Right now, President Obama is handling many poisonous snakes (crises that could implode on all of us) and who wants to add another?
Yet, there is another that is not on most of our radar screens yet, but in Texas I'm told the escalating violence in Mexico (including multiple shoot-outs between drug cartels and police which often result in innocent bystander deaths) is of major concern.
Here is a story about recent violence in Northern Mexico.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7882653.stm
'Lest you think this can be ignored as not our problem, please think again. This violence is in part the consequence of our war on drugs and incredibly our successes in imprisoning the leaders of Mexico's drug cartels. Now, the drug cartels are fighting each other and the Mexican police and army for control right on our border.
Also, Mexico is our neighbor. But, if the morality of decently treating your neighbor does not convince in light of all of our many crises, do remember that violence tends to spread-- and this violence could (and has I'm told spread into El Paso) spread throughout our Western states. So far, it seems, the Baja Penisula is free of this crisis.
Texans I know tell me this weighs very heavily on their minds and is covered in their local media. The stories I'm told sound similar to Chicago in the era of Al Capone and prohibition.
I have neither a solution, nor do I know an Eliot Ness who could provide one-- nonetheless, I felt better to forewarn than not.
By Paco TaylorOne of my all-time favorite television shows growing up -- next to Speed Racer -- was The Twilight Zone. For many years, WGN Channel 9 in Chicago aired reruns on weeknights at 10:00 PM. On nearly all of those nights I could be found in the darkness of my attic bedroom with eyes glued to the flickering screen of a small black & white television.A few weeks ago, something occurred that would remind me of that time spent in the attic watching my favorite show. After a heated election related exchange with a friend, I was confronted with the reality of how different our perspectives are. In fact, despite all of the interests we have in common (and there are many), it seems that our social and political views are as black-and-white in contrast as the 1950s TV show which we both also happen to love. And in a quiet moment of clarity, this jarring realization brought to mind one of my favorite episodes of The Twilight Zone. An episode called "Kick-the-Can." For those not familiar with this episode, or the show itself, Rod Serling, the creator and narrator of the show -- in his usual tight-lipped delivery -- sets up the story as follows: "Sunnyvale Rest, a home for the aged. A dying place, and a common children's game called kick-the-can will shortly become a refuge for a man who knows he will die in this world if he doesn't escape into... the Twilight Zone."Heartbreakingly aware of his loneliness for family -- most of whom have died -- and the all-too-quickly approaching end of his own life, nursing home resident Charles Whitney has his own moment of clarity. His epiphany occurs while seeing a group of children outside his nursing home playing a game of kick-the-can.As a child that was one of his favorite games, and watching as the dented tin can rolls to stillness in the dusty road that runs along the nursing home, Charles remembers how it once felt to run around on youthful legs. Lost in thought, he ponders if it's possible to escape old age by somehow recapturing the essence of youth.Almost immediately, Charles sees the game of kick-the-can as a way to rekindle what was lost nearly a lifetime ago, and he sets about convincing others at the rest home to join him in a game. As fortune would have it, nearly everyone that he proposes the unusual idea to agrees to participate. Everyone except for Ben, that is, Charles's dearest friend.For Ben, it seems the days of kiddie games are all but completely forgotten. Isolation and old age has withered his faith in everything, and he is resigned to the way things are. For him, if there is anything worth hoping for it is that his life ends quietly with dignity. He's not about to make an old fool of himself by running about, kickin' a tin can around on a dusty street.I won't rehash any more of the story. Those of us who've seen it know how things play out. But the tale is bittersweet. On the one hand, there is a sobering reminder of how people can grow apart, and how those we love must sometimes be left behind. On the other hand, there is the reminder that, no matter the age, you're really never too old to dream.For myself, as well as for millions around the country (and even the world), America's 2008 presidential election has been something of a dream. Those of us who are rooting for the Democratic candidate believe that we are witnessing the rise of significant world leader. In the process, many of us are reminded of the leaders and the dreams of an earlier time.Martin Luther King was killed the year before I was born. Growing up in the trauma-ridden years immediately after, I grew up learning secondhand what it was like to be moved by the words of one who takes the lead and sets the example for the rest to follow. In addition, I grew up hearing about the influence of other transformational leaders like Robert Kennedy and Malcolm X. But all this too was second hand.Observing how Barack Obama has responded to the call for leadership (prompted by Robert Kennedy's brother Ted), I feel that I am seeing a glimpse of what my parents and grandparents saw in those leaders who came before. This is an impressive thing -- especially taking into consideration that I am not one who usually looks for leaders.Still, even I can't help but be moved as I witness the efforts and accomplishments of the Junior Senator from my home state. Human, yes, as imperfect as any one of us. At the same time, however, apparently more special than most of us -- as any potentially great leader should be.This is certainly not the first time that I have been inspired by a display of greatness. Overwhelmingly, however, the majority of previous sightings have been confined to boxing rings, basketball courts, baseball diamonds, golf courses, racing lanes, and concert stages. Too few have been on the world stage.With all the pride and wonderment that I have felt during this election, there has also been a strong sense of regret. The regret that one of my dearest friends doesn't see this historic moment the way that I do. He doesn't see the leader that I and so many others see.At this time in American history, many of us will make an historic 'march on Washington' by way of the ballot box. At the same time, there are many people who we know that will not 'march' with us, who will not share in the dream, who will not shoulder the right and the responsibility that comes with being an American. Over the past two years that I have followed this election cycle, I have frequently found myself amazed at how people of every age, religious faith, ethnicity, sexual orientation and political affiliation has united for a common cause. A cause not motivated by tragedy or fear, but by a hope that America might finally realize some of its oldest and greatest ideals.While none of us knows what will happen at the end of election day Tuesday, we all have our wish, we all have our dream. Mixed in with my own is the wish that one of my dear friends had been able to see what I and others have seen, and that he and I had shared in this historic moment kickin'-the-can, as it were. As brothers. As fellow Americans.
Charles Boulder CO, ( Must See) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-6DpC-mj8
The Twilight Zone---Kick the Can (P1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHjglAr4mE
What is in a label?
