REALITICS

Kentucky Votes For Rick!

2008-03-27T21:41:00.002-05:00

Click Below
Please Learn More About Rick!

OPPOSE HOMEGROWN TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

2007-12-02T22:02:00.000-06:00

 The goal of H.R. 1955, it would appear after a
cursory look, is to constrain to some degree civil
and environmental activism and social protest. It has
long been a goal of the American right wing to resist
in every conceivable way the culture, values, and
behaviors associated with the labor movements of the
Keynesian era and the social protest movements of the
1960s and 1970s. This is just more of the same. The
activist community is really rather vigilant about
these issues, as evidenced by the efforts of the CCR
here.

Honestly I am not overly worried. I can't imagine
that the reactionary march towards fascism will
persist for much longer. The misadventure in Iraq,
the outsourcing of the domestic production base to
China, and the uncontrollable deficits have caused
the right to lose a lot of steam. The Third Estate
has plenty of reason to realize that its real enemy
is the domestic nobility and clergy, and not
Wahabbis, Moors, and Saracens. So long as we remain
active, thoughtful, and self-aware citizens we can
combat legal encroachments on public power and
restrictions of civil liberties. But we have to be
willing and able to present a serious threat to the
establishment, by whatever means that are
appropriate. And we have to strike whenever the
pendulum swings the right way, seizing upon the
momentum of fluctuating public opinion.

Personally I have been attacking them where they
feel it the most, their pocketbook. I have been
trying to start a socially responsible investment
program here at the university I attend. Its not unreasonable
under the logic of corporatism either. There are
still laws out there, and the way to hedge one's
investments against the legal costs and reputational
risks of doing business irresponsibly is to invest in
a socially, environmentally, and democratically sound
way. I am trying to get the university to let me
manage a portion of its endowments in a manner that
shows respect for a broader awareness of social,
economic, environmental and political consequences.
So far they have been very receptive.

That's the key, really. At least in my opinion.
Disrupt business as usual. Change the calculus of
rational decision-makers by influencing the
parameters. That's what civil disobedience is about.
Though civil disobedience is just one tactic. And it
is a very costly tactic; I know from personal
experience because I am the only one at my university who
every engages in civil disobedience to my knowledge.
The police came by my room last night about 1:00 a.m.
and banged on my door. They said they received a
noise complaint and told me to turn my music down.
Now it was Saturday night and people listen to loud
music and party in their rooms and in the hallway
until 5:00 a.m. sometimes, but it was an unusually
quiet night and I was listening to my music at a
reasonable volume. It could barely be heard in the
hallway outside my door--I checked with the police.
They had their hands on their weapons the entire time
we talked. Maybe it is standard operating procedure
for them to index their weapon systems while
responding to an incident. But I see them plenty of
times with their hands not on their weapons.

I am not worried though. Actually a bit
encouraged. When people begin using state violence to
accomplish their objectives, it means the persuasive
power of their philosophy of operations is on the
decline. If institutions can't market and sell their
ideas and instead have to force them on people, it is
much costlier and riskier to do business. That's what
techniques like H.R. 1955 are about: the
self-awareness of a failing operational apparatus. We
just have to make sure that informational context is
not lost in a sea of informational content, and that
people understand the failures of our society are do
to the weaknesses of the overarching logic of our
times: neoliberalism.

Corporations have been too cavalier in buying debt
and assuming credit risk. Now they are reeling and
are going to be wary of all the boogey men risks out
their. Especially the one they fear the most: the
power of organized labor. Meanwhile the government is
suffering from a shortage of labor, because they
overestimated their capabilities and went into a
multi-front Global War on Terrorism undermanned. That
is part of the logic of free market fundamentalism,
use technology and capital-intensive assets and try
to stay light of labor so you can operate more
flexibly. Now the fact that teenage Arabs and
Persians with small arms and makeshift explosive
devices are successfully defying the most powerful
military force in history has ruined the reputation
of neoconservatives, Zionists, and other hawks in the
field for which they are most respected: security.

You know chaos theory says that large, complex
systems will eventually break down due to small
deficiencies in the systems programming (the greatest
problem of the human race is the inability to
understand the exponential function). Well, that is
exactly what is happening to the empire of America.
Let us not fiddle while Rome burns.

In solidarity,
   -Nate The Cheshire Cat

Ranting is Impossible... for all things are connected.

2007-09-19T19:43:00.000-05:00

To Fight for the Land
Wyoming Tribune - Cheyenne,WY,USA

Sage runs ahead, stopping to point at a grouse in the underbrush before it flies into a tree. Reed's a relatively quiet man, striking up a conversation here ...

Hi All,

It seems many Wyomingites have yet to fully discover the ease and power of commenting online following an article such as this. I will comment later this evening and I invite folks outside the state to comment as well. The Wyoming Range includes hundreds of thousands of National Forest and Bureau of Land Managment (BLM) lands (your land). If all the voices in Wyoming collectively shouted 'keep oil and gas development off our public land!" that may not be enough to stop the Dick Cheney cabal from developing anyway.

Thanks for lending your voice. You can comment online at end of the rather poignant article entitled "To Fight for the Land." (linked above & below)

To see an aerial view of what the gas & oil companies seek to do to the Wyoming Range go to:

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/content/images/photo.acs?object_id=10897&photo_id=14415

Just in case you might think the simulated aerial view of the Wyoming Range is an exaggeration, go to:

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/objects/view.acs?object_id=4419

Here you will see a time lapse of natural gas and oil development in the now infamous Jonah Field near Pinedale AZ. Just ask Mike McRoy... an Illinois resident who has visited this area several times. When Mike discovered I was moving to Wyoming he warned me I would smell gas and oil if I visited what has historically been a pristine sage brush steppe and mountain region around Pinedale, WY. Mike was right. Locals are livid but does anyone in the Cheney coterie care? Of course not.

No more or less than the Appalacians need outside help so do Wyomingites. Wyomingites have long resented outside interference to their culture (even if offered as genuine help) but they need help. This is not a Wyoming problem. Like mountaintop removal, this unbridled stampede of energy extraction is a national disaster. It won't take long before both the gulped-down energy reserves and the land, water, and air destroyed to get at those reserves are gone... and forever. Our kids will love us for gulping down their future energy reserves and for destroying any hope of enjoying clean air and water, pristine lands and the wildlife we so enjoy today. I keep asking myself... "who are we?"

This white-bread raised kid used to stand on the sidelines while my teenaged friends marched to end an unjust war. I used to secretly admire their courage. I felt and was, in fact, constrained from participating in this necessary grand social "acting out."

Now I am an adult. Now I act out. Now, when the stakes, to my personal life, are greatest, I act out. Folks where have all the hippies gone.... long time passin'? Here we are... in the midst of another Vietnam... only worse in many ways. We have an unjust war and corporate takeover of our government taking place right before out eyes. Where are those teenagers who used to question and challenge authority? Did the stakes get to high for them? Robert Hoyt wrote a song, "I Hate Money." If you think do or don't hate money you might want to listen to the words of his song.

While singing the evils of money Hoyt includes the deepest truth of all, "I hate money, it's that carrot on a stick... I hate money, as I turn another trick... I hate to think that they would take away mine... And that's ALL it takes to keep me in line!" duh duh duh duh dut! Isn't that so true. But again I ask, "who are we?" We are watching our communities, our regions, our nation, our world slip into corporate fascism and because they haven't yet quite enough power to take full control of all our money or our lives and we can still enjoy TV and air-conditioned couches we sit in silence... hoping we either outlive the bastards or that we die before the great fall comes. But... what happened to caring about the world beyond our own personal comfort? What happened to fighting for principles that extend beyond our own noses? What have our children become? Pawns in our tax returns? Feathers in our parental caps? Friends, we are leaving them a mess they did not create. Who do we blame? I used to blame the prior generation. But guess what! As I look around... I discover a sobering thought... I am now part of what I used to call "that prior" generation. Here I am about to turn over a world to my children that is far less attractive than the world that "awful prior generation" handed to me. We are turning over global military instability, global economic instability, unthinkable US debt to a nation many consider the greatest threat to our economy and way of life (China), and in my view, I am turning over the worst of the worst to my children.... a collapsing global ecology. None of the above matters one bit if my children have not... fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink, healthy food to eat or a natural world that they can retreat to when the all else in world is simply too painful to endure.

The worst trait we are bequeathing our children is our example of apathy. Corporate economics have crippled our imagination, thus rendering us hopeless, that a community can exist without absentee ownership. We have abandoned the idea that we can supply each other with the healthiest food, most durable goods, and most genuine services without shipping McDonald's hamburgers from South America, Africa, or Asia into every village across the US. Not to disparage the foreigner (God bless 'em all), but we believe we cannot have a clean, healthy, and happy home unless a foreigner cleans it. We believe we cannot get from point A to point B without EXXON-Mobil.

Folks, the fact that you might now be considering me out of touch with reality is testament to the fact that we have lost our image of communty, of true communal self-reliance. We have become toddlers, helpless to resist the commands of our new parents, corporations and their illegitimate offspring they (and we) call "democracy." We the people are no more the central component of U.S. Democracy than the U.S. economy is the central component of Wall Street.

I have, true to form, digressed. But there is a method to my madness and naturalist, John Muir, best explained both my method and my seeming madness. Muir pointed out, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it is tied to everything else in the universe." John Muir (1838-1914) U. S. naturalist, explorer.

Oil and gas development is at the heart of corporate fascism and we, therefore, cannot not pick it out without picking out all that is connected to it. We cannot save or natural world without picking out that which is destroying it whether that be political corruption, corporate or personal greed, inhumane treatment of the poor and helpless (including countless plants and animals struggling to survive), or perhaps worst of all our own apathy. We must pluck deadly apathy from the fragile web of life that exists only in a thin film across the surface of one planet earth. The depths of earth is not our home and it cannot sustain us. Only the surface do we have upon which we can live and reproduce. Only rock and remnants of catastrophic death, something we call fossil fuel, exists below the thin living surface of our planet. We have been hoodwinked into believing if we exhume the dead of the past and consume their remains (fossil fuels) we are somehow advancing the human race. NO. We are simply advancing our own journey to lie with the dead in the form of coal or oil. One thin film covering planet earth is the domain of life. Yet when we think of earth sustaining us, we think of a giant blue ball and, unconsciously or not, we think of the entirety of this big blue as life sustaining. Nothing could be more untrue. Think! Protect this very limited and finite thin film scientists, at least, understand is the only source of life on planet earth. Protection includes the dismantling of powers that deceive us into believing we can eat, drink, and breathe gas and oil. I hope Muir's point is clear in my rant. "All things in the universe are connected" and I might add, "finite."

As always... recipients of this, my rant, need least to endure my words. But please glean what you can and pass on to shock addicts who may enjoy the "shock" of it all. Our shock addicted world needs to be shocked back into reality... quite opposite the kind of shock our so-called "reality TV" offers.

You know, Bush sold a shell-shocked US citizenry a bill of goods that included the notion that "Shock & Awe" would, overnight, transform Iraq into some form of paradise. Of course it didn't and, of course, a shell-shocked US citizenry has had four years to rationalize away its guilt for supporting such a naive and heartless invasion of Iraq. It is time we transform US foreign policy from "shock & awe" to "talk & aha!" It is time our domestic and foreign policies value the shock and awe that comes with understanding each other and the wonders of our natural world. No bomb will ever be designed by engineers, manufactured by factory workers, and dropped by a bombardier that can shock and awe an Iraqi student, sitting studiously in a classroom, more effectively than a single bit of shock and awe information presented by his or her teacher. Anyone that has witnessed that spark in any student's eye when a new and fascinating truth about the world in which he or she lives creates that priceless moment when suddenly the student's world makes much more sense, knows what I am talking about! This is the kind of shock and awe our world needs... a form of shock and awe we can be proud of rather than ashamed.

Please don't forget my plea offered so many paragraphs ago. Comment to save Wyoming from Dick Cheney's rape and pillage of his own home sate, Wyoming.

Duane

To Fight for the Land
Wyoming Tribune - Cheyenne,WY,USA
Sage runs ahead, stopping to point at a grouse in the underbrush before it flies into a tree. Reed's a relatively quiet man, striking up a conversation here ...

Apathy

2007-09-19T19:41:00.000-05:00

Apathy, the worst crime today.

I'm Back

2007-06-21T01:11:00.000-05:00

I am back to stay.

Past Seven Minutes 'til the End of the World

2007-01-09T20:56:00.000-06:00

Humankind has become an endangered species. Perhaps due to natural forces in a barbarous cosmos and unstable volcanic planet, both of which are beyond our control. Perhaps and even more plausible cause of human extinction is by the threat of strategic weapons of mass destruction.

