American Patriot Legion

Last One Standing (And it's not a good thing)

2007-12-03T02:00:00.000-08:00

Well the United States is the last developed nation to not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

Australia's new Prime Minister's first course of action after taking office today was to sign the agreement to commit to curbing carbon emissions.

"This is the first official act of the new Australian government, demonstrating my government's commitment to tackling climate change," Rudd said in a statement.

First of all I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Rudd on taking this great step in the right direction so quickly after being elected. Second I have to ask, why on earth haven't we signed yet???

I know what the first argument is going to be. We rely far to heavily on fossil fuels in this country for our economy and to restrict emissions would do far to much damage to our economy. Well that's simply not true. Yes we are far to dependent on fossil fuels, an issue we should be trying to fix not blame for lack of progress. It is true that our economy might suffer slightly but can anyone show me a single shred of proof showing that it would cause any serious damage?

I sincerely doubt that every other developed nation would not have a problem but we would, think about it we are not the only ones who are dependent on fossil fuels. As a matter of fact that was Australia's argument against it until "a new report from the environment think tank the Climate Institute, written by government and university scientists, found that Australia's economy could easily cope with strong cuts in greenhouse emissions.

It said growth would fall by only 0.1 percent of gross domestic product annually if Australia set a target of 20 percent cuts in emissions by 2020 and aimed to be carbon neutral by 2050." Although I am sure that the numbers would vary slightly for the U.S. they would probably be similar.

Even if we take a bit of a hit to the economy the benefits far outweigh the risk. If our economy slumps a little we can always bring it back, if our ozone continues to be damaged at the rate it is currently there is no way to repair it. We are not talking about something that is political or something that effects us only today. We are talking about something that could easily mean the end of life on this planet if it isn't taken seriously and we don't do everything we can to stop it.

I know that people will say I am being overly dramatic, but when you get right down to it if Global Warming isn't stopped we all die. That simple. So instead of being the bull headed people we tend to be lets take action and sign the Kyoto agreement and start to take serious measures towards stopping it.

I'm Back!!! Rules of blogging

2007-12-03T01:31:00.000-08:00

Okay so it has been far to long since I have posted and I am sure that my readers have long since stopped coming by but I'm back!

Well over the last year or so since I have been on I have moved to beautiful Olympia, WA and I am actually preparing to join the United States Army. That's right, for all of you who always slammed my articles because you said I had no right to talk having never served, I'm putting my money were my mouth is.

I will be jumping right into the middle of things right off the bat. With the elections just around the corner, the war still raging, the Iran issue, and everything else that is going on in the world right now there is plenty to discuss.

Because I have been gone for so long I would like to just give a little refresher on the rules that I have for this blog. They are fairly simple:

I believe very firmly in free speech and therefore I ask that everyone respect everyone else's right to their own opinions and right to post. Speak your mind, but please do so in a respectful manner.
Although I believe in free speech I also believe that your rights end were some one's nose begins. Therefore I will not tolerate any kind of post which are purely for the purpose of slandering others, spreading bigotry of any kind (Racism, Sexism, Religious Persecution, etc.). I do understand that from time to time certain topics that are discussed will result in post which may be offensive to some but overall have a purpose of some kind. These post will be allowed, in the event that a post is set to be removed if the author is a registered user I will first attempt to contact them to allow them to edit the post to make it less offensive but still get their point across.
Post soliciting illegal behavior of any kind will be immediately removed.
"Spam" will be immediately removed, please stay on topic. Repeated "spamming" will result in being blocked from the blog.

These are very simple rules and if you think about it it's basic common sense, be courteous and have a good debate.

The Diabetes Epedimic

2006-11-01T16:54:00.000-08:00

Yes I called it an epedimic, because that is what it is. Many who read this will say I am over exaturating or that I am blowing things out of proportion. But I wonder if anyone would say that about Aids/HIV. The reason I make this comparison is clear, they both kill the same about of people a year.

On average Diabetes kills a person every 10 seconds around the world, and more than 3.5 million deaths per year are caused by diabetes -- equal to the amount of deaths caused by HIV/AIDS -- however the United Nations has yet to recognize World Diabetes Day. The reason, because Diabetes, has deadly has it is, is still overlooked by the majority of politicians. It's cast aside as the disease that you only get if you eat wrong and that can be controlled if people would just be responsible enough to eat right and loose some weight. The fact is that those who live with this life changing illness know that that is simply not the case.

I myself and lucky in that while I have Diabetes I have a very mild case, but billions of people around the world are not as lucky. Please take a second out of your day and sign the petitions here and here. You can learn more about Diabetes in general at The American Diabetes Association.

10 seconds of your time could save someone's life, maybe even your own. Think about that.

Insurgent Groups Calling for Talks

2006-10-18T22:44:00.000-07:00

Recently there has been a growing call for peace talks in Iraq, the amazing thing is that it is not our military or government calling for the talks. It is not the Iraqi government calling for the talks, or even the U.N. It is the insurgents. The people who supposedly just want to kill and mame Americans and wreak havoc on Iraqi life are the ones who are calling for peace. Amazing.

I would be willing to put a large amount of money down however that says that the Administration will refuse these talks citing that the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorist. What they seem to have not learned yet is that we are no longer dealing with a few terrorist in Iraq, or even a few terrorist cells. We are dealing with well organized, well trained militias who have the popular support of many of the civilians because they are local. It is time that Bush and his administration swallow their pride and admit that the best way out of this for our troops is to try and negotiate a peace with those that we are fighting and let them actually make the decisions for their government. And if that means splitting Iraq into multiple countries then so be it, it's their country they can split it if they like.

Right now more deaths are occurring because of the existence of U.S. troops in Iraq and religious differences than any other reason. The number one reason is religious differences and each religious group wanting their own territory and their own rights. The second being deaths associated with groups attempting to get the U.S. to leave, so why not let them do what they want, it's NOT our country and it's time we learned that.

Maybe I'm wrong and they have other reasons, but it would seem to me that the best way to find out those reasons and to try and stop them would be to actually talk to those who are willing, like the people asking for peace talks. The worst that can happen is that the talks fail and we go back to fighting, the best that can happen is we work out a peace deal that all parties are happy with and the fighting ends. I think the choice is clear, keep fighting and refusing to talk and the fighting and death definitely continues, or take a chance on the talks and it might end, you decide.

Call your Government Officials today and tell them you want us to take peace talks in Iraq seriously and want our soldiers home!

Nuclear North Korea

2006-10-10T22:22:00.000-07:00

When the United States first went to war with Iraq and started using the excuse that they had weapons of mass destruction many anti-war advocates, including myself, stated that the larger threat was North Korea. I mean come on, on one hand you had Saddam swearing up and down that he did not have weapons and allowing weapons inspectors inside his country, and on the other you had Kim Jong-il stating that North Korea not only was working to get weapons of mass destruction, but they had no qualms about using them. Well the first part of that statement at least seems to have been true. While we were busy fighting a war that we should have never started North Korea has built Nuclear Weapons and it would seem they have successfully tested them. I say "it would seem" because there are still some in the scientific world that say that it may not have been a nuclear weapon and if it was it may not have been successful because of the small nature of the explosion. They are currently studying this possibility and should know more in the next couple of weeks. Personally I hope they are right.

One of the most amazing things to me is that even now the administration seems to not be taking them seriously. Yes they all seem to agree that the test were real, but they are still refusing to do the one thing that might keep this from going further. Talk to North Korea directly. I mean what would it hurt for the United States to stop acting like a sulking bully for once and actually admit that sometimes the answer is to simply communicate with other countries leaders. I understand that Bush has a very limited vocabulary, but I am sure his aides would be able to walk him through direct talks. This alone would at the very least make sure that the situation doesn't escalate any further for the time being. Instead of rattling our sabers we should try actually making peace, not more war.

Scam E-Mails

2006-10-10T22:15:00.000-07:00

This evening right before logging on to post I decided to check my e-mail. Amongst the other mail that I recieved I found an e-mail declaring that I had won an international lottery and that there was a mix up so they were just now getting results out but that they needed me to keep it secret right now to avoid double claims. Well lets just say that I didn't fall for it. Also I replied in what may have been a not so nice way. Now I am posting this for my readers so that you may get a quick laugh, and maybe it will keep others from falling for it. See as obviose as it may seem that this is a scam there are those who are in dire enough straights that they will believe anything that seems to give them a way out. (I know this from first hand experience, luckily I had friends who were thinking clearer that I.) So with that enjoy......

This first part was my reply to them....

First of all I would like to state that this is one of the most obviose money scams that I have yet to see. You give away a few things eary. For example, the fact that you claim it is a lotto, something that requires people to sign up. Right away I know it is a scam because I did not play any lotto. Also keep in mind the fact the way that lotto's can pay out is that they recieve money for the purchase of tickets from those who enter the lotto. Because I did not pay anything in again I am positive that I cannot win anything.

The next thing that jumps out at me is the fact that this email came not from "SUPERENALOTTOITALIA.COM" as it claims but from online_superenalotto@yahoo.com. Now why would a multi million doller sweepstakes not have their own web address to send out e-mails. We are a small non for profit and we do, so I know you can afford it if you are who you say you are.

Third is the fact that you state that there was a mix up of names and addresses and you want to keep it all nice and quite until then so as to not have multiple claims, yet you know that I am a winner. Amazing how that works.

Finally there is the fact that you stated that this contest was "held on the 2ND OF OCTOBER 2006, this result was initially delayed due to mix up of numbers and addresses, the results were finally released on the 6TH OF OCTOBER" and then in the end of the message you state that I need to "Remember all prize money must be claimed not later than 30TH OF SEPTEMBER 2006. After this date, this fund will be returned to the next draws as unclaimed fund."

See a major lottery offering this kind of money would not make a typo such as this that would confuse winners into thinking that it was past the deadline already, of course the deadline to claim funds is before the drawing but hey that's just a small technicality I guess right.

There is of course the broken English, horrible grammer, and mispellings throughtout that give it away as well, but I guess that is to be expected from a putz who actually expects this kind of scam to still work. What worries me is that there is probably some poor person who is very low on their luck right now and who will buy into it just because they need any straw to grasp to and they will think that they have won. They will reply to this e-mail and you will then ask them to either pay a lump sum up front to cover taxes, or you will ask for their banking information so that you can put the money in when in fact you will simply remove whatever money they do have. One of two things will then happen. Either they fall for it and you scam them out of thier hard earned money and also break thier hearts because they were really counting on getting the money because they needed it. Or they don't fall for it and the second part still holds true when they realize it's a scam.

People like you are pathetic lowlives who should be rounded up and pelted with rocks by those that you have hurt. Rest assured that I will be reporting this e-mail to the Attorney General as well as to as many scam busters as I can to make sure that no one else falls for it. And may you die a slow and painful death for the pain that you cause others.

Thank you,

Bill

And this was the original email....

2006----- Original Message -----
From: "SUPERENALOTTOITALIA.COM" <online_superenalotto@yahoo.com>
To: <bill@americanpatriotlegion.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 6:33 PM
Subject: URGENT CONTACT
ONLINE SUPERENALOTTO LOTTO COMMISSION FROM: THE DESK OF LOTTERY DIRECTORREFERENCE NUMBER: SE/203/1200023BATCH NUMBER: 5620032 ATTN: LUCKY WINNER, RE: AWARD NOTIFICATION FINAL NOTICEThis is to inform you of the release of the Online superenalotto Lottery International sweepstake lottery-promotion held on the 2ND OF OCTOBER 2006, this result was initially delayed due to mix up of numbers and addresses, the results were finally released on the 6TH OF OCTOBER 2006, and your name attached to ticket number BL-06-0021 with Serial number 02104-06, which drew the lucky numbers of 67-31-25-05-75-07, which consequently won the lottery in the 3rd category. You are therefore approved for a lump sum payout of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS ONLY ( US$ 500 , 000 .00 ) in cash accredited to file reference number: OBL/203/1200023, This is from a total cash prize of TWELVE MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS ONLY ( US$ 12, 500 , 000.00 ) Shared among the Twenty-Five international winners in this category. TO CONFIRM YOUR WINNING VERY WELL VISIT OUR WEBSITES,www.superenalottoitalia.com and mladenmalik,www1.50megs.com/superenalotto.html CONGRATULATIONS ! Your fund is now deposited in one of our accredited finance house here in Italy insured in your favor. Due to mix up of some numbers and names, we ask that you keep this award from public notice until your claim has been processed and money remitted to your account as this is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming or unwarranted abuse of this program by participants as it has happened in the past. All participants were selected through a computer ballot systems / shopping ticket-foils and traveling ticket-foils and e-mail addresses drawn from 45,000 Company names and individual names from Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, America, Africa and North America as part of our annual-international promotional programs. We hope that with this winning , you will be able to participate in our next high stake promotion of EURO 58,680,000.00 (FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION, SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND EUROS ) To begin your lottery claim, please contact your claims agent, CHRIS SIROCCOon chrissirocco@mail.com . Remember all prize money must be claimed not later than 30TH OF SEPTEMBER 2006. After this date, this fund will be returned to the next draws as unclaimed fund.NOTE: In order to avoid unnecessary delay and complication, please remember to quote your reference and batch numbers in every correspondence with your agent or us. Furthermore, should there be any change of your address, do inform your claim agent as soon as possible. Congratulation once again from all members of our staff and thank you for being part of our International promotion program. Yours SincerelySANDRO MARINI ***************************************************************************************************************CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Gaming Control Board immediately by e-mail at superenalottospa@chaseteam.com and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments

I am going to in fact be reporting this and will let you know what happens.

We'll miss you 6th Amendment!

2006-09-29T00:20:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Senate voted this week to pass the new "terror trial bill" which will allow individuals who are detained under suspicion of terrorism, specifically those being help at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be tried by a special military tribunal instead of the a civil court in front of a jury.

The 6th Amendment states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

The first thing that is unconstitutional about this new law is the fact that these suspects are not being given the right to a jury. They are being tried by military personal who are far from impartial. Not to be cynical but something tells me that a member of the armed forces may not be completely impartial towards someone accused (it's important to remember that these people have not been found guilty of anything) of killing American soldiers or plotting to.

Also they are not being informed of "the nature and cause of the accusation" in most cases. They are simply arrested for "suspicion of terrorist activity". How much more fague can you be?

The next part I am not sure of yet but I am researching and maybe someone knows the answer to this. Are these suspects being allowed to bring witnesses on their behalf? And are they being allowed access to legal council? Like I said, not sure of the answer, but trying to find out.

Then of course their is the big part of this Amendment the right to a "speedy and public trial" These suspects are not being allowed a public trial and considering most have been detained for years I would say that it is far from speedy.

Now even if you are able to look past this somehow their is one other thing. The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum has been used since long before the U.S. was a country and has been celebrated as one of the best ways to protect freedom for centuries. The U.S. has a law which makes this not just an idea, but legally binding.

