to the federal court system until the state court judicial process produced a verdict that was "wrong" in the opinions of some legislators.

In clear violation of centuries-old federalist principles, the non-judicial branches of the national government have intervened to set aside the proper and lawful findings of a State Court. Consider the precedent being set here: If the courts do not produce the "correct" verdict, then the verdict can be invalidated by other branches of government. Worse, these other branches of government are federal instead of the executive and legislative branches of our own state governments.

Of course, this intervention directly affects the rights and interests of individuals such as Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo. And it is exactly this sort of capricious extra-judicial governmental intrusion into the private lives of American citizens which the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent.

Our political system is founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers and the related concept of federalism. Taken together, these principles define our Constitutional system of government.

Federalism means that power is shared between the states and the national, or federal, government. The Constitutional separates our federal government into three branches: Executive, legislative, and judicial. These were designed to act as checks and balances on one another. For example; the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. In response, Congress can change statutory law or propose amendments to the Constitution. Congress can remove any federal officer, including the President, from office by means of a Constitutional procedure called impeachment. Presidents can veto Legislation passed by Congress.

This three-way separation of powers at the federal level, and the division of power between state and federal governments, are intended to prevent too great a concentration of power from forming within our national government. The framers of the Constitution believed that such a concentration of power could lead to tyranny. In fact, many early American political figures such as Thomas Jefferson refused to accept the Constitution until a "Bill of Rights" was added to it guaranteeing the rights and liberties of American citizens from arbitrary intrusion by government officials.

The Shiavo bill recently passed by the Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal government violates all of the above principles of our Constitutional system of government.

With their special-purpose Schiavo legislation, Congress and the President violated the doctrine of the Separation of Powers, and violated time-honored federalist principles. By capriciously reaching into the lives of American citizens, and jerking them around to fulfill an avowedly political agenda, they have violated the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in placing the Bill of Rights in that document.

The Schiavo legislation reassigns the case to the Federal Courts, and gives other relatives of Mrs. Schiavo standing to sue there for relief. The US Supreme Court has already refused to hear this case on three occasions. It has established a precedent for this type of case. In CRUZAN v. MISSOURI (1990) with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the majority opinion, it held that that states have the legislative and judicial power to control passive euthanasia cases, based on the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" of the comatose/vegetative patient's desires to end life support. Therefore, as I write, with the case now rejected by the lower Federal Courts, I believe that the Supreme Court will follow its Cruzan precedent and other legal and procedural precedents and also reject the case.

Given that the American legal system, indeed the entire American political system, is based on precedent, Congress’s and the President’s politicized intervention into the Schiavo case is unhelpful to American democracy. Although the legislation states that it cannot be used as legal precedent, the very fact that it was drafted, ratified by both legislative chambers, and signed into law by the president, produces an inerasable historical precedent. However, once the Supreme Court rejects this case, then our Constitutional system of checks and balances will have worked despite clear political interference arising from the Legislative and Executive branches. Justice, Federalism, and the Constitution will have ultimately prevailed in this tragic case.

The Hypocrisy of the "Culture of Life"

2005-03-25T17:49:00.000-08:00

A Statement by the Council for Secular Humanism

The fundamentalist political ideologues have seized upon the Terri Schiavo case to make a bold, federal play against individual liberties. Once again, they have redefined and misconstrued the issues in the media in order to pursue a religious agenda. That agenda cares not at all about the dignity or quality of an individual life nor of the fundamental liberties we, as Americans and as human beings, are supposed to enjoy. Terry Schiavo expressed her desires when she was a conscious person. The proper venue for discovering her expressed desires was the courts, and the lengthy proceedings gave due process to Ms. Schiavo. The conclusion was that she never intended for her vegetative shell, with no medical possibility of recovery, to be kept "alive" through a feeding tube. The courts ruled that her express wishes, as discovered through numerous witnesses and lengthy hearings, should be respected. Yet this ruling, which is consistent with a respect for individual liberty, and the ability of a person to choose dignity in death, angered and mobilized those who view life as little more than the beating of a heart. Their religious motivations are clear. Their "culture of life" views life as nothing more than a vehicle for "souls," and the complex system of human attributes which make us persons, such as autonomy, creativity, emotions, and other essential elements of humanity, mean nothing. This is why so-called conservatives are supporting federal intervention now in the most personal of decisions. The hypocrisy of this stance couldn’t be more clear.