Thanks to technological advances, human aggression, which was once a potential multiplier of survivability, may now lead to the extinction of the human species. Our aggressive behavior, as Stephen Hawking puts it, is “not calculated to aid the survival of the species.” The harnessing of the power of the Sun is probably humankind’s greatest technological achievement. It is that power of the Sun that is responsible for life on the planet. And it is that power of the Sun in the hands of humans that may be responsible for the end of life on the planet.

The outbreak of a terminal nuclear war is actually highly plausible. It is a constant threat that could potentially destroy the world at any moment. “In the past Russian automated response systems have come within a few minutes of launching a nuclear strike, barely aborted by human intervention. By now the systems have deteriorated. US systems… are (also) extremely dangerous hazardous. They allow three minutes for human judgment after computers warn of a missile attack, as they frequently do. Then Pentagon has also found serious flaws in its computer security systems…” (Noam Chomsky Hegemony or Survival page 243)

There are amongst the population voices that seek to address the issue of nuclear weapons. Though these voices are largely unheeded, they continue call for urgent action to combat the escalation of behaviors that may lead to the destruction of the planet Earth. One such organization of prescient individuals who can foresee the potential catastrophe that lurks in the future is the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

A public release from the board of directors of the Bulletin plainly states that they “urge the United States and Russia to commit to reduce their nuclear arsenals to no more than 1,000 warheads each by the end of the decade.” They advocate this as a measure that could likely avert the total planetary destruction that is currently a very possible and perhaps probable scenario, however nightmarish it may be. The organization also encourages the recognition of détente by stating that they “also urge the United States and Russia to finally recognize the end of the Cold War by abandoning the practice of maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert, ready to be fired within minutes.”

The release goes on to say that “reductions must include tactical nuclear weapons as well,” which are short-range, often land-based, nuclear weapons used for deterrence (http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/current_time.htm).

This comprehensive strategic to avert disaster is highly practicable by the US government. However, where the motivation to undertake such measures would derive from in the current batch of government leaders and high-level planners is, sadly, hard to discern.

To all those optimists who believe that the future will be a better place for subsequent generations, I urge a rational look at the threats humans as a species face. I also urge immediate action to raise awareness and political will to combat these dangers, because it is highly plausible that future will never come to pass.

The New Left Manifesto

2006-12-24T15:32:00.000-06:00

The campaign focus for both parties has been the war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein, a brutal and violent dictator by the accounts of virtually all articulate opinion, succeeded in "hoist(ing) half the country's population into the middle class..." This is something neither of our political parties is able to accomplish domestically. Saddam accomplished this feat before economic sanctions, largely imposed by the U.S., destroyed his country and caused the child mortality rate to double. What does this mean? This means that U.S. leaders are likely responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi children than Saddam ever was.

Saddam, the tyrant, did make concerted efforts to make sure that his population was fed in the face of these devastating sanctions, and the Iraqi system of food distribution was described by a UN World Food Program official as "the best distribution system that he had every seen in his life, as a World Food Program official." This is analogous to Cuba's excellent system of healthcare, and it demonstrates that nations that are devastated by U.S. imposed economic terrorism are catalyzed into making remarkable achievements in domestic policy in response to unchecked U.S. aggression.

The Shia numerical majority did greet the U.S. as liberators, in spite of the fact that many of them were surely aware of the horrors that they have faced as a result of U.S. foreign policy. This was because with the toppling of Saddam, the Sunni minority would no longer remain in control. These are people loyal to their religious agenda over their own social welfare. However, as the bitter taste of U.S. occupation remains in their collective mouths, they no longer support our presence, as polls of the Iraqi people have indicated. I have written about this before, so I will not go into detail.

Some may say that, in spite of my criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, I have offered no solutions. This is false. The solutions I am offering are clear: if the U.S. wants their to be less terrorism in the world, it can make a significant decrease in the amount of world terrorism by no longer terrorizing the world.

I would like, however, to identify a deeper problem, the fact that there is so much concern about Iraq and foreign policy by the major political parties and mass media, but so little concern about domestic policy. This is sure to serve the interests of the establishment. But there are obvious and considerable domestic problems. For example, we Americans live in the only first-world nation on the planet without a system of socialized healthcare (other than the quasi-socialized emergency room system). One in nine of America's children do not have any healthcare coverage at all, while we perennially flirt with having the highest infant mortality in the first world. So, not only are our leaders responsible for the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi children, but they are responsible for the deaths of large numbers of our own children.

There is a fundamental issue at the heart of all of our domestic problems, the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few private sector elites. The era of corporate governance is upon us, and while the government assists large multinational corporations in the concentration of wealth to the detriment of the vast numerical majority of the population, the legitimacy of that government derives largely from the consent of the disaffected majority. This tenuous hold on power by the elites is only possible because of the public relations campaign by the corporate mass media, which hold at the very least ideological connections to those with political power, to "engineer consent" of the masses that elitist President Alexander Hamilton called "the great beast."

The neo-Reaganites are simply the newest iteration of American political leaders who aid in the concentration of wealth. Just like the original Reagan Presidency, the neo-Reagan Bush II administration has used its economic policies of military Keynesianism to create growth that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest portions of the private sector and undermines social welfare programs and institutions of public control like labor unions.

Furthermore, the Bush II administration's use of domestic power to discipline the American population into subservience, with programs such as the Orwellian-titled USA Patriot Act, are reminiscent of historical parallels such as Wilson's "Red Scare" and the actions of Cointelpro during the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon administrations.

It simply has to be the agenda of any legitimate left wing organizations to combat this by supporting socialist programs and the redistribution of wealth. The system of corporate mercantilism fraudulently identified as capitalism has failed. It is time for the true leftists to stand up and support labor and socialism. The legitimacy of the government derives from the consent of the governed, a Lockean ideal upon which the foundations of our Constitution are purported to by lain. Progressives need to be about domestic progress - an increase in the health, welfare, and standard of living of the majority of the population, not about finding solutions to the right wing's illegal war of aggression in Iraq.

Half-cocked programs for social welfare are not the answers; our government should literally rob from the rich to give to the poor and middle class. The concentration of economic resources in America is too extreme, and rivals that of nations like China, which are controlled by overtly totalitarian regimes. Since the American government only uses institutional violence to discipline ethnic minorities, it must use a system of deception and coercion to control most of the domestic population, which it does with the aid of the corporate media's public relations apparatus and the intelligence community's disinformation campaign.

We are the last line of defense, and we can combat disinformation with truth. The truth is on our side in this fight. American laborers need to control the means, method, and results of production. All Americans deserve socialized health care. All Americans deserve adequate food, clothing, and shelter. The government needs to stop using Executive power to discipline the people, and spend trillions of our money fighting wars for hegemony abroad. These are the policies for which we should be campaigning.

To give an example of how insidious disinformation is in the U.S., America is commonly described as having a problem of voter apathy. Sociologist Walter Dean Burnham in studies like "The Eclipse of the Democratic Party, has demonstrated that the segment of so-called "apathetic voters" in the U.S. population is proportional to the amount of votes Socialist and Labor parties would receive in other industrialized countries with free elections. This is an indicator that the Democratic Party in the U.S. is no longer a politically legitimate "party of the people." Voters in America are not apathetic; instead they are “antipathetic.”

This means that a large enough segment of the American people will be on our side if we try to help them, and ourselves, live in a better world. With a history of near-catastrophes like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is but one example of policies of the American government that almost sparked a terminal nuclear war, our leaders in Washington has brought the human species to the brink of extinction too many times to remain in power legitimately. Our economic system is purported to be designed around self-interest. So, we should act in our self-interest, our right for self-preservation, and campaign for a change in the power structure of American political institutions. If humanity is to have a future, the American population, the freest people in the world, must stand up to the institutions of power in our nation - and we must be successful in our endeavors.

Nathan Jaco
24 December 2006

How to Get a Job in the Bush Administration

2006-12-15T01:05:00.000-06:00

Here are some of the key players in the Iran-Contra scandal who are employed by the Bush administration:

Richard "Dick" Cheney - now the vice president, he played a prominent part as a member of the joint congressional Iran-Contra inquiry of 1986, taking the position that Congress deserved major blame for asserting itself unjustifiably onto presidential turf. He later pointed to the committees' Minority Report as an important statement on the proper roles of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Robert M. Gates - President Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, Gates nearly saw his career go up in flames over charges that he knew more about Iran-Contra while it was underway than he admitted once the scandal broke. He was forced to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role but managed to attain the position when he was re-nominated in 1991. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)

Elliott Abrams - currently deputy assistant to President Bush and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, Abrams was one of the Reagan administration's most controversial figures as the senior State Department official for Latin America in the mid-1980s. He entered into a plea bargain in federal court after being indicted for providing false testimony about his fund-raising activities on behalf of the Contras, although he later accused the independent counsel's office of forcing him to accept guilt on two counts. President George H. W. Bush later pardoned him.

David Addington - now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and by numerous press accounts a stanch advocate of expanded presidential power, Addington was a congressional staffer during the joint select committee hearings in 1986 who worked closely with Cheney.

John Bolton - the controversial U.N. ambassador whose recess appointment by President Bush is now in jeopardy was a senior Justice Department official who participated in meetings with Attorney General Edwin Meese on how to handle the burgeoning Iran-Contra political and legal scandal in late November 1986. There is little indication of his precise role at the time.

Edwin Meese - currently a member of the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, he was Ronald Reagan's controversial attorney general who spearheaded an internal administration probe into the Iran-Contra connection in November 1986 that was widely criticized as a political exercise in protecting the president rather than a genuine inquiry by the nation's top law enforcement officer.

John Negroponte - the career diplomat who worked quietly to boost the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Central America as ambassador to Honduras, he also participated in efforts to get the Honduran government to support the Contras after Congress banned direct U.S. aid to the rebels. Negroponte's profile has risen spectacularly with his appointments as ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and director of national intelligence in 2005.

John Poindexter - who found a niche deep in the U.S. government's post-9/11 security bureaucracy as head of the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program (formally disbanded by Congress in 2003), was Oliver North's superior during the Iran-Contra period and personally approved or directed many of his activities. His assertion that he never told President Reagan about the diversion of Iranian funds to the Contras ensured Reagan would not face impeachment.

Otto Reich - President George W. Bush's one-time assistant secretary of state for Latin America, Reich ran a covert public diplomacy operation designed to build support for Ronald Reagan's Contra policies. A U.S. comptroller-general investigation concluded the program amounted to "prohibited, covert propaganda activities," although no charges were ever filed against him. Reich paid a price in terms of congressional opposition to his nomination to run Latin America policy, resulting in a recess appointment in 2002 that lasted less than a year.

Nearly all have assumed key roles in the defense ,intelligence, or foreign policy apparatus of U.S. state power. Positions that would qualify them as what Jim Garrison calls "Praetorian Guard" of our time.

Many of these individuals' involvement includes covering up Reagan's knowledge of the affair - which meant lying to Congress (so they will have no problem doing it again if legitimate investigations into the Iraq fiasco ever occur).

Reagan's knowledge of the affair is undeniable.

On December 1, 1981, President Reagan signed an initial, one-paragraph "Finding" authorizing the CIA's paramilitary war against Nicaragua. A signed Finding confirms that the president has personally authorized a covert action, "finding" it to be in the national security interests of the United States. In this second Finding on covert action in Nicaragua, Reagan responds to mounting political pressure from Congress to halt U.S. efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government. This document defines CIA support for the Contras as a broad "interdiction" operation, rather than an explicit counter-revolution. The language, however, is deliberately vague enough to justify violent actions by the Contras and the CIA and to enable the CIA to work with other nations such as Honduras in the effort to undermine the Nicaraguan government.

It would seem that the "Praetorian Guard" takes care of its own. The fact that these repeat offenders keep getting away with lawlessness is evidence of that. The same names always seem to pop up when there is a major scandal relating to black ops in recent history.

The overarching issue in all of these affairs seems to be the extent of Executive power. This is a battle that has raged on in American poltics since the Founding Fathers began drafting the Constitution.

However, these individuals are not omnipotent or omniscient, as they are commonly portrayed (read: feared) to be. As for the latter, the Echelon program, the purported "corporate espionage" program that listened to people's phone calls was never truly effective. In fact, there were fears in the late 1990s that the NSA was, as LTG Michael Hayden puts it, "going deaf." And the new Patriot Act laws, though they are deplorable and an affront to democracy, pale in comparison to historical analogs of abuses of elite power such as Wilson's Red Scare or the actions of Cointelpro under the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon administrations.