This writ allows an individual who has been detained but not yet proven guilty of a crime the right to challenge the legality of their detention. The bill that just passed in the Senate does not allow prisoners to call for habeas corpus, a clear violation of civil liberties, even if not Constitutional Liberties. The right to challenge your arrest is what keeps our legal system fair. Those who are arresting know that they can be asked to prove that they had justification to detain someone and therefore they are more likely to ensure that they actually have reason. Take this away and you have situations like the detention of Maher Arar who was detained and tortured on suspicion of terrorism when he had no real ties to terrorism at all. While mistakes like this may still happen at least with habeas corpus he would have had the opportunity to challenge his arrest and possibly shown then that he did not have any real ties, ending that horrible ordeal before it began.

It is imperative that those of us who still believe in freedom to stand up and let the Administration and Congress know that we will not allow them to take anymore of our freedoms away. Although this has now been passed in Congress and is expected to be signed by the President it can still be challenged by the ultimate protector of freedom The Supreme Court. Although I originally was worried with some of the nominations last year I have been happy to see that the Court has upheld the freedoms of the people non-politically the way that it was meant to do. I urge all of you to please write to the Supreme Court and urge them to challenge this new law and protect the 6th Amendment. Letters can be sent to:

Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543

Please take part in this very important issue.

Iraq inflating terrorism

2006-09-28T23:40:00.000-07:00

Well folks I've been saying it for years and now the intelligence community is confirming it. A report was declassified this week that in a nutshell stated two things. First, that while we have caused major damage to terror networks they continue to stay in power because new leaders are coming into power. And second that a major cause of that is the Iraqi War.

I am not the only one that has said this for a very long time. Their have been so many blog debates regarding this topic that it would be impossible to read them all. But the entire time their were those, especially in the Administration who continued to stand by the belief that the Iraqi war is fighting, not causing terrorism. I have even been called unpatriotic and a soldier hater for my views regarding this.

The question is why is this a surprise? Why are there people who are actually shocked to hear that those in the intelligence sector may thing that Iraq spawns terrorism. Have Americans been so brainwashed by Bush's "every thing's going great" rhetoric that they can not see the simple logic behind this statement.

Think about it logically for a second. We invaded a sovereign nation. We then began occupying that nation turning a deaf hear to the please from it's citizens for us to leave. To makes matters even better we started torturing those citizens as well as other Muslims around the world. Add in a little rape and mass murder and you have a terrorist recruiters best ad campaign. All the Osama bin Laden's of the world have to do is point to Iraq and say "hey see what those American dogs will do if we let them" and the recruits come flocking towards them. History has proven time and time again that the oppression of a certain sect of people or a nation for the gain of others never works, and almost always backlashes against the oppressor.

Now don't take what I am saying to mean that I think our soldiers are oppressing the people of Iraq, I don't. I think that our current administration is, I think our military leadership is, but I do not think that the common soldier is. I think most soldiers are doing their job either because they truly want to help the people of Iraq and/or truly believe that they are keeping America safe or that they are following orders even though they do not agree with them because they are loyal to their country, and I highly respect them for this. I do not think however that our leaders have done them justice, and it's a shame.

The thing that is important to remember is that regardless of your intentions, good or bad, it is your actions the determine if a group of people will consider you an oppressor. Regardless of whether the U.S. Military in Iraq and the administration back home are trying to oppress the people of Iraq their actions make it seem as if they are. Any time you use torture and fear to reach a goal this is going to be the reaction. Anytime that the few bad apples of the military who commit atrocities that truly do not reflect the military as a whole (the rape of Iraqi women for example) and are not punished to the fullest extent of the law the message is sent that this must be acceptable to all of the brave soldiers in Iraq.

Now I am sure that you are thinking that a rational person would see that this is not the case, that most soldiers are just there to help and that the American people as a whole do not want an occupation of Iraq, but just want to help them rebuild. But understand that someone who just saw their best friend killed, or watched the neighborhood that they grew up in get blown up is not rational. Someone who has no money, no education available, and no way out is not thinking rationally when the "terrorist recruiter" comes along and tells them about how bad the U.S. is.

What they see is someone who can give them something the U.S. is not giving. Protection from the death squads and destruction in Iraq, and a chance to escape. Sure that escape might be for their family after they sacrifice themselves to detonate a bomb, but in their mind at least their family will be safe, and free. Whether they are right or wrong, whether you think they are completely ignorant to think this way, there is one inescapable fact. And that is that anytime you put someone in a situation were they have nothing to loose they will listen to the first person who gives them hope, in this life or the next. Right now their is no hope for those in Iraq, and the only ones talking are the terrorist, so the people are listening.

There is only one way to stop that and that is to change the way we approach our foreign policy when it comes to Muslim nations and when it comes to Iraq. Instead of automatically assuming that any group that takes up arms and is Muslim is a terrorist organization and automatically siding with the other side (i.e. Israel in their recent invasion of Lebanon) actually attempt to see why they are taking up arms and try to fix the problem instead of just condemning them and killing them.

Instead of trying to set up a puppet government in Iraq let the Iraqi people actually have a voice, and protect them from those who would try to take it away instead of standing by as those who are not of the right religious sect are killed by radicals. (Baghdad Burning's blog gives a very in depth and grim explanation of why I say this.)

And finally, if they want to separate let them! If the Iraqi people want to form three separate states, one for each major religious sect, LET THEM! It's their country, not ours. We have no right in telling them that they should be forced to stay together. What is the point of forcing three groups that obviously want their own government's to stay under the rule of one unpopular government. The only logical explanation I have been able to come up with as to why the U.S. is so adamant about Iraq staying as one nation even though the people seem to make it clear that they would like it otherwise is oil. It is easier to negotiate with one puppet government than three government that are not controlled by the U.S.

Be back with real topics tommorow.

2006-09-26T22:47:00.000-07:00

I know that it's been a few days since I posted anything big, but that will change tomorrow. I have been very busy getting the new site up and writing the material for that so I have not had time to post here. I will let you know that tomorrow you can look forward to a post on the Iraq War's effect on terrorism (something I've been talking about for ages) as well as a few other things. Until then.

Bill

NEW WEB SITE!

2006-09-26T22:38:00.000-07:00

Well we finally have at least the beginning stages of the new website the American Patriot Legion up and running. Please stop by and check it out!

I have to thank Steve over at Web611 for all of his help designing the site. (I should say for designing it period as he did all of the designing, I just watched in awe)

Although they can design sites of any kind I do know that hey specialize in Real Estate sites and I would definitely recommend them to anyone in this field.

Currently the site is in it's very early stages so if you have any suggestions please feel free to contact me at bill@americanpatriotlegion.org, but please be kind.

SAVE THE INTERNET!

2006-09-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

Just when I thought that Congress could not find any other way to incrouch upon the Civil Liberties that we hold dear in this fine country they're at it again. The Target this time, The Internet. The holy grail of free speech. The one place were anybody and everybody can put their views up for the whole world to see without limitation and without censor, or at least that is how it is for now.

If Congress has there way companies such as AT&T and Comcast will have the right to decide what you do and do not have access to online. This is decpicable to the core. It is true that there are things online that if I had a child I would not want them to see them, so I would block them out myself, I don't need a company to do it for me.

I urge all readers to do one of, or all of these few things:

First, boycott AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner (the companies backing this attack on freedom) and make sure they know that the reason you are doing it is because you don't believe that a large company should control what can and can't be seen online in order to fatten their profit margin, or for any other reason for that matter.

Second, find out more about this very important issue by checking out these great sites that are heading up the fight to save the internet and become educated on the issues and what you can do:

www.savetheinternet.com
www.moveon.org
www.freepress.com

And finally make sure and either sign the petitions avialable online at these sites or contact Congress and let them know that you support those politicians that want to Save the Internet.

The wars real cost

2006-09-20T23:27:00.000-07:00

The U.N. Assistance Mission reported today that the civilian death toll in Iraq is at an all time high, an overwhelming number of displaced citizens, and a slide back into a state of mind which allows for the murder of women for "honor".

I know that many who read my post on a regular basis are probably thinking that this is about to be a post on how bad things are being run right now in Iraq, but at the moment there are enough people talking about that and there is a much larger issue that I feel should be discussed. That is the true cost of this war. I am not talking about dollars and cents, or machinery and bullets. I am talking about the human cost. A cost that we have not truly heard about from the mass media until this report. I have, in the past, searched long and hard to find out the death toll of citizens in Iraq and could only find estimates from private relief organizations because accurate figures were either a) not being kept (which I find hard to believe) or b) were not being published in the U.S. because the government was leaning on the Media. I am glad to see that this is no longer the case.

The report is clear and well reported on here for those who have not had a chance to look at it, and because of this I do not wish to rehash what is said in the article. Instead I would like to discuss what I feel needs to be done now that this very grim report is out.

The first step that must be taken is the U.S. needs to admit that we do not have the control that we would like to think we do on the security in Iraq and we need to fix it. I do not have the audacity to claim that I have a perfect solution for how to increase security, but I know that there are those who have at least some idea of what to do, but the first step is actually admitting we have a problem. It is very hard to ask other countries to assist us in securing Iraq when we claim that everything is going wonderfully and we have it completely under control. If Bush would simply stand up and say "I was wrong, and we need help to make sure that Iraqi citizens are safe" I am sure that countries who have been very weary of helping to much because of the mess we started in Iraq would be willing to help. And I know that my respect for him would increase dramatically. The fact is as long as we keep trying to hide that the situation is FUBAR the deeper a hole we will dig.

Second, instead of simply labeling anyone who disagrees with the U.S. presence in Iraq a terrorist actually hear what they have to say. It is true that some of those who are fighting, and or instigating the fighting in Iraq would do so no matter what. But when was the last time that you heard of U.S. and U.S. backed Iraqi officials actually trying to talk peace with any of the groups fighting us. It would seem to me that it would be a good idea to at least attempt to open up communications with them. The one thing that seems to be universally known is that a large portion of the population believes that we are oppressors who are occupying their country. There is obviously a reason for this beyond our troops being there. It seems to me that if we were actively rebuilding the country and attempting to help the citizens of Iraq that a larger number of them would support the occupation, at least until they could stand on there own. The simple fact is that most do not because they do not feel that the U.S. cares about what is in their best interest, change this mindset and a lot of lives could be saved.

STOP TORTURING PEOPLE! I'll just be blunt here because I have written about this in length many times. The fact is as long as we are torturing people, or condoning the torture of people Death Sqauds and revenge killings will continue. We cannot, with any credibility, say that we are there to help the people rebuild their country after the oppression of Saddam if we are doing the same things he was. As long as we continue to harvest this kind of animosity there will always be a long line of people ready to sign up to fight against us. (It's hard to recruit someone to support your cause of peace if he knows that a week before a person from the same area was tortured because he was a suspected insurgent.)

This is the last suggestion I have. Hire a publicist. Okay this may sound a bit funny but think about it. Every time something bad happens we all hear about it. Hey I admit that I write about them and I am glad that these things come out, it is the only way that we can make improvements and hopefully learn from our mistakes. But the same should go the other way. And I don't mean here. I mean there, in Iraq. In all honesty the mindset of Americans as to the war doesn't mean didly squat when it comes to the streets of Baghdad. Yes it makes a difference in the moral of our troops but honestly if they can't already see that the war has gone to hell nothing the media is saying right now will change their minds anyway. My point is to try stopping the killing and what CNN says about the mental deficiencies of our President (or what they should say anyway, sorry I had to get at least one stab at him in here) makes no difference to a 25 year old in Baghdad who is being asked to join up with the insurgents to fight against the American invaders who are destroying his homeland and who don't care about him at all. Not saying that that is truly the case, but that is what he hears, because he only hears from one side. The people who do want to keep the killing going because they truly are sick individuals (the every day insurgent only fights because he has been made to believe the things I wrote in that last sentence) have the propaganda war in Iraq won by a long shot, because we have never tried to win it ourselves. If you would like a good idea of what the people of Iraq are feeling simply look at this blog.... http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/.... which is written by a women in Iraq.

We have the largest media industry in the world. We have more publicist in the state of California alone than probably most other countries combined. So let's put them to use. Let's get adds circulating around Iraq that show the positive side of the U.S. being in Iraq. Bush is always telling us about the things that are being built there and the fresh water and the power and whatever else, tell them, they are the ones who need to hear it. I don't know what the best way to do it would be, because I am not a publicist, but I guarantee there are those who would have some great ideas if they were asked. Maybe it's time to ask.

Regardless of whether any of these ideas sound like they are worth a damn to you I am sure that we can all agree that 3000 people dyeing in one month, and who knows how many injuries (and that not being the highest) is a crisis of utmost proportion and something needs to be done. Forget the partisan lines, forget the religious differences, we need to work together to find a way to keep more innocent people from dyeing.

On a closing note...It is very easy for us to simply not think about the human cost of a war like this. Sure we get worried when we hear about the military casualty rates, because we most likely either know someone in the military or know someone who does and so we are worried about them getting hurt. It is also very easy to worry about the fiscal cost of a war like this because we see the cost of gas and the inflation on a daily basis. It is a little bit harder to think about a person thousands of miles away who we will never meet and who we will never know. But keep this in mind, these deaths are not those of people who are fighting, but of innocent women, children, and men. Next time you see your neighbor or even your child think about how it would feel to wake up tomorrow and find out that they were shot, or blown up, or worse yet unknown because they can't be found among the bodies. Think about what it would feel like to go to school and find out it was no longer there because it was blown up, along with many people the day before. When you walk into a restaurant for lunch think about how it would feel to not be able to eat is peace because you were worried about a bomb going off at any moment, or worse yet not being able to eat at all because you don't have access to food. This post is not to lay blame, but only to hopefully help in some small way to open people's eyes to a major crisis for humanity.

If you do feel like something should be done, and you would like to help I urge you to visit the site below which contains links and information on many reputable aid orginizations. They are working to ease the suffering of the innocent civilians in Iraq and could use all of the help that they can get. Thank you.

http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/international/iraq/

Is the Pope's apology enough?

2006-09-19T06:14:00.000-07:00

In a speech last week, the Pope cited a Medieval text that characterized some of the
teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his
command to spread by the sword the faith."

This is what started the issue, the current status...The Pope made a public apology stating that he was "deeply sorry" that Muslims had taken offense. Some are questioning if this is a sufficient apology to the Muslim community especially on the brink of his first trip into a Muslim country since his becoming Pope.

Here is my take on this. His apology is technically enough. He is saying that he did not mean to cause any offense and that is really all that is "technically" required. However in a situation as this a little more give on his end might be a good idea.

It is true that he was not referring to his own views when he cited the text, however by using it he should have had the forethought to see that it could cause offense to the Muslim community. Especially given that has a Cardinal the Pope spent a good amount of effort attempting to keep Turkey out of the EU. Whether his comments had anything to do with this or not he now needs to consider that it does make him look a bit bad to have done that and now to say something that makes him look very anti-Muslim while at the same time stating that he want to coexist with Islam.

