Lee D Blog

Congratulations

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:31:21 EST

Mr. President Elect Barack Obama

In my 89th year of life, I can safely say that since I first started to vote - I believe it was for the First term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - until this November 5, 2008, there have been hardly a handful of Presidents truly worthy of the Office, and you I believe will be one more to add to that small group.

At my age I know not whether I shall be here to partake of another presidential election, but I am proud to say that I have cast my first, and possibly my last, presidential votes for two of the greatest, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Obama - and I am confident you'll not let me down.

You have been left more problems than have been left to any President-elect since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in addition to a country that has been ideologically divided for several decades, winding up during the administration of George W. Bush of one that has revolutionized the government provided by the founding fathers. The Bush administration ignored the system of "checks and balances" provided in the Constitution, ignored statutory law, violated international law, violated the constitutional rights of American citizens, and creating what he thought was an immunity to a new statute that he signed into,law by adding a "signing statement."

My support for your candidacy came not from your brilliant oratory skills, but for the content of your chosen subject matter; from your educational background, career choices, sound judgment in your choice of advisors, and above all else your familiarity with the greatest document of democracy ever written, the Constitution of the United States of America.

I look forward to January 20, 2009, the day of your inauguration, and it is my hope that one statement you will make will be, "I, as President of the United States of America, will restore the Constitution of the United States in every facet of this government and it will once again be the Supreme Law of the Land, as stated in Article VI thereof, to wit, 'This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made pursuant thereof . . . . shall be the supreme law of the Land. . . . . ."

Your first order of business will no doubt be the setting of priorities among all that need immediate attention, and that you, at the earliest possible hour address the American people to announce those priorities and sow the American people the first it of transparency ion governance in decades, for that it is how, at the bottom can be the moving force for those who place themselves at the top.

It would be appreciated if this blog venue were kept on for those of us who support your intentions to help express them to others, and to be aware of what others are saying that may influence my support for something I might not have thought of.

LIFE

Lee Dimin. — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:32:02 EDT

Today's quote: - "The days of our years are three score years and ten; and if by reason of strength the be four score years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we fly away," PSALMS XC,10.

Comment - The above quote seems to contradict a religious belief that asserts that life begins at conception, for "four score years does not apparently include the nine months of gestation. There are several theories of the beginning of human life, some even scientific that will be addressed here.,Before you hold a position or belief about abortion, embryonic stem cell research or any other issue related to the creation of life, you must determine when you believe life begins. Once you find an answer to this question, everything else falls into line. But no matter the belief you arrive at, or already have, may not be the correct one, for they be many who disagree with it, and it therefore becomes a question that will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction - but then, if we are a society of different thoughts, and ideas, and thankfully we are, then whatever believe each of us may profess should not, and must not be imposed on others in a way that wold deprive them of that which they believe.

So let's look at the theories to see which of them affects, if any, your personal belief about when life begins.

Genetic View: Conception, Life begins when the sperm and the ovum are united. During fertilization, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. This process takes up to 48 hours..

Embyrological View, 14 days:. Life begins at gastrulation -- the point at which a developing embryo forms distinct layers that grow into different organs. Embryos are capable of splitting into twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in separate individuals. Gastrulation commences when the zygote, now called an embryo, implants into the uterus.

Neurological View, 6-24 weeks: Life begins when the brain produces measurable waves. Death is marked by the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life would be recognized when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. There is much disagreement about when this occurs.

Ecological View, 25-27 weeks: Life begins when the fetus can survive outside the uterus. Viability is generally determined by the sufficient maturation of the lungs. With modern medicine, a premature baby can breathe outside of the womb as early as 25 weeks after conception

Birth View, 7-9 months: Life begins at birth. When the fetus emerges and separates from the body of the mother, whether naturally or surgically, a child is born. This typically occurs at 9 months, but frequently occurs several weeks early.

Awareness View: There is a sixth view of life promoted by some philosophers. They believe that neither a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. In the article "Abortion and Infanticide," Michael Tooley argues that abortion and infanticide are both acceptable because life does not begin until the human child gains self-awareness. This generally occurs around 18 months after birth.

St. Francis of Assisi said, "You are born, your live and you die." So that from his point of religiosity, you do not live until you are born, which is life as described in the "Birth View" above. So he, too, disagreed with the church's current position that life begins at conception. A farmer plants a seed in the ground, but it is not a plant until it sprouts from the soil.

None of the above has changed my views regarding the beginning of human life, and it is my belief as an American citizen, and a self-considered constitutionalist that the First Amendment prohibits the making of any laws "respecting an establishment of religion" which any law or Court decision to reverse the Decision in Roe vs. Wade would violate the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of privacy. The First Amendment also prohibits the government from enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But one's freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs does not infer a right to impose those beliefs on others. To do so is, in plain language, Un-American.. How dull a world this wold be if everyone thought alike, It would be as, though we were nothing more than robots. There would not have been a Mozart, a Salvatore Dali, a Maimonides, a Jesus, a Moses, a Pavarotti. As the French would say, "Vive le diffiierance!"

A PARTY OF LIES AND LIARS

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:42:49 EDT

Today's quote: -"My rule of life has been never to harass the public with fendings and provings of personal slanders . . . I have ever trusted to the justice and consideration of my fellow citizens, and have no reason to repent it, or to change my course." THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1824.

Comment: - This is a quote that might be a lesson for the McCains, Palins, Roves, Atwaters, Schmidts and other character assassins who care about nothing but their own selfish interest and personal gain. What we need in campaign reform is civility, and there is none among the Republican candidates and their supporter. If the opinion of the American abroad mans anything, then the Republicans, this year, have ignored it. The act like rabid dogs with a desperation that defies human conduct. Lies, deceit, dishonesty, misrepresentations, false character assassinations and utter ugliness - much like we have had from many of the Republicans in Congress for the past eight years. It is time for CHANGE! We cannot wait four more years, or with a Supreme Court that will last four more decades, with a majority of justices appointed by ideologues. Have you heard one Republican candidate, or Republican supporter, yet give the facts of any policy they claim they have? You could not have because they have not given any. The Cheney secrecy continues! Do you want to restore the "checks and balances" the founding fathers placed in our Constitution? McCain has, time and time again voted with George W. Bush and against these "checks and balances". Do you want to restore your basic right to privacy, as provided in the Fourth ?Amendment to the Constitution? Mc/Cain has voted against it time and time again. Do you want the extremists on the religious right to control the government, as they have for the past eight years, with McCain's support or do you support the First Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall pass no law "respecting an establishment of religion?" I am a Constitutionalist and carry a copy with me whenever possible. Get a copy, study it and believe in it, word for word, which many Justices of the Supreme Court at times fail to do. The negative campaign of the Republicans is reflected in a most recent rally by Gov. Sarah Palin in Pennsylvania. Read on.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin went beyond her running mate's recent attack on Sen. Barack Obama -- inaccurately claiming that Obama wants to re-write the U.S. Constitution and appoint radical Supreme Court justices and judges who would confiscate the property of American citizens. This is not campaign speech, this is slander and above all dishonesty, and indicates a total lack of understanding on the part of Gov. Palin of the Constitution, the “supreme law of the land”, as therein stated.

At two rallies in Western Pennsylvania, Palin referenced at the top of her remarks a 2001 public radio interview with Obama that surfaced this week, in which Obama discussed the role of the courts in the civil rights movement. "There he was talking about the need for quote 'redistributive change,'" Palin said on the campus of Shippensburg University Tuesday night. “Sen. Obama said that he regretted that the Supreme Court hadn't been more radical. And he described the Court's refusal to take up the issues of redistribution of wealth as a tragedy. And he said he also regretted that the Supreme Court didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers there in the Constitution” Obama had, in fact, argued the opposite in the 2001 interview, saying that the civil rights movement had become too focused on making change through the judicial system, rather than from the ground up through community organizations. Lying, distortion, misrepresentation, dishonesty and character assassination appears to become a “party-line” for Republicans, their hunger for complete and dictatorial power has become so great under Bush and Cheney. But it is now time to end the destructive revolution and to restore a constitutional democracy to these United States of America.

Palin , using McCain’s words said, "Obama says that he wants to spread the wealth," stirring boos from the crowd. "In other words he thinks that it's your job to earn the wealth and it's his job to spread it." Restoring a former tax rate on the wealthiest 1% of the nation, and reducing the tax Rate of 95% of working Americans, is not a “sharing of wealth” but a return to then tax policies of this country since the income tax was introduced in 1933, taxation proportionate to your ability to pay. The Obama plan puts more money into the hand s of people who spend it, not into the hands of those who play with it for their own selfish ends.

Referencing the interview, Palin said, "So you have to ask, is this a suggestion that's he’d want to re-write the founding document of our great nation to accomplish his goals. And what does that say about his ideas on future Supreme Court justices?" What it says is that of you are going to comment on the Constitution, you had better study it, and even more importantly, understand it. Palin may start by reading Article V of the Constitution, and after she understands the workings of that paragraph, she might go to Article II, section 2, where it plainly provides the methods for the appointment of federal judges and Justice of the Supreme Court. And if Gov. Palin were concerned about the Constitution, how could she have supported the presidency of George W. Bush, who violated the Constitution more times than all the 42 Presidents preceding him combined. Ms. Palin has proven herself to be a total, self-serving fraud.

"Let me remind Barack Obama of something else. When judges don’t confiscate your property and your hard-earned -- all of your hard-earned money and then re-distribute that, he may call that a tragedy. But I call it fairness and adherence to our U.S. Constitution," Palin added later in her remarks. Obama described one of the "tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that "the civil rights movement became so court-focused". Once again, Palin exhibits her ability to distort, or her inability to understand the English language. What Obama had said was, "I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that.". With regard to “economic redistribution” Obama said, “I’m not optimistic about bringing about redistributive change through the courts, The institution isn’t structured that way.” Obama's 2001 interview made no mention of judges confiscating property. The Palin campaign did not provide clarification on what Palin was referring to with the remark.

Palin said the 2001 interview revealed Obama's "real ideology" and that his goal to "spread your wealth around" would only spread "scarcity and poverty and bureaucracy" and would stifle the country's entrepreneurial spirit. She asked those in the crowd to support the Republican ticket to preserve the "uniquely American system that our founding fathers created." If Gov. Palin were concerned about the “spreading of wealth” why doesn’t she account for the fact that during the past eight year, the Bush administration. The redistribution of wealth went from the middle class to the wealthy, while the numbers on the poverty class rose dramatically.

"Sometimes in politics it's those candid little moments that give us the whole picture," Palin said at a second rally on the Penn State campus in State College, PA . But when those candid little moments are figments of one’s imagination, or built upon a distortion of facts, a twisting of word or outright lies they do more to inure the character of their proponent.

I find Sarah Palin a disgrace to the American political process, and that also is my opinion of the man who picked her to be his running mate, and who is “so proud” of her performance. But then, McCain supported the lies and distortions of George W. Bush for eight years - he’s “become accustomed to their charms” (My fair lady)

WAR AND TAXES

Lee Dimin. — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:48:10 EDT

Today's quote: There are two today, and leave it to you, upon completing the reading of this edition of "Did you know" to make the decision

A “tax increase of ten times the size recommended by the president would still not begin to equate the sacrifice of our courageous young men fighting and dying in the swamps and jungles of Vietnam with Americans who are enjoying income and prosperity greater than they have ever known.” – Sen. Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee during the Vietnam War
“Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.” – Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, March, 2003*

Comment: - *The $12 Billion dollars being spent monthly to wage the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan is being borrowed (not budgeted) primarily from the Communist government called The People's Republic of China, and that is in addition to the cost of equipment and military hardware lost, and to be lost, This indebtedness will exceed more than a trillion dollars before our troops are withdrawn. With those finances and the loss of 4,200 American troops, and the wounding of 32,000, how can we ever declare a "victory", or even define a "victory?" The only "winners" in Iraq will be Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers, whose profits are not sufficient to prevent them from "stealing" through improper invoicing and other tricks they have played on a blind government.The idea of consciously and aggressively reducing federal tax revenues while simultaneously pursuing a war abroad is new to the American experience,” wrote Joseph J. Thorndike, Steven A. Bank, and Kirk J. Stark in an analysis of war finance in United States history. War and Taxes, released May 6 by the Urban Institute Press, chronicles the political arguments, economic conditions, and public opinions that made it possible for previous presidents and Congresses to raise taxes, sell bonds, and cut domestic spending to pay for wars. The authors contrast the tax hikes enacted to support previous military operations with the extraordinary tax cuts Americans have enjoyed during the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—all without overstating previous generations' enthusiasm for wartime sacrifice.

War and Taxes describes the longstanding tension between the public’s sense of patriotic duty and its reluctance to bear rising tax burdens. During World War I, for example, the United States Chamber of Commerce announced being “undismayed at the prospect of great taxes” to support the war, but still argued for heavy taxes on only the most profitable businesses. Even in World War II, often thought of as the war most energetically supported with home-front sacrifices, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt often argued over the type and amount of tax revenue essential for fighting the war, once disagreeing so seriously that a lukewarm tax bill passed by both houses drew a sharply worded veto from the president.
Even after weighing the often-overlooked history of U.S. resistance to wartime taxation, Thorndike, Bank, and Stark find no historical precedent for the billions of dollars in tax cuts secured by President George W. Bush while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue.

“Like the events of December 7, 1941, the attacks of September 11 triggered a strong ‘rally ’round the flag’ effect as Americans readied themselves for the sacrifices of war. Unlike Pearl Harbor, however, there was virtually no talk in the wake of the September 11 attacks of a need to increase taxes in order to mobilize for war,” the tax historians write.

Just as earlier leaders appealed to Americans' sense of patriotism to raise taxes, some politicians used the same tack to argue for cutting them during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One commentator quoted in the book wrote in an April 2003 op-ed “by keeping tax rates too high and ‘sacrificing’ economic growth, we don’t help the war effort, we hinder it; we don’t get more revenue, we get less.”

Earlier generations may have witnessed debates over the right form and magnitude of tax increases for fighting wars abroad, but so solid a rejection of the increases, the authors conclude, is truly unprecedented in American history. War and Taxes considers whether the absence of a military draft, political acceptance of budget deficits, or declining concerns over inflation are behind this generation’s wartime tax cuts. Whatever the political and economic conditions that make these tax cuts acceptable to lawmakers, the book’s authors are clear: “the Bush-era tax cuts … plainly constitute an extraordinary episode in the history of American war finance.”

Steven Bank is a professor of law and vice dean at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, where Kirk Stark is a professor of law. Joseph J. Thorndike is the director of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts and a scholar in residence at the University of Virginia.
The reality of U.S. troops killing and dying for Iraqi oil hit U.S. public consciousness hard on June 19, 2008 when it was announced that the occupied government of Iraq intended to award no-bid oil service contracts to ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and Total. These are companies wo for the past two years have been making record quarterly profits as well as having received huge subsidies from the U.. S. government, but which have contributed noting toward the costs of this war. "They" have already "won the war". one that the American people will never win, one for which their children and grandchildren will be paying throughout their lives. This is the corruption of a corporatocracy where the lobby own the legislative bodies and the corporate CEO's own the elected officials and justices. Corporate control of government is as close to fascism a country can go without adopting the name. Under George W. Bush, and his fist six years in Congress where he had a majority in both houses of Congress, and a majority on the Supreme Court- most of whom were ideologues, this country was not far from being totalitarian. It was George W. Bush who- most of whom were ideologues saaiud- most of whom were ideologues in December, 2000 George W. Bush said that things would be easier if he "was a dictator," - and he was for xix long years.
John McCain, and a few other wealthy and greedy Americans, who think moa about themselves than of their country have been unwilling to pay for the wars we are currently engaged in, and will leave to future generations, not yet born, to bear the burden. This seems the only "right to life" they're entitled to, one of debt and more debt. The wealthiest one percent in this country have no worries about paying medical bills, purchasing prescriptions, buying new cars and paying inflated prices for the groceries, but because they amount to only 1% of the population, American car manufacturers are going belly-up, retail stores are closing, restaurants are hurting and the entire economy is in decline - because one percent of the population cannot support all the industries of this country, nor do they want to - but the greed for those extra few thousand dollars of tax cuts, they are now suffering in the stock market - a result of their support for an administration that favored the special interests over the people's interests, deregulated, obstructed congressional oversight , appointed unqualified heads of government agencies, which failed to perform their responsibilities, either intentionally or because of their ineptness.
There will be no difference between a George W. Bush administation and a John S. McCain administrsation, because they are both the tools of their advisors =George W, Bush (by KARL ROVE); John S, McCain (by STEVE SCHMIDT, a Karl Rove Protege) Under John McCain, the wars will continue to be financiced by our children and grandchilkdren, and national debt will grow to higher record levels, with moneys borrowed from Communist China - and others.

LIAR! LIAR! YOU'RE PANT'S ON FIRE

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:59:56 EDT

Today's quote: - "There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world." - THOMAS JEFFERSON, Letter to Henry Lee, 1826.

Comment: - That quote might equally be made by Barack Obama, but certainly not by John McCain. Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) first health care plan released in 2007 was supposed to be financed by exposing health benefits to income and payroll taxes. But analysts argued that doing so would result in a massive tax increase on the middle class, so the campaign flip-flopped earlier this month and said that McCain would finance the plan by making major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid. Independent analysts estimated that the reductions "could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs." Last week, Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign released a television ad criticizing McCain for his proposal to pay for his health care plan with "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid." The ad's assertion of potential benefit cuts was based on an analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which found that in order for McCain to close his $1.3 trillion budget gap, he would have to "cut Medicare by 13 percent over 10 years" as well as slash "Medicaid spending by 13 percent over 10 years." CAPAF calculated that neither McCain's Medicare and Medicaid spending would keep pace with medical inflation growth and enrollment increases, so his proposal would require "cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."CAPAF's analysis was based on the McCain campaign's repeated assertions that its health care plan is budget neutral. During the vice presidential debate, for instance, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) explained McCain's health care plan as being "budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything. ... But a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax that's budget neutral." The McCain campaign, which estimated that his health care tax credits will cost $3.6 trillion over the decade, initially said it would pay for the plan by taxing workers' health benefits, which are largely tax-free today. But, as CAPAF has previously argued, this would result in either a tax increase of $1,100 on the average family or a $1.3 trillion budget shortfall. Earlier this month, Holtz-Eakin told the Wall Street Journal that McCain would rely on "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid" to fill the budget gap. Examining the consequences of McCain's newfound funding mechanism, CAPAF calculated that McCain's reduction does not keep up with medical inflation and enrollment rates and would require McCain to cut benefits, eligibility or both. Additionally, the McCain campaign has overstated the potential for pain-free Medicare and Medicaid "savings" that are not really "cuts." For instance, in July, McCain opposed cutting subsidies to insurers through Medicare Advantage, but now his campaign is wildly overstating the savings that such cuts would provide. The McCain campaign the cuts would save $1 trillion over 10 years, which is more than six times the actual projected savings of $149 billion

Speaking to the Wall Street Journal this month, Holtz-Eakin claimed that "the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid." Though Holtz-Eakin's revelation was new, it was not out of line with past statements from the McCain campaign. After its health care plan was released, the McCain campaign said that it planned to "reduce the growth in Medicare spending." McCain advisers reiterated the goal this past weekend, saying that the senator would force Congress to "control the growth" of Medicare spending. In fact, throughout his career, he has regularly supported slashing Medicare benefits and limiting eligibility. He has voted to cut, restrict or underfund Medicare at least 28 times while voting to restrict access to Medicare at least two times. In 1997, McCain voted in favor of raising the eligibility age for receiving Medicare from 65 to 67 with the change being phased in between 2003 and 2027. McCain has also voted against Medicare's future by opposing efforts to extend its solvency at least nine times.

John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. Almost every politician stretches the truth. McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.

Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions. McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of lies that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President. McCain's latest charges, echoed by his puppet Palin, is that Obama is a "Socialist." If after all these years, 26, in the U.S. Congress McCain still does not know what "Socialism" is, he certainly is not deserving of the presidency. And if Obama positions for the Middle Class of ?America constitutes "Socialism", then McCain support of the corporate control of government a form of pure "Fascism.". Of course neither is accurate except as it relates as to whose interests the candidates represent. McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign. But this is not the first time he has defaced "his beloved military code." He did it when he voted against veterans; benefits; he did it when he supported an illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq; he did it when he represented the special interests against the interests of the ?American people.

On October 19, 2008, Sen. John McCain held a telephone town hall meeting, in which “thousands” of Nevadans — according to the McCain campaign — called to listen in. Among some of the hostile, pointed, and critical questions came one from a veteran, who challenged McCain on his voting record regarding funding for the Veterans Administration and veterans’ priorities:

Q: I know you voted for lesser increases, and sometimes they were so much less, and our VA desperately needs the money. Can you tell me why you would vote for less money for the VA when there’s a war going on?
McCain: Well of course I have not and I’m afraid I’ve been endorsed by the VFW in every election that I’ve been in. I have been — received the honors, the highest honor and awards from all our veterans organizations for my consistent support of them. I don’t know what you’re looking at, but the DAV, the VFW, the American Legion, all of them have given me their highest awards for my consistent support of them.

McCain is either willfully lying or he is delusional about his record — and the meaning of “highest awards.” In fact, McCain has recently stood on the opposite side of all three of the groups he mentioned:

Disabled American Veterans (DAV): In a list of 36 “key votes,” shows McCain “Voted Against Us” 16 times. (Obama “Voted With Us” 17 times, and against only once.)
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW): Endorsed Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) GI Bill that McCain vigorously opposed; called McCain’s alternative GI Bill “very partisan” and said they “didn’t have much input” in its crafting.
American Legion: Endorsed Webb’s GI Bill and criticized McCain’s concern about how it would affect retention, saying the bill “would encourage young men and women to join the military.”

Last week, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D for his record of voting against veterans. (Obama got a B.) The Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) have noted that in its “Key Votes,” McCain “Voted Against Us” 15 times and “Voted For Us” only 8. (Obama voted for VVA 12 times, and against only once.)

Earlier this month, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), a leading veterans advocate, excoriated McCain in an interview with ThinkProgress: “If you look at John McCain’s record on veterans issues, it’s a failed one.” It’s a sentiment IAVA executive director Paul Rieckhoff agrees with. Noting McCain’s dismal voting record on VA funding, Rieckhoff told ThinkProgress, “If he says the VA’s not working, it’s in part because he hasn’t funded it properly.”

Update: In an interview with Richmond's WTVR on Friday, McCain repeated his favorite lie: "I've been a friend of the veterans for a long time and I've received every award from every major veterans organization." He added, "I'm proud of my support for the veterans." WITH FRIENDS LIKE McCAIN, WE VETERANS CAN'T AFFORD ANY ENEMIES!On Social Security:

McCain's record on this issue is full of lies and distortions based the GOPs disingenuous philosophy of 'laissez faire' --deregulation and weakened consumer protections. McCain calls his proposed theft of Social Security --'reform' and wrote an article in which he praised banking deregulation and promised the same for the health insurance industry. Is McCain senile or just out of touch. Is he even aware that the people of the US are now 'bailing out' the Wall Street fat cats? Never mind, the GOP wants you to just keep on doing whatever makes you sick! (At age 72, I wonder, is McCain receiving his monthly Social Security checks?) There is a simple cure to the problems of Social Security - revert to its original purpose, to allow the elderly to live out their lives outside of the County poor house. Social Security should be means tested. Millionaires like McCain, Bush, Clinton, Perot have not need for it, and should not be receiving it. It was not meant to be an annuity, it was meant to be an insurance policy, like fire insurance or liability insurance. There must be a need before entitlement.

Send McCain a message, in fact, bombard his headquarters. Tell him in all caps:

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIAL SECURITY BUT THE GREEDY BASTARDS ON WALL STREET AND IN WASHINGTON!

STOP LYING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY!

STOP TRYING TO MANUFACTURE A CRISIS!

STOP DEMAGOGUING THIS ISSUE!

KEEP YOUR MITTS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY!

We have had eight years of lying by the Bush administration, and McCain has issued about as many lies and distortions of the truth in his short time as Republican candidate for the presidency. Keep the liars out of office. They dishonor the country.

RACISM STILL PERSISTS

Lee Dimin. — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:56:49 EDT

Today's quote: - "Bigotry's birthplace is the sinister back room of the mind where plots and schemes are hatched for the persecution and oppression of other human beings." - Bayard Ruskin.

Comment: - Race is going to be the key factor in 2008 US Presidential Elections between Democratic candidate Barack Obama, an Illinois senator who is African American, and his Republican opponent, John McCain, a white senator from Arizona. Race will be a determinative issue for a significant numbers of voters in the campaign, despite the fact that a majority of Americans now dislike President George W. Bush’s policies and the fact that the policies and values of John McCain and his vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, are almost identical to those of Bush.

The current economic crises is the worst in the recent history. Obama should be a shoo-in as the probable winner in coming elections. The only reason that may cause his defeat is racism. In many opinion polls, a majority of the elder white voters overwhelmingly reject Obama, even if many of them are unhappy with Bush. Indeed, one-third of Democrats have at various times told pollsters that they will not vote for a black candidate and a recent Associated Press/Yahoo News poll suggested that his race is costing Obama at least six percentage points in the polls. Many Americans today are uncomfortable in openly announcing their own racial bias, yet according to a latest Gallup poll, 7 percent of white voters say Obama’s race makes them less likely to vote for him, which is much less than the previous polls where this ratio rotates round 30 percent but here comes the “Bradley effect” one should never forget as Obama is also leading in the opinion polls like Tom Bradley. The Bradley effect was first noted during the 1982 governor’s race in California, when Tom Bradley, the then African-American mayor of Los Angeles, lost the race to his white opponent despite leading in pre-election polls throughout the campaign. Similar results appeared in 1989, when David Dinkins ran for mayor of New York City and Douglas Wilder sought election as governor of Virginia. Is that what John McCain is counting ion when he says, in regard to Obama's lead, "We got them right where we want them." Is this McCain's method of playing the "race card"? This racism is covert, only implied at through code words. The media, particularly the increasingly popular conservative media, is particularly important here. A July cover of the New Yorker magazine showed a cartoon of Obama wearing a turban and his wife, Michelle, holding a gun. Obama said the cover could encourage misconceptions about him. The magazine said the cover was intended as satire.