As for the former, omnipotence, U.S. forces are bogged down in Iraq while the Sandinistas (at least Ortega) are back in power in Nicaragua and overtly anti-American independent nationalists are in power in Iran. These are deja vu for many elites, as the same essentially happened during Jimmy "Weak on Defense" Carter's administration. This sort of thing is not supposed to happen to the bellicose, jingoistic reactionary statist forces of the right-wing elite. Now that the moderate right-wing party of American government, the Democrats are in power in Congress, the world is crumbling down around the right-wing elite, a group that have dictated foreign policy since the "right turn" in American foreign policy that occured beginning with NSC Memorandum 68 in 1950. I, for one, am terribly afraid of what measures to which they may resort in order to stay in power.

http://www.gwu.edu/...
Link to document "Finding":
http://www.gwu.edu/...

Neo-Reaganites: The "Right" Men for the Job

2006-12-12T02:38:00.000-06:00

There is currently alot of opposition to the Bush administration's so-called failed policies in Iraq, but that is really jumping to conclusions. Critics attack the Bush admin for not having a coherent vision for an end-state in Iraq and a corresponding exit strategy, but those critics are operating under the presupposition that it is the intent of the Executives to exit Iraq.

This is in spite of the fact that there are reports of permanent facilities being constructed in Iraq to house U.S. forces. Now, this is clearly an advantageous strategic location, it allows the U.S. to assert proxy control over a nation with the second-largest proven oil reserves.

So, the question is: are we losing in Iraq? This affair clearly has an historical analog - the Vietnam War. Many consider that the U.S. lost the Vietnam War, but this depends on one's definition of "lose." One of the purported objectives for the war in Vietnam was democracy promotion, and even as it failed, the virtues of U.S. leaders were extolled and the only criticism was that they were overly optimistic in noble vision for democracy.

The refrain from the media was essentially that these idealists were too optimistic with their "disinterested concern" for the well-being of democracy in the disadvataged parts of the world. The American media and intellectual elite, the arbitors of the American ideological system, are trying to construct this revisionist history look at our leaders intent in their "messianic vision" for democracy promotion in Iraq.

If one accepts democracy promotion as the goal in both conflicts, it is fair to say that we lost and are losing the respective wars. However, if one looks at Vietnam from another perspective and is willing to accept the hypothetical that the foreign policy objectives in Vietnam were to stop the spread of independent nationalism in the strategically located nation of South Vietnam, then it is quite clear that the war in Vietnam was a success.

In order to do this in toto however, it must be acknowledged that a war was carried out not just in South Vietnam, but against South Vietnam. This is an extremely controversial position, so of course I present it only as a hypothetical.

Let me return to Iraq. If the same could be said about Iraq, that the idea is to stop the spread of independent nationlism, then one could argue that the war in Iraq is actually successful. We have acheived a clear regime change, one of the original ostensible objectives, and we have prevented Saddam Hussein from doing dangerous things to our interests, like using his nation's oil revenues to help its people - a troubling policy for American elites indeed.

Futhermore, it is reasonable to ask about how the Iraq affair pictures in to our overarching objectives in the Global War on Terrror. The neo-Reaganites in the Executive branch of government are perhaps the best people for the job. It is they who are uniquely qualified to deal with the issue of terrorism.

In fact, the holdovers from the Reagan admin are some of the only world leaders today to be condemned by the International Criminal Court for acts of "international terrorism," for a terrorist war they conducted against Nicaragua during the Reagan years. So, no one knows more about terrorism than they do, leaders like Cheney and Rumsfeld are arguably the world's most successful terrorists.

It is ironic however, that Bush said the U.S. had the right to combat any nation that harbors terrorists. However, surely our government will not attack itself for harboring terrorists.

The Global War on Terrorism is, in fact, going well. There is less terrorism in the world because of the GWOT. Particularly because, since the GWOT gives the American government carte blanche to use conventional forces whenever and wherever it wants, the U.S. has stopped engaging in so much terrorism. There is no sense in the CIA fighting proxy wars all over the world to depose democratically-elected leaders, when the can simply use the American military to do this, and thereby justify greater defense spending for large items likes tanks and planes. This is essential for our system of industrial management, the unique brand of military Keynesianism that the Reagan admin used to get the nation out of a recession.

Which brings me to another important point, the state of the domestic economy. The U.S. deficit is $760 trillion (U.S.), but corporate profits are at record highs. This is what really makes for a strong economy in the eyes of right-wingers.

Let's face it, right-wingers are incurably elitist and they believe that as long as the people at the top are doing well, to hell with it. The Bush admin, the neo-Reaganites, are using military deficit spending to boost corporate profits for defense contractors, thereby boosting the largest sector of the economy. This is just what Reagan did, although when Bush came to office the economy was not technically in a recession, as the incorrigibly corrupt Bill Clinton had gone and squandered this nation's economic power by creating the largest budget surplus on record (utterly shameful!!!).

Even though the federal deficit is equivalent to 6.2% of the GDP, corporate profits are strong. And as the nation's economy tanks in the face of global markets, corporate profits will remain strong. A triumph for the neo-Reaganites. They are conservatives in the truest since, they embody conservative values so much, they don't even have to be conservative. They can instead be jingoistic reactionary statists who are architects of the largest federal government in world history.

The neo-Reaganites have also allowed their domestic allies to keep pace with the growth. President Bush is the all-time leading recipient of oil money as campaign contributions, and oil profits have been at record highs. Thanks in part to instability in the Mid East, and no increases in fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, in spite of the warnings of treehugging scientists who say there is a global climate crisis.

So, in conclusion, I say to those who want to decry the leaders of the free world as being totally inept, they are actually highly successful in accomplishing their true objectives. Thus, the neo-Reaganites are the right men for the job. At least my stock portfolio seems to think so.

Banner Meant to Disparage Kerry Reveals Republican Psyche

2006-11-02T17:05:00.000-06:00

A closer look at the Kerry "Banner" Joke backed by the Republicans?

The Republicans have left themselves wide open for criticism with this "Halp me!" banner held up by "all white" soldiers in IRAK!

What? No Minorities In Iraq? Check out the photo of the now infamous banner held up by soldiers in Iraq! All white soldiers! This banner is a real bad joke and the Republicans are telling it to disparage Kerry! Or is it they think only white folks are smart enough to make a sign like this???

Sorry… but this Republican blunder is not lost on me.

If I was black or any other minority I would be furious! Consider the psychology behind this blunder!

How easy it is to show the Republican racist mindset by re-airing this banner and generating a discussion that asks the Republicans, "Why are there no minority soldiers holding up this banner?"

Kerry's Joke, Funny or Not.....

2006-11-01T21:49:00.000-06:00

Sure, Kerry goofed in terms of political gamesmanship (what's new?) but... Kerry is, like it or not, an intellectual. He tends to out-think himself and the audience he is attempting to woo. Kerry was telling a JOKE that proved to be too intellectual (with too fine of a distinction) for our dumbed-down Americans to get at the level he intended them to "get it." He was referring to George W. Bush who is self-admittedly not intellectually curious and whose transcripts show he was not the brightest of students (even though he had the winds of academic prestige at his back). As a rule Americans, in recent decades, detest really "smart" people. Smart, ain't cool ya see. The truly cruel joke is on those who actually "try" very hard in life and "throughout life" to better understand their world and the many perspectives the world offers to those willing to learn. Often, their reward is contempt and mistrust from those who don't quite follow the results of the perpetual student's concerted efforts to better understand a specific part of life or life in general.

...but more important than the "botched joke" is that Kerry touched on a truth (a nerve) we Americans have long swept under the lumpy rug of denial or are too dumb and/or stubborn to accept. Let me prepare everyone for what I am about to say. You will notice I don't use the terms "all" or "none" or "every." I use terms like "most" and "many." There are exceptions to what I say and many of them but.... the overwhelming number of those who join our military forces are NOT well educated. I challenge to anyone to prove this statement wrong. In recent weeks the Army lowered an already low educational and citizenship entry bar to military service. it's a fact folks.

Historically, many recruits barely made it through high school. Many sign up before ever graduating high school. Many choose the armed services over jail. Many are poor and see themselves doomed to a life as a second-class citizen and see the military as their only option (a last chance) to defy poverty and social injustices. These facts do not mean these young folks are necessarily dumb. Hardly. These facts do mean the recruits I described are not well educated. These facts mean we Americans are dumb if we keep pretending we are sending waves of rocket scientists and/or war heroes destined to be immortalized in bronze statues. Most Americans are content to send mostly poorly educated kids to magically morph into men and women "over there" while fighting wars that our leaders claim will keep those of us who stay home nice and comfy "over here." It is easy to see why so many keep cheering the underprivileged youth of this nation to go fight "over there." I find this the cruelest joke of all and it is on those kids we call soldiers.

A nation that can not or will not face irrefutable facts, i.e., truth is doomed to fail as a nation.

Kerry's JOKE did not offend me or our troops. The truth associated with the joke, on the other hand, offends me and should offend our troops, in that, most well-financed and well-educated young Americans feel (and they won't admit this) they are too damned good and important to "waste" their time, maybe a limb or two (like the Republican swift-boated Max Cleland) or maybe their privileged life in some god-forsaken place like Iraq.

Perhaps an intellect like John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, should stop trying to charm his way to the presidency. Kerry, sadly, lacks charm. But does Kerry's unfortunate lack of charisma make him mean or anywhere near as mean-spirited as those who "swift-boated" his service during his bid for the presidency?

Until the U.S. citizenry, i.e., electorate, matures and educates itself to a level that permits issues and not jokes (funny or not) to sway their votes and shape their politics we are doomed to have snake-charmers on our school boards, in our city councils, and in every other den of governance all the way to the White House.

More and more we elect actors. Think about that! Actors! As if politicians are not well-trained enough to lie to us we elect actors! Many Americans don't want disturbing truths to come from their politicians. They want to be comforted and entertained. "Tell me what I want to hear," is far too pervasively the American voter's plea.

We elect heroes like the "The Terminator" and "The Gipper" to save the day. George W. Bush, with Karl Rove's expertise guiding him, actually pretends to be an actor. He smiles and tells the American people exactly what everyone would like hear. Iraq is a threat to you BUT TRUST ME, I WILL SAVE YOU!" "Iraqi will welcome us with open arms, TRUST ME!" "Mission Accomplished!" "We are winning in Iraq...!" he smirks with that charming Texas grin. We are winning the War on Terror!" Whoa, whoa, whoa... ughmmm.... OSAMA?

Reality seems not to matter to the American people. Just keep telling us warm fuzzy things.

So who do we elect next? Harrison Ford (he played a president!)? Robin Williams?

If not actors, we elect silver-spooned, silver-tongued personalities to smile and nod and to make us feel all good inside.

America the Adolescent! It is high time we grow up!

Folks, unlike Kerry, I offer no apology if my comments seem a bit stuffy, academic, or aloof... for they are anything but. They are simple, easily verified facts. Don't waste your time trying to refute what I have said. On second thought... maybe the research would do ya good! Hmmm?

Our troops are what they are just as I am what I am and you are what you are. Glorification of any human being is, inherently, a distortion of the facts about that one. You know it. I know it.

The grand-daddy of all jokes is to deny the truth. Simply wanting the truth to be this or that does nothing to change reality.

Does anything I have said offend you or our troops? Only if the truth offends you should you feel offended. Friends, the truth offends and insults me and my beliefs often. I don't always get it right but I have learned to welcome the discomfort of being wrong... and being right. I chose truth, any day, over being right or being misled or feeling good in error.

The truth sometimes hurts but the cancer of denial eats away one's being and a nation's collective soul, often in the painless bliss of ignorance.

Whitney Debates in Chicago at UIC

2006-11-01T21:44:00.000-06:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – November 1, 2006

WHITNEY TO PARTICIPATE IN SECOND NON-PARTISAN DEBATE

CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org

Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, will participate in a non-partisan gubernatorial debate, sponsored by the Illinois Free and Equal Elections Coalition (FREE) and the University of Illinois Student Government on Wednesday, November 1st, 2006.

Mark McCoy, the Libertarian Party write-in candidate, Randy Stufflebeam, the Constitution Party write-in candidate, and Independent write-in candidate Marvin Koch, have also confirmed participation in the debate. The debate will be held at the UIC Cardinal Room, Student Center East, in Chicago, Illinois. The debate will begin at 6:30 pm with doors opening at 6:00. Venue address and contact information are as follows:

University of Illinois Chicago (UIC)
Cardinal Room, Student Center East
750 S, Halstead
Chicago, IL
(312)-996-3456

An independent poll of 600 likely voters, conducted by the Glengariff Group on October 13-15 showed that "an overwhelming 77% of the state’s voters believe the gubernatorial candidates should hold televised debates before election day" and "70% of the state’s voters believe these debates should include Green Party candidate Rich Whitney." 80% of Independents, 70% of Republicans, and 65% of Democrats believe Whitney should be involved. The results also showed Rich Whitney polling at 16% amongst central Illinois voters, and 15% amongst Independents, while drawing equal support from Democrats and Republicans statewide.

