Where is the restraint in spending?
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?"
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 InstituteLegislative 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
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 26, 2009 at 01:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Congress, Congress and Bush, Economics, Income Inequity, Iraq War, Obama Oval Office | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Somewhere in America
copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Somewhere in America, a man loses the job he has held for more than thirty years. Somewhere in America, a woman cleans out the office she had occupied for close to a decade. Elsewhere in the United States, a teen unsuccessfully tries to find work. He knows he needs to help his Mom and Dad; each toiled in the factory that closed just down the street. A young woman searches for a professional position, just as she has for the two years since she graduated form the University. Each of these individuals is not startled by the headline, Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January. All ask, where have the "experts," Economists, and elected officials been?
What occurs most every moment, somewhere in America is the reason President Obama stated in his recent address, this country needs a stimulus package now, not tomorrow, not in a week, or in a month. At least, "3.6 million Americans . . . wake up every day wondering how they are going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and provide for their children. That's 3.6 million Americans who need our help."
What the President does not say is that these numbers represent only the persons we know of.
Somewhere in America, in a rural residence, children cry. There is no food in the cupboard. Mom, who is the sole supporter in this family, has been out of work for months. Dad, too depressed, left his loved ones long ago. He labored part-time for years. When the economic downturn began, in 2007, he realized he could not even count on temporary employment. Nor can the young one who hopes to enter college; she understands "career path" may be a euphemism from the past. Today in America, the streets are not golden.
As Senators and Congresspersons, all of whom are gainfully employed, bicker, and build an Economic Stimulus Bill filled with pork, and, or tax cuts that benefit only the rich, somewhere in America, a mother cannot buy food for her son. A single father, without a High School diploma, wonders how he might hold on to his factory job and still adequately prepare his daughter for school. Somewhere in this great country, educational institutions go without textbooks. Perhaps, it matters not, the students cannot read.
Somewhere in America, a cancer patient is refused treatment, for, although he has insurance, the policy will not cover the costs.
A firefighter is given a furlough. In California, State workers are forced to take an unpaid leave. Somewhere in America, a plan to bring recovery to America cannot wait.
Elsewhere in this country, citizens, the few secure in their circumstances, argue over the proposed stimulus package. Certain that all is well, at least for them, these affluent Americans say the situation is not dire. They encourage their Representatives not to sign on to a incentive measure that might spend money on other than they, personally, think right. Meanwhile, somewhere in the United States, a family in the frozen Midwest is thrown out on the cold streets. The mortgaged house, the five had lived in for near a score, went into foreclosure.
In a country, where the words "economic crisis" is not hyperbole, few wish to help move the nation forward. People rather quarrel. Free speech is fun for those who still feel safe. Today, the public does not ponder the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota two summers ago. August 2007, was eons ago. The public does not hear the stressful sounds of a viaduct ready to crumble. The roar of engines is too loud, or perhaps, when the conversation turns to fiscal responsibility the screams from silly squabbles drown out the noise steel makes when it bends and breaks.
People plump with power, profits, or an ideology can safely ignore federal government studies that show "Nearly a quarter of the nation's roughly 600,000 major bridges carry more traffic than they were designed to bear," When an American lives elsewhere in America, it may matter not that the "Federal Highway Administration data from 2006 shows that 24.5 percent of the nation's bridges longer than 20 feet were categorized as "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" (data from Utah and New Mexico was from 2005)."
Rarely do individuals reflect on what does not affect them directly. Many are happy to refuse to see what is invisible to their eyes let alone the reality numbers might represent. Empathy, elsewhere in America can be elusive.
People who have a roof over their heads rather rant. Those who toddle off to the office much prefer to rage. It is "pork" they say. The Obama stimulus plan is nothing but needless government-funded expenditures. "Taxes must be cut;" screech the tycoons and venture Capitalists. These influential persons of means make telephone calls. The rich reach out and touch Republican and Democratic Legislators alike. Why? Because they can. Powerful persons have access, the privilege of the affluent. The plight that occurs somewhere in America is alien to them.
Insulated and isolated, the wealthy worry not. Elsewhere, many in the Middle Class cannot imagine what it must be like to live somewhere in America. Most do not believe an economic catastrophe will become a personal truth.
Those whose children are enrolled in private schools, or in public school out in the suburbs subsidize their progeny's education. They wonder why others cannot. Perchance these individuals have not traveled to somewhere in America. Persons whose families are well-funded, who hear, and see no evil on the streets of this nation, do not imagine that somewhere in America might ever be where they live.
These citizens, comfy, cozy, and content with what is, have no need for the Head Start programs now cut from the stimulus package. Education for the Disadvantaged, another program now eliminated from the Bill, will not have an effect on friends or family of the economically-established. Persons who have the ability to care for their own do not understand the plight of those they have never encountered.
