Co/Op/Ed Blog

2008-11-04T16:12:00.001-05:00

Dirty Old Man

2008-10-16T23:09:00.004-04:00

Palin's Pallin'

2008-10-13T15:51:00.003-04:00

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
Joe Vogler, founder of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP)

Palin's husband Todd remained an AIP party member from 1995 to 2002. Sarah can be described in McCarthy-era palaver as a "fellow traveler." While retaining her Republican registration, she attended the AIP's 1994 convention where the party called for a draft constitution to secede from the United States and create an independent nation of Alaska. The McCain Campaign has reluctantly acknowledged that she also attended AIP's 2000 Convention. She apparently found the experience so inspiring that she agreed to give a keynote address at the AIP's 2006 convention and she recorded a video greeting for this year's 2008 convention. In other words, this is not something that happened when she was eight! -Alaskan Independence Party: The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Fact Check: McCain Ad

2008-07-29T00:26:00.004-04:00

John McCain's Double Talk Express

From FactCheck.org:

It's a fact that Obama canceled a visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center at the last minute after planning it for weeks. And it's a fact that reporters and their cameras would not have been allowed to accompany him. Furthermore, Obama probably did go to the gym that day, as he does practically every day. So the bare facts stated in the ad are true, but they don't support McCain's insinuation.

We can't read minds and so are in no position to know Obama's motives, or McCain's for that matter. It's unlikely, however, that the absence of press coverage would have been a factor in Obama's decision, as the ad implies. Obama says he never planned to take reporters on the Landstuhl visit, and Department of Defense rules prohibited him from taking reporters on previous visits he made with wounded troops.

Reporters were not allowed to accompany him when he visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Medical Center on June 28. The small "protective pool" of reporters that routinely accompanies him was told by Obama's staff to remain outside, in the van, according to a reporter covering the campaign. Similarly, Obama visited wounded troops in Baghdad earlier in his overseas trip, but he did so without reporters and "without a lot of fanfare, just to say 'Thanks'," according to Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who accompanied Obama.

It's true Obama made time for at least one workout while he was in Germany. And he has been known to dedicate more than a few minutes to his exercise regimen. Two reporters who cover Obama, and who were on this trip, tell us that the candidate works out every day, and sometimes twice a day. However, the video of Obama playing basketball featured in McCain's ad is from his time in Kuwait, not Germany.

Keith Olbermann: McCain's Double Talk On Supporting The Troops

2008-07-28T22:27:00.007-04:00

John McCain's Double Talk Express

10 things to know about McCain

2008-07-26T23:39:00.000-04:00

For all the coverage this week of Senator John McCain's background, there are some important things you won't learn about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted positive image relies on people not knowing this stuff—and you might be surprised by some of it.

Please check out the list below, and then forward it to your friends, family, and coworkers. We can't rely on the media to tell folks about the real John McCain—but if we all pass this along, we can reach as many people as CNN Headline News does on a good night.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

Sources:
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

The Real John McCain

2008-07-26T22:53:00.002-04:00

John McCain's Double Talk Express

John McCain vs. John McCain

2008-07-26T22:46:00.002-04:00

John McCain's Double Talk Express

Project Make McCain Exciting: Wizard of OZ Edition

2008-07-20T20:12:00.001-04:00

Project Make McCain Exciting: Blue Suede Shoe Edition

2008-07-20T20:07:00.002-04:00

Project Make McCain Exciting: Gray Ambition

2008-07-20T20:07:00.001-04:00

McCain's Mental Economy

2008-07-20T19:58:00.000-04:00

Yes. We. Can.

2008-02-03T00:00:00.001-05:00

Over the last 7 years, the Republicans and President Bush have created the ultimate nanny state. Ask not what you can do for your country-- ask what your country can do for you. There has been no aspiration from this administration to inspire the American people to become engaged in their country. The "Decider" will decide, and he needs no help from you or I.

The country is starving for the inspiration that it has been deprived of for so long. Many, including Hillary Clinton, underestimate the power of hope and inspiration. Almost 2 years ago I wrote here, “The events of September 11, 2001, put us under the umbrella of fear and the Neocons have worked hard to keep us in its shadows. Once we tire of being a prisoner to this fear, we will emerge into the light of hope.”

Just when we need it the most, the light of hope is shinning upon us. Today we have the chance to put the politics of fear behind us, and look to the hope of a more inspiring tomorrow. We have the chance to become engaged in the healing of our country, and the repair of our world. Can we? Yes. We. Can.

But, will we?

"We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

-Barack Obama

"We will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea -- Yes. We. Can"

-Barack Obama

Yes. We. Can.

2008-02-02T22:20:00.001-05:00

President Bush Reserves the Right to Repeat Hurricaine Katrina Response

2006-10-26T15:40:00.000-04:00

Most of the time President Bush believes that the Constitution is " just a God damned piece of paper." The only exception? When it comes to his Constitutional authority, real or imagined, then all of a sudden it becomes America's cherished document.

Congress put into effect new congressional rules that would require the next head of FEMA to have 5 years of emergency management experience. Such a rule is commonsense and would hopefully weed out incompetent crony appointments like "Heckuva job Brownie."

The Bush Whitehouse, however, says they reserve the right to ignore such requirements as an encroachment on Presidential Constitutional authority to appoint anybody the President so chooses. Whether that appointment is in the best interest of the country or not.

Bush's appointee "Brownie" to head FEMA, whose tenure ended with the bungled Hurricane Katrina response, had no emergency management experience, but did have extensive experience as a horse show judge.

Why in the world would the Bush Whitehouse buck the Congress on such a commonsense requirement? Bush has never had a problem disregarding the Constitutional authority of Congress in the name of supposed national security. Now, when the tables are turned, suddenly he is throwing that "God damned piece of paper" up as a roadblock to the best interest of the country.

Has the President's assault on the Constitution really been about national security and what is best for the protection of the country, or has been about a power grab for the Unitary Executive all along?

The RNC and OBL Work Together to Terrorize Americans

2006-10-25T00:24:00.000-04:00

The Republican National Committee is up to it's old terrorist tactics to drum up votes this November, using their old political pal spokesperson, Osama Bin Laden, to strike fear into the electorate.

Now we are suppose to be all scared of OBL? It wasn't that long ago that President Bush told us that he wasn't concerned with OBL.

It has been over 5 years and this administration has failed miserably to bring OBL to justice. Now they are running an ad telling us to be afraid of the the very terrorists they have failed to capture? How is that suppose to make me want to vote for Republican incompetence? And why am I suppose to want to vote for the party that uses terrorists as their spokespeople?

Katherine Harris: Thomas Jefferson was a liar!

2006-08-28T23:29:00.000-04:00

Well that's it! It's all settled! None other than Florida Republican Katherine Harris, has finally settled the debate about the proper role of religion in politics. Apparently, according to Harris, Thomas Jefferson was a big fat liar when he called the first amendment's Establishment Clause a "wall of separation between church and state." Harris believes she knows more about the founder's intent than the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence! Simply amazing.

And God Votes For... Drum-roll Please...

The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. ~Katherine Harris, Florida Baptist Witness

I must have skimmed over the part of the Constitution that says that God chooses our rulers. If God chooses our rulers, then why does he choose such crooks and liars? Does he only choose the leaders of America, or all world leaders? If he only chooses American leaders why? What makes America so special to him? If he chooses all world leaders then didn't we go against God's will when we overthrew Saddam? Harris obviously didn't think her idiotic statements through.

God Votes For... Satan?

If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong. ... ~Katherine Harris, Florida Baptist Witness

Wow, someone has a superiority complex. I don't even know where to start with this statement. Maybe we should ask Harris' Campaign Manager Bryan Rudnick who is Jewish (Apparently he doesn't know any better).

“I joined this campaign because Congresswoman Harris is a passionate supporter of Israel, the Jewish people and always has the best interests of all Floridians at heart. As the grandson of Holocaust survivors, I know that she encourages people of all faiths to engage in government so that our country can continue to thrive on the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers, without malice towards anyone.” ~Bryan Rudnick

Without malice towards anyone? Well, devil boy, from her statements and actions I would say Ms. Harris has shown extreme malice towards homosexuals. Apparently, she doesn't see homosexuals as "anyone," as real people with real feelings who want equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It's sad that people in this country get elected by blatantly discriminating against others because of sexual orientation and/or religious beliefs.

Does He or Doesn't He?

Harris said her remarks in last week's edition of the Florida Baptist Witness were intended for Christian voters who mistakenly believe the constitutional separation of church and state prevents them from participating in politics, even voting.

"My passion is to make sure that people participate in the process. Everyone should vote. Everyone should be engaged, but the problem is a lot of Christians believe they should not participate because of the separation of church and state." Palm Beach Post

Now Katy, if God chooses our leaders as you assert, then why should Christians bother to vote at all? God will simply pick the person he wants anyway, right?

Asked what she meant when she said neither the Founding Fathers nor God intended the United States to be a "nation of secular laws," Harris said she was referring to the Ten Commandments as the foundation of the Judeo-Christian society and its laws. ~Palm Beach Post

The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our society and laws? Without even looking at the history of the founding of our country, this view is weak at best. The first 3 command the worship of Yahweh as God, something strictly forbidden in the Constitution for the government to establish. The 4th, keeping the Sabbath, is all but ignored in the law, and I am not sure the last time anyone was arrested for not honoring their mother and father, the 5th. The other 5 are common-sense commandments that prevent harm to others, not exactly something exclusive to Christianity.

"God is the one who chooses our rulers"

God doesn't seem to be too happy with Ms. Harris these days. Her opponent, Democrat Bill Nelson is clobbering her in the polls: Nelson (D) 61%, Harris (R) 33% ~Rasmussen. Maybe God is trying to tell you something Katy.

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A REPUBLICAN TODAY...

2006-08-08T01:58:00.000-04:00

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him,
and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-
national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance
companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extra-marital affair is an impeachable
offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
Conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN

Republican Justice Department Plays Politics with Americans Right to Vote

2006-08-03T11:35:00.000-04:00

An editorial in today's New York Times outlines how the Bush Justice Department is playing partisan politics again with the enforcement of voting rights and election law. Yesterday, a federal judge, appointed by President Bush, stripped Alabama's Democratic Secretary of State of very important duties in "a one-sided proceeding that felt a lot like a kangaroo court," giving them to the Republican governor prior to both being up for re-election. This extraordinary, partisan step against a Democrat stands in stark contrast to the Justice Department's "forgiving approach" when dealing with Republican Secretaries of State. Despite President Bush's signing of the Voting Rights Reauthorization just last week, this action is part of his administration's troubling pattern of putting its desire to influence elections ahead of the need to protect the voting rights of all Americans.

Strong-Arming the Vote
Editorial
The New York Times
August 3, 2006

"President Bush's Justice Department has been criticized for letting partisanship guide its work on voting and elections. And party politics certainly appears to have been a driving force in a legal maneuver it just pulled off in Alabama, where it persuaded a federal judge to take important election powers away from the Democratic secretary of state and give them to a Republican governor. The Justice Department says it is trying to enforce the election law, but that is unconvincing. There are plenty of ways to enforce the law without creating the impression that it is tilting the electoral landscape in favor of Republicans...

"Sadly, a federal judge agreed yesterday to do just that, in a one-sided proceeding that felt a lot like a kangaroo court... The Justice Department's request to shift Ms. Worley's powers to Governor Riley is extraordinary. Normally, the government would seek an order telling a state official what to do, or it would ask to have a nonpartisan person appointed as a special master. And the Justice Department's aggressive stance stands in stark contrast to the forgiving approach it has taken to Republican secretaries of state. After Katherine Harris removed eligible voters from the rolls in Florida in 2000, and Kenneth Blackwell tried to block eligible people from registering in Ohio in 2004, the Justice Department made no effort to limit their powers. Controlling the voting rolls can yield important advantages, as Ms. Harris proved in 2000. The Justice Department's actions in Alabama appear to be less about enforcing the law than about wresting control of the voter rolls from the opposition party, and making a Democratic secretary of state who is up for re-election in a few months look bad...

"It would not be the first time the Bush Justice Department seemed to play party politics with elections. Political appointees approved the pro-Republican Congressional redistricting plan in Texas and a voter ID law in Georgia, despite objections from staff lawyers that the plans violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department has enormous power over state elections. It is important that this power be used in a way that appears - and is - nonpartisan. Undercutting a Democratic secretary of state, and taking the extraordinary step of handing her powers to a Republican governor, meets neither test. The Justice Department is giving the impression that it is less concerned that elections be lawful and fair than that they come out a particular way."

To read the entire New York Times editorial, please click here.

Help Shed Light on Government Spending!

2006-08-03T11:13:00.000-04:00

Help shed light on the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent each year on federal grants and contracts. Tell your U.S. Senators today to support S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.

Introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), S. 2590 would require the full disclosure of all companies and organizations that receive federal funds. This bipartisan legislation would direct the Office of Management and Budget to create a searchable database that would include information regarding each entity that receives federal funding, the amount received, how the money is being used, and where the entity is located.

Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going. With the widespread use of personal computers and the growth of the Internet, creating such a database is an idea that's time has come.

Letting the sunshine in on the $460 billion in federal grants and $340 billion worth of federal contracts each year will create a more accountable and less wasteful government.

Help make government spending more transparent. Tell your Senators today to sign on as co-sponsors of S. 2590!

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the nation's largest taxpayer watchdog organization with more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CCAGW is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that lobbies for legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. For more information about CCAGW, click here.

To help win passage of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, we need thousands of Americans to contact their Senators.

CAGW Names Rep. Tom Davis Porker of the Month

2006-08-02T11:17:00.000-04:00

Washington, D.C. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) Porker of the Month for sponsoring a federal bailout of the Washington, D.C. Metro system. The National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2005 (H.R. 3496) provides $1.5 billion over 10 years to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).

Congress has bailed out WMATA three times since 1967, costing a total of $6.2 billion. A series of reports in The Washington Post in June 2005 detailed how Metro mismanaged $1 billion in projects. Metro spent $383 million purchasing faulty new subway cars that broke down and needed repairs as often as the old ones they were replacing. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted renovating cars and escalators many of which were made worse than before.

The public transportation system of only one metropolitan area should not be funded at the exclusion of others. The national debt stands at $8.4 trillion and the War on Terror has no end in sight. Pedestrian and bike improvements for Metro stations simply do not take precedence over genuine priorities and will further exacerbate Congress' out-of-control spending.

If WMATA needs repairs and improvements, it should be paid for by passenger fares, local governments, and competitively awarded federal grants. WMATA can also cut costs with market-based reforms implemented through competitive contracting programs. The subway system must prove that it can properly administer its budget before being handed a gift from taxpayers to make up for the money it has squandered. The $1.5 billion rewards Metro for past mismanagement and will give it less incentive to straighten up its practices.

For sponsoring a wasteful bailout for a parochial interest with a history of inefficiency and disregard of taxpayers' money, CAGW names Rep. Tom Davis the Porker of the Month for July 2006.

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.)
2348 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4611
Tel: (202) 225-1492
Fax: (202) 225-3071
Email: Click Here

Someone Crack a Window; More Stink-a-roo Legislation

2006-07-31T21:25:00.000-04:00

Who do the Republican's really work for? You and me, or themselves & big money? Last week they removed all doubt with their "we will throw the little guy a bone, as long as we can give Paris Hilton a tax cut" bill [H.R.5970]. Wow...WOW, How low can the "moral majority" go?

I'm all for tax cuts and smaller government, but Republicans have reduced themselves to hostage takers. Holding the working class hostage is unacceptable and Democrats will do well not give into such deplorable tactics.

"There must be around 40 extenders here - that do good work - and so they say if you want the extenders you gotta buy this stink-a-roo."

...[snip]...

"If you care about poor folks, act like it! Give them a day by themselves. Don't mix their problems up with the richest of the rich of this country. Hypocrisy!? I've now seen it all." ~Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY [Watch the video here]

Its political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, Members of Congress raised their own pay - no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect." ~Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors." ~Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio.

"The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again, blackmailing working families will not change that outcome." ~Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"They want on the one hand to appear to be doing something and on the other make sure that it doesn't happen." ~Steny Hoyer, D-MD.

If all this is not bad enough, the bill ties in a "cost of living," or inflation adjustment to the estate tax after 2015. There is no such "cost of living" adjustment for the provision raising the minimum wage, which is only addressed through 2009!

Republicans are worried about the "cost of living" for Paris Hilton?! What the hell is that? If the working class' "cost of living" increases, guess what? Republicans don't give a shit. How Republicans manage to win and retain control of any branch of government just boggles my mind.

Administration's Economic Policies Fall Short of Claims, Report Shows

2006-07-31T21:14:00.000-04:00

Washington, DC - The House Budget Committee and the Joint Economic Committee Democratic staffs today released a report about the state of the economy. The report focuses on how the economy is faring under current policies, as opposed to the Bush Administration's claims. Congressman John Spratt, Ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, and Senator Jack Reed, Ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, released the following statement:

"In recent months, Administration officials have repeatedly touted the success of their economic policies. But this Administration's record falls short of its rhetoric. The experience of many Americans fails to match the picture of success painted by the Administration."

Today's report is noteworthy partly because it finds that the Administration's own data are at odds with the rosy claims asserted by Administration officials on a host of economic issues. Its findings include:

Jobs - Employment growth during the Bush Administration has averaged 42,000 jobs per month. This is the lowest monthly rate for any administration since Eisenhower, and less than one-fifth the average of 237,000 jobs per month achieved during the Clinton Administration.

Wages - Inflation-adjusted hourly wages have decreased by 1.3 percent since August 2003, when the economy stopped losing jobs. Even though "average hours worked" has increased since August 2003, the increase has not been sufficient to keep inflation-adjusted weekly wages from dropping.

Income - Median annual household income has decreased by $1,700, or by 3.6 percent, after accounting for inflation over the course of the Bush Administration.

Debt - Since President Bush took office six years ago, Republicans have added $1.4 trillion to the public debt - an increase of 42 percent. The level of foreign-owned U.S. Treasury debt has more than doubled during this Administration. On his watch, President Bush has incurred more foreign debt in six years than the previous 42 presidents combined.