Is this man a liberal, a conservative or neither? Some call him the father of conservatism. Some say, not at all, he is the father of liberalism. Some, like me, just like his approach-- maximize freedom, while protecting posterity and lives.
Of whom do I speak? Edmund Burke, (1729-1797).
What did he do?
Well, Edmund Burke was a member of the House of Commons in Britain during our Revolutionary War. He was a Commoner (had no title) and a great believer in English rights, freedoms and liberties.
He argued for us (the American colonists) and tried to persuade the Crown (King George III) to give us representatives at Parliament (taxation WITH representation). After the war begun, Mr. Burke tried to persuade the Crown to reach peace with us. He generally took our side in that particular "family" fued that ended in a spectacular public divorce (and the creation of the United States of America).
He also argued for Irish Home Rule, or at least a lessening of the restrictions on the Irish and Catholicism in Ireland. He may have lost his seat in the House of Commons for pushing for a lessening of trade restrictions on better trading rights for Catholic merchants.
He also advocated against the British slave trade and for freedom of the press.
So why would anyone call this man who so obviously pushed for things that were NOT part of anyone's status quo (at the time) the "hero of the modern conservative movement?" Indeed, at the time, most of what Edmund Burke argued FOR was considered radical (though today, most of us consider his arguments correct):
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/paletta200506160742.asp
Edmund Burke also advocated heatedly against the dangerous notion that England needed a revolution like the revolution that consumed France during his life-time.
He got into a famous spat with Thomas Paine (who in my opinion was a brilliant man, but also was flawed, almost blinded, by his great idealism which surfaces in his dispute with Edmund Burke). Thomas Paine was tried in England for his exceptionally good and well-written "Rights of Man" and its suggestion that even the King of England should be overthrown. He stood trial and argued for free speech, but was convicted. He fled to France.
Yet, before the trial of Tom Paine, there was his fight with Edmund Burke.
I side with Mr. Burke in this fight, so for years, I thought that meant I was a conservative (and I used to be a Republican).
Mr. Burke's point-- here it is in sum--
government becomes "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born." From Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Mr. Paine said no, that the living owed nothing to the dead and those yet to be born should create their own government and in no way be bound by the present generation.
Those are lofty words of Mr. Paine's, but in my opinion, those words are beyond idealistic.
For in any age, war is brutal and it leaves a scar for future generations. War should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary. Our founding fathers attempted without success to resolve their differences with the Crown of England and only resorted to war when all else had failed. War is choatic and the many do not prosper-- and in the chaos of war, wisdom is often lost and sometimes it takes quite awhile to find wisdom again (think of the long Dark Ages in Europe after the Fall of Rome).
Our founding fathers made the fateful decision to fight for independence (knowing that if they lost, they would probably all hang as traitors) as John Adams explained this way:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams
Our founding fathers made this choice for the future, not in spite of it.The French Revolution haunted me the moment I read anything about it. The senseless slaughter, the mobs hungrily waiting for more blood, the tumbrils rolling endlessly in Paris-- all combined to make me shudder at what can happen when we decide that there are no boundaries to what we can do..... I agree with Mr. Burke. But, I also agree with Mr. Burke (and Senator Obama) that inside of democratic institutions you are always struggling to create more liberty and freedoms, to protect the freedoms that you have-- to paraphrase Senator Obama, you are attempting to create a more perfect union. Those approaches can be radical, slow, or in between-- and they can work without violating our pact to the past, or to the future so long as we respect our institutions and obey our Constitution.
Indeed, our Founding Fathers GAVE US THE TOOLS to do exactly this and if we but obey our Constitution, we can do what we need to do to get our Country back on the right track. We can fix this mess AND respect our Constitution and so honor those who came before us AND protect our blessings for future generations as Mr. Burke argued so eloquently that all men had an obligation to do.
Respecting our institutions is not something that the RNC has done at ALL lately. This is the lie, I think, in the current conservative movement in America's adoption of Mr. Burke. We have seen the RNC disrespect our most crucial institutions--
some in the RNC have disrespected the very medals our Country gives for courage on the field of battle (maligning Bronze and Silver Star recipient Senator John Kerry's courage by undermining his right to receive those marks of military courage),
our current Republican administration has abused our Constitution (suspending the Great Writ, Habeas Corpus, creating the imperil Presidency with the newly invented "unitary theory of the executive"),
many in the RNC have treated some of our Justices horrifically and even suggested that violence may be appropriate (most notably Senator Cornyn of Texas did this when he suggested that Judicial activism might be expected to result in violence in response to a bill seeking greater security for Judges after a Judge's mother and husband were murdered because she passed harsh sentences against organized crime),
our current Bush administration has hired "Bushies" to operate throughout our government even though in many cases these people do not have the requisite knowledge to do their jobs (loyalty over merit),
and how about the way in which many in the RNC speak in such ugly terms about a United States Senator? Yes, Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee for President-- but a United States Senator is surely owed SOME modicum of respect simply by virtue of his position in a very important American institution.
and the list could be endless so I will stop it there.
No matter WHAT insulting word Senator McCain, or anyone choose to throw at Senator Obama-- it does NOT matter. What does matter is simple--Our Country is in a ditch and we need to get out of that ditch --and we need to do this while respecting, and obeying our Constitution and our great American institutions.There is only ONE candidate in the race who can do this-- Senator Barack Obama.
The other candidate, Senator John McCain, is too tied up in his own ideological adherence-- indeed, I could argue (and probably would if I had half the mind of Edmund Burke) that Senator McCain has a blind-spot just like Tom Paine had all of those years ago.He is an idealist, is Senator McCain-- he blindly believes (even in the face of all of the recent facts to the contrary) that deregulation IS the answer to everything (from health care to education-- this is Senator McCain's solution), and in any instance where you cannot deregulate, you lower taxes no matter what the problem is.We cannot afford to continue this blindness. We have been blinded in this way for decades now.
It is time to SEE CLEARLY. It is time to elect Barack Obama.
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends mecessarily in military despotism."
Vote. And protect your vote.
