Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

Where is the restraint in spending?

Republican Response to Obama Budget Request - Bloomberg

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

On this fine day in February 2009, President Barack Obama submitted his budget blueprint.  For  the first time, in near a decade, transparency is built into a national financial plan.  The tremendous costs to wage the two wars America is engaged in are no longer hidden.  Outlays for military offenses have been written into the ledger, and not in the traditional invisible ink.  While one might think fiscal and political Conservatives would be pleased, upon receipt of the document, Republicans immediately pounced.  Senator Judd Greggspoke on the Grand Old Party's behalf when he asked, "Where is the restraint in spending?"

Interestingly, Senator Gregg and his fellow Republican Legislators did not solicit answers to this inquiry when the last Administration reigned.  For all those many years, the Conservatives did not concern themselves with the price the American people paid.  None on the "Right" worried of what might be when "unnecessary"wars are fought The monetary debt left to American children was not a consideration when combat was paid for on credit.  Then, as now, the greater trepidation was expressed for higher taxes.

America attacked its adversaries with borrowed money and on time borrowed from the brood.

As long as parents did not have to pay, or see the billions of bites taken from fruits reserved for their offspring, war, or supplementary spending was wonderful.  What is not so glorious for the wealthy are the words of President Obama, or his plan to pay as we go.  

"Having inherited a trillion-dollar deficit that will take a long time for us to close, we need to focus on what we need to move the economy forward, not on what's nice to have," Mister Obama said.  This statement did not make sense to Conservatives who rather do as the previous Administration had allowed them to do, trade common "cents" for an economic crisis.

Comfortable with artificial caps or spending, repeatedly supplemented, Republicans reacted poorly to the introduction of fiscal responsibility in the Obama Recovery Plan.  Intermittently the "Right" expresses concern for the children.  Nonetheless, each rant raises what seems to be the more real issue, taxes.  

Indeed, in the past, Progressives pondered levees.  Most Democrats wondered why Americans were not asked to sacrifice for two wars fought on credit.  It all began early in President George W. Bush's first term.  The date, September 11, 2001 will live in infamy.  The Council on Foreign Relations explained this in a report. 

Following 9/11, the United States launched new military endeavors on a number of fronts, including in Iraq.  Estimates for the total costs of these efforts remain sharply politicized.  Costs have consistently outpaced government predictions.  In September 2002, White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey estimated the cost of invading Iraq could amount to between $100 billion and $200 billion.  Mitch Daniels, who at the time headed the White House budget office, called Lindsey's estimates "very, very high" (MSNBC) and said the war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion; shortly thereafter, Lindsey left the White House.

In January 2004, a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total costs of Iraq's reconstruction would land between $50 billion and $100 billion.  But in October 2007, the CBO said in a new report that the United States had already spent $368 billion on its military operations in Iraq, $45 billion more in related services (veterans care, diplomatic services, training), and nearly $200 billion on top of that in Afghanistan.  

American initiated battles blazed abroad.  No money was allocated to pay for the combat.  Billions were kept off the books.  American babies were blinded from the truth.  Their parents placed a financial burden on them that could not be calculated.

Each year, with hat in hand, Commander-In-Chief George W. Bush came to Congress and said, cost cannot be a consideration.  We must protect our borders.  The compassionate Conservative Bush assured Senators and Representatives alike, inclusive of Judd Gregg who now reels over the cost of the Obama fiscal plan.  The country must be made safe for your brood and mine.  

Although the past President knew the battles would be protracted, and said so often, he never accounted for the projected expenditures in his budgets.  Very early on, the Bush Administration was asked to design a plan for war-related costs.  However, the White House ignored such silly suggestions.  Congress too did not comply with a request to consider the cash flow. 

Iraq Supplemental Requires Transparency 
Revenue Watch Institute

Legislative Action 
Congress must insist that clearly defined standards of transparency are incorporated into the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq.  Congress must require the President to submit at minimum a quarterly report, detailing the processes by which US funds are disbursed in Iraq, under the conditions elaborated below. 
Recommended Legislative Language:?

No competitive or non-competitive contracting or purchase activities may be undertaken using any of these funds unless the President certifies that the International Advisory and Monitoring Board mandated by Resolution 1483 has been established, and submits a quarterly report detailing:

• The extent of Iraqi consultation and participation in the contracting and purchase agreement process.
• Actions taken to be in compliance with the transparency obligations of UN Resolution 1483.  ?An independent cost and capacity estimate of the activity in question.
• In cases where non-Iraqi sources are awarded contracts, an explanation demonstrating that Iraqi companies lack the necessary resources and experience to perform the service at the independently estimated cost, and/or within a reasonable time frame.
• In cases where a no-bid contracting process is employed, a detailed justification for the non-competitive tender, including a demonstration that this justification was made available to the Iraqi public.

(An Iraqi Public Finance Oversight Board should be established as a formal channel to achieve an acceptable level of Iraqi consultation for all large-purchase contracting activities undertaken with these funds.  The International Advisory and Monitoring Board, as mandated under Res. 1483, should be empowered to audit all aspects of Development Fund for Iraq. . . .  

None of these possibilities were put in place.  No one believes the proposal was even taken under advisement.  Instead, the Bush Cheney Administration moved into foreign terrain ready for a fight.  Documents that might help determine the dollars needed to do these deeds were not sent to the House or Senate in advance.  Budgetary reviews for defense spending were deliberately shortsighted   More was left out than included in ledgers.  Emergency Supplemental funds were requested each year.  

In 2001 and thereafter, no one complained, at least not loudly, certainly not the Republicans who now demand we attend to our children's inheritance.  How might one argue against the need to protect the country, care for its citizens, and pay for the soldiers who keep this country safe?

Conservatives, in the early years of combat were gleeful with Congressional control.  They coalesced.  Democrats, defeated, chose to forfeit dignity and duty.  Progressives no longer believed they had the power to do what was right.  Resigned to the will of the President and his "people," the Left relented.  Legislators looked the other way when the economic experts strongly stated more money is needed.  Supplemental funds, off budget show support for the soldiers. 

On September 8, (2003) the White House requested an additional $87 billion of funding to cover the continued occupation and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2004.  Of this $87 billion, $66 billion will be for military operations, and $21 billion will be for reconstruction in Iraq.

Congress caved.  Trillions trickled out of the country.  A few at home profited from the Shock and Awe plan.  However, no one wished to speak of Halliburton, the ties that remained to Vice President Cheney, or the off-the-book expense of wars.  

For persons affiliated with the Administration, defense contracts, no bid agreements to facilitate the folly known as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the monetary Mission was Accomplished.  However, for the majority of Americans, the loss of credibility, lives, limbs, and cash was a failure.

Citizens feel the calamity in an economic crisis.  Yet, Republican Representatives wish to blame Barack Obama for a budget, which will not hide such outrageous costs. 

Total cost of the Iraq and Afghan Wars

The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] now estimates the costs of the Iraq war, projected out through 2017, might top $1 trillion, plus an extra $705 billion in interest payments., The total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined could reach $2.4 trillion.

Some experts say even those figures underestimate the true price tag.  Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, projected in a 2006 paper (PDF) with another economist, Linda Bilmes, that the total macroeconomic costs of the Iraq war itself would surpass $2 trillion.  This analysis differs from that of the CBO, which measured only the war's budgetary impact.  Stiglitz and Bilmes also predict a somewhat higher budgetary impact than the CBO did, though the CBO responds at the end of its 2007 report that some of the difference may be accounted for by factors like inflation and standard pay increases that have little to do with the Iraq war itself.

More recently, a group of Democrats on the U.S. congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report estimating the total long-term cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would range between $2.6 trillion and $4.5 trillion, depending on how quickly forces are drawn down.  These figures drew pointed criticisms from congressional Republicans, who released a statement (PDF) citing dozens of errors in the report's findings, some of which were subsequently changed.

Yes, the Republicans actively repute all claims of cost overruns.  For them, money spent on military actions were  and are justified.  The real issue, for the "Right" while subterranean, was revealed; as long as taxes were not raised on their personal wealth "fiscal Conservatives" felt fine.  

During the Bush years, Republicans had reason to feel content.  Those who want no new taxes had a friend in the White House who would hide the costs of combat.  Thus, then, concern was not expressed for the children, the credit crisis, or what these irresponsible parents caused.

Republicans would rather be critical of the Democrats for too many dollars spent and the way the Obama plan proposes to reduce the deficit.  "On the backs of the rich," those who think themselves "Right" rage.  Perchance it is important to peruse the books.  Republican rants may not reveal what detailed reports do.  Today, if the government continues to fund its fights on credit, as the Bush White House did, our progeny will inherit what prosperous parents refused to pay for with cash.   

Comparing the Defense Budget to the Total Economy 
The U.S. defense budget has risen over the past decade but remains substantially lower than historical levels when considered as a percentage of U.S. GDP.  President Bush requested $481.4 billion in discretional spending for the Department of Defense's 2008 budget.  That figure does not include any of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been paid for primarily through "emergency supplemental requests" that are not included in the federal budget's accounting. War spending is expected to tally to roughly $193 billion in 2008, an increase of $22 billion, or roughly 13 percent, over 2007 expenditures . . .

Allocations toward the "Global War on Terrorism," which exceed $145 billion for 2008, also fall outside the U.S. defense budget, and do not include the war-budget supplements. . . .

In a global context, U.S. spending on military-related endeavors ranks high.  According to 2005 data from SIPRI (PDF), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States spends substantially more on military endeavors than any country in the world.  If war spending and allocations to the "Global War on Terror" are excluded, the U.S. military budget is still more than seven times that of its next closest competitor, China. If you include those other expenditures, U.S. military spending surpasses that of all other countries in the world combined.  

That thought alone is awesome.  Rather than build a better world, engage in diplomatic talks with other nations, provide for peaceful negotiations, prepare American children for careers, prevent illness, care for the injured, or maintain the infrastructure . . . all of which would better the world for our offspring,  the Bush Administration spent trillions on destructive warfare.  

In the early years, the White House depleted a budget surplus for much of the money.  Some of the dollars came from the taxes paid by poor and Middle Class.  The super-rich Republicans were asked to contribute a lesser percent of their income.  When dollars from duties were exhausted, the Bush White House sought more funds from creditors.

Grand Old Party politicians, with the help of weakened Democrats, allowed the last Administration to squander more money than is possible to fathom on an unnecessary war.  No thought for the future of our children was mentioned.

Yet, today, with the introduction of a budget that calls for a reduction in troops and defense allocations, Republicans rage.  They do not wish to recognize that  the previous White House  already sacrificed the safety and fiscal sanity of the Seventh Generation.  

Until today, the Grand Old Party could not be bothered with war costs written into the budget.  Republicans did not ask, "where is the restraint in spending?"  Those on the "Right" played with the people's money as though it or they were mad, and now, on this fine February day, with a transparent plan delivered, Conservatives clamor, what of the children.

Cost of War Off Budget . . . 

• Judd Gregg Criticizes Obama Budget. By Ken Strickland.  MSNBC News. February 26, 2009
• U.S. Senator Judd Gregg.  US Senator New Hampshire.
• War Against Terror.  Cable News Network.
• Obama Plans Major Shifts in Spending, By Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear.  The New York Times. February 26, 2009
• Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain, Contrary To Veep's Claims, Researchers Say Financial Links Remain.  By Jarrett Murphy.  CBS News.September 26, 2003
• Total cost of the Iraq and Afghan Wars. Council on Foreign Relations
• Democratic Joint Economic Committee Report's Errors Allowed to Stand.  By Representative Saxton, Chris Frenze, Senator Brownback, Bryan Sanders..  November 14, 2007
• Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion. By Martin Wolk.  MSNBC News. March 17, 2006
• Bush rejects calls to end war, wants gradual troop withdrawals, By Anne Gearan.  Boston Globe. September 13, 2007
• 110th Congress-Defense Spending Issue Looms,  Michael Moran.  Council on Foreign Relations
• Paying for Iraq's Reconstruction. Congressional Budget Office.  January 4, 2007
• Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Budget Released.  U.S. Department of Defense. February 5, 2007
• Encore, By Linda Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz.  Forth Quarter 2006

Karl Rove and Captain Ahab-Conyers

O'Reilly offers Rove place to hide from subpoena

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org "The Architect," has apparently turned author.  Americans learned of Karl Rove's newest career on January 28, 2009.  During an interview with Fox News Broadcaster, Bill O'Reilly, the long-time Advisor to former President, George W. Bush, presented his novel manuscript to an expectant audience.  Most tuned in to hear whether he would honor a Congressional subpoena.  Few expected a reinterpretation of the epic fable, Moby Dick.  Yet, there it was, a drama delivered.

