<RANTS>
LIBERAL IS NOT A BAD WORD
Anyone who understands the
meaning
of the word is proud to be liberal.
lib·er·al (
P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1. a. Not limited to or by
established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views,
or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring
proposals for reform, open to new ideas
for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others;
broad-minded.
c. Of, relating
to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of,
designating, or characteristic of a
political party founded on or associated with principles of
social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada,
and the United States.
2. a. Tending to give
freely; generous:
a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in
amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
August
20, 2005
Fiscally Responsible
June
30, 2005
8 Simple Words
With all the news about the
Downing Street Memo and other leaked
british government "top secret" papers, it is obvious that Bushco lied
purposely about the so called intelligence that was being used to build
the case for the illegal invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq.
More
recently leaked memos confirm that there was illegal bombing taking
place as many as 9 months before Bush started the "real" military
operation against Iraq.
"General
admits to secret air war"
Polling numbers are showing
that a pretty overwhelming majority of
people in the country are tired of Bush, and it seems to me that a case
for impeachment is not only apparent, but would be pressed if the
people in the majority party in the house and senate had even a remote
sense of honor and honesty.
"Poll:
Disapproval of Bush at high point"
With that in mind, I have come
up with a simple 8 word platform that
all Democrats should adopt as their mantra for the 2006 mid-term
elections.
"MAKE US THE MAJORITY AND WE
WILL IMPEACH."
It's just that simple.
The Democrats have to show some guts and make a
stand on this issue. I don't care if I get credit for this idea,
I
just want people to use it. It will work. there are enough
greens,
independents, and decent Republican voters who will vote to restore
integrity to our government. I am calling my local talk radio
station
tonight to mention this idea. I just hope that Democrats who hear
about this will at least consider it.
If you think this idea has any
merit, please spread it. Call your
local talk shows, call Air America, email your representatives, email
the DNC...
"MAKE US THE MAJORITY AND WE
WILL IMPEACH."
8 simple words...
June 8, 2005
Our U.S. Media - An Exhibition
Of Slop
...And
for all the inbred morons who like to hear only what they want
to hear or read only what they want to see, here's the actual
quote Howard Dean made on June 2, 2005. Please read carefully:
"You think people can work all day
and then pick up their kids at
child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an
eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I
guess can do that. Because a
lot of them
have never made an honest living in their lives."
Now here's how it is presented commonly in our brilliant media:
Dean's comments in
California followed his statement to a group of liberal activists last
week that Republicans "never made
an honest living in their lives." Dean later said he was
referring to Republican leaders.
Having been quoted as saying "republicans have never made an honest
living in their lives" is a bit out of context AND an outright
misquote. Brought to you by the astute US media. We
distort, You decide!
G.W. Bush and his gang are
destroying this
country in every way possible:
- Accepting the office without a clear
and decisive FULL count of the votes
- Exploding the national debt
- Borrowing to pay for ill-timed and
unnecessary tax cuts that favor
the ultra rich (his backers and his family)
- Waging illegal wars that cost us
billions yet do not benefit us (except his backers and his family)
- Paying countries billions of dollars
so we can use their airspace and military bases for his illegal
invasions
- Passing
unfunded mandates like "no child left behind"
- Requiring local police and fire
services to fortify their staff for
homeland security without providing the funding for additional
personnel and training
- Reducing federal funding to states,
which then have to increase local taxes to make up for the federal cuts
- Illegally invading and threatening
other countries
- Lying about the reasons we are
killing innocent civilians in other countries
- Attacking Afghanistan before a
comprehensive investigation could verify that Usama Bin Laden was
responsible for 9-11. > The
FBI
doesn't even list 9-11 as a crime Bin Laden is wanted for <
- Refusing to fund a full, independent
investigation about 9-11
- Alienating our traditional allies
around the world:
Defying international law and our
commitment to the UN
Referring to
another head of state as a "pygmy" - Actively pursuing
and killing deposed heads of state
- Dividing us on social issues by
attempting to pack the courts with right wing extremist ideologues
This is a very
short list
but I feel it covers some of the most important issues at hand.
What's wrong with this picture?
June 22, 2004
"TAX ME IF YOU CAN"
I recently watched a brilliant documentary produced for PBS's
"Frontline" show. It's called "Tax Me If You Can" and it's about
how some gigantic corporations evade paying their fair share of taxes
through the use of dubious "tax shelter" schemes (ever heard of leasing
a small town's sewer pipes?). I think everyone should see this
program. If you have a broadband connection, please check it out:
FRONTLINE:
TAX ME IF YOU CAN
Be prepared to get angry!
