Obama's First Press Conference as President Elect

With wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Elect Obama did not field a question on the topic of withdrawal from conflict. He did however take a question pertaining to what schools his daughters will be attending and in what dresses.

The focus of the press conference was on the economy. This appears to be the Democratic Party's current tactic in an effort to distract Americans from the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be noted that the Democrats took control of both houses of congress in 2006 by pledging to end the war, a commitment they have not followed through with.

With regards to the economy, Obama pledged to rebuild from the bottom up. While this is a refreshing change from talk of top down economics, Obama is yet to state in more specific terms how his rebuilding plan will be accomplished. The only example Obama gave of economic relief while addressing the press pertained to extending unemployment benefits. While this will be useful to many unemployed Americans, it is not a solution that strengthens the U.S. economy.

Despite his talk of building from the bottom up, it is important to remember that Obama voted for the Wall Street bailout bill last month which sent $700,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars directly to the companies who are largely responsible for the financial meltdown. $40 billion of that sum will go directly to the CEOs of the failing enterprises they oversaw. It is also of importance to note that the bailout bill did not provide any further regulation to prevent the same problems from reoccurring.

So while Obama talks of bottom up economics, his voting record shows that he is prone to being a proponent of top down, Reagan-era, economics. It will be the American people who Obama called on in his victory speech to help him lead for the change we need and believe in and to abandon the ways of the recent past.

Obama also fielded a question pertaining to a letter he received from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he was congratulated on his victory. Obama struggled to find the most politically correct words to respond with, but did communicate that he did not want to have a "knee jerk reaction" to the letter. Before finishing his answer, Obama stated that it was unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapons program - rhetoric that reminds us of what we've experienced for the last 8 years.

One would hope that this is dialogue which will not have to continue much further into the foreseeable future. However, just yesterday, Rahm Emanuel, an Israel hard-liner accepted Obama's invitation to be the White House Chief of Staff. Our support of Israel and their nuclear weapons program flies in the face of our shouting down of Iran's. Further, it is Israel's military presence and nuclear arsenal which provides Iran's reasoning for having a nuclear weapons program of their own.

Barack has the backing of the majority of the country currently. He now needs to have the political courage to undo the ways of the past and to help create a better tomorrow. Instead of pointing the finger at Iran, he needs to ask what we can do as a country to help resolve the tension in the Middle East. Instead of blindly supporting Israel while Palestinians are suffering and Muslims are in turn outraged, we need to revisit our policies and find a way in which all suffering is limited.

This is the change Obama has made us want to believe in. It is time to incur that change. It will only be accomplished through our participation in government. Barack Obama made this clear in his victory speech and we need to acknowledge his words and follow through with his request. Chanting, "Yes we can!" isn't enough. So pick up your pencils, pick up your paper and write your representatives, your senators and your president.

In Chaos There is Opportunity.

The two party system has failed us. Since FDR's departure, corporate America has become intertwined with government and bought out the highest offices in the land. The laws and regulations which were originally designed to protect America from economic collapse like what was seen in the twenties and thirties have been chipped away at or outright eliminated. The Glass-Steagall Act, an act which was created to keep commercial banks separate from riskier investment banks among other safeguards is no longer in existence. The consequences of this are now coming home to roost. Banks which invested in risky mortgage bundles and lost and are now no longer in existence or are being bought out by banks who are also on the verge of collapse are perfect examples of this.

Before long the lending capacity of all banks in this country will be void. Without funds being put forward to expand the economy, the stock market will collapse. Our entire economy is built on constant growth. When the growth stops, the economy implodes.

The next step is our assets being consumed by the debt holders, who are China, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, the Saudis and others. What is left for us, the hardworking taxpayers who've kept out heads down and done as we've been asked by our government? A depleted dollar with no purchasing power of foreign goods that we are now almost entirely dependent on. Our food, our energy, our clothing, our tools, you name it - we're importing it.

The good news is that this will be a massive wake up call that American's won't soon forget. It is too bad the majority of the country doesn't see what is coming and hasn't yet abandoned their faith entirely in the Democrats and Republicans. But the time is coming. New parties will emerge. New trains of thought will become prevalent in this country. In the long run, it will contribute to us living more sustainably and with better safeguards. At least, that is what one can hope.

The Two Party System is Failing Us

I've been talking to friends, family, acquaintances and even strangers about the upcoming election. Overwhelmingly, liberals, some who prefer to be called progressives, are supporting Barack Obama with only knowledge of his rhetoric. They haven't researched his voting record or his means for accomplishing the ideas he rarely discusses on the campaign trail. They can't answer the question, "What cause does he want us to become united for or against?" You'd think they would at the very least know what Barack's talk about unity is directed towards. What they can do is repeat the empty slogan, "Yes we can!"

I've done some research for the sake of having a general understanding of what accomplishments Barack has achieved and what his plans are should he become the next president of the United States. It is the least I could do with regards to forming an opinion of who deserves my vote for such an important office.

In my digging I've discovered some discouraging information which I've shared on this blog since its inception. Barack is a supporter of the Bush White House's Energy Policy Act of 2005. His proposed energy policy should he become the next president involves subsidizing big oil, coal and nuclear energy at a far more substantial rate than renewable sources such as solar and wind. Barack is for limiting damages awarded to those who suffer from medical malpractice. Barack is opposed to creating caps for interest rates charged by credit industries. Barack has said he is committed to growing the military budget which already consumes half of our tax dollars annually. The list goes on. The question this brings to my mind is - is this truly the candidate of change? It seems to me that at best this is the candidate of marginal improvement from what we're experiencing currently. And is what we're experiencing now not a tragedy for humanity? Will this era in America not be viewed as a blunder on behalf of human civilization for as long as history texts are in existence?

Moving along, the Democratic Party which Barack Obama is a member of has failed their obligation to serve as an oppositional party in this two-party system we are all suffering from. Instead of resisting the policies which have shamefully been written into law and waged against the American people as well as some unfortunate nations of the world by the Republicans, they have served as accomplices. When George demanded the authority to declare war against whoever he perceived as a threat to the United States, the Democrats did not object. When the Republicans hastily proposed the PATRIOT Act and demanded it be made law, the Democrats complied. When the Bush White House nominated corporatist judges for our Supreme Court, the Democrats helped seat them at the highest office in the land. When Bush openly admitted to championing a policy to spy on Americans all the meanwhile ignoring the FISA Act, the Democrats shrugged their shoulders and looked the other way. When those same Democrats became the majority in both houses of congress, when they were then given the full constitutional capability to hold this administration accountable, they sneezed and made excuses for why they shouldn't.