In this newer version, Congressman John Conyers is cast in the role of the antagonist.  The Chair of the Judiciary Committee plays the part of Captain Ahab.  Mister Rove sees himself as the lovable whale.  Moby-Karl seeks only to defend himself against obsessive attacks from the maniacal Ahab-Conyers.  Whilst the massive mammal quietly glides through calm seas, a fanatical Captain Ahab-Conyers follows.  Captain Ahab's anger and aggressive temperament stirs the waters.  The Chair of the Judiciary Committee creates waves.  Moby-Karl merely moves along.  He bothers no one, and wishes to go about his business, nothing more. Fascinated, Americans listen to Karl Rove spin his yarn.  The writer tells a tale of himself and his nemesis.  The two, Mister Rove explains, have been embroiled in a battle for years. Sailor Ahab-Conyers, envisions Moby-Karl as a giant marine mammal, fierce, and bent on destruction.  He notes Moby-Karl had successfully designed another of his divisive campaigns.   Captain Ahab-Conyers is certain, no one has been able to capture, let alone kill, the massive beast.  However, Skipper-Conyers hopes to change that truth.  He will slaughter the slippery creature.  He will do so legally, with a summons.  The sea Commander Ahab-Conyers, wishes to commence with a Congressional investigation.  It seems clear to him, Moby-Karl will use his political influence to alter the composition of the Justice Department.   Moby-Karl observes the Congressman-Captain is obsessed.  The massive mammal knows not why.  Captain Ahab-Conyers' only objective is vengeance.  Moby-Karl claims the sailor is determined to do the innocent Cetacea in. As the dramatist explains, the two had a chance encounter long ago.  Then, the largest ocean creature, Moby-Karl, smashed Conyers-Ahab's boat.  He was under attack.  Certainly, anyone would understand, he could do nothing but fight for his life.  The alleged "monster" bit the implacable Captain.  Conyers-Ahab lost his leg in the scuffle.   It was all "innocent" Moby-Karl cries out.  What could he do when confronted with the delusional assailant, Conyers-Ahab?  The Cetacea was defenseless.  The sea Commander had an arsenal of weaponry and a crew.  Members of Congress offered manual assistance and moral support.  The playwright Rove poses; Moby-Karl only had his own inherent compass to guide him, at least that was how Author Herman Melville presented the story in his script. In this newer version, Moby-Karl has a capable team too.  The whale has a wily swarm of legal eagles to assist him in any battle.  On the air, the mammoth marine mammal revealed the reality within the newer narrative.  Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration. On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter (.pdf) to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin.  The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House.  The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove-even after he leaves office. The plot thickens.  In this story, the gentle giant Moby-Karl will not be the cause of Captain Ahab-Conyers demise.  Self-destructive tendencies will not determine the fate of a fixated Judicial Committee Chair.  If he fails in his quest, Chairman Ahab-Conyers will not have only himself to blame.  The onus will be one he shares with a slew of shrewd attorneys who found their way around earlier edicts such as the one offered In September 2008. United States District Judge John Bates ruled, "The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context," inscribed Bates, a Bush appointee. "In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity." Judge Bates, who may be cast as the Ishmael character in Rove's yarn, rejected the notion President Bush put forward.  The arbitrator ruled blanket executive privileges are not possible.  Perhaps, Mister Rove, did not consider this character when he re-wrote Herman Melville's work.  In the revised text, it seems "The Architect" omitted the Judge's recent decision .   In his manuscript, Romanticist Rove chose to reflect on rhetoric that is more hopeful.  He recalls the original plot.  The blameless Moby Dick survived.  No number of sailors, recruited to assist Captain Ahab, helped him bring down a beast who hurt others only in defense of himself.  Writer, Karl Rove draws on the analogy.  He muses Legislators who support Conyers will not be able to carry out the Chairman's plan.   This modern-day whale has defenders unlike any the Melville Cetacea could conceive of.  Moby-Karl Rove has a lawyer, Robert Luskin.  The legal representative has helped to expand the legend.  He was able to secure a stay of execution.   A letter penned by Lawyer Ruskin convinced Captain, Chairman Conyers to postpone a response to the subpoena issued by the Judiciary Committee. Thus, once more Captain Ahab-Conyers, and the American people are left to ask.  Is justice delayed also justice denied? No one knows for sure.  The people cannot be sure at this point in the plot.  Did Karl Rove cast the curious character, Barack Obama?  Could the Author, Rove, the re-writer of history, make provisions for the majesty of a man not included in Melville's narrative.  Will Moby Dick again live on?  Might Karl Rove continue to exist with Executive Privileges, or, this time, will the sea creature fall victim to circumstances unforeseen?  Stay tuned for the sequel to this epic melodrama bought to you by "The Architect!" References for an neo-conservative Romanticism novel . . .  Karl Rove. Bill O'Reilly.  The O'Reilly Factor.  Fox News. Moby Dick.  Online Literature. House Judiciary Chairman Subpoenas Karl Rove. Transcript.  Fox News. January 26, 2009 Will Karl Rove Ever Testify?  By Eric Etheridge.  The New York Times.  January 30, 2008 President Bush. Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 White House.  Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Karl Rove. Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Fielding Letter to Rove. Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Fielding Letter to Miers.  Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Letter to Rove Says He Has 'Absolute Immunity' and Can Ignore Subpoena, By Jason Leopold.  The Intelligence Daily. January 30, 2009 Buying Obama Time, Congress Delays Rove Subpoena Deadline, By Zachary Roth.  Talking Points Memo. January 30, 2009, 5:48PM Conyers to Rove: Time to Talk About US Attorneys, By Zachary Roth.  Talking Points Memo. January 26, 2009, 6:25PM Letter from House Judiciary Committee To Rove Lawyer Agreeing To Subpoena Delay.  January 30, 2009

Republican Rant; "Democrats Deregulate"

  Attempted Citizen Arrest of Karl Rove

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org Today, citizens of this country are confronted with a record realized under the Bush Administration.  Karl Rove, "The Architect" of the Bush campaign claims no responsibility for the cause or effect of his chief candidate's actions.  Nor does he acknowledge that his Grand Old Party might be answerable for accounts receivable.  However, others, those common folks less connected to the current Administration might disagree.  In an ominous moment, on a San Francisco stage Americans were given the opportunity to look into the future and remember earlier days and dictums.

In an address to the Mortgage Brokers Association citizens had an opportunity to hear Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and John McCain all at once, although only one of these fine fellows sat on the platform and professed his truth, all were present in the philosophies expressed.  The theme was one each has adopted.  "So the regulators in 2005 were the Republicans, and the deregulators, the anti-regulators, the let-them-do-anything-they-want crowd, were all Democrats, with all due respect,"

"The Architect" spoke and the moneyed audience, mesmerized by the magnificence of this individual who was able to change the dynamics, through deregulation, in a consumer-driven a nation, listened, except for the few who feared the past would indeed be prologue.

A few women attempted to perform a citizens' arrest.  The well-dressed Janine Boneparth mounted the stage where Karl Rove sat, and strove to handcuff the political guru.  She told the boisterous and bold "Bush Brain" he had committed treason.  She intended to take him into custody.

Janine, an average American could not forget the loans, credit, payments, and profits all unregulated that adversely affected millions of lives.  On more than one occasion, she heard, as she did on this day; Karl Rove admits, a lack of oversight is, responsible for the economic crisis that evolved under the auspices of George W. Bush.  Yet, she marveled, the man, who some say, was the mind behind the Bush White House façade, accepts no quilt.  Karl Rove said, Democrats done this country in.

This person who many believe is the master of manipulation, does not place the onus for the fiscal demise on a majority Republican Congress, which governed for most of the last two-terms.  Nor does the personal chum of the President, George W. Bush receive any wrath.  Certainly, Rove concurs, as Senator John McCain says on the campaign stump, as George W. once did, the Grand Old Party President is not responsible for laws loosened for the financial industry.

Lest "the Architect" and Americans forget, when it comes to deregulation, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and John McCain were and indeed are best friends.  In February 2008, Karl Rove announced that he had contributed $2300 to the then presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.

When asked of the donation, potential President McCain said he has "always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics," The perhaps, soon-to-be Commander-In-chief McCain refused to condemn campaign tactics Mister Rove used to diminish and destroy candidate McCain in the 2000 South Carolina race.  Months ago, and likely now, Arizona Senator McCain proclaimed, "Nobody denies he's [Karl Rove is] one of the smartest political minds in America.  I'd be glad to get his advice.  Perhaps, John McCain did seek the former Presidential Advisor Rove's counsel

Americans are led to believe that apparently, all those years in the Oval Office did not soil the hands of the Bush Brain, the Texas oilman, or their accomplice in the Senate, John McCain.  While each endorsed deregulation for decades, in the present day, the three claim to have played no role in the process of oversight reduction.  

Countless among the common folk see through the veil that protects the current President, the potential Commander-In-Chief, and Karl Rove.  Citizens who chose to be more conscious and conscientious have acted on what they believe is truth for quite some time.  Karl Rove, away from the  safety and sanctuary of the White House, which protected him as Deputy Chief of Staff, met many a countryman or women who thought he must be placed behind bars for transgressions against the State and its people.  

Since August 2007, "The Architect" has not been a public servant, or an Advisor to the President; yet, the American people do not forget the adversarial influence the "Bush Brain" had on official policy.  Many, trust even as a political pundit, an analyst for Fox News, and writer for the Wall Street Journal, this man has clout.  Amongst the constituency, there is a belief that Karl Rove can and does unconstructively change the culture, the climate, and the country.  His rhetoric may reap lucrative rewards; nonetheless, numerous have faith the man is a crook.  Hence, common folks try to take "Turd Blossom" into custody.  These civilians must not yet have heard the message; the Democrats did the deeds that cause such grave calamities. 

On March 9, Rove gave a speech -- the fee was a reported $40,000 -- at the University of Iowa.  What was described as a hostile crowd greeted his remarks, often interrupting with shouted questions.  Replied Rove: 
You got a chance to ask your questions later and make your stupid statements.  Let me make mine.

Two people tried to make a citizens' arrest of Rove for his crimes as a member of the Bush administration.  At one point, according to CNN, someone in the audience yelled, "Can we have our $40,000 back?"  To which the man sometimes known as "Bush's Brain," replied, "No you can't."

No one can recover funds from the man or men who some say stole our nation's sanity, although many have tried.  Nor can they apprehend "The Architect" of America's demise.  Secret Service surrounds George W. Bush and John Sidney McCain.  For now, there is no chance these men will be brought down.

Any who try to arrest the more accessible White House advisor will likely be greeted with a Rovian reprisal.  A denial, a declaration such as 'the Democrats done us in,' or a dig to the abdomen might accompany an attempt to detain the infamous "Bush Brain."

Janine Boneparth learned this lesson on October 21, 2008, at the Mortgage Bankers Association's annual convention.  Karl Rove elbowed Boneparth away.  She was then escorted off the stage.  Karl Rove acted as though nothing occurred.  He continued to deliver his message and debate former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.

The true demons, Karl Rove declared are the Democrats. While the Progressives worked to reinstate some sense of regulation, often their efforts were obstructed.  The Conservatives intent on a free market, a for profit society, thwarted attempts to reform a system so flawed as to cause century's old financial institutions to crumble.  Americans, or Karl Rove, need only look at the record of the current leader of the Republican Party to affirm the veracity of what was and is.  An assessment may help Misters Rove, Bush, and McCain to remember; the Republicans opted for deregulation 

"I Don't Think Anyone Who Wants To Increase The Burden Of Government Regulation And Higher Taxes Has Any Real Understanding Of Economics." During a McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, John McCain said, "When we come out of this recession and we will because I believe that the fundamentals of our economy are good ... Sen. Clinton [a Democrat] wants the government to make the decisions for you on your health care, I want the families to make the decisions on their health care. I don't think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country." [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, ]

The implication or allegation is the Democrats will do America wrong again, just as they have done in the world according to Karl.  Mister Rove, Senator McCain, persons who support Grand Old Party, and surely the President proclaim Progressives posit restraint on a free enterprise system.  Contrary to the recent claims of Karl Rove that Democrats deregulate, John McCain states, Liberals will lead this country down the path of bigger government.  At least that was what Senator McCain swore to then before the bailout.

During this town hall meeting, Senator McCain expressed his empathy.  He recognized Americans were hurting.  He spoke of how hard it is for the average Joe or Jane to survive in  times such as these.  Damn those Democrats.  

As the Presidential aspirant assessed the economic crisis, he surmised that he had a solution, much as George W. Bush did, and the current President's Brain, Karl Rove did and does.

