furioustruthtopower

Right Wing Logic.......

2011-02-11T07:35:00.003-05:00

1 - The U.S. Government has given the wealthy massive tax cuts and lost millions of job, which means that tax cuts for the rich create jobs.

2 - The GOP enacted massive tax cuts during the Bush Administration on borrowed money which ballooned the deficit. Upon retaking the House of Representatives, their first priority was to renew the massive tax cuts without paying for them. This means that they have learned their lesson about being fiscally irresponsible and running up the deficit.

3 - Between 2001 and 2006 (when the GOP controlled Congress, the White house, and the Supreme Court) the deficit ballooned as a result of two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare prescription program, which means that the 2006-2008 Democratic Congress is to blame for the deficit created during the Bush Administration.

4 - The United States was losing roughly 700,000 jobs per month when Barak Obama took the oath of office and this was halted within the first year of his Administration, which means that his policies caused the unemployment problem.

5 - Ronald Reagan and both Bush's ballooned the deficit over 300% and Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus, which means that Democrats are irresponsible spenders and Republicans are fiscally responsible.

5 - The best way to help the poor, the working poor, and the working class, is to destroy the unions and give more money to the wealthy.

6 - It was critical that we renew the Bush tax cuts which went overwhelmingly to the top 10% and added 750 billion dollars to the national debt, which means that the responsible thing to do is cut programs for the poor and working class because the national debt is out of control.

7 - The housing crisis was caused by poor people who wanted to own houses, not wealthy Wall Street tycoons.

8 - Barak Obama was the first person of color to be elected to the White House and there have only been 3 Black senators since reconstruction, which means that The President's race is his greatest political advantage.

9 - The world is experiencing weather extremes including floods and storms of near biblical proportions, which proves that climate change is a hoax.

10 - The Wall Street bankers nearly destroyed the worldwide economy due to deregulation and nothing they did was illegal, which means that we need to reduce regulations in order to get the economy on track.

Who's to Blame, the GOP's Dilemma

2010-12-05T23:41:00.002-05:00

While reviewing some video of a recent debate I engaged in with a GOP operative, I noticed an interesting exchange. When I mentioned President Bush's culpability for the economic crisis, my right wing adversary made the statement "isn't it time we stopped blaming Bush for everything." A somewhat modified version of this statement is quite popular in the mainstream media. The premise seems to be that after an unspecified amount of time, the argument that George W. Bush is responsible for the current financial crisis should be abandoned. This has been particularly effective when used during discussions concerning the current unemployment numbers.

The argument that there is some kind of amorphous statute of limitations for President Obama's predecessor is remarkably flawed. This would be problematic for those using that argument if it were ever challenged. Unfortunately, the mainstream pundits are too busy discussing this lunacy to question its validity. In order for this ridiculous concept to hold, either one of two lines of reasoning must be used. Their position must be that either "Obama caused it," or "Obama hasn't fixed it."

The first argument would be that the current unemployment numbers are the direct result of President Obama's policies. The obvious problem with this "he caused it" assertion is the actual numbers. The dramatic leaching of American jobs started well before Barack Obama took office. In each of the four months prior to President Obama's inauguration, this country lost over 500,000 jobs. Twelve months after President Obama's inauguration, the job losses had stopped and there was a net gain of jobs for the first month of 2010.

This smoothly transitions us to the second line of reasoning, that President Obama hasn't both stopped the job loss and regained enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate to an acceptable level, or the "he hasn't fixed it" argument. This is an argument that does nothing to benefit the GOP. If that is their assertion, it naturally contradicts the claims that President Obama is responsible for the jobless numbers and that we should absolve President Bush of responsibility for the entire mess. The "problem" when President Obama took office was the dramatic leaching of jobs, not the unemployment rate. The latter was a clearly result of the former. That being the case, the numbers demonstrate that he was very successful in stopping the problem he inherited.

The Republicans are masters of distorting and controlling the public debate. Unfortunately, what they are really bad at...is governing the country.

The Last Throes of the Confederacy

2010-04-18T00:48:00.000-04:00

The ghost of the southern confederacy has raised its ugly head in a variety of ways as of late. Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke of secession, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell made a point of celebrating confederate history month while ignoring slavery, and most tellingly, Oklahoma lawmakers are considering raising a state militia to protect themselves from the policies of the Federal Government.

Referencing terms such as “Union and Confederacy” would seem over the top in this day and age were it not for the unusual developments in right wing political circles. We must also bare in mind that the Confederacy lost the Civil War, but won the peace in a variety of ways. The most obvious confederate victory was that they were allowed to continue practicing social and economic apartheid for at least another hundred years. From the perspective of African Americans, the Civil War granted immediate relief from legal physical slavery but not much else. They were denied their constitutional rights as citizens, often worked as semi-slave sharecroppers, and suffered vicious brutality at the hands of right wing terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Less than 10% of Southern White citizens owned slaves so most southerners lost little, other than battle damaged property, as a result of the Union Victory. In fact, for many years after the Civil War, suppression of Black voters in the South allowed Southern whites to wield an inordinate amount of power in the Federal Government. The “Gentlemen’s agreement” surrender at Appomattox is viewed as an armistice by modern day confederate sympathizers.

The issue of race and the political dynamics of the ongoing metaphorical Confederate v. Union conflict are inseparable. The Civil War was almost entirely about slavery and almost all other peripheral issues such as state’s rights were related to slavery. Modern day confederates view the existence of an African American President as an assault on the informal armistice agreement which allows them to maintain their Southern culture of racism and privilege. Adding insult to injury, the new President comes into office speaking of a more perfect Union, swears in on Abe Lincoln’s bible, and maintains power alongside a female Speaker of the House and a Jewish Chief of Staff.

The Tea party movement is the modern incarnation of the Confederacy. When confronted with the opportunity, Tea Party protesters conspicuously singled out civil rights icon John Lewis for racial harassment and spit on another African American Member of Congress. As could be expected, the only other member of Congress singled out for direct attack was Jewish (Barney Frank).

The brandishing of weapons at Presidential appearances, signs threatening gun violence, and the April 19^th second amendment march are indications that confederate sympathizers view themselves as protectors of the southern culture and are likely poised for violence. We should keep in mind that the original violent terrorists in the U.S. were the Southern KKK members who also viewed themselves as protectors of the southern culture. I believe that the media has been irresponsible in assigning the Tea Partiers unwarranted credibility and failing to adequately address the violent rhetoric. We overlook the overt attempt at raising a new confederate militia at our own peril.

The Tea Party Movement and the Neo-Nazis?

2010-03-26T23:07:00.002-04:00

The question of whether the Tea Party movement is directly connected to White Supremacist Neo-Nazi hate groups has been answered.

The issue of Tea Party racism vaulted to the forefront of the discussion last week when its members spat on an African American member of Congress and shouted the n-word at least fifteen times at another. Republican members of Congress were seen stirring up the angry mob. When confronted about the racist acts and their party’s connection to the Tea Party movement, GOP members of Congress defended the actions as isolated incidents, then went on to attack those who were the targets of such attacks as opportunists using the actions for political gain. African American RNC Chairman Michael Steel immediately responded by saying that there were “some idiots saying some very stupid things.”

Started by former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, Stormfront .org is the internet’s premier White Nationalist Neo Nazi website. It started in 1990 as an internet forum and was taken over in 1995 by Don Black. Mr Black was also a former grand wizard of the KKK and a former member of the National Socialists White People’s Party (formerly theAmerican Nazi party). Stormfront.org was named by USA Today as the most visited hate site on the net. As early as 2005 the site had 52,566 registered users and by 2008 was attracting more than 40,000 unique users each day. One of the sites regular posters gained national attention when in April 2009, Richard Poplowski, was charged with ambushing and killing three Pittsburgh Police Officers and attempting to kill another nine. Focusing its message of hate principally on Blacks and Jews, with a secondary focus on illegal aliens,Stormfront.org is a dangerous hate site that is closely monitored by such groups as the Anti Defamation league, The Southern poverty law Center, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. It is also a Neo-Nazi website which promotes Adolph Hitler as a great leader.

The significance of Stormfront.org and its relationship to the Tea Party movement is pretty obvious. Let’s check out one of their most popular forums marked:

“Events White Nationalist demonstrations, rallies, conferences, talk shows, media interviews.”

Here are some ACTUAL posts:

“I saw something about it today on one of the cable news channels. Seems that there are going to be a lot of people protesting across the country“

“http://taxdayteaparty.com/ I believe this is the national site.”

This is a post by a member who calls himself “WHITE CSA (confederate states of America) and sports a Confederate flag as his ID.:

“We are hosting one at the Tupelo City Hall (Mississippi) on Saturday April 11, 2009 and I am helping organize another Boston Tea Party in Prentiss County, Mississippi on Tax Day. I am proud that so many people are finally waking up and speaking up for Lower Taxes!”

“This could be the start of a new third party and it would be good if it opened the way of getting rid of our problems once and for all - rather than just another political puppet of the jews, and a new mask for jewish rule.”

“I will be at the one in Richland, WA. I will bring a friend from work and a family of 5 from the community. This is a golden opportunity for us people, Leave the flags at home, that will come later when you have thousands of pissed off people to pick from for your White nationalist group”

This is an interesting post by “Whites Forward, “bring Ernst Zundel Home Now”

In terms of major goals for tomorrow, I was thinking:
1) Assertion of independence of the Tea Party crowd from the Democrats AND Republicans.
2) Rejection of neocons.
3) Mass White rejection of the Leftist thugs (this should be loud)
4)assertion of the pressing issues I mentioned that take the consciousness beyond the realm of taxes to the realm of racial polarization and struggle.
---immigration
---mortgage crisis
---bailouts of banks and major corporations
---unemployment and Third World labor
---Wars for Israel
---affirmative action
---non-White crime
5) Strong first impression and precedent set by racialists at the Tea Party event.
6) Vivid mass media coverage of any of the above 5 points
7) Real-world racial mass activism experience for the racialists
8) We gain a receptive audience, new contacts, and hold a independent meeting for those who share much with us within a week.

“You might want to move them from conservatism, and mild anti liberalism, and anti-colored sentiment, to more pronounced dislike of the liberals, blacks, and other scum.Than from liberalism you can move on to communism, crimes during ww2, and eventually the jews.”

“There are two kinds of people in this world, those who know what the Jews have done and those who do not.”

"avoid no-no's - in america this is
1) "racism" - and use of the word "race" "jew" - even people who are anti black or anti-jew do not want to be racist - it's ok to be anti balck but not a "racist" - avoid this fortification - be a racist without being a "racist" 2) extreme solutions genocide deportations) (more on this)"

As you may have noticed from these posts, the Neo-Nazi White nationalists are organizing Tea Party events and working within the movement to further their racists agenda.The connection can no longer be denied and the Republican leaders should be brought to task for their acceptance of this dangerous organization.

The latest greatest event planned by Tea Party Sympathizer Skip Coryell is the Second Amendment March (formerly known as the million gun march). The event is scheduled for April 19th, the anniversary of the date on which Timothy Mcveighkilled 168 civilians in a home grown terrorist attack on an Oklahoma City Federal Building. Among the featured speakers are Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Larry Pratt. Information about Pratt, who formed the Patriot militia in 1992 along with White supremacists and anti-semitic Christian Identity leaders, and other scheduled speakers can be found can be found HERE.

The mix of violent right wing hate groups and legitimate political organizations should be of extreme concern to Americans of all races and religions. It should come as no surprise if an act, or acts, of violence arise from this dangerous unstable brew.

The Teabaggers, Obama’s Cavalry?

2010-03-06T20:41:00.001-05:00

Although the issue of health care reform can be an important political issue during the 2010 elections, I believe it is a serious mistake to argue that it will be the primary determinant of how the election cycle swings. Recently, the Whitehouse quietly announced that their next major legislative issue will be immigration. Clearly health care reform is a very expensive initiative and the “death panel” arguments have created an emotionally heated argument, but comparatively speaking, health care reform is a very mild emotional topic when compared to immigration reform.

While immigration reform is obviously an important legislative matter and The White House will undoubtedly need to tackle it before 2012, the political timing of addressing this controversial topic is quite interesting. The unique political characteristic of immigration reform, from a strategic perspective, is its potential to expose major fissures in the republican machine. The Bush Administration’s position on immigration and the reaction of the GOP rank and file was an early indication that this would be a deadly issue for the Grand Old Party. Bush sided somewhat with the left and was in favor of a lenient (by GOP standards) “guest worker” program. Many felt the program was specifically designed to allow corporate America access to cheap labor but that it would at least allow undocumented workers some access to job safety and possibly even a retirement plan. The GOP foot soldiers were furious and reacted so angrily that the issue was quickly defeated and pushed to the bottom of the pile. The truth about immigration was out, the wealthy corporate republicans were dying to get their hands on a new generation of cheap labor and the Limbaugh listeners were looking to get rid of unwanted brown people who speak a foreign language. Once again, the chickens from the racist southern strategy were coming home to roost.

In the next few months healthcare reform will be finished and the GOP will once again face the internal divisions that are exposed by the issue of immigration reform. The Tea Party Movement will go nuclear at the mention of legislation that creates an avenue for undocumented workers to become US citizens. They will demand mass deportation and move to unseat all GOP incumbents who stray from their rigid anti-immigrant position. Meanwhile, GOP Congress members are facing a growing Latino population. This amounts to the trifecta of political headaches for the Republican incumbents come November. The Corporations favor lenient policies for foreign workers, the right wing rank and file favor rigid anti-immigrations laws, and the increasing numbers of Latino voters favor extremely liberal immigration policies. The paradox of man has always been that our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness. As was the case in upstate New York, the Teabag purist may very well dominate the GOP internally and produce general election candidates too extreme to claim any votes from the center, thus handing some reliable republican seats to a democrat. It is quite possible that the rigid right wing fury of the Tea Party Organization ultimately proves considerably more helpful to the President and his party, than the GOP.

Bow-gate, How Low Can You Go?

2009-11-16T23:01:00.004-05:00

Let's just say that you move into a new office with a new group of co-workers and the very first day you are approached by a particular gentlemen named Bill. Bill seems to have some kind of problem with another co-worker, we'll call him Joe. Every morning Bill greets you with the latest screw up that Joe has committed. "Did you see where Joe parked this morning" he snidely remarks on Monday, "Who does he think he is parking right next to the V.P. of operations, what a suck-up." Tuesday you notice that Joe has hung a picture of his wife and kids in his cubicle. "He thinks we don't know he's trying to look like Mr. Goody Two-Shoes for the regional manager's visit tomorrow" remarks Bill. This goes on day after day, week after week, until you finally feel the need to confront Bill. "Bill" you say, "I have an issue with this Joe business. I think you are obsessing and I wonder what it is that you have against Joe, he seems like a nice enough guy to me?" Here's the question, if Bill says that he has no problem with Joe, he just happens to notice these obvious issues and feels that it is his duty to bring them to your attention would you believe him?

George Bush held the hand of, and kissed a Saudi King

Groped a German Prime Minister

and generally made a bungling idiot of himself abroad for eight long years.

However, the most ardent Bush apologists have become the most nitpicking critics America has ever known. Their latest gripe? President Obama bowed to the Japanese Prime Minister. If President Obama walked across the ocean to Japan they would have criticized him for breaking protocol by not taking Air Force One. The right wing echo chamber criticized the President for not wearing a tie in the Oval Office until pictures of Reagan without a tie appeared. They criticized him for taking his wife to a play in New York, for trying to bring the Olympics with its thousands of jobs to the U.S., for not going to Berlin, and for giving the Queen of England the very gift that she requested. Then CHEERED wildly when the United States lost its Olympic bid.

It's only been ten months but you have to wonder how long these clowns can keep up this kind of pace. You need only pay attention to what the President has, or hasn't done on a given day to predict the next round of absurd criticisms that are about to be leveled at him. I believe that we are rapidly reaching a point where the wing nut Obama critics are becoming caricatures of their own movement. However, I doubt they will be discouraged by a loss of credibility. One of my favorite quotes explains these people and their criticism quite clearly:

"Any argument that is not founded in logic and reason, will not be swayed by it"

The GOP's Strategy of Sabotage

2009-10-10T14:17:00.000-04:00

In order to understand the tactics of the Republican Party you must first consider the strategy. The GOP, as an organization, is intent upon regaining political power, nothing else. This is not to say that there are not individuals within the Party who hold a genuine belief that their ideology is the most effective method of governance for our society. However, the overall Party strategy is forward looking with little regard for the "collateral damage" it will likely cause to the Country. In fact, it appears that the collateral damage is viewed as the vehicle to ultimate success. They see next year’s midterm elections as an opportunity to regain power and credibility.

The problem with the GOP's subversive plan is that the only way it works is if the country suffers setbacks and disaster. It doesn't take a P.H.D. in political science (lucky for me) to figure out that an economic upturn and the passage of legislature which enhances the lives of ordinary voters, such as universal health care, reduces the odds of the GOP retaking either of the houses of congress in 2010. Therefore, I would argue that any legislation which will either improve, or have the have the potential to improve the social and economic situation in America will be adamantly opposed by the Republican Party at all levels, specifically because it would in turn enhance the image of the incumbent party. Though quite cynical I admit, this argument is highly logical when considering the peculiar actions of the GOP in recent weeks. The Party whose motto was "Country First" during the presidential election wildly cheered when it was announced that the Olympic Committee had made a decision to send the games to Rio, despite the fact that this decision kept hundreds of millions of badly needed dollars out of the pockets of hardworking Americans. In virtual concert with Al Queda and the Taliban, the GOP attacked the President when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the most prestigious awards in the world.

When all of the evidence is considered, the obvious conclusion is that between now and the midterm elections the Republican strategy amounts to political sabotage. The GOP has reasoned, as any sensible person or organization would, that millions of Americans with no health care coverage, who suddenly find themselves with health care coverage, are likely to feel some sense of gratitude to the Democrats. The underlying problem for the GOP is that many of them hail from impoverished Southern states with significant numbers of uninsured citizens. Though they may sympathize with the teabaggers, I doubt that many poor southern mothers will refuse health care coverage for their children just because it is a Government run system. Unfortunately, it appears that the Republican Party is betting that the only way up, is to push the average American further down.

Alternative Healthcare Plan?

2009-07-05T22:34:00.002-04:00

Maybe I keep missing something in the GOP's alternative healthcare proposals, but it appears to me that they only address healthcare reform for people who are either already employed and either have healthcare, or can afford it at a minimal price. The variety of proposals put forth by various GOP groups and Republican members of Congress focus on lowering taxes in one form or another for those who either have healthcare with their current employer or are employed with no healthcare. This does little or nothing to address those who are unemployed, don't make enough to pay taxes, or make so little that they can barely afford basic essentials.

In real numbers, the plan put forth by the "House Republican Healthcare Solutions Group" covers only 17 million of the 46 million uninsured Americans in the best case scenario. The plan has no budget projections and its creators have no time table for when those numbers will be available.

It appears that their strategy is to provide so few details, that the opposition won't have anything to attack. An odd but possibly effective poltical strategy to address healthcare issues in America. However if you are unemployed with no healthcare you might want to consider moving to Costa Rica. The economy may be a little shabby, but they provide universal healthcare for all citizens.

Obama's Supreme Strategy

2009-05-05T23:25:00.002-04:00

President Obama has an opportunity to make history by nominating the first Latino for a Supreme Court seat and putting the final nail in the GOP’s coffin simultaneously. Whether he selects the current favorite Sonia Sotomayor or another person not yet named, a Latino selection would be disastrous to the GOP.

The GOP is firing up their rhetoric machine to viciously attack Obama’s nominee. They have no choice but to throw red meat to their base by launching relentless personal attacks against the unfortunate soul who sits before them to answer questions about his or her intentions as a Supreme Court Justice. The problem they have is one of numbers at the polling booth. Several Western States have turned blue lately and in no small part due to the shift in the Latino vote from Republican to Democrat. I suspect there will be a significant negative reaction in the Hispanic community as they watch the first Latino Supreme Court nominee in history eviscerated by Southern GOP Senators on national television in confirmation hearings. If that does not incite fury, they will hear far right wing anti-immigrant Republicans such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck making outright racist statements on the nightly news shows, as they are sure to do.

