Teaching Biblical Script as Science; Is it Any Wonder Johnny Can't Compete?

You have to hand it to the Christian Right, they are nothing if not determined to force their narrow-minded views informed by the Bible and faith on us all; believers and non-believers alike. Their latest front is really an old front closed, but reopened on a different vista, but it is the same old battle: to get creationism into the public schools.

I am continually amazed that Americans in increasing numbers fail to grasp the foundations of their own government; i.e. the doctrine of Separation of Church and State for starters. Could it be that as each generation is born, we slip further and further away from even a basic understanding of what the constitution means? I was shocked when Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, stated from the bench during arguments concerning the Ten Commandment case before the court, that government(s) derives its power to govern from God! Funny I thought the government drew it power to govern from We The People as embodied in the U.S. Constitutions and many subordinate state constitutions.

Scalia's statement can only serves to embolden those who seek to replace Civil Law with Canon Law and thrust religion and biblical teaching into the public sphere. Never mind that not all Americans are Christians or even believers in God, what matters is that their agenda governs. Never mind our collective freedom to be free of religion if we so choose. If they believe in God and the Bible, so should we all believe and live by the word. Never mind that the Religious Right continually and habitually seeks to deny freedom to others based on faith!

In a recent Washington Post article, the paper reported that the religious doctrine of Intelligent Design (regurgitated Creationism), is being push in nineteen states from Georgia to Ohio, Ohio to California, with stops is Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington state, and points in between. The proponents of Intelligent Design would have us believe that the concept, in which the human race was created by a higher intelligence, is science and deserves to be taught beside the Theory of Evolution as a viable alternative to the latter. Problem is the concept cannot even begin to be proven, much as the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven; indeed the existence of God and or other higher beings must be taken on, well faith. Since it implied that this higher being that created mankind is God, or a God-like being we must take it on faith that it true. Faith is not the basis for sound public education; therefore, Intelligent Design has no place in the classroom of any public school.

True the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, but at least there are some science backing the assumptions that man evolved over time from primitive creatures who share a common ancestry with apes, monkeys etc. Science bares this out; science on the other hand offers no proof that one all-mighty being created all we see on Earth and the Universe. Therefore I submit again that there is no place for Intelligent Design in the public schools.

Some may point to the bible as compelling evidence of Intelligent Design, but once again, nothing in the bible can be proved; it is all conjecture, written over the span of at least 500 years and by different men with their own agenda. The tome is very contradictory and meandering, and if take literally offers no real guidance at all. The Bible is filled with loft words, but we must take it on faith that the Bible is indeed the word of God, and faith once again is not the basis for sound scientific education.

I am against teaching the theologically inspired Intelligent Design in the public schools. Not only is it scientifically unsound, but it violates the Separation of Church and state doctrine set up by the First Amendment. If we allow Intelligent Design to be taught in the public school, would we then have to allow other religions to insert their believe(s) of how mankind came to be into the public school curriculum? We would if we were to remain true to the constitution, for the state cannot favor one religion above another.

Religion and religious teaching and or doctrine has no place in the public arena, it should remain private. If Christians--who now claim by the way that they are being persecuted by not being allowed to insert Intelligent Design into public school curriculum--want to teach the ID let them do it at home and in the church. What I ask is wrong with that? Leave the rest of us alone; if you want you children to wallow in ignorance fine, but don't ask my children to share their fate.

It Is Past Time For Tom Delay to Go!

Does anyone but me get a bad taste in their mouth whenever they utter the words Tom Delay? This man could be the poster child for all that is wrong in the halls of Congress. And one has to ask: at this point is Tom Delay really representing the people of his district, or following his own purulent self interests?

And if the latter is true—how far will his fellow Republicans and constituents let him go before shouting enough is enough? I for one would not shed a tear if Delay were brought down and brought do hard.

The powerful Congressman from Texas has been admonished three times over the last year for official misconduct by the House ethics committee, but still he seems to remain as powerful as ever, suggesting that Republican Party’s claim to the moral high ground on ethics is lodged deep within the bosom of hypocrisy. And once again Tom Delay is in the news for allegedly violating House ethics rules by taking a trip sponsored by foreign interests.

And yet the ten member (five Republicans and five Democrats) House ethics committee formally the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is powerless to act because of rules changed pushed by Delay’s political toady House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)—who I am ashamed to say represents my district in Illinois—who recently replaced the chairman and two other Republican members, with Congressmen more loyal to the leadership. Then came the rule changes pushed by the Republican leadership that make it impossible for the committee to investigate a member of the House for wrong-doing without a majority vote. The rules used to stipulate that in the event of a tie an investigation would be triggered thereby upholding the bi-partisan flavor of the body.

The rule changes have effectively stalemated the committee and allowed Tom Delay to thwart the system set up to weed out those who would abuse their power. The committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), said recently in an interview that

"[T]hese rules undermine the ability of the committee to do its job…an ethics committee has to do a good job if it's going to do any job at all."

He made these remarks after the committee met, stalemated, and fail to agree to start an investigation into Delay’s latest violations of House ethics rules.

These are far from Delay’s only flirtation with lapse ethics. In Texas, three of his close associates have been indicted on charges of illegal corporate campaign contributions and money laundering by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, based in Austin. It is alleged that most of the money was raised from corporations in 2002 and fueled the now famous (infamous if you are a Democrat) Republican takeover of the Texas legislature. Such contributions are a violation of Texas state law.

The three associates are Jim Ellis, a close Delay political associate, fundraiser Warren RoBold and John Colyandro, executive director of DeLay's political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC). In addition to the charges of illegal contributions, indictments on charges of money laundering were also leveled against both Colyandro and Ellis.

Can any rational thinking person believe the Delay did not have a hand in the wrongdoings? And again House ethics rules were changed by the Republican leadership to protect him in case he is indicted.

What of our vaunted American system of checks-and-balances if one party can run rouge-shot over the other in an undecidedly undemocratic flaunting of power? Has Delay grown too powerful and the Speaker too weak, and the House too sullied with the excrement of the Republicans flagrant and abusive power-grapping shenanigans to be trusted with the peoples business?

Related Storeis:

DeLay linked to fund-raising for PAC under investigation

Texas Dems See Violations in DeLay Actions


DeLay PAC Lawsuit Goes to Trial in Texas


DeLay: More Cash—And More Questions

Who Needs a Minimum Wage Anyway?

Yes, it is time for the Republicans to show us (Americans) the true meaning of family values by once again denying the working poor even the promise of a decent wage from which to raise their families. Can a family of three, let alone a family of four or five survive on $824.00 a month? Can a single person for that matter?

The Democratic proposal—sponsored by that champion of the American worker, the Honorable Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts—was to increase the minimum wage by 41 percent, to $7.25 and hour over the next two years. It was roundly defeated by Republicans in the Senate in what was largely seen as a known outcome. Before the 49 to 46 vote count an angry Senator Kennedy denounced the coming defeat saying,

"The height of hypocrisy will be this afternoon, when those individuals in this Senate say no to a minimum wage increase of $7.25 an hour when this institution voted themselves a $28,500 pay increase over the last five years…minimum wage has been flat all these years, but not for the members of this Congress."

And he is right, after four years without a salary increase, the members of Congress quietly voted themselves one in the fall of 1997. The 2.3 percent hike amounted to about a $3,000 a year increase, bringing the average Congressman’s salary to $136,673. Leaders of both parties got considerably more; e.g. the Speaker of the House, then one Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), salary rose to $175,445.

And it didn’t stop there; Congress has voted itself a pay raise almost every year since 1996 seeing their income raise approximately $24,500 since January 1998 to some $158,100 by January 2004. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage standard has not been adjusted since 1996. Anyone who runs a household will relate to you that $5.15 an hour is not enough to live on, not with the price of everything it takes to live a decent life continuing to increase on an almost monthly basis.

I am not saying the members of Congress do not deserve a raise(s), they do after all have to support two separate households, but the disparity between their salaries tan those of their constituents is grossly out of whack.

The Republicans of course denounced Senator Kennedy’s bid to raise the minimum wage saying that it would do more harm than good. Senator John E. Sununu, (R-NH) said that by

“raising minimum wage, you are pricing some workers out of the market…it is an economic fact. Proponents of the minimum-wage increase like to dismiss this."