Senator McCain stated his deep conviction, as he had months earlier, before he voted for a mega-billion dollar government bailout for big-businesses.  Back in the day, before it was unpopular to be a Republican or deregulator  John McCain avowed. 

"Let's Reduce Regulation." While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, "I'm asked all the time are we in a recession or not in a recession. And I don't know the answer to that because it's kind of a technical term . . .I do not believe we should raise your taxes. I think it would be the worst thing we could do. And that means to me I think the tax cuts need to be made permanent. When you've got a bad economy, the worst thing you can do is increase people's tax burden. Let's reduce it. Let's reduce regulation."  . . .

"We Need To Return To The Reagan Years . . . We Need Less Regulation." As shown on PBS's "Washington Week," John McCain said, "We need to return to the Reagan years. We need to have fiscal conservatism. We need less government. We need less regulation. We need to end of spending spree which has eroded our base of Republican support."

The words reverberated. The sentiments were consistent with those oft affirmed by Republicans, Chief executive Bush, and the guru, Karl Rove.  Were is the operative word.  When Americans were led to believe freer markets would benefit them, the Rove and McCain message was Democrats were wrong to impose regulations.  Now that the population has realized a harsh reality, profits do not trickle down the tables have turned.  Rove, his friend George W., and fellow Republicans such as Senator McCain revel in regulation.   Witness the recent vote for a $700 Billion dollar rescue plan.  President Bush, Republican appointees such as Treasury Secretary Paulson, and of course, John McCain endorse more government and greater restrictions.  

Blame the Democrats for what you have done also works for the Grand Old Party when wizardry is necessary.  Perchance this theory explains the recent vote for a "bailout." In an interview with Mike Wallace, John McCain elucidates.  The senior Senator from Arizona helps Americans to understand, the constructs of deregulation, and Socialism.  The Presidential aspirant envisions no dichotomy, or does he? 

McCain: So is one of the tenets of socialism redistribution of the wealth? Not just socialism - a lot of other liberal and left wing philosophies - redistribution of the wealth? I don't believe in it. I believe in wealth creation by Joe the Plumber.

Wallace: But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that's being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn't that socialism?

McCain: That is reacting to a crisis that's due to greed and excess in Washington.

And what this administration is doing wrong, and what Paulson is doing wrong, is not going out and buying up home loan mortgages, home mortgages, and giving people new mortgages at the new value of their home so they can stay in their home.

They're bailing out the banks. They're bailing out these institutions.

Wallace: But you voted for that.

McCain: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank. . . .

But the point is that, of course, when a - when a - that's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and when time of crisis to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people.

Well-done Senator McCain.  The prose of the now "populace" political pundit and the potential President reveal a rabid reason for citizens unrest, or desire to arrest the former Bush "advisor."  

As, "The Architect" perchance crafts another campaign.  Another Presidential aspirant is directed to "deregulate" as Rove reveals Republicans do or do not.  After a careful assessment of the facts, folly, and flippant reality Karl Rove and John McCain present, Americans might muse as Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell did. Perhaps we are as Dorothy in the Land of Oz.  The man behind the curtain, and the gent who stood in front of it for oh so many years, join John McCain as he now leads in the pledge. 

"Less Government, Lower Taxes, Less Regulation, Safer America Is What I Can Give America . . . I can make a case that a less government, lower taxes, less regulation, safer America is what I can give America. But I don't underestimate the size of the challenge" . . . or the vastness of the veils needed to disguise the decree of deregulation.

Mister Rove was "Right."  Democrats [sic] such as John McCain [?] have foisted a lack of directives and direction onto Americans.  Some may say "G-d bless America."  As the Presidential Election nears, citizens might consider, if attempts to arrest Karl Rove or restrain John McCain fail, then "Lord help America. The Grand Old Party will have  its way with us once again.  

References for Republican Regulations and Democrats Deregulation . . . 

• 'I'm Always for Less Regulation. Wall Street Journal. March 3, 2008
• McCain's Economy Platform: ?Big Tax Cuts, With Caveats, By Bob Davis.  Wall Street Journal. March 3, 2008
• Karl Rove in SF: Protestor attempts citizen's arrest, By Johanna Neuman.  The Los Angeles Times. October 21, 2008
• How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis, By Kevin Hassett.  Bloomberg. September 22, 2008
• John McCain: Town Hall 04/23/08  YouTube.
• Washington Week, Public Broadcasting Services. January 25, 2008
• CNN, "Ballot Bowl", March 15, 2008
• CNN Newsroom. Cable News Network. February 14, 2008
• McCain Embrace Rove.  Huffington News. February 10, 2008
• Alec Baldwin Points Fingers At Barney Frank & Democrats for Fiscal Crisis, By Noel Sheppard.  Free Republic. October 5, 2008
• Bush Officials Urge Swift Action on Rescue Powers, By Edmund L. Andrews. The New York Times. September 20, 2008
• Transcript: John McCain on 'FOX News Sunday.  Fox News.  Monday, October 20, 2008

Bailouts Blaze; Exuberance Explodes

Bailout failure 'will cause US crash’

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Never spend your money before you have it.
~ Thomas Jefferson

I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Tis Sunday, September 28, 2008. The weather is warm and word on the streets is warmer. Fire from Hades, fervor, and fury heat the debate heard on the streets and in the halls of Congress. Businesses fail. Banks do too. Bailouts are planned and these too falter. Those in the White House are red hot with concern. People in Treasury Department and within Secretary Henry Paulson's office sense the burn. Many fear they too will be scorched. The flames are intense on the Hill. Yet, on American avenues many feel, while inflamed by the rhetoric, chilled at the prospect that this immediate need for a bailout is but a hoax or perchance, just hype.

Citizens in this country have been lied to too often; particularly, the public believes, the current Administration has been irresponsible with facts and finances. Candidates and Congress have delivered a fair share of untruths. Tycoons, most accept, fudge the numbers. Countless conclude, there is no one, in government, or in corporate offices, they can trust. Hence, when confronted with the claim, American taxpayers must bailout Wall Street, most say, and what of Main Street? What of me?

The electorate fumes. Even the apathetic are steamed. Big-businesses will receive bailouts while the poor wallow in economic waste. What is a person to do?

History might tell us we can do nothing. Rome burned and Nero fiddled. That is often the case when people are provided with fruits of folly in hopes they might forget financial woes. "The fundamentals of the economy are (still) strong," is uttered to appease Americans and perchance, those throughout the globe.

Today, and throughout this week we might recall the recession, the correction that preceded the perceived bump. The year was 1929, near four score ago. The month was October, and the date was the 27th. While America had realized many fiscal depressions in years prior, none was as the crash heard on that solemn Thursday afternoon. Few expected what amounted to a sonic boom. The smoke rose from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The fire on that day singed portfolios and people. The rumbles and rubble reminded many of the ruins of Pompeii. Some could not bear the high temperature of an explosive economy.

At first, economists and leaders thought this was a mild bump, perhaps merely a correction of the market, or in any case, no worse than the recession the nation suffered after World War I.

Numbers soon proved the optimists incorrect. The depression steadily worsened. By spring of 1933, when FDR took the oath of office, unemployment had risen from 8 to 15 million (roughly 1/3 of the non-farmer workforce) and the gross national product had decreased from $103.8 billion to $55.7 billion. Forty percent of the farms in Mississippi were on the auction block on FDR's inauguration day. Although the depression was world wide, no other country except Germany reached so high a percentage of unemployed.

The poor were hit the hardest. By 1932, Harlem had an unemployment rate of 50 percent and property owned or managed by blacks fell from 30 percent to 5 percent in 1935. Farmers in the Midwest were doubly hit by economic downturns and the Dust Bowl. Schools, with budgets shrinking, shortened both the school day and the school year.

The breadth and depth of the crisis made it the Great Depression.

No one knew how best to respond to the crisis.

Nor does anyone today. On boulevards and in banks, citizen question why do we need a bailout for big-businesses. What of the common folk? Who will or has ever assisted the little guys and gals. All these questions and more are apt. Where were the regulators, and what ever became of regulations?

No one wondered, not even those in the well-educated Middle Class when they could cash in on high home prices. Few fretted when it was easy to secure a loan. Brokers and borrowers could live in the lap of luxury when no one was watching the safe or our fiscal security.

It was fun, to burn billions, while it lasted. Now, as Americans sit on piles of ash, once called McMansions or glorious abodes, too many millions weep for what they were happy to have wrought. Credit card companies call and demand; they must collect on the debt. Americans whimper. "I cannot pay." My foundation, my funds were burned when all was set ablaze.

When life was good Americans bought the oratory from the Oval Office. People purchased businesses, stocks, bonds, clothing, and any capital that could boost a sense of wellness. Americans spent . . . it all, and on what. Inflated images. Irrational exuberance was contagious. It spread as a wild fire in a forest full of tinder dry trees. Yet, now the Bush's are bare. Everyone has his or her hand out. "Alms for the poor" is not the cry. "Alms for the rich is what citizens are told will help. People read.

Bailout failure 'will cause US crash’
The US stock market could suffer a devastating crash with shares losing a third of their value this week if Hank Paulson’s financial bailout plan fails, US Treasury officials have warned.

By Tim Shipman in Washington and Edmund Conway 

Telegraph
28 September 2008, 10:14AM BST

The financial system could face a meltdown of 1929 proportions unless US politicians succeed in their efforts for a $700bn rescue scheme, experts added.

The warning came as Republicans and Democrats met in Washington for a rare weekend debating session to attempt to seal agreement on the contentious plan, aimed at preventing a long-lasting recession in the US.

Officials close to Paulson are privately painting a far bleaker portrait of the fragility of the global economy than that advanced by President George W Bush in his televised address last week.

One Republican said that the message from government officials is that “the economy is dropping into the john.” He added: “We could see falls of 3,000 or 4,000 points on the Dow [the New York market that currently trades at around 11,000]. That could happen in just a couple of days.

“What’s being put around behind the scenes is that we’re looking at 1930s stuff. We’re looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It’s going to be really, really nasty.” . . .

Peter Spencer, economic adviser to the Ernst & Young Item Club, said: “This is the time you have to bail people out and ask questions later. It is very difficult to see how the US banking system would survive without that.

This has the potential to make 1929 look like a walk in the park.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said: “We hope sometime [Sunday] evening we can announce some kind of agreement in principle. We may not have another day.”

Rebel Republicans - who see Paulson’s proposals as socialism by the back door - were warned they will be responsible for causing an “amazing catastrophe” if they continue to oppose the plans, which would see taxpayers buy up the bad debts of failing banks. Instead they want an insurance scheme for banks, which would spread the cost to private enterprise.

Would it be that insurers could ensure, people will not do as they have done and ignore all cautions. In the past, professors preached, "Remember the Alamo," Today, teachers beckon, "Recall the demise of American International Group (AIG)," an insurance company who fell only a week ago.

A person considered a prominent and extremely prosperous investor attempted to teach the world of what no one wished to see. Early in May 2008, Entrepreneur, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman, Warren Buffett warned us the winds from the warm blaze would scorch all life on the planet today. He said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, we are in for a "long, deep recession," "Perhaps not in the sense that economists would define it. But the people are already feeling the effects. It will be deeper and last longer than many think."

Sadly, Few heard him. People were off shopping. Most paid for purchases with fire. Sales, while robust, were often transactions that led to greater debt. For decades now, people have preferred to buy now and pay later. Only now do Americans experience an economic pinch.

Awestruck by the economic wreckage, people ask why. Why me? Why now; and a few astute monetary masters say, "Why not?" Economists wonder why is it that humans do not learn from history. People look back after they are burned. The question might not be what caused the fire or the frenzy. That answer is easily found. Humans, flawed and filled with the foible of avarice wish to accumulate what they cannot afford. Perchance, the query could be, who or how often will people pursue a bailout? When will debt not be an option and when will humans guard against avariciousness?

References for Fiscal Resources . . .

Increase in Area Retail Vacancies Is Modest, By Ylan Q. Mui. Washington Post. Monday, August 4, 2008; D01

Stocks Fall as Bailout Plan Falters. Washington Post. September 28, 2008

U.S. Forces WaMu Sale As Bank Founders, Historic Failure Prompts Deal With J.P. Morgan. By Binyamin Appelbaum. Washington Post. 
Friday, September 26, 2008; A01

Treasury Secretary's Bailout Request Compared To Spam Scam, By Sarah Lai Stirland. Wired. September 23, 2008

Bush and Candidates to Meet on Bailout, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David M. Herszenhorn. The New York Times. September 25, 2008

Trust But Verify, By James K. Galbraith and William K. Black. The Nation. September 23, 2008

Bipartisan Support for Wall St. Rescue Plan Emerges, By Brian Knowlton and David M. Herszenhorn. The New York Times. September 22, 2008

Analysis: Credit crisis erodes faith in Washington, By Deb Riechmann. The Associated Press. Saturday, September 27, 2008; 5:46 PM

The Great Depression. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers.