In the forefront of this spectacle is Barack Obama himself. He has said on more than one occasion that he would be opposed to impeachment for President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney should the opportunity to vote ever come across his plate. The man is a constitutional lawyer. He knows that they have committed impeachable offenses. Yet he states publicly that he is opposed to holding them accountable, the action which is recommended and provided by the Constitution of the United States of America. Is his unwilligness to do what is right political cowardice?

I believe if the public were to take the time to sift through the information they are bombarded with and extract the facts that truly matter, they'd realize that the real candidate for change, the candidate that is actually interested in serving the majority of Americans most fundamental interests, the candidate that has been doing so his entire adult life in our nation's capital, is Ralph Nader.

Take a moment to watch his running mate, Matt Gonzalez, talk about why he believes Barack Obama is not the candidate of change. Then watch Matt Gonzalez's speech which has been divided up into five segments and is posted directly below. In the speech Matt Gonzalez clearly articulate how the two party system currently in power is failing us and why we need alternative options when we elect our representatives. Then, vote your conscience come election day.



Matt Gonzalez's Speech on the Failures of the Two-Party System.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Ralph Nader Visits Portland

Last night I attended Ralph Nader's speaking arrangement which was held at Benson High School in Portland, OR. Ralph and a collection of other political activists spoke out against the ills of our society and the tragedies of our government. Further, Ralph reminded us of the shame we should be feeling for our collective political inaction. With humor and excellent storytelling, Ralph was able to explain the differences between today and the 1960's with regards to the political climate of the United States.

Ralph made the point that without political activitsts behind him who were willing to take to the streets to make their voice heard, he would have never been able to get a man such as Richard Nixon to sign bills into law which he strongly disagreed with. It was the fear of the protesters on the streets picking up their picket signs and standing in front of the White House calling out against him that made Nixon strike the dotted line with the pen.

The point was well taken by the audience. When Ralph made the point - 90% of Americans want food labeling which indicates if the food item is genetically altered but Monsanto doesn't and Monsanto gets their way, not the 90% - we understood what was collectively wrong with us as a people. There is no resistance to this corporate wrongdoing that is taking place against us on a daily basis, we are pacified.

So I guess it is time to get truly active. Personal responsibility and being informed are not enough as I had once tricked myself into believing. Each day a new battle is being waged by Coporate America against the citizens of this country. What we need to remember is that we're the majority and we have the numbers to overcome this wrongdoing if we can just exercise some effort and in turn political muscle.

The one piece of information Ralph did leave us with which was uplifting was that Google is going to be attempting to put together a debate between the Republican and Democratic candidates which will also include the likes of Ralph Nader and potentially other third party candidates. Lets all hope this becomes a reality. If it should, many Americans will get to experience a debate which truly discusses the issues and may force both the Democratic and Republican candidates to incorporate Nader's policies into their own.

----------------

On May 12th, Ralph spoke at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California. Below is the video from that Q & A Session.

Are Our Votes Meaningless?

Things Are Worse Than We Thought

If this is the mindset in Washington, well, it explains everything.

Barack, You Took an Oath of Office

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out his list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

In case Barack hasn't been paying attention, the Bush administration has violated the Constitution, domestic law, international law and Geneva Conventions. In a just world, this administration would have been impeached at the onset of this war in March of 2003 for intentionally deceiving the congress, the American public and the United Nations. Since that illegal act, worthy of having the administration tried for war crimes, the administration has admitted to illegally spying on Americans. Their activities have been a direct violation of the FISA Act which carries a five year prison sentence. And we haven't even begun to talk about how they've used and advocated for torture.

I wonder if Barack was paying attention when he took his Oath of Office. The Oath goes as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If he was paying attention, he should be willing to live up to the Oath he swore to. Article II - Section IV gives the congress the power to do the following.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Without a doubt, this administration is guilty of the acts that are worthy of impeachment. So yes Mr. Obama, please do vote the bums out, by urging the congress to do so through impeachment. Just as you swore to do. Thank you.

Was Kurt Right?

"There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

Was he right? Or do we just pick the nut cases?

Robert Scheer Tells It How It Is

Spitzer’s Shame Is Wall Street’s Gain
By Robert Scheer

Tell me again: Why should we get all worked up over the revelation that the New York governor paid for sex? Will it bring back to life the eight U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq that same day in a war that makes no sense and has cost this nation trillions in future debt? Will it save those millions of homes that hardworking folks all over the country are losing because of financial industry shenanigans that Eliot Spitzer, as much as anyone, attempted to halt? Perhaps it provides some insight into why oil has risen to $108 a barrel, benefiting most of all the oil sheiks whom our taxpayer-supported military has kept in power?

Sure, the guy, by his own admission, is quite pathetic in all those small, squirrelly ways that have messed up the lives of other grand public figures before him, but why is an all-too-human sin, amply predicted in early Scripture, getting all this incredible media play as some sort of shocking event? The answer is that, while having precious little to do with serious corruption in public life, it does have a great deal to do with stoking flagging newspaper sales and television ratings.

The sad truth is that reporting on major corruption, say, the rationalizations of a president who has authorized torture, doesn’t cut it as a marketing bonanza. Just days before this grand exposé, the president vetoed a bill banning torture, and instead of being greeted with horrified disgust, the president’s deep denigration of this nation’s presumed ideals was met with a vast public yawn. Torture, unlike paid sex, doesn’t have legs as a news story.

Sex sells, and frankly it would seem far more exploitative for the news media to pimp this tale to the public than anything that VIP escort service did with the pitiable governor. His behavior was not really any more wretched than messing around with a young and vulnerable White House intern who didn’t even get paid for her efforts, yet Bill Clinton survived that one, whereas Spitzer was presumed dead on the arrival of this “news.” The New York Times, which editorially has supported the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, whose vast White House experience clearly did not include corralling her husband, now editorializes contemptuously about Spitzer’s betrayal of the public trust as well as about his exploitation of his “ashen-faced” wife, who, like Hillary, stood by her man.

The media consensus from the opening salvo was that Spitzer must resign and he will be thrown to the dogs, which is unfortunate because, like Clinton, he has done much valuable work in the public interest, and the outrage over this personal dereliction, tawdry in the extreme, is excessive. I certainly never wanted Clinton to resign, let alone be impeached, but why is Spitzer’s paying for sex more disgraceful than ripping it off? Yes, Spitzer allegedly broke a law that shouldn’t be on the books, and his resignation in disgrace is inevitable, but it bothers me that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney remain in office despite having violated enormously more serious laws.

