Primary Challenge

There is just no reason to stay with President Obama as the Democratic candidate for the presidency now that it is evident that he is incapable of defeating the Republicans. This is not intended as a rant against Obama or a vehicle for venting frustration over the latest Republican victory, but rather what I believe to be a realistic problem.

Ask yourself this: If you were the coach of a professional baseball team playing the final game of the World Series and your scheduled starting pitcher had a record of not only never defeating the opposing team, but never having an effective performance against them, would you start that pitcher or take your chances with another who has a better record?

What if you and your neighbors have experienced the destructive results of pollution coming from a nearby factory? The surrounding neighborhoods have suffered as well and they have already taken legal action against the factory. The court found in favor of some of the groups and not for others even though their cases were identical. The only difference was that all of the groups that won were represented by one lawyer while all those who lost were represented by a different lawyer. It is just good common sense to avoid the lawyer with a demonstrated record of failure.

These are the choices we face in 2012 and we need to consider our choice carefully. The Republicans certainly will and they can be counted on to construct a ferocious attack strategy aimed at exploiting every weakness in Obama’s campaign, weaknesses the president and his administration have generously provided them with. Pointing out that Obama’s prospects of being reelected are unlikely is not an attack against the man, but a logical observation of the situation.

From the Republican point of view, Obama has done more to ensure the opposition Party’s return to the Oval office than any campaign strategy they could have employed. They will relentlessly attack Obama for his weakness in negotiating on the Debt Ceiling crisis and point to the fact that they were able to get everything they wanted while the Democrats got literally nothing! They will label him as a liar for not delivering on his campaign promises such as closing Guantanamo and bringing its prisoners to the US for trial. Although the Republicans won those battles as well, they will all the same brutalize Obama for having given in to them.

The Republicans can and will exploit Obama’s failures during his first term and they will most likely have success among the moderate Democrats and Independents. Many in the Democratic base that put Obama in office are regretting having campaigned for him and could demonstrate their dissatisfaction by staying away from the polls in November or not casting a vote for president. The only way the Republicans can lose in 2012 is if they shoot themselves in the foot by allowing a rift between themselves and their Tea Party nitwits.

Corporations and Employment

Yesterday, I read a diary posted by lanae of Dailykos regarding the loss of unemployment benefits brought about by Congressional Republicans who are blocking their extension. The diary is unique in that it highlights the devastation the GOP’s action is having on Republican voters as well as Democrats. The recession, or jobless recovery, (whatever) is beginning to affect traditional Republican voters also, but to hear them whine like they have accused Democrats of doing, though comical, is no less heart-breaking.

The diarist states that 200,000 people per week will lose benefits if this legislation doesn’t pass, one million per month until the elections in November. Perhaps this might be the impetus needed to bring about the realization by the Republican electorate that their elected leaders’ only concern is, and always has been, for the corporations and the extravagant wealth at their disposal. Let me quickly add that the Democrats in government are nearly as bad and attempting to surpass their GOP colleagues. The problem in Congress is not one that recognizes any Party distinction, but is an all encompassing disease.

Consider that while a huge number of Americans are out of work and running out of benefits that keep them from being homeless and going hungry, major corporations are posting the largest profits in their history. Worse, these businesses have publically acknowledged the advantage of the current situation from the business perspective, specifically the availability of cheap labor due to so many people out of work.

Corporations exist on another level from the rest of us and their motivation is pure gluttony, the desire for all they do not presently have. Individual, civil and human rights mean nothing to them; in fact they are impediments to corporate goals. Those at the top of the corporate ladder, or nearing it, think of themselves as royalty and above the work-a-day world of the rabble they consider less than human. Remember when there was a Personnel Department instead of “human resources”? Is there any better indication of how corporations consider those they employ than to devote a department to the control of human resources as they would for, natural resources, or mined resources, or agricultural resources.

Without legally enforced regulations, corporations would still be employing child labor, unrestricted work hours, horrific working conditions, no minimum wage, harmful and dangerous work environments, even slavery. All of these practices and more were used by corporations until they were forced to stop. Unions led the fight against unsafe working conditions and excessive demands by employers which jeopardized the health, safety and lives of workers.

We as citizens, tax payers, consumers, even employees, have complained of the inequity of corporations avoiding payment of US taxes by maintaining an off-shore PO box, but the laws allowing this were passed by Congress, the people we elected to represent us. And if many major businesses do not contribute to the tax base then the citizenry has to make up the difference in revenue for the government to keep running. Tax money is used to build new, and repair old roads, but businesses use the roads freely and with greater wear and tear due to the size of their vehicle fleet and non-stop (24/7) operation. Government oversees domestic and international traffic at airports, railroads and ship harbors, but if corporations aren’t paying taxes we are paying for the commerce traffic never used by individuals. Yet, if corporations find themselves in financial jeopardy for any reason they run to the government for a bail-out at the tax-payers’ expense. Corporations have been able to socialize the cost of doing business while privatizing the profits.

Who Died and Made Him Emperor?

President Obama has elevated himself to Emperor of the United States with all the associated despotic powers. As president he did not possess the power, under any circumstances, to order the assassination of an American citizen, but as Emperor he can order one of the federal law enforcement agencies to murder that citizen in cold blood without having to justify his actions.

• If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. - Alexander Hamilton

The anarchic climate Obama is attempting to establish is more egregious than the abuses of the Constitution George W. Bush perpetrated during his term (Although W ordered the creation of a hit list, he never acted on it). Emperor Obama has ordered the CIA to assassinate an American citizen without due process.

• 
  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. - Justice Louis D. Brandeis

The citizen in question is an American born Islamic cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki and he is by no means an upstanding model of American patriotism. He has advocated attacks against American military targets and has been a vocal adversary of this country’s policies concerning the Middle East. Obama has ordered his assassination because he believes that this individual has shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, but he offers no proof. The fifth amendment of the United States Constitution stands in stark contrast to Obama’s presumed authority:

• 
  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  

However, Obama claims the right to commit murder under authority granted by Congress with the passage of AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001. A cursory assessment of this authorization raises more questions than it answers. Only Congress can declare war, which it has not done since World War II, but the president does not require a declaration of war to immediately respond to any acts of aggression he feels endangers this country or its citizens. So what purpose was served by passing AUMF when it was always within the authority of the president to respond with immediate military force?

• Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. - Justice Charles Evans Hughes

Congress does not have the courage necessary to declare war and they have gone to great lengths to avoid their Constitutional duty in that regard. Yet, they have attempted to conduct business as though the country were actually engaged in a declared war which must include the authorities granted to the president as Commander in Chief. This is because the president is officially the Commander in Chief only as stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. If not at war, the president has other civilians in charge of the military as required by the Constitution.