I have little doubt that the Republican Party will launch merciless attacks on the Supreme Court nominee and that if that nominee is a Latino, there will be serious consequences for the GOP at the polling booths in 2010 and beyond. The growing Latino Community has a right to be represented in the highest court in the Land, and what a great bonus to be able to set the GOP on a suicide course in the process.

The "Real Republicans" Won

2009-04-28T23:35:00.000-04:00

It appears that a congratulations is in order for Rush limbaugh, Michael Steele, and the Religious Right. They have been calling for Arlen Spectre's political head every since he declared his allegiance to Lenin by voting for the Obama Administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (The Stimulus Bill). Upon learning of his treasonous betrayal, Chairman Steele quickly proposed that the Party find a more conservative challenger to oust Senator Spectre in the next Pennsylvania Primary Race. Recent statements by Senator Spectre make it quite clear that he met with the Pennsylvania Republican Party and discussed the reality that a staunchly conservative candidate would almost assuredly be defeated in the general election. Oddly, the Pennsylvania Republican Party advised him that a loss based on principle was an acceptable outcome, which explains their self destructive election strategies for the last two general election cycles.

Rush Limbaugh immediately went after Spectre and the entire moderate wing of the Party by delivering the "message" that "A lot of people say, 'Well, Specter, take McCain with you. And his daughter." Rush also said that he felt that this was ultimately good for the Party because it would weed out people who aren't really Republicans. As Rush and company celebrate another victory, I wonder how many of them recognize the cost. Could it be that this is just a sour grapes defense or are these clowns really fiddling while Rome burns around them? Whatever the case, Spectre's loss means that the Northeast is officially closed for the GOP (other than the Maine Senators, but that’s' a unique situation). Limbaugh, Hannity, and the other "Real Republicans" have great cause to celebrate Senator Spectre's move. The apostate traitor has been ousted and the Party was freed from his uncleanness. The Republican Party has become too right, too white, too Southern, and too small. Will the Last GOP Senator who leaves the Northeast please take down the Confederate flag, turn the light off, and close the door on your way out?

Michelle Bachman, How Far is Too Far?

2009-03-29T14:28:00.003-04:00

The right to free speech is one of the most important provisions set forth in the Constitution. As a lifelong civil libertarian I have been involved in a variety of legal cases in which the issue of free speech was at the forefront. In fact, one of the cases I advocated for involved defending, of all groups, the Ku Klux Klan. There is no denying that the KKK is a despicable organization. However, I hold no desire to give up my 1st amendment rights just to insure that they are denied theirs.
That being said, the 1st amendment does not give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, neither does it protect your right to violate a United States Federal Statute. Representative Michelle Bachman, (R-Minnesota) approached, and possibly crossed, the line of legal free speech during her March 27th appearance on the Sean Hannity Radio Show. Representative Bachman said:

"At this point the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch. It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt, we who will be bankrupting this country, inside of ten years, if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer.

The Alien Registration Act, also known as the Smith Act makes it a criminal offense for anyone to:

"knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

It is fairly clear that Rep. Bachman's statement advocates and advises the necessity, desirability, and propriety of overthrowing the duly elected Government of the United States. The only question is whether she is advocating that this overthrow is done by force. Her use of the word "orderly" before the term revolution" may" be a reasonable defense. However, when this statement is coupled with her March 21st statement in which she said:

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.

that defense becomes considerably less plausible. Regardless of her intent, Rep. Bachman is using extremely dangerous terms in a public forum. There are mentally unbalanced citizens in our society who need little motivation to become violent. I believe that our enforcement authorities have a duty to act when anyone in our society is involved in such a reckless campaign for revolution. Rep. Bachman is advising the political minority to overthrow the Government elected by a significant majority.

As if Representative Bachman's words are not inciteful enough, observe this recent poll from Sean Hannity's Website:

The Smith Act goes on to say:

"If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction"

For the last eight years The Bush Administration routinely acted with reckless disregard for the Constitution and the laws of our Country. It is time to hold the right wing extremist accountable for their words and act to protect our elected officials.

WHO'S TO BLAME FOR THIS ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE?

2009-03-25T17:16:00.008-04:00

CLICK ON THIS PICTURE

Shredding the Constitution, Again

2009-03-23T19:46:00.006-04:00

The Bush Administration was frequently lambasted by their left wing opposition for violating, or “shredding” as it was popular to say, the Constitution. It seemed that the Constitution was at times viewed by the Bush people as an impediment to achieving what they believed were honorable goals. It was blatantly obvious to Bush's detractors, and a number of Federal Judges, that they crossed constitutional lines on a number of occasions.

The term "shredding the constitution" became popular when it became clear that the Bush Administration was deliberately taking unconstitutional actions, hiding them from the public and Congress, and showing utter contempt for those who dared to question their actions. The legal decisions on which they based their actions were generally hidden, and most have been labeled as absurd once reviewed by competent legal experts.

Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 of the Constitution is quite clear, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.

It seems that the "ends justifying the means" attitude in Washington did not leave when the Bush Family moved to Dallas. Congress has decided to take a page from the Bush Administration's play book and deliberately violate the Constitution to achieve what they believe are honorable goals. In the political pandemonium that followed the revelations that AIG executives were taking huge lumps of taxpayer dollars in the form of bonuses in return for destroying the Company, Congress played the Bush card. They passed a law which retroactively taxes the unconscionable bonuses out of existence. Denying those who were either incompetent, unethical, or a combination of both the opportunity to fleece the US taxpayers is an honorable goal. However, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 of the Constitution does not contain an exception for honorable goals. In a news interview, Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) never defended the Constitutional footing of the law in question; he simply indicated that the aggrieved executives would have to take legal action to overturn it. This statement infers that he had full knowledge that the law was unconstitutional and that the intent was to force the intended targets to challenge the law in court and face the subsequent negative press.

Clearly the AIG Executives have not earned these massive bonuses. However, a Congress controlled by the Democrats has no more right to "Shred the Constitution" than a Presidential Administration controlled by Republicans. In both cases the Parties involved in the act either new, or should have known that their actions constituted a Constitutional violation. It appears that we have finally found common ground between the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington.

The Credibility Gap

2009-03-15T10:30:00.002-04:00

Republican Whip Eric Cantor's appearance on "Meet The Press" very clearly underscored the major hurdle that the GOP must overcome to regain national prominence. Rep. Cantor was in the midst of complaining about the reckless spending habits of the current Democratic Administration when the host, David Gregory, reminded him of his personal participation in the Bush Administration's eight year spending orgy. Mr. Gregory questioned how Representative Cantor and his Party leaders could criticize the Democrats for overspending after their abysmal fiscal record in recent years. Representative Cantor's answer was as self destructive as it was dishonest and insincere. He implied that the massive GOP budgets during the Bush years were mainly to support the troops, ignoring the fact that the money to run the wars was intentionally left out of every Bush budget and had to be appropriated through emergency spending measures. He also made the shocking argument that the Democrats should not make the same mistakes that the GOP had made during the Bush years.

Representative Cantor's argument was, to some extent, reasonable although not as he meant it. His argument, as I see it, is that his Party is fighting to insure that the Democrats are not as fiscally irresponsible as the Republicans. Though the premise is quite reasonable, it certainly is not one that would influence voters to abandon the Democratic Party and vote Republican. The 2009 GOP is modern day proof of the age old saying, "you can't talk yourself out of something that you have behaved yourself into." Eight years of bad behavior has destroyed the credibility of the Republican Party. There isn't much left that they can complain about without facing charges of hypocrisy. Other than right wing radio talk shows and Fox News, there are few media outlets on which they can attack the Democrats and go unchallenged.

The hapless leadership of Michael Steele coupled with an argument that accents their own disastrous fiscal record is setting the GOP up for a third consecutive drubbing in the 2010 elections and complete political irrelevancy. If their misfortunes continue unchecked, their Congressional power will be so insignificant that they will go from the Party of "NO" to the Party of "PLEASE DON'T."

Another Unfortunate Titanic Metaphor

2009-03-09T21:58:00.007-04:00

OK, lets just suppose there was the Captain of a ship called the Titanic, for the purpose of this metaphorical illustration we'll call him Captain Bush. Now this Captain is arrogant, cocky and not terribly bright and unfortunately he happens to be at the helm of the most powerful Country, oops....I mean ship, in the history of the World. As is easily predictable, this hapless bungler of a ship's Captain proceeds to slam the massive vessel square into an iceberg. Though Captain Bush and his bridge hands are able to conceal the degree of damage for a few hours, eventually it becomes obvious to all aboard that the circumstances are dire. After a brief meeting, the Passengers and Crew vote to toss the Captain and his inner circle of supporters overboard and select a new Captain.

Their plan goes off without a hitch, but time is short and the situation is critical. The new Captain Obama is young bright and optimistic, however he has assumed control of the bridge of a vessel which is taking on water at an alarming rate. He devises a brilliant plan and embarks upon what may be a futile attempt to save the vessel. At this point in the metaphor the ship is in pretty bad shape,but still afloat so we don't yet know how the plot will unfold, but things definitely don't look rosy.

The scene changes and we find ourselves in the media room with various pundits, many of whom helped place the incompetent Captain Bush at the helm in the first place. Horrified that the passengers will recognize their complicity in the creation of this tragic circumstance and make them walk the plank, they make a pact never to mention the name of the former Captain and to make the case that the New Captain is at fault. They decide to argue that the number of gallons of water pouring into the vessel per minute has increased since the new Captain has taken the helm and therefore he should be held responsible for the tragedy, instead of old "What's His Name."

Sound pretty ridiculous? You need only turn on Cable news or listen to AM talk radio to hear this absurd argument made daily. The latest right wing talking point, or more accurately "leap of logic", is remarkably simple and just as remarkably absurd. The daily fall of the Dow , according to the right wing media, is a reaction to President Obama's policy proposals therefor he is to blame for our economic woes. This argument ignores the fact that the stock market began it's slide before Obama was elected or that the massive job losses began months before he took office. More importantly we must ignore the fact that most of the Obamas plan ares still in the proposal stage. Their twisted logic creates an economic crisis which began on January 20, 2009 and would clearly right itself shortly if not for the policies being proposed by the Obama Administration. Each day the latest Wall Street drop is directly linked to the latest Tim Geithner speech or future health care proposal.

It was easily predictable that the right wing mouthpieces would make an attempt to shift the responsibility for this economic catastrophe from its rightful owners. Their policies of deregulation and corporate welfare must be protected for future use when, and if, this mess is cleaned up. I foolishly assumed that they would wait a tad bit longer than one month into the new Administration.

Michael Steele's Hip Hop Plan

2009-03-06T08:41:00.006-05:00

In just a few short weeks Michael Steel has proven beyond a doubt that he is a hopelessy flawed leader with an impossible mission. In one of Mr. Steele's first proposals, he has indicated that he plans an "off the hook" public relations offensive to attract young Hispanics and Blacks. He has stated that he intends to apply conservative principles to urban hip hop settings. Mr. Steele appears to believe that he need only repackage his message in a way that will be more alluring to the demographic he desires to attract.

As has been most of the GOP strategies over the last several years, this one is remarkably flawed. Mr. Steele appears to believe that young Blacks and Hispanics attraction to the President is related to race and culture as opposed to policy. Were Mr. Steele truly in connection with that community he would have realized that President Obama is by no means a hip hop culture icon. President Obama is a supremely articulate Harvard Lawyer. The closest he comes to hip hop is wearing a designer business suit with no tie and his top button open. From the perspective of music culture, President Obama fits much better in the "jazz music cool" category than hip hop "off the hook". We can much more easily picture our President wearing a pair of dark shades strumming a base guitar than we can wearing baggy jeans and gold chains spewing street slang.

Unfortunately for Mr. Steele, he must operate in an environment that will not, and can not admit that policy is the driving force behind President Obama's youthful following. Admitting that "policy is the issue which creates the attraction" immediately begs the question whether the GOP is willing to question their current policies. Questioning GOP policies is extremely risky for Mr. Steele because the Party's brittle dogmatic base may view that as treason and turn on him en masse. The GOP base, particularly the Southern Evangelicals, have equated their policies to a set of opaque moral values which ultimately means that questioning Party policy is an attack on morality from their perspective.

Chairman Steele is in an unenviable position. His Party obviously felt that the reactionary pick of a Black Committee Chairman to a Black President would counter the Democrats dominance in the Black community. His impossible job is to promote a set of policies designed to favor the wealthy and corporate class, placate the dogmatists, and attract people of color to a Party culturally associated with the Confederacy. Compounding Steele's dilemma is the fact that his "less than stellar" political career indicates that he would likely struggle leading the GOP in the best of times.

Michael Steel may survive just long enough to be an effective scapegoat. Unfortunately for him, GOP leaders have discovered their error in assuming that choosing a Black Chairman would guarantee Black votes. They have also began to notice his conspicuously lacking administrative skills. It is not unreasonable to assume that a plan to unseat him has already been hatched and will be executed at first opportunity.

The irony in this political farce is that the anti-affirmative action Party selected a candidate for the RNC Chairmanship based almost solely on race and ended up with a seemingly incompetent Leader. Then again, maybe it was all just a devious well executed plan to discredit affirmative. Whatever the case, I doubt that Steele's "off the hook" hip hop plan will either bear a great deal of fruit or save his job.

The "Specter" of Bipartisanship

2009-02-15T20:21:00.007-05:00

Though it received little media attention, Senator Arlen Specter revealed a major conundrum facing the GOP. After voting for the Economic Stimulus Bill, Senator Specter Remarked:

"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today, one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary."

"I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation," he said.When asked the number of Republican Senators who held that sentiment he replied,
"I think a sizable number, I think a good part of the caucus agrees with the person I quoted, but I wouldn't want to begin to speculate on numbers."

The issue of a primary was first and foremost on the minds of Specter's Republican peers. They feared that they would anger the base and risk losing their cherished Senate seats to more conservative challengers in the primaries. This is of special concern now because the bulk of the Republicans in Congress are from extremely conservative districts. The appearance of caving in to the Democrats would be politically fatal to an Alabama of South Carolina GOP Senator.

Specter's cloak room conversation makes it pretty clear that a sizable number of GOP Senators are not, as they assert, ideologically opposed to this Bill. They simply value keeping their Senate seat over working to save the ailing U.S. economy.

This episode also reveals the depth of the problems faced by today's GOP. The Republicans in Congress are being controlled by the Party's right wing. To make matters worse, it's the right wing at the bottom of the Party as opposed to the right wing at the top. During the Bush Administration, the neocons and the wealthiest 1% controlled the Party via the White house. When the Party fell into disarray after the 2008 election cycle, the core of power fell from the top the the bottom. The sudden power vacuum created an environment in which the hapless base inadvertently seized power. Their unity around social issues and collective view of Democrats as an outgroup made them the only element in the Party with any semblance of continuity.

During the Bush Administration party elites, with Karl Rove as their enforcer, ruled GOP members of Congress with iron fists. Congressional decisions were made collectively based on the fear of retribution from above. Now, as indicated by Senator Specter's comments, the situation has been reversed. GOP members of Congress are now forced to consider the effects of angering the unified voting base before making political decisions. Inspired by powerful right wing media personalities such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, the myopic republican base is demanding strict adherence to right wing philosophies. Though likely aware of the long term consequences, GOP members in Congress are bound to satisfy the base or be replaced by someone who will.

The issue of bipartisan governance is being decided by a shrinking group of White Southern Protestant Evangelicals oblivious to the social revolution that has taken place around them.

The New GOP

2009-02-07T23:57:00.003-05:00

The GOP of 2009 is quite different than the Party we have become accustomed to over the last decade or so. As odd as it may seem, today's Republican Party is a highly concentrated form of the 2000 through 2004 Gang that brought us Iraq, a trillion dollar deficit, and Freedom Fries. While the Democrats were trouncing the Republicans in both 2006 and 2008, few seemed to notice that the Republicans who were ousted were those who made up the moderate voice of the GOP. Those Republicans who were in districts with an ideologically diverse constituency were nearly all replaced when the Country began trending blue. As the GOP loses it's moderate voice it becomes more conservative which ultimately drives away the remaining moderates and guess what, the Party becomes even more conservative. A political trend which, if it continues, will ultimately leave a small, angry, and powerless group of White Protestant Southerners commiserating about how the minorities, Yankees, and Hippies are bringing this country to ruin.

The 2009 GOP is made up of mostly Southern and Western hard core right wingers who answer to bright red districts. Regardless of the ideological moderation which seems to have blanketed America, their home town voters are the true believers. The Sarah Palin supporters who spent the general election convinced that Barack Obama was a Muslim who sat in a Church for 20 years listening to a radical Christian preacher.

President Obama began his Presidency attempting to cross Party lines to compromise, and maybe even synergize, with his opposition. He quickly found out that the crew he faces now will not be bargained with. They will fight him on every issue and put the future at risk to win a battle against him today. The recent appearances of Jim Imhoff and Lindsey Graham spitting anger and venom on MSNBC painted a grim picture for those hoping for bi-partisan governance.

President Obama will need to consolidate power within his own Party in order to push through many of the initiatives he proposed during his Campaign. The dozen or so Democrats who opposed the stimulus bill in the house must be brought back in line, and it may be necessary to unleash Rahm Emanuel to get the job done.

The Big Bet

2009-02-06T15:28:00.003-05:00

The GOP has decided to wager their future on the hope that the economy continues to crumble and ultimately crashes. Their unanimous opposition to the economic stimulus bill points to a near sinister approach to regaining power. They intend to vigorously oppose the stimulus package, then tout that opposition in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles when the country is still in dire economic straights. It's a perverse version of the politics of hope. The Party is wagering it's future on the hope that the downward economic trend can't be reversed, at least not until after 2012.

Their thinly veiled strategy is quite obvious. If they expected and favored economic recovery they would simply oppose the bill, then split their votes on the House and Senate floors. The bill would get passed and they would have the dual luxury of claiming credit if things got better, or playing the "I told you so" card if it did not. It's not logical that the GOP would oppose the bill, then hope the Country recovers? No Doubt, in 2010 a strong well financed Democratic Party would flood the airwaves with adds showing the GOP opposition to the stimulus bill that "saved the economy" without a single Republican vote.

The GOP has bet everything on economic disaster. They are well aware that they will never stop this bill, but they want to make a loud point of opposing it. It appears that after losing 56 seats in the last two election cycles, they decided to go for it. They'll be clasping their hands together praying that the economy does not begin to come back before they can capitolize on the fallout.

Tax Cuts to the End

2009-02-03T06:19:00.003-05:00

When the Republican Party gained full power in 2000 they fully implemented the tax cut agenda as a rallying cry. The first order of business was to demonstrate the power of their long held position that cutting taxes was a political and economic fix for all problems. When the economy was strong and there was a significant budget surplus, the Republican answer was to cut taxes and give money back to the people who earned it. When the Country was militarily engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican answer was to cut taxes for reasons which have never been explained to any reasonable degree. When the economy began to fade, once again the Republican answer was to cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

After eight years of cutting taxes and watching the economy crumble, it comes as no surprise that the Republican Party is fighting the current stimulus bill because it does not have enough tax cuts for their liking. It is increasingly obvious that the GOP has little else to fight with. The constant demand for tax cuts is little more than a rallying cry to excite the base and obstruct the Democrats. Tax cuts have been proposed to stimulate the economy during fiscal difficulties, and boost the economy even more during periods of fiscal growth.

The Republican Party is struggling to find an answer to a problem which they don't understand. Massive domestic and foreign policy failures has enlightened the electorate to the politics of perception. Soundbites, rallying cries, and other tools which work to create perceptions and raise age old fears have little effect on people with serious real world problems.

I have little doubt that the Republican Party will continue their call for more tax cuts to save the economy, bring peace, and cure such ailments as arthritis and gout. However, after each election cycle there seems to be fewer of them in Congress to make that argument. At this rate, by 2013 you will need a history book to find a Republican in Washington. The Party of tax cuts seems doggedly determined to turn America into a one party State....with low taxes.

Obama's Ethics Rule Waiver; Hypocrisy or "Big Picture" Move?