World War I. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers.

FDR. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers.

Everybody Calm Down. A Government Hand In the Economy Is as Old as the Republic. By Robert J. Shiller. Washington Post. Sunday, September 28, 2008; Page B01

Bailout failure 'will cause US crash.’ By Tim Shipman in Washington and Edmund Conway. Telegraph. September 28, 2008

'Germans Know Something About Business.' Interview. Der Spiegel. May 28, 2008

Economy Fitful, Americans Start to Pay as They Go, By Peter S. Goodman. The New York Times. February 5, 2008

More Americans using credit cards to stay afloat, By Kathy Chu. USA Today. March 30, 2008

How AIG's Federal Bailout Affects Policyholders' Payouts, By Kimberly Lankford. Kiplinger's Personal Finance. Washington Post. Sunday, September 28, 2008; Page F03

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 28, 2008 at 01:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Business, Capitalism and Competition, Congress and Bush, Corporate Criminals, Corporate Profits, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wexler Waxes Practical Reasons for Impeachment

American Hero: Rep. Robert Wexler calls for Impeachment hearings

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

In an region filled with inert sand, in the Southern most State of Florida, there is an oasis. This breath of fresh air moves through the trees in Palm Beach County and in the halls of Congress in Washington, District of Columbia. A man who envisions "a more perfect Union" emanates enthusiasm for the ethical principles that define the democracy he loves. He stands solid in his belief; a nation founded in freedom for all its people cannot let a corrupt authority take these liberties away. This spirited being has a name and a title, Congressman Robert Wexler.

On July 26, 2008, Representative Wexler once again expressed his worry for what has remained "off the table." When asked is impeachment too little, too late, he said, "The crimes of this Administration must be revealed and Bush and Cheney must be held accountable." The Congressman fears a commitment to the Constitution has waned amongst his fellow legislators, and perhaps within the citizenry. Hence, Robert Wexler submitted a call to action. He requests Americans consider the history of censure and what occurs when Executive power is abused.

Many of the people in Wexler's district exclaim with glee as they observe the vigor of this visionary, as do advocates of impeachment throughout the nation. However, an equal number within the electorate express dissent to the opinion, prosecution is essential. Some think we can wait, or as a nation, we have waited too long. Others say a trial will trivialize lawmakers. A petty and partisan focus is futile. Nonetheless, Robert Wexler is not dissuaded. For him, democracy cannot be forsaken.

The Congressman who identifies himself, as a Fire Breathing Liberal learned to survive and thrive in a Conservative State, as well as in the Halls of Congress.

Principles Robert Wexler adopted long ago have helped him to succeed. In his youth, the Congressman realized that many people may prefer to be passive, particularly where censure is considered.

Detractors of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee into whether President George W. Bush has committed impeachable offenses contend that no questions should be asked until conclusive incriminating evidence is either volunteered up by the suspects themselves or appears before them by spontaneous combustion. In other words, they say, no inquiry should commence until proof of the president's guilt has been unearthed—proof which would, of course, make the inquiry superfluous!

They may think it easier to speak of little of what concerns them. Congressman Wexler cannot sit quietly when he witnesses what he thinks is injustice. He understands and personifies the democratic adage, "every vote and every voice counts." Experience has taught Robert Wexler each person matters. He muses that any of us may not know what will move us; as he inscribed, "The reality is that sometimes issues find" us. Representative Wexler contends when a problem presents itself, people must address it.

Today, the unavoidable need to impeach the two criminals who currently occupy the White House consumes Representative Robert Wexler, and with good reason. Thirty-five Articles of Impeachment scream for consideration.

Wexler has heard the call. He has also listened to those who reject the notion. They say, "Impeachment proceedings would be a partisan effort." It is too late to censure George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. There is not enough evidence. To prove high crimes and misdemeanors. Hearings would be a distraction. Undeterred, Congressman Wexler reminds us.

This is not a partisan issue: Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the Executive, and it cannot allow this attack on our powers to go unanswered. To ignore these actions is tantamount to a willful concession of our rights as legislators. No Democrat, Republican, or Independent should allow Congress' powers to be so undermined.

Nor should Congress allow the calendar to determine whether we should ignore abuses of office. No President should be given immunity and free-reign just because there are only a few months left in their term.

Impeachment Hearings can be held very quickly – in a manner of weeks.

Although today we don't have the votes to impeach today – neither did the Judiciary Committee investigating President Nixon until AFTER hearings were held and the truth was revealed. We must put a halt to this historic Administrative power grab.

Congress has not lived up to its promises, and we can no longer credibly claim that impeachment would upset our agenda. Our agenda has not withstood presidential vetoes or senatorial filibusters. If we do nothing, this session will be remembered for our conceding the rightful and constitutional powers of Congress, and little more.

The Congressman from South Florida offers a laudable verity. Robert Wexler, heeds the caution set forth by Conservative Constitutional Scholar Bruce Fein. If we do not impeach President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney then we will have allowed for an awful precedence, one that cannot easily be undone. If we as a nation continue to accept the practices of a President drunk with power, our republic will be perchance permanently crippled. Despite all the hype and hope that finally, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has taken action, the truth is, an arraignment or even an adequate investigation remains stalled. Indeed . . .

"This is not an impeachment hearing," Conyers felt obliged to remind everybody.

"Maybe," proposed Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), "what we're here for is something called impeachment lite. . . . We're sort of in that Never-Neverland of accusing the president of impeachable offenses but not taking actions to impeach him, which I guess impugns him but does not impeach him, but maybe it has the same effect in the court of public opinion."

There was more truth to that than Democratic leaders could admit in public. . .

"Let's restrain ourselves, please," Chairman Conyers counseled.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) also played to the gallery with his eye-for-an-eye logic: "If lying about consensual sexual activity fits the bill for impeachment, then certainly lying to the American people about the reason for invading Iraq . . . qualifies as an official -- excuse me -- as an impeachable offense." The crowd applauded on cue.

"I am inclined to remind everyone," Conyers intoned again, "please refrain from any actions of support or opposition."

Thus, the official word is that we, the American people and our supposed Representatives, must refrain, abstain, desist, and decline to vote or voice our objection to what has occurred in the Oval Office. Chairman Conyers claims that his colleagues and constituents must forfeit our Constitutional right to censure an Administration that commits countless high crimes and misdemeanors. Collectively, we need to be calm, while the crooks and liars at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue destroy our democracy. Perhaps, it is time to again consider why . . .

Wexler Wants Real Impeachment Hearing Now

Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2008-07-26 04:59.

Today, in the Judiciary Committee, we held a full day of hearings that focused entirely on the crimes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and featured testimony by Rep. Dennis Kucinich regarding his Articles of Impeachment against President Bush.

This is a great start – but I am far from satisfied. Following statements by Chairman John Conyers and the Ranking Republicans, I opened with a forceful call for genuine and immediate Impeachment Hearings for President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

The crimes of this Administration must be revealed and Bush and Cheney must be held accountable. Without Impeachment Hearings, we cannot break through the blatant and unprecedented efforts by President Bush to shut down legitimate oversight by this Congress.

As you know, President Bush has inappropriately and repeatedly invoked Executive Privilege to keep Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and other White House officials from complying with legal, Congressional Subpoenas.

I believe the only appropriate remedy is to hold Impeachment Hearings.

While Inherent Contempt might dislodge some testimony or at least guarantee the appearance of witnesses, the larger concern is the President's outrageous abuse of Executive Privilege.

We have been down this road before: in 1973, Articles of Impeachment were introduced against President Nixon after he illegally tried to use Executive Privilege to bury evidence of his wrongdoings.

I fully recognize the significance of holding Impeachment Hearings, and I have not come to this position lightly – but when the President of the United States takes actions that amount to high crimes, we are left with no other option than to seek his impeachment and removal from office.

Our government was founded upon a delicate balance of powers – whereby one branch carefully checks the other branches to prevent a dangerous consolidation of power. President Bush's actions have totally destroyed this careful balance. Without these checks and balances, the President could run roughshod over any law and turn us into a nation...
...where wars can be waged based on lies
...and laws can be rewritten without the input of Congress or the American people.

Congress must end this disturbing pattern of behavior, and in these circumstances, the only option left is impeachment . . .

I am unbowed in my determination for Impeachment Hearings and I know you feel the same way.
Encourage your friends to stay updated and demonstrate their support by signing up at www.wexlerwantshearings.com

Congressman Robert Wexler

Fire breathing or a breath of fresh air. Representative Wexler asks us to look at our history, and what might prove a perilous future. He asks Americans to consider the consequences if we do not censure an abusive Administration. Robert Wexler pleads, Americans take action. Support those few who wish to restore the Constitution and bring power back to the people. Perhaps, citizens might wish to peruse the thirty-five Articles of Impeachment, just as this Florida forward-thinker has. Robert Wexler requests that citizens, be they :
Democrats, Republicans or Independents, walk forth and breathe deeply. Let us remember why we love a democracy.

Investigation and Impeachment . . .

Congressman Robert Wexler.

Is Impeachment Too Little, Too Late? Less Than Six Months Before Bush Leaves Office, Partisan Debate Erupts. By Tom Giusto. ABC News. July 25, 2008

Fire Breathing Liberal. By Robert Wexler

Wexler Wants Real Impeachment Hearing Now, Submitted by davidswanson. AfterDowningStreet. Saturday, 2008-07-26 04:59

Chapter 15; The Paper Chase: Making Your Vote Count, By Robert Wexler. OpEd News. June 22, 2008

Zogby poll: Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping. Zogny International.

Conyers: "This Is Not An Impeachment Hearing," But Republicans Say Otherwise, By John Bresnahan. CBS News. July 25, 2008

Kinda Sorta Impeaching the President, By Dana Milbank. Washington Post. Saturday, July 26, 2008; Page A03

Articles of Impeachment. Presented by Congressman Dennis Kucinich. June 10, 2008

Carts Before Horse, Impeachment Inquiry First, Ask Questions Later. By Bruce Fein. Slate. August 31, 2007

Impeach Cheney, By Bruce Fein. Slate. June 27, 2007

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 26, 2008 at 05:58 PM in 'Regime Change' , American Patriotism, Bush 43 Administration, Congress, Congress and Bush, Impeach GW Bush | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Farewell To Privacy. Hello To Arms

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear. Enemies are everywhere. Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes. They talk to us on our telephones. Some sashay in through our computers. "Evil doers" are ubiquitous in the United States. Our open society places the public at risk. We, the people, must defend ourselves. Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means. The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms. Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for. In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation. In the United States we say, "Farewell to privacy. Hello to arms."

Absorbed in fear, Americans have detached themselves from the original intent of the United States Constitution. We the people have embraced weaponry and rejected our right to privacy. The populace, with assistance from Congress willingly chose to forfeit the Fourth Amendment. authentic freedoms were disemboweled. If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) stands, and there is no reason to think a Bill signed into law by the President of the United States and each House of Congress would not be fully implemented, the press and the people will no longer have unfettered access to information. Nor can they disseminate data without intense scrutiny. Chris Hedges, a twenty year veteran Foreign Correspondent for The New York Times, speaks to a truth that he lived and now fears will die.

The new FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance. It allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The court will not be told specifics about who will be wiretapped, which means the law provides woefully inadequate safeguards to protect innocent people whose communications are caught up in the government's dragnet surveillance program.

The law, passed under the guise of national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country. There is no question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans and those overseas. Those communications can be stored indefinitely and disseminated, not just to the U.S. government but to other governments.

This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists, and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours. It will hang like the sword of Damocles over all who dare to defy the official versions of events. It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

Trepidation has long been a tool for intimidation. A frightened fellow or female will happily adopt a policy or a pistol to relieve apprehension. Perhaps, that it why after the events of September 11, 2001, Americans, panicked and the power elite prospered. As the Twin Towers fell, the people cried out for protection. Congress gleefully approved the Patriot Act; and as a nation, we pursued a course of action that was and is contrary to Constitutional principles. Even early on, Americans said, "Farewell to privacy. Hello to arms."

As the war thundered on, the public worked to avoid greater anxiety. People purchased more guns for personal safety sake. They feared the government might not be able to shield them from all potential harms. Indeed, this attitude has been ubiquitous in American history. The Wild West outlook often overrides logic or Constitutional law. In America, there have been many Summers of Separation.