President Bush recently argued that we must "err on the side of life" whenever possible. This was the argument that some governors, including Illinois Governor George Ryan, have made in suspending death sentences until a full judicial review could be made. This decision was supported by the stark fact that a number of death-penalty cases have been reversed in light of new technology and new evidence, and so, it made sense to err on the side of life by having a full judicial review. In Texas, then Governor Bush never suspended a single capital sentence for further review, even when attorneys for convicts may have slept through some of their proceedings. There, he did not err on the side of life. Has he experienced a sudden change of heart? In the Schiavo case, the courts have reviewed and reviewed, and testimony has been taken, and appeals have been made surpassing the number and thoroughness of even a death-penalty review process. The conclusion has remained the same: Terry Schiavo did not want to have her body kept alive if her mind, that which makes her a person, was dead.

Now, these politically motivated religious ideologues, who wish to push their narrow view of "life" on the populace by act of law, would have you believe that Terry Schiavo is a piece of property, and that despite her wishes, her parents should be given the chance to "take her." Terry Schiavo is not a piece of property. She was a person who expressed her wishes, and neither her husband nor her parents can usurp her role in deciding the course of her death. This is the essence of being a free person, the ability to choose for oneself, and this is the essential justice of the courts’ decisions to respect her wishes, expressed by a free, autonomous, mature person.

The Council for Secular Humanism praises the Florida and federal courts’ rulings to let Terry Schiavo’s decision to die with dignity stand, and we hope that politicians who have interjected themselves into this personal decision, for cynical political gain, will think long and hard about what this means for liberty and justice.

Signed,

Paul Kurtz, Chair, Council for Secular Humanism

David Koepsell , Executive Director, Council for Secular Humanism

Tom Flynn, Editor, Free Inquiry

Council for Secular Humanism Issues Statement on Schiavo Case

2005-03-25T17:35:00.000-08:00

Center for Inquiry

AMHERST, N.Y. (March 25, 2005)—Theresa "Terri" Schiavo, the Florida resident who has spent the last fifteen years in a persistent vegetative state, has spent recent weeks at the center of a political and legal maelstrom. The courts have consistently found that her husband, Michael Schiavo, is carrying out his wife’s wishes in trying to cease life-support measures; meanwhile, parents Robert and Mary Schindler, arguing that Terri would wish to live, have waged an unrelenting battle to keep her feeding tube inserted.

Spokespeople for the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) say that, as heartrending as the case is, the courts have made the right decision. In a recent statement issued by the Council, David Koepsell, Executive Director of the CSH, says that "fundamentalist political ideologues have seized upon the Terri Schiavo case to make a bold, federal play against individual liberties." (The text of the statement is included below.)

"The Council for Secular Humanism praises the Florida and federal courts’ rulings to let Terri Schiavo’s decision to die with dignity stand," Koepsell says, "and we hope that politicians who have interjected themselves into this personal decision, for cynical political gain, will think long and hard about what this means for liberty and justice."

Medical ethicist Richard Hull calls the situation a power grab by religious conservatives and a betrayal of the sanctity of marriage. "Americans will not stand for the burdens of having to defend family decisions, confirmed by state courts, before federal panels," he says. "They will decisively reject such meddlesome moralistic madness and beat back these assaults on reason and decency." Hull urges all Americans put their wishes in writing, such as with a living will: "Until the religious right rediscovers the Bill of Rights," he says, "we must all act to protect ourselves and presume no respect by others for our informal understandings with loved ones."

Meanwhile, other spokespeople caution that the choice might not always be left to the individual: "The public should be made aware that the Catholic Church owns about one third of all hospitals in the United States, many without the public's knowledge," warns Toni Van Pelt, Executive Director of CFI-Florida. "The Church does not recognize end-of-life directives."

While most Americans may think of secular humanists as a fringe group, the Council’s assessment of the Schiavo case is in accord with public opinion. Several recent polls (including one by CBS News and one by CNN, USA Today, and Gallup) show that a majority of Americans disapprove of lawmakers’ intervention in the case. Senator Christopher Shays of Connecticut has described the situation by saying, "The Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."