June 10, 2004
"REMEMBERING REAGAN"
Since Reagan finally died last Saturday, I've been reading old news
stories, hoping to find something good to remember about him. I
had forgotten all the horrid policies he enacted. I've also been
listening to talk radio at night and all I've been hearing about is
Reagan. The callers to the shows are bringing up the hundreds of
contemptable things Reagan did as governor and then as president.
The Cold War Myth:
A lot of
people give credit to Reagan for "ending the cold war" but no one seems
to
know which specific policies he enacted facilitated that end.
Quite the contrary, in 1983, Reagan escalated the cold war by
signing on to the "Star Wars defense system" in violation of The 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which banned national
missile-defense systems and was intended to prevent the further
escalation of the arms race between the two countries.
These same people ignore the fact that Mikhail Gorbachev was the head
of state of the USSR, and in actuality, he had the most to do with the
independence won by the individual republics that once constituted the
USSR. Please read about Gorbachev if you are unaware of how his
influence was the primary factor in the "collapse" of the Soviet Union.
Here's one of thousands of articles you can find from credible
sources:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/gorbachev.html
Conservative?????
By 1985, The United States became the world’s largest debtor
nation, owing $130 billion - and in 1987 Reagan announced the nation’s
first trillion-dollar budget.
Racist to the Core:
Reagan's
continued support of apartheid in South Africa was
reprehensible. Reagan even opposed
the resolution by Ron Dellums to use economic sanctions to leverage the
release of Nelson Mandela in 1986. Reagan vetoed the
bill, but on October 2, 1986, the veto
was overridden by a 78-21 vote - the only
presidential veto to be overturned in decades. Coincidentally,
one of the senators who voted against the resolution when it was voted
on the first time was
DICK Cheney.
Trading With The Enemy:
In 1987 The Iran-Contra scandal investigation revealed
that the Reagan administration has traded arms to Iran in exchange
for hostages, and that profits from the arms sales were diverted
to contras in Nicaragua. The contras were a vicious Nicaraguan militant group
fighting against a DEMOCRATICALLY
ELECTED government.
Iran-Contra Affair
"Hostile
Witnesses"
Support of Saddam Hussein:
The Riegle
Report (1994) by the Senate Banking Committee analyzes the US’s
exports of warfare-related goods to Iraq and their possible impact on
the health consequences of the Gulf War. The report concludes that the
US, under the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle administrations
provided Iraq “with 'dual-use' licensed materials which assisted in the
development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs."
Support of Osama bin Laden:
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision
Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to
the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new
goal: to defeat
Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a
Soviet
withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic
increase
in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ...
as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who
traveled
to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near
Rawalpindi,
Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence
officers
to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.
The
CIA's Covert Afghan War
I will be glad when this week is over so we never have to hear
about him again, especially from infotainment propagandists and
right wing idiots on the radio and television who want to try and paint
a portrait of some "great leader who was loved by all." Nothing could
be further from the truth. He was a racist and a cruel man who ravaged
the minority population of the United States with massive cuts to
relatively inexpensive social programs; the people of Central and South
America by ordering US Military operations in defenseless countries
(Grenada) and supporting ruthless dictatorial regimes (El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Guatemala); and the future of the United States by
encouraging and enabling the so called "bad guys" we're dealing with
today. That barely scratches the surface of the horrid policies that
trash foisted upon the world... I don't have room to go into the
horrendous domestic policies he instituted - the following linked
articles do some of that...
February 6, 2004
"ANYBODY BUT BUSH"
I don't expect
anyone to vote in a way that
is contrary to his/her conscience. I hope that there will be
enough people who are pissed at shrub to get out and elect anyone who
opposes him. If Kerry looks like the best chance at getting rid
of shrub, so be it. I was ABB long before I ever heard of Howard
Dean, and there is a very urgent short-term need to get rid of the ones
who are putting the destruction of our country on a fast track, namely
the shrub criminal gang.
I think we need more than one "third party" in this country, but we'll
never have a viable multiple party system unless and until we change at
least 3 things.
1) meaningful campaign finance reform
2) voting reform (instant runoff voting would be the perfect solution)
- please see: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021102/bob8.asp
3) media reform
Campaign finance reform will never happen if the two parties we have
now are left to their own devices. That's why I am a firm
believer in taking back the Democratic Party. The only chance
we'll ever see worthwhile campaign finance reform is if it happens
through the Democrats. The Republicans will NEVER EVER EVER do
this for the country, so the Democratic Party is the only chance as far
as I can see.