As his predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama is endangering the lives of our military to prolong an undeclared war just to protect his assumed authority he tells us he is granted because of that war. It is as much of a sham now as it was under the criminal administration of Cheney and Bush, and it is equally criminal. If Obama succeeds in having an American citizen assassinated without due process, whether war has been declared or not, he will have committed the federal crime of commissioning murder. And if he is allowed to get away with murder because the target happens to be objectionable, anti-American, and Islamic, then what is to prevent him from ordering the assassination of other, not quite so objectionable citizens? And if he will not afford the accused due process of the law this time, nor present conclusive and compelling evidence of this person’s guilt, what will stop him from ordering assassinations of any of us based merely on his say?

Healthcare Reform

President Obama’s healthcare reform will fall far short of the expectations of both Republicans and Democrats. Although it now appears that some form of a healthcare bill will be passed by Congress it is but a pale hue of the image envisioned by true reform.

Supporters of HCR have had little to cheer about since this administration took office and Congressional Centrists, Blue Dogs, and “Values” members have diminished spirits even further. The President’s comment in the late summer of 2009 began to reveal his divergence from Liberals and Progressives regarding healthcare reform. As he then stated in his speech, "To my Progressive friends, healthcare reform has always been about ending insurance abuses and making coverage affordable to everyone".

That statement perfectly demonstrated a broad misunderstanding of the desired goals of healthcare reform held by the majority of Americans and an intentional misreading of the desired outcome anticipated by Progressives. The answer most Americans wanted to hear was that reform “has always been about making and keeping people healthy”! Every other advanced country on Earth mandates that healthcare providers must first demonstrate that the care they provide is working by making their patients healthier rather than merely lining the pockets of the drug and healthcare industries. The president’s "Progressive friends" want universal healthcare for all citizens under a single payer system which is the only way costs can ever be controlled. They want healthcare providers to be rewarded or penalized for actual results their patients experienced from their care and not for the profits they generate for healthcare profiteers.

Unlike his predecessor, intelligence is not this president’s short suit, so he is likely not suffering from a misunderstanding of Progressives. Instead, he is enabling a calculated agenda to prevent oversight of the healthcare industry just as he has stifled the oversight duties of Congress to prevent any serious investigation of the previous administration. President Obama, rather than exemplifying the change on which he campaigned, has instead joined the ranks of undignified Oval Office occupants that not only consider themselves above the law, but execute the powers of the office to guarantee their exclusion from it.

The president also stated he did not believe a single payer system was workable in our country. Having already acknowledged his prominent intellect, it is impossible to avoid recognizing this statement as anything except purposely misleading, factually unsupported, disingenuous, deceitful, dishonest, a lie. Take your pick. Single payer is already working well in other countries and is frightfully successful.

Why is it paramount for the government of this country to prevent its citizens from having universal healthcare? Could it have something to do with the fact that the global healthcare industry (hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, medical equipment manufacturers, medical network suppliers, etc.) has few significant countries remaining that have not rejected their predatory method of providing healthcare and of that few, America is the richest, business friendly government, with an extremely disorganized citizenry. Allowing Americans to have single payer universal healthcare would deplete a major amount of the revenue generated by the industry who continue to achieve astronomical profits. Because the other countries with universal healthcare regulate costs and ensure performance, they are not contributing to the bottom line of the industry in a significant way, it is up to Americans to fill the void and over pay for care that is no where near as good as in those other countries.

In effect, America’s failure to move to single payer universal healthcare is enabling the continued excesses of the healthcare and insurance industries and contributing to the ability of other nations to enjoy the lower cost and better results of their own healthcare systems.

We the Corporate People

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC handed a victory over to corporations that they have been pursuing for over a century. In a 5-4 decision the court found that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence national, state and local elections. Of course, unions can only generate revenue from the collection of dues from its members while corporations exist solely to generate revenue and profit.

The decision was only possible due to an earlier decision, by the same body, that money is a form of free speech, further disadvantaging the poor. However, the damage of this latest decision goes far deeper than is visible on the surface. With their newly granted power, corporations have the ability the hold the power forever and to crush anyone that attempts to limit or reverse it by purchasing the election of friendly candidates.

Worse is the fact that most corporations have become global in their makeup and often do business and even partner with countries that do not have this country's best interest at heart. In fact, due to the ability of international corporations to shield their identities when doing business globally it is possible for enemies of our country to be able to influence our elections because of the court's decision.

More disappointing regarding the decision is those who are in agreement with it. I was shocked to hear Jonathan Turley, Law professor at George Washington University, agreed with the court's decision as well as Glenn Greenwald who defended the decision in his blog at Salon.com. Finally, the ACLU will not take a position in opposition to the Supreme Court's attack on US elections.

I have strong feelings about this issue and believe it must be addressed in the strongest terms. Primarily, I believe the foundation of the court's decision is their recognition of corporations as people. Corporations had attempted for years to persuade the Supreme Court to recognize them as a person and extend to them the rights enumerated under the 14th amendment which came into existence after the Civil War to address the newly freed slave population. At the time one of the largest corporations was the railroad which was using its money and power to influence elected officials and push for beneficial legislation in Congress. However, they had been unsuccessful in convincing the Justices, so the railroad brought a steady stream of cases to the Supreme Court claiming the rights of a person under the Constitution in hopes of wearing them down.

From Wikipedia:

The 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, though it dealt with taxation of railroad properties, became most notable for the obiter
dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Obiter Dicta are the head notes preceding every case, a
short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as
outlining the main facts and arguments. The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis,
wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to
these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion
itself.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.

C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison C. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue

In answer to the question posed above, also from Wikipedia:

John Chandler Bancroft Davis (December 22, 1822 – December 27, 1907), commonly known as Bancroft Davis, was an American lawyer, judge, diplomat, and president of Newburgh and New York Railway Company!

Because of the Santa Clara case corporations have argued numerous cases before the court claiming Davis' head note as legal precedent and have been mostly successful in gaining greater recognition as a person with Constitutional protections. But, until Chief Justice Roberts, the high court refused to overturn 125 years of legislation limiting a corporation's ability to unfairly influence elections with their vast financial resources.

In Glenn Greenwalds comment section to his post about the Supreme Court’s decision, he asked one commenter the following questions:

So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:

1. Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

2. Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?

3. How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?

The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

4. Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?

5. Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?