When humans think weaponry is the solution, as they do in a country where there are ninety guns per every one hundred U.S. residents, they will grab a pistol when faced with any problem. The availability of petroleum has become a paradox. Prices for fuel and food are high. The cost for shelter is higher. Homes are in foreclosure. Job security is but a myth. Employer provided benefits are elusive. The cost for Health Care coverage is out of reach; yet, the gun that could end it all is close.

Immigration is also an issue that irks many in America. When migrants flee to the States in search of financial freedom, the native-born feel further threatened. The divide between the races causes much resentment. Income inequity offers reason for rage. Economic slavery causes tempers to rise. In 2008, the effect of all these predicaments troubles the populace. The American public is aggravated. Currently, people feel less safe, less strong, and more scared. Millions ponder. Force can seem the great equalizer. Hence, gun ownership is great. The Small Arms Survey, released in August 2007 reveals Americans have a ready arsenal.

With fewer than five per cent of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns.

The report went on to state that the common folk are better equipped with weaponry than law enforcement or the military might be. Civilians who reside in cities, suburbs, and those who dwell in the countryside possess the vast majority of total firearms owned in the United States. Citizens in a country built on might will use firepower to retain what they believe is their right. If they are refused the privilege to pack heat, Americans will seek recourse by any means.

Special-forces policeman Heller, a resident of Washington District of Columbia certainly did. The lawman, aware that anyone on the street might be armed sought solace in a piece of hardware. Mister Heller applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home; the District denied his request since, at the time, the District of Columbia forbade civilian handgun ownership. Disgruntled, and prepared for battle, as Americans often are, Officer Heller filed a legal suit. He stated his Second Amendment Rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed.

A review of the actual Second Amendment which states Americans have the Right to "bear arms in times when a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State," or research might have led the Justices to decide otherwise. Nonetheless, in a summer steeped with separation from acumen, the Supreme Court ruled civilian gun ownership is a right.

The Administration, policymakers, and pundits think the decision wise. After all, it is a dangerous world. Americans need to be prepared to fight the ominous foe Fifteen years ago, near half of American households understood this. People built arsenals. Thirty-one percent of adult Americans owned a firearm in 1993. Still, that armory was not enough to protect the citizenry from attack. Years later, the munitions stored, while likely larger, were no better protection.

• According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.



• The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Crimes occurred outside the home, on the streets of any given community and , just as predicted, some transgressions traumatized those within four walls. Few Americans ponder the weightier aspects of artillery in the American home.

Earlier this year (1997), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a mind-boggling report showing that the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate for children was 16 times higher than the combined rate for children in 25 other industrialized countries. Meanwhile, the U.S. child rate of firearm related suicide was 11 times higher. . .

Last year, Congress nearly slashed the budget for the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), which collects and monitors firearm injury data and funds related research as part of its mission. As a result of new funding mandates, CDC this year has been forced to dramatically reduce its firearm-related injury research, and CDC-funded gunshot injury surveillance programs will come to an end in several states.

All this comes at a time when gunshot injuries are expected to soon outstrip automobile accidents as the number one cause of injury death in the U.S., costing an estimated $20 billion yearly in medical costs and lost productivity. Surprisingly little medical research monitors the kinds of firearm injuries that occur or the types of guns used. While the CDC samples unshot injury data from 91 hospitals around the country, there is no comprehensive national surveillance system to accurately track how many people are wounded by guns each year..

Surveillance is the sham used to explain what Federal officials think a greater priority. Those who have more power than a weapon might wield understand the statistics on civilian gun wounds would not please or appease Americans. Information on gun injury might shift the fear factor. If the people are to remain focused on foreign forces, then FISA, the Bill that keeps on giving to the politically powerful, will remain safe, and after all, is that not the truer issue. As foreign correspondent Christopher Hedges reminds us . . .

It (the law) is about using terrorism (at home or abroad) as a pretext to permit wholesale spying and to silence voices that will allow us to maintain an open society.

Thankfully, when prized pistols are in question, it is easy to silence voices of dissent. Physicians were not asked to speak before the Supreme Court shot down a ban on gun sales. Had they had the opportunity Americans and the Justices might have heard . . .

Doctors worried by Supreme Court gun ruling
By Maggie Fox
Reuters
Wed Jul 9, 2008 7:44pm EDT

Washington (Reuters) - Last month's Supreme Court ruling striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital will lead to more deaths and accidental injuries, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine said on Wednesday.

They joined a growing clamor from medical doctors, especially emergency room physicians, who fear a surge of accidental deaths, murders, and suicides if handguns become more easily available than they already are.

The ruling struck down a law in Washington that forbade personal ownership of handguns. The court made explicit, for the first time, that Americans had rights as individuals to own guns.

It won praise from President George W. Bush, Republican presidential candidate John McCain and guns rights advocates (and the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama)

Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted with the 5-4 majority on the decision, said citizens may prefer handguns for home defense because they "can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Perchance, Justice Scalia would be comforted to know, that with thanks to his cohorts in the Legislative Branch, when a city dweller or a rural resident telephones for assistance, he or she can be comforted by the thought the authorities are very close by. Indeed, public officials may be plugged into the individual's phone, and computer. In the Summer of Separation, as powerbrokers in one part of Washington said , "Hello To Arms," those on the other side of the Hill proclaimed, "Farewell To Privacy."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established thirty years ago was all but rescinded. The court system created to help public officials in a crisis is no longer needed to swiftly serve warrants when an investigation is requested. The Constitution has been compromised.

Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers, and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

The President is abundantly pleased. The present Commander-In-Chief is now assured ultimate power. Future potential Chief Executives, one of whom voted to support this conciliatory commitment to telecommunication companies, will forever retain the "right" to be spy on the citizenry. In the Summer of Separation, cognitive and Constitutional dissonance is secure. Congress and the courts assured us of this.

Congress cast aside the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court rescinded the essence of the Second Amendment. Our countrymen are now be free to carry a gun, and chat on an open line with the trigger cocked. Former President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told us “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself." Perhaps, the prominent predecessor could not have predicted a day when citizens would be convinced to embrace fretfulness, to forego freedom, and to sing, "Farewell to privacy. Hello to Arms."

References and Rights . . .

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment. Find Law.

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Find Law.

H. R. 3162, Patriot Act 107th Congress. October 24, 2001

Stop the new FISA; Allowing the new surveillance law to stand would seriously cripple our free press. By Chris Hedges. Los Angeles Times. July 11, 2008

pdf Stop the new FISA; Allowing the new surveillance law to stand would seriously cripple our free press. By Chris Hedges. Los Angeles Times. July 11, 2008

U.S. highest in gun ownership, By Christi Brua. The Daily Collegian. September 12, 2007

Completing the Count. Chapter 2. Small Arms Survey. August 2007

Americans have right to guns under landmark ruling, By James Vicini. Reuters. June 26, 2008

Gun Ownership. Just Facts.

Firearms and Crime Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.

The Gun Battle Over Science. By William Kistner, Frontline. May 1997

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries. Center For Disease Control. February 7, 1997

Doctors worried by Supreme Court gun ruling By Maggie Fox. Reuters. Wednesday, July 9, 2008 7:44pm EDT

Supreme Court shoots down D.C. gun ban, By Michael Doyle and Dave Montgomery. McClatchy Newspapers.

Compromising the Constitution. Editorial. The New York Times. July 9, 2008

George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress, By Glenn Greenwald. Salon. June 19, 2008

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM in American Patriotism, Americana, Bush 43 Administration, Congress, Congress and Bush, Domestic Security, Fear, Guns, Judiciary, National Security, United States Constitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Impeachment, "Off the Table" and On the House Floor

Kucinich Impeachment Articles mention RAW STORY

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may say impeachment is off the table; nonetheless, on June 9, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich placed it on the floor. For five hours, the Ohio Representative stood before his colleagues and an expectant national audience. Kucinich spoke of what has remained unmentionable for far too long. The President of the United States of America has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

The contents of thirty-five articles affirmed President George W. Bush deceived the nation. Congressman Kucinich contends, the President violated his oath of office. The Commander-In-Chief led our country into the Iraq war under false pretenses.

On hundreds of occasions, George W. Bush made use of signing statements. These declarations allowed the Administration to disobey laws. With the stroke of a pen, the President proclaimed a ban on torture was extraneous to his reality. Mister Bush decided to shun provisions he endorsed and proposed when he explained the need for a Patriot Act. The list of laws George W. Bush disregarded is extensive.

A year ago, the Ohio Congressman and former Presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution to censure Vice President Dick Cheney. Dennis Kucinich understood that this Vice President exerted more power than any other person who previously held his position. Indeed some argue, Dick Cheney is more if not equally culpable for crimes enacted by the Executive Branch. The resolution censure Cheney was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Thus far, no action has been taken on the motion.

However, members of the Committee have verbalized their support. Florida Representative Robert Wexler, Congressman Luis Gutierrez from Illinois, and Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin vehemently called for hearings. The three believe as does Dennis Kucinich does, grounds for an arraignment are sufficient. For these outspoken Representatives, Vice President, Richard Cheney, along with the President, George W. Bush violated the War Crimes Act of 1996. They ignored the anti-torture Act. Bush and Cheney authorized the abuse of detainees, who have been illegally held at the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp.

The President and Vice President repeatedly sullied the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. None were obtained before millions of Americans telephones were bugged. The President defiantly dismisses any public concern. He has no problem with deferring the public's right to privacy.

Early in their joint terms, George Bush and Dick Cheney warned, there was an eminent threat of a nuclear attack. They said the United States was in danger of inhalation. Desirous of oil in the Middle East, Texas tea tycoons alleged Saddam Hussein purchased uranium in Niger. Evidence furnished by envoy, Joseph Wilson validated this was not true. Nonetheless, the Chief Executive and his chum declared the leader of Iraq wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney understood the claims were fallacious. The two Executives would take care of any attempt to present accurate information to the people. The Administration would destroy the messenger.

Mister Bush and Mister Cheney were aware that others within their Administration questioned the validity of Intelligence Reports, which stated a need for concern in reference to Iraq. At least one, former Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to convince the President and his Vice an attack on Iraq was unadvisable. Not to be dissuaded, the two "leaders' withheld facts form the public. The Administration purposely warped the data in an attempt to usurp Congress' Constitutional powers to declare war.

Yet, regardless of the volumes of reports released over the course of many years, Congressman Kucinich and those on the Judiciary Committee who support censure, have much opposition.

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Richard Nixon, does not disagree with the Representatives who endorse impeachment of the current Administration. Conservative Constitutional Scholar Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department does not quarrel with the need to commence hearings. Former Senator and Democratic presidential nominee, George McGovern published an op-ed, demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. None of these esteemed individuals question the motivation or the measure.

The only deterrent to the necessary action is found on Capitol Hill. Politically savvy officials in the nation's Capitol choose to set a precedent that historians' caution is unwise. Elizabeth Holtzman states.

Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.

Sadly, her words will not be heard on heeded. Too many Democrats and Republicans have become deaf and dumb to the proper rule of law. For too long, average Americans and elected officials trusted the Chief Executive. They allowed themselves to be persuaded by a unscrupulous President and his Vice.

The people may no longer have faith. Perhaps, the public is just too embarrassed to face the fire. The adage heard in the halls of Congress and on the streets of many a city is, "We hired them. If we dismiss the two, what might that say of our judgment." Hence, Americans lay bare the lie, we have learned nothing from history.

A vote on the Resolution is expected on June 11, 2008. Those in support of impeachment can only hope our Representatives will act more responsibly than we, the American people, or our Administration has.

References for what might never be officially realized . . .

Articles of Impeachment. Submitted By Congressman Dennis Kucinich. June 9, 2008

Articles of Impeachment, George W. Bush. Presented by Congressman Dennis Kucinich. June 9, 2008

Presidential Signing Statements; Hoover - G.W. Bush. The American Presidency Project

Bush challenges hundreds of laws President cites powers of his office, By Charlie Savage. Boston Globe. April 30, 2006

Bush could bypass new torture ban, Waiver right is reserved. By Charlie Savage. Boston Globe. January 4, 2006

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement, In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding. By Charlie Savage. Boston Globe. March 24, 2006

What I Didn't Find in Africa, By Joseph C. Wilson IV. The New York Times. Sunday, July 6, 2003

A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic, Prosecutor Describes Cheney, Libby as Key Voices Pitching Iraq-Niger Story. By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer. Washington Post. Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page A01

Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11, Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital. By William Hamilton. Washington Post. Saturday, April 17, 2004; Page A01

Powell tried to talk Bush out of war, By Sarah Baxter. Times Online. July 8, 2007

Rep. Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution. Associated Press. June 9, 2008

Kucinich introduces impeachment resolution. United Press International. June 9, 2008

Judiciary Committee Should Move to Impeach Bush and Cheney, By Elizabeth Holtzman. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Sunday 27 January 2008

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Congress, Congress and Bush, Impeach GW Bush, Iraq War, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Let Them Eat Oil

President Jimmy Carter - Address to the Nation on Energy

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

In a nation, where appeasement is condemned, Americans are anxious. The people have been pacified for so long they can no longer recall what it means to be other than indulged. On June 6, 2008, Congresspersons, uncomfortable with the notion that they might have to use the rod, concluded, for now, it is better to spoil the already pampered Americans. Lawmakers said, as they have so often, "Let them eat oil!" After all, the people love petroleum.