There have been a number of developments that speak about the possibility of a turning-point election that can bring the first African American black president in the White house:

First, the weakness and age of the Republican candidate may perhaps indicate that the party itself is truly at the end of a forty-year cycle of power.
Second, of course, is the meltdown, even possibly implosion, of the US economy. This has put states in the Midwest and elsewhere that Bush took in 2000 and 2004 into play.
Third, there has been a noticeable trend in shifting party affiliations in which the Democrats are gaining membership as the Republicans are losing it, especially in key battleground states like Pennsylvania where, in 2008 alone, 474,000 new names have gone on the Democratic rolls, according to the Washington Post, even as the Republicans have lost 38,000. Overall, since 2006, the Democrats have gained at least two million new members, while the Republicans have lost 344,000.
According to the Gallup, self-identified Democrats outnumbered self-identified Republicans by a 37 percent to 28 percent margin this June, a gap that may only be widening. Fourth, there is the possibility of a flood of new, especially young, first-time voters and so are being under-measured by pollsters, as black voters may also be in this election.
Above all, two main issues will determine whether or not the November election will be a realigning one. The Republican Party failures in managing the economy and in involving the country in ruinous wars all dictate a Democratic victory. It is simply impossible to determine the degree to which race may sway voters but, after all, the recent crises faced by American race is the only alarming factor for Democrats that puts the fate of 2008 Presidential elections in the balance.
That in this 21st century, after the lessons we should have learned from the Third Reich, from the Islamic fundamentalists, form The Crusades of the Catholic Church, from the Inquisitions and from the American slavery history and its lynching, we are still a nation with 888 hate groups filled with bigotry of one sort or another,

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Would that John McCain, or Sarah Palin, had the character of Barack Obama instead of the name-calling, lying and disgraceful ads produced with their approval. They disgrace America, they disgrace Republicans, and they disgrace the religions they advocate for their actions and words are not :"Christian", but might even be labeled blasphemy according to the reported lifestyle of Jesus Christ.

We don't need a "black" President and we don't needmed a "white" President, we need a brilliant President and there is only one candidate that fits that description. It is Barack Obama. After eight years of the lying administration of George W. Bush, we do not need another couple of liars like McCain and Palin for another four. They disgrace American politics, and make it dirtier than it has ever before been. I urge that you tell all you know that it is time to end the racial divide in this country, end the bigotry, open or hidden, and renew the democracy sought by our founding fathers.

AN OBAMA THEME SONG

Lee Dimin. — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:34:34 EDT

Many years ago, Al Jolson performed a song entitled "Sonny Boy". I think the following parody is befitting of the time and the man:

When there are grey skies I don't mind the grey skies.
You’ll make them blue, OBAMA.
Friends may forsake us, let them all forsake us.
You’ll pull us thru, OBAMA.
You're sent from heaven and I know your worth.
You’ll make a heaven for us right here on the earth.
When you take office, promise you won't stray, for,
We will be behind you OBAMA.

CORPORATE HEADS MUST ROLL

Lee Dimin. — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:29:24 EDT

CORPORATE HEADS ABOUT TO ROLL

By Maureen Dowd

(Published in the Albany Times Union on Oct. 19, 2008)

It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. The best of times because W's long Reign of terror is about to end The worst of times because, well, you know why. In this season of darkness, as Charles Dickens described an earlier mob scene, I'm feeling as vengeful and bloodthirsty as Madame Defarge sharpening her knitting needles at the guillotine.

I even felt a little thrill go up my leg, as Chris Matthews would put it, when I heard that the Lehman Brothers CEO, Richard Fuld, got punched in the company gym after it was announced that the firm was going under.

I can't wait to see the tumbrels rumble up and down Wall Street picking up the heedless and greedy financial aristocracy that plundered and sundered free-market capitalism.

Just when we thought executives of AIG, the insurance giant bailed out by taxpayers for $123 billion, had been shamed into stopping their post-bailout Marie Antoinette spa treatments, luxury sports suites, Vegas and California posh resort retreats, we were dumbfounded to learn that some AIG execs were cavorting at a lavish shooting party at a British country manor.

London's News of the World sent undercover reporters to hunt down the feckless financiers on their $86,000 partridge hunt.

The paper reported that the AIG revelers stayed at Plumber Manor and spent $17,500 for food and rooms. The private jet to get there cost another $17,500, and the limos added up to $8,000 more.

In an astonishing let-them-eat-cake moment, the AIG big shot Sebastian Preil held court at the bar and told an undercover reporter, "The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today, and we are relaxing fine."

There were at least three New Yorkers bagging birds — Jeffrey Malkovsky, a senior director at AIG's Manhattan office, Hilary James, the general manager of the Bristol Plaza Hotel, and her friend, John Roberts, an AIG adviser.

Who are these looters of our loot? The New York Times should follow up the excellent Portraits of Grief it did after 9/11 with Portraits of Greed.

Payback doesn't have to go as far as the French Revolution. The grifters shafting us don't have to shed blood, but they do have to give the money back. As far as these self-serving corporate con men and short-selling traders are concerned, off with their headsets.

John McCain wasted his last-chance debate on Wednesday by trying to stir up faux class rage against Barack Obama with Joe the Unvetted Plumber instead of tapping into the real class rage the country feels over bailing out ungrateful financiers who gambled away the life savings of working people.

'Tis a far, far better thing that New York's attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, did when he demanded that AIG's former executives who were trying to abscond with many millions surrender the swag. He set a good example for the feds, who slapped Fuld in the face with a subpoena.

Cuomo got AIG to instantly reverse itself and cancel 160 conferences and other events that would have cost more than $8 million, as well as give up information on compensation to determine whether they were fitting. (How could they be?)

"We stopped a $10 million severance payment to Stephen Bensinger, the chief financial officer," Cuomo told me Friday. "Just look at the words chief financial officer. There's a phenomenon when senior management sees the corporation deteriorating and they concoct a version of looting the company to take care of themselves."

Even Cuomo, who has been locked in battle with AIG for a long time, was stunned when he learned of the British hunting folly.

"That was our partridge hunting trip," he said. "The partridge paid the ultimate price, but the taxpayer came close."

He is using a state "claw back" law, which he says allows him to recover contracts and rescind payments if there was unjust compensation.

Great. Now can he find the $123 billion lost by AIG?

Let's hope that if Barack Obama becomes president, the first thing he does is keep his promise to make the junketeers come to Washington (preferably by bus or carpooling) and write the U.S. Treasury a check, after which he will fire them on the spot.

Heads must roll.

Maureen Dowd writes for The New York Times.

THE GREEDY DOGS

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:41:06 EDT

Today's quote: - "They are greedy dogs which can never have enough." - ISAIAH LVI, 11, cir. 700 B.C.

Comment: - When Exxon-Mobil can have six successive quarters of record profits, each exceeding TEN BILLION DOLLARS, and its Chief Executive Officer is compensated in excess of $12 Billion per year, one wonders why the Bush administration and John McCain are concerned about raising taxes on these "greedy dogs". No human being needs $12 Billion dollars a year on which to live very well, and that goes for people in any and every industry. A baseball player can make $25 Million a year, while a scientist earns only a small fraction of that. A TV news anchor is paid multi-millions per year, but a school teacher has difficult making ends meet and usually has to spend his./her own money for adequate classroom supplies.. Actors and actresses are paid millions to lead their profligate lifestyles, but nurses and care-givers, fireman, policemen and the men and women of our armed forces, who risk their lives every day suffer from the "Rodney Dangerfield syndrome" - they get no respect. Our senior citizen who have worked most of their adult lives and contributed to a Social Security system, and more importantly to the society of this country called the United States of America, being abused by their government in the costs of their medications, so that the profits of record profit-making pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare insurance companies profits are not only guaranteed, but subsidized. But today is the oil industry's day, and their search for new ways to screw the American people

Oil prices dropped below $70 a barrel for the first time in 14 months Thursday, prompting the OPEC cartel to call for an emergency meeting next week to establish some stability in prices that have plummeted recently after rising for months. Oil prices have tumbled by nearly $40 a barrel in just three weeks as indications grow that demand for energy will slow along with weakening economies around the world. As recently as July, oil was trading at a record of $145 a barrel.

The decline in oil prices could provide a form of stimulus to the economy as consumers pay less to fill up their tanks. If oil prices stay at current levels, consumers would have $250 billion more, over a year, to save or spend elsewhere, according to Lawrence Goldstein, an energy economist. Some analysts expect oil prices to keep declining, perhaps to as low as $50 a barrel in coming months. Americans will probably see lower energy bills this winter, as gasoline and heating oil futures also dropped sharply on Thursday. Gasoline prices now average $3.08 a gallon, down from a summer peak of $4.11 a gallon, according to AAA.

The decline in oil prices came after a government report showed domestic crude oil stockpiles rose more than expected as Americans use less oil, in part because they are driving less. In the last month, domestic oil demand has fallen to its lowest level since June 1999, at 18.6 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Department.

Natural gas prices have also tumbled since their summer peak of $13.58 per thousand cubic feet. On Thursday, natural gas futures rose 19 cents, to $6.81, after a report showed that stockpiles rose less than expected.

While consumers may have reason to cheer the falling oil prices after such a sharp run-up, the wild roller coaster of volatility is a nightmare for oil producers and petroleum executives who say they need more stability to plan long-term projects to develop new sources of oil. If they cannot be confident that they will get a stable return on their investment, they may hold back. That in turn could set the stage for possible shortages of oil and higher prices when global demand picks up again.

The sharp drop-off has forced OPEC’s hand. The cartel said just last week that it would meet in mid-November, after the United States elections. But on Thursday, it rescheduled its emergency session for next Friday, Oct. 24. The cartel’s producers, which control 40 percent of global exports, could curb their output by about a million barrels a day to try to stem the drop in prices, according to analysts. It is unclear what price range for oil the cartel wants to establish. But the meeting “sends a clear signal that OPEC is concerned about the speed with which oil prices are slipping away from a preferred price of around $80 a barrel,” said Lawrence Eagles, an oil analyst at JPMorgan. If OPEC countries are concerned about the recent drop in prices, and demand, can you imagine the effect upon them were the United States to develop and market alternate sources of energy, ending the dominance of third world dictatorships of the sources of energy. Nothing is a better deterrent to future terrorism than removing the ability of the oil producing nations' ability to fund it, and the bring about the end of Islamic fundamentalist Jihadists.

Iran’s oil minister, Gholamhossein Nozari, told reporters in Tehran on Tuesday, “I think the low price is a real damage to the future of production.” From its inception, the oil industry has gone through countless cycles, with oil companies cutting investments when prices fell. The price collapse of the 1980s forced companies to slash investments and prompted a wave of large mergers through the industry. But this retrenchment left the world scrambling for oil when demand from Asian and Latin American economies soared. Concerns that this pattern might be repeated were mentioned frequently during an industry conference in Venice last weekend, where oil executives said they worried that a prolonged recession, tighter credit and lower energy consumption would mean slower growth in energy supplies in coming years. What effect would the development of alternate fuel sources have, if their concerns of a recession are so great?

The credit freeze has already forced some projects to be scaled back, some energy analysts and executives said. “This is a real test,” said Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, in an interview at the conference. “Some people will be overstretched, and there will be some delays in some projects.” Over the last decade, growth in oil consumption has outpaced the ability of producers to meet that demand with more production. Many experts have predicted a new squeeze within the next five years that could once again propel oil prices over $100 a barrel. The drop in prices has already created problems for oil producers. Iran and Venezuela both need oil prices at $95 a barrel to balance their national budgets, Russia needs $70 and Saudi Arabia needs $55 a barrel, according to Deutsche Bank estimates. Algeria’s oil minister, Chakib Khelil, said on Thursday that the “ideal” price for crude oil was $70 to $90 a barrel. In Russia, which is not part of OPEC, the drop in prices is threatening the country’s ability to increase production. The Russian government has reportedly agreed to allocate $9 billion to its four major producers — Lukoil, Gazprom, Rosneft and TNK-BP — to help them cope with investment needs amid the credit crisis. In the United States, Chesapeake Energy, a gas producer, has recently indicated it will reduce its capital investments over the next few years in response to falling prices.

Global oil demand is undeniably slowing down, particularly in developed nations. Japanese oil consumption tumbled by 12 percent in August over the same month a year ago, while in the United States, demand fell by 8 percent in September. Consumption is still growing in developing nations, but at a slower pace than in recent years. The International Energy Agency expects global oil demand to grow by just 400,000 barrels a day this year, to 86.5 million barrels a day. The agency, which had been revising downward its predictions all year, forecast growth of 2 million barrels a day for 2008 when the year started.

The two-day energy meetings last week were held in private in the baroque setting of the island of San Giorgio Maggiore, home to a 10th-century Benedictine monastery. In many conversations with senior executives outside of the conference meetings, they voiced concerns about their industry becoming increasingly vulnerable to a slowing economy. “We pretty much know where supplies are going to come from in future years, but today the biggest uncertainty is demand,” said Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of Total, the French oil company.

Some executives, though, are still holding out hope that Asian economies may weather the economic storm and help the global economy recover faster. Lower oil prices could also make it harder for some companies to survive on their own, leading to a new wave of mergers and acquisitions. “This new environment is not all doom and gloom,” said Mr. van der Veer, of Shell. “It can also provide some opportunities. Certain assets may become available.”

Analysts doubt a production cut by OPEC, which investors view as increasingly likely, would do much to suspend oil's free fall. OPEC's decision last month to cut production by 520,000 barrels a day hardly made a dent in oil prices. The market has already priced in another 500,000 barrel production cut. They believe several OPEC members, particularly Venezuela and Iran, budgeted their national spending based on oil at much higher levels, meaning they'll face substantial revenue shortfalls as prices come down. If they (OPEC) comes in and cut production and oil falls to $60, they're going to look like they've lost control. Weighing on prices, Thursday was the expiration of November oil contract options at the end of the day, a trading cycle that often increases volatility.

Speculators are driving oil prices artificially high is a claim that gets more interesting in light of oil's recent fall below $115. But maybe we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Suppose that major suppliers in the oil industry are these manipulative speculators.

It is possile to rig prices:

If you were an oil supplier? Controlling the supply — as in the 1973 OPEC embargo — has become less effective with more sources of oil worldwide. And oil suppliers clearly cannot raise prices by controlling demand in the physical oil market; ultimately, they need to sell their oil, not buy it. However, with the market inefficiencies that are exposed here, oil suppliers can regain the upper hand by artificially inflating demand using a different market. Time mechanism, we must take is a glimpse into the future — the futures market, that is. The oil companies have been making record quarterly profits for the past six quarters! Prices can be rigged. Hoe does one account for the fact that on a day when oil was priced at $145. a barrel, that increase was immediately reflected in the days increase in gasoline retail prices, which wire at an average of $4.10 per gallon. Now the price per barrel is less than $70. per barrel, a decrease since the high of $1.45 of 52%, but the retail price of a gallon of gasoline ha been reduced, not to $2.10 (52%), but to $3.16 per gallon, a reduction of 23%. Is a congressional "oversight" investigation needed? What do you think.?

The American market system, purportedly a free market despite its flaws and gross inefficiencies, has opened this vulnerability. The oil suppliers may tighten the noose, but we tied it around our throats long ago. Hiding behind the wall of anonymity, the perpetrators profit and achieve their own ends, bringing down America in the process.

Is economics so wrong in applying its supply-demand theory that we might confuse corrupt manipulation with fair pricing? There's motive, opportunity, and greed at play.. Let us stop wasting time and start making oil the history of the past.

THE DEBATES ARE OVER

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:48:16 EDT

Today's quote: - "A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman, of the next generation." - James Freeman Clarke.

Comment: - The debates are over and we have learned, if little else, that Barack Obama is a Statesman and John McCain, a politician. In this chaotic world of wars, hate, and financial collapse, the United States of America needs a President who is the Statesman, not the politician.Yesterday, after the Dow Jones suffered the worst one-day point drop since 1987 -- falling 733 points or nearly 8 percent -- Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) met for their third and final presidential debate. The same day, Commerce Department figures showed that consumer purchases "fell 1.2 percent in September, extending the decline to three straight months, the first time that's happened since comparable records began in 1992." Searching for a "game-changer" this week, McCain announced new economic policies that he touted as being aimed toward the middle class but in fact largely focus their benefits on the wealthy. Once again, McCain failed to mention the "middle class" a single time during the entire 90-minute debate, though he did reference Joe the Plumber 20 times.

'Halfway through the debate, McCain declared, "I am not President Bush. ... I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country." His campaign was "delighted" by the statement -- but it's less clear whether Americans will buy it. An LA Times poll released Tuesday found that a majority of Americans believe McCain would continue Bush's policies, a finding consistent with numerous other surveys. And with good reason: McCain has voted with Bush over 90 percent of the time, scoring a clean 100 percent Bush voting record in 2008. McCain himself declared in 2005, "The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush." On everything from tax breaks for the wealthy to a bellicose foreign policy to torture to executive power, it's clear McCain represents a third Bush term.

One of the most striking moments of the debate occurred during the discussion of abortion. McCain's party adopted an extreme position on abortion in its platform this year, refusing to allow for exceptions to an abortion ban even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. During the debate, McCain belittled procedure bans that grant exemptions for the "health of the mother," mocking the phrase by framing it with air quotation marks. "'Health of the mother.' You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything," McCain said. "Tonight, John McCain showed he doesn't care about women's health when he described protecting 'the health of the woman' as 'extreme,'" said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "He blatantly showed that he doesn't trust women to decide what is in the best interest of their own health." McCain even has the audacity to label the "pro-choice" movement as the "pro-abortion movement" a gross misrepresentation, as have been most of McCain's assertions.

Yesterday, McCain promised an "across-the-board spending freeze." However, in the past weeks his campaign has made exceptions for defense, veterans programs, entitlement programs, worker retraining, and "a special carve-out for spending on science." The exception-riddled spending freeze proposal is reminiscent of McCain's dramatic promise to abolish earmark projects. When it was pointed out that aid to Israel and funding for military housing were included in his tally as earmarks, McCain assured he would spare those programs. In the end, McCain could not identify a single earmark he would cut. A spending freeze would entail large per capita cuts in everything from education to the FBI and federal prisons to national parks, highway and bridge repair, food stamps, to name a few. Along with having a deleterious impact on people who rely on these programs, the cuts would cause economic growth to contract at a time when the country is in need of a second stimulus to forestall the risk of a deep recession. Others may be afraid to mention it, but at age 88 I am not afraid to say that McCain has shown signs of advanced senility and an inability to make a decision that lasts more than several days.

This was the only debate in which the candidates spoke at length about the Supreme Court, an important topic considering the next president is likely to appoint at least two new justices. McCain vowed not to impose "a litmus test" to determine his nominees, but also emphasized he would name those "who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution" and who would not be "legislating from the bench." These are code phrases for the conservative wing of his party. As CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted, McCain "is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement." Indeed, the evangelical leader Gary Bauer said in 2005 that despite McCain's litmus test claims, "McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges." Many important principles hang in the balance of just one justice; a McCain Court with only one or two new appointees could overturn abortion rights, ignore privacy rights, refuse habeas corpus to terror detainees, end affirmative action, and ban gay marriage. McCain also reaffirmed his opposition to equal pay for equal work, defending his refusal to join a law making it easier to file suit for discriminatory pay by calling the law "a trial lawyer's dream." He has justified his opposition to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by claiming women just need "the education and job training." In fact as The American Prospect's Dana Goldstein pointed out, "Women account for 56 percent of the undergraduate student population and 59 percent of the graduate school population. Across all age groups, over half of all the people in the United States with a bachelor's degree or master's degree are women." It would have done McCain well had he studied the Constitution of the United States before centering the debates. There is not one Justice on the United States Supreme Court who has not at one time or another attempted legislating a decision. Justice Scalia is one of the most flagrant legislator on the Court, to the extent of his violating Article II, Paragraph Second that empowers the States to set the conditions for the election of the electors of the President and Vice president, in choosing in 2001 to "appoint" George W. Bush as President of the United States., or in the many times his opinions were determined, not upon the Constitution, but on the Federalist Papers, none of which were ever incorporated into the Constitution.

We have, for the past eight years watched provisions of the Constitution abused, ignored and violated by the Bush administration, with the support of John S. McCain, and most especially the violations of many of the first ten Amendments - The Bill of Rights. Illegal wiretaps, supporting faith-based organizations, privacy laws and others. The President's role as "Commander in Chief is very limited. A President should be aware of the limitations placed on his office by the Constitution. Thankfully, Obama is a constitutional scholar, and hopefully we can look forward to its restoration under his stewardship.

A FRIEND IN NEED

Lee Dimin. — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:43:36 EDT

Today's quote: - "Where obligation begins, friendship ends." -Author unknown.An Arizona businessman, with help from Sen. John McCain's office, paid the federal government a mere fraction of the market value when he bought a Fort Ord land parcel in 1999, an Army appraisal obtained by The Monterey Herald shows. Donald R. Diamond, an 80-year-old real estate developer, lobbyist and top fundraiser for McCain's presidential campaign, bought the land for $250,000, though it was valued at $7.2 million, according to Pentagon appraisals made three years before the sale. He held on to the parcel for a little more than two years before selling it and the buildings on it for an estimated profit of more than $18 million.

When negotiating with the Army over the no-bid sale, Diamond had more than one advantage on other potential buyers. He held a lease on the land that would have made it difficult for the Army to find another buyer. When Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, later criticized the Army for "giving away" Fort Ord land during the 1990s, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Paul "PJ" Johnson said, "That was a very complicated realignment and closure at Ford Ord." Johnson retired later that month. But it was McCain's office, as reported earlier this year by The New York Times and The Monterey Herald, that Diamond credited with helping smooth out problems he encountered. At the time, McCain served on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The appraisal documents were obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request. Diamond and McCain's Senate office both declined to comment. The Fort Ord property in question is home to the SunBay apartments and condominiums -- an enterprise whose history dates to the 1980s savings and loan crisis. Now rented to a largely civilian population, the 297 apartments are set in attractive, Spanish-style clusters on 24 acres bordering the Bayonet and Black Horse golf courses and the Seaside Highlands development. The units were built by a private developer in the 1980s, when the Army desperately needed housing and, as a result, offered the builder a generous $1 lease on the land for 50 years. For five decades, the builder could own the structures -- not the land -- and collect market-rate rents. When the lease expired, ownership of the apartment buildings was to revert to the Pentagon. The appraisal of the buildings and land together totaled $21 million.

But when Fort Ord was dismantled in the 1990s, everything changed. It was around that time that Diamond was introduced to SunBay. His fellow Arizonan Cary Marmis -- the apartments' builder -- had been ordered to dispose of his holdings. Federal court filings show Marmis had defaulted on loans from his bank. With Marmis' real estate holdings to be sold off by the congressionally mandated Resolution Trust Corp., Diamond bid on and bought several properties that included SunBay, said Dick Fitzgerald, the onsite project manager for Diamond's developments in Fort Ord. Saying it was a private business matter, Fitzgerald declined to state how much Diamond paid for the lease and a mortgage on SunBay's buildings, but Diamond has estimated his total investment in the land and buildings at around $10 million. In a court deposition, Diamond said a deal was struck so that 10 percent of SunBay's ownership reverted to Marmis and his wife. County real estate documents confirm that Marmis' company became part owner of the apartments with Diamond.

As Fort Ord began dismantling, Diamond, as leaseholder, was interested in buying the land underneath his apartments. But in his deposition in the Bakewell case he talked of complications in the deal. With the likelihood looming that Washington would insist the Army sell off nearly all its Fort Ord acreage, the Pentagon ordered an independent appraisal of the SunBay site by the Sacramento firm Smith Denton Associates Inc. In a report dated July 15, 1996, the appraisers said the goal was to determine a range of estimates in order to better negotiate with the leaseholder, Diamond. Though the Army appeared willing to accept a discounted price, there were a number of sticking points. A February 1997 "negotiators' report" by the Army indicated Diamond's company had concerns over price, future water allocations and whether more apartments could be added to the complex.

Under oath in a taped interview as part of the Bakewell lawsuit, Diamond said McCain came to his assistance after the purchase negotiations became "bogged down." "I asked him if he could help expedite it," Diamond said. Although McCain's Senate office did not respond to questions from The Monterey Herald, earlier this year a McCain spokeswoman told The New York Times that the senator "had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen." Diamond, however, is no ordinary constituent. Besides being a leading developer in McCain's home state, he is a pro-Israel lobbyist in Washington, D.C., and is among the elite "innovators" group whose members have individually raised $500,000 or more for McCain's presidential bid, according to the candidate's campaign Web site. Diamond also served as national finance co-chairman for McCain's presidential exploratory committee, and in court documents he describes himself as a longtime friend of the Republican senator. Farr found it more than a little unusual an Arizona senator would become involved in a land deal in California. "This to me was just sort of out of the box," Farr said recently. "Senators don't usually mess around in other states." Diamond said McCain assigned Ann Sauer, a senior aide to McCain at the time, to the case. Sauer was well-known around the Pentagon and had previously worked as a staff member for the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sauer declined to comment for this story. Fitzgerald said Sauer set up a meeting for him with Johnson, the deputy assistant secretary of the Army. "That was the extent of her involvement to the best of my knowledge," he said. But in his deposition, Diamond said Sauer stepped in after the initial meeting and "got the thing resolved" when negotiations reached a stalemate.

Years later, he thanked her for the help "because it was taken care of," Diamond said in deposition. "In some way, she showed up and got the thing resolved, and at some time when I was in Washington I met her ... to thank her." The recently released Army documents show that after the independent appraisal was turned in, some in the Pentagon reasoned the government couldn't get full market price for the land because it was encumbered by Diamond's lease, which still had 40 years left to go. While the independent appraisers supplied estimates in the millions, the Army reappraised the land taking into consideration the lease and assuming the land and building would still be worth $21 million when the lease ran out 42 years later. Taking into consideration those factors, they figured the plot was worth less than $300,000 at the time. The premise the land and buildings would be worth $21 million some 42 years later was incorrect. Given an appreciation rate of, for example, 4 percent, the property could actually be worth several hundred million dollars in four decades.

Even so, the documents show Army officials were not eager to accept Diamond's original offer made in a draft purchase agreement. A Feb. 14, 1997 government memo states that Diamond at first offered $125,000 for the land, an offer the Army refused. "PJ" Johnson ultimately signed a memo approving the $250,000 SunBay sale in 1999. In 2001, just over two years after he bought the land, Diamond sold SunBay -- the land, the buildings and the lease -- to a Northern California developer for $28 million.

Comment: - Who is Donald R. Diamond? A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as “The Donald,” Arizona’s answer to Donald Trump — an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain's endorsement as "a close personal friend." Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, "You will find him as honorable and committed as I have." Mr. Diamond contended "I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents. When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn't you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation."

