Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Creating a new America

NOTICE!
The purpose of this article will be to provide a place where those interested can discuss ideas about what can be done to reform our system of governance.
It is NOT an attempt to subvert the Constitution! Any posts that call for violence or overthrow of the Government will be deleted by the moderator.
My sole purpose is to put forth some ideas about what can be done to reform our current system of electing officials and the conditions that they should observe as they SERVE the public interests.

One last comment/request: Please be civil to each other and try to use language that wouldn't cause your Mother to blush.

I'll start off... it's my blog after all! ;-)

Term Limits:
The current system makes it almost impossible to defeat an incumbent public servant. We have all seen too many that have been in their positions far too long to be any good to anyone but themselves. I would submit a suggestion that two terms in office should be enough for anyone. This would bring in fresh blood and get some of those unfit for leadership roles out of their positions.
I would also suggest that the length of each office be modified for many reasons. Why not make Congressional seats last for 4 years, in the Senate perhaps 8 years. I think Supreme Court Justices should have a 10 year limit and the President one six year term.

Here are some other things that I think are worth discussing:

(I'll be posting MY opinion on each of these topics shortly. Meanwhile, have at em!)

Public Financing of Elections.
If every candidate was given the same amount of money to run their bid for office, it would take away the current practice of "Buying" office. When someone like Hillary Clinton raises 50 million dollars and Dennis Kucinich raises 5 million does that mean she's a "better" candidate? Or does it mean that she's better at raising cash?
We already have campaign finacing laws that grant money to certain candidates that meet specific conditions. Why not just say to the top 10 candidates "OK, here's 10 million dollars. Go out and run your show. But you can't take ANY goods and services from anyone else!" Sure it's a "rough" idea, but my goal here is to stimulate conversation.

Lobbyist not allow to hire former member of Congress for 10 years after they leave office.
Actually, I think if I could get my fondest wish it would be to do away with Lobbyist all together! But, that's probably not going to happen, so one way to limit their effect would be to stop this revolving door of people leaving Congress and then selling their knowledge of how to work the system to the highest bidder.

Lobbyist limited to $1,000/Senator or Congressman per year.
I really think this would be a good idea. If lobbyist and PAC had to limit their spending to only 1,000 dollars per yearper congress member we would see a lot less corruption in Congress. But the rules would have to be set up so as to be enforceable and airtight otherwise these groups would find loopholes big enough to drive a tank thru. My first thought on this idea was One Hundred dollars, but I don't think that's reasonable. What do you think?

Signing Statements by every congress member and senator that they have fully read and understood every piece of law that they vote on.
There should never be a time when some member of Congress could claim that they voted for a law that they hadn't read or didn't understand. If they didn't read the law, why did they vote for it? And, if they didn't understand the law, then how can they expect the average citizen to understand it?

Breaking up of Media "Gangs."
There are, in my opinion, too many "Media Conglomerates." Yes, I'm talking about Rupert Murdoch, but he's not the only one. I don't think it's healthy for a Democacy to have so much power in one person (or groups) hands. Murdoch has already admitted that he actively tried to shape opinion in this country. He's just one man. Sure he's rich but so is Bill Gates and you don't see him pushing his political views on people.

Flat percentage of income tax for everyone.
I'm not sure about this one. It just seems to me that if everone had to pay a flat percentage of their income, it would be a lot more fair than it is now. People with a lot of money SHOULD pay a LOT of taxes. 10 per cent of my income would be a hit that I could live with if everybody kicked in the same. What is RIGHT about stock brokers making 50 million dollars a year and not paying taxes on it because he gets a break from the likes of Bush. Sorry, in my book that does not compute.



Here is an interesting article that might help get you thinking about this subject:
http://homefires.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/same-old-song-and-dance/?8ty&emc=ty

Monday, October 29, 2007

We The People


"We the People (WTP)" have been lied to, lied about and our Media has eagerly parroted those lies in between the daily doses of Paris, THE Donald, Rosie, Brittany and Lindsay.

WTP need to change our country quickly and dramatically.

One of the things I took from the Michael Moore film "Sicko" was that the Govt's of France and England "Were afraid of their people."

This comment struck me because our Govt has no fear of WTP getting in the way of their crooked shenanigans.

This is because so many of them are controlled by the same interests that are behind this God forsaken war.

MONEY! Sometimes that's spelled O-I-L. Other times it's spelled P-O-W-E-R.