Rather than rescind policies that contribute to global warming, or the related scarcity of food and water Legislators declared defeat. Hope for change was put off for the future, just as it was one score and ten years ago. Now, nearly a decade into the twenty-first century, the United States Congress concluded a bipartisan Bill, intended to control climate conditions must die. The hope was postponed, again. The dream differed until 2009.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, cautioned climate change is “the most important issue facing the world today.” However, apparently, it is not imperative enough to counter the cries of despair heard from the American people. Citizens in this country think cash in hand counts for more than the health of the planet.

The public is easily able to dismiss evidence; Mother Earth is in trouble. Extinction threatens every species. Even humans are at risk. Pollutants fill the air that men, women, and children breath. Poison is found in the rivers and stream. Toxins travel through the ecosystem. There are consequences to what we do. Global warming is but a warning, one not heeded by Americans who prefer to remain sheltered from talk of environmental storms.

Co-authors of the measure designed to limit heat-trapping gases, California Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut envision the demise of the Bill was a win. The three expressed a shared joy. Perchance lawmakers are closer to an agreement. Might it be that Legislators are more unified in an attempt to appease Americans. The Senate was just shy of consensus.

Conventional wisdom states, "There is time." The world can wait. Evidence does not suggest a need to act immediately. Next year will be better. In actuality, politicians did just as the people prefer. Government officials did not ask the people to forego creature comforts. Regulations on industry were not increased.

While the people insist someone must pay for the drastic rise in petroleum prices, most suspect, ultimately, the cost will be passed on to the common folk.

Perchance, that is why Congress was willing to probe profit margins. The people wanted an explanation; why do they pay exorbitant prices at the pump. It mattered not that the expectation proved to be the reality. When tycoons who produce Texas tea were asked of the high cost of fuel, they sang the same old song. What was important is the sense the people had after the hearing. They had tried to make the big bosses accountable. The public demands little, insists on less. Yet, as coddled children who covet a toy just out of reach, they protest loudly.

Members of Congress, the President of the United States, and Oil Executives understand this. Each has perfected the art of appeasement. Give the people what they please. Then positions and profits will remain secure. Explanations and examinations reassure the masses and best of all for those comfortable and cozy in millions of cars nothing changes. Certainly, circumstances dictate all must remain the same, and while few admit it, all are pleased.

The executives firmly insisted that global market forces beyond their control were to blame for high prices. “As repetitive and uninteresting as it may sound, the fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work,” said John Hofmeister, the president of Shell Oil Company.

(Of course, it was repetitive and uninteresting: Mr. Hofmeister read the same line in his testimony the day before.)

The executives politely but just as firmly insisted that Congress should focus its efforts on allowing more drilling and exploration for domestic oil — in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, offshore in the Atlantic and Pacific, and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. They insisted that they were investing heavily in search of new oil supplies.

And they strongly warned against other measures: any new tax on profits would put American companies at a disadvantage and only further decrease oil supply; a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would increase demand and only raise prices more; lawsuits against foreign nations would do nothing to lower prices.

The public may not trust the moneyed moguls; nor do they respect the Representatives. Nonetheless, the people are silently satisfied. Few if any wish to give up the freedom they feel as they drive down the road alone, or with one special passenger. Convenience is comfortable. The people do not wish to pay the price for alternative energy. The actual cost may not frighten Americans; the idea that they may need to forfeit a familiar lifestyle terrifies the average citizen.

Months ago, when gas was relatively cheap, cars barely crawled on clogged highways. Yet, few did more than grumble. People were essentially cozy cocooned in snug Sports Utility Vehicles, mini-vans, sedans, coupes, and cute convertibles. Children were pleasantly preoccupied. Digital Video Discs entertained the young and other occupants as they lounged in leather seats. Drivers pounded out tunes on the dashboard or punched cellular telephone keyboards. Travel was a pleasure.

Some treasured the hours spent on the road. Life was good not so long ago. Few complained. Less requested freedom from fossil fuels. Progressives may have postured; it is time for a change. However, few fled from their automobiles. The price of petroleum may have transformed their habits temporarily.

On Friday, (May 23, 2008) the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reported that Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles in March 2008 than in March 2007. According to the FHWA, that's the sharpest drop since the agency began keeping records in 1942.
Calculate Risk provides some context:

This is only the third time since 1970 that the year-over-year change in total U.S. miles driven has declined. The previous two times were following the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 -- and led to the two most severe U.S. recessions since WWII.

Drivers, some now riders, rejoice. History teaches us economic downturn do not last. This too shall pass. Most anticipate the shift is but a provisional switch. Indeed, Americans work to receive assurance. They rant and rage.

The President of the United States hears the cries. He responds. In April 2008, as Americans clamored for affordable fuel George W. Bush eloquently expressed elucidations to calm the citizenry. As a Mom or Dad might soothe a baby who bawls incessantly disturbs the parent who only wishes to please his or her progeny, President Bush proposed we do as has long satisfied spoiled Americans. George W. Bush proposes oil companies provide the people with what they want, more petroleum at prices the electorate likes.

As a self-proclaimed steward of the environment, the President said he would never wish to harm the land. He assured Americans, if we were to drill for fuel in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] that would be responsible stewardship, regardless of what some scientist say. Mister Bush declared if Americans simply increase the supply of fossil fuels, demand would be met. After all, is that not the goal. Give the baby a bottle of sweet crude and they will stop crying.

Studies show oil pumped from the Artic would have little impact on the cost or availability of petroleum; however, that information is less significant than immediate gratification might be. John McCain understands this. He is sensitive to the research and to the millions who intellectually reject the claims the Chief Executive makes. Senator McCain has a reputation for being a maverick. He relates to people who, in the twenty-first century, are more environmentally conscious. The Grand Old Party nominee knows the citizens can no longer be cajoled to believe drills do no damage. In the Information Age, the electorate is enlightened.

John McCain is cognizant; the people will only be persuaded to do as they desire if a Presidential aspirant promises to reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, he proposes a cap and trade solution. This policy would allow companies to buy and sell emission credits. Those who wish to splurge and surge the grid can continue to do so. Energy exploiters can garner greater credit from those who are prepared to scrimp. The people who prefer to remain plugged in can. Those who wish to leave a smaller carbon footprint may do so. Everyone will be happy, and energy policies will not substantially change what is.

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

Americans are again gratified. Change can be delayed. There is no rush to an energy revolution. Indeed, this proposal will furnish fission and not provide an authentic substantive solution. McCain's Nuclear Waste could possibly contaminate the ground water. The senior Senator does not discuss the need to prevent nuclear proliferation, the problem with security at nuclear facilities. Indeed, speculation is John McCain is a proponent of nuclear energy for political reasons. Imagine that. Assuage the people who have the power and finances to further a career and all will be well.

Senator McCain and the people, rich and poor, will retain the luxury that has long been essential. The public and the official can portray themselves as environmentalists. Yet, they need not abandon the way of life that has sustained them. John McCain states as many Americans do.

As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy . . .

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] I believe is a pristine place. I don't want to drill in the Grand Canyon and I don't want to drill in the Everglades . . .

I believe that climate change is real. It's not just a greenhouse gas issue. It's a national security issue.



However, Senator McCain has a record. He voted against tax credits to promote research. The League of Conservation Voters granted Senator McCain a zero rating on environmental issues. In 2007, the supposed ecological standard-bearer McCain missed all 15 critical environmental votes in the Senate. In the course of his Senatorial lifetime, only twenty-four (24) percent of the time did John McCain vote in favor of conservation.

McCain Missed Opportunity To End Big Oil Tax Breaks to Invest in Clean Energy. In 2007, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Energy Independence and Security Act. This vote was about whether to close $13 billion in tax breaks for major oil and gas companies to invest in new clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and efficiency. Sixty votes were required for passage. The motion was rejected 59-40. (CQ.com; HR 6, Vote #425, 12/13/07)

Actually, all Americans have a history that contradicts what they say is their truth. We, the people consume and waste, we purchase and pollute. We scrounge for energy-wise merchandise. Then, we buy not the most environmentally efficient product, but the best bargain. Many of us know what we did in the past, although we do not wish to speak of it.

Only years after citizens of this country waited in long lines for fuel, as a nation, Americans mused of the humorous hours they spent engrossed in an energy crisis. Once more, the public concluded it was time for a change; yet, they proved that transformation was not what they really wanted.

In 1976, the people elected an Executive Officer who did not wish to appease the people. On January 30, 1977, Jimmy Carter said what he reiterated days later on February 2, 1977; two weeks after the former farmer took office. The President engaged the public in a fireside chat. Donned in a casual cardigan sweater Mister Carter somberly said . . .

(T)he United States is the only major industrial country without a comprehensive, long-range energy policy . . . our failure to plan for the future or to take energy conservation seriously - started long before this winter, and it will take much longer to solve.

I realize that many of you have not believed that we really have an energy problem. But this winter has made all of us realize that we have to act . . .

Our program will emphasize conservation. The amount of energy being wasted which could be saved is greater than the total energy that we are importing from foreign countries.

The American people looked, listened, and laughed at a President who would suggest. "All of us must learn to waste less energy. Simply by keeping our thermostats, for instance, at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night we could save half the current shortage of natural gas."

Citizens in this, the wealthiest nation in the world thought there was no need to worry. There never is. Americans are encouraged to live in the moment. This petroleum predicament would pass. The people then, just as now, ignored the cautions. Months later, President Jimmy Carter offered . . .

(Energy, the supply and demand) is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

Yet, in the past and in the present, the public, while intellectually eager to leave a lush legacy for the progeny, does not wish to think of how what we do establishes the future. Few Moms and Dads ponder the profundity of energy policies. Prices are the only issue of import to the common folk. Countless will contact their Representatives to complain; the cost of gas is too high. Who will call and say, let the price of fuel rise? Americans cannot continue to eat oil.

Certainly, it will not be the millions pacified or the few who cling to the words of a scientist or two who scoff, humans have little effect on the environment. Will the people who read recent reports realize the need for immediate change. Will the informed relent and say, "I will no longer be placated," or will they respond to this energy crisis as they did in the last century when there was still time to correct the calamity that may now be out of our control?

Our countrymen may be content as spoiled children are. Perhaps, Americans will again stomp their feet, hold their breath, pound on the table and buy a gas-guzzler regardless of the admonition. The public may say, "Give me, give me, give me what I want, or else!" Let me eat oil, or maybe, just maybe, the childish ways of Americans will be gone with the wind. We can only hope that the people will no longer crave pacification and conciliation.

Our Resources and References . . .

U.S. climate bill dies; hope for 2009, By Deborah Zabarenko. Reuters. Washington Post. 
Friday, June 6, 2008; 12:46 PM

pdf U.S. climate bill dies; hope for 2009, By Deborah Zabarenko. Reuters. Washington Post. 
Friday, June 6, 2008; 12:46 PM

Dems Yank Global Warming Bill, By Martin Kady II. CBS News. June 6, 2008

After Verbal Fire, Senate Effectively Kills Climate Change Bill, By David M. Herszenhorn. The New York Times. June 7, 2008

Study: Arctic warming threatens people, wildlife. MSNBC News. November 8, 2004

Global Warming Threatens Moose, Wolves. Science Daily. August 22, 2007

Christian Aid: Global Warming Threatens Millions. By The Associated Press. Monday, May. 15 2006 07:14 AM ET

Mass Transit Demand Rises, Costs Soar, By Alexandra Marks. The Christian Science Monitor. June 4, 2008

McCain urges free-market principles to reduce global warming, By Glen Johnson. Associated Press. May 12, 2008

McCain's Nuclear Waste. By David Corn. Mother Jones. March 4, 2008

John McCain's Record on Energy and Global Warming. Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Americans Driving At Historic Lows. US Department of Transportation.