Mr. McCain has occasionally rebuffed Mr. Diamond’s entreaties as inappropriate, but he has also taken steps that benefited his friend’s real estate empire. Their 26-year relationship illuminates how Mr. McCain weighs requests from a benefactor against his vows, adopted after a brush with scandal two decades ago, not to intercede with government authorities on behalf of a donor or take other official action that serves no clear public interest.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.

In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate.

A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, Jill Hazelbaker, said the senator, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, “had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen.” Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far.”

McCain is not a maverick! He’d NEVER trade off his legislative influence for something like campaign donations, no sir! "Country First." (Not the people)

"THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSEL;F"

Lee Dimin. — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:03:40 EDT

Today's quote: - "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, Inaugural Speech, March 4, 1933 Comment: - As the crowd cheered at a Sarah Palin rally this morning in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a man in the audience grinned as he held up a stuffed monkey doll with a Barack Obama bumper sticker wrapped across its forehead. The incident came at a time when McCain and Palin’s events have increasingly been fueled by angry crowds, since Palin began drawing a connection between Barack Obama and 1960s radical William Ayers, claiming that the Democratic nominee has a history of “palling around” with a terrorist. After Palin finished her remarks this morning, the man holding the stuffed monkey seemed to notice that a video camera was pointed at him, at which point he removed the Obama sticker from the doll’s head and crumpling it up in his hand. He then handed the doll to a young boy who was watching the rally from his father’s shoulders. The boy’s parents later told CBS News that they weren’t acquainted with the man who gave their son the stuffed monkey. (Just that he saw him every morning when he looked in the mirror to shave, the bigoted bastard. The "Bible Bitch" who spreads her word of hate with un-Christian-like calumny is a disgrace, not only to her alleged Christian beliefs, but to the Constitution of the United States, to which she will have to take an oath if elected And if Palin's Christianity is an example, you'd better believe that an Oath taken to support the Constitution by her will be as meaningless.At a rally in Lakeville, Minnesota, on Friday, McCain was booed after he called on his audience to be respectful of Obama. The Republican nominee took the microphone away from one woman who said she couldn’t trust Obama because “he’s an Arab.” But McCain has yet to repudiate one of his agents hate and distortion, nor has he demanded that these false and dishonorable and detestable statements be stopped, and that his image not be place on any ad which supports such distortions that suggests he "APPROVES OF THIEF MESSAGE."At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. These raucous and disgusting comments were incited by McCain, Palin and their surrogates, including a local sheriff on one instance.. McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” This is incitement, and should any mishap befall Sen. Obama the guilt will be McCain's and his hand-picked barracuda Sarah Palin. The "Mc" in the name McCain stands for "son of", and it was Cain who killed his brother, Abel. There must be an end to Karl Rovian politics, to destroy the opposition at all costs. Mafioso politics do not belong in these United States, nor do their advocates like Rove and Steve Schmidt The word "civility" is defined as "being ccourteous, being polite", something we have lost in the politics of the United States.. It started with the cut-throats like Sigretti during the Nixon Administration, was carried on by Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and now Steve Schmidt - a dynasty of cut-throat politicians, and none, much different from Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Josef Goebbels, a liar, defamer and misinformer..“Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8. But it is John McCain, voting in support of a rogue President, George W,. Bush, who is responsible for the killing of 4,180 American soldiers in Iraq (more than all the people killed in the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 and the wounding of almost 31,000 (not counting brain injuries). Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes. Article II of the United States Constitution does not limit the presidency of the United States to the Caucasian race, but to native-born American citizens, and Barack Obama is te only candidate qualified to hold that position. John McCain lacks the necessary judgment, temperament and knowledge and has proven it again and again throughout the campaign. To those who are worried about having a person of African-American heritage as President, think about having a 72 year old semi-senile senior citizen, with a chosen running mate's qualifications is that she is pro-life and that she is an energy expert (because se is the Governor of an oil-rich State). She may also be adept at continuing the Bush-Cheney abuse of executive power, as she has already done as Gov. in Alaska. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" That fear is here, it is called McCain-Palin.

JOHN McCAIN SAYS "i KNIOW HOW TO" BUT APPARENTLY WONT TELL US.

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:27:11 EDT

Today's quote: - 'Knowledge is not knowledge until someone else knows what one knows.' - LUCILIUS, Fragment, 125 B.C.

Comment: - One of the candidates for President of the United States repeatedly tells his audiences, regardless of the subject, "I know", but nothing more.

John McCain (R-AZ) couldn’t care less what the Iraqis want. When Maliki signaled support for a timetable earlier this month, McCain rejected it. This weekend, a senior McCain aide told Marc Ambinder, “voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.” On NBC’s Today Show today, McCain was again dismissive of Maliki, suggesting that only he knows what the Iraqis really “want”: But he tells no-one what he "knows".

Mr. McCain said, he has spent his whole life serving this country. His father was gone most of the time, doing our country’s business. He knows what it’s like to keep one’s hope going at difficult times, he says. An absentee father is hardly the experience one needs to be the President of the United States. Despite being a graduate of the United States Naval Academy (although in the bottom 1 percentile of his graduating class) McCain says, "“Everything I learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer.” (Oct. 7, 2008). But he never said what he had learned, and from his statements throughout the campaign, it is evident he has nor learned very much.

John McCain's startling admission that he doesn't know how many houses he owns is the latest in a series of idiotic gaffes that suggest he may be laughably out of touch. He thinks that Iraq and Pakistan share a border; he says he doesn't know a lot about economics; he only recently discovered the Internet; and he occasionally breaks into song about bombing Iran.

ome quotes of John McCain: (the lame brain):

McCain said, “No, I’m calling you a f*cking jerk.” – to fellow GOP Senator Chuck Grassley, when Grassley asked “Are you calling me stupid?”, 2/21/00.(Knowledge?)
On the Bush tax cuts, Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 2000: “We give the millionaire a $2,000 refund. Gov. Bush gives him $50,000.” (What a flip flop since then!.
–When asked the first thing he would do if elected President, 3/00: “The first thing that I would do is call in John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and several others and say, ‘We’ve got to get foreign policy, national security issues back on track.’”
John McCain, on the Swift Boats Vets: “Dishonest and dishonorable.” But he and his running mate, the new "queen of mean", are doing even worse, they are engaging in character assassination.
"F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room.” –to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), during a testy exchange about immigration legislation.
"There has to be. It’s a federal responsibility. I don’t think there can be – I know there must be. Because it’s a federal responsibility. We’re now seeing sanctuary cities and crowded emergency rooms and sheriffs going around, rounding up people, and all kinds of problems, because we’ve failed in our federal responsibilities. And we will act. And carry out our responsibilities. That’s our job." "There has to be ......I don't think there can be ......... I know there must be...." That doesn't appear to be very clear thinking - and he's only 72 years old. His thinking will not improve as he gets older, nor will his ability to deal civilly with other people, something he apparently never learned.
"We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do.. He certainly didn't learn how the military works at the U.S. Naval Academy, where he was graduated in the bottom 1% of his class. He didn't learn it at Naval flight school where he crashed two training flight planes and I am sure he didn't learn it in a Vietcong prison camp for five years. Where did he suddenly obtain all this knowledge. His "playboy" life didn't provide it. His absentee father - perhaps?
"I will draw on all my experience with the world and its leaders, and all the tools at our disposal - diplomatic, economic, military and the power of our ideals - to build the foundations for a stable and enduring peace.." He can't even get along with members of his own political party and they do not trust, and why should they when his principal personal advisor throughout his campaign has been Sen. Joseph Lieberman, turncoat Democrat Senator from the State of Connecticut, but who, in the Senate, represents the State of Confusion..
"I hate war," but "fight with me; Fight for what's right for our country; Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.; Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. McCain has a strange way of hating war. Can he be trusted with his finger on the button that releases a nuclear war? He's a hothead with a reputation for a vile temper. Disagree with him and he'll call you a jerk and use the commonest of filth in using to words to his adversary - one pronoun and one profane., as indicated in some the quotes above..

I do not think there is enough time left to McCain's life for him to create a paper specifying the details of everything he claims to know and the foundations for his knowledge.. He has, in the eight years since I voted for him in the NYS Republican primaries, changed all of his positions, and has indicated a good degree of senility, and almost a total loss of judgment. In 2004 he termed the Republican "swift boat" ads as "dishonest and dishonorable", but has chosen to become even more dishonest and dishonorable in his campaign against Barack Obama, to the degree where this supposedly honorable Vietnam "hero" lacks the courage to look Obama in the eye when addressing him. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816. "The man who is dishonest as a Statesman would be a dishonest man in any station. John McCain has become a dishonest man, and a gutless one at that.; he has dishonored himself through the advice of character assassins and associates of questioned reputations as a result of their respective associations. McCain has allowed himself to become a presidential candidate in the hands of power-brokers who will, if he is elected, control his agenda and his presidency - as they controlled his choice of Vice President. Instead of Karl Rove controlling George W. Bush, your will have his protégé, Bullet head Schmidt controlling John S. McCain, along with Rick Davis, lobbyist, who with McCain's help did well the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies. Steve Schmidt is the latest Bush-Cheney campaign operative to sign on with McCain, who lost the 2000 Republican presidential nomination to Bush. Others include former Bush campaign political director Terry Nelson, who now serves as McCain's campaign manager, and Mark McKinnon, the president's long-time media strategist who will serve a similar function for the Arizona Republican. It seems the more McCain attempts to separate himself from Bush and Cheney, the more he becomes involved with them,.

THE LIES AND DISTORTIONS BY McCAIN & PALIN

Lee Dimin. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:41:16 EDT

Today's quotes (there are several):-
"A poor man is better than a liar." Proverbs xix,22
"I hate a liar." - Plautus, Mendacem odi,
"We give no credit to a liar, even when he speaks the truth." - Cicero, Divinatione
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with brimstone and fire." - Revelations xxi,8
"Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolators, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." - Revelations xxii,15
"A liar is much worse, and does greater mischief, than a murderer on the highways; for a liar and false teacher deceives people, seduces souls and transforms them. - Martin Luther, Table Talk
"The most mischievous liars are those who keep sliding on the verge of truth." - J.C. and A.W. Hare. Guesses at Truth.
Comment: - The following are several links respecting the lies of George W. Bush, which have, to date, killed more than 4,177 American troops, plus non-military personnel, the deaths of some 1,273,578 Iraqi civilians, the wounding of more than 30,680 American troops and with mental wounds. to more than 300,000 American troops. Murderous lies that have been taken up by the Republican candidates for President, John McCain, and his Vice President choice Sarah Palin, both of who have disgraced American politicos by accepting the influence of Karl Rove protégé, "Bull is be the way ethead" Schmidt and rinning their campaign on the basis of character assassination and disgusting lies. If then this is their approach in dealing with other world leaders with whom they disagree,, this country may never again regain the stature it once had, when after 9/11 almost every nation in the world supported this nation, and the Bush administration, with people of the mind-set of John McCaintossed iot all with their lie and misinformation, instead of capitalizing on it. the results seven years of "f----d-up" war efforts at a cost of hundred of billions of dollars as well as the live and limbs above accounted for, over a periosd of seven years (longer than both our actions in World Wars I and II).. Read the links, about the liars who seek to succeed the biggest liar, to date, to ever hold the office, and see if you want even one more day of their lies and distortions of facts.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/09/04/palin_speech/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/29/obama_convention_speech/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/05/palin_bush/index.html
http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2005_08_21_archive.html
John McCain has proven himself to be, not only as good a liar as George W,. Bush, he lacks G.W.B's stupidity to "excuse" his repeated lying, but is not smart enough to refuse to say in his lying TV ads, "I approve this message", and therefore, unlike Bush, admits to lying.. John Sidney McCain III is not running an honorable campaign. It's an unpatriotic campaign. It's a dishonest campaign. Every ad his campaign has put on the air since his convention has been untrue. The campaign is full of untruths, distortions, and lies. He knows he can't win a campaign based on the truth, so he lies to the American people to win. John Sidney McCain III is not running an honorable campaign. It's an unpatriotic campaign. It's a dishonest campaign. The surprising thing about McCain's campaign is how openly dishonest it is. Past candidates usually let outside groups do the lying (such as the Swiftboat Veterans' group in 2004). But this year the lies have been coming straight from the candidate's mouth. Here are some examples:
McCain keeps saying that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. McCain has been saying this in his speeches and in at least eight ads. Several speakers at the Republican convention also picked up on the theme. But Obama's plan is very clear: He will raise taxes on families making $250,000 or more, and lower taxes on families making $150,000 or less. The majority of Americans (about 80% according to CNN) would have their taxes lowered under Obama's plan. But McCain keeps repeating this false claim, long after it has been debunked. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would save the middle class more money than McCain's plan would. Obama's plan would also result in a smaller federal deficit than McCain's plan would (although both plans would increase the deficit). McCain's excuse for spreading these lies is that Obama will have to raise taxes even if he doesn't want to, but that is equally true of McCain. In fact, it is more true of McCain because McCain wants to give additional tax cuts to the rich.
McCain keeps mentioning the figure $42,000 a year, saying that Obama will raise taxes on families making that much and more. He claims this because Obama twice voted for non-binding resolutions to allow Bush's tax-cuts-for-the-rich to expire (as they will in 2010 if Congress takes no action to extend them). When those tax cuts expire, some families may see a small tax increase. However, Obama proposes to adjust the tax laws so that no middle-class families see a tax increase. Again, McCain is just lying. The great irony of this is that Obama's plan would give middle-class taxpayers a tax cut that is three times as big as McCain's plan would give.
McCain has been saying that Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times while in the Senate, but that just isn't true. First of all, McCain is including duplicate votes in that total (a bill or resolution may be voted on many times before it becomes law). Also, McCain is including votes against tax cuts. Some of Obama's votes were to raise taxes only on the rich. Some of the votes were to raise taxes on the rich while also lowering taxes on the middle class. But the majority of those votes were for nonbinding budget resolutions which didn't have the force of law (a budget resolution is like a budgetary blueprint or guideline which Congress uses to draft appropriations bills). Factcheck.org said that Obama has been consistent: He has voted to raise taxes on the rich and to lower taxes on the poor and middle class. (Factcheck.org is a site run by the University of Pennsylvania which examines the veracity of political claims.) This claim that Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times is a good example of how McCain and the Republicans distort the truth in order to make their claims.
McCain has resurrected an old lie of George Bush's. McCain has been saying that Obama's tax plan will raise taxes on 23,000,000 small-businessmen. Bush used this lie against John Kerry in 2004, but Bush said that Kerry would raise taxes on 900,000 small-businessmen. As you can see, McCain has multiplied the lie by a factor of 25! Factcheck.org said that there are not even 23,000,000 small-businessmen in the country, and only a small percentage of them make enough money to have their taxes raised under Obama's plan. In fact, Factcheck.org said that more small-businessmen would have their taxes lowered than raised under Obama's plan.
In July, 2008, McCain ran an ad in which he blamed Obama for high gasoline prices (because of votes Obama cast against off-shore drilling). Obama has been in the Senate for less than four years, and his votes could not possibly be responsible for pricing in the oil and gas industries. It is well known that high oil prices are due primarily to supply and demand, speculative trading and other market forces. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration, a government agency, estimates that off-shore drilling would bring prices down only slightly, and that it would take more than twenty years for that to happen.
In July, 2008, McCain ran an ad saying that Obama will raise taxes on electricity. That claim was based on an off-hand remark which Obama made which McCain distorted beyond recognition. Obama has no plans to raise taxes on electricity. In September, 2008, McCain once again ran an ad saying that Obama will tax electricity. The ad also says that Obama will tax heating oil and "life savings". In actuality, Obama's plan would give a tax rebate to homeowners to help them pay for heating oil. Regarding "savings", Obama will increase taxes for capital gains and dividends only for couples making $250,000 or more, or singles making $200,000 or more. Regular savings, such as money you would keep in a savings account, will not be affected at all. In July, 2008, McCain ran an ad saying that Obama will raise taxes on electricity. That claim was based on an off-hand remark which Obama made which McCain distorted beyond recognition. Obama has no plans to raise taxes on electricity. In September, 2008, McCain once again ran an ad saying that Obama will tax electricity. The ad also says that Obama will tax heating oil and "life savings". In actuality, Obama's plan would give a tax rebate to homeowners to help them pay for heating oil. Regarding "savings", Obama will increase taxes for capital gains and dividends only for couples making $250,000 or more, or singles making $200,000 or more. Regular savings, such as money you would keep in a savings account, will not be affected at all.
Several of McCain's ads say that Obama and the Democrats want "big government". In the ad mentioned directly above, it says, "Obama and his liberal Congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork." That may be an opinion of McCain's, but it certainly isn't a fact. Obama is against "pork" (earmarks), just as McCain is (although McCain's record on earmarks is better than Obama's). As for Obama wanting "spending increases", both Bush and the Republican congress that was voted out of power in 2006 spent money like it was going out of style. By winding down the war in Iraq and avoiding future unnecessary military involvements, Obama would decrease overall government spending.
In July, 2008, McCain ran an ad in which Fidel Castro was quoted as saying that Obama was the best candidate for President. That gave the impression that Obama is the choice of our nation's enemies (not that Castro is much of an enemy). But what McCain left out was that Castro had more negative things to say about Obama than positive things, and that Castro is not happy with either candidate. Obama is not responsible for the opinions of foreign leaders.
When Obama was traveling in Europe in July, 2008, he cancelled a visit with some wounded soldiers because the Pentagon felt that it would appear political. Since Obama was not busy, he gave an interview and visited a gym for a workout. McCain then ran an ad claiming that Obama would rather go to the gym than visit wounded solders, completely twisting the facts. McCain also claimed that Obama cancelled the visit because he could not bring cameras, but that was never true. Obama knew ahead of time that cameras were not allowed.
A commercial released in late August quotes Obama as saying that Iran is a "tiny" country which doesn't pose a serious threat to the United States, but that's not what Obama said. In the speech that McCain is quoting, Obama said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." Obama was making the point that if we could talk to the Soviet Union during the cold war, we can talk to Iran today. Once again, McCain twisted the truth.
In McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, he said that Obama's health-care plan "will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health-care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor." In actuality, Obama's plan would do none of those things. First, small businesses would be exempt from the law. Large companies which already provide private health insurance could continue to offer it. Obama's plan would require children to have health insurance, but their parents could choose between the government program or private insurance. As for adults, Obama's plan would not mandate that they have health insurance at all, so it cannot be said that his plan would "force families into a government-run health-care system".
A McCain ad released in early September said that Obama "gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways". The ad is referring to a bill which Obama voted for, and which President Bush signed into law. The bill provided $2.6 billion in tax incentives for the oil and gas industries over an 11-year period, but it also increased other taxes by $2.9 billion, so overall taxes on the oil industry increased.
The McCain campaign started running an ad in September saying that Barack Obama tried to push a bill through the Illinois state legislature that would give sex education to kindergarteners. Obama was not one of the sponsors of the bill. However, he did support it, but the bill was not as onerous as McCain makes it sound. The primary purpose of the bill was to ensure that sex education in the schools was medically accurate. It recommended including kindergarteners in the sex-education program, but the instructions given to them were to be "age appropriate" and non-explicit. One of the reasons Obama supported the bill was that it would teach young children to recognize when they were being touched inappropriately(that' s a good thing!). Also, parents were given the right to opt out of the program..
Sarah Palin, McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee, is now getting in on the lies. She claim ed in her speech before the Republican convention that she said "thanks , but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. Then, in an interview with Charles Gibson on ABC, she admitted that she had sought the funds to build the bridge. Then again later, at a campaign stop in Nevada, she once again claimed that she had said "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge. In other words, she continued to pretend that she didn't support the bridge even after admitting on national TV that she supported it! A politician who doesn't recognize when she is lying is a dangerous person to put in power. The McCain campaign released a commercial in September which claimed that Palin "stopped" the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, Palin abandoned the project when it became clear that it was unpopular. However, with Palin as governor, Alaska kept the money anyway! The law didn't require that the money be returned if the bridge wasn't built, but clearly it should have been. The amount appropriated was $223 million (I am still checking this figure; it may be higher).
Now, Sarah Palin is on a "barracuda" attack upon Barack OIbama about someone who was saying things unkindly about the United States of America when Barack Obama was 6 yrs. old. This is a shameless attack, by a shameless "broad", and I call her that with the utmost disrepsect, for I cannot show respect for someone who is so willing to attempt to destroy another human being's character And she claims to be a "Christian. one who is manifesting the teachings of Christ or of his teachings " Her religious beliefs are even fraudulent, as proven by her attacks on another human, both in this campaign and in her past political ambitions in Alaska. What a disgusting human being is Sarah Palin!

THE FIRST DEBATE

Lee Dimin. — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:36:04 EDT

ON SUBSTANCE, BARACK OBAMA WON THE DEBATE, BUT ON POINTS JOHN McCAIN CAN CLAIM VICTORY. WHILE OBAMA, IN MANY INSTANCES, COMPLIMENTED McCAN AND AGREED WITH HIM, NOT ONCE DID McCAIN HAVE A GOOD WORD FOR OBAMA, NOR MISS A CHANCE TO KNOCK HIM.

OBAMA MUST, IN THE NEXT TWO DEBATES, STOP COMPLIMENTING AND AGREEING WITH ANYTHING McCAIN SAYS, EVERY SUCH COMPLIMENT OR ACCORD ADDS TO McCAIN'S STATURE, WHICH IF NOT PROFFERED WOULD LEAVE HIM WITH VERY LITTLE. STRESS YOUR DIFFERENCES, NOT YOUR ACCORDS! STRESS McCAIN'S ERRORS, AND ONLY HIS ERRORS AND THERE HAVE BEEN 26 YEARS OF THEM.

AS A REOPUBLICAN IN 2000, I VOTED FOR JOHN McCAIN IN THE NYS REPUBICAN PRIMARIES, AND KNOWING WHAT I NOW KNOW, I WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEMOCRAT IN 2000 - BUT WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES - AND JOH McCAIN HAS MADE MORE THAN HIS SHARE, AND CONTIUES TO.

LEO DUROCHER, FORMER BASEBALL PLAYER, ONCE SAID, "NICE GUYS FINISH LAST." THIS DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO NBECOME AS NASTY AS McCAIN, JUST THAT NO LONGER HAVE TO BE THE "NICE GUY". IN THE FIRST DEBATE, NOT ONCE DID McCAIN LOOK AT YOU, EVEN WHEN YOU ADDRESSED HIM DIRECTLY. IN THE NEXT DEBATE YOU MIGHT ASK HIM, "WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO FACE ME, SENATOR?" IT'S VERY HARD TO FACE SOMEONE WHEN LYING ABOUT THEM.

PLEASE SEN. OBAMA, AMERICA NEEDS YOU, NOT AN EXTENSION OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE IDEOLOGUES.

"COUNTRY FIRST" vs. "PEOPLE FIRST".

Lee Dimin. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:16:20 EDT

John McCain has a new campaign slogan, "Country First", but he doesn't indicate which country. Is it Iraq? or Afghanistan? Iran? or Georgia? There is growing frustration with the right-wing policies that provide welfare to the rich and reward corporations while cutting programs that average families depend on. Americans distinguish between corporate success and corporate greed. They believe it is time that government sided with working and middle-class Americans.

It is time to "Put people first." We're all in this together:
Trickle down tax cuts don't work. We need to invest in areas vital to our future — education, infrastructure, 21st century communications and alternative energy.
Empower workers and make work pay. Globalization and the non-enforcement of labor laws have tilted the balance in the workplace so that employees no longer get a fair share of the profits they help generate. Productivity goes up but wages are stagnant. We need to abide by our labor laws, raise the minimum wage and run a full-employment economy.
End the abuse and hold CEOs accountable. Crack down on stock option plans that give corporate leaders an incentive to cook the books. End sweetheart deals that protect executive pensions but leave workers with empty promises. The government needs to do its job and shareholders need tools to hold business accountable to investors.
Create a national strategy for jobs and growth. We're shipping good jobs abroad and losing our technological, innovative, and economic edge. We can't keep borrowing from foreign countries to buy the goods they produce. We need a new strategy that moves us to energy independence, invests in science and technology, helps seed new industries here in the United States and tackles the unsustainable imbalances with countries like China.
Give working families a break. American families are struggling to make ends meet. Health and education costs are exploding, and people are working longer hours just to keep their heads above water. Americans are spending more than they save. It's time to put the government on the side of the common good, not the special interests — and make sure that Americans have access to affordable health care, quality education and a safe, clean environment.
If we "Put people First". the country will be first, but the converse has not been proven to be true, because the country has been controlled, with the help of John McCain by the large corporations - primarily the oil companies, the healthcare insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies, each of which receive government subsidies - approved by John McCain

JOHN S. McCAIN - TOOL OF THE PUPPET MASTERS

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:33:53 EDT

President Reagan today (August 11, 1987) signed into law legislation to provide $10.8 billion for the savings and loan deposit insurance fund, even though he complained that portions of the comprehensive banking bill were ''anti-competitive and anti-consumer.'' He complained that portions of the comprehensive banking bill were ''anti-competitive and anti-consumer.'' The legislation ended a two-year effort to help the savings and loan industry, in which hundreds of insolvent institutions are losing $10 million a day for lack of Federal money to close them and pay depositors. The Competitive Equality Banking Act would allow the depleted Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits in 3,200 institutions, to borrow up to $10.8 billion over the next three years to close weak savings and loans or subsidize their takeover by healthier ones. The law also requires banks to clear consumers' checks more quickly, bans creation of new limited-service banks and imposes a moratorium until March 1 on granting banks authority to expand into areas such as insurance, real estate and securities underwriting.

Reagan's program of supply-side economics sought to increase economic growth through reduced taxes which would in turn create even greater tax revenue. Critics argued that his tax cuts only benefited corporations and wealthy individuals. Reagan drastically cut spending on social programs as part of his vow to balance the federal budget. In labor disputes, Reagan was decidedly antiunion. This was never more evident than in 1981 when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers. The U.S. economy continued to worsen; in 1983 the unemployment rate reached its highest point since the Great Depression at almost 11%. By the end of that year, however, oil prices began to drop, slowing the inflation rate and helping the economy to begin a recovery. Reagan' deregulated the banking, airline, and many other industries.. The deregulated economy proved extremely volatile; financial scandals were prevalent and the trade imbalance grew. Finally in 1987 the stock market crashed, falling a record 508 points in a single day.

