The new DICK in politics

I must apologize for my lengthy absence.  Once I returned from Florida, I became very busy.  I decided to swear off national politics and concentrate on Michigan politics.  I have two of the brightest and most brilliant female politicians EVER in my state, Jennifer Granholm as my Governor, and Debbie Stabenow as one of my Senators.  For those of you poor saps outside of Michigan, you don’t know what you are missing.  These ladies are AWESOME and they are both fighting to keep their positions in this mid-year election.  I have committed myself to do all that is in my power to help them in any way that I can.  Hence, my business.

There is this real Douche-bag from Grand Rapids, where I happen to live, who is running against Jennifer Granholm.  His name is DICK DeVos (how fitting that he was titled properly at birth).  He is from the family that started the pyramid scheme known as Amway.  Amway has since changed its name to Alticor, and is no longer an American company.  DICK  DeVos has outsourced most of the labor to China.  Go figure!  And in true GOP fashion, he touts in his campaign ads about how he creates Michigan jobs.  Did I mention that he is a douchebag?  He began running television ads 9 months out from the election.  With his $300 million for a state campaign, he is just hemorrhaging money and can’t spend it fast enough.  

Immediately after Governor Granholm’s State of the State address in January, DICK Devos was interviewed on WKAR, Michigan Public Broadcasting for his response.  He was constantly asked about his position on a variety of topics, and for each topic, he would say, “We have a comprehensive plan for (insert topic) which we will announce later in the campaign”.  Toward the end of the interview, Charlie Cain asked DeVos why he never actually gave any details about his comprehensive plans, and DeVos replies, “The election is 10 months away, people aren’t paying attention yet, we will announce our plans when the people are paying attention to the election”.  Only a month later, DeVos begins airing ads throughout the state.

I have to wonder… why spend so much money on people who aren’t paying attention.  This really bothers me; perhaps not as much as it bothers me that DICK DeVos assumes that the people of Michigan are ignorant.  I take this personally; I am paying attention, and so are many more who care about the leadership of our state.

This is my rant today – I have several more that deal with DICK to come in the future.  

New HATEGUN video posted

If you load this blog and either stop the video to the right, or mute it right away... you may want to check it out. This is a new video called, "GET OVER IT" and it is very powerful. Enjoy!

State of the Union – a.k.a. BushTV (fiction)

Before I get in to today’s article… I wanted to leave a message here for those who regularly read NeoDems. I am taking a vacation, going home to Florida for my Dad’s retirement party. I will probably not post from there, so please check back for new content after I return Feb. 10th. – Thanks, Jeff



State of the Union – a.k.a. BushTV (fiction)

I have to wonder what the state of our Union is. Bush spent more time talking about Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Terrorism than he did about our nation. Good time-killer though. Made it seem like he had more to say than he really did. When in doubt pull out the fear to keep the nation united against terrorists, it deflects people from worrying about losing their civil liberties.

As expected, Bush pouted about the Patriot Act not being renewed yet. He defended his illegal wiretaps, this time saying that APPROPRIATE members of congress had been informed. (Regarding wiretaps) By appropriate, he meant Congressional YES MEN!

Perhaps the highlight of the evening was when the Democrat side of the aisle interrupted Bush with a loud and proud standing ovation when Bush noted, “Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security”. It was a proud moment for them, and for the majority of Americans who opposed this plan of privatization.

Bush seems hell-bent on laying out many grand plans, like the American Competitiveness Initiative. He just never gives any details, or manner of paying for these programs. Meanwhile he is talking about Tax Cuts and cutting the deficit in half by 2009 (also with no plan on how to achieve this goal.) A deficit for which he alone is responsible. He took office with a surplus.

I would love to spend more time analyzing this and the Democratic Response. However I must pack for my trip. I will try to do a follow-up when I return. This will give me some time to research while I’m gone.

A Black Day for SCOTUS and Americans

It is as much as a done deal. Justice Samuel Alito will now sit on the bench of the highest court in our land for possibly the next 30 years. This ultra-conservative will rule against victims, grant unprecedented Executive power, re-interpret our laws, and promote the ultra-right agenda upon our country. Check Alito's America website for what we can expect to see from this KING GEORGE YES MAN!

Watch the careers of those who put him on the Supreme Court. Get the voting record at CSPAN and remember these so-called legislators at election time. With the exception of Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, every single Republican voted for the confirmation of Alito. A straight party vote, despite his checkered past on the bench. Republicans as a whole, voted their party-line rather than their conscience. It sickens me that these are the representatives of the people, and they are merely representing their party over the welfare of their constituents. I believe that Senator Chafee's statement is very clear, and well examined. Please read Senator Chafee's statement here.

While there are four Democratic Senators who are voting for Alito, at least they are voting their own votes, not voting as their party demands. Let's examine the reasoning Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia stated for his vote to confirm:

I feel compelled to address this issue, not to point fingers, to scold, or to assign blame, but to address specific, sincere, and heartfelt concerns that have been brought to my attention by the people of West Virginia. Many people, including foremost the people of West Virginia in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don’t want to say it; but I must. They were appalled.

While I applaud him and respect him for listening to his constituents, I have to wonder... Why confirm a man to a life-long position on the highest court in our land... to spite the manner in which the Alito hearings were conducted. While he did mention a couple of Alito's opinions, like his opinion on Executive power, most of his explanation is filled with historical 'Framers' references. You can read Sen. Byrd's explaination here.

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is another Democrat who voted for Alito. His explanation can be found here. Conrad mentions his first reason for support as being opinion polls, stating that the majority of Americans and North Dakotans want to see Alito confirmed. The only poll that I have found which comes close to that is one conducted by FOX NEWS. According to PollingReport.com, the fact is that the majority of American's don't know enough about Alito, or haven't been paying attention. Conrad also bases a lot on faith that Alito is a 'Good Guy', using logic like,

"Judge Alito looked me in the eye and told me that he will not conduct himself based on an ideological agenda. He promised me that he would judge each case based on its merits and protect and defend the liberties set out in the Constitution."

Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota seems a bit retarded to me. He concludes his statement of support for Alito with,

"I am troubled by Judge Alito's apparent views on matters such as executive power, his past opposition to the principle of one person, one vote, and his narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws. Even so, I cannot accept an argument that his views are so radical that the Senate is justified in denying his confirmation."