UN study urges farmers to cut fossil fuel, By Jamey Keaten. Boston Globe. April 16, 2008

The Same Old Song on High Gas Prices, By David M. Herszenhorn. The New York Times. May 23, 2008

The President's Proposed Energy Policy. American Experience. April 18, 1977

Transcripts: May 13, 2008. Cable News Network. May 13, 2008

Gas prices around the world. Cable News Network. March 2005

Reducing U.S. Oil Dependence A Real Energy Security Policy. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Think you overpay for gas in the U.S.? By Ned Colt. MSNBC News. May 2, 2006

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact. MSNBC News. March 16, 2004

Oil Price History and Analysis. WTRG Economics.

Energy for America's Future. The White House.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Americana, Congress and Bush, Consumption and Conservation, Environment, Global Warming, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Oil, Oil Companies , Politics, Powerful Polluters, Price of Petroleum | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Impeachment Off The Table; On Center Stage

Article I: Initiation & Continuation of Illegal War (Part 4)

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

John Conyers put impeachment on the table. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said to place such a ‘distraction’ on the table is tantamount to treason. Newly appointed, anointed Pelosi let it be known, there was business to be done and Democrats would do the deeds she deemed necessary. These did not include prosecution of the President or his Vice. Hence, Conyers removed censure from the agenda He had other concerns. His own appointment as Chair to the Judiciary Committee hinged on whether he honored the wishes of the recently selected Speaker.

Thus, Congressman Conyers declared . . .

No Rush to Impeachment
By John Conyers Jr.

Washington Post
Thursday, May 18, 2006; A23

As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.

But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions. For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.

We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible.

The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner.

John Conyers professed we need answers. He forgets there was no evidence of wrongdoing against Richard Milhous Nixon until an impeachment investigation was underway. Most mused those in opposition to the Vietnam war wanted the President out. However, as Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the Judiciary Committee during the Nixon proceedings writes much is the same and more differs. Subversion is similar. Evidence is now more abundant. Our own neglect may be our downfall. Perhaps, past disregard for Democratic principles allowed for the eventuality of what we see today. If we forego our responsibility to democracy again, what might occur in the future? Let us assess what we know.

Subverting Our Democracy
A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support a military action or war. It is not just that it is cowardly and abhorrent to trick others into giving their lives for a nonexistent threat, or even that making false statements might, in some circumstances, be a crime.

It is that the decision to go to war is the gravest decision a nation can make, and in a democracy the people and their elected representatives, when there is no imminent attack on the United States to repel, have the right to make it. Given that the consequences can be death for hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of people--as well as the diversion of vast sums of money to the war effort--the fraud cannot be tolerated. That both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were guilty of misleading the nation into military action and neither was impeached for it makes it more, not less, important to hold Bush accountable.

Once it was clear that no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, President Bush tried to blame "bad intelligence" for the decision to go to war, apparently to show that the WMD claim was not a deliberate deception. But bad intelligence had little or nothing to do with the main arguments used to win popular support for the invasion of Iraq.

First, there was no serious intelligence--good or bad--to support the Administration's suggestion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were in cahoots. Nonetheless, the Administration repeatedly tried to claim the connection to show that the invasion was a justified response to 9/11 (like the declaration of war against Japan for Pearl Harbor). The claim was a sheer fabrication.

Second, there was no reliable intelligence to support the Administration's claim that Saddam was about to acquire nuclear weapons capability. The specter of the "mushroom cloud," which frightened many Americans into believing that the invasion of Iraq was necessary for our self-defense, was made up out of whole cloth. As for the biological and chemical weapons, even if, as reported, the CIA director told the President that these existed in Iraq, the Administration still had plenty of information suggesting the contrary.

The deliberateness of the deception has also been confirmed by a British source: the Downing Street memo, the official record of Prime Minister Tony Blair's July 2002 meeting with his top Cabinet officials. At the meeting the chief of British intelligence, who had just returned from the United States, reported that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." In other words, the Bush Administration was reported to be in the process of cooking up fake intelligence and facts to justify going to war in Iraq.
During the Nixon impeachment proceedings, I drafted the resolution of impeachment to hold President Nixon accountable for concealing from Congress the bombing of Cambodia he initiated. But the committee did not approve it, probably because it might appear political--in other words, stemming from opposition to the war instead of to the President's abuse of his warmaking powers.

As Commander-In-Chief, President George W. Bush has used his influence and then some. He initiated, investigated, incited, inflicted, and inflated, all in an attempt to do as he desired. Americans sat idly by, as did Congress. Little has changed other than we know more about the manipulations. Today, the table turns, tilts, or is hidden from view, and the Speaker continues to hedge.

Thankfully, The Culture Project and Presidential hopeful, Congressman Dennis Kucinich move forward. The potential President Kucinich works tirelessly to ensure that censure is more than an option ignored. Kucinich brings the issue to the floor of the House in the form of a priveledged Resolution. The Culture Project takes the matter to center stage.

Naomi Wolf, Jackson Browne, Lewis Lapham, Phoebe Snow, Michael Ratner, Bruce Fein, and Sam Shepard are among the many scholars, artists, and activists that ask Americans to authentically consider A Question of Impeachment.

This series is meant to inform and inspire great minds, those that have been fast asleep for too long.

The masses once actively participated in government. Long ago, the media investigated and spoke to sources outside the White House. Now, each hibernates, and the Administration obstructs justice. The Constitution was torn to shreds. Habeas corpus is no more. Executive Powers are infinite; although, apparently, according to the Vice President there is no Executive Branch under Bush.
As Americans sit silently, absorbed in apathy . . .

[The] Culture Project brings crucial and timely concerns to the fore once again with a new, unique series that gathers some of the most brilliant and visionary minds of our time to explore and debate the case for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

You may wish to review the full impeachment schedule, or tune in for just a few discussions. The forum begins and ends in the month of December. Might we, the people work as quickly in support of the Constitution or will we continue to ignore the provisions that ensure no President has, uses, and abuses absolute power?

Sunday, December 2 
12:00 p.m. A screening of special cuts of New Home Movies from the Lower 9th Ward, Oscar-winner Jonathan Demme's new documentary drawn from the stories of residents of New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Monday, December 3 
7:00 p.m. Article III: Criminal Negligence and Hurricane Katrina. Participants include attorney Bruce Fein, journalist Lewis Lapham, actor and activist Alec Baldwin, New Orleans public housing organizer Sam Jackson, Judith Browne-Dianis, from the Advancement Project, and Tiffany Gardner from the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative. Performers include Bobby Cannavale, Callie Thorne, Tracie Thoms, Denis O'Hare, Jodie Markell, Bradley White, Nana Mensah, and Chris McKinney.

Sunday, December 9 
7:30 p.m. Vanessa, Lynn, Corin, and Jemma Redgrave make a very special appearance to read Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak, a collection of poems written by detainees held in the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Marc Falkoff, attorney and editor of Poems from Guantanamo, will also be with us.

Monday, December 10 
7:00 p.m. Article IV: Warrantless Surveillance. Participants include former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, attorney Joshua Dratel, attorney Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Aziz Huq of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, and journalist Richard Valeriani. Performers include Kristen Johnston, Michael Mastro, Nana Mensah, Gerry Bamman, Chris McKinney, and Sarah-Doe Osborne.

Sunday, December 16
 CLOSING DAY 
2:00 p.m. Article V: Expansion of Executive Power. Participants include Harper's contributor and human rights attorney Scott Horton, author David Lindorff, and attorney Marjorie Cohn. Performers include Josh Hamilton, Tracie Thoms, Ned Eisenberg, Grace Zandarski, and Tom Bower.

7:30 p.m. Closing celebration includes performance and commentary from John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment, Jackson Browne, Jorie Graham, Naomi Wolf, Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater, Peter Matthiessen, Kathleen Chalfant, Aasif Mandvi, and others.

Perchance, after each performance you, dear reader will reflect and realize, the time is now. You may be encouraged to dream what some think absurd. I invite you to explore. Before you venture out on Election Day certain January 2009 is your last hope. Please consider there are possibilities more profound and perhaps, if we are to preserve the Constitution, necessary.

Sources and Censure . . .

The 110th Congress: A New Direction for America. Speaker Nancy Pelosi

The Culture Project.

No Rush to Impeachment, By John Conyers Jr. Washington Post. Thursday, May 18, 2006; Page A23

pdf No Rush to Impeachment, By John Conyers Jr. Washington Post. Thursday, May 18, 2006; Page A23

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Cheney. Washington Post. April 24, 2007

Rep. Dennis Kucinich Privileged Resolution. November 6, 2007

The Impeachment of George W. Bush, By Elizabeth Holtzman. The Nation. January 30, 2006

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 28, 2007 at 09:00 AM in 'Regime Change' , Bush 43 Administration, Congress and Bush, Impeach GW Bush, Lawbreakers, Lies, United States Constitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Climate of Fear Permeates; Morton High School Students Protest

Climate of Fear

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

"The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism [terrorism, nationalism, or compassionate Conservatism.] It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." ~ Adlai Stevenson. 1952 [Governor of Illinois, Democratic presidential candidate]

It was a quiet day in America; yet, the feeling of fear was palpable. Oceans away, in Baghdad, the air was filled with the smell of napalm. Frightened, as the young contemplated their future, seventy some courageous and committed students filed into the Morton West High School cafeteria in Berwyn, Illinois. Trepidation for their lives, and the lives of friends, family, and those innocent Iraqi citizens they never met prompted these pupils to take action. The young and eligible enlistees protested the war in Iraq.

Years earlier, dissent against this unjust battle was unthinkable. The Twin Towers fell. The Pentagon was hit. Other buildings were threatened and the nation panicked. America could not comprehend there might be blood shed on the tranquil shores of their homeland. Citizens were willing to do anything to ensure no more lives would be lost in the land of their birth. If it meant countrymen must sacrifice their freedoms, so be it. Immediately, Congress was called into session. Bills were passed and liberties lost. America was attacked; and thus, we were at war.

Theories were bantered about. Osama Bin Laden, the enemy behind the assault, was in Afghanistan. Terrorists were within our country. Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The thousands killed on September 11, 2001 were just the beginning. Certainly, we must know as a continent, North America is no longer safe. Air travel has opened all borders. Trains, boats, and planes were no longer means of transport. These are potential missiles.

Acquiescent, the American public believed they were not safe. Yet, fearful as the people were they knew this country must come together and show its strength. At ground zero a crowd stood and chanted, "USA, USA!" The Commander-In-Chief took the bull by the horn or the bullhorn and calmed the throng. He said . . .

"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,"

It was then that the former friendly fellow, the man that had failed in most all of his business ventures, the son of a President whose success was said to be tied to his name, appeared decisive. The President, placed into the Oval Office by the Supreme Court, not by the people, became the protector. From the moment Bush stood on the mound of rumble and raised his voice, Americans followed his lead.

George W. Bush led his Secretary of State astray. Colin Powell addressed the United Nations with what Bush and Vice President Cheney knew was not "solid" intelligence. The Commander prompted his Cabinet to lie to Congress. The President's pal and Attorney General told a nation the Rules of the Geneva Convention are quaint. Our leader authorized torture. He trolled telephones. President Bush took us to the airport and asked us to take our shoes off. He read our library records and convinced us there was reason to forfeit our rights. The President of the United States played on our fears and we accepted his truths. Americans became apathetic and perhaps pathetic.

However, just as in years past, when an unpopular war was sold to the American public, when a threat [then communism, now terrorism] loomed large in the minds of those told to fear the youth responded, Morton High School's young scholars decided they must speak out. They entered the dining hall, a nook in the cranny of a huge building, a place where pupils often feel, or felt able to break from bureaucracy. For students, the canteen is considered a safety zone. Every high school has one, a place where pupils can relax, chat, gather, and forget the fears that flank them in the halls, and stalls of academia.

Yet, on this day, November first, All Saints Day, and a national day of peace, the lunchroom furnished no refuge. Apprehensive Administrators swooped down on the young scholars as they exercised their democratic right to free speech. Frightened school officials did just as a petrified President had done. Under the guise of informed authority, the Superintendent and Principal imposed retaliatory measures.

As is often true in a climate of fear, the terrified meet the terrified, and the trouble begins. When filled with fear a person in a powerful position does not wish to show his or her weakness. Thus, they adopt a punitive posture to appear in control; George W. Bush, Superintendent Ben Nowakowski , you decide.