George W. Bush's economic policies were very much like Reagan's, both supported solidly by JOHN S. McCAIN, except that where Reagan's appointments to offices of responsibility were men of substance and experience, George W. Bush's were either fellow Texans or political ass-kissers. Where it took seven years of the Reagan economics to result in the failing of banking and other industries, it took seven and a half years of George W. Bush economics, supported by JOHN S. McCAIN, to create even a greater failure. The cause, in both administrations (Reagan and Bush was deregulation, and it is one that JOHN S. McCAIN supported 100%. Deregulations created greed and chaos and a total disregard for the anti-trust laws or the effects on the general public it would have. John McCain’s affinity for supporting the deregulation of major industries puts him in league with the worlds most notorious corporate criminals. Deregulation is the tool of the super rich corporate criminal class, and John McCain is their poster child. He supported deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry. All the while accepting lavish gifts and trips on private jets from Charles Keating who would benefit directly from the legislation. This led to rampant theft of customer savings. The Savings and Loan industry then crashed costing the American taxpayers $30 Billion. McCain was indicted for corruption and Keating went to prison..

McCain followed that mess with deregulation of the energy industry. This created [chaos] in the energy markets, the Enron scandal, and cost rate payers across the country $20 billion in manipulated energy costs. Within a year all competition for gas and oil was gone and prices began rising. A sweet deal for Exxon Mobile who this year raked in more profits than any company in the history of the world, and paid their CEO $500 million in bonuses, while spending less that 2 million to develop new sources of oil from the more than 10 million acres of undeveloped US oil leases Exxon holds. That was not enough for our hero John McCain. He then supported deregulation of the Mortgage industry which led to rampant lender abuse and the current mortgage crisis. Now with the just passed bailout legislation this will cost taxpayers $150 Billion. Of course, this has since been followed directly by the collapse of the banking system and what is (so far) the biggest bailout in history, with the AIG bailout costing over 50 times more than the Chrysler bailout.

JOHN S. McCAIN is basically a stooge of the real criminals: the Charles Keatings, the Ken Lays, and the Phil Gramms of the world. McCain may be the architect of financial ruin, but his puppet masters are the looters.

The word "conservative" is defined, "Adhering to and tending to preserve the existing order of things, opposed to change; a political philosophy that favors the preservation of the status quo. and is critical of proposals of change." JOHN S. McCAIN says he is a "conservative," so when he talks of "change", he lies, because he intends to continue in that which he has supported for 26 years, the failed deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. After all McCAIN took on, as his Chief Economic Advisor, Phil Gramm, the father of deregulation, and one who should be jailed for the failures and damages caused by the current financial crises.. The legacy of Ronald Reagan lives on in George W. Bush and JOHN S. McCAIN.

ORIGIN OF THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:23:43 EDT

Today's quote: - “The test of our progress is not whether we add more more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we can provide enough for those who have too little.” - FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT

Comment: The Conservative philosophy of less government, and especially of deregulation, is the prime cause of the current financial meltdown in the United States. It started long before George W, Bush and took hold in the administrations of Ronald Reagan. Democrat administrations, in power between the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations did nothing to stem the growth of deregulation, and the incompetence of the GEORGE W. Bush administration, and his incompetent appointees to positions of responsibility exacerbated the situations leading to this economic meltdown of 2008. From the reports of American Progress:The American economy has been heading in the wrong direction for seven years (more like four decades), as conservatives rewrote the rules of the market to reward corporate excess and to deprive American families of economic opportunity. (They could only rewrite the rules through deregulation, which they applied maximum effort to, ignoring anti-trust laws and other limiting legal factors.) The wave of toxic debt crashing into Wall Street is but a symptom of the broken economic fundamentals that have made good jobs, good education, and good health care harder to find for most Americans year after year. The Bush administration's exploitation economy has drilled our nation to the benefit of oil companies, multinational corporations, and billionaire speculators, leaving the next administration -- and the next generation of Americans -- with a broken economy and planet to repair. The national response to these crises must be swift and wise, stimulating a green recovery with the renewable resources of innovation, hard work, and clean energy. "Green Recovery," a new report published by the Center for American Progress from the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), explains how a $100 billion stimulus over two years would create two million new jobs in a clean energy economy, with a significant proportion in the struggling construction and manufacturing sectors. (It took almost 30 years to recover from the Reagan economic policies and deregulation, just in time for George W. Bush to reinstate them add to them and violate the laws that applied to them.

This $100 billion investment is targeted (not by the Bush administration or its ideologues) in building a green economy today: retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, expending mass transit and freight rail, constructing smart electrical grid transmission systems and investing in wind power, solar power, and next-generation biofuels. The vast majority of jobs created would be in already-existing trades, from machinists to truck drivers, roofers to engineers. "The point of view of the Steelworkers is quite simple," said Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers of America (USW), introducing the report. "An energy-efficient green economy creates jobs, and creates jobs in America." "We must fundamentally change the way we produce and consume energy and dramatically reduce our dependence on oil," explained Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta. "The economic opportunities provided by such a transformation are vast, not to mention the national security benefits of reducing oil dependence and the pressing need to fight global warming." The Green Recovery program allows Congress to "spend less money than it did on the last economic stimulus package, create more jobs and help stave off catastrophe via climate change." Most of the stimulus goes directly to the private sector, with $50 billion for tax credits and $4 billion for federal loan guarantees. Approximately $46 billion in direct government spending would support public building retrofits, the expansion of mass transit, freight rail, and smart electrical grid systems. This stimulus should be part of a comprehensive low-carbon energy strategy and could be paid for with proceeds from auctions of carbon permits under a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.

As the authors of the report will testify before Congress on Thursday, the greatest benefits of investment in a green economy come to those who have been hardest hit by the pollution-based economy. PERI analyzed the green job potential for 34 states across the nation, finding that states with strong industrial sectors and low-income communities battered by outsourcing and left behind by Wall Street and Washington, can see the strongest gains. "This is an opportunity to help Americans pull themselves out of poverty by investing in the green movement," noted Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN), whose state has lost 16,000 jobs since January. "The price of oil is taking too big a bite out of working families' paychecks and eliminating too many jobs," Bruce Roy, secretary-treasurer of the Maine AFL-CIO, told the Portland Press-Herald. "Putting up a wind farm creates jobs for machinists, truck drivers, electricians and laborers. Making buildings more energy-efficient requires roofers and insulators." In the words of Michigan state representative Mark Meadows, "We have workers who are waiting to go back to work in Michigan, well over 60,000 of them who would benefit from a program like that, because they have the skill sets that are needed to make this work." Forty-three thousand jobs would be created in Missouri, already benefiting from the construction of new wind farms and biodiesel plants. Eighty-six thousand new jobs in Pennsylvania would dramatically cut unemployment. Tony Montana, a spokesman for the USW, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "That potential growth for good, family-supporting jobs when the economy is down and we see our manufacturing jobs leaving the country makes it imperative that we take a long, serious look at green investment and green energy solutions for our future and for future generations."

The impending expiration of federal renewable energy tax credits threatens thousands of American jobs. Declaring, "America needs an oil change," Rep. Markey (D-MA) fought back on the floor of the House yesterday against the conservative battle-cry of "Drill, baby, drill!" Last night, the House voted 236-189 in favor of H.R. 6899, an "all of the above" energy bill to invest in renewable energy, raise clean energy standards, and expand oil production, paid for by removing oil company tax loopholes. After a month of complaining that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had put Congress on its standard August recess without a vote on an "all of the above" bill, conservatives made repeated motions to adjourn to prevent the vote from occurring. President Bush joined the opposition, threatening to veto the legislation because it removes oil company subsidies. The fight now moves to the Senate, where conservatives have repeatedly filibustered green recovery legislation. Communities are organizing to tell Congress they are ready for green jobs now, under the leadership of a coalition led by Green For All. On Saturday, Sept. 27, the coalition will launch a national mobilization to say, "I'm ready for the green economy." Green Jobs Now is a National Day of Action that will empower everyday people to stage hundreds of grassroots events throughout the country. Van Jones, founder of Green for All and a Center for American Progress senior fellow, writes, "Right now, there are millions of people ready to work and countless jobs to be done that will strengthen our economy at home." .

No program of the Bush administration should be voted on before a new President has been elected. The new President should not be saddled with the ideologues program anymore than it has already been. There are but four months until the inauguration of a new President, and we've already had to much of the one currently in office.

IN THE MEANTIME - CONVINCE YOUR FRIENDS THAT WE NEED VOTES FOR OBAMA, FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND RESPECT, FOR THE END OF PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER AND FOR THE CONGRESS TO RETAKE ITS POSITION AS AN EQUAL PARTNER IN GOVERNANCE; FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES WHO PUT THE LAW ABOVE THEIR PERSONAL FAITH AND WHO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION ON THE WORDS IT CONTAINS, NOT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT LED TO THOSE WORDS - FOR THE FOUNDING FATHERS, WHEN THEY SAW FIT, ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION, i.e. THE BILL OF RIGHTS - BUT NOT THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. ANYONE WHO WOULD NOT VOTE FOR A BRILLIANT CANDIDATE LIKE SEN. OBAMA BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN IS AN UNAMERICAN RACIST, WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS OR EVEN, IF ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS, IN THE BELIEF OF A GOD WHO IS THE FATHER OF ALL REGARDLESS OF COLOR, RELIGION, GENDER OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION -A HYPOCRITE!

THE BUSH-McCAIN FINANCIAL MELTDOWN

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:21:48 EDT

Today's quote: - "When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs." - MAXWELL ANDERSON, Date unknown.

Comment: - As a result of almost eight years of profligate and unrestrained deregulation and neglect of statutory enforcement, as well as the transfer of "social" welfare to "corporate welfare, we have reached a point of decline in our democracy where the term, in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, "promote the general welfare" has been interpreted to mean promote the wrongdoings of corporate greed at the expense of the general public, and reward them for the error of their ways.

Fearing a financial crisis worldwide, the Federal Reserve reversed course on Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the government control of the troubled insurance giant American International Group. The decision, only two weeks after the Treasury took over the federally chartered mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank’s history. One may wonder why the same was not done for Lehman Brothers. Mr. Paulson had flatly refused to risk taxpayer money to prevent the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America. Before coming to Treasury, Paulson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs since the firm’s initial public offering in 1999. He joined Goldman Sachs Chicago Office in 1974 and rose through the ranks holding several positions including, Managing Partner of the firm’s Chicago office, Co-head of the firm's investment Banking Division, President and Chief Operating Officer, and Co-Senior partner Could this be the reason he did nothing for competing Lehman Brothers. "When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs."

With time running out after A.I.G. failed to get a bank loan to avoid bankruptcy, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, convened a meeting with House and Senate leaders on Capitol Hill about 6:30 p.m. Tuesday to explain the rescue plan. They emerged just after 7:30 p.m. with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke looking grim, but with top lawmakers initially expressing support for the plan. But the bailout is likely to prove controversial, because it effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by A.I.G. and other institutions it does business with.Fearing a financial crisis worldwide, the Federal Reserve reversed course on Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the government control of the troubled insurance giant American International Group.. "When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs."

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke had not requested any new legislative authority for the bailout at Tuesday night’s meeting. “The secretary and the chairman of the Fed, two Bush appointees, came down here and said, ‘We’re from the government, we’re here to help them,’ ” Mr. Frank said. “I mean this is one more affirmation that the lack of regulation has caused serious problems. That the private market screwed itself up and they need the government to come help them unscrew it.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi quickly criticized the rescue, calling the $85 billion a "staggering sum." Ms. Pelosi said the bailout was "just too enormous for the American people to guarantee." Her comments suggested that the Bush administration and the Fed would face sharp questioning in Congressional hearings. President Bush was briefed earlier in the afternoon. The A.I.G. rescue won’t be the last. At Tuesday night’s meeting. lawmakers asked if there was any way of knowing if this would be the final major government intervention. Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson said there was not. Indeed, the markets remain worried about the financial condition of major regional banks as well as that of Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest thrift. "When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs."

For those responsible for the financial harm does to millions be held accountable, both in and out of government? Fascism is defined, " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition; a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." For the first six years of his administration, George W,. Bush had a ideologue Republican majority in both Houses of Congress and a weak Democrat opposition that allowed him the practice what he claimed, 'If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.' And that was just what he was for his first six years in office, a dictator, and he is principally responsible for the economic meltdown and his administration's blind eye to the abuses of corporate entities of greed and corruption.. And all of this blind approval of corporate deregulation and disaster was with the approval of John S. McCain, who looks forward to adding to it.

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN - REPUBLICAN PATRIOTISM

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:28:58 EDT

Today's quote: - "Treason is in the air around us everywhere. It goes by the name patriotism." - THOMAS CORWIN, Letter from Washington, D.C., Jan. 16, 1861.

Comment: - Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Regarding the threat by House Minority Leader, John Boehner, to shut down the government and cut off all government spending unless it submits to the lifting of the ban against off-shore drilling, might it not be considered an act of "adhering to our enemies" and giving them a sense of "aid" and of "comfort." The mere fact that the price of oil over $115 per barrel, and the hardships it has placed on the American people and the American economy was as effective as any terrorist attack that cold have been devised by Osama bin Laden. That the stopping of Social Security checks to our seniors and pension checks to our Veterans, as well as the halt in funding Veteran hospital facilities will not doubt put smile on the face of Osama bin Laden

.Patriotism is not wearing a pin of the American flag on your clothing, nor wearing a red, white and blue necktie or scarf, nor even the carrying of an American flag, because the latter is done by most of the 888 "hate" groups spread throughout these United States. Patriotism is not shutting down the government because a campaign contributor is not getting preferential treatment, or the ideology of a misinformed and incompetent President and administration is being contested. for a disregard of the Constitution and the laws of the land to which they do not subscribe. Patriotism infers a duty to the country, not a political party or political concept Shutting down a country because of a political position is the type patriotism that borders on treason. The following threats in Congress are in point:

House Republicans signaled Monday that they are ready to cut off government spending over the issue of offshore drilling, though the party’s Senate leader said he hopes to reach an energy deal and avoid a shutdown. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, called a Democratic energy proposal to allow limited offshore drilling inadequate. Boehner said House Republicans would vote against a spending resolution needed to keep the government running when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 unless restrictions on offshore drilling are dropped from it. “We’re going to insist that any continuing resolution that passes does not continue the drilling ban,” Boehner said. Does Boehner speak for the people he represents or for the oil companies who support his campaigns? Boehner’s threat is largely symbolic, as Democrats control enough votes in the House to pass a spending bill over Republican objections. But Republican cooperation will be needed to pass such a resolution in the Senate, where 60 votes are necessary to overcome a filibuster.

“There is still time to act on this issue,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. “And we should.” While McConnell downplayed talk of a government shutdown, other Senate Republicans said they would vote against any funding resolution that includes the ban on offshore drilling expansions, which has been renewed in appropriations bills since 1992 and was most recently included in the fiscal 2008 omnibus spending bill (PL 110-161). “We have to take that moratorium away,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison , R-Texas.

The call for more offshore drilling has been a powerful election-year issue for Republicans, with appeal to taxpayers unhappy with higher energy prices. Chants of “Drill!” filled the Republican National Convention last week, and GOP lawmakers kept a daily vigil in the House chamber during the summer recess. Republican bloggers and talk show hosts have attacked party members trying to negotiate a bipartisan Senate compromise. “For the last five months, we have used this issue effectively to put Democrats on the defensive, and that’s going to continue into November,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Boehner.

But even as they try to defuse the politically charged issue with legislation allowing limited new offshore oil and gas exploration, Democrats warn that a government shutdown would boomerang against Republicans. “Let’s be clear,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev. “Shutting down the government means that senior citizens stop receiving checks and veterans stop receiving health care.” Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau said Republicans are kidding themselves if they think a shutdown will help them politically. “If Republicans want to have a debate about denying senior citizens Social Security checks and health care, that’s a debate we’re willing to have,” he said.

House Democratic leaders are expected to move a bill to the floor as early as Sept. 11 that would allow Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas to opt into drilling off their coastlines. A bipartisan group of senators has offered a similar compromise as part of a package that would also roll back tax breaks for the oil industry. “It this bill is what we think it is, it’s nothing but another . . . poison pill sham,” Republican Ken Smith said. “Any deal, any bill, that puts 80 percent [of the outer continental shelf] off limits permanently will not find our support.” Patriot of the United States of America or the International Oil companies?

At a news conference Monday, House Republicans were nearly drowned out by protesters —including some dressed as polar bears and pelicans — chanting “Spill, baby, spill!” and “Shame on Big Oil.” Democratic leaders have not said whether they will bring their bill to the floor under a rule that would give Republicans a vote on their own drilling amendment.

The Senate is expected to spend most of this week debating a defense authorization bill (S 3001), providing leaders with a little breathing space to negotiate before moving energy legislation to the floor next week. Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., and the panel’s ranking Republican, Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, are hosting a bipartisan energy summit Sept. 12. Reid said he plans to bring up a Bingaman-sponsored draft bill that would open new areas of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling. Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, and 68 million have not been drilled on, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources. If all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, although the oil industry said that number is far too high and one government agency said it was impossible to estimate production. Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit. Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices. "Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold." But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped. With record profits over the last six quarters realized by the oil industry, the costs of these oil leases are minimal and give control to the oil companies for the future and the power to control the prices. Curiously neither the government proponents of oil industry support, or the oil industry, never mentions the government subsidies it receives, despite the record quarterly profits.

With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop. Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.While that proposal, along with provisions extending tax credits for alternative energy, would likely enjoy bipartisan support, the bill would offset costs by cutting subsidies to oil companies, which many Republicans would oppose.. Are they willing to surrender the leases not being drilled on for new leases, and if so, will they guarantee to start drilling within a set period of time, or surrender the lease back to the government?

Reid also would call up the compromise draft legislation proposed by a bipartisan group of senators — the so-called Gang of 16 — which would allow the Southeastern states to opt into drilling off their shores, as part of a broader package including an estimated $84 billion in investments in conservation and efficiency offset by cutting tax breaks to oil and gas companies. Budget Chairman Kent Conrad , the North Dakota Democrat who helped assemble the gang, said an additional five Democrats have expressed support for the plan. But many Senate Republicans remain committed to a complete repeal of the moratorium.

“We’re all trying to see how we can get that moratorium lifted,” said Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski .A blanket lifting of the moratorium will give the oil companies total control over every possible oil deposit of U.S. shores, with little oversight by the government. There is no way that should be allowed to happen- the oil industry is far too powerful in government circles at the present time and must be brought under control. These are the people's minerals, not the governments, and must be used for the people's interests primarily - and they are not.

McConnell — caught between pressure to avoid a deal that does not end the moratorium and the political risks of being blamed for a government shutdown — has indicated a willingness to find a compromise. “We also need to do our most basic duty of funding the government by passing appropriations bills,” he said. “The upcoming election is no excuse to put off our responsibilities for another day. . . . The work of government must go on, regardless of how strong the partisan currents flow. It always has. And it should this year.”

Critics say lifting the bans would do little to ease the nation's energy crisis in part because it would take years to produce meaningful amounts of oil, noting how much is currently going untapped.
Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.

SARAH PALIN - A BOOK BURNER?

Lee Dimin. — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:38:33 EDT

Below is a paragraph from this week's Time magazine article on Sarah Palin:

"[Former Wasilla mayor] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

Mary Ellen Baker resigned from her library director job in 1999.

NOTE: Here is the list of books Palin tried to have banned. As many of you will notice it is a hit parade for book burners.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

THE JOHN McCAIN RCORD

Lee Dimin. — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:22:10 EDT

The John McCain record: -

ON ABORTION: -

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

On the Budget and Economy: -

Bailing out Bear Stearns necessary to protect economy. (Apr 2008) Key is to not to bail out homeowners who speculated. (Apr 2008) Did Bear Stearn speculate?
Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000. (Jan 2008) Year 2000 ended with a surplus, 2008 will end with a deficit; In 2000 a gallon of gas was $1.50 per gallon, in 2008 it was $4 per gallon. McCain just "doesn't get it!"
May have to go further to fix the subprime lending situation. (Jan 2008) What does this mean - more tax cuts for those who do not need it? subsidies for mortgage companies? That is what has been happening for the past 8 years, subsidizing those who do not need it, ignoring those who do.
Recession is partly psychological and not inevitable. (Jan 2008) $4. a gallon gas psychological ? 50% to 80% increase in food costs psychological? Almost $10 trillion record national debt and a $3 trillion negative international trade balance psychological? The only thing psychological is John McCain - "He just doesn't get it!"
I'm well-versed in economics; I was at the Reagan Revolution. (Jan 2008) McCain is still at the Reagan revolution - never left it, and it took three decades before Clinton was able to change the direction from annual deficits to an annual surplus. "He just doesn't get it!"
FactCheck: Said--then denied--he needed economics education. (Jan 2008) Fast Check was right the first time.
Impose some fiscal discipline to revive the economy. (Jan 2008) McCain supported every one of Bush's fiscal fiascos and the economy is in the dumps. "He just doesn't get it!"
Will be able to reduce war costs & have a stable Middle East. (Jan 2008) There has not been a stable Middle East in more than a thousand years, and regardless of how long the U.S. troops stay, be it one month or 100 years, the area will never become stable.
Reform insurance to cover violent weather patterns. (Jan 2008) Does McCain now intend to subsidize casualty insurance companies in addition to the health insurance industry?
To avoid recession, stop out-of-control spending. (Jan 2008) McCain voted to spend $10 Billion per month (borrowed primarily from the Communist Chinese) to pay for an illegal war in Iraq. Why did he not insist those costs be budgeted? "He just doesn't get it!"
Loss of economic strength leads to losing military strength. (Dec 2007) Waste of military strength leads to losing economic strength - McCain got it backwards. "He just doesn't get it!"
Republicans have forgotten how to control spending. (Nov 2007) McCain has been a Republican legislator for 26 years - but he is now 72 and has probably forgotten some of his past
AdWatch: Outrageous to spend $233M for bridge to nowhere. Bridge-to-Nowhere never built; would serve 200,000. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Criticized "Woodstock museum," but skipped vote. (Nov 2007) He skipped far too many votes over the 22 years.
Congress spends money like a drunken sailor. (May 2007) He's been part of that Congress for 26 years, the majority of which were in control of the Republican Party, during which tome most of the huge national debt was accumulated.
Veto all pork-barrel bills and announce pork spenders. (May 2007) Too little, too late. He couldn't do anything about it as a Senator, and as a President, his only power of the Congress is a veto, which can easily be over-ridden, as McCain voted to support Bush's veto of legislation designating ""waterboarding"" as torture.
Use veto power to reduce government spending. (Jan 2000) But has not intention of reducing government subsidies to record-profit-making industries.
Distribute surplus: 23% tax cuts; 62% Social Security. (Jan 2000) There is no surplus, nor is one contemplated for the next four years. "He just doesn't get it!"
$9B of pork in current budget bills; cut subsidies. (Oct 1999) He has given no specifics on "cutting subsidies". Will it be the subsidies to education or to the oil companies; agri-combines; the faith based initiatives the health insurance industries; the pharmaceutical companies?
For Balanced Budget Amend., & off-budget Social Security. (Jul 1999) "Off budget" can lead to an increase in the national debt, now approaching $10 Trillion
Supports Balanced Budget Amendment. (Jul 1998)
Apply surplus to Social Security, Medicare, tax cuts & debt. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

ON CIVIL RIGHTS: -

Supports CA Prop. 8: one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)
Voted against MLK holiday in 1983; now calls that a mistake. (Apr 2008) a FLIP-FLOP!
Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007) is IT WORKING?
Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)
Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007) Art. IV of the Constitution's "full faith and credit" provision makes a marriage legal in one State be recognized in every other State.
John Lewis was as courageous as anyone could ever hope to be. (Apr 2004) ?
Fear did not restrain Dr. King to resist repression. (Apr 2004) But McCain's chosen running mate, Sarah Palin, has little respect for "Community organizers, which Dr, King happened to be, and who happened to accomplish much more that has either McCain or Palin. The "founding fathers" of this great nation were our first "Community Organizers."
1994: No Senate hiring discrimination by sexual orientation. (Jan 2004)
Support evangelism but don’t pander to evangelical leaders. (Feb 2000) McCain has done both. His latest pandering to the evangelical leaders was his choice of Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
Inter-racial dating ban is idiotic and cruel. (Feb 2000)
Career-long history of supporting Indian causes. (Jan 2000) As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs during the eleven year lawsuit of Cobell v. the U.S. on the question of the government's misappropriation of Indian mineral trust funds, McCain did nothing, and the case is still pending.
Ten Commandments would bring virtue to our schools. (Jan 2000) Not if a number of the students were not Christians or Jews. The people of the United States of America are of many faiths and of no faith, and the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from any action "respecting an establishment of religion."
Confederate flag is a “symbol of heritage”. (Jan 2000) It is the symbol of a dead issue, slavery, and a dead government, the Confederate States of America, that waged was against the United States of America
Allow, but not mandate, school prayer. (Jan 2000) McCain shows no respect for the First Amendment. Does he, like Bush, have no respect for the entire Constitution?
Would be “comfortable” with a gay president. (Dec 1999) Frankly, I don't give a damn what he would be comfortable with - I'm not comfortable with him - he's too old, sounds somewhat senile and is choice of a Vice Presidential candidate is evidence of both.
Flying Confederate flag should be left to states. (Sep 1999) He sure does like that Confederate flag.
1st Amend. not a shield for hate groups. (Aug 1999) I agree!!!!!! There are 888 hate groups in the United States, many of them armed, no doubt with the approval of Sarah Palin and the NRA, and each seeking the destruction of these United States and its Constitution. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not the only action immune to the prohibitions of the First Amendment. Every one the 888 hate groups are, by definition, a terrorist organization.
Indian gambling OK; lottery is not. (Aug 1999) That's like saying paying compliments for sex is ok but paying money for sex is not. Where is this guy coming from? "He just doesn't get it!"
Hollywood should voluntarily self-censor sex and violence. (Jul 1999)
Supports Amendment against flag-burning. (Apr 1999) He wants to amend the First Amendment, incorporated into the Constitution from the Bill of Rights, the basis for out government. I'd rather know those who burn the American flag than allow them to operate against the country in secrecy. The freedom of expression by some people is much better intelligence than we have seen from the Bush administration in the past eight years (supported by John McCain)
We don’t need laws against Spanish language & culture. (Mar 1999)
Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998) There are no specifics to this statement.

CIVIL RIGHTS VOTING RECORD:-

Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states. (Nov 2006)
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Require 90 day delay for compliance before ADA lawsuits. (May 2002)
Limit interstate class-action lawsuits to federal courts . (May 2002)
Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

ON CORPORATIONS:

More deductible expensing of equipment investments. (Feb 2008)
Cut corporate income taxes to keep jobs here. (Jan 2008) This will not keep jobs here. End off-shore tax breaks!
People worry about corporations unduly influencing elections. (Sep 2007) I think the people are more concerned with big corporations controlling the governing of this country.
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001) Bought and paid for by the Credit card companies, who are now protected in bankruptcy proceedings.