The same can be said for voting reform. The Republican Party is
the paragon of business as usual, represent whoever gives you the
money, and help the rich at the expense of the rest of the people.
They will never support anything that represents progress, unless
you're talking about progressing the interests of the wealthy.
The media basically controls the masses' thoughts by reporting things a
certain way. You saw it firsthand when they took out Dean by
reporting 80% of the time with a negative slant about the Dean
campaign. When 3 mega-conglomerates own over 80% of the news
outlets in the country, the news and information provided to the people
by those companies will be
fashioned in a way that will either cause people to be disinterested in
their responsibilities as citizens or shun the whole process because
it's
portrayed as being hopeless that they can make a difference.
As I see it, the only chance we, the people, have at getting the
changes we need to make this democracy more representative is by doing
it through the Democratic Party - I do not see any way around this.
"THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT"
The part of the
system that is most corrupt
is the "people" part. Over 60% of the eligible voters stay home
on election day. How can anyone think we're all going to get
represented? What has to happen will take a long time and a lot
of effort. What Howard Dean did is a huge part of what needs to
be done.
He got new people and people who had given up on the system a
reason to pay attention again. He gave them a reason to hope and
believe they could make a difference again. This is the first
step toward the long term change we need
to see. People's involvement is the most important ingredient in
any
representative form of government. With the people involved,
politicians
are forced to do our bidding, and the ones who choose corporate
interests
over ours get tossed out on their asses. That's how it should be.
Once
we get the people equation of the government fixed, you'll see all the
changes that need to be made take place.
KERRY/NADER
As for Kerry...
Yes, I will vote for
him. There's no way a Kerry administration will
be remotely as bad a the current regime. The changes I want are
pretty
big, and they can't possibly happen overnight.
I'm stuck in a way... Someone like Nader espouses a lot of the things I
think we need, but I know there's no way in hell he could even have a
remote chance of being elected. So, do I cast a "principled" vote
for someone who has no chance and risk that the vote could have gone to
someone who
had a chance to stop shrub? I stand on my principles when I vote
for
Kerry because shrub is far more destructive than Kerry could ever be in
the
White House. I think we all have to work in a way that progress
will
be made toward the long term goals we recognize. Electing Kerry
is
a step in the right direction.
It seems that Kerry will end the destructive foreign and domestic
policies shrub has
foisted upon us, and Kerry has a decent record with respect to labor
issues,
environmental issues, and issues of corruption in foreign policy over
his
senatorial career. I am inclined to vote for Kerry and I'm
inclined to continue to
work
for the changes that need to take place so that my children will have a
better
country to live in when they are older.
STATUS QUO AS
PROGRESS
Sometimes
progress can be defined as
preventing regression. A cause loses ground when a someone
opposed to it is
allowed to enter office. A great example would be re-electing
Boxer
as Senator. I think she has done a decent job at least, and
there's
no way we should let one of the retarded republicans in the state take
her
seat because we didn't like some of the things she did. I am not
willing
to lose 10 steps toward progress by turning my back on someone I
disagreed
with 20% of the time. You can never elect someone you agree with
100%
of the time, unless you run yourself.
November 12, 2003
To Hell and Back
Thanks to
millions of real American
patriots (peace, freedom, and environmental activists from every walk
of life) the truth about the ugly goals of the murderous Bush regime
are being widely recognized.
In the face of the raucous and near-constant barrage of Republican
neo-con lies and deceptions, as broadcast to us by the handful of
fanatical right-wing billionaires that control our mass media, learning
the truth about Bush is perhaps the greatest demonstration that our
evolving democracy is still functioning.
Each day, on the Internet, on public radio and television, from the few
remaining courageous journalists in the mass media, and from the many
in the burgeoning alternative media, we learn more about the deceptions
and depravities that are the core of the Bush vision for world
domination by economic and military coercion. Recently, we learned that
the same Bush that staged a chauffeured landing on an aircraft carrier
is really an unprosecuted military deserter and the first president to
don a military uniform while holding office. Were any of our troops in
Iraq or elsewhere to desert from the military in the same way Bush did,
they would face court martial, dishonorable discharge, and a lengthy
prison sentence.