Frankly, I don’t care what any of these politicians do in their personal lives as long as the practice is consensual, and the thousands of dollars that exchanged hands in this case would provide a presumption that the lady in question was indeed a willing partner in this commercial transaction. True, Spitzer is an outrageous hypocrite for having prosecuted others caught in what should not be considered criminal behavior, but since when is hypocrisy on the part of a politician, particularly as to sex, so shocking?

I wouldn’t have written this column had I not read The Wall Street Journal’s Page 1 news story headlined “Wall Street Cheers as Its Nemesis Plunges Into Crisis.” The article begins with the crowing statement “It’s Schadenfreude time on Wall Street” and goes on to quote those whom Spitzer went after over what should be considered the criminal greed that has predominated on Wall Street. It was Spitzer, as much as anyone, who sounded the alarm on the subprime mortgage crisis, the obscene payouts to CEOs who defrauded their shareholders and the other financial scandals that have brought the U.S. economy to its knees.

The best rule of thumb these days is that ordinary Americans should be mightily depressed over any news that Wall Street hustlers cheer, for they have been exposed as a dangerous pack of scoundrels quite willing to rob decent, hardworking people of their homes. And of course no one on Wall Street ever paid for sex.

House Dems Propose New Surveillance Legislation

Under the new legislation, retroactive immunity would not be granted but the companies would be able to argue their cases in court and present classified evidence to a judge during a closed proceeding without the presence of the plaintiffs.

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said that without immunity for telephone companies, the Democrats surveillance bill will be "dead on arrival."

He went on to say, "Today's proposal is further evidence that House Democrats are not only out of touch with the needs of the American people, but also with Senate Democrats, the White House and our intelligence community," he said in a written statement. "Their careless disregard for the concerns of our intelligence community simply proves the point that Democrats are weak on national security."

And as we've all learned in our constitutional history class while growing up, when you don't let telecommunications companies violate your civil rights by spying on your phone calls, the terrorists win.

House Majority Leader Hoyer said their will be a vote on the bill Thursday.

William Fallon Steps Down

Do you remember when military officials who were opposed to invading Iraq were resigning over the invasion and occupation of the country? Eric Shinseki should ring a bell who resigned in June of 2003, shortly after the occupation began. He testified prior to the invasion that it would take several hundred thousand troops to successfully occupy post-war Iraq. Anything less would result in the country falling to sectarian war he claimed. The administration said he was "wildly off the mark" and went ahead with their invasion without weighing the testimony he had made before congress.

In an article in Esquire Magazine which was released last week entitled, The Man Between War and Peace, William Fallon was described as the one person on this planet who has the power to stop a war with Iran. Fallon has been a critic of the administration and has made public statement saying that they're buildup for a war with Iran is reckless.

Today it is William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, who announced his resignation which will become official after March 31st, 2008. It is without doubt that Fallon has been pressured into this decision.

In his resignation, Fallon had the following to say, "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region and although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there."

This is not good news for the American people. What the ramifications of losing a man who was capable of and willing to stop a war with Iran by a war-crazed administration is yet to be seen.

New York GOP Lawmakers Threaten to Impeach Spitzer

New York's Republican Party is giving Elliot Spitzer 48 hours to resign or they are going to begin the process for impeachment hearings. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for the Democratic Party which is currently in idle on the impeachment gear for Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminal administration.

Lets put all the facts on the table. Elliot Spitzer is a potential client of a prostitution service and may have violated federal laws by carrying out his illegal activities across state lines - it is not confirmed. George Bush has admitted to violating the FISA Act, a crime which carries up to a five year jail sentence. Further, this administration knowingly used false and misleading data to lie to the American public and the United Nations in an effort to invade a nation.

Within 24 hours, the Republican Party is facing their Democratic opponent with impeachment. Nearly five years later, the Democratic Party is idle.

Support Shirley Golub

Shirley Golub needs your support. Shirley is running for the 8th District of California for the United States Congress - the seat which is currently held by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has been a roadblock to justice since she became House Speaker in January of 2007. It has been her who has pushed and promoted the policy of refraining from impeachment hearings for the Bush administration. Further, she has been an accomplice in the illegal spying program and the continued occupation of Iraq. Nancy Pelosi needs to be removed from her seat for failing her constituency and the American public.

Shirley Golub is the ideal replacement. Shirley embodies the same political instincts that are seen in Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Robert Wexler, Bernie Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone. Visit her campaign website for further information. Be sure to view the issues she is campaigning on.

While Elliot Faces Resignation, Bush & Co. Will Continue to Infringe on Our Civil Liberties

Elliot Spitzer has been identified as Client 9 of the Emperor's Club V.I.P. prostitution ring. He was identified as Client 9 through a federal wiretap. Whether he is a victim of this administration's illegal spy program is something we'll likely never know. What we do know is that this administration wants to be able to wiretap "potential terrorists" without authorization from any outside party and that they have been doing so since they took office - even prior to 9/11/01. What we also know is that presidential administrations of the past have used wiretaps as a tool against their political enemies. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he too claimed were national security reasons.

Elliot Spitzer is indeed an enemy of the Republican Party and Corporate America. Not only is he a Democrat, he is the Governor and previously the Attorney General of New York who has made a name for himself by taking up civil actions and criminal prosecutions relating to corporate white-collar crime, securities fraud, internet fraud, and environmental protection. Wikipedia provides a list of cases Spitzer has taken up in the course of his career while serving the state of New York.

Elliot Spitzer was a rising star in the Democratic Party. Many Democrats believed he was the future of the party and very well may serve as their presidential nominee in elections to come. Today that possibility ended. Elliot Spitzer with his wife at his side apologized to the public. In his statement he showed shame and left the podium with what is certain to be a tarnished legacy. We've all seen the ramifications of a sex scandal on the political stage before.

While what Governor Spitzer has been accused of and owned up to is not morally right, it is not a scandal which impacts his constituency. It is a matter which is between he and his family. It pales in comparison to political scandals of the past such as those that have occurred between Jack Abramoff and the Republican Party. Further, it is hardly relevant when compared with the likes of lying a nation into an illegal war, or ousting a CIA agent as political payback or infringing on the Constitution and our civil liberties.

