Uncommon, Common Sense

JUST WHO IS PRESIDENT BUSH EXPECTED TO PARDON BEFORE HE LEAVES THE WHITE HOUSE?

2008-07-17T09:30:00.000-07:00

The questions are really starting to be raised as to, other than "Scooter Libby", who are going to be included in the hundreds (or thousands?) of the President's Republican cronies that he is expected to grant a Presidential Pardon? You can probably start at the top of the list with Vice President Dick Cheney, and then of course; Karl Rove, Harriett Miers and his long list of past and current Chief of Staffs and various, if not all past Cabinet Members and Press Secretaries, (with an exception for Scott McClellan).

But what about George himself? Aren't their rules that the President can't pardon himself?

Actually, other than if he is being impeached, no one really knows the answer because it has never happened or been litigated. However, the majority view of Constitutional Attorneys and Historians is that a president "can" pardon himself (assuming he does so prior to impeachment).

Art. II Sec. 2 of the US Constitution states, in part, that the president "shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." In this clause of the "power to grant Reprieves and Pardons," the founders of the US Constitution did not consider the issue of a President doing all of the illegal actions as those of this President. The purpose of this clause was originally, only to insure the separation of powers by preventing the courts from using the law as a legal blackmail against the president.

The argument that the president could murder someone and then pardon himself is rather a non-issue, considering that the vice president (or anyone) could kill anyone for the president and then the president could pardon him or her. Therefore, the original question is still unanswered.

On the other hand, what about the possibility of being pardoned for war crimes? Does this clause also apply to being found guilty of committing international war crimes.

Let's go back a couple of years to see what the Republican politicians did for dealing with this possibility:

A Supreme Court Decision in 2006:

In 2006, the US Supreme Court decided that the detainees being held in Guantanamo Bay and other US Military prisons were subject to the provisions as stated in the Geneva Convention. In this case, all those involved in any decisions to allow "any and all torture" to these detainees could be held responsible. Each action of torture could then be tried as a separate felony. The accused could then be tried, found guilty and considered for the death penalty in the most severe cases.

This Supreme Court decision occurred before the Democrats had retaken their the leadership position of the US Congress in the November, 2006 elections. It was at that time that the Republican leadership's congressional stooges, House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, and Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, (now thankfully, long-gone from the House and Senate) jumped into high gear and pushed a bill through that was later signed into law by President Bush. That bill is now referred to as the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Buried deep down in this bill of many pages is a clause that will allow President Bush to "pardon himself and to provide all of his staff retroactive immunity for any possible war crime(s) that date back to September 11, 2001".

So, unless this decision is challenged and overturned by a new Congress (which won't happen before the President's final term is finished), President George W. Bush could pardon himself and his staff from being accused and convicted of war crimes.

It now appears that once again, President Bush and his Administration will be able to place themselves above the law.

It is so sad and thoroughly disgusting that for a country that is supposed to be a "nation of laws", that this could set a horrible legal precedent and it would show the highest level of hypocrisy to other nations around the world. It would be just one more example that would once again lower the world-wide reputation of the United States, one more level.

I sincerely don't believe that our founding fathers ever considered that an elected US President, and his staff, would ever commit the number and the level of illegal acts as those by George W. Bush's Administration, and that other duly elected US Officials would let them get away with it.

There are times, for those of us that closely follow the actions of our government and its elected officials, that we are so repulsed and disgusted that we are just left speechless. This is one of those times.....

TOTALLY "FREE" MARKETS HAVE NEVER WORKED & THEY NEVER WILL!

2008-07-16T14:46:00.001-07:00

When will the Republicans and the conservatives ever learn that there is only one situation where a totally "free market" can work and flourish, and that the US and the world are well past being able to fit into that kind of "free market"scenario.

Here is a story of how a "free market" is supposed to work and an example of today's global reality:

Living in the Nations of "Freedom" or in "New Reality"
Lets say that you live in the country of "Freedom" , where there is a big business in building tractors. In fact, there are 10 tractor manufacturing companies, all with large tractor factories. Working in these factories are many, happy, well paid union workers with medical coverage and even a comprehensive retirement plan.

Now, your country of "Freedom" is a real "free market" country and all 10 of the tractor manufacturers are good competitors in selling their tractors in "Freedom" as well as in other "free market" countries. All of these tractor companies compete with each other on a level playing field of competition. Under these conditions, the consumers can purchase whichever tractor they desire based on the tractor's features, payment terms, sizes, colors and whatever options they need in order to do the job. All of these tractors sell for similar prices which will give all the factories a reasonable level of profit. The tractors can also be exported for sales in other countries, especially to those countries that do not have their own tractor factories.

All is well with the world in "Freedom". Everyone is happy, making tractors, making profit and earning good wages. This is an example of a truly "free market" way of doing business and it all sounds very wonderful. This is also the only way that a true "free market" can work.

Unfortunately, it's not the way the world works.

In the real world, let's say there's another country named "New Reality", and they have also decide to start opening their own tractor factories. This country's factories eventually build tractors that are just as good as the "free market" country's tractors. Also, in this country, the tractor worker's wages are only 1/4 of those in the "free market" country and there are no medical or retirement programs offered by the factory management. Instead, the employee benefits are provided by the government and the factory also receives a government subsidy and tax relief for employing the local residents. Due to these advantages in labor costs and government support, the tractors from "New Reality" are much cheaper to manufacture than those from "Freedom".

In addition, when a tractor manufacturer in "Freedom" wants to ship a tractor to sell in "New Reality", "New Reality" places a 20% duty on all the imported tractors and on any other imported products that are also manufactured in the country of "New Reality".

Because you live in a "free market" country, the country called "New Reality" is also allowed to ship their tractors, "duty free", to "Freedom", and to start selling and competing with "Freedom's" tractor manufacturers. Since there is no duty placed on the tractors from "New Reality", and due to the difference in labor costs and with their government's support, the tractors from "New Reality" cost much less to "Freedom's consumers" than those tractors built in "Freedom".

Eventually, the tractors built in "Freedom" stop selling and the "New Reality" tractors take over the local markets. The "Freedom" manufacturers were only able to be competitive in the early years with "New Reality" by laying-off workers and moving their manufacturing to other countries with manufacturing conditions similar to those in "New Reality".

Unfortunately, the "New Reality" manufacturers eventually grew to where they could buy-out the "Freedom" tractor manufacturers. They then either laid-off the remaining union employees or they closed the old factory and moved the manufacturing off-shore. If they kept the old factory working, they ran the plant by hiring non-union workers with lower hourly wages.

Is this starting to sound familiar?

With the exception of when the "free market" Republicans have been in power in the White House and in control of the US government, going back to our founding fathers, the US has never been a "free market" country. In fact, in all of the global history of world governments, those so called, "free market governments" have never been successful nor did they even survive. Markets with zero regulation or oversight have always failed before, and they will always fail in the future. History has proven time and time again that a "free market concept can only work when there is an absolute level playing field for all the players".

Even the first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, understood well the need for some level of regulation. Because of that understanding, Hamilton established the foundation of "checks and balances" within the US Treasury that pointed this Republic in the proper direction from the very beginning. In addition, all of America's founders understood human nature and the need for different levels of "checks and balances". And, judging by the lack of those "checks" and proper oversight of the last 12 years of a Republican Congress and the 7+ years of a Republican Executive Branch, we can all see the poor results of this lack of what our forefathers had originally provided for all of us.

Yes, it is time for this country to open its eyes and see that it is time for a change to a government that takes responsibility for its actions, and the time is now, not later. Are the Democrats the answer? All we can truthfully say is that historically, the Democrats have always been pretty good at cleaning up the conservative's messes, such as the Stock Market Crash of 1928 and the Great Depression of the 1930's. However, after almost 30 years of "Reaganomics, or trickle-down economics" plus a not-so-bright, "war-mongering" George W. Bush, this time it may be all too far gone to fix.

McCAIN'S ADVISOR CAN CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR BILLIONS IN FINANCIAL LOSSES

2008-07-15T09:15:00.000-07:00

Former Senator Phil Gramm, seen here with Senator McCain, has cost Americans Billions of dollars.