Let us examine some brand new Bush war propaganda. In a November 6,
2003 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush announced the
outline of his plan for exporting freedom and democracy to the entire
Middle East. Leaving aside the utter lunacy of such a course of action
(the War on Terror is now a War of Terror, essentially forcible
region-building when even our efforts at forcible nation-building have
nearly always failed), Bush justified his overtly aggressive Middle
East agenda by espousing his view of the essential principles of
successful nations (he called
them societies).
(1) Bush said, “successful nations recognize
the rights of women.”
Why then is he actively engaged in repealing a woman’s right to choose,
and why did he invade Iraq where the rights of women were greater than
in any other Arab nation?
(2) Bush said,
“successful nations prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest
in the health and education of their people.”
Why then is Bush not cooperating with the various agencies and
commissions investigating corruption and criminality within his own
administration? Why then does not Bush come clean about his family’s
ties to the bin-Laden family, to their financing of the Nazi and Stalin
dictatorships, and to their continuing involvement in the super-secret
Carlyle Group? Why is Bush hiding the truth about 9/11, providing cover
for the White House culprit that intentionally “outed” an undercover
CIA
agent, and why does he not reveal his deep ties to Enron and Kenneth
Lay?
Why does Bush not speak out against the profligate war profiteering
within
his regime and by his supporters? And why has Bush abandoned investing
in the health and education of our people in favor of falsely
attempting
to export democracy to the Middle East?
(3) Bush said,
“successful nations allow room for…independent newspapers and broadcast
media.”
Why then is his administration actively engaged in paving the
way for even greater right-wing media consolidation?
(4) Bush said,
“successful nations protect freedom with the consistent and impartial
rule of law instead of selectively applying the law to punish political
opponents.”
Why then do Bush and Ashcroft use secret courts and prosecutors to
punish their political opponents and why are they actively engaged in
shredding our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why then does Bush not
speak out against the millions of people incarcerated in America for
low-level nonviolent crimes while thousands of high-level corporate
crooks
remain free and even work within his regime at the highest levels?
(5) Bush said, “successful nations limit the
power of the state and the power of the military, so that governments
respond to the will of the people, and not the will of the elite.”
Why then does Bush only respond to the will of the 1% of America that
is wealthy? Why then did Bush force the ill-considered USA Patriot Act
on Congress just two-days after 9/11? And, perhaps most important, why
is Bush pursuing elective foreign wars to export democracy to the
Middle East when not one person on earth or in heaven ever voted to
give him
that power?
Just think about it. Everything Bush says and does is double-speak,
bold-faced deceptions and lies that cover-up government behavior more
dangerous to our way of life than anything we have previously
experienced, and every bit as disgusting as Vietnam, slavery, and the
genocide of Native Americans.
In early May 2003, Bush announced victory in Iraq. Is this man to be
trusted with anything? In Iraq, our troops are being slaughtered; they
want to come home, and they should be brought home. Bush must confess
the error of his elective war.
Four more years is simply unthinkable. After defeating Bush,
we must set about the serious business of evolving our own democracy,
which has nothing to do with the export it as if it were just another
commodity. Democracy is an idea for a complex system of government that
must spring from the hearts and minds of people who want it and will
cherish it. Democracy is not a Big Mac; it is not a Wal-Mart; and it is
definitely not anything that Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld and the rest
of the neo-con war-profiteers know anything about.
Four more years is not just unthinkable, it would be a stain
our great nation must not tolerate. Bush has begun his self-propelled
descent into Hell. And it is only in completing that journey or
resigning
from office that we wish him Godspeed.
by Bob Zimmerman, author of "The American Challenge: Twenty-One Winning
Strategies for the 21st Century"
www.bobzimmerman@usa.com
Contact for interviews and additional info is Bobbi Pallas at
415-383-8481.
Sep 26, 2003
What's astounding to me is that bush, in
front of the UN just this week, is still riding this old pony. He
invoked the discredited idea that Iraq had "wepunsmashdeshtrukshun" in
his little sermon 4 times... and even said of a new resolution he
wants passed in the UN:
"This resolution should call on all members of the U.N. to
criminalize the proliferation of weapons – weapons of mass destruction,
to enact strict export controls consistent with international
standards, and to secure any and all sensitive materials within their
own borders. The United States stands ready to help any nation draft
these new laws and to assist in their enforcement." and
that "Nations of the world must have the wisdom and the will to stop
grave threats before they arrive."
How about we make it illegal for our country to export such
weapons to any nation mr. bush? I know that would
put a damper on The Carlyle Group's bank accounts; but hey, it's your
idea.