In a time, where we have a rogue President, violating whichever laws he feels suit his needs, this guy thinks that the Senate is not JUSTIFIED is denying his confirmation. Here is a Senator, a DEMOCRATIC Senator who doesn't believe that one person, one vote is worth defending. He acknowledges that Alito has a narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws and thinks there is no problem with that. Democrats out there, please find someone else to run against this asshole. This guy is another ZELL MILLER! You can read his statement here.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has one paragraph on his website regarding his support for Alito,

“I have decided to vote in favor of Judge Samuel Alito to serve as the 110th Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I came to this decision after careful consideration of his impeccable judicial credentials, the American Bar Association's strong recommendation and his pledge that he would not bring a political agenda to the Court.”

That's it... That is how hard this guy researched Alito. "What does the A.B.A. think about this guy? If they like him, I'll vote for him." In fact, his statement was one of the first, includiing Republicans, to come out in support for Alito. He took NO TIME to research or deliberate the character of Samuel Alito. Excellent way to represent your constituents. His statement, although brief is here.

Today I have spent much time picking on the members of my own party, members of my party who have done their country and their constituents a great disservice. This is why I wanted to research their statements and make them available to read. If any of them could clearly justify a valid reason for their support, I wouldn't be so against them. As I said earlier, I applaud them for not just following the party line. However, other than that... they have no excuse. They can not reasonably and responsibly justify their support for Samuel Alito based on his record.

I wish that I had more time to delve in to the reasons that the Republican members of the Senate gave as their excuse for support. However, there are too many of them to research at this time. I will publish my findings on Republican excuses at NeoDems when I have had time to read all of the supporters' comments. Initial reports from the Republican members shows that many state their main reason as, "He was nominated by the President of the United States". Keep in mind that this is the President, who time and time again, asks us to 'trust him', only to continually betray our trust.

Undoubtedly, there will be commentors out there who will lambast me as being a sore loser. I assure you that I am not sore... However, we are all losers with this confirmation.

Faith, Religion, and the Political Beast

Samuel Altio, who is two days away from being confirmed to the Supreme Court for the rest of his life, will tilt the balance of this institution to the religious right. Meanwhile, Americans claim religious affiliation, but less than half actually practice their religion. If those who claim religion do not possess the desire to practice their religion, why morph our government in to a theocracy?

Statistics gathered by ReligiousTolerance.org state that only 44% of American’s regularly attend church. However, poll data on religious behavior and practice are notoriously unreliable. Individuals often describe their own behavior inaccurately; they answer questions according to what they think they should be doing. For example:

17% of American adults say that they tithe (give 10 to 13% of their income to their church). Only 3% really do.

Many polls indicate that the percentage of adults who regularly attend a religious service is about 40% in the U.S. But when noses are actually counted, the true figures are about half the stated figures (about 20% in the U.S.)

This data does not include a secular breakdown. However, to extrapolate the data in to secular denominations based on belief, not attendance, nor practicing of their claimed religion:

81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:

76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. (If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.)

52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.

24.5% are Roman Catholic.

1.3% are Jewish

0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.

The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months.


14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State.

While I believe that our government should acknowledge or be guided by the faiths of its citizens, it should not allow those faiths to interfere with policy or laws. Gay Marriage should not be an issue as far as the government is concerned. The Constitution prohibits the discrimination of its citizens. PERIOD! The issue of abortion should not be revisited, there is no need, and a fetus is not a citizen, not until birth (Naturalization). Many of the issues that we as Americans face, and the issues which will be at the forefront of the political scene over the next two years will all be about faith based directives.

Leave religion and faith as a guide, not as a mandate. This is what our framers feared would happen if religion took too strong a hold of our political body. Their fears are about to be founded. Those of you, who read my blog, please keep a watchful eye of the state of this situation over the next two years. Every time you see the undue influence of religion taking a strangle-hold on our government, write your Congressmen and Senators, and implore them to remain objective.

Parents BEWARE Someone is stalking your children!

Parents BEWARE… Someone is stalking your children!

The Vermont Guardian, last August, first reported on a little known tidbit buried within the No Child Left Behind Act. It appears that the Bush Administration is in to more than eavesdropping and data mining, they are also in to child wrangling.

In order for schools to receive the funding (or lack thereof) provided under the NCLB Act, the schools must turn over records of students’ contact and personal information to military recruiters. This hand-over of information is automatic, unless a parent submits an objection for each child, in writing, to the Department of Defense.

The system however, doesn’t prevent the release of the information. Schools must comply and release the information to the recruiters, it is then up to the D.O.D. to match those records with those who have filed objections, and “not contact” those whom have objected. The problem here is that the D.O.D. will still have your child’s contact and personal information… they just ‘supposedly’ won’t act on that information.

SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.
(a) POLICY-
(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.
(2) CONSENT- A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the student's name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request.
(3) SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS- Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.
(b) NOTIFICATION- The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, notify principals, school administrators, and other educators about the requirements of this section.
(c) EXCEPTION- The requirements of this section do not apply to a private secondary school that maintains a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces if the objection is verifiable through the corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school.
(d) SPECIAL RULE- A local educational agency prohibited by Connecticut State law (either explicitly by statute or through statutory interpretation by the State Supreme Court or State Attorney General) from providing military recruiters with information or access as required by this section shall have until May 31, 2002, to comply with that requirement.

Allowing access to Post Secondary schools doesn’t seem like its that bad of an idea, after all… now the students are adults and fully capable of making up their minds. However, where the NCLB Act, affords recruiters the same access to secondary schools as post-secondary schools the age variance is quite substantial. Also, by placing that parallel to Post-Secondary institutions along with the Secondary institutions, it increases the amount of information to be provided to the recruiters. (see below)

Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 49, Section 983 of U.S. Code states:

(b) Denial of Funds for Preventing Military Recruiting on Campus.— No funds described in subsection (d)(2) may be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to an institution of higher education (including any sub element of such institution) if the Secretary of Defense determines that that institution (or any sub element of that institution) has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents—
(1) the Secretary of a military department or Secretary of Homeland Security from gaining entry to campuses, or access to students (who are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting; or
(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of military recruiting to the following information pertaining to students (who are 17 years of age or older) enrolled at that institution (or any sub element of that institution):
(A) Names, addresses, and telephone listings.
(B) Date and place of birth, levels of education, academic majors, degrees received, and the most recent educational institution enrolled in by the student.