And by no surprise should it be that what has happened to Elliot Spitzer may very well be a consequence of this illegal spy program. We were given protections to our civil liberties by the founders of this country to protect us from potential acts such as what we have seen occur today. The Democratic Party is about to cave into the White House's newly drafted legislation which expands the spy program and grants the companies which have helped facilitate it to date immunity from prosecution.

We cannot let this happen as a people. We must urge our Representatives and Senators not to let this legislation pass. Should this legislation pass, the integrity of our political process and our entire nation is in jeopardy. What we're seeing is the foundation being constructed for a police state.

Thank You Again Ralph Nader

Thank You Ralph Nader

George Called It a Slowdown

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers slashed 63,000 jobs in February, the most in five years and the starkest sign yet that the country is heading dangerously toward recession or is in one already.

The Labor Department's report, released Friday, also indicated that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.8 percent as hundreds of thousands of people — perhaps discouraged by their prospects — left the civilian labor force. The jobless rate was 4.9 percent in January.

Job losses were widespread, with hefty cuts coming from construction, manufacturing, retailing, financial services and a variety of professional and business services. Those losses swamped gains elsewhere, including education and health care, leisure and hospitality and the government.

Related MSNBC Story

EconomyInCrisis.org is a website you should routinely visit for daily stories pertaining to the United States economy. The website also tracks pertinent data such as who is funding our debt, what nations are buying our assets and industries and what percentage of our total consumption is spent on foreign goods.

Randi Rhodes Is No Goddess of Radio

Funny? Not really.
Informative? Rarely.
Entertaining? Hardly.
Annoying? Frequently.
Embarrassing to liberals? Certainly.
Makes you want to turn off your radio? Within seconds.

When this lady isn't telling the same bad joke over and over, she is busy ranting about issues which are hardly relevant to the American public. For the past two months she has spent her on air hours shouting down Hillary's campaign all the meanwhile giving Barack's a complete pass. She'd rather talk about how Hillary's dirty campaign tactics are destroying the Democratic party rather than what is really unraveling the party - the corporatist infestation.

In Barack and Hillary we have two corporatists who are abandoning core Democratic values in favor of Wall Street dollars. They've both voted in favor of legislation which infringes on our civil liberties. They've both voted to fund this war which appears to be nothing more than a corporate profiteering venture at this point. They both support a health care policy which benefits the insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and pharmaceutical giants. Neither are willing to hold this administration accountable for their atrocities against the Constitution or our civil liberties. Neither are willing to hold this administration accountable for lying us into an illegal war. Both are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Neither have stellar environmental records. Neither are the presidential candidate we deserve much less should be giving a pass to.

Randi has been touting Barack Obama as an excellent candidate since his campaign has caught fire within a delusional American public. If I were to meet with Randi, my questions to her would be as follows. Have you not been voicing outrage towards this war since its inception? Have you not been voicing your disgust with this administration's repeated violations of the Constitution and our civil liberties? Have you not been ashamed of this administration's environmental record? Have you not routinely pointed out the fraudulent behaviors of each and every member of this criminal administration? I believe you have. If I am correct - Why haven't you scrutinized these Democratic presidential candidates in the same fashion? After all, they have voted in favor of the White House's legislation which you have repelled time and time again.

While giving Barack a pass and shouting down Hillary, a candidate who nearly shares an identical voting record with the man - she has been trashing Ralph Nader and his supporters - just as she did in 2004.

Ralph Nader stands for values which the Democratic Party used to represent. Ralph Nader stands for the values most Americans cherish. Ralph Nader stands for the values and ideals Randi routinely puts forth on her own radio show. Yet somehow she hates this man. Her, like many other flawed thinkers on the left accuse Ralph of all the wrongdoing that has occurred in this country since Bush and his crony filled administration took office.

Randi needs to be honest with herself and her listeners. The Democratic Party has abandoned the liberal left. Since 2001, the Democratic Party has largely been accomplices of the Bush administration. In turn, the Democratic Party should not be entitled to each and every liberal American's vote. Those of us who are voting with our conscience are rightfully abandoning the party. Had the Democratic Party propelled a candidate like Dennis Kucinich to the forefront of the nomination, candidates such as Nader would not have entered the race. Nader is running simply to give liberals - not faux liberals - a voice.

If Randi truly was a goddess of radio, she would promote progressive candidates - not lumber on about those which represent a party that is slowly surrendering to Wall Street, just as the Republicans did in years past. The stigmata of party decay in terms of loyalty to its constituents is glaringly evident. Standing tall while in denial does not solve the problem - it perpetuates it. Randi, if you're reading this, do Ralph a favor and apologize. Blatantly criticizing him and his candidacy on the grounds that it may compromise the election for the Democratic Party couldn't be any further from godly - especially while supporting a candidate who doesn't even measure up on the issues you've shown extreme concern regarding.

House Dems to Grant Immunity to Telecoms

The Democratic Party is preparing to fail the American people yet again according to Glenn Greenwald, writer for Salon and documentary filmmaker. In his recent interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, he reports that the Democrats are prepared to vote in favor of the legislation which was written by the White House and Jay Rockefeller.

According to Greenwald, the ramifications of the legislation passing would be as follows:

"Well, it’ll mean that all of the lawsuits that exist now against the telecommunications company that the customers have been winning in court, on the grounds that what the telecoms did was illegal, will all be—disappear. They’ll just go away forever. And because Congress hasn’t investigated what the President has done, and because the media has been virtually inactive in doing so, that’ll mean that the last hope for finding out how the Bush administration spied on us for all those years will be just completely abolished, and we’ll lose the ability to find out what our government did for all those years in breaking the law and in spying on us. That’s the real reason the White House wants this bill, and that’s what the Congress is about to do, is to hand the President the ability to conceal that behavior for years and years and years."

In addition, this legislation which is set to be approved by House Democrats will allow domestic surveillance to occur without warrants being issued by the FISA courts.

It is unfortunate to see that the Democratic Party has caved into Bush's rhetoric. This past Monday Bush had the following to say. "There’s a lot of legal complexities on the FISA renewal debate, but the real issue comes down to this: to defend the country, we need to be able to monitor communications of terrorists quickly and be able to do it effectively. And we can’t do it without the cooperation of private companies. Now, unfortunately, some of the private companies have been sued for billions of dollars, because they are believed to have helped defend America after the attacks on 9/11.

Now, the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service? Should those who stepped forward to say we’re going to help defend America have to go to the courthouse to defend themselves, or should the Congress and the President say thank you for doing your patriotic duty? I believe we ought to say thank you."