Someone please explain to me what this means! What market is he referring to; the market to flip burgers for a living? Or is he saying that paying unskilled workers $7.25 an hour will make them too expensive to hire? If so by whom? Even the unskilled deserve a decent wage, a place to live, and sleep, and eat and raise a family if they so choose.

Are we striving to become more like Third World nations where unskilled labor is an expendable resource we as a society can write off at will. That because they as unskilled, their worth as citizens is not work measuring. What about the children? How moral a choice is this?

I agree with Senator Kennedy on one other point: the hypocrisy of the Republicans is glaring…shame on them for once again showing the average American that their concerns matter not a wit…what a wasted vote. Is this the America we want to bequeath to our children?

Can The U.S. Claim Sole Credit For Democratic Movement Sweeping the Middle East?

Is Bush right when he announces that "freedom is on the march"across the Middle East? It certainly appears as though there has been an attitude shift in and among the people of the Middle East of late that seems to embrace the tenants of democratic principles.

Lebanon is just the latest example in a growing list of countries where freedom is the new buzzword. Egypt’s president recently called for multi-party presidential elections, after almost four decades as authoritarian rule. Even the Palestinians are beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel that might shine the light of freedom upon their war weary heads. Can a nation built on democratic principles really, finally take form in the West bank and Gaza Strip?

But is this explosion of democratic thought a direct result of the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and the resulting elections held there at the end of January, or would this have come to pass without U.S. intervention? And will freedom ever take hold in the three most important counties in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt? With large populations of Muslim fundamentalist whose interest it is to maintain the status quo, can democratic ideals informed by Western traditions and principles ever really take hold in these three nations?

Can Bush take credit for this movement towards democracy, and in so doing justify a war that has cost so many lives, both American and Iraqi?

Federal Court Orders Padilla Set Free Failing Criminal Charges by the Government

Oh how slowly the wheels of American justice turn, but turn they do. In a ruling yesterday afternoon U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd, sitting of South Carolina, ordered the government to charge Padilla with a crime within 45 days or let him go.

Calling the Padilla case a matter of law enforcement and not a military matter, the judge ruled that the government cannot hold the so-called “enemy combatant” without charging him with a crime. The judge future implied that the President had overstepped the authority of his office is declaring Padilla an enemy combatant stating,

Since (Padilla's) alleged terrorist plans were thwarted when he was arrested on the material witness warrant, the court finds that the president's subsequent decision to detain (him) as an enemy combatant was neither necessary nor appropriate.

Judge Floyd went on to write:

It is true that there may be times during which it is necessary to give the executive branch greater power than at other times. Such a granting of power, however, is in the province of the legislature and no one else -- not the court and not the president.

I agree, the President grossly overstepped the bounds of his office in declaring Padilla an “enemy combatant” while at the same time giving the “American Taliban” John Walker, who is white, a free pass, despite the fact that he was found on the field of battle in Afghanistan. Walker, who was never labeled an enemy combatant, was charged criminally and is now serving time; meanwhile Padilla is languishing in a military brig in South Carolina, charged with nothing. Such arbitrary distinctions clearly violate the 14th Amendment, and shout of racial bias on the part of the President.

It’s a shame that a ruling of this nature had to take as long as it did. But I never lost faith in the justice system to rule in favor of Padilla however long it took. The government will of course appeal, but hopefully the 4th Circuit will rule as the District Court did, and set Mr. Padilla free…however onerous his (alleged) behavior, he is an American citizen and deserving of the Constitutional right afforded to us all.

CNN.com - Canada?won't join?missile defense shield - Feb 24, 2005

CNN.com - Canada?won't join?missile defense shield - Feb 24, 2005
While I certainly understand the need to protect the United States from hostile nations, I do not support spending billion of dollars on a system the will never work in our lifetime. Seems our neighbors to the north share that view. I think the money we are spending on Missile Defense would be better spent on other more pressing matters, oh, like affordable day care, or protecting ports with more Coast Guard vessels, or a real perscirption drug plan.

Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting (washingtonpost.com)

Bradley Figting Vehicle 
Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting (washingtonpost.com) I hate to say I told you so, it seems too easy, but I told you so! It doesn’t take genius to figure out that as the war in Iraq dragged on, Army recruitment would start to suffer. After all, no one wants to sign up to die in a foreign land in a war without a goal or plausible cause, despite the money the Bush Administration is throwing at possible recruits. I state again, it is time to bring back the draft. If we all have to sacrifice for the cause of freedom, is it fair to continue to ask only those who see no other course, to be the only ones to serve?

CNN.com - USS Jimmy Carter commissioned - Feb 19, 2005

U.S.S. Jimmy Carter 

CNN.com - USS Jimmy Carter commissioned - Feb 19, 2005

As a former (always) submariner I take great interest in the Navy’s ongoing submarine programs. And I have been following the Seawolf program from its inception and it’s a shame that the Navy cannot afford more of these boats, but at a cost of 3.2 billion, it not hard to understand why.

I will disagree with the articles’ assertion however that the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is the most heavily armed submarine ever built. The most heavily armed “attack” submarine ever built perhaps, but arguably the Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) of the Ohio class are more heavily armed, as are, or were the Russian Typhoon class SSBN’s. One must not forget that these submarines carry nuclear Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) tipped Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) missiles. For instance, one Ohio SSBN carries some 192 strategic nuclear warheads, on 24 missiles, plus torpedoes making them far and away the most heavily armed submarines in the world.

V. Edward Martin
CTT1(SS) USN (Ret.)

The News & The Ignorant Masses...

The day is a generally depressing one. Even though it’s the weekend I am still not resting as I should; I always seem to be behind on something. And the news is really starting to get under my skin, not so much the news per-se the subject matter. There was a piece on last night about the Evolution debate in the public schools that really pissed me off. Why are we still having this debate? I get so fed up with the Christians and their zeal to make everyone as ignorant as they are. Live your live and let me live mine. If you want to teach your children Creationism do it at home on in Church not in the Public School, where it has no place! The bible is not a text book from which all public school children can or should be taught. Leave it alone already.

To me the sense and sensibility behind the doctrine of separation of church and state is so clear, that any moron could figure it out, but I suppose I am wrong in this regard. Most people are not students of history; most Americans are not students of their own nation’s history, let alone that of the world. Ignorance will spell the end of this Republic, and it is so frustrating, because we have such promise. I only hop I am not there to see the end of it all.

The Budget Numbers Just Don't Add Up

Is any one else waking up in a cold sweat night after night just thinking of the budget deficits our President is proposing despite his pledge to cut the ballooning budget deficit in half by the time he leaves office? I have to wonder, does Bush really think we are all as dense as he is? Probably so. The numbers just don’t add up, despite the rosy rhetoric from the White House.

After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget's Costs Balloon

I am left with so many questions and very few answers other then the fact that our President is a dullard who lacks common sense, vision, and the wisdom to occupy the Oval Office. Why is Bush so intent on pushing through a tax cut in a time of war? Why is Bush pursuing a redesign of Social Security despite not having the funds to pay for it; where will the estimated 2 trillion dollars com from Mr. Bush? Why has Bush stated that he would veto any attempt to redesign the Medicare Reform Act in an effort to lower the ballooning costs, costs his administration hid from Congress?

One last question: How, given the continued cost of the twin wars, the redesign of Social Security, the newly discovered addition costs of the Medicare Reform Act—none of which is part of your recent budget Mr. Bush—and more tax cuts are you, Mr. Bush going to keep your pledge to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009? What is the plan Mr. Bush?

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

I take no pains to neither hide nor apologize for my rich distain for George W. Bush and his crooked, dysfunctional Administration. It still troubles me greatly that an admitted mediocre performer in life can gain the highest political office in the country. And what rankles me more is that the man is so adept at obfuscating the truth that no one seems to bother calling it to our attention. And so the real state of the Union was buried last night, glossed over by a wink and a smug arrogant smile.

Try as I might my fellow Americans, I can not escape the realization that the state of our Union is precarious; we are a fractured nation, a house slowly dividing, a society leisurely decaying in the quicksand of our own unfettered greed and ignorance of the true meaning of freedom and equality. We are all familiar with that famous axiom uttered with such eloquence by our sixteenth President:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

Can this quote be applied to today’s America? Is the discordant slavery issue of old taken on a new guise and morphed into the Gay Marriage and abortion (Liberals vs. Conservatives) issues of today? There can be little argument that the Gay Marriage and abortion rights issues are dividing the nation, and that our inability to address the twin concerns from a purely legal and fundamental rights standpoint has put liberty and equality in jeopardy for more then half the population. And the President’s call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage; to write into our founding document the articles of discrimination and bigotry is unforgivable, but not unremarkable given the fanatical conservatism infesting our nation and the man who champions their cause.