2009-01-25T23:08:00.003-05:00

Two days after implementing sweeping new ethics rules President Obama has decided to waive a provision regarding former lobbyist to bring Mr. William Lynn into the Administration to fill the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense. This move attracted immediate criticism from people on both sides of the aisle. The Administration's reasoning was clear and concise:

"Because Mr. Lynn came so highly recommended from experts across the political spectrum, the president-elect felt it was critical that he fill this position," said Obama Transition spokesman Tommy Vietor.

“After consultation with counsel to the president," said Director of the Office of Management of Budget Peter Orszag in a statement, "I hereby waive the requirements of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Ethics Pledge of Mr. William Lynn. I have determined that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver given Mr. Lynn's qualifications for his position and the current national security situation"

Though appearing to be worthy of the criticism it has received, I would argue that it is a classic Obama move and reflects his focus on the big picture. The two highlighted portions of the statement: "it is in the public interest" and "and the current national security situation"
are indicative of the results oriented thinking process President Obama has continually demonstrated. He created a new set of ethics rules to accomplish his Presidential mission. A critical part of the mission is to keep the American people safe and he believes that appointing Mr. Lynn in this position is the most effective move he can make to accomplish this goal. Therefore he must make a decision as to which is more important, the rule or the goal. It would be imprudent to appoint a lesser qualified person to the position of Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, possibly making the unit less effective,just to keep from breaking a non-binding ethics rule, not a law... but a rule. When considering that this position is critical to the safety of our nation, what reasonable person could argue that the rule is more important.

The rule is part of a process which is designed to accomplish a mission, in this case national Security. President Obama is clearly a man who believes in rules and order, but being a results oriented thinker I doubt that he would ever hesitate to waive a rule if it would compromise the success of the mission.

Rush Limbaugh, the Voice of Treason

2009-01-21T22:36:00.001-05:00

RUSH LIMBAUGH HAS DEMONSTRATED EXACTLY WHY HE WAS DENOUNCED BY COLIN POWELL. READ HIS LATEST STATEMENT:

"My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance.' Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated, the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.
"If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.' (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, 'Oh, you can't do that.' Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the drive-by story is. I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."

Obama and the Lincoln Legacy

2009-01-14T21:46:00.004-05:00

It is quite clear, even to the casual observer, that President Elect Obama has employed the legacy of Abraham Lincoln as a theme for his Presidential campaign. He announced his candidacy in Lincoln's adopted home of Springfield Illinois and spoke of Lincoln's political and social philosophies repeatedly in his speeches. He will be travelling to Washington by train just as Lincoln did and stopping for a speech in Philadelphia, again mirroring Lincoln's pre-inaugural activities. The closing symbolic act of his campaign will be to get sworn in on the same bible used by Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

The Republican Party has laid claim to the Lincoln legacy for years by touting themselves as the "Party of Lincoln," which seems rather far fetched considering the fact that President Lincoln was ideologically a center left politician. When he was elected, Lincoln represented a loose coalition of former Whigs, anti-slavery Democrats, abolitionists, and a nativist anti- immigrant group called the "Know Nothing" party. This group collectively branded themselves the Republican party as they came together over a period of several years prior to his election. Any unbiased review of Lincoln's policies clearly reveals that he was left of center and in no way ideologically aligned with the Republican Party of today.

President elect Obama's campaign has emphasized the similarities between his political philosophy and Abraham Lincoln's. He often echoes Lincoln's emphasis on national unity by referring to the United States specifically as the Union, which also serves to remind modern day pro-confederates who won the war and that the South "won't rise again." He is openly reclaiming the Legacy of the Lincoln Presidency from the Republican Party by demonstrating his ideological alignment with Honest Abe. Invoking Lincoln's legacy while proposing left of center populist policies will leave the Republican Party in the position of voicing their support of President Obama whenever they attempt to make gains using Lincoln's Party affiliation. I suspect it will be quite rare to hear members of the GOP promoting themselves as the "Party of Lincoln" over the next four to eight years.

56, 57, Roland Burris....

2009-01-07T17:38:00.003-05:00

I am pleased to see that the Senate Majority Leader finally wised up and remembered how to count. Post-Bush America will be a financial wasteland unless dramatic measures are taken by Congress and the incoming President. As expected, the Southern Republicans have suddenly become budget conscious and are subtly indicating their intent to try and scuttle the Obama Adminstration's stimulus package. Whether he was nominated by Rod Blagojevich or Rod Serling, the Senate may need Roland Burris's vote to stop a filibuster and possibly save the nation from a deep prolonged recession or worse.

I'll admit that it's possible the Republicans will find a way to capitolize on the Burris situation in the long run, but trust me, they'll capitolize a whole lot more on a depression. Right now, the short run is too ugly for any of us to be concerned with the next election cycle. It is being reported that President Elect Obama has indicated to Senate Democrats that he wants the Burris seating to happen and happen fast. Not so coincidentally, he has also indicated that he wants the stimulus package to happen and happen fast.

Forget the Blagojevich controversy for now, the Illinoisians will deal with that as is their responsiblity. Currently, Harry Reid and company must remember that desperate times call for desperate measures so whomever ol' Blago sends them with a (D) behind his name needs to get seated.

From a Red Economy to a Green One.

2008-12-29T20:11:00.004-05:00

The 2009 holiday shopping season will likely mark the end of an era. The U.S. economy has spent nearly 30 years in the red. B0th Ronald Reagan and George Bush respectively ran up more debt than all Presidents before them combined. As if following a leader off a cliff, the American people buried themselves with credit cards and home equity mortgages. After a dismal holiday season some analysts are predicting that up to 25% of all retailers could go bankrupt in the coming year. Surely the fortunate survivors will change their approach to luring and maintaining a customer base. What will change is yet to be seen, but in the words of President Elect Obama, a change is going to come.

While Berdard Madoff was churning investments to pay suspiciously high dividends, "legal" lending institutions were making N.I.N.J.A. loans (No Income,No Job, no Assets) selling 700, 000 dollar homes to people making 14,000 dollars per year with no payments for the first two years. These deadly loans were then bundled and sold in lots of 100 to willing suckers such as AIG and Citigroup. The lending institutions were irresponsible and the people accepting these loans were either delusional or mathematically challenged. However, thanks to deregulation there were no laws broken, mainly because there were no laws left to break.

America, from top to bottom, was in an economic tailspin. With virtually all of our manufacturing gone and the service jobs in exodus, the only product we could create for profit was debt. We were truly living in a red economy. How could anyone be surprised at the crash we are experiencing? The reality of Ronald Reagan's regulation free trickle down economics is being realized as bankruptcy started with the major corporations and is now trickling down to the families of the workers they laid off.

President Elect Obama's vision of a green economy, supported by tax policies which penalizes the exportation of jobs, can create a stable alternative to the current dysfunctional mess we find ourselves mired in. It will undoubtedly take a while to become reality but it may be our only hope, with an emphasis on the word "hope".

However, if this ship is to be turned around we also need to convince our citizens to stop wandering aimlessly through discount stores spending money they don't have to buy things they don't need.

The Next Great Rumor....President Kennedy 2016

2008-12-17T06:40:00.005-05:00

Caroline Kennedy's appointment to the Senate is the first move in a political chess game by the the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, with the ultimate goal of putting her in the White house in 2016.

President Kennedy 2016?

Blame the Greedy CEO's?

2008-12-13T22:19:00.006-05:00

I am taking the the unpopular position that the CEO's in both the financial and auto industry are not responsible for the current economic crisis. It is quite clear that Republican and Democratic politicians agree on one basic theory, that the greed and mismanagement of corporate leaders have caused the problem. Their rare unity is in itself an indicator that something is amiss. They know that the American people are angry and who better to blame than those who have benefited from this crisis in an obvious and excessive fashion. Corporate leaders are an easy target.

The Congressman and women who mock and taunt corporate CEO's during the bailout hearings need only look in the mirror for the culprits. In 1980 Ronald Reagan was swept into office pushing his pro-corporate agenda of deregulation and both sides of the aisle were thrilled to accept his deeply flawed economic theory. The deep recession of the 1970's had created public anger at the government and politicians were able to channel this anger towards an amorphous government entity rather than at the individual members of who made up the entity, themselves. Thus, deregulation worked to create the facade that both Congress and the President were fixing the Country's economic woes by ridding corporate America of the bothersome interference of a bloated inept government while distancing themselves from this government.

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions act of 1982 deregulated the savings and loans institutions and the "S and L crisis" was not long to follow. This major deregulation bill was sponsored by Democrat Ferdinand St. Germain and Republican Jake Garn, it was co-sponsored by Democrats Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer. This was, or rather should have been, the canary in the coalmine predicting the ultimate results of deregulation. Allow the financial institutions to take unreasonable risks, and they will destroy themselves.

Both the allegedly liberal Brookings Institute and the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute strongly advocated deregulation despite the opposition of many left leaning economists and the anti-globalization movement. Not surprisingly, both sides of the aisle are now eager to blame greedy corrupt CEO's and overlook the effects of their legislative actions. If not for deregulation none of this could have possibly taken place. Corporations have always operated within the confines of U.S. policies and regulations and if they are allowed to take suicidal risks they surely shall. The role of government is to monitor and adjust the corporate environment to protect the American consumer and worker. Deregulation was extremely effective in its intent, however the law of unintended consequences has created an economic disaster of epic proportions.

Democrats, Republicans, and mainstream media pundits are unified in the assertion that Corporate CEO's are the cause of the impending economic collapse of the United States, and possibly the International finance system. Those who created and imposed deregulation are eager to find a scapegoat.

Obama Taking Heat From the Left

2008-12-04T21:51:00.009-05:00

I have have been quite surprised by some of the attacks being leveled at President Elect Obama by some left leaning members of his "base. Various online journalists and politicians have taken to evaluating the Obama Presidency before he has spent one second in office.

One of the most progressive Presidents America has ever elected is about to take office and some are upset because he didn't clone Dennis Kucinich and name the clones to every Cabinet post. We watched in horror as President Bush hired and fired for the last eight years based solely on ideology. The most incompetent bunglers were appointed to critical Government positions, such as F.E.M.A., because they were loyal right wing "Bushies." Now the same people who complained the loudest about George W's appointments are unhappy because their guy gives weight to competence when choosing his Cabinet. There is no credible argument against his Cabinet choices other than ideology.

Some have complained that President Elect Obama is breaking campaign promises by changing his mind regarding a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. One of the principal complaints against George Bush has been his refusal to adjust his policies to fit changing circumstances both foreign and domestic. Clearly the policies regarding energy must be re-evaluated now that oil prices have dropped below $44.00 per barrel. There are certainly are more pressing issues which require attention.

Others, who are stuck in an ideological war of opposition, infer that any Republican approval of his Cabinet choices constitutes prima facia evidence that the choices are bad.

Recently, House Member Barney Frank made the astonishing assertion that Obama is not doing enough. That despite the fact that he can do little except make public comments and prepare to take office. Granted President Elect Obama has promised major changes, but it is far fetched to expect any of those changes before he gets in office.

It appears that some people are so accustomed to fighting the "system" that they don't realize when they've won.

Evaluating Obama's "Centrist" Cabinet

2008-12-02T11:22:00.007-05:00

Pundits, political analysts, and concerned citizens are hard at work evaluating the political moves of President Elect Barack Obama with the goal of interpreting these actions to predict his style of governing. Generally, the ideological positions of cabinet appointments are believed to reveal the political leanings of the incoming President. This has traditionally been a reliable method and often produces a reasonably accurate picture of a future President's objectives. As an example, in hindsight the selections of noted war-hawks Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle by President George W. Bush were clear indicators that his Administration would pursue an aggressive militaristic foreign policy. In that case, cabinet selections were quite indicative of both the incoming President's ideology and governing style.

President Elect Obama's non traditional leadership style creates a new political paradigm which renders many of the traditional methods of analyzing politics ineffective. Though mild mannered and pragmatic, President Elect Obama is a powerful visionary leader in the mold of JFK , Lincoln, and Martin Luther King. Visionary leaders are exceptionally self confident and typically select the most competent subordinates even though there may be some slight ideological differences. The leader provides the vision and tasks the subordinates with making it a reality. The leader envisions a synergistic environment which requires loyalty and dedication but not unanimous agreement on all issues.

President Elect Obama's National Security Team selections reflect his commitment to the competence and diversity required to fulfill his vision much more than his ideological inclinations.

The National Security Team:

Defense Secretary - Robert Gates
Born in Wichita Kansas, 1943

Secretary Gates has a master's degree in history from Indiana University and a PH.D. in Russian and Soviet history from Georgetown University. He served on the non-partisan Iraq Study Group whose findings were much criticized by right wing war-hawks. The recent Russian incursion into Georgia and the cold-war like conflict over the European missile defense shield create a necessity for an experienced soviet expert. As a former CIA director he will also be able to combine military and intelligence resources to address President Elect Obama's foreign policy priority of accounting for missing soviet nuclear weapons. He is widely viewed as a centrist in Washington political circles.

Admiral William Fallon, a known center-left military leader, recommended that Secretary Gates be kept on as Defense Secretary. President Elect Obama is known to have consulted with Former "Bush 41" National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, a close friend of Robert Gates, for foreign policy advice.

Ambassador to the United Nations - Susan Rice
Born in Washington D.C., 1964

A Rhodes Scholar, Ms. Rice earned an M.Phil. and a D.Phil. from New College, Oxford. In 1990 the Chatham house-British International Studies Association honored her dissertation as the UK's most distinguished in international relations. Rice's classmates and professors at Oxford included advocates of the role of the United Nations and international law. Ms. Rice's nomination is a clear indicator that right wing anti-U.N. policies based on American exceptionalism will be no part of the Obama foreign policy.

National Security Adviser - James Jones
Born Kansas City, 1943

The former four star General served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander and as Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corp. Jones is known to have a placid demeanor, a methodical approach to problems, and boasts impressive negotiating skills.

Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton
Born Chicago Illinois, 1947

The bad news - if you choose Hillary you get Bill.
The good news - if you choose Hillary you get Bill.
Though somewhat hawkish on foreign policy of late, Senator Clinton is a smart politician and unlikely to jeopardize one of the premier political appointments in the world. Few can argue the strength and competence of Senator Clinton or worldwide appeal of the Clinton brand. There will be few doors that Bill can't open for Hillary if his considerable skills and connections are needed. This appointment also serves to consolidate President Elect Obama's power within the Democratic Party and create an opening for a more progressive replacement in the Senate.

Homeland Security Secretary - Janet Napolitano
Born New York City, 1957

The former attorney for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings was appointed as the United States attorney for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton. In that capacity she participated in the investigation of the Oklahoma City Bombing. She also served as the Arizona Attorney General and Chair of the National Governors Association. In 2006 she defeated her Republican gubernatorial opponent by a nearly 2-1 margin.

Attorney General - Eric Holder
Born, The Bronx, New York
Son of an immigrant from Barbados

Former Superior Court Judge, United States Attorney, and Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
After assisting in prosecutions for the ABSCAM sting, he was appointed as a Judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by President Ronald Reagan.
The Columbia Law School graduate once worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
His wife's sister, Vivian Juanita Jones, was one of the first two African Americans to enroll in the University of Alabama and became famous when Governor George Wallace blocked them from enrolling. Interestingly, Malone was refused entrance by Governor Wallace and an army of State Troopers when she arrived to enroll accompanied by U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. President Kennedy subsequently activated the National Guard and she was admitted. In 2007 Holder joined the amicus brief which urged the Supreme Court to uphold Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. During his 1997 confirmation hearing for Deputy U.S. Attorney General he told Congress ""I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but I will enforce the law as this Congress gives it to us."

Attorney General Designee Holder's background seems to suggest that he will aggressively pursue a progressive agenda.

The Centrist, or even right leaning Cabinet that the mainstream pundits speak of never materializes when the Cabinet members are evaluated individually. The group rounds out as a collection of pragmatic intellectuals with exceptional experience and knowledge in their respective fields of assignment. The lone Republican Administration holdover, Secretary Robert Gates, comes highly recommended by one of the most visible anti-neocon military leaders in recent years, former CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon.

The Obama political model will likely confound mainstreamers for years to come. Progressives who have accepted the mainstream assertion of Obama's move to the right and Conservatives who are beaming about the so-called right leaning/centrist Cabinet will be surprised to find that President Elect Obama will Govern exactly as he promised, bottom up politics at home and a cooperative spirit abroad. It is also remarkable that his Cabinet is conspicuosly absent representation from the Red States of the Deep South and the right wing of American Politics.

Dick Armey's Financial Solution

2008-11-25T09:19:00.003-05:00

Former House Majority Leader Richard "Dick" Armey has joined the chorus of Republicans calling for the death of the auto industry. Armey leads an activist group called freedomworks.org whose alleged mission is to reduce the size of government and cut taxes. He recently wrote on behalf of this organization:

"So far, the forgotten man, the middle-class U.S. taxpayer, has had to bail out Wall Street, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We are sick and tired of having to pay for the recklessness of others, and we are not going to take it any more."

I can only assume that his use of the term "we", refers to the multi-national conglomerates his party represents who have been shipping American jobs overseas for the last thirty years. It certainly doesn't apply to the three million auto workers doomed to unemployment by his plan.

Former Representative Armey consistently supported the Reagan policy of deregulation. The Reagan era deregulators asserted that industry dynamics would create an atmosphere of self-regulation. They argued that this market driven business environment would keep corporations honest and provide the best prices for consumers. The crumbling financial markets seem to indicate that their argument was exceptionally flawed.

The argument that the Automakers, and their three million jobs, should be allowed to pass into oblivion is based on the same logic as were the principles of deregulation. Corporations should not be restrained, restricted, nor bailed out by the Government. Sort of a Darwinian version of capitalism where the strong survive and the weak die off. Unfortunately, in this model the strong who survive are the Corporate leaders and the weak are the workers and consumers.

The last thing America needs to do is to follow the advice of those who's policies created this catastrophe. Particularly when the advice is once again to let corporate nature take its course. I argue that corporate nature is taking its course. Corporate nature is self destructive and corporate greed eventually unhinges the social structure which enables the profitability and ultimate survival of corporation. Unrestrained corporations focus only on short term profit margins and lose sight of everything else.

I believe that Dick Armey and his army of deregulators should be shut out of the rescue process. In fact, their advice should be accepted only for its value as an indication of what actions should not be taken.

Is Detroit the Decider

2008-11-17T06:20:00.003-05:00

As America's economy teeters on the brink of collapse, it is necessary to evaluate the pillars of our economic system. Certainly the Government can't save every mom and pop store from bankruptcy, but allowing the wrong pillar to fall could collapse the building. Detroit's automakers may very well be the last shaky column. Though the auto industry does not support the economy, its effect on the job market would be enormous should it fail. If the U.S. auto industry falls, three million jobs immediately disappear and the natural flow of things that free marketers tout as the solution becomes Niagara Falls.

The Japanese and European automakers salivate at the thought of three giant competitors falling. The idea that consumers will still purchase vehicles from auto manufacturers who are in the midst of chapter eleven is wishful thinking. Chapter Eleven procedures for a manufacturer creates the natural consumer fear of purchasing an obsolete product. This will mean a near halt in sales and the end of America's portion of the worldwide auto market, one that we are not guaranteed to regain.

The Republican Party is fighting the auto industry bailout and gambling that Detroit is not the final nail in our economic coffin. Three million auto workers and likely five times that number of related jobs may be more than America can handle both emotionally and in real dollars. Consumers may panic and freeze spending killing the last hope for avoiding a depression. If the Congressional Republicans have their way President Obama will be rebuilding the U.S. economy from the ground up, but they'll have nothing to rebuild.

Obama Must Ignore the Deficit

2008-11-13T07:24:00.005-05:00

President Elect Obama faces a daunting economic task which is complicated by a massive federal deficit. The conventional thinking is that he must find a way to revitalize a near dead economy without increasing the deficit. My suggestion is that he ignore the conventional thinking and concentrate his efforts solely on revitalizing the economy. The federal deficit is a long term problem which will be of little consequence if the economy falls apart in the short term. A ship with a gaping hole below the waterline must fix the immediate problem before plotting a new course to avoid future icebergs.