We elected Democrats in favor of Republicans in 2006 for two reasons. To end the war. To hold the administration accountable. They have done neither. Instead, they have acted as accomplices to this administration's wrongdoing, just as the Republicans had prior to the Democratic majority takeover.

Have you had enough? I have. I'll be writing my representative and telling them that not only will I not support them should this legislation pass, I will not be voting for a Democrat in the presidential election come this November.

Congratulations Dennis

Dennis secured his position as the Democratic nominee for 10th Congressional District of Ohio in yesterdays' primary. He was able to hold off Joe Cimperman who was running a heavily funded slander campaign against the incumbent congressman. The final tally for percentage of votes collected was as follows:

Dennis Kucinich 55
Joe Cimperman 29
Barbara Anne Ferris 5
Tom O’Grady 4
Rosemary Palmer 1

This was a victory for not only the 10th District of Ohio but for the United States as a whole. Dennis Kucinich is one of America's few brave congressmen who is willing to stand up to corporate interests and fight for our civil rights and the preservation of the constitution.

Congratulations Dennis.

Steer Clear of Brattleboro and Marlboro George

The towns Brattleboro and Marlboro of Vermont voted in favor of a measure yesterday which directs local police enforcement to arrest George W. Bush and Richard Cheney if they should enter the confines of their towns. Click for full story.

Roughly 12,000 people live in Brattleboro, located on the Connecticut River in the state's southeastern corner. Nearby Marlboro has a population of roughly 1,000.

I think I've found two towns where sanity is firmly in place. Thank you Brattlebro and Marlboro for this political statement which will go largely unreported in the mainstream media.

Why?

This evening I received an email from my senator, Patty Murray. Below in bold is the message which was entailed. As of right now the only explanation I have to offer does not add up. Our government has been reckless with the military contracts it has awarded thus far. Why would they award a military related contract to Airbus in a cost saving effort? Until I can find a better explanation to offer, I will let you ponder along with me.

Last Friday (2/29), I stood with the men and women of Boeing in Everett as the Air Force announced that it would be outsourcing a $40 billion contract to build aerial refueling tankers to the European company Airbus. Boeing workers were shocked, angry, and wanted answers – and so do I.

Awarding this critical military contract to Airbus, a company that is heavily subsidized by European governments, is a threat to our economic, military, and trade security. At a time when families are struggling and unemployment is rising at home, it is unacceptable that we are investing in European jobs instead of creating 44,000 new jobs here. At a time when we are engaged in two wars, we need to ask ourselves whether we should place war-fighting tools and technology in foreign hands. And as we continue to compete in a global market, we need to ask why we are giving $40 billion to a company that our government has brought a World Trade Organization (WTO) illegal subsidies case against.

Barack & Hillary, Look to France for a Health Care Plan

Many advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

The 3 Trillion Dollar War

Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University have written a new book which argues that the true budgeted cost of the war in Iraq by the government to date is approximately 1.5 trillion dollars. In addition, they attribute 1.5 trillion dollars in extra expenses to Americans for goods such as gasoline and food as a direct consequence of the war. Combined, the total economic burden for all Americans is approximately 3 trillion dollars, a figure that they say is conservative. That figure contrasts sharply with the original cost estimate of the war by Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration who assured Americans that the war would cost approximately 50 billion dollars and would later pay for itself in Iraqi oil revenues.

The authors of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, recently did an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Below is a portion of the transcript from the interview which discusses how the 3 trillion dollar figure was arrived at.

"The way you approach this problem is basically adding. You begin with the budgetary numbers. But what they claim as the cost of the Iraq war in the budget is not the full cost. There are the operational costs that everybody understands, but then there are costs hidden elsewhere in the defense budget. But then there are really some very big costs hidden elsewhere, like contractors that have been the subject of such concern. We pay their insurance through the Labor Department.

But the most important cost, budgetary cost, that we haven’t talked about publicly, that haven’t been talked about, are the costs of veterans—their disability, veterans’ health care—that will total hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decades. This war has had a huge number of injuries, and that will mount, the cost of caring for them, disability. 39 percent of the people fighting, the 1.6 million who have already fought, and if we continue, it will of course be more than that, are estimated will be—wind up with some form of disability.

Then you go beyond that budgetary cost to the cost of the economy. For instance, when somebody gets disabled, the disability pay is just a fraction of what the loss to their family, to the income that they could have otherwise earned. And then you go beyond that to the macroeconomic cost—the fact that the war has been associated with an increasing price of oil. We’re spending money on oil exports, Saudi Arabia, other oil-exporting countries. It’s money that’s not being spent here at home. There are a whole set of macroeconomic costs, which have depressed the economy. What’s happened is, to offset those costs, the Federal Reserve has flooded the economy with liquidity, looked the other way when you needed tighter regulation, and that’s what led to the housing bubble, the consumption boom. And we were living off of borrowed money. The war was totally financed by deficits. And eventually, a day of reckoning had to come, and now it’s come. "

Author Joseph Stiglitz recently sat down with the BBC for a short interview pertaining to the book. The video below shows that interview in full and provides more details about how cost estimates were arrived at in their 3 trillion dollar figure.



As a taxpayer and citizen of this country, this information is both depressing and disturbing. This administration has not been honest with the American people since the day they took office in January of 2001. It is to little surprise that they have been dishonest about the true cost of the war. While their tenure is coming to a close - the impact of their policies will linger for generations to come.

Our tax dollars will not be spent on the communities we live in, but will instead be spent on the interest of the debt that we've used to finance this war. In short, many of the beneficial possibilities to us as a nation have been stolen away from our future. Unborn babies who could be educated in an excellent public school system will have to forgo that possibility so that Japan, China and the oil exporters can have their debt repaid. Those who cannot afford health care and will die because of that reality will do so knowing that their government chose war over investing in their health. When the next bridge crumbles or the next mine implodes, the war and its economic consequences will be in large part responsible.

It is urgent that we withdraw from Iraq. Our presence is not welcome. Innocent people are dying daily because of our involvement in the region. And for what? The enrichment of private military contractors and oil exporters? What about the rest of us? Please write your elected officials. Tell them we want out, now.

We Won't See a Nader-Obama-Clinton Debate

Nader's platform is vast and targets the issues that truly effect Americans - specifically the ones Barack, Hillary and the Democratic Party have refused to address - apologies to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

In a recent article with CounterPunch News Magazine, Ralph detailed a series of questions he would like to ask Barack and Hillary if he were to appear in a debate with either of them.