ON CRIME: -

Judges have limited scope under the Constitution. (Nov 2006) Except when they agree with Republican conservative philosophy.
More death penalty; stricter sentencing. (Jan 2000) If one believes in religion and in "God", then it is only that "God", who allegedly gave life, who can take life. Bibles were all written by humans, most based on hearsay, and much contained thereon is hypocrisy.
More community policing; enough hate crime laws. (Jan 2000) With all the hate in this world, there can never be enough "hate laws" that are strictly enforced.
Prosecute youths as adults, but separately; explore sources. (Jan 2000) What constitutes a "youth"?
Urges hearings on how FBI can deter Hate Crimes. (Aug 1999) There are 888 hate groups in these United States of America, most of them heavily armed with the protection of the government and the NRA
1st Amend. not a shield for hate groups. (Aug 1999) I agree, for "hate groups" are, in fact, terrorist organizations.
Pro-death penalty; more prisons; increased penalties. (Jul 1998) Answered above.
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996) Sounds like George W. Bush. Doesn't place much value on human life.
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996) This generally protects the profits of casualty insurance companies.
Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995) Once again it's corporate interests that dominates McCain's positions.
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995) That increases the use of gasoline and the profits of oil companies, but lessens the safety of the people.
Voted YES on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)
Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994) These statistics would show the lack of equality in our judicial system and would impose many more civil rights violations.
Rated 29% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 85% by the NCJA, indicating a "tough-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005)
Establish an FBI registry of sexual offenders. (Oct 1996)

ON DRUGS: -

Mexico should extradite drug dealers to the US. (Mar 2007) Republicans were in control of the House, Senate and White House for six of eight years - why was nothing done?
Administration is AWOL on the war on drugs. (Mar 2000) That was under the Clinton administration, much of which was operated with a Republican dominated Congress.
Public/private partnerships for drug treatment. (Jan 2000) The government and the Congress of the United States of America was not crated so its members cold take trips abroad
Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
Believes in evolution, but sees the hand of God in nature. (May 2007)
Against nationally imposed standards & funding strings. (Feb 2000)
Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)
Enlist retirees for tutoring. (Nov 1999)
Good teachers should earn more than bad lawyers. (Oct 1999)
Decisions on teaching evolution should be made locally. (Aug 1999)
Help unqualified teachers find other lines of work. (Jul 1999)
Supports tax-free savings accounts for education expenses. (Jul 1999)
Supports “Reading Excellence”; and rewarding good schools. (Jul 1999)
Supports at-risk programs; homeless ed.; anti-drop-out ed. (Jul 1999)
Internet access, with filters, at every school & library. (Jun 1999)
Merit pay & competency testing for teachers. (Jun 1999)
Ed-ACT Bill: college plans; language proficiency. (May 1999) at taxpayer expense, receive health insurance at taxpayer expense, receive per diem expenses at taxpayer expense for the purpose of reducing their activities to campaigning for their next election. The preamble to the Constitution says: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The duties and obligations of each branch of government were then detailed in the Articles of the Constitution and the Amendments. Nowhere in that entire document was any branch of the government authorized or empowered to delegate those duties and obligations, and nowhere in that entire document was any person or branch of government provided any immunities from its provisions or from enacted statutes.
Prevention & education apply to alcohol as well as marijuana. (Oct 1999)
We’re losing drug war - just say no. (Oct 1999) Criminal drug dealers do not accept the advice of politicians. We've not made much progress since 1999. We did in 2007 send to Border Patrol officers to prison for doing their duty in attempting to intercept a drug dealer from Mexico, and gave immunity to the drug dealer to testify against the officers. The drug policies of this nation smell as bade as unrefrigerated fish after three days.
$1B for detection equipment for more border interdiction. (Mar 1999) Equipment to detect what?
Mexico: balancing act between free trade & stopping drugs. (Mar 1999)
Restrict methadone treatment programs. (Feb 1999) McCain probably felt it is better to fill our jail cells than to treat drug addicts
Stricter penalties; stricter enforcement. (Jul 1998) It's been tried, time and time again - and it has failed time and time again.
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Sponsored bill on drug testing for major league sports. (May 2005)
Sponsored bill for grants to Indian tribes to fight meth. (Dec 2006)

ON EDUCATION: -

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007) Violates the First Amendment "establishment clause."
Believes in evolution, but sees the hand of God in nature. (May 2007) That's an improvement over having God as his Chief Advisor
Against nationally imposed standards & funding strings. (Feb 2000)
Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999) What are virtues?
Enlist retirees for tutoring. (Nov 1999) Tutoring in what? Aging. Looks like he needs that.
Good teachers should earn more than bad lawyers. (Oct 1999) There must be some underlying reason for this non-sensible comparison or does "he just not get it."
Decisions on teaching evolution should be made locally. (Aug 1999)
Help unqualified teachers find other lines of work. (Jul 1999) A qualified teacher during a Democrat administration may suddenly become unqualified under a Republican administration. Are they to be treated like ping-pong balls rather than educators?
Supports tax-free savings accounts for education expenses. (Jul 1999)
Supports “Reading Excellence”; and rewarding good schools. (Jul 1999) Rewards to school should not be subject to political constraints, as they are currently.
Supports at-risk programs; homeless ed.; anti-drop-out ed. (Jul 1999) McCain has done nothing about it during the six years the White House and the Congress were in control of the Republicans. Was he taking an old-age nap for six years?
Internet access, with filters, at every school & library. (Jun 1999)
Merit pay & competency testing for teachers. (Jun 1999)
Ed-ACT Bill: college plans; language proficiency. (May 1999)

EDUCATION VOTING RECORD

Unrestricted block grants--let states decide spending. (Feb 2000)
Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools. (May 1999)
Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
Voted NO on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
Focus educational resources to help those with greatest need. (Jul 2001)
Require state standards, regular assessments, and sanctions. (Jul 2001)
Support Ed-Flex: more flexibility if more accountable. (Jul 2001)
Rated 45% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on education benefits for veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars

VOTING RECORD ON OIL:

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003) SUPPORTS IT NOW!
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Sponsored bill for greenhouse gas tradable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)
Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)

ON ENVIRONMENT:

Support much tougher regulations on emission requirements. (Jan 2008)
Criticized $3M "bear DNA" study, but voted for it. (Nov 2007)
Economic & environmental interests not mutually exclusive. (Sep 2007)
Scored 40% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) He'll get on well with hunter Sarah Palin, wo shoots wolves from airplanes
1996: Put 3.5B acres of land into wilderness protection. (Jan 2004)
Preserving wilderness among proudest achievements. (Sep 2002)
Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)
Repeal ban on new roads in wilderness due to bad process. (Dec 1999)
Use park visitor fees for park development bonds. (Dec 1999)
Preserve natural resources for future. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001) She was a total incompetent.
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted NO on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Supports grants for brownfields remediation. (May 2002)
Make EPA into a Cabinet department. (May 2002)
Rated 53% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
Focus on results, not regulation. (Sep 1998)

Voting Record on foreign relations: -

Pay dues to UN after UN reforms. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's (Clinton's) power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996) But increase trade with Communist China and ending the embargo on Vietnam; and agree to Communist China's operation of a major west coast United States seaport. ?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo. (Jan 1994)
Sponsored bill suspending Russia's participation in the G-8. (Feb 2005)
Libyan disarmament was a CIA success story. (Mar 2005)
Impose sanctions and an import ban on Burma. (Oct 2007)
Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007) But failing to condemn the bush illegal wiretapping of American phone lines.
Call for Burma's junta to release political prisoners. (Jun 2007)
Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)

Voting record on free trade:

Pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-MFN, pro-Fast Track. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted NO on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
Promote the Andean Free Trade Agreement. (May 2002)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Sponsored bill for trade with post-Orange Revolution Ukraine. (Apr 2005)

And the United States, as a result of these "free trade" agreements ha a negative international trade balance in excess of THREE TRILLION DOLLARS, a loss of jobs, a shrinking middle class and an increase of those in the poverty levels of income, a vastly reduced standard of living.

His voting record on government reform: -

Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002) His actions speak louder than his words.
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999) Without culture. He sounds it.
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996) That makes the president a legislator, and that was not the intent of the founding fathers.
Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995) Any gift to a Congressman, in the performance of his duties, is nothing less than a bribe or an attempted bribe, and should be treated as the crime it is.
Supports Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform. (Jul 2001)
Sponsored bill subjecting 527s to political committee rules. (Feb 2005) Sponsored bill prohibiting non-legislated earmarks. (Jul 2005)
Sponsored bill disclosing lobbyist info & gifts on Internet. (Dec 2005)
Rethink flawed Presidential daily intelligence briefings. (Mar 2005)
CIA yielded to conventional wisdom, not political pressure. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill allowing individual votes on each earmark. (Feb 2006) You're either for earmarks or your against them. Will you defer to individual votes every issue that come up if it poses a problem for you. If so, you don't belong there.
Reduce federal government size & scope, including military. (Sep 1998) Turn everything over to the fat cats in corporate America, we, in Congress, will sit and watch until it is time for to start cam[aigning again.

On gun control: -

I now how to use guns; but I don't own one. (Nov 2007)
Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
Calls for GOP "tolerance" of closing gun show loopholes. (May 2002)
Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999) He flip-flopped in 2007 Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)
Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
Allow firearms in National Parks. (Feb 2008)

John Wayne aint dead, he lives in within John McCain. Maybe we should rename him John McWayne

On Healthcare -

Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on blocking medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)
Tax credits for those without employee health insurance. (May 2002)
Tax deduction for long-term care insurance. (May 2002)
Support telemedicine for underserved areas. (May 2002)
$350 billion for prescriptions for poor seniors. (May 2002)
Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

On Homeland Security: -

Applying habeas to Guantanamo let 30 terrorists attack US. (Jun 2008) Only 13 Gitmo recidivists & none attacked US. (Jun 2008)
Improve human intelligence to get Osama Laden. (Jan 2008) Abandoned to get control of Iraqi oil.
Surveillance of overseas communications is ok. (Dec 2007) If anyone in the U.S. is involved, FISA approval is required.
Ok to hold even US citizens as enemy combatants. (Dec 2007) The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution holds otherwise.
Consult lawyers on war decisions; no half-cocked war basis. (Oct 2007) This is too far out of context to make sense of.
Ran the largest squadron in the US Navy. (Oct 2007) If McCain is saying this as a brag, he should go full out and say that he was graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in the bottom 1% of his class. That in his training as a pilot he crashed two aircraft, where he suffered many of the injuries he now blames on the Vietcong.
After 9/11, ask Americans to join military or AmeriCorps. (Oct 2007)
Let loose smart, tough spies to catch Bin Laden. (Oct 2007) From where? On what basis?
His Military Commissions Act ended up denying habeas corpus. (Oct 2007) In violation of Art. I, Section 9, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
1973: Spokesperson for Operation Homecoming. (Oct 2007)
1977:Appointed as Navy liaison to Congress. (Oct 2007)
Cited 245 pork projects, or $3.5M waste in defense bill. (Oct 2007)
I've spent my life leading on national security issues. (Sep 2007)
Radical Islamic extremism is a hydra-headed challenge. (Aug 2007) What is "radical Islamic extremism" and how does it differ from radical Republican extremism?
I support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006) The Bush "doctrine of pre-emptive war" included sending troops into battle without the proper equipment which was the cause of 80 percent of the deaths in the first year of the war in Iraq. These men were killed by the ineptitude and the callous disregard for life by George W. Bush and all those who supported him. In my opinion he and those who supported his effort should be held accountable.
We must provide our children a strong, better country. (Aug 2004) You've failed miserably, not only are we much weaker because of our bellicosity, we have placed future generations in debt for decades to come because we funded this war by borrowing money from potential enemy nations, who now are better placed to gain military strength as a result of our failed policies.
A lack of complacency shouldn't provoke a lack of confidence. (Aug 2004) The American people are not complacent. They are concerned, concerned about an economy that is failing; concerned about jobs that are disappearing; concerned about a national debt that will humble us for generations to come; concerned about global warming, that the Republicans have ignored for eight years; concerned about inflation that have caused the inform to give up medication to afford food, that is forcing home owner to buy blankets because of the unconscionable oil prices; concerned that no longer afford fly away for a vacation because of the new airfare added charges and increased fares; concerned because maybe theirs will be among the next 85,000 to be cut. The American people have a great deal that does not permit complacency - only concern. McCain marvels at his running mate who sold the governors plane. That should be another of our concerns.
We don't have as much to fear as we had in the past. (Apr 2004) We've done very little to bolster our national security. our ports are still wide open; the radiation checks of cargoes at foreign ports has been a failure; our Department of Homeland Security is under the direction of incompetents, and has been since its inception; and we have as a candidate for Vice President on the Republican ticket, the 16 month-governor of Alaska, a State with a population that amounts to 0.2% percent of the population of the United States, with an education degree in journalism, and a candidate for president at age 72, with several bouts of melanoma, considered one of the most deadly of cancers, and McCain thinks we "don't have as much to fear."
Those who gave their lives deserve to be remembered. (Apr 2004) But more importantly, those that sent them to die needlessly should be punished.
First reaction to Sept 11: "This is war". (May 2002)
Argued for base closings even in the wake of 9/11. (May 2002)
Channel fear into productive missions and activities. (May 2002)
“Rogue state rollback” avoids use of US troops. (Mar 2000)
Disagrees with Perot: No more POWs in Vietnam. (Feb 2000)
Accepts gays in military under current policy. (Jan 2000)
Military’s political leaders need military backgrounds. (Jan 2000)
Women have proven themselves in combat-no restrictions. (Dec 1999)
Bombing useless targets in Vietnam destroyed US morale. (Nov 1999)
Vietnam was a worthy cause despite losing. (Nov 1999) Vietnam was never a worthy cause, even when the French pulled out and the US went in. Once again it was the "bogey-man" the Communist domination of the entire Southeast Asian archipelago as a result of the "domino theory." Yes we did lose - 11,000 lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded! The Domino Theory was nothing more - just a theory, or an excuse to go to war. And today we are engaged in heavy trade with this Communist nation of Vietnam, and unlike Cuba, it is open to American tourists.
Pres. needs experience more than briefing books. (Sep 1999) If McCain were as critical of George W. Bush, as he was of Bill Clinton, we might not be suffering the current economic problems, and we might not have to be so concerned about National Security issues.
Discard ABM Treaty and develop a missile defense. (Apr 1999)
Use force, with US control, only for vital interests. (Apr 1999)

ON IMMIGRATION:

Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
English immersion over bilingual education. (Jul 2001)
Sponsored comprehensive immigration reform, without amnesty. (May 2005)

But no initiative to develop a program for controlled temporary entry permits for farm workers to guaranteed employment contracts, for the duration of the agricultural season for which they could be admitted. No punishment for employers who take advantage of the illegal status of their workers, and their complicity in using illegal social security numbers.

ON JOBS:

Overhaul unemployment insurance as a retraining program. (Feb 2008)
Straight talk: some jobs aren't coming back. (Jan 2008)
Unions are monopolies; don't compel people to join. (Oct 2007)
Family farms: Crop insurance; reduce inheritance tax. (Jan 2000)
Ethanol is not worth it, even in Iowa. (Dec 1999) What he means is - it's bad for the oil companies!
Ethanol bad for environment & bad for consumers. (Nov 1999) What he means is - it's bad for the oil companies!
End sugar subsidy; it hurts consumers & helps only tycoons. (Aug 1999)
Ethanol subsidy is outdated; use funds for education. (Jul 1999) What he means is - it's bad for the oil companies!
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005) He flipped after he flopped
Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
Rated 15% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

ON PRINCIPLES AND VALUES:

My most basic conservative principle: liberty comes from God. (Feb 2008) If liberty comes from God, why are there not more nations devoted to liberty, since God is universal.
Disagrees with his mom; he can unite the party. (Feb 2008) His mom is probably smarter than he.
Anticipates spirited debate on differences with Democrats. (Feb 2008)
Proud of Justice O'Connor; favor Roberts and Alito. (Jan 2008) His favor of Justice Alito and Roberts indicates that he does not object to legislating from the Bench
Reagan knows that I stick with my principles. (Jan 2008) And Reagan is dead, you know.
Able to work with others with own set of principles. (Dec 2007)
Op-Ed: Unexamined as both straight-talker and as maverick. (Oct 2007) He hasn't said a straight word throughout the campaign
Absent from Values Voter Presidential Debate. (Sep 2007)
Most important part of decision-making is self-awareness. (Aug 2007) Uh oh he has problems there.
If I lose capacity for anger, I lose capacity to serve. (Apr 2007) In other words, I can only serve when I'm a little nuts!
Courage is the capacity for action despite our fears. (Apr 2004) Tell it to those who have been without a job for years; to those who return from war injured and receive little support from the VA, the President or John McCain.
Humility from surviving veterans is remarkable. (Apr 2004) That "humility" voted against education benefits for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan
Just government is derived from the consent of the governed. (Apr 2004) We've not had that in eight years.
We need moral courage to be honest all the time. (Apr 2004) This government has not had moral courage in decades and I, at age 88, cannot remember the last time our government was "honest all the time."
Do the thing you think you cannot do. (Apr 2004) That's why he's running for President.
The allure of pride affects adults like it affects children. (Apr 2004)
We are indebted to those who shed blood for us. (Apr 2004) That's an indebtedness never to be collected.
It's love that makes courage necessary. (Apr 2004)
Political style is to be straightforward. (Sep 2002) So why has he not been!
Principles are more important than personal happiness. (Sep 2002)
Temper is same as other senators--he's just more famous. (May 2002) There is no place for a leader with a short fuse, John.
Keep tight reign on emotions--not to high nor too depressed. (May 2002) He doesn't seem able to control his.
Faith bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity. (Feb 2000) It is self respect that enables people to bridge unbridgeable gaps, not faith, for I have been without faith for more than 75 years and have bridged many a gap one might consider unbridgeable, Faith bridges the gap for those too weak to do it themselves and that weakness comes from lack of self respect.
Calls himself conservative who attracts political center. (Feb 2000)
Foreign policy should not be shaped by photo-ops & polls. (Jan 2000) Nor should it be shaped by ideologues or corporate executives who stand to profit from it.
Restore, renew, reform, & reinvigorate government. (Sep 1999) REPLACE, CHANGE AND RESTORE DEMOCRACY TO OUR GOVERNMENT. END THE BUSH-CHENEY-McCAIN-HALLIBURTON-EXXON-MOBIL REVOLUTION AND MAKE AMERICA THE DEMOCRACY WE WERE ONCE ALL PROUD OF.

THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:39:38 EDT

Today's quote: “It is the solecism of power to think to command the end, and yet not know to endure the means.” - FRANCIS BACON, Essays, Date unknown.

Comment: - There are but 4 month left in the Bush administration and for the 110th Congress. A new administration and a new Congress will be seated in January, 2009. The American oil industry now holds leases on 68 million sites off-shore, which have not been drilled on, nor are there plans to drill on them. The moratorium on off-shore drilling will be extended if the Congress does not prevent the extension, but that doesn't prevent the next administration from taking any action on the moratorium should the necessity arise. This 110th Congress should block all further administration efforts to change anything prior to the next administration taking over. Let us not do in haste that which we might regret for the next 4 or 8 years. If the Conservatives want to put party above country, it is an indication of their definition of patriotism - loyalty to oil and big business, not the country and its people. The message to the 110th Congress Democrat majority by Barak Obama should be the title of a song entitled "Do nothing 'til you hear from me."

On Monday, after the national political conventions have ended, Congress will return to Washington. Topping a packed schedule is energy policy, spurred by the pain of a summer of record gas prices. Conservatives have focused on preventing an extension of the moratorium on offshore drilling, which is slated to expire on Sept. 30. By that date Congress must pass, and Bush must sign, a funding resolution for fiscal 2009 to prevent a shutdown of the federal government. Conservatives (Patriots of Exxon-Mobil, not the USA) have threatened such a shutdown if the moratorium is not lifted. The campaign to lift the 26-year moratorium was spurred by former House speaker Newt Gingrich's "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition drive and President Bush's announcement that he would lift the presidential moratorium established by his father. More than $2 million of spending every day by the carbon industry has allowed the right-wing drilling message to dominate the debate -- despite the fact expanding offshore drilling would have no effect on gas prices. The right wing has pinned blame on "Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama" -- despite the fact conservatives held complete control of Washington until 2007. Since then, they have obstructed progressive energy legislation with a dozen Senate filibusters and Bush's threatened vetoes.

The top priorities for petro-industry conservatives are lifting the moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and oil shale mining, and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Despite the emphasis on oil drilling, House conservatives have branded their legislative package an "All of the Above" energy strategy. The "American Energy Act" (H.R. 6566) blasts away limits on drilling and delivers major subsidies to established, polluting industries -- oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear -- with minimal support for renewable energy and efficiency. In the Senate, conservative Democrats and Republicans known as the "Gang of Ten" (now 16) have outlined a compromise that would allow drilling 50 miles of the coasts of Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida with state approval. It offers new support for liquid coal and nuclear power, but also pays for significant incentives for renewable energy and efficiency by removing some subsidies for the oil and gas industry. This industry-friendly compromise is anathema to right-wing ideologues: Limbaugh called the Gang of Ten proposal "stupidity" and "pandering," and the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel noted in horror, "The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on...oil companies!" Any Representative or Senator who votes with Conservatives on this issue, and are up for re-election, should be voted down for they are no better than the ass-kissing Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, who should be removed from any chair position should the Democrats retain control of the Senate.

Recognizing that "the most important barrel of oil is the one you don't use," progressives in the House are planning to fight back. "Top House Democrats say that shortly after Congress reconvenes," reports E&E News, "they will put on the floor a piece of legislation that will include an expansion of offshore drilling but also a renewable electricity mandate, energy-efficiency standards for buildings and oil industry tax provisions." The plan, drawing from clean energy proposals introduced by Reps. Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), Ed Markey (D-MA), Todd Platts (R-PA), and others, is for "a political reverse takedown on the Republicans," according to Markey. Former Clinton administration official David Sandalow told E&E News: "We'll see whether the proponents of all of the above can take yes for an answer." The elements of the plan -- a national r enewable electricity standard, building efficiency standards, and removal of oil tax subsidies -- would spur jobs, reduce energy bills, and drive innovation for the future. These provisions have repeatedly passed the House since progressives gained leadership but have died to conservative filibusters in the Senate. House conservatives will fight any proposal that places any limits on Big Oil. Scoffing at the bipartisan and progressive plans, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) told the Politico, "So far there is no real proposal out there that has anything to do with really looking for oil and natural gas." Conservative leaders want to block any energy bill, even if it includes major concessions to Big Oil, because that would deprive them of their ability to keep making political points.

As Congress has less than a month to forge compromise, progressives and polluters are pushing competing priorities. A renewable electricity standard reflects Al Gore's We Campaign's call for 100 percent renewable electricity in ten years. Drilling provisions respond to the pressure from Newt Gingrich's right-wing American Solutions For Winning the Future (ASWF). Oil and gas billionaire T. Boone Pickens has called for new grid development, permanent tax incentives for wind and solar, and incentives for natural-gas vehicles. And further coal technology subsidies have been a top goal of the coal industry's American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). The battle between polluter and clean energy interests will be fully engaged this September. In fact, Sept. 27 -- the day after the first presidential debate and near the government shutdown deadline -- will see major rallies from both sides. ASWF, fueled by right-wing billionaires and polluters, is releasing a book and a movie to promote "Solutions Day." That same day, Green For All, the We Campaign, and 1Sky -- with the proud support of the Center for American Progress Action Fund -- are organizing a national day of action for Green Jobs Now. CAP Senior Fellow Van Jones, director of Green For All, describes the choice: "[Gingrich's] answers: more pollution; our answers: more solutions." This is the same Newt Gingrich who left the Congress and the Speaker of the House position in disgrace, whose "values" include three marriages, having left his first wife who was ill with cancer. The same Newt who made a "contract on America" (must have confused it with a Mafia contract) and started its decline into an adversarial government, with little conciliation.

John McCain might like being called a "maverick", but a maverick doesn't support 90% of the initiatives of a President who considered himself above the law, and upon which McCain never criticized Bush - an indication that he will, if elected continue to abuse and violate law and Constitution. On TV today I saw McCain and Palin, repeating the "speeches" of acceptance at the Convention, in which there no substance and it appeared as though it was Palin who was heading the ticket. If they keep this up the only appeal they will have is to the brain dead and the ideologues. She speaks and McCain grins and claps like a trained seal.. Neither of them have yet made a statement of substance, and neither of them have addressed the main concerns of the people of this country. The only change McCain-Palin represents is a 72 year old president replacing a 60 year old President, and a Vice President whose spouse does not yet work for the government. We must do better. It is obvious that Palin has become the lead speaker, followed by the McCain who says little other than to laud the lead speaker, which raises the question, "Who's on top?"

This morning I sent the following note to Gov. Sarah Palin:

"Your attempted denigration of 'Community Organizers', referring to Barack Obama, in comparison to your service as the Mayor of a two-bit Alaskan town, Wasilla, extends beyond Mr. Obama, to people like Martin Luther King, Jr., a Community organizer, and those 'Community Organizers' now referred to as the 'founding fathers' of this great nation.

You have a long way to go before you can match you degree in 'journalism' and your sports program on which you gained the reputation of "Sarah Barracuda" to the accomplishments of Barack Obama, who was graduated from Harvard Law School, Magna Cum Laude, and was the first Black ever to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review.

I am not insulting your degree or your service to the State of Alaska, but when you put down the efforts of others, based on the type of work they perform, and not on the quality, your criticisms are meaningless."