Read the Full Report

Dear Mr. President, Simply Staying the Course in Iraq is Not Working

2006-07-31T21:00:00.000-04:00

Washington, DC - With violence exploding in Iraq, there is little evidence that the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq. Thousands have been killed in sectarian and insurgent violence in recent months, and now the American people have been told that thousands more U.S. troops will be redeployed into an urban war zone in Baghdad. The President's current approach is not sustainable. Today, the Senate and House Democratic Leaders and ranking members from the key national security committees wrote to the President calling upon him to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces before the end of the year, to transform the U.S. mission, and to launch a real diplomatic and reconstruction effort to help stabilize Iraq. These concrete recommendations draw upon the Levin/Reed Iraq policy amendment overwhelmingly supported in the Senate. Simply staying the course behind the President's failed policy is not in the interests of our troops, taxpayers or national security.

July 31, 2006

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration's strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

America Deserves a Clean Vote on Raising the Minimum Wage

2006-07-29T21:11:00.000-04:00

Washington, D.C. - Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Charles B. Rangel issued the following statement insisting that the Republican House Leadership schedule a vote on raising the minimum wage without attaching potentially divisive legislation:

"Millions of Americans are waiting for an overdue increase in the minimum wage, they want results, not rank political strategy," said Ranking Member Rangel. "An overwhelming majority of Americans have said they favor increasing the minimum wage and the people's House should honor their wishes without stooping to political gamesmanship. Democrats have a strong record in favor of raising the minimum wage and any attempts to sabotage this increase will only come back to haunt the Republican Congress."

The minimum wage has not been increased since 1997 and is at its lowest level (adjusted for inflation) in 50 years. House Democrats have offered a number of motions on the House Floor to gradually raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour by 2009. These motions were defeated by the Republican majority in the House.

Pelosi: Republican Minimum Wage Bill Is a Political Sham

2006-07-28T20:41:00.000-04:00

Washington, D.C.- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke tonight on the House floor in opposition to the Republicans' sham bill that includes poison pills in a bill raising the minimum wage:

"Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this evening is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. It is also an insult to the nearly 7 million Americans who depend on an increase in the minimum wage to live from paycheck to paycheck. It is a political stunt. It isn't a sincere effort to give an increase in the minimum wage.

"Republicans boast that they have held out for nine years, keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour. That's their proud boast. Don't take it from me; it's in the public record. So for them to come to the floor tonight to try to give the illusion that they are sincerely trying to raise the minimum wage when they know that it is dead on arrival at the United States Senate is an insult to the intelligence and hard work of the American people.

"Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum wage workers: 'We will raise your minimum wage but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America.' This isn't about wealth; this is about super, super wealth. 'The only way you will get an increase in the minimum wage is if they can get a tax cut.'

"If there has ever been a values debate on the floor of the Congress, this certainly must be it. This should be part of the values agenda of Congress, to reward work, to pay a decent wage to people so they can raise their families. Democrats have a better idea. In our New Direction for America, we make raising the minimum wage a key part of that.

"Two wage earners working full time making $5.15 an hour bring home the sum total of $20,000 a year. They are below the poverty line. I almost hope that no children are listening to this tonight. We tell children about the work ethic, that it is important to work hard. It is important in their lives, it's important to our country's competitiveness, and it's important to our strength that the middle class is a part of our democracy and our country. That middle class must grow and be expanded instead of having a lid on what some people can aspire to in our country.

"Our better idea includes what Mr. Pomeroy offered a few weeks ago on the floor of the House. He wasn't allowed to introduce a motion here. They wouldn't even allow it to be heard, but we insisted on some of the debate anyway. That was a cut to the estate tax that affected 99.7 percent of all Americans who file for estate tax relief. This .3 percent, the 7,500 wealthiest families in America must have done something quite wonderful for the Republicans that they wouldn't even allow that to be debated on the floor and they hook it on to an increase in the minimum wage.

"It's a political ploy, it's a joke, it's a hoax, it's a sham - it doesn't even rise to the level of that so low is its intention. A couple times in the last month, I have quoted from the latest Papal Encyclical, God Is Love. It was released April 2006 by Pope Benedict. I am drawn to it all of the time because it talks about justice. It talks about justice in a way that affects elected officials. In this Encyclical, Pope Benedict says: "Saint Augustine wrote, 'A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'" That's a Pope quoting a saint. The Pope goes on to write, because in this part of the Encyclical he is talking about the responsibility of elected officials and those responsible for governing. He says: 'How do you define justice, what is justice?' The Pope warns of the danger of ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interest. Does that sound familiar, my colleagues? Can you relate to that in this body? Is that not at work here tonight?

"One of our colleagues said this is about truth. Yes, this is a moment of truth. With all of these votes of this kind, we define ourselves as a Congress; we define ourselves as a country. As the American people listen in, we are either relevant to their lives or we are not. How out of touch the Republicans are with the middle class who are sweating it out this summer in more ways than one. Sweating out the price of gasoline at the pump, a bill borne of corruption in this body; seniors seating it out in terms of paying for prescription drugs at the pharmacy, where middle income seniors are paying more for their prescription drugs; sweating it out in terms of the college tuition they are going to have to put together to send their children to college, while the Republicans pass tax breaks to the wealthiest 7,500 families in America and freezes Pell Grants and also cuts billions of dollars out of student loan programs.

"We are robbing America's families who are struggling for a better future for their children in order to give a tax cut of $800 billion. Not only is this a burden for these low-income families, they are saying to them: 'Your children and future generations, and everyone alive and paying taxes today will be paying for $800 billion added to our national debt.'

"Values - foisting that on to our children and the American taxpayers. Values - putting in a sham bill to give political cover for the cowards who won't stand up and bring a clean bill to this floor to see where the choice would be. I have no doubt there are some right-thinking Republicans who would support a clean increase in the minimum wage. But we will soon find out when the motion to recommit is brought to the floor later this evening, which will have a clean increase in the minimum wage.

"It will also have the tax credit extenders. Interesting about the extenders. The Republicans are using them as an excuse to get votes for their political ploy here tonight. They have been expired for six months. They have needed to be extended for six months.

"My colleagues, this is deadly serious. We are here to get the job done for the American people. We are not here to transfer wealth to the wealthiest people in America. And who pays the price? The middle class. If we are going to survive as a healthy democracy that is a model to the world it is about time we understood that central to that democracy is a thriving, expanding middle class whose job we are here to do. Let's have tax cuts for them, not the wealthiest people in the country and send the tax bill to the middle class.

"Let's remember the words of his Holiness; let's promote justice, oppose this rule, oppose this bill, and let's get serious about helping the American people."

THE WRONG DIRECTION

2006-07-28T14:27:00.000-04:00

The policies of the Bush Administration and the Congressional majority have taken the country in the wrong direction, making us less secure and
putting the privileged few ahead of the common good.

WEAKENED SECURITY
Failed to capture Osama Bin Laden or destroy al Qaeda; rushed to war in Iraq on manipulated intelligence with no realistic plan to win the peace; failed to provide strategy to stabilize Iraq or begin the responsible redeployment of our troops; strained the U.S. military; wasted billions on no-bid Halliburton and KBR contracts; failed to protect our borders, ports, transportation systems, and chemical plants; received failing homeland security grades from the nonpartisan 9/11 Commission; cut veterans' health care.

RISING ECONOMIC INSECURITY
No minimum wage increase for 6.6 million Americans since 1997; real family income down since 2001 as CEO compensation soared; support for subsidies for outsourcing American jobs; $5.6 trillion budget surplus turned into $3.2 trillion deficit; national debt doubled to $12 trillion by 2011.

RISING COLLEGE COSTS
$12 billion cut from college student aid; cost of loans increased; college Pell Grants frozen as tuition soars - 57% at public universities and 32% at private schools since 2000.

RISING ENERGY PRICES
Gas over $3 per gallon; growing dependence on foreign oil; billions in new subsidies for oil and gas companies despite record profits; blocked efforts against price gouging; opposed energy efficient technology and alternative fuels.

RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS
Family health insurance costs up 70% ($4,500 per family) since 2000; 6 million more uninsured; confusing Rx drug benefi t prohibits negotiating lower drug prices; stem cell research obstructed.

RISING RETIREMENT INSECURITY
Promoting substantial privatization of Social Security and benefit cuts for millions of retirees; employee pensions collapse while CEOs get golden parachutes.

Democrats Call for a New Direction for America: 'Six for '06' agenda

2006-07-28T13:16:00.000-04:00

Congressional Democrats believe America should work for everyone - not just those at the top - by building opportunity and prosperity for all, and guaranteeing real security at home and around the world. We know that Americans can work together to meet the serious challenges facing our country, create a stronger nation, and build a safer world.

With a firm commitment to honest leadership and tough budget discipline to end record deficit spending, we propose a legislative agenda - A New Direction - that unites rather than divides our country. Beginning with our goal of an America that strives for the common good, these are our legislative priorities in the 109th Congress for a New Direction.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Five years of failed Bush Republican leadership have taken America in the wrong direction, and the country is ready for a change. Under President Bush and his Rubber Stamp Republican Congress, working families are facing sky-high gas prices, a health care system in crisis, and rising costs that increasingly put a college education and secure retirement out of reach. Meanwhile, American jobs are being outsourced and the minimum wage remains woefully inadequate.

Democrats are ready with a New Direction, with policies to address the real challenges Americans face every day. The document, which carries the title "A New Direction for America," is a brief compilation of six themes Democrats have been pushing in various ways all year:

National security

Jobs and wages

Energy independence

Affordable health care

Retirement security

College access for all

"If you want to know what someone stands for, look at who they stand with," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "Do they stand with Big Oil, Big Drug Companies and a wealthy few? Or do they stand with the hardworking families of Nevada and every other state? Democrats stand for increasing the minimum wage, for making college more affordable, for bringing down the cost of health care, and for finding meaningful solutions to our energy crisis. Democrats stand for a new direction"

"Our new direction will advance a common agenda, seek common ground, and apply common sense in the service of the common good," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "We know that with a new direction, we can meet our national challenges in a way that makes our nation stronger, our economy more vibrant, and our families more secure. Instead of record deficits, we will go in this new direction in a fiscally sound way. We will make America more competitive and not heap mountains of debt on future generations."

Americans face serious challenges, but in Washington, Republicans don't seem to be paying attention. Instead, they are focusing on a divisive agenda and partisan politics, leaving millions of hard-working Americans behind. Democrats believe America can and must do better, and are ready to take this country in a new direction.

Today, U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada took action to provide real security for America and strengthen Nevada's middle-class. Joined by his colleagues from the House and Senate, Reid today called for a New Direction for America.

"Nearly five years after 9-11, our country is not nearly as safe as it should be," said Reid. "Our vision of a new direction will focus on a plan for real security that moves beyond the rhetoric and takes action to keep Nevadans, and all Americans, safe from those who wish to do us harm."

Life for many working Nevadans is getting harder. A growing number of middle-class families are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for the rising cost of health care, college tuition, and the gasoline they need to get to and from work.

"We're going to reject the divisive politics of the last six years, and unite America behind an agenda that works for all," said Reid. "We are going to strengthen the middle-class, make affordable health care a top priority, embrace science and medical research, and implement a real strategy for Iraq."

Additionally, Reid said he and his colleagues will cut taxes for the middle-class, protect Social Security, and pursue a bold, new future of energy independence that will reduce energy and gas prices

"The challenges America faces today are great. But we can meet them together," said Reid.

Senator Reid said Nevadans are counting on a new direction for America, including more than 400,000 Nevadans--nearly 1 in 5--who are living without medical insurance. Today, he told some of their stories:

"In Pahrump, there's a senior named Robin who considered signing up for the President's drug plan. But she soon found out her drugs would cost 8 times more under the President's plan because it was written for Drug companies, not her."

"In Reno, Nevada today, families are paying 3 dollars and 12 cents for the gas they need to drive to work - more than double what they were paying in 2001. Each month, they are taking hundreds of dollars they used to spend or save, and pouring it down their gas tanks."

"In Boulder City, there's a man in a wheelchair I know from church, whose hope was crushed last week because President Bush chose the radical right over stem cell research that could some day cure his Parkinson's disease."

"In Las Vegas, there are families like the Lukacs and the Salazars, who lost loved ones in Iraq. Their lives will never be the same, and they're doing everything they can to honor their legacy."

Reid said he and his colleagues will begin taking this message of change across the country and put the current Do Nothing Congress on notice that the status quo will not continue.

REAL SECURITY AT HOME AND OVERSEAS

Reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world. Require the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and begin the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq in 2006. Double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda. Rebuild a state-of-the-art military capable of projecting power wherever necessary. Implement the bipartisan 9/11 Commission proposal to secure America's borders and ports and screen 100% of containers. Fully man, train, and equip our National Guard and our police, firefighters and other first responders. Honor our commitments to our veterans.

BETTER AMERICAN JOBS - BETTER PAY

Prohibit the Congressional pay raise until the nation's minimum wage is raised. End tax give-aways that reward companies for moving American jobs overseas.

COLLEGE ACCESS FOR ALL

Make college tuition deductible from taxes, permanently. Cut student loan interest rates. Expand Pell Grants.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - LOWER GAS PRICES

Free America from dependence on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels. End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE - LIFE-SAVING SCIENCE

Fix the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices and ending wasteful giveaways to drug companies and HMOs. Promote stem cell research that offers real hope to millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.

RETIREMENT SECURITY AND DIGNITY

Stop any plan to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part. Enact real pension reform to protect employees' financial security from CEO corruption and mismanagement, including abuse of the bankruptcy laws. Expand personal savings incentives.

REQUIRE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.

A Midsummer Night's Swim in the Sewer

2006-07-27T13:28:00.000-04:00

Cross posted at WatchBlog

Is there anything some politicians will not say or do to get elected? It is no longer about the issues facing our nation. It's about destroying your opponent anyway you can, and more times than not it is not about a candidate's record, it's personal.

The Ohio Republican Party recently sent out an e-mail to social conservative Republican supporters attacking Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland, whom is running against the Republican's J. Kenneth Blackwell.

Among other things, the e-mail says Strickland married his wife, Frances, at 46, has no children and lives apart from her. It also links readers to an Internet blog that directly questions the sexual orientation of both Stricklands and notes accusations he is "soft on those who sexually assault children."

Strickland denies the allegations and calls them "ugly," which is beside the point.

"They're trying to use innuendo. That's what they do. It's political dirty tricks. It’s an attempt to destroy the opponent rather than debate the issues."

The e-mail, sent from a computer at Ohio Republican headquarters by "social conservative coordinator" Gary Lankford, has been disavowed by the Ohio Republican Party.

Party spokesman John McClelland said the message was sent without party approval, isn't part of the party's strategy, and that the party has made it clear that all future messages must be vetted before they are distributed.

Mr. McClelland said, "the party would not send out a follow-up e-mail or take any other action to repudiate it besides making public statements."

That is how these things work. You get the message out, then when you get called on it; you simply blame it on one individual and disavow such tactics. All the while the message is out, spreading across the internet, hoping that the general public never hears one of those "public statements," and the damage is done.

Back in May, Republican candidate Vernon Robinson, whom is challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. Brad Miller for North Carolina's 13th Congressional District, sent out a letter to all voters in the district.

In the letter Robinson wrote, "Brad Miller is a childless, middle-aged personal injury lawyer whose ideological world view was formulated when he joined the hippie peaceniks who volunteered on Gene McCarthy's 1968 presidential campaign."

What does Brad Miller being middle-aged and childless have to do with the issues facing our country? The fact of the matter is that it is true the Millers are childless. His wife had to have a hysterectomy at age 27.

What both of these smear campaigns do is show the Republican Party's total lack of respect for their fellow human beings. The tactic is to make voters question the sexuality of these candidates. The Republican Party has a long history of saying it is ok to win elections by villainizing a portion of the voting public. The only thing sadder, is that the public would judge the leadership ability of a candidate based solely on sexual orientation.

We get what we vote for. As long as we continue to vote for candidates whose campaigns are in the sewer, then the national sewer in D.C., is what we are going to get... and deserve.

Pelosi: Maliki Misses the Point - Situation in Iraq is Deteriorating

2006-07-26T20:52:00.000-04:00

Washington, D.C - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today in response to the address by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to a Joint Meeting of Congress:

"Although I applaud Prime Minister Maliki's personal courage and obvious commitment to improving the lives of his people, the fact remains: the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. President Bush's announcement yesterday that more American troops and Iraqi security forces are being committed to the fight in Baghdad is proof of that. Sectarian violence threatens to tear apart major population centers and the performance of Iraqi security forces committed to Baghdad have been found wanting. For the most part, the violence is perpetrated by Iraqis against Iraqis. That is the reality and it is hard to find a reason for optimism in it.

"We are more than three years into the Iraq war. When the Prime Minister noted in his speech that 'Many in this world …seemed certain that Iraq would never get to the point where it is today,' he seemed in denial about what that point is.

"This morning, I asked the Prime Minister directly to explain his criticism of Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism. I was not satisfied with the response. During his address, Prime Minister Maliki spoke with conviction about 'the terrorists who are falsely claiming to be speaking for Islam and Muslims,' he missed an opportunity to single out groups fitting that description, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and condemn their activities. If defeating terrorism is indeed the duty of all of us, as the Prime Minister proclaimed, the road to victory starts with identifying the enemy."

Feingold introducing health care plan

2006-07-25T21:01:00.000-04:00

Health Care Bill is First in a Series of Significant Proposals Feingold Will Introduce This Year Addressing Domestic Issues

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold will introduce major legislation this week to bring much-needed reform to the nation's health care system. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act would authorize pilot projects to launch in a few states to achieve health care coverage for all their residents. Rather than dictating how states will achieve universal coverage, the bill provides them with the flexibility to choose their own way of covering all their residents, provided they meet specified minimum requirements. Feingold's bill is aimed at breaking the political stalemate in Congress that is preventing meaningful health care reform from being enacted.

Over the next six months, Feingold plans to announce a series of proposals addressing some of the domestic issues that have been raised with Senator Feingold in Wisconsin or at Wisconsin Listening Sessions over the years. This proposal addresses the issue that Wisconsinites have raised with him more than any other: health care.

"In my 14 years of holding listening sessions across the state, Wisconsinites have mentioned health care more than any other issue," Feingold said. "With an American-style approach to reform, that gives flexibility to the states and fuels innovation, real health care reform is within reach. I support guaranteed health care coverage for all Americans and this bill moves us toward that goal."