So parents BEWARE! Once your child reaches 17, their information is going to the military. At 15, when your child begins high school, recruiters will have access to them on high school campuses and not just on career day either. Military recruiters are facing extreme shortages in their recruitments. It has become a very high pressure situation for them, and they are becoming more and more aggressive.

The rise & reign of King George

Like many Americans, I have spent much time trying to figure out who George Bush is, how in the world he was considered to be Presidential Material, what he is trying to do, and why his character shows so many flaws but yet his supporters are willing to forgive, overlook, or disbelieve any of his negative elements.

Any analysis is difficult as he surely does not act alone, or with ordinary logic. Critics say he is surrounded by a bubble of support, flags, crosses, senators, fundamentalists, executives, etc., which isolate him from the ordinary perception that he is a very bad President.

Bush lives in a fantasy world created by his advisors and supporters, in which good progress is being made in all directions, and the extreme security force which surrounds him gives him the feeling of manic optimism. He is perhaps genuinely mystified that he is being criticized when all private indicators tell him that he is admired, beloved, and competent. This explains his explosive rages when some lackey dares to contradict his divine pronouncements.
I am greatly puzzled by his constant resorting to deception, secrecy, stealth, and arrogant attempts to claim special privileges which bear little resemblance to courage, wisdom, Constitution, law, compassion or decency. It does not seem proper that a President would rather govern with dirty tricks than with honesty or candor.

The administration penchant for secrecy may be connected with the hope his felonious and dishonorable conduct never comes to the attention of some judicial body that can either impeach or imprison him.

It is truly troubling to discover that he has no compunction in exploiting any situation, emotion, tradition or ideal for his immediate benefit. To him, it seems that deaths, misery or misfortune of the poorest of his subjects are punishments on them from his favorite god, because they, or some predecessor, was sinful at sometime in the past, so he must not interfere with the judgments of any Supreme Creator.

Some supporters claim he is not being cynical, merely under a strong delusion akin to imperial destiny, which sustains him and allows him to strut, and to smirk when his deceptions seem to work.

I find Bush exploiting patriotism, religion, flag, legalities, misery, floods, hurricanes, hanging chads, prayer, AIDS, beliefs, dogma, pledges, commandments, sexual pleasure, marriage arrangements of which he disapproves, emotions, dying patients, prisoners to be executed, and our most sacred traditions. Bush loves to exploit symbols and phrases.

He never seems to tire of referring to the disaster of 9/11, or to mention that he is “bringing democracy and liberty” to some benighted spot, although it is difficult to sustain the position by virtue of his delight in bringing death and destruction via shining cruise missiles, gun ships, bunker busters and cluster bombs. He likes the “BANG” of war and choosing to name his tactics “Shock and Awe” certainly reflects his childlike pleasure in sadistic surprise attacks.

His exploitation of the tragedy of 9/11 passes all condemnation by Hitlerian reiteration of what he mistakenly believes is his personal courage and heroism, permitting him to swagger, strut and smirk on every occasion in which he exhibits contempt for ordinary people and other cultures or beliefs.

His ambivalence in desiring approval but preferring to “go it alone” is apparent. In trying to show competence he always seems to choose incompetent or unsuitable cronies for vital posts.
Any person whose legacy depends on people like Ashcroft or Bolton must be unaware of consequences or is giving his thrusting finger to the world with choice epithets referring to impossible sexual acts. Either way, his choices remain of doubtful merit for any President.
His inability to capture Osama bin Laden was diverted by hyperbole and deception toward Saddam Hussein, a maneuver which has pleased his followers by his mass executions of Iraqi Muslims in their homeland. Shock and Awe suited the fundamentalists perfectly, as long as they did not personally shed any of their own blood.

It is notable that few people in his cabinet ever served their country as soldiers, although given many opportunities to do so. So the designation “cowardly warhawks” seems richly deserved and exemplifies their administration.

His successful war dances and saber rattling, his jingoistic hyperbole and speeches designed to create fear in America, together with similar performances by his entire cabinet, foisted his lies upon the entire country, and led the country directly into a precipitous and calamitous war upon a people who had formed no threat against our country. He is not bothered by bankrupting his country, or saddling future generations with crushing debt. In fact, he boasts of his failed exploits.

He even boasts of committing felonies and violating constitutional guarantees for his citizens, by alleging he is doing something about terror. He does not seem to know that terror is not confined to a specific territory, or that in fact every time he sends death and destruction to accomplish whatever he considers is his mission he is creating new recruits which intend, rightfully, to exact vengeance for their grave losses.

His fly-paper strategy is the most bubble-headed and nonsensical of all his schemes, but he spends much time explaining how he is killing off terror, inch by inch, until there is no more left to terrorize him. This fantasy sustains his regime and garners many votes from fundamentalists and people who courageously delight in violence, if it is not directed toward themselves.
His various changing explanations for the war he created give no legal basis for declaring war, murdering thousands of Iraqis, destroying their homes and cities, because they are all lies. Bush lied shamelessly in order to precipitously invade Iraq, and was aided by his entire cabinet of NeoCon Straussian sycophants.

Bush had NO right to invade Iraq, no right to murder thousands of Muslims, no right to seize the oil of Iraq and generously give it to a corporation once headed by his Vice President.

He had NO right to saddle Iraq with hundreds of advisors, thousands of mercenaries, thousands of highly-paid Christian contractors, and several hundred thousand troops armed to the teeth with the latest armor, weapons, and vehicles. The corruption of his corporations has come under no guiding supervision. They have gotten away with theft, embezzlement and mass corruption.
Several billion dollars are missing but few Republican senators even comment on this peculiarity. After all, he IS in Iraq, fait accompli, and the money keeps flowing to the corporations, so Republicans are delighted and will not deign to further question the legitimacy of invasion or occupation. It’s like the will of God, not to be questioned.

Neither Bush nor U.S. troops should even be IN Iraq. Any explanation that they must remain to prevent civil war is a shabby pretext to remain in Iraq and continue to destroy Iraqi lives, property, resources and culture. Bush’s “stay the course" will not allow him to withdraw for fear his strut and swagger as a war hero may suffer. He is there illicitly, illegally, feloniously, arrogantly just because he could.