We have got to change the influence of those that are contrary to the will and best interests of our country.

Oil companies are making truly obscene profits, but every time there's a problem they say they don't have enough refining capacity. Why not?

Our country's Energy policy was written by Oil companies in cooperation with Cheney. And they won't even tell us what they wrote.

Lobbiest write bills for congress and Senators tell us "they didn't have time to read them before they voted to pass them."

In my opinion we are on the very edge of losing our country as we knew it.

Yet, the best we can come up with is Hillary and Rudy?

The first step in taking back this country is impeachment. Impeach Cheney, have Bush appoint someone that we can trust and then impeach Bush!

It only took four months to impeach and try Clinton and the Republicans dragged it out for as long as they could.

Impeachment will allow WTP to get back some of the things that Bush has taken away.

It will also let the next president know that they will be subject to the same will of the people once they get in office.

Then we can take on some of the many other things that need fixing.

Public Financing of Elections.

Lobbyist not allow to hire former member of Congress for 10 years after they leave office.

Breaking up of Media Monopolies.

Flat income tax for everyone.

The list goes on and on.

Now is the time. If need be, we should impeach Pelosi for dereliction of duty for NOT putting Impeachment back on the table where it belongs.

That's my opinion and unless you and others on the Net start pushing this type of action the next thing to go will be our freedom of Internet usage.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

How Dare you Madam Speaker?

Impeachment is STILL off the table!

I don't understand why Pelosi decided to "Take Impeachment 'Off the table'" when she became Speaker of the house.

It's as if you know your child is cheating in school and yet you tell them, "I'm not going to punish you."

Where is the sense in that? What message are you sending?

The only defense I have heard of her position was a lame excuse from Arianna Huffington. She said that "Impeachment was too distracting and would cause Congress to take it's eye off the ball."

Well, I normally agree with Huffington, but not this time.

First: It only took four months to impeach and acquit Bill Clinton for his romp with Monica.

Second: In case no one has noticed, this Congress isn't getting one hell-of-a-lot done withOUT impeachment taking up their time and efforts. The Democrats are still LOOKING for the BALL!

The biggest concerns that I have about this whole thing are:

First: Who's going to restore our Constitutional Rights after BushCo leaves office? I find it truly scary that there is a chance that someone as crazy as Gulianni could inherit the powers that BushCo has grabbed.

Second: We are well on our way towards another war. This time with Iran! If Bush or Cheney (preferably Cheney!) were under articles of impeachment, do you think he would have the gall to start another war?

Bruce Fein, Constitutional Scholar, was on the Bill Moyer's program a couple of weeks ago and made a very convincing case for why we should be looking really hard at impeachment.

Frankly, even if Hillary gets the top job next year, I'll bet you she doesn't give up any of the powers that Bush has grabbed without kicking and screaming all the way!

The whole mess with Bush and his lies has GOT to be addressed if we are ever to start getting back our respect in the world.

For Christ's sake, Clinton got impeached for lieing about sex in the White House!

Bush and his Cronies have lied us into a war and possibly bankruptcy!

...And Impeachment is Still Off The Table Madam Speaker?

Maybe it's YOU that should be impeached first!

FISA and the Telecoms

MSM Questions

I have two questions for people who still have a mind to think with...if we aren't all hiding under our beds after the latest scare tactics by BushCo, et al.

When the sealed indictments were opened in a lawsuit against Quest Telecom, it was revealed the the NSA had demanded their records of telecom subscribers in February 2001.

Now, you don't have to be a math genius to figure out that the demand (which they refused at their own peril) came six months BEFORE the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11.

What's up with that? Reminds me of the claim (denied by the known liars at BushCo) that former Sec Tres Paul O'Neil made about BushCo planning to invade Iraq as soon as they got in office in 2000.

Frankly, I wouldn't put anything past Bush and the scummy cronies of his (mal)administration, but...makes one wonder, doesn't it?

The other point that I think the MSM should be following up on is Senator Rockefeller of W. Virginia, a Democrat yet!

Seems like he's the biggest PROponent of the Telecom Immunity provision in the new FISA bill. Guess who some of his biggest campaign contributors are?

YOU PEEKED! Yep, Verison and Comcast. The two biggest players who will benefit from the immunity provision.

Must be a coincidence.

Yeah, Right!

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Editorial Oct. 24, 2007 - From the Port Townsend (WA) Leader

I've included this because I think they did a rather eloquent job of describing the situation.