For Bush, science is a dirty word

2005-03-23T05:07:00.000-08:00

The Bush mis-Administration represents dirty polluting 19th century extractive industries such as oil, gas, and coal, along with mining and timber and the economic infrastructure built upon these mostly-non renewable resources. For the most part, these are “sunset” industries facing terminal decline in this century. The oil barons know that their time is short and wish to grab and hold on to power and wealth now while they are still on top. An ignorant population aids them in achieving this goal.

However, the “new technology” industries are created by university researchers and venture capitalists. They are more or less completely excluded from the ruling cabal. They represent the paths to renewable energy independence and a sustainable civilized lifestyle in the coming decades and centuries. They are products of an enlightened educational system. We must make common cause with these economic sectors in defeating the new barbarians and creating a new and viable civilization. We need to distinguish between “old” and “new” economic actors. And we need to develop economic policies to encourage the latter while phasing out the former—all in an environmentally and worker friendly manner. WE are the future—THEY are the desperate and evil last gasp oilagarchy of a dying past.

Tomgram: Michael Klare on our Oil-Crunch Planet

2005-03-23T05:04:00.000-08:00

Back in August 2004, I took up the issue of the Bush administration, Dick Cheney, oil, and Iraq. As an introduction to Michael Klare's latest oil piece for Tomdispatch, over half a year later, with the price of a barrel of oil nudging the $57 mark and gas at the pump Tomgram: up above $2.10 a gallon and climbing, I don't think I'd change a word...

General motors headed for bankruptcy soon?!

2005-03-23T05:02:00.000-08:00

Are things REALLY that bad at GM? Apparently so. GM is planning to lay off about 28% of its entire white collar work force, for example. See http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&e=19&u=/nm/autos_gm_report_dc.

It’s also laying off thousands of US assembly line workers. See: http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/M03/D01/200503011916DOWJONESDJONLINE000902.html

And about 12,000 European workers. See: http://www.axcessnews.com/business_101504.shtml They are in BIG trouble without a doubt.

Our economy is atrociously mismanaged. Corporate crooks are rife—and not just within the Bush mis-Administration. GM may be the next Enron—only much bigger. If so interest rates will soar, housing markets collapse, metals will appreciate rapidly, as stocks take a hit and the dollar devalues. Oh for the days of Bill Clinton, imperfect as he was, and surpluses as far as the eye could see….

Washington's Fiscal Meltdown

2005-03-23T05:00:00.000-08:00

Before leaving town for a two-week spring break, Congress indulged in its own form of March Madness. The Republican majority in the House and the Senate passed budget blueprints for 2006 that slash domestic spending by upwards of $150 billion over the next five years. Yet they still managed to increase the projected deficit by more than $125 billion over the same period (and by more than $1 trillion through 2015). How is it possible to produce that much red ink while slashing spending? Easy. Just cut revenue by giving huge tax cuts to - surprise, surprise - high earners and wealthy investors. The lawmakers will not make any final decisions until they cobble their separate proposals into one official budget later in the year, but the early signs are all bad - pointing to the least sensible tax cuts for the least needy recipients with no thought to the exploding deficit.

A Threat Greater Than Terrorism

2005-03-23T04:59:00.000-08:00

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Delusion has settled over America. Washington cannot tell fact from fantasy. Neither can sycophantic media nor nothink economists.

The Bush administration is the first government in history to initiate a war based entirely on fantasy--fantasy about nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction," fantasy about nonexistent "terrorist links," fantasy about "liberating" a people from their culture, fantasy about a "cakewalk" invasion, fantasy about America's omnipotence.

Casting Aside the Separation of Powers

2005-03-23T04:56:00.000-08:00

By John Conyers, Jr.

t r u t h o u t | Statement

Sunday 20 March 2005

By passing this bill, in this form, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard for this member to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself in under this precedent.

By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and take on the role not only of Judge, but of Doctor, Priest, Parent and Spouse.

So We Want A Revolution

2005-03-23T04:54:00.000-08:00

by Stirling Newberry

Fri Mar 18th, 2005 at 06:44:00 PST

[Brookings panel Update: According to one source Ruy Teixiera and Laura Rozen have been invited to the panel. Serious people with serious things to say from the left - and to no small extent there because of your phone calls and emails, and the work of Sean-Paul of agonist and Steve Gilliard.]