Feingold's State-Based Health Care Reform Act:

Gives flexibility and assistance to the states to achieve universal health care. States are not required to adopt a certain program but are instead given the flexibility to achieve universal coverage through any means deemed appropriate by the state. Coverage must meet certain minimum standards and must include protections for low-income people.

Authorizes funding for pilot projects to launch in a few states to achieve universal health care for all their residents. The pilot programs would last for five years and would be funded through a grant application program overseen by a Health Care Reform Task Force. The Health Care Reform Task Force would evaluate state applications, select state projects, oversee implementation of the states' proposals and review progress.

Would cost $32 billion over ten years and is fully paid for through offsets, making funding available right away and allowing the program to take effect immediately. The Task Force will be authorized to select as many states as can be funded.

"For too long, Congress has sat on the sidelines while the country's health care crisis has gotten worse," Feingold said. "With 46 million Americans struggling without health insurance, we must find a way to break the current stalemate, and that's what my legislation is all about."

Feingold's State-Based Health Care Reform Act:

Authorizes funding for pilot projects so that a few states can ensure health care coverage to all their residents.

Gives flexibility to the states to use their own approach to achieve health care coverage for all their residents.

Instead of requiring states to follow a certain program, Feingold's bill gives states the flexibilityto achieve expanded coverage through any system deemed appropriate by a Health Care Reform Task Force.

Overview of Project:

The pilot programs would last for five years and would be funded through a grant application program overseen by the Health Care Reform Task Force established in the legislation.

The Health Care Reform Task Force would evaluate state applications, select state projects, and oversee implementation of the states' proposals.

Participating states will be required to submit an annual report to the Task Force detailing their progress.

The Task Force will be a committee with members appointed by the Government Accountability Office’s Comptroller General. The Task Force will be housed under Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Secretary of HHS will be a member of the Task Force.

The bill will cost $32 billion over ten years and is fully paid for through offsets, making funding available right away and allowing the program to take effect immediately.

State Plan Requirements:

Coverage must meet certain minimum standards and must include protections for low-income people.

Once approved by the Task Force, a state will be required to provide some matching funds.

States are expected to improve the efficiency of health care spending and work to lower health care costs.

Congressional Action:

The Task Force will be responsible for submitting an evaluation of all pilot projects to Congress at the end of the initial five-year grant period.

The recommendations will be based on states' experiences, and the bill requires congressional debate of these recommendations and findings.

Main Event: Connecticut Smackdown

2006-07-25T17:23:00.000-04:00

Why is the Democratic senatorial primary race in Connecticut being fought on the national stage? On the marquee, it is being billed as Iraq war supporters vs. anti-war activists. Nevertheless, once we step into the ring we discover that it is a different rivalry altogether.

Is the Iraq war the only thing driving this challenge? Is it the only issue that has caused the fight to spill into the national arena? The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

What's driving this fight are the internal workings of the Democratic Party itself. When critics contend that the Democratic Party is not unified, they're right. That’s because within the Democratic Party you have two major movements happening at the same time, both vying for party control.

Joe Lieberman is the posterchild for the first major movement, representing the "New Democrats," and driven by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

The DLC, was formed in 1985 in response to the presidential landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale. The aim of the DLC is to move the party to the right, in order to appeal to moderate voters, and to shut up liberals.

One of the major reasons for the DLC's founding in 1985 was to resist what we called "liberal fundamentalism," a conformist tendency to stifle dissent among Democrats and require adherence to litmus tests devised by interest groups and ideological advocates. ~DLC, The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism

Critics contend that the DLC is nothing more than a Republican implant into the Democratic Party. The result has been the perception that there is little difference between the two major national parties. The DLC has succeeded in transforming the party into "Republican-lite."

Indeed, the New Democrats are beholden to big business interests, from which they draw large financial support. They also favor legislation that is good for their big business donors, abandoning the poor, the working class, and labor unions in the process.

The DLC's golden child is former President Bill Clinton, by far their biggest success. Since the DLC became a driving force in the Democratic Party, they have slowly lost control of all branches of the federal government. The DLC hopes to strike gold again in 2008 with another Clinton, Hillary. She is a major player at the DLC and heads their American Dream Initiative.

Ned Lamont represents the other major movement within the Democratic Party. His support comes from energized liberals in the grassroots, the netroots, Democracy for America (DFA) (founded by Howard Dean and run by his brother, Jim), moveon.org, and "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

In 2004, the DLC successfully got their candidate, John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nomination despite widespread grassroots support for Howard Dean.

However, with the failed Kerry presidential bid, Howard Dean's strong appeal with the grassroots, his ability to raise large sums of money from individual donors, Dean's winning of the DNC chair, and his strategy of bringing the people back into the party have all contributed to weakening the influence of the DLC.

The DLC, with it's powerful corporate backing, is not taking it lying down. We see them flex their muscle whenever a grassroots backed liberal candidate gains popularity and creates a threat to a "Republican-lite" candidate. It happened earlier this year in Ohio to Democratic senatorial candidate Paul Hackett. Paul gained national notoriety and was able to raise large sums of money, not only in Ohio but also across the country. The New Democrat movement moved quickly to cut off his support and kill his candidacy.

The Connecticut race is the next battleground for influence within the party, and the DLC is putting all their might behind Joe Lieberman. Some are questioning why Bill Clinton is going to rally for Lieberman, after Lieberman rallied against Clinton in '98. Clinton's visit is less about Joe Lieberman than it is about his loyalty to the DLC.

In a battle royal like this, friendships and foes take a backseat to furthering the cause. Indeed, some like long time friend and colleague Irving Stolberg have turned their backs on Lieberman.

August 8th will be a test of DLC strength and liberal grassroots influence. The gloves are coming off for the fight between Corporate Power vs. the Power of the People.

Dean's List; A 50-state Strategy

2006-07-25T13:45:00.000-04:00

Here's an excerpt from a U.S. News & World Report story that shows the difference that our 50-state strategy has already made in places like Mississippi:

Two field representatives have recruited captains in more than 500 precincts so far, along with volunteers for phone banks and canvassing. "I've been trying to contact the party since I moved back here in 1992," says Harold Terry, 43, a Jackson native who volunteered last week at a phone bank. "Someone finally got back to me three weeks ago."

You and I know we have a moral responsibility to build our party everywhere. We can't win if we don't present a choice to people -- and that includes people in Mississippi.

In less than a week, we're taking the 50-state strategy to the streets in your neighborhood.

On Saturday, July 29th, there will be Democratic Reunion events in all 50 states. What's The Democratic Reunion? It's an opportunity to come together and strengthen the bonds of community that will drive our organization to victory during the final 100 days to the election in November.

Candidates, volunteers and newcomers to our party will all come together for events as varied as precinct canvasses, picnics and phone-banks.

To find a get-together near you just plug in your zip code here.

If there's no Democratic Reunion event near you, you can plan your own using our online events center. If you're already planning another volunteer event on the 29th, you can put that into the system, too, to let more people know about it.

I've included a few more excerpts from the U.S. News piece below -- please take a moment to read the whole thing and pass it along.

Thanks,
Tom

Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

Dean's List
By Dan Gilgoff
U.S. News & World Report
July 24, 2006 issue

DIAMONDHEAD, MISS.--Here's what the front line of Howard Dean's revolution looks like: two dozen senior citizens seated inside this gated community's clubhouse listening intently as operatives from the state Democratic Party pitch them on becoming precinct captains. A rep named Jay Parmley approaches an oversize easel and flips to a page showing John Kerry's share of the 2004 presidential vote here in Hancock County. "28%" is scrawled in magic marker. "Kind of scary," Parmley says.

But he flips the page to show former Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove's share of the vote here in his unsuccessful 2003 re-election bid: "43%." The discrepancy, Parmley explains, shows that the better Mississippians know a Democrat, the more likely they are to vote for him. Which is why he's here recruiting precinct captains. If Democrats can define themselves on a "neighbor to neighbor" basis, Parmley says, their candidates can win again, even here, in a red county in a red state.

If that doesn't sound revolutionary, consider this: Mississippi's Democratic Party hasn't trained precinct captains for more than a decade. Until recently, the state party consisted of a single full-time staffer. In 2004, the Democratic National Committee invested so little here that activists shelled out thousands of their own dollars to print up Kerry yard signs. That all changed last summer, when newly elected DNC Chairman Howard Dean began rolling out his "50-State Strategy," a multimillion-dollar program to rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up. Over the past year, the DNC has hired and trained four staffers for virtually every state party in the nation--nearly 200 workers in all--to be field organizers, press secretaries, and technology specialists, even in places where the party hasn't been competitive for decades. "It's a huge shift," Dean tells U.S. News. "Since 1968, campaigns have been about TV and candidates, which works for 10 months out of the four-year cycle. With party structure on the ground, you campaign for four years."

The strategy is also a reaction to the past two presidential cycles, when the shrinking number of battleground states the Democratic nominee was competing in left no room for error. Both elections were arguably determined by a single state: Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Says Dean: "We've gotten to the point where we're almost not a national party." [...]

The promise and peril of Dean's plan come into sharp relief in the Magnolia State, where neither this year's U.S. Senate race nor the four House races are considered competitive. And while Democrats enjoyed more-or-less single-party status here for the hundred years following the Civil War, Republicans now hold the state's two Senate seats, the governor's mansion, and most other statewide offices. The last Democratic presidential nominee to win the state was Jimmy Carter, in 1976. But Dean argues that such failures are the result of the national party's having packed up and left red states. "Nobody stands up and says, 'Here's why I'm a Democrat,'" he says. "That's why right-wingers have managed to brand us in unattractive ways. To be branded right, you need real people on the ground." [...]

Two field representatives have recruited captains in more than 500 precincts so far, along with volunteers for phone banks and canvassing. "I've been trying to contact the party since I moved back here in 1992," says Harold Terry, 43, a Jackson native who volunteered last week at a phone bank. "Someone finally got back to me three weeks ago."

The new DNC hires tell similar stories. Rita Royals is a 57-year-old former rape crisis counselor who paid to print her own Kerry signs in 2004. That same year, DeMiktric Biggs, a student at Jackson State University, sent a county-by-county voter analysis to almost everyone on the state Democratic committee--and never got a reply. Now, the party is using his work to plan its ground game.

As the 2006 election nears, the precinct captains whom Royals and Biggs are training will be put to work leveraging the DNC's updated voter file--improved since technical glitches stymied many state parties' get-out-the-vote efforts in 2004. Of course, with President Bush winning Mississippi with nearly 60 percent of the vote, the Democratic Party isn't expecting dramatic results anytime soon. "The Republicans had 30 years to put themselves in the position they're in," says Dean. "To think we're going to turn the party around in four is wrong."

You can read the whole article here

From Cambridge University

2006-07-23T22:06:00.000-04:00

Olny srmat poelpe can raed tihs.

cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,

it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Why I LOVE conservatives...

2006-07-23T15:34:00.000-04:00

...and other oppressive religious zealot fascists of every breed and ilk.

Some may ask, why do you love conservatives when they hate you so much? To which I answer, "Why not? Its for their own good, and mine." You see, as part of the 'Church of Liberalism' it is our duty to love conservatives. Its right there in the liberal Bible (between the part about the peacemakers being called the children of God, and the prohibition of parading your religion in public.)

In order to even become a liberal you must swear an oath to love your neighbor, friends or enemies -- foreign and domestic. In our daily (open) meetings it is stressed that we must turn the other cheek; no cloak is too valuable, no distance is too far, no request too uncalled for.

And there are many many other good reasons to love conservatives. Let's look at just a few of them, shall we?

N stands for Need for constant attention,
E stands for Enormous Ego,
O stands for Open their minds,
C stands for 'Cause they need someone to love them,
O stands for Ok, It will all be Ok,
N stands for Never give up on them,
S stands for Somebody has to do it.

Another good reason is because it is the right thing to do. We use our minds all the time which allows us to use reason. Plus there is the optional three hours of Al Franken's 'reasoning program' every day. (Michael Moore is only mandatory in a few of the more strict sects of the Church of Liberalism.)

More proof? Here it is: If you rearrange the letters in the phrase, "The Conservative Republican Party " it spells, "naive other party, can't serve public" (poor things, they have an inferiority complex)

What more proof could you possibly need? ...don't worry I have more.

More anagram proof.

When you rearrange the letters in the words conservative and conservatism you get the following:

conservative= vain Rove sect
conservative= Soviet craven
conservatism= most crave sin
conservatism= investor scam
conservatism= scam isn't over (just as I suspected)
conservatism= acts so vermin
conservatism= I'm convert ass
conservatism= vast crime son
(Only love can set them free from all of this. Lets love the hate right out of 'em!)

Beware Ann Coulter!

Now I know what you're thinking. What about the word Democrats? It probably spells something heroic or genuinely good and wholesome--- well, you're right, it does! How could the following be merely a coincidence? Proof that Democrats are the chosen people, destined to liberate the backwoods oppressed masses:

Anagram proof of Democrats righteousness:
Democrats = smart coed

Simply incredible! How can you doubt it? Everyone should love liberals and love conservatives more (they can use the extra love); the acronym and anagram proofs alone should be enough to convince anyone but the most brainwashed neocons. Ann Coulter Beware!

With Love,
JayJay "the mildly smart ass" Snow

P.S. - Feel free to add your own reasons why you love conservatives in the comments section.
P.P.S. - The preceding was an attempt at being a smart ass, but does represent the actual feelings of it's author. (Wink, wink.)
P.P.P.S. - Actually, the best reason to love conservatives is because real love is telling someone when they are wrong. I love conservatives. I really love President Bush.
P.P.P.P.S.- A special thanks to Eric Simonson, an inspiration to why it is so important to love. I love you man!

Culture of Blame

2006-07-22T11:56:00.000-04:00

Republicans. What can you say about Republicans? If nothing else, they are fascinating to watch. It's like watching a dog chase it's tail. Always trying to squirm out of a difficult situation. Always trying to blame their failures on somebody else. Always contradicting themselves.

That Liberal Press Thing Didn't Work? Blame Bush!

From washingtonpost.com:

Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) is using his House Government Reform subcommittee on national security to vent criticism of the White House's war strategy and new estimates of the monetary cost of the war.

[snip]

The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war. In the first half of this year, 4,338 Iraqi civilians died violent deaths, according to a new report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. Last month alone, 3,149 civilians were killed -- an average of more than 100 a day.

After failing to convince voters that the "liberal media" was simply giving a false impression of the condition in Iraq, they are now attacking Bush for poor planning and cost estimates. It's Bush's fault I tells ya, not ours, Bush's!

Cut and Run Republicans

Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage in Iraq, congressional Republicans are shifting their message on the war from speaking optimistically of progress to acknowledging the difficulty of the mission and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution.

Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) is using his House Government Reform subcommittee on national security to vent criticism of the White House's war strategy and new estimates of the monetary cost of the war. Rep. Gil Gutknecht (Minn.), once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse "than we'd been led to believe" and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.[emphasis mine]

Umm, no kiddin'? Just what Democrats have been saying for months. Maybe if you would listen to what Democrats have been saying, we wouldn't be in the messes we are in today.

It's Was Our Agenda Before it Wasn't

And freshman Sen. John Thune (S.D.) told reporters at the National Press Club that if he were running for reelection this year, "you obviously don't embrace the president and his agenda."

Mr. Thune, you mean that agenda the Republican congress rubber-stamped and you and your colleagues have viscously defended? All of a sudden, you're against an agenda that you've embraced all along? If you didn't want to own the President's agenda, then you should have spoken out against it before now. Sorry dude, it's not just the President's agenda it's yours too.

The Iraq-Katrina Connection

"It's like after Katrina, when the secretary of homeland security was saying all those people weren't really stranded when we were all watching it on TV," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.). "I still hear about that. We can't look like we won't face reality."

Wow, linking Iraq with Katrina. The DNC should send a thank you card and a gift basket to Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) for that one.

It Was the Democrats Idea, Before it Was Ours

Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.), who like Shays is a swing-district Republican facing a tough reelection race, has introduced legislation to create clear measurements of progress in Iraq, in such areas as government stability and territory under the control of Iraqi forces.

On Tuesday, Shays joined U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker in criticizing unreliable cost estimates of a war that is nearly 3 1/2 years old. Shays said the Defense Department has not "had respectful [cost] accounts since the end of World War II," adding that he hopes the agency will withstand an audit in his lifetime.

Gerlach took a similar road.

"Congress needs to be more proactive and aggressive in evaluating what is the progress in Iraq," he said. "The Iraqi government shouldn't feel like it's got a blank check on American lives and American dollars."

[snip]

During a debate last month, Gutknecht intoned, "Members, now is not the time to go wobbly." This week, he conceded "I guess I didn't understand the situation," saying that a partial troop withdrawal now would "send a clear message to the Iraqis that the next step is up to you."

"If we don't take the training wheels off, we will be in the same place in six months that we're in today," he said.

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, here, here, & here.

Republicans, especially those in swing districts, had no choice but to shift the emphasis of their war talk, lawmakers said. "The Iraq issue is the lens through which people are looking at the federal government," said Rep. Charles W. Dent (Pa.), another swing-district Republican. "That is the issue to most people. There's no question about that."

To pretend the war is resolving itself nicely is no longer an option, he said.

Well, at least one of them can admit the Republicans have been full of shit. While it is nice that some Republicans are coming around to reality, too bad they couldn’t have seen it months ago, when the Democrats did. Instead of addressing the situation and possibly changing "the course," Republicans were busy spewing their rhetoric and vitriol at the "liberal media" and Democrats.

Some like House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) will just never see the reality. They prefer to play partisan games and hope they can fool the voters, rather than look at this serious issue and try to find a solution.

Last week, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a statement hailing the turnover of Iraq's Muthanna province to Iraqi security forces under the headline "Progress in Iraq . . . Despite Doomsday Democrats."

On Tuesday, there was little talk of progress as he insisted that the rising sectarian violence was "nowhere close to civil war."

"Look, you have got one of two options," Boehner said. "We can pull out, walk away and watch everything that we've worked for and the Iraqis worked for fall apart and watch pure civil war break out, or we can stay the course. . . . As difficult as the problems are on the ground, it is either one of two options."

He is right about one thing though; our options are extremely limited. Perhaps we would have had more options if the Republican Congress had seriously assessed the situation a year ago, instead of turning it into partisan political mud slinging.

Besides, the Republicans have more important issues to deal with. Like how to make the deaths of 100 civilians a day in Iraq mesh with their "culture of life."

Bush (on stem cells): I think it's important to promote a culture of life...A society where every being counts, every person matters.