"It's very unfortunate that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to run away from his civic responsibility to put his ideas to the test of a thorough debate with all ballot-qualified candidates. All candidates were invited to the debate that is to take place this evening at the UIC student center in Chicago. This may be considered an extension of the open challenge that I issued on October 10th; but whether they appear or not, the voters will at least have an opportunity to hear my point of view, as well as a couple of candidates that would have probably been on the ballot with me, if not for Illinois' extremely repressive ballot access laws," said Rich Whitney.

Whitney is not a write-in candidate and will appear on the General Election ballot in November, as the Green Party's candidate for Governor.

MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org
www.freeandequal.org

America, Is it Spooky to Speak Out? It Shouldn't Be!

2006-10-31T12:27:00.000-06:00

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law: See How!

The [Republican] party that supposedly champions states rights seeks to eliminate every state governor's role in the deployment of National Guard troops to control "domestic" unrest or, in essence, dissent. Bush was first paranoid about foreign terror and now he fear you and me. If you protest his policies he no longer needs you governor's approval to deploy National Guard troops to silence the dissent. If your state's citizenry decries this president he now can declare martial law and send in the troops to silence you and your fellow citizens... anywhere, anytime he chooses.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

The least that can be said and perhaps the most important thing to say about this is, "Don't Be Afraid!" Fear, more than bad law itself, is what paralyzes justice. A bad law is only as strong as its subjects are weak. It remains law only as long as its subjects remain complacent.

Perhaps we should we take notes from Nelson Mandela. There is no end to our ability to disagree with our leadership... unless we *acquiesce. We should never see "an end" to our ability to disagree and to do so publicly. Generations of U.S. citizens have not only allowed but have cheered for our young men and women to go "over there" and fight our battles. Are we spoiled? We seem to be so eager to send our own flesh and blood to fight and die "over there" so we don't have to fight here at home. Perhaps this Bush embraced idea that if we fight "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here" is not such a good idea after all. Really, don't we home bodies end up spoiled rotten? The first sign of resistance here at home and we shut our mouths and our minds to avoid the discomfort that would surely accompany the expression of our true feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.

The vast majority of our 300 million strong citizens appear, to me, to be spoiled. For so long, we have done all our fighting "over there" with little cost to us "over here." To date and since the beginning of his invasion of Iraq the greatest Bush challenge to U.S. citizens is to keep shopping. Why send our youth to possibly die "over there" when we are as scared as lost puppies "over here" of our own president. Why are we so scared? We the people are the government but we act as if we are powerless. Frankly, the whole mess sickens me. I was never a good citizen until year 2000. When I saw the Chinese Fire Drill of an Election take place (no offense to the Chinese) I first truly realized our nation was in trouble. I was confused, angry, and determined to do more than "vote and then shut the hell up" as our leaders love for us to do. Politicians have placed such a high premium on voting that U.S. citizens, just like I had done for years, feel the crown jewel of their duty as a citizen is the act of voting. Voting is vital but in today's political climate voting my be at best a good start toward citizenship; at worst a well-intended but meaningless act. We must speak out.

Our leaders love nothing more than for us to vote and then to "shut the hell up."

If you allow your employer to disallow your (total) freedom of speech your employer becomes a proxy censorship police force for the government. Consider this carefully. Who owns our government? Business. In particular, big business. It is the rule, not the exception that employees are not to talk politics at work... unless, of course it is politics in favor of the companies' political goals and agendas. Friends, an employer is an employer. Have we forgotten what this relationship is really about? You are paid to provide work (a service) to your employer. You are not an indentured servant. You are not paid to be a political pundit, a shill, or a walking blob of silence. You are an employee, a free employee... and as such remain a free man or woman. Free to think independently. Free to speak to another employee about who "you" are and what "you" think about any given topic. This is America, is it not? Employers who strong-arm their employees into silence should be challenged. You have every right to do so. Recent decades of politics have elevated, especially, large corporate employers to god-like status while rendering employees little more than throw away robots. This is wrong and a first step into corporate fascism. CEO and upper rmanagement wages go up and up while everyone else's wages go down and down. How much clearer must the trend be made before working U.S. citizens say enough? If you cannot work free... you cannot play free, if you cannot play free... you cannot pray free, and on and on goes the domino list of can nots.

I have to backed up the following words in demonstrative terms. No law (written, spoken, or unspoken) that violates our Constitution or the spirit of its preamble will shut me up. I write. I will continue to write. I don't support sending kids over seas to become men and women "over there" but none-the-less I feel obligated to never shut up because so many of our mostly young soldiers have died "over there" so we "over here" retain rights we are guaranteed in our constitution. How cowardly to allow our kids to die "over there" when we older, more mature, citizens "over here" are not only afraid to fight wars our generation starts but cower at the first sign of oppression from within our own borders. Osama bin Laden achieved at least part of his goal on 9/11 and has been chipping away at greater goals ever since and via Bush's increasingly paranoic domestic policies. Bin Laden silenced the average U.S. citizen, our entire press, and even Congress in Bush's bid for war on Iraq. The Bush administration was Osama's greatest tool and ally in the process. Bush turned anyone who disagreed with him openly into treasonous villains. Now the U.S. citizenry, congress, and our press sit by quietly as Osama bin Laden guides Bush's hands as they tighten the screws on liberty as we know and love it. Don't you see the irony? Bush condemns Osama for that which he (Bush) is guilty. It is impossible to give up rights to protect them. It is insane to think giving up our rights will somehow preserve them. It might be spooky to be speaky but nontheless speak out and speak out loud.

Happy Halloween! Don't Be Afraid! Halloween comes and goes, as do bad laws.

Note: Below is a sample sentence used to define "acquiesce" from the Oxford American Dictionary Thesaurus that came with my computer. I mention this because I have noted several such examples referring to Bush. Most of these examples seem to expose some rather disturbing Bush traits and practices. Interesting, is it not?

*acquiesce
verb
Bush wants to ensure that Beijing will acquiesce in a possible American war against Iraq accept, consent to, agree to, allow, concede, assent to, concur with, give the nod to; comply with, cooperate with, give in to, bow to, yield to, submit to; informal go along with.
verb [ intrans. ]
accept something reluctantly but without protest : Sara acquiesced in his decision.

Freedom of speech, including to express dissent, is the foundation of all other rights. Shake the foundation and the crumbling begins. Bush seeks to crumble our rights in the name of fighting terror and while supposedly delivering democracy to Iraq.

The article below explains precisely how Bush is stealing your liberty, bit by precious bit.
-----------------------------

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Frank Morales
October 26, 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1).

It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.

That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

Source:

(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.

(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

:: Article nr. 27769 sent on 27-oct-2006 03:18 ECT

:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=27769

:: The incoming address of this article is :
towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .

Whitney Receives News-Herald Endorsement

2006-10-30T22:52:00.000-06:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 30, 2006

WHITNEY RECEIVES NEWS-HERALD ENDORSEMENT

CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org

Rich Whitney, the Green Party candidate for Illinois Governor, has received the endorsement of the Southwest News-Herald, Chicago's largest circulation, community newspaper.

The News-Herald stated that Whitney "has solid ideas for the state."

"I'm honored to have the endorsement of the Southwest News-Herald. It's always refreshing when a publication is willing to make its endorsement based on the issues, rather than politics as usual," said Whitney.

The endorsement is a reversal of the paper's policies, as the News-Herald had resisted making endorsements in the past.

The most recent Chicago Tribune poll shows Whitney at 13% support, unprecedented for a new party in Illinois and quite impressive, considering that Whitney has spent little money and less than half of voters are currently aware of his campaign.

Whitney dismissed speculation that his polling results are due only to widespread dissatisfaction with his opponents, emphasizing that his positions on the issues are what most Illinois voters prefer.

"This campaign is giving people positive reasons to vote for me, and we're seeing those ideas resonate with the public," said Whitney.

Rich Whitney has also been endorsed by the State School News Service.

MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org
www.swnewsherald.com

Bush Administration Political Appointee Reverses Endangered Species Protections for Nation’s Wildlife

2006-10-30T22:02:00.000-06:00

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
October 30, 2006

Bush Administration Political Appointee Reverses Endangered Species Protections for Nation’s Wildlife

Conservation Groups Call for Investigation of Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald

Washington, D.C. – Department of Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald and other Interior Department officials repeatedly distorted scientific findings to prevent the protection of species under the Endangered Species Act. Echoing a call from the Union of Concerned Scientists to restore scientific integrity to the Interior Department, conservation groups throughout the West have called upon Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to determine which other species may have been denied protection by MacDonald’s actions, to reconsider the decisions made with her interference, and to ask for MacDonald’s resignation.

While the Endangered Species Act requires that decisions be made solely on the basis of the best available science, MacDonald, an engineer with no biological training, reversed numerous scientific findings without any biological justification, and in some cases directly edited the documents herself.

“The Endangered Species Act’s wisdom is to provide protection for endangered wildlife and plants based on biological need, and to buffer them from political whims,” stated Nicole Rosmarino, conservation director of Forest Guardians. “Secretary Kempthorne has a duty to ensure agency biologists are not bullied and the best available science is upheld.”

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act confirm that internal findings produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the Gunnison sage-grouse, Gunnison’s prairie dog, white-tailed prairie dog, roundtail chub, Mexican garter snake, and a Mariana Islands plant should be considered for endangered species protection, but in each case, MacDonald or another high level official ordered the biologists to reverse their findings. For several of these species, MacDonald personally edited the findings to reverse their conclusions (documents available upon request).

"The Endangered Species Act works well precisely because it is rooted in the best available science," said Erik Molvar, Wildlife Biologist with Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. "How can we ever hope to achieve good stewardship for our most critically endangered plants and wildlife, when the scientific findings are being reversed by a political appointee?"

“That a high level political appointee with no training in biology is rewriting the conclusions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to deny protection to some of the nation’s most imperiled species is a travesty,” added Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Bush administration has an unwritten policy to systematically deny wildlife protection, dooming them to extinction.”

A 2005 survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility exposed pervasive political interference in scientific decision-making at the agency. Over 300 agency scientists responded that they knew of cases where political appointees at the Department of Interior had interfered with scientific determinations, and 84 scientists reported having been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientific documents.

“Endangered plants and wildlife have a tough enough time without politicians manipulating the science,” said Erin Robertson, staff biologist with Center for Native Ecosystems. “It’s time for Secretary Kempthorne to dismiss Julie MacDonald and fix her illegal decisions.”

The Bush administration has listed fewer species under the Endangered Species Act than any other administration since the law was enacted in 1973, to date only listing 56 species compared to 512 under the Clinton administration and 234 under the first Bush administration. The Bush administration has listed so few species in part because it has been denying species protection at record rates. Of all the endangered species listing decisions made under the Bush administration, forty-seven percent denied protection as compared to only 13% during the last five years of the Clinton Administration. Meanwhile, nearly 300 species languish on the candidate list without protection.

“The Endangered Species Act is incredibly effective at saving species from extinction, but can only work if imperiled species are actually provided the protections of the Act by being listed as threatened or endangered,” stated Mark Salvo, Director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign.

For a complete listing and additional information on the many species that were subjected to reversals, please see the full version of the release on our Native Ecosystems web site
For additional documents on the white-tailed prairie dog, please visit Native Ecosystems - Species
Contact Information
Erin Robertson, Staff Biologist, Center for Native Ecosystems, (303) 546-0214
Erik Molvar, Wildlife Biologist, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, (307) 742-7978
Dr. Nicole Rosmarino, Forest Guardians, (505) 988-9126 x156
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Mark Salvo, Sagebrush Sea Campaign, (503) 757-4221

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
P.O. Box 1512, Laramie, WY 82073
(307) 742-7978 - maggie@voiceforthewild.org

Action and Inaction

2006-10-29T15:28:00.000-06:00

Activists for Restraint and Talking Heads for Action

I find it incredibly interesting and disturbing this time-tested observation of mine, one I cannot escape. Bringing this observation to the point of action, i.e., writing about it, are two C-SPAN programs aired today, October 29, 2006.
-----------
Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change

Scott Ritter
Description: In "Target Iran" former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter warns that the next phase in the war on terror could be with Iran. While in conversation with New Yorker magazine's Seymour Hersh, Mr. Ritter criticizes the Bush administration for its claims that Iran is a major threat, and insists there are no production facilities to bomb. This event was hosted by the New York Society for Ethical Culture in New York City.