Protect your vote by keeping this number in your pocket when you go to the polls--
866-OUR-VOTE. Before you cast any provisional ballot, or leave the polls without voting, please call that number.
For more on this, please read this article:
http://sanfrancisco.about.com/b/2008/10/20/protect-your-vote-carry-this-number.htm
This may be the most important election of our lifetimes. Please VOTE and make certain to PROTECT YOUR VOTE!
Thank you!
Long ago, my mother taught me that it takes two to fight. My mother, is, incidentally, an over 70 year-old Republican from rural Kansas who currently lives in Texas. Are her words of wisdom invalid because she is a Republican? Heck no!
Yet-- Senator McCain would have us saying that they are. He, his running mate and his Campaign are doing everything they can to start an ugly fight in America,
BUT my mother is RIGHT it takes TWO to fight-- and we do NOT have to go there. Let Senator Obama and his Campaign handle the ugliness. So far, they have done an exemplary job of it.
We have won the argument on almost every substantive issue--
Americans of all political affiliations WANT to see rational regulations of our financial institutions;
Americans of all political affiliations SEE that Senator McCain's health care plan will not work and prefer Senator Obama's proposal;
Americans of all political affiliations UNDERSTAND that Washington is broken and that something has to change-- and it cannot simply be the elimination of earmarks;
Americans of all political affiliations WANT a President who can inspire and motivate them;
Americans of all political affiliations are weary of the bickering and back-biting and ugly insults;
and
Americans of all political affiliations ARE READY FOR REAL CHANGE.
Senator McCain's own base is slipping away from him. That is why we see this increased intensity of truly ugly attacks. He is losing his own base.
The worst thing we can do right now is respond to Senator McCain's attacks in kind.
Let Senator McCain, his running mate and his Campaign fight themselves. We do NOT have to join in the fray.
Tell your friends, family and neighbors about Senator Obama's plans, policies, proposals, message and vision for our future. Please do not insult them in the process. Leave that "tactic" to Senator McCain and his campaign.
Please do not blame everything on Republicans-- especially not rank and file Republicans. And please do not label all Republicans as racists, because let me tell you they are not. Many of my family, and some of my friends, are Republicans -- and right now they are teetering in this election.
Many of them speak openly of leaving the top of the ballot blank, or maybe they'll vote for Senator Obama.
The worst thing we can do-- not only for this Campaign, but also for our Country since right now, in this time of crisis, we need ALL hands on deck -- is start fighting Senator McCain and his campaign on their terms down in the mud with all of that ugliness.
Don't take Senator McCain's bait. Please do what you can to help register voters (in states where the deadlines are outstanding) and speak to your friends, family and neighbors about what Senator Obama IS proposing, not the mud that Senator McCain is slinging.
Answer questions about that mud without anger-- be patient. It is not always easy-- I know and I have been too confrontational myself on more than one occasion. I'm working on it-- we CAN disagree without being disagreeable.
But again, we need America to come together to get out of this mess-- and if we take Senator McCain's bait, we may still win this election, but fixing our Country after that election will be so much harder.
Please don't insult "republicans" so generally. Use terms that differentiate the ugliness currently coming from Senator McCain and his Campaign and rank and file Republicans. Recall that Lilbet Hagel (life-long Republican and wife of Senator Hagel) endorsed Senator Obama this week. Recall that Richard Reordan (popular Republican mayor of LA) endorsed Senator Obama, as did Wick Allison (former editor of the National Review).
Recall that Americans of all political persuasions love this Country and do not want us to be divided. Try simply saying Senator McCain's Campaign instead of simply referring to all Republicans. We probably have numerous Republicans lurking here-- and seeing themselves insulted is not a great way to welcome them on board.
Most of us came here in the first place because Senator Obama inspired the heck out of us, and motivated us to get to work TOGETHER to fix our Country, not in our "groups," but as AMERICANS united behind a common goal and for a common purpose.
If we remember that, and focus on that, we can start helping bring an end to this ugly polarization RIGHT NOW and that will be good for the future of all of us.
E PLURIBUS ENUM is on our Country's Great Seal for a Reason--
OUT OF MANY ONE.
Recently, Senator Obama referred to a wise voice from our past, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and his statement that "sunshine is the best disinfectant" when referring to transparency in government.
Here are some more words of wisdom from Justice Brandeis that apply to our current messes and our current Imperial President who appears to believe he IS the law, rather than he is the person elected to execute the laws as our Constitution actually requires:
"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen... If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
That is EXACTLY what happened at our Justice Department with the questionable firings of nine U.S. Attorney Generals. Recently, a report was issued that claims to have probed these concerns fully. I find that doubtful. I set forth my reasons below:
Here is the story about the report showing serious questions remain about the attorney general firings and Senator Leahy's response calling for a special prosecutor to investigate these serious allegations. You can read the full report at the link below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/us-attorneys-report-full_n_130211.html
This report claims the most serious allegation that they could not resolve involved Attorney General Iglesias' firing. While I agree that one was very bad-- and it certainly looked like A.G. Iglesias was fired because he would not pursue a frivolous complaint for voter fraud against Democrats in his state, one wonders whatever happened with A.G. Carol Lam.
A.G. Carol Lam is the one who prosecuted former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and proved he took bribes. She notified the Justice Department that her probe was expanding on MAY 10th and on MAY 11th, Mr. Sampson wrote "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam... leads me to conclude that we should" replace her.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/24/news/sandiego/17_20_573_23_07.txt
The e-mail Carol Lam sent the Justice Department on MAY 10th about her decision to widen the on-going probe into Republican political corruption in San Diego is NOT even MENTIONED in this report!
Shortly thereafter, AG Lam was fired..... and her probe, that would have involved major GOP contributors and Congressman Darrell Issa was NOT expanded so far as I can tell.
Her case against former CIA Kyle Dustin Foggo is still pending almost TWO years later!
This report essentially dismisses this time proximity and takes Mr. Sampson at his word that this was about immigration and gun prosecution questions....... hmmm, really???? Yes, these issues had been brought up previously with AG Lam, but my goodness the time proximity is at the very least cause for additional investigation, and it is NOT sufficient to simply say well Mr. Sampson said so, and there are documents showing there were immigration issues.....