Bush stated last night:

“Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them...Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Are discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance values we want to continue to pass along to our children? And how do they (discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance) sustain a free society? Is Bush saying we don’t want to recognize and celebrate the difference between human beings; is he saying that homosexuals are immoral and incapable of forming families and raising responsible, moral children? And while marriage may be a sacred religious institution, no institution regulated and governed by the many states or federal government can, or should be considered sacrosanct. And I will say it again and again, and again until we all get the message, the tradition of marriage as regulated by the many states (not federal government), is a civil institution governed by civil law. Religion, of course can play a part in the ceremonial aspect of the tradition if the parties so choose, but Canon Law holds no sway over the administration of marriage in America. Marriage licenses are not issued at the local church, you have to go to the county seat to obtain one in my state.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

And if I hear the term “activist judge” one more time coming from the President mouth—a man who should know better then to undermine a fellow branch of government so cavalierly—I think I shall pull what little remaining hair I have from my head! The term activist judge is wholly an invention of the religious right, it is a term used to divide the citizenry, to sow the seeds of disrespect into the fabric of the judicial process in this nation and undercut the rule of law. If the people do not trust the judicial branch to be faithful stewards of the law, how long can the rule of law hold sway in a free society that counts on it to maintain good order and personal responsibility?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

The judicial branch is a co-equal branch of our government, be it local, state, or federal. It deserves, nay should demand, the respect of the other two branches of government. Indeed, the Supreme Court should decry the term “activist judge” once and for all and admonish all who use it including our dimwitted President. This continual undermining of judges and their authority cannot stand, and in the end, is and will continue to subvert judicial authority to society’s determent.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

We cannot be the beacon of liberty and equality aboard if the light of freedom is being extinguished at home. We have lost the meaning of freedom and its sister, equality, within our Republic. We would endow it to our personage but deny it to others for reason of faith, faith; an intangible, something that cannot be proved. Faith is not the basis for public law. Half of the population knows this, while the other half wallows in the ignorance the umbrella of faith provides, convinced that beliefs should govern the masses, should inform public policy, and hold sway over every citizen despite his or her own belief system. Faith is personal and should remain such. Your morals are your own to grabble with, just as mine inform my life. Of course there should be societal norms that govern us all, but those should spring from the Constitution, not the Holy Bible, or the Koran, or any other spiritual tome.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

How long my fellow Americans, will it be before the light of liberty in our Republic goes out? And the Constitution is relegated to just another meaningless artifact, it Articles and Amendments referred to as “quaint” and no longer relevant in a society that places religious beliefs and structured pious control over person above personal freedom and equality?

Am I crying wolf? Is the state of our Union sound or are we like so many civilizations before use slowly eroding, devolving into ruin? Or are we special, immune from the wash of history, strong enough to withstand the ravages of human nature? Will our grand experiment in democracy hold despite the cracks that threaten to split the house asunder? If history is our guide—and we would be foolish to dismiss her as such—then we as a nation are not long for the dais of self-proclaimed greatness, unless we mend the cracks in the foundation of house and truly live the laudable principle enshrined in our national pledge…and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

U.S. Budget Deficit on Track to be the largest in history.

Bush Whitehouse still vows to cut deficit in half.

"In a briefing for reporters on Tuesday, senior administration officials insisted they were still on track to fulfill Mr. Bush's campaign promise of reducing the federal budget deficit by half by 2009. But Mr. Bush is already well behind in reaching his goal...The biggest fiscal problem confronting Mr. Bush is that more than 80 percent of the $2.3 trillion federal budget is currently off-limits for cutting. More than two-thirds of the annual budget goes to mandatory entitlement programs, mainly Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare."


Read also an article in the Washington Post.

Read also an articel in the Los Angeles Times.

Is there anyone who still believes in their right mind that tax cuts are still a good idea? How can Bush cut the deficit without increasing revenues? Perhaps I’m missing something here, but I think it comes down to simple old-fashioned math. How much longer can we as a nation continue to pile on debt before the world tires of financing it? I wonder if the Americans are aware that two banks; The Central Bank of Japan, and The Chinese Central Bank hold most of our Treasury notes. Do we really want to give any two entities that much control over our future? The dollar is already taking a pounding because of our mounting debt and trade imbalance (The Weak Dollar: Protect Yourself). How much longer will it be before the dollar in no longer the preferred currency of International business, and is replaced by the (gasp) Euro?

Bush's Inaugural Speech Was a Meaningless Farce

I don't know about the rest of the American public, or the world for that matter, but I found Bush's Inaugural speech, pretty but without much substance; flowery but totally uninspired. And in some passages the speech was totally ignorant of the subtle nuances of American history and her continuing struggle to lift freedoms banner high within our own borders let alone those of nations still suffering under the slowly dissipating fog of European colonialism.

Yes I know this is the time when all American should rally together and celebrate the peaceful transfer of power, and the swearing in of our President. But something prevents me from wholly embracing this ceremony. Could it be the 40 million dollars spent thus far for this elaborate affair, is a significant sum in this era of huge budget deficits and two ongoing wars? Or could it be that for the Bush Administration it is business as usual? I find it appalling that the Administration refuses to re-reimburse the city for its share of Inaugural, even while it calls for unity and good will. Or could it be that Bush’s speech is tantamount to meaningless gibberish that breaks no new ground; that asks nothing of us and is full of unrealistic and pie-in-the sky goals?

Excerpt from Bush Inaugural Speech:

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation.

Is he kidding? Has he forgotten that a war had to be fought to finally throw off the bonds of servitude that shackled Black man to White in the latter's search for personal wealth and singular privilege? This country, the United States of America, was not founded to advance the cause of all men, but build to progress the agenda of the White man alone!

White supremacy over the black slave forms one of the cornerstones of this nations founding's, soaked as it were in the blood of the oppressed. Freedom for all was not won without the death and rebirth of our nation, and the ugly stain of racism still clings to the fabric of American society like bloody reminder of how the noblest of intentions can be lost in the foul hearts of men who do fully believe in the lofty words from those now hallowed documents that formed this nation.

Excerpt from Bush Inaugural Speech:

Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities...America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause...America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty

Does that include homosexual and Gay Americans who wish the freedom to form families, to marry, to raise children as is their right under the law? How can we spread liberty to other shores when our own people continue to suffer under the yoke of majority rule? When the President himself would call into question the very institution entrusted with the stewardship and proper interpretation of our laws. How can we anoint the heads of those freedom seekers without our borders, while denying the fresh air of liberty and equality and due process before the law to our own citizenry within our borders?

How can we guide fledgling nations to the doors of freedom when our government wraps the hands of tyranny around the necks of those in Guantanimo Bay and other detention facilities that exist in the shadows, but exist nonetheless? And continue to deny these men due process before the law? We are not and never were the world font of freedom, the well of wisdom from which nations seeking freedoms blessings should sip.

We are fast becoming a nation no one would want to emulate, an example no nation would want to follow. As religious zealotry takes hold in our institutions oppressing the minority and ineptitude paralyzes our governments resolve to progess the nation forward with purpose and vision, who are we to lead the world?

Excerpt from Bush Inaugural Speech:

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character – on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.

Noble words, but they ring hallow within a nation filled with millions of self-indulgent islands all bent on their own self interest. The spirit of community is dying in America, replaced by unchecked greed and selfishness. Most Americans now worship at the alter of materialism not God. And those who do claim God as their savior; most bare false witness to the same; their faith is infested by the virus of greed and selfishness.

It was perhaps telling that Bush's speech drew the loudest applause when he stated, "[B]y making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal." Meaning: you are going to get more of your money back in tax rebates and the like. Spend, spend, spend on yourselves…

Where is the integrity Bush speaks of within his own Administration? Why does Rumsfeld continue to serve a full year after the humiliating events at Abu G. unfolded, while an E-4 goes to prison for ten years? Does anyone honestly believe that and E-4 coordinated the events that unfolded at the prison without direction from above?