I find it amazing that Senator John McCain has continued to surround himself with individuals such as former Senator Phil Gramm, and his wife Wendy, as close "economic" advisors. Especially when the current Mortgage Crisis, the "Enron Loophole" and now the US Bank Failures can all be blamed on the past actions of this single couple's past financial activities.

It has become very clear that back in 2000, the then Senator Phil Gramm had inserted a seemingly minor provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA). Gramm's "little addition" to the act exempted energy trading from any oversight or regulation. Previously, energy trading was done mainly under the strict regulations of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which, in 2000, this last organization just happened to be Chaired by Senator Gramm's wife, Wendy. Both of these organizations had rules in place just to prevent the price distortions that Senator Gramm's little known provision eventually exempted. The CFMA bill, with its provision from Senator Gramm, was also strongly supported by the ENRON ENERGY CORPORATION. After the bill was enacted, ENRON and other traders and speculators moved their share of the energy trading business over to the "unregulated" Atlanta based Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), also now called the "dark market".

It should also be noted that when the CFMA was enacted, Senator Gramm was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in the then Republican Congress. In addition, the Senator's wife subsequently left the CFTC and was immediately named a Director of ENRON, where she was paid over $900,000 during her time as an ENRON Director.

In 2002, after ENRON had gone bankrupt, documents were released that showed that ENRON had not only helped write the CFMA legislation but had outwardly lobbied Senator Gramm. The results of Senator Gramm's "little addition" to the CFMA was that ENRON ended up bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 Billion. The state of California in particular suffered a long hot season of rolling power black-outs and outrageous energy price increases. And all of this was due to the "false shortages" that were perpetrated, mostly by ENRON, and other unregulated energy traders. The Bush Administration even tried to come to ENRON's rescue and President Bush personally joined in on the efforts to stop adding caps to the soaring electricity prices. Fortunately, ENRON was found out as to what they were doing illegally and eventually went into the tank, but not without also taking its employees, investors and customers with them.

Unfortunately, the Gramm's "little addition" didn't stop there. The "little addition" is now referred to as the "ENRON Loophole" and it had also permitted a hedge fund, AMARANTH ADVISERS to corner the natural gas market while operating on the "dark market" without regulation. AMARANTH ADVISERS virtually bet that the price of natural gas would go sky high and they put the bulk of their investor's money on the natural gas futures market. In 2006, natural gas prices plummeted and AMARANTH cost their investors over $6 Billion. In 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) charged AMARANTH with manipulating prices and recommended a fine of $291 Million plus a forfeiture of "unjust profits". Now, no one knows how the FERC will be able to make their recommended fine stick or just what it means by "unjust profits", but at least for now, they have been stopped.

To demonstrate another area of Senator Gramm's influence, let's look at John McCain's latest vote in the Senate against the latest Senate Farm Bill. Senator McCain's aides have said that McCain is against the bill because it rewards large farms with "lucrative subsidies". But the aide also said that another reason is that Senator McCain doesn't like the "regulations that the bill imposes on the energy futures".

Senator McCain, is currently the Republican candidate for President that admits that; "I don't know as much about the US economy as I should". I wonder which of his advisors put the idea into McCain's head against the Senate Farm Bill that just also happens to provide a provision against the "ENRON Loophole"? Gee, I wonder who that could have been...?

It is interesting to hear all the comments from the conservatives about Senator Obama's relationships with individuals that may say things that people may not agree with or support. However, I don't believe I can recall any of Obama's associates or advisors that have done things that ended up costing investors or average Americans' billions of dollars. And I also have to say that one could surmise that due to Senator Gramm's "little addition" that removed any regulations, it might also have something to do with why the oil speculators in today's "dark market" have been able to move the price we pay at the pump up to more than $4.00 a gallon.
Gee, I wonder...............................

HISTORY EXPLAINS WHY VOTER TURN-OUT TODAY IS SO IMPORTANT FOR NOVEMBER '08

2008-07-13T08:04:00.001-07:00

<<< Paul Weyrich, the Christian activist that started the modern conservative movement

If you want change and it doesn't happen. If you don't vote, you can only blame yourself.

The modern conservative political movement of today began in the late 1970's and one of the movement's founders was Mr. Paul Weyrich, a US conservative Christian activist and an experienced reporter / commentator.

Weyrich was born in Racine, Wisconsin in 1942. While a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Weyrich was active in the Racine County Young Republicans from 1961 to 1963 and he worked in Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. He spent his early career in journalism as a political reporter for the Milwaukee Sentinel newspaper and, in radio, as a reporter for WAXO-FM in Kenosha and as news director of KQXI in Denver. In 1977, Weyrich also co-founded Christian Voice with Robert Grant and two years later founded with Jerry Falwell the Moral Majority. In fact, Paul Weyrich was the right wing Christian that coined the phrase "Moral Majority".(See the end of this article for more details on the conservative political and religious background of Mr. Weyrich.)

And then he said, "Let the games begin......."
In Dallas, Texas, in 1980, Mr. Weyrich was one of three key-note speakers that also included speakers Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan. At that gathering of right wing political strategists, Mr. Weyrich made a speech of which, part of it is now one of the most viewed YOUTUBE speeches shown today of a right wing Republican. This video virtually paraphrases exactly why it is so important for every registered Democratic and independent voter to make sure that they do NOT take the easy way out by not voting in the next national election.

Here is the most important part of Mr. Weyrich's speech that day in 1980 that still resonates its truths for voters today. This is also why the current increase in the nation-wide registration of new Democratic voters could be the single most important issue for the upcoming election:

Mr. Paul Weyrich, in his 1980 speech in Dallas, Texas:
"How many of our Christians today have the 'Goo-Goo' good-government syndrome? They want everybody to vote.
I don't want everybody to vote.
Elections are not won by a majority of the people.
They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now.
As a matter of fact, our [conservative, Christian Republican] leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

After Lyndon Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act into law, this had caused many previously solid Democratic southern states in the "Bible Belt" to begin turning to the religious right of the Republican Party. In addition, after the Democratic debacle of the War in Vietnam, the conservatives saw their opportunity for breaking the long-time Democratic hold on the House and the Senate and even their hold on the Executive Branch. With the money the Republicans were now able to raise from a disillusioned public; the new support from the south and a focus on support from the religious right wing; this newly energized Republican Party set out to change the face of American politics. With the election of Ronald Reagan, the down-hill slide began for the Democrats.

That 1980 speech from Paul Weyrich in Dallas became the basic strategy that was used to determine which states the Republicans should focus on to obtain the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. It also became the fundamental foundation strategy that would not only put Ronald Reagan and Bush I & II into the highest political office, but it would also be instrumental in supporting the change from a Democratic Congress to a Republican Congress where both houses were ruled by a Republican majority for 12 years. As Mr. Weyrich had said, "Elections are not won by a majority of the people." It was not the number of voters, it was the "number of right votes in the right states" that would dictate where the majority of the electoral votes would fall.

In addition to their new, focused "political strategy", the conservatives learned all the tricks of keeping the middle and lower class Democratic voters away from the polls. They have also not hesitated to commit less that legal actions on how votes were counted, if it were to their advantage. (Let us not forget the problems with the questionable vote counting in both Ohio and Florida in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Both of these states were in national results, decision making positions.) And once they did take the highest office, they made sure that younger, solid conservative judges were sent to the Supreme Court by the Republican Presidents. These are the same conservative Justices that in a questionable decision, would award to the Republican candidate, the presidential election in 2004.

In 2004, after just barely losing their Senate majority, the conservative Republicans have since also broken all the records for the number of filibusters used for stopping any Democratic legislation. This is regardless of whether it is or was what their constituents wanted or whether the legislation was the right thing to do for the people.

This is the reason for why it is so important that both the administration and both houses of Congress become void of the current Republican influence whenever possible. As one major independent, political analyst said recently, "Today's Republican Party should be referred to as an 'organized crime syndicate' instead of as a 'political party'. There is no area of government, from the Executive in the White House, to the Congress and the Supreme Court and beyond, that has been in their control over the past 20 years that is not tainted or over-run with individuals committing illegal acts against the American public in the causes of the their 'sacred' Republican Party. It' has become a complete disgrace."