That firing is the one about which an explanation is absolutely necessary. This report does not even set forth the time proximity which makes it VERY dubious to me on this point.
I'm not the only one who has difficulty with this lame explanation of the AG Lamm firing--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-kaus/senators-support-view-tha_b_43731.html
As for former A.G. Iglesias that too was very questionable and this report does admit that. Yet, Rep. Heather Wilson, who was integrally involved in the wrongful conduct surrounding Mr. Iglesias' termination, is still a VERY visible spokesperson for Senator McCain's campaign. Have these people no shame???
Here is some news from around the world and here at home. Some of this will be discussed on the MSM, but much of it will not be discussed. Although the MSM has seemed concerned about our economic mess, once more their focus is largely on the political effects of this problem, and the "horse" race. Polls are not news. I have compiled news from around the world and attempted to set forth a brief synopsis. If you want to get more on the story, you can click the link below the summary.
Hurricane Ike:
A Blog about Gulf Coast Hurricanes Past and what Houston was saying at the time.
http://blogs.chron.com/bayoucityhistory/
Houston Mayor Bill White says the Houston area will need $40 billion in aid to repair the destruction brought by Hurricane Ike. He says they need 2.5 billion now.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6017417.html
Myanmar (sometimes referred to as Burma)
The Myanmar military junta frees political detainee, Win Tin, after 19 years imprisonment. He was part of a package that freed 9,000 political prisoners there. He is 79 years old and one of the founders of the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi. The NLD won elections in 1989 and Aung San Suu Kyi was set to take the reigns of government, but the generals stopped the transfer of power. Aung San Suu Kyi is under house arrest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7631395.stm
South Africa-- the President, Thabo Mibeki, and 11 members of his cabinet are resigning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7631358.stm
Chinese milk fears spread in Asia. The milk is tainted with melamine, which causes sickness and kidney problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7631265.stm
A 22 year-old shot 10 people at college in Kauhajoki, Finland before shooting himself. (My own editorializing: The tragedy of this waste!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7630969.stm
NATO faces rising hostility in Afghanistan. The Taliban uses innocent civilians as human shields-- and those civilians too often are killed. Also, innocent civilians are killed by aerial bombing and they get caught in the cross-fire.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,471416,00.html
President Bush meets with military and other advisers to review Afghanistan policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/washington/23policy.html
Yahya Jammeh, the "President" of Gambia (he seized power in a military putsch in 1994) claims he can cure AIDS and asthma. He says he can cure AIDS on Thursdays and asthma on Fridays and Saturdays. He has one requirement to seek treatment from him-- patients must stop taking anti-viral medication (commonly prescribed for AIDS). (Again my own editorializing-- is this "President" doing this in an attempt to keep power or does he actually believe this nonsense? This "cure" will kill many-- another senseless tragedy).
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,470231,00.html
Members of the Sunni Awakening fight each other over power and control. Quote from the article:
“What you have is essentially armed factions, like mini-gangs, that operate in a certain set of checkpoints in certain territories,” said Lt. Erick Kuylman, a patrol commander in the First Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, which operates in Adhamiya.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/world/middleeast/23awake.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Great Lakes protection. Ban near that would prevent water being taken from our Great Lakes and diverted to areas outside of the Great Lakes basin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/us/23lakes.html
Our economy:
Secretary Paulson wants $700 billion quickly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7631500.stm
Secretary Paulson's plan includes NO oversight of his action with regard to this $700 billion.
Secretary Paulson's plan upsets both Democrats and Republicans. Fed. Chair Bernanke says recession will come without bail-out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/bush-team-congress-haggle_n_128501.html
A discussion of what might be done with the $700 Billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/opinion/23kashyap.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Here is Senator Christopher Dodd's (D) legislative proposal:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_ayo08b28.html
and a discussion of this proposal by Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Dodd_bill_much_more_aggressive_than_Treasury_plan.html
I have never been polled before in my life, but I have been polled now.
The first half of the poll was fairly standard. Do you think the Country is on the right track?
What do you think about President Bush's performance? very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable.
Who are you going to vote for? Obama or McCain (can you guess my answer?)
How old are you?
What race are you?
What gender are you?
How closely have you paid attention to the general election?
Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?
Then things got really wierd. The next series of questions were entirely spun in Senator McCain's direction.
Here is a sample--
(?) What do you think about tax cuts, do they generally help the economy, hurt the economy or have no effect, or are you not sure?
How about-- it depends on the tax cuts and who gets them! Out-sourcing tax cuts are not a help to anyone in this Country-- tax cuts that amount to subsidies for business don't help anyone! No option for that. How about an option for none of the above?
(?) In general, which do you prefer a candidate who promises no tax cuts at all, or a candidate who will only raise taxes on the rich?
What in the heck does "in general" mean? Why don't you ask me what I think RIGHT now when our Country is engaged in two wars and our debt is sky-rocketing!
(?) Do you think tax policy should be based on what is best for the economy or what is fair or are you not sure?
Those are the only three options. Gee whiz, why don't you just make calls for Senator McCain's campaign?
I think the tax code should be fair-- but I also happen to think that a FAIR tax code actually results in REAL FREE TRADE (not subsidized gigantic business running the small businessperson out of business) and this HELPS the economy.
I am SURE about this-- but there was no option for me to register this opinion, so I went with the ridiculous spin and answered for "fair." (By the way, anyone who is interested-- while I am no economist, I did take economics (the science or B.S. based kind, not the B.A. kind) in college and I understand the basics of supply, demand, the IS and the LS curve, as well as some of the basics of macro-and micro economics.
(?) Do you think you pay more than your fair share in taxes, or less? Generally, I think I pay less-- but I don't want to be paying anything to the Bush administration, or (shiver) the McCain administration should we get complacent and let that happen! Why do I think I pay less? Not because I'm some sort of millionaire-- I'm not. I'm solidly middle class. Because I am blessed with parents who did fairly well for themselves and I have a cushion in this life that most folks do not have (as I have seen-- too many of us are one bad luck moment away from financial crisis). Was there an option for this? Of course not.