I am of two minds on this. The first tells me that what he has offered as an apology is enough and the Muslim community should be open minded enough to accept it. The other tells me that if he is sincere in his apology it would do no harm, and a lot of good, for him to make the apology a bit more clear and personal. Something along the lines of "I am truly sorry that I offended the Muslim community, it was not my intention and I will be more sensitive in the future as we continue to work together for a peaceful coexistence." rather than something that could be interpreted as him saying that he's sorry that they got offended, but not that he said it.

Just my two cents on this issue.

Maybe now they will listen

2006-09-19T04:57:00.000-07:00

I would love to begin this post by saying that everybody now agreed that torture should never be used to get information out of prisoners, and that we has a nation had already come out strong against it and apologized for our previous use of it, however, that is only wishful thinking. Instead of a happy post about how we have righted our wrongs since the illegal detention and torture of Canadian citizen Maher Arar this post is once more hoping that this latest bit of information on the use of torture by the U.S. Government will open the eyes of those who have thus far continued to defend the use of torture as a means of interrogation.

This all started in 2002 when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police informed, incorrectly, the U.S. that Arar was on a watch list for possible links to al-Quida. In fact Arar was not under investigation, but had simply had brief contact with someone who was. This was a mistake on Canada's part, and they are taking responsibility for this mistake. As a matter of fact it was there investigation into the matter that showed that they were at fault in this manner. Had the mistake ended there however it would have been no problem. The U.S. would have kept a close eye on Arar while he was in the U.S. on vacation, seen nothing wrong, and let him return home without further issue. This is how it should have occurred. He should have been given his right to freedom the same way anyone else is until they are proven guilty of a crime. This, however, is not what happened.

What did happen was he was detained by the U.S. government and then sent to Syria where he was held and tortured for a year before he was released and his innocence was proven. The investigation by the Canadian government into this incident showed that not did he have no connection to al-Quida, but there was no evidence to suggest he did.

Now I know that there are some who are reading this and bursting to say, but Canada said he was under investigation for possible links and we just took there word on it, and if he was al-Quida torturing him might have stopped a terrorist attack so it was okay to try.

A few things wrong with that argument. First of all since when is suspicion, understand they had not proven a link, they were simply investigating a possible one, of a crime justify arrest and detention without a trial or that crime being proven in any way. I thought that our laws, heck our Constitution (sixth amendment for those who don't know), stated that a person had the right to a "fair and speedy trial" and that individuals could not be held without being charged of a crime. Of course the case of Jose Padilla proved that we don't extend that courtesy to our own citizens so why would we bother extending it to foreign visitors. Amazingly enought at the same time that we are doing such atrocities on our own soil we are condemning China for it's unlawful arrest of individuals...

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos condemned Chen's jailing on "questionable charges" and called on Beijing to release him and stop
harassing his family.
"We are concerned that Chen's arrest, the detention of his lawyers and the reported detention of another activist Gao Zhisheng appear part of a larger pattern of official harassment of individuals working to advocate for the legal rights of their fellow citizens," Gallegos told reporters.

First though let me clarify the other major issue with the argument that I know many will retort with. That is the part of that argument that states that "torturing him might have stopped a terrorist attack and then it would have been worth it." WRONG! I don't care what the circumstance, what the possible risk, or what the possible reward, torture IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE. Regardless of what information a person may have that could be used by us they are still a person, end of story. Humanity demands that we treat them with at least a shred of decency. Torture is such a horrid form of interrogation that every major country in the world agreed to outlaw it in the Geneva convention. Plus I seem to remember a few of the pro-war folks in the early days of the Iraqi war saying that one of the reasons we should be there is the inhumane way that Saddam treated his people, one of the reasons for this statement was that he tortured his people to get information from them and as punishment. So.....wrong for them, okay for us?

Even if we step back and forget about the inhumanity of torture, it's simply illogical as a form of interrogation. It has been proven that a person in a situation as painful and stressful as someone being tortured will say anything to get the pain to stop. ANYTHING. Not the truth, not information that will stop an attack, whatever pops into their mind that they think the interrogator will believe. They will indicate anyone, give false plans, whatever they have to do. Every time in history that torture has been used to gleam information from prisoners false information has been given. I am not saying that it always will be, you may get lucky and get some people to give real information, but the success rate if very low. Especially when you consider the fact that the people who would actually have the information a) are higher up and most likely not the ones we have and b) are fanatics who believe that they are suffering for a righteous cause and believe that if they last through that suffering without giving up God's plan they will be rewarded in death. Whether their belief is right or wrong (and trust me I believe it to be wrong) history has shown that this kind of belief will keep a person from cracking under the worst conditions.

Now to the most important part of this post. There is one other glaring problem with the unlawful detention and torture of citizens from other countries. We are quickly alienating ourselves from our allies. It is very hard for us to request that a country return a U.S. prisoner caught on their soil for some sort of crime to be tried in our courts when we do not extend the same courtesy to them. It is very hard for us to request the humane treatment of our captured soldiers when we torture the people that we capture, because like it or not the people we are fighting consider them soldiers and they will treat ours like we treat theirs. The point, if we wish to put our citizens and soldiers lives and well being at risk every time they are arrested or captured in another country the torturing is not an issue in this way. However, if we would like to guarantee the humane treatment of our citizens and soldiers we must first show that we are willing to do the same.

The Marijuana Debate

2006-04-12T07:46:00.000-07:00

Well the debate of whether or not marijuana should be legalized for recreational use is heating up once again. The last major debate about this drug was whether it should be legal for medicinal use, well Alaska isn't being coy. The wonderful state of Alaska, now wonderful in my mind in spite of their insanely cold weather, I have found has a law allowing a person to possess up to 4 ounces of marijuana at any given time in their home. This is based on the state's privacy laws and so the individual can only have it in their home, but it a great step in the right direction. The crazy part it's a step that was taken 30 years ago that is now being challenged by the Alaskan Republican party that is saying the the potency of new marijuana is stronger than before and therefore outweighs the privacy issues.

Yes one more thing that should outway our privacy. (okay that's a bit of a low blow stretch but I couldn't help myself)

The fact is however that this is a ridiculous argument. So the THC potency went up, big deal, it's still safer than tobacco. I am sure it's safer than alcohol at a high proof. And it's damn sure healthier than a lot of the crap that we Americans shove in our mouths every day from fast food joints.

And here's a great idea, lets legalize it and federally regulate it and tax it. This solves many issues. First of all by regulating it you can make sure that the THC potency is not higher than a set level. Also you can make sure that the marijuana that is being smoked is not laced with a stronger addictive drug like meth or other dangerous product, people will buy it no matter what at least this way we can make sure that it's safe. And finally if you tax it it is a big step towards lowering the deficit and helping to fund our schools, including an anti-drug campaign against the actual dangerous drugs, simply off the money the government would make.

Of course to get that far the Republican Party would have to stop thinking with their Bible for a second and start thinking with the mind. The simple fact is the majority of arguments that I have heard against the use of marijuana are religious and moral, not legal or logical beyond the spectrum of religion.

And for the record I do not, and would not if it were legal, use marijuana I simply do not believe that it is my place to tell somebody else that they cannot do something which does not hurt anyone but themselves, and whether it hurts them or not is still up for debate.

Censure President Bush

2006-03-15T23:50:00.000-08:00

Senator Feingold has introduced a measure into congress to censure President Bush for willfully breaking the law by wiretapping American citizens without the proper warrants.

It is a great breath of fresh air to see a member of the Senate stepping up to the plate and holding this administration accountable. If we want to continue to see this kind of strong leadership it is essential that we show our support for this measure. Moveon.org has set up a petition to be sent to the members of the Senate asking them to support this measure and to hold the administration accountable. Please click here to sign the petition and join the fight for our freedom.

Israel attacks Palestine it's okay, other way around it's not.

2006-03-14T02:30:00.000-08:00

Alright I think I finally got this down. If Israel attacks Palestine and kills people it is alright. If they order the killing of Palestinian leaders it's okay. But if Palestine does either of these the entire world should condemn them as terrorist and their elected government should be forced to step down. Man I love our version of freedom.

The Israeli government today attacked a Palestinian prison and demanded the release of 6 prisoners into their custody, the prisoners crime? They were supposedly responsible for the assassination attempt on a few Israeli leaders, mmmmmmmmmm what's that remind me of....oh yeah the killing of key Palestinian leaders by Israel. Now I am not condoning either one of the Countries actions, but I think we should as a nation not be condoning Israel's and not condoning Palestine. It is very hypocritical of us to say it is okay for one to kill the other but not the other way around.

Now you may be wondering why a blog which professes it's purpose as being to spread the word on issues dealing with Constitutional freedoms would talk about this or many of the issues I talk about regarding other countries.

The reason is simple. When I do talk about them I am normally discussing issues of their freedom. In this case the freedom that we give Israel to run their government and military but refuse to give to Palestine to do the exact same.

I feel that if we are going to put on this facade of being the beacon of Democracy for the world then damnit we should live up to that name and support real freedom around the world, not freedom as long as it goes with our plans. That means that if a government is doing something that may not suite our fancy, but it is the will of the people that that government be in office and doing that, then we butt out and let them do as they wish. As long as it does not directly effect the safety of the American people it is none of our damned business. Now if a country is effecting the freedom of another country and that country ask for our help that is something all together different. We should then do what we can to help. The same holds true in a situation like Sudan were the government is committing atrocities towards the people and are obviously not working for the best interest or will of the people then we should attempt to help those people, but that is it, otherwise we should stay out of it.

A great example of this is the newly elected government of Palestine. The moment Hamas won we showed our true disdain for free elections. I mean that is all I can see us immediately saying we would not recognize them as bieng.

Without so much as giving them a chance to prove themselves, even as they were saying that they wanted to continue peace talks, we immediately said that they were terrorist and not to be taken seriously. That's not democracy. Democracy doesn't say anything about forcing one particular government on a people, as a matter of fact it says the exact opposite, and it is time that we learn that.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat

2006-03-11T06:35:00.000-08:00

Well I am bringing back the Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat.

The reason is simple, a very large need for the Duncehat to be awarded to the State Legislature of South Dakota.

Ah South Dakota the pioneer in the destruction of a women's right to choose what happens to her body. The most basic right of all human beings is to decide what we do with our own bodies, to take this away is a direct slap in the face to the rights of all people.

The close second goes to the U.S. Congress/Senate that this week passed the continuation of the Patriot Act. I have given more than enough reason for this in the past so I will leave it at that.

The crown this week is impossible for me to give, simply because I cannot find anybody worthy of the award. Their is nobody who has stood up for the rights of the American people. If anyone knows anybody worthy please nominate them here.

Edit: A friend pointed out a typo in which I stated North when I intended on saying South Dakota. I have since corrected the misstatement. Thank you.

Iraq free?

2006-03-08T01:21:00.000-08:00

One subject which I have not talked about in much detail on this blog is the Iraqi war. I have not in the past for two reasons. One is that this blog's main purpose is to spread the word about civil liberty issues something not effected by the Iraqi war, except for the torture cases which I did cover. The second was that almost everybody was covering it so I saw no need.

Well I am breaking my silence.

On a regular basis I will chat on Yahoo Chat in there political rooms to get a feel for peoples thoughts on current affairs, and because I really enjoy debating politics.

The last 2 or 3 times that I have gone on this one chatter has posted that Bush is a "True American Hero". When asked why he believes this he simply post:

Iraq=Free
Afghanistan=Free

This got me thinking, what is the definition of "FREE" and can we really describe Iraq or Afghanistan as free. Afghanistan I think can at least be labeled as close to free.

Iraq on the other hand, in my opinion, is far from free. Any country were and average of 20-30 people die daily in war violence, were women can not speak out freely, and were entire religious sects are fighting for control because they feel as if the other will oppress them is not free.

Yet we hear over and over again how Bush "freed" the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. We hear over and over again about the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed over the course of Saddams 30 year reign. What we don't hear as much about are the 33 to 38 thousand Iraqi citizens, not military, citizens that have died in the last 4 years. That's about 8,000 a year so if you multiply that by 30 that would be 240,000 innocent people. Not that I am in favor of Saddam, but it doesn't seem that they have it much better right now. At the very least, they are far far from free.

Patriot Act Renewed, Civil Liberties in Danger

2006-03-08T00:25:00.000-08:00

Today the U.S. Senate passed the renewal of the Patriot Act of 2002. Although there have been some changes from the original document in an attempt to calm fears of infringements on civil liberties these changes are far from enough as stated by Congressman Kucinich,

"I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers only a superficial reform that will have little if any impact on safeguarding our civil liberties,"

As you all know I have been in strong opposition of the Patriot Act since its deput in 2002. Even then, when I was still a far right wing conservative who supported Bush on almost everything, I saw that it was a danger to our freedom and that it could be misused, and history has shown us that if something can be misused it will be.

There are those however that continue to say that the Patriot Act dose not infringe on our rights in any way however. As shown here:

"Intense congressional and public scrutiny has not produced a single substantiated claim that the Patriot Act has been misused to violate Americans' civil liberties," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "Opponents of the legislation have relied upon exaggeration and hyperbole to distort a demonstrated record of accomplishment and success."

What he is saying here could technically be true. The Patriot Act has been used exactly has it was designed to be used, the problem is that in it's design it violates the civil rights of all Americans. It clearly goes against the Constitution on matters of Search and seizure, Freedom of Speech, Fair and Speedy Trials, ect. I have gone into great detail on this in the past and so anyone wishing to read that can look in my archives.

What scares me here is that Congress, as well as the majority of the American people seem content to stand by has it is done, and not just regarding the Patriot Act. For a week straight all I heard about was the issue of spying on the American people, and then it just seemed to disappear. Before that was the torture issue, and then it disappeared, and so on. Even now the reason that Congress passed the Patriot Act again, because of the fear of terrorist action. Although the Patriot Act has yet to be proven to stop terrorism we still look the other way has our rights are taken away because we are afraid of terrorist.

When are the American people going to realize that giving up our freedoms is not the answer to ending terrorism. I do not claim to have all the answers on how to fight terrorist, but the one thing I know is that getting rid of the thing that we has a country have fought to keep for so long is not the way.

Something sent to my email

2006-02-27T18:01:00.000-08:00

I just recieved this by email today. I am posting it exactly how I recieved it. I can not attest to the truth of the message, but I can attest to the impact of it. It is something that we should all think of when we have the chance to help people.

Subject: Two Choices
What would you do?
You make the choice!
Don't look for a punch line; There isn't one!
Read it anyway.
My question to all of you is: Would you have made the same choice?