Following are the questions he proposed in the article.

"Senator Clinton, you represent New York, which includes the large banking, brokerage and investment firms colloquially called Wall Street. Eliot Spitzer became governor of your state largely on his widely reported reputation for prosecuting corporate crooks who fleeced investors, pensioners and workers of hundreds of billions of dollars. He often remarked that the federal criminal laws were too weak and the Securities and Exchange Commission was too lenient.

"As the Senator from New York, what specifically have you done to advance a strong crackdown on corporate crime with tougher laws and larger enforcement budgets? And, specifically, what do you intend to do as President?"

"Senator Obama, you have often spoken about your health insurance plan as a way to reduce costs. Yet you do not discuss three major cost reduction opportunities. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that ten per cent of the entire health expenditures in this country go down the drain due to computerized billing fraud and abuse. This year, that amounts to $220 billion.

"Under a single payer plan, administrative expenses would be cut by about two-thirds. That would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings. And the Harvard School of Public Health study estimates about 80,000 people die every year from medical malpractice in hospitals, estimating costs years ago of $60 billion a year. These are large savings in a $2.2 trillion a year health care industry.

"Do you agree and, if so, why have you ignored proposing practical actions in these areas?"

"Senator Clinton, you have long urged more money for children's programs. One way to make this possible is to end or diminish the complex system of corporate welfare-subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts of business corporations. These amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, directly and through tax loopholes. Why have you not moved against such spending so that some of the money may go to help needy children? And specifically, what would you do as President to develop standards curtailing runaway corporate welfare programs pushed by corporate lobbyists?"

If you're not willing to vote for Ralph but you agree with his political ambitions, be sure to write Barack and Hillary and demand that they address these issues. They are critical to us as a people and are paramount in fixing the problems that we face as a nation.

The Prison Reality

Our prison population is growing three times faster than our actual population. We are building more prisons than schools. Last year we were the world leader in total number of citizens incarcerated - coming in ahead of China who has a population which is more than four times as large as ours. According to the Pew Report released yesterday, 750 out of every 100,000 people are incarcerated in the United States, ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which make up the rest of the Top 10.

Altogether, there are more than 2.3 million Americans incarcerated according to the study which gathered its data at the beginning of 2008. Further, a U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30, 2006 showed that a record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole.

The majority of today's prison population is made up of non-violent offenders. Since 1970, the prison population has increased more than eight fold. The War on Drugs is largely responsible for this reality which began with the Nixon administration and their establishment of the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1973. Now, more than 2 million of the 7 million Americans in the criminal justice system are drug offenders. For more information on this topic - Thirty Years of America's Drug War, courtesy of Frontline.

Eric Schlosser, author of Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, makes several excellent points in his book pertaining to prisons and the criminal justice system as a whole. Most telling are those which pertain to the education and mental health of many of those who are locked behind bars. In his book he points out that 70% of the prison population is illiterate and approximately 25% suffer from mental illness.

Instead of promoting laws which push for longer sentencing and steeper penalties, we need to move forward an agenda which is more proactive and prevents people from committing crimes. We need to provide people who are at risk in the system with the resources that are essential to becoming productive members of society.

Education, community resource centers, treatment for addiction and rehabilitation programs are the answer. Drug addiction should be treated as a mental health issue, not a crime. We spend more than fifty billion dollars a year on our prison system. This is money that could be used to propel our public schools. Further, this dollar figure does not take into account the resources that are utilized by police departments to fight petty crime such as marijuana possession. Since 1990, more than 10 million Americans have been charged with crimes surrounding marijuana.

It is time to address these issues and we need to demand that our elected representatives take action. We cannot continue down this road. Incarceration is not a humanitarian solution to dealing with those who are uneducated and suffering from mental health issues.

Why Does Karl Rove Want Obama to be the Democratic Nominee?

In December of 2007, Karl Rove wrote a letter to Barack Obama in the Financial Times. The letter carefully detailed a strategy for how Barack Obama could defeat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

What I want to know is the following -- Why does the once chief strategist for the Republican Party have an interest in Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination?

Surely Karl hasn't lost faith in the modern day GOP which he has largely helped build. He couldn't suddenly have turned coat and become a Barack Obama supporter. It could only be one thing -- He is the candidate he wants the Republican Party to be facing come the November election.

Do you remember the smear campaign against Harold Ford of the 9th Disctrict of Tennessee in the 2006 election?



If you think the racist undertones, distortions and exaggerations are bad in that ad, just try to imagine what is coming down the pipe for Barack Hussein Obama. He isn't even the nominee and already accusations are flying around surrounding his name --- Barack Obama is involved in fraudulent land deals! He is a drug user! He is a secret member of Al-Qaeda! Barack Obama is a Muslim, haven't you seen him in the traditional garb!? Barack Obama is a homosexual! Senator Obama refuses to salute the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance or even wear a flag lapel pin!

Some of these accusations seem all too familiar seeing as how they've been used against Democrats in the past by the Republican Party. But never suspect that the American people are incapable of being fooled twice ('00, '04). And as Democrats or Independents, we should never underestimate the capability of the Republican Party when it comes to playing dirty politics.

These are the same people who convinced the American public that someone who had served their country in Vietnam was a coward all the while leaving their own candidate who literally dodged the draft unscathed.

If you thought the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads were bad, I'm guessing we haven't seen nothin' yet.

Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Bob Filner (D-CA), Tom Allen (D-ME), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Larry Korb (former Assistant Security of Defense), Donna Zovko (mother of deceased Blackwater employee), Jon Soltz (Iraq War veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org), and Andy Michels (former DynCorp employee) joined together on November 7th, 2007 to introduce the Stop Outsourcing Security (S.O.S.) Act.

The Stop Outsourcing Security Act would take vital military functions out of the hands of contractors, reducing our reliance on unaccountable private security contractors in the theater of battle. The S.O.S. Act would not phase-out the hundreds of thousands of contractors providing non-military support services for the Armed Forces.

The S.O.S. Act would phase-out diplomatic security in Iraq within 6 months of enactment. These functions will instead be undertaken by U.S. government personnel, allowing Americans to do their jobs without having to rely on unaccountable security contractors or worrying about them getting in their way.

The S.O.S. Act would next phase-out all security contractors by January 1, 2009 everywhere that Congress has authorized the use of force. For Congress to approve a postponement of the phase-out, the President must also certify that: all contract employees have undergone background checks and do not have criminal records; they have not been charged with a crime in past employment; and that all contracts include provisions to protect whistleblowers. Additionally, all contracts in place after January 1, 2009 would be subject to Congressional oversight.