Stewart: Every. Being. Counts. Every. Person. Matters.

Bush: How many Iraq citizens have died in this war? Umm. I would say 30,000 more or less...

Stewart: Each one precious... ~The Daily Show

Of course, let's not take our eye off the more important issues like an un-passable discriminatory federal marriage amendment, non-existent flag burning, and stopping that dreaded online gambling (except horseracing, which is apparently encouraged by the Church of Conservatism.)

Gosh, now they have to figure out how to make restricting people's freedoms mesh with their "culture of personal responsibility."

...and the dog just keeps on spinning. Maybe he will catch his tail someday. Just maybe.

Gavin Newsom: "Where's the moral courage? "

2006-07-14T01:02:00.000-04:00

Listening to the Democratic opposition to the federal anti-gay marriage amendment, the party's senators sounded more like Dixiecrats - talking about marriage as a states's rights issue - rather than Democrats, pursuing this from a civil-rights perspective. ~Rolling Stone Interview

Straights sue to block Arizona marriage ban

2006-07-14T00:56:00.000-04:00

Five straight couples, mostly senior citizens, say the broadly written Arizona marriage amendment would oblige them to marry or lose Social Security.

Take Back Our Party, Take Back Our Country

2006-07-13T22:37:00.000-04:00

The partnership of Evangelicals and Big Business, owners of the Republican Party, at first seems like a strange combination. On second thought, it is the perfect marriage of money, power, and absolute ideology.

What is more powerful than God, Inc.? The power of the people! The Republican Party is too far-gone to rescue from the special interests. The only chance the people have of taking back the country is to take back the Party of the People.

Republican-lite, as it is lovingly known, has been taken over by a group of leaders who don't have the balls to stand-up for what they stand for. Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Please!

What the Democrats need are people willing to take a firm stand to represent the people. Too bad the Pseudo Moral Police are in charge; otherwise, we could just clone Russ Feingold.

This election cycle we will have the opportunity to start reshaping the Party of the People. Of course, the people of CT will have the opportunity to send a big message to the Democratic leadership, and make a big change in the party.

There are also 31 Fighting Dems, so far, who have made it through the primary and will be on the November ballot. You can see who they are here.

Of course, we have seen opposition to this rebuilding from the Democratic leadership. The biggest disappointment this election cycle has been the withdrawal of Paul Hackett from the Ohio Senate race. To me, Paul represented the direction the Democratic Party should be heading. Maybe, he will still win with a write-in vote. . . I can dream, can't I?

No matter what you think of Howard Dean, he has been a big catalyst in rebuilding the Party of the People. He has been a driving force for the grassroots and instituted the controversial 50-state strategy. Some argue that Dean is wasting campaign dollars on races that are un-winnable. That may be so this election cycle, but that attention at the local level will pay off in the future by bringing the people back into the fold.

I thing Howard Dean has realized the power of the net in rebuilding the Party of the People.

A recent 50-state strategy campaign fundraiser, over the net, set a goal of 5000 donations over a two-week period. At the end of the two-week, 20,744 donations had been made, over 4 times the original goal. Some may find Dean crass and offensive, but the netroots really like him.

The people are tired of being ignored, but until the people take control of one of the political parties, we will be relegated to obscurity.

Corporate America and Gay Marriage

2006-07-13T22:23:00.000-04:00

253 of Fortune 500 firms now offer health coverage to domestic partners of gay employees, up from one in 1992. ~Full Story, MSNBC

Georgia high court reinstates marriage ban

2006-07-07T01:01:00.000-04:00

The state Supreme Court reinstates Georgia's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage just hours after New York's anti-equality decision.

N.Y. high court rules against marriage

2006-07-07T00:03:00.000-04:00

The state's highest court, in a 4-2 decision, says New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to a man and a woman.

Bush/ Republican Iraq Plan Unveiled

2006-06-24T13:51:00.000-04:00

Democrats in the Senate intercepted the Bush/ Republican plan for Iraq today The plan has been posted to the Senate Democrat website. Following is an excerpt.

Republicans against Snake Marriage

2006-06-21T23:40:00.000-04:00

Colbert takes a shot at some Republican nuts who draw on ridiculous analogies to attack gay marriage.

Sometimes You Just Want to Cry

2006-06-16T01:23:00.000-04:00

Posted By JayJay

The right wingnuts once again show how much they really value human life. From the White House Press Briefing with Tony Snow, June 15, 2006:

QUESTION: Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?

SNOW: It's a number. And every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks, people want something.

The president would like the war to be over now. Everybody would like the war to be over now. And the one thing that we saw in Iraq this week is further testimony to the quality of the men and the women who are doing that, and the dedication and determination to try to ensure that the people of Iraq really do live in a free, effective democracy of their own creation and design.

Any president who goes through a time of war feels very deeply the responsibility for sending men and women into harm's way and feels very deeply the pain that the families feel. And this president is no different.

You've seen it many times. You saw it. You saw it when he was in that ballroom. You had this crowd of service men and women who were cheering loudly for the president, and he got choked up.

It's a number? What the hell? Like these were not living breathing souls with families and friends. This is reminiscent of Bush back in December when he was asked about how many Iraqi civilians had been killed. His response, "I would say 30,000, more or less, have died..."

More or Less? It's a number.

50-State Strategy: The facts

2006-06-15T23:52:00.000-04:00

Below is a memorandum I recieved from Tom McMahon, Executive Director, of the DNC:

Per Governor Dean's request, I have put together a few facts and figures for you on the successes of the 50-state strategy. I have made one last-minute addition to this memo -- at the end you will find excerpts from a USA Today profile of our 50-state strategy in action in my home state of Nebraska. It ran on Wednesday as we were preparing this message for you.

Critics say that our 50-state strategy focuses on the long-term at the expense of winning this year. As you will see, that simply is not true. Here are a few important results that our 50-state strategy has produced already:

MISSISSIPPI: Republican Gov. Haley Barbour appointed Democrats representing competitive districts in the state legislature to various boards and commissions, triggering four special elections at a time when he believed that his personal popularity would translate into new Republican legislators. Just a few months prior, the 50-state strategy had taken the number of Democratic Party staff in Mississippi from one full-time person to five. By organizing on the ground the way Democrats in Mississippi haven't had the resources to do in a generation, we swept all four special elections. Now Gov. Barbour has four more Democrats holding appointments in his administration and the same number of Democrats sitting in the legislature.

OHIO: The 50-state strategy means new staff in Ohio who have been reviving the field organizing efforts across the state. In a place where it had been typical to build and tear down an entire campaign infrastructure every election cycle, new staff are creating permanent organizing teams in every single county. These teams will be responsible for various functions during the course of the very competitive campaigns there in 2006 -- and won't disappear after Election Day.

SOUTH DAKOTA: With the added boost from new staff and resources, Democrats fielded a record number of legislative candidates this year, recruiting challengers in nearly 40% more races than in 2002.

INDIANA: With fresh resources and energy, Indiana Democrats have been making waves. The Indianapolis Star reported recently that, "Gov. Mitch Daniels and other state Republicans have taken a beating in recent months from the Indiana Democratic Party" thanks to the 50-state strategy, which provided the opportunity to hire a full-time spokesperson. Indiana is also the first state in the country to hold elections under new laws that requires voters to use photo identification that includes an expiration date. Predictably, rightful voters have been disenfranchised by this law. New staff and resources have helped collect data from the May 2nd primary election that will be needed to appeal to the federal court.

OKLAHOMA: The 50-state strategy has been credited with re-energizing grassroots throughout the state. In April, the new staff paid off when the Democratic candidate scored an upset victory, unseating a Republican incumbent as mayor of Tulsa.

NEW YORK: In rural upstate New York, which Republicans rely on for their base voters, unprecedented ground organizing is showing that the 50-state strategy means leaving no county behind. Already, new staff on the ground have identified 12,000 new Democratic voters -- voters who we will get to the polls this November and in elections to come, helping Democrats up and down the ballot.

UTAH: Already, 2006 marks the best candidate recruitment for the Utah Democratic Party in over 15 years. Democrats have recruited candidates for every single State Senate race, and Democrats have challengers running in ten State House races that went unopposed in 2004. The recruitment efforts, led by new staff deployed as part of the 50-state strategy, include not only life-long Democrats but also six Republicans who have switched parties.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Regional field organizers deployed as part of our 50-state strategy have already racked up important wins. They have already worked hands-on to elect three new Democratic members to the State House -- in seats that had been held by Republicans since 1912.

These are just a few of the amazing things happening across the country as a result of a 50-state strategy. Remember, we cannot win in every state until we organize and mobilize Democrats in every state.

As Governor Dean says, we can wait around for the pendulum to swing back in some of these states -- or we can get out there and give it a push. To step up and give it a push yourself, donate here:

http://www.democrats.org/peoplecount

ADDENDUM:

Here are excerpts from the article that appeared this week in USA Today:

Democrats rebuild on the prairie
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

[...] When Howard Dean ran for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he promised state parties he would spread money and professionals around the country in a long-term quest for viability in "red" Republican states. He's followed through with a 50-state plan to revive moribund state and local organizations.

Dean says Democrats have dug themselves "a deep hole" by focusing on one election at a time, usually in the "blue" states where Democrats are strong. "That's a cycle that has to be broken. We want a long-term business plan," he says. [...]

The state was a low priority for the DNC. Of the $731 million the party raised for the 2004 elections, Nebraska got $12,000. "The national Democrats were sucking money and volunteers" out of Nebraska, state party chairman Steve Achelpol says. Adds executive director Barry Rubin, "They called us an 'export state.'"

Times have changed. The DNC is now spending $120,000 a year to pay the salaries of three organizers and a spokesman here. Nationwide, the party has hired and trained about 190 people in 50 states in its $10-million-a-year program. The goal is to create voter lists and activist networks that don't vanish when campaigns are over or powerful Democrats retire [...]

Success stories cited by the DNC include West Virginia, where the party created a precinct program to bolster organizing and turnout and has recruited leaders for almost half the state's nearly 2,000 precincts; and South Dakota, where the state party fielded candidates for 94 of the 105 legislative seats -- 26 more than in 2002. [...]

Two years ago, 11 Democrats were on the November ballot for the state Legislature; this fall there will be 15. Four years ago, Democrats had a candidate in one of three races for Congress.

This year they have candidates for all three seats: cattle rancher Scott Kleeb, attorney Jim Esch and former lieutenant governor Maxine Moul. All three are "a cut or two above" the usual in quality, says state politics expert Robert Sittig, a retired University of Nebraska professor. [...]

Click here to read the rest.

Don't forget to stand up and be counted:

http://www.democrats.org/peoplecount

Tom McMahon, Executive Director, DNC

50-state strategy

2006-06-14T23:45:00.000-04:00

I want to write to you today about a problem. I talk a lot about the successes of our 50-state strategy and ways you can get involved. But today I want to talk very frankly about the obstacles we still face.

We have seen so much rapid progress in so many places (sweeping four special elections in Mississippi, flipping three state legislature seats in New Hampshire that had been Republican-held for nearly 100 years) that it's easy to forget that the 50-state strategy is a controversial plan.

It boils down to this: participation politics. We're building an entirely new kind of political party -- one where every single person matters as much as the next, where each one of us has the power to take our future into our own hands. It's a new way of operating, but we know it will work because we believe in the extraordinary potential of millions of Americans united in common cause to make our country better.

We are at a crucial moment in our party's history, and it's up to us to show that the 50-state strategy has the financial backing of ordinary Democrats across the country. But we're going to do it in a new way -- we're going to count the number of people donating on our web site, and reveal the amount at the end.

Will you stand up and be counted? We're aiming for 5,000 donations for a 50-state strategy. Make a donation to support a 50-state strategy now, and watch the number grow as Democrats across the country join you.

For most of us the 50-state strategy seems pretty obvious: a truly national party must build the infrastructure to fight everywhere for every level of office, period. The Republicans realized this over 30 years ago and have a monopoly on our government because of it.

We have a moral obligation to build a party infrastructure that can compete with what they have created. The bad news is that they have a 30-year head start on us. But the good news is that our movement will grow faster and stronger. We've made history leveraging the Internet to turn online action into offline results -- whether though your record-breaking small-dollar donations last year or the national organizing events like the 50-state canvass.

We are transforming the political landscape by building a party that focuses on people. People are deciding to take back our political process, and they are discovering that when many of us act together we can organize more people and raise more money than our party ever has before.

The only way we can change the Democratic Party is to keep proving again and again that we will not be silent, and that we are going to change the way we do business.

Some critics say that our early investments in a permanent ground operation will hurt our chances to win this year.

That's a false choice. The fact is that our 50-state strategy has already laid a nationwide foundation for victory this year, in 2008 and beyond. Unprecedented organizing at the local level has already fielded more candidates for office and more competitive races up and down the ballot than anyone could have imagined.

Our work now will have a huge impact in November -- the difference is that unlike spending everything on TV ads that literally evaporate after Election Day, our operation will keep growing.

After this November, and for many Novembers to come, people will look back on this time as the moment when Democrats decided to get up and fight -- and started winning.

With a donation now, during this drive for the 50-state strategy, you can say that you knew the 50-state strategy would work, and that you made it happen:

http://www.democrats.org/peoplecount

For the next two weeks you're going to be hearing a lot from us -- facts about the 50-state strategy and testimonials from the ground across the country about how it's already working.

Please take the time to forward this message. Now is the time to get the word out: we have a choice to build a new Democratic Party and a new way of doing business, and it's up to ordinary Democrats to stand up and be counted to make it happen.

Thank you for your leadership.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Greed and Cynicism

2006-06-14T12:27:00.000-04:00

Posted by JayJay

What happened to the Republican party in this country? Tuesday, Ken Mehlman was on the Jon Steward Show and answered that question: greed and cynicism. Perfume those Turds

Tolerance & Respect?

2006-06-06T02:17:00.000-04:00

Posted by JayJay

Values Voters Come Home

2006-06-05T17:54:00.000-04:00

Posted by JayJay

Republicans like to claim that they are the home of the "values voter", but aren't we all "values voters"? Don't we all base our vote on those values we feel strongly about?

A new research study sponsored by the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress finds that Republicans are out of step with the values most important to American voters. The Democrats seem to be much more connected to the values that are important to America.

The Common Good

68% of voters strongly agree that the "government should be committed to the common good and put the public’s interest above the privileges of the few" (85% total agree).
73% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 67% of Republicans strongly agree with a common good focus for government. A similar percentage of voters (68%) strongly agree that “government should uphold the basic decency and dignity of all and take greater steps to help the poor and disadvantaged in America” (89% total agree).
72% of voters strongly agree that, “Strengthening our economy over the long term requires helping low-income families get decent work. That means providing a living wage, affordable health care and adequate educational opportunities to help them get back on their feet and take responsibility for their lives” (86% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 62 of Republicans strongly agree).

Democrats and liberals have long stood up for the common good. Conservatives continually whine about having to pay for social welfare programs. They want the poor and needy taken care of by faith based programs that rely on donations. Let's face it, the New Deal came into being because those types of programs don't work. Conservatives simply want to keep more money for themselves.

If the government abolished social programs tomorrow, faith based donations would have to skyrocket to meet the needs, something that is not likely to happen. Besides faith based organizations cannot be wasting their donations on the poor and the needy, they need to use that money to stop the gays from marrying.

Do some people abuse the system? Sure, but I think most compassionate people would be willing to let a couple deadbeats use the system so that a family truly in need didn't have to starve on the streets.

We may have to pay higher taxes into the system for 50 years or so, but then that money is returned to us at an increased rate at retirement. We will receive far more back per month, including Medicare coverage, than we put into the system. Some may draw on the plan for 30 years or longer. If you die before making it to retirement, I don't think you'll miss it.

Seperation of Church and State

67% of voters believe that religious freedom is a “critical” part of their image of America compared to less than three in 10 who believe Judeo-Christian faith specifically is critical to this image.
Only 20% of American voters approve of leaders using the political system to turn religious beliefs into action.
Voters are split on whether the U.S. Constitution strongly reflects Judeo-Christian teachings (42% strongly reflective; 41% not strongly reflective). In addition, a majority of American voters (51%) prefers that their leaders keep their religious beliefs mostly to themselves as opposed to publicly expressing these beliefs.

Again, the majority side with the Democrats that Church and State should remain separate.

Our Moral Responsibility to Mother Earth

80% of voters strongly agree that, “It’s our moral and social responsibility to be good stewards of our land, air, and water and leave the environment better than we found it,” including 88% of Democrats, 79% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans who strongly agree.

These numbers are sure to make Al Gore proud. Now we just need to get the Neocons to do something about it.

Democrats Hold the Values Most Important to Americans

Stem cell research can be a force for moral good rather than a moral failing.” Democrats and Independents more intensely agree with this argument on stem cells (65% and 59% strongly agree, respectively) than do Republicans (45% strongly agree).
51% of American voters strongly agree that, “We must do everything to defend our country, but our democratic and religious traditions demand that we be a force for good in the world and pursue just, peaceful and cooperative global actions” (52% of Democrats, 53% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans strongly agree).

The Moral Minority

Where do the moral issues that the religious right and Republicans in Washington think are important rate with the American people?

7% said there was “too much sex and violence in the media.”
5% cited “supporting traditional families.”
3% cite “abortion and homosexuality.”

Bill O'Reilly On the Record & Documented

2006-06-05T02:08:00.000-04:00

Posted By JayJay

Conservative blowhard Bill O'Reilly is on the record trashing our World War II heroes. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann calls him out on it.
Video
Countdown Transcript
Transcript of O'Reilly interview with Gen. Wesley Clark

Soulforce Buys Billboards in Senator Bill Frist's Hometown of Nashville

2006-06-04T00:46:00.000-04:00

Billboard Campaign Seeks to End Scapegoating of Gays & Lesbians as the Senate Readies to Vote on Federal Marriage Amendment

Soulforce, the organization founded to end religion-based discrimination of gays and lesbians, is taking their cause to the boyhood streets of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Senator responsible for re-introducing the controversial marriage amendment. Scheduled for Senate vote the first week of June, Soulforce is placing sixteen billboard posters in and around his hometown of Nashville, Tennessee to call attention to Republican pandering to the so-called religious right.