Thought provoking as they seem each question assumes a premise which may be faulty. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the existence of corporations was nearly non-existent. The founders were not concerned with granting rights to anyone except the citizens of this brand new nation and they certainly did not want to open this newly formed government to the corrupting influence of British wealth concentrated in businesses like the East India Company. You'll remember this company from one of their many products they were forcing the colonies to buy exclusively from them and enforced by the King. The product was tea and the result of that action was the impromptu flavoring of Boston Harbor. In fact, the founders warned of the danger of allowing the concentration of powers in large companies because of the abuses they witnessed at the hands of companies like the East India Company and others.

Since the decision the President and Congress have discussed how they can limit the damage of the Supreme Court's irresponsible action, but they are only attempting to alleviate the harm in very peripheral ways. Until and unless they pass legislation specifically recognizing that a corporation is NOT a person and does not have the same rights as citizens the relentless assault on democracy by the excessively privileged corporate elite will not cease.

Currently, the Republicans and their big business lobbyists are fighting to block the creation of a department of consumer protection while corporations themselves have a position in the president's inner circle at a cabinet level position known as the department of Commerce. Why is that?

The Constitution opens with the sentence "We the People", not “We the Corporation” and establishes the laws and liberties our new democracy was founded upon. That’s why “We the People” need a department of consumer protection and we do not need a department of commerce. In fact, “We the People” should insist on a separation of commerce and state the same way religion is (or used to be) banned from the working of government.

No, I’m sorry Mr. President, but thanks for playing

Carl, what do we have for a parting gift for President Obama?

Well Peter, President Obama needed to answer two of three questions correctly, but only got one.

Will there be a Public Option? The Public Option was included albeit shrouded in distracting verbiage about exchanges and other programs and described as merely one of many choices available to consumers of healthcare. He doubled down on requirements to be placed on insurance companies by demanding their practice of denying coverage for existing conditions be criminalized. He got that one right, though just barely.

What deal did the White House make with Big Pharma? The deal the President made with the Pharmaceutical Bigwigs was not even mentioned in his speech and therefore left many Americans asking for the details and why the White House felt it had to be kept secret. No credit for this answer.

What is Healthcare Reform all about? President Obama’s answer to the final question demonstrated his misreading of the healthcare debate and its importance to the Party that put him in power.

As he stated in his speech, "To my Progressive friends, healthcare reform has always been about ending insurance abuses and making coverage affordable to everyone".

This merely trades one sin for another. Insurance companies will temporarily avoid major abuses to get millions of additional policy holders who will be forced to purchase coverage. The answer most Americans wanted to hear is that reform has always been about making and keeping people healthy! Every other advanced country on Earth mandates that healthcare providers must first demonstrate that the care they provide is working by making their patients healthier rather than merely lining the pockets of the drug and healthcare industries. Obama’s "Progressive friends" want universal healthcare for all citizens under a single payer system which is the only way costs can ever be controlled. They want healthcare providers to be rewarded or penalized for actual results their patients experienced from their care and not for the profits they generate for healthcare profiteers. But, in lieu of single payer, they were willing to go with a ROBUST Public Option and this is not it

So as a parting gift, the President will receive Primary challenges to be the Party’s candidate for President in the 2012 election. He will also receive Little to No cooperation from the Liberals he threw under the bus. He will get more challenges from the Left to replace Congressional moderates and corporate enablers that claim to be "business friendly" when they are in fact "anti consumer"

It shouldn’t be too surprising that a graduate of the university that spawned the likes of Milton Friedman would not be able to see any point of view except that offered through the prism of corporate doctrine and disaster capitalism. What is a surprise is that Progressives have not yet learned this. That they still hold out hope that corporatists like Obama will ever do anything that doesn’t benefit profit over all.

Where's the Public Option?

The failure of the Obama administration to include the public option in the healthcare reform bill is simply not acceptable. It’s unbelievable that President Obama is prepared to waste all this time and political capital to wind up with a bill that fails to satisfy the most basic needs for reform and will ultimately result in his being a one term presidency. No subsequent action will mitigate having failed the American people on the healthcare issue.

Of course, the president has had the option to push this legislation through by standing by his own words on the campaign trail and by not wasting precious time seeking bipartisanship that was never going to be. Instead, he and other Democrats have capitulated on issue after issue because it has never been their intent to upset the insurance, hospital and pharmaceutical industries by passing meaningful reform. And if that is the end result of the fiasco we have been witnessing since January then those of us who worked so hard to put this administration into power must be just as prepared to replace it.

Listening to the crap being passed off as analysis of the surrender of the public option is enough to sicken the heartiest of souls. An endless hoard of talking heads and pundits, supposedly from both ends of the political spectrum, chatter on about how Democrats would be crazy to not pass a bill just because the public option is being dropped. How Liberals need to see this as a success because something is being done to address healthcare. These are words of appeasement by those who never had the stomach for the fight and who don't have to worry about healthcare.

Just what is the president thinking? Each day more psychopathic assholes show up at his town hall meetings packing heat and spewing hatred, any one of them capable of doing physical harm to the him or his family. Does he believe that whimpiness and capitulation on his part elevates their opinion of him? Do the Democrats in Congress think this? Of course not.

What we are witnessing is a tightrope act being performed by President Obama, his cabinet and Democratic members of Congress to make it appear that they are conscientiously working on our behalf for healthcare reform while making sure not to piss off the lobbyists and healthcare executives that fill their coffers with campaign contributions and other bennies. At the same time we are seeing the Republicans teeing off on Democrats with lies, mis-information, orchestrated protests and as much noise and misdirection as they can generate. The whole time the Republicans are secure in the knowledge that the lobbyists and healthcare executives would prefer them back in power because they are more completely owned and subject to their control.

What would be refreshing is for President Obama to demonstrate his depth of understanding of the Constitution by conducting his actions and those of his administration in accordance with that document. It would be exceptional to see the re-emergence of Constitutional government be the legacy of the first African American president. It would be historic for this president to lead this country back from the reactionary abyss by standing against the forces that are doing everything in their power to ensure his failure. It would be awe inspiring to have a president who understands all of this and chooses not to concede to the corporate thugs seeking absolute power, but opts to steer his ship of state away from the radicalism and hate driven stupidity coming from the Right. The country is in as bad of a state now as it was when FDR stood against the same cabal of power hungry tyrants and put the country back on the path of justice, morality and constitutionality. If ever there was a time for a great leader to emerge, this is it, but as each day goes by and each new capitulation takes place, as each new promise of change is rescinded, as each pledge of correcting the errors of the past administration is ignored, the American people are realizing that we have seen this movie before and we didn't like it any better the first time.