At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning disabled children,the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: "When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?" The audience was stilled by the query. The father continued. "I believe,that when a child like Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes, in the way other people treat that child."Then he told the following story: Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked,"Do you think they'll let me play?" Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps. Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked if Shay could play, not expecting much. The boy looked around for guidance and said, "We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning." Shay struggled over to the team's bench put on a team shirt with a broad smile and his Father had a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat. At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible 'cause Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball. However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing the other team putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least be able to make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher. The game would now be over, but the pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game. Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the head of the first baseman, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, "Shay, run to first! Run to first!" Never in his life had Shay ever ran that far but made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled. Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second!" Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to second base. By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball, the smallest guy on their team, who had a chance to be the hero for his team for the first time. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions and he too intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home. All were screaming, "Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay" Shay reached third base, the opposing shortstop ran to help him and turned him in the direction of third base, and shouted, "Run to third! Shay, run to third" As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams and those watching were on their feet were screaming, "Shay, run home! Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the "grand slam" and won the game for his team. That day, said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world. Shay didn't make it to another summer and died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his Father so happy and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day! AND, NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it comes to sending messages about life choices, people think twice about sharing. The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our schools and workplaces. If you're thinking about forwarding this message,chances are that you're probably sorting out the people on your address list that aren't the "appropriate" ones to receive this type of message. Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the "natural order of things." So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up that opportunity to brighten the day of those with us the least able, and leave the world a little bit colder in the process? A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them. You now have two choices: 1. Delete 2. Forward May your day, be a Shay Day,sunny today tomorrow & always!

Darfur: A human crisis

2006-02-25T21:24:00.000-08:00

You may have heard of this remote region in Sudan in a passing conversation. Or maybe you caught the 5 minutes of coverage that the major media networks gave to it all of last year. You might have even seen an article about it somewhere, although not likely. It seems that the Western Media, along with every major Western Government has decided to simply turn the other way as the worst humanitarian tragedy since the Rwaden Genocide unfolds.

I for one feel ashamed for the fact that until tonight I have taken no action to try and spread the word about this tragedy. I have been so consumed by the many things taking place in this country that I have simply looked the other way the times that I have heard someone speak of the tragedies. I never tried to claim it wasn't happening, or that we shouldn't be there, but I never attempted to change the fact that we aren't either, and that in itself is enough to be ashamed of.

I am not saying that the issue that we have at home right now are of any less consequence, but that should not take away from our conscience and our duty to help those in need.

I, as well as many others in this country, claim to fight for the civil liberties that are so important to us as a people. I ask though how can you claim to be for freedom and civil liberties and then watch as helpless people are slaughtered simply because of their race and beliefs.

I am not naive enough to believe that I will be able to make even a minor impact on the events that are happening in Darfur. However, I do believe in the power of numbers. If you have a conscience, or even a slight respect for life please simply take the time to do three things. The first is to visit www.savedarfur.org. This site can offer a much better insight into the current situation than I can. Then let your friends know about the site, just ask them to take a look at it. Then if you are touched by what you see call your Congressmen and tell them that you feel that the U.S. should take a stand against the genocide which is occurring in Darfur.

The crazy thing is that we don't even have to send troops in order to make a difference, all we have to do is say that we are against the current events and it will at least send a message to the rest of the world that it is time to recognize what is going on and do something about it. Please take the time to do this, it could mean saving thousands of lives.

A Dangerous Time in America

2006-02-17T16:47:00.000-08:00

They say that history is bound to repeat itself if we do not learn from it. It would seem to me that we did not learn from the 1950's era of McCarthyism, the Red Scare, and the witch hunts that followed.

I have just finished watching the movie "Good Night, and Good Luck"
and it got me thinking. In addition to be a very good film it is also very historically correct drawing much of it's content from actual footage of McCarthy. When I saw the way that people were being accused of Communism the moment that they attempted to stand up to McCarthy or his methods it made me think of Bush and his tactics. With that in mind let us review what it is I mean.

McCarthy would accuse anyone who questioned him of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer and would subject them to ridicule, the destruction of their careers, and even questioning by his committee on the ties to Communism. The majority of the time the accusations were based on rumors, incorrect intelligence, and straight mis-information or lies.

Let us now leap to the current. Those individual who attempt to stand up to the Bush administration, especially early on in the "War on Terrorism" are labeled either Un-Patriotic, Terrorist, or Terrorist sympathizer. Although lately it has become easier for people to step up to Bush and question his actions even now those that attempt to are simply met with a wall of silence, lies, and secrecy.

I make this comparison only to spur thought before moving on to the real issue at hand. Recently the issue of the Bush administration spying on the American people has gotten a lot of air time, as it should, with the majority of people being against such actions, and a good deal being outraged by them. Prior to this coming out the major questions being asked were in regards to Bush's methods when it came to those who disagreed with him at speeches, appearances, and other events. Prior to that it was his handling of the Iraq war and the lack of, and misinformation given to the American people. Also the same issue regarding the "war on terror." Before that, and currently, was the debate over the Patriot Act and the many rights it stripped away. Laced in between all of this was the debates over torture, the right to privacy, gay marriage rights, abortion rights, the right to die, the supreme court justice nominees, and possibly some I am missing.

Now all of these things have been covered in great detail by the main stream media individually. And everytime a new issue regarding our rights pops up the media is all over it for a week or two and then it seems to disappear. What I am not seeing reported on as much by the main stream media, although it is getting some air time mostly by people who would be considered left wing, is the massive power grab occurring right now in this country and the danger it poses to our way of life.

If you look at each of these issues individually they are all bad enough in of themselves. However when you combine them, when you begin to study the pattern that they leave, they paint a very scary picture. Over the course of the last 5 or 6 years the Bush administration has slowly but consistently increased their control over the government while at the same time taking away key rights of the American people. Many would say that what I will imply later in this post is impossible, that they could not have gotten away with it, but they have. They have used fear to manipulate the American people into allowing them to simply do as they wished. They used the most basic human fear, death. They showered us with threats of terrorism, and WMD's. Every time we started to doubt their actions another "close call" would occur. Every time people began asking questions the terror alert would suddenly rise and people would simply follow their fearless leader whatever was asked. We bought duct tape and plastic to protect against biological warfare. We set aside emergency rations in case we were trapped for days after a terrorist attack. But the worst thing we did was hand away our rights. What follows is a description of what has occurred and how it will soon come to blow up in our face if we do not wake up and start demanding our rights back.

Edward R. Murrow during his long career said two things which I find to be of utmost importance even today.

1) "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility." - From the March 9, 1954, "See It Now" television broadcast on Senator Joe McCarthy.

2) "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. "

In addition to these confirmed quotes in the movie about his life he was also reported has saying, regarding McCarthy, something along the lines of "he did not create the fear, he simply used it."

Now I am sure you can understand why I say that the first two quotes are important in today's atmosphere of mistrust and fear in which our rights our being stripped away. The third is important in that it is precisely what the Bush administration has done as well.

On September 11, 2001 a tradgedy struck on American soil, and subsequently drove our great nation into a state of fear unlike anything we had ever known. Although we had seen terrorist attacks on the news they had always been in far off countries, and although we had has some here none even came close to the intensity of this attack, and none had shown the true vunarabilty of our nation. We had always felt safe, protected against the dangers of the world. No one could attack us, we were the mighty United States, who would dare, and then it happened. And all of the sudden the mighty United States was no safer than anywhere else in the world.

It was then that George W. Bush began on the road that has led us to the dangerous situation that we find ourselves in now. I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories that say that Bush, or any of his cronies, had anything to do with the attack. Bin Ladin committed this atrocity, that much is known fact, but Bush did continue the terror. See the attack in itself was enough to scare us for a while, but Americans are tough, we would have been back to normal in a short time, simply remebering the tragic event and those who lost their lives, but not being scared anymore. We would have gone after those responsible, caught them, brought them to justice, and moved on with our lives. That is one of the great things about our country, we don't give in easily.

But Bush had other plans. He saw an opportunity. He new that the fear that was caused by this attack could be capitalized to ensure not only his own future political gain, but the beginning of a new era in American government, which I will explain soon.

He (when I use the words his, he, Bush, or they I am referring to Bush and his administration, it is simply easier to type these words rather than The Bush Admin everytime.) capitalized on the fear caused by the attacks to set into motion the largest power grab in the history of our country.

The first major action taken after the attack was the declaration of war against Afghanistan, this is one of the few that I actually agree with. Afghanistan was harboring Bin Ladin and every option was exercised prior to attacking. But then things went awry.

Soon after the attack on Afghanistan the Patriot Act was signed into effect and the Department of Homeland Security was formed. This was the first major step in the power grab that would eventually put us in our current situation. This bill was signed by all but one member of Congress and was not challenged in any way. Why? The same reason a lot more would occur in the near future, fear. The bill was passed as a way to combat terrorism to prevent another 9/11. It was not until after it was law that people began to realize the rights that it gave away including Amendments 1, 4, 5, & 6 of the United States Constitution.

The first major use of the powers that I have been able to find was the arrest and subsequent holding of Jose Padilla who was held from 2002 until 2005 without being charged of a crime. I am sure that their were other cases that I cannot remeber and cannot find, but you get the point.

It was shortly after the forming of the DHLS that the "Terror Alert" was started. This, as I am sure you all remember, was a gauge by which we could see what the current state of terror was. It range from green to red with the average for a long time being either yellow or orange. It became obvious soon after it's debut that it would go up anytime people began to relax their fears of terrorism. During this time we would hear reports of FBI and CIA warnings of possible terrorist attacks involving everything from more planes, to bio weapons, to subway bombs, but never anything conclusive, just enough to keep us scared. We also had the anthrax scare, which turned out not to be terrorist at all.

And all this time we were also hearing one other thing, Iraq was a major threat. Of course people listened because they were scared. They believed that the WMD's were real because they were scared. They believed that Saddam was a threat because they were scared, and when Bush decided to attack in March of 2003 they followed because they were scared. Those that opposed were labeled unpatriotic and even supporters of terrorism. Groups like Peace Fresno
were labeled possible terrorist threats and spied on. Protestors were ridiculed by the administration. And worst of all the real threat, Bin Ladin, was forgotten. The official war ended only three weeks after the first shot was fired. In reality as we all know it continues to this day. As revelations came to light that there were no WMD's as U.N. officials urged us to believe before we attacked, the reasons for the war changed, eventually coming back to the one thing that no one would challenge, Saddam was linked to terrorism and was a threat to our national security, this has since be shown to be untrue but the admin. continues to support this claim.

Over the next three years leading to today many things occurred. First the right to investigate individuals library records started to be used. Hundreds, maybe thousands of peoples privacy was invaded and no one said anything because they were afraid, and Bush said that this would stop future attacks.

Then people who questioned his tacticts were question about possible terrorist activities, and no one said anything because they were scared, and Bush said this would prevent attacks.

It also came to light during this time that groups like the ACLU, Green Peace, and others had been spied on. Although their was outrage by some for a while most stayed quite because they were still afraid.

Then it was revealed that people were being tortured by American Troops and not only did people stay quite but many supported it because they were afraid, and Bush said the info could stop attacks.

Then the really crazy stuff started happening. First during the Schiavo case the GOP run congress made an unprecedented move in overturning a Supreme Court Ruling, something not allowed in the Constitution. Then a new Chief Justice and Justice were appointed to the Supreme Court, both opposed by the Democratic party for their far right fews and for fear that they would support Bush over the Constitution, something which is already coming to pass with a case regarding Abortion. Also Alberto Gonzalez was appointed Attorney General, and promptly stated that torture should be allowed, a statement supported by Bush.

When the Democratic Congressman attempted to filibuster the GOP Congress made another unprecedented move and threatened to vote to turn over the filibuster, something that would chang two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

Most recently has been the revelation that Bush condoned spying on the American people by the NSA. Stripping away one more right of the American people. There is a lively discussion on this topic available two places on Jim Leach's AbeLog, the discussion began here http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6133156&postID=113926406659800895
and ended here http://www.blogger.com/comment.gblogID=6133156&postID=113978143596953755 (near the bottom of both)

There are many things I missed I am sure and I apologize, but I was giving only a brief summary. The result however is the important thing.

At this point in time the Executive branch has more power than at any other time in history. We also have a Judicial branch which is little more than a group of pawns for Bush and the Executive Branch. Congress likewise seems to be little more than pawns, although this could change. In addition to this the rights of the American people have been slowly remove and at this point what rights we do have are in question from one day to the next. We still seem to have a suedo version of free speech, as long as we don't upset the administration to much, although that along with most of our other important rights seem to be up for grabs.

What does this mean for us. Well simply put if we don't stand up and let the Administration, Supreme Court, and Congress know that we will not allow them to take away the rights that we hold dear in this country, soon enough we won't have any. The reason that the Constitution had checks and balances was to ensure that no one person or group could become to powerful. By limiting the powers granted to one branch you ensured that all three branches had to work in unison to affect any major changes or actions. The idea being that if one of the branches was not acting in the best interest of the country the others would stop it. We no longer have those checks and balances. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are all controlled by Bush. This is very dangerous as he could quite literally do just about anything he pleases; as long as we do not wake up and do something about it that is.

This brings me to my earlier statement that many would not believe what I am saying possible and that Bush wants a new era of government. Bush is not a classic Conservative. Meaning that were most Conservatives want a small government, Bush wants a large government. He would like to see government controlling every aspect of a persons life it seems. Why? Because he truly believes that he is on a mission from God, one that is very dangerous to our freedoms. He is not alone either, Neo Cons as they have been labeled, are a new group of conservatives best described here.

It is not to late to stand up for our rights however. This can be done only one way. We must speak out about our concerns. We have to let Congress know that we do not want any more of our rights trampled on and that those which have been removed must be given back. Congress is the one area of government that we can change in the near future, and that gives us power. That is the final Check and Balance. Congress holds elections every two years, and that two years is coming up. That ensures that the people always have the option of installing new leadership if the current leadership is unwilling to do the will of the people. We have to remind Congress that they work for US not Bush. Call your Government Reps and tell them that if they will not stand up for your rights then you will elect someone who will. If we are not willing to take this simple step to protect our freedoms then we do not deserve them. Throughout our history people have given their lives in order to protect our freedoms, all we have to do is give five minutes of our time to call or write our representatives. It is easy to say that one phone call will not do anything, but what about a hundred, or a thousand. Call, and then tell your family and friends to call. I guarantee that if the people of this country take action we will keep our freedoms, however if we don't, we won't. Do not mistake this as a call to elect Democrats either, plenty of them have not stood up the Bush administration as well. Whether you plan on electing new Democrats, Republicans, Third Pary Reps, or Independents into office if the current officials don't do their job and work for the People of this country, let them know. You can get you officials number at www.congress.org

Throughout history there have been times when those who believe in freedom and justice have had to stand up and fight for what they believed in. We are blessed in that we do not yet have to fight, but simply put action to our words, let us not wait until it is to late.

More thoughts on the Palestinian issue

2006-02-05T23:57:00.000-08:00

Over the last week since the elections in Palestine I have heard many people talking about why we should not be negotiating with the new Hamas led government. I have even heard many who say that we should simply wipe it off the face of the earth with nukes, precision nukes so as to not harm Israel, their words not mine. There reason for being able to so quickly dismiss the immense loss of innocent human life that would come out of such an act, "well if they are willing to elect those people into office they deserve it."