The billboards feature part of a speech given by Coretta Scott King at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey on March 24, 2004, when she said, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protections, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

In addition to the Soulforce.org web address, the billboards include a photograph of Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes with his partner and son. Lutes adds, "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and others, under pressure from wealthy fundamentalists, are again trying to write discrimination into the constitution rather than focusing on the real problems facing America. Soulforce reminds Senator Frist's hometown that Mrs. King stood for the full equality of lesbian and gay Americans and against homophobia, especially homophobia in the black community. Mrs. King publicly saluted the gays and lesbians that fought for her freedom in Montgomery and Selma and other places during the civil rights movement, and she compared homophobia to racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry that set the stage for repression and violence."

Proponents of the previously failed amendment feel it is their duty to force a public vote by scapegoating gays and lesbians as threats to heterosexual marriage. Helen Palmer of the League of Women Voters says, "The rights of one group should not be subjected to the vagaries of the majority."

Soulforce is dedicated to educating the public regarding the lives of non-traditional families and the harmful effects of religion based bigotry on the children caught in the cross hairs of this political red herring. The billboard campaign will remind people that Coretta Scott King called all Americans who believed in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to resist injustice and instead "make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.'"

Soulforce's purpose is freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance. For more information go to www.soulforce.org.

Proclamation on LGBT PRIDE Month

2006-06-02T15:33:00.000-04:00

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today joined Massachusetts Democratic Representative Barney Frank and Wisconsin Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin in issuing the following Proclamation marking PRIDE Month:

"Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in honoring the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals and their families make to our society and reaffirming our Party's abiding commitment to full equality for all Americans, including the LGBT community.

"Because Democrats value all families, we are committed to the fundamental principle that every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. No American should have to live in fear or be forced to hide their true identity to avoid horrific attacks or discrimination in areas like hiring, housing or health care. That's why Democrats have led the fight for hate crimes legislation at the federal and state levels, and why Democrats continue to fight for laws that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"Sadly, too many of our colleagues on the other side of the political aisle do not share our commitment to equality. This month, as millions of LGBT Americans prepare to march in PRIDE Parades across America, Republicans like Bill Frist are using issues like marriage as political wedges to distract people from their failed leadership and misplaced priorities. Because Americans have lost confidence in their ability to solve challenges like Iraq, immigration, health care, gas prices or homeland security, Republicans in Washington are ripping a page from the Karl Rove playbook by scapegoating LGBT families for partisan gain.

"This is morally wrong, and it hurts LGBT Americans. Democrats are committed to fighting this hateful, divisive amendment and to fighting similarly discriminatory ballot initiatives in states across the country. We strongly oppose any attempt to write discrimination into law - whether it be at the local or state levels or in the United States Constitution.

"During this month of LGBT PRIDE, we remember the courageous men and women who faced down discrimination at the Stonewall Inn in June of 1969 and ignited a movement that is changing the hearts and minds of the American people. They called on this nation to live up to its promise of equal opportunity, liberty and justice for all. As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to building a hopeful and optimistic vision of America that is inclusive of all Americans, rejects the politics of fear and division, and renews our commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms."

President Bush to Announce Support for Second Class Citizen Status

2006-05-30T19:35:00.000-04:00

By JayJay Snow
Co/Op/Ed

On Monday, June 5th, President Bush will hold a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House. During the press conference, the President will reiterate his support for the discriminatory and immoral Federal Marriage Amendment.
The amendment, which will hold gays and lesbians to second class citizen status, goes against the fabric of America.

When will we stop replaying the discrimination game and accept that 'liberty and justice for all,' means for all?

If Conservatives wish to protect the sanctity of marriage, then maybe they should try to pass an amendment that would outlaw divorce. Of course, these hypocrites would never allow that to happen. Instead, they claim moral superiority by using a very small minority that will not have a negative impact on them personally.

50% of marriages in this country end in divorce and 85% of those get remarried. 43% of those count themselves among religious right wing conservatives.

Did Jesus condemn same-sex marriage? No. Did he condemn divorce? You bet.

"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Luke 16:18

So 43% of adulterers condemn same sex marriage, but don't condemn their own "lifestyle" choice. Interesting.

What did Jesus say about people like this?

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. " Matthew 7:1-2

We even get this parable warning against doing exactly what some are trying to do with this amendment:

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.

As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.

Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.'

The servant's master took pity on him, cancelled the debt and let him go.

But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow- servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

His fellow- servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.

When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I cancelled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.

Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow- servant just as I had on you?'

In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart. Matthew 18:23-35

Nearly half of the "religious right" are living an adulterous lifestyle and claim God's grace for their own lifestyle sins. Yet, they are not willing to extend such forgiveness to same-sex couples. Quite amazing.

So, why then do groups that claim they are concerned with families target families headed by same-sex couples, but ignore families headed by adulterers? Simple, if "Focus on the Family" focused on all facets of the family, including railing against divorce, they would go bankrupt from lack of donations and support.

In fact, James Dobson of FOTF, has been out fearmongering at a ferocious pace recently. According to Dobson, marriage is under vicious attack, from the forces of hell itself. He "believes" with the destruction of marriage will come the decline of western civilization itself. He claims we're in a crisis point, right now, where the family is either going to survive or it's going to fall apart and it will happen in the next few years.

Oh, my! Better pick up those checkbooks and pledge a week’s salary, credit cards accepted! Operators standing by!

Please! If thousands of years of divorce have not destroyed marriage, then a tiny minority isn't going to now. Countries around the world have shown up the land of the "free" and legalized same-sex unions. None of them have been met with their demise.

The religious right has 2000 years of experience preying on people's fears for their own gain, a trait they brought with them to the Republican Party. Same-sex marriage has become their latest cash cow.

"...the worst thing that happened to the gay community was the fall of communism...As long as the conservative movement had communism to fight, they could organize and raise their money over that issue. The minute they lost communism, they had to find a new enemy, and that enemy became homosexuality." ~Steve Gunderson, openly gay Republican congressman

That's The Signpost Up Ahead - Your Next Stop...The Neocon Zone

2006-05-27T16:25:00.000-04:00

By JayJay Snow
Co/Op/Ed

Fear and hope walk side by side. They are partners in the existence of the past and of the future. Fear shackles us to the hands of time, each tick of the clock bringing us closer to the past. Somewhere between light and shadow, between science and superstition. You've just crossed over into the Neocon Zone.

The events of September 11, 2001, put us under the umbrella of fear and the Neocons have worked hard to keep us in it's shadows. Once we tire of being a prisoner to this fear, we will emerge into the light of hope.

In the Neocon Zone; down is up, left is right, right is wrong; love thy neighbor becomes love thy self. A world where conservatism means social program expansion, increasing national debt and expanding government control. It is a place where democracy is dictated and dissent is un-American. A place where all are created equal, as long as you’re not homosexual. A land of freedom of religion, as long as it's Christianity. Where freedom of the press is a male prostitute bought and paid for by the President’s men. A place where national security is outsourced to terrorist sponsors, and borders are run by multinational corporations. When you hear a Republican say that they are tough on national security, can that be trusted? Or is it just another enigma wrapped in an illusion?

Karl Rove is once again encouraging Republicans to run on a platform of fear in 2006. He has called for a referendum on which party can best protect the country. This is a challenge that every Democrat should welcome, because you see, the government that will best be able to protect us, is an honest one. One that makes sure we have all our ducks in a row. One that uses military force only as a last resort, when absolutely necessary, and plans for what happens after victory is declared. One that doesn't invite the enemy to "bring it on", and is caught off guard when they do.

In this post 9/11 zone, conventional wisdom fades away into the background. Wisdom tells us to plan for the worst and hope for the best, but in the Neocon Zone, they planned for the best and are heading for the worst. Wisdom tells us in both times of war and peace, you need to unite your allies and divide your enemies, instead the Neocons have divided our allies and united our enemies. At some point, being tough is not enough. Toughness without ideas of truth is a paradox; one that will only work in your favor for so long.

National security relies on more than just the toughness of war and the tapping of phone lines. It can only be achieved through strengthening America as a whole. America must become united, not just from within, but with our allies around the world. We must reach out to those in Iraq and the Middle East who strive for peace and work together against the terrorists, instead of uniting them with the same. We must officially declare an end to the war in Iraq and reach out to our world allies to engage them in a rebuilding and goodwill mission there. We must reposition and regroup to initiate a real plan to win the war on terror. In order for America to be strong we must cut the fat and streamline the whole system. We need to cut duplicate and wasteful programs that weigh down national security priorities.

As the Neocon umbrella of fear becomes tattered and worn, beams of light are allowed to infiltrate. The light of hope and of the future belong to those who seek it; life, liberty, and happiness will never be found in the shadows of fear.

Speechless

2006-05-26T00:41:00.000-04:00

By JayJay Snow
Co/Op/Ed

The man who claims he is above over 750 laws and who violated the Constitutional warrant requirement had this to say about the Justice Department's raid on William Jefferson's congressional office:

Bush said investigating and prosecuting crime is a crucial executive responsibility he takes seriously.

"Those who violate the law -- including a member of Congress -- should and will be held to account. This investigation will go forward, and justice will be served," Bush said. ~From Reuters

After picking my jaw up off the floor, I found myself utterly speechless.

Rejecting Pussyfoot Politics

2006-05-19T01:30:00.000-04:00

By JayJay Snow
Co/Op/Ed

I have a new found respect for Sen. Russ Feingold following his outspoken public support for marriage and families this week. Sen. Feingold has consistently refused to pussyfoot around the issues, and he has made it clear that the issue of marriage & family equality is no exception. Mr. Feingold once again breaks with the pack of jellyfish and joins a handful of politicians who have the backbone to publicly express their opposition to anti-marriage and anti-family legislation. Others include Senators Ted Kennedy D-MA, Lincoln Chafee R-R.I, and Ron Wyden D-Ore.

On Tuesday, Mr. Feingold stated his strong support for marriage equality, "I will be voting against the harsh amendment that's been proposed in Wisconsin, and I thought it was an appropriate occasion to indicate my feeling that if two people care enough about each other to get married, that it probably is a positive thing for society. Gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry and have access to the same rights, privileges, and benefits that straight couples currently enjoy. Gay and lesbian people in our country are fighting a mean-spirited movement to harm them and to discriminate against them. Denying people this basic American right is the kind of discrimination that has no place in our laws, especially in a progressive state like Wisconsin. The time has come to end this discrimination and the politics of divisiveness that has become part of this issue. I stand with them against that movement, and I'm proud to stand with them."

Then on Thursday, the Judiciary Committee voted to send a hateful and discriminatory constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the Senate floor. Before passing the measure, 10-8 along party lines, a shouting match between Senators Feingold and Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. ensued when the meeting was moved to a public restricted room.

Sen. Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his respect for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting. Sen. Specter shouted at Sen. Feingold, "I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I. If you want to leave, good riddance."

Following the exchange Sen. Feingold issued the this statement:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
Objecting to the Judiciary Committee’s Handling of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

May 18, 2006

"Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor."

Good for you, Mr. Feingold! A man willing to take a strong moral and ethical stand for equality. You are a breath of fresh air in a stable of holier-than-thou horse shit.

209 Republicans & 8 Democrats Walk into a Bar...

2006-05-04T20:44:00.000-04:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

Just how stupid does your Representative think you are? The House of Representatives just passed the Republican sponsored "Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act." The Washington Post called the bill "simply a joke." If this is a joke, it's not funny.

The bill, H.R. 4975, passed by 209 Republicans and 8 Democrats, would leave the current gift limits unchanged. Lobbyists would be liable for knowingly offering gifts whose value exceeds the gift limit but legislators would not be liable for accepting them. The bill would suspend privately funded trips for lawmakers, but only until Dec. 15. Just long enough to get them through the election, then the ban would be lifted. The bill calls for mandatory ethics training for all congressional staff, but not for members of Congress. The bill would require administration officials to wait at least two years after they leave office before becoming lobbyists, but no such restriction would be placed on members of Congress.

USA TODAY called the bill a sham.

If the self-righteous incumbents can't do better than this outrageous substitute for needed reform, they will deserve to be defeated in November.

The bill also addresses "earmarks." Lawmakers who insert pork in spending bills would have to attach their names to them. Only bills that did not meet that requirement would be subject to procedural objections in the House. That's it? That is the Republican answer to out of control pork barrel spending?

The bill offers no new enforcement or oversight of ethics rules that are currently being ignored by the House Ethics Committee. Yet, some Republican lawmakers want to set up a watchdog over the federal courts, including the SCOTUS. The bill would direct Chief Justice John Roberts to appoint an inspector general who would report annually to him and to Congress.

I'm all for oversight in government, but shouldn't the Congress be willing to accept the same oversight that they want to put on the Judiciary? What about the Executive? How can one branch of government require oversight on another branch without accepting that oversight themselves?

House Democrats have introduced a tougher version of lobbying reform, including a bill that would supplement the House Ethics Committee with an independent congressional ethics office. However, House Republicans have held it up in committees and won't allow it to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

Republican ethics reform is a joke, but I'm still not laughing.

Election Year Republican Hatred

2006-04-24T20:46:00.000-04:00

By JayJay Snow
Watchblog

Here we go again. The Republicans and Religious Conservatives are hoping to cash in on people's hatred and fear again this year. The closer we get to the election the more they show their true colors as hatemongers and bigots.

The Senate is planning a vote this year for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has announced that he expects to hold a vote in June on the measure, which would prevent states from allowing gay marriages. It will be an important test for lawmakers on gay rights before the midterm elections in November. Senators will be forced to go on the record about their support for gay marriage, which could help Republican candidates in bigoted conservative states.

About 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.

Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004.

At least now, they are admitting that they are using their hatred and fear of people unlike themselves to win elections.

Now, the people who brought you the gay marriage ban are bringing a gay adoption ban to a state near you. Where does the hatred end?

The President's presidential prayer team has urged congress to “pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.”

The President wants a marriage amendment based on Biblical principles? I suspect those principles he is talking about are only the ones that apply to gays and lesbians.

Unless the amendment includes all marriage principles contained in the Bible, it is discriminatory, immoral, unethical, and hypocritical. An amendment that is according to “Biblical principles” would have to look something like this:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1.
Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28)

Section 2.
Marriage shall not impede the man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; II Chronicles 11:21)

Section 3.
A marriage shall be considered valid if and only if the bride was a virgin at the time of the marriage ceremony. If the wife was not a virgin, she must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13)

Section 4.
Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever is strictly forbidden. (Genesis 24:3)

Section 5.
If a married man dies and leaves no children, his brother must marry the widow. He must then impregnate her so that she might bring up children in the dead brother's name. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Section 6.
If a man is caught forcing a virgin woman to have intercourse with him, he may pay her father and she will be his wife. She shall have no say in this matter. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Section 7.
A man my kidnap a female of his choice to be his wife. (Judges 21.20-23)

Section 8.
A father may give, by contest, his daughter to the winner to be his wife. (Josh 15.16-17)

Section 9.
If a man dislikes his new bride and her parent's cannot prove her virginity, she is to be stoned to death. (Dt 22.13-21)

Section 10.
A man may take his Aunt to be his wife. ( Exodus 6:20)

I wonder if people who support a Constitutional marriage amendment realize what such an amendment would do? It would not only ban same-sex marriage, but it would also take states rights over marriage away and hand it over to the federal government. All marriage. That means that the federal government could regulate marriage in anyway it saw fit. It would start with same-sex marriage, but as the cliche goes, "It's a slippery slope".

Many SCOTUS decisions are based on the very fact that the constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate marriage. Including a law that forbid stores from selling contraception to married couples that was struck down by the SCOTUS. A federal marriage amendment would suddenly give the government the power to regulate this and other such activities.

Instead of pursuing hateful principles, how about following the Constitutional principle of equality for all? Of course, I suspect much of the hate we are seeing from Republican politicians has less to do with "Biblical" principles, and more to do with getting votes. After all, most Republicans in Congress wouldn't know a Biblical principle if it bit them on the ass.

Tolerance; A Controversial Issue

2006-04-03T20:49:00.000-04:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

The United Church of Christ has produced three wonderful commercials with a message of inclusion and tolerance.

All three have been rejected by the major broadcast networks; ABC, CBC, NBC, Fox, and the WB.

The latest, "ejector pew", [Quicktime][RealPlayer][Media Player] was seen as too controversial by NBC. But, controversial to whom? The religious right? How dare UCC produce a commercial that depicts a gay couple attending church!

CBS rejected the commercial because they do not accept "advocacy" advertising. I don't get it. Doesn't all advertising "advocate" something? Is CBS going commercial-free? UCC is simply targeting their message to a segment of the population that might be interested in their services.

UCC president Ron Buford said, "We told them that the United Church of Christ commercial was not advocating anything; rather, we are letting people know that no matter who they are, or where they are on life's journey, they are welcome." According to Buford, "The executives said that it would have to become commonplace across the United States for churches to welcome gays and lesbians."

The worst part is that the hypocrites at CBS have a “Mission Statement on Diversity”:

CBS is committed to building and nurturing a diversified environment throughout the entire company, as well as the entertainment industry at large. Recognizing the power and influence the company carries through its nationwide reach of network programming and local television stations, CBS has been on the forefront of making diversity a reality through a wide array of workshops, talent showcases and internships designed to bring more minorities into the creative process, and to create opportunities where they may not have existed before.

Likewise, internally, CBS continues in its efforts to create a workplace that is representative of the American public, and which offers the same hopes, dreams and opportunities to all.

In realizing this important goal, CBS has partnered with many organizations throughout the industry for talent showcases, networking events and outreach efforts.

"As broadcasters, we aim to ensure that our national viewing audience is reflected in our programming and our people.

We recognize that a work force comprised of a wide variety of perspectives, viewpoints, and backgrounds is integral to our continued success.

This is not a campaign, but rather a fundamental way of doing business at CBS, and we continue to be steadfast in our goal to become more diverse and more representative of the public we serve."

-Leslie Moonves Co-President & Co-Chief Operating Officer, Viacom Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, CBS

CBS’s decision on the UCC ad runs contrary to their own mission statement. Is it ethical for CBS to reject an ad based simply on whom it is targeted to? Is it ethical for CBS to reject this ad when the rejection goes against its own Diversity Mission Statement?

ABC, & Fox claim they do not accept religious advertising. Although, Fox said that it had previously accepted advertising from religious groups, they have since changed their policy. Since UCC wanted to buy airtime?
Religious Right political leaders like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson have appeared on ABC’s "This Week" at the exclusion of mainline, and liberal religious leaders.

The UCC has teamed up with Media Matters to fight the bias toward the Religious Right in the mainstream media news.

A new study by Media Matters shows that you are far more likely to see a Religious Right political leader on a news program than a mainline religious leader. It’s time for equal access on America’s television news programs.

The other two commercials were "All the People", [Quicktime][Media Player] and "The Bouncer", [Quicktime][Media Player] which won an advertising award. The major broadcast networks rejected both.

While I am not a member of any organized religious group, it is a sad day when Christ's message of tolerance and inclusiveness are deemed "controversial"; while the message of hate and intolerance, being spewed by the religious right, is perfectly acceptable.

It's a Bird!.. It's a Plane!... It's Big Brother!

2006-03-30T20:51:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

On Wednesday a House of Representatives panel heard testimony on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). UAVs have been used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan to track terrorists. Now UAVs may be coming to a sky near you.

That's right the government wants to deploy UAVs here in the United States to keep and eye on the borders and ports. However, they don't stop there. In fact, the vehicles have already taken to the unfriendly skies over a North Carolina county to keep tabs on citizens, including a biker gathering at the Gaston County fairgrounds.

I don't mind the thought of UAVs patrolling the borders and ports, but do we really want big brother flying over our backyards?

Real Security or Just Talk?

2006-03-29T20:58:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

Ok, so the Democrats have unveiled their plan for Iraq and "Real Security" for the nation. One might read what they are proposing and just dismiss it as election year talk.

However, if you want change in Iraq and change in the way the war on terror is being fought, then this is a chance for the electorate to force the Democrat's hands. What they are proposing may just be election year rhetoric or maybe not, but it is important that Democrats throw themselves behind their plan and send a clear message to Democratic leaders that we expect action if they regain control of Congress in November.

Of course, some on the right started with their attack of the Democratic plan before it was even unveiled. The plan identifies obvious problems and offers solutions, but lacks exact details of how to make these things happen. That is a funny charge coming from the party that hasn't offered a detail in 5 years, citing "national security" concerns. Bear in mind it is still 7 months until the election. Democrats have plenty of time to fill in the blanks.

We will not get change in this security nightmare by putting Republicans back in control of Congress; they are not proposing change. Our only chance of getting change is through the Democrats.

Ohio Adoption Ban Proposal

2006-02-27T21:00:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

Ohio State Senator Robert Hagan writes in an e-mail to fellow Ohio Democrat lawmakers, "Policymakers in Columbus have ignored this growing threat to our communities for far too long." Sen. Hagan's memo seeks co-sponsors of his bill that would ban adoptions by a certain group of Americans.

In justifying his bill Sen. Robert Hagan writes, "Credible research exists that strongly suggests that adopted children raised in Republican households, though significantly wealthier than their Democrat-raised counterparts, are more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

"In addition, I have spoken to many adopted children raised in Republican households who have admitted that 'Well, it's just plain boring most of the time,' " he continued.

The proposed legislation would prevent Republicans from adopting children.

Seems that "credible research" can be found to be used by any group against any group.

Ports of Danger

2006-02-17T21:06:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

The Republicans like to claim that they are tough on national security. Oh, really? They have set intelligence gathering on Iran back 10 years with the politically motivated outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. They have sided with their large corporate donors to keep the flow of cheap labor coming across our borders at the cost of national security. Their idea of spreading democracy to the Middle East, by force, has backfired. Terrorist cells are growing, and terror groups are being democratically elected to lead entire countries. Now, the Bush administration has sold our national security to the United Arab Emirates.

Six of the largest and most important commercial ports around the country are being handed over to a company owned by a country that has been linked to the funding and planning of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Anyone who is concerned with national security should be outraged right now, but instead some have us focusing on "Elmer Fudd's" hunting accident.

The Republicans are selling America right before our eyes. The Republican Congress has sold us out to corporate bidders, and the Bush administration has sold us out to the terrorists we are supposed to be at war with.

The time for the Democrats to act is now. If they want to be seen as tough on national security they will shout this treason from the rooftops and act to block the selling of our national security.

Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, has announced he will introduce legislation that will ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operations in the United States. The legislation would block the UAE deal from going forward.

Senator Menendez has picked up the ball, now lets see if the Democrats run with it, or as they usually do, drop the ball.

Plamegate: The Leak That Keeps On Leaking

2006-02-14T21:19:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

It was reported today by the Raw Story that Valerie Plame was not just another CIA agent, but was in fact the Directorate of Operations for tracking the distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

These new revelations take the seriousness of this leak to a whole new level. It is no longer a case of political retaliation on one of Bush's dissenters, it is now known that the leak has caused severe damage to U.S. intelligence gathering in Iran and has put the country in a very dangerous position.

According to the Raw Story article, "Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity."

It has become even more important that we find out who the leaker was; this was an act of Treason.

Good Stewards of Tax Dollars?

2006-02-14T21:17:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
WatchBlog

In the State of the Union speech, President Bush said that "keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars." A sentiment that I could not agree more with. The problem is that under President Bush's leadership the federal budget has grown by 42%, [FactCheck- Misstatement of the Union] and there is no end to that growth in sight, despite the cuts the President pointed out.

Entitlement programs are a problem and have come under fire as a way to bring down spending. However, before we start cutting assistance to the poor and needy, we need to streamline and clean up the government bureaucracy that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars. There is a moral dilemma in cutting help to those in need while at the same time pissing money away in the wind.

According to a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission report, released today; the government has pissed away $363.8 million discharging more than 10,000 service members for being openly gay since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" went into effect in 1994. These are brave Americans who have voluntarily put themselves in the line of fire to protect this country and all of her citizens. I have a feeling that $363.8 million is just the tip of the iceberg of what the government spends on promoting bigotry.

Of course this is just one example of the total waste of taxpayer dollars. We need to clean up the waste and worry about cutting entitlements and taxes only after we have our financial house in order. Government must become transparent and account to the taxpayers for who, what, where and why our taxpayer dollars were spent. Our government has been anything but good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

Under the Gun

2006-02-14T01:12:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
Watchblog

It seems that V.P. Dick Cheney is not the only one to turn his gun on a friend this week. President Bush is staring down the barrel and his Republican friends have their fingers on the trigger.

You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie!

On Wednesday, an 11-member House select committee, all Republicans, will release a 600-page report on Hurricane Katrina response failures. The report will lay out 90 failures at all levels of government. The report singles out Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for delaying the flow of federal troops and materiel by up to three days. The failures of the Homeland Security Operations Center and the White House Homeland Security Council are also highlighted in the report.

Excerpts from The Washington Post:

Regarding Bush, the report found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance.

"If 9/11 was a failure of imagination then Katrina was a failure of initiative. It was a failure of leadership," the report's preface states. "In this instance, blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina's horror."

"All the little pigs built houses of straw," it wrote. "Katrina was a national failure, an abdication of the most solemn obligation to provide for the common welfare."

About 56 hours before Katrina made landfall, the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center cited an "extremely high probability" that New Orleans would be flooded and tens of thousands of residents killed.

Given those warnings, the report notes Bush's televised statement on Sept. 1 that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," and concludes: "Comments such as those . . . do not appear to be consistent with the advice and counsel one would expect to have been provided by a senior disaster professional."

The council's "failure to resolve conflicts in information and the 'fog of war,' not a lack of information, caused confusion," the House panel wrote. It added that the crisis showed the government remains "woefully incapable" of managing information, much as it was before the 2001 attacks.

Brownie, testifying before a Senate committee said The Bush administration, as a whole, did not seem to care enough about natural disasters and had relegated natural disasters to a "stepchild" of national security.

"It is my belief," Brownie told the senators, that if "we've confirmed that a terrorist has blown up the 17th Street Canal levee, then everybody would have jumped all over that and been trying to do everything they could."

He said he believed he had had a good relationship with Bush, but added: "Unfortunately he called me "Brownie" at the wrong time. Thanks a lot sir".

If the President calls, I'm not here

A growing number of Republicans are becoming vocal about the President's authorization of the NSA warrantless wiretapping on Americans. The New York Times reports "In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law."

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "There is considerable concern about the administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this program. It's a stretch."

The backlash started with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last Monday. Sen. Arlen Specter, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Sen. Lindsay Graham, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Sen. Olymia Snowe, Sen. Mike DeWine, and Rep. Heather Wilson have all publicly spoken out about the Presidents authority to authorize the wiretaps.

Support our troops, bring them home

In as sudden turn, Republicans in Congress are coming to their senses on the Iraq issue. In response to a question from Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition Sunday, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, stated "We must be very careful what we’re doing here, because in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven’t gone the way the administration said and others said it was going to go. In fact, I think we’re in more trouble today than we’ve ever been in Iraq…"

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had previously supported Bush's programs, was on NBC's "Meet the Press" Jan. 29, Frist said, "I would have probably put more troops in Iraq if the decision had been up to me." He said the White House is not cooperating with Hurricane Katrina investigations by Congress. As for the Bush budget, he said: "We are spending too much in Washington, D.C." He suggested his and the White House's position in the Terri Schiavo case was wrong. On NBC's "Today" program the next day, when asked about the administration's National Guard policy, Frist replied: "I am opposed to cutting the Guard myself."

The second highest ranking Republican in New York State government, Joseph Bruno, called on President Bush to "get the troops out of Iraq and bring them home". He also warned that the American military is incapable of putting an end to the violence wracking the country. The New York Senate majority leader joins Republicans Rep. Walter Jones, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Colin Powel's former chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson in criticizing the Bush Administration's Iraq strategy.

A budget bigger than the Titanic, but just as doomed

Conservative Commentator Jonah Goldberg, speaking of how Bush has piled up record deficits and boosted the size of government, writes that Bush "is spending money like a pimp with a week to live." A former Reagan domestic-policy adviser, Bruce Bartlett, is releasing a book this month titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, labeled the proposed cuts to healthcare and education ''scandalous."

Who left the front door open?

Rick Perry, Bush’s successor as governor of Texas, questions Bush's national-security record: "How can we fight this war on foreign fronts while leaving the front door to our nation vulnerable?"

Rep. Tom Tancredo speaking at a Conservative Political Action event about immigration said, "It is the employer community which sees profits from cheap labor, and the hell with ... the American taxpayer. The conservative movement can either be the voice of principle ... or it can be the voice of the Chamber of Commerce, but it cannot be both."

I borrowed Jeff Gannon's key

After photos of President Bush with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff surfaced, the President claimed he did not know Abramoff. He has his picture taken with many people he does not know.

But, Abramoff, basically calling the President a liar, wrote in an e-mail "Mr. Bush had one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met...He saw me in almost a dozen settings and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids."

Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: "no Republican shall ever speak ill of another."

The bashing at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference didn't center on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, but focused on frustrations with Bush and the Republican Congress.

"The American people don't understand what Republicans stand for anymore,'' roared Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who proudly declared that he had voted against Bush's prescription drug plan, his Central American trade proposal and his "$100 billion Katrina slush fund.''

"American conservatives have watched dumbfounded as their Congress -- their Republican Congress -- and the Republican White House engineered the largest expansion of the federal government in modern history,'' Tancredo said.

Bob Barr, a former Republican House member from Georgia, warned fellow conservatives that those who defend the president's ability to spy on American citizens are "in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle.''

The president, Barr warned, has overstepped his bounds and "it should not matter the person, the man, occupying the position of the presidency.''

What does this mean for Democrats?

There is a simple principle that Bush has neglected to use to win the war on terror, 'unite your allies and divide your enemies'. Bush's policies have done the exact opposite, he has alienated our allies, divided the nation and has caused the uniting of innocent Arabs with our terrorist enemies in a common cause- hating America.

In politics it's called "divide and rule", a technique used by those in a minority group, with little real power, to break up and control those who collectively would have a lot of power if they were united. Conservatives used the technique successfully to break up a liberal majority into smaller groups with less power. It was even employed by Conservative Neo-Christians to break up the liberal United Church of Christ, taking millions in assets with them.

The Republicans are taking care of the divide part of the equation with little intervention on the part of the Democrats. The Democrats now need to work off that divide, and use their energy to unite liberals in taking back our country.

Band of Brothers

2006-01-25T01:17:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow

A smear campaign is a tactic of desperation. Whether the rhetoric is utilized to discredit or to distract, it is always used in place of substance. Sometimes it is successful; sometimes it backfires. While all of this ignorant chatter is annoying, there is one trend that is very troubling. The politically motivated attacks on war heroes, also called 'swift boating.'

John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, and now Jack Murtha have all been victims of this cowardly tactic. The men and women who voluntarily put their lives on the line defending this country should never have their war record questioned for political purposes. The attack on Jack Murtha is similar to the attack on John Kerry, 'he wasn't wounded enough to deserve the Purple Heart.' What are the chances that two war heroes that got in the way of the Republicans, were awarded Purple Hearts they didn't deserve? Forget about what any of this has to do with the issue at hand, but if any of this is true, it sounds like a problem within the military, not the veterans themselves.

Now the debate has turned to who is behind the swift boating of Jack Murtha. The RNC has been blamed, but now the seed has been planted that it was a Democrat who lost his seat in the house to Murtha [1], adding yet another layer to the debate. The tactic has worked. Instead of having a substantive debate about how to proceed in Iraq, the conversation has been shifted to a completely worthless debate that achieves absolutely nothing.

These shameful attacks on those who risked life and limb, for all of us, needs to stop. These are men and women who voluntarily fight, so we don't have to, they deserve better. Band of Brothers, a PAC supporting 53 veterans who are running for Congress in 2006 as Democrats, are leading the fight. If this disturbing trend of attacking the war records of veterans concerns you, please take action and sign The Band of Brothers petition demanding an end to this disgraceful practice.

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.

[1] This may be true, I read some of the comments made by Don Bailey, but they really sound like sour grapes to me.

The M-Street Project

2006-01-23T01:22:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow

The People are the rightful owners of the United States, and we employ the government. Why are we allowing our employees to take over the country and sell it off on the K-Street auction block? How many corporations would idly stand by while their employees staged a hostile takeover and liquidation right before their eyes?

"Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence."

We the Special Interests

The K-Street lobbyists are given powerful access to our representatives, but how much access do "we the people" get from those who are supposed to be representing us? Sure, we can call their office and talk to the receptionist; we can send their assistant a letter by e-mail or post, and wait for the form letter response; we may be able to make an appointment to talk to them in person. But none of these things even come close to the power that large lobbying groups have in Congress.

"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."

Tear up K-Street and Repave Main Street

I have noticed that the Democrats have been holding a lot of town hall meetings recently. These meetings are not staged "Republican-style" rhetoric press conferences, either. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently held a town hall meeting in liberal San Francisco, [RealPlayer Video 1 hr. 50 min. C-SPAN] where she apparently is not liberal enough. Her constituents in the audience pounded her, for her stance on the Iraq war, her views on Bush impeachment, and New Orleans. As I watched the outrage of some in the audience, I thought 'what if all of our Representatives and Senators were required to face their constituents in open and uncensored town hall style meetings on a regular basis?'

If I knew I were going to be in that situation on say a quarterly basis, I would make sure I knew what was going on with legislation, and think twice about the work I did in Congress. Today, due to the Internet and C-SPAN, the public has access to more information about the government than any other time in history; yet, so many seem so indifferent to what is happening in Washington. Is it because they believe we are powerless?

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do."

How To Run a Town Hall Meeting

Open the hall to all the people, and encourage a free exchange of ideas and criticism; answer honest questions with honest answers. One town hall meeting, in particular, that caught my attention was held by Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) [RealPlayer Video 2 hr. 30 min. C-SPAN2] held January 5, in Washington, DC. I encourage everyone to watch this video. It is two and a half-hours long, but is very informative and well worth the time.

"We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest - which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves."

How Not To Run a Town Hall Meeting (or, Throw Away Your Lunesta)

Flood the hall with coached partisan supporters; remove anyone who speaks out; put the audience to sleep with a long boring speech full of rhetoric; and answer the real questions after the event is over. Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman held a "town hall meeting" on Minority Outreach. [RealPlayer Video 1 hr. 25 min. C-SPAN] Notice at 11:34 when someone in the audience speaks up, he is immediately removed from the room to the cheers of the audience (quite a difference from the Nancy Pelosi town meeting). If you watch this all the way through, Howard Dean conducts a town hall meeting starting at about 51:40. This meeting loosely follows the Mehlman setup, although it is much more relaxed, and without the cue card sounding responses.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary."

The Teamsters are Number 2, But They Try Harder

Together we are the strongest, most powerful union in the world. The people are the ultimate check and balance on the power of the government. Only when we let our voice be heard loudly and with force can we reclaim what is rightfully ours. No amount of lobby reform will be effective until we hold Congress accountable. Right now, is the time to speak out and say enough is enough. We need real and enforceable oversight on all branches of government, which includes transparency and easy public access to those who work for us. Congress will pass lobby reform, but they will only pass the bare minumum that gets them through another election cycle.

"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

Download RealPlayer

The Slope Has Been Greased

2006-01-13T21:46:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
CoOpEd Blog

The language approved by voters in Proposal 2: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Some 70 public and private employers in the state--including most major universities and colleges, several school districts and some cities offer health benefits to the partner and dependents of gay employees. A court decision would largely impact public employers because they are supported by taxpayer dollars. But gay rights activists worry about any ruling against domestic partner benefits could have a chilling effect on private employers offering benefits in the future. Why should a private employer not be allowed to offer such benefits on it's own free will?

Patrick Gillen, co-author of the marriage amendment and litigation counsel for the conservative Thomas Moore Law Center in Ann Arbor, is suing to eliminate the benefits.

It is ironic that this amendment was sold to Michigan residents using the "Slippery Slope Theory" argument. In the run up to the election the sponsors of this amendment ran warm and fuzzy commercials of a heterosexual couple that proclaimed the amendment was only about preserving the sanctity of Marriage. Debates even addressed the benefits question, and voters were reassured that this was about preserving marriage, not about benefits.

Well, guess what? It wasn't about preserving marriage at all; it was a backhanded way to slip hate into the Michigan Constitution. This is where that slippery slope comes into play. First they attacked Marriage, now they are attacking benefits. What's next?

If a federal marriage amendment goes through, watch out. Not only would it affect same-sex marriage, but it would affect the rights of everyone. Of course anti-gay groups will never sell it that way. Consider that over 100 Supreme Court decisions were based on the fact that the U.S. Constitution did not define marriage. Therefore, the federal government has no right to regulate it. If the definition is added to the U.S. Constitution, that gives power to the federal government. That is a scary proposition indeed.