It is now time to prepare contingencies for the inevitable collapse of the Democrats to the pressures of the healthcare industry lobbyists. The idea has been put forward to push for a referendum that would allow individual voters to determine whether members of Congress should enjoy healthcare and retirement benefits when they will not support similar benefits for the people paying for theirs. This approach holds much promise because it would appeal to the Conservative haters of big government and taxes.

A second idea is to Outsource our healthcare requirements to countries that offer better care to their citizens at a much better price. OK, at first glance this may seem implausible, but consider how major corporations got away with it when they shifted American manufacturing jobs to under-developed nations to avoid labor costs and union protections. Certainly, we have as good of a reason for doing so and I’m sure when it was first conceived in some corporate board room many thought it to be too radical and un-American to succeed. Yet, they did succeed and our country’s economy has suffered greatly as a result.

So, why not open negotiations with Canada, England, France, the Nordic countries and other nations with greater respect for the citizens than our Congress has for us? Why not issue Requests For Proposals (RFP) to these nations and get cost estimates for them to integrate interested American citizens into their healthcare system by diverting some of our taxes to whichever country makes the best offer, then have them recruit medical professionals and facilities within our borders to comply with their policies.

Many will say this is not feasible and too many obstacles threaten to kill the idea. I say that we should know by now that Everything is negotiable just like the integrity of our elected officials

Enough is Enough

Recent revelations including the Pentagon’s use of retired military officers as spokesmen for the war that they personally profited from, the Congressional report that the administration absolutely lied to the American people and to Congress to push us into war with Iraq, the new book by former Press Secretary Scott McClellen which documents the fact that Bush himself had a hand in the outing of a covert agent of the CIA and now the report “Broken Laws, Broken Lives” on medical evidence of torture by the US conclusively proving that the United States government used torture on detainees, have fused to form an unassailable case for impeaching both Bush and Cheney. The only thing preventing impeachment and continuing to protect the President and Vice President is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

There are others in Congress who were elected by Democratic majorities in their home states who now represent the Republican agenda through the miracle of corporate munificence. These Blue Dog “Democrats” are so in name only and are ruinous to the Progressive core of our Party, but this treacherous faction of Democrats are merely cheerleaders for the Speaker and her refusal to do her job. Pelosi alone holds the key to success or failure for any legislation regarding impeachment and she has long ago stated that the option was off the table. By itself that statement should be grounds for her removal from office, if only we had that option, but together with her knowledge and approval of Bush’s torture program it makes her an accomplice to his crime.

The citizens of this country can no longer wait for action by its elected officials and have begun to initiate necessary actions on their own. The Massachusetts School of Law is planning the necessary steps to pursue the guilty members of the Bush administration for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Individual across the nation have taken steps to force local governments to acknowledge Bush and Cheney as criminals and even seek to arrest them if found within their jurisdiction. Internationally, Bush administration officials, CIA officers and others connected to this administration past and present, are being sought to answer for crimes conducted against their citizens and against humanity.

It is no longer permissible for Speaker Pelosi to run interference for Bush and company without herself being held criminally complicit. She has no legal foundation for not beginning the process of impeachment by sponsoring and prioritizing Rep. Kucinich’s articles of impeachment. It is similarly imperative that the United States government get out in front on the prosecution of this administration that is sure to take the spot light on the world stage once Bush leaves office and the US rejoins the International Criminal Court Treaty.

Uprising

An uprising is exactly what this country needs if this war is ever to end. David Sirota's new book does a great job in outlining what an uprising is, how it applies in our current situation and the mentality and attitude required of the participants. Specifically, the unapologetic demands required by the grass roots movement to convince incumbents of the need for their compliance with the citizen majority instead of their usual capitulation to the corporate special interests that rule their worlds.

Here in Connecticut there is a particular sensitivity and lingering blemish on the souls of Democratic voters who have been bitterly disappointed by the junior Senator, Joe Lieberman. His deception of his loyal supporters, alliance with Karl Rove and other extremists on the Right, embrace of Republican cross-over voters, and total relinquishment of his integrity in support of George Bush's Iraq war, have culminated in a tangible hatred of the once trusted official. Lieberman exudes indifference towards his (former) supporters while displaying an attitude of incontestable rectitude about his worldview which includes continued and continuing war in the Middle East. Couple this with his shameless and transparent support and constant companionship to the only surviving war advocate candidate and Connecticut voters have every right to distrust and despise the Senator.

In spite of this, Senator Lieberman Chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees at the pleasure of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Chairmanship posts are highly regarded positions normally awarded to respected Party members with seniority status. Of course, Lieberman renounced his Party membership when the Connecticut Democratic Party elected Ned Lamont in the Primaries in 2006, so Lieberman ran on the CFL (Connecticut For Lieberman) Party ticket and lost his seniority and position within the Democratic Party. Why has Harry Reid passed over loyal current Party members to award the Committee Chairmanship to a defector?

As much as we have focused attention on repugnant Republicans and their scandalous actions in this administration, as well as the last, we need to also recognize those Democrats who have shamed themselves and our Party and make them uncomfortably aware of our displeasure. This includes the votes by Connecticut Representatives to condemn MoveOn.org for expressing a Constitutionally protected opinion, which was both fair and correct, regarding the report by General Petraeus to Congress. Most of these individuals accepted campaign donations of thousands of dollars and other support from MoveOn, yet they voted to condemn a statement questioning the accuracy of the report to Congress by an unapologetic partisan of the administration which, frankly, paled in comparison to much of the rhetoric heard from the Republicans both in venom and dishonesty. Where is the apology due to MoveOn by Murphy, DeLauro, Larson and Courtney?

If an Uprising is at hand, let's get our own house in order before we take on the world.

Lieberman's Dilemma

As disappointing as John McCain’s behavior seems to be we can at least take heart in the knowledge that his most outspoken supporter, the moral and ethical Joseph Lieberman, will no longer be promoting his candidacy. Joe’s strong moral fiber and sense of justice will obviously prevent him from allowing the elevation to the highest office a man whose “infidelity must be viewed as immoral, disgraceful and damaging to the country”. At least that is how Lieberman described the conduct of one William Jefferson Clinton in exactly the same situation McCain now finds himself, and Clinton was a member of his own Party at the time.

With such unshakable principles and solid moral values it is unimaginable that our once Democratic Senator will possibly continue to support his new friend, John McCain. His willingness to break ranks with his own Party over Clinton’s sexual exploits demonstrates Lieberman’s integrity, wholesomeness and advanced sense of decency that he applies to himself and others.