Where is the tolerance for others the Bush speaks of within the ranks of the religious right; those who threw their support behind him after he said that he would deny the right of gays to marry? Was that intolerance, or just a fundamental disregard for the tenants of liberty and justice for all that passed those 11 Amendments to state Constitution denying the right of homosexuals to marry?

In conclusion, Bush's speech was meaningless to me. It was pretty to listen to, but little more. Its words rang hallow in my ears given the events of his Presidency, and the state of our nation. Words alone cannot serve freedoms cause, words need a leader with vision the carry them into battle. Bush is not and never was that leader.

An Independent Judiciary is Necessary to Ensure Freedom of All

It continues to amaze me how little our third branch of government—the judiciary—is understood by both the learned (who by virtue of education and should know better) and the average American citizen. Granted most of the “activist judges” charges make their voices heard from the political and religious right, but that minority din is increasing in volume as more and more ill-informed citizens—as well as (amazingly enough)—members Congress take up the cause.

The American Judiciary has a long history—some of if not so proud—of interpreting the laws of the legislative branch against the varied state and federal constitutions, and of culling the power of the executive branch. This sort of check-and-balances system was built into the frame work of our government so that no one branch could become too powerful and exercise its power unduly either over the other branches or the American people.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 80, that

It seems scarcely to admit of controversy, that the judicary authority of the Union ought to extend to these several descriptions of cases: 1st, to all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation; 2d, to all those which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union;…

Here Hamilton seems to be making a case for judicial oversight of the legislative branch; a mantle the United States Supreme Court has (and inferior courts) covered itself in when it decided Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 shortly after the constitution came into being. Marbury vs. Madison marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional, when Chief Justice John Marshall held that it was the duty of the judicial branch to determine what the law is. His opinion in this seminal case established the power of judicial review—that is, the court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional. Since Marbury, state and federal courts have accepted this role as a natural and needed check on the legislative branch’s ability and propensity to pass laws which are clearly unconstitutional.

Hamilton wrote further in Federalist 80:

The first point depends upon this obvious consideration, that there ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions. What, for instance, would avail restrictions on the authority of the State legislatures, without some constitutional mode of enforcing the observance of them?

Again, Hamilton seems to be making a strong case for the judiciary to check the legislative branch by sitting in judgment of the laws they pass. And I agree with this logical argument; how else would the cause of liberty and equality be served? If the legislative, and to a lesser extent, the executive were left unchecked by the judiciary would tyranny soon take hold? I am of the opinion that it would. One need only to look at the aftermath of 9/11 for lessons is unrestrained legislative and executive power.

But the political and religious Right’s agenda in painting the judiciary in an unfavorable light has less to do with upholding the principles of liberty and equality for all, then it does with denying their fellow citizens those same rights they would hold dear to their own breasts. Those who lack even a basic understanding of the judiciary’s function in our society now seek to diminish its influence by placing conservative judges on various panels. The judges themselves are less of a threat to The People then the perception that the judiciary is doing irreparable harm to American society by upholding the various constitutions which form the foundation of our state and federal governments. Certainly no good can come from this unschooled view of the judiciary’s role in our society. Equal protection under law and due process of law are the bedrocks of our Republic and they should not be denied any citizen of our nation. The members of the judiciary are the protectors of those principles for all American citizens, not just those who proclaimed the God as their guiding light; or wrongly think that marriage as regulated by the states is a religious and not civil institution; or those who feel that God’s law should supersede mans law in the public arena.

A law professor once asked me, in speaking of the Supreme Court, what right do nine old men and women in black robes have to make rulings that affect the lives of almost 300 million people? My response was: if not them who, the people? They cannot be counted on in their self-imposed ignorance to meat out fair and equal justice as it is defined under our constitutional construct; they have proven this time and again throughout American history. If The People could fulfill this function, then what need of we, as a Republic, of a judicial branch? Surely the People could keep the two remaining branches of government in check.

Should we leave it to the legislative branch? No, they are the body creating the unconstitutional laws; the executive? No it does not have the constitutional mandate to interpret the law. So it must be left to the judiciary branch, whose members are schooled and practiced in the subtle nuances of American common law; only they can give a fair and just hearing to those seeking to avail themselves of constitutional protections…

The road we are traversing now, where ignorance is allowed to pervade and hold sway over public discourse on so important a subject is troubling and to me is further prove that our Republic is failing. Once we cease to understand the fundamental functionality of our own governmental components, how can We The People progress as a nation?

Let The Battle Be Rejoined

It has taken me nearly a month, but I am finally over the 2004 Presidential Election. My candidate lost and I have to deal with that, I have to come to grips with the fact that Bush will be in the Oval Office for four more years. Part of me hopes that he will govern this time with humility, but his quip about having “political capital to spend” dashes any hopes of a second term informed by intelligent reflection on the issues and policy tempered by common sense and the best interests of all the American people. And part of me hopes he fails miserably, so that we, the other majority can point to his continued failures and say we told you so. Is that wrong?

But I have learned something about myself in this process, namely that I am not Republican Party material; indeed while I have always considered myself squarely in the Independent camp, I find myself leaning more and more toward Democratic Party ideas and principles. That being said I do not consider myself a liberal, my politics have always taken on a decidedly moderate tenor, but it’s a tune that is increasingly more in harmony with the Democratic Party, and in discord with the Republican Party. I see the Republican Party as an intolerant organization that is increasingly conservative, and run by right-leaning religious zealots; this is not the Party for me. I have even given thought to officially registering as a Democrat, and by the next election cycle I have a feeling the deed will be done.

So now that Bush has regained the White House, we, the other Americans that voted for Kerry must come to grips with four more years of mediocrity, four more years of dysfunction, and four more years of conservative partisan. The net effect is we will have no voice in our federal governmental.

At first the prospect of this left me feeling extremely depressed and feeling lost, my American democracy snatched from me by those whose agenda is decidedly contrary to the tradition and principles engendered in the federal constitution. Having written the foregoing I have to ask: am I being too dramatic, am I allowing emotion to dictate my feelings? I have to answer with a resounding no! I see a real and growing threat to our freedom-loving, intellectually driven society from the religious right whose sole aim—with Republican Party help—seems to be to transform America into the world’s largest theocracy and herald the second coming merely by their ill-informed actions. They must be stopped; they must be challenged; they must be defeated at every turn. And it starts at the grass-roots level.

This is my new focus, my new drive, my new passion, my new crusade. It is a fight we must win if American is to remain true to the foundational principles of our founding. We must once again draw the line between public and private life, secular and religious. Yes, we as a society should be a moral and just civilization, but in promoting moral character, we must uphold human dignity, freedom, equality (before the law) and liberty; our laws take root in the constitution and English common law tradition, not the Holy Bible. Morality, and moral principles are possible outside the realm of religious dictate, and no single code of morals should (or can) be thrust upon a nation as ethnically and culturally diverse as America has become. Morality should not and realistically, cannot be legislated. That is not to say that there should not be societal norms, but again individual and collective human dignity, equality (before the law) and freedom should always be maintained. There is little if no place for religious scripture and law inside the body of civil common law; separation of Church and State must be maintained, if we as a nation are to remain free.

It is ironic that as our serviceman fight for freedom, equality, and liberty overseas, it is being systematically dismantled here at home. Citizens in eleven states voted for state sanctioned bigotry and discrimination in the guise of ill-conceived constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage without proper proof that said marriage do real and verifiable harm to the institution of marriage. Shame on them! But I digress…

As we head into the Christmas season, with its platitude driven slogans and mind-numbing commercials that have little or nothing to do with celebrating the birth of Christ, my soul is unburdened, and my mind clear and focused. I have wallowed in self-pity for the allowable amount of time; I must now rejoin the battle to save America from not only the oppression of theocratic rule, but from fanatical, bottom-line driven, human eating Wal-Mart as well…stay tuned!

Why I Endorse John F. Kerry for President

Every four years We the People of the United States of America are called upon to choose our national leader, the man, or woman who will represent us on the world stage. Four years ago through Supreme Court intervention, George W. Bush became our 43th President. He did not come to the Office of the Presidency of the United States with a clear popular mandate from the We the People, and yet there he was, this vastly unqualified man who would be President.

My president has failed me, he has failed you, he has failed We the People! Over the course of the proceeding four years he has in my mind subverted the constitutional process that provides the foundation for our Republican form of governance. We the People have been neglected, We the People have been forgotten, and We the People of the United States have been ill-served by this President and his ideological administration run amuck.

George Bush is woefully unqualified to assume the mantel of the leader of the free world, and his actions have shown his ineptitude for the position. He is not an overly intelligent man, nor is he thoughtful, or imbibed with wisdom or vision, all qualities needed to be a successful President who moves the nation forward with clarity and purpose. George Bush has failed this simple test repeatedly, in that;

He has failed to lead with vision, intellect, reflective thought, common sense, and within the bounds of our Constitutional Republic.

He promised to bring honesty and integrity to the back the White House, but he has instead cloaked the People’s house in secretly and perpetrated well documented duplicity upon the American people.

He promised to conduct American foreign policy with humility and the treat our allies with respect and dignity, but instead has isolated the United States by his unilateral policies and alienated our allies with his arrogant posturing and general lack of international understanding.

He has violated the trust of the American people and the world by breaking a treaty confirmed with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, and sought to elevate the United States above other nations by turning his back on the U.N. and setting aside other negotiated agreements meant to bring civility to the world.

He seeks to quiet the dissenting voice of Americans by systematically, and willfully denying access to his presence of any American who might hold views contrary to his own, using decidedly undemocratic tactics such as labeling supports of John Kerry subversive and threats to the President, and having such people arrested if they refuse to relinquish their Constitutional right to free political speech.

His lack of leadership, refusal to seek advice from any person outside his very narrowly defined inner circle, his choice to ignore the admonishments and to heed the advice of the outgoing Clinton administration on matters of terrorism, his refusal to listen to his own counter-terrorism chief, and his single-minded fanatical fixation on Iraq, led to the disaster of 9/11, and the murder of almost 3000 innocent people.

He has taken our nation to war with a sovereign nation for reasons shown to be false or otherwise misleading, and in the process indirectly caused the deaths of over 1080 American soldiers (over 7000 wounded), and countless Iraqi men, women, and children.

He compromised the War on Terrorism and allowed Usama bin Laden to escape American and world justice, by going to war in Iraq, a nation that did not constitute a clear and present danger to the security of the United States; meanwhile those countries that do pose a threat, Iran and North Korea are allowed to develop nuclear weapons unhindered by American scrutiny or pressure.

He has irresponsibly abandoned all fiscal reason by pushing through the Republican led Congress five tax cuts, creating the largest budget deficit in the history of our nation, thrusting upon the shoulders of our children a burden that is rightfully our generations’ to bear.

He has forsaken the environment in an ill conceived plan to fatten the coffers of the energy concerns in this nation without regard to the American people, and he has recklessly allowed elements known to be harmful to human health to once again proliferate our air and water.

He has sent our military to war unprepared and ill-equipped, to conduct all phases of a military action in Iraq, and refuses, even after ample evidence has shown the folly of his present course, to bolster their numbers, clinging unwisely to a position sure to lead to disaster and Civil War in Iraq, thereby un-stabilizing the entire region, vacating his stated goals of bringing democracy to Arab states.

He has failed to bring to the Congress a viable coherent energy policy to begin to end the nation’s dependence on foreign sources of energy; this failure has led to greater dependence on foreign source of energy at a time when America should be turning to self-reliance.

He has failed to work in a bi-partisan manner with Democratic Party members in Congress, as he pledged he would do during his run for the Office of President, resulting in a misrepresentation of all of the people before the Congress.

He has introduced religion into the policy of the United States Government, causing tax monies to be diverted from programs after Congress refused to enact his faith based initiative program, circumventing the Constitutional budgeting process, and he seeks to amend our constitution so that gay and lesbian Americans cannot marry, violating the 14th Amendment, and sewing discrimination against a group of people once more into the fabric of our governing principles.

He has mismanaged the nation’s economy, ignoring and even praising the outsourcing of core American jobs to overseas concerns, ignoring the plight of the middle & lower-class American worker, and failing the leadership test once more by refusing to address the issues that would help keep American jobs in America, and he has done nothing to stem the rising tide of imports, pressure China to float it currency on the world market, and check the slide of the dollar against other world currencies.

He has ignored the heath and welfare of senior citizens and the disabled by failing to pass a credible, fair, and truly usable Prescription Drug Plan, refusing to allow Medicare to negotiate for reduced cost of prescription drugs, despite the fact that the Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affair already do so and realize substantial savings.

He has failed to put forth a Health Care Plan that would begin to address the swelling numbers of uninsured across America, at the very time America business of all sizes are asking their employees to share more of the burden on the increasing cost of health insurance, leaving all Americans vulnerable to the resurgence of diseases thought long tamed.

He has failed to address all of the reasons health care costs continue to rise in America; e.g. he clings stubbornly to the notion that litigate alone accounts for the sky-rocketing cost of mal-practice insurance, despite the evidence that insurance companies are attempting to increase revenues lost playing the stock market by increasing mal-practice premiums.

The President’s failure of leadership, vision, and constitutional perception, coupled with his lack of a real moral center based on sound Christian Principles, has led me to this place. I cannot abide a President who lacks an even basic understanding of the world in which we live, and relies on beliefs, rather than intellectual curiosity to inform his life-altering decisions. I cannot abide a President whom I can out-think at every turn; who slaughters our language whenever he speaks; who has earned the disdain of the world by his reckless and arrogant pursuit of neo-conservative policies no matter how ill-advised; who is controlled by those who have not the best interests of We the People at the forefront of their every action.

I am ever mindful of the Preamble to our great Constitution that begins with We the People of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect Union...under this President we have not pursued a more perfect Union, our nation is not a better place because he is our President, indeed it is worse, our lives are not better, our cities not safer, our children’s futures not assured, our liberties not protected, our standing in the world not more respected. And for underlying reasons, I cannot and will not support George W. Bush for reelection. I will vote for a change, I will vote for an intellectual, I will vote for a man who understands and respects the constitutional principles that form the foundation of our society, I will vote for a man who questions, a man with vision and wisdom, and a path that will (hopefully) take America to a brighter tomorrow infused with the light of promise that We the People can once more grasp the American dream without trepidation that tomorrow it might be snatched away at a whim. I will vote for a man with common sense, decency, moral character, and a record of unwavering public service to his country, who truly asked not what his country could do for him, but what he could do for his country. I will vote for John Kerry.

The New York Times > Opinion > John Kerry for President

The New York Times > Opinion > John Kerry for President

Kerry to Bush: Yes I am a Liberal and Wear It Proudly

Lib•er•al—politics; progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

Here we go, when all else fails trot out the label, Liberal, and suddenly the issues don’t matter anymore. When all else fails and you can beat your opponent on the issues, label him a Liberal, because we all know how bad they are. I say Kerry should embrace his Liberal leanings and give speech to that effect.

Here is the Democrats chance to wrest control of the word away from the Republicans and redefine it; make it work for them instead of against them. Make it indistinguishable from the principles upon which this nation was founded, turn it around, and make conservative the label not to be branded with. I have written a little speech Kerry could give, entitled Yes, I am a Liberal.

Yes, I am a Liberal; for I believe in the Preamble to the United States Constitution; that We the People form the central nexus of our government; that liberty and equality are rights ALL Americans should enjoy, that we have come together as a nation to promote the general welfare of the people and society; and that we cannot secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves or our prosperity if we allow fear to dictate our actions at home and abroad.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that a leader no matter his stripe should practice humility, embrace integrity, and speak with honesty to the American people and indeed the world at large. A leader should lead with a clear vision of where (s)he wants to take our nation and a wisdom to get us there without violating the underlying principles our Founding Fathers set forth. We are a Republic and because we embrace this form of governance, I believe the President, the Congress, and the judiciary is answerable to you the People; we serve you, you do not serve us.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe in continually improving the process by which We the People are governed. I believe in an open government that trusts the people with the truth, a government which places the wellbeing of the people above those of the special interests whose sole aim is the furtherance of their narrow agenda at the country’s expense. I believe the business of the United States should not be solely business, but that we as a nation should strive everyday to live up to the principles embodied in our founding documents; indeed they deserve more then lip service and occasional reference for personal gain. And I believe the Pledge of Allegiance should be embraced in its entirety; how can we be One Nation under God, if we do not embrace Liberty and Justice for all?

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe in order to truly make America safe we have to look outside ourselves to other nations and peoples and accept their help in this titanic struggle against the evil of terrorism. We need to embark on a new paradigm one which acknowledges that the enemy is not static; the enemy does not share our principles, nor our values, and that in order to defeat them we must forge alliances that bring to bear not just the might of the U.S. Armed Forces, but the collective will of the world to stop this evil advance. And we must acknowledge that while we embrace the fresh air of freedom, not all peoples welcome it, and while we seek to replace tyranny abroad with the sweetness of freedom, we should ensure that tyranny and inequality remain unwelcome at home.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that Health Care for all Americans is a moral obligation, which should not be rationed out like favors, nor held hostage to the whims of the insurance industry, nor the sole responsibly of employers to provide. The government can and should take an active role in ensuring—insofar as possible—that all Americans can count on sound, quality health care for themselves and their families. This is an issue in which all Americans share an equal stake, for sickness and disease makes no distinction between the rich and poor, black or white, city or suburban dweller. And I believe that Americans should not bear on their backs the high cost of prescription drugs; the weight is too burdensome and the cost too high, the stakes for all of us are too severe.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that in order to promote the general welfare that those who can afford to pay more should do so willingly, for we are a nation come together to promote liberty and justice for all; I am my brother’s keeper and he is mine. I ask what is more Christian than that time honored principle? And Americans are fond of saying that this country was founded on Christian ethics, but are those ethics being practiced everyday by We the People? Is it moral to allow any American to starve, to go without health care, to live in sub-standard housing, to go to sub-standard schools, to be left behind? I believe that all should work to make their own way in this world, but when a fellow citizen is in need, it is our obligation as a Christian society to offer them a hand up.

Yes I am a Liberal; I have a relationship with God, he is with me when I walk, he is with me when I sleep; he is with me in spirit always. But that relationship is personal, it is my own, and I do not have the right in this free society to legislate my beliefs into law and force you to share them. That is not what a free and equal society is about; that is not the meaning of liberty. The Lord gave men free will, who is man to take it away in his name?

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that we should pay for our governmental expenses as we go, we should not shift the burden of our reckless spending—and even more reckless tax cuts in this time of war—to future generations. Why should our children and our children’s children be asked to carry a burden we should willingly take upon our shoulders? I believe that in this time of war ALL should be asked to sacrifice, to give back the country that gave us so much.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that that man is a steward of this Earth, not its master. And as stewards we have an obligation to preserve the planet and the life that inhabits it in a responsible way, to take only what we need to live, and to leave the planet in better stead than when we found it. Our obligation is not just to the planet but to ourselves and our prosperity. By this measure we must find a balance between robust economic sustainability and responsible environmental stewardship. Global warming, while not exact in its measurement, is sound science and needs to be heeded. All of the world’s peoples deserve clear air, and water; these are not the sole province of Americans. And again, foul air affects the planet as a whole, it will not stop at the border of the United States, and indeed the U.S. is a larger contributor to the whole than any other nation. Shouldn’t we step to the plate and negotiate sound environmental practices with other nations?

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe in International cooperation, I believe in International law enforcement, and I believe in the International criminal court, an organization that seeks to bring to justice those who otherwise escape it. I roundly reject the argument that American soldiers would be hauled before the court and made to answer for transgressions while conducting war. If our soldiers abide by the Geneva Conventions, of which the United States is a signatory, then shouldn’t they be punished? Should Americans be above the reach of International law? How does our unwillingness to discard the failings of arrogance and embrace humility hamper our ability to lead in the War on Terror?

Yes I am a liberal. I believe is it wrong to take this nation to war, to ask our all volunteer military to sacrifice their lives because the President wanted to invade another sovereign nation. It is clear that the President intended to invade Iraq long before 9/11 ever happened, the tragedy was his excuse to invade Iraq, a country he has never proved presented a clear and PRESENT danger to the security of the United States. The 9/11 Commission’s report quashed any credible connection between Saddam and any terrorist organization, and both the CIA, and the recently released Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD—the Duelfer Report—made it quite clear that Iraq possessed no WMD in 2001; the sanctions were doing their job in containing Saddam. Who can now offer a credible reason for invading Iraq, a war that resulted in some 1025 American servicemen killed, some 7000 wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi dead and wounded? Iraq is the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time, Afghanistan is the right war, and it is one we are still fighting because resources were diverted from it to invade Iraq.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe the conservative movement has done irrefutable harm to this nation and it peoples by seeking to hold on to the past at the expense of the future. Conservatives and the conservatism movement lack vision, and their leaders rule with little if any wisdom. Their policies more often than not fail the American people because they do not hold true to their own values. Conservatives are supposed to be fiscal conservatives and yet the conservative President and Congress have rung up THE largest budget deficit in the history of our nation. Conservatives say they want government out of our lives, and yet they want the government telling us who we can marry, what women can and cannot do with their own bodies, and when we should be allowed to die. Conservatives as a whole as selfish and self-serving, they seek to hold on to their wealth at the expense of the nation as a whole; they champion the individual over We the People, voting for a tax cut in a time of War, when the President calls for sacrifice, but not from rich Conservatives.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that a President should be the leader of all Americans not just his base. The President says he seeks to unite and not divide and yet at every turn he speaks the word Liberal as if it were sullied, and the people that subscribe to its tenets as bad. The President said that he wanted to be the President of all the people and yet he has time and again refused to meet with the NAACP and the National Counsel of La Raza despite repeated invitations. And he said he wants to work in a bipartisan fashion and yet he has refused to meet with the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucus’s.

Yes I am a Liberal; to be liberal is to embody what America is supposed to stand for, not what she has come to stand for under the stewardship of the Republicans. To be Liberal is to believe that all people deserve a chair at the table of the American Dream, and not just the folks who can afford the price of admission. To be Liberal is to believe that we need not be isolationist, that we can and must be the leader of the free world, but a leader that leads with humility, intelligence, sound judgment, and wisdom. No we should not cede the defense of the nation to other nations, the very notion is ridiculous on its face, but nor should we rush headlong into War without convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to our nation. Liberals are not the enemy, we are not Godless, we do not seek to rob the rich to give to the undeserved poor; we are Americans who love our country and have and will continue to fight to defend her, against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Having stipulated to the forgoing, my question to President Bush is this: why aren’t you a Liberal? Why aren’t you embracing fundamental American principles? Why are you seeking to divide and not unite Americans in this time of war and shared sacrifice? Why do you not show humility and integrity and tell the American people that you were wrong about Iraq, that it was a war we should not have fought, that people died because the cause was not just and the war was not justified by facts. No man is without fault, and yet you Mr. President are unable embrace yours; is that character trait of a real leader…No

Being Steadfastly Wrong is Not Leadership!

Not to put too fine point one it, but Bush was spanked last night.

It is clear from last night debates that Kerry commands a much clearer grasp of the issues, and a better understanding of America’s role in the world as the Earth only remaining superpower. Ours is to lead by example in league with our allies, not unilaterally, with arrogance and distain perched upon our shoulders.

Bush is nothing more then a puppet, and last night the strings were being pulled and almost seen. He offered nothing new, nothing of substance, nothing but the same tired “lame” message we have all heard before. The bottom line is that we should not be in Iraq, and it is indeed the “wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.”

I will submit for the record that Saddam was a dangerous man and needed to be isolated and contained; we along with our allies were doing that. Iraq presented no clear and present danger to the United States. It is funny how the President seems to think it is okay to play paddy-cake with North Korea and Iran while they openly make nuclear weapons, but Iraq needed to be invaded. And for what exactly; what is this week’s reason?

To those who hold the President to a higher standard then beer buddy, Kerry scored points last night, he spoke from a position of intellect and thoughtful reflection, Bush spoke from the heart. One cannot lead from the heart if the mind is disengaged!

Rumsfeld Is Once Again Inserting His Foot into His Arrogant Mouth

I thought the political handlers inside the Bush Administration had been successful in silencing our over bellicose, politically inappropriate, and all too frequently arrogant, condescending Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. But this week he has been back in the news with a vengeance, this time further perpetrating the administration’s lie about Iraq with his own unforgettable and often straight-shooting, short sided, dim-witted style.

The haughty Defense Secretary, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, amazingly proffered the notion that the upcoming Iraqi elections might exclude insecure parts of the country. Rumsfeld stated, "[L]et's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country…[B]ut in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great? Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," Rumsfeld quipped.