Thus, they exclaim, the "fat" must be removed from the stimulus package, and so it is.
School improvement stipends were removed from the proposed fiscal plan. These critical contributions, in a country, which ranks low, or last, in many categories of learning seems unnecessary. Child Nutrition grants are lavish in the minds of the physically and financially satiated. Surely, the well-off say, there is no need for such remunerations.
Individuals who are safe and sane do not wish to sponsor programs such as Funds for Violence Against Women. These planned provisions were erased from the proposition. Persons not in harm's way questioned why would society wish to assist those ladies who did not chose their companion wisely.
Food Stamps surely are wasteful spending, say the scornful and satiated.
These same persons are happy to see an end to what they think exploitive expenditures. Dollars expected to be doled out to The National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA, National Science Foundation NSF, and the Western Area Power Administration were also expunged from the package.
Firefighters are now forsaken. Cash for the Coast Guard was deemed redundant. Payments for better prisons, are said to be decidedly pointless. Community Oriented Policing Services COPS Hiring programs, are among the allowances that have been cut. Apparently, community safety is not critical, at least not for those who think private industry better cares for any communal needs.
That may be why these same individuals decided dollars devoted to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC were also wanton. Certainly, these would not stimulate the economy.
Perchance, the persons who live elsewhere in the United States, do not realize that cash spent on services contributes to jobs somewhere in America.
Possibly, the prosperous do not recall that poverty produces greater poverty. Persons who love to engage in arguments, think it fun to find fault with each and every point, These individuals, whose intention is to wrangle, do not wish to acknowledge, as Nobel Prize winner and Princeton Professor of Economics and National Affairs does in his most recent NewYork Times column. "As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself."
As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on."
Hence, as a country we stand still. Democrats and Republicans are divided. Congress cannot or will not decide to support an authentic stimulus package. Policymakers will do as they have always done, dicker, and deliver little. What may ultimately pass will likely be more irresponsible than it might have been.
When somewhere in America is not where you are; nor is it a place you chose to imagine as real, then you do not reflect upon the parent who has not had a paycheck for years, or the child who cries out for a but a mere morsel of food. Sadly, somewhere in America, for members of Congress, and for citizens comfortable in their circumstances, is a place far, far, far, away.
In truth, were the quarrelsome to look out their window, they might see, somewhere in America is right next door.
- Obama Announces New Economic Recovery Board, President: Job Losses "Devastating News." CQ Transcripts Wire. Washington Post. ?Friday, February 6, 2009; 12:38 PM
- Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January, By Edmund L. Andrews. The New York Times February 6, 2009
- Obama Raises Stakes for Senate's Economic Stimulus Bill, By William Branigin, Paul Kane and Shailagh Murray. Washington Post. Friday, February 6, 2009; 1:11 PM
- Grim Illiteracy Statistics Indicate Americans Have a Reading Problem. Education Portal. September 20,, 2007
- Schwarzenegger orders mass layoffs, unpaid furloughs, By Patrick McGreevy and Jordan Rau . The Los Angeles Times. December 20, 2008
- Firefighters in Colorado Springs Have More Than Just Fires To Worry About. Employment Spectator. January 26, 2009
- U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test, By Maria Glod. Washington Post. Wednesday, December 5, 2007; A07
- Lawmakers Seek to Revise Stimulus; Bill Now in Senate (Update2) By Brian Faler. Bloomberg News. February 3, 2009
- Latest Cuts To The Stim Package: Head Start, Child Nutrition, Food Stamps Public Transit, By Greg Sargent.. Who Runs the Government. A Washington Post Publication. February 6, 2009
- Baldwin Township couple, among millions facing foreclosure in U.S., turn to nonprofit aid program. By Tim Grant. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.August 28, 2008
- Experts: Leadership, money keys to building bridges. Cable News Network. August 3, 2007
- Community Oriented Policing Services COPS.
- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA.
- National Science Foundation NSF.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 6, 2009 at 12:00 AM in American Dream, American Family, American Jobs, Americana, Congress, Economics, Education or Economics, Obama Oval Office | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Karl Rove and Captain Ahab-Conyers
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.
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. 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 . . . 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.
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.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 3, 2009 at 01:22 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Congress, Congress and Bush, Judiciary, Lawbreakers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"I won!"
copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Update . . . A bell rings. The sound reverberates. A sentiment shared aloud resonates within the heart, mind, body, and soul of persons who heard the message. No matter the actions taken afterward, sullen statements are not easily erased from memory. Days before Congress was asked to pass the stimulus package, the President uttered the now famous phrase; "I won," Republicans, as could have been expected, expressed resentment. Immediately, subsequent to President Obama's statement Democrats were said to have followed the Chief Executive's lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked if he thought Republicans might block the initiative. Empathically, he replied; "No." Today we know differently. In the House, the measure received no support from the Grand Old Party. As we await approval from the Senate we may wish to consider, the past. Words that evoke division have a lasting effect. Please peruse a missive penned shortly after President Obama reacted to pressure from the "Right."