Targeting working class Americans with tax cuts, freezing home foreclosures, and infusing capitol into infrastructure projects will undoubtedly increase the deficit. However, these actions will improve consumer confidence and create badly needed jobs. Once the economy begins to turn the corner President Obama can slowly return the government to fiscal responsibility and begin to work on the social reform agenda which helped propell him to power. Bill Clinton's first major economic package passed without a single Republican congressional vote. Passing an economic package which increases the deficit may not be easy, but this is not the time for easy politics. An expensive economic stimulus package may create a target rich environment for his enemies in the short term, but the alternative is to play the traditional political game as expected, and fail.

Republican Woes

2008-11-08T18:49:00.007-05:00

The Republican Party is suffering from a classic problem, climbing the ladder of success only to find that it is leaning against the wrong wall. The Party worked for many years to create a base of supporters who would accept a rigid right wing ideology as part of their culture. The strategy has been very successful in the Southern States and has taken hold to some extent in many other parts of the Country. This Republican base amounts to the last 22% of Americans who still support President Bush. Unfazed by the dramatic economic and political consequences of the last eight years, they also make up the lions share of the 64% of all Republicans who want ultra-conservative Sarah Palin as their 2012 Presidential nominee, a desire that is likely shared by 100% of all Democrats. The GOP has successfully convinced them that the political center is really the left, and that this imaginary left is the enemy of God and social order. That being the case, any policies supported by the "left" would be immoral by default.

Having been soundly rejected by the electorate, the Republican Party is left to dress its wounds and develop strategies for 2012. During this election cycle the voters sent a clear signal that political moderation is in order. As a result some GOP pragmatists are signalling a willingness to accept some level of bipartisanship and move somewhat reluctantly towards the center. The problem they will soon encounter is that they have so effectively trained their base to be extremist that they will reject any move towards ideological moderation. Southern Republicans in Congress may face losing to more conservative challengers in the next primaries should they move towards the center, the only likely salvation for the party as a whole.

The Grand Old Party is in a "catch 22" situation. If they moderate their ideological positions it will get them some desperately needed mainstream support but it will infuriate their base. If they double down on their conservative positions they solidify their base but move farther from the new political mainstream, particularly the youth vote. I suspect we will hear the Party leaders invoke the name of Ronald Reagan and proclaim that they intend to return to the conservatives values of his era. As the Country moves forward, their fateful strategy will be to move forward by going backwards 25 years. Their effectiveness in creating an extremist base is proving to be a bittersweet success.

Grounding the Polls

2008-11-03T06:03:00.010-05:00

The latest polling data can be interpreted to predict either a blowout for Senator Barack Obama, or to indicate that Senator John McCain is easily within striking distance. Many of the critical state races are either within the margin of error, or close enough to give the challenger a reasonable opportunity for victory. Should the margin swing just a few points in several states, Senator Obama's sure victory becomes a razor thin loss.

However, the polls are just one part of the data which predicts the outcome. The best analogy I can summon is that of a swimmer recognizing an object approaching him as a shark's fin. The fin is a sure sign of serious danger, yet it is only an indicator. The real danger is below the fin, the part that actually does the biting is below the surface. The Obama team's ground game is deadly.

Howard Dean's 50 State strategy is clear and apparent in the Obama game plan. The Obama campaign is dedicating huge amounts of money and effort to the grassroots efforts more commonly referred to as the "ground game." The strategy of investing heavily in the field work and aggressively attacking the Republicans in states which they traditionally carry will show up much more prominently at the polling booths than has been reflected by the polling data. The poll numbers do not accurately reflect the effect of the Obama Camp's 5 million nationwide volunteers and their herculean two year effort to register new voters. Hundreds of thousands, or more likely millions of these new voters will not show up in polling data as likely voters, nor be counted in any of the pre-election statistics. Many non-traditional voters have only a cell phone and therefor will never receive the calls necessary to be counted in the traditionally run polls. The Obama grassroots numbers are astounding; 5 million volunteers, over 400,000 doors knocked on daily, and 82 field offices in Ohio alone. In Montana, nearly 25,000 new voters between the age of 18 and 35, a demographic which heavily favors Obama, were registered since January 1, 2008. This in a State which saw only 456,096 votes were cast in the 2004 election and currently shows dead even in the polls.

I predict an overwhelming victory for Senator Obama. Senator Obama will quite possibly carry every coastal State from Maine to Florida and a number of Congressional races will be shocking upsets in favor of the Democrats. Both Georgia and South Carolina have strong chances of turning blue due to African American and youth turnout. There will be nothing remotely close about this election. Come Wednesday, you'll likely need a history book to find a Republican in Congress. How long before the news pundits give Howard Dean the genius status they awarded Karl Rove?

Palin Unsure if She is Viewed as a Fool

2008-10-21T23:53:00.003-04:00

Apparently Sarah Palin is not totally convinced that she is viewed by the majority of Americans as a blithering idiot. Perceiving that as a problem she has once again set to the task of immitating that loveable stooge, Moe Howard, and demonstrating her limited intellect. During an interview with a Colorado NBC News affiliate Governor Palin had the opportunity to respond to a question submitted by a third grade student who wanted to know what the Vice President does. Having apparently forgotten significant portions of the constitution Governor Palin responded

"[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. "

A casual glance at the constitution would reveal to Governor Palin that the Vice President's duties are limited to becoming President if the President is unable to serve, casting a vote in the event of a Senate Deadlock, and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College.

Governor Palin represents all that is wrong with her Party. She is a simple minded ideologue who garners support from the base because of her image rather than her competence. She reminds us how George Bush became President and why we must never again elect the "guy (or gal) you would like to have a beer with."

The Republican Version of Righting the Ship

2008-10-21T05:48:00.005-04:00

Fourteen days from now, the GOP will have some serious soul searching to do. The Party which held universal power in government just three years ago will be licking it's massive wounds. Who would have guessed that such disastrous foreign and domestic polices could have lead to a democratic landslide? Certainly not Karl Rove, their amoral chief strategist.

Garland's theory of universal irony will no doubt present a significant roadblock to the reconstruction the Republican brand. One of the rules of this theory is that your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness. The GOP's strength has been that their base, roughly 25% of the country, are ideologues who support their far right wing policies regardless of the outcome. This gives them a tremendous advantage during elections because they need only muster another 26%, by hook or crook, to win. The commensurate weakness is that this 25% will be loathe to buy into the centrist shift necessary to realign with the rest of America and re-emerge as a political power in four to eight years. Instead the preference of the base will be to scapegoat the media, minorities, and the McCain campaign. They will surely ignore the misguided policies which lead to this inevitable clash with reality. This organization will face the principle stumbling block of addicts and alcoholics, you can't fix a problem until you accept that there is a problem and that your actions created the problem.

The GOP faithful maintains strict adherence to the rule of fools. When something doesn't work wise men change course, fools do more of it.

A Conversation with Sarah Palin

2008-09-25T16:57:00.003-04:00

This is the actual transcript from the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin:

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

It is painfully obvious that Governor Palin has been done a disservice, to be kind, by the Republican party. The idea of seeing this person in the White House would be laughable were it not a realistic possibility. She is without the most rudimentary grasp of the complex issues facing America today. Though this weakness appeals to her neocon handlers, it could leave the rest of us crispy and radioactive.

Her assertion that her proximity to Russia counts as national security experience is on its face too absurd to merit discussion. The McCain camp is wise to sequester their Vice Presidential candidate from the media.

"our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of." - Sarah Palin

Reaganomics Final Collpase

2008-09-22T06:28:00.003-04:00

Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.

In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment

- Ronald Wilson Reagan, Inaugural Address January 20, 1981

After 27 years, Ronald Reagan's argument that governmental meddling impedes the progress and growth of business is finally laid bare. The foundation of this policy is that corporations are fundamentally honest and if left unchecked they will not manipulate the system to make a profit. Clearly, last weeks events have exposed the long term effects of trusting corporate executives to run the most powerful economic machine in the history of mankind.

Those of us grounded in bare facts and logic realized long ago the disastrous consequences of President Reagan's policies. In his New York Time Article "Debunking the Reagan Myth," Paul Krugman wrote:

The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

However the best, or rather the worst, was yet to come. Ronald Reagan's policy of leaving rich greedy corporatists was taken to another level when George W. Bush filled his cabinet with corporate executives. These far right wing economic policies have been dragged to the far left by reality. The cry of socialism regarding the financial bailout may be somewhat accurate but the alternative may bankrupt the U.S. economy, a chance the government is not willing to take. America is being taught by Wall street that far right wing economic policies work just about as well as far right wing foreign policies. Eventually, the government will be forced to take over the other industries and move towards a mixed regulated economy.

Currently its up to voters to decide whether to turn left or maintain course and speed......straight down the path of destruction.

Marketing Sarah Palin

2008-09-07T10:12:00.003-04:00

The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate appears to create some advantages among female independents for the Republican ticket. The current marketing strategy goal is to create the perception that she will attract centrist female voters simply because of her gender. Governor Palin is being portrayed as an average blue collar working mom with an unspoken inference that her ideology is mainstream.

The fundamental flaw in the Palin marketing plan is that it's not grounded in reality. Governor Palin holds extreme right wing views on social issues and her foreign policy, though yet still a mystery, is likely to the right of mainstream America . At some point soon she will be forced to expose her ideological views and lay waste to the centrist marketing plan while it is still in its infancy. Her belief that abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest and her Bush-like views connecting religion to foreign policy will eventually push the majority of centrist independents into the Obama camp. It will then be clear that choosing her as his running mate has done little more than anchor Senator McCain to the far right wing conservatives.

U.S. Politics Exposed

2008-06-13T06:06:00.004-04:00

The 2008 presidential campaign is forcing Americans to reveal their true political ideologies. The misleading labels of Democrat and Republican have allowed politicians, and in many cases their supporters, to conceal their true political inclinations. Right wing Democrats have been hiding amongst the progressives and claiming a left wing agenda while campaigning, then jumping to the center right to push a moderate right wing policy agenda for many decades. Meanwhile, the Republican party has been overrun by the southern far right wing pro fascist confederacy while claiming to be the party of the blue collar white male . The country has been ruled by a bi-partisan right wing group of politicians who have benefited from their ability to create the illusion that they were bitter partisan enemies. Fortunately for the American people, Bush Administration policies create an environment in which their is little room for political fence sitting. The bellwether was Joe Lieberman. Cornered by his support for the Bush pro war neocon policies, he was forced to reveal his position on the Iraq war and permanently flushed out of his left wing hiding spot.

The Clinton "movement" revealed the existence of a center right leaning democratic machine and its powerful alliance with the American political right. Facing political annihilation, the Clinton people ran for political cover in the only place where they were guaranteed shelter, the right wing media machine. We watched Bill Clinton chatting it up on the Rush Limbaugh show, Geraldine Ferraro spewing racial venom then hanging out with Sean Hannity despite his white supremacist ties, and Ed Rendell praising Fox news for their objective balanced coverage. Faced with true progressive policies, many Clinton supporters chose to openly ally themselves with John McCain in their fight against the Obama people.

Now the truly interesting part of this political soap opera begins. How can the right wing Democrats stay warm and fuzzy with their Republican comrades without completely severing their ties from the Democratic base in an environment of civilian political rebellion? Meanwhile, how can the Republicans keep their party alive while supporting far right wing policies? Policies which are being rejected by a population being crushed by them. My guess is that neither group can maintain their hidden agendas anymore. The time for illusionary politics is over and without political smoke and mirrors, the American people finally get a chance to vote based on some semblance of reality.

Senator Obama Should Wait To Choose His VP

2008-06-04T06:32:00.005-04:00

There are many arguments as to when Senator Obama chooses his Vice President. I suggest that he put the subject on ice until the convention. His campaign should leak that he will take into consideration his potential running mate's dedication to party unity and bi-partisan appeal, then half heartedly deny the leak. This destroys the Clinton's arm twisting ability and creates a dynamic in which any attacks on him by her surrogates strengthen the argument against making her the choice. She will be effectively isolated and forced to personally prove her dedication to party unity by working to deliver her followers to him. Most importantly it will be extremely difficult for her to work hard for Party unity for the better part of two months, then backtrack on that position if she is not the VP choice. Senator Obama should announce that he will make his choice at the convention, then give Hillary the opening speech. Shortly after her historic opening speech on party unity and the need to stop a third Bush term, he should announce John Edwards as his choice for VP.

What A Party! And what a party it was!, by Terry McAuliffe

2008-05-31T09:44:00.005-04:00

As the rules committee begins its deliberations, my thoughts go back to a wonderful book written by Hillary's campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe titled "What a Party!, and what a party it was! Those who are pondering his fight to seat all of the Florida and Michigan delegates with full votes should understand how he viewed that issue when he was the Chairman of the DNC. In 2004, he had a conversation with Carl Levin regarding Levin's plans to move up the Michigan primary. To that end, I give you an excerpt from page 325 of Mr. McAuliffe's Book.

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me
definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We
will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously
and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their
own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that
point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of
the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential.
The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not
let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the
rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."
We glared
at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding
all the cards and Levin knew it.
It seems that it is a good thing for Clinton Campaign Chairman McAuliffe that he is not facing DNC Chairman McAuliffe on the this issue.

Hillarys Vulture Strategy A Most Dangerous Game

2008-05-23T23:10:00.010-04:00

The Clintons seem to have finally accepted the reality that there is no legitimate way for them to get the Democratic nomination. I say this because they have taken to a strategy somewhat akin to that of the common turkey buzzard. As do all vulture's, the turkey buzzard spends it's time watching and waiting patiently for its prey to die so it can feast on the rotting carcass. Today Senator Clinton announced that she was staying in the race because, among other things, a past Democratic Presidential front runner was assassinated late in the primary season creating an opening for his opponent to assume the front runner position and ultimately secure the nomination. It certainly does not require a leap of logic to conclude that Senator Clinton was implying that Senator Obama may be assassinated leaving the nomination open for her to claim.

The mainstream media outlets were all over this comment and the obvious political fallout. As usual, the pundits talked endlessly about the proximate results, the obvious political ramifications using the context of the Democratic Primary election process. What was completely ignored was how those comments affect the Clintons argument of electability for the general elections. Repeatedly the Clinton's surrogates have gone on the air opining their belief that the Black Community will unite around Senator Clinton if she takes the nomination from Senator Obama despite losing the number of elected delegates, states won, popular vote (unless you use her convoluted method of calculation), and significant fiscal irresponsibility. Tonight, that argument ends. Though ignored by the mainstream media, it should be quite clear to Party insiders that there is an irreparable breach between the Clintons and the Black Community. Members of the Black Community have no reason to press the issue, but the affect of that reality on the general election can not be overstated. Senator Clinton is not only unelectable, she has become an anchor threatening to drown the entire Party. The truth is quiet but powerful, the Clinton's are despised by Black Americans. Granting her the nomination at this point under any circumstances would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. A significant number of Black voters would sit out the General Election easily giving the White House to the the Republicans, possibly losing both houses of Congress, and wasting the greatest opportunity for the Party in decades.

Barack, Think Twice Before Choosing Hillary...

2008-05-18T23:42:00.005-04:00

As I listened to the right wing pundits make the case for an Obama/Clinton "dream ticket" as they put it, an uncomfortable thought came to mind. I almost dare not say such a thing in public but what the heck, I'm amongst friends and we'll just keep it between our little group..OK? If I were to get an opportunity to chat with Senator Obama away from the adoring crowds I would advise him to think twice before putting himself in a position where his untimely demise would mean that Hillary Clinton becomes President. Now I'm not outright inferring that she would do him bodily harm, but hey...things happen. Planes go down in remote mountainous regions of underdeveloped countries, stuff like that.

Lets face it, Hillary's arguments reveal some pretty creative desperation. I think her latest argument is that she leads in the popular vote if you count Florida and Michigan, ignore the votes in the Caucus States, divide the number of voters by the score of the last six Super Bowls won by the AFC minus the point spread, then multiply that by the percentage of voters in West Virginia who suffer from severe periodontal disease. There is no logical bridge too far to leap for Hillary to make the argument for her candidacy.

Personally, I don't think I would want a person who is so desperate for the Presidency that they have created their own reality waiting for me to "expire" or otherwise be removed from office. Now let me be very clear, I am not in any way saying that the Clintons would be plotting on Senator Obama day and night...but hey...things happen.

Terry Mcauliffe Reveals Clinton's Contradictons

2008-05-11T10:53:00.003-04:00

Terry McCauliffe revealed another gross inconsistency in the Clinton's argument today on Meet the Press. He argued that since the Clinton's had captured the White working class voter bloc in the primaries, they were the only ones who could defeat Senator McCain in the general election. However, when he was asked whether the party would unite after the primaries and those same working class Whites would then support Senator Obama were he to become the nominee, he replied that he believed they would. The obvious logical conclusion based on his comments is that the Clinton's White working class advantage in the primaries is irrelevant if those voters are going to unify around the eventual nominee anyway. The only assumption is that Mr. McCauliffe is implying that they won't support Senator Obama, then deliberately lying to cover the racially polarizing core of their message. Mr. McCauliffe later went on to state that he believed Black voters would return to support the Clintons if they were to get the nomination despite a lesser number of pledged delegates. This assertion is congruent with the argument of eventual party unification, but goes against the inference that the Clinton's advantage in one particular primary voting bloc is relevant in the general election.

The Clinton's need to convince the Superdelegates that they are the only electable candidates because of their dominance with White, lesser educated, blue collar voters. Simultaneously they must also convince them that the racial, social, and economic class divisions created during the primaries will be overcome in the general elections. It is quite clear that these arguments cancel each other out.

Hillary Unveils "Strom Thurmond" Strategy

2008-05-08T22:09:00.004-04:00

Having West Virginia and Kentucky in their sights, the Clintons are reaching out to uneducated racists. Their strategy is obviously to remind the people of those States that the BLACK GUY only appeals to those lazy negro welfare recipients and their guilt ridden educated wealthy white enablers. Obviously after their 6% showing among Black voters in North Carolina the decision was made to join the Sean Hannity/David Duke club. Wednesday Hillary revealed her newest argument to the Superdelegates:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

It has been clear for some time that the Clinton strategy was to divide the voters by class and race, then claim the larger bloc of working class White voters as their base. Most of us just never expected them to be so transparent about that strategy.

Hillary is setting herself up for a public political execution by the Superdelegates and she may very well receive her wish. Allowing her to set the table for the Republicans should no longer be tolerated.

The Destruction of America is Incomplete

2008-04-30T07:04:00.002-04:00

Apparently, the Cheney Administration has recognized that the economic and military destruction of the United States is incomplete. Despite their intense efforts there appears to be a sliver of hope that the Country may eventually be able to recover from the military and economic policies of the Neocons. Ignoring the recent National Intelligence Report to the contrary, the Neocons and their lapdogs in the media have returned to trumpeting the blatant lie that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

After replacing Admiral William Fallon at Centcom with their puppet Patraeus, the Neocons are primed for another unprovoked attacked on a Muslim Country. To that end, another aircraft carrier is en route to the Persian Gulf to immediately frighten the prices of oil up another twenty dollars per barrel. Being the conspiracy theorist that I am, I suspect that Iran's decision to completely stop conducting transactions in US dollars has sped up the Cheney Administration's need for war.

The people who brought us the cakewalk in Iraq have cooked up another military strategy and are set to make that disaster look like a wise move. Attacking Opec''s second largest producer, when oil has risen to 120 dollars per barrel, will be the final nail in the economic coffin of the Unites States.

Hillary Supporters Make the Case Against Her

2008-04-27T11:50:00.003-04:00

Be careful when using logic to support a position, any failure to project that logic to all variables can destroy the very argument you are making. The latest case in point is the argument by the Clinton supporters that Senator Obama can't win because she took such overwhelming numbers of particularly classes of voters in Pennsylvania. The most glaring statistic which they point out is that she defeated Senator Obama 70-30 amongst White catholic voters. The argument is that this number is so lopsided that it demonstrates that this group does not want him as President and therefore will not unify with the Party to support him in the general election. The obvious extension of this argument is that any Democratic candidate who loses a large bloc of voters who traditionally support their Party is unelectable.