RUDY GIULIANI

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:49:30 EDT

Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of the City of New York, said at the Republican convention on Sept. 3. 2008, "He's never run a City, never run a State, never ran a business. He never had to lead people in crisis. Obama never led anything. Nothing. Nada." The same statement can be used to define John McCain, who "never led a city, never run a State, never run a business, never led people in crisis." In Giuliani's assessment, John McCain has no more leadership experience than does Barack Obama, or Joe Biden. So, if the lack of experience, as defined by Giuliani, can be called a draw, let us look to qualifications:

Barack Obama was graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, and was the first American of African/American descent to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review. John S. McCain was graduated from the United States Naval Academy, with a scholastic standing in the bottom one (1%) percent of his graduating class.
Barack Obama is a healthy, vibrant, well-spoken 46 year old. John S. McCain is a 72 year old, suffering from injuries suffered in two plane crashes while training to be a Navy pilot, as well as injuries suffered from the torture inflicted upon him by the Vietcong, whose family history consists of a father, John S. McCain Jr. who dies from natural causes at age 61; and a grandfather, Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., who died from a Heart attack at age 71. He's already passed both their ages, and has the added problem of having suffered several episodes of melanoma, one of the most deadly skin cancers, with a 75% fatality rate.
Barack Obama's judgment in choosing Joe Biden for his Vice President running mate is far superior to the choice of John S. McCain. Biden has been Chairman of both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, has had numerous contacts with foreign dignitaries during the most trying times of this nations. The judgment of John McCain in choosing the Governor of the oil-rich state of Alaska, Sarah Palin, shows no concern for foreign relations, no concern for the economic problems of this country, no concern for the global warming and its effect upon the oceans and seacoasts of the continents, which are destined to be affected by rising seas; shows no concern for the needs to develop alternate fuels and end our dependency on foreign oil and end the effect of oil products causing the global warming with the carbon emissions. Oil must be replaced, not sought. In replacing oil, we also end the monetary support of terrorism by the oil producing countries. Governor Palin supports oil drilling, supports the continuation of the use of oil ad infinitum without regard the eventual damage it will cause. Gov. Palin is the Governor of a State, whose population is 0.2% of the population of the United States of America. Her vetting by John McCain was all of 15 minutes. His initial choice, Joe Lieberman was ruled out by his advisors of the religious right, and he caved in to them. McCain's judgment throughout this campaign has proven to be questionable at best, and lacking most of the time.

Giuliani has once again placed party politics above the country's needs and the good of the nation, even though the vast majority of them today consider him an outsider, one who lacks their values, but he will continue on because he is now in a position where he has become a wealthy man because of his connections with the Republicans, and money to him is apparently more than good government, more than country, and more than patriotism. Rudy, the war hawk is really Rudy the "Chickenhawk", who managed not to serve in Vietnam.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:16:36 EDT

Did you know:-Today's quote: - "(The) GAO has done both the Congress and the department a great service, by doing a realistic, tough-minded evaluation of the costs of this important program [Bush administration program to use new technology to stop radioactive materials from being smuggled into the country]," Sen. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (Ind-CT), 9/25/08.

Comment: Sen. Lieberman has been Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security since January 2006, two and a half years, a Committee that has closed its eyes to the inefficiencies, the ineptness and the reckless operations of the Department of Homeland Security. With hurricane Katrina, it took another hurricane, Gustav, to awaken it, but luckily this was not a hurricane of the magnitude of Katrina, so we are not sure what the Department did after Katrina is sufficient. Under the Bush administration, the entire Department of Homeland Security has been repeatedly too late, with too little and which cost too much. The last straw for the Republican administration of our government is the report Sen. Joseph Lieberman mentioned in the quote above, which found facts that the Lieberman Committee should have found out even before he became Chairman, because the Special Committee on the 9/11 attacks gave direction on what must be done, and about little or nothing was done. Incompetence - no wonder Lieberman is supporting McCain. The report found:The Bush administration program to use new technology to stop radioactive materials from being smuggled into the country has "fallen short. of its aims and will likely be curtailed." The project, involving three contractors, has been embroiled in allegations that the department's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office misled Congress about the testing, cost and effectiveness of the machines. Budget documents this year showed the cost to put the monitors at borders and ports would be far higher than the detection office originally estimated. An audit report by the federal Government Accountability Office shows that officials in the detection office plan to deploy the machines, known as advanced spectroscopic portal monitors or ASPs, on a far more limited basis than originally planned. The new plan will focus on using the machines to monitor cargo containers, the report said. The detection office is not sure what method it will use to screen "rail cars, privately owned vehicles, airport cargo and cargo at seaport terminals" in the near future, the report said. This is seven years after 9/11 attacks. What has McCain done about it? Supported every one of Bush's incompetent moves. The report said "senior DNDO officials acknowledge a deployment program that is dramatically different in scope than the one presented to and approved by Congress. Program officials now state the program includes only the standard cargo ASP -- a significant reduction in planned ASP equipment." This does not satisfy our security needs, nor will drilling more holes in the ocean floor looking for oil.
The report is the latest blow to one of the Bush administration's most prominent homeland security initiatives. In announcing the $1.2 billion program two years ago, Department of Homeland Security officials said the costly monitors were vital to national security, would dramatically improve the detection of nuclear materials and reduce false alarms experienced by current equipment. Just another Bush failure and supported 100% by John McCain. Can this nation afford any more incompetents in positions of leadership?
The program has been delayed repeatedly after investigators turned up evidence that the detection office provided misleading cost estimates and inflated detection capabilities in a cost-benefit report to Congress in 2006. Congress later required Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to certify the effectiveness of the machines before they could be widely deployed. Last fall, Chertoff put off deployment after the GAO alleged that detection officials fudged testing of the machines and after customs officials complained that they did not work well in field tests. But putting off deployment doesn't solve the security problems, but merely shows the incompetence of the leader of the agency, as well as the one who appointed him - one who never paid the price for his failures after the Katrina hurricane.
The government continues to rely on existing, less expensive equipment. The current machines are effective at detecting the presence of radiation but often cannot distinguish benign sources, such as cat litter, from materials that can be used in weapons. But the government spends $10 BILLION per month for its illegal war in Iraq - supported by John McCain, hero of the Vietcong Hilton, but not a Medal of Honor recipient. The review found that contracts for the development of the machines "have already experienced unfavorable cost and schedule variances" since the contracts to three firms were awarded in July 2006. Contractors include Raytheon, Thermo Eberline and Canberra. One contract is 25 percent over budget and 23 percent behind schedule, the report said, without providing details about the contractor. "These unfavorable variances are not likely to improve, but quite likely will worsen, over the course of the ASP contracts," the report said. Auditors said they struggled to develop those figures because the detection office has declined to provide sufficient details about the program. The detection office also "instructed its ASP contractors to refuse GAO requests for interviews and data," the report said. A Homeland Security spokeswoman declined to discuss the report, saying the department had not had an opportunity to formally respond to it. McCain-Palin will give us four more years of the same, and conceivably much worse, because of McCain being a "hot-head" with a short fuse. McCain's choice of Palin for his Vice President is an indication of continued appointments of people unqualified, as has gone on for the past eight years
Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of the City of New York praised McCain as a "war hero". How would Giuliani know, he avoided service in the Military What does a "Chicken hawk" like Giuliani know about heroics. But he was with good company, other "patriots" like him: Bob Barr, Libertarian candidate for President; Jeb Bush; Roy Blunt;Larry Craig; Tom Delay; Newt Gingrich; Phil Gramm; Dennis Hastert; Dick Cheney; Rush Limbaugh; John Bolton; Andrew Card; Richard Perle Paul Wolfowitz; Mitt Romney; Sean Hannity; Karl Rove - many of who were appointed to positions by George W. Bush or were his advisors and supporters - and many who are now supporting John McCain.
"In our view, the frequent changes in deployment plans, and the lack of available cost documentation, raises concerns about the overall management of the radiation portal monitor project, and whether it is guided by a sound and stable strategy," the report said.

TODD PALIN, HUSBAND OF REPUBLICAN VP CANDIDATE

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:50:53 EDT

Todd Palin, Husband of Sarah Palin, presumptive Vice President nominee of the Republican Party, and father of her five children, was registered with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States. Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter.

The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska. Ideologically a constitutional foundation, the party calls for increased Alaskan control of Alaskan land, gun rights, privatization, home schooling, and reduction of governmental intrusion in the private lives of its citizens with adherence to the founding documents of the United States. The party has appeared on the ballot in Alaska in all state elections since 1970. At other times, party members have also proposed that the state explore the possibility of joining Canada. Other members have expressed opposition to joining Canada in its present form but are open to the possibility of joining an independent Western Canadian state in the event one should be established. Neither of these scenarios form part of the party's current platform. At the national level, the party is affiliated with the conservative Constitution Party. (The Constitution Party advocates a platform which aims to reflect the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. Their policies are similar to that of the Libertarian Party in their strong belief in federalism, limited government, and non-intervention, but similar to the Republican Party in their stance against abortion, GLBT rights, embryonic stem cell research, and illegal immigration).

Joe Vogler began arguing about the validity of the Alaskan statehood vote in 1973. Early in that year, he began circulating a petition seeking support for secession of Alaska from the United States. Alaska magazine published a piece at that time in which Vogler claimed to have gathered 25,000 signatures in 3 weeks. The Alaskan Independence Party quotes Vogler as stating "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the presumptive 2008 Republican Party nominee for Vice President of the United States, attended the state party's 2000 convention while she was still mayor of Wasilla. Lynnette Clark, the party's current chairwoman, also said that Palin attended the party's 1994 convention, a year after party patriarch Joe Vogler died, but the John McCain campaign denies this. Clark and other members also claimed Palin was actually a member of the party in the mid-1990s, but Alaska Division of Elections records show Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. Palin recorded a message welcoming party members to its 2008 convention as Governor of Alaska.

The Alaskan Independence Party maintains that Alaska's vote for statehood is "invalid" because "the people were not presented with the range of options available to them" and because "federal government has since breached the contract for statehood". Their web site addresses many questions about Alaskan Secession.

We have already been subjected to the Bush-Cheney revolution of secrecy, law breaking, disrepect for the Constitution, and the destruction of our economy, now we may possibly face the McCain-Palin revolution which will add to the destruction already engineered and put into effect by Bush Cheney. That is the "change" the offer - more of the same, more unreliability, more bellicosity and less substance. Bush saw nto the "soul of Putin" and McCain opted for the ultra-conservatism of Palin. We can only hope that voters will be astute enough to understand that should McCain be elected, and should he not survive his first term, this country might be run by anti-Americans, people who want no part of us. In 2006 there were 13,542 registered members in their party. Will they control the future of 3 Million Americans because MCain was too damn stupid to properly investigate his choice for Vice President. And if he is that stupid, is it not an indication of the way he will act n the White House? He might even out-shame George W. Bush.

WHO IS SARAH PALIN

Lee Dimin. — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:25:50 EDT

Today's quote: - "Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON, Familiar Studies of Men, 1882

Comment: - Who is Sarah Palin? Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group (That averages to $4,029.05 per resident, during her 16 months in office, which further averages to $251.87 per person per month. How much were the lobbyists paid, and who were they? There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage. In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money." (?) Let us not overlook the fact that Alaska is an oil-rich state, unlike most of the States whose residents are taxed to the hilt. McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. He has said earmarks are wasteful and are often inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single powerful lawmaker. Is McCain blinding himself to these $27 Million in earmarks Palin managed? As mayor of Wasilla, however, Palin oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska's most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996 on a campaign theme of "a time for change." According to a review of congressional spending by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, Wasilla did not receive any federal earmarks in the first few years of Palin's tenure.
Senate records show that Silver's firm began working for Palin in early 2000, just as federal money began flowing. In fiscal 2000, Wasilla received a $1 million earmark, tucked into a transportation appropriations bill, for a rail and bus project in the town. And in the winter of 2000, Palin appeared before congressional appropriations committees to seek earmarks, according to a report in the Anchorage Daily News. Palin and the Wasilla City Council increased Silver's fee from $24,000 to $36,000 a year by 2001, Senate records show. Soon after, the city benefited from additional earmarks: $500,000 for a mental health center, $500,000 for the purchase of federal land and $450,000 to rehabilitate an agricultural processing facility. Then there was the $15 million rail project, intended to connect Wasilla with the town of Girdwood, where Stevens has a house. The Washington trip is now an annual event for Wasilla officials. In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008. Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office.
"As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network," she said Friday. But apparently she did not as Mayor of Wasilla, when the lobbyists she retained got her $27 Million. Wonder what the oil industry provided for her when she was Mayor of Wasilla. "She certainly wasn't shy about putting the old-boy network to use to bring home millions of dollars," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "She's a little more savvy to the ways of Washington than she's let on." The Palin earmarks came when Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Young was a senior member of the House transportation committee. In hiring Silver, Wasilla found someone who was a member of each lawmaker's inner circle. Silver has donated at least $11,400 to Stevens's political committees and $10,000 to Young's reelection committee in the past decade, according to Federal Election Commission records. Silver's firm employed Stevens's son, Ben Stevens, in the late 1990s as a federal lobbyist, according to multiple media accounts. Ben Stevens was not listed on lobbying disclosure forms as having worked on Wasilla earmarks. The firm became ensnared in the wide-ranging federal investigation of corruption by Alaska Republican officials. Federal agents reviewed records about its other municipal clients, as well as fishing companies represented by Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh that were close to Ben Stevens. The investigation has increasingly focused on Veco, a now-defunct energy services company whose chief executive, Bill Allen Jr., pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing Alaska officials. Palin initially supporting the $223 million bridge, which was to connect the town of Ketchikan with a remote island, she reversed course last year and canceled the project because of cost overruns. Critics have dubbed the project the "Bridge to Nowhere." But her administration remains eager for many other earmarks. In February, 2008, Palin's office sent Sen. Stevens a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for Alaska. Alaska is still an oil-rich State and apparently Governor Palin places the interests of the State, with a population of 670,053, above the country's interests whose population numbers in excess of 3,000,000.
George W. Bush will have earned the dishonor of appointing more incompetents to positions of power and authority than any president in the history of the country. The choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain shows a continuance of such favoring those who lack qualifications for the job. He has yet to prove his own qualifications for the job - being a Prisoner of War is not one; being a lousy pilot is not one, having crashed two planes in training; lacking sound judgment is not one; supporting a illegal war in Iraq is not one; not supporting our veterans is not one; supporting Bush's veto of a ban on waterboarding is not one; a vile temper is not one; and an apparent lack of diplomatic skills is not one. McCain and Palin - "Birds of a feather."

SARAH PALIN, GOP PRESUMPTIVE V.P. CANDIDATE

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:28:54 EDT

Today's quote: - "I studied warfare, I'm a student of history. If you control the capital city of a nation, you have a significant advantage." -SEN. JOHN S. McCAIN, Interview with Agence-Francaise, April, 2007.

Comment: John McCain "studied warfare" at the United States Naval Academy, and was graduated in the bottom 1% of his graduating class - he apparently didn't study "warfare" sufficiently enough. The United States, after illegally invading the sovereign nation of Iraq in March of 2003, and after sacrificing the lives of more than 4,149 soldiers and the wounding of more almost 30,600 American troops, in more than five and a half years of "war" is not yet "in control of the capital city" of Iraq, Baghdad, and we have therefore, according to Sen. McCain, failed to obtain a "significant advantage.

"Killing, suicide car bombing, kidnapping takes place throughout Baghdad, as I try to report to you on a daily basis. The safe city that John McCain said you can "shop" in, and which he reported on TV, wearing a flak vest, surrounded by armed U.S. troops with several Apache military helicopters hovering above them, in 2007, is not yet safe today. But McCain "studied warfare", and he is a ":student of history", but he is willing to close his eyes to the truth. Why? Because he, like George W. Bush, is a quick draw, fast-gun proponent, who despite his misfortunes in Vietnam prefers war to diplomacy. McCain would not hesitate to make war against Iran and even threatens to have Russia expelled from the G-8. Is George W. Bush, who is younger than McCain, a McCain clone, or is the reverse even possible in the G.O.P.

I characterized the invasion of Iraq as illegal. But that is fact. The Congress of the United States in 2001 was a Republican controlled Congress, and the law passed on which George W. Bush acted to invade Iraq, was not, as prescribed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution a declaration of war. Nothing in Article I authorizes the Congress to delegate any of its powers or duties, therefore the Act under which Bush acted was unconstitutional, and the war in Iraq was therefore unlawful. McCain, a "student of history" should have been aware of this, but having graduated in bottom 1% of his graduating class, he is not that good a student.

McCain claims he advised President Bush that more troops would be needed to effectively succeed in Iraq, but he did nothing to stop the administration from going along with their plans. Gen. Shinseki took that position and when Bush refused to listen to him, he was man enough to resign. McCain could have threatened the President with strenuous opposition and refusal to approve any further acts of the administration were he to continue - but he didn't, or perhaps he hadn't yet arrived at the position that more troops were needed to be successful. He appears to be a great "Monday-morning quarterback," but that is much too late and it cost far too many lives.

John McCain has made his choice for a Vice President to accompany him on his journey - Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska for the past 16 months. She is a 44 year old other of five; with a degree in Journalism from the University of Idaho in the State of her birth. In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest, then finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant, which won her a college scholarship. In the Wasilla pageant, she played the flute and also won Miss Congeniality. She then briefly worked as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations while also working as a commercial fisherwoman with her husband. Palin became Alaska's first woman governor and, at 42, the youngest in Alaskan history. Palin was also the first Alaskan governor born after Alaska achieved U.S. statehood and the first not to be inaugurated in Juneau, instead choosing to hold her inauguration ceremony in Fairbanks. She took office on December 4, 2006.

The choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain brings to the fore the most important impediment to the election of John S. McCain as President - his age, he became 72 years of age today, August 29, 2008 and McCain has had concerns about past health concerns, He has been treated for a type of skin cancer called melanoma, and had an operation in 2000 for that condition, which left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face. McCain's prognosis appears favorable, according to independent experts, especially because he has already survived without a recurrence for more than seven years. In May 2008, Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that affects approximately 5% of people diagnosed with skin cancer. Melanoma is also attributed to over 75% of all skin cancer deaths each year. Admiral John S. McCain Sr. (grandfather of John McCain) was 61 years of age when he died. McCain father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr. )McCain's father died at the age of 61. John S. McCain III has already lived longer than his father and his grandfather, neither of whom, suffered the tortures of a Vietcong prison, and neither of whom suffered from cancer. Were he to expire during his first term in office, would Sarah Palin be qualified to act as Commander in Chief, or even as President? As Governor of Alaska she was the Chief Executive Officer of a State with a population that has 6.7 Million less population than the city of New York; the United States has a population of 300,000,000 +.

The appointment, by McCain, of Sarah Palin as his presumptive Vice President is not only an indication of poor judgment, but one of total ineptness, reminiscent of most of the appointments of George W. Bush.. SARAH PALIN IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE VOICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD JOHN S. McCAIN EXPIRE IN OFFICE.

N0-ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:14:35 EDT

Today's quote: - " “There is no proposition more dangerous to the health of a constitutional democracy than the notion that an elected head of State is above the law and beyond the reach of judicial review.” - United States Supreme Court – U.S. v. Nixon, 1974 .

Comment: The wrongs committed by contractors of the United States in Iraq have been one of the major abuses of law practiced by the Bush administration, and especially in its failure to prosecute the criminal overcharges and false billings paid for by the American taxpayers, as a result of plitically motivated no-bid contracts. In 2003 a small, private military contracting company opened its doors just in time to feel the boon that would be the war in Iraq. Custer Battles, run by Mike Battles, a former CIA agent and failed Republican Congressional candidate, along with his partner Scott Custer, had zero experience in the security industry when it received one of the very first contracts issued in Iraq. In the spring of 2003, after the fall of Saddam Hussein and around the time that President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished”, Custer Battles was presented with a whopping $16 million no-bid contract to secure the airport in Baghdad. This contract was the first of many. During Custer Battles’ tenure in Iraq, the company was flooded with allegations of unrestrained force, fraud and over billing of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Retired Brigadier General Hugh Tant III said Custer Battles’ fraud, "was probably the worst I've ever seen in my 30 years in the Army.” Custer Battles was sold to a Romanian firm, Danubia Global Inc. At the time of the sale, Danubia was owned by Security Ventures International Ltd, a British Virgin Islands firm. The Romanian firm refused to name the employees it contracted with from Custer, or to identify Danubia's owners.” In May 2005 that Danubia had been acquired by Windmill International Limited, the American company, with a 15-year presence in Romania, a global logistics and security provider headquartered in Bucharest which is currently providing security and logistics services in Iraq.” The Board of Directors of Windmill include a wide variety of who’s who in the Republican party, including:

James Gilmore *: former RNC chair and Governor of VA

Hansford Johnson *: Acting Secretary of the Navy under George W. Bush – 2/03 – 10/03

Michael Ussery *: former State Department official and Ambassador to Morocco

Douglas Combs *: "Combs was acting undersecretary of the Navy from 1999 to 2003 and made frequent trips to Iraq during that period and worked with contractors and military advisers there. He also was a special assistant to Johnson, who was acting secretary of the Navy, the service's top civilian position, in 2003."

Ronald Dwight *: An assistant attorney general in Rhode Island, who later worked on Mike Battles failed congressional campaign.e
Loyal ideologues are well rewarded, are they not? ow much government influence was involved in the overturing of the $10 Million jury verdict by a Judge who neglected to recognize a law signed by George W. Bush, and the convenient corporate finagling that allowed a favored company who screwed the Armican people to be acquired twice in a short period of time and wind up under the control of Republican ideologues? Corruption! Corruption! Corruption!
In 2006, a federal jury ordered a U.S. defense contractor accused of war profiteering in Iraq to pay more than $10 million in damages and fines. A federal judge, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, a Republican and Reagan appointee, overturned the verdict, saying any fraud was against the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq rather than the U.S. government, even though American taxpayers ultimately footed the bill. President George W. Bush signed a 2003 law authorizing $18.7 billion to go to U.S. authorities in Iraq, including the CPA, 'as an entity of the United States government.' And several contracts with Custer Battles refer to the other party as 'the United States of America.'" In overturning the verdict, the judge didnot rle the 2003 law signed by Bush inconstitutional thaty designated the CPA "an entity of the United States government." The judge was wrong - but that has not been uncommon under the Bush administration. Judge Ellis,. following Gingrich’s Law of Cherrypicking: when Republicans are involved, pick the evidence that exonerates them and ignore any that doesn’t. If Democrats are involved, do the opposite. The idea that no fraud was perpetrated because no specific number of personnel CB was to supply was put into the contract is pure BushThink and as thin as a miser’s heart. It’s like saying that a loan shark who doesn’t tell you precisely which bones he will have his enforcer break if you don’t pay up hasn’t committed a crime. This isn’t the first time Ellis has done Mike and Scotty the favor of getting them off the hook, which leads us to the much more dangerous: Judge Ellis following Gingrich’s Law of Cherrypicking: when Republicans are involved, pick the evidence that exonerates them and ignore any that doesn’t. If Democrats are involved, do the opposite. The idea that no fraud was perpetrated because no specific number of personnel CB was to supply was put into the contract is pure BushThink and as thin as a miser’s heart. It’s like saying that a loan shark who doesn’t tell you precisely which bones he will have his enforcer break if you don’t pay up hasn’t committed a crime.Judge Ellis following Gingrich’s Law of Cherrypicking: when Republicans are involved, pick the evidence that exonerates them and ignore any that doesn’t. If Democrats are involved, do the opposite. The idea that no fraud was perpetrated because no specific number of personnel CB was to supply was put into the contract is pure BushThink and as thin as a miser’s heart. It’s like saying that a loan shark who doesn’t tell you precisely which bones he will have his enforcer break if you don’t pay up hasn’t committed a crime. This isn’t the first time Ellis has done Mike and Scotty the favor of getting them off the hook, which leads us to the much more dangerous: The most damning part of Judge Ellis’ decision is the part that, if upheld, gets everybody who stole money in Iraq off the hook. Ellis, even though he couldn’t convince Gonzales or the adnministration to take any part in the case, dutifully followed the position he knew they had taken and used it, as he had before, to dismiss this case, too, even though the White House has never rescinded the executive order (pdf. file) that says otherwise. Not suprising, perhaps, for a judge with a history of dutiful party loyalty.Ellis, even though he couldn’t convince Gonzales or the adnministration to take any part in the case, dutifully followed the position he knew they had taken and used it, as he had before, to dismiss this case, too, even though the White House has never rescinded the executive order (pdf. file) that says otherwise. Not suprising, perhaps, for a judge with a history of dutiful party loyalty.

In the first civil fraud case brought against a military contractor during the Iraq war, the jury in Alexandria, Va., found that Custer Battles LLC committed fraud in 37 instances in connection with a $9 million contract to help distribute new currency in Iraq. The jury's decision came at the end of a three-week trial in which a string of witnesses testified that Custer Battles, which has offices in Rhode Island and Virginia, inflated its expenses with fake invoices that were run through a series of shell subsidiaries set up in the Cayman Islands. Witnesses also detailed how the company boosted profits by overbilling the government for shoddy equipment. The company denied the charges and said it would appeal.
The case was brought by two former Custer Battles employees, Robert Isakson and William "Pete" Baldwin, under a Civil War-era law that allows individuals to file lawsuits in secret on behalf of the government. Under the law, the cases are sealed while the government determines whether to join in. The Justice Department declined to participate. Charles Miller, a department spokesman, declined to comment. "The Bush administration has done nothing to recover this money or to penalize the people who committed the fraud," said Alan Grayson, attorney for Isakson and Baldwin. "All of the work was done by the whistle-blowers. They did nothing to help us." Even so, under the federal False Claims Act, the government is entitled to about 70% of the award, with Isakson and Baldwin entitled to the rest.
The company's founding partners, Scott Custer, 37, and Michael Battles, 35, had denied the accusations. Custer is a former Army Ranger and Battles is a West Point graduate who ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Republican in Rhode Island in 2002. They have called the lawsuit a private dispute brought by disgruntled former employees. Robert Rhoad, one of Custer Battles' defense attorneys, said that he was disappointed by the verdict and that his clients will appeal. At the trial, defense attorney David Douglass told the jury that "no false claims were submitted, that no one was defrauded, that Custer Battles performed an admirable and impressive task under unbelievably difficult circumstances."
The case involved only $3 million of the currency contract paid to Custer Battles by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led agency that ran Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted. According to a transcript of the trial, retired brigadier general Hugh Tant, who was in charge of the currency distribution, testified how camps that Custer Battles built in Baghdad, Mosul and Basra to house currency distribution workers were poorly constructed. He said that 34 of 36 trucks the company supplied for the job didn't run. The jury also heard testimony detailing how Custer Battles took forklifts from Baghdad International Airport, painted over the Iraqi Airlines insignia and then billed the U.S. government for them under the currency exchange contract.
Part of the case involving a separate contract that Custer Battles had to provide security at the airport will be tried separately. No trial date has been set, Rhoad said. Under the law, the jury was allowed to triple the $3 million at issue. The jury also awarded Baldwin $230,000 in back pay because he had been demoted.
The wife of an American contractor accused of cheating the U.S. government in Iraq has been arrested in Germany on suspicion of money laundering, a prosecutor said Monday. Jacqueline Battles was detained after a German bank informed authorities about "suspicious transactions" on her accounts two months ago, prosecutor David Kirkpatrick told The Associated Press. German investigators seized about US$1 million (€800,000) in suspect funds from the accounts, said Kirkpatrick, a prosecutor in the west German city of Darmstadt. "She is in investigative custody," Kirkpatrick said in a telephone interview. The woman, who lives near Darmstadt, has not been formally charged.

In March, a U.S. jury ordered contractors Mike Battles and Scott Custer to pay US$10 million (€8 million) for swindling the U.S. government over Iraqi rebuilding projects.

However, a federal judge overturned the verdict in July, saying any fraud was against the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq rather than the U.S. government, even though American taxpayers ultimately footed the bill.

According to a letter provided recently to AP, Jacqueline Battles is suspected of moving at least US$2 million (€1.6 million) into overseas accounts to hide her husband's money. Kirkpatrick didn't comment directly on the letter, which carried his name as the sender and was addressed to an American attorney representing two whistleblowers who sued Battles, Custer and their firm Custer Battles LLC. The July letter said Jacqueline Battles had opened several bank accounts under her maiden name Vihernik.

Kirkpatrick said the suspicion of money laundering stemmed from the initial March ruling by a federal jury in Virginia ordering the contractors to pay US$10 million to the government and the whistleblowers in what was the first civil fraud verdict arising from the Iraq war. The lawsuit accused Custer Battles LLC of overcharging the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq after the 2003 invasion, by as much as US$50 million (€63 million). Custer and Battles appealed and claimed that they didn't have enough assets to pay the money back. Jacqueline Battles was not part of her husband's firm.

A U.S. federal criminal investigation into the contracts is ongoing, and Custer Battles is also being investigated for two shooting incidents in which Iraqi civilians and soldiers were injured. Kirkpatrick declined to comment on any direct cooperation between U.S. and German authorities in the case of Jacqueline Battles.

One of the two whistleblowers who won the March verdict, Robert Isakson, is a plaintiff in a second lawsuit that accuses two former Pentagon officials of scheming with Custer and Battles to form sham companies that sold illegal weapons on Iraq's black market where they could be bought by insurgents, the AP reported in July.
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out if these companies with "no-bid" contracts in Iraq that kickbackls were promised to government officials in the higher echelons of government, or perhaps secretly placed in numbered accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. Why has the government rfused to take acton against the companies like Halliburton and KBR, of which they have proof of overbilling anf false representations of services given, and why have they refused to back the whistleblowers wo exposed the wrongdoers by failing to join in? Was there complicity? Why has the Congress failed to exercise oversight oin these companies with no-bid government contacts where complaints have been made? I go so far as to wonder if members of the Bush administation would have the gall to personally threaten members of the Congress, or to what lengths they would go to cover up the corruption that stems from "no-bid" contracts.federal judge overturned the verdict in July, saying any fraud was against the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq rather than the U.S. government, even though American taxpayers ultimately footed the bill. I wonder who the former Defense Department officials accused were. There couldn't be that many: Rumsfeld, Feith, Libby, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle?

MORE OF THIS ????

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:25:31 EDT

Today's quote: - "No nation can last which has made a mob of itself, however generous at heart." - JOHN RUSKIN, Sesame and Lilies, 1865.

Comment: - Has the United States started its evolution into becoming a mob, bullying those who cannot be bought. We've had eight such years of bullying and buying in the administration of George W. Bush, both domestically and abroad. The Bush administration has failed in every aspect of foreign diplomacy, and has not done any better domestically. Principally because of what might be termed the "personal diplomacy" of George W. Bush.

He glimpsed inside Vladimir Putin's soul and found something to his liking. He has also showed off his Texas ranch to Saudi King Abdullah, talked economics with Chinese President Hu Jintao and visited Graceland with then-Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. He has invested heavily in trying to forge a strong bond with key foreign leaders. But as his term winds down, new crises in Georgia and Pakistan are underscoring the limits of Bush's personal diplomacy. The president is receiving criticism for over personalizing relations with Putin, the Russian prime minister, and with Pervez Musharraf, who resigned as Pakistan's president last week.

Many Russia experts say Bush did not understand the true intentions and character of the Russian leader. "He misjudged Putin," said Stanford University professor Michael A. McFaul, who has been advising Sen. Barack Obama's campaign on Russia policy. From an early date, McFaul said, Putin has had a "very obvious grand strategy for rolling back democracy," but "when new evidence came in to suggest that his initial assessment of Putin was wrong, Bush tended to dismiss it."

In Iraq, Bush has spent enormous amounts of time with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, especially via videoconferences, trying to build him up into a true democratic leader. Some Bush aides' belief that the attempt was a waste of time. The effort might be bearing fruit, to the point that Maliki's growing self-confidence is complicating Bush's efforts to secure a final deal over the future of U.S. military presence in Iraq. "Maliki is proving to be a more significant leader than most people around Bush thought he could be," said Dennis Ross, a State Department official in the Clinton and George H.W. Bush administrations who advises the Obama campaign. "Last year everyone I talked to in the administration thought that Maliki had to go. Bush didn't seem to buy off on what everyone else was saying." White House aides say Bush has been aggressive but realistic in his dealings with world leaders. "While there are often policy issues that don't exactly go the way we want them to, the situation on the other hand could be much worse if the president did not have a decent working relationship with some of these leaders," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council.

Bush tried early on to move this seemingly colorless Communist Party functionary, Wah Hu, off his talking points, asking him at one meeting what his biggest challenge was as China's leader. They said the president found Hu's answer sobering: creating 25 million jobs a year. The exchange gave Bush a more sympathetic view of Hu and helped strengthen their relationship, officials said. National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in a recent interview that Bush's strategy of engaging the Chinese leadership more aggressively -- he has met 15 times with Hu or his predecessor -- had proved of great help.

By many accounts, Bush has also grown close to Abdullah, rescuing a relationship with Saudi Arabia that got off to a tense start in the months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, largely over the Saudi leader's belief that Bush had abandoned any sense of balance in his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Relations were cool when Abdullah and his entourage arrived in Crawford, Tex., in April 2002 for a meeting at Bush's ranch. The first several hours of conversation did not go well, said Robert Jordan, who was the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time and had attended the meeting. "After a while, we took a break, and the president said, "Why don't we go for a ride in my Jeep," Jordan recalled in an interview in May. Bush and Abdullah toured the ranch, accompanied by only a translator, Jordan added, and "when they came back, they acted like the best of friends. They were beaming." How much this kind of personal warmth pays off for the United States is a matter of dispute: Some U.S. officials, for instance, remain disappointed with Saudi Arabia's performance in cracking down on the financing of jihadists around the world or with its unwillingness to offer stronger support for the government in Iraq. Let us not lose sight of the fact that for years the Saudi Royals were considered "family members" of the Bushes.

Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Bush is more naive about personal relations with other leaders than past U.S. presidents, alluding to his meeting with Putin in 2001, after which Bush famously said he looked the Russian leader in the eye and got a "sense of his soul." "The others were far more realistic," Gelb said. "This Bush thinks when he calls Putin, they are soul mates, and when he expresses a desire for Putin to do something, he will do it. Putin had other reasons for going into Georgia than the personal relations with the president of the United States."

Even officials in the administration thought Bush did not push the former president hard enough to crack down on radicals on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. "Musharraf is charming, funny, quick. . . . They had a great relationship," one former administration official said. "Bush is very good at establishing personal relations, but once he does, he tends to not be willing to take them on in a tough way." Peter D. Feaver, a former National Security Council aide, dismissed such criticism."

On the "home front" Bush's diplomacy is not much better:

The American Civil Liberties Union charged the Bush administration with placing science under siege by overzealously tightening restrictions on information, individuals, and technology in the name of homeland security. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks the government has actively increased the use of classifying information to keep it secret, including the use of the category "unclassified but sensitive" and extending classification authority to more departments, the ACLU said. The report lists other science restrictions, including limiting the access of foreign scholars to information, restricting their participation in some areas of research and tightening visa rules with the result of blocking or delaying visits to this country by foreign students and teachers. The ACLU charged the administration with trying to suppress information on such topics as global warming, mercury emissions and emergency contraception.

In a slap at President Bush, lawmakers voted to block the Justice Department and the FBI from using the Patriot Act to examine library records and bookstore sales slips. The House voted 238-187, despite a veto threat from Bush, to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of suspects. The vote reversed a narrow loss last year by lawmakers concerned about the potential invasion of privacy of innocent library users. They narrowed the proposal this year to permit the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries. "This is a tremendous victory that restores important constitutional rights to the American people," said Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., the sponsor of the measure. He said the vote would help "rein in an administration intent on chipping away at the very civil liberties that define us as a nation."

Leading black pastors have embarrassed the administration by questioning the sincerity of its commitment to increasing aid to Africa, dealing a blow to White House efforts to boost support for Republicans among a traditionally hostile constituency. In a letter to the White House this week, the pastors demanded that George Bush give "ardent support" to Tony Blair's proposal that the leading industrialized countries double official aid to the world's poorest continent over a five year period. The letter, for which its authors are seeking 1,000 signatures, states that although the Bush administration has tripled US financial assistance to Africa, this assistance is dwarfed by the sums spent on tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because Republicans have fared poorly with African-American voters, a rift with black religious leaders would be a political blow for Bush strategists.

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to U.S. State Department papers. The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before the July G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate U.S. policy. In briefing papers given before meetings to the U.S. Undersecretary of State, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable. Although Bush claims he's concerned about climate change, policy in this White House is being written by the world's most powerful oil company.

The Department of Labor's proposals for revising parts of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) may cause hard-won family leave protections to be lost. Any change to the FMLA is important, because millions have had illnesses or other life events that fall under FMLA's umbrella. In an 18-month period in 1999 and 2000, nearly 24 million workers took leave for an FMLA-covered reason, according to the Labor Department's most recent figures. FMLA is often used in place of sick leave or disability coverage, which are not provided by all companies that are covered by FMLA. The Labor Department, which oversees the federal leave law, has the authority to make revisions, with a public comment process. The Department of Labor has not confirmed the content of their intended proposals, but opponents of FMLA — the very groups that fought the law's original passage 12 years ago — are reportedly pressuring the Bush administration to weaken the law by eliminating some of the circumstances in which employees may take unpaid leave and by restricting the use of intermittent leave (leave taken in small amounts, e.g. for ongoing chemotherapy).

The House of Representatives—including 50 Republicans—compromised on a bill to expand stem cell research, touted by scientists as a possible step toward finding cures for diseases and afflictions including Alzheimer's, cancer and paralysis. President Bush, however, said that he will veto any bill that uses federal funds for stem cell research. "The Congress has made its position clear, and I've made my position clear," Bush said. "I will be vetoing the bill they send to me if it were to pass the United States Senate." In response, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., stated his opposition to the President, "Not to have the availability of the best in medical care is simply atrocious. The bill passed the House by a big margin. And I think when it is publicized further, that margin could grow to override a veto."

When Bush won reelection, he declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital" that he intended to "spend." Six months later, however—according to Republicans and Democrats alike—his bank account has been significantly drained. The Republican-led House defied his veto threat and passed legislation promoting stem cell research; and Senate Democrats blocked confirmation, at least temporarily, of his choice for U.N. ambassador. In addition, Bush's approval ratings in public opinion polls rank at the lowest level of his presidency. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, taken in May, 47 percent of Americans approved of Bush's performance, tying the lowest marks he ever received in that survey. Similarly, just 31 percent approved of his handling of Social Security, an all-time low in the Post-ABC poll, while only 40 percent gave him good marks for his stewardship of the economy and 42 percent for his management of Iraq. Other polls have recorded similar findings, with Bush's approval rating dipping as low as 43 percent in a Pew Research Center Survey.

The Bush administration has made ample use of prepackaged news reports. The journalistically questionable practice has seen an increase since Bush took office. Governmental agencies spanning from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of State have produced and distributed news segments that were picked up and run on local television news shows with no indication that they were not produced by a news agency. The Government Accountability Office released a decision that the practice violates covert propaganda laws. The administration ignored the decision and continued their use.

Bush, was in Denver on a tour of states to promote his Social Security privatization plan. At his town meeting, three audience members were asked to leave because of a bumper sticker on their car that read: No Blood For Oil. This is not the first time that peaceful objectors were told to leave one of Bush's Social Security forums. In early February 2005, Bush traveled to North Dakota where it is reported that more that 40 individuals were banned from attending his speech.

Panelists at a national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science in late February complained that Bush's policies are making members of the scientific community afraid to share their findings. Surveys of U.S. Fish and Wildlife service members and statements from Environmental Protection Agency employees indicate that scientists feel pressured to show data that matches governmental policy, even when it does not. Participants said that the influence of the administration, along with budget cuts to many key scientific agencies, is creating an environment that does not foster advancements in science.

At a meeting with the National Governors Association, Bush emphasized his plan to cut tens of billions of federal dollars to Medicaid, the program that provides health care for 53 million poor and disabled people in the U.S. But governors of both parties strongly oppose Bush's plan. If Bush were to slash federal funding, much of which ensures that states can provide health care for those who cannot afford it, states will face many more problems of financing healthcare and those who have the most to lose will be at the greatest risk.

In the 2005 State of the Union address, Bush outlined a plan to privatize Social Security that has countless pitfalls, all of which would hurt women, people of color, people with disabilities and their dependents. Bush's plan to create private accounts would cut benefits for recipients now and in the future, create more national debt, create a retirement void for those who do not make enough money to save larger portions of their paychecks, and would put savings at risk in the stock market. When White House officials unveiled the Bush plan this month, they cited predictions by Social Security Administration estimating that two-thirds of all workers would choose private accounts. But the San Francisco Chronicle, noting that 55 percent of Gallup poll respondents recently said that private accounts sounded like a bad idea, asked Social Security's chief actuary about the source of the prediction, and he acknowledged it was not based on statistical data, surveys or participation rates in other types of retirement plans.

In November 2004 the media focused on the pharmaceutical drug Vioxx and its dangerous side effects. Mounting evidence suggests that Merck, Vioxx's distributor, concealed proof that the painkiller can increase a consumer's chance of suffering a heart attack or stroke. Merck may have been aware of these potential dangers for at least the past five years. The Wall Street Journal uncovered a 16-page internal training document that encouraged Merck employees to dodge questions from doctors concerned about Vioxx's cardiovascular side effects. The Justice Department has launched an investigation into this matter. Jerry Avorn, a Harvard University drug safety expert says that "the FDA has been asleep at the switch in its regulatory function." Over 10,000 people are now filing lawsuits against Merck on behalf of those harmed or killed by taking the drug. Meanwhile, George W. Bush continues to strongly advocate tort reform, which would cap the amount of money victims of medical error could win in a lawsuit. In December 2003, FDA Chief Counsel Daniel Troy promised a group of drug industry lobbyists that "the FDA would exercise its intervention powers to protect [drug industry] defendants" from lawsuits. Since Bush took office, the FDA or Department of Justice has repeatedly intervened in cases on behalf of pharmaceutical company defendants, each time claiming that the FDA's own judgment to approve drugs means that drug companies cannot be held responsible.

These are but a few of the Bush lack of diplomatic skills, both at home and abroad, and John McCain supported Bush in every one of them and in those not mentioned. McCain's "experience", despite his 26 years in the Senate, and five years in a Vietcong prison, has done little for his judgment or his ability to properly analyze a situation. John McCain is not qualified to be President, and his proven it by his support of most of Bush's actions and programs, which has earned Bush the reputation if bang the "worst President ever to serve this country." Maybe McCain thinks he can do Bush one better, and become even a worse President, for he has expressed no ideas of his own and has parroted the arguments of America's "worst President."

MARTIN LUTHER & MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

Lee Dimin. — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:34:45 EDT

Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke of a dream, where " . . . my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Have we yet become that country. We can prove that we have by electing Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States of America. The time has come and there is no better choice.

Many among us lack the guts to say the reason we are hesitant about voting for this brilliant constitutional scholar is because of the color of his skin, the same reason this country never voted for a Catholic until the emergence of another brilliant young man, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The reason they lack the guts is because they know they are wrong, They know they will be labeled as a bigot, and they do not like labels unless they are the one's using them.

The next time you listen to the speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain, close your eyes and listen to the words. Obama's are usually constructive, McCain's destructive; Obama's lifting, McCain's depressing. We have had eight years of depressing words that have led to an attempted coup of the democracy founded over 200 years ago; the unnecessary of more than 4,145 American military in an illegal war in Iraq, more than all killed in every al-Qaeda attack against the U.S. properties; the wounding of more than 30,561, and the mental damage to some 300,000, and these figures are being added to each day, and we still do not know the true purpose of the invasion of Iraq. This will continue if McCain is elected President, because McCain said he will keep troops there until we "win", but we still do not know what McCain means by "win".

In 1569 Martin Luther wrote in "Table Talk","These two sins, hatred and pride, ..... are right deadly sins: hatred is killing, pride is lying." John McCain, stop your agents from lying about Bararck Obama and spreading hate for they are both deadly sins. Every time you utter the words, "I approve this message," you give sanction to the hateful lies your agents produce. You were once a better man than that.

JOE LIEBERMAN -McCAIN'S ATTACK DOG

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:11:24 EDT

Today's quote: - "Beware of a friend you have offended." - PORTUGUESE PROVERB.

Comment: The Democrats. of the State of Connecticut must have offended Sen. Joseph Lieberman when they chose another to represent them when he ran for re-election in 2008, for he "turned Independent" and started kissing Republican asses. We are no entering the season of national elections once again, and where is the ass-kissing Sen. Joseph Lieberman? He is scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention on the same night as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ("See no evil, heat no evil and speak no evil"). "Three stooges", if ever there were any. But, for the past few months, he has been attached to John S. McCain, Republican presumptive candidate for President, like a dog on a leash - or should I have said a guard-dog on a leash - to prevent McCain from making more stupid remarks than he had already made.Who is Joseph Lieberman:

He is the junior Senator from Connecticut, as an "Independent Democrat". He was a candidate for Vice President on the Democrat ticket in 2000 with Al Gore leading the ticket, but lost to Bush/Cheney. He has been a U.S. Senator since 1988. He was elected as a "reform Democrat" to the Connecticut Senate in 1970, where he served for 10 years, including the last six as Majority Leader. From 1982 to 1988, he served as Connecticut Attorney General and emphasized consumer protection and environmental enforcement. (His embracing John S. McCain indicates that consumer protection and environmental enforcement are no longer his concerns, but rather corporate greed and oil industry control of the economy).
Lieberman never served in the military. A spokesperson told The Hartford Courant in 1994 that Lieberman received an educational deferment from the Vietnam War draft when he was an undergraduate and law student from 1960-67. Upon graduating from law school at 25, Lieberman qualified for a family deferment as he was already married and had one child, Matt He is another "Chicken-Hawk" who has no trouble sending others to die in illegal wars such as Iraq. He and his first wife were divorced because of religious differences, although both were Jewish.. Lieberman is an alleged Orthodox Jew, though he was less observant in 1965 when he married Betty Haas, a Reform Jew.. He was attracted to his second wife by her name,"Hadassah", which was also the name of a Women's Zionist organization. Hadassah, is also an observant Orthodox Jew. Sen. Lieberman is not an "Orthodox Jew" nor has he ever been as long as he has been in the public eye in the Senate. An Orthodox Jew wears a skull cap (yarmulke) - Lieberman does not; an Orthodox Jew does not work on the Sabbath - Lieberman does; an Orthodox Jew doesn't carry money on the Sabbath, Lieberman does. So he is not what he alleges to be.
In the Senate, this former advocate of consumer protection voted with Republicans in 1995 in voting to limit punitive damage awards in product liability cases.. In February 2005, breaking ranks with fellow Senate Democrats, Lieberman voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, S. 5, which is a bill to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits against corporations in federal courts. The bill was backed by the White House and business groups as an essential tort reform measure that would reduce what they said was a debilitating number of frivolous lawsuits. Lieberman championed experimental voucher programs, which would redirect some education funding directly to parents, who could apply it towards paying for the public or private school of their choice (even religious schools, in violation of the First Amendment establishment, Clause. He called Bush's "No Child Left Behind" plan a "progressive piece of legislation." He has been critical of the entertainment media.[35] On November 29, 2005, Lieberman co-sponsored the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which was introduced by Hillary Clinton, S.2126. The act is intended to protect children from what he says is inappropriate content found in video games. He voted for the administration-backed Energy Policy Act of 2005. On May 23, 2005, Lieberman was one of fourteen senators, dubbed the "Gang of 14," who forged a compromise on the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster, thus avoiding the Republican leadership's implementation of the so-called "nuclear option". Under the agreement, the Democrats would exercise the power to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee only in an "extraordinary circumstance," and three of the filibustered Bush appellate court nominees – (Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor) – would receive a vote by the full Senate, which resulted in their confirmation. Lieberman refused to support a filibuster against Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito. Alito was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 31, 2006 by a vote of 58-42, becoming the Court's 110th Justice. Lieberman voted against the Alito confirmation in the final Senate vote. On the John Roberts nomination as the Chief Justice of the United States, Lieberman believed that Roberts did not seem to be the kind of right-wing candidate the "Gang of 14" feared the president would select. Lieberman said he thought Roberts was a "decent guy." But he also said it was too early to draw further conclusions. Roberts was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 29, 2005 by a vote of 78-22, becoming the Court's 17th Chief Justice. Lieberman voted for the Roberts confirmation. (The result: one more such appointment, should McCain be elected President, would make the U.S. Supreme Court a surrogate of the Vatican.) He believed that Catholic hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said (No concern for the rural areas!) In 2005, Lieberman, along with Republicans Orrin Hatch and Sam Brownback, introduced S. 975, the Project BioShield II Act of 2005. Its stated purpose was to provide incentives to increase research by private sector entities to develop medical countermeasures to counter bioterrorism threats. The bill would have provided tax credits, patent extensions, and immunity from civil liability. Lieberman joined Republican Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Republican Congress as a vocal opponent of efforts to remove the feeding tube artificially sustaining Terri Schiavo's life.

LIEBERMAN ON ISRAEL AND THE IRAQI WAR: (LIEBERMAN, THE "CHICKEN-HAWK", WHO NEVER SERVED HIS COUNTRY'S MILITARY)

The Iraqi war: In 2002, Lieberman sponsored a pro-Israel U.S. Senate Resolution (S. Res. 247) regarding the Middle East Conflict, "expressing solidarity with Israel in its constant efforts to fight against terror. Lieberman sponsored S.J. Res.46, the Senate version of H.J. Res. 114, that is, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, also called the Iraq Resolution. In a November 29, 2005 op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, he praised the efforts of the U.S. military in the occupation of Iraq. On December 7, 2005, Lieberman said, "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril. It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war." On June 22, 2006, Lieberman voted against two Democratic amendments to the annual defense appropriations bill, including S. 2766, which called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. S.2766 did not set a withdrawal deadline, but urged President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2006. Both amendments were defeated in the Senate, 60-39.
On June 10, Senator Joe Lieberman said on CBS Face the Nation that he had seen incontrovertible evidence that Iran was training and equipping Iraqi extremists to kill American soldiers and that we should prepare for military strikes against these training bases in Iran. He also decried Iran's nuclear weapons program, insisting that if we hope to stop their nuclear weapons development, "We can't just talk to them. If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action."
On an ABC's This Week, when host George Stephanopoulos asked if Israel should then attack Iran, Lieberman said, “That’s up to Israel,” warning that Iran not only represents an “existential threat” to Israel but also the Middle East and the United States. Israel is capable of dealing with the Iranian threat on its own, Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs.
Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday, June 10, 2007, the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq. "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
Lieberman declared that there was “an axis of evil with headquarters in Tehran.” Mr. Lieberman entered the “what-year-is-it debate” among foreign policy experts with his view that it’s the 1930’s and/or 1942.
Joe Lieberman should know better … even though he’s a hawk, that more war is not going to help this country, it’s not going to help Iraq and it’s not going to help Israel. It becomes more dangerous for Israel each day Lieberman, McCain and the other war-mongers keep hawking war instead of diplomacy. It has failed throughout the Bush administration ad it will fail if the policies of McCain and Lieberman are followed. "You catch flies with honey, not vinegar."

Joseph Lieberman, no doubt, thinks the United States is helping Israel by its actions in Iraq, and its threats against Iran, but every time he raises his voice for more war and more destruction, his stated enemies believe he is doing it on behalf of Israel, and as Lieberman stated, he is afraid they will come after the United States after they destroy Israel. The have been trying to destroy "Israel" for almost 6,000 years and for the past six decades have tried to destroy the tiny State of Israel, and without help from any other country's army or navy, the Israeli Defense Forces have succeeded, time and time again., yet their main ally, the United States of America, repeatedly puts them at greater and greater risk. In "Desert Storm", even though Iraq sent scud missiles to Israeli populated areas, the U.S. demanded that Israel stay out of it and not retaliate - and provided Israel with ineffective and unproven "Patriot" missiles. Nor were they asked to participate in the war in Iraq, their fear being that the entire Moslem world would join to battle the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Lieberman is not a friend of Israel, and he is not even a friend of American Jews, as indicated by his disregard of the prohibitions of the First Amendments "Establishment" clause.

So Lieberman, the former "reform" Democrat, and now the "Independent" Democrat, and supporter of John S.McCain for President, the war in Iraq, a war against Iran and probably Russia, to be paid for with money borrowed from Communist China, has become the attack dog for a man, John McCain, will be 72 years of age at the time of inauguration, should he be elected, and who has shown, at least, a basic stage of senility, when he can't recall the property he owns; when he can't survive the campaign on a record of achievement and must stoop to Karl Rovian smear tactics, promoted by a Rove-type character assassin, with the nickname of "Bullet head". That's not much different than a "skinhead" and the "Skinheads" in the United States are terrorists. Nice people McCain and Lieberman associates with? Will they go to the White House with them - and to the Supreme Court if McCain is elected? We've got a lot more than the war in Iraq, a stinking economy for everyone but the oil companies to worry about, a mortgage crisis to worry about - 3 to 4 decades of extremist neo-conservative Supreme Court decisions. McCAIN MUST LOSE!! OBAMA MUST BE ELECTED !!!!

JOE LIEBERMAN -McCAIN'S ATTACK DOG

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:11:24 EDT

Today's quote: - "Beware of a friend you have offended." - PORTUGUESE PROVERB.