So, are we (the American people and indeed the world) to buy that it is okay for certain part of the Iraqi electorate to be disenfranchised because of the on-going security problems, the morass that we created by not putting enough boot on the ground? And that the United States the great bringer of democracy, the shinning beacon on the hill, the hope of the world, can shrug it off as if it didn’t matter, chalking it up to life not being perfect? How does this translate to fair, open and equal election for the people of Iraq? Is this guy for real? Or have the Republican learned from their own homegrown experiments in voter disenfranchisement over the years, and are now applying those same undemocratic principles in Iraq? What is happening to America?

Open question to Donald Rumsfeld: do you know what the Constitution is, and if so, have you read it, and if so, do you understand that you read? Certainly by your callous, unthinking, and dare I say stupid statements, it is clear that there is a hard to disregard disconnect, somewhere between the dawning of understanding of American principles and your oft-time unbelievably ignorant vocalizations.

How did we and the world come to suffer you sir?

Iraq: Reality Check Please

Can any rational, reasonable person even keeping half an ear on the news out of Iraq possibly believe that the country is on the road to democracy? Violence grows on a daily basis with U.S. military official announcing that four Marines, from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, were killed Friday in three separate incidents while "conducting security and stability operations," in al Anbar province, while at least seven Iraqi’s lost their lives in the ongoing battles in and around Al- Falluja. How can elections be conducted under such an umbrella violence? Would Americans given similar circumstances turn out in large numbers to vote?

Meanwhile, President Bush praised interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and detailed his plan for stabilizing Iraq during his weekly radio address Saturday, stating, "[I]n less than three months, Prime Minister Allawi and his government have accomplished a great deal, despite persistent violence in parts of Iraq." What have the Iraqi’s been able to accomplish Mr. Bush? Has the violence lessoned, are the Iraqi people any closer to democracy then they were under Saddam’s rule. How long before the country fractures and Civil War bloodies the Iraqi people even more?

And consider this from yesterdays Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 25 -- Less than four months before planned national elections in Iraq, attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces and private contractors number in the dozens each day and have spread to parts of the country that had been relatively peaceful, according to statistics compiled by a private security firm working for the U.S. government.

Attacks over the past two weeks have killed more than 250 Iraqis and 29 U.S. military personnel, according to figures released by Iraq's Health Ministry and the Pentagon. A sampling of daily reports produced during that period by Kroll Security International for the U.S. Agency for International Development shows that such attacks typically number about 70 each day. In contrast, 40 to 50 hostile incidents occurred daily during the weeks preceding the handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government on June 28, according to military officials.

Reports covering seven days in a recent 10-day period depict a nation racked by all manner of insurgent violence, from complex ambushes involving 30 guerrillas north of Baghdad on Monday to children tossing molotov cocktails at a U.S. Army patrol in the capital's Sadr City slum on Wednesday. On maps included in the reports, red circles denoting attacks surround nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq, except for Kurdish-controlled areas in the far north. Cities in the Shiite Muslim-dominated south, including several that had undergone a period of relative calm in recent months, also have been hit with near-daily attacks.

I think its time for a reality check.

Bush’s Speech Before the U.N. Had (Predictably) Little Basis in Reality

After listening to President Bush’s speech before the U.N. yesterday I wondered to myself: is this guy on the same planet as the rest of us? Does he not care that his and the country’s credibility before the world will continue to slide if his administration continues to deny and ignore what the rest of the world sees so clearly: mainly that Iraq and even Afghanistan are slipping from U.S. control, spiraling down in a blood soaked orgy of violence?

While the daily reports of the escalating violence peppers the front pages of major—and minor—newspapers around the world, the Bush Administration still clings irrationally to the theory that democracy is flourishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sure most of the diplomats in the audience for the President’s speech yesterday were equal as dumbfounded by his almost alien speech that took on a decided belligerent tone. And yet Bush came before the body to ask for assistance, but to me it sound more like a demand. The New York Times opinion page summed it up best:

We did not expect President Bush to come before the United Nations in the middle of his re-election campaign and acknowledge the serious mistakes his administration has made on Iraq. But that still left plenty of room for him to take advantage of this one last chance to appeal to an increasingly antagonistic world to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their shattered nation and prepare for elections in just four months. Instead, Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech in which he glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place.

Even when he talked about issues of common agreement, like the global fight against AIDS and easing the crushing third-world debt, Mr. Bush seemed more interested in praising his own policies than in assuming the leadership of an international effort. The speech would have drawn cheers at an adoring Republican National Convention, but it seemed to fall flat in a room full of stony-faced world leaders.

The Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan think tank did an extensive analysis of the Bush’s speech. On thing is apparent, Bush is fiddling while the War on Terror slips from U.S. control. And I for one do not feel safer, how can I when the Commander-n-Chief is too busy obfuscating the truth to truly lead?

Where do we go from here?

The Turkish government confirmed this morning that 10 of it citizens were kidnapped Friday in Iraq. They are of course just the latest in a recent upturn in such abductions, which saw 2 Americans and a British national also taken only to later show up on tape with guns pointed to their blindfold clad heads. And this on the heals of a severe up-tick in violence in Iraq in the last week that has left some 100 dead and scores more wounded. Where is this all leading?

Where do we go from here?

Even to the casual observer is it plain the see that the situation in Iraq is fast spinning out of our control. It is widely reported that most of the major cities within the now infamous Sunni Triangle are in insurgent hands, not ours. Yet national elections are still scheduled for January. How can national election take place with these vital cities in Iraqi government (American) hands? And how much bloodshed will it cost to get take them back from the entrenched insurgents? And with what troops will we use to undertake such an adventure when we lack the resource to affect the capture and occupation of Al Fallujah, Ar Ramadi, Balad, and Samarra, and the Iraq security forces have thus far shown a reluctance to truly fight?

Where do we go from here?

Sabotage of vital infrastructure continues apace, the rising number of daily attacks by insurgents is getting progressively bolder and more deadly, and security in the country of Iraq is an ever vanishing dream of both the Iraqi and American people. Yet our President continues to paint a picture of Iraq as a country on the very threshold of democracy, stating recently that,

[T]he Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy…It's hard to get to democracy from tyranny. It's hard work. And yet, it's necessary work. But it's necessary work because a democratic Iraq will make the world a freer place and a more peaceful place…[B]ut I fully understand how hard it is for democracy to grow in a country that has been under a leader that tortured and killed and maimed his people...

Huh? Really? Is the President viewing the world through a virtual-reality helmet? Is Bush so out of touch with the real world that he cannot see that Iraq is not a “catastrophic success” but a catastrophic failure that speaks to the lack of planning by the Pentagon and the striking lack of leadership on his own part? Wait don’t answer that. Of course he does! This is no longer about Saddam, and how he did or did not torture, kill, and maim his own people. This has gone way beyond quaint sounding platitudes and meaningless regurgitated sound bites. How can our President so blindly ignore the findings of our own intelligence (site) estimates, which paint a picture of a situation riddled with uncertainty; reports that state that at worse Iraq may devolve into Civil War? Is it stupidity, ignorance, callousness, or arrogance that binds the helmet to the President's head?

Where do we go from here?

Does the Bush Administration have a plan to extricate us from Iraq? If there is one, what is it? What is the plan as Iraq spins out of control and with each passing day lessens the chance that strong, fertile democracy will take hold in the killing fields of the Sunni Triangle? What is the plan to retake the cities of the Sunni Triangle, and at what cost in human life, both Iraqi and American? What is the plan when the Iraqi elections fail utterly degenerating into an orgy of violence we seem powerless to placate? What is the plan when the world’s worse fears are realized and Iraq erupts into civil war destabilizing the one of the world’s principle oil supplies?

Where do we go from here? That is the fundamental question. No matter who ultimately wins the White House, that question will hang above their heads like a sharpened scimitar thirsting for blood. Now that we have gotten so deeply entrenched in Iraq at what point do we remove ourselves completely from the picture. Will we ever be able to leave, or are American forces destined to stay on in a country that can never be secure without a strong central government to quell the long standing animosity between the peoples that call Iraq home?

Where do we go from here?

1000 American Servicemen Dead: For What?

So here we are, the milestone, surpassing 1000 American dead and countless more Iraqi men, women and children; do we know how many of them have died, do we care? Add to this madness over 7000 wounded Americans and how many Iraqis(?). Question: is it, was it, worth it? Is it worth the death, carnage, destruction, destroyed lives, and shattered dreams, not to mention the withering away of America’s leadership and creditability in the world? Is it worth the soul of two nations?