Yes, I also agree that all three houses of Congress are overdue for a positive change.

Unfortunately, no matter how bad John McCain may "appear" for becoming the next US President, the Republican National Committee is still able to raise a lot of money and they have been one of the best organized political machines in the history of American politics. Now is the time for the recent, major increases in Democratic registration to show up at the polls and put their X's in the Democratic boxes for both the president and all of the open seats in the House and the Senate. This time the "Right Votes" need to come from an abundance of Democratic voters in all 50 states, especially from the states where the Republicans are focusing and where they think they have the advantage.

As I had said at the beginning of this article:"If you want change and it doesn't happen. If you don't vote, you can only blame yourself."

More Background Information on Paul Weyrich: In 1973, with the financial backing of Coors Brewing, Weyrich and Ed Feulner founded the Heritage Foundation as a think tank to counterbalance the then prevailing sentiment on taxation and regulation, which they considered to be anti-business. While the organization was at first only minimally influential, it has grown into one of the world's largest and most respected public policy research institutes and has been hugely influential in advancing conservative policies.

The following year, again with support from Coors, Weyrich founded the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (CSFC), an organization that trained and mobilized conservative activists, recruited conservative candidates, and raised funds for conservative causes. Under Weyrich, the CSFC proved highly innovative. It was among the first grassroots organizations to raise funds extensively through direct mail campaigns. It also was one of the first organizations to tap into evangelical Christian churches as places to recruit and cultivate activists and support for social conservative causes. Indeed, they proved such a wellspring that, ."

Over the next two decades, Weyrich founded, co-founded, or held prominent roles in a number of other notable conservative organizations. Among them, he was founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of state legislators; a co-founder of the Council for National Policy, a strategy-formulating organization for social conservatives; co-publisher of the magazine Conservative Digest; and national chairman of Coalitions for America, an association of conservative activist organizations. The CSFC, reorganized into the Free Congress Foundation (FCF), also remained active.

The Bush Administration Continues Looking Like that of Richard Nixon

2008-07-11T06:12:00.000-07:00

And the Republican Party is acting more like an organized crime mob than a party for the people.

Well, the FISA Bill that will allow the US government to continue wiretapping Americans has passed and the telecom companies are also off the hook for wiretapping without a valid FISA warrant. It is appearing that George W. Bush got what he wanted and the average American loses another piece of the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
Yes, I agree that the compromise bill does give some reassurances that require more safe-guards from inappropriate wiretapping, but I am also reminded of the famous quotation from our forefather, Benjamin Franklin; "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

And, not only did the Senate pass the compromise FISA Bill, they also shot down the amendments that would have made it stronger for all American's right to privacy. Unfortunately, the desperate Republicans were joined by some weak Democrats in not wanting to be accused of being "soft on terror" when they traveled back to their home states during the congressional Summer break.

With the approval of this FISA Bill (without the amendments), what has finally happened is that, what is now considered "legal" is exactly what caused Richard Nixon to have to resign as the 37th President of the United States.

Thirty-five years ago, President Richard Nixon, when he approved his administration's wiretapping of the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate in Washington DC, claimed constitutional authority to wiretap Americans' phone calls to protect America's national security without asking a federal judge. This is the same assertion that President Bush is making today in the name of fighting terrorism. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Nixon, saying the Constitution granted the powers he was claiming to federal judges, not presidents.

Presidents had previously approved wiretaps without court orders since the 1940s, but the legality of the practice was thrown into doubt after the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that electronic eavesdropping was a "search", and thus covered by the prohibition on unreasonable searches in the Constitution's 4th Amendment. The case Nixon chose as a test of presidential authority arose during a turbulent period in America in circumstances that to President Nixon must have seemed to favor the government. He was wrong back then, but with this latest approval of the FISA Bill, Bush can now continue getting away with the same wiretapping that had caused Richard Nixon to have to resign or to be impeached.

But even with this loss on the FISA Bill, what I am even more disturbed about is how the Republicans, the Bush Administration and now the McCain supporters continue to make all the noise saying that the reason for this "carte blanc" wiretapping of Americans is because of the disasters of 9/11. If one listens to the President and his supporters, there was never a need to have this blanket approval to wiretap all American's if there had not been the 9/11, al Qaeda attack. To those that continue to make that statement, (which by-the-way, includes most of the right-wing talk shows), if this is the reason for wiretapping Americans, why did George W. Bush start his illegal wiretapping program shortly after he took office in February of 2001?

Bush began his illegal wiretapping seven months before the 9/11 attack...? At the time, no one in the Bush Administration had done anything or hardly even mentioned Osama bin Laden or his al Qaeda organization. In fact, it has been stated by some White House aides from Bush's first term that because Bill Clinton's CIA and National Security Advisors had been working on Middle-East terror issues, Bush came into office telling his staff to "put anything that Bill Clinton had as a high priority on the bottom of the pile".

It is now well known that Qwest Communications was the only American telecom company that refused to start a wiretapping program without a valid FISA search warrant. Startling statements from former Qwest CEO, Joseph Nacchio's defense documents state that the National Security Agency (NSA) began building a massive call records database seven months before 9/11. And this is not the only statement by a telecom company that the controversial program predated the attacks of 9/11.

In May 2006, a lawsuit was filed against Verizon Telecom for allegedly turning over call records to the NSA. In the lawsuit, it also states that AT&T began building a spying facility for the NSA just days after President Bush was inaugurated. This lawsuit is just one of 50 that have been consolidated and moved to a San Francisco Federal District Court, where the suits sit in limbo waiting for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether the suits can proceed without endangering national security.

In addition, according to additional court documents, the former Qwest CEO clearly wanted to argue in court that the NSA had retaliated against his company. Mr. Nacchio has said that this retaliation began almost immediately after he turned down the NSA wiretapping request on February 27, 2001, which he had confirmed was an illegal request. Nacchio's attorney issued a statement in 2006, saying that Nacchio had also turned down the NSA's repeated requests for his customer's call records.

So why did Bush start this wiretapping long before the 9/11 attack? There does seems to be a real concern by some individuals that it is going back to how it was with the Republicans and Richard Nixon in the 1970's. The focus then however, was only to spy on the other political party, not for dealing with "possible terrorist threats".

As another example to support this possible conspiracy theory, you may not be aware of something that happened in 2004 under the previous Republican Congress and the Bush Administration's leadership.

In March of 2004, it was reported in the New York Times that a then recent, internal Senate report had stated that for 18 months, at least two Republican Senate staff aides engaged in unauthorized, spying by illegally reading and printing Democratic strategy memorandums on a Senate computer system that was accessed through the Senate's internal phone system. This information was stated in a report released by the then Republican Senate sergeant-at-arms.

The 65-page Senate report concluded that the two Republican staff aides, both of whom have since departed, improperly read, downloaded and printed as many as 4,670 files concerning the Democrats' tactics in opposing many of President Bush's judicial nominees. (Some of the downloads were determined to have been taken directly from Senator Ted Kennedy's Senate office computer.) The official report was the result of an investigation undertaken at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which suggested that many other Republican staff aides may have been involved in trafficking in the stolen documents.

"I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files occurred," Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he also told reporters. "There is no excuse that can justify these improper actions."

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the committee's ranking Democrat, said, "This report indisputably shows that this secret surveillance was calculated, systematic and sweeping in its scope."

Conspiracy or not, it's interesting how all this seems to come together. It also shows why today, after this FISA Bill approval, all Americans should now be just as leery of the government and this administration as we are of possible foreign terrorists. (What happened to the days when all we Americans had to watch out for was some extra "pork spending" by our US Congress?)

And yes, today the US government continues to look more like something that should be run by Al Capone instead of duly elected representatives of the people.

It's all now very sad, disappointing and worst of all, it's potentially very threatening to all American's future liberty and freedom.

Time for Congress to Charge Rove, Miers and Bolten with "Inherent Contempt"

2008-07-09T10:09:00.000-07:00

Based on his behavior, Pres. Bush must be hiding something really nefarious. He has forbidden his aides — including former legal counsel Harriet Miers, current chief of Staff Josh Bolten and now his former White House Political Director, Karl Rove — from even showing up to testify. The Senate Judiciary Committee has now subpoenaed all three of these White House aides about the firing for political reasons of U.S. attorneys. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has issued subpoena’s for Miers, Bolten, Rove and one of his deputies, Jay Jennings. Leahy said he had tried to get information from Rove about the firing of U.S. attorneys, but that the White House has refused to comply. “I’ve exhausted every avenue, sought the voluntary cooperation of the aides, now including Mr. Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail.”

(Rove, has also been implicated, and is claiming "Executive Privilege", in the on-going controversy regarding Don Siegleman, the previous Democratic Governor of Alabama. This potentially illegal political activity has been presented in a sworn affidavit by Ms. Dana Jill Simpson, a long-time, high-ranking Alabama Republican attorney. The illegal action also apparently occurred while Rove was in his presidential advisor position inside the White House.)

A normal charge of "Contempt of Congress" is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. While historically the bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered "Contempt of Congress". In modern times a person must refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee - usually seeking to compel either testimony or documents - in order to be considered in "Contempt of Congress."

In most cases, when a Congressional committee asks the US Attorney General (AG) to refer a contempt case to a Grand Jury, it is almost an automatic process that the AG will do just as requested by the legislative branch. In fact, for many decades, even though the Attorney General is personally selected by the President, the Department of Justice had been previously regarded as the most neutral and non-partisan cabinet position department. This legal department always worked tirelessly to assure that even though their leader might have a political connection to the current Executive in office, the department under the AG has had a stellar reputation of providing "blind justice", with no allegiance to any political party. As soon as this President took over the White House, that bi-partisan status began to change.

Today, most of the Justice Department employees that supported a philosophy of having no bias have left the justice department. They have since been replaced with mostly pro-Republican, conservative lawyers and supporters and the department is currently, anything but unbiased. (One will notice that many of the justice department Directors today are there in an "acting" position as many of the previous, long-time department heads refused to "fall-in-line" and have moved on to other legal roles outside of the government.)

When the Senate Judiciary Committee initially threatened the White House aides with contempt of Congress, Bush quickly announced that the Justice Department would be directed to ignore the charges. In other words, this is an imperial presidency, and "Emperor Bush" is accountable to no one.

As expected, the current US Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, has since denied the Congressional request to refer the matter to a federal Grand Jury. (This was also the position held by the previous US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.) In Mukasey's earlier letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “The (Justice) Department will not bring the Congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers." (And Karl Rove has now been added to this list.)

Based on this response from the US Attorney General, (Remember, this is a position that officially reports directly to the Office of the President), the legislative branch of the government only has one more option. That option is to change their charge of "Contempt of Congress", to "Inherent Contempt of Congress".

"Inherent Contempt" is a seldom used action by a Congressional body. (In fact, the last time it was cited was in 1934.) Under this process, the procedure of holding a person to an "inherent contempt" charge involves only the chamber or Congressional committee concerned. Following an inherent contempt citation, the individuals cited for inherent contempt are then arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or the Senate. In this case, an officer of the small "Capitol Police Force" would be sent to arrest the cited individuals. These cited persons are then escorted to Washington DC and are held in the small set of holding cells located in the basement of the US Capitol Building. They are then brought to the floor of the House or Senate chamber and required to answer charges by the presiding officer. They are then either found innocent and released from the citation or if found guilty, they are subject to the punishment that the House or Senate may dictate. (Usually either a fine of up to $250,000, and/or imprisonment for up to 5 years for punishment or coercive reasons.)

So assuming Rove, Miers, Bolten and other White House aides are found guilty of inherent contempt, they would not be remanded into the federal justice system, which is overseen by the Department of Justice. Instead, they would be fined and/or jailed in the U.S. Capitol Building under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch.

Let's hope the Senate Judiciary Committee at least grows a back-bone and follows-through on bringing these people to justice and makes a statement that no one is above the law, especially the President of the United States. America is supposed to be a "nation of laws".
It's once again, time to prove it.

The 2008 Election Is About the Supreme Court and Much, Much More

2008-07-07T10:23:00.000-07:00

<<< US Supreme Court Justices

As someone interested in politics and the up coming election, if you are reading this, I'm sure you've probably heard the comments that if McCain is elected, we'll all be in trouble with his highly conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees. But are you aware that the 2008 election is much more important than just having a court full of conservative Roberts or Scalia type Justices?

The Supreme Court Beyond 2008:
First, please start with the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is a life-time appointment. With possibly three openings in the court coming up for the next US President, whomever makes the nominations will be selecting the candidates that, when seated, could easily be on the bench through the next three presidents. So, under those circumstances, a strong, highly conservative court could last through your life span and your children's lives as well.

Now you might say, "So, what's that got to do with me and my family?" Well, let's look at how a conservative justice makes decision versus a moderate justice.

The concept of strict constitutional judges, such as Justice Scalia, is that the Founding Fathers, through the writing of the constitution, were telling future Justices "what" to think in making their decisions. Therefore, they feel that it is imperative that they follow the original understanding in a strict and unwavering fashion in order to respect democracy. In other words, there is no room for interpretation or for updating the concept of what the writers of the constitution had decided at the time of its ratification. As an example, in the second amendment, it says that we have the "right to bear arms". Now, at the time the document was written, there were only muskets, mortars, long-rifles, swords and knives. A strict constitutionalists could then say that "the right to bear arms" today means that having an AK47, an UZI or any semiautomatic weapon in your home would be perfectly legal under the US Constitution.

On the other hand, a moderate judge such as Justice Breyer would say that the US Constitution was written to give the Justices directions as to "how" to think, not "what" to think. Based on that approach, since the founders are long gone, there is no way to know exactly what they were thinking at the time of the Constitution's development. We do know that, just as there are different opinions expressed today, the founders did not all agree on what finally became the final draft. There is plenty of written history that shows that Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Franklin and the other founders all had their separate views on what was the right approach. Somehow, they finally came to an agreement to eventually come up with a final document, but they did not all agree 100%. And this is a key reason for why they established a structure with many checks and balances, three houses of government and a Supreme Court with 9 Justices. They knew there would be disagreements in the highest court and that they needed an uneven number of Justices in order for them to come to any final decisions.

The point is, today the discussions in the High Court are not for developing a set of rules by which to live. Instead they have to do with using the foundation and structure of the Constitution to make fair decisions for the circumstances at hand. Therefore, having a Supreme Court, that currently has 5 conservative Justices and 4 moderate to liberal Justices, means that three more McCain appointees would load the highest court in the land in a lopsided conservative position for possibly 2-3 decades. The concept of "fair and balanced" would then be closer to the Fox News idea of "fair and balanced" than what I believe was anticipated by our forefathers.

Beyond the Supreme Court:
As to the other election issue, the previous, heavily Republican weighted Senate and House had both been very busy in trying to set up the larger, lower court systems with conservative judges. Past moves and efforts by the previous Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has fortunately been nipped in the bud which was in the process of getting as many conservative, Republican judges into the lower courts, in particular into the Federal Appeals Courts. (The Federal Appeals Court is referred to by many of those involved in law as the courts that "really count".)

Most people today don't understand that, under the Republican run Senate, a past critical decision occurred that could have changed the function of the Senate and the make-up of the Appeals Courts for years to come.

The Critical Decision:
In 2006, President George W. Bush had nominated five controversial judges to the Federal Court of Appeals. In the past, the Senate "filibuster" has traditionally been used in order to stall, postpone or eventually have a nominee withdrawn, if enough Senators could be assembled to force the issue. However, most Americans don't know that the "filibuster" is not permanent or a part of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is just a long-time Senate rule. That being the case, by having a solid voting majority of Republican Senators, if the Republicans chose, they could have used what they refer to as the "Nuclear Option" and could have voted to eliminate the "filibuster" as a Senate option forever.

Based on this threat from the Republicans, seven Democratic Senators agreed to not filibuster three of Bush's five Appeals Court nominees. In exchange, seven Republican Senators agreed to vote against a "Nuclear Option" to permanently eliminate the filibuster. The Republicans did however state, at that time, that they would reserve the "Nuclear Option" for more "extraordinary circumstances" if needed in the future.

This compromise between the Republican and Democratic Senators was not given that much major media attention at the time. But even the highly esteemed Senator Robert Byrd, considered the most learned constitutional advocate in US politics, stated to a group of DC reporters that; "We have kept the Republic", after the vote against the "Nuclear Option" was announced.

As I have said, not electing McCain is much more than the Supreme Court. It is the economy, healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan, energy and global warming. And by keeping the Senate majority away from the Republican's, their "Nuclear Option" can be neutralized.....for now.

It must be said that the Democrats never made a "Nuclear Option" threat during the many years they controlled the Senate. But the Republicans decided to go that far, just in order to get their conservative judges installed around the country. Now that they have lost their majority, perhaps they realize that to use the "Nuclear Option" could have eventually been a very bad decision for them, in the long run.

But are we willing to think that they learned anything from this? Don't press your luck.

Please keep all of this in mind, when you are making your November voting decisions.

Do Obama's Position Movements Really Compare to McCain's total Flip-Flops?

2008-07-05T18:29:00.000-07:00

As expected, I have received the anticipated reaction to my last two, less than complementary articles on John McCain, his questionable supporters and his 180 degree position changes. Of course, the reader's responses were very predictable in saying; "Well, what about Barack's changes on the War in Iraq, FISA immunity, the 2nd amendment and faith based organizations?"

These are fair questions. And as with my previous articles on John McCain, let's take on all four areas, one at a time.

Barack Obama's Position on Getting Out of Iraq:
On this one, I have to say that I believe that much of the noise being made about Obama's so called "flip-flops" are from those people that heard just what they wanted to hear during the recent primaries. Yes, Obama did say that "if he were elected, he would end the war". But if you will look closely at the details of what Obama has always said regarding leaving Iraq, he has said that the first thing he would do is call in the military chiefs and give them a new "mission". That mission would be to review the situation on the ground, start withdrawing troops immediately with a plan and a goal of withdrawing two brigades per month for a period of 16 months. As he had said at the beginning of his campaign, the pace of the withdrawal would be determined at the time, based on insuring the safety and security of the troops.

This is a real war and real people are dying. As with any war, the officers on the ground will need to have the flexibility for implementing their mission as carefully and efficiently as the circumstances allow. War means always having to deal with unstable sets of circumstances, regardless of the desires and goals that are set by their civilian commanders, that are sitting back in the US out of harm's way.

Recently Barack Obama reiterated that he has planned a "thorough assessment of his Iraq policy" with the commanders on the ground when he meets with them in Iraq later this summer. Obama has always spoken of consulting with the military commanders in the field as part of his plan for a phased withdrawal. Is the 16 month time-table still part of the plan? Barack currently says "yes", as he has yet to be given any indication by the US military that his plan for removing 2 brigades per month cannot be achieved. He did however add that what actually happens on the ground, when the withdrawals actually begin, will dictate how they proceed for achieving the goal of ending the war in Iraq.

And also remember that Obama has said for months that the real issue of terror in the area is in Afghanistan, where President Bush took his eye off the ball in order to preemptively invade Iraq. Afghanistan is now causing more causalities for the US military than are occurring in Iraq and the Taliban is now stronger than it was when the US invaded Iraq. Afghanistan is also now financing their war by their increased sale of raw opium and heroin around the world. Afghanistan is now estimated as being the main supplier of over 90% of the world's supply of opium and heroin.

Barack Obama's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Vote:
I have to admit that I was initially disappointed with Obama when he announced that he was supporting the compromise FISA bill. (This was the sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been denounced mainly by staunch liberals and liberal activists.) At the time, I could also have been included with that group of liberals, as I also did not feel it was proper to give the US telecom companies that had spied on Americans, legal immunity from civil prosecution. What I had missed in this case was where Barack was coming from in his attitude toward what the compromise bill did provide, if we could just get our minds past the telecom immunity issue.

First, we must remember that President George W. Bush, basically told the American public to "stuff it" when he disobeyed the law after 9/11 by ordering the telecom companies to spy on Americans without having a valid FISA court warrant. The companies were told by the NSA that they were "not to worry about it, the President was using his executive power to circumvent the law". The NSA also told the companies that it was a national security issue and the president would "take care of it". (Only one company, Quest, did tell the NSA to "stuff it" by the NSA not having a valid FISA warrant. ) After the 9/11 attack, the telecom companies apparently said, "I guess we had better get on board with the President," figuring that he had the power to make that decision.

Putting the immunity issue aside, Obama has been more worried about making sure that President Bush stop his illegal wire-tapping, as Obama has said, "now, without delay". He has obviously put the immunity issue as a second priority. As Obama has also stated, the new, compromise FISA bill "does support the grassroots movements of the Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interest ahead of our security and our liberty". He also says that the new compromise bill does provide "effective intelligence collection tools with the appropriate safeguards to stop the illegal wire-tapping of Americans".

As to the immunity issue, US Senator's Dodd, Feingold and Leahy have introduced an amendment that if approved, would strike Title II of the pending Senate compromise FISA bill, thus eliminating provisions that would force dismissal of the pending lawsuits against the telecom companies for illegal wire-tapping. If adopted, this provision would leave both the House and Senate bills silent regarding a grant of civil immunity to those companies that broke the law by wiretapping outside of FISA approval.

In addition, it has been pointed out that the current FISA bill only provides immunity for "civil" lawsuits against the telecom companies. It does not give them immunity against "criminal" lawsuits for breaking the law by illegally wire-tapping Americans without a valid FISA warrant.

Was Obama correct in supporting the compromise FISA bill? It can be seriously argued either way. However, Obama's goal was to stop Bush's illegal actions now, and not to wait until the FISA bill was "perfect". Apparently, he felt that a "half-a-loaf" now was better that "no-loaf", in dealing immediately with President Bush's illegal activities.

Obama's Response to the Supreme Court's latest Decision on the 2nd Amendment:
First, I have to say that I find it hard to believe that, what the group of American patriots in the late 1700's meant by the "right to bear arms", was NOT that they were thinking about the right to own any of the 19 types of military-style, semiautomatic weapons now available in the American gun market.

I also do not personally believe that Obama's view for halting the sale of semiautomatic weapons is what some devout gun enthusiasts are calling, "Obama's utter contempt for the second amendment".

Obama's statement on the "right to bear arms" is as follows, and I for one, tend to agree with his attitude on the subject:

"Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected. We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background checking system, (Remember the massacre on the Virginia Tech campus by the mentally ill student....). We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights.
I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last [Republican] Congress allowed to expire, and for effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the current culture of violence that traps so many of our young people today."

I'm sure this is not agreeable to the NRA's "gun lovers of America" or those Americans that do think that America's forefathers did actually mean that "bearing arms" meant that "having a shoulder-fired missile, an AK-47 and an Uzi in everyone's closet was perfectly OK".

I, on the other hand, think Obama's response is perfectly reasonable, and from my understanding, does not conflict with any previous statements from Obama regarding the second amendment and its freedoms.

Obama's Faith-Based Reforms:
Yes, Obama is a politician and in this case, I do believe that his intentions are from both deep in his heart and for being politically correct during an election year.

One must first understand, that Obama spent many of his early years working in economically depressed neighborhoods in the position of a dedicated community service worker. His friends at that time have said that they remember, "Obama as a good worker in the community, with a sharp mind and unshakable integrity. He was a young man who already had a passion for the underprivileged." It is also true, that many of the non-profit, benevolent organizations that he worked with in helping those less fortunate, "were faith-based organizations that were working in support of their community". In fact, it was through these organizations that Obama was eventually introduced to his own Christian beliefs and how he became aware of the tremendous good that can be provided by the many faith-based organizations.

Having this vast background in community service, Obama has apparently decided that it is time to take the past positive experience of government and religious groups working together, and to apply it to both secular and religious neighborhood partnerships in an expanded national neighborhood program.

Unfortunately, President Bush has attempted his program of supporting faith-based organizations with government money, but with little if any oversight of how it was to function. The Bush programs have been rift with finances disappearing, hiring discrimination (religious, gender and sexual orientation), government resources being switched without explanations and partisan and political decisions being made without any 3rd party oversight. Even David Kuo, Deputy Director of the Bush White House's Faith-Based Community Initiatives has said that, through this organization, "The White House gets the results that it really wants, but it never really wanted the 'poor people stuff'."

Obama's "Faith-Based Reform Plan" is currently designed so that the Bush sponsored, faith-based policies would be, "mended, not ended". Obama wants his faith-based agency. "working with everybody with clear measures, applied equally, and to guarantee high standards in both the secular and religious programs." Obama's plan would emphasize using large groups such as the, "Catholic Charities to train smaller organizations that are currently doing good work in the way of applying for and administering government funds."

For some, this all sounds terrific. However, I am a total skeptic on this joining of religious organizations and secular groups while telling both of them that if they decide to accept public funds, they cannot promote their faith or discriminate against any other religion in their community efforts. I have a real problem in understanding how a religious based organization can be seriously expected to become totally "secular" in performing their community service. I believe it's just asking too much of service organizations that were formed on the basis of a specific religious faith to be asked to eliminate their religious thinking process, once they have accepted that they woul perform their services while using public funds.

It must be understood that there was a reason our system was founded on the separation of church and state. The founding fathers knew it wouldn't work then to combine the two, and it's not a good idea now. This is one area in Obama's program proposals that I disagree with and where I feel he is doing this more for political issues as well as his personal desire for trying to have it both ways.

In this area, I think Obama is just being a typical "politician" while looking for election support from faith-based organizations.

Author's note:
Based on the latest subjects discussed by America's political mass media coverage, I believe I have addressed the main topics of discussion regarding Obama and my past two articles on McCain's many election issues. In reviewing them today, Obama is still way ahead of McCain in possibly having "change you can believe in" versus McCain's "business and politics as usual".

It's getting closer to the time for you to have to decide for yourselves.

McCain's Tie to Lobbyists with Tainted Money Continue

2008-07-03T16:21:00.000-07:00

We all know the phrase; "The more I look, the worse it gets". Well, this is exactly what continues to be my comment as I look further into Senator John McCain and his political background. Yes, he may be running for president based on his so called "experience", but that experience may also mean having a background in areas that he wouldn't want the public to know much about in today's campaign.

Everyone already knows about McCain's close relationship with his #1 political advisor and his election campaign co-chair, former US Senator, Phil Gramm. And we now know that it was Gramm, through his deregulation efforts, that opened up the loopholes of the regulations in home mortgages that allowed for the multibillion-dollar subprime mortgage meltdown. However, have the revelations about Gramm's efforts in such a major international financial debacle caused Mr. Gramm to be avoided within the political & financial community? Hardly. Phil Gramm is currently being well compensated as a Swiss bank executive and he regularly advises the Republican party on world banking and economic matters. His name is also being mentioned by the McCain campaign as a possible US Treasury Secretary, should McCain win in November. So goes the normal business-as-usual situation within the McCain campaign.

It is also known that John McCain is totally surrounded by Washington lobbyists in his campaign and his personal life. (By the way, the term "Lobbyist" was originally coined by US President, Ulysses S. Grant. It was originally given to the fundraisers that loitered in the large lobby of Washington's Willard Hotel, where they could "work" the politicians that frequented the local hotel.) In fact, it is well known that McCain currently has 59 registered lobbyist working for his campaign. The lobbyists represent a wide range of industries including; banking and finance, telecommunications, technology, military and aerospace and healthcare / pharmaceuticals.

Within the Washington elite, McCain is known as "The Champion" among those politicians that make use of lobbyist money for financing their political activities. I personally find this very disturbing, especially since Senator John McCain was years ago, also designated as one of the infamous Keating Five. These were the five United States Senators accused of corruption in the savings and loan scandal. A national corruption investigation ignited a major political scandal that became a part of the larger US Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s. One would hope that after fighting hard to redeem himself from this high-profile scandal, McCain would have the sense and the good judgment to avoid the taint of impropriety that his current lobbyist relationships offer. Obviously, his judgment hasn't improved and he has learned little from his past "experiences".

But even with all of this negative background, there is still yet another area in campaign finance that puts a dark shadow on John McCain and his politics.

McCain's Washington DC, "K Street" connections, (The street in the US capital known for where many of the key lobbyist office's are located.), have caused major problems with McCain's campaign since it began for the 2008 election. In April of this year, five previous lobbyists, representing countries such as Saudi Arabia to Burma and companies such as Blackwater and the Iraqi exile, Ahmad Chalabi, have had to leave McCain's campaign. But this was only the beginning of what will inevitably continue until this November.

A Little History Lesson:
In 2001, after McCain's failed campaign against George W. Bush for the 2000 Republican nomination, McCain began what he called a "non-partisan election reform organization". McCain named this new group the "Reform Institute".

As time has shown, the "Reform Institute" has become anything but an independent, "non-partisan" organization. And as was stated by Mr. Robert Crane of the JEHT Foundation, a New York social justice foundation, "We were originally a funder of the Reform Institute. But [we withdrew when] the organization had grown to mainly become a John McCain "protection agency".
The Reform Institute pays John McCain to give speeches and host town hall meetings. It touts McCain in press releases and cultivates his donor list. The Institute is housed in the same office building as McCain's Political Action Committee (PAC) and his re-election committee. Rick Davis, chief advisor and campaign chairman, (and previous lobbyist),the "Davis" lobby firm is also located in the same building. Mr. Davis is the Reform Institute's President, and the organization's staff includes McCain's chief fund raiser, Carla Eudy and his Internet Consultant, Rebecca Donatelli. The organization was incorporated by McCain's counsel, Trevor Potter, with seed money from former Merrill Lynch CEO, Herb Allison. (Allison was McCain's finance chairman in 2000.) Davis was paid $395,000 for his work of 3 years and Eudy was paid paid $295,000 as a consultant and treasurer. The Institute also paid McCain policy advisor, John Raidt, $145,000 for his efforts in 2006.

A "non-partisan" organization? I think not.

As a 501c3, non-profit organization, the Reform Institute can receive unlimited tax deductible contributions that McCain's PAC and re-election campaign could not. Two, long-time California businessmen have donated $50,000 each to the Institute. According to the Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington DC, the largest donors gave $305,985 to McCain and his PAC's. But other donors realized that it could be beneficial to donate to McCain through the institute which didn't limit the amount of the donation.

With Davis (the lobbyist) as McCain's election chairman, Verizion paid Davis $640,000 in lobbying fees. (I find it interesting that the lobby fee started when McCain took the co-chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee and the fee ended when McCain gave up the chairmanship.) Davis also solicited $100,000 from Cablevision after its CEO testified before McCain's Senate committee and McCain had written letters to the FCC on Cablevision's behalf.

There are many other issues that have been brought to light regarding McCain's "Institute" and how it supported the rise of the 527 political advocacy groups (i.e: Swiftboaters for Freedom, etc.), and its relationship to the scandals involving Tom DeLay, as well as Jack Abramoff and the Indian tribe casinos. When reviewing the Institute's members and donors, it continues to look like a list of "who I wouldn't want to be identified with".

John McCain, the previous "Champion of Election Finance Reform" has now become the one that is abandoning all campaign finance reform and is running away from it as fast as he can. Unfortunately, the mainstream-media continues to still go easy on McCain. Even though Barack Obama has received a lot of negative flak for opting out of public financing for his election campaign, his reasons are at least explainable and not that unreasonable. But we never hear much about the fact that McCain made a similar move during his primary campaign.

When McCain's campaign went broke, he then secured favorable financing and he promised that he would take matching public financing, which he has since backed out of doing. But we never hear the media talk about that move by McCain.

It is ironic that after the Keating Five scandal, McCain became so dedicated and was the symbol for supporting and carrying the flag for campaign finance reform. He even named his institute after his passion. Now the "Reform Institute" is the symbol of partisan, political lobbying and has gone 180 degrees away from its original purpose. Yep, it's pretty ironic and it's very sad that he's allowed this good cause to now be headed in the wrong direction.

McCain's Major Flip-Flops and Poor Voting Record. It's Not a Good Resume

2008-06-30T05:36:00.001-07:00

Candidate McCain, once again, changing his mind...

It appears that due to the soft pedaling of Senator John McCain by the country's top political media reporters, McCain's major flip-flops and past voting record in the Senate have take second place to any potential negative activity on the Democratic side of the ticket.

In the recent past, the media had given Barack Obama a very bad time for not voting on the non-binding Senate resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Senator McCain on the other hand, has pretty much been ignored even though he has missed 9 more votes than Senator Tim Johnson, who had a brain hemorrhage in December 2006, and did not return to the Senate for 10 months.

To be fair, missing some Senate votes may not be that big of a deal, as some Senate votes are not that critical. Many times the majorities of both parties may both agree on the bill's provisions, and the bill would pass anyway. On the other hand, it might be a bill that has no chance of passing, so a few more votes, one way or the other would not make any difference in getting it passed. But when looking at the overall voting records of all of the US Senators, John McCain has held the number one position as the US Senator missing the most votes by an amazing 58% in the current 110th Congress. McCain has broken all the Senate's past records for missed votes. Obama and Hillary Clinton's voting record "misses" for the same period were both less than 40%. And for the man known as the "patriotic prisoner-of-war Senator", John McCain even missed voting on the recent bill for increasing the support of all US veterans. The McCain staff has said that he didn't like the veteran's bill and that he has a better bill. However, for a nominee that is running on his record as a patriot and a military veteran, he could at least have given them the proper respect by voting against the bill and then immediately introducing his own bill. Unfortunately, that didn't even come close to happening.

After four years of the Bush Administration's poor performance, most American's today are just looking for someone they can trust, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. When one compares Obama's so called minor flip-flops, versus the highly critical changes of political direction by John McCain, there is no real comparison.

Let's look at the very long list comparing the "Old" McCain with the so called "New" McCain:

>>> A Woman's Right to Choose: In 1999, the old McCain, while on the GOP campaign trail had said; "In the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe vs Wade."
However, in a recent TV interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, McCain said; "I do believe that that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should or could overturn Roe vs Wade, which would return it to the states, which I support."

>>> Religion: In 2002, McCain described the televangelist, Jerry Falwell, as an "agent of intolerance", when Falwell had said that "American's deserved the attacks on 9/11".
Today, McCain has been cozying up to the Falwell contingent and he has even hired Falwell's debate coach for his election team.

>>> Political Corruption: In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen, Sam & Charles Wyly of being corrupt. He had said they were spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain went so far as to file an official complaint against the Wyly's for violating campaign finance law.
However, apparently the Wyly's weren't "too dirty" for Senator McCain. In April 2008, McCain reached out to both of the Wyly's, asking for financial support for his 2008 election campaign efforts.

>>> Crooked Republicans: For years, Senator John McCain has said; "That the wealthy Republican supporter, Grover Norquist, was a crook."
Since McCain became the official Republican nominee for the 2008 election, he has been "reconciling" with the influential Norquist.

>>> Torture: Having been a tortured prisoner in the war in Vietnam, McCain has been against the torturing of war detainees and had also stated that the results of questioning prisoners using torture was usually very unreliable.
McCain has recently caved in to President Bush's program that supports the torture of any and all detainees as is deemed necessary by the the military commanders.

>>> Campaign Finance Reform: McCain's most famous policy issue has been his support for the bill he sponsored on campaign finance reform.
It's hard to believe, but today, McCain refuses to support the reform policies that he stated in his own campaign finance reform bill....?

>>> Bob Jones University: McCain was strongly against presidential candidates being able to campaign at the highly controversial Bob Jones University.
Today, John McCain supports campaigning at Bob Jones University.

>>> Ethanol: McCain was previously a big supporter of ethanol.
Today he's against ethanol.

>>> Confederate Flag: McCain was against displaying the confederate flag until he was advised that he would lose key Southern supporters if he said he disagreed with displaying the flag. He has since admitted that he changed his position back in 1999 just to make sure he did not lose those Southern supporters.

>>> Going to the Far Right: Previously known as the "Maverick" or "independent Republican", McCain is unashamedly, more and more in walk-step with George W. Bush's far right policies in the areas where it really counts for all Americans. Despites his current horrible record of major flip-flops, there are still many soft-pedaling media reporters and pundits telling Americans that "no one could accuse John McCain of deliberately being ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information".
Yeah, right...................please see items as stated above before you agree with that statement.

Now that Barack Obama is the official Democratic presidential candidate, it is time for him and his supporters to call out McCain on these issues that are critical to so many Americans. (These issues, plus the many other areas of concern that are traditionally challenged between the two political parties.) McCain needs to be shown up for the "non-Maverick", business-as-usual Republican that he is today. It also needs to be shown that he is a man with virtually no basic solid principle beliefs that can be written down in ink. Today, McCain's principles can only be written with a #2 pencil that has an eraser.

It is one thing to change ones mind or to learn additional information that could reshape one's opinions. It's another matter to change your position on key areas of principle, just to gain a larger plurality of partisan support. That is John McCain's position today, and the closer to November we all get, the more that it will become clear to all those that care to look closely at John McCain and his continually changing positions.

China Wags its Finger at the US on the Management of its Economy

2008-06-27T12:15:00.000-07:00

And After Further Review, the Chinese Appear to be Correct on This One.

<<< Map of Industrial China

Chinese officials today are gaining high levels of self confidence and are regularly breaking tradition by criticizing the US and its mis-management of the American economy.

The Chinese economy has continued to grow by leaps and bounds while the US economy has basically been heading in the other direction. With the Summer Olympics on the horizon in China, the Chinese are now showing a serious level of influence in the world and they seem to not be intimidated by the recent scolding they received from the US on the managing of their economy. While being told by American diplomatic officials that "their economy should look more like the US", they have responded saying that the Chinese style of economic management, "serves developing countries better than an American model". They went on with outward verbal expressions, accusing the Americans of hypocrisy on the economy as they have felt that the Bush Administration has shown poor leadership, both political and militarily, regarding the occupation of Iraq and the mis-handling of Afghanistan. They also feel that their response to the recent major earthquake in a remote Chinese province was handled in a far superior fashion when compared to the Bush Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Even high-level American banking regulators seem to agree with the Chinese and one US banking official recently blamed Washington for having a "warped concept of market regulation for the subprime mortgage mess that is having a major negative effect on the world economy". Even the World Trade Organization (WTO) has called upon the United States to halt the dollar's depreciation before the effect on the soaring world oil and food prices takes on a life of its own.

In recent meetings between US treasury officials and Chinese government officials, the Chinese essentially "blew off" a list of US demands that the Chinese "police their on-going theft of US copyrights and patents and regarding American's concern over the safety of the food and drugs that China exports". They also politely told the US officials to "mind their own house" when the US asked the Chinese to use their regulations for favoring domestic companies over foreign competitors.

Professor of Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, of Columbia University, agrees that the "US credibility and the credibility of US financial markets is zero everywhere in the world." He praises the Chinese economic management while blasting the Bush Administration's lack of being able to manage the nation's economic risk issues.

The Chinese attitude toward the US has moved to a more aggressive position and they are now expressing their "distain" of the US with other nations around the world.

In a recent lecture to the British last month by the Chairman of the China Regulatory Commission, Liu Mingkang, blamed the "US government for the subprime mortgage crisis that came close to freezing Western debt markets and that had required extensive intervention by the Federal Reserve." He went on to say; "Does moneymaking or doing business justify the regulators in ignoring their duty for prudential supervision and their job of preventing misbehavior?" Mr. B. Liao, Director General of the China Commission also stated, "In practice, they [the Americans] tend to overestimate the power of the market while overlooking the regulatory role of the government. This warped conception is at the root of the subprime crisis."

Unfortunately, China's rise on the world wide stage has also allowed their economic success to somewhat over shadow the the world's criticism of China's occupation and their handling of Tibet.

Even though thousands of Americans have asked President Bush to boycott the opening of the Summer Olympics as a protest regarding Tibet, (which a number of countries are expected to do), Deputy US Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen, recently said the United States is not threatening a boycott of the (opening of the) Summer Olympics. When asked at a congressional advisory panel hearing how rioting in Tibet would affect the games, he stated; "The Summer Olympics is an opportunity for China to put its best face forward and show progress to the world on human rights and other matters", he said. "To be successful, they're going to have to address some of these issues while the world is watching China. And the world will be watching China."
Speaking before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the Deputy Assistant urged China to address the Tibetans' "long-standing grievances" and to hold direct talks with the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader. Christensen's comments came as the fiercest anti-China protests in Tibet in almost two decades were attracting international scrutiny of China.

Beijing has continued to ignore these comments and still vows to protect its claimed territory of Tibet. It will be interesting to see how China handles the Tibet situation during the Summer Olympics as the world will truly be watching and most democratic nations are expected to continuing having disparaging comments about China's handling of the Tibetan situation. This is expected to occur, regardless of the anticipated outstanding performance and handling of the Olympics that is expected from the Chinese government.

Even though China is having its own problems with its economic issues, such as high inflation and the high costs of its growing demand for energy resources, they are still very optimistic.

Many economists say that China has vastly improved its state-owned banking system by writing off bad debt and overhauling its management systems. It still however, continues to reject pressure from the US to privatize its banks for open competition. (One could surmise that after seeing what happened with the US subprime mess, the Chinese will probably keep their state-owned systems for years to come.) The Chinese financial system is tightly managed by the government and is much more stable than the American system. (Less dynamic, but more stable.)

As China has become more outspoken and is adverse to international criticism of their economic system, many economist say that that the Chinese are justified in having a negative reaction to those that criticize their approach for managing their economy. Had they followed the US economic methods over the past 3 decades, their progress would have been been much further behind than they are today. Per a Chinese banking diplomat, "American systems take too long to make key decisions and the time required for implementation by a democratic process does not allow for a quick response to important issues."

The situation in China is looking very good for them today. However, just as it happened with the Japanese, when they questioned the American economic management in the 1980's, and then fell into recession and economic stagnation, the same thing could happen in China's future. On the other hand, China and Japan are difficult to compare and the US is no longer in its strong, number one position as it was back in the 1980's. Now, only time will tell.

Oil's Price Surge Began Way Back in 2001

2008-06-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

It was a foreseeable happening and the Bush administration continues to give it a very big push.

Middle East Oil Field >>>

Yes, the beginning of the current high oil prices began on March 14, 2001, when George W. Bush declared that; "We need more sources of energy." Unfortunately, upon making this profound statement, he and his Administration and the Republican Congress chose to sit on their butts and do absolutely nothing for dealing with the obvious.

And what do I mean by the "obvious"? Well, lets look at the world-wide situation that was emerging at that time.

What we actually knew and what we now know.

>>> Energy demand at that time was known to be increasing in all of the world's industrialized nations. China's growth impact was seriuosly showing and the US Energy Department was predicting that China would soon surpass Japan as the second largest energy consumer. The other developing nations in Asia were also growing at a rate that would make Asia the world's forth largest consumer of global energy.

>>> The petroleum industry experts from 1999 through 2001 had written multiple reports and many industry articles were being published showing how the production of oil world-wide was "peaking" in global output.

>>> Once this peaking issue had been brought to the Bush Administration's attention, the President appointed Vice President, Dick Cheney, to review the situation and come up with a "comprehensive US energy plan". The Vice President then proceeded to assemble all of the nation's oil and energy company executives (and their experts) and to meet in secret in Washington DC for developing this plan. (And as of today, the details of that meeting are still secret and are currently being protected by "executive privilege".)

Three months later, on May 17th, 2001, the results of that meeting were released and all that had been decided was to keep the existing US energy system (i.e: no change in status quo) and the US could be expected to continue its heavy reliance on oil and coal. There were also no suggestions or demands from the meeting for starting or increasing government sponsored alternate energy programs.

>>> Even though most of the country's energy experts were recommending that the White House should support a nation-wide program for energy conservation, the Administration totally disagreed. In April 2001, Vice President Cheney went as far to say; "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." In other words, they had spent thousands of hours and taxpayer dollars to finally say, "let's do nothing and oh, forget about conserving".

>>> Due to this continued commitment to a reliance on oil, Bush sought to increase production by calling on more drilling in the country's protected areas such as the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Even if this had been approved, the most optimistic projections are that in ten years, it would only reduce the US need for oil by ~4%.

>>> Due to this dilemma, Bush decided that the US would need to depend on more oil from the Middle East. Understanding that this could mean potential oil delivery disruptions due to possible Middle Eastern conflicts or political upheavals, the Administration began planning for stepped up military involvement in the overseas oil zones. The focus of these efforts was of course on the Persian Gulf. This idea was also supported by the then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, when he announced his "priority enhancement of American power production" in the unstable areas of specific developing oil nations. (i.e: Iraq / Iran)

>>> Then came 9/11 and the "War on Terror".
This catastrophic event gave the Administration an excellent opportunity to accelerate Rumsfeld's military build-up efforts as well as other objectives such as the elimination of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was then considered by the Bush Administration to be the strongest challenger to the possible US domination of the Gulf's energy supplies.

>>> After it was determined that there were no WMD's in Iraq, the Administration began claiming that the the invasion of Iraq was mostly intended for establishing a democratic state in the Middle East. Actually, the Administration's unspoken first priority was to stabilize the production and export of Iraq's oil output. Unfortunately, the results of the invasion were the exact opposite. Despite the billions of invested tax-payer dollars, oil production today is at about the same level as it was before the invasion. In addition, Iraq has now become a training ground for militant extremists that are migrating to other oil kingdoms and attacking those oil facilities. This also has caused some spikes in the rise of global oil prices.

>>> Now we have the situation with Iran.
With Saddam gone, Bush and Cheney now consider Tehran as the greatest threat to the US control of the Gulf. Even though Iran is making billions in oil revenue today, the Administration continues to promote that there is a strong possibility that Iran will eventually attack the oil shipping in the Persian Gulf. And that this attack will also ignite unrest among militant Shiites in the region. (Most Middle Eastern experts, outside of the vocal Republican Party members and the Bush Administration, feel that the administration has inflated the perceived menace of Iran's potential actions against the US well beyond reasonable consideration.)

Therefore, to restrain Tehran's nuclear programs, Washington has imposed economic sanctions on Iran and has forced America's European and Japanese allies to abandon plans for developing new Iranian oil fields. The result of these sanctions has been that Iran, with the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, is only producing 1/2 of the oil that it could be producing. Ergo, another major oil supply restriction that has been caused by the Bush Administration's actions.

>>> Unfortunately, the real major reason for the current increase in oil prices is due to the the Administration's constant threats to attack Iran if it doesn't stop its nuclear development programs. The Iranians have been clear that an attack on Iran would cause them to retaliate by blocking all Gulf oil shipments. This would drastically reduce the world's oil supply and the barrel price would zoom immediately to over $200 per barrel.

>>> It has been demonstrated that every previous threat of an attack on Iran from the Bush Administration has triggered a sharp rise in the speculation barrel price of crude oil. These threats and subsequent crude oil price increases have caused US pump prices to soar well above $4.00 per gallon.

>>> There is still no major effort to take the approach as was done in WW II to mobilize the country for developing alternate energy sources or for any mandatory energy conservation programs. Virtually all of today's conservation efforts are still mostly individual or voluntary. The Bush and Senator McCain proposals for off-shore drilling are pathetic and will do little to reduce the US demand for foreign oil.

If the Bush Administration and Senator McCain seriously wanted to help the average American's pocketbook at the gas pump today, they might just try announcing that military force is not an option in dealing with Iran. Most of the experts on Wall Street agree that taking the threat off of Iran would deflate many of the oil speculators reasons for the current high barrel prices. It could then possibly start to be a real situation of dealing with the true issues of supply and demand, instead of a market reaction to the threat of a war with Iran.

No, the price would not be down by 50%, but it could at least cause a major beginning of a downward slide in the global price of oil.

I believe it's at least worth a try.