Finally, the S.O.S. Act would allow Congress to view any current security contract greater than $5 million and require agencies with military contractors to report the number of contractors employed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the total cost of the contracts, the numbers of contractors wounded or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and any disciplinary actions taken against them.

If you have read Jeremy Scahill's recent bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, your eyes have been opened to the vast number of problems surrounding and being created by the use of privatized military forces. If you have not read this title yet, you need to do so urgently.

Yesterday, Scahill, also a writer for the Nation Magazine, wrote an article exposing the fact that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both stated that they will not support the Stop Outsourcing Securty (SOS) Act. Further, Barack Obama has said that if he is to become the next president, he will consider the long term strategic use of privatized military forces in strategic territories throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barack or Hillary is going to become the face of the Democratic party before long. In turn they will inherit the power to make this legislation a reality. It is paramount that this legislation is passed to preserve the integrity of our military and to hold privatized military contractors accountable for their wrongdoing abroad as well as domestically.

Contact Your Senator
Contact Your Representative

A Tribute to Third Parties

Third parties have been instrumental in shaping the culture of the country we live in today. While only one third party candidate has ever been able to win the presidential nomination, Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party, several third parties have been able to enter and influence the national debate. These parties include but are not limited to --- The Reform Party, The Populist Party and The Socialist Party. While these parties are no longer a part of the American political process, their influence lives on.

A short list of accomplishments which can be attributed to their existence in the United States includes -- The abolishment of slavery, the women's suffrage movement, child labor laws, and the 40-hour work week which later lead to the Labor Standards Act of 1938.

We owe a thanks to their efforts and achievements. They've made us a better people and nation. Yet today, we criticize those who run for the office of president under a third party platform.

After Al Gore's defeat to George W. Bush in 2000, Ralph Nader became the target of many Democratic Party supporters. They reasoned that his presence in the race shifted enough votes from Gore to Nader to tilt the election in Bush's favor.

Instead of faulting Nader, another voice in the political arena, actual problems which were and still are detrimental to the electoral process should have been targeted.

Gore won the popular vote, yet the electoral college elected Bush. Thousands of African American voters were disenfranchised in Florida. The Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida in turn giving Bush a win in the state by slightly more than 500 votes. And we all remember hearing the stories about butterfly-ballots. So why is it that we blame the third party candidate, one factor in the election, who simply ran to give the American people an alternative choice to the corporately sponsored candidates who represent the establishment parties?

Ralph Nader is a model citizen and has arguably had as great of an impact on every man, woman and child as any president that has served in this country. His resume includes the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Protection Agency, airbags and seat belts in cars and much more.

Ralph is a man of the people who has been serving his country proudly since 1968. He doesn't deserve our criticism for running for the office of president, we owe him our thanks. Oh, and happy Birthday Ralph, you're 74.

Watch Ralph's campaign announcement from this past Sunday on Meet the Press.





Related Article 1
Related Article 2
Nader '08 Campaign Website

An Open Letter to Ed Schultz & His Listeners

Remember when AAR launched in March of 2004? I do. I was living in Portland and was ecstatic. All of the shows were refreshing to listen to during the daily commute. Listening on AM 620, I caught parts of the Al Franken Show and Ed Schultz Show regularly. Ed Schultz was quick to let his listeners know who were calling in that he was not a part of AAR, but rather part of the Jones Radio Network.

Ed's show routinely had excellent guests which I enjoyed. More often than not, I did not agree with or appreciate his commentary on the daily issues however. It was "too mainstream" for me. He was unwilling to take risks with his commentary and reminded me of what I heard on the nightly cable news networks.

Regardless, I continued to listen to his show because I wanted to support all progressive outlets. To this day, I still routinely listen to Ed's show.

What made me write this was his quip today at AAR. He didn't name hosts, but he spoke of the network and essentially said to his listeners -- I know they're making remarks, but I'm above it.

Come on Big Eddie. You've used your show as a mouthpiece to rip AAR time and time again. I've been listening to you as long as I've been listening to Mike Malloy (Now with Nova M). You've got to be able to take it if you're going to dish it. Don't act like you're above it, we all remember your rant about how the network was made up of a bunch of low-life commentators who didn't pay their bills. It was vicious. It was Fox News-esque.

But this thread isn't about the Big Eddie vs AAR smack-a-thon that has been taking place over the years. It is about routinely ranting that you're the number one voice in progressive radio. I contest this advertising gimmick on two fronts. One, your ratings are nothing when compared next to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. So what does listenership really mean? It surely isn't a testament to the quality of the program or its content.

Two, your show isn't progressive. Would you argue that CNN, MSNBC, etc. are progressive news networks? They aren't. They are entertainment news networks which don't focus on content, they focus on side stories and what I like to call misinformation. Your show is modeled around them. It is why you are invited as a frequent guest on Larry King and many of the other network programs, including Fox and Friends.

I wish your show was truly progressive. I wish it talked more about the issues of our time and attempted to engage its listeners as well as get them to be informed and involved in the political process. But apparently there aren't ratings in that. And at the end of the day it is all about ratings. Everything comes back to dollars.

So go on. Continue to boast about being the number one progressive talker. Us on the left will continue to laugh. And yes Eddie, I've heard your rants about how we (the left) don't have a big enough tent. We don't want the tent to be so big that the whole right fits in it as well. That is what has happened in America today. The spectrum is so flawed that we think opinions right of center are too liberal. You perpetuate this problem.

Politics of Hope? Change We Can Believe In?

Since Senator Obama announced his campaign for the office of President of the United States of America on February 10th, 2007, his speeches have been riddled with rhetoric about him being above lobbyist contributions. On Februrary 5th, 2008, Barack exclaimed the following words to a crowd of supporters in Chicago:

"It's a choice between a candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than either Republican in this race and a campaign that has not taken a dime of their money." Speech Transcript.

Stop. Hold it right there Senator Obama.

Lobbyists generally are paid by corporations, unions and other interest groups to shape public policy by making regular contact with government officials. They must register with both houses of Congress, and make public disclosures identifying their clients and the amounts they are paid.

Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama's ban does not cover such individuals. Full Story.

The other big element in Obama's stand against the world of special interests is his refusal to take PAC money. While this may be noble, experts say it isn't much of a sacrifice.