(?) Next they asked me what my family makes a year and there was NO option for it is none of your business! That is when I hung-up. There was no way to simply skip a question-- and I'm sorry, but it is NO-ONE's business WHAT ANYONE MAKES unless that person is actually seeking elected office (which I am not, obviously).
I hope my responses register somewhere in some poll even though I got so angry and hung-up that phone on that computer voice--
What I will say about this experience is this-- pollsters shape the polls with their questions. I knew this before intellectually, but now I know this deep down inside my bone marrow.
Polls should be outlawed. I doubt that they will be-- and I don't want to interfere with anyone's right to free speech, or with any journalist doing their job. But, goodness that poll (computer voice) was annoying!
Have those pollsters heard about JFK and his targeted tax cuts that actually benefited the economy? Have they heard about debt going on and on and on until the next generation finally has to pay the entire tab for our nonsense?
That poll was as simplistic as Senator McCain's campaign message (that is when he manages to get it together enough to be remotely consistent)-- and that makes it stupid.
The computer voice i.d'd the poll as coming from Rasmussen. I do hope I wasn't just push-polled. I will make certain to check my voter registration OFTEN over the next few weeks.
I'm not being paranoid. I AM being practical.
I am deeply offended and more than a little pissed off by her patronizing, cynical and nasty remarks about Senator Obama and Michelle. She is a mean snake. You can't kill a moose, bearing a smile like hers, and not be a mean, lowdown snake. She was direct and ugly.She gave the right speech to the party that feeds on war.
Robin from NJ
THIS COUNTRY IS NOT PREY FOR MCCAIN/PALIN!!!
FIGHT!!! CALL, CANVASS, REGISTER, & DONATE!!!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/tracylynette
Senator Obama directly sponsored 2 bills and co-sponsored 4 others directly related to helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina (and in some instances Hurricane Rita, as well). Here those bills are: 1) Hurricane Katrina recovery (2319), sponsor OBAMA, introduced Feb 16, 2006. Link Brief Summary: Created an officer to make certain that funds for Hurricane Katrina recovery activities were spent efficiently and effectively. Establishes a National Family Locator System and ensures that each state's homeland security plan provides information regarding evacuating individuals with special needs. Directs: (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a volunteer corps to provide an adequate supply of health professionals in an emergency; and (2) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish a database of health professionals to increase preparedness for federal emergencies. Requires the HHS Secretary to make grants: (1) for constructing, modernizing, or repairing health facilities damaged by Hurricane Katrina; and (2) to assist individuals and specified entities in communities in affected areas that disproportionately experience health disparities. Authorizes appropriations for disaster relief in Katrina-affected areas through community development assistance programs. Authorizes the appropriate federal banking agency and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) to forbear from taking any action otherwise required with respect to certain undercapitalized insured depository institutions or credit unions that are not significantly or critically undercapitalized and whose capital or net worth were reduced as a direct result of Hurricane Katrina. Establishes a goal that procurement recovery at least 30% of contracts be awarded to local businesses in Katrina-affected areas for 2006-2007, and at least 40% of the workers performing the recovery work be local residents. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to reduce the income threshold, and increase the percentage of earned income, used to calculate the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Allows certain taxpayers who maintained a primary residence in Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi an increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Link Full text of the bill:
Link
Unfortunately, for those suffering in the aftermath of Katrina, this ball was not passed into law.
A common lament I hear from elderly people is that we just “aren’t civil anymore.” They complain about kids who come close to running them down with skate boards on the sidewalks and then don’t apologize, about folks talking on cell phones in public in loud voices with no concern for others’ need for peace and quiet, and about so many other things. Once, I was inclined to dismiss this with a flippant “old people don’t get it,” but as the grey creeps into my own hair, I begin to understand what they mean. Civility IS almost absent from our public square and possibly, too absent from our private lives.
First what exactly is civility? Here is Webster’s definition:
ci·vil·i·ty Pronunciation: sə-ˈvi-lə-tē
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ci·vil·i·ties
Date: 1533
1. archaic : training in the humanities. 2 a: civilized conduct; especially : courtesy, politeness b: a polite act or expression
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civility
Yet, is this definition sufficient for our purposes today?
Here is another way of looking at civility in the public square from Guy Burgess, PhD and Heidi Burgess, Phd of the University of Colorado: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/bios.htm
“The increasingly vocal campaign for civility in public discourse reflects an understandable and widespread frustration with the current tenor of political debate. There is a growing realization that our inability to deal with broad range of problems is largely attributable to the destructive ways in which the issues are being addressed. This raises a crucial and increasingly controversial question--what exactly do we mean by "civility"?
Clearly, civility has to mean something more that mere politeness. The movement will have accomplished little if all it does is get people to say, "excuse me please", while they (figuratively) stab you in the back. Civility also cannot mean "roll over and play dead." People need to be able to raise tough questions and present their cases when they feel their vital interests are being threatened. A civil society cannot avoid tough but important issues, simply because they are unpleasant to address. There must also be more to civility than a scrupulous adherence to the laws governing public-policy decision making. Clearly, there are numerous instances in which the parties to public-policy conflicts act in ways which are destructive and inappropriate, even though they are (and should continue to be) legal.
In short, any reasonable definition of civility must recognize that the many differing interests which divide our increasingly diverse society will produce an endless series of confrontations over difficult moral and distributional issues. Often these issues will have an irreducible win-lose character and, hence, not be amenable to consensus resolution. While continuing confrontation is inevitable, the enormous destructiveness which commonly accompanies these confrontations is not.
In our work at the University of Colorado's Conflict Research Consortium, we have been developing an approach which we call "constructive confrontation."
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/civility.htm
(This approach of “constructive confrontation” is discussed in more detail below)
However it is defined, civility does seem to be on the decline in this Country as it becomes even more difficult to disagree without almost any conversation devolving into a screaming match. So few people—I am guilty of this myself on too many occasions—really listen to another person, or an idea with which they disagree.