So, if Joe is morally prevented from supporting McCain, who will he throw his support to that can meet his high ethical standards? Don’t forget, Joe has a war to win and defense contracts to fulfill and the entire Middle East to conquer, but he must accomplish this while only supporting sexually moral individuals. Who can he find that will order more American forces to their deaths and the continued carnage and murder of innocent Iraqis while remaining faithful to their spouse? Who, in any political Party shares Joe’s pious view that unceasing butchery, slaughter, bloodshed and atrocities pale in comparison to sexual infidelity?

Somewhere out in the political landscape there must exist a paragon of Old Testament virtues with whom Joe can enter into a sacred covenant of warfare and faithfulness. Party affiliation is not an impediment for Lieberman. He proved that when he defied his own Party in the 06 mid-term elections, accepting Karl Rove’s assistance that got him re-elected by Connecticut Republicans (and some dim-witted Democrats). The only matter of any importance to Lieberman is the perpetuation of armed conflicts in the Middle East relentlessly prosecuted by a Commander in Chief that can be relied upon to keep his dick in his trousers when not with his wife.

Who won the Debate, the Candidates or the Media?

Last night’s debate began by focusing on the dust up between Clinton and Obama, leaving Edwards on the sidelines where the Main Stream Media has wanted him throughout this campaign. His only participation in that early discussion was framed by NBC so that viewers would see him as the “establishment white male” against the new and progressive ethnic and female candidates.

As for the racial controversy spurred on by both Clinton and Obama staffers, thankfully they seem to have checked the rhetoric and focused on issues instead of each other.

Edwards, for his part, sincerely praised the Democratic Party for being the Party of diversity and said he was proud to be in a Party that has offered an African American and a female as serious presidential candidates. He did not express any disappointment or resentment for being in what some consider a disadvantaged position, rather he displayed gratitude for the opportunity to openly discuss his views for people to compare with the other candidates.

The most important issue that came out of last night’s debate for me was the evidence of the media’s usurpation of the electoral process. The day of the debate saw one of the originally invited participants uninvited followed by a court battle that resulted in a ruling that NBC must include Congressman Kucinich or the court would block the debate. The judgment was appealed and since no appellate decision was made by the time of the debate NBC had effectively overturned the decision of the first court and inflicted their judgment of which candidates are viable on the American public.

The debate was hosted by NBC and moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Williams has said he feels it is his duty to listen daily to Rush Limbaugh, one of the most egregious of the Right wing broadcasters. Russert’s show, Meet the Press, was identified by Vice President Dick Cheney’s press secretary as the one place they go to when Cheney needs to go on air and they can “control the message”. Russert has also publicly stated that he considers all conversations with politicians “off the record” unless agreed to in advance, which is the antithesis of good journalism.

The networks and cable news channels all want to host their own debate and the candidates have cooperated with the exception of the Democrats refusing to debate on the Fox News Channel because they are viewed as completely partisan and all but an official outlet of the White House. By hosting the debates the media channels have been enabled to frame the issues to their own perception which has greatly favored Republicans.

Finally, the campaign season itself is much longer than it has been in the past and the direct beneficiaries are not candidates or the public, but the media who has gained far greater influence, even control over the process. As a result of that influence the majority of Americans, who had been prepared to remove Bush and the Republican Party from office and give the Democrats an opportunity, are being subjected to more debates and more analysis which allows the media to structure the arguments and then interpret for the viewers what was said. This has had the effect of trying to legitimize Republican chances in the election and artificially improve their odds against the Democratic candidate.

The Business Of Politics

Some of the most egregious corporate mergers, those most damaging to consumers, were perpetrated under the Clinton Administration. NAFTA was a Clinton creation and has been the most successful unemployment act in America beside the Great Depression. I mention this not to attack Bill Clinton, but to demonstrate where Hilary’s campaign war chest comes from and the vested interests corporations have in her election to the presidency. As Bill famously pointed out, when you elect him you get Hilary as well, a two for one package. It would be difficult for anyone to deny her intimate involvement in her husband’s administration, especially since she is now campaigning on her experience gained form that period.

Of course, there are myriad examples of similar and even more flagrant acts of graft within the Republican Party. I am not defending that or attempting to mitigate Republican misconduct by comparing them to the Clintons. In fact it is the opposite that should be acknowledged, evident similarities that virtually eliminate perceived differences. This lack of distinction was perfectly articulated by John Edwards when he asked during the last debate “What is the difference of replacing a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats”.

Within that question is an elemental truth which most politicians avoid, evade, ignore or deny. That truth is the extent to which corporations are involved in our political system. To varying degrees we have all acknowledged at least the presence, if not the effect of corporations in politics. And that presence has different effects on each of us often depending on our personal circumstances, in particular our employment status and our dependence on corporations for our livelihoods. As it is true for each of us it is also true for those campaigning for the highest elected office in the nation. For Presidential candidates, who by the very act of running for the office demonstrate advanced levels of personal motivation, competitiveness and self importance, the dependency is on the advantage of an influential corporate sponsorship. It is this dependency at all levels that makes it difficult to achieve a consensus among the electorate to act against corporate monopolization of the political process and its pro-business / anti-consumer impact upon government.

Our elected officials have demonstrated an unwillingness to relinquish the corporate teat they have suckled at for so long and corporations are going to ever greater lengths to ensure their continued dependency. So how, you ask, can we correct a problem that has so infiltrated all levels of government and has so much money and influence behind it? The answer is as simple as accomplishing it will be difficult. The answer is that we, you and I, are the government. Corporations have not corrupted the government, they have corrupted the people we entrusted to run it. To rectify this we must elect new people to replace the corrupt leaders. This is the primary weapon at our disposal but, it is a powerful one because we are the only ones that can elect a person to office. Corporations have no vote and therefore can not elect anyone.

To engage in this type of struggle we must demand honest representation by the people we elect and establish our determination by getting rid of them if they fail us. We have not shown our mettle when it comes to this in the past and because of that many elected officials blatantly represent their own interests over ours. Unless and until we demonstrate our resolve by throwing them out of office for such transgressions, they will continue to smugly do as they please while offering mere lip service to our concerns.

A contemporary example is the actions of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She is attempting to defeat the ability of the American citizenry to expel elected officials which enables us to influence government and have a voice in how the business of government is conducted. It is the very fundamentals of Democracy that empowers individual citizens to act in the best interest of our nation when those within the government do not. Nonetheless, it is this Constitutional principal that has been denied to all Americans by Nancy Pelosi’s selfish determination to shield the Bush administration from any repercussions for their corrupt governance. She has steadfastly opposed any suggestion from members of her Party to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their transgressions.