As has been the case throughout this election, the Clinton supporters have ignored the Black voting bloc in their arguments. If this argument is applied using Black voters as the variable unit it creates the logical conclusion, only to a significantly greater degree, that Senator Clinton in unelectable. Outside of Pennsylvania, Senator Obama has bested the Clintons amongst White male voters and nearly tied them in the overall White voting bloc on a number of ocassions. However, Senator Clinton has been consistently beaten by historic proportions for a Democratic primary contest (typically 90-10) in the Black voting bloc. If the argument is that a 70-30 victory is so lopsided as to indicate a fatal divison between a Primary Candidate and a voting bloc, then how much more so does the string of 90-10 losses that the Clintons have sufffered with Black voters indicate the same. Are we to believe that the Clintons can overcome a string of losses by 90% or higher to a voting bloc and ultimately make amends with that group, yet Senator Obama can't overcome a fewer number of losses by much smaller numbers?

No reasonable person would argue that any Democrat could be elected President without both a huge turnout of Black voters and an overhwhelming advantage in that voting bloc.

The Clinton's argument makes the point that Senator Obama has a far greater chance of reconciliation with their core supporters than they with his. This logical conclusion is obvious, unless of course those constructing the argument discount the value, and possibly even existence, of Black voters.

This is America,no racial healing allowed

2008-04-24T06:28:00.005-04:00

The rich and powerful minority have always used wedge issues to divide and control the masses. Unfortunately for America, the principle wedge issue used by the rich in this country is racism. Iowa horrified the aristocratic class by demonstrating that white rural voters, the traditional suckers for the race baiters, had decided that their social and economic needs were more important than abiding by the rules of the American caste system. That spelled doom for a political system that has given the rich the largest economic gap between them and the working class since America was an agrarian society.

It was inevitable that the forces promoting aristocratic rule would fight to revive the one issue that could keep them in power, racism. To that end, the right wing of the Democratic Party and the Republican machine have joined forces. After Senator Obama blew Hillary out consecutively with the White rural voters in Iowa and the Black rural voters in South Carolina it was clear that the people had progressed to a point that they would inevitably unify against the oppressive wealthy class. Bill Clinton gave the signal to attack with his Jesse Jackson comments. It also announced that the Clintons were severing their ties with both the Black community and the progressives. From that point on, the Clintons and their surrogates (including those in the media and the Republican Party) have worked to remind the White voters of America that their social duty is to vote for politicians who look like them, despite the obvious conflict with their economic needs. The media turned to evaluating the individual contests on how the different categories of "white voters" responded to the candidates. Suddenly, the question of whether race was important in choosing a candidate surfaced as an exit polling question. More recently, the North Carolina Republican Party has launched an Obama attack ad which began running the day Hillary began campaigning in their State. Simultaneously the creator of Bush Senior's Willie Horton ad has released his latest divisive master piece tying Senator Obama to Gang Violence by showing split screen pictures of him next to urban blight and plastering the words gang violence and urban terrorism all over the screen.

This pesky racial harmony is creating major problems for the wealthy corporate class of politicians and we can expect that their bipartisan unity will only become stronger and more obvious as their fear of losing power increases.

REPUBLICANS SET TO HELP HILLARY

2008-04-22T23:18:00.002-04:00

The inside word is that Republican party is set to unveil a new television add in North Carolina attacking Barack Obama. It is clearly no coincidence that the day after the Pennsylvania primary, the Republicans unleash an attack which can only help Senator Hillary Clinton. Obviously, they have decided to come out in the open with their support for her campaign. Since no Democratic nominee has been chosen, it would normally be considered a waste of the precious few funds that they have on hand. However, it appears that Party Elders have made a decision to make their move for Hillary.

This may seem like a stretch, but I believe that the Republican leadership actually prefers Senator Clinton over John McCain. He is not nearly as predictable as she on the issues which are their top priorities. The unpopular Iraq war is destroying the Republican Party and I am sure that, despite their public statements, many Republicans in Congress can't unload this albatross soon enough. If they can get the war over soon and have the luxury of blaming the "defeat" on a democrat, the Republican Party can see some daylight to make a move on the Presidency and Congress in 2012. Meanwhile, Hillary's aggressive militaristic foreign policy is music to the ears of the neocons. The few domestic policy differences she has with the Republicans will be overlooked because of her willingness to nestle up with the Corporate lobbyist and keep the backroom deals flowing.

I expect the Republican Party to be much more aggressive in their attacks on Senator Obama. The person who should really be worried about that is John McCain.

Republicans Work Hard to Choose Democratic Candidate

2008-04-18T07:05:00.002-04:00

The Republican media machine is pulling out all of the stops in order to help their candidate. Oddly, that Candidate is Hillary Clinton. In the past several months it has become clear that the likes of Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, and pretty much anyone affiliated with Fox News are collectively on a mission to assist Senator Clinton's character assassination mission against Barack Obama. In recent months, Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh show to promote Hillary on the day of the Texas primary and in an obvious act of bipartisan right wing collusion, George Stephanopoulos went on Sean Hannity's radio show then used an attack suggested by Hannity against Senator Obama disguised as a debate question.

Hour after hour, the right wing pundits build their case against Obama. Despite the obvious fact that it has had no effect on the polls, the Republican machine continues to hammer away at the absurd claim that Senator Obama is an elitist with a sprinkling of Jeremiah Wright whenever they can find an opening.

Democratic voters need to ask themselves why the Republican support system in the media is aggressively working to insure that a particular Democrat wins. Clearly, the Republican Party prefers that the Presidential race revolve around irrelevant issues completely unrelated to their horrendous foreign and domestic policy failures during the last eight years.

Ultimately, the question is why the Republicans are working feverishly to defeat Senator Obama. Would any sane person believe that their intentions are in the best interest of the Democratic Party?

The Third Party Exposed

2008-04-01T07:48:00.004-04:00

Hillary Clinton's seemingly odd actions in the presidential primaries are exposing the existence of an unofficial third party. The right wing bi-partisan coalition that has been befuddling the progressives for years is, in effect, an unofficial party. Time and again I have had conversations with fellow left leaning people confused over the votes of Democratic politicians regarding such issues as the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq invasion, the Iraq oilfields being put in the hands of American Companies, and various other far right wing bills.

Traditionally, a group of center right wing democrats has sided with the far right on substantive issues, then retreated to the left on minor social issues. They claimed to reject right wing policies as their cohorts in the far right wing and the media attacked them on those minor issues and helped conceal their true leanings.

The existence of a true populist progressive threat to their system has forced the far right wing bi-partisan coalition out into the open. Bill Clinton opened the door by playing the race card after South Carolina and making it clear that he was separating himself from the African American community. This was a significant coded signal to the far right that his people were officially lunging to the right. Hillary had taken her first thumping and it was clear that the gloves were coming off. Consider the following actions:

1. Richard Mellon Scaife, the far right wing financier who funded the "Arkansas project" which resulted in Bill Clinton's impeachment has become a Hillary supporter (Scaife pictured above in a recent meeting with Senator Clinton) . He wrote in a recent column "I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed."

2. Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton (The two are pictured above together at the fundraiser). They have forged an odd alliance over the last year in which she has rejected Fox News debates but pocketed cash from both he and his son.

3. Hillary surrogate extraordinaire Ed Rendell told Fox News anchors "I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present, Fox has done the fairest job, has remained the most objective of all the cable networks," Rendell told host Steve Doocy. "You actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right."

4. Bill Clinton appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show on the day of the Texas Primary days after Rush had urged his supporters to vote for Hillary.

Couple these tidbits of information with the Clinton's repeated praise for John McCain and it becomes crystal clear whose side they are on. As it becomes more and more apparent that Senator Clinton has no legitimate chance of overtaking Senator Obama, it also becomes apparent that her strategy is to stay in the race and inflict as much damage as possible to him. In the spirit of both Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, when backed into a political corner she chooses the far right regardless of the personal political consequences. This primary has created an atmosphere where democrats are forced to reveal their political position. After this race, it should be quite clear to observers why some democrats repeatedly side with the Republican party on substantive issues. Take note of the Clinton supporters, then observe their future positions on partisan issues. You will likely find the followers of the Miller/Lieberman/Clinton and ideology.

The Pro Hillary/McCain Media

2008-03-24T07:08:00.002-04:00

The major cable media outlets have made two things quite clear in the last few weeks. Their only issues of concern are race and anything that is damaging to Barack Obama. Which have become one and the same.

We have learned that the White voters have little or no interest in the economy or the occupation of Iraq, except where it benefits John McCain. The American people will make their voting decisions based on the statements of Jeremiah White only. The Jeremiah Wright story has become the foundation of all cable news stories night and day. You need only turn on any of the three Cable news networks and get a three minute egg timer. Rarely a period will pass that you couldn't both cook a tasty cholesterol filled egg and hear a Jeremiah Wright reference. The polls that showed Senator Obama moving ahead of Senator Clinton in preference for handling the economy and foreign policy have been replaced by endless loops of Jeremiah Wright looking like a scary angry Black man.

The subtle racism of the major cable news outlets has been replaced by outright divisive anti-black bias. The language of racial division is used routinely. Every political story refers to the "WHITE VOTERS" and their reaction to whatever racially charged issue is discussed. The unspoken inference is that the white voter is turned off by the discussion of race. The leap of logic from there assumes that they once the white voter is turned off by issue of race being discussed they will not vote for a Black candidate. They will ignore their dire economic circumstances and the horrendous foreign policy blunder that is Iraq, then vote based on race and race only. Barack Obama receiving 85% to 92% of the Black vote in various states is a sign of racial division that will send a negative signal to "WHITE VOTERS", yet Bill Clinton consistently getting 85% and higher of the Black vote was a sign of his acceptance by Black America and helped him win.

The major news networks' most insidious racially misleading tactic is to consistently put right wing Black pundits on the air and infer that the black community is equally divided between the right and left politically. This hides the reality that the Black community sees the right wing pro confederacy movement as its natural enemy. Joe Watkins, a Black Republican strategist has morphed into a "Black preacher" since the Jeremiah Wright story has come to prominence. The number of Black republicans on air has skyrocketed while the presence of left leaning Black pundits has been reduced to practically none.

MSNBC has increased the visibility of Pat Buchanan, one of the most racist political pundits in America. In 1969 Buchanan opposed President Nixon visiting Martin Luther King's widow because in his words "It would outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue, and perhaps worse. ... It does not seem to be in the interests of national unity for the president to lend his national prestige to the argument that this divisive figure is a modern saint." He would later go on record as opposing making Dr. King's birthday a national holiday. Buchanan has also defended the Confederacy writing that the Civil War was about "the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance," States' rights, and cultural differences. As an example of his racially biased work, last week when Bill Richardson endorsed Obama, Nancy Pelosi stated that the candidate with the most pledged delegates should be the nominee, and it was announced that there will be no re-vote in Florida and Michigan, Buchanan announced that Barack Obama had the worst week of any of the Presidential candidates because of the three week old Jeremiah Wright story.

Its time to call these pro-Hillary/McCain alleged news organizations out. They will not stop their intentional racially divisive tactics, but we who oppose and resent these tactics should make our opposition clear.

Suffering Fools Poorly

2008-03-20T06:13:00.002-04:00

A few moments ago I turned on the morning news. It was like a right hand coming out of the television grabbing my collar and a left hand slapping me repeatedly in the face. The strange reality of a former Republican Congressman named Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, a right wing Republican writer for the Weekly Standard whose father is a member of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund, on an alleged News outlet that is owned by a defense contractor bringing me the politics of the day. I'll wager you could guess what the first issue was? Here's a hint, there were clips of Reverend Jeremiah Wright being shown within the first five minutes of the program and a discussion of the WHITE voters reaction to Obama's speech. Apparently, the only issue they noted was that Senator Obama refused to completely disown Wright, which would have obviously been of little consequence since the next order of business was to attack him for being a member of Wright's Church in the first place. Should I have been shocked that a news station owned by General Electric, a massive defense contractor, would work to insure that U.S. voters could have only a choice of war hawks John McCain and Hillary Clinton as President. Here are some tidbits of information about the owner of MSNBC:

GE is the holder of several massive military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a list of the 100 biggest defense contractors the company is ranked number seven.
Throughout the 1990s GE was involved in so many fraud cases that the government set up a special investigations office specifically for the company in the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Management Agency. GE was indicted on 22 criminal counts.
The CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, gave $4,000 for President Bush’s 2004 campaign, and $1,000 for Bush’s 2000 campaign.
NBC’s parent corporation, General Electric, had $14.6 billion in total military revenues during 2003-2006 (10th biggest U.S. military contractor)

The right wing media outlets are following Hillary's lead for an all out full court press on Obama and the anti-war members of the electorate. Many months back Senator Obama warned that the Status Quo will not go down easily and that Exxon-Mobile will not give up their profits without a fight. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that there is a bi-partisan effort by the mainstream political machine to stop the "Change Movement" from upsetting the apple cart and weakening the military industrial complex's stranglehold on a Country that at least had the appearance of democracy. The race issue may appear to be the center of this controversy but in reality it is merely a tool of a desperate bi-partisan right wing political order facing its greatest threat since the Civil War. Hillary's desperate "do anything to win" tactics are actually reflecting the fear, desperation, and determination of her Republican and Democratic supporters.

I don't believe that Senator Obama has been blindsided by recent events. If you have ever been deep sea fishing you should think of the analogy of a fish fighting on a line. The fish puts up a tough fight then appears to fade and give up at one point. However, when the fish gets close enough to see the boat and recognize the reality of its impending doom, it makes its last run which is also its most powerful. Any seasoned fishermen knows that this fight is coming and that if the fish is going to break the line, this is where it is going to happen. The veteran fishermen is not fooled by the appearance of a victory just before that last run by the fish. He or she keeps steady pressure on the fish all the while anticipating the strongest resistance near the end of the battle.

It is at this critical point in the fight that progressives need to recognize that the current attacks are not on Senator Obama or any particular group of his supporters. There are much larger issues in play and falling for the race bait helps the bi-partisan right wing political establishment hide their true motivations. Like you and I, Hillary's core support groups recognize that she is near the boat. The real fight has just begun.

John Murtha Endorses Fellow War Hawk

2008-03-19T06:05:00.003-04:00

The strangest thing happened yesterday. No, I don't mean that John Murtha endorsed Hillary Clinton, thats not strange whatsoever. The strange thing is that long time war hawk John Murtha has been reborn in the media as a dove. The Washington post is running a story in which they refer to him as "a prominent anti-war Democrat".

Like Hillary, Murtha has a history as a right wing pro-war House Democrat whose views have often been barely discernible from most Republicans. In 2001 he co-authored the "Flag Desecration Amendment" with Republican Duke Cunningham. In 2005 Senator Clinton followed suit by co-sponsoring anti flag burning legislation along with Republican Bob Bennet of Utah. Both Clinton and Murtha voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 though Senator Clinton later implied that she thought it was a vote for inspections. However, I would argue that the name of the resolution should have been sufficient to clear up any questions about the intent of the bill's authors. As late as 2005 Murtha still argued that the problems in Iraq were due to lack of planning, refusing to admit that the invasion was a mistake. Dick Cheney referenced John Murtha saying "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee."

The media was shocked by Murtha's sudden about face on the Iraq occupation mainly because of his long time record as a war hawk. Now his endorsement of another right wing war hawk has been used to re-write history and recast both he and Hillary as doves.

Jeremiah Wright's 24 Hour Coverage

2008-03-18T06:03:00.003-04:00

It's difficult for me to recall a minor story in recent history that has received more press coverage than the comments of Barack Obama's Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Part of me is extremely angry over the unfair, illogical, and suspect timing of the story and another part is glad to see it hit the press now rather than next October. How convenient that a story which came out and was covered several months ago suddenly gets revived and brought to the forefront of the news when Hillary needs help going into Pennsylvania. Every news channel talks about the story non-stop as though Senator Obama had made the comments himself. A Preacher whose support was sought after and received by Senator McCain referred to the Catholic church as "the great whore" and it received less than a day of coverage. The silver lining is that the media is using it up now and they will get little play out of it in the general election. Senator Clinton is obviously finished as a candidate. It appears now that her goal is to act as a political suicide bomber and try to kill the Obama Campaign when hers dies.

One thing is very clear regarding this issue, white America (a term I use to refer to a culture rather than merely a race or ethnicity) has no idea of the anger and resentment in the Black Community over the vicious racism and oppression their people have faced. I would surmise that if the press were to look over videotapes of most Black Preachers for twenty years they would be shocked by many of the angry comments they would find. Let me be honest, as a radio talk show host for several years, there are quite a few comments that I have made that would likely bring the ire of the mainstream press. A few hundred years of slavery, lynchings, and Jim crow laws tend to leave a bad taste in one's mouth. I once devoted an entire show to why America should celebrate the date the emancipation proclamation was signed rather than July Fourth. I referred to Thomas Jefferson as a serial rapist and questioned why George Washington waited until after his death to free his slaves. Believe me, that show had enough sound bites to keep Fox News busy for weeks. Mainstream America is shocked that Black community leaders have verbally attacked the mainstream culture in this country, maybe it needs to be aired out and discussed. The anger and resentment is real, so lets make it public.

Ultimately, Senator Obama just has to keep fighting and get to the convention. He will surely be beaten up and tattered when Hillary gets through. Then, the Jeremiah Wright story will be long used up and it will be rather difficult for the Republicans to convince the voters that Senator Obama is a Muslim after spending so much time attacking his Baptist Minister.

THE MEDIA CREATES THE RACE, RACE

2008-03-15T18:16:00.004-04:00

It was surprising how little the race factor played into the Democratic campaign early in the primary season. Iowa, a state with a population that is 98% white, went overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. He nearly took New Hampshire and the race was neck and neck through Super Tuesday. It was clear to the casual observer that the voters were more interested in the issues than the race or gender of the candidates. Stunned by the public reaction to Barack Obama's success, every candidate transformed into a vehicle for "CHANGE". How clear the contradiction when a candidate who campaigns as a conservative argues that they are best suited to bring change. The very definition of political conservatism is to favor tradition and gradual change. None the less, the bandwagon mentality began and every candidate wanted to be Barack Obama in one form or another.

The problem arose when it became fairly obvious that, barring a miracle, this change movement was going to seriously threaten the status quo. The status quo, led principally by the mainstream media, has embarked on a major campaign to neutralize this threat. Senator Obama has a brief political background and little or no skeletons in his closet which left the media with one issue, race. You need only watch CNN for a few hours to recognize that it has become all race, all the time regarding the Democratic Primary. One week they are showing pictures of Senator Obama in traditional Kenyan apparel and linking him to Louis Farrakhan inferring that he is a Muslim. The next week they are showing film clips of his Christian pastor making extremely ethnic sermons and commenting on race related issues in a fashion that most blue collar Whites find uncomfortable. The strategy is clear, paint Senator Obama as a Black only candidate and frighten the blue collar White voter in Pennsylvania into voting for Senator Clinton. As revolting as the strategy is, I can't see an alternative for the Clinton media surrogates at this point. Hillary's one week of victory and momentum left her behind a dozen more delegates than before the week began. She will be heading to the convention behind in delegates, popular votes, states won, and money. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

To be honest, we can't be surprised that the mainstream political machine would stoop to such historic lows to try and stop a monumental threat to their political cash cow. Before the Pennsylvania primary vote I expect them to trot out a modern equivalent to Willie Horton and try to scare the be-Jesus out of the average White guy. What alternative do they have, stick to the issues and get crushed?

I continue to hold the position that the Clinton People are out of control and it is the duty of the Party Leaders to stop this cancer in the Party. It has become clear that the Clinton wing of the Party is challenging the authority of the standing Party Leaders. It is my belief that the Party Leaders have put together a strategy to stop Hillary's insurrection. Keep an eye on Nancy Pelosi and her inner circle for clues.