Consider that the case Griswold v. Connecticut was based partially on the absence of a marriage definition. The Griswold v. Connecticut case was on a law that banned the sale and use of contraceptives. This case eventually led to the Roe v. Wade decision.

These cases as well as many others may be redecided differently in the light of a marriage definition in the Constitution. These are the kinds of issues that people never consider when supporting such amendments to the Constitution. They only see same-sex marriage, and vote based on there prejudices. The religious right knows this and sees it as a way to not only stop same-sex marriage, but also as a way of overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, roe v. wade, etc.. The slope has been greased.

From the Past; The Fuel of the Future

2006-01-13T01:24:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow

Innovation is defined as the conversion of knowledge and ideas into a benefit, which may be for commercial use or for the public good. A great American innovator, Henry Ford, designed his Model T Ford to run on alcohol; he said it was "the fuel of the future". While many of his innovations in the auto industry took off, his "fuel of the future" has taken quite a bit longer.

Two hundred and ninety million people live in the United States and make up just five percent of the world’s population, but we consume a quarter of the world’s oil supply. By 2020, according to the Department of Energy, domestic oil producers will be meeting less than a third of United States needs, and the Middle East will be supplying up to two-thirds of the world’s oil. In a May 2001 report, the National Energy Policy Development Group warned,

This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living, and our national security. But it is not beyond our power to correct. America leads the world in scientific achievement, technical skill, and entrepreneurial drive. Within our country are abundant natural resources, unrivaled technology, and unlimited human creativity. With forward-looking leadership and sensible policies, we can meet our future energy demands and promote energy conservation, and do so in environmentally responsible ways that set a standard for the world.

According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy

If the United States were forced to rely on its own resources, it would run out of oil in four years and three months. This calculation takes into account the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which President Ford created in 1975, and which is stored at a number of sites in Texas and Louisiana.

The increased demand of developing countries, in combination with the United States' endless thirst for fuel, will pose a serious risk to the global energy economy and the environment if new technologies are not sought and developed.

In 2003, President Bush announced a deeply flawed hydrogen fuel cell program and pledged $1.7 billion for hydrogen research and development over five years to make fuel cell cars a reality (never mind that fuel cell cars were already a reality in Japan). Hydrogen fuel cells may very well be the key to future energy independence, if the problems can be worked out. Hydrogen for fuel cells can be produced either using renewable resources (including the sun and water) or as in the Bush administration's plan, fossil fuels.

The 2002 National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap requires that up to 90 percent of all hydrogen be refined from non-renewable resources, oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. While the car itself will only release water vapor into the atmosphere, the process of burning fossil fuels to obtain the hydrogen will release carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming. Then there are the dangers of the hydrogen itself being released into the atmosphere. A study published in the British Science Journal of Nature finds that substantially increased hydrogen production has the potential to damage the upper atmosphere.

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology estimate that leaked hydrogen in a hydrogen economy could cause as much as a 10 percent decrease in the stratospheric zone. If hydrogen replaces fossil fuels as the world's main energy source, the researchers believe that each year 60 trillion to 120 trillion grams of hydrogen could be released into the atmosphere. This is four to eight times the amount that is currently released. The technologies to safely mass transport hydrogen are not nearly as efficient or cost effective as those that can be used for transporting fossil fuels or biofuels.

Bush certainly deserves a lot of credit for promoting fuel cell research and development, and we should continue to explore the potential of fuel cell technology. However, any worthwhile fuel cell program must not rely on the use of fossil fuels. To do so will only extend our reliance on foreign oil and continue to contribute to environmental damage. Furthermore, the low efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells must be resolved. A solution may be cogeneration with high heat fuel cells, but the energy carrier would need to be something other than hydrogen for it to work. Such a solution may not be appropriate for automobiles, but may become a key power generation technology. We should continue to pursue long-term alternative energy innovation, but we must also invest R&D dollars in technologies that can be rapidly developed and deployed in a cost-effective, efficient, and environmentally sound manner today.

The 1973 oil embargo and energy crisis turned thoughts towards Henry Ford and his "fuel of the future" as an alternative energy source. Unfortunately, then President Richard Nixon only paid lip service to energy independence when he said, "Let us set as our national goal, in the spirit of Apollo, with the determination of the Manhattan Project, that by the end of this decade we will have developed the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy source." Over three decades have now passed and we have never been more dependent on foreign energy sources.

Brazil’s economy was hit hard by the 1973 oil embargo and vowed to become energy independent as well, and while it took over thirty years, you will find no empty lip service here. With the help of public subsidies and tax breaks, farmers planted more sugar cane; investors built distilleries to convert the crop to ethanol and automakers designed cars to run on 100% ethanol. The government financed the distribution network to get the fuel to gas stations and kept ethanol prices low. Brazil will not only be energy independent in a few years, but they have already become the world's largest exporter of ethanol.

Brazil uses sugar cane to produce its ethanol, which is a much cleaner fuel than gasoline and can be produced using sugar cane, corn, grain sorghum, wheat, barley, soybeans, beets, potatoes, cornstalks, cheese whey, cellulosic feedstock such as municipal waste or recycled products, rice hulls, bagasse, small diameter trees, wood chips, and native grasses. Ethanol is a very high-octane renewable fuel and burning it does not increase the greenhouse effect. Ethanol is biodegradable without harmful effects on the environment and according to the U.S. EPA, ethanol's high oxygen content reduces carbon monoxide levels more than any other oxygenate; by 25-30%. The best part? If you are running a little low on cash, with the right equipment, you can make fuel alcohol in your own back yard. (You can even have a couple swigs for yourself; just don't let the law find your still!)

Brazilian ethanol production plants are also very efficient. The pressed sugar cane juice can either be fermented to make ethanol or can be spun down to produce sugar and molasses. The production plant even supplies its own electrical power by burning the crushed outer stalk of the cane. The non-profit American Coalition for Ethanol says ethanol production is "extremely energy efficient", with a positive energy balance of 125%, compared to 85% for gasoline, making ethanol production "by far the most efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels".

Once the ethanol is produced it can either be mixed with gasoline to produce a blend called "gasohol" or it can be sold as 100% ethanol. Brazil, larger than the continental United States, has an infrastructure of 29,000 gas stations that offer everything from 25% ethanol-blended gasoline, the lowest percentage allowed by law, to straight ethanol.

In 2000, a team of Brazilian engineers perfected flex-fuel engine technology. Using complex sensor software they were able to precisely calibrate the engine performance according to the fuel mix. Car manufacturers General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Volkswagen, Fiat, Peugeot and Renault all build flex-fuel vehicles for Brazil. VW says that by next year it will be producing only flex-fuel cars in Brazil. These cars can run on 100% gasoline, a blend of any ratio, or 100% ethanol. When Brazilians go to the pump they get to decide which fuel to put in their car. If gasoline is cheaper than ethanol on any given day then you can fill up on gasoline. If the next time you need gas, ethanol is cheaper, then you can filler-up with ethanol. Right now in Brazil, 100% ethanol sells for about half the price of a gasohol blend.

The change from gasoline to ethanol, as you can imagine, has had a positive effect on Brazil's farm sector. Billions of dollars have been poured into the industry by private investors, creating much needed jobs. Another positive side effect is that the expanded use of ethanol has helped to improve air quality in Brazil's cities. Brazilian engineers are now working on a tri-fuel engine that will run on a combination of gasoline, ethanol, and natural gas.

The Democrats, as part of their Innovation Agenda, have proposed making the United States energy independent in just ten years. But, is that possible? Perhaps, but many believe it will take an Apollo type program.

In 1961, JFK challenged the nation to send a man to the moon and return him safely home again within the decade. The technology did not exist yet, but he used the resources of the nation, focusing public investment, research, science and technology education, worker training, and industrial might on a common purpose. It was leadership toward a common positive goal and it worked. In less than eight years Neil Armstrong placed the first human footprint on the moon.

When America is focused on a common goal and makes a commitment to make things happen, then we can do almost anything. There are several challenges the Democrats will need to overcome in their Innovation Agenda. First, there are the oil lobbyists who will put pressure on Congress to derail any effort to end our dependency on fossil fuels, as witnessed in the Bush hydrogen fuel cell project. Farm subsidies are another obstacle, because the nation only subsidizes conventional crops and provides no markets for the crops that produce the highest energy-efficient ethanol. Money, though, is an amazing motivator; when it becomes profitable to switch to an alternative fuel source, believe me, all the naysayers will disappear, and it will happen. The recent energy price spikes are pushing both public pressure and economic feasibility in that direction. In addition, there is the pushing force of the national security issues of being so reliant on foreign energy sources.

That said, what I do think can happen over the next 10 years is a dramatic reduction in foreign energy dependence through a combination of reaching short term goals of diversifying the fuel market, and mapping out long term goals in energy innovation. Brazil has already perfected the flex-fuel engine, and right now there are over 4 million vehicles on U.S. roads, mostly Ford Explorers, that can run on 85% ethanol. Ford recently announced it was stepping up its production of ethanol vehicles for the North American market to as many as 280,000 cars and SUVs in 2006, including the F-150 truck and Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car sedans.

The problem then becomes that there are only a few hundred service stations around the country that sell high ethanol blends, and there is no infrastructure to transport ethanol around the country. The needed infrastructure can be put into place through a public-private partnership and would be much more efficient and cost effective than technology needed to transport natural gas or hydrogen for fuel cells. Every year the U.S. spends billions to protect it's oil interests around the globe. Americans want low prices at the pump even if they have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes to support a U.S. military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere. If we end our dependency on these sources of energy, that is money that can be reinvested in American innovation. Besides, if Brazil has been able to put the infrastructure in place then certainly the wealthiest nation in the world can do it too.

What about ethanol production itself? Ethanol fuel production is good for the domestic economy, providing local jobs and a market for local materials, and helps to keep money and investment within the country. That's why so many of the farming states in the U.S. back ethanol and other biofuels. (This would also help to reduce or eliminate farm subsidies as well)

Currently the United States uses mostly corn to produce ethanol, which is far less energy-efficient than the sugar cane used in Brazil. Many point out that there is not enough land available in America to grow enough corn for a nationwide ethanol program in the U.S. That may be true, but corn is not the only possible source of biofuels.

Someday very soon, we may be fueling up our vehicles with garbage. The most promising new biofuel technology is called cellulosic biomass or organic waste processed by thermal depolymerization. According to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the United States generates more than 250 million dry tons of forest, crops, and urban wood wastes that could be recycled to produce more than one million barrels a day of trasportation-grade biofuels. In addition, a similar technology called Thermal Conversion Process (TCP) can convert plastics and animal byproducts, including sewage into biofuel. The TCP process is also very efficient. The solid biomass is broken down into three componds during processing. Methane gas which is burned onsite to provide power to the processing plant, the actual oil that is used to produce biofuels, and a solid which can be used as a fertilizer. Renewable Environmental Solutions recently went online with the country's first TCP plant in Carthage, Missouri. The plant which converts turkey waste from nearby ConAgra Foods into biofuel was recently shut down, though, until an odor issue could be resolved.

This is just one new source of fuel that may be available to us through innovation. The more choice Americans have at the pump the more competitive the market will be, and the less control OPEC and the Middle East will have over our energy needs. There is no need to go to 100% ethanol right off the bat, but we should get the ball rolling and follow the Brazilian model of offering consumers a choice at the pump. The less reliant we are on just one source of fuel, the better off we will be.

In the long run, innovation is the key to the competitiveness and safety of the nation. A strong and well-developed innovation system and culture will advance economic growth and social well-being. When an economy is more innovative, it is more open to new ideas and technology. This increased flexibility can lead to improved productivity and competitiveness and will result in a higher standard of living. In order to make serious progress towards energy independence, the federal government will have to make considerable investment in research & development, planning and infrastructure. An investment in innovation today will pay off big in strengthening the nation and our security tomorrow.

Activist Judges under the Constitution?

2006-01-10T21:41:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
CoOpEd Blog

I think there is an important distinction we need to make between the founding fathers personal religious beliefs and their beliefs in the role religion should play in the government. It is clear from historical documents, including in bills they passed, that the founding fathers thought the more separation there is between Church and State, the better. When one of the founding fathers expressed his thoughts on religion they were free to do that by the very document they had drafted. That does not mean that they intermixed those beliefs with the founding documents. In fact there is strong evidence that they went out of their way to exclude them.

Religion should not be a part of the law, but expression of religious beliefs in the debate on the issues should not be discounted. Nor should personal religious beliefs be suppressed when serving in office, as long as those personal beliefs are not imposed on the people through laws and legislation.

Some feel that is exactly what is being done when religious symbols are placed on publicly owned and/or operated institutions or property. As such, these people, who may very well be a small minority, have the right under the Constitution to bring their grievances to the government, through the judicial branch, and have their day in court. Our judicial branch is obligated to follow the laws set forth in the constitution. Some will argue that judges have made many decisions that were not based on the constitution and label them “activist judges”. I think that is not a fair charge, because our Constitution was actually quite brilliant in it desire to be timeless.

If you read our Constitution it is interesting that the sections that deal with the power of the government are very clear and specific. It spells out in great detail the functions, responsibilities, and limits of the federal government, how the representatives of each branch are to be chosen, and even going so far as to say who can and cannot represent us.

However, if you look at the sections of the Constitution that deal with our rights and our freedoms, they are much more vague, and much more brief, therefore much more open to interpretation. I believe this was done intentionally by the founding fathers. Why? Because they knew that time was not static. What they knew was that government needed to be limited in it’s powers, but that other issues regarding personal liberties would and should change with the times.

They also knew through their experience with the Articles of Confederation that the document was too difficult to amend, and one of many purposes for the Constitutional Convention was to address this concern. They did make changes to the procedure in the Constitution to make it slightly easier in this respect, but I believe they intended to make that procedure unnecessary by being very specific about the powers of the government and vague on issues of personal liberties. This would protect our system of government from being easily changed by the courts, leaving it to the other branches to initiate difficult amendments. This would ensure that the changes to the way government worked were widely accepted. It would also allow our personal liberties, rights and freedoms to change with the changing times, not through the difficult to impossible task of amendments, but by allowing the court of the time to interpret the meanings based on the times.

Of course, I have no proof that this was their intent but, if you think of it in these terms, as I do, our founding fathers were quite brilliant in crafting a document that did just that. Are there some rights granted by the courts that the founding fathers never intended? Yes, but I think that was exactly what they intended to happen.

What Does Andrea Mitchell Know That She's Not Telling Us?

2006-01-06T01:25:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow

What is Andrea Mitchell, of NBC news, trying to tell us about the NSA domestic spying program? During an interview with New York Times reporter James Risen, who broke the story, Mitchell asks a rather peculiar question.

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.

I can understand the question about spying on journalists in general; but why did Mitchell bring up Amanpour in particular? Does Amanpour, Mitchell or NBC have reason to believe that she was the target of NSA spying? What is the significance if she was? After all journalists have contacts all over the world, some that the government might consider a security threat. But this particular journalist had another contact. One the Bush administration may have considered a political threat.

Christiane Amanpour, a CNN correspondent, happens to be married to Jamie Rubin. Mr. Rubin was Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and spokesman for the State Department during the Clinton administration. Even more interesting is the fact that he served as foreign policy advisor for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

Now, if Amanpour was the target of wiretapping, then certainly that eavesdropping would have included anyone who used her computers or phones, including Rubin. The implications of such a wiretap would be that Rubin's conversations would have been captured as well. Conversations with John Kerry, other campaign advisors and Democratic leaders.

On Wednesday, MSNBC.com posted the official transcript of the interview. This led AMERICAblog to question if Bush, had indead, wiretapped Amanpour. Two hours later NBC deleted the section of the transcript with Mitchell's question and Risen's answer . Notice that the transcript contains this disclaimer: "Following is an edited transcript of the interview." This leads to the question, why would NBC alter the official transcript?

After TVNewser posed that question to NBC, they released this statement:

Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry.

This is very significant. If NBC wishes to continue it's investigation into the Amanpour matter before airing the interview, then obviously there is something Andrea Mitchell knows; but she's not talking. Yet.

Democrats and the Big Picture

2005-12-30T01:27:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow

Republicans like to complain that Democrats have no ideas. The Democrats are running on a negative agenda, criticizing Republicans and Bush bashing, without offering positive alternatives. The Democrats are silent on the issues. The Democrats will never win elections if the voters don't know where they stand on the issues. But are the Democrats really silent on the issues? The House Democrats actually offer the Big Picture, the Innovation Agenda, and Issues in Focus. So for everyone who believes that the Democrats have no ideas, here you go, pick your topic and see where the Democrats stand on the issues.

The Innovation Agenda

New Partnership for America’s Future

Issues in Focus

National Security
National Security, Rail and Transit Security, 9/11 Commission, America's Ports, Armed Forces, Homeland Security, First Responders, Borders & Infrastructure, Strengthening Intelligence, FEMA Funding

Jobs and the Economy
Agriculture, Budget, Economic Growth, Family and Medical Leave Act, Interest Rates and the Deficit, Job Training, Manufacturing, National Service, Outsourcing, Overtime Pay & Comp Time, Revitalizing Our Rural Communities, Small Business, Trade, Unemployment

Retirement
Drug Discount Cards, Prescription Drugs Under Medicare, Problems in Privatizing Social Security, Protecting Medicare, Retirement Savings & 401(k) Plans, Survivor Benefits Penalty, Veterans' Earned Benefits, Protecting Social Security and Notch Relief

Health Care
Health Insurance Reform, Patients' Bill of Rights, Minority Health Care, Fighting Bioterrorism, Cost of Health Care, Insurance for Americans Aged 55-65, Mental Health Services, Medical Privacy, Medicine & Disease, Veterans' Health Care, Drug Discount Cards, Medicare, Prescription Drugs Under Medicare, Protecting Medicare, Democrats Support Stem Cell Research

Education
Head Start, Funding Public Education, Education, Rebuilding Public Schools, School Choice, Cost of Higher Education, Special Education

The Environment
Balanced Energy, Clean Air and Water, Making Polluters Pay, Parks and Open Spaces, Innovation of clean, secure energy sources

Democrats are silent on the issues? Hardly.