I have watched Congressional hearings like this. It often seems as though few members care about what the witness is testifying in their focus on the sound of their own voices. This does not simply happen in Congress; I have seen this in my own life and most certainly in our Vice President who simply answered “SO?” when asked about overwhelming public opinion against the War in Iraq. To our Vice President, the opinions of those who disagree with him (even if we be the majority of the American people) are so entirely without value, that he can dismiss our opinion flippantly. That is the height of incivility. Yet, other people (who agree with our Vice President) claim this “So?” as rational argument. “So?” is not rational argument; “so” is insulting, demeaning and utterly lacking in any recognition that the people who hold the opposing view have any right to have their voices heard. In this Country, the majority of the American people do not have the right to have their opinions followed, but we do have the expectation of BASIC CIVILITY toward us from our elected officials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maFUXy7U2Nc
Sometimes, I wonder if this devolution in civility is caused by the way our high school and college debates generally function. Instead, of any real debate of the issues, students speak as fast as they can to include as many points as possibly (often so quickly that no non-debater could possibly follow the argument). This is probably insufficient to explain the problem. This problem is probably rooted in many things; including a blurring of the complexities into 30 second-sound bytes, and a general demagoguery of too many issues that face us all. Nevertheless, whatever the origin of this problem, this problem is now ours.
Now, please don’t get me wrong. I have not been a paragon of civility throughout my life. Yet, my own imperfections don’t devalue the message I am carrying. Civility in the public square is essential to our democracy functioning. Civility at home is essential to our own personal domestic tranquility. Civility on the world stage – and treating countries like adults, not like recalcitrant toddlers—is important to keeping, and building our Nation’s soft power, the diplomatic tools and good will that have ended and CAN end many a crisis without resort to war.
So what do we do about it?
Senator Obama asks that we disagree without being disagreeable. This would help immensely. Indeed, “be agreeable” is one of the 25 rules of civility drafted by P.M. Forni, PhD of John Hopkins:
http://sites.jhu.edu/civility/background.htm
http://sites.jhu.edu/civility/onerule.html
Dr. Forni has written a book about this need called Choosing Civility, in which he lists 25 rules for civil conduct.
http://sites.jhu.edu/civility/choosingcivility.html
Our first President, George Washington, carried a book with him about manners, dignity and civility called Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation.
When President Washington was but sixteen years old he took this book and summarized it into basic rules. Here are those 110 rules, many of which in application would help us be a more civil society today:
http://www.history.org/Almanack/life/manners/rules2.cfm
Here is a sampling of some of those I find truly valuable, with the rule number assigned*:
1st rule “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.”
6th rule “Sleep not when others Speak, Sit not when others stand, Speak not when you Should hold your Peace, walk not on when others Stop.”
22nd rule “Show not yourself glad at the Misfortune of another though he were your enemy”
35th rule “Let your Discourse with Men of Business be Short and Comprehensive.”
44th rule “When a man does all he can though it Succeeds not well blame not him that did it.”
48th rule “Wherein you reprove Another be without blame yourself; for example is more prevalent than Precepts.”**
50th rule “Be not hasty to believe flying Reports to the Disparagement of any.”
58th rule “Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for 'tis a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.”
74th rule “When Another Speaks be attentive your Self and disturb not the Audience if any hesitate in his Words help him not nor Prompt him without desired, Interrupt him not, nor Answer him till his Speech be ended.”
82nd rule “Undertake not what you cannot perform but be careful to keep your promise.”
86th rule “In Disputes, be not So Desireous to Overcome as not to give Liberty to each one to deliver his Opinion and Submit to the Judgment of the Major Part especially if they are Judges of the Dispute.”
Some of these rules, no doubt, belong to another age. No longer would I – or any other American-- ask anyone to avoid looking in the face of a “man of quality” as the 37th rule suggests.
*I have amended the words from the spelling and form of our Revolutionary period to our modern day for clarity.
** Please note—I am not here remonstrating against anyone in particular, but rather our society, including myself. (At least, I hope this is the case, or I have just violated rule 48).
Here are the processes by which the Burgesses of the University of Colorado (referenced above) hope to bring civility back to the public (and private) square:
“This approach combines an understanding of conflict processes, dispute resolution, and advocacy strategies to help disputants better advance their interests. In addition to explaining why the politeness embodied in conventional definitions of "civility" is important, we also identify a number of other areas in which adversaries, decision makers, and those caught in the middle can work individually and collectively to increase the constructiveness of public debate. Examples of these areas include:”
Separating People from the Problem
Obtaining Available Technical Facts
Limiting Interpersonal Misunderstanding
Using a Fair Processes
Limiting Escalation
Honoring Legitimate Uses of Legal, Political, and Other Types of Power
Separating Win/Win from Win/Lose Issues
Limiting the Backlash Effect
Keep Trying to Persuade and Allow Yourself to be Persuaded
More Persuasion, More Exchange, Less force
For more on each of the above hi-lighted terms, click here:
Here is a link to the National Civility Center, which also has several great suggestions for improving civility in our daily lives and our public square:
http://www.civilitycenter.org/
http://www.civilitycenter.org/keys.php
Here are the five keys that the National Civility Center believes are of critical importance to creating and sustaining civility, including links to a more thorough analysis of each key:
Trust http://www.civilitycenter.org/keys.php
Process http://www.civilitycenter.org/keys2.php
People http://www.civilitycenter.org/keys3.php
Dialogue http://www.civilitycenter.org/keys4.php
Civility http://www.civilitycenter.org/keys5.php
This last section is simple, so I will excerpt it here:
Civility builds on the “Golden Rule”: Always treat others as you would like to be treated.
If we can be civil to one another, if we can disagree without being so very disagreeable, we will be able to come together to solve our long festering problems. If we cannot, too many of us will remain outside the process looking inside, excluded, with anger and rancor in our hearts and we may yet all drown in the same boat built out of our inability to simply be decent to one another.