Accordingly, she should be vilified for attempting to deny our rights. We should work to remove her from office in the most expedient fashion, first as Speaker, then from the House of Representatives entirely. She should be the object of our scorn and revulsion, the recipient of our most loathsome commentary, the icon of our collective distrust, and the effigy of our disrespect.

Pelosi and Congress - One Year On

Over a year has past since Americans went to the polls to unseat Republicans and replace them with Democrats who had promised to change things in Washington, D.C. In that year’s time, the electorate that gave Congress the mandate it needed to take action against the Bush administration has seen absolutely nothing accomplished. In fact, Republican initiatives have moved forward at a greater pace than when they were in the majority.

If this seems implausible just recall that the person elected to the position of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi stated absolutely that impeachment was off the table as part of the Democratic agenda. We should have realized at that time that the newly elected Democratic majority had no intention whatever of interfering with the Republicans.

The stated reasons for not pursuing impeachment all have to do with focusing on correcting Bush administration issues such as the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal wire tapping, etc. none of which have been corrected by Congress.

One must ask, what are the accomplishments of the 110th Congress?

Have they stopped or even slowed the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi innocents?
Have they attempted to restore our suspended democracy by closing Gitmo & CIA prisons?
Have they revoked the USA Patriot Act?
Have they restored the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Have they held to account those who revealed the identity a covert CIA agent?
Have they prevented the corruption of government by blocking detrimental nominations?
Have they provided universal healthcare for all citizens like all other major countries have?
Have they halted the illegal No-Bid contracts to profiteers in Iraq?
Have they de-funded the war?
Have they stood strong against the administration’s rush to war with Iran?
Have they mandated stipulations for the money they approved for Iraq?
Have they forced the administration to follow the law?
Have they even addressed Bush’s illegal “signing statements”?
Have they prevented Bush from further destabilizing the Dollar?
Have they improved the world’s confidence in the US economy?
Have they brought the price of oil back to a reasonable and affordable level?
Have they done anything to benefit anyone except the corporations that fund their campaigns?
Have they disciplined or in any way held accountable those Democrats who continually enable the Bush administration as Feinstein and Schumer did by voting for Mukasey and the Dirty Dozen Democrats that voted to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY suspend Habeas Corpus?

Now we learn that Scott McClellan, former Bush Press Secretary, is releasing a book in which he confirms what we have all known since the beginning. He reveals that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Card and Rove all knew about the outing of CIA operative Vallerie Plame Wilson and, in fact were involved in it. McClellan claims not to have known that he was lying for these individuals and thus was innocent of any wrong-doing himself. However, his accusations put the very top tier people of our government on the wrong side of the law.

The disclosure of this information compels Congress, as the primary mission of their sworn Constitutional obligations, to hold accountable anyone found to have had involvement in this act of treason. In doing so, it conflicts directly with Speaker Pelosi’s determination to shield the Bush administration through her commitment to keep impeachment “off the table”.

I have been critical of Pelosi in the past while allowing that her actions were most likely to avoid the appearance of mounting a coup against the President and Vice President. Such an act could result in her ascendance to the Oval office and would certainly be seen by Republicans as an illegal end run around the Constitution.

McClellan’s accusations force the impeachment issue back onto the table regardless of any previous commitments. His tell-all tome alone is not the silver bullet that will bring down this administration. We have had a number of those, but no bullet, silver or otherwise, can have any effect if no one has the balls to pull the trigger! And that sums up the problem we see in Congress today.

It would be unfortunate for the nation and especially for the women of the nation if our first female Speaker of the House is seen as a failure. Her incompetence would make it harder for women to advance to and above her level in the future because the opposition will surely target her ineffectiveness and complacency as inherent female attributes to be avoided and she herself as a cause celebre of failure. However, it would be even more devastating if her lack of accomplishment is the result of complicity. As much as you may hope this isn’t the case it must be considered because of the self-serving defections from the Party Platform by the likes of Diane Feinstein, whose Defense Contractor husband profits by her anti-democratic votes in the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC, Chuck Schumer, administrative enabler and face time whore for Fox News, and other Blue Dog Democrats who are nothing less than Republican plants within the Democratic Party.

Both of these scenarios can be put to rest through positive action and patriotic mettle on the part of the Speaker and Congressional Democrats. Neither has been in evidence since the 06 elections and many are beginning to believe this group of Democrats is not capable of either. For Pelosi to salvage any credibility and prevent here tenure as Speaker from symbolizing the greatest Republican accomplishment of our generation she has to get serious about doing her job. That job is her sworn protection of the Constitution of this country. She needs to recognize and acknowledge the plethora of crimes committed over the past 7 years, then take appropriate actions to stop them and deal with the criminals.

Dodd's Stand

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the American public, POWs, and the world by the Bush administration. They both had adequate information about crimes that had taken place when they were elected to their positions, but chose to do nothing about them. With each additional revelation of torture, spying, etc. they become more culpable for their inaction.

Reid and Pelosi accuse Bush of incompetence nearly every day, but it is they who are incompetent for allowing Bush and his criminal administration to continue their assault on the American Constitution. It is they who have avoided bringing articles of impeachment against this President by claiming that doing so would distract Congress from the need to correct the problems brought about by Bush and the previous Republican majority. This colossally dim-witted strategy is akin to rebuilding a house that is still on fire. Without removing the cause of the problem any corrective actions are destined to be wasted.

The act of introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney would have enormous positive effects. Bush would have to defend himself at every appearance and consider the impact his future actions might have on his defense. Congress, or at least the remaining Democrats who still believe their job is protecting the Constitution, would find it easier to discuss the crimes this administration has carried out. Certainly, the Bush toadies at Fox noise can be counted on to cloud the issue and defend the President, but impeachment will attract the attention of the actual news media.

Impeaching this President and his Vice President is a no brainer. Bush has already admitted to illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens without a warrant. This is a CRIME! He can and should be impeached for committing a crime when he was aware that it was a crime and ordered it to be done regardless. Instead, Pelosi and Reid are entertaining the idea of allowing legislation to be introduce that would retroactively exonerate not only the President but the Telecommunication corporations that willingly participated and acquired lucrative government contracts for doing so.

Senator Chris Dodd has taken a stand against this treasonous act by his fellow members in Congress. Dodd will filibuster to prevent this legislative turd from seeing the light of day. His demonstration of true leadership has caused the rest of the Democratic field of Presidential contenders to make their positions known instead of issuing non-committal statements meant solely to avoid hurting their chances of gaining the nomination.

Moreover, Dodd’s action demonstrates his awareness of voter’s expectation of candidates in today’s political arena. For years voters have received politically expedient answers and sound bite substance. Senator Dodd is raising the bar by boldly standing against the administration’s attempt to sanction criminal activity, both their own and that of the Telecommunication industry. This is the type of purposeful action voters need to see after years of Bush lies and denials as well as Democratic threats and accusations that never amount to anything.