Author Bio: Scott Ritter served as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq 1991 to 1998. He is the author of "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein," "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America," "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All."

and

War By Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror
John Yoo, Kenneth Starr, Jeffrey Rosen, Gary Schmitt

Description: In "War By Other Means," John Yoo argues that the traditional balance of powers must shift to the executive branch when America is at war. The author, former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, details his involvement in the Bush Administration's war policies. Mr. Yoo is joined by George Washington University School of Law's Jeffrey Rosen, Pepperdine University School of Law's Kenneth Star and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute to discuss presidential authority during the current war on terror.
Author Bio: John Yoo is a professor at the University of California at Berkley School of Law. He worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003 and is the author of "The Powers of War and Peace."
----------
Ritter speaks with passion but more importantly he speaks to hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the clarity of Ritter's message as presented on the program named above.

Ritter, an activist by any definition, encourages restraint. Restraint is a form of inaction. Inaction in American culture often carries a negative connotation. However, in a more universal sense inaction is revered as an exercise demonstrating wisdom. Ritter, a Marine and former UN weapons Inspector, is certainly no stranger to "action" yet he encourages, rather emphatically, restraint when concerning the use of U.S. military force to achieve Bush administration stated objectives. Ritter more comprehensively and clearly than all the droning talking heads combined explains his position of restraint.

John Woo, Kenneth Star, Jeffrey Rosen, facilitated by PNAC's Gary Schmitt have just spent an hour wallowing in an academic and esoteric discussion of U.S. political history and use their completely disjointed discussion to "explain" why current president Bush, with his preemption policy, should be given expanded war powers. Their discussion is so incredibly disjointed it is impossible to even attempt to refute it... and this is precisely their goal. Confusion is the mainstay of neo-conservative politics.

Friends, these neo-conical, motionless bodied talking heads are yapping like Chihuahua's to incite military action, knowing they will have no self-endangering part in that action. They will yap and yap until the door is opened and then run and hide in the dark, comfortable safety under the cushy couch to which they have become so accustomed. They, unlike Scott Ritter, have not peered down the barrel of an AK-47 in Iraq while literally putting their lives on the line to find WMD. No... the neocons, from the safety of U.S. prestige and position, rattle sabres for war and to give Bush more authority to declare and implement such.

I find it incredible that sit-there-and-talk talk talking heads promote action, even preemptive military action while a real man of demonstrated military action pleads with Americans to call upon Bush and our Congress to restrain themselves from seeking military solutions to problems, i.e., threats, that do not really exist. In essence, Ritter, a man of action pleads for inaction.

There is an irony in this observation. Privileged intellectuals discuss "what to do" in an atmosphere of historical politics having no bearing on the conditions of the day much less anything to do with present day world affairs. They quote Jefferson, Madison, and a host of long dead men in an almost comical stream of reference to nothing. These men would likely turn in their graves if they heard their sentences uttered as pretext to yet another war on Iran. They would have to ask themselves, "where is Iran?" The ancient nation of Iran was historically known to the West as Persia until March 21, 1935. The neocons routinely create an academic blizzard made of political rhetoric to disguise their list of meaningless facts. Their discussion does not relate to real time, real life's day to day realities on the ground in Iraq and Iran. The discussion among the neo-conservative talking heads offers absolutely no hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. This time, I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the meaninglessness of the neocon message as presented on the program named above.

Friends, stuffy academic heads having never truly experienced the fears, and relentless horrors of war lack at least two qualifications to present themselves as experts on war and the execution of war.

1) The obvious: Firsthand and personal experience with the fears, and relentless horrors of war.

2) An ability to sympathize or even approach empathy for those who do personally experience the fears and relentless horrors of war.

Our retiring generals, in droves, are now speaking out about both the wrongful invasion and incredibly incompetent and corrupt execution of the war on Iraq. Whether or not they should have resisted their Commander in Chief while in service, they are now speaking out.

Whether or not active generals should resist their Commander in Chief while in service is, however, an important matter when considering Bush's intensifying effort to invade Iran. As this effort grows and becomes a greater presence on the news please remember that silence from our military leaders is NOT a sign of their approval to invade Iran. These military leaders are simply honoring their oath.

Think about this. Do you want generals faithfully serving their Commander in Chief only because of an oath they had taken? Whether or not you believe in war at all would you not rather have your military leaders and their troops on the ground fighting a war they believe in rather than one they are simply sworn to fight? Human nature teaches us those fighting for principle are much more loyal and effective fighters than those fighting simply to honor a signed contract. In the context of war, the latter reason for fighting is a shallow one indeed. Our enemies, our real enemies, are definitely fighting for principle. When we send our troops into battle and they go simply to honor their contract (and/or with hope of getting part of their education paid for) we bestow upon them a critical disadvantage from the beginning. To me, this a cruel thing to do. We become Americans exploiting Americans.

Please think about this. I hope you will remind friends and family to ask themselves, "is restraint or inaction necessarily a bad thing? Is action always a good thing? Remind them, "anyone chanting or drumming or cheering for war should search their soul and determine if they too wish to fight and place their physical well-being on the front line; if they too, are willing to pull the trigger or push the button that leaves an innocent ten year old child limbless, perhaps lifeless. Cowards allow and even cheer on others to fight their battles. Someone you send to war will kill kids. It's their job, stated so or not. Don't be a coward. Don't be an accomplice. Don't deny reality.

Don't just act to be acting. Do nothing when nothing is warranted. We know Iraq warranted doing nothing. Iran warrants doing nothing. If you must act, act to convince those itchy, nervous gotta-go- do-sumpthin' leaders in our White House and Congress to restrain from military action Iran.

Whitney Proposes Social Security "Security Plan"

2006-10-25T15:26:00.000-05:00

NOTICE!

WTTW Gubernatorial Forum on Thursday, October 26

While the Whitney campaign vies for fair coverage from some
outlets, one outlet that is proving to be unbiased is WTTW-11,
Chicago's PBS station. This Thursday night at 7:00 they will
host a live gubernatorial forum from their North Side studios.
Rich Whitney is included, and Judy Baar Topinka will also
participate. Rod Blagojevich pulled out of the event several
weeks ago, consistent with his refusal to debate Rich Whitney in
any setting.

WSIU (Carbondale PBS) is also expected to air the forum at
broadcast time. Other PBS stations might do so as well; check
with your local PBS affiliate and if they do not have it
scheduled, ask them to air it at a later date. There may also be
some house parties associated with the airing. People in the
WTTW broadcast area are strongly encouraged to host small house
parties on their own where they invite people over to see the
televised forum so people can learn about Rich in a comfortable
setting. Contact Jessica Bradshaw, jbradshaw21@yahoo.com, if
you'd like to host such a house party and would like other ideas
or would like to invite people in your immediate area.

George Ochsenfeld
==============

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 25, 2006

WHITNEY ADDRESSES SECURITY VULNERABILITY, PROPOSES STATE PLAN

CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org

Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, today responded to news that a security vulnerability at the Chicago Board of Elections has exposed the Social Security numbers and birth dates of more than 1 million registered voters to potential identity theft and other privacy violations.

"This regrettable and unfortunate incident underscores the need to improve information security in all government agencies, including within state government. I am proposing a stronger statewide information security strategy that includes three major components--prevention, detection, and response," said Whitney.

A key prevention component in Whitney's plan is the expanded use of open-source software in state government. "Not only is open-source software more secure than secret, closed-source, and proprietary software; but it is also significantly less expensive," said Tim Tacker, the campaign's Communication Director.

Whitney claims that a move to open-source software and other non-proprietary standards will be a boon to business because it will foster competition amongst software vendors in the state, rather than forcing consumers to be locked into non-compatible, proprietary solutions. In addition, Whitney has stated that any software developed for use by the state would also be made freely available to businesses and the public, significantly reducing their overall software costs.

"This proposal will allow us to better protect people's privacy rights. We will also be taking a leadership role in promoting competition in the information technology sector. Combined with full funding for schools, to ensure a well educated workforce, Illinois has the potential to lead the nation in this area," said Whitney.

The Whitney for Governor campaign website is built upon Joomla, a freely-available and open-source content management system.

MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org
www.opensource.org

SUPPORT DOUBLES for GREEN Gubernatorial Candidate, Rich Whitney!!!

2006-10-24T18:54:00.000-05:00

Whitney Support Doubles, Beating Blago Among Independents
Reply-To: communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 24, 2006

CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org

Despite refusing all corporate campaign contributions, and facing widespread media bias, Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, is now polling at 14% support, according to the most recent independent SurveyUSA poll, conducted on October 20-22.

This figure is double Whitney's results in the last SurveyUSA poll, released on September 20th. Whitney is the only candidate to have gained support--his opponents' numbers have both decreased.

The poll showed Rich Whitney's strongest support coming from Independent voters, with 29% supporting Whitney, compared to 27% for Blagojevich.

A civil rights attorney from Carbondale, Whitney is also polling as high as 20% in the Chicago collar counties and 23% amongst those age 18-34.

"This is an encouraging sign that a people driven campaign can be successful in this day and age without the necessity of raising and spending millions of dollars. People in Illinois, as elsewhere, are tired of politics dominated by big money and this is a sign of popular rebellion against it," said Whitney.

MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org

Whitney Faces Media Bias

2006-10-23T14:27:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 23, 2006

WHITNEY FACES WIDESPREAD MEDIA BIAS, REQUESTS FAIR COVERAGE

CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org

Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, claims that he is facing widespread media bias and is requesting fair coverage.

"While this campaign has been gratified by the favorable response by many front line reporters, the fact is that when it comes to the top of the institution, we're seeing a different story--one of institutional bias. It reflects the fact that these institutions have a economic and political sink in the same two-party system that most Illinois voters, as well as the green party, see as part of the problem--not part of the solution," said Whitney.

Some examples of media bias that the Whitney campaign is reporting include the following:

- Omissions from stories covering both of Whitney's opponents.
- Language suggesting there are only two candidates (i.e. "opponent" vs. "opponents".)
- Exclusion from debates, interviews, and other broadcast programming.

Citing two specific examples, Whitney pointed to recent endorsements of gubernatorial candidates by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. Even though the Tribune hosted Blagojevich and Topinka, neither editorial board invited Whitney to be interviewed before issuing their endorsements.

"Both the Tribune and the Sun-Times are doing the voters a tremendous disservice by failing to provide them with all information needed to make an informed decision on election day. I believe that this is a reflection of the fact that both papers are themselves sizable media corporations, indebted to other corporate interests, that are literally invested in the Blagojevich and Topinka campaigns," said Whitney.

Whitney has also been arbitrarily excluded from broadcast programming, such as the debate sponsored by the Illinois Radio Network and CBS2 Chicago's "Straight 2 The Issues" segment, airing between now and Election Day. When asked for equal opportunity, the Illinois Radio Network indicated that Whitney would not be invited without permission from the Democratic and Republican candidates; and even though the most recent Zogby poll shows Whitney's support in the double digits and growing, CBS2 Chicago indicated that Whitney was "not polling high enough" to be included in their segment. When asked how high Whitney would need to poll in order to be included, CBS2 Chicago was unable to provide any type of pre-established, objective criteria for inclusion.

"CBS2 Chicago claims that the decision to exclude Rich Whitney was based on their good-faith news judgment; but unless their judgment is incredibly bad, I don't see how that is possible, considering that the most recent Glengariff Group poll showed that 70% of Illinois voters want Rich Whitney included," said Tim Tacker, Communications Director for the Whitney campaign.

"Media corporations are unique in that, not only are they themselves corporate entities, but most of their revenue comes from advertising from other corporate entities; so they have a very big material stake in maintaining the corporate status quo. The Green Party, and this campaign, represent a challenge to that status quo, which is why were are seeing this type of institutional bias against us and why these same media conglomerates are not serving the public interest," said Whitney.

MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org

Whitney in Chicago Tonight! October 23rd

2006-10-23T14:24:00.000-05:00

A+ Illinois Concerned Communities for Schools Forum

Start Time: 7:00 PM Monday, Oct 23

The event will be held at Chicago Embassy Church, at 5848 S. Princeton Avenue in Chicago at 7pm.

If you care about education, this is THE event to attend to find out candidates' positions on the issues facing our public schools today.

Come listen, and support Rich Whitney as he details the only gubernatorial education plan that does NOT include expanding gambling or selling the state lottery.

This is also your opportunity to pick up Whitney for Governor yard signs, bumper stickers, buttons, and brochures. Hope to see you there!