World News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7564776.stm
Russia signs on to Georgia truce, but still keeps troops deep inside Georgia—and says those troops will remain until security concerns are met. Russia claims Georgians are causing problems and refused to put timetable on withdrawal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7566199.stm
Russia pledged to remove troops from Georgia, and signs seem to show that this will occur, with one exception. It looks as though Russian troops will stay in South Ossetia. Right now, Russian troops are within 20 miles of Tblisi, the Georgian Capitol.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7565355.stm
Pakistan’s foreign minister gives Pres. Musharraf deadline—he has two days to step down or face impeachment. Pres. Musharraf says he will defend himself. Former PM Nawaz Sharif, who was toppled in a 1999 military coup on corruption charges, but allowed to leave the Country, says Pres. Musharraf should not be granted safe passage.
UPDATE:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/18/asia/19pstan.php
President Musharraf of Pakistan announces his resignation. He will stay in Pakistan for the immediate future. He said "Long live Pakistan!" and explained he was resigning not because he was guilty, but for the good of Pakistan. He said that even if he won the case against him, the process would still hurt his Country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7566257.stm
Power-sharing talks in Zimbabwe end in stalemate. South African President says talks will continue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7563816.stm
Members of Nepal's parliament have overwhelmingly elected the Maoist leader Prachanda as the country's new prime minister. He won 80% of the vote. It is only two years since Mr. Prachanda came out from two decades underground as a militant communist leader/revolutionary to Nepal’s ruling monarchy, which was recently overthrown. Before he was a revolutionary, he was an agricultural science teacher.
Most of the members of the royal family were assassinated by another member of the royal family a few years ago.
“What the Maoists called their "people's war" had left 13,000 people dead, tens of thousands displaced and much of the country's infrastructure destroyed.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7561943.stm
A U.S. Court of Appeals determines that terms of an “Artistic License” Agreement designed to protect the dissemination and use of code can be enforced under copyright law, even though the code is given away free after the “Artistic License” Agreement is signed. This extends copyright protection to code even though the code is given away free on the internet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7565538.stm
French officials are investigating an Algerian official, Mohammed Ziane Hassani, in charge of protocol at Algeria's foreign ministry, for the 1987 assassination of Ali Mecili in his Parisian home. He was arrested Friday, August 15 in Marseille airport after arriving there from Algiers. He was carrying a diplomatic Algerian passport, but the French say it does not carry diplomatic immunity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7566667.stm
Fighting continues in Sri Lanka, where the Sri Lankan military claims that they captured a Tamil Tiger training camp. Thousands flee the area.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7566070.stm
The Ukraine says it will make its early warning missile systems available to Europe following the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Last week, the Ukrainians limited Russia’s freedom of movement in the Black Sea.
Good news for the internet--
AND we all know that Michael Phelps won 8 Gold Medals in these Olympic Games!
I'm certain everyone notices my sole reliance on the BBC-- what can I say? In my opinion, that news agency does an excellent job with world news.
Our media spends a great deal of time discussing the horse race and various crimes around our Country, while all over this world conflicts rage. Here is some news from today that you can use.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7554507.stm
Russian troops in Georgia advance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7553317.stm
Police fire on protesters in Indian-controlled Kashmir
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7554664.stm
Unamid helicopter fired on in Darfur. This is the first attack on a helicopter of Unamid, which is a joint peacekeeping force – UN and African Union – in Darfur. Unamid began operations in early 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7552224.stm
Zemmouri, Algeria police station hit by suicide bomb. Last week, another suicide bomb hit a police station in Tizi Ouzou, Algeria.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7553621.stm
Power-sharing talks resumed in Zimbabwe—Mugabe says confident deal will be reached.
The US, EU and UK have all said that 1 billion Dollars in aid to Zimbabwe will be withheld unless Mugabe relinquishes power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7554590.stm
King Abdullah of Jordan visits Iraq for the first time since the US invasion in 2003. King Abdullah is the first Arab head of state to visit since the US invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7552146.stm
130,000 people have fled their homes in the Philipines after fighting broke out again in S. Philippines between the army and Muslim rebels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7554476.stm
Turkish soldiers killed in bomb. No-one is claiming responsibility, but it might be the PKK. This is believed because the explosion occurred in an area of strife between the Turkish soldiers/police and the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party). The PKK wants a separate Kurdish state in Southern Turkey.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080810/ts_afp/oly2008xinjiangattacks
Bombing in Northwestern China town. Muslim separatists may be responsible.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSISL15267920080808
Pres. Musharraf of Pakistan faces impeachment—eyes are on Pakistan’s army.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080813ACQDJON200808130511DOWJONESDJONLINE000391.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Leading%20Lawmaker%20Backs%20Livni%20To%20Replace%20Olmert%20As%20PM
Israeli's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is stepping down from his position because of the corruption charges he faces. He may very well be replaced by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. She would be the first female Israeli Prime Minister since Golda Meir. Israeli's Kadima Party will hold its first ever primary on September 17th to determine who will be the next Prime Minister. (The current P.M. is a member of the Kadima Party and is Foreign Minister Livni).
The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. Our Constitution is both the oldest written Constitution in the world and the shortest. Our first national “Thanksgiving Day,” was created by President Washington and occurred on November 26, 1789. It was not about pilgrims; it was about “giving thanks” for the Constitution. Over 11,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress, but only 33 have gone to the states to be ratified, and 27 have received the necessary approval from the states to actually become amendments to the Constitution. http://constitutioncenter.org/
Much of the original U.S. Constitution is dedicated to Article I and Article I details what Congress does. Our Congress MAKES the laws. Our President EXECUTES the laws. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Our Judiciary INTERPRETS the laws.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
Article I also gives Congress the power (and duty) of oversight, which was used so efficiently by then Senator Truman during WWII to locate and stop war-profiteering. Truman called war-profiteering "treason" and exposed it-- and President Roosevelt THANKED HIM FOR IT.
President Roosevelt said: "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster."
Today, we have a President and most Republican members of Congress avidly AGAINST oversight over any significant war-profiteering investigations.
Nonetheless, when the Democrats took control of Congress, they began such hearings. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/warprofit.html
But, with very little cooperation from our Executive branch.