What!? Since when was making what others see as a bad political decision reason for death, if that were the case then over 50% of our population should be killed for re-electing Bush. But the fact is that we support free elections, at least publicly as long as it serves our purpose, but if it doesn't then damnit "let's just get rid of them ragheads" (again their words not mine.) And I am in what is supposed to be a liberal state, California.

Now since my last post it has been brought to my attention that Hamas targeted only civilian organizations and therefore that is why we will not talk to them because they are nothing more than terrorist. Hearing this and not really knowing I researched it, I also researched a claim made by a co-worker that all attacks made by Israel have been in retaliation to terrorist attacks. Now when I heard both of these claims I was weary about the truth behind them, it simply did not seem possible so I have done the research and this is what I have found.

The question of Hamas attacking only civilian targets:

From the information that I have been able to gather this is true. Although it seems as if the organization originally targeted military facilities it seemed to quickly learn that civilian attacks were a stronger tactic and has since moved to almost entirely civilian attacks. Sources used:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1197051.stm
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3256858.stm
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Quick_timeline
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909108.html
Report on history of Hamas

As for the issue of whether all Israeli attacks are in retaliation:

It would seem that my coworker is right in a way, but not totally. Many of the attacks were what is known as "targeted killings". Attacks on people who the Israeli government feels pose a threat to their security and therefore feels it has the right to kill. These attacks many times in in the death or injury of innocent bystanders.

I was unable to find much on the attacks by Israel honestly, until I typed in "targeted killing" it seemed as if the media was extremely gun shy about saying anything bad about Israel. I could not understand this at first and then I found this video...http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=129&num=17293&printer=1

If you click on the link found on the page listed above it opens a windows media file of a CBS news broadcast that is very indepth into the actions of Israeli troops against Palestinians. Furthermore their are widespread accusations of torture by the Israeli government of innocent Palestinian civilians. My sources are:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=129&num=17293&printer=1
Video showing Israeli forces mistreating Palestinian civilians
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7572
Link to article speaking of armed Israelies attacking unarmed Palestinians. Two paragraphs into the article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-22-mideast-glance_x.htm
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#In_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/2005/kiiling7.pdf#search=
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3556809.stm
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,193466,00.html
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_20545.shtml
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.

Now with all of this disturbing information in mind I pose two questions.

First of all. How is it possible that we condemn Hamas as a terrorist group because of it's attacks on Israeli civilians and yet we do not consider Israel's military a terrorist group for their attacks on and torture of Palestinian civilians? Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone Hamas's attacks and contrarily I condemn them, but that does not make Israel's any more acceptable.

If you really think about it the definition of terrorism as stated in Webster's Dictionary is as follows:

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

And further the definition of terror is:

1 : a state of intense fear2 a : one that inspires fear : Scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : Worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : Brat 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Now using this definition it would seem to me that the U.S. Government, especially the Bush administration, has been using terrorism for the last 4 or 5 years. In order to get us to support the Iraqi war we were constantlyy told about the "danger" of WMD's and Hussein. In order to get us to look the other way as our civil rights were slowly infringed upon we were berated with rising terror alerts and constant threats of terrorist attacks, always with just enough detail to be scary, and not enough to do anything about. In order to get us to forget about the horrors of torture we were told that the information that they obtained could save lives, using every human's natural fear of death against us.

And the bombing of Iraq fits the last part of the definition, "4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands", almost perfectly.

The only difference is that we have the big military might and the economic strength to get people to listen to us. The label "terrorist" is given by the victor or the stronger force. During the revolutionary war I am sure that we were considered terrorist by England, but because we won we were Freedom Fighters. Were else have I heard that term? Oh yeah that's right. It's the term that we used to describe Al Queda and the Taliban when we were supplying them with money, weapons, and training to fight the Russians in Afghanistan before we no longer agreed with his message and then he became a terrorist. Once again I would like to say that I am not condoning terrorism in any way and I do condemn the actions of Hamas, Al Queda, Bin Laden, Israel, and even the U.S. when it comes to attacks against civilians or unnecessary attacks against military forces. I simply think that people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing the first stone.

My second question is much more straight forward and simple. I have continually heard from Bush, Israel, and other world leaders that they will not talk with the Hamas led government in peace negotiations. Their reasoning being that they do not feel that Hamas will be willing to work towards peace and that it is simply going to ask for the imediate destruction of the Israeli State. I am curiouse though, so what? Let me ask you this, forgetting for a moment the previous acts of Hamas, what can it hurt to talk to them. They have come out and said that they would like to continue peace talks. They have said that the world should not be afraid. Would we prefer to end the talks and start the fighting again. The worst that can come from sitting down at the table with them is that they ask for something ridiculous and the peace talks end and the fighting begins. The other choice is ending the talks before finding out if maybe, just maybe, they are seriouse about working with world leaders to find peace and the fighting begins again anyway, just a lot sooner. Sounds to me like the first option is the best.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat

2006-01-28T00:07:00.000-08:00

Well have a long break I feel that it is time to bring back the Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat.

First of all the crown. This week I would like to give the civil liberties crown to the Washington State Senate and Governor. Today the e Senate passed a Gay Civil Rights Bill which the Governor is expected to sign. I have expressed my views on this subject many times and therefore I will keep this short. This is a monumental day for Civil Liberties.

The dunce hat this week is obvious. The winner is the Bush administration for authorizing spying on the American people. This has been talked about time and time again in recent weeks so I will simply say that rights of the American people should never be outweighed by anything, ever. No matter how much you try to say that it is for the security of the United States it does not justify taking away the right to privacy and the right to protection under the 4th amendment which protects against illegal search and seizure. At least one good thing has come of this. The American people are finally waking up to the fact that their Civil Liberties are being stripped away. Hopefully the confirmation of Alito, which is almost certain, will not expedite this process.

Giving support for German captives.

2006-01-27T04:01:00.000-08:00

I would like to simply give my thoughts of support to the two German engineers who have been taken captive as well as the U.S. reporter who was taken captive a little while ago. Although I have many times expressed my distaste for the war that does not go for the soldiers fighting that war and most certianly does not go for those civilians caught in the cross fire.

I hope that they all return safely to their homes and families.

Bush's true thought's on world democracy.

2006-01-27T03:25:00.000-08:00

Well the Bush administration along with Israel (surprise surprise we're following Israel's lead) is refusing to speak or have any relations with the newly elected Palestine.

Are they refusing to do so because the government has attacked Israel, or maybe because they believe that the elections were rigged in some way.

No that would be to sensible. They are doing so because as the Israeli government put it:

"The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if even part of it is an armed terrorist organization calling for the destruction of the state of Israel."

Now if the Hamas run government were truly calling for the destruction of Israel I could understand this to a point. But there are two things to keep in mind.

First of all this government was just elected in a free election by the people of Palestine, so obviously their views agree at least to a large point with the people. Now I can understand if this does not matter to Israel because they have been in a hostile situation with Palestine for some time and never claimed to be for spreading democracy. The U.S. on the other hand, especially the Bush admin., is supposedly all for spreading democracy and will work with any Democratic government attempting to grow. So what, will we only work with those that we agree with and not those that have ideals that are not right in line with ours. Or are we just automatically against any country that does not agree with Israel. I mean in a way there statements about Israel occupying Palestinian territory are true historically, it was not until after WW2 that they were granted the state of Israel and even then it was not the will of the people of the area but instead that of the European and U.S. governments. I mean this does not grant us the right to call them "armed terrorist" (which we did through association with Israel.) , they are an elected government. Are we going to start calling the French government "armed terrorist" when we don't agree with them. Now before you say that they are labeled that because of their attacks on Israelis including women and children should we also call the Israeli government a terrorist group, they to have attacked Palestinian women and children. I remember reading about one incident in which a Palestinian child through a rock at a soldier and so the soldier shot the kid in the head with an assault rifle. I do not justify the acts committed by Hamas, but they are no worse than those committed by Israel.

The second point is this. Israel and the U.S. claim to want peace, as Bush stated,:

"If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace, and we're interested in peace."

A statement that has been reverberated throughout the world and which I agree with, possibly one of the the only things that came out of Bush's mouth that was intelligent, he ought to keep this writer.

Now if the Hamas run Palestinian governments position was that they wanted to simply "destroy Israel" then I would understand not wanting to talk with them because that would be a declaration of war. But they have not said that. What they have said is that they wish to have their land back. Now obviously that is not possible and so they need to reach another agreement, but how can this happen without talking to them. Furthermore they have expressed a strong desire to continue with the peace process, it is only Israel and the U.S. who are holding back. The new government came out and stated openly today that this is what they wished saying:

"Don't be afraid"

and a more specific message by Abbas, whom the Islamic group reached out to be a partner in the new government,

Abbas said he remained committed to peace talks and suggested they be conducted through the Palestine Liberation Organization an umbrella group of Palestinian organizations that he also heads, instead of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. "I am committed to implementing the program on which you elected me a year ago," he said in a televised speech. "It is a program based on negotiations and peaceful settlement with Israel."
So one must wonder what is the reason that the U.S and Israel are unwilling to speak with them. They make it clear that they wish to continue peace talks, so why not do it. Would we prefer to end the cease fire and let the war continue? I hope not. The worst that can come out of continuing the talks with the new government is a return to bloodshed, and it would seem that that would be the only possible outcome of ending the talks so we obviously have nothing to lose.

How much more does Iran have to do

2006-01-25T05:58:00.000-08:00

How many more hoops is Bush going to make Iran jump through before he is satisfied that once again he is wrong about a countries nuclear ambitions. Iran has made it clear time and time again that they have no intention of enriching uranium for the purpose of making WMD's and evidence from many nations seem to back this up and yet Bush and his cronies along with his whipping dog Prime Minister Blair seem intent on pushing the issue in what seems to be an attempt to force a confrontation.

When Bush first accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons program they accepted UN investigators and showed proof of the fact that they were using the nuclear program that they had in effect only for energy, not weapons.

The Bush administration was not satisfied and tried to say that they had photos showing otherwise. Those photos were then shown to be of energy plants which was then confirmed by the Russian government who has been working with the Iranian government to put together a nuclear energy program.

This still was not enough and now the Bush admin and Blair are attempting to get the issue pushed into the Security Council. Now keep in mind that the UN nuclear watchdog has already stated that the nuclear programs taking place in Iran are purely for energy, but of course the UN also said that we needed to inspect Iraq further and we saw how right they were then, oh yeah they were right and we are now fighting a senseless war.

Well two things are now happening. First of all the Iranian government has stated that if the issue is in fact taken to the Security council they will begin enriching uranium commercial with or without the UN's permission. This seems to me to be their right. They have taken every step they can to prove their intentions are peaceful, what more do we want.

Second they have agreed along with Russia to have the uranium enriched their to a level used for energy and then shipped to Iran. This would ease fears that they are using it for weapons as it could not at that point be used for weapons grade material. If this does not satisfy Bush it makes it clear that he has no interest in whether or not they are actually making weapons and only in attempting to start a confrontation between us and another Mid Eastern country which possesses a large amount of the worlds oil.

Before we go all gung hoe into this one however it is imperative that we learn our lessons from Iraq. Look at how hard it is going there and then consider that Iran has a much more powerful military and is allied with most of the rest of the Middle East has well as Russia and China. To attack there would set off a powder keg that we are not prepared to handle.

Lets just hope that the American people have gained enough sense since the last fiasco to actually stand up to our leaders and tell them NO WE WILL NOT GO TO WAR WITHOUT CAUSE, AND NO ACCUSATIONS OF WMD'S WITHOUT PROOF IS NOT CAUSE!

A Great Day in Palestine

2006-01-25T05:48:00.000-08:00

Today marks a great moment in history as Palestinians voted in their first open and free parliamentarian elections in over a decade. While the victor is not yet known this is a very important day as a it will both shape the future of Palestine and the Middle East, but after this the leadership of Palestine can not be questioned by anyone including our government. Up until this point the Israeli government and our own was fond of bringing up the fact that no elections had been held and that Arafat was a terrorist. After this election the leadership that comes about will not be able to be challenged by foreign governments.

I am not stating good or bad about Arafat in this post so please don't waste your time or mine by telling me how bad he was. My one and only point for this post is to congratulate all Palestinians and to wish them the best of luck in the future.

Assalaamu Alaikum

Alito a shoe in

2006-01-25T05:30:00.000-08:00

Well whatever civil rights we had left we can kiss goodbye. Supreme Court nominee Joe Alito has enough supporters in Senate to guarantee his confirmation and the end of the check and balance system.

Alito is a clear pawn for the Bush administration and the conservative party and it is almost certain that he will rule against abortion, homosexual marriage, the right to privacy and many other key issues.

Throughout his career he has been on the far right on issues and does not seem to mind if that is against what the Constitution says.

What scares me most about this move however his not just his personal motives, but the fact that the court is now far right and more dangerously is controlled by people who can be very easily considered Bush cronies.

This is not a new concept as throughout history President's have nominated those that not only are qualified but that they are in some way affiliated with, but those Presidents never attacked the Constitution the way this one has.

Never before has a President so openly gone against the will of our forefathers. Never before have we had to worry about being spied on or tortured or arrested without cause. And never before has a President attempted to blur the line between the Executive and Judicial branches of the government. Bush and the Republican congress are the first to ever attempt to overrule the Supreme Court by way of a Congressional bill.

This is a very dangerous time for civil liberties. A time when those who have been nominated and confirmed by this administration to show that they truly do believe in the justice system and the Constitution or to show that they are nothing more that pawns to the conservative party and the far right Christian base.

I sincerely hope that they prove to be worthy of the great honor which has been bestowed upon them, because this is one mistake that cannot be fixed as easily as ol' brownie.

VICTORY!!!

2005-12-19T16:00:00.000-08:00

Well freedom has had another victory. The Senate as voted and the American Patriot Act will not be continued. What a glorious day this is. It shows us that we can still trust our leaders, at least a little bit, with our freedom and we will come out on top.

Thank you to all who contacted your Senators and Congressman and let them know how you feel. And thank you to the Senate who showed once again why we have a two part Congress.

PATRIOT ACT TO BE EXTENDED....WHY?!?!?!

2005-12-08T23:27:00.000-08:00

Well despite the obvious lack of checks and balances, and the clear disruption of civil liberties it seems as if the Patriot Act will be extended for another four years amid cries from both sides of the political spectrum to stop such actions.

I know that in the past I have harped on the horrible nature of the Patriot Act, but I think that now is a good time to recap why I say such things.

The Patriot Act signed into power in 2001 following the tragic events of 9/11 give the government far reaching powers to invade the privacy of citizens and further restrict civil liberties without due cause.

The most notable of these things include:

The ability to search financial, travel, phone, and even library records without any cause other than suspicion of terrorist activity.

The ability to tap phone lines without a warrant based on suspicion of terrorist activity. (The 4th Amendment protects against illegal search and seizure.)

The ability to search property without a warrant of even notification of the suspect without cause other than suspicion of terrorist activity. (The 4th Amendment protects against Illegal Search and Seizure.)