THE COMMON PEOPLE

It took common people - farmers, brewers, printers, silversmiths - to write the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights some 218 years ago. And it looks as if it's up to the common people to try to defend those principles.

Somebody has to step up here.

The Bush administration mocks each provision of the Bill of Rights that protects private citizens from their government, and likewise pushes past constitutional constraints that protect other branches of government from the presidency.

Meanwhile, most federal courts equivocate their way to approve most of these actions, and Congress, even though in control of the opposition party, dithers and compromises away our basic rights for fear of accusations of being soft on terror. The media, meanwhile, fawns and yawns its way through this immense power grab, distracted by the search for another faux pas by Britney Spears or startling new evidence about who killed Princess Diana.

The good news comes out of 12 jurors in a Dallas courtroom on Monday. The jury sat and listened for two months to the testimony of federal agents, Israeli intelligence officers, wiretaps, videotapes and saw thousands of documents produced by government prosecutors. They worked their way through 197 counts of charges against a charitable fundraising organization called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Muslim organization that says it directs funds to the construction of hospitals and providing food for the poor in Palestine.

The Bush Administration closed the group down and froze its assets in December 2001 for supposedly financing terror attacks and murder around the world. The case against the Holy Land Foundation was the largest prosecution case by the U.S. government against an Islamic fundraising group.

Instead, a jury of common people told the judge, after two months of testimony and 19 days of sifting through testimony and evidence, that they were ready to acquit three of five defendants on almost all charges and could not reach a verdict on the other defendants or charges. The judge declared a mistrial and threw the case out.

The U.S. attorney involved said the government will attempt to retry the case. We'll see how another group of common people deals with this intricate set of facts and assumptions in the future.

One must thank God - or Madison, Adams and Jefferson - that the judgment of common people was written into our Constitution and basic legal codes. It was done for times like these, when almost every branch of officialdom gets stampeded into dangerous over-reaction.

Consider:

The man President Bush named to replace the disgraced Alberto Gonzalez as attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, is in confirmation hearings in Washington, D.C. Asked if he thought the president was subject to federal statutes, Mukasey equivocated that it would depend on "whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country." Read those words carefully. In other words, it's up to Bush to decide which laws he will obey and which he will ignore if he feels it's in the national interest. In fewer words, laws aren't binding on this president. He is above the law.

This is not really a shocking admission. Instead it's a plain statement of how this White House has actually operated since late 2001. It has operated on the assumption that presidential decisions trump our nation's laws - even those designed to constrain presidential power. So far they've stared down the few voices of opposition and gotten away with it.

In spite of the fact that Mukasey lacks the guile to not state the obvious, it looks as though the Democratic-controlled Congress will amble along and approve him. That prediction comes after a long and continuing march of appeasement and caving in to pressure from the White House, despite a lot of tough talk following the Democrats' takeover of Congress in the last election. That takeover, by the way, surprised the Democrats as much as anyone, again courtesy of the common people who voted that November Tuesday of 2006.

The opposition-controlled Congress also appears on the verge of granting immunity to huge telephone companies that illegally assisted the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping of the phones, cell phones and email of common American citizens over the past six years. AT&T, Verizon and others have been sued by customers who claim that the decision of the companies to open up their internal switching computers to warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency violated federal privacy laws.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, has already passed a bill that would retroactively grant immunity to those companies from their customers' lawsuits. The bill would also add some restrictions on eavesdropping via a secret court, whose rulings can't be known because of course they're secret. House Democrats are resisting the immunity section - although presenting terms on which they might accept it.

Rockefeller, by the way, is reported to have accepted $42,000 in political contributions this year alone from executives and lawyers for AT&T and Verizon.

The Bush administration acts as if it can cajole and manhandle Congress, apparently with justification. When it runs into a contrary individual it can't silence, other tactics come into play.

That's what former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson found in 2002 when he was about the only credible high-level government official who spoke out prior to the invasion of Iraq to say the Bush justification that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons appeared to be garbage.

Within days, an effort to destroy Wilson was launched from at least Vice President Dick Cheney's office. This included illegally identifying Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, as an undercover CIA agent. That put in danger her life and those of her sources in various countries around the world. In her just-published book, she describes how she was then denied protection by the CIA and had her federal taxes audited by the IRS. She has since left government service, becoming a common person again, probably not a minute too soon.