Our President does not believe in Article I, apparently and has thrown it out the window with the help of many rubber-stamping GOP Senators http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/kimberlyk/gGX7XJ
and many GOP Congressional Representatives. In fact, EVERY GOP member of Congress WALKED OUT rather than stand up for Congress' RIGHT to subpoena members of the White House staff to conduct oversight inquiries. Most of the GOP seems to think our Constitution is "partisan" and leans Democratic. This is NOT so. It was NOT so long ago that many conservatives believed Article I was critical to protecting our liberties, and yet, although conservatives like George Will may grumble about our current Imperial Presidency, they do not stand up in outrage. Why? Apparently, an Imperial Presidency can be tolerated by them so long as it is a GOP Presidency. I vehemently disagree -- Our Constitution APPLIES EQUALLY TO BOTH PARTIES.
Some Republicans have not surrendered entirely to this Imperial Presidency. Here are the thoughts of one such Republican (who worked for President Reagan).
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/072408Roberts.shtml
I could write endlessly about the necessity of Congressional oversight and the lack of such oversight by most of the GOP while they had control of Congress.
Again, here is a list of GOP Senators who have contributed to this lock-step, rubber-stamping nonsense which has created an Imperial Presidency against our Constitution. One of Congress' most important Constitutional duties is the duty of oversight -- and these Republican Senators did not perform that duty; indeed, they generally refused to do so as part of the "permanent campaign." http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/kimberlyk/gGX7XJ
AND EVERY GOP Congressional Representative walked out in protest instead of STANDING UP for the House's right to subpoena people in the White House and demand testimony as part of their necessary oversight role. Again, this was a refusal to perform oversight in order to gain partisan political points.
http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/house.contempt/index.html
If a President gets to determine (as White House spokeswoman Dana Perino and the GOP Congressional Reps. argued) when oversight is "partisan" and direct the Attorney General to ignore Congress' requests CONGRESS HAS NO POWER OF OVERSIGHT-- or at the very least Congress' power of oversight is limited by the whims of whoever the President might be. This is one dangerous precedent—and not one likely to please any in the GOP should a Democrat choose to exercise such an Imperial Presidency.
Here is another way to look at this -- you receive a subpoena, which you don't like, so you refuse to appear and claim that prosecutor is acting unfairly toward you (for whatever reason). If people could do that in response to duly served subpoenas, we would have NO law in this Country.
This alone is cause to send ALL of the GOP Congressional Representatives HOME! Our Congress is a co-equal branch of government as our Constitution is written; our Congress is NOT the lackey, or rubber-stamp of the President under our Constitution, yet many members of the GOP Congressional delegation behaved as though they were nothing more than rubber-stamps for a President who behaved like there are no Constitutional limits on his power -- there is even a theory for this abuse of power, it is called the "unitary theory of the executive."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/addington_unitary_government_w.php
Our President does not obey even laws that he signs, either. This has happened so many times now, I cannot list them all. Here are two examples. Congress passed and our President signed a law requiring that ALL costs be included in the budget. After that law was passed, our President sent a budget to Congress without the costs of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. Congress passed and our President signed a law banning torture, including waterboarding. After that law was passed, our President made clear that he believed waterboarding was still perfectly appropriate.
The President does NOT get to make laws—the Congress does. The President also does NOT get to interpret laws; that is the task of the Judiciary. Presidential signing statements, followed by our President refusing to enforce the law are unconstitutional, unless you believe that our President IS the law….. and if you believe that, we have neither a system of checks and balances, nor any protection from the tyrannical whims of whoever is in the Presidency.
This is the same GOP that complained for years that judges were “activists” and writing laws. This President has set himself up as legislator, executor and interpreter—is there anything more activist, or dangerous, than one man rule? Our ancestors certainly thought so; this danger is one of the reasons our Constitution was carefully crafted to control the power of the Presidency and one of the reasons we revolted against the King.
I have seen polls that show many Americans do not know that we have three branches of government, or what our Constitution requires. If these polls are accurate, our lack of knowledge about how our freedoms are protected helps create an environment for this kind of Presidential power grab. Please help me to ensure that Americans know how our Constitution protects us from the tyrannical whims of one man, or one woman rule.
Our form of government may not be the fastest to respond. Transferring executive power every 4 or 8 years may be chaotic and create instability. Nonetheless, there is no better form of government to protect the rights, freedoms and liberties of humanity.
In the words of Winston Churchill-- It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. For me, this is absolutely true.
Our forefathers and foremothers sacrificed and even died to let liberty reign in this Country. Please let’s save what they have given to us by preserving and protecting our Constitution AND ensuring we elect as our next President, a man who will obey his oath to uphold and protect our Constitution, Senator Barack Obama.
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is rated number on CBS News’ latest ranking of potential running mates for Sen. Barack Obama. (Hat tip to Hog House Blog!)
1 Kathleen Sebelius | BioThe buzz around the Kansas governor is only growing. In a recent local TV interview, Obama offered some strong praise for her, saying, “I love Kathleen Sebelius. I think she is as talented a public official as there is right now.” Sebelius wouldn’t confirm that she’s being vetted, but Congressional Quarterly points out she is no longer denying it either.Kansas’ neighbor Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, is #3 with a bullet.
I'm still quite miffed at Barack for all his 180 degree changes recently. Actually, I'm in a snit. I might work out of it. But I'm an unhappy Obamamaniac right now.
I'm not the only one. I've talked to other BHO supporters who are no longer "fired up, ready to go" as they were because of Barack's pandering to the Right. We'll vote for him but he has to get back on the "change" and "hope" track if he wants us to get off our butts and our wallets.
Barack, I'm just sayin'.
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
Barack Obama voted with the majority on the "compromise" FISA bill today.From Ars Technica:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) voted in favor of the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to the dismay of many of his own supporters. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) were among those who broke with their party's standard-bearer to vote against the bill.
A Democrat-led Congress hands George W. Bush a big victory in the dog days of his lame-duckery, and on a basic issue of Constitutional liberties, no less.
Originally posted at SD Watch: http://www.southdakotawatch.net
