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.