I fear for the future, for I remember when the words were "Yes we can!" Has this assertion become but an old argot, now trivial or trite? Please tell me. Now that you sit solidly in the Oval Office is the achievement of one all that matters? Perchance, with a "change" in climate, we, the Progressives have become the Party of arrogance. It seems you personally have adopted an individualistic platform. Peace and process talks will be less diplomatic. Discussions will be more reflective of Obama rule or Democratic control. After he left the White House, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina was said to have "echoed" your sentiment. He may not have used your exact words; nevertheless, the sentiment was clear, the Progressive Party will dictate the rule of law. Congressman Clyburn said, "The American people didn't listen to them [the Republicans] too well during the election." The implication being, so why should the Progressives who represent them. My concern extends beyond the language. It is the intent I lament! I had hoped that sooner than later, the Obama Administration would recognize individualism, as we all saw, did more harm than good. 'I envisioned "Mavericks no more," would be the mantra of an Obama Administration. As a Democrat, devoted to progressive platforms, I imagined peace was a prospect we would no longer ignore. Admittedly, as I say this I cannot help but think of the quagmire that Afghanistan is, and I fear will be worsened You may recall, President Obama, when we go for the unilateral kill, as we did in Iraq, innocents, foreign born and our own die. The terrain is devastated. The cost cannot be accurately calculated. The price humans pay for victory is incomprehensible, at least it is to me. I inquire; how does one place value on lives, limbs, and a sense of security, serenity, and safety lost. It seems in America, most rarely do the math. We want only to overcome, to be the victor. Hence, with a note of superiority, supremacy, and self-importance, we say we, he, or "I win." I heard the reaction on November 4, 2008. As the election results came in, your constituents chanted "We won!" You too must have felt concern as the crowd cheered. You spoke to such a perspective often. A triumphal tune closes doors and ends discussion. President Obama, these are your words. "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." The electorate, I recognize is new to the novelty of inclusively, but you, Mister President. What of your core beliefs? President Obama, I could understand such a statement from a Republican, not yet ready, to put aside differences after what seemed to be a defeat. Elections, by their very nature, are divisive. However, even Conservatives for Change concluded this year was different. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell even offered his open hand. I suspect with word of your "win" that will not last. Oh, Mister President, until I heard word of how you spoke of "your" feat, I truly believed that change had come. I wonder, with all the work to do, has anyone won? There has been too much despair, too much distress, disparity that is incomprehensible, and all this has existed for far too long. Please Mister President, travel back, into the future, with me. Do you recall the deregulations and the economic downfall?. In the recent past, as a country, we experienced the dire effects of a Republican victory. It seemed obvious, a conquest breed certain vanity. Persons within the Grand Old Party are not alone when it comes to excessive pomposity. Hence, my apprehension. In modern times, Americans have seen the ill inflated egos can cause. Democrats, equally haughty, ultimately embraced policies that ended an era of effective oversight. Do the wordsGlass-Steagall Act remind you of how arrogant, those replete with power might be, Does the taste of the Depression era law President Clinton repealedlinger on your lips? Those who no longer have a legal right to redeem a mortgage might caution against a prizewinning irrational exuberance. Perhaps you may recall predatory lending. Winners on Wall Street thought this idea fine. Home foreclosures flourished. Bank failures became common. Unemployment rates rose. Workers received less benefits before businesses finally closed the doors. It was not that long ago. Think back. During the Bush reign the Conservatives were in power. For decades, Republicans won most every Presidential election. On the one occasion when a Democrat occupied the Oval Office and Congress was mostly Progressive, defiant winners were only able to do so much. Soon after, Democratic "control" was easily lost. Perhaps, the people felt the Administration to full of itself with the win. You may remember President Obama, "The Republican Contract with America." In the past, a practiced politician or a Political Party may have said they won. However, what really happened was America lost. President Obama, you spoke of this in your more recent book, The Audacity of Hope." Remember? "In the back-and-forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation - a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago - played out on the national stage. . . .what has been lost in the process, and has yet to be replaced, are those shared assumptions - that quality of trust and fellow feeling - that bring us together as Americans." Barack Obama these are your words. "In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own. Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America." If someone, anyone wins or owns the rights to run the show, we are all doomed. Currently, we witness the woes of a win in our Health Care systems. Medical coverage is a service available only to the privileged. There is income for triumphant Insurers. Pharmaceuticals profits have paralyzed this country. Disparity in healthcare devastates the impoverished, the ill, and the injured, millions of whom have no medical coverage. More Americans are underinsured. Even more are likely to lose what they have as the economy weakens. In this country, cash divides winners and losers. Mister President, you might understand this. Consider the dollars needed just to get a candidate elected, to have him or her heard. Please also ponder what was once more important to you and the electorate than dough. The community carried the message. Without the strength of unity, we as a country crumble. The deterioration has already begun. President Obama, do you remember the dream? You must recall; Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King Junior taught us to believe in the dream of equality. Reverend King avowed, "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the way our world is made." Doctor King did not praise personal wins or commend clannish conquests. Yet, today, in America, where a President proudly proclaims "I won," children of all colors, their elders of every hue, are not afforded a chance to succeed. In a country where Progressives posture, "We won," we do not consider what a coup d'état mentality means to a country, or to the children who inherit a nation torn asunder. Mister President and Progressives proud of what it means to win, please consider the ominous shadow cast by a Supreme Court decision, Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, The Court and the prideful parents who championed a cause ensured only the wealthy and the white would receive a quality education. Separate and unequal services are again sanctioned in city schools. The judgment sealed a subterranean deal that has long been in effect. The rich triumph; the poor will not have equal opportunities. In America, we have seen the destruction wrought by our culture of conquests. Yet, as a nation we continue to ignore what might be obvious. Perhaps, this is why, as your proclamation filtered through the airwaves, Mister President, many Progressives applauded what was familiar and what they had waited for. Republicans who had come to believe there was reason to hope for true change were struck by the divisive rhetoric. Your disdainful remark was like a slap in the face, a stab in the back, or the statement that would bring resentment back to Washington, Those still bruised by the political battle never forgot that they wanted to be the ones, or at least "That one." I recall history and recoil at what could be our future if we affirm as you did days ago. "I won?" Oh please President Obama, remember your own reflection. "What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This "victory" alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change . . . " I beg you to consider, the power of words. Ponder; can we be "victorious," and will such a triumph leave many behind; or we can we be successful together. Can one "I" prevail or will we, the people achieve when we unite. Please tell me it is true. Government can be of, by, and for us all, or an Administration, and Americans can be partisan. Please President Obama, let us not suggest that we, or "I won!" I implore you to reflect or your own words.. "(The change we seek) that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you (the American people)." President Obama, you did not win. Progressives did not prevail when you were placed in the Oval Office. We the people will not meet the challenges through conquest. Nor will we be the change we can believe in if you, or any of us, declaratively deems, "I won!" Americans did not vote for the arrogance we heard and saw for eight long years, We had hope. We had a dream. In the White House, in the people's house, in Congress, and in our local communities, we could become genuinely united, integrated, and inclusive. Yes we can, and I think we must. References for realities that divide us . . . Oh Mister Obama, please tell me it is not so. Days ago, I read and heard numerous reports. You made a declarative statement. Many were shocked. Anecdotally, Congressman and women stated, when pressed by Republicans who disagreed with your position on economic policy, you said, "I won." Will this mean, once again, Americans will be the losers?
Mister President, you also addressed the issue of the ownership society. You must remember this. You stated what I often say; however, more eloquently.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 24, 2009 at 08:10 PM in Aggression, Communities and Communication , Congress, Emotional Intelligence, Politics | 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 NowSubmitted 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.comCongressman 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 . . .
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 EDTWashington (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 . . .
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 . . .
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
Floridians Consider Taxes, Budget Cuts, and Effects the Everglade State
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
On April 15, as Floridians rush to file tax forms few think of more than the burden. The cost of living in the Sunshine State is high. Levies are higher. Each year, the toll these expenditures take on the lives of individuals and families increases. Many citizens in this Southern State cry, "We need some relief!" Representative have heard the call and responded. Yet, the reaction may not be as thoughtful as it first appears to be.
Floridians may wish to consider the plea Democratic Party Chair, Congresswoman, Karen L. Thurman presents. The Congresswoman discusses a stark reality. Change may come at the expense of the common people. A reduction in dollars and cents spent does not always equate to a savings.
Many in The Orange State are grateful. Representatives in the State reviewed the budget and then expressed a belief cuts must be made. Prompted by much public angst, the Conservatives may claim the people want the Legislature to be more restrained. Few would argue that this is true. What is equally valid is the fact that few would wish to compromise the safety, security, or sanity of the poorest people, and those who are physically most dependent on others. If the impoverished are in need, incidental costs amass and local communities pay the ultimate price.
Our children, and their education, are vital. The progeny are our future. Parents are also not persons we would wish to hurt. Throughout our lives Moms and Dads, now elderly protected us. Now, we must help provide for their safety and security, just as they did for us. Without the person who cared for us in our younger years, we would not be as profound and emotionally prosperous as we are.
The police and fire men and women also help ensure our safety and security. Floridians, please ask yourself, can you afford to chance that these public servants may not be there when you need them most?