There is a chasm between the old and the new in the Democratic Party. Our elected officials see themselves as defenders of an old way of life of consumption, and the props of a consuming society - where as those who write see a new heaven and a new earth, a different society based on different norms and ideas. The old sees itself as supporting a few pillars of the old, and their work is done when they have slowed the Republicans a bit here and there. They have surrendered the initiative, and the vision, to the right wing.

Outsourcing Innovation...And Everything Else

2005-03-23T04:48:00.000-08:00

This is a vital issue which we need to develop clear policy alternatives from the Bushites/corporatists on. Who in America is for having their incomes ‘downsized” after all. The fear that the corporatists have of being called to account for doing this can be seen, for example, in Issa’s frantic efforts to intimidate me into not publicizing his role in being a pioneer outsourcer, via his threatened lawsuit. I think that the fundamental problem lies not with trade itself, but rather it is that one set of actors, multi-national actors have written the rules (WTO, NAFTA etc. in such as manner as to exclusively benefit their parochial interests to the exclusion of all other interests (workers, environment, etc.). This must be redressed. RULES matter.

The Ugly American Bank

2005-03-23T04:47:00.000-08:00

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 18, 2005

You can say this about Paul Wolfowitz's qualifications to lead the World Bank: He has been closely associated with America's largest foreign aid and economic development project since the Marshall Plan.

I'm talking, of course, about reconstruction in Iraq. Unfortunately, what happened there is likely to make countries distrust any economic advice Mr. Wolfowitz might give.

Two Years Too Many

2005-03-23T04:42:00.000-08:00

Just because the Bush mis-Administrations reasons for invading Iraq two years ago have been proven to be false does not mean that they had no reasons. It only means that those reasons were not publicly divulged. After all if the latest excuse, “democracy”, were the true reason, then since all polls of Iraqis consistently show overwhelming majorities in favor of quick American withdrawal, we’d be on our way out. Clearly we’re not. In fact the Bushites are hard at work building permanent bases from which, they believe, a suitable client government (one that has to rely on us to remain alive basically) will legitimate our permanent use of Iraq to:

Dominate the Middle-East region.
Control who gets ever more expensive oil.
Ensure the security of regional allies such as Israel and others.

We invaded for bases and oil—geopolitical supremacy basically. THAT is what everyone over there is still dying for, and what we are still plunging ever deeper into deficit and long-term debt for. Enough!

Potential challenger to Lieberman emerges

2005-03-23T04:41:00.000-08:00

March 16, 2005

Potential challenger to Lieberman emerges

Citizen activist and political analyst, Dr. JOHN
ORMAN, Politics Professor at Fairfield University,
announced today his intention to create an advisory
committee to evaluate his candidacy to challenge Joe
Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for U.S.
Senate in the 2006 primary. Orman said, "There is a
great national debate going on for the heart and soul
of the Democratic party. Let the battle begin here and
now in Connecticut."

Working on civil rights isn't the same as defending them

2005-03-23T04:39:00.000-08:00

Increasing numbers of Republicans agree that the mis-Administration is out of whack…

Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos

2005-03-23T04:36:00.000-08:00

The Bush mis-Administration has placed itself above all law and accountability.

Chatting with Jesus

2005-03-23T04:30:00.000-08:00

Jesus, what do you think of the recent presidential election?
In the United States?
I don't do politics.

But the President is a Christian. He has dedicated his life to serving you.
He has dedicated his life to serving himself. That is the opposite of what I teach.

But he's a Christian.
He is an Old Testament Christian. The ancient Hebrew scriptures say that God is an angry God, a vengeful God, a jealous God. But he is not. Nor is he petty, nor vindictive, nor narrow minded, nor self-righteous. God was not made in our image. He is not insecure or emotionally immature. God is not like us, but in our better moments we can be like him.

He wants his children to be full of love, not full of hate.

He wants his children to be compassionate, not vindictive.

He wants his children to be open-minded, not narrow-minded.

He wants his children to be accepting not intolerant.

He wants his children to be righteous, not self-righteous.

This is the message that god sent me to share with the world two thousand years ago. This is the message for which I was crucified. And just as those who put me to death then ignored god's message, so your president ignores god's message today.