Jennifer Rose

Campaign manager

Blind Allegiance to the Flag

2006-10-22T07:54:00.000-05:00

The Pledge of Allegiance

"Blind" has yet to be a added (at least officially) to a manmade, not God spoken, pledge to the U.S. flag.

This ever-changing manmade pledge is just that... ever-changing, just like the physical appearance of our flag. Stagnant, conservative thinking tends to treat such pledges as if God-spoken and written in stone. Perhaps the greatest lie is to put carnal words in God's mouth and then tell our children they are God's own, inspired words... And perhaps the greatest sin is then to have them "blindly" recite it over and over and over again.

Duane Short
October 22, 2006
============

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
October 11, 1892

I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1923

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1924

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1954

-----------------
I invite you to visit:
ShortStream News Media
Duane Short

Through Tragedy, Reason

2006-10-20T19:28:00.000-05:00

After Pat’s Birthday

By Kevin Tillman

Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document.

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,

Kevin Tillman

Change

2006-10-20T09:17:00.000-05:00

Change
by
Duane Short
October 20, 2006

I feel a breeze a blowin'
winter's comin' on
but this breeze is not a cold one
this breeze is warm as dawn

I see the sun a shinin'
it's full and bright and gold
this sun shines warm upon us
a story to be told

I hear a new day comin'
it's just around the bend
a day where truth takes over
and corruption starts to end

I sense this change among us
where leaders tell no lies
where people expect nothing less
than honest, open eyes

I hope the change is sudden
enough to wake each soul
enough to get attention
of those now in control

the change I see a comin'
is politics you see
but politics that's different
controlled by you and me

no more choosing lesser evils
no more voters staying home
no more wishing things would change
no more nomads left to roam

I smell a rose of sharin'
where winners don't keep all
where fairness is the order
and losers still walk tall

My heart beats ever faster
as time ticks toward the day
when people on the street
regain their rightful say!

Tried and Tested Points of View

2006-10-19T23:47:00.000-05:00

I wrote this piece in 2004, as requested, for the Democratic Party in Paducah Kentucky. I generally vote for Democrats but I "belong" to no political party. I am voting Green and Democrat this cycle. Because I am a "free" citizen I fear not disclosing my politics. Why should any American fear disclosing one's politics? One answer is "Employers." Employers have become a proxy police force of sorts for the powers that be. Friends, if you fear voicing your politics because your employer might fire you or otherwise penalize you for having politics inconsistent with the company owners' politics something is seriously wrong! This is not freedom when the individual must cower to his or her boss, especially if the boss is some non-human corporate entity. More on this topic later.

Below is an example of voicing one's politics publicly. I had my say and on behalf of the Democratic Party
in Western Kentucky and former CIA Operations Officer, LTC R. Michael Paul, USAR (RET), had his say on behalf of the Republican Party.

My, then, very unpopular position on the Iraq War and Homeland Security is, now, not so unpopular. In fact, the Iraq fiasco has turned out to be what this Joe Q Public sort of fellow said it would... an illegal and colossal failure of foreign policy and one that actually creates more terrorists than it eliminates.

The former CIA Operative seems to have been as misguided as were so many back in Bush's lead up to his invasion of Iraq. Why, I must ask, could a regular guy like me discern fact from fiction when trained CIA Operatives could not? I suggest ideology is the real culprit. Ideology is not inherently bad but for ideology to obscure reality is not only bad... it is a deadly mistake. To date over 3000 U.S. soldiers and as many as 655,000 Iraqi citizens are dead... and for what?

I invite you to read the following takes on Homeland Security. Even hindsight is not truly 20/20 but indsight is the best sight we have. I still stand by words written for public consumption back in 2004. I wonder if the former CIA Operative still stands on his? Ideology is a powerful force... powerful enough to render kings and presidents incapable of admitting their mistakes. Isn't this exactly our nation's dilemma today? Can George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and all their supporters admit their mistakes? So far, that answer is an emphatic NO.

Duane

Local Political Voices on the Topic of Homeland Security
Published by the Paducah Sun Newspaper: Special Section "Over Forty"

November 5, 2004

Democratic Party

Submitted by Duane Short, Metropolis, Ill. (now residing in Belleville, Illinois)

Achieving "homeland security" in these United States of America requires us to examine philosophies behind approaches presented to us for consideration.

Three basic philosophies exist.

1. A conservative, typically Republican, philosophy embraces the notion that the United States must be maintained as, first and foremost, a military superpower. "Might makes right" is the unspoken assumption.

Architects, of this notion, are not elected officials. Hidden from public view as if to avoid the same criticism Republicans heap upon so-called liberal ivy league Democrats, a think tank of neo-conservatives have modeled a policy presumed to best serve up "homeland security." This model is embodied in Project of the New American Century (PNAC). PNAC suggests expanding global military and intelligence dominance of earth, cyberspace, and space itself, arguably a mission more ambitious than "homeland security." In a section titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (RAD), this neo-conservative ideology and blueprint guiding the Bush administrations' foreign policy and preemptive actions, to date, is discovered. RAD concludes tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions (abbreviated below):

• Global missile defences [p.s. - notice the British spelling of "defences"]. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies, and forward-deployed forces must be constructed.

• Control of space and cyberspace. "Control of the new international commons must be a key to world power in the future."
• Pursuing the two-strategy of transforming conventional forces. In exploring the "revolution in military affairs," the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. If these missions do not disturb one's sense of a benevolent United States of America, read page 51 in RAD.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new pearl harbor."

PNAC signatories include V.P. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense, Jeb Bush - Governor of Florida, former V.P. Dan Quayle, and 20 other close-knit figures.
While conservative pundits decry intellect, ivy league minds shape policy presented by President Bush to an unwitting public. Conservatives are not loyal to "good ol' boy" common sense. Instead, Republicans have capitalized on a remarkable ability to market a "man on the street" image. Conservatives are not your typical "man on the street."

Everyone must read and study PNAC's eerie, prophetic messages. Ask, "how is our homeland security improved when our foreign policy embraces a doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a baseless belief that the U.S. is predestined to
rule the world."

2. Another basic philosophy behind securing the U.S. is based on altruistic benevolence and turning the other cheek. This philosophy is the ultimate philosophy of peace, one that if followed by all, offers only one logical outcome: world peace. In a perfect world, this would be our key to U.S. "homeland" security.

3. Among endless combinations of philosophies behind our quest for the best approach to achieving homeland security is a form of foreign policy presented by Democrats like Senator John Kerry. Maintaining "protective" military might is important in an imperfect world of aggressors. More important is to refrain from using aggressive, preemptive military might to achieve PNAC authors' goals to dominate the planet. Again, read their plans. A moderate and sensible approach to achieving real and not a forced and forever strained sense of "homeland" security is to embrace progressive Democratic policies that seek to move the USA and others toward altruistic benevolence while maintaining military readiness to defend our borders and homeland... not to expand our borders and "homeland" range endlessly, creating conflict... endlessly. Δ

Republican Party

Submitted by LTC R. Michael Paul, USAR (RET)

Former CIA Operations Officer

While there are those Americans that would argue the the War on Terrorism is not being successfully waged and that grievous mistakes have been made by the current administration, I suggest that their thinking is distorted and unrealistic.

President Bush has in fact taken the war into the enemy's camp and clearly shown the terrorist and those rouge regimes that would support them that any attack upon the U.S. and its citizens will result in swift and devastating action being taken against them. Indeed, the President has implemented a long overdue, proactive stance in dealing with terrorism - "The U.S. will strike at terrorists before they are able to attack U.S. interests."

What can be said in regards [to] the War on Terrorism and homeland security is rather obvious.

1. Terrorists actions directed against the U.S. are not criminal acts and should not be treated as such. The long-arm of U.S. law enforcement does not extend into the palaces and bunkers of the leaders of radical regimes who support terrorism. Terrorism is a war, which must be fought as such. The enemy must be eliminated, not arrested, and his ability to mount terrorist operations against our citizenry must be destroyed.

2. Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy. While terrorism may take on any number of guises, those that would destroy our way of life and who have so ruthlessly attacked our country are religious fanatics. A theology that professes that is is not only acceptable, but also blessed, to kill and mutilate innocent civilians, including children, just because we refuse to believe as they do is unacceptable and pagan. We must stop attempting to analyze their theology and take it literally - they do.

3. The Middle East is a land in a time warp. It is the land of the blood feud. The land of an "eye for an eye ." To not respond to an attack on one's clan, tribe, or family is considered to be a sign of weakness, making the victim weak in the eyes of the attacker and worthy of further outrage. America had been viewed as a weak and decadent land by the Islamic terrorists who attacked our country. America continues to be hated, but now at least it is feared. The message to the terrorists is clear, "threaten the lives of our citizens and we will come for you." America is on the right track in the War on Terrorism. Strength and resolve are called for. Displaying weakness in the face of the enemy will only lead to worse atrocities being perpetrated against us. May God continue to bless and keep America.
Δ End

2006-10-19T16:23:00.001-05:00

According to the most recent Zogby poll

Rich Whitney is now registering in the double digits!

"Three-way matchup includes 11.3% for Rich Whitney (G)"

11.3% Whitney

33.2% Topinka

47.1% Blagojevich

2006-10-19T16:23:00.000-05:00

According to the most recent Zogby poll

Rich Whitney is now registering in the double digits!

"Three-way matchup includes 11.3% for Rich Whitney (G)"

11.3% Whitney

33.2% Topinka

47.1% Blagojevich

Gubernatorial Debate Fairview Heights, IL 10-19 6PM

2006-10-18T16:04:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 18, 2006

WHITNEY TO PARTICIPATE IN NON-PARTISAN GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE

CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org

Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, will participate in a non-partisan gubernatorial debate, sponsored by the Illinois Free and Equal Elections Coalition (FREE) on Thursday, October 19, 2006. Mark McCoy, the Libertarian Party write-in candidate, and Randy Stufflebeam, the Constitution Party write-in candidate, have also confirmed participation in the debate. The debate will be held at the Fountains Conference Center at Four Points Sheraton, in Fairview Heights, Illinois.

The debate will begin at 6:30 pm with doors opening at 6:00.

Venue address and contact information are as follows:

Fountains Conference Center at Four Points Sheraton
319 Fountains Pkwy.
Fairview Heights, IL 62208
(618) 622-9500

An independent poll of 600 likely voters, conducted by the Glengariff Group on October 13-15 showed that "an overwhelming 77% of the state’s voters believe the gubernatorial candidates should hold televised debates before election day" and "70% of the state’s voters believe these debates should include Green Party candidate Rich Whitney." 80% of Independents, 70% of Republicans, and 65% of Democrats believe Whitney should be involved. The results also showed Rich Whitney polling at 16% amongst central Illinois voters, and 15% amongst Independents, while drawing equal support from Democrats and Republicans statewide.

"It's very unfortunate that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to run away from his civic responsibility to put his ideas to the test of a thorough debate with all ballot-qualified candidates. All candidates were invited to the debate that is to take place tomorrow evening in Fairview Heights. This may be considered an extension of the open challenge that I issued on October 10th; but whether they appear or not, the voters will at least have an opportunity to hear my point of view, as well as a couple of candidates that would have probably been on the ballot with me, if not for Illinois' extremely repressive ballot access laws," said Rich Whitney. Whitney is not a write-in candidate and will appear on the General Election ballot in November, as the Green Party's candidate for Governor.

MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org
www.freeandequal.org

Information and Inspiration

2006-10-18T15:18:00.000-05:00

Hello Friends,

Many of you are likely aware of the resources I cite below but, in case not, I hope you find them immediately or ultimately useful.

NatureServe has become my favorite source of information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species. The video linked below is, in essence, a promo for the organization but it also serves to inspire. I recommend it for its inspirational value. It is the nature of our work, it seems, to sometimes (or often or always) feel isolated and overwhelmed. It is good to know there are sophisticated scientific efforts going on, often as quietly as our own, that produce data useful to those of us on the ground fighting, often thankless and unpopular, local battles to fend off imminent and/or cumulative threats to our natural world.

NatureServe is truly a treasure trove of information that may not be utilized as fully as it could be. In terms of efficient use of time and accuracy I believe this resource is as good as there is, especially for those whose work involves E & T species.

Watch this Inspirational Video Online and/or Download: 23MB

NatureServe: Discovery Understanding Conservation

I highly recommend becoming familiar with NatureServe Explorer.

For global habitat and land use data Global Footprint is also an excellent resource. One section of Global Footprint, Ecological Footprint, is of particular use to those involved in efforts to educate the general public about the seriousness and rapidity of our planet's ecological demise.

Ecological Footprint

I hope you enjoy the video and find useful the websites referenced above.

To all, 'ave a g'day!