He is the junior Senator from Connecticut, as an "Independent Democrat". He was a candidate for Vice President on the Democrat ticket in 2000 with Al Gore leading the ticket, but lost to Bush/Cheney. He has been a U.S. Senator since 1988. He was elected as a "reform Democrat" to the Connecticut Senate in 1970, where he served for 10 years, including the last six as Majority Leader. From 1982 to 1988, he served as Connecticut Attorney General and emphasized consumer protection and environmental enforcement. (His embracing John S. McCain indicates that consumer protection and environmental enforcement are no longer his concerns, but rather corporate greed and oil industry control of the economy).
Lieberman never served in the military. A spokesperson told The Hartford Courant in 1994 that Lieberman received an educational deferment from the Vietnam War draft when he was an undergraduate and law student from 1960-67. Upon graduating from law school at 25, Lieberman qualified for a family deferment as he was already married and had one child, Matt He is another "Chicken-Hawk" who has no trouble sending others to die in illegal wars such as Iraq. He and his first wife were divorced because of religious differences, although both were Jewish.. Lieberman is an alleged Orthodox Jew, though he was less observant in 1965 when he married Betty Haas, a Reform Jew.. He was attracted to his second wife by her name,"Hadassah", which was also the name of a Women's Zionist organization. Hadassah, is also an observant Orthodox Jew. Sen. Lieberman is not an "Orthodox Jew" nor has he ever been as long as he has been in the public eye in the Senate. An Orthodox Jew wears a skull cap (yarmulke) - Lieberman does not; an Orthodox Jew does not work on the Sabbath - Lieberman does; an Orthodox Jew doesn't carry money on the Sabbath, Lieberman does. So he is not what he alleges to be.
In the Senate, this former advocate of consumer protection voted with Republicans in 1995 in voting to limit punitive damage awards in product liability cases.. In February 2005, breaking ranks with fellow Senate Democrats, Lieberman voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, S. 5, which is a bill to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits against corporations in federal courts. The bill was backed by the White House and business groups as an essential tort reform measure that would reduce what they said was a debilitating number of frivolous lawsuits. Lieberman championed experimental voucher programs, which would redirect some education funding directly to parents, who could apply it towards paying for the public or private school of their choice (even religious schools, in violation of the First Amendment establishment, Clause. He called Bush's "No Child Left Behind" plan a "progressive piece of legislation." He has been critical of the entertainment media.[35] On November 29, 2005, Lieberman co-sponsored the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which was introduced by Hillary Clinton, S.2126. The act is intended to protect children from what he says is inappropriate content found in video games. He voted for the administration-backed Energy Policy Act of 2005. On May 23, 2005, Lieberman was one of fourteen senators, dubbed the "Gang of 14," who forged a compromise on the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster, thus avoiding the Republican leadership's implementation of the so-called "nuclear option". Under the agreement, the Democrats would exercise the power to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee only in an "extraordinary circumstance," and three of the filibustered Bush appellate court nominees – (Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor) – would receive a vote by the full Senate, which resulted in their confirmation. Lieberman refused to support a filibuster against Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito. Alito was confirmed by the United States Senate on

END THE BUSH-CHENEY-McCAIN REVOLUTION

Lee Dimin. — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:47:36 EDT

Today's quote: - “U.S. troops can be in Iraq for a thousand, or even a million years. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years.” - JOHN S. McCAIN, Presidential campaign speech at Derry, New Hampshire, January 4, 2008.

Comment: - In the final days of his campaign to bring Iraq under control, Gen. David H. Petraeus sat in his office at the American Embassy here looking drawn, exhausted, and more than a few years older than when he took command 18 months ago. More than once as he spoke of his tenure, the general stopped to cough. An intensely energetic man who prides himself on besting young recruits in tests of strength and endurance, General Petraeus, 55, said Monday that he had been forced to scale back his punishing daily workouts to three a week. “There is not much in the tank at the end of the day,” he said. “There have been very substantial gains at this point. Don’t take any of this to imply that we think we’re anywhere near finished. It’s not durable yet. It’s not self-sustaining,” he added. “You know there is still a lot of work to be done.” His run as commander amounted to a last, desperate gamble to bring the country under control. 30,000 extra soldiers deployed to Baghdad’s neighborhoods around the clock, allowed the Americans to exploit a series of momentous events that had begun to unfold at roughly the same time: the splintering of Moktada al-Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army; the growing competence of the Iraqi Army; and most important, the about-face by leaders of the country’s Sunni minority.

The surge has worked, at least for now: violence, measured in the number of attacks against Americans and Iraqis each week, has dropped by 80 percent in the country since early 2007, according to figures the general provided. Civilian deaths, which peaked at more than 100 a day in late 2006, have also plunged. Car and suicide bombings, which stoked sectarian violence, have fallen from a total of 130 in March 2007 to fewer than 40 last month. In July, fewer Americans were killed in Iraq — 13 — than in any month since the war began. General Petraeus declined to discuss the kind of American troop levels he thinks would be needed to ensure that the positive trends become permanent. Indeed, the way ahead in Iraq seems anything but clear, with many arrangements that are keeping the peace — like 100,000 Sunni gunmen, many of them former insurgents, on the government payroll at $25 million a month — extremely fragile. A collapse of the peace is not difficult to imagine. The three deadliest months for American soldiers in five and a half years of war came from April through June last year, as the added soldiers took to the streets. In those three months of the surge, 331 Americans soldiers and marines died. “We said it was going to get harder before it got easier,” General Petraeus said. “And it did. We took very tough casualties.” For years, he said, the Americans and the Iraqi government had been locked in what he described as a “downward spiral”; as the violence raged, ordinary Iraqis were often too frightened to cooperate with either the Iraqi security officers or American troops. Good intelligence was thus hard to come by, which meant that military operations often missed their marks. The insurgents were free to intimidate, threaten and kill civilians, government officials or anyone who refused to do their bidding.

But more meaningful than the current situation, when American troops are still dying and future American generations are being place further in debt at the rate OF $10 billion per month, General Petraeus is still unsure of what events will take place when, and if, Americans leave, which is the basis for John McCain's statement of January 4, 2008 making reference to the length of time American troops may be kept in Iraq. And should McCain be elected President, will he continue paying for this occupation with money borrowed from Communist China and from Japan, to whom we already indebted more than $3 trillion. And McCain sounds as though he is ready to go to war against Russia and Iran, and will probably pay for those wars on the backs of future generations. McCain does not believe in the guarantees and the protections our Constitution provides for the American people, and he needs only to be able to appoint ONE Supreme Court Justice, to assure the subversion of our Constitution for decades into the future. Are you willing to sacrifice your right to privacy? Are you willing to have the government tell you how to believe spiritually? Are you willing to give up your rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Are you willing to give up your right to peacefully petition the government? Are you willing to give up your right to be secure in your house, your papers, your person and your effects against unreasonable searches and seizures? You will lose all of these if McCain has the opportunity to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. We almost reached that stage of dictatorial power under George W. Bush - but we must make sure it ends when the Bush term of office ends, on January 20, 2009. Our democracy will not be restored by John McNeil. He has said it - Listen to his words His appointments to the Supreme Court will be in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. We must not let this happen! End the Bush-Cheney-McCain revolution - RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!.

McCAIN'S BROKEN OIL POLICIES

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:39:16 EDT

Dozens of energy companies bid Tuesday to explore nearly two million acres of the western Gulf of Mexico for oil and natural gas, but no offers were made for 90% of the acreage on the auction block. The Interior Department on Tuesday received 423 bids from 47 companies to explore a swath of the Gulf of Mexico off Texas. The bids cover 319 of the 3,412 tracts the federal government put up for lease, or about 10% of the 18 million acres available The preliminary results of the lease sale also underscore the problems politicians face in arguing for more domestic production to ease high energy prices: Making more land available does not necessarily mean it will be drilled. Also, most of Tuesday's offers — 237 — were for 10-year terms, an extended timetable that will have little impact on gasoline prices now..

I wonder of John McCain is aware of the fact that his oil companies are not eager to grab new off-shore leases, as this indicates. here are currently 68 million acres leased that are not be drilled on - how many more does John McCain think we need? Of the 18 million acres available for leasing, That leaves currently, 16,254,000 acres available for leasing in the Gulf. I think McCain is starting to sound like a broken record over a broken theory about a broken policy.

END THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:07:56 EDT

Every presidential election brings renewed cries to do away with the electoral college. The reasoning? Unfaithful electors and differences between the electoral vote and popular vote. Unfaithful electors scare many people, though they are pretty rare and have never changed the outcome of an election. Unfaithful electors are electors who do not vote the way they are "supposed" to. There have also been a few instances where someone wins the popular vote, yet loses the electoral vote. There is currently an effort underway to circumvent the electoral college. Called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, this effort would have any state in the compact throw all of its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the presidential wishes of the voters in that state. If you haven't heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, you need to grab your family and friends and tell them this is a bad idea. It can seriously disenfranchise a lot of people in the US. Instead of abolishing the electoral college or doing an end run around it, we should try to fix it. The major problem with the electoral college is not the electoral college itself, but rather the way most states implement it.

Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States empowers the respective States to determine how their members of the electoral college are chosen, the number equal to the number of Senators and Representatives the States send to the Congress. The persons chosen to be electors are not bound to carry out the will of the voters thereby making the actual vote made a sham should the electors so choose. The American people are entitled to a one vote-one person rule and the only equitable way to achieve that is to elect the president by popular vote. Why count the vote at all if it matters not what the outcome might be. The technology of the 21st century makes it easier to determine the winner of a presidential election by popular vote than by the votes of 535 electors and the unnecessary procedures required by paragraph 3 of Article II, Section 1. That might have worked well in 1789, but it is now 2008, and in this day and age it fails the test of democracy and one person one vote. There is nothing to prevent a State from requiring that the candidate winning in that particular State is to receive all the electoral votes of that State, which in effect disenfranchises every voter for the candidate who lost the race in that State. The presidency is a Federal office, not a local office and the procedures for the election of federal offices must be the same throughout the country, This is change that should be made, and made as a priority. Down with the Electoral College! Let each vote count! Make "democracy" more than a word..

THE BUSH REVOLUTION

Lee Dimin. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:47:44 EDT

Today's quote: - “There is no proposition more dangerous to the health of a constitutional democracy than the notion that an elected head of State is above the law and beyond the reach of judicial review.” - THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, U.S. v. Nixon, `1974.

Comment: - For almost eight years, George W. Bush and members of his administration have abused the law and the Constitution, and have violated them as well, without being held accountable by a cowardly ideologue Congress, and by a population whose self-interests and lethargy allowed the re-election of the administration. The result was a revolution where not a shot was fired but which, in effect, ended the "balance of power" the founding fathers were clever enough to create in the Constitution. Apparently this revolution is intended by the current administration to be imposed on future administrations - and it will be if McCain is elected to the presidency. But this can be prevented by the current Congress and the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States. Below are some of the revolutionary changes the Bush administration seeks to impose on the next administration.

The Bush administration is trying to finalize several new rules, covering a range of policy issues, before a new administration takes over and despite its own policy directive. The new rules would relax the standards and enforcement of longstanding federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This is to protect the profits and the oil explorations by corporate America. Nothing is more important to Bush than to make the wealthy more wealthy at the expense of hundreds of millions of honest Americans.

In a controversial move, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a proposed rule that would change the way government agencies comply with the Endangered Species Act. The proposal would allow officials to approve development projects that could impact endangered species without consulting federal wildlife and habitat scientists. This too is to protect the profits of corporate America by removing all regulatory constrictions that benefit the millions of Americans who wall suffer the results.,

The Interior Department published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on Aug. 15. But the proposal missed by two and a half months a White House-imposed deadline for Bush-era regulations. A May memo from White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten states, "Regulations to be finalized in this Administration should be proposed no later than June 1, 2008." All final rules must be completed by Nov. 1 except in extraordinary circumstances, according to the memo. Bolten claimed the deadlines were necessary to avoid the flurry of regulations agencies often hurry through in the final months of an administration. They are in a hurry, these Bushies, but keep in mind that whatsoever is done by Executive order can be undone by Executive Order, and hopefully the 111th Congress of the United States will restore the democracy created by the founding fathers and bring the Executive branch of government back under the laws and the constitutional provisions.

However, all signs indicate that Interior intends to finalize the proposed ESA changes before President Bush leaves office and is doing so with the blessing of the White House. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the White House office in charge of approving, changing, or rejecting new administration policy, spent only three days reviewing Interior's proposed rule. If those rules are finalized before Bush leaves Office, or should be the first priority of the new President to promulgate new Rules which restore the regulatory powers of the Department of Interior.

The average review time for the 350 proposed rules OIRA has reviewed this year is 65 days. OIRA's average review time for the 12 Interior Department proposals submitted is 71 days. Kempthorne also announced that Interior officials will accept public comment on the proposal for only 30 days. The standard comment period for proposed rules is 60 days. OMB Watch Executive Director Gary D. Bass said, "The limited 30-day comment period for this important issue suggests the rule is on a fast track for completion before the Bush administration leaves." Every effort must be made to stop the proposed rule changes in the Interior Department, by protest, by letter, by petition. The Bush revolution must be ended!

Noah Greenwald, science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said, "Secretary Kempthorne seems determined to establish a legacy of environmental destruction and extinction." Profit and corporate greed is the legacy of the Bus administration, and the incompetents he placed in positions of power.

Allowing agencies to bypass expert scientific review for development projects runs counter to long-standing practices required by the ESA. The act requires project managers to request from Interior "information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area" where construction will occur. Greenwald said, "The proposed rule would allow thousands of projects that harm endangered species to move forward without mitigation." Another controversial rule that impacts the health of workers is also moving quickly through the regulatory pipeline despite the Bolten memo's requirements. The rule, proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL), would change the way the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) calculate estimates for on-the-job risks. (Read an article about the rule in the Aug. 5 Watcher.) A draft of the rule was written quickly and without the consultation of occupational health experts inside OSHA and MSHA, Labor Department insiders say. DOL Secretary Elaine Chao's office forwarded the draft to OIRA for the required review period on July 7. OIRA has yet to send the proposed rule back to DOL for publication in the Federal Register.

Scientists and public health experts fear the rule change would downplay the severity of workplace risks, thereby weakening the case for regulation. In a letter sent Aug. 14, 80 doctors, scientists, and public health experts asked Chao to abandon the proposal. The letter said the rule "has serious flaws that would weaken current procedures and undermine occupational health rules" and would add delays to an already lengthy process for writing occupational health rules. These are nothing more than obstructionist tactics imposed on a new administration for the purpose of continuing the destruction of the safety guarantees formerly afforded to workers. These are criminal attacks against workers in the U.S.

Both proposed rules have drawn criticism from lawmakers. Addressing the ESA rule change, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) told The Washington Post, "Eleventh-hour rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government — this is not the type of legacy this Interior Department should be leaving for future generations." Rahall chairs the House Natural Resources Committee.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) were critical of both the negative effects the DOL risk assessment rule change would have and the way Chao's office has handled developing the rule. The two sent a letter to Chao July 10 asking to be briefed on the rule. Miller has introduced a bill that would forbid DOL from finalizing the rule.

A controversial rule that could reduce women's access to birth control also appeared to be in the works in the waning days of the Bush administration. A draft of the rule leaked from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would have, for the first time, classified oral contraception as a form of abortion. The rule, as written in the draft, would have attached strings to federal funds given to health care providers who dispense birth control or perform abortions. On Aug. 7, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt claimed he had not seen the draft before it had been leaked to the public. On his blog, he wrote, "It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true." Nonetheless, reproductive rights advocates and lawmakers continue to criticize the rule. The rule has not been sent to OIRA for review, and Leavitt says, "The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not."

According to an Aug. 16 Washington Post article, the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed a rule July 31 that would "make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years." Under the rule, law enforcement agencies would be able to target groups and individuals but there would have to be a "reasonable suspicion" that the target is engaged in criminal activity before collecting information, according to a source in the article. It appears DOJ hopes to finalize the proposed rule before the end of the Bush administration, which would be yet another example of agencies violating the spirit and intent of the Bolten memo.

Increasingly, it appears the Bush administration is trying to solidify a range of policies before it leaves office — the Bolten memo notwithstanding — tying the hands of the next president and bypassing Congress. It seems Bush wants to fulfill a statement he made on December 18, 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier . . . just as long as I'm the Dictator." And that is what he has been for the past almost eight years, a virtual dictator, and that is what he proposes to impose on the next administration. It wold fit right up McCain's alley, but it is a long call away from what this government needs - the end of lawlessness and the restoration of the democracy on which it was founded.

THE LIFE OF OUR NATION

Lee Dimin. — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:17:34 EDT

Senator John McCain opened up a hard-hitting political attack on Senator Barack Obama’s national security credentials and stepped up his rhetoric against the Russians in Georgia in a speech on Monday aimed at showcasing his ability to be commander-in-chief. By so doing McCain reiterated his full support for the failed policies of George W. Bush and an administration that McCain supported for eight years, sowing a remarkable inability to think for himself.

McCain criticized what he called Mr. Obama’s “shifting positions’’ on the troop escalation, or surge, in Iraq, and charged that when his rival voted against funding the troops in a single vote in 2007, he had tried to “legislate’’ failure. It was of the failure of the Bush administration, with the full support of John S McCain, that Obama was trying to overcome. That failure was the abandonment of the "war against terrorism" to the Bush-Cheney war to regain control of the Iraqi oil fields that Saddam Hussein and nationalized. It was that failure that cost the lives of more than 4,143 U.S. troops, the limbs of more than 30,000 American troops and the mental injury to tens of thousands, far more than all those killed and injured by every terrorist attack made by al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.Mr.

McCain raised questions about Mr. Obama’s ability to handle the Georgian crisis. “Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president,’’ Mr. McCain said. “What’s less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president — as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.’’ The positions of Sen. Obama were not different from those of Sen. McCain regarding the Russian invasion of Georgia, but it was the policies of the Bush administration, supported totally by John McCain, that enabled Russia to invade Georgia without fear of interference from the overburdened United States. It was the Bush administration, with the support of McCain, that initiated the idea of a unlawful invasion when it invaded Iraq in March 2003 the Bush administration, with the full support of John McCain. entered an agreement with Poland for installation of missile basis on its border, allegedly directed at Iran - but why on the borders of Russia? Why not in Israel? or in Turkey? Or in Jordan? The lack of diplomacy, as evidenced by the Bush administration with the full support of John McCain, has endangered the entire world for the United States of America is so overstressed militarily, so distressed economically and so alone internationally, that our word is longer meaningful and our strength has become invisible. Thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rice, McCain and the rest of oil supported fast-draw gang.

McCain renewed his threat to consider throwing Russia out of the G-8 group of leading industrialized democracies and bar it from membership in the World Trade Organization. McCain renewed his threat to consider throwing Russia out of the G-8 group of leading industrialized democracies and bar it from membership in the World Trade Organization. McCain renewed his threat to consider throwing Russia out of the G-8 group of leading industrialized democracies and bar it from membership in the World Trade Organization. McCain renewed his threat to consider throwing Russia out of the G-8 group of leading industrialized democracies and bar it from membership in the World Trade Organization. Another indication of the McCain continuation of the Bush dictatorial demeanor. The U.S. is bit one member of the G-8 and it is not, as Bush calls himself "the decider",. I do not think McCain could get a majority of the G-8 to go along with him in ousting Russia. This is an indication of McCain's lack of diplomatic mentality, and if for no other reason, disqualifies him from serving as the President.

McCain has repeatedly said he "will stay in Iraq until he wins," but he has yet defined what constitutes a win. Will it be to democratize Iraq?It will never happen during McCain's life time, even if he lives to be as old as his mother. Shouldn't we demand of a man who is running for president what he means by "winning" in Iraq, and demand as well a complete answer. "Winning" might actually require us maintaining troops in Iraq for 100 years, a McCain said he was willing to do - but at a cost of $10 Billion per month, and growing, in borrowed money, our country may have joined the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire and all the former powers that are no longer. Everything has a beginning and end, and this great democracy of ours began in 1789 and the decline started with the imperial administration of Richard Nixon, was aided and abetted by the supply-side economics (Reaganomics) of Ronald Reagan and culminated with the revolutionary, unlawful and unconstitutional administration of George W. Bush that might result in the final demise of this great nation should John McCain be elected and create a neo-conservative dominated Supreme Court that will rule for 40 years, and, in effect, end that which the founding fathers provided. We must elect Obama. We must restore the Constitution. We must end the illegal war in Iraq and concentrate on the defeat of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. We must return the Congress to the People of the United States and end its corporate control. We must rejoin the nations of the world and assert our leadership in a positive way and regain the respect of our allies through diplomacy rather than bullying. We must CHANGE Washington, D.C. and evict the lobbyists from K Street.We are at one of the most difficult periods in our young history, and this nation is too young to die. The Neo-cons must be stopped NOW!

R U AMONG McCAIN's "MY FRIENDS?"

Lee Dimin. — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:27:05 EDT

"Most working families today do not have homes that have anywhere near ten rooms. John McCain has ten houses. Many working people in America have to work two and three jobs to provide for their families and pay their car loans. John McCain hops on a private jet. Is it any wonder why McCain champions a George Bush agenda of cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, helping oil companies turn record profits, and leaving working families to fend for themselves? McCain's velvet world leaves him utterly unprepared to make the tough choices we need to restore the middle class and ensure that everyone in America has quality, affordable health insurance."
- Andy Stern, President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Dear Lee,

John McCain is soaring to new heights of hypocrisy on his wife's personal jet. He flies around the country bent on duping the public into believing he's "one of them," a regular guy who can empathize with Americans facing an overwhelming economic crush. What's more, he disparages those who oppose his ridiculous policy proposals as "elitist." But who's the real elitist?

The REAL McCain is a multimillionaire who owns ten luxurious homes. The REAL McCain backs President Bush's tax cuts for big corporations. The REAL McCain empathizes only with the interests of our nation's wealthy minority, not its money-strapped majority. But far too many are buying into McCain's deceit because the corporate press won't present the whole picture, so we created this video to educate the public about the REAL McCain.

Watch the video and send it to everyone you know.

Together, you have been a force in making sure The REAL McCain videos have been seen by nearly 6.5 million people. But as Frank Rich noted in his NY Times column yesterday, 40% of Americans hear too little about McCain from the mainstream media, meaning "the public doesn't know who on earth John McCain is." That's why it's crucial you ensure this video is seen by as many as possible, and that we use each and every tool at our disposal to get the word out. Send this on to five friends and family members, and tell them to send it to five people they know. Get it to your local news outlets and blogs and netw.orking sites like Digg. Raise hell about McCain's economic duplicity!

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney summed it up best when he said McCain "simply doesn't understand the challenges America's working families are facing because he isn't remotely affected by them." It's up to us to tell people who McCain really is, a jet-setting elitist more concerned with corporate lobbyists than hard-working Americans.

By: Robert Gfreenwald, THE BRAVE NEW TEAM

SCORE: RUSSIA 1; USA 0

Lee Dimin. — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:23:39 EDT

Today's quote: - "Now, let's look at the evidence, or just some of it or most of it, but all of it points irresistibly to the conclusion that these three defendants (Bush, Cheney and Rice) did, indeed, deliberately take this nation into a terrible, terrible war under false pretenses." VINCENT BUGLIOSI, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." - January, 2007.

Comment: - The acts of Bush and his cabal of evil, aside from the facts that show their liability for the deaths of more than 4,141 U.S. military personnel are responsible for the actions taken by Russia against Georgia. Bush set the example of disregarding International Law, the United Nations, to wage an illegal and unnecessary war. A war that weakened America's strength enough to encourage Russia to perform its own unnecessary and illegal act of war against a very small democratic nation that was once a part of the Soviet Union. George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and John McCain have said that this action by Russia was not the way things are done in the 21st century - but it is precisely what Bush and Rice did to Iraq, with the full support of John McCain. And the Polish accord to the placement of missile basis by the United States in Poland has not helped the situation. The bullying posture of the Bush administration has begin to backfire, and the world has become far more dangerous as a result.

Russia’s military offensive into Georgia has jolted the Bush administration’s relationship with Moscow, senior officials said Thursday, forcing a wholesale reassessment of American dealings with Russia and jeopardizing talks on everything from halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions to reducing strategic arsenals to cooperation on missiles defenses. The conflict punctuated a stark turnabout in the administration’s view of Vladimir V. Putin, the president turned prime minister whom President Bush has repeatedly described as a trustworthy friend. Now Mr. Bush’s aides complain that Russian officials have been misleading or at least evasive about Russia’s intentions in Georgia. Even as the conflict between Russia and Georgia appeared to ease on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said the Russian attack had forced a fundamental rethinking of the administration’s effort to forge “an ongoing and long-term strategic dialogue with Russia.” Secretary of Defense Gates' assessment of a "fundamental rethinking" stated not with the attack on Georgia, but when the United States started negoiating the placing of missile basis in areas that made Russia suspicious of the true intentions and "aims" of those missiles. Russia should not be blamed for the bullying tactics of George W. Bush - Bush had already, for years, proven himself to be a liar and distorter of facts. Why should the Russians have believed him. Mr. Gates said at the Pentagon. “If Russia does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia, the U.S.-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come.” George W. Bush did that when he insisted on the Missile placements near the Russian border. Bush has pursued policies that Mr. Putin vigorously opposed, including supporting the independence of Kosovo from Serbia, a Russian ally, expanding NATO to include some former Soviet bloc nations and stationing elements of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The agreement to deploy a battery of American missile interceptors on Polish territory is a step Russia has repeatedly denounced as provocative. Does Gate's think the American people are idiots? Or is it that he, as Secretary of Defense is "losing it". The unspoken new danger is that a cooling relationship could cost the administration any hope of working closely with Russia on some of its topmost priorities, like controlling nuclear proliferation, countering terrorism or resolving the problems of the Middle East. If Russia and the United States rarely have acted as allies during Mr. Bush’s presidency, they also have rarely allowed disagreements to undermine what Mr. Bush considered one of his bedrock diplomatic relationships. After their first meeting in 2001, Mr. Bush said famously that he had looked into the eyes of Mr. Putin and “got a sense of his soul.” Apparently Putin also got a good sense of the rotteness of the George W. Bush soul. I don't think the Bush administration ever had an intention of "working closely" with Russia, but was more likely trying to create in Russia a false sense of security.
The United States is in too weak a military condition to help Georgia and lacks all diplomatic credibility, all because of the war in Iraq and the mindset of the bullies in the White House and the cabal Bush has created. Georgia will not be happy with the results of the mediation by Condoleezza Rice, but will have little alternative but to yield for whatever they can get to restore peace.
So, the score for the United States: No wins, far too many losses!