Senator Dodd deserves our support and gratitude for his courageous stand against Bush, the NSA, the Telecoms and much of Congress.

How many Republicans appear on Air America?

In an article at the Huffington Post, John Ridley chastises Democrats for being afraid of appearing on the Fox News Channel. In doing so, Ridley joins Tim Russert who recently appeared on Fox News to question how the Democrats can face al Qaida if they won’t show up for a debate on Fox. Either they do not recognize the strategy Democrats are employing against legitimizing Fox News by refusing to appear, or they are attempting to undermine that strategy.

Many Democrats already realize that their appearance on Fox News will always work to their detriment, but many have yet to learn. Although they are few, there are Progressive and Liberal programs such as Democracy Now, the Jones Network and Air America. The appearances of Republicans on these programs are rare to non-existent, but is Ridley accusing them of being afraid to show up? No.

Ridley’s article also reveals him to be completely enamored of the Conservative political jargon which is virtually compulsory among Republicans when reciting their talking points to the press. He employs the usual “Left leaning”, “Far Left” and the ever popular “Left Fringe” in referring to Democrats, but in particular, his use of the recently clichéd “circus-like YouTube debate” exposes his preference for the agenda driven Conservatives at Fox over the citizens who were interested enough in our political process to participate in it.

Also indicative of Ridley’s anti-Democrat attitude was this gem, “The far left fringe feasting on their own is, of course, hardly a new phenomenon”. The ignorance of this statement is astonishing, if it is, in fact, ignorance. Since the 1994 election that put Republicans in power of both houses of Congress we have witnessed the implementation of tyrannical discipline over the members that was apparent in the illegal threatening of a Congressman on the floor of the House during a vote the Republican leaders wanted to pass. Republican appointed U.S. Attorneys were thrown under the bus because they were too slow in prosecuting Democratic politicians from their territories for trumped up charges of voter fraud that would benefit Republicans running for office. If that's not evidence enough that Republicans are far more vicious toward their own than the Democrats, ask David Brock of Media Matters for America about the cannibalistic tendencies of the Conservatives.

Finally, Ridley observes; “And why not? if Nixon could stare down China, if Reagan could do the same to the Soviets, why should the Dems cower before aggressors”? Why, exactly, would he refer to Fox News as the aggressors? I think it’s because he knows full well that Fox would use any opportunity to attack, marginalize or damage any Democrat foolish enough to actually appear on that network.

Healthcare

I was surprised at how few locations in my state showed Michael Moore's new movie SiCKO when it first open on June 29th. That's until I remembered that I live in Connecticut, the Insurance Capital of the World. It's impossible to think of a location less welcoming to Mr. Moore's latest offering than here and surely is a contributing reason to the small number of cinemas willing to show his film.

That made me wonder what kind of support for healthcare reform could be found among the elected officials of my state. The legislation currently in the House that proposes Universal Healthcare is H.R. 676, so I searched the websites of the Representatives from Connecticut to see if they sponsored, co-sponsored or even support H.R. 676:

John Larson (D) First Congrssional District...........NO
Joe Courtney (D) Second Congressional District....NO
Rosa Delauro (D) Third Congressional District......NO
Chris Shays (R) Fourth Congressional District.......NO
Chris Murphy (D) Fifth Congressional District......NO

This was very disappointing news and especially so in the case of Chris Murphy who defeated Nancy Johnson in the last election. You see, Nancy earned a notorious role in Moore’s movie as a shill for the medical insurance and big pharma lobbies. Murphy campaigned against Johnson aggressively often referring to her industry contacts so, it seems we should expect his support for this legislation.

I suppose it is difficult for the average individual to realize what pressures can be brought to bear against elected officials by moneyed and powerful lobbyists. Campaigns are not financed by good intentions alone (or at all) and candidates must be sensitive to the concerns of industries if they wish to receive the infusion of cash so vital to their (re)elections.

Perhaps it is precisely because I don’t realize what pressures are exerted upon our Representatives, or perhaps it is in spite of it, that I have no aversion to the application of additional pressure to regain their attention. Why should the lobbyists have all the fun?

I am suggesting lobbying our Representatives for their support of Universal Healthcare legislation, such as H.R. 676, by demanding that they refuse coverage by the Congressional Healthcare Insurance program until all Americans have guaranteed healthcare. Even the homeless and unemployed pay taxes anytime they purchase anything for any amount of money. That makes them employers of the members of Congress elected to represent us in government.

Reality and Bush

There is another excellent diary over on Dailykos regarding "Grerat Moments in Political Realism". Please read this diary by eugene, it is the best insight I have read so far on the reality of our present situation compared to how patriotic Americans faced daunting problems throughout our history.

The standard response to impeachment has been that we do not have the votes. As eugene points out, rarely have we had the votes historically when major events were taking place that would have reshaped life as we know it had people not stood, out-numbered, against powerful forces. eugene used several examples to make this point like the American colonists facing off against the overwhelming power of the British armed forces, Prime Minister Winston Churchill defiant in the face of the German army and President Kennedy facing off with the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis.

One more to consider is that the votes were not there for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon when several brave members of Congress championed this action. They did so because the knew it was the right thing to do and that America and our Constitution were being devastated by the tyrannical actions of a single man.

For our Democratic leaders to say they will not pursue impeachment because they do not have the votes is weak, but for them to avoid impeachment in the face of the dire events brought about by the administration is cowardice. If the President wants to burn the Constitution during a Rose Garden media event would Speaker Pelosi not challenge him because she does not have the votes, or would she stand up for the Constitution because it is the right and just thing to do? The answer to that question presently is in doubt!

Early in this administration one of Bush's minions stated to Ron Suskind who was writing an article for the New York Times Magazine, that guys like Suskind were “in what we call the reality-based community" which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

This may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless Democrats in Congress reclaim reality from the Alice in Wonderland crew in the Whitehouse. It is long past the time for Democrats to prioritize an agenda for impeaching the President and Vice President. They must do so because it is the right thing to do, because they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and because America is a reality based community!

I would encourage everyone to keep track of Democrats who fail this test of patriotism and fail their fellow citizens by hiding from the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. When the next election for these folks come around we must hold them accountable for their cowardice, their complicity with this criminal administration and their abdication of their sworn duties to protect and defend the Constitution of this country.

Speaker Pelosi, Take Action or Take Your Leave!