The ability to infiltrate and keep records on any group deemed to be a possible terrorist threat without evidence to back up the claim. (already been shown to be used against political groups which disagree with the war and the Bush Administration that have no ties to terrorism such as Peace Fresno, Green Peace, the NAACP, and others. (Breaks privacy act rights, as well as infringes on the right to free speech guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.)

The ability to hold a person indefinitely without charging them based solely on the suspicion of terrorist activity. (The six amendment guarantees a fair and SPEEDY trial, normally limited to holding an individual for a period of 72 hours without charging them of a crime. A good example of the misuse of this would be Jose Padilla, held for 3 years without being charged of a crime.)

The ability to freeze financial assets of an individual based on suspicion of terrorist activity.

Others which can be found within the Patriot Act

In addition to the very clear violations of Constitutional rights the bill is to broad. What is the definition of "terrorist activity". It is not outlined in the bill, so who decides. This gives the government the right to arrest and hold anyone for any reason by simply saying that they are "SUSPECTED" not proven, to be involved in terrorist activity.

Also the ability to infiltrate political groups and keep records on them is absurd. This could easily be used as a way to pressure groups which disagree with a political agenda. This is not to mention the multiple individuals who have complained that their rights have been violated when they spoke out about the government only to have an FBI agent harassing them about what they said.

Are we really becoming a nation that is okay with this kind of thing. That is willing to give up the freedoms that our ancestors fought and bled for, that our relatives and friends are fighting and bleeding for as we speak.

What happened to the nation that stood up in outrage and the idea of any rights being stripped away. We are supposed to be the "Land of the Free" not the "Land of the Scared and oppressed". But that is exactly what we are becoming. We have been so brainwashed by the administration into believing that if we don't give up these rights that we will be attacked by terrorist that we simply look the other way. Well look around you, even with them taking the rights away we have soldiers dyeing every day, terrorist attacks are frequently occurring around the world. Yes you can say that they are not happening here, but it is only a matter of time, no matter how many rights they take away. You can not secure freedom by taking it away, the only way to do it is to vamp up security, secure our borders, and bring our military home were it belongs, and of course quit pissing people off with extreme right wing, redneck crap that comes out of Bush's mouth.

Benjamin Franklin said "The man who gives up freedom for security deserves neither." I would take it one step further and say that he not only deserves neither, but he has neither.

Think about it, the thing that Bush and Cheney are contently saying that the terrorist hate is our freedom, so if we take that away ourselves aren't we giving them what they want? I guess that's one way to beat them, but I'm not to big on the "if you can't beat em' join em'" theory in this case, kinda defeats the purpose.

Thankfully I am not alone on this one, a group of Congressman from both sides of the political spectrum had this to say,:

"We still can, and must, make sure that our laws give law enforcement agents the tools they need while providing safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."

And Feingold, one of the six, went further stating,:

"I will do everything I can, including a filibuster," to block passage, said the Wisconsin Democrat, the lone senator to vote against the original legislation passed in 2001.

Of course this did not keep the traditional GOP Bush army from being supporting it and looking for political gain out of it, once again trying to make anybody who votes against the destruction of our rights look unpatriotic:

"We should unite in a bipartisan way to support the Patriot Act, to stand up for freedom, and against terror," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Ah yes, let us all unite as a free country to get rid of our freedoms.

If you think this statement and this bill is as absurd as I do I urge you to contact you Congressman NOW, DON"T WAIT! If you do it might be to late. You can contact them HERE.

!!CIVIL LIBERTIES ALERT!!

2005-10-27T21:02:00.000-07:00

ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Congress has passed another bill that will lower the rights of the America people to protect themselves in the court of law.

One of the fundamental rights of the citizens of this great country is to find refuge in the courts when they have in one way or another been hurt by others. Whether it be physically, emotionally, or finacially. One way that we can do this is to sue in the court of law in the event that we feel that we have been the victims of unjust.

This right is very close to being taken away. Already we have had caps put on the amounts of damages that can be handed down by the courts in medical malpractice cases. And now they are going to penalize attorneys who attempt to help those who have been the victims of unjust if it is deemed by some unseen person that it is a frivolous lawsuit.

First of all who decides that it is frivolous. Is it really frivolous if the person who is suing feels that it is necessary. And if in fact it is a "frivolous" lawsuit the person will not win and the lawyer will not be paid anything. This alone is the only check and balance system needed for this.

Secondly by pensalizing those who file frivolous lawsuits you also keep those who would file a legitimate lawsuit from doing so because of the fear of retribution.

This is not only clearly in violation of the states right to make laws regarding this situations of this nature, but it is a clear attempt by the Bush administration and the conservative congress to lower the ability of Citizens to have any kind of justice if it in any way hurts corporate America. Come on now we wouldn't want to hurt those nice large corporate profits in order to help regular americans now would we. This just makes me sick, and if it makes you sick to call your representatives and tell them what you feel and let them know that if you don't like what they are doing you will vote them out. That includes this idiotic bill.

I have come to a conclusion lately that one of the only thing that current politicians care about is reelection, and if we are going to get them to actually stand up for our rights we have to threaten the ability for them to get reelected, so call NOW!

Libby likely to face charges, Rove may be safe for now.

2005-10-27T21:00:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow the hammer will drop and Patrick Fitzgerald will be forced to make a decision as to who, if anyone, will be charged with a crime in the outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame. The deadline for the two year investigation is Friday October 28, 2005, tomorrow. If no one is charged by that time, no one will be.

All indications at this time seem to point to charges being leveled against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of Staff, Lewis Libby. Charges to be raised could range from giving false information to outing a covert operative, and everything in between. Although the investigation has been very tight lipped sources near to it say that Bush's top adviser and chief of Staff, Karl Rove, may dodge the bullet this time, although he would not be out of the woods yet as the investigation into his participation in this crime would continue.

It is obvious that a crime has been committed here, and it is obvious that whoever committed those crimes deserves to be punished. The question I pose to you is do you really believe that anyone within the White House will have to face responsibility and secondly do you thing that if Rove or Libby are charged with the crime that Bush will live up to his word and fire them? Please feel free to leave you answers to these questions as well as any insights you may have regarding the case on this post.

I'm back and Miers is Gone.

2005-10-27T20:34:00.000-07:00

Well I am making my return to blogging after a short break, and what a perfect time. Harriet Miers, Bush's most recent political hack to be nominated for a major governmental position, has withdrawn her name.

This comes as little surprise to me after seeing the recent attacks that she has been under by members of her own party. It is one thing for the opposite political party attack a nominee for the Supreme Court. It is another thing entirely for members of the your own political party to attack you for your stances as well has your judicial history. (well you lack of it anyway.)

This sent a clear cut message that she was not going to nominated and that she would be torn down in the process. She was set up to be the sacrificial lamb to the liberal, and she ended up being so to the Conservatives.

See the liberals saw that although she was obviously not a good choice for the Supreme Court due to her lack of experience and her extreme views on issues such as Abortion they also saw that not enough was known about these things to make a judgment as well as that they would not have to condemn her because she was going to be by her own. They chose their battles, and it was a wise chose.

Conservatives on the other hand saw that she was not going to be far enough to the right to ensure a vote against things such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. Hot topic issue that have been promised to be taken up in the Supreme Court to the right wing Christian base that got Bush elected.

What Bush does now will make a large difference in his popularity amongst those who elected him such as Dobson and Pat Robertson. He let them down by nominating someone who, while she has shown some disapproval for abortion, has also shown that she would not defiantly vote to outlaw it and has not made her position on Gay Marriage clear at all. In order to when their support back he would have to nominate a hard right candidate, something that would be extremely detrimental to the rights of American Citizens. I hope that Bush makes one of the first wise decisions of his term, but unfortunately I doubt that is what will happen. I guess now we just wait and see.

The Circus Begins!!!

2005-10-18T18:24:00.000-07:00

Saddam Hussein's trial begins tomorrow and many believe that it will be adjourned just as quickly.

Regardless of how long it is delayed it will not be a trial but a dog and pony show in which Saddam Hussein will be given a "fair trial" which is obviously nothing more than a formality. While it is obvious that Saddam is guilty and should be punished for him many crimes against humanity it seems to me that if you are going to go through the works of pretending to give him a fair trial then you should give him just that.

Of course there is only one way to do that, have the trial somewhere other than Iraq and don't make the judges Iraqis who have been hand selected by the Bush administration which is openly for the downfall of Saddam Hussein.(not that I can blame them on that one.)

The simple fact is that the Bush Administration cannot allow that for one primary reason. By having Saddam tried by a court completely controlled by them and in a country were the only media that gets out is that which is okayed by the Bush Admin. they can make sure that Saddam doesn't say anything nasty about the U.S. You know, how we put him in power, or the fact that we supplied him with arms. Or the fact that we supplied him with chemical agents that he then used on his own people. Or the fact that during the first Gulf War we were guilty of using Chemical and Biological weapons has well (Gulf War syndrome ring a bell). We can't let these things get out now can we. I am all for frying his sick sadistic ass, but at least let the truth be heard.

Miers already showing signs of danger

2005-10-18T18:14:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Meirs is already showing signs of being a very dangerous pick for the Supreme Court. Recent revelations show that she is firmly set against abortion and would most likely set the stage for the outlawing of abortion.

As I have stated many times before this is absolutely absurd and unconstitutional. The right for a women to choose is protected by the Constitution of the Unites States and should under no circumstances be infringed upon.

It is of course no surprise to me that the Personal Attorney for a man who is very outspoken in his disapproval of abortion would be against it. This is exactly why she was nominated and it is a mockery of the Judicial system. The sole reason she was nominated was because George W. knew that he could count on her to vote how he wanted her to. So much for impartial judges.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat of the Week

2005-10-18T17:46:00.000-07:00

The Crown this week is awarded to the State Of Oregon for their attempt to protect the rights of their citizens and the right of the State to make decisions regarding medical practices.

The right of a patient to take their own life in a dignified manner is exactly that, a right. It is a decision to be made by the patient and their family, not legislatures in Washington. No matter how much you may disagree with someone's decision in the end it is not you body and therefore not you choice.

Their decision to end, or not end, their life does not effect anyone else in any way and therefore is a personal decision and is protected under the Constitution. The same way as a women as the right to choose so does a terminally ill patient. I know that there will be those who try to use the argument that if that is the case should we not try to stop anyone who attempts to commit suicide.

That is an absurd argument simply because you are dealing with two separate issues here. In the case of someone who is depressed or for some reason feeling as if they have no reason to live and they feel the need to take their own life society has a responsibility to get that person the help they need to cope with their issues, and this is what we do, we don't arrest them we simply help them cope and get them past their urge to kill themselves. In this case the person is mentally unstable, even if just for the moment, and is not making a sound decision.

In the case of a terminally ill patient the person knows that they are going to die in a short period anyway and most likely are going to have to endure a slow, painful death. If they feel that they would like the death to be in a painless, dignified manner and would like to keep their families from having to endure seeing them slowly die and mounting medical bills then they have the right to do so. In order for someone to take part in the "right to die" they must be of sound mind and make the decision on their own. They cannot simply say one day, screw it I don't want to live. There must be evidence that they are terminally ill and of sound mind.

The Duncehat this week goes to good old President George W. "let's deceive the American people one more time" Bush. Yet again he has attempted to shove lies down our throat with his staged conversation with American soldiers in Iraq.

This is actually not as bad as many of the things that he has done and he gets the prize not only for this but for his long litany of deceit. Lets recap what he has done:

-Post 9/11 he declares that he will do whatever is necessary to capture those who are responsible and then simply lets Osama bin Ladin slip off the radar after having him surrounded at Torah Bora.

-Using 9/11 as a reason Bush signs into law the Patriot Act which strips Americans of rights provided in the U.S. Constitution including Amendments 1, 4, and 6.

-Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein using a wide array of reasons none of which have proven to be true, the most popular and most used of which was the notorious WMD's that have yet to be found.

-In his rush to war Bush not only lied to the American people about the reason for the war but he destroyed our relationship with many allies who he turned his back on when he attacked Iraq against U.N. wishes and without any solid reason for war.

-He continues to push for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay marriage.

-He continues to push for a Constitutional Amendment against Abortion.

-He continues to attempt to blur the line between religion and government.

-He continues to attempt to weaken the judicial branch of the Unites States of America

I could go on all night but I think I will keep it at that. Bush is a disgrace to the Office of the President of the United States. Local talk show host Pamela Furr has challenged my respect for the Office on more than one occasion, the simple truth is I respect the office, but I cannot respect the man holding the office.

Appearing on the Mike Wilson Show.

2005-10-18T17:37:00.000-07:00

This coming Wednesday I will be on the Mike Wilson Show on Hot Talk 970 WMAY, along with other bloggers from the Springfield area around 5 pm. I am really looking forward to this and I hope that everyone can tune in. I will post a follow up to this regarding what happens.

Scripted Conversation with Troops: Not Surprised Here.

2005-10-13T19:02:00.000-07:00

Last Saturday Bush had what was supposed to be just a simple conversation with troops on the ground in Iraq. It turns out that that is not quite the truth. The truth is that is was a group of hand picked soldiers, five of whom were officers, who were coached on what to do and say.

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan' denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

When I first read this article by the Associated Press I was both outraged and surprised that Bush would lie to the American people and use U.S. Soldiers to further his cause, then it struck me, what am I surprised about.

Bush has a long history of hand picking those at his so called "town hall" meetings and has exploited anyone he needs to, including the victims of 9/11, killed soldiers, and the families of soldiers to further his war in Iraq, so whats the surprise.

I recall one story, from back in my original blogging days when I blogged at americanpatriotlegion.blogspot.com (I can't get into that account now for some reason) in which three law abiding citizens were forcefully removed from a Bush ass kissing sess...oh I'm sorry I meant to say town hall meeting because they had a bumper sticker on their car that was anti-Iraq war. I guess we shouldn't be surprised anymore when we hear more lies and deciet coming from the Bush Administration.

Wishing luck to those is Pakistan

2005-10-13T18:54:00.000-07:00

I would like to take a moment to wish the best of luck to those affected by the earthquake that hit in Pakistan early this week.

They are estimating over a million people left homeless by this catastrophe, many at the base of the Himalaya mountains right as winter is about to hit. The original quake was a tremendous disaster leveling towns, but this is a disaster in of it self.

The U.N. is working hard to try and get to these people who have at this point spent 6 days nights in the cold as they are cut off from aid due to the extensive damage done by this killer quake.

At a time like this it is essential for the people of this country and all around the world to do whatever we can to help the victims of this natural disaster. If you would like to help please visit Network for Good: South Asia Quake where you can see what is needed most.

Back In the Saddle Again

2005-10-13T08:41:00.000-07:00

Well after a couple weeks off due to family issues I am back and better than ever. Keep an eye out over the next couple days for some hard hitting post. I am sorry for the shortage of post has of late, but will be up and running from this point forward.

FREE TIBET!