Bush claimed in his UN sermon this past week that, "As an original
signer of the U.N. Charter, the United States of America is committed
to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to
fulfill the U.N.'s stated purposes and giving meaning to its ideals."
He obviously has no idea what the UN's stated purposes are.
One of the first and foremost stated purposes of the UN,
as stated in the UN
charter is,
"to unite our
strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of
principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not
be used, save in the common interest"
Please note that it says "armed
force shall not be used, save in the common interest."
It does NOT say, "The
United States shall use armed force unilaterally, any time its
unelected president wishes to further his political and
financial pursuits and the political and financial pursuits of
his
family, his backers, and his gang of
profiteering
money grubbing pigs."
There was no
vote in the UN
security council to authorize the use of force, as required under the
UN charter that bush claims to respect. Quite frankly, I am
surprised that the UN even allows this low life in their chambers.
Bush
asks congress for $87 Billion
Sep 8, 2003
"The $87 billion would
come on top of the $79 billion that Congress approved in April for the
initial costs of the war and its aftermath and for worldwide efforts
against terrorism."
I can't
tell you how outraged I am at
bush's latest "request" for $87 BILLION from congress to
"help fight the war on terrorism in Iraq." Last time I looked,
the only terrorism in Iraq being perpetrated is directly as a result
of USA being there illegally, unjustly, and unprepared.
It seems terribly convenient that no one in our so called (by right
wing ideologues) "liberal media" has mentioned that the military
personnel being killed every day in Iraq are only being killed because
bush sent them there; bush put them directly into danger for no
good reason, and justified it with a list of LIES.
The fact remains that Iraq has never funded a terrorist operation
against USA to the best of our knowledge. Yet somehow bush claims
we are "defending America" and "fighting terrorism"
by having our military in Iraq so that Halliburton, Bechtel, and
Worldcom can get their no-bid contracts to the tune of BILLIONS of
dollars.
Who is paying for those contracts? Go look in the mirror.
If you have children, look at them. The debt that this
clown is building isn't going to just magically disappear when he gets
kicked out of office.
I want a president who asks for BILLIONS of dollars
for OUR schools. How about BILLIONS for infrastructure? How
about BILLIONS for health coverage for all americans? How
about BILLIONS to help fund services to states? How about
BILLIONS to help small businesses and businesses who create jobs here
and don't move those jobs out of country? This is nauseating.
AN OPEN LETTER TO
OUR CONGRESSPEOPLE:
Aug 7, 2003
So one guy resigns... You think
Poindexter was the only one behind the terrorist futures market idea?
Don't rest until we root out ALL the
subversive traitors. There is a clear case for the impeachment
of just about everyone in the current administration, yet Democrats
sit back and are satisfied that one guy resigns over something this
big. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRATS? This isn't about partisan
political posturing, this is about standing up for the constitution,
and standing up for principles. If you don't stand up for your
principles, you might as well not have any at all.
I appreciate the token gestures some Democrats are taking in opposition
to Bush and the corporate influence on our politics, but these small
rebellious acts are not enough. People don't vote because
Democrats don't give them a good reason to vote.
Our public education system is going to hell, corporate conglomerates
are destroying the very fabric of our system, a president lies to the
world to start wars he and just about everyone involved with his
administration will profit from directly, a republican president and
congress willfully decrease revenues and increase spending at the same
time; and no one stands up long enough to get the message out in the
houses of congress that WE NEED A PRIORITY SHIFT.
Some public schools in my community are falling apart and others are
being closed due to cutbacks in funding to the states while the
president and congress pass massive tax cuts and waste billions on
illegal wars. My state and local taxes are being raised, so any
benefit that might have come from the federal tax cut is negated.
FCC Commissioner Michael Powell attempts to relax regulation of the
media... Instead of standing up for a policy that would reduce
the existing monopolistic stranglehold big business already has on OUR
media, the Democrats rest with simply blocking the proposed
deregulation, which still might take place anyway. This isn't
enough. Why aren't representatives screaming in congress to
reinstate the application of a truly free press in this nation?
Why has the chatter about Bush's war lies already subsided? He
lied to us and thousands of people have died needlessly because of it.
I don't need to remind you what happened when another president
was accused of lying about something far less important and was
impeached for it. He was impeached because some of the people in
the other party had the guts to stand up on their misguided principles
and do something about it.
Revenues are down and spending is up by the republicans' design.
What gives here? This is not conservatism, it is reckless
irresponsibility. Have you
seen the official charts from the White House Office of Management and
budget??