Massie Ritsch, Communications Director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says it is not particularly risky to eschew PAC money since it "amounts to only about 1 percent of the money in any presidential campaign. So you're not leaving a whole lot of money on the table when you say 'I'm not taking PAC money.'" Full Story.

OpenSecrets.org tracks political contributions for all members of both houses of congress and has been tracking contributions to each of the presidential campaigns. This link will detail Barack Obama's top contributors to his presidential campaign. Its not exactly the list of "ordinary Americans" he boasts to have taken his contributions from.

Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs	$421,763
Ubs Ag	$296,670
Lehman Brothers	$250,630
National Amusements Inc	$245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co	$243,848
Sidley Austin LLP	$226,491
Citigroup Inc	$221,578
Exelon Corp	$221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al	$196,420
Jones Day	$181,996
Harvard University	$172,324
Citadel Investment Group	$171,798
Time Warner	$155,383
Morgan Stanley	$155,196
Google Inc	$152,802
University of California	$143,029
Jenner & Block	$136,565
Kirkland & Ellis	$134,738
Wilmerhale Llp	$119,245
Credit Suisse Group	$118,250

Exelon Corp, who is on that list of top campaigns contributors, has contributed more than $230,000 to Barack Obama since 2003.

If you have registered as a supporter for Barack's presidential bid, you have been receiving his inspiring e-mails. In one seeking money, Obama decried the special interest industry in Washington and warned it would spend more money than ever to "try to own our political process." "We're not going to play that game," the e-mail said.

Unfortunately, Barack's own legislative history says otherwise.

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, Barack Obama took up the cause.

Senator Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate. It did not pass. Full Story.

While Obama is on the campaign trail claiming to be above "old politics", the voting record, campaign contributions and legislation he has participated in says otherwise. What is unfortunate about this is that he has raised the spirits of millions of Americans who truly believe he is going to fight "Washington's ways" and bring responsibility and ethics to the White House. While he may attempt to accomplish this, the facts on the table indicate otherwise.

Do Your Part to Support the Constitution

Are you outraged with this administration's trampling of the Constitution? Have you written your House Representative? Senators? House Judiciary Committee? Nancy Pelosi? Daily Newspaper? You can reach each of them with your sentiments on this issue in a single email by using this website which also lets them know that you support HR 333.

HR 333 is a resolution which was introduced to congress by Dennis Kucinich on November 6th, 2007. As of today, it has 24 cosponsors but is in need of significantly more. If you believe this Presidential Administration should be held accountable and impeachment hearings should be held starting with Richard Cheney, it is essential that you contact your representative and let them know that you would like them to be a cosponsor of HR 333.

On the night Dennis introduced this resolution to the floor, it was treated like a political stunt largely by both parties. The Democrats toed with Pelosi who said impeachment was off of the table and the Republicans voted in support of Kucinich's bill in an attempt to upset Speaker Pelosi. When all was said and done, the bill was shelved with the Judiciary Committee. This resolution does not deserve to be treated with so little respect by our elected representatives. If you're outraged by this, please do your part and contact those who have been given the power to protect and uphold our constitution. Read the full story here.

The following video shows Dennis introducing HR 333 to the House of Representatives.



Robert Wexler of the 19th district of Florida has also created a petition in which he is trying to collect 1 million signatures in support of impeaching Richard Cheney for abusing the powers of his office and violating our civil liberties. As of today, he has collected nearly 230,000 signatures. If this is something you care about, be sure to sign the petition along with your family and friends.

The following video shows Wexler presenting his petition along with collected signatures on the House floor.



In case you're reading this and you've forgotten that the Bush administration lied us into a war with and now occupation of Iraq, The Center for Public Integrity has tracked and recorded 935 lies that were told to the American people and International Community in the lead up to the war. The following video has captured a portion of those lies and then those who told the lies denying that they made those lies.



Nearly 4,000 US troops have been killed, nearly 30,000 troops have been injured and over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have perished because of the lies these people have told. These are high crimes. If those who are responsible are not held accountable, what precedent are we allowing to be set for future administrations?

The time to act is now.



You're damn right Dennis.

Related Story

Which President-elect Do You Want to Invade Iran?

John McCanin has made it quite clear that he is a War Hawk and is fully ready to take military action against Iran. On the other side of the aisle, Senators Obama and Clinton have been vocally more cautious around the issue but equally as open to the idea of taking military action against Iran as a preemptive measure.

On Septemeber 26, 2007, Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution sponsored by Independent Joe Lieberman and Republican Jon Kyl which denounced the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. The resolution passed 76-22, in turn giving the Bush administration a potential fig leaf to attack Iran.

Shorlty after the vote took place, theREALnews assembled the following story for it's viewers to watch.



Barack Obama, not willing to miss a political opportunity, had the following to say about Hillary's vote regarding the Iran Resolution:

"I don't think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment, and it speaks to my judgment," Obama said. "It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward."
"I think her judgment was flawed on this issue," he said.
"This was a vote for war," he added. "You can't give this president a blank check and be surprised when he cashes it."

But what ground did Barack have to stand on to make these remarks? Senator Obama did not cast a vote for the resolution. According to his campaign team, abstaining from voting was not a political decision, but was a circumstance which arose from not being given adequate notice to when the vote would be held. The Democratic Committee did not accept this reasoning however, stating that all Senators were given equal notice the day prior to the vote.



While this may or may not be the truth, Obama did vote in March of 2007 for a similar bill, S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. This bill was written to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes. While the bill did not equate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to a terrorist organization, it did help further the buildup which is taking place as you're reading this to invade Iran.

So who are you going to vote for? Perhaps the two Senator's recent interviews with 60 Minutes will help you decide.

Asked by 60 Minutes where he would use military force to disrupt the Iranian weapon program, Barack Obama said, "I think we should keep all options on the table." And Hillary Clinton, speaking to AIPAC, said, "We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table." Story.

The following is a segment from the Democratic Debate which took place in New Hampshire on September 26th, 2007, the day the Iran Resolution was passed in the Senate.



My question is this. What happened to the anti-war movement? Was Iraq not the decisive issue just less than two years ago? Has our anti-war stance disappeared down the memory hole so soon? We have three candidates left in the race, none of whom are opposed to military action in the Middle East. How has this happened?

We had candidates on the stage running for president who echoed the sentiments most Americans shared.



We denied these candidates our vote. We need to ask ourselves why we are in this situation yet again. We need to find the answers to these questions and we need to remember not to repeat them again. Here is to hoping that day arrives sooner than the next war.