Delusional Groupthink, The Hillary/Dubya Disaster Machines

2008-03-14T06:34:00.003-04:00

Delusion - A false belief despite incontrovertible and obvious evidence to the contrary. (A Mind of it's own, Cordelia Fine - 2006 Castle House Books)

Groupthink - a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. (Wikipedia)

In my evaluation of the Clinton Camp's recent activities I am struck by the similarities between their inner circle and the inner circle of the Bush Administration during the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

The term "groupthink"was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte and researched extensively by Irving Janis. Mr. Janis recognized two prevalent causes of this condition:

Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

In the run up to the invasion, the inner circle of the Bush Administration notoriously ignored evidence that there were no WMD's and high level warnings of a post invasion armed resistance. In hindsight, it is near mind boggling that they could have expected anything other than total disaster with the information that they were being given.

Fast forward to the Clinton campaign. The Clinton camp continues to project success despite Obama's overwhelming lead in both the pledged delegate count and popular vote with few States left, several of which are likely victories for Senator Obama. They appear blind to the long term damage caused by their brutal reckless tactics. Worse yet, they have attacked and offended the groups they would undoubtedly need if they were able to secure the nomination. Their current illogical rationale seems to be that they can lose the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, promote the Republican nominee, infuriate the Black community, then convince the Superdelegates to override the wishes of the voters.

It appears that they believe the path to the nomination will be a "cakewalk" and the Obama supporters will "welcome them as liberators". Isn't it always amazing how groups of people get together and create a paradigm contrary to reality. Then live comfortably in that paradigm as it crumbles around them.

The Penalty for Treason?

2008-03-13T07:18:00.002-04:00

Despite the current focus on race in the Democratic Primary, a much greater issue looms virtually ignored. The Democratic leadership has presumably overlooked the most blatant case of treason in the history of the party. Shortly after publicly declaring the intent to "throw the kitchen sink" at Senator Obama, Senator Clinton made the following remarks:

"[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

"Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002."

The issue of experience is certainly a fair, though ineffective, strategy for the Clinton camp to employ. However, confounded by the futility of their efforts, the Clinton camp transformed the strategy into a bipartisan attack on the likely Democratic nominee. They unofficially joined forces with Senator McCain and began the Republican Senator's first line of attack. I suspect that sometime between now and November we will see the video of Senator Clinton's remarks again.

It is clear that the Clintons have ignited a war between the right wing (liberals) and the left wing (progressives) of the Democratic Party. However, Senator Obama's near insurmountable lead in delegates and overall votes means that Senator Clinton's treasonous remarks damages both wings in the general election.

The appearance is that the right wing of the Democratic Party would prefer a Republican President over a progressive. This should come as no great surprise since their history has always been to strike so called "bi-partisan" deals with the Republicans rather than side with the left wing of their own Party on issues of substance.....such as Preemptive military attacks on sovereign nations and massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Democratic leadership would be foolish to allow this contest to continue in its current form until Pennsylvania. The Clintons have declared in both words and deeds their intent to destroy the Party's likely nominee. Five weeks of scorched earth Clinton politics may be fatal for the party's White House bid. The Party leadership needs to take immediate and decisive action. Treason of this magnitude cannot be tolerated. Gary Hart floated this balloon as soon as the incident occurred. He was dead on target with his article "Breaking the Final Rule".

If any party accepts treason as a routine political tactic, its demise can't be far off.

Geraldine Ferraro (AKA Big Brother)

2008-03-12T07:19:00.002-04:00

Geraldine Ferraro's recent comment about Barack Obama immediately brings to mind three quotes from George Orwell's epic novel "1984":

Ferraro Stated:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

The quote from "1984" was:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

The remarkable similarity between these quotes is fairly obvious, both deliberately invert reality. In the style of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the Bill O'Reilly Mrs. Ferraro infers that America has changed in a fashion that now gives the advantages to Black males and the disadvantages to White males. In Mrs. Ferraro's twisted version of reality, Black males are lucky because they are a privileged class and the unfortunate Whites of both genders have to take the crumbs left behind. In a country where white males occupy 97% of all administrative positions in the fortune 500 Companies, Black males are socially privileged? The naked truth is that the exact opposite is true.

This is reminiscent of the fascist dictator Joseph Stalin claiming to be a socialist and Hitler naming the fascist Nazi party the "National Socialist" party. The ultimate dishonesty is to make statements that are not merely incorrect, but are a deliberate inversions of the truth. In this case, playing the race card in this manner is intended to send a coded message to Whites that they must band together to protect themselves before the privileged class of Blacks take everything they have. It is directed towards the struggling blue collar Pennsylvania voters who are viewed as susceptible to this kind of right wing fear mongering. It is remarkable similar to the arguments made by modern White supremacists and identifies Mrs. Ferraro as another Democrat who resides with Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman (until his recent rejection by the voters), and Hillary Clinton in the far right wing of the Democratic Party.

Hillary Fights for Democracy (unless Barack wins)

2008-03-10T06:37:00.004-04:00

The Clinton camp's contradictory arguments regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries are much too obvious to ignore. Which, I might add, is precisely what the mainstream media is doing. Rather than a complicated explanation, I'll expose the blatant hypocrisy by simply stating the two arguments together:

1 - The Clinton Camp argues that the voices of the Florida and Michigan voters must be heard for the sake of democracy. These voters, if overlooked, will be so angry that they will flock to John McCain in the general election and give the White House to the Republicans. If the Democratic Party disenfranchises millions of voters in two critical States, the White House will go to the Republicans.

2 - If Barack Obama is selected by the primary voters (which I am guessing includes Michigan and Florida) the Super-delegates should ignore the voters and select Hillary as the nominee, effectively disenfranchising every democratic primary voter in every state. This may not be democratic, but those are the rules. The disenfranchisement of overwhelming numbers of African American and youthful voters will be of little consequence in November.

Any Questions?

The Clinton-Bush Legacy

2008-01-25T06:18:00.000-05:00

Clearly, the Republican party is in trouble after eight disastrous years of George Bush. The Bush Administration has pursued policies which they believe will further their individual goals regardless of the long term effects on the health of the party as a whole. Now, the Republican presidential candidates find themselves in the unique position of being forced to embrace the unpopular policies of the Administration, distance themselves from the the Commander in Chief, and admitt that the American people want an immediate and drastic change of direction. A small group of radical self centered leaders have wreaked a measure of destruction on the Republican party that its enemies couldn't have accomplished in a hundred years.

Enter Bill and Hillary Clinton with their scorched earth primary campaign. They found themselves behind in a policy and issues driven campaign and decided to follow their instincts. The results are creating, or more accurately "have created" what will prove to be a radical realignment of the Black vote. Mis-judging Black voters to be similar to the white voters, they have embarked on an attack campaign of historic proportions against the first viable African American presidential candidate in U.S. history. Labeling this a miscalculation would be the equivalent of referring to a tidal wave as "moisture". The Clintons appear to believe that they can use character assassination, distortions, and outright lies to eviscerate a Black man of great dignity and integrity and that if they win, African American voters will forgive them and support the Democrats in the general election. These miscalculations will not only cost them dearly, but their party is in jeopardy of losing the African American vote for the foreseeable future. In growing circles within the Black community, the Clintons are as hated as the most right wing ideologues. The Democratic party is being viewed as an accomplice, either by commission or omission, and will pay a dear price in the long run.

The appearance is that the Clintons used the Black Community for votes and now have not only abandoned them, but turned into the virulent racists that they always were to achieve a political goal that they could not otherwise achieve. The Democratic party's refusal to condemn these tactics, rightly or wrongly, drags them into the same paradigm. This creates a racial fault line in the Democratic party which can't easily or quickly be repaired. Far better to be a far right wing enemy of the Black Community than to be a viewed as a cunning deceptive backstabber. In the upcoming elections, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, I predict that the Democrats will see the lowest percentage of Black votes in the modern era. Black voters will simply look for an alternative, or stay home.

Low Black turnout equals nationwide disaster for the Democratic party and that disaster will be well earned. The Clintons will do anything to achieve their goal, including destroy their own party.

George Bush has destroyed his party, how fitting that the Clintons should return the favor by following suit.

One Note Johnny

2007-12-30T08:38:00.000-05:00

Reality Hits the Clinton Camp (and friends)

2007-11-22T12:17:00.000-05:00

The Hillary Clinton political machine has spent the last year trying to convince the Nation that the Democratic primary race is over before the first vote is cast. Their "inevitability" strategy has worked quite well amongst their comrades in the media. The pundit round-table discussions on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox revolved around the various Republican primary candidates chances against Hillary in the general election. Barack Obama and John Edwards haven't been acknowledged as legitimate candidates, much less potential Democratic nominees. One has to wonder why three mainstream media outlets with overwhelmingly conservative right leaning on-air personalities would be so obliging to portray the image that the Clinton Camp wishes to create.

Regardless of the reason Hillary has had so much right wing cooperation with her inevitability strategy, the voters have thrown a major monkey wrench in her strategy. The latest polls show that Barack Obama is running four points ahead of Hillary, John Edwards is four points behind Her, and most importantly all candidates are within the margin of error. It is increasingly difficult for the Hillary people to argue that she has the Iowa race won when the polls show a three way tie. The pundits present the poll numbers to give the appearance that she has a significant lead in New Hampshire, but the reality is that approximately 50% of the voters are undecided. Hillary's 12 to 14 point lead seems much less impressive when we take into account that half the voters have yet to commit.

It has been obvious during the debates that Hillary has played to the pundits while Obama and Edwards have directed their remarks to the voters. Unfortunately for Hillary, her hawkish right wing foreign policy has been extremely successful in both endearing her to the conservative media and alienating her from the progressive democratic base.

A Poor Argument Against Impeachment

2007-11-10T08:29:00.000-05:00

The question of impeachment is becoming a problem for the Democratic Congress. The Democratic base, a majority of independents, and a rising number of Republicans are unhappy over the failure of the Congressional Leadership to act decisively on this issue. The Democratic Leadership's argument against impeachment is universally accepted by the right wing corporate media and the right wing Democrats masquerading as progressives. Since the argument is so closely linked to the Clinton impeachment, I believe that a contextual comparison is the only method of reaching an objective conclusion about its credibility. Let's take a look at the argument and the numbers, then and now, which make the argument work...or not.

The Republicans instituted impeachment procedures against President Clinton in 1998 and suffered a significant political backlash, the Democratic Leadership is wary of facing a similar backlash today should they impeach Bush and /or Chaney.

The Republican Congress instituted impeachment procedures against a president with a 63% approval rating in defiance of the an overwhelming majority of the American people. The predictable results were that President Clinton's approval rating increased 10% to 73%, a number which beat the highest approval rating Ronald Reagan ever had.

A CNN poll taken on September 25, 1998 revealed the following data:

Which of the following possible outcomes of the investigation of Bill Clinton would you most like to see happen?

No action         34%
Censure           29
Resignation       23
Impeachment       12

Take this online MSNBC poll and observe the results.

Still not convinced by the numbers? Time/CNN provides the clearest contextual comparison:

Currently

* 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

* 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

Aug-Sept 1998 (Before Clinton Impeachment)

* Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%

* Average support for hearings (6 polls): 36%

Meanwhile President Bush's approval rating hovers around 30% and has for better part of the last year.

The polling numbers reveal no contextual basis for any legitimate argument that the political climate during the Clinton impeachment hearing procedures compares in any manner to the political climate today. In fact, the numbers reveal that the position of the American people towards both the President and the impeachment procedures are statistically the exact opposite.

Furthermore, the so called political backlash that the Democrats currently fear never happened. Two years after an extremely unpopular impeachment, the Republicans lost only one seat in the Senate and won the White House.

The Democrats are playing what they believe is a safe hand of inaction. Their logic is that the Republicans are so inept and out of touch with mainstream America that any controversial, or bold, action in Congress risks losses which otherwise will not happen. They have not taken into account that they may be held accountable by an angry public for a crime of omission, just as Bush and Chaney should be held liable for a crime of commission. In many legal instances, failing to act or report a crime creates complicity to the crime.

President Clinton's action's were clearly wrong, but it was the position of the American electorate that impeachment and removal from office was not warranted. This is clearly not the case with the Bush White house.

The issue of impeachment should be determined by the whether the evidence exists of a crime and whether the crime in question fits the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

If you still have any doubt whether the President and Vice President deliberately mislead Congress and the American people into war, watch this video.

Sadly, it appears that the Democratic Leadership prefers what they perceive to be the safety of inaction to the inherent risks of performing their constitutionally mandated duties to the American people.

Propaganda - a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.

2007-09-18T07:31:00.000-04:00

Congress Must Stop The Coming Iran Attack

2007-08-25T08:12:00.001-04:00

The evidence is overwhelming that the Bush Administration is planning a military strike on Iran very soon. The evidence is equally overwhelming that the results of this strike would be economically and diplomatically devastating to the United States for years to come. There is some disagreement about the level of response, but clearly Iran is capable of a powerful military response resulting in significant U.S. casualties. Most non partisan experts agree that the combined military and economic consequences would push the U.S. into recession, or worse.

Congress must act quickly and decisively to prevent the Bush Administration from implementing this act of foreign policy insanity. In my opinion, the best defense in this case is clearly a good offense. Congress needs to utilize their legal authority to launch a shock and awe campaign against the Bush Administration sufficient to divert their energy from anything other than saving their collective hides. Impeachment procedures should be instituted against Vice President Cheney and indictments should be handed down against Karl Rove for Hatch Act violations as soon as Congress reconvenes. Special Prosecutors should be named to investigate Vice President Cheney and his neocon staff for their involvement in the Niger Forgeries, and deliberately misleading Congress during the lead up to the Iraq invasion.The Contempt of Congress citations should be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.

My basic point in this article is that Congress must be merciless in their legal pursuit of the Bush Administration. The violations of law validate such action by their own merit, but I also believe that the only thing the neocons understand is force. They must be politically taken apart through strong and decisive legal methods immediately. Failure to act will result in calamity.

The question of whether the U.S. Military Commanders in the Pentagon would refuse an order from the President to launch a military strike against Iran is a question that we don't want to face. Congress needs to immediately pull the political rug out from under the Administration and leave them struggling to survive.

FOX NEWS PUSHES NEW LIES

2007-08-24T14:49:00.001-04:00

Will Bush Give the Order?

2007-08-20T14:12:00.000-04:00

It is quite clear, if you read the signals coming from the White House, that an attack on Iran is still receiving serious consideration by the President. In fact, some insiders are saying that it is a matter of when, not whether, the attack will take place.

It is not a coincidence that this issue has risen to the surface during Congress's summer recess. The neocons know that the political window, if there is one, for military action against Iran will be slammed shut as soon Congress reconvenes and the indictments start dropping into various Bush Administration Official's laps. To complicate matters more, the highly anticipated report from General Petraeus will likely fan the flames of the troop withdrawal movement and drastically weaken the Presidents support amongst Republican Congressmen. The neocons obviously feel that if they can't convince the President to launch a unilateral attack on Iran now, they may not have the opportunity again.

The gravity of the consequences of a military action against Iran raises an extremely sensitive question. Would the military leaders refuse the order to launch the attack? It may seem ridiculous to think that the Commander in Chief's military orders could be refused but consider this:

Admiral William J. Fallon assumed duties as the commander, U.S. Central Command on March 16, 2007.

The Inter Press news Service Reported on May 15, 2007:

Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch". Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

The fact that a number of retired Generals have publicly denounced the Administrations handling of Iraq is a clear indication that there are deep divisions between the White House and the Pentagon. The Iranians are in a position to launch devastating counter attacks resulting in high numbers of American military casualties through both conventional and asymmetrical methods. I do not believe that our military leaders are willing to sacrifice our troops lives in great numbers for an ideology that has been proven counter productive and morally bankrupt.

Hillary Sounded Like Obama Last January

2007-07-30T07:54:00.000-04:00

READ THE TEXT

OLBERMANN: Would you reach out immediately to the Syrians and the Iranians, even with the tensions between this country and Iran?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. I don't see it as a sign of weakness. I see it as a sign of strength. You know, our president will not talk to people he considers bad. Well, there are a lot of bad actors in the world, and you don't make peace with your friends. You've got to deal with your enemies, your opponents, people whose interests diverge from yours.

Right now we're flying blind when it comes to Iran. We don't have good intelligence about Iran, about what their real motivations are, who's calling the shots; the same with Syria. And I would immediately open a diplomatic track. And I don't think we would lose. In fact, I think we would gain insight.

I mean, if we have to take a firm stand against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, let's get more information before we do that. Let's figure out, you know, what levers of power in their society we might be able to pull and push.

I WONDER IF THE NEOCONS WILL STOP LOVING HILLARY NOW?

President Bush's Next Iraq Plan

2007-07-17T11:37:00.000-04:00

In September, General Petraeus will come forward with an update on the state of catastrophe in Iraq. The usual media pundits foolishly debate the President's next strategic move based on the report.

It is a mistake to guess George Bush's next move based on any information relevant to reality. If there is one thing we should all know about our President by now, its that his decisions are based on his personal concept of reality, not ours. He believes that he has been chosen by God and fate to lead this nation to victory over the forces of evil. In that reality, there is no room for compromise.

There is no chance that President Bush will agree to draw down the troops or take any other action that could be viewed as conceding defeat. A report that the "surge" is a complete failure would only mean that more troops are needed. When a fool finds that his strategy is not working, his reaction is to do more of it. Therefore, I am predicting that President Bush will order an increase in troop strength after General Petraeus's report regardless of the contents. George Bush will never alter his positions on Iraq. Carefully read and interpret his speeches the last few years and all the codes are there to be interpreted.

Have we forgotten the words of Bob Woodward:

Late last year, he had key Republicans up to the White House to talk about the war, and said 'I Will Not Withdraw Even If Laura And Barney Are The Only Ones Supporting Me.' Barney is his dog."

Congress will eventually be forced to remove him from office if any changes in the war plan are ever to be instituted.

George Bush is a very sick man. I believe that before he leaves office his actions will shock the conscience of the American People. Unfortunately for the Republicans in Congress, they have taken far to long to recognize the problem and their fates are sealed. They are inexorably tied to his massive blunders and there is not enough time before the next election for them to recover. Within a few months the question of the President's sanity will be a subject of National debate. The Republicans in Congress will be forced to swallow their pride and vote for the impeachment of both George Bush and Dick Cheney. The 2008 election will mark the political annihilation of the Republican party for many years to come.

If you still haven't figured out what the President's strategy will be after general Petraeus's September report, ask Laura and Barney.

THE ONE TIME DUBYA TOLD THE TRUTH

2007-07-06T08:17:00.000-04:00

“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

Scooter violated the law and he was certainly "TAKEN CARE OF" in the end.

PICTURE ABOVE (The President peers through binoculars with the lens covers still on)

(TAKE THE LENS COVERS OFF , YOU IDIOT!)

JULY FOURTH CALLS FOR THE WORDS OF THOMAS PAINE

2007-07-04T15:44:00.000-04:00

"If there is a sin superior to every other, it is that of wilful and offensive war. Most other sins are circumscribed within narrow limits, that is, the power of one man cannot give them a very general extension, and many kinds of sins have only a mental existence from which no infection arises; but he who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death"

"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America."

-THOMAS PAINE-

Fred Thompson for Vice President?

2007-06-26T09:29:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post is reporting a GOP plan brewing which would deep six Dick Cheney and replace him with the unelectable Fred Thompson. When Asked by Jay Leno on The Tonight Show if he'd like the nation's top job, Fred Thompson replied, "I've never craved the job of president, but I want to do some things that only a president can do." Now there's a guy who is going to make a big splash in the General Election.
His first advertisement:

Hi I'm Fred Thompson,
I don't really want to be President, but I would like to fly around in Air Force one, sleep in the White house, and fun Presidential stuff like that. Vote for me, so I can have fun.

His platform, vote for me so I can do stuff I like, supports his long held reputation as the laziest man in politics.

Dick Cheney's Middle Finger Argument

2007-06-26T08:08:00.001-04:00

Vice President Cheney's office is engulfed in the usual power struggle with the civilized world. Recently it was revealed the his office has been arguing that it does not have to submit to a Presidential order requiring routine inspections of classified material because "THE VICE PRESIDENT"S OFFICE IS NOT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT". Clearly the founding fathers intended to separate our Government into three co-equal branches. The Vice President is in effect arguing that there is a fourth branch which no one happened to notice for the last few hundred years.