2005-10-03T23:56:00.000-07:00

For a large portion of my life I have worked to ensure the civil liberties of my fellow Americans and I have in the last couple of months attempted to shed some light to you on the issues we have here in this country regarding our civil liberties.

I label myself a patriot because I truly believe that perusing liberty is a patriotic act, but I feel I have fallen short by not bringing up one major issue. This issue does not have anything to do with this country directly, and it would be easy for us as Americans to simply turn a blind eye has we have done for many many years. But I believe that as humans it is our duty to help those who cannot help themselves when we have the opportunity.

What I am talking about is the Chinese occupation of Tibet, a once free and sovereign nation, which was forced into Chinese control in 1950, since an estimated 1.2 Million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese government, with an unknown amount more being tortured on a regular basis.

Although I am Buddhist I have long kept quite about this issue because I have been more focused on the issues here at home, but it is time that we, and the rest of the world take action. Before I go on I would like to make one thing clear, I am not talking about the invasion of another country as I am still staunchly opposed to the use of U.S. Military force to try and control the way other countries operate, I am however talking about the U.S. Government putting real pressure on the Chinese government to get out of Tibet.

My friend over at American Patriot & Liberal convinced me to step up to the plate and do something about what has become a genocide in Tibet (by any standard 1.2 Mil people in 50 years is a genocide, do the math that's 240,000 people a year at the hands of their oppressors.)

For those of you who do not know to much about this situation a brief history of what has occurred in Tibet is available at www.friends-of-tibet.org another great place to find information is www.freetibet.org they have great information on many of the current issues surrounding Tibet including Genocide, Education and propaganda, religious Freedom, etc.

In the end the fact is that Tibet is a sovereign nation that continues to be occupied by China and has been refused help by the American government as well as every other major government in the world. Why is it that we can be so damned ideological in one hand and attack countries like Iraq based on Saddam oppressing his people but we cannot even so much as put pressure on China to get out of a free country.

From this point forward I will be dedicating every Monday to updates on my new mission to help free Tibet. This blog will also continue to serve as an avenue for local and national issues, but it is long past due that serious discussion take place on this matter.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat

2005-09-30T08:09:00.000-07:00

This week the dunce hat was basically laid in my lap, although the crown was a little harder to figure out.

Thus, this weeks winner are....

The Crown this week goes not to somebody in the news, but somebody who I feel is doing a wonderful job of spreading knowledge of civil liberties and is giving people a real way of finding out about their rights, activism, their leaders, etc. That group is about.com who host the page http://civilliberty.about.com/ This site is completely dedicated to furthering Americans knowledge of Civil Liberties and how to make a difference if they feel something is important. Please visit their site and learn about the rights that are our most important asset in this country.

The Duncehat was an easy pick this week and I am sure that many of you figured it out already, it is none other than radio talk show host and former Education secretary Bill "if you abort black babies you will get rid of crime" Bennet. On his show "Morning in America" Bennet had this to say:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

This is an absolutely absurd and down right racist comment. Even looking past the stupidity of in any way propagating the genocide of an entire race of people ( I look past this because he did go on to say that it was "morally apprehensible" to do this.) There is still the issue of the fact that he is insinuating that if you get rid of blacks you will get rid of crime. This is a blanket statement about African Americans which is in essence saying that they are all criminals. Not only is it not true, but it is a very hateful and ignorant thing to say. It is true that crime rates are higher among African Americans, both committed and victimized, but this has more to do with socioeconomic issues than race. Furthermore if you were to go by stats alone then all males 18-25 should be locked away, as they are the most dangerous people in the country. Thus our winner for the largest Duncehat yet is Bill Bennet.

Roberts Confirmed as Chief Justice

2005-09-29T07:22:00.000-07:00

Well it is done. John Roberts is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States of America. While I am still worried that Roberts may not be the best person for the job, and I am still leary of the fact that he refused to answer many of the questions that were asked. I concede that he was nominated and confirmed in the correct manner for what seem to be the correct reasons and therefore I support his nomination. I will not support him personally as a justice until I see what he does with his new post.

I truly hope that he stands up for the Constitution and for the rights of the American people. If this is the case then I will praise him as I have many judges conservative and liberal. However if he does not I will be the first to condemn him. At this point we must just wait and see.

Update on Jose Padilla Case

2005-09-28T14:17:00.000-07:00

I have yet to hear any further reporting on this on any major network, although I must commend Mike Wilson of WMAY 970 AM who discussed this issue at length on his show.

I have made multiple calls to Congressman and have yet to have any calls returned (every time I call on this issue they are out of the office.) So I will continue to try and get some answers and will keep you up to date on what is happening. If anyone else would like to contact their elected officials on this important civil liberties issue please visit www.congress.org and search for you congressman and senator.

Delay's Finally Getting His Come Uppens

2005-09-28T14:09:00.000-07:00

Well it took long enough but Tom Delay (R, Texas), the House Majority Leader, has finally been charged with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, along with two associates. In response to the charges Delay has been forced to temporarily step down from his post has Majority Leader.

This is a good sign as it shows that law and order still have control over the country and that the whims the right cannot control government completely. For a while I was afraid that nobody in the Bush White House would ever be held accountable for anything. This is a good sign however tat people like Karl Rove will have to face the music for their involvement in illegal activities.

I will continue to follow up with this case as closely as possible.

Who Lying Davlin or Dewith-Anderson?

2005-09-28T13:55:00.000-07:00

Once again here in Springfield the race issue has come up. And once again people on both sides are playing the he said she said game. So who is telling the truth? It is hard to tell in a situation like this who is being trustworthy and who is lying. But does it really matter? In the end does it matter if he said those few words?

Think about it, if the city administration is being run in such a way as to give a feeling of racism. If they continue to not hire African Americans. If they continue to allow race relation issues to go on unabated does it really matter if he said he would only meet with 3 African Americans or "I don't understand your people."

Now don't get me wrong, if in fact he did say these absurd things then he should pay the price and should not be in office. My point is not that these statements shouldn't be addressed but more that if the administration continues to show that they are in fact subtly racist then whether he said these things or not there is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

Now everything that this issue comes up a few people come out and say things like "oh there's no race issue here in Springfield, that's just them Blacks wanting something for nothing" or "I have never seen any race issues."

The first of these of course is very racist in itself, it assumes the the African Americans must not really have a case, they just want to freeload. The second is based in ignorance. I sincerely believe that many people in this town are content in closing their eyes to the obvious race issue. Well it is time for all of us to open our eyes and let the city know that we won't stand for it.

It is ridiculous that in the 21st century there are still people who would refuse a person a job because of the color of there damned skin. WHO CARES! I thought we got over this in the 60's and 70's I guess I was wrong and people aren't as smart as I gave them credit for.

Brown refuses to take any blame at all.

2005-09-28T13:38:00.000-07:00

Okay okay, I know that everybody is tired of the "blame game" but this is absurd and has to be discussed. Ex Fema director Mike Brown said yesterday:

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional,"

"I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences and work together. I just couldn't pull that off."

WHAT?! That was his biggest mistake in his mind. What about not having a plan? Or not getting the supplies needed to the proper locations on time. Or the slow response. Or any of the other short comings.

Brown blamed the Mayor, Governor, White House, and anybody else he could other than himself. Everyone else who was involved has had the guts to stand up and admit that they made mistakes. They have publicly announced there apologies and admitted to their wrong doings. So why isn't Brown doing that?

I will say once again what I have said all along, I am not saying that it was all his fault, or all Bush's or anyone else's fault. But he definitely has some blame to take and he needs to step up and admit it.

Fair Justice For All

2005-09-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

We are told from the time that we are very young that Equal Justice is available to all. It is in the Constitution, etched into the door frame of the courthouse, and is supposed to happen in the courthouse.

However in the real world it is obvious that justice goes to those that can afford it. True if you are in the bottom 10% you are appointed a lawyer by the courts, but for the rest of us we are stuck trying to figure out if we can afford a lawyer at $200.00+ an hour. Many times because of this we either a) get screwed or b) give up on the issue because it is just not worth it.

Yesterday I was approached by my insurance agent with something that I found quite interesting and in all reality a great idea. It is called Pre Paid Legal and it gives you access to a lawyer for $26.00 a month. I really don't know that much about it yet, I just signed up, but I thought that I would let you guys know about it because I believe that it makes our right to equal justice a reality.

If you want to hear more about it you can go to the PrePaid Legal Website were there is a wealth of information.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat of the Week

2005-09-23T19:36:00.000-07:00

This weeks crown goes to Judge Bells of IL. He stood up this week for the law and would not allow an emergency restraining order that would allow pharmacists to continue to deny women WITH PRESCRIPTIONS for the "plan B" (morning after pill) the ability to get their PRESCRIPTION filled. The pharmacists claim that having to fill these prescriptions goes against their morals because they feel that it is a form of abortion and therefore they should not have to fill them. One particular pharmacist works at a Walgreen and did not want to fill the prescription. Now lets look past the fact that it is their JOB to fill prescriptions regardless of their moral believes, and if they don't like it they can change jobs. (I am a vegetarian, I would not apply for a job at a meat factory and then say I could not perform the task because killing an animal is against my morals.)

Lets go beyond that fact though into the Constitutionality of this absurd request. If a women makes the decision, for her health, lifestyle, or any other reason, that she wants to take a morning after pill, and she is able to get a prescription for this what right is it of the pharmacist to say that she cannot do it.

Last time I looked Congress was the only group that could make laws, and the judicial system was the only group who could determine the correctness of those laws. While the rest of us can discuss them, disagree with them, even protest them, we do not have the right to make up our own rules, such as not letting a women get a legal prescription. Secondly you are taking away the women's right to choose, a Constitutional right. So Judge Bells gets the crown for sticking up for the law and forcing these pharmacists to wait until the correct avenues have been used to stop the rights of women.

The Civil Liberties Dunce Hat goes to Congressman Shimkus. Shimkus came out this week and said that he would cosponsor legislation called the Pledge Protection Act. In a previous article I discussed this in detail so I will leave it here to say that this is extremely Un-Constitutional and I am ashamed that a man I used to respect is cosponsor this absolutely ridiculous piece of legislation.

When did we become a Theocracy

2005-09-22T12:24:00.000-07:00

I thought that we lived in a Democracy. A country were no person has believes forced upon them, were no one group can control the country and were religion does not play a role in government. In short I thought we lived in a FREE country.

I guess I missed the moment that we became a theocracy.

You are probably wondering at this point what I am rambling on about. Congressman Shimkus said today that he will be supporting legislation that will "protect the Pledge". Now unlike some of those I have heard speaking on this issue I actually do support the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it is an elegant way to teach our children love of our country. However I do not agree with the 1954 addition of the words "under God" which have nothing to do with our country and in fact go against our countries views on freedom. For that reason I cannot believe that this bill is actually being considered by any of our elected officials.

There are multiple issue with this fact and I am going to stick to the Constitutionality of this absurd law. Here are the main problems that make this law completely Un-Constitutional.

1) First of all the very words "under God" are Un-Constitutional when used in reference to our country as a whole. For two reasons, first this is establishing a National religion, maybe not a specific belief system but at least the belief in a God. This diminishes the rights of atheists who do not agree with this statement and whose rights are protected under the Constitution.

2) Forcing a child to say the Pledge also forces them to say the words "under God" by doing this you are forcing them to except the existence of a God and therefore taking away their right to choose on their own. Furthermore you are putting the child who's religion will not allow them to say the words in an awkward position. This includes Jehovas Witnesses, I do not know the specific reason here so if someone can fill me in I would appreciate it; Muslims, who first of all say Allah, not God, and in that some would consider this a prayer would not be able to do so unless facing East towards Meca, Buddhist who do not believe in a higher being than the self, Hindus who believe in multiple Gods and depending on the one that they worship may be being blasphemes to say this, Wiccans who may very well believe in a Goddess, Pagans who likewise may believe in a Goddess. There are those who say that these people are in the minority and therefore can just skip the words or add in the name of their higher being. I disagree that they should have to do this. First of all the Constitution clearly protects the minority from being ruled by the majority. Secondly while having the words in the Pledge forces the minority to be put in an awkward spot not having them does not adversely effect, or effect at all, the majority.

3) Making a law that would keep the courts from being able to rule on certain cases that challenge the Pledge takes away the power of the courts and the voice of the people. You are not only going against the Checks and Balance system, but you are violating the First Amendment right of the people to challenge the Government and the Pledge. One of the most fundamental rights of Americans is the ability to challenge Government on any issue and to take a matter to court. It is then the Courts decision, not Congresses, to decide whether it is a viable complaint. This is why we have courts. To make sure that Congress stays in check. And the moment you begin to weaken that Powers the moment that you begin to weaken the Constitution and the rights of the people.

If this law passes I hope that the Supreme Court stands up and protects the rights of the people and does what is right and strikes down this law. If that doesn't happen all I can say is that it is time to be afraid, be very afraid because our rights are now and the mercy of the Administration and Congress.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat

2005-09-16T17:01:00.000-07:00

Well it's that time again. Time to give somebody the Civil Liberties Crown and someone else the ole' Civil Liberities Dunce Hat.

This week the Crown goes to the Massachusetts State Legislature for voting down a proposed ban on Gay marriage 157-39. The proposition would have forced a vote in the 2006 elections to decide whether Gay marriage should be outlawed in exchange for Civil Unions, you know take away homosexuals rights but give them a token right to keep them happy. Civil Unions are an atrocity and are a clear segregation of homosexuals. Basically you are telling them that they are good enough to get some of the benefits of marriage but they are not good enough to be married. The worst part is that all of the arguments that I have heard against Gay Marriage have nothing to do with the constitutionality or legality of it but with the "immorality according to God" of it. Since when was "God" supposed to be involved in any decision making on the Governmental level. The U.S. Constitution very clearly states that no law will be made regarding religion. Period. To say that it should be illegal because "God" says so is to say to all those who do not believe in God or who believe in a non Judeo/Christian/Muslim God that you voice does not matter and we will force you to believe in the way of our God. And I don't want to hear this crap about well the majority of this country is Christian and so we should follow that. Wrong. While the majority of this Country is in fact Christian the Constitution is clear is saying that the Majority does not rule the Minority. We all have EQUAL VOICE in government. I am very happy to see that Massachusetts is setting an example and standing up for the rights of homosexuals everywhere.

The Dunce Hat goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who this week vowed to veto a bill that would legalize Gay Marriage in California. He is basically saying here that he does not care what the officials elected by the people think or what the Constitution of the United States says about equality. He would rather stick to the RNC's agenda than stick up for the rights of the people of his state. Well if I know Ca. Then I think that when it goes back it will be voted through so hopefully someday soon I will be giving the Crown to them, but until then the Dunce of the week is good ole' Govinator.

Iran war on the way?

2005-09-16T16:27:00.000-07:00

With Iran continuing, as they should be allowed, to move forward on nuclear power programs Bush continues to make the claim that they are hiding a "rogue nuclear weapons program" and that they are in fact not trying for nuclear power, but trying to build a bomb.

This of course is being said by Bush at the same time that he U.N. nuclear watchdog is saying that it is not the case. Russia, our ally, is helping them build the power plant and saying it isn't the case, and no other country is supporting us in our claims. To make matters even better we don't even have any proof for what we are saying other than a hard line Islamic leader is in power and we don't like it.

This all sounds eerily familiar. Mmmm, let me think what other war was started on the basis that the country had WMD's although the U.N., our allies, The leader of the Country, and every other major country in the world excluding Great Britain said that they did not have them and they were not a threat (sorry I refuse to consider Poland, Australia, or Afghanistan major countries in this case.)

that's right the Iraq war, and now we are paying a huge price for our mistake. Maybe this time instead of being all gung ho and not looking at the facts we should let diplomacy take it's path, let the U.N. do it's job and work with our allies instead of telling them what we want and if they don't like it naming any food that has their name associated with it changed to "freedom _______" (i.e. freedom fries, freedom toast, ect.)

When is Bush going to learn that he cannot push the world around and expect everyone to be all happy about it. Our military is far to stretched out for him to be making threats such as "we are not taking any options of the table" in regards to how we will handle the Iran situation.

When are we going to learn that we cannot be the watchdog for the world. That is the job of the U.N. , let them do it. Get our boys and girls home and lets keep them here.

Bush & Homeland Security Defeating the Purpose

2005-09-13T22:34:00.000-07:00

A very scary thought just came to my mind. If the Bush administration continues to strip away the freedoms that we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq and around the world in The War on Terror, then the terrorist have already won and we can stop the bloodshed right now. There is no need for people like Padilla have no need to detonate bombs.

I can hear the outcry of the right wing base now "blame America again" or "how dare you speak against Bush".

I am not blaming America, and I am doing anything but say we should let the terrorist win. In reality we need to fight for our freedoms. But that fight has to start here, in the halls of government were they are being stripped away. It is not enough to simply say that we will fight to protect democracy. We must first keep democracy.

It is time for us as U.S. Citizens to stand up together and demand that no more rights be taken away and that those rights that have been be returned. The Patriot Act needs to be abolished and here it comes: Bush NEEDS, for the safety of our rights, to be IMPEACHED. That's right I said the big "I" word. I have never called for the removal of a President, including this one, before and I hope I never have to again, but this is beyond politics.

This should in no way be a partisan issue. The rights that we have been given through the blood of our ancestors are for all Americans, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, and everything in between. And when they are taken away they are taken from everybody. It is scary to think that at anytime anyone of us could be arrested by the government on charges of "suspicion of terrorism" with no proof to back it up (none I have seen anyway) and be held without being given the basic right to defend ourselves from the accusations. What happened to the country I love were you are guaranteed the right to a trial. What happened to the great nation that stood together and vowed that we would fight those who would try and destroy our freed society on 9/11. Have we become so lax or so brainwashed by the current administration that we don't see that the biggest threat is not from a foreign country or from terrorist but from the very people who have vowed to protect those freedoms?

I for one refuse to stand by as this happens and I make a vow right to that I will do everything in my power to see to it that Padilla, and all Americans, are given the rights that so much American blood has been shed to protect. Do not let the loss of our great soldiers, in the past, and today go to waste, join me in the fight to save our freedoms. If you are interested in helping the first thing to do is to contact your governmental officials and show your dismay for what is happening. If you would like to do more beyond that please contact me at americanpatriotlegion@hotmail.com for more information.

WHY NO MORE REPORTING ON THIS TOPIC?!

2005-09-13T22:05:00.000-07:00

After not hearing anything locally over the last three days regarding the Jose Padilla case I decided to look online to see what the National News companies were saying about it. What did I find? Hard hitting questions about why he has not been given a trial? Commentary on the dangerous aspects of the President having this kind of Power? Anything? No not one damned report on this atrocity. I searched both Google and Yahoo and the newest reporting on the issue I could find was from 2002. What is this? Has the news turned a deaf hear to this outrage. I was wondering why their wasn't a larger public outcry, NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT! Because of this I will be starting a full scale campaign to get the word out and make sure that this man gets what the Constitution guarantees him. A TRIAL! I hope you will join me in this fight. Please contact your local, state, and national representatives and let them know that you are outraged by the stripping of this mans freedoms. He has not been proven to have done a damned thing wrong and he has spent the last 3 years in prison. If they can't get enough proof together in that amount of time to charge him then maybe it should be a sign that he should be freed. Otherwise charge him and give him a trial. Period. I will keep you updated on this as more information becomes available.

New voting machines coming to Springfield, IL

2005-09-11T00:55:00.000-07:00

Props to DownLeft for a great blog on this issue. They have done a wonderful job of covering the issue so I see no reason to duplicate it here, so please visit their site for discussion of this matter.

I will be keeping a close eye on this as it unravels to determine any Civil Liberty issues that may arise. The moment that they do you can be sure that I will be all over it.

UPDATE: DownLeft has continued to do a wonderful job of original reporting on this topic. Therefore I see no reason to do anything more than to send you his way.

Civil Liberties Alert

2005-09-09T23:52:00.000-07:00

My joy from Judge Hall's decision was short lived. Soon after reading about it I came across the decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the U.S. could continue to hold Jose Padilla, an American Citizen, on ACCUSATIONS that he planned to detonate a 'dirty bomb' within the United States.

I am all for arresting terrorist and I am definitely for protecting our country, but if this guy truly is a threat and the U.S. Government truly believes he had intentions of terrorist attacks then CHARGE HIM AND GIVE HIM A TRIAL!

I am not saying that he should definitely be let go, but I am saying that as and American Citizen he has the right to a trial in front of his peers has guaranteed by the 6th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Let them then decide if he belongs in jail.

This decision goes far beyond the rights of Padilla however, it effects all of our rights. This will set a standard that says that the government, and particularly the President can accuse anyone of being a threat to National Security and have them arrested and held indefinitely without any shred of proof. It is stated best by Padilla's lawyer:

"It's a matter of how paranoid you are," Andrew Patel said. "What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail - without a hearing (or) a trial."

The right to a criminal trial is a fundamental right and under no circumstances should it be removed. It is the core difference between our legal system and that of tyrants. The ACLU is actually standing up on this one saying:

"So long as the civilian courts are open and functioning, American citizens arrested in the United States are entitled to due process protections provided by a traditional criminal trial," ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro said in a statement.

I truly hope that they continue to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, but it may not make a difference as one of the Judges on the panel of three is a possible choice for Supreme Court. How he could continue to be after clearly disregarding the Constitutional right to a trial is beyond me.

This almost makes me wish I had not already given the Civil Liberties Crown to Judge Hall, because I think that the panel of Judges here are more deserving of the Civil Liberities Dunce Hat.

UPDATE: It has been three days since this story broke and I have yet to see or hear any major discussion on this. It is an outrage.

Civil Liberties Crown/Dunce Hat

2005-09-09T23:08:00.000-07:00

This is a new segment that I will be starting on the blog. Each Friday I will award someone as either doing the greatest good for civil liberties, or doing the most harm to civil liberties.

This week the Crown goes to Judge Hall who stood up for the rights of the American people against the Bush administration and stated that it was unconstitutional to keep a gag order in effect, see the below post.

Although she did not strike the law down completly she did go a long way towards getting the American people the freedoms that were taken away by the Patriot Legion back.

A VICTORY FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!

2005-09-09T22:59:00.000-07:00

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PATRIOT_ACT_RECORDS?SITE=ILSPR

I feel great right at the moment. With all the bad that is going on right know in the world a small victory has been won for civil liberties. Judge Janet Hall ruled today that the government must lift a gag order that was put in place which protected the identities of librarians who received request for names of people who checked out certain books. Judge Hall put it wonderfully saying:

"The government may intend the non-disclosure provision to serve some purpose other than the suppression of speech," Hall wrote. "Nevertheless, it has the practical effect of silencing individuals with a constitutionally protected interest in speech and whose voices are particularly important in an ongoing national debate about the intrusion of governmental authority into individual lives."

While this is a small victory and the real fight is keeping the extremely unconstitutional Patriot Act from being reinstated. I will keep the blog updated as news arrives on this subject as it is quite possibly the most important constitutional decision to be made in my lifetime (keep in mind I am only 21).

Congress to Investigate Abuse of 9/11 Loan Program

2005-09-09T14:28:00.000-07:00

"This was a deliberate attempt to cover up White House budget gimmicks that left the SBA's largest loan program underfunded and on the brink of shutting down," Kerry said. "The administration asked SBA employees to bend the rules and steer regular loans through the program aimed at helping businesses impacted by 9/11."

This quote by John Kerry is in response to the apparent widespread misuse of the federal business loan program meant to help business effected by the terrorist attacks after 9/11.

Now before all you conservatives out there begin to scream in outrage about how Kerry lost and he needs to get over it and this is just a way to get at Bush keep in mind that Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican said:

"The apparent widespread abuse of loans provided through the Supplemental Terrorist Activity Relief Act is nothing short of an outrage."

It is to early for me to begin placing blame on any one person in particular but it seems that this goes pretty high up. The SBA is a very closely monitored organization and it would take the word of someone high in office to get them to "bend the rules".

This needs to be investigated to the fullest and I truly hope that whoever is responsible pays the price. This is a slap in the face to the thousands of Americans who put their trust in the Federal Government to properly allocate tax dollars to help the victims of the 9/11 attacks. To think that they were so poorly managed is a disgrace. Once again I put out my call for the Bush Admin, not just Bush his entire admin., to accept some of the blame and actually face the reality of the results of their actions instead of doing what they do best and passing the blame.

"Brownie" not doing such a "heck of a job" after all

2005-09-09T13:59:00.000-07:00

Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced today that FEMA Director Michael Brown was being removed from the disaster area and will no longer be overseeing relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina, but instead will be preparing for any future needs.

Wait a second...Two major problems with this equation. First of all the Administration isn't going to fire him, they are only going to take him off of this disaster. This even after reports that he meagerly padded his resume, and he botched the relief efforts.

Second, the Administration is basically saying that they no longer trust him to oversee this relief effort so instead they will put him in charge of planning for the next. Hold on, wasn't he in charge of the planning for this one, and we see were that got us. It is time for ole' "Brownie" to start padding the old Resume again and look for a new job.

I am not sure however that the blame should stop there. What about the fact that every major White House official was on vacation at the SAME TIME. Okay I understand that people need to be able to take vacations, and although the President takes way to many that is another topic, but I have never worked somewhere were all of the top managers went on vacation at the same time, you spread them out so that you always have a strong leadership base at home base. This is just common sense. Someone seriously needs to do some answering here.

Also what about the fact that Bush was asked for support days before the hurricane hit yet it was not received until the Friday after Katrina hit because the White House said they were not asked. Clearly they are LIEING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. It is far past time that Bush be held accountable for his mistakes. I am not saying that Bush deserves all the blame and that the New Orleans Mayor or the Governor of LO, don't deserve any, of course they do, but they are taking theirs and moving on to try helping the people who need help whereas Bush just keeps passing the blame, but don't forget he's not "playing the blame game".

John Roberts nominated for Chief Justice.

2005-09-05T11:06:00.000-07:00

Bush has decided that he believes that John Roberts is the best man for the job, of course he also thought that the director of FEMA, Homeland Security, and of course Condi where the best for the job and we see what has happened there.

Jokes aside, how will this affect the American people and our Civil Liberties? I see this turning out one of two ways.

1) Bush has realized that his botching of the relief efforts has hurt his credibility with the American People and so he is going to take the easier to nominate route and put a moderate conservative or maybe even a moderate liberal in office. They will support Roe vs. Wade and maybe even Gay Marriage, but will not say either way on Stem Cell Research.

If this occurs we may just be okay. Our rights will continue to be protected as they should be because the justices will look at what they should, The Constitution, not politics.

2) Bush will not realize that his rep is hurt and he will nominate a staunch conservative for the swing vote spot. There will be a heated battle in Congress and the Dems will try to filibuster but because of the overwhelming conservative base listening to the Christian Right the nominee will pass through. We can then expect...

Roe vs Wade will be overturned
Gay Marriage will be outlawed (and possibly other civil liberties taken from them)
Stem Cell Research will be outlawed
Medical marijuana will continue to be outlawed.
Nation wide caps on Insurance Damages will be allowed. (They have been deemed unconstitutional in the past.)
The Patriot Act will be deemed Constitutional and free speech, the 4 amendment, the 7th amendment, and all Americans will suffer.

All that we can do is hope that our elected officials do what is right and CONTACT YOUR LOCAL REP IF A NOMINEE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS NOMINATED.

We must let them know that we want someone who will protect our rights, not the wishes of one relatively small group of people.

Chief Renquest Passing May Spell Trouble For Americans

2005-09-04T07:51:00.000-07:00

The passing of Chief Justice Renquest puts the court in a position that is very rare, it has two openings. Depending on how Bush handles it it could be a blessing or a curse for the American people, unfortunatly I have a feeling that it is going to be the latter.

The President has two choices at this point. He can either attempt to pick a justice who will be fair and balanced and will follow the Constitution as it was written, or he can be political and nominate a Justice that will bring personal and party politics to the table on issues such as Abortion, Gay Marraige, Stem Cell Research, and many other hot button issues.

Hopefully the members of Congress who are not under the Bush spell will grow a pair and filibuster any attempt to nominate a new conservative hell bent on eliminating our freedoms.

Cindy Sheehan is on the Roll

2005-09-03T00:01:00.000-07:00

Mother of fallen soldier, Casey Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan is on the move. She and dozens of other relatives of the Iraqi War dead are now driving across the country, stopping in many cities along the way. They are calling it the Bring Them Home Now Tour: From Camp Crawford to Washington D.C.

I haven't heard it yet but I am waiting for the first conservative to scream out some idiocy about how she shouldn't be putting the spotlight on herself right now because we should all be focusing on Hurricane Katrina. Well while I agree that much effort is needed in the relief efforts we are STILL AT WAR and it would be a major mistake to take the heat of the Bush administration. The families of the fallen deserve answers, as do all Americans, as to why these brave men and women died. And until Bush decides to face the music we cannot allow him to blind the country once again to the devistation which is taking place in Iraq every day.

To follow the progress of Ms. Sheehan and the tour check her out at http://bringthemhomenowtour.org/

Why did it take so long?!

2005-09-02T23:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops3sep03,0,7512924.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

The national guard soldiers that were sent to the convention center in New Orleans were prepared for the worst has they advanced on the center. What they found was definitely the worst, but in a much more heartbreaking manner.

People were without food or water for days, the sick were near death because of lack of medicine. Human waste was all over the floor.

This is something that you would expect to see in a movie, not on the nightly news. So you have to ask yourself, how in the most advanced country in the world did it get this bad.

Why didn't we have a better plan to get these poor people help, and why did the Bush administration take so long in responding.

Someone needs to do some serious answering, but of course everyone in D.C. is in cya mode so I don't expect much.