The War on Civil Liberties & Google

After careful consideration, I think that I would like to have my own personal NSA agent. One who can always be within ear-shot of every word that I say, within eyesight of every blog I write, and every web page that I visit. He could document my every move for the War on Civil Liberties. At least then I would know that I was being spied on. Let’s face it… I am a blogger, rife with political dissent. I spend a couple of hours each day, doing research for my blog, and using Google to perform my searches on everything from terrorists to the lies of Bill O’Reilly. If the Bush Regime had its way, they would already have access to all of my online searches, and would have already labeled me an ‘enemy combatant’.

It sickens me to think that of the major internet search engines that the White House has asked to turn over the records of internet searches, none but Google even flinched… They just handed these records over with no regard for the privacy of the individual performing the search. It just isn’t enough that they can subpoena my library records, and illegally tap my phone, but now they are looking in to my web searches. Good God, George Orwell was a visionary.

When it comes to George Bush and his administration, with their ‘TRUST ME’ theory of governing, I can’t help but to imagine Lucy from The Peanuts, preparing to pull the football out from under Charlie Brown, again, and again, and again! I was taught that trust is not given, it has to be earned. George Bush has never, not even once, earned my trust. I’ll be damned if I’m going to start trusting him now. Should we ‘TRUST’ that the NSA is only conducting wiretaps on overseas calls? Or is more believable that there are no regulations on which calls are being tapped, if they find a smoking gun, they can claim ignorance, error, over-zealous agent, or the old standby, the “I’m above the law” defense.

The same thing goes with this request for Google’s records. The Bushies claim to want the data to help ensure a safer internet for the children. To see how porn is searched for. I’ve been tricked by this ploy before. Here, in Michigan, you used to get an add-on ticket for not wearing a seat belt. When they went to upgrade the law that you can now be pulled over just for the seat belt violation, no one knew about it until after the law passed. It was hidden in a law that required child safety seats. Who would vote against the safety of the children? So no one opposed the law. That was years ago, and it still angers me that we were duped this way.

I totally supported the old law. If you were speeding, or performing some other moving violation and were pulled over, the cop could add a seat belt ticket to the original violation. They could not pull you over, just for not wearing the seat belt.

By changing that law, now there are more reasons to pull people over, without cause. Here is the scenario; you are a law abiding black man, driving an older car through town at… say 1:30 am on our way home from work. You pass a police car, sitting in a parking lot. The cop pulls out after you and pulls you over. You have your seat belt on! The cop explains that you were pulled over; because the officer believed that your seat belt was not on. He can now clearly see that it is on. Instead of apologizing and going about his business. He inquires, “What are you doing out so late?” You reply, “I’m just on my way home from work.” The cop inquires, “Have you been drinking tonight?” You answer, “No, I was just on my way home from work.” By repeating the same thing that you just told him, now the cop gets a little more agitated, “Would you mind if we searched your car?” I’ll spare you the dialogue and just continue the story: The man has nothing to hide, he allows the search willingly. Nothing is found, so just to be safe, the cop runs a check on the man for warrants. Now it has been over 20 minutes since the man was pulled over, without cause, delayed, harassed, and racially profiled. All because we all agreed that the children should be in child safety seats.

This is the same trend that I am seeing with the Bush Regime. There is no oversight to these secret wiretaps, we have no way of knowing or proving that they are being conducted in the manner that we are told. Keeping children away from porn sounds like a great idea. Who would be against that? But is this the true reason for the White House to ask for search engine records? Is there some nefarious scheme to track down and hunt dissenters and anti-war groups? Does Karl Rove want the ability to look for dirt against a political opponent? (Hmmm, I see that Howard Dean has been searching florists on Google, let’s leak to the press that he’s having an affair, or better yet… he’s gay… it worked against Ann Richards.)

So instead of all of this wondering, just give me my own agent. I’ll be nice to him, he’d have a cushy job, because my life is pretty boring and I’ll feel much better KNOWING that I’m being watched, rather than wondering.

Please read this Op-Ed from The Washington Post, it came out just after I wrote this blog, so I couldn’t incorporate it. It is directly related to this Counter-Intelligence Field Activity.

Church, State, and the ACLU

Now that I am posting daily, and the News cycle slows down on the weekends, I’ve decided to dedicate every Sunday to Religion. How appropriate.

The separation of church and state is always a hot topic, perhaps because the only way to solve the debate once and for all is to resurrect Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Well, we haven’t quite perfected the time machine, or the ability to raise the dead, so we must look to the letters and writings of our framers to understand their intent in the creation of our government.

“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State” – Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” – James Madison (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

This separation was very clear. It was one of the most basic precepts in the creation of our country. And now a little bit about civil liberties and religion.

I get forwarded emails all of the time, most of a religious nature. One email stated that,”86% of Americans believe in God. Why don’t we just tell the other 14% to Shut Up and BE QUIET!!!”. (Not a very Christian attitude.) I also get many stating that, “groups like the ACLU are trying to remove ‘In God We Trust’ from our money” or “…one nation under God…” removed from our pledge of allegiance. The fact is; this is bogus propaganda.

I’d like to start off by defending the ACLU. I believe that they often get a very bad rap from idiots like Bill O’Reilly who said, “The ACLU is a terrorist organization”. This is an organization which diligently fights to protect and defend the civil liberties of all citizens. They defend on all sides of issues. In one case last year they fought for the rights of a second grade student who wanted to sing, “Awesome God” at a voluntary, after school talent show. While in another case, they were fighting against the Ten Commandments display in a courthouse.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

1. Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.




3. Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.




5. Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.




7. Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

You see, our government can not mandate a particular religion (such as Christianity). The United States was founded on the principle of Freedom of Religion. After fleeing England, where the Church of England was being mandated, the framers wanted to allow the citizens to worship whichever religion suits them. We were granted Freedom from Religion also, meaning that our government couldn’t impose a religion on its people. Basically it boils down to religion being a matter of personal choice. When government emphasizes one particular religion, it alienates those of different faiths or philosophies. That alienation violates the civil rights of these citizens. Therefore, no one religion can be mandated or endorsed by our government.

If an Islamic, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, or other non-Christian citizen were to go to a courthouse lined with Christian symbols and artifacts, they will feel as if they are being persecuted by their faith alone. In some cases, they may be. The ACLU fights on both sides of this issue, it is not an anti-religious organization at all, and it exists simply to defend the rights of the citizens of all faiths, nationalities, sexual orientation, and philosophies. I believe that they get such a bad rap from the NeoCons, because they defend bigotry, which is extremely rampant in the Conservative movement. The same-sex rights issue proves their bigotry beyond any other issue.

Americans need to agree to disagree on this issue. There is nothing wrong with someone believing whole-heartedly in their faith. There is something inherently wrong with someone trying to impose their faith on others. Our Constitution guarantees our religious freedom. This is what the ACLU is protecting, Our Civil Liberties.

Letter to my Senators regarding Alito confirmation

Here is a letter that I sent to both Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, my wonderful Senators in Michigan. I will post the Stabenow letter, although the Levin letter is the same, with their names reversed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Senator Stabenow;

Friday, January 20, 2006, I heard on Michigan Radio News that neither you nor Senator Levin have decided how you will vote in the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Hopefully my opinion will reach you before you must decide.

While I will agree that Alito has the resume and experience to perform the job, I have some serious reservations that I would wish for you to consider.

My biggest concern is his opinion on Presidential power. Alito believes that the president is, or can be, above the law. His Feb. 5, 1986 memo illustrates his mastery of the subject. With a renegade administration running amuck with our Constitution, and violating civil rights and civil liberties, Alito’s appointment to the Supreme Court will only solidify the position that the Bush Administration holds.

I strongly believe that just as Alito highlighted his conservative philosophy in order to obtain the job in the Reagan Administration, he is down-playing his potential role as a judiciary activist. Once confirmed, I believe that not only will he tilt the balance to over-turn Roe v. Wade, but he will also tilt the balance on many other conservative agenda items.

I view the situation as a chess match. The pieces are being aligned for a trap. Roberts is the Queen, and Alito is a bishop who will pin and trap the King until the check-mate move is made. In my metaphor, the King is the U.S. Constitution.

In a time where the conservative base is dividing and Democrats stand to gain much ground in this year’s mid-term and 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, I feel that Alito’s appointment to the Supreme Court will re-strengthen and reunite the conservatives. The social conservatives and moderates will gain a great sense of hope and faith that by maintaining Republican control of all three branches of our government, anything could be possible; Anti-Gay, Anti-Choice and Anti-Abortion laws or even worse Constitutional Amendments could be written and passed. Probably none of this would really happen. However, come election time… the social conservatives and moderates only need to believe that it will happen.

I realize that many of my arguments are speculative. But that doesn’t remove them from being possibilities. Experienced or not, Samuel Alito is just the WRONG guy for the job! Please vote against his appointment or filibuster if need be, just help protect American, our Constitution, and our Civil Rights.


Thank you for your service,

Jeff Winston

bin Laden fuels the fear, paves the way for banishing our Civil Liberties

So, Osama made another speech and stated the obvious: He's still alive and still a threat because Bush got us all involved with this distraction in Iraq which has done more for Al Qaeda than it's done for us. And the GOP reaction, of course, is to show how serious they are about terrorism by attacking Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and other Democrats or liberals.

The official White House response from Scott McClellan was:

We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business.

Yeah, when are you going to start doing that? John Kerry reminds us that they had their chance:

You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape. That's what we should be talking about in America.

It's pretty obvious that the G.O.P. worked fast to make sure everyone knew the talking point in response to bin Laden's tape: Tie him to Democrats, liberals, and anti-war supporters. How about so called democrat, Chris Matthews comparing bin Laden to Michael Moore to Joe Biden. Yeah… that’s responsible journalism. I predict that Chris Matthews goes to work for FoxNews in the near future… he’s polishing up his resume with O’Reillyesque zingers.

Republicans rolled out all of their favorite fear mongers as soon as the tape hit the news. Here we have direct threat from the man responsible for 9/11 (hint: It’s not Sadaam), yet the US doesn’t believe that the threat is credible enough to raise our multi-colored threat level. Apparently it is only proper for this administration to act on bad intelligence as opposed to intelligence from the horse’s mouth.

My theory is that the US could go after bin Laden, right now… and succeed in his capture. However, it would take forces out of Iraq. We all know that Iraq is the priority here. Who would guard the oil wells if we went off to Tora Bora, or perhaps Saudi Arabia to find bin Laden’s spider hole.

In what appears to be a very coordinated campaign- “the boogie man is going to get us so you must surrender your civil liberties!” Some news outlets across the world are predicting that this latest message from bin Laden is actually a boon for the Bush Administration, underlining the War on Terror. (Bush’s favorite subject. Believe me, he would much rather be on his throne spewing his dribble about evil-doers as opposed to the scandals.) And yet, another bin Laden tape comes out and no one questions why he is still alive and free. The Bushies use the release of this tape as an, “I told you so” argument to why they should be allowed to continue their degradation of our civil liberties with their illegal wiretaps. More ammo in the fear dept. Phew, we’ve been getting low lately. Keep us scared, and we’ll just hand you the Civil Liberties.

Our Freedoms and Civil Liberties, and of course our arrogance are what al Qaida hate the most. By letting the Bush Administration scare those freedoms and liberties from us, it is allowing the Terrorists to win. Sadly, this is the trend which I am seeing in America today. We will never stop terrorism on the planet. When our own government does the work for the terrorists, by taking away our rights, what work does that leave the terrorists to do. It gives them more free-tim to plot and plan physical attacks against us.

Impeachment is in the air… can you smell it?

This week Zogby International released its poll and by a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
This means that more Americans polled, want to see Impeachment proceedings. Now lets compare this data against a little bit of history from PollingReport.com which includes all of the public polls conducted during the Clinton Impeachment. In December 1998, prior to the Impeachment proceedings, an ABC poll shows that only 40% believed that the proceedings should begin, while 58% were opposed to the impeachment proceedings.

Now let’s fast-forward a couple of months. The impeachment hearing were concluded, all of the testimony and evidence against Clinton has been brought to the public eye. The Senate has decided that Clinton is NOT GUILTY of the charges. An ABC poll found that 60% of Americans polled agreed with the Not Guilty finding. 39% disagreed. When asked, “Do you think the Senate should censure or officially reprimand Clinton for his actions in the Monica Lewinsky matter, or should it drop the case without censuring Clinton?", the poll found that 54% wanted the case dropped, while 44% wanted censure.

From the beginning, Americans have shown that they were against these impeachment hearings. While in this weeks ‘Bush impeachment’ poll, more Americans polled agree with beginning the impeachment process.

Be careful of what you wish for…

I believe that the only thing worse that George W. Bush as President, would be Dick Cheney as President. But then again, who wants Dennis Hastert as President? So far, the best idea that I have heard regarding impeachment has come from Al Franken; wait until the last week of his Presidency, and then impeach him. That way we won’t have to deal with Cheney for more than a week, if his heart holds up.

When the lies of the War in Iraq were systematically brought forward, I was all about impeaching this administration. When the news of the secret wiretaps came out, I really, really wanted impeachment. But after careful re-consideration, I hate to say that leaving the clown in office is probably the best thing to do. We should demand censure, and his presidency will forever be viewed as one of the worst, if not THE worst presidency in history. In lieu of impeachment, I recommend an all-out investigation to expose all of the lies and deceit of the Bush presidency which have remained secret, and bring them out in to the open. Full disclosure! This way future generations will be able to examine the flaws and mistakes and be able to avoid them in electing future Presidents.

Congressional Ethics Reform

Yesterday the G.O.P. House leaders released their plan to strengthen the ethics in Congress.

How Ironic is it that the Republican party jumped on this opportunity to be the saviors of fair government, a mere 13 days after abandoning their plans to loosen rules governing members' ethical conduct.


The proposal would have made it more difficult for lawmakers to discipline a colleague for unethical behavior and would have allowed Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to keep his post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury that is looking into his campaign finance practices. The G.O.P. finally scrapped the proposal, yielding to pressure from rank-and-file lawmakers concerned that the party was sending the wrong message. After all, Tom DeLay is at the heart of the controversy, did they think that loosening the ethics rules to help DeLay keep his post would go unnoticed?


This afternoon on NPR’s, All Things Considered, I heard House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) being interviewed about the G.O.P.’s new plan on Lobbying Reform, in contrast to the House Democrat plan which was released today. Mr. Dreier kept emphasizing that, “the Republican Party is the Party of Reform… When we are done with this reform, we will have more reforms”. The proposal, spearheaded by Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, would ban lawmakers from accepting all corporate-sponsored trips; prohibit all but inconsequential gifts like baseball caps and T-shirts; and force lawmakers convicted of felonies to forfeit their congressional pensions. Dreier said GOP leaders also plan to make former House members wait two years before registering as lobbyists, instead of the current one year; and plan to pass separate legislation the day Congress returns to work Feb. 1 blocking former lawmakers who now work as lobbyists from the House floor and the congressional gymnasium. "I believe that this is a very, very, very exciting opportunity for us," Dreier said.


I have to hand it to the G.O.P.; those sure are some sweeping reform ideas.


Here’s what I really think: - I think that the G.O.P. was eager to get out on the field before the Dems. They rushed this substandard plan through, to save face, and politicize the issue to lean in their favor as being the leaders on this issue. This way, the talking points for the release of the Dems reform plan, can be as simple as,”These guys never have an original thought”. However, in the quickly prepared G.O.P. plan, they were very careful to not bite the hand that feeds them. They left the K-Street ‘Pay-to-Play’ projects alone and focused on relatively benign issues such as adding an additional year to the length of time before a former congressman can register as a lobbyist.


Instead of limiting the value of a gift to $20, as House Republicans are considering, Democrats would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists. Democrats also attack some of the legislative practices that have become established in the past 10 years of Republican rule in Congress. They vowed to end the K-Street Project, a program in which Republicans in Congress pressure lobbying organizations to hire only Republican staff members and contribute only to Republican candidates. Who are the real reformers here?


The Republican Party has learned volumes from Karl Rove. Perhaps the most important lesson learned was to keep telling half-truths or lies often enough and the masses will take it as fact. The average American does not research the validity of the claims that they hear from either side. However, when they hear the same lie over and over again, it sinks in as, “Oh yeah, I’ve heard of this before” and it is believed. Keep in mind that repetition like this is how toddlers are taught, ever see Teletubbies? The lie here is that The G.O.P. is the party of reform. The G.O.P. is the party of corruption and abuse of power. They fear real reform which can threaten their corrupt ways of governing and their huge cash contributions from lobbyists.


Today, the Democrats released their plan to reform the ethics in Congress. While there are similarities, the Democrats plan goes much further to truly putting an end to the abuse and corruption in the House.


Here are the Democrats plans.


Close the Revolving Door. Close the revolving door between the Congress and lobbying firms by doubling (from one year to two) the cooling-off period during which lawmakers, senior Congressional staff, and Executive Branch officials are prohibited from lobbying their former offices. Eliminate floor privileges for former Members of Congress and officers of the Senate and House who return to lobby.


Toughen Public Disclosure of Lobbyist Activity. Significantly expand the information lobbyists must disclose - including campaign contributions and client fees. Require them to file disclosure reports electronically, and increase the frequency of those filings. Require lobbyists to certify that they did not violate the rules, and make them subject to criminal penalties for false certifications.


Ban Lobbyist Gifts and Travel. Prohibit the receipt of gifts, including gifts of meals, entertainment and travel, from lobbyists.


Shut Down Pay-to-Play Schemes Like the "K Street Project." End efforts like the "K Street Project," which Republicans created to tell corporations and lobbying firms whom they should hire in exchange for political access.


Disclosure of Outside Job Negotiations. Requires lawmakers to disclose when they are negotiating private sector jobs, and requires Executive Branch officials who are negotiating private sector jobs to receive approval from the independent Office of Government Ethics.


Prohibit "Dead of Night" Special Interest Provisions. Require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public and that members of the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments. Make copies of conference reports available to Members, and post them publicly on the Internet, 24 hours before consideration (unless waived by a supermajority vote).


Zero Tolerance for Contract Cheaters. Restore accountability and openness in federal contracting by subjecting major contract actions to public disclosure and aggressive competition; criminally prosecuting contractors who cheat taxpayers, with penalties including suspension and debarment; imposing stiff criminal and civil penalties for wartime fraud on government contracting; prohibiting contractors with conflicts of interest from conducting oversight or writing contract requirements they could bid on; mandating full disclosure of contract overcharges; creating tough penalties for improper no-bid contracts; and closing the revolving door between federal contract officials and private contractors.


Prohibit Cronyism in Key Appointments. End rampant cronyism by requiring that any individual appointed to a position involving public safety possess proven credentials, and training or expertise in one or more areas relevant to the position.
-


In all fairness, I really wanted to post the entire Republican plan. However they are so embarrassed by its lack of content that they didn’t even post it on their website. In fact, I could only find the references to it online, but never found the plan in its entirety.

... with Liberty and Juctice for ALL

I’ve been biting my tongue about the Bush Regime’s secret NSA wiretapping / eavesdropping scandal. I wanted to let the ramifications sink in… to soak in to the cockles of my grey matter and see what stewed to the top. Usually an act as blatant as this doesn’t take this much time to stew. However, once I grasped the enormity of this story… I had to wait for the anger to subside before I could process the emotions in to words. Over lunch with my friend Eric last week, we started talking about it, and I began blurting unintelligible dribble in an irate rant. Obviously, I wasn’t ready yet. I’ll try very hard to get it out here, but bear with me if I stray in to a rant… I’m still recovering.

I feel that I need to include the text of the fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I will be referencing it throughout this piece, and it will be easier to follow along if we are all reading from the same Constitution.

U.S. CONSTITUION – AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The same week that I heard the news break of the wiretaps, I was visiting my family in Florida for the Holidays. My first reaction was disbelief… then the mourning for our Constitution began to creep in to my psyche. (see AMENDMENT IV)

Finally, the anger worked its way to the top. For my money, I believe that the best display of the idiocy of King George in 2005 came right at the end. December 17, 2005 live from the Roosevelt Room in the President’s Weekly Radio Address where Bush acknowledged openly that he had indeed authorized illegal wiretaps on American citizens. The best part of the address was where he concluded the speech with:

“This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States” (see AMENDMENT IV)

The full transcript of the Dec. 17 Radio Address There are three main issues in his closing statement.

1.) How does violating our liberties as citizens, protect our civil liberties? Does he even know what civil liberties are?

2.) Our Constitution explicitly condones search without warrant. The creation of the F.I.S.A. court makes it easy to obtain a warrant, even after the search in cases of time factors. Bush's statement just doesn’t make sense! He should have said, “The American people expect me to do everything in I can think of, Constitution or Not, Laws or Not; to protect them in exchange for their Civil Liberties”.

3.) In complete denial of any law breaking, he insists that he will continue with this illegal program. He never doubted for a second to take it to the Congress for approval after the cat was out of the bag. He knew that the Congress would NOT have authorized his actions. Even with a Republican majority… Congressmen would not risk their re-election over civil liberty violations. Many Republican Congressmen have a hard enough time with the Patriot Act.


On April, 20, 2004, President Bush gave a pro-Patriot Act Speech in Buffalo, New York in which he said, "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution". The full transcript of this speech is available on The White House website

Liar, Liar... Pants on FIRE!

This is the equivalent of someone looking you straight in the eye, and unflinchingly lying to you. According the DSM IV - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition, one could diagnose George Bush having an Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Here is the DSM IV Checklist to diagnose Antisocial Personality Disorder:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.

(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.

(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B. The individual is at least age 18 years.

C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

The other and perhaps more important issue is that this story broke in the fall of 2004. In the mainstream media, I have only heard this fact mentioned once. ONCE! Now we are on our way to chopping down the First Amendment.

The New York Times took the story to the White House and was asked to sit on the story as an issue of National Security. The New York Times obliged. One year later, when the story finally comes out, the Bush Regime starts its spin machine and lambastes the irresponsibility of the New York Times for printing the story, and sets out on a mission to find the person who leaked the information. Bush stated in his address, “Revealing classified information is illegal”. Duh, but doesn’t this leak fall under the protections of the Whistle-blower Act? After all, the leak merely exposed the law-breaking ways of our Executive.

The Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."

Bush’s comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so.

Today, the A.C.L.U. and the Center for Constitutional Rights have filed lawsuits against the government. The White House scoffed and declared the lawsuits ‘frivolous’. (see AMENDMENT IV)

Where do we go from here?

Who would believe that Al Gore would grow a back-bone over these past 6 years? Where was this passion and zeal in the 2000 election cycle? Don’t get me wrong, I was a Gore supporter. I just wished that he had let some of his personality shine through the Eeyore-ish demeanor that he portrayed during his campaign.

In case you haven’t seen or heard about Mr. Gore’s speech at Constitutional Hall in Washington on January 16, 2006… I’m here to bring you the highlights! The entire transcript of the speech can be found at The Washington Post website.

Gore started right out of the gate, (after the pleasantries to the crowd and his hosts) with homage to Dr. Martin Luther King by emphasizing the role of illegal wiretaps during the Civil Rights era:

GORE: "And on this particular Martin Luther King Day it is especially important to recall for that for the last several years of his life Dr. King was illegally wiretapped, one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during that period. The FBI privately labeled King the -- and I quote -- "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country" and vowed to -- again, I quote -- "take him off his pedestal." The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. This campaign continued until Dr. King's murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted this long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King's life was instrumental in helping to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping. And one result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, often called FISA, which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there was indeed a sufficient cause for the surveillance.
And the hits just kept on coming. "

Meanwhile, John Kerry has also been throwing a few punches. On December 8, 2005, Jerry gave a speech to the Senate Council on Foreign Relations which you can read at JohnKerry.com. Here is one of the highlights of that speech:

Kerry: "We must also start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset in the war on terror. We play into the hands of our enemies and lose credibility when the Vice President lobbies for the right to torture, even after the Abu Ghraib disaster, when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has to publicly remind the Secretary of Defense that our troops have an obligation to stop torture when they see others doing it, and when we continue to hold detainees indefinitely in a legal no-man's land."

I have noticed lately that both Gore and Kerry have stepped up their rhetoric, perhaps the gloves are now off and they are itching for a fight. Well, God Bless them if they are!!! Where was this spunk when both of these former candidates were being likened to the equivalent of a wet paper towel? When the Democratic party… scratch that… when the country needed these guys to flex a little muscle and let their passion shine through. Both of these guys really just curled up in to a ball and were bullied by the Rough-and-tumble brush clearing Texan. Perhaps they were both just late-bloomers.