According to a CNN report, “more than three-quarters of those killed, 756 of them, have died in combat, and 647 of those have been killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003.”

Speaking from the Pentagon yesterday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld brushed aside the milestone by linking once again, in unambiguous terms, Iraq to 9/11 by stating,

It should be noted that the civilized world passed the thousandth casualty mark a long time ago... [H]undreds were killed in Russia last week. And this week, of course, on September 11, 2004, we remember the 3,000 citizens of dozens of countries who were killed on September 11 in 2001."

This callous and calculated statement from a member of the Bush cabinet despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission clearly debunked any plausible or creditable connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorist plot, and terrorism in general. More lessons unlearned and yet another Commissions’ findings consigned to the wastebasket of lies, deceit, and business as usual.

And as Sadr City becomes the next center of open urban warfare in Iraq and American soldiers and Marines continue to die at an alarming rate with 18 dead since the beginning of the week, isn’t it time we ALL threw off the masks of American ignorance and pride and asked as a nation why we are in Iraq? As citizens of a democracy isn’t it our duty to ask, no, to demand accountability from our elected officials and not fall prey to idol worship and swoon at the President’s every word just because he might share some of our same views?

The continued carnage in Iraq begs to be debated in open forum and this is not an issue the American people can agree to disagree on, not when human beings (Americans and Iraqis) continue to die at a rapid pace for no discernable reason. It is easy to forget that each life extinguished in this dirty little war affects other lives as well. How many lives have been touched for ill, altered, torn asunder because G.W. Bush took this country to war against a sovereign nation that presented no CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the security of the United States?

Those who would use the argument that Iraq was a growing threat as a basis for the attack, were clearly wrong; there were no WMD, no WMD programs, nothing. So why are we there? The other two countries of the now infamous “Axis of Evil,” Iran and North Korea pose more of a threat to the United States then Iraq ever did. Both have announced—let me say it again—announced that they have ongoing nuclear weapons programs. Yet we will use “quiet, sustained diplomacy” to deal with them, going so far as to remove troops from the Korean peninsula thereby weakening our military stance if we ever did need to deter North Korean aggression. Not only that, but Iran has proven ties to terrorism; it was (and more than likely still is) for years the chief supporter of Hamas (a known terrorist group), and allowed Al Queda free rein of its territory. Add to this caustic mixture Syria, which openly supports Hezbollah (a known terrorist group) in Southern Lebanon. I ask with concern knitting my brow: where are the battle plans for those three countries? Surely they are a threat! Can you smell the hypocrisy in the air as thick as maggots on a dead carcass on the streets of Sadr City?

Make no mistake I harbor no illusions about the nature of Saddam’s character. I know he is an evil man capable of mass murder, torture, betrayal, and other vile acts. But he was contained, and at the time we (almost) unilaterally attacked him and his sovereign country, we as a nation had far great concerns to deal with several hundred miles to the east in Afghanistan where the real terrorists live. And while we fiddle-fart around in Iraq causing more death and destruction, the terrorists are reconstituting themselves in Afghanistan.

How ironic and pathetic is it for the Vice President to call into question the Democrats fitness to defend the nation when it was under a Republican watch that 9/11 took place. Shouldn’t we, the American people be calling into question the Bush Administration’s ability to keeps us safe? I know I do! Hasn’t terrorism around the world increased under their stewardship of the War on Terror? And for those who would point to fact that America has not been attacked since 9/11, aren’t you operating under the same blind illusion that America is a fortress, that kept the Bush Administration from taking the terrorist threat seriously before 9/11, despite the many, many warning signs?

1000 American dead in Iraq, and more than 7000 wounded, and still the chief architect of 9/11, the man whose name was not even mentioned during the Republican Convention, remains free. Free to plot more terror, and kill more Americans…wait is that laugher I hear, laced with derision wafting through the late summer air?

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Here is something I ran across—thanks to my lovely wife—and I thought I’d share it with the world, so to speak. The article is called A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican and it illustrates in stark detail how no man stands alone, and that the theory of individualism, the self-made man is really illusionary in nature. No commentary by me, the piece speaks for itself:

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

by Donna L. Lavins and Sheldon Cotler

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee.
He fills his pot with good, clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan. Because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast -- bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount that is contains because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and the breakdown of its contents.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer meets these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get worker's compensation or an unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose his home to temporary misfortune.

It's noon time. Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification (those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark).

Joe is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. Joe's dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad, Joe gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives. After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

In the years to come, Joe's life will change dramatically. The U.S. dollar will be devalued as a result of our huge deficit, our living standards demolished, our standing with the world diminished and our social security gone...all because some conservative republican made sure he could take care of himself and his buddies.

Can Kerry Win?

Well its official, Bush got the bump in the polls (11 percent) everyone anticipated Kerry would receive, but didn’t. The bump Bush wasn’t supposed to receive because he is the incumbent, but did. And it’s beginning to look as though Kerry will loose this election, unless he does something to set himself apart from Bush and show himself to be the leader, the visionary, the President people need him to be.

Even before the now fabled bump Kerry was slipping; the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, the pundits all agree, did their damage, planting the seed of doubt deep in the soil of the American electorate’s unease about Kerry. And now that seed has taken root and not unlike to apple of Eden, I believe has poisoned Kerry’s chances to be elected Pres-44 and called into question both his leadership abilities and trustworthiness. His less then enthusiastic response to these attacks on his character only lent fuel to the fire. Why can’t the Democrats mange to formulate an effective response to these types of nasty attacks? Their continued malaise and unwillingness to do what it takes to check the Republicans can only buttress the conservatives charge that the Democrats are weak and spineless, thereby unable to defend America against the now ubiquitous and ever looming terrorist threat.

True, Kerry did come out swinging directly after the Republican Convention, but the punches to me, lacked real power. He only skirted the surface, still refusing to truly refute the mounting accusations against him. Why, for instance, doesn’t Kerry address the charges leveled by Democratic turncoat Zell Miller and Vice President Cheney in their respective speeches at the Republican Convention, line by line, laying waste to the half-truth’s and misrepresentations that laced them? Why doesn’t Kerry compare Cheney’s defense record against his own? Point out that Cheney, while defense secretary under Bush I, fought to cut the same weapons systems Zell Miller castigated Kerry for voting against.

Why continue to allow the Republican’s to own the field of battle, to define the issues, to set the pace of the debate? I was astonished, stunned speechless when Kerry, when given the perfect opportunity, stated that he would still have voted for the war with Iraq even when faced with the evidence that Saddam owned no WMD. Here was a chance to redefine the issue, to separate once and for all the ill-advised war in Iraq from the necessary War on Terrorism, and Kerry’s team blew it. Here was a chance for Kerry to be a leader, to stand apart from Bush, but he ceded the field to the Republicans. Why?

Note to John Kerry: if you want to win this election you must define yourself, you must set yourself apart from Bush, detach yourself from his shadow and present your vision for America. Stop reacting and take the offensive. Get off the ropes and punch back with force; this is war man, political war, but war nonetheless. Be the leader you claim to be, marshal the troops and take the offensive. It time to get, well, nasty; sling some mud, I am sure the undecided voters will not mind; indeed it is preferable to being muddied and not responding in kind. You sir have been slapped with the gauntlet by Zell Miller, pick it up and redden Zell’s face, let him, the Republicans, and indeed the American people know that you are not to be trifled with. If being above the fray means losing the election, sink to their level and beat them at their own game; then at least you know you gave it your all man!

Where do you want to take America? We need more then slogans and quaint sounding rhetoric. You told us you can do better, but how? What is the plan, where are the policy statements, where is that bold vision that will convince those undecided voters that you can lead? And for God sakes man show some passion, some conviction, some moxie, and some emotional depth. Pound a fist on the podium, raise your voice, rant a little, scream; call Howard Dean if you have to and ask him how it’s done.

With less then two months until the election Mr. Kerry you need to step it up, kick some Republican booty, close the deal before we—your supporters (albeit reluctantly of late)—start wondering what patch of land in Canada would best suit our particular needs as the dullard from Texas occupies the Peoples House for another four disappointing years.