Granted, in this moment a resident of Florida may not be able to see into the future. Today, he or she may think himself or herself healthy. However, all living creatures must consider that cancers, heart attacks, strokes, and pneumonia does not knock on the door and ask for an invitation to enter a body. These catastrophic illnesses creep up on a being silently, too often suddenly. When people are fit, they need to ponder the possibility that has become more probable in many American households. Insurers have cut coverage. Co-pays are more exorbitant. Businesses have eliminated Health Care benefits. As the economy worsens and profits are negligible, this trend is likely to increase. Floridians need to consider what might occur in hospitals as the cost of care soars .
There is much to contemplate as Floridians assess the quality of life and the proposed budget cuts. I invite readers to respond to the impending crisis. Planned budget cuts may not be the blessing citizens in the Everglade State thought they would be. It is possible to remove allocations that do not serve the common folk well. Floridians, please, let us look before we leap. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Please, ponder the profound impacts these changes may bring, rather than rely on clichés.
Seemingly, simple solutions rarely address the specifics that are all too real in the lives of residents. The thoughts of the Congresswoman, Karen L. Thurman may help the people in Florida to make an informed decision.
Help if you choose. Click on any of the links if you wish to act in the interest of those you love, Mom, Dad, son, daughter, spouse, and you . .
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 "If a state had its priorities straight, balancing a budget on the backs of the working poor, the elderly and the disabled would be the last option. This year in Florida, it's the first option... the Republican-led House and Senate [have] completed mutually heartless, stupid budgets..." - Palm Beach Post Editorial, 4/15/08Dear Florida Democrats,
Today is tax day in America, which means that we've all got money on the mind, even more than usual. Times are tough. Florida families are being squeezed, either directly or indirectly, by skyrocketing gas prices, rising health care costs, the continued housing crisis and, of course, the subprime mortgage disaster.
Moreover, the Republicans' reckless policy of raising property taxes on middle class families to pay for special interest tax loopholes has been devastating. You won't ever hear them admit to raising taxes, but it's true. They've increased the required local effort - local property taxes - time and again.
Now the Republican politicians in Tallahassee want to squeeze the people of Florida even more - including the most vulnerable among us. I'm always amazed by how heartless and self-serving Republicans in power are, but the proposed state budgets from the House and Senate mark a new low.
It's not over yet, however. As the "leaders" of the Republican-controlled Legislature negotiate the final budget, we must send them a strong and clear message: Get your priorities straight - NOW.
Click below to use our automated online tool to send a message to Republican Senate President Ken Pruitt, possible future Senate President Jeff Atwater, Speaker Marco Rubio and Speaker-Designate Ray Sansom today.
http://www.fladems.com/stopthecuts
What do the Republicans want? I'll tell you:
The Republicans want to reduce per student spending in K-12 education for the first time in almost 40 years. They want to eliminate Everglades clean-up efforts. Though child abuse rises as the economy dives, they're going after more than 70 child-protection jobs.
The Republicans also want to gut the highway patrol and reduce public safety. They want to lay off almost 2,000 corrections officers, despite prisons being stretched to the limit already. They want to cut a third of the state's probation officers - the law enforcement specialists whose job it is to keep convicted sexual predators away from your children.
Republicans want to reduce hospice care for seniors and decimate county health departments and Area Health Education Centers, where Florida's poorest in rural areas and underserved urban communities often go for their medical care. They want thousands of inner-city school kids in Miami to see their doctors less often.
The Republicans want to end hospital care for 20,000 people with catastrophic illnesses and reduce access to anti-rejection drugs for Floridians who have received life-saving organ transplants.
The Republicans don't have to do this. Florida has a rainy day fund, and there are plenty of corporate tax loopholes that can be closed. Democrats in the Legislature are fighting tooth and nail against the Republicans' terrible decisions, but they need your help.
Click below to send a message to the Republicans in charge. Write them about a personal story, and tell them to stop their recklessness before it hurts more Floridians.
http://www.fladems.com/stopthecuts
They've spared nothing - except their special interest buddies.
Speaker Rubio secretly inserted language into the House budget to allow a friend's company to bid for a multi-million dollar state contract. While the Republicans want to slash financial aid and increase tuition for college students, Sen. Mike Haridopolos is accepting $75,000 a year to lecture part-time - on top of the $150,000 in state money he took to write a book that was never published.
Atwater, who thinks he should be Senate President, tried to kick bail bondsmen some cash, until he was caught red-handed by Democratic Sen. Arthenia Joyner. Meanwhile, President Pruitt is allowing Atwater to take $7000 a month to train his future chief of staff - an unprecedented waste of taxpayer money.
Democrats proposed an alternative budget, and of course, the Republicans rejected it. But that doesn't mean we should back down. Someday we'll have a Legislature that works for the people again. Until then, we have to speak up loudly. Please take a few minutes today and write the Legislature before it's too late.