The Berwyn School District bureaucrats selectively singled two-dozen students for expulsion. [Might these individuals be as those sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison, or off to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records, for interrogation.] Morton West, Morton High School District 201 Superintendent Nowakowski told parents, pupils involved in the protest that are seventeen years or older would also face police charges. [Ah, those of a certain age may be as the persons of Middle Eastern descent. People in power think it just to profile agitators.] High achievers, athletes, and those whose parent are well connected were exempt from the more severe penalties. [Frequent fliers, white businessmen, and little old ladies . . .perhaps these persons are above reproach.] Indeed, school officials telephoned many prominent Moms and Dads and warned them. Take your child home. Be sure your son or daughter returns to class. Cease or dismiss.

The injustice was obvious; even mothers and fathers were distressed. Parents questioned School Board members and Administrators. They asked, what have we as a people become when we suppress speech, suspend dialogue, and arrest those that assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps, after all these years of war and Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were, the adults realize they too must question authority.

Parents and students say that penalties were too harsh -- and unfairly dispensed -- for some of those involved in the protest. More than a dozen parents at the meeting in the Morton East auditorium told the board that students who play varsity athletics or have a high grade point average were given less stringent penalties.

Maniotis said her daughter Barbara, a junior at the high school, participated in the protest but was given a 5-day suspension and does not face expulsion because she is an honor student with a 4.5 GPA. Other students received 10-day suspensions with the possibility of expulsion.

"She did the same thing they did," Maniotis said. "This entire incident is outrageous. The school missed out on a wonderful teachable moment. Instead, they cracked down on them right away and turned it into a punitive situation."

Parents have said they want their children reinstated and the penalties removed from their records.

However, the Board and the Superintendent chose to exert its power. The community gathered thousands of signatures in support of the students. Parents, neighbors, concerned citizens met with authorities and stated, the punishment for protestors is too harsh. Those in power argued the point. School authorities might have said, "We do not torture." Waterboarding, while repugnant, is just in "real life" situations.

School officials also sent a letter to the parents of all the school’s students calling the protest “gross disobedience” and reminding parents that any disruption to the educational process could lead to expulsion.

Disobedience and dissention must be deterred. There can be no distractions. Our mission is clear. If we are to accomplish our goal, all threats must be eliminated. Presidents and Principals, Secretary's of State and Defense and Superintendents remind us, we have reasons to fear. This is the "age of terror."

Americans know by now, as we accept our telephones are tapped, any time we question authority we are in insubordination. Countrymen chuckle on reflection as they ponder, I almost got sent to Guantanamo. We are anxious regardless of what is real, for in truth, reality is perception. As long as we perceive a threat, there is one, and those in power will act in accordance. Innocents will be sent to [Guantanamo Bay] prison without due process.

Morton High school Principal, Mister Lucas was fretful despite of what occurred or did not. The protesters, pupils were extremely peaceful. They did as they were told to do. Law enforcement officers observed all went well. Nevertheless, fear flourished amongst Administrators.

[S]everal students said the protesters, whose numbers had dwindled to about 25, obeyed the administration’s request to move from a high-traffic area in the cafeteria to a less-crowded hall near the principal’s office. There, they intertwined arms, sang along to an acoustic guitar and talked about how the war was affecting the world, said Matt Heffernan, a junior who took part.

“We agreed to move to another side of the building,” Matt said. “We also made a deal that if we moved there, there would be no disciplinary action taken upon us.”

Matt said the group had been told that the most severe punishment would be a Saturday detention for cutting class that day.

Police officers were on the scene, and Berwyn’s police chief, William Kushner, said no arrests were made. “It was all very peaceful and orderly,” he said.

But at the end of the school day, Matt said, Dr. Nowakowski gave the remaining protesters disciplinary notices stating that they had engaged in mob action, that they were suspended for 10 days and that they faced expulsion.

The sense of being actively involved in the community and in the civic process is weighty and can be woeful. As a Morton High School student stated; upon reflection he had "feelings of confidence — of a job well done." However, faced with expulsion he also embraced anxiety "and fright, because my whole educational future is at risk.”

Education for American students is at risk whether they protest the war or not. As the battles in the Middle East intensify, our youngest citizens watch expectantly. Currently, they are not forced to take up arms; yet, the cost of an advanced degree, the expense of living on your own, salaries, or more accurately, practically speaking, minimum wages threaten the security of a young mind. Military recruiters know this, as does the Administration, local and Federal. Armed Forces representatives maximize on the fear and the White House blesses such actions.

The practice began just after America surrendered itself to permanent apprehension. The Twin Towers fell and so too did the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was set aside in favor of the Patriot Act. The Commander-In-Chief of the United States, George W. Bush proposed we leave no child behind. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Mister Bush garnered support for a initiative that would change the lives of young Americans forever. The "Education" President signed the measure and a new military force was born.

Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."

But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.

"I was very surprised the requirement was attached to an education law," says Shea-Keneally. "I did not see the link."

The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation's high schools are "problem schools" for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."

Slights or the restricted right of entry seemed odious to pro-war Congressman Vitter, a man too young to have fought in a foreign battle. Attitudes such as his may helped build a system of recruitment that expanded our military defense. Prior to the initiative that allowed military representatives to sell their schpeel to High School students interest and investment in America's youth was not equally distributed. Nor is it now. The difference is, under current law, military recruiters can more easily find men and women willing to enlist. With thanks to No Child Left Behind the armed forces can focus on those most in need. That is best. After all, the affluent have opportunities that ensure economic and academic success. The rich are less likely to enlist.

[I]t appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.

The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.

But she made it clear that her support only went so far.

"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."

The kinds of people that are targeted are poor or lower Middle Class. Plebeian families will sacrifice their progeny disproportionately. Morton West High School in Berwyn, is nestled in a working-class suburb just west of Chicago. Soldiers dressed in uniform, don sparkly metals, and wear shined shoes as they stroll the halls of this blue-collar neighborhood school campus. They smile and sweet-talk eager teens. Recruiters befriend students and promise them a bright future if they enlist. In part, this helped to provide perspective for the pupils and prompted the protest.

Disabled Gulf War veteran Cesar Ruvalcaba, dressed in his military uniform, chose to lash out at military recruiters allowed to roam the halls of the school.

"Shame on the administrators who think receiving military money from recruiters is more important than the education of their students," he told the board. "I am 100 percent disabled, and I learned the hard way that education, not carrying a machine gun, is the key to success. It's those people who are pro-war who would never drop everything and go fight for the red, white, and blue. These kids should receive extra credit for speaking up, not expulsion."

Morton High School students are not alone. After years of subjection, some schools are fighting back. Administrators have decisively stood up for their students. Principals refuse to be part of the Bush regime or relegate academics to expulsion. Principals ask whether funds from No Child Left Behind provisions are worth the cost, the lost of freedom.

Rift over recruiting at public high schools
A Seattle high school bars military solicitation, touching off debate over Iraq war and free speech.
By Dean Paton
The Christian Science Monitor
May 18, 2005

Seattle - While most Parent Teacher Student Association meetings might center on finding funding for better math books or the best way to chaperon a school dance, a recent meeting here at Garfield High School grappled with something much larger - the war in Iraq.

The school is perhaps one of the first in the nation to debate and vote against military recruiting on high school campuses - a topic already simmering at the college level . . .

High schools are struggling with a similar issue as the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools receiving federal funding must release the names of its students to recruiters. Some feel that's an invasion of privacy prompted by a war effort that has largely divided the American public. Others say barring recruiters is an infringement of free speech - and a snub to the military, particularly in a time of war.

Garfield High School took a decisive step last week with a vote of 25 to 5 to adopt a resolution that says "public schools are not a place for military recruiters."

All this comes as recruiters struggle to meet enlistment goals.

Perchance, Americans no longer wish to live a life in fear. Our countrymen finally decided to vote for change. However, it did not come. Now the children take up the cause. Perhaps they will be more successful. With the support of their parents, the impossible may be probable. Indeed, it is, slightly.

Last evening, the Superintendent of Berwyn Schools released a statement. [On the same day some troops are slated to return home to American shores, not because the President heard the people say exit Iraq, but because, physically, they could no longer remain in battle] suspended students could and would return to class. School records will not reflect, peaceful rebellions as a dishonorable reason for discharge. Although Administrative faces are saved, it is important to consider that this is a step. We may move closer to educational experiences and further from a culture of fear. One can hope.

I offer the link for your perusal. Please read the Superintendent's proclamation. Please share your thoughts, quietly. Remember class is in session. Recruiters may still be listening and the Bush regime remains in office.

Administration Rules on Students Suspended Following Nov. 1 Disruption of School Day.

As you, dear reader, breathe deeply and ponder the protestors' plight, might I submit, alls is not well; nor did this situation truly end well. Granted, the students will be reinstated. Those that wish to pursue a military career will, and those that do not, will not. However, there is more to this story. Power plays; those that instill fear, fear not. Even when we think the Authorities care; they are concerned, and will no longer abuse, use or manipulate, we discover they continue to do as they have done.

Eight million veterans got their education thanks to the World War II GI Bill, which covered tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend while they were in school. A 1988 Congressional study proved that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.

Unfortunately, the current educational benefits offered to veterans are far lower than the original GI Bill. In fact, they cover only 60-70% of the average cost of four years at a public college or university, or less than two years at a typical private college. Our veterans deserve better.

A new GI [Government Issue] Bill is being crafted in Congress. However, Americans have reason to think this too shall not pass. If we the voters learn from the Morton High School students and state what we think, perhaps, veterans will have the chance they were promised . . . that is if they live to return home.

Let s fear no more. Americans cannot sit silent. If you wish to communicate to your Congress Person, please do. The time is now.
Help Veterans Continue their Education.

Sources of Fear; Culture of Care. . .

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq. By Andrew Buncombe. Independent Digital. August 10, 2003

President tours New York devastation, Bush promises terrorists will get message soon. Cable News Network. September 14, 2001 Posted: 11:21 p.m.

Bush's Lap Dogs: What Happened to DC's Watchdogs? By Tom Dickinson. Rolling Stone. October 31, 2007

George W. Bush. The Nation.

Terror Suspect Alleges Torture, Detainee Says U.S. Sent Him to Egypt Before Guantanamo. By Dana Priest and Dan Eggen. Washington Post.
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01

pdf Terror Suspect Alleges Torture, Detainee Says U.S. Sent Him to Egypt Before Guantanamo. By Dana Priest and Dan Eggen. Washington Post. Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01

Support Morton West HS Anti-War Students. Illinois Coalition for Peace and Justice.

Bush defends interrogation practices: 'We do not torture'. By Richard Benedetto. USA today. November 7, 2005

Waterboarding Mukasey. By Sidney Blumenthal. The Guardian. November 2, 2007

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People . The White House. September 20, 2001

Reasons to Fear U.S. By Noam Chomsky. The Toronto Star. September 7, 2003

I almost got sent to Guantanamo, By Steven D. Levitt. Freakenomics. The New York Times. July 14, 2005

U.S. to Send 5 Detainees Home From Guantanamo, Australian, Four Britons Allege Abuse. By Carol D. Leonnig and Glenn Frankel. Washington Post. Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A01

pdf U.S. to Send 5 Detainees Home From Guantanamo, Australian, Four Britons Allege Abuse. By Carol D. Leonnig and Glenn Frankel. Washington Post. Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A01

Remarks to the United Nations Security Council. Secretary Colin L. Powell. February 5, 2003

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'. Cable News Network. Saturday, April 3, 2004

Students Call Protest Punishment Too Harsh, By Crystal Yednak. The New York Times. November 7, 2007

pdf Students Call Protest Punishment Too Harsh, By Crystal Yednak. The New York Times. November 7, 2007

The Bill of Rights. Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

Rift over recruiting at public high schools A Seattle high school bars military solicitation, touching off debate over Iraq war and free speech. By Dean Paton . The Christian Science Monitor May 18, 2005

Parents, activists rip school board, Officials overreacted to protest, they say. By Joseph Ruzich. Chicago Tribune. November 9, 2007

No Child Unrecruited. By David Goodman. Mother Jones. November/December 2002

Nowakowski Statement on the Student Protest Disruption at Morton West. Morton High School District 201.

Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters By Terry M. Neal. Washington Post. Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM

Parent-trap snares recruiters, The tune changes at some homes when they hear 'sign here.' By Jack Kelly. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Thursday, August 11, 2005

"Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: FDR’s First Inaugural Address. History Matters.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 15, 2007 at 01:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Activism, Adult Influence on Children, Afghanistan, American Patriotism, Americana, Bush 43 Administration, CIA Prisons, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Congress and Bush, Current Affairs, Domestic Security, Education or War, Emotional Decisions, Exit Iraq Now, Fear, Inequality in America, International Security, Iraq War, Lies, Military Missions, National Security, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Peace Movement, Politics, Question Everything, Saddam Hussein, Teach The Children, The Patriot Act , War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack