Towards a Green Future

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903531_pf.html

Just so we're clear - when Obama uses the phrase "lipstick on a pig" it is a sexist attack on Palin. When McCain uses it, it's ok. When Palin uses it, it's ok.

Wow. It's getting deeper than I expected already! But, anything to distract us from real issues must be a good thing, right? I mean really, how boring would it be to debate the merits of McCain "DrillPlan 9000" energy strategy, and Obama's "CleanCoalNuclearFantasy with a dash of renewables" added for spice?

Considering the amount of special interest money from the energy companies flowing to both campaigns (see chart link in my previous post), I do not expect anything more than window-dressing when it comes to energy issues.

And both campaigns know this too - thus "LipstickGate." Because, at best, you will only get small, incremental change out of two corporate-dominated parties.

Happy Wednesday, comrades!

.....good to see that the allegedly anti-war democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are still managing not to restrict or reverse the failed Bush regime policy in Iraq. Yes Bush is the Commander in Chief, and yes, the office of the President takes the lead on foreign policy, but when the foreign policy is a disaster, and the President is not willing to significantly change course, then you have to step in and take charge. That is what the American people sent democrats to DC to do.

But, democrats manage to selectively blind themselves to effective options to change policy. In this interview on NPR, Pelosi states that she will take such tough measures as "listening to what the President has to say" and "consider his argument for a troop surge." Wow. That's some real opposition to the failed Iraq policy if I ever heard it. Pelosi went on to say, when asked by the interviewer if the democrats would work to cut off funding for the war like congress did in the 1970's regarding Vietnam, that democrats would not leave the troops "high and dry." That's nice, Nancy, but leaving them in a meatgrinder like Iraq is not "supporting the troops." It never was, and it never will be. Leaving our volunteer military in a meatgrinder should be considered a crime against humanity - the President, VP, and any member of Congress who voted in favor of this war should be sent to the Hague for trial. Sound extreme? Maybe. No more extreme then democrats sitting on their hands and lying to the American public that they cannot do anything to stop the President.

School is in session. Take your seats, democrats. No talking, no copying from the republicans. Spines will be passed out prior to phys ed.

Options that a democratically controlled Congress can take to alter the Bush foreign policy/perpetual occupation of Iraq:

1. Cut off funding - worked against Nixon the madman in the 1970's, it will work against Bush the Crusading madman in present day.

Or,

2. Revoke the bill passed by Congress authorizing use of force against Iraq. Democrats acted mighty surprised when Bush used this bill as legal cover to invade Iraq (what did you think he'd use it for - giving them a stern lecture?), so revoke the bill already!

Or,

3. Amend or revoke the War Powers Act - this is the act that defines how/when the President can use the armed forces during a time when Congress has not declared war.

Or, if you are feeling really brave

4. Declare war on Iraq. What? Why do this? Are they not our "allies" again? Technically yes. But, if Congress declared war on Iraq, that means control of the war policy would pass from the President, to the Congress.

This is important, please take the time to watch it. The recent bill passed by Congress gives the President unlimited authority to declare anyone as an enemy combatant, without any oversight. Once declared an enemy combatant, you can be legally imprisoned without a trial. Forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg


Share with your fellow citizens. By forfeiting the very values that make us Americans, we are destroying the soul of our nation. To do anything other than vigorously oppose this is to stay silent at a critical juncture in our history.

Remember, it's *our* country.

FINALLY! Some conservative thinkers with the power of analysis and insight are quitting the Bush camp of failed neo-con policies. Realize that they are not quitting because they have all become tree-hugging liberals like me, but because they realize that Bush betrayed traditional conservative values (small gov't, personal freedom, fiscal responsiblity, avoiding foreign entanglements/alliances).

Examples:

Francis Fukuyama: "Neoconservativism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought," he went on, "has evolved into something I can no longer support."

Bruce Bartlett, economist who served in the Reagan administration: "I Know Conservatives, and George W. Bush Is No Conservative"

Republican Congressman Pete King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said: "I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it." (commenting on potential legislation to stop a company owned by the United Arab Emirates from running several U.S. ports)

Bush's own party has finally realized that not only is big goverment conservatism with a heaping dose of authoritarianism cause a potential disaster at the polls by alienating citizens, it also is a colossal policy failure.

http://www.gp.org/impeachbush.shtml

As story after story rolls in about the Bush administration monitoring more and more law abiding US citizens in the course of his haphazard and counterproductive "war on terror," the feeling mounts that this is going to come to a head, and soon. I sense either a major congressional revamping of the powers granted to the King, um, I mean "President" after 09-11. Or, do I hear the "I" word like a dark, seductive whisper on the wind??

There are ways Congress can bring a rogue president to accountibility.......

From the NY Times: NSA domestic spying much wider ranging than previously thought.

From CNN & BBC : In US, Muslim mosques, muslim owned businesses, and muslims private homes monitored secretly for radiation.

And now for the history lesson, from the Vietnam war and from WWII.

During Vietnam, successive administrations (Johnson -democrat, and Nixon-republican) kept the US in a war in South Vietnam that was massively unpopular at home. In response to domestic, peaceful opposition to the war, the respective adminstrations directed the FBI and CIA to spy on and disrupt anti-war activities. Why? Perhaps a fear of a North Vietnamese invasion and take over of the US? Or, more likely, the administrations were scared to death that the general public would find out that they were keeping us locked into a pointless, immoral war that we could not win.

December 7th, 1941: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. The US then proceeds to imprison over 100,000 people living on the west coast who were of Japanese ancestry. 62% of them were American citizens. In contrast, only 11,000 citizens of German ancestry were imprisoned during wwII by the US and its Latin American allies.

War generates racism, fear, paranoia, and oppression, whether it was during the questionable conflicts of Vietnam or Gulf War II, or during the glorious "good war" that was WWII. How long before the Bush regime makes American Muslims where a little red crescent patch on their clothes so they can be easily identified?

January 21st, 2009 is the last day of the Bush regime (assuming they actually give up power). It will not come soon enough.

Link to story

Another link to story

Well, I made several phone calls over the past 3 years, how about you? Little did I know, they could have been conference calls with the NSA being the 3rd party. The most important part of this story is not so much that Bush ordered surveillance of Americans, but that he did it without going to the foreign intelligence court, which is a secret federal court that reviews requests for wiretaps and similar activities. This action by the Bush admin clearly shows how they believe that all of their actions are inherently above the law, and within the power of the commander and chief of the military.

Except that we are not at war.

US soldiers are deployed around the world, and are engaged in combat, that much is true. But, Congress never issued a declaration of war against Afghanistan or Iraq. Further, the Bush administration has issued a consistent message from 09-11 onwards: you are either with us, or with the terrorists. So, it follows that twisted logic that anyone who opposes Bush's war's, is not a political opponent, but a traitor and threat to the security of the United States. He, and his political hatchet Rove-goons regularly accuse Democrats who do not support him of wishing harm on American troops and civilians.

So, Mr Bush (and I use the term "Mr." because it's plausible that you did not win in either 2000 or 2004), nearly half of America did not vote for you in 2004. Do you have enough resources to observe all of us?