I would assert that this argument is so absurd as to invalidate itself. Arguing that the Vice President's office cannot be classified as a part of any Branch of Government because it has duties related to the both the Executive and legislative Branches is the equivalent of arguing that a duck is not a bird or a fish because it spends half of its time in the water swimming and the other half flying. Classifying his office as a part of both branches would be more logical. However, this argument is not about logic. When anyone uses an argument this devoid of reason it makes a very clear and blunt statement. I'll spare the relevant expletive but it is the equivalent of holding up a middle finger to anyone daring to question their actions. Congress should certainly seize upon this opportunity and demand documents and information from the Vice President which would force him to claim Executive Privilege in his refusal to hand them over and immediately invalidating his own legal claim. There is little doubt that he would try to have it both ways by arguing that since he is in fact attached to the Executive Branch he can still make that claim. The true Cheney plan is is to take this argument to court and fight it until after the 2008 election. Then after a few nights of working overtime with the White house Shredder, walk away smiling.

What do propagandists say when defeat is at hand?

2007-06-19T12:24:00.000-04:00

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY, DECEMBER 2005

"On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission," "

JOSEPH GOEBBELS NEW YEARS EVE 1943, ADDRESSING THE GERMAN PEOPLE

“A nation must fight courageously and intelligently for its existence..the main thing is that the leadership and people keep their nerve, stubbornly and persistently overcoming dangers and difficulties, letting nothing distract them from the continuation of the course that they once saw as correct…”

Joe Lieberman's Change of Heart

2007-06-14T18:49:00.000-04:00

Senator Joe Lieberman took an interesting position on the Alberto Gonzales issue this week. He joined the majority of the Republicans in the Senate in voting against advancing the "no confidence" motion against Gonzales to the floor for a vote, effectively killing the measure. Senator Lieberman's reasoning;

“My vote against going ahead with more debate on this no confidence resolution is not an expression of confidence in Attorney General Gonzales,” Lieberman said on Monday. “It is an expression of opposition to spending any more time on a resolution that will accomplish nothing, instead of going ahead with the next item of business, which is energy legislation.”

The issue I have with his remarks has little to do with Alberto Gonzalez and everything to do with his position during the Republican push for the impeachment of President Clinton in 1999. Take a moment to review Senator Lieberman's positions at that time as reported by CNN;

Lieberman said if the findings didn't claim to convict the president of a crime but instead said that he had been misleading and acted to cover up his misconduct, "then I for one would be hard pressed to vote against it."

In a appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Lieberman also said that adjournment without a vote on the articles of impeachment "would prevent the president from claiming acquittal or an exoneration because there would be no final vote on conviction. And then we just state, without calling him a criminal ... (that) he has committed obstruction of justice ... that he has lied under oath."

I find it interesting that Senator Lieberman felt that he would be hard pressed to vote against a Republican political maneuver that would waste time and do little more than embarrass the President and his party. The issue at hand, the Presidents veracity, is exactly the issue in question regarding Attorney General Gonzales. He was in favor of wasting time to attack and embarrass a Democratic President, yet his attitude towards a Republican Attorney General who has unapologetically lied to Congress is the exact opposite.

James Carville Revealed??

2007-06-06T07:45:00.000-04:00

James Carville's reputation as a left wing Democrat is in serious jeopardy. He may very well be a Democrat by label, but his recent actions bring his political inclinations into question. His criticism of the Bush Administration and their propensity for lying has been revealed as nothing but showmanship. The website "the smoking gun.com" is displaying a copy of a letter to Judge Walton requesting leniency in sentencing for Scooter Libby.

Most political strategist would agree that the most powerful politician is one who can plant spies amongst his enemies and control what appears to be the opposition. Carville is in the mainstream media almost daily crowing about the GOP and their shortcomings. He has made a very lucrative career out of framing himself as an aggressive pro-left pundit. It is now obvious that what we really have is a fox in the hen house. Carville strongly criticized the Bush administration for attacking Joe Wilson and revealing the identity of Valerie Plame. Now he requests leniency for the man designated by Dick Cheney to carry out that attack.

The obvious conclusion here is that James Carville is a GOP mole. The Democrats should act as they would with any other spy and completely severe ties with this man immediately. If this does not happen, the Party Leaders should be brought to task and their allegiance should also be questioned.

Maryland ACLU = Good / Dick Cheney = Bad

2007-06-03T23:06:00.000-04:00

A Picture of yours truly with Susan Goehring, Maryland ACLU Executive Director.

Tonight, the furious blogger had a rare respite from the daily frustration of discovering yet another Bush administration felony. I had the great pleasure of attending the Maryland Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union's 75th Anniversary at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore (Home of the Ravens).

ACLU National President Anthony Romero delivered his usual masterpiece with his trademark style of injecting paradoxical humor to make a deadly serious point. He used an anecdote which invoked the writings of a staunch opponent of the ACLU to point out the organization's value to our Democracy. He then smoothly transitioned into a speech which both invigorated the faithful and educated audience members with lesser knowledge of the ACLU's history and purpose.

Unfortunately, there are those who don't fully comprehend the value of the ACLU. Humor me while I drift off into one of my angry rants to make a necessary point:

Shortly after the Bush Administration seized power, Vice President Cheney had a meeting with a group of people to devise an energy policy for the United States. It was widely believed that the group included persons who stood to make significant financial gains if the policy were to steer this country towards a greater dependence on fossil fuels, particularly oil. When a request was made to make the documents and participants from the meeting public, Vice President Cheney argued that the American people did not have a right to know who was at the energy policy meeting or what was discussed. Several government watchdog groups fought a long legal battle and ended up losing when the Supreme Court ruled that, we the people, have no right to know what our leaders are doing, allegedly on our behalf. It was eventually discovered that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex and developed the national energy policy, parts of which became law.

Fast forward a few years and we have the Patriot Act, government electronic eavesdropping, and the warrantless opening of citizen's mail.

There is but one conclusion that can be reached. The Government now has an exclusive right to Privacy and the People have none. In a country where the exact opposite intention was spelled out plainly in the constitution, our rights have been turned inside out. We are now more dependent on fossil fuel and paying the highest price for it in this nations history. Yet we have no right to know who was involved or what was discussed at the meeting that got us here?

The Government has a right to privacy, we have none!

Regardless of what you think of the ACLU, take your chances with organizations that fight Government excesses, not the other way around.

US Benchmarks Rejected by Iraqi Insurgents

2007-05-18T15:25:00.000-04:00

Ok, lets be absolutely square about this whole bull crap benchmark business, it's foolishness! The concept itself is based on the belief that there is some remote possibility of the security situation in Iraq improving. Obviously in order to meet such benchmarks as effective oil revenue sharing legislation, provincial elections, and reversing the draconian de-baathification laws which the US leaders created, the security situation would need to improve exponentially. What good are new laws created by a Government which has no power to enforce them.

The current Iraqi Parliament members would be in grave danger should they even leave the Green Zone without a major security contingent. Can any sane person have faith that a Government of people who can't even set foot on the land of their own country without being assassinated have the political will or authority to effect the course of their society? This is clearly a show for those still gullible enough to believe that the Iraqi debacle was not lost long ago. Earth to the GOP faithful, this game is over. Whatever losing in Iraq means, we have been successful at it. Benchmarks are irrelevant if they involve political or security related progress. There will be none of that in the foreseeable future.

Likely, the endgame will involve some form of interpreting the current situation in a way that demonstrates progress, then precipitously withdrawing as quickly as possible. An indication of that was when the President recently stated:

“Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives.”

As absurd as that definition of success may seem, it clearly shows that the plan for creating a secular democracy in Iraq has been abandoned. The only hope for an exit is to redefine victory to mean whatever we need it to, and be gone before the 2008 election.

Benchmarks for success in a country that has done nothing but deteriorate in every way over the last four years should be interpreted as justifications for an exit. We destroyed a country and now its time to blame the pitifully impotent Iraqi Government and leave them to oversee a failed state. The truth is, it wasn't the Iraqi Parliament who destroyed the societal structure which maintained order in Iraq, it was the Bush Administration. How can we reasonably expect them to repair the infrastructure and defeat the Insurgents when we can do neither?

We are in the unique position of facing catastrophe regardless of whether we stay or leave. We've opened Pandora's box and there is no way to close it. Years from now we will look back in horror at the recklessness in which we exercised this military and political campaign.

As we talk about benchmarks, the Insurgents build more car bombs. I think their strategy will prove infinitely more effective in the long run.

Plan B????

2007-05-12T09:23:00.000-04:00

The ridiculous "surge" strategy has began to yield its expected fruit. By that I mean that the Republicans in Congress are looking for a way to admit that it is, as has been all Bush Administration military strategies, a complete failure. Who could have possibly guessed that a group of morons who have bungled everything they have touched would come up with a another worthless and counterproductive plan? Certainly not their GOP lapdogs in Congress.

The time is rapidly approaching when the lapdogs will decide to either fall with their master, or turn and eat him. The GOP Congressmen recently met with President Bush and advised him of their displeasure with the occupation. Now they have began speaking of a so called "plan b" for Iraq, when the failure of this so-called plan A "surge" comes crashing down to earth. They are saying that come September, barring a sudden upturn in events, they will need a new plan or they will jump ship and possibly join the Democrats in rejecting the occupation. The problem with plan b is pretty simple, there is no plan b. The Administration has no backup plan for failure of the already doomed surge strategy. Pretty clearly the Iraqi Government is falling apart and when this latest strategy goes by the wayside, there won't be room for another one.

So where are we in this process anyway? The Republicans are about to face complete and final destruction at the polls in 2008, Iraq has fallen into the inevitable deadly chaos that was widely predicted before the first shot was fired, and of course the Bush Administration's only concern is starting another war before they leave office. The question is becoming whether they will leave in handcuffs and shackles or by the normal political process. At any rate, the country is in an uproar as we have not seen in many decades and there can be no good end to this madness. Sadly, my guess is that plan b will involve a white flag and emergency extrication's reminiscent of the fall of Saigon.

I'll leave you with a some quotes and information of interest:

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, issued a warning to readers of the conservative magazine National Review: “Have Republicans absorbed how much trouble their party is in? To the (limited) extent that we do, we tend to attribute everything to Iraq - as if Katrina, the Schiavo affair, corruption in Congress and the intensifying irrelevance of our domestic-policy agenda did not exist. And so we demand from our candidates ever more fervent declarations of fealty to an ideology that interests an ever dwindling proportion of the public.”

In a column last week, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, a favorite of conservatives, said the Iraq war alone was causing the ”virtual collapse of the Republican brand appeal.”

David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, wrote recently: ”The Republicans suffered one unpleasant event in November 2006, and they are headed toward an even nastier one in 2008. They are like people quietly marching to their doom.”

A CBS News poll last month found 65 percent of independents favor decreasing the number or removing all troops, while 61 percent favor a timetable for withdrawal. Unaffiliated voters’ distaste for the Republican Party revealed itself in 2006, as 57 percent broke for Democrats, after the two parties split those voters in 2004, according to exit polling.

And yet the Republican presidential candidates are running campaigns at odds with this fundamental shift in public attitudes.

”This is what Bush and the other Republicans don’t get,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “There is a social revolution occurring, and they are completely out of the mainstream.”

Benchmarks and Carbombs

2007-05-08T12:58:00.000-04:00

It has been fairly obvious for the last few years that the Iraq project would result in monumental failure, but now we have a drop dead date (no pun intended) for the end. Iraq's Sunni Arab Vice President has announced that his organization, The Iraqi Accord Front, will pull out of the current Government on May 15th unless certain demands are met. These demands, which include disarming the Shiite militias and re-writing the Constitution, have virtually no chance being met. Therefor, on May 15th the Iraqi Government unofficially implodes.

The Iraqi Accord Front holds 44 Seats in Parliament and the Sunnis as a group hold a total of 58 seats. Moqtada Al Sadre has already pulled his 32 MPs and the Islamic Virtue Party has pulled their 15. Is this picture becoming clearer? The Government is falling apart and if the remaining Sunni MPs pull out it is over. The only way to address that would be a new election, then starting a Government and Constitution from scratch. What are the odds that either the American or Iraqi people will embrace that idea?

Make no mistake about it, the Maliki Governments rule should be measured in days or weeks. All the benchmarks and surges in the world will have little effect on a country in complete anarchy after the Government falls. If the GOP'ers in Congress are smart, they'll jump off this ship before it sinks. The way things are shaping up, when Iraq goes down the Republican party will be in the ballroom playing their instruments and singing praises to Bush all the way to the bottom. The penalty for blind obedience is high, but its fair.

THE GOP STAYS ON TRACK, BUT A TRAIN IS COMING

2007-05-03T12:45:00.000-04:00

Are you familliar with Lemmings? They are small rodents that are believed to have a habit of following one another over a cliff in what would appear to be either mass suicide or fatal stupidity. Though the lemming suicide story is a myth, it has been used for years to describe the actions of foolish followers.

All that is wordy way of decribing the current GOP members of Congress. They followed the hapless bungler in chief right out of power in the last midterm elections and those who survived appear to headed, lemming style, for a similar fate in 2008. I watched a loyal GOP Congressman this morning on C-Span tell viewers about the importance of the Iraq debacle and stick to the worn out talking points about 9/11, AL Qaeda, and fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them here. Earth to the GOP, America does not want to hear that anymore.

Apparently the midterm elections did nothing to convince these fools that a change in course was necessary. All the current polls show that the American people side with the Democrats plan for withdrawal. However, the loyal Bushies are so smart that they know whats really good for America, regardless of what those pesky voters think.

Meanwhile the problem grows. Iraq is unravelling at such a rate that in a matter of weeks or at most a few months the current Government is going to fall and the wheels will visibly come off the cart. What plan for these last few loyal war supporters then? Might I suggest the Japanese ritual of Seppuku, also known as hara-kiri (腹切り It's pretty easy, you just perform a few rituals, then plunge a sword into your own abdomen and croak. That way, you won't have to face the humiliation of yielding a super-majority to Democrats and the Presidency in one fell swoop.

Eight years of following Bush and the Republican Party is toast, turn them over and stick a fork in their collective breasts because they are done. But look at the bright side, Saddam Hussein will never attack new York City again.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

2007-05-02T12:39:00.000-04:00

Four years ago George Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and announced to the world that the mission in Iraq was accomplished. Today, it is dreadfully obvious that whatever that mission was, if it even abstractly resembles bringing peace and democracy to Iraq, it will not be accomplished in our lifetime. The mission has been reduced to "Lets try something else and HOPE that works". That's right, we are reduced to trying an alleged new strategy and waiting to see if it works. That is not the stuff that brilliant military strategies are made of...HOPE?

We are sending 21,000 additional troops into a country of 26 million engulfed in a civil war and HOPE for some, as yet undefined, success. While we're doing that HOPE for world peace and an end to hunger. The odds of seeing the fulfillment of this HOPE is probably about the same as peace and democracy in Iraq.

The Iraq debacle is merely proving to be what it was destined to be. The worst strategic military error in US History by a wide margin. There was never a chance it would succeed and I would argue that there was never a clear definition of success from day one. More Iraqis and Americans will be maimed and die while we HOPE that a miracle happens. It is a sad truth that our President will never accept the reality of what he has created in Iraq.

Eventually, our troops will leave and the gates of hell will be completely opened in Iraq. When that will happen is in question but it is a certainty at some point. Then, rather than accept out responsibility as a nation, the guilty parties will begin the search for scapegoats.

Rice Admits Tenet's "Truthiness"

2007-04-30T08:21:00.000-04:00

In a CBS News article titled "Rice Dismisses Tenet's Accusations", Condoleeza Rice appears to be disputing George Tenet's claims. However, a fairly casual evaluation of her answers reveal just the opposite. Let's review these statements from her Sunday interview with Bob Shieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation" and see what answers truly reveal:

Tenet tells Scott Pelley in a 60 Minutes interview that, before the September 11 attacks, he told Rice in a White House meeting the U.S. should take preemptive action inside Afghanistan.

"We need – we need to – we need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now," Tenet remembers telling Rice, who was then National Security Advisor. "We need to – we need to move to the offensive."

RICE'S ANSWER AND MY EVALUATION"

Rice, however, said Tenet's claim was a "new fact" and she would "have to look."

If it is a fact, how can it be new when he said it happened prior to September 11, 2001? She refers to Tenet's claim as a "fact" which is a clear acknowledgment that it is true. Further, what does she have to look into about a fact? Possibly come up with an answer to hide the truth?

She told Bob Schieffer, "It's very interesting because that's not what George told the 9/11 Commission at the time. He said that he felt that we had gotten it."

She refers to his testimony and attempts to point out that he withheld that information from the 9/11 Commission. However, even if he did it in no way proves that it is false.

Asked why Tenet would make the claim if it wasn't true, Rice said she didn't know. "I don't know what we were supposed to preemptively strike in Afghanistan," she said. "Perhaps somebody can ask that."

Her claim appears to be that he didn't provide specific targets,which he never claims to have done. Notice that she still does not deny his assertion, then takes an offensive stance saying that he should be questioned about specific targets that should have been picked. That is totally irrelevant as to whether or not he recommended preemptive action in a general manner. It would be up to the Military and intelligence Agencies combined to select specific targets.

A careful examination of her statements reveal that while Secretary Rice makes weak attempts to defend herself, she is unable to come up with even a weak rebuttal and clearly confirms that his assertion is a fact.

George Tenet Comes Out

2007-04-29T23:22:00.000-04:00

Former CIA Director George Tenet has followed the normal path of former Bush Administration Officials. He has written a book in which he revealed that the President and his henchmen were planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and that he hates Dick Cheney. So what else is new?

Anyone who hasn't figured out that the Bushies were planning to invade Iraq from day one probably also still believes that Saddam had WMD's and a connection to AL Qaeda. After "Fiasco", "State of Denial", and Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies" I think its pretty clear that any reasonable person with a brain who had in depth contact with the Bush Whitehouse and a smidgen of ethics has to scream out loud that these people are really bad news.

The problem I have with Tenet is the same one I have with Colin Powell. These men should have known better and either spoke up, walked away, or both when the Neocons were leading us down the path to destruction. Dick Cheney is a psychopathic killer and George Bush has the IQ of a head of lettuce, they have an excuse. However, both Powell and Tenet knew better and waited until we drove off a cliff to pipe up and tell us that there was a sign saying "bridge out ahead". Gee thanks guys, its nice to know NOW!! that we are dealing with liars and thieves! Maybe you coulda got that info to us a tad bit earlier. I don't know, maybe prior to the biggest strategic blunder in US history would have been good?

Oh well, better late than never I guess. Now its time for Congress to call these guys in to testify and get some orange jump suits prepared for President Cheney and his faculty. If these guys don't end up in jail then there is no justice in the United States.

The Problem with Firing Imus

2007-04-24T07:02:00.000-04:00

I pretty much knew it but I withheld this comment until I saw it come to pass. Don Imus made a racist unacceptable comment. Unfortunately, firing him provided a great opportunity for right wing MSNBC Executives to replace him with right wing kook Michael Smerconish. It's not hard to guess that a Network owned by Monstrous Defense Contractor General Electric would be a far right wing neocon mouthpiece. It's pretty obvious that a news outlet whose parent company makes billions from war would do everything in their power to promote business. The President of MSNBC should be honest and make the same statement Damon Wayan's made in the movie Major Payne, "Ladies, My Business is killing, and Business is Good".

Don Imus was hated by the right because as quiet as it was kept, he harboured some progressive attitudes and the right wing knew it. He hated Dick Cheney and constantly referred to him as a "fat pork chop eatin bastard". He was an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war. He referred to the President and his war party as war criminals that should be in jail. He was recently criticized for saying that Dick Cheney should be shot. His on air cohorts were right wing racist pigs but to be honest, Imus was an often times left leaning Republican critic who rarely, if ever, agreed with them. I am not defending His comments, just stating a reality here that many people have missed. I felt that his racist cohort Bernard McGuirk made such outrageously racist statements that the show should have been trashed years ago. It has been overlooked that immediately after Imus's statement about the Rutgers players, McGuirk referred to the Spike Lee movie' Do the right thing" by saying " The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes — that movie that he had." McGuirk made racist statements almost daily and I am shocked that he was allowed to get away with it as long as he did.