Bush was quick to offer his protection in the Wilson case, however. He offered it in the form of a commuted sentence in July to Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, who was the only person to be convicted in this case of outing a CIA agent, for perjury. Now there's justice.

The wisdom of the people who wrote our nation's basic legal code remains intact. Executive power, especially in a time of high passion, must be restrained. Even the powerful must live within the law. The fact that our institutions forget this from time to time is a pattern we have seen before. Ultimately it's up to the common people to remember that freedom and liberty are not nouns, but verbs. They require constant vigilance and constant effort. Eventually little wins by the common people will add up to something significant.

It would seem there are few other alternatives.

- Scott Wilson

Friday, October 26, 2007

Lies and damned liars!

When, if ever, will we realize that the current administration is NOT operating in our best interest?

We have a President who lies whenever it suits his purpose and a Vice President who can only stay awake when discussing the bombing of another country.

Where is the America I grew up with?

There was a time when we could count on our government to act in our best interest. Those days are gone and have been supplanted by the most evil sacks of shit that can be imagined.

These SOB's that are currently running our country are totally without morals. They attack the messenger whenever they find someone valiant enough to stand up to them. Like Valerie Plame-Wilson.


They lie whenever they can and their minions blindly support them right down till they hit the valley of the damned.


These people are NOT Americans. I seriously question weather they are even humans.


We have a drunk, draft-dodger, AWOL National Guardsman, frat boy punk, bully for a President.

How pathetic is that?

As far as I'm concerned Pelosi should be damned to hell for taking "Impeachment" off the table.

If Bill Clinton can be impeached for a simple blow-job, then the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. should be out on his ass!

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Saint Rudy of 9-11

My God!
As more and more information comes out about Rudy 9-11, we find lie after lie after lie.

One of the (many) latest is that "President Clinton 'did NOTHING about the bombing of the USS Cole by al Queda!"

Why, Damn him! Not striking back at al Queda like that! What kind of a (Democratic) President was he?

We-l-l-l-l it turns out that the Cole bombing occurred 2 months before President Clinton left office and the FBI didn't confirm that it was al queda until 3 months after George "Cowboy" Bush took office.

So-o-o-o, it looks like the one who DIDN'T do anything about the Cole bombing was George (Thumb-Up-up-his-ass) Bush!

It's this type of lies and mis-information that really worry me.

If this SOB get's to be President, what can we expect then?

Dear God, protect us from St. Rudy of the 9-11!

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

This post was made to Valerie Plame-Wilson on HuffPo on Oct 24, 2007

I'm not the first here to say a heartfelt Thank You to both you and Ambassador Joe for your service to our country. I hope that I'm not the last.

There is, I believe, an interesting parallel between the unconscionable treatment you received as a hard working member of our government and what has been done to our returning veterans from Afganistan and Iraq.

In both cases the treatment dished out by BushCo has been despicable!

You are not shown the respect one would normally accord a simple typist let alone someone who has put themselves on the line for their country.

Our veterans are similarly "cast off" as being no longer useful to the Bush machine. Put up in rat infested hovels and made to jump through loophole after loophole in pursuit of the benefits they deserve for service to their country.

It is a totally shameful way to run a country.

The other part of this tragedy is the veracity of our leaders.

We all have a pretty good idea that Bush has lied on numerous occasions, but when he said he would Fire anyone involved in your outing and then commuted the sentence of Libby.

That was an outrage and proved beyond a doubt what a lack of courage the President has.

For a drunken, frat boy, draft dodging deserter to even be in the same room with someone like yourself is a damned shame!

Please have a good life. Bush is on his way to the obscurity he deserves.

Monday, October 22, 2007

This post was made Oct. 22, 2007 in response to a Huffington Post article by Valerie Plame-Wilson, a covert CIA officer who was exposed by the Bush administration because her husband wrote an article calling Bush on a LIE Bush made in a state of the Union address in 2002

Mrs. Plame-Wilson

Thank you for your service to our country.

On behalf of myself and, as you by now know many others as well, I would like to apologize for the treatment you received from this disgusting administration.

To those that think that BushCo didn't have a hand in outing you, just consider what happened to the Frost child when he spoke out against the veto of the SCHIP program.

Our Idiot-In-Chief and his cronies in the far right press just couldn't wait to spew out lies about this poor defenseless child.

I am truly glad that YOU are in a position to hold these slime balls to at least some measure of account for their dastardly actions.