Don't be afraid that the corporate right wing media will paint you as
something you are not because you stand up for what is right. The
Democrats and independents who are sitting on their butts on election
day will be sure you keep your
job and will remember you are the one who started to change the bleak
direction the country is headed. When people perceive our
government
as being "business as usual" regardless of what they really need, they
are not very motivated to be involved enough to pay attention and vote.
We need someone to give people a reason to want to be involved...
BE THAT PERSON.
WE NEED THE
PARTICIPATION
OF THE CITIZENS
Could it be that the only reason politicians get away with all the
nonsense they pull is because less than 40% of the eligible voters
actually vote on election day? Even fewer than that pay attention
and know what's really going on.
I'd guess that at least half of the
small
percentage of people who vote are misinformed by right wing talk show
hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, et al.
How many people do you know who actually cross check crap they
hear on talk shows with legitimate news sources?
The USA was founded on principles
of free
information so that the governed could be properly informed with
accurate information when they made their wishes known to their
representatives. Yet the current administration, through its
appointed
FCC commissioner, has been making overt efforts to centralize
and corporatize the media in our country.
How many people do you think know
that George
H.W.
Bush
and Donald Rumsfeld were Saddam Hussein's best buddies around 1983-1990?
That USA
supplied Saddam with most of his horrible chemical and biological
weapons that the current "president" is condemning him for using?
It's all very well-documented but hardly anyone seems to know or even
care about it.
I have found a detailed source of information related to USA's
relationship with Iraq under Reagan/Bush:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Check out this list
of
American companies who helped build Saddam Hussein up in the 1980s: http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php
WHAT WE CAN DO
There are a number of organizations
dedicated to getting the country back on the right track. They
provide you with information on what's going on in our government and
suggest things we can do about it. I urge you to sign up with
them for updates.
Here are a few:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org
THE UNITED
NATIONS
Why are so many people in the USA totally
unaware that there are international laws that prohibit any country
from attacking another sovereign
country without provocation? There are arguments about what
constitutes sufficient cause, but chapter V of the U.N.
charter is very
specific about how and when use of force has
been agreed upon to be acceptable.
Why are so many people in the USA
unaware
of the fact that the USA was one of the founding members of
the United Nations, and that it was founded in San Francisco?
- The
Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in
San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on
International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945...
Why are these people also unaware
that the
United Nations is the world's largest democratically principled
oragnization, representing over 190 nation-members? Why
are these people intent on repeating the mantra from the neo-con
ideologues that "the UN is irrelevant" when they have not read
the UN Preamble, and don't even know what it is and
what its purpose is?
P.N.A.C.
There's a "think tank" called "Project for The New American
Century."
This "think tank" is replete with
Bush
advisers. Look at their "Statement
of Principles" and pay special attention to the
signatures of the authors at the
bottom, which include Dick
Cheney (now
vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz
(Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis
Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).
The "Project for The New American
Century"
published a 90 page document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
in 2000 (before the current Bush was placed in office).
READ THE ACTUAL TEXT FROM "REBUILDING
AMERICA'S DEFENSES"
This document details how they want
a new
empire to emerge from USA by conquering the middle east to get control
of the oil there and destabilizing OPEC; and ensuring that no other
country is ever allowed to compete with USA as a "superpower."
(NOTE: PAY STRICT ATTENTION TO
PAGE 51,
WHICH LAMENTS THE FACT THAT A "CATASTROPHIC AND CATALYZING EVENT LIKE
PEARL HARBOR" (REMEMBER, THIS WAS WRITTEN BEFORE 9-11) WOULD BE
NECESSARY TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS.
This means that if any other
country
"threatens" us (again, what constitutes a threat???) we will
pre-emptively attack them with no regard for civilian fatalaties, going
against international law, making us the biggest and worst "rogue
nation" on the face of the planet.
HOW DOES G. W. BUSH
FEEL ABOUT
DEMOCRACY?
Hear
it in his own words by clicking here
"Labor is prior to,
and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and
could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the
superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
-Abraham Lincoln
|
THE INFORMATION
IS OUT THERE, AND IT'S NOT HARD TO FIND
Don't take anyone's
word
for it though, cross reference the material you find with valid news
sources. You can try just about any major domestic or foreign
newspaper or news reporting agency.
Here are some news sources that
appear to be pretty reliable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.cbc.ca/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
http://www.ap.org/
http://sfgate.com/chronicle/
http://www.latimes.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
Send me your comments by clicking here.