At any rate, this is a long winded way of saying that MSNBC was thrilled to get the opportunity to replace an outspoken Bush and War critic with right wing host Michael Smerconish. Who would have guessed that the man who stands in for Bill O'reilly and donated personally to George W. Bush's campaign would be hired as the Defense Contractor's newest mouthpiece. Though the MSNBC show with the fastest climbing ratings is the left leaning "Countdown, with Keith Olbermann" the station ignores the money making potential of more centrist and left leaning hosts and goes for the far right again. Obviously, they understand that a few million from a successful talk show is nothing compared with Billions for G.E. from an unsuccessful war.

Here's some information you may find interesting about General Electric/MSNBC:

"General Electric, one of the largest and most diversified manufacturers in the world, is the Pentagon's top supplier of aircraft engines. The company also provides financial services and owns the NBC television network.

"General Electric's Defense Contracts went up a whopping 1.2 billion dollars after the the start of the Iraq War"

"60% of G.E.'s political donations between 1998 and 2003 went to Republican candidates. During that period the top recipient of campaign money was George W. Bush"

The Imus firing was great for America in that it finally forces the African American community to acknowledge the drug selling gun toting lyrics of modern day rappers. This tragedy has been ignored though it causes irreparable harm to our youth. But it is a bittersweet victory as it gives the giant defense contractor another Republican apologist to sing the corporate song.

A SPEECH TO THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE BY VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY

2007-04-18T07:07:00.000-04:00

My fellow Conservatives,

Being a man of order, Godly principles, and conservative values I can imagine a Muslim Country where all men and women are free. A land where peace is the way of life and there are no Jihadis or martyrs. In this great peaceful country, all people regardless of gender, race, or religion will be free to worship and live as they see fit with no fear of government or religious persecution. The wealth of natural resources will be bring great prosperity which will be used for peaceful purposes. There will be no need for a military or nuclear weapons because this Muslim country will harbour no ill will towards anyone on the planet and will only seek to project love and promote peace on this great planet. The government won't even need bodyguards or any form of physical protection measures because they will be loved and respected by the citizens rather than feared.

Can't you just imagine the possibilities this great society presents to the overall interests of the United States? The way I see it, we could overrun those bastards in less than 48 hours with just the 82nd airborne, the 1st infantry division, and maybe the 101st airborne division for backup and re-supply. Hell a couple of squadrons of f-18's would knock out all command and control communications the first night because they'de have no anti-aircraft weapons systems and those tea sipping, spotted owl hugging, peace bunnies would never see it coming. They'd have all the infrastructure for oil production so as long as we didn't accidentally hit the oil fields with our pinpoint tomohawk strikes we could have them back up pumping at full capacity in a matter of days. Early in the Campaign, we could offer to meet with their parliament to hammer out a peace deal. Then once we got 'em all gathered in one place, wipe 'em all out with one B61-11 Nuclear Bunker Buster Bomb. OH GOD I LOVE THIS JOB!!!!

The Green Zone is Turning Red

2007-04-12T14:55:00.000-04:00

A suicide bomber detonated himself in the cafeteria of the Iraqi Parliament building inside the "Green Zone" in Baghdad today killing at least 8 and wounding around 30 people. Within an hour a message appeared on an Al Queda web site calling the blast a "message" to anyone who cooperates with "the occupier and its agents." It said ominously, "We will reach you wherever you are".

Can we take this to mean that the insurgents are instituting a "surge" strategy of their own? Maybe the Iraqi Parliament should start meeting at the Baghdad market where John McCain prclaimed it was safe because the green zone seems to be getting more red by the minute. I would suggest to Senator McCain that he return to that Baghdad market and look for his credibility, I think he lost it there.

Incidentally, did you know that the green zone is called that because it is safe and the rest of the country is considered the red zone. This is not a joke, it was the original reason it was called the green Zone. I think they better downgrade it to the yellow zone after this.

Why There Will Be No Timetable For Withdrawal

2007-04-11T12:16:00.000-04:00

There is a very simple reason that the Bush Administration is rejecting any timetable for withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Because they never have any intention of leaving. The evidence is irrefutable:

They are currently building an embassy six times larger than the United Nations with its own defense force, power and water production facilities, and the population of a small town

The Military is Building 14 "Enduring Bases" in Iraq and upgrading airfields as we speak

On 23 March 2004, Christine Spolar said in The Chicago Tribune that there was a “long term military presence planned” in Iraq. “U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.” Major Kimmitt said, “This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East." The US was making plans for Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk. There were also plans “to renovate and enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul, and rebuild 70 miles of road on the main route for U.S. troops headed north.”

Isn't it pretty obvious that we are not going to build the largest embassy in the world and fourteen huge military bases just to walk away and leave them for the Iraqis who have no legitimate military and no air force whatsoever?

The plan was to invade Iraq, then build forward bases for further military operations against other Middle Eastern Countries and ultimately Russia and China. This would allow us to dominate the region's oil and ultimately subjugate all persons on earth to the Neocons. In plain language "TO RULE THE WORLD..Meeeehahahahaha (or whatever word represents the maniacal laugh of a madman). Don't fool yourself for one second and think that these people are discouraged by the immensity of their failure. Reality and Neocon strategies are polar opposites. They move forward with little consideration of the wishes of the American or Iraqi people. This is truly a fascist elitist Regime that believes that they know far better what is good for us than we do. We ordinary citizens are insignificant in their grand scheme other than the ones who are willing to join the military and catch a bullet.

The Iraqis are fed up and are now making it quite clear that they wish us out. These quotes from Lauren Frayer's April 10th story tell it all:

"Tens of thousands draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched peacefully through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall. Demonstrators were flanked by two cordons of police as they called for US forces to leave, shouting: "Get out, get out occupier!"

"Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd, which was led by at least a dozen turbaned clerics - including one Sunni."

"The enemy that is occupying our country is now targeting the dignity of the Iraqi people," said lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, head of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament. "After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded." A senior official in al-Sadr's organization in Najaf, Salah al-Obaydi, called the rally a "call for liberation."

"We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty," he said"

The only thing that will make a difference is if the American people get so tired of the current subversion of Democracy that they force the issue by pressuring the Congress to impeach both the President and Vice President before they can attack Iran and screw this thing up beyond repair. Will that happen? if the last few years is any indication, the gullible and politically ignorant masses will just sit by and complain while a small band of fascist psychos lead us all down the road to destruction.

Now for the daily double:

Rome, Greece, and the United States

Who are, powerful empires that fell..for five hundred dollars Alex.

General Petraeus's Plan?

2007-04-10T10:51:00.000-04:00

I find it strange that the Republicans are defending General Petraeus's plan to secure Baghdad. The last time I checked, George Bush was the President and this guy was a General. Its as if President Bush and his warmongers had absolutely no input and General Petraeus devised this plan on his own. The President's chief conspirators, the AEI institute, printed in a recent article:

"it is premature, to say the least, for armchair generals (ourselves included) to enter a verdict on General David Petraeus' plans to secure Baghdad and enable a political settlement in Iraq"

It seems fairly obvious they recognize that the American people have finally figured out how incompetent and ineffective our current political leaders are at devising military policies. They realize that if the plan is presented as the President's plan, it will be universally viewed as just another foolish plan by a hapless bungler. Which, I might add, is precisely what it is. The other bonus of laying this on the General's lap is that when it fails, as of course it undoubtedly will, the Hapless Bungler in Chief will have a convenient fall guy.

What makes me sick in this case is watching the media lapdogs run after the ball they've been thrown and happily return it to their master time and again. Will no one in the mainstream media ask the questions; whose plan is this anyway? Just how much input did General Petraeus have? Is it General Petraeus's plan because he created it or because it has now been handed to him.

The good General should also look around and observe what this Administration does with people when they no are no longer needed. He best have a plan for six or seven months from now when this thing has completely blown up (no pun intended). Because guess whose plan it will be then?...correct, General Petraeus's plan. Any guesses who the White House will blame for the failure?

Lets go for a Picnic in Baghdad

2007-04-05T07:23:00.000-04:00

I don't know about you, but I'm already planning my family vacation in Baghdad. Pack up the 2.5 kids in the minivan with some blankets and wicker picnic baskets and its off to Sadre City to enjoy the beginning of the car bombing season.

John McCain recently pointed me to my summer vacation destination when he said:

“There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today. The U.S. is beginning to succeed in Iraq.”

Then of course as he has done so many times before, John McCain defended the absurd claim with an even more ludicrous explanation of the statement which millions watched on CNN.

“Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”

So I guess he's saying that you and I could walk through certain neighborhoods in Baghdad, provided we had the protection of the first armoured division and few dozen attack helicopters surrounding us. I can hardly wait to find a nice shady spot to pull over and break out the potato salad and sandwiches.

John McCain, the kind of Republican leadership America has come to expect.

Karl Rove...SUPER GENIUS!!

2007-04-04T15:59:00.001-04:00

I remember as a child watching a cartoon in which Wile E Coyote walked up to Bugs Bunny and presented him with a business card that read "Hi, my name is Wile E Coyote, Super Genius". He then advised Bugs to surrender immediately since he had no chance of survival against an intellectually superior opponent. As could be expected, Bugs wasn't very impressed and proceeded to repeatedly humiliate and expose to great bodily harm said 'Super Genius'. At the end of the cartoon when it had been made painfully, and I mean that both figuratively and literally, obvious that he was not the intellectual giant he made himself out to be. He held up a sign that read "Hi, my name is MUD". Bugs bunny then stated "and remember folks, mud spelled backwards is DUM[B].

Now to one Mr. Karl Rove, he was anointed genius by the right wing pundits that masquerade themselves as the mainstream media shortly after the stupidest man on earth became President. I was watching a political show on one of the mainstream networks the other day and the Conservative pundits looked at the so-called left wing pundit and said that even with all of his problems, wouldn't the Democrats like to have a genius like Karl Rove on their side, to which this clown replied "yes".

Clearly their idea of what defines a genius is drastically different than mine. This idiot has executed a master plan which has handed Congress over to the Democrats, created the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, and alienated both himself and his feckless boss from the citizens of the world, the American People, and members of Congress in their own party. Only an unlikely miracle will prevent the Democrats from picking up more seats in Congress and the presidency in 2008. The latest trends show that the American people are trending away from the Republicans in nearly every category. So please tell me what the Democrats would want this Schmuck for? If you evaluate his strategy over the entire 8 years of the Bush Presidency it is quite obvious that his plans were shortsighted and naive. He thought he could create a one party State, as most fascists would certainly desire, then make political moves with reckless abandon. That lasted exactly four years and now the Democratic Congress is quickly closing in on the "reckless abandon" part of his strategy with hearings and subpoenas. I suspect that by January of 2009 when the new President is sworn in, Mr. Rove will be holding up a sign not so unlike that of Wile E Coyote's final statement.

My advice to the Democrats is, with geniuses like Karl Rove, who needs dummies.

Consistent Liars

2007-03-25T08:02:00.000-04:00

Whats the point of harassing poor Alberto Gonzales for lying to Congress? Wouldn't it be more effective for Congress to pass a resolution stating that any Bush Official's statements will be presumed to be lies?

The President is fighting with Congress to protect Karl Rove and Harriet Miers from being held accountable for doing what everyone in the world knows they have to do, LIE! Why do we play these games pretending that they would tell the truth if put under oath before Congress. There is certainly no chance of that. Obviously telling the truth about anything they have done since 2000 would land every one of them in jail.

Right Wingnuts will defend these liars to their last breath so there is no chance of convincing loyal Bushies that lying under oath is wrong. In Scooter Libby's case right wingnuts are still defending him despite a conviction and a mountain of evidence that he deliberately lied. Observe the absurd defense Lorie Byrd makes when arguing why Rove should not have to testify:

"Scooter Libby was questioned under oath, as were various other administration officials and reporters, until his recollection of events in the Plame matter were found to be inconsistent with others. With a Libby perjury conviction the only Bush administration scalp Democrats have to wave, it makes sense they would want to go back to the well by questioning as many Bush administration officials under oath as possible, about anything"

Sadly, it seems clear that even their strongest defenders have accepted that putting a member of the Bush Administration under oath is a recipe for disaster. It has become a tragic comedy. Congress has to go through the process necessary to force these pathological liars into a corner, but the Whitehouse's ridiculous arguments shouldn't be treated as though they are credible.

Bush Learned from the Libby Mistake

2007-03-21T13:57:00.000-04:00

George Bush has finally learned from one of his mistakes and found a way to fix it. After watching Scooter Libby get caught up in a web of contradictory statements, he is insuring that won't happen with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. He has announced that Rove and Miers will testify about the U.S. Attorney firings but not under oath, with no transcript, and in secret. He has set the table for his henchman, and henchwoman if there is such a word, to lie and deceive until their little black hearts are filled with joy. They can blame anyone and claim they had no knowledge of anything that has happened in the last four hundred years with no fear of prosecution. That Libby mistake will surely not happen again.

It is quite clear now that the Whitehouse staff lied about their involvement in the firings. Alberto Gonzales blatantly lied to Senator Mark Prior in this instance:

"In an interview Tuesday on a news network program, Pryor said that, when he asked Gonzales to send Griffin through the confirmation process, Gonzales said he would, and that was the intent of Justice Department officials.

But Pryor said e-mails between Justice Department officials that were recently released by the agency show that the department never had any intention of nominating Griffin and going through the confirmation process."

It should be obvious by now that this Administration has no respect for Congress, the American People, or the rule of law. It is a hopeless task to try and straighten this group of conniving thieves out between now and January of 2009. We can only hope Congress will stop them from destroying this country by attacking Iran.

I Agree With George Bush

2007-03-20T10:30:00.000-04:00

I must admit that the man has got it 100% right this time. His assertion that withdrawing from Iraq would be catastrophic is right on the money. The only problem being that the alternative, not withdrawing, is creating a catastrophe of equal proportion. This is the reality that is rarely discussed. Simply stated: We can't possibly leave Iraq and we can't possibly stay.

Just before the invasion I wrote that the best case scenario after invading Iraq would be catastrophic. Well here we are, holding a tiger by the tail. The best analogy I've heard is that of having driven off a cliff. This is appropriate because when you are in the air travelling at 32 feet per second downward, there aren't whole lot of effective solutions. If you have a gun handy, you can always shoot yourself in the head before you hit, short of that you are about to die on impact.

The truth is, contrary to what you hear in the mainstream media, we aren't in a war. Media outlets outside the United States correctly refer to the "occupation" rather than the "war". We are in an occupation and you can't WIN an occupation. You just occupy a country and at some point you are no longer occupying it. The Presidents call for victory is misleading hogwash.

I would argue that if this is considered a win or lose scenario, we have already lost. To win a military campaign you must achieve the political goals which you believe created the need for military intervention. Our goal was to seek and destroy WMD's and then somehow morphed into creating a stable democracy. The WMD's never existed, and any hope of a Western style democracy evaporated with the Samara bombing in February of 2006. So by the standards of achieving political and military goals, we have no chance of either. It's hard to argue that a country who sets forth military and political goals, launches an invasion to achieve those goals, and fails to achieve any of them hasn't lost the military campaign. Now we just stay and watch the horrific slaughter, then eventually leave and watch more horrific slaughter.

If this is freedom, I suspect that most Iraqis would rather be alive than free.

Tortured Confessions

2007-03-16T12:02:00.000-04:00

What a shock, after months of torture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to 29 separate terrorist incidents. You can go to this link to see the list of terror plots he has admitted to have either planned or participated in.

Now I must ask the question, since obviously the mainstream media won't. If you were tortured for a significant period of time, wouldn't you admit to all 29 of those terror plots? I must be honest here, I am no tough guy and I would admit to every one of those and many more after about five minutes of torture. Heck, even the threat of torture is enough to get me to admit to just about any crime in world history.

If you review this list carefully you will find that the only crime he did not confess to was the killings of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. But if they had asked he likely would have admitted to those too and told investigators that he's been running from golf course to golf course in South Florida hiding from OJ. Incidentally, George Bush may as well join OJ is his quest to find the real killers by inspecting Miami's golf course circuit. Maybe OJ can help him find his WMD's on the 12th Hole at Killian Greens. They're right in between the unicorn and the tooth fairy.

Seriously, is there anyone besides me that suspects that maybe a few of those confessions could have been influenced by the repeated blows to the head while being hung upside down and urinated on? Regardless of how you feel about torturing Al Queda suspects, isn't it pretty logical that confessions made as a result of torture are extremely unreliable at best. Who amongst us would not confess to stop the torturers ruthless beatings?

Tortured confessions are only valuable to Governments who wish to fool ignorant people into believing that they are accomplishing things which they clearly aren't. If this guy was so cooperative, why didn't he give up the location of Osama Bin laden? He was, according to the Bush Administration, Al Queda's number two guy. Which in itself raises the question, how the heck many number two guys does Al Queda have? Every month we capture the number two guy in Iraq. Why can't we find the number one guy for crying out loud.

I'd trade the 27 number two guys that we have captured in the last 27 months for the number one guy any day. We'll just do it like draft picks. We'll give 'em a number two, 2 number threes, and a terrorist to be named later in return for Osama and a backup terrorist. A role player will be fine. Not necessarily a planner but maybe just a bombmaker or the guy who edits the film for their monthly videos.

I'll just end this by congratulating the CIA for their confessions. I am sure they can get Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to confess to killing JFK and being the man behind global warming within the next few weeks.

In the "Lessons Learned" Category

2007-03-15T06:40:00.000-04:00

Republicans in Congress have announced that their plan to give up more Congressional seats and hand over the Whitehouse to Democrats is proceeding as planned. These politically suicidal idiots are "proud" to proclaim that they have the votes to defeat Democratic Legislation which would require the President to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 12 months. Apparently, when they got their clocks cleaned in the recent midterm elections they learned absolutely nothing. To make matters worse, their fearless (or should I say feckless) leader is supporting them with a veto threat. Good work guys, you continue to pull closer to a guy with a 30% approval rating. Once again Bill Clinton's statement that "when republicans dig themselves in a whole, they justgo out and get a bigger shovel" is proven to be true.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said passage of the withdrawal measure "would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq". No Mitch, our mission in Iraq is absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq. This thing went flatline right about the time the first American soldier drove across the Iraqi border in the original invasion. There was never any possibility that this horrendous mistake could have succeeded in anything other than icnreasing the ranks of Al Queda. Unlike you, the American people have figured out that the patient is dead. Time to figure out how to dispose of the body. Some want to walk away and leave it to rot in the sun and others want to chop it up and hope noone can connect the parts and finger the US as the killers. But regardless of the metaphor, Iraq is destined to suffer far greater disaster than we have witnessed thus far. I am fairly certain the voters will be happy to express their feelings on the matter at the polls in the 2008 elections.

Baghdad Violence Decreasing

2007-03-13T06:40:00.000-04:00

The Whitehouse is touting the amazing success of the infamous Surge strategy. The violence in Baghdad has decreased significantly, but unfortunately it has skyrocketed elsewhere. Just as has happened every other time in Iraq, the insurgents have moved from areas where military operations have intensified and attacked lesser defended targets. It was a result easily predicted and likely the military leaders have advised the Whitehouse it would happen. However, the Bush Administration will happily take a few months of fake success at a time when their time is so short.

While Representatives from neighboring countries met in Iraq over ways to address the violence, insurgents demonstrated their ability to carry out attacks almost at will.

Here's a great article about people like me. It's about time someone said:

"What we should also do is celebrate the people who opposed the war from the beginning. In the face of severe opprobrium and intimidation, a sizable number of Americans saw the charade for what it was and rued the oncoming disaster. They should be cheered, time and again"

Those who claim there was an intelligence failure seem to conveniently forget that Scott Ritter said:

"There simply is no evidence of a factual nature that sustains the allegation by the Bush administration or British government that Iraq today possesses weapons of mass destruction," Ritter told The Chronicle in late March 2003."

How could one guy be right and the Bush Administration claim that with all of the intelligence available to them, they were completely in the dark. The truth is that many of us are sitting around saying I told you so while the right wing pundits seem befuddled as to how they could have been so wrong.

Clearly the Surge is failing just as every other strategy put forth by the neoclowns. How shocked they'll seem in six or seven months when they ponder how another plan failed so miserably.