Zion Mojave Wilderness

2006-10-17T09:11:00.000-05:00

When there no longer remains clean air to breathe, fresh water to drink, and healthy food to eat... nothing else matters.

Please visit * Zion Mojave Wilderness to see the beauty and majesty at stake and to discover what action you can take to help preserve this wonderful piece of planet earth.

*Slower internet connections may take a few moments to load but the animated slide-show is well worth the wait.

Urban sprawl, jobs, traffic, noise, neon lights, their accompanying forms of pollution and bottom-line corporate profits cannot truly sustain life. These only mask and often deface the true and natural sources of life. Wilderness gave rise to high-quality human life in Utah. Lack of true wilderness will be Utah's demise.

A typical human trait is to fail to appreciate one's own backyard treasures. Utah's politicians and Utah's citizens have a choice to make: preserve Utah's life sustaining essence or sell it to the highest bidder - Utah resident or not. Absentee ownership is fertile ground for resource exploitation. When the resources disappear... their extractors and beneficiaries move on... leaving Utah's residents spoiled and exhausted land and the morale depressing burden of funding and doing the work involved in cleaning up the mess left behind. This nature destroying cycle happens over and over again... please do your homework. Visit thousands of exploited and deserted mining, manufacturing, and oil towns across America. Visit thousands of land parcels utterly decimated (in one year) by mechanized forms of so-called "outdoor recreation."

I, a typical Illinoisan, have long yearned to visit Utah's wild spaces and like 300 million other Americans have not once dreamed of traveling to shop in a "new" Utah mall, counting Utah's traffic lights and high-line power towers, or standing gape-jawed before some "new" manmade structure that obscures Utah's awe-inspiring natural skyline. "New" is a fleeting adjective. "Old," as in "as old as dirt" is a timeless treasure.

Profiteering is, without exception, fleeting. The soul of earth is eternal.

Restraint is a virtue. What profit it Utah residents to reward, largely absentee, corporate profiteers while simultaneously sacrificing their state's own soul; it's wild and natural land?

Democrats Should Control Congress

2006-10-11T08:49:00.000-05:00

As Seen on my ShortStream News Media Blog
I think the Democrats should control Congress after the elections because:

Republicans, having had the advantage of full control of House and Senate, White House, Supreme Court Appointments, Cabinet Appointments, and with mainstream media winds like those blown by FOX News have demonstrated the greed, hypocrisy, and imperialistic nature of their politics. As George W. Bush is so fond of saying, "results matter." We are living the results of Republican Dominated Governance.

Before the Grand Old Party's (GOP's) Selection of 2000 we had:

NO "Surprise" Terrorist Attack on U.S. Soil
NO Fabricated Intelligence Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda
NO Outing of CIA Operative, Valerie Plame
NO Shameless and Junk-yard Dog, (Foaming-at-the-Mouth Vicious) Swift-Boating of Decorated War Heroes (and Congressmen at that!) like John Kerry, Max Cleland and John Murtha... simply because they have the guts to question and oppose the White House
NO Railroading, via Cheap News Media TV Tricks, of Outspoken & Black Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney (Outspoken, Black and a Woman to Boot!!! How Dare her Criticize a Son-of-a-President President!)
NO Standing up, in Cynthia Mckinney's place, a truly "Clueless" and "Obedient" Republican Black Man, Hank Johnson, who doesn't even get it when his own party relishes in repeatedly (in their "Conservative Party" Press Releases) referring to him as the "dark horse" opposition to McKinney. For example see:
PRWeb.com
NO Trashing of Retired Multi-Starred Generals Who Point Out the Failures of the Bush Administration's Execution of War and Foreign Policy
NO Promotions and Pats on the Back for Poor Performances
NO Slam Dunk Intelligence... that actually bounced right back out of the rim.
NO Recusing "due to conflicts of interest" by the likes of John Aschcroft , SEC Chairman, Harvey Pitt and others concerning ENRON, WorldCom and other Scams
NO Precedent to the Multiple Resignations of US Diplomats in protest of Bush's preemptive Strike on Iraq such as John H Brown and John Brady Kiesling
NO $400 Billion Preemptive War on Iraq
NO Question as to Where $9 Billion of that Money is???
NO Blood Bath and loss of 2700+ U.S. Military Men and Women
NO Tens of Thousands of our Young Men and Women Wounded for Life.
NO Generations Lasting Hatred being Fueled by US foreign Policy and Aggression
NO Ongoing Halliburton, Bechtel/Jacobs Haydays... at Everyone Else's Expense!
NO Reason to Feel Ashamed of and Apologize for Abu Ghraib, Our Undisclosed Prisons, Our Out-sourcing of Torture Modus Operandi and Our Own Psychologically Tortured Soldiers Who Sadly End their "Service to our Country" in Psychotic Killing Sprees
NO Guantanamo Bay Indefinite Retentions
NO Growing Global Distrust of USA Intentions and Foreign Policy
NO North Korean Nuclear Weapons Test(s)
NO Iranian Sabre-rattling
NO Phantom WMD
NO Complete Denial and Silencing of UN Chief Weapons Inspectors like 3rd Generation Republican, Marine Intelligence Officer, and UN Iraq Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter, who happened to be screaming as best as he could above Bush's War Drums, "THERE ARE NO WMDs!"
NO Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Mike Scanlion, Karl Rove, et al conspiracy to defraud, of all people, our Native Americans and you, me, aka taxpayers.
NO Fear Fired Meltdown of our Civil Liberties
NO Repeal of Habeas Corpus
NO Credible Evidence of Nation-wide Election Rigging
NO Undemocratic Redistricting to Suit the Party in Power
NO Palpable Attack on Middle-class Citizens and Blue-Collar Workers
NO Open Season on Threatened and Endangered Species
NO Clearcut Assault on our Public Forests
NO Steamroller "Attempt" to Pave Over our Wilderness, Natural, and Roadless Areas
NO Assault on our Hemisphere's Most Pristine Place, the "Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge" (ANWR)
NO Foxes Guarding the Henhouse Approach to Regulation of Coal Fired Plants, Pharmaceutical Corporations, the Mining Industry, and on and on it goes.
NO Miserable FEMA Failure
NO Allowing Vicente Fox Dictating of US Trade and Border Policy
NO Gutting of Social Programs Affecting School Lunch Funding, Prenatal Healthcare, Nursing Home Assistance Programs, Public Mental Health Programs, and on and on it goes.
NO $2 and $3 Dollar a Gallon Gasoline
NO Significantly More (or less) Abortions or Gays Than We Have Today
NO Bogus claims that saving you and me a Couple Hundred Bucks on taxes while offering Billions in Tax Savings to Millionaires and Billionaires (now numbering over 400) somehow and mysteriously, Through the "Altruistic" Maze of Capitalism gives You and Me More Money??? When is the last time any rich person you know got a bonus of money they could certainly live without and offered that money to you? This, in effect, is the promise the Bush Administration and Wall Street makes to you and me. They Lie. It's that simple. Who really believes that "giving more money to the rich makes the poor, one dime less poor?" Tell me who you are. I'm likely more poor than you... maybe using Bush Administration logic you will offer me some of your money. Hmmm?
NO Mark Foley, Gay Predation of Teen-age Pages, Cover Up

Did I mention, Before 2000 We Had No Lying, Stealing, Cheating, Exploitation of Christian Values for Political Gain, offering "Faith-Based Initiative Funds" to Get Religious Organizations Hooked on Tax Dollars and Positioned for Government Intrusion/Regulation/Intimidation and Carrot & Stick Politics, in general?

Oh YES, that's right! You're absolutely right! Before 2000 we had Monica. Sigh. But overall, life was pretty darn good as I recall.

YES we also had NONE of the following:

YES we had NO scared out their best reasoning abilities, soccer moms looking out for "turbines," among the bushes, around the perimeter of their children's Soccer Fields.
YES we had NO Ban on deadly Toothpaste, Hair Gels, Moisturizers, Make-up, Pudding and etc.
YES we had NO President ,i.e., Son-of-a-President "Selectedent" telling us, "War is Peace."
YES we had NO Mass Hysteria!!!
YES we had NO open threats from Venezuela, Mexico, Chile, Syria, Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, and on and on and on.
YES we had NO fact hating, science squelching, "common sense" spouting governance.
Never mind that "common sense" once taught our children the earth rested upon the back of a turtle, or elephant, or on the shoulder of a big strong man.
Never mind that "common sense" once taught our children the sun revolved around our flat earth.
Never mind that "common sense" once taught our children rats spontaneously generated from dirty rags.
Never mind that "common sense" once taught our children that black cats were possessed of the devil and one dare not cross their path.
Never mind that "common sense" once taught our children that dark skinned people had no capacity to learn for they were not really human.
Never mind that "common sense" once taught our children all sorts of things that entire cultures, consisting of full-grown adults, believed to their very core to be true.
YES, before 2000, we had NO fact hating, science squelching, "common sense" spouting good ol' boy, dumbass, cowboy government.
YES we had NO Word's of Warning concerning our Foreign Policy to Bill Clinton from allied leaders like Musharaff, Putin, Chirac, Chinese Presidents Jiang Zemin
and Hu Jintao (but then Clinton did not preside over the sale of a Presidential Boeing 767 to President Zemin (one purchased from Seattle's Boeing Plant and outfitted in Texas with VIP features, including 27 bugging devices, which the Chinese found shortly after delivery... due to static noise the bugs caused in standard equipment). This non-story, at least here in the US, is still poisoning US/China relations. This incident is not over, folks. As hard as the best of us might try, when someone or "some nation" exercises blatant distrust and suspicion in us we don't just forget about it and go on... do we? Neither do World Leaders.
YES we had NO reason to be concerned about a now simmering cauldron of world unrest.
YES we had NO "Unitier," "Decider," "Repeatedly Self-described Hard Worker," "Self-described God Chosen Leader, or "Good Ol' Boy, like ta have Beer with/President's son President."
YES we had NO President who, as the late Ann Richards so eloquently described, "was born with a silver foot in his mouth" and "was born on third-base and thought he'd hit a triple." ...but he did win the Tri-fecta! Remember?
YES we had NO President who had failed at every business venture he attempted but kept getting "rewarded with better offers and circumstances." Even the Saudi's bailed him out of his business woes. Google Arbusto/Harken/Bath/Saudi
YES we had NO President whose long-forgotten brother, Neil, was a central figure in the long-forgotten (media blacked-out) $50 billion S & L taxpayer bailout of the early 90s.
YES we had NO President with a brother who "promised" and "delivered" him Florida.
YES we had NO President whose party loyals own the nations electronic voting machines that cannot, by design, be verified but can be, by design, easily reprogrammed.
YES we had NO President whose father invaded Iraq at the height of his son, Neil's, participation in the $50 Billion S & L Taxpayer Bailout Scam.
YES we had NO President with family ties to the Saudi Royals and the Bin Ladens.
YES we had NO President whose father headed the CIA but did not and does not discuss Iraq with his son, George W. Bush.
YES we had NO ......... Gosh, I could on for hours.... but I won't.

Yes we did without a lot of nonsense before the selection of 2000 but there is this old eastern proverb that asserts, "less is more."

Eastern cultures have had to endure much oppression, poverty, and political corruption over the centuries... I am beginning to understand, better than ever, what they mean by "Less is More."

I certainly wish we had much less of what we have in today's Republican dominated US governance.

Even if Democrats are less of everything the Republicans claim they are...... under present circumstances, less is truly more.

YES, I think the Democrats should control Congress after the elections.

Then, if they screw up we'll find a new and improved party to replace them.

Who said, certainly not God, We are One Nation Under and limited to a "Two-Party" System of Governance?

Wake up, politicians! The winds of change are blowing!

Common sense used to teach, so my Grandpa King said, that anything green might give one gangrene! I remember, so clearly, how he refused to eat or drink from a green dish or cup.

Science has taught us gangrene is a matter of poor blood circulation that allows the invasion of microbial bacteria to go unchecked. The problem has nothing to do with color. The problem is tissue stagnation. The problem is stale, useless blood.

My point is "Green" can actually do a body good and new blood is a necessity, not an option!

Think about it, folks. For once, think like scientists who ultimately reveal common sense for what it truly is.... common, and without verifiable evidence to back it up.

Last chance... Democrats! If you screw this up... I'm going Green... ALL THE WAY TO 2008!

Donkey's & Elephants Fear Greens! Imagine That!

2006-10-10T17:02:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 10, 2006

WHITNEY ISSUES RENEWED GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE CHALLENGE

CONTACT:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor, 815-735-6139
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org

Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, issued a renewed gubernatorial debate challenge this afternoon, during a press conference at the Illinois State Capitol. Rich Whitney issued the following statement:

"Governor Rod Blagojevich has once again demonstrated his contempt for the voters of Illinois and their intelligence by deliberately sabotaging yet another scheduled gubernatorial debate--and then attempting to shift the blame to treasurer Judy Baar Topinka.