BushCo thinks that he can avoid criticism by refusing to turn over people and documents for scrutiny.

He's wrong and any sane person knows it. Look at the things that are still coming out from in under rocks placed there by Nixon.

I know that this won't rectify what was done to you, but at least you will have the eventual satisfaction of knowing that the future will vindicate you...and not Bush.

Once again thank you and I hope you are proud of the way Ambassador Wilson has supported you. I've been impressed with both of you for some time.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Signing Statements vs. Line Item Vetos

Signing Statements

George Will (NYT) wrote an interesting OpEd piece on "Why the Line Item Veto (that Mitt Romney wants) is unconstitutional. If you would like to read it, check out the (free) New York Times web site for his Sunday Oct. 21st. piece

I subsequently sent him an email as follow:

Mr. Will,
Thank you for your, as usual, well written article. I did not realize that a "Line-item" veto could be contrary to the Constitution. Your article has made that clear.

Question:
Given that a bill must be approved as "it" is submitted to the President for his signature or veto, how is it that Bush (and others) can get away with "signing statements" that effectively change or even void the intent of the bill submitted?

The classic example that occurs to me is the McCain bill prohibiting torture. Bush's signing statement effectively renders this bill meaningless and unenforceable.

How is a signing statement different then from a line item veto?

Truly,
R. Paul Alderson

Fixing the Govt.

A response to an excellent article by David Sirota. Read it at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-dangers-of-wearing-bo_b_68995.html

David
As usual, excellent post.

To use the articles example...how many net roots connections do you think there are in Watts, Oakland or Newark?

The "economic underclass" you are trying to save is not well represented on the net.

I agree with your premise. It's just that I seem to see things from a slightly different perspective.

I am, by definition and reality, middle class. Perhaps even "middle" middle class. I'm retired, single, and have the time to keep my blood-pressure up in the stratosphere by working to stop the BushCo madness with the only tools I have...my computer and a small amount of money donated to my choice of the worthiest causes.

I'm intelligent, educated and frustrated out of my skull by my impotence against the evil things Bush and Cheney (et al) have done and are doing daily.

I have come to the (admittedly "MY") realization that the amount of money flowing at the top of the economic spectrum will never allow us to ease the burdens of the lower classes with revolutionary change.

We need total public financing with fixed caps on total dollars available for campaigning. This will limit the ability of corporations and lobbyist to "prepurchase" a president.

We need single fixed terms in office for the President and vice president of (my opinion) between six and eight years. Congress for 3 years Senate for eight.

We need some type of minimal TEST for qualification to hold Gov't office. Perhaps an expanded civil service exam asking, for instance "Is Brazil a big Country?", "Who leads the Gov't in five countries of the world?", "What are the three branches of the US Gov't and how do checks and balances work?", "Have you read the Constitution (That piece of paper!) or the Declaration of Independence?" This would help make certain we never got another "Intellectually Incurious" leader again.

So...there's is a plan for you to take the money out of politics and make our government more able to focus on the "Needs" of it's people.

Perhaps if we had a system I have described we could get our tax system on a fair and equal basis since the corporations and lobbyist (C&L) would have no leverage on the lawmakers.

Perhaps we could have Universal Health Care since the C&L would have no leverage on the lawmakers.

Perhaps we could have energy independence since the C&L would have no leverage on the lawmakers.

Perhaps we could have real safety nets for citizens with real needs since the C&L would have no leverage on the lawmakers.

There will be loopholes as long lawyers exist. But...they will be easier to spot.

Now, I've described a system that is certainly debatable all day long, BUT...it"s a system that could actually return some of the power to the electorate that we have lost.

OK! So, you tell me how there is a snowballs chance in hell of getting even one percent of a plan like this through our Gov't!

Please tell me how we can change the way we live in America when we are given choices like Hillary and Rudy to pick from.

Please tell me how we can take on a system like BushCo has foisted on us when Impeachment is "Off the table?" ...when we have a gutless congress? ...when we have admitted crooks running this country and smirking at anyone who suggests they be held accountable?...when we are in a war that was never just and KNOW that the madmen that led us there are going to take us into another one with Iran because there is NOTHING to stop them?...when they take money from programs to help the poor because they need to show "fiscal restraint" after giving away the nations treasure to the rich and to powerful crony contractors?

Please tell me because I want to know. This feeling of helplessness is killing me.

Now...YOU tell ME how to make it (or any other fix you come up with) work in today"s reality.