Thank you for your commitment.
Sincerely,
Congresswoman Karen L. Thurman
Chair, Florida Democratic PartyP.S. This Republican recession is a mess, and the Republican Legislature's budget plans are going to make it even worse - if we don't act now. Send a message today:
http://www.fladems.com/stopthecuts
Floridians who care thank those who also choose to do more than stress, then slice, and dice the necessary expenditures, those that ensure that inhabitants of the Sunshine State are safe, sane, and remain stable.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 15, 2008 at 08:00 AM in Communities, Congress, Economics, Florida | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wexler, Gutierrez, Baldwin, Kucinich, and the People Call For Cheney Censure
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
May I offer my sincerest gratitude to Representatives, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, and Tammy Baldwin. These glorious members of the House Judiciary Committee, recently raised the volume on the issue of impeachment for Vice President Cheney. The three invite us, the average citizen, to join them. Please express your distress; sign the petition. Call for Hearings. Without you the Vice President will continue to avoid an official and necessary censure.
Please sign the petition. Join Congressman Wexler’s Call For Cheney impeachment Hearings.
Please do not stop there. Americans have seen what occurs when we are complacent. For too long Congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke of what many thought obvious, and only a few listened.
Throughout his term, Vice President, Richard B. Cheney acted on questionable information. He made decisions that many considered problematic. Cheney “may” have committed numerous “high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, no matter how many millions of Americans joined in the call to censure, the cry was hushed. The mainstream media barely and rarely spoke of the measure. Only a scant number of Representatives endorsed House Resolution 333, submitted by the Representative from Ohio.
As House leaders sat silent, Vice President Cheney continued to violate the doctrine known as the United States Constitution. He did so without charge or challenge.
For years, Richard B. Cheney declared the Executive Branch has “supreme” power. Many scoffed; however, Congress initiated no formal action. The Vice President did not stop doing as he pleased. Complaints from the House and the Senate mounted; yet, Cheney remained safe from censure.
It seemed the Vice President’s skin, and his contempt for law, were impenetrable. Richard B. Cheney refused and rebuffs accountability.
The Vice President prefers aggression and plans attacks against other Nation States. Until now Congress, and the American people stood by. Finally, the tide may have turned.
Each day, Americans and Legislators discover much occurred within the White House walls over the last seven years. We are increasingly certain the Vice President acted with dubious authority. The more we learn, the more we realize a need to impeach Richard B. Cheney. Representatives and House Judiciary Committee Members Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Tammy Baldwin, and the cyberspace community have stated their extreme concern. However, just as Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich realized during his campaign to hold Cheney accountable, the media would rather not address this state of affairs.
If we the people are to be served, if we are to honor the rights afforded us by the United States Constitution, we must do more than wait for Congress to act. Our signature on a petition will not be enough to convince a reluctant House Speaker that it is time to embrace this cause. I invite you to submit a Letter to the Editor of any and every newspaper. For Representative Wexler alone, although he tried, cannot create the news storm necessary for impeachment.
I offer my own submission for your review. Please request coverage. Ask Journalist nationwide to report on more than this Administration wants us to hear. I thank you for all that you are and all that you do.
If you wish to use my letter, without the links and signature, I offer a Portable Document Format [pdf] version.
Dearest Editorial Staff . . .I am aware of a troublesome campaign to ignore the call to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. I write to express my distress and to request coverage.
On Florida Progressive Radio, Representative Robert Wexler spoke of what he and his colleagues experienced when they submitted an Op-Ed essay on the topic. The major print media outlets did not publish this important treatise on impeachment. The message was not muffled; it was ostensibly silenced.
The mainstream media acted as though an investigation into the practices within the Oval Office, or the Office of the Vice President, were permanently “off the table.” No matter the outcry from the masses, the media continues to dismiss the call.
Auspiciously, after the news organizations cast the cry for censure aside, Representative Wexler turned to the public. The cyberspace community connected to the memorandum the Congressman and his colleagues wrote. Those that surf the Web not only endorsed the crucial communication, Internet users garnered greater support for the proposition. An ambitious online effort heralded the need for immediate impeachment hearings. Within a short time, more than a hundred thousand signers stated they were in favor of a move to censure Vice President Dick Cheney.
Constitutional scholars have warned us. The precedent we set when we overlook what an arrogant Administration does will forever damage our nation. If Americans do not uphold democratic principles, we weaken our Constitution.
For too long, Presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich has been a lone Congressional voice. On more than one occasion, Kucinich spoke of the need to censure Vice President Cheney. In November 2007, Representative Kucinich presented a Privileged Motion on the floor of the House. Even that bold overture received little press.
Nonetheless, some of his fellow Representatives considered the possibility. With the introduction of new evidence, three prominent Representatives felt as though they too had reason to move forward with an investigation and hearings.
Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), all Members of the House Judiciary Committee, considered the novel revelation offered by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. The Vice President and his staff purposefully gave then Press Secretary McClellan false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert Central Intelligence agent. Dick Cheney and his team intentionally chose to release erroneous reports to the American people. This realization prompted the newly stated and amplified concern for impeachment.
Only after much protest from readers did the Miami Herald print an edited version of the original letter from the Representatives. However, it seems that Florida publication and all other periodicals are happy to leave the issue behind. We, the people are not willing to remain silent.
The need to impeach is imperative. I implore you. I invite your newspaper to truly inform Americans. Rather than encourage apathy, please tell the people, print, more than the White House wants us to know.
Sincerely . . .
Betsy L. Angert
Florida
Dear friends, family, and familiars; I thank you all for your interest and participation in the process. On behalf of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Representatives, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Tammy Baldwin, our country, and the Constitution may I extend my deepest appreciation for your thoughts, words, and deeds. We can only hope that United, America will peacefully stand strong again. We cannot know unless and until we begin to censure those that fight against us. We are one, or were, the United States of America, a democratic nation, of, by, and for the people. Together we can take our country back.
References and Resources in Support of Impeachment Hearings . . .
- Wexler Calls For Cheney Impeachment Hearings, By Congressman Robert Wexler.
- Synopsis of Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney.
- Cheney’s Law. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
- A Man With Secrets. By Charlie Savage, Barton Gellman, Bruce Fein, Bradford Berenson, Jack Goldsmith, Michael Isikoff. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
- Interviews. Bradford Berenson, David Gergen, Jack Goldsmith, Charlie Savage. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
- Cheney’s View of the World. Barton Gellman, David Gergen, Evan Thomas, Ron Suskind, Charlie Savage, Bruce Fein. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
- Impeach Cheney Now! Submitted by davidswanson. AfterDowningStreet.org.
- The Impeachment of Dick Cheney. Florida Progressive Radio. Blog Radio.December 20, 2007
- 30,000 People Join Congressman Wexler's Call for Hearings in Just 24 Hours. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman. December 15, 2007
- Wexler Launches Online Push for Cheney Impeachment Hearings. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman.
- 100,000 Answer Wexler Call for Hearings. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman. December 19, 2007
- Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Vote On Impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney TODAY. Congressman Dennis Kucinich. November 6, 2007
- Kucinich Statement on Privileged Resolution. Congressman Dennis Kucinich. November 6, 2007
- Impeach Cheney, The Vice President Has Run Utterly Amok and Must Be Stopped. By Bruce Fein. Slate Magazine. Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
- pdf Impeach Cheney, The Vice President Has Run Utterly Amok and Must Be Stopped. By Bruce Fein. Slate Magazine. Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
- Let Cheney impeachment hearings proceed, By Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, and Tammy Baldwin, Members of the House Judiciary Committee. Washington District of Columbia. Miami Herald. December 19, 2007
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Civics, Congress, Impeach GW Bush, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Valerie Plame | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Not In My Name? I Am An American; I am Culpable
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
I hear the claims and the clamor. "This is George Bush's war!" This Administration instituted a "war on science." Federal funding for research was reduced in recent years. Laws meant to protect the environment were repealed. I would love to say that much of what occurs in America today is not done in my name. It is not my fault or folly. However, I cannot make this assertion. I am an American; I am culpable.
Granted, I do not support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. The possibility of a mêlée in Iran, Korea, Lebanon, Israel, here, or aboard I think abhorrent. For me, armed combat is not an option. It never was or will be in my mind. Congress does not represent me when they continue to fund brutal battles. Nevertheless, I believe this war is mine. I cannot blame it on George W. Bush, the House, or the Senate. I am an American. My country is directly responsible for the havoc we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. By extension, I believe we, as a nation, are answerable for the attacks we initiated and the aftermath.
My own certainty that I could do nothing more than I do allows those in office to act in my name. The sense of futility I feel gives credence to the concept that I cannot control the Commander-In-Chief, his counsel, or the Congress. Yet I am liable for my lack of initiative, for the lax I let be me.
I do not understand why this nation went into debt to fund a futile war. Had the battle been a breeze and America retreated triumphant, I would feel no different. Financial obligations, purchases made on credit are not as I crave. Conservatives may declare fiscal responsibility; however, it seems, if profits can be made from combat, then in debt we go. I believe this construct is foolish.
I have no ability to comprehend the love of victory. For me, wars are never won.
Perchance, that is why I struggle with the Presidential campaign. Political lines are drawn. Party's part ways. People cannot see the similarities within their stances. The differences, the depth of their division drives competitive combative persons on. The supposed need to succeed separates us. From the President to the people, the phrase "You are either with me or against me" dominates.