Read What Your Signing; You May Be Signing Your Rights Away

2005-12-23T01:29:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow

Recently, the Massachusetts Secretary of State certified 123,356 signatures from registered voters to put a same-sex marriage ban before state voters. That is twice the number required to get the measure on the ballot and breaks a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question. If the measure is passed by at least 25 percent of the Legislature in two successive sessions, the measure will appear on the ballot in November 2008.

One of the many problems with all this is that registered voters who signed the petition thought they were either signing a petition that would allow grocery stores to sell wine or a petition to protect gay marriage, when it was actually an anti-gay marriage petition.

Massachusetts Family Institute which is the sponsor of the amendment, hired Arno Political Consultants to gather signatures. The company, with a history of using fraudulent tactics, paid their signature gatherers by the signature. Some could make up to $1200 dollars a day.

The bait and switch scam happened outside Massachusetts grocery stores. Petition workers would ask shoppers to sign a petition to allow all grocery stores in Massachusetts sell wine. After voters signed the wine petition, the signature taker would ask them to sign a backup copy. That backup copy was actually a petition to put a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot. Tens of thousands of signatures may have been collected fraudulently. Possibly many of those signatures are from the very people who have the most to lose from the measure, Gays and Lesbians.

Attorney General Tom Reilly says he is powerless to do anything about the fraud and won't seek charges against Arno. He went on to say, "perhaps we should pass some laws against it." Do you think?

The website KnowThyNeighbor.org has posted the names and addresses of all 123,356 people who signed the petition. Those that signed the petition thinking they were signing it for another purpose, can fill out a 'fraud affidavit" offered on the website.

This is the latest in a long line of voter fraud cases that have been popping up over the past several years. This week, California announced that it will not recertify Diebold AccuVote touch-screen machines until they have been tested and certified by Federal authorities. They have also threatened to decertify machines made by ES&S. California joins other states including North Carolina and Missouri in decertifying the Diebold voting machines. Security problems with the machines in Florida have also caused counties there to decertify the machines, and Gov. Jeb Bush is supporting a review of the machines in that state.

The problems for Diebold stem from a security flaw that was discovered before the 2004 elections that would allow a hacker to gain access and change votes. The security flaw may have been exploited by hackers.

It is no wonder voter turnout is so low when we hear stories like this. "We the People" is meaningless in this country until we enact tough legislation against fraudulent petition gathering and put into place a voting system that is secure, reliable and accurate.

President Bush's Idea of Accountability: "Trust Me"

2005-12-19T01:31:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow

President Bush apparently thought when Congress gave him power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001", he took that to mean that he could sidestep the need for a warrant and eliminate the paper trail it provides.

He effectively became the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch. The problem with all of this is that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. That ruling is the precedent that should have set the stage for what "appropriate force" is.

In the case of United States v. United States District Court,
decided on June 19, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the President does not have the authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance without Judicial oversight.

These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359-360 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.

The Government argues that the special circumstances applicable to domestic security surveillances necessitate a further exception to the warrant requirement. It is urged that the requirement of prior judicial review would obstruct the President in the discharge of his constitutional duty to protect domestic security. We are told further that these surveillances are directed primarily to the collecting and maintaining of intelligence with respect to subversive forces, and are not an attempt to gather evidence for specific criminal prosecutions. It is said that this type of surveillance should not be subject to traditional warrant requirements which were established to govern investigation of criminal activity, not ongoing intelligence gathering.

These contentions in behalf of a complete exemption from the warrant requirement, when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in its domestic implications, merit the most careful consideration. We certainly do not reject them lightly, especially at a time of worldwide ferment and when civil disorders in this country are more prevalent than in the less turbulent periods of our history. There is, no doubt, pragmatic force to the Government's position.

But we do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case, we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure.

In response the U.S. Congress set up a special court and rules in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with the intent of addressing the issue of Judicial oversight, that did not impede the speed or threaten the secrecy of obtaining such a warrant. There is even a provision that allows surveillance to begin immediately, as long as a warrant is sought within 72 hours. If the FISA court still imposed a problem for intelligence gathering, then why didn't the President just go to Congress and work to change the law using Constitutional rules?

President Bush decided, instead, to side step this law and Judicial oversight, and avoid the paper trail of a warrant. Without a warrant there is no documentation, therefore, no accountability as to who and why the government was engaging in wiretapping. The President simply says "trust me". How do we know, without the oversight and documentation of the Judiciary, that the President was spying on only people with connections to known terror suspects?

Gay marriage around the world

2005-12-03T21:47:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
CoOpEd Blog

America is the “land of the free.” We are so proud of our freedom that we want to spread it around the world, sometimes by force, as in Iraq. Unfortunately the freedoms afforded to America’s citizens are not equal. In fact, America has fallen behind other nations around the world when it comes to marriage equality. So where in the world is same-sex marriage legal?

Full marriage equality:

Netherlands- a constitutional monarchy
The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

Belgium- a federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Canada- a constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a federation
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Spain- a parliamentary monarchy
Spain became the forth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005

The United Kingdom; including England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland- a constitutional monarchy
Will become the 5th nation to allow gay 'marriages' on roughly the same basis as heterosexual marriages., set to take effect on December 21, 2005.

South Africa- a Parliamentary democracy
South Africa will become the world's 6th nation to recongnize same-sex marriage on December 1, 2006.

Massachusetts, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Civil Unions:

Croatia- a presidential/parliamentary democracy
Civil partnerships since 2003.

Denmark- a constitutional monarchy
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

Finland- a republic
Registered partnerships since September 2001.

France- a republic
“Civil Solidarity Pacts,” (PACS) since November 9, 1999.

Germany- a federal republic
"Life Partnerships," granting equal financial and pension benefits as marriage.

Hungary- a parliamentary democracy
Common-law marriages since 1995; however they are not eligible for legal marriage.

Iceland- a constitutional republic
Since 1996, registered partnerships.

Luxembourg- a constitutional monarchy
Civil partnerships since 2004.

New Zealand- a parliamentary democracy
Same-sex civil unions since December, 2004.

Norway- a constitutional monarchy
Registered partnerships since 1996

Portugal- a parliamentary democracy
Same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex partners in common law marriage.

Sweden- a constitutional monarchy
Domestic partnerships since 1995.

Switzerland- a federal republic
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil recognition.

California, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
California provides domestic partnerships.

Connecticut, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
The second U.S. state to grant same-sex civil unions in April, 2005.

New Jersey, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
Domestic Partnerships that grant same-sex couples many of the full rights of marriage.

Vermont, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
The first U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions in 2000.

All these nations have granted some form of same-sex partnerships and the world didn’t come to an end, as some right wing “Christians” will have us believe. Over a year has passed since Massachusetts began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and a recent attempt to ban such marriages failed in the legislature 157-39.

Republican state Sen. Brian Lees, the amendment's co-sponsor, was no longer able to support the language. "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry,'' said Lees.”This amendment, which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."

All laws and state constitutional amendments in the U.S., banning same=sex marriage, are unconstitutional under The United States Constitution, which states in Article. IV, Section. 2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This means, simply, that if the majority of citizens (heterosexuals) are granted a right or privilege (marriage), then that same right must be extended to all citizens including minorities (homosexuals). It’s a sad commentary in this day and time that minorities in the freest country in the world are still fighting for religious and civil freedoms.

Updated: 12/03/2005

Marriage Equality Around the World

2005-12-03T02:36:00.000-05:00

America is the “land of the free.” We are so proud of our freedom that we want to spread it around the world, sometimes by force, as in Iraq. Unfortunately the freedoms afforded to America’s citizens are not equal. In fact, America has fallen behind other nations around the world when it comes to marriage equality. So where in the world is same-sex marriage legal?

Full marriage equality:

Netherlands- a constitutional monarchy
The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

Belgium- a federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Canada- a constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a federation
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Spain- a parliamentary monarchy
Spain became the forth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005

The United Kingdom; including England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland- a constitutional monarchy
Will become the 5th nation to allow gay 'marriages' on roughly the same basis as heterosexual marriages., set to take effect on December 21, 2005.

South Africa- a Parliamentary democracy
South Africa will become the world's 6th nation to recongnize same-sex marriage on December 1, 2006.

Massachusetts, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Civil Unions:

Croatia- a presidential/parliamentary democracy
Civil partnerships since 2003.

Denmark- a constitutional monarchy
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

Finland- a republic
Registered partnerships since September 2001.

France- a republic
“Civil Solidarity Pacts,” (PACS) since November 9, 1999.

Germany- a federal republic
"Life Partnerships," granting equal financial and pension benefits as marriage.

Hungary- a parliamentary democracy
Common-law marriages since 1995; however they are not eligible for legal marriage.

Iceland- a constitutional republic
Since 1996, registered partnerships.

Luxembourg- a constitutional monarchy
Civil partnerships since 2004.

New Zealand- a parliamentary democracy
Same-sex civil unions since December, 2004.

Norway- a constitutional monarchy
Registered partnerships since 1996

Portugal- a parliamentary democracy
Same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex partners in common law marriage.

Sweden- a constitutional monarchy
Domestic partnerships since 1995.

Switzerland- a federal republic
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil recognition.

California, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
California provides domestic partnerships.

Connecticut, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
The second U.S. state to grant same-sex civil unions in April, 2005.

New Jersey, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
Domestic Partnerships that grant same-sex couples many of the full rights of marriage.

Vermont, USA- a Constitution-based federal republic
The first U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions in 2000.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Troubled with "troubledwith.com"

2005-11-15T21:48:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
CoOpEd Blog

A recent revelation that Focus on the Family's website "Troubled With" hides homosexual derogatory terms in their source page prompted this letter:

On your entry page to troubledwith.com, it says:

"We care about you. You're not just a face in the crowd. You've found a safe place and someone you can trust."

Yet, up until recently your source page used the words "dyke", "fag", "flamer" in its keywords meta tag.

The current keyword meta tag uses: "homo", "sissy", "acting out", "won't play sports", and, "GLISTEN".

How can you honesty say you are a "safe place" to be "trusted" when you are hiding such blatant bigotry in your source page? Could you please explain what "GLISTEN" means?

I know several people who "won't play sports" who are not gay, and some that do play sports that are. This tells me that you are portraying stereotypes, not someone to be "trusted". I also find it interesting that you do not use the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality", the two terms that most homosexuals that you claim you want to help would use in a search. Instead, you use derogatory words that someone with a gay hate mentality would use. Could you please explain?

P.S.

On your Q @ A page "What should be the attitude of Christians toward those who are gay?"

You state:

There is no place for hatred, hurtful jokes, or other forms of rejection toward those who are homosexual. We cannot hope to win others to Jesus Christ if we insult and wound them.

Perhaps, you need to heed you own advice.

...waiting for a response...

Update 11/21/05: No response from troubledwith.com. I will resend by e-mail to Focus on the Family.

"Focus on the Family" needs to brush up on the Bill of Rights

2005-11-04T21:50:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
CoOpEd Blog

Apparently, the folks over at “Focus on the Family” need to take a geography course and brush up on U.S. history. Bill Wilson seems to believe that Sweden is a U.S. state. He also seems to have no knowledge of the Bill of Rights. In a recent post to Family News in Focus, Bill Wilson writes:

Hate crimes laws in Sweden are aimed at preachers reading from the Bible.

An amendment to the Children's Safety Act adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to protections covered by federal hate crime law. A conference committee will determine if it remains before being sent to the president. If Sweden is an example, the legislation would have devastating consequences here in the US. Steve Adams is a reporter with Citizen Magazine.

"As things move farther in that direction, it will become less inconceivable that we could have, say an Ake Greene situation. That's the pastor in Sweden who goes before the Supreme Court on November 9th and he's facing jail time for having preached against homosexuality."

It's the incremental acceptance of the gay lifestyle that worries many, including Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.

"Its not the specific provisions of this bill, but the slippery slope that it sets us on, because its quite clear from their rhetoric that pro-homosexual activists do not want homosexuals just to be protected from violence but to be protected from criticism altogether."

While what's happening in Sweden causes concern, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback thinks the country's extremism will help us here.

"I don't think you are going to see hate crimes legislation pass here in the United States because of the type of situation that's evolved in Sweden."

Even Sweden is backing away from the law's radicalism. The country's appeals courts have determined that while Bible verses dealing with homosexuality may be offensive to some, they are not criminal.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Just as the U.S. constitution and laws have no bearing on Sweden, Swedish law has absolutely no bearing on the U.S. Constitution or U.S. law. Hate speech in and of itself is protected in the Bill of Rights under the 1^st amendment. This one amendment delivers a double whammy against Mr. Wilson’s argument.Not only does it guarantee your right to free speech, but it also protects your religious freedoms. When we talk about hate crime in the U.S., we are talking about hate speech used while committing a crime. There is a big difference between a person who preaches a anti-homosexual message and a person who preaches a anti-homosexual message while beating a gay person to death. Come on people, please, when writing your rhetoric at least use a little common sense.

Darwin and homosexuality

2005-10-31T21:51:00.000-05:00

By JayJay Snow
CoOpEd Blog

Click here to read Mr Tabor's original post: Charles Darwin disagrees with homosexuality

Nathan Tabor claims that "The Southern Decadence Gay Pride Festival, had been welcomed by city officials in years past because of the large influx of cash it brought into the economy." As if monetary gain would be the only possible reason to allow such an event. But what about New Orleans' annual weeklong heterosexual flesh-fest and orgy in the streets widely touted as Mardi Gras? I suppose this festival has been welcomed by city officials in years past because of it’s wholesome family values.

If Mr. Tabor is really so concerned that gays are “living a destructive lifestyle and are destroyed by it”, then maybe he should lose the hypocrisy and support same-sex marriage. Such a measure would serve to strengthen gay monogamous relationships, who would start strong loving family units. This would allow gays and lesbians to fit into a lifestyle that right wing conservatives claim to be best.

Regarding Darwinism, Mr. Tabor states “Homosexuals would cease to exist because their sexual practices are such that they do not produce natural offspring.” …“By their iron laws of Natural Selection, he cannot possibly exist, let alone be genetically preserved and determined.” Homosexuals do not need science to prove to us that we exist, that fact is self-evident. If anyone needs scientific proof that’s his or her problem. I know I was created homosexual by the hands of God. Therein lies the real quandary. If you accept the Modern English interpretation of the bible, is it a worse sin to be gay, or to live your entire life as a lie? If you decide to live the lie then you will never truly know yourself, so how is God going to know you?

It is interesting to note that homosexuals are rarely the first born male child, but rather the odds of a homosexual birth rise with each subsequent birth. This has led to the belief that homosexuality is not determined solely (if at all) by genetics, but that the make up of hormones present during fetal development play a big role. The present day trend of smaller family units is a recent development. Previous generations did not practice Planned Parenthood and had many more offspring, resulting in increased competition for reproductive mates. The first born male is generally the most masculine (who may have trouble attracting females if he is too aggressive) and each subsequent male born would be slightly more feminine and possibly one or more may be homosexual. This would ensure a greater range of personality types and differing interests and result in less competition between male siblings, resulting in the greatest possibility for reproductive survival. This is seen in other places in nature, not all members of some species have the ability to reproduce, but rather only certain individuals who have more dominant features and personalities are selected for the task. Leaving the rest to responsibilities that ensure the greatest possibility for the species to survive and flourish reproductively. Furthermore some species reproduce asexually, while others are given the ability to change their sex from male to female and vice versa. This leads to the question is homosexuality simply a stepping stone in an ongoing evolutionary process? After all asexual reproduction would ensure by far the greatest possibility of reproductive survival. Maybe the next step in the evolutionary ladder is being witnessed in people, who are born inter-sexed, which is more prevalent that some may think (some estimates are 1 in 1500 births have inter-sexed qualities to varying degrees). The next step may be series of evolutionary events that would eventually enable these individuals to reproduce asexually. This also leads to the question of why would God create an individual who has both male and female organs? You can’t argue the fact of the existence of this sexual anomaly and if you believe in creationism then you have to believe that God also created this human variant. You also can’t argue the fact that God created individuals who do not have the ability to reproduce sexually, a medical fact. Why then is it so difficult to believe that God created homosexuals with purposes in mind other than reproduction? The incidents of homosexuality are high enough to ensure their survival but not nearly high enough to have any negative effects on human reproductive survival. So you see homosexuality can easily fit into Darwin’s Evolution Theory, a slow process of evolutionary baby steps, whereby the anomaly persists until it evolves to the next step or becomes detrimental to the survival of the species at which time it will die out.

With that said, Faith can be defined as believing in something even though there is strong opposing evidence to suggest it doesn’t exist. Darwinism is the best argument against the existence of God, but it also serves an important religious purpose, by actually strengthing faith in the face of overwhelming evidence.

God Bless.

The Government and Disaster

2005-09-14T21:44:00.000-04:00

If ever there is a time that the American People need the power of the Federal Government and the Leadership of a president it is during times of disaster. Former President Bill Clinton understood this, appointing a FEMA director that actually had experience in disaster management, James Lee Witt.

Mr. Witt's top aides in 2000, Lynn Canton and Michael Armstrong, ran regional FEMA offices for at least three years before assuming senior positions in Washington. After reorganizing the political dumping ground of FEMA and the agency’s quick and well-organized response to the Great Midwest Flood of 1993, the Clinton-Witt FEMA won new respect and bipartisan praise.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the FEMA of today. The top three in Bush's FEMA have zero experience. Mr. Bush stripped the agency of its independence and threw it into the massive bureaucracy of the DHS. As recently witnessed, FEMA’s control and ability to respond to natural disasters has been severely handicapped. This lack of control and the apparent missing chain of command has led to the current wave of finger pointing. Does the blame lie with FEMA for not taking control of the situation? Yes. Does the Blame lie with DHS for minimizing natural disaster training in the shadow of terrorism? Yes. But the ultimate blame lies with President Bush and his administration for stripping FEMA’s authority and appointing unqualified and incompetent leaders to that agency.

And what was Mr. Bush's response to Katrina? Political damage control. Shamelessly staging a series of photo ops, that involved coast guard helicopters, firemen whose only task was to appear with Bush in photo ops, and a faked repair of a damaged levee. All resources that should have been used to save American lives, being misused to make the President look good. For the entire time Bush was in New Orleans, all helicopter flights were suspended, further delaying deliveries of critically needed food and water. Three tons of food sat on the tarmac for hours waiting for Bush to finish posing for the cameras.

This is unbelievable. This is unacceptable. This is beyond reprehensible. This is beyond impeachable.This is criminal.