THE FRAUD THAT IS THE SOCIAL SECURITY DEBATE... AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

2005-03-17T12:21:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting perspective, though not a pleasant one. I’ve been wondering as to why Sen Byrd of all people voted for the senate bankruptcy bill last week…

The good news is that in passing last week’s bankruptcy bill, while ALL Republicans voted against the interests of ordinary Americans only about half of the Democrats did. The reason for this Democratic split is simple and is explained below: "…But the pressure was on from lots of very, very rich interests: banks, credit cards companies, etc. And so to vote for what they felt was right would be to shoot their most generous donors and the most powerful interests in their states right in the foot - and that is a battle no politician who wants to run again wants to fight unless it is absolutely necessary…" Money talks.

We get the candidates we deserve. With strong grassroots support, including financial support, we can elect a Senate majority filled with Paul Wellstone’s. However, by sitting on our butts and letting others take care of things…well others do—the corporations shell out the monies needed for (re)election. And they get what they want, and we…well we need to get more active so that WE can get who, and what we want. Think about the best interests of ordinary working Americans FIRST and you will not go wrong. Think about the best interests of say, Halliburton, (or any other multi-national corporation) first, and you are already lost.

The $600 Billion Man

2005-03-17T12:18:00.000-08:00

Here Krugman graphically illustrates much of what is so very wrong with the Democratic Party just now. An opposition party must stand for clearly defined and articulated ideals. It must stand on deeply held principles. Else even if voters are dissatisfied with the other party they will find no reason to translate that into support for the opposing party. Far too many elected Democrats—as well as those in party leadership positions fail to understand this simple truth. Lieberman, and his type of elected Democrat, needs to be persuaded not to run for reelection, and if he does so, he needs to face a well financed primary opponent. He is worse than useless—he is a part of the problem alas. This goes MUCH deeper than being a dispute between “moderate” Democrats and progressive ones. Rather it exemplifies the distinction between those Democrats who clearly stand for deeply held principles, and those who for whatever reason do not. It is essential to recall that Grover Norquist repeatedly states to other Republican leaders: “Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.” The survival of the republic hangs in the balance, there is no place for equivocation!

The Bolton Nomination: Unipolarity Reaffirmed

2005-03-17T12:15:00.000-08:00

The Bolton Nomination: Unipolarity Reaffirmed

More evidence that more war is on the horizon and that the second term of this never elected President represents a more extreme version of the first term. Interestingly, I’m finding that Pat Buchanan’s (yes THAT Pat Buchanan!) critiques of this misadministration’s belligerence are on point! The possibility of a coalition between Democrats, other progressives, and "old school" conservatives, at least with respect to restoring a rational foreign policy, seems possible.

Buchanan’s latest

San Diego County Democratic Party Survey

2005-03-17T12:11:00.000-08:00

Below is the link to a survey which is design to solicit input for the
strategic plan that the San Diego County Democratic Party is developing.
Our goal is to get as broad a sampling as possible of San Diego County
Democrats to complete the survey.

Survey

The American middle class is now under full assault!

2005-03-09T09:58:00.000-08:00

The American middle class is now under full assault! Krugman analyzes this in this morning’s NY Times (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08krugman.html?hp ) for article. The bankruptcy “reform” bill will leave millions of poor and middle class Americans who go broke paying for medical or accident expenses in debt peonage indefinitely. People are furious about these doings to the degree that they are aware. Republican politicians do anything to hide their direct complicity in destroying our middle class. For example, Issa is frantic to hide his role in destroying an entire manufacturing sector in our economy (car alarm manufacturing) and is trying (fat chance!) to intimidate me into silence about that issue. Meantime, how about less pay for more work?

Santorum's Sweatshop Expansion Bill

2005-03-09T09:56:00.000-08:00

March 06, 2005
Santorum's Sweatshop Expansion Bill
-->
Sweatshops Expanded, Overtime Attacked, and State Minimum Wage Laws Undermined
This is as low as it goes, as the GOP fights to expand sub-minimum wage sweatshops across the country. Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum is leading the charge for a GOP bill that would ostensibly raise the minimum wage by $1.10 per hour, but in reality would cut wages for millions of American workers and expand unregulated sweatshops across the country.
As this Economic Policy Institute analysis details, the bill is a trojan horse for assaulting workers rights.
http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/archive/002263.shtml