The most important factor about this change in direction that both Kerry and Gore have been experiencing is that Democrats are angry at the loss of Civil Liberties caused by the Bush Regime, it is getting under their skin, and they are finding that passion that they once lacked. It is also the trend of the people, no longer waiting to ‘trust’ Bush and his ways. For too long, Americans were “SHEEPLE” (a term I borrowed from No Good Ideas Blog) following the herd as they were being led off of a cliff like Lemmings. This looks like it will be an interesting year at the polls. The YEAR of the Donkey!

Back in the saddle again!

I will freely admit that I sometimes have a tendency to be a slacker! I let this Blog go for many months. I am now ready to pick up where I left off. I was explaining to my friend Eric the other day that this blog business is a lot harder than it seems. Every day I begin researching various political topics. Much to my dismay, I become so overwhelmed with new information, or a new scandal arises, that my research becomes far too expansive to narrow the information in to an informational blog. (P.S. check out my friend Eric's blog at: www.nogoodideas.blogspot.com )

If you check previous posts of mine, you can read an early blog about 'Casino Jack' a.k.a. Jack Abramoff which I believe was very much ahead of its time. More on Jack to come in the next few posts.

As we begin the politically important 2006 year, I will have many important topics to addres on both the National level, and the Michigan level. While it appears that Michigan's Govenor, Jennifer Granholm isn't going anywhere after November, and both Senetors Levin and Stabenow are way ahead in the polls, I want to direct my attention to Michigan Congressmen. Most importantly to me, my congressman Vern Elhers. Below is the most recent letter that I sent to Mr. Ehlers. Since this letter was sent, Bob Ney has stepped down as the Chair of the House Administration Committee. Mr. Ehlers is the next in line for this post, but he was quoted in the 1/15/06 Grand Rapids Press as stating that he, "doesn't want the job." This ties in directly with the issues that I pointed out to Mr. Ehlers in my letter... enjoy!

1/12/2006

Dear Dr. Ehlers:

You claim that you represent your constituents. Isn't it true sir, that you represent the Republican party more than the will of your constituents?

Your constituents are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, Libertarians, and other third party members. Why is it that you only seem to represent the Republican agenda over the will of the people? Wouldn't it be more representative of your constituents to take a bi-partisan or multi-partisan approach in your position?

I know that you are a well-educated, intelligent person. Don't you believe that following the corrupted herd is a waste of your talents and experience? I want a representative who LEADS and fights for agendas which benefit the PEOPLE in which you represent. Not one who FOLLOWS the Republican Party to strengthen CORPORATE and INDUSTRY interests over the interests of the PEOPLE. While Corporations may contribute more funds in to your coffers, they do not have a vote and you DO NOT represent them.

Just how tangled up in the GOP Culture of Corruption is Vernon Ehlers?

Vernon Ehlers voted with Tom DeLay 91% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005. Is this the kind of lockstep government that working families deserve?

Vernon Ehlers voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay. Does the integrity of the House mean so little that Vernon Ehlers would sacrifice it to defend Tom DeLay?

When Republicans realized it was "impossible to win the communications battle" over the gutted ethics rules, Ehlers flip-flopped and voted to put the old rules back into place. So Vernon Ehlers cares about the integrity of the House after all -- when cable news is covering it.

When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, Vernon Ehlers voted twice to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote. So instead of a bipartisan effort to get government working for Americans, Vernon Ehlers stood for cronyism and partisan politics.

Please take a moment to explain your participation and relationship with Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff. Please explain to me and the rest of your constituents what influence you have gained in Congress from your relationship with Mr. DeLay that has a direct impact of the well-being of the people in your district. Explain why you feel obligated to vote with 'The Hammer' in spite of representing your constituents.


I look forward to your answers,

Jeff Winston

1 Voting percentage with DeLay:
calculated through: www.cq.com 91%

2 Vote to weaken ethics rules:
H Res. 5, Roll Call #6, 1/4/05 YES

3 Vote to repeal weakened ethics rules:
H Res. 241, Roll Call #145, 4/27/05 YES

4 Votes to table Democratic solution:
H. Res. 153, Roll Call #70, 3/15/05 YES
H. Res. 213, Roll Call #106, 4/14/05 YES

A few thoughts about Tom DeLay

I could rant for hours about Republican corruption in general. The back room deals, the dirty politics, and the greed are mind-boggling. I'll save that can of worms for a time when I have much more time to gather my thoughts... the list is so expansive that it seems like an almost overwhelming task.

I do have time to take a few pokes at the master of corruption, Mr. Tom DeLay. The man whom the RNC has chosen as their majority leader. (I actually laughed when I typed that last sentence). The only way for Tom DeLay to defend his actions without confessing to his corruption is to come out of the closet about his secret love affair with Jack Abramoff, (a.k.a. Casino Jack) casino lobbyist and bilker of over $66 million from Native American tribes. Think about it, sure coming out of the closet as being gay and being in love with Casino Jack is his only salvation when trying to explain the extravagant gifts, trips, etc. that Casino Jack has bestowed upon his lover Mr. DeLay. Sure, the religious Right will take offense, but at least he can account for his actions.

If you have been in a cave for the past 5 years, and aren't aware of the misdealings of Tom Delay... I recommend these links to bring you up to speed:

DNC Special Report on Abramoff
Slate Magazine article on Abramoff

Take some time to examine Mr. DeLay's activities and write to your senetors and congressmen to encourage them to help get this maniac out of office. Then follow this a general rule of thumb for all citizens to follow for future elections. Any politician who is now attempting to defend the actions or integrity of Tom DeLay, should never receive another vote for any office. These people should just resign their offices right now. (I recommend Mr. Bush take this advice).

Welcome to NeoDems

Welcome to NeoDems

Hello and welcome. As you know, the nature of a Blog is a sounding board for individual concepts, ideas, ramblings, and writings. To an extent, this Blog is not much different. I intend on posting weekly editorials here, aimed at the political state of the Democratic party and the reinvention ideas that myself and others have to contribute to revamp the party's mission, ideals, and respectability.

I encourage each and every visitor to participate in the discussions. I would be disappointed if this blog fell to the wayside. I wish to gather the discussions from this blog, and forward them to the DNC.

So read on, contribute, and enjoy!

Once again, thanks for visiting.

Jeff