When the leader of the Democratic Party in the People’s House of Representatives demonstrates she does not have the moral courage nor patriotic fortitude to stand up for the Constitution, which she swore to “Protect and Defend”, then it is her obligation to step down and surrender the reins of power to someone willing and able to carry out the job for which they were elected.

There is a diary over at DailyKos about a conversation with Speaker Pelosi by Mike Stark and Dave Johnson. They report that the speaker told them she had decided "at least a year ago," before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, "that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and [Republican] short-comings."
She reportedly added, "The President isn’t worth it...he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do." Mr. Stark asked if the Speaker believed that the “Constitution was worth it” to which she replied "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

This is a stunningly ignorant view and one that most Americans will find totally unacceptable. What the hell does Pelosi think Democrats were empowered to do when voters swept them into office in 06? Does she really believe that anyone gives a tinker's damn about the insignificant toady occupying the Oval office? Or his worth or that of his hell bound minions? If so, she vastly misses the point. For 6 years we have been railing against the administration for butchering the Constitution, stripping our hard won liberties and trading in our freedoms for higher and higher doses of fear.

Perhaps most Americans loath this president and wish him the worst possible ending, I don't care. The Constitution is now and always has been the issue. It is a document that embodies the ideals of our Democracy and as such it is open to abuse and misinterpretation by those who consider themselves above the law it imposes on all citizens. Every member of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government are required to swear an oath to protect and defend this document because it is susceptible to attacks by such people as George Bush and Dick Cheney.

If Speaker Pelosi is really unwilling to put impeachment back on the table than we must make her aware that MOST Americans do not agree with her and she must comply with the wishes of the majority or leave office.

NEWS? Not Really

CBS News replaced Newsman Dan Rather with Cheer-leader Katie Couric. The result has been, predictably, a dramatic decrease in the networks credibility as a serious news source forsaking actual news for feel good pieces, personal profiles and other fluff. CBS has taken a great deal of criticism for this, but it does not appear that they have any intention of changing the new format.

The Couric fiasco is merely the latest of many drastic changes to the way Americans are getting their news. The most obvious and drastic change has been Fox News Channel. Until Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes teamed up to bring their version of news to the American market no one had ventured as far from "moderate" positions as they have shown they are willing to do.

Of course, Fox News was an aberration of cable which also ushered in such reprobates as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, Tony Snow, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, and so on and so on…

Even the print media has changed and in the same direction as televised media. Both Newsweek and Time magazines have been caught publishing one cover internationally and a different cover for the American market. In both cases the cover that was suppressed was about current important issues.

The Couric episode can be seen as a marketing strategy by the media to "sell" news to the public through an appealing spokesperson. Katie was magnificent on her morning talk show as the seemingly caring interviewer, ohing and ahing poignantly as her subject poured out his or her heart.

Now, Couric's talent for appearing to care is being used to sell us news the way the media wants us to get it. The important issues down-played while lingering on sentimentality and personality that could and should mean nothing.

How does CBS and Couoric compare with the other leading news sources? NBC Nightly News has Brian Williams who proudly boasts that he feels obligated to listen to Rush Limbaugh to get his dose of daily truth, and Tim Russert who the White house counts on to treat VP Cheney with kid gloves while allowing him to "get his message out".

ABC News with Charlie Gibbson is an arm of the ABC network which is owned by Disney. This is the combination that produced and aired the program blaming Bill Clinton for everything that has happened since Bush took office.

CNN & MSNBC are fairly equal in their bias against the Left except for "Count-Down" with Kieth Olberman

Once again there is Fox Noise, the propaganda machine, smear merchants and a direct branch of the Bush Administration. Yet, in spite of the Fox record of lies, cover-ups and unquestioning loyalty to Neoconservatism, Tim Russert doesn't get why the Democrats don't want their debate hosted by these sycophants. I wonder if Russert would be so quick to defend a Republican debate hosted by Air America Radio!

Why we must Impeach

The argument against impeachment can no longer be supported if this country is to ever again be a democracy and a nation of laws. There are simply no arguments left for not immediately initiating steps to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

It was especially disappointing recently when Al Gore stated that impeachment would be a distraction to the public and not work to improve the state of the nation. Gore should realize, more keenly than most that acknowledging the existence of a problem must occur before it can be corrected. His efforts on the problem of global warming have been met with a disinformation campaign financed by the auto and oil industries attempting to discredit Gore’s research and deny that a problem exists. Gore’s movement to reverse the ill effects of pollution on the environment will fail unless new laws are enacted and existing ones are enforced, which will not happen if we don’t first acknowledge the need to do so.

The same is true of our nation. We can not correct what is wrong with the country unless we are able to name the problems that exist, and then take steps to eradicate them. As with polluters, if they are not punished they will continue to pollute, so too will elected officials continue to violate the law if they are not punished for their misdeeds.

If you have any doubt that the Republicans intend to continue their assault on the Constitution initiated by the extremist Neoconservatives, just look at their candidates for President. Except for Ron Paul, they are all cheerleaders for continued and even escalated war in the Middle East, they support enhanced interrogation techniques (read torture), they espouse creationism and renounce evolution, they advocate continued tax relief for the rich while piling up tax burdens on the middle class and they all have extremely intimate relations with big business that spells trouble for the average Joe.

Had Democrats done what they should have by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney as soon as they took control of Congress, the rhetoric of the Republican candidates would not be so brash. They would be more cautious about supporting policies that might be judged illegal during impeachment hearings.

Had Democrats launched this session of Congress by asserting the mandate issued to them by the American electorate they could now be disassembling the unitary executive model of government devise by Karl Rove and his minions.

Reality has been quite the opposite of what Democrats should have done. Today, Congressman John Conyers posted a diary on DailyKos to share his reasons for issuing subpoenas former White House Counsel Harriett Miers. To the extent that this action is necessary the Congressman’s actions are appreciated, but to the extent that action is required in defense of the Constitution and our Democracy, it falls far short.

Also at DailyKos was a response to Congressman Conyers diary by Rusty1776. This diary is well worth the time to read and absorb it. Rusty1776 hits the nail on the head and takes Congressman Conyers to task for failing to pursue the impeachment of the President and Vice President. Before Democrats took majority control of the House and the Senate, Conyers had spoken out against Bush and Cheney and their criminal activities. Yet, when his Party came to power he has failed to follow through on his previous rhetoric.

Predictably, the argument will be made that Democrats do not have the votes required to impeach and therefore perform an act of futility by attempting it. Although this may be factually accurate, it misses the greater point of taking this action. By going on record for the impeachment of both the President and Vice President, Democrats will have taken a stand to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” which is the absolute minimum that can be expected of them, and for which they are honor and duty bound through their oath of office.