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.