Democrats smell a Republican defeat and are happy to embrace any of three candidates that will not commit to exit Iraq. Fifty three percent of Progressives prefer the candidate that proudly proclaims, we need more troops in Afghanistan. It is craziness to me. I would love to say, this election is not being held in my name. Yet, I am a citizen of the United States. What happens in my homeland is, in part, my doing.
As an American, I am culpable for all that occurs in my country and for all that my nation does.
I do not grasp the logic that led members of the House and Senate to compromise on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Why would anyone advocate to increase funds for Abstinence Only Sex Education classes, that have proven to be ineffective, is beyond me. I heard the excuses. Democrats declare Republicans will support the measure if .
The obsession to cut taxes makes no sense to me. We watch the infrastructure crumble around us and still we say, "No new taxes."
As I observe millions of people enter Wal-Mart, I wonder. Why might they complain of imports and then purchase these wares with glee.
I read the statistics. Forty-nine percent of immigrants are hired to do work in American homes. Businesses only bear a portion of the "burden" or benefit from a "cheap" labor force. Yet, wherever I travel Americans speak of the need to close borders.
Bigotry is in bloom in this nation. I would like to say xenophobia is not wrought in my name. Yet, I am an American. This is my country; I am culpable.
I recognize that I feel as though I do not have the power to change what is; however, I know to my core that change begins with me. As long as I blame, the President, the Bush Dynasty, the Clinton Clan, Congress, Vice President Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or you, I cannot, and will not do, as I must. Only when I accept that I am an American; I am culpable will I commit to change what causes my fellow man and me great harm.
I invite you do dream, to embrace the unattainable, and the ridiculous. Walk the streets in support of peace. Write letters to the editors, your Congressmen, and women. If a General Strike appeals to you, engage. November 6, 2007 offers an opportunity for protest. Whatever action you choose please be the serenity you wish to see. March in harmony. When someone shrilly speaks to you, do not respond in kind. If you believe in peace, let that path be your eternal guide.
With thanks to Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Don Quixote, and Miguel de Unamuno . . .
"Only he who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible."
~ Miguel de Unamuno [Spanish Philosopher and Writer]Not In My Name . . .
- Not In Our Names.
- Clinton Blasts Bush’s ‘War on Science,’ By Cornelia Dean and Patrick Healy. The New York Times. October 4, 2007
- Front-runner Clinton still needs to watch her words, By Steve Huntley. The Chicago Sun Times. June 15, 2007
- Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11. Exclusive: Rumsfeld Sought Plan For Iraq Strike Hours After 9/11 Attack. CBS News. September 4, 2002
- Afghanistan wakes after night of intense bombings. Cable News Network. October 7, 2001
- US 'Iran attack plans' revealed. British Broadcasting Company. February 20, 2007
October 7, 2001
- If Necessary, Strike and Destroy, North Korea Cannot Be Allowed to Test This Missile. By Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry. Washington Post. Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A29
- pdf If Necessary, Strike and Destroy, North Korea Cannot Be Allowed to Test This Missile. By Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry. Washington Post. Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A29
- Watching Lebanon, Washington’s interests in Israel’s war. By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. August 21, 2006
- Israel's Next War? Frontline. April 5, 2005
- Post coverage of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. Washington Post.
- House Passes Children's Health Insurance Bill That Would Extend Abstinence Education Program for Two Years.. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. August 02, 2007
- On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States. By Abel Valenzuela Jr., Nik Theodore, Edwin Meléndez, Ana Luz Gonzalez. The Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region’s Washington Area Partnership for Immigrants and UCLA’s Center for the Study of Urban Poverty January 2006
- Noose Sent to Black Principal at Brooklyn School, By Jennifer Medina. The New York Times. October 22, 2007
- pdf Noose Sent to Black Principal at Brooklyn School, By Jennifer Medina. The New York Times. October 22, 2007
- Clinton Widens Lead In Poll. Senator Also Tops Obama in Latest Fundraising Data. By Jon Cohen and Anne E. Kornblut. Washington Post.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; Page A01
- pdf Clinton Widens Lead In Poll. Senator Also Tops Obama in Latest Fundraising Data. By Jon Cohen and Anne E. Kornblut. Washington Post.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; Page A01
- Bayh, Clinton Call for More Troops in Afghanistan. Hillary Rodham Clinton. January 17, 2007
- Wal-Mart CEO defends low-cost imports. Cable News Network. October 12, 2007
- Wal-Mart's Imports Lead to U.S. Jobs Exports. American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations.
- Specific Suggestion: General Strike. Give Peace A Chance. By Betsy L. Angert. BeThink September 29, 2007
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 23, 2007 at 11:58 PM in Activism, Afghanistan, Boycotts, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Dynasty, Congress, Congress and Bush, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, Iran, Iraq War, Israel and Lebanon, Racial Discrimination, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Wal-Mart | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