While treasurer Topinka has not been entirely blameless in the collapse of debate plans, it is the governor who has twice suddenly and arbitrarily pulled out of debates that had been planned months in advance and weeks after all three candidates have indicated their acceptance of the date time and place.

The first was the debate originally scheduled for southern Illinois, co-sponsored by the public policy institute of the late senator Paul Simon on September 26th. The second was the debate scheduled for October 26th at WTTW in Chicago.

What these two scheduled debates had in common was that in both instances, the sponsors had indicated their intentions to include me. The one occasion on which a debate did take place--the Illinois Radio Network debate, or debacle, on October 2nd was the debate to which I had not been invited.

The pattern, and the conclusion to be drawn, is clear; Rod Blagojevich is afraid to debate me, and he is trying to hide behind Judy Baar Topinka's skirt, and blame her, for his response of cutting and running. That is why, on the two occasions on which he has scuttled previously agreed to debates, he has arrogantly refused to provide any explanation to the debate sponsors or to the people of this state.

The reason he has done this is clear; I have better well thought out answers to the problems facing the people of this state than either of the other two candidates. Rod Blagojevich's strategy is not to rest on substance but to continue to coast on his lead in the polls and his multimillion dollar advantage most of which is expended in a barrage of negative television campaign ads against the other candidate. In fact, in this campaign each of the other two candidates seems to have a strategy based upon trying to make the other appear to be the second coming of George Ryan.

Let me be perfectly clear so that there is no mistake about this; I am issuing an unconditional challenge to the other two candidates in this race to debate me at the time and place of their choosing singly or together as long as I have 24 hours notice and the terms of the debate are fair and equal for each candidate. The people of this state deserve to hear the points of view of all three candidates put to the test of debate so that they can do what people in a democracy are supposed to do; select the candidate who will best represent the public interest."

Rich Whitney on Illinois Pensions, Springfield Oct. 10th

2006-10-09T17:10:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 9, 2006
MEDIA ADVISORY
RICH WHITNEY TO ANNOUNCE POSITION ON ILLINOIS PENSIONS

WHO:
Rich Whitney
Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor
www.whitneyforgov.org
WHAT:
Springfield press conference to announce Rich Whitney's position on Illinois pensions. Whitney will also discuss the elusive issue of the gubernatorial debates and answer questions following the delivery of statements.
WHEN:
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
1:30pm CST
WHERE:
Illinois State Capitol Building
Press Room (Blue Room)
Springfield, Illinois
CONTACT:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor, 815-735-6139
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org

ShortStream News Media: No Spin - Just Flow

2006-10-09T02:57:00.000-05:00

I Invite You to Visit and Post Comments

ShortStream News Media

Whitney: Keynote Speaker, Chicago

2006-10-09T00:38:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 8, 2006

MEDIA ADVISORY

RICH WHITNEY TO BE KEYNOTE SPEAKER FOR CHICAGO EDUCATION FUNDING REFORM FORUM

WHO:
Rich Whitney
Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor
www.whitneyforgov.org

WHAT:
A public forum, sponsored by the Fourth Presbyterian Church of Chicago, where representatives for the Illinois gubernatorial candidates will share their proposals for funding public education in Illinois. Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, will present in person, as keynote speaker. Whitney is the only ballot-qualified candidate in the race supporting the widely-popular income for property tax swap, commonly known as House Bill 750, also making him the only candidate proposing an education funding plan that does not involve state-sanctioned gambling.

Individual media interviews with Rich Whitney will be available by appointment, starting at 5:00pm.

WHEN:
Monday, October 9, 2006
7:00pm CST (Refreshments at 6:00pm)

WHERE:
Fourth Presbyterian Church
126 E. Chestnut St.
Chicago, IL 60611-2014
www.fourthchurch.org
312-787-2570

CONTACT:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor, 815-735-6139
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org

DuaneStream News Media Presents........................ Rich Whitney, Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor

2006-10-08T02:05:00.000-05:00

Welcome to DuaneStream Media!

Where Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor, Rich Whitney, can be Seen and Heard!

See and Hear Green Party Gubernatorial Candidate, Rich Whitney

If MainStream Media Won't Challenge the Two-Party System I will. You too, can Challenge our "Stagnant Quo" MainStream News Media and make a difference in Illinois Politics and Beyond!

Why allow the established media diminish us by calling us "Bloggers?" We are, if we wish to be, much more important than the term "blogger" implies. We are the New Media. It's time we take this new opportunity seriously and begin to deconcentrate power that has been squestered to so few for so long.

I invite you to start your own JaneStream, JohnStream, JoeStream, AbdulStream, NissimStream, JulioStream, JuanStream, MariaStream, GretchenStream LeeStream, LiStream, LeighStream, JungStream, or WhateverStream News Media you so choose. "Just Do it..." and no, Nike Cor[oration did not invent and does not own this phrase.

Start by adding Comments to this Post and Link Progressive Minded Voters throughout Illinois and Everywhere! It's time our antiquated MainStream Media is replaced by a New and Living GreenStream Media!

Trickle-Down Terror, Trickle-Down Torture, Trickle-Down Politics

2006-10-06T20:14:00.000-05:00

Comment Posted to Southern Illinoisan

BREAKING NEWS!

Gitmo guards brag of beatings, statements indicate

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. _ Guards at Guantanamo Bay bragged about beating detainees and described it as common practice, a Marine sergeant said in a sworn statement obtained by The Associated Press.

The two-page statement was sent Wednesday to the Inspector General at the Department of Defense by a high-ranking Marine Corps defense lawyer.

Published on: Friday, October 6, 2006 1:56 PM CDT
=========================================
*Allow up to 48 hours to see comments posted online: Southern Illinoisan

Please, won't you comment too!
Duane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*My Comments: Submitted Friday, October 6, 2006 6:32 PM CDT

Reagan fathered Trickle-Down Economics.
--------
Clinton fathered Don't Ask, Don't Tell... "for the Military."
--------
Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld instituted trickle-down lawlessness.
--------
Hastert, Shimkus, and the Page Program Principals or should I say "Principle-less" in a strange twist of politics adopted, expanded, and immortalized, in infamy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the House of Representatives.
--------
Should anyone be surprised when a mindset that condones the use of torture trickles-on-down to Gitmo?
--------
No Surprises Here.
--------
I'm just waiting for another "surprise" terrorist attack to trickle-down on our soil to distract us (U.S.) citizens from the painful truths that keep oozing from this painfully corrupt Bush Administration.

Duane Short
1113 LaSalle Street
Belleville, IL 62221

Comments extended: Not included online.

Republicans talk about Homeland Security... well, more accurately, that's all they talk about. I assert that the collective mindset, policies, and actions of these Republicans represent the greatest threat to Homeland Security.

They routinely say anyone that is not "with them" is aiding and abetting terrorism.

Do they not understand that mainstream Islam is much more serious about actually practicing what it preaches than is "mainstream" Christianity here in the U.S.A.? Republicans, in their typically narrow-visioned focus on winning votes align themselves with and even claim to be our nation's "Christian Party." These dumbasses don't get that the "outside" world also is affected by what they do. Osama must be in Heaven knowing he can show potential devotees the hypocrisy of this damned Rove concocted "Christian Republican" association. Christians across the nation are angry with the Republican Party for hiding Foley's actions but, and only because Rove so effectively fabricated this "Christian Republican" illusion, the "outside" world sees only our corrupt "Christian Republican Leadership." In my mind, and certainly in the minds of the "outside" world this is no less than a form of national blasphemy. We, here in the USA think "corrupt." Osama and his followers think "blasphemous, heathen, infidel."

Right now all Osama has to do to recruit new Islamic zealots, frustrated with the hypocrisy of the west and particularly the "Chrisitian West," is play about an hour of C-SPAN coverage of the Foley saga or 15 minutes of any other news broadcast Or Osama has the option of showing a "Girls Gone Wild" or "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" clip to prove his point.

Folks, I am in no way excusing terrorism. I would be insulted and disappointed if I thought anyone thought this about me for a second. Mark Foley, however, is now Osama's Poster Boy representing the heathen west. If we remain with our heads literally up our own self-righteous butts and fail to perceive how our nation is looking to rest of the world, and not just avowed terrorists, we are doomed to be on the receiving end of wrath that can only be described as "of volcanic proportions."

Our holier than thou Repulican party has created a monster, in more ways than one. Most recently, this Republican perennial hiding of Mark Foley's professional indiscretions just to preserve their "holier than image" for their religious right base is fueling Osama's flames. If anyone in these United States of America is aiding and abetting terrorists it is the collective mindset of the Republicans and it all starts at the Crown of the Bush and as sure as gravity, trickles down.

Turn the Pages of History backward and we see evidence that my comments are true. Turn the Pages of History forward and we will soon realize the next and imminent terrorist attack on our soil will be shrouded, as is 9/11, in mystery and suspicious circumstances.

Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the regime are desperate. I am, quite seriously, expecting yet another catastrophic and catalyzing "Pearl Harbor."

PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses: Page 51 (for the umpteenth time) I usually don't include that last sentence... but it is taking on more relevance each day.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."

--
This "Pearl Harbor" approach to defense has saved this Bush Administration as it would not have survived the corruption of the 2000 election had not 9/11 occurred to distract the world from our nations' first stolen Presidential election.

Pearl Harbor politics does not only catalyze Rumsfeld's efforts to transform the military, catastrophic events also serve to defend Republican behaviors much like covert proxy wars further imperialistic U.S. agendas. Pearl Harbor-like events not only provide impetus for war but can be used as distractions. Let me explain.

If ever the Republicans (since the 2000 election cycle) needed a distraction from their glaring failures it is NOW!

Friends, you know I pray I'm wrong, but I see no reason to believe we are not about to witness another "Pearl Harbor." Anything less will not save the Republicans. Remember... Bush's pet phrase. "I want to see results." And in his Machiavellian brain, he is thinking... "no matter what it takes." Actually, he has gone so far as to stutter those thoughts in press conferences and speeches, as if the end justifies "all means." A philosophy that embraces the conviction that "the end justifies the means" is exponentially more sinister when "the end," in the first place, is an evil one.

America... Brace Yourself.

Consumer Freedom

2006-10-04T09:30:00.000-05:00

Consumer Freedom? This may sound good on the surface..... but!

Don't Be Fooled. This organization is all about "Corporate Freedom" from constraint, rules, and regulations.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/contact.cfm

This is no more than a Reagan deregulation seed all grown up! Karl Rove is the bullshit (excuse me) fertilizer that helps it grow.

These guys would, if allowed, remove all food labels, force FDA to approve anything that wouldn't kill you in one sitting, and charge you extra for the convenience of not having to decipher the price per ounce/gram/unit and etc.

Consumer Freedom? Sound Familiar? Remember? >>> Iraqi Enduring Freedom

Rovism perverts everything that is good into a ploy to "dupe the little people" into supporting Corporate Fascism. They do it with words!

Folks, I cannot overemphasize the power of their deception via incredibly sinister language grinding techniques.

Please click the link above or below and tell this fascist organization you have their Machiavellian number.

Once there, you can give them your name (wink wink.. I say wink wink because I suspect they are collecting data to sell) email address (an alternate if ya have one) and then one click is all it takes to tell them how you feel or you can write out your opinion.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/contact.cfm

Duane Short
October 4, 2006

p.s. This same kind of sinister Rove Speak lead us into Iraq where (as just reported on CNN) 18 U.S. soldiers have been killed in the last 96 hours. I wrote about the dangers Rove Speak back in 2002 amid Bush's manic lead up to his invasion of Iraq.

Dare to Consider
Grow a Spine America!

March 19, 2002

“It is far easier to retain our freedom and rights than to regain our freedom and rights.”

Dare to consider, with an open mind, that what you see “through” your window to the world (network news, local and national newsprint & etc.) is actually a mural, a painting of sorts, a painting approximating reality enough that one, at a glance, would not question its veracity.

Even the Bush slogan, “Enduring Freedom” is a cruel distortion and abuse of the word Freedom. Humans depend largely on words to to communicate. Words should not be taken lightly. I love and respect words and what this administration does with words literally makes me sick. Their unchecked perversion of words is killing us, literally and figuratively.

Before I discuss the Bush slogan, please be aware that I understand the risk of being perceived as a Bush opponent, one merely grabbing for semantic straws, to make my case. Regardless, I am convinced, when our freedom is at stake one must dare to consider both the glaring and subtle signs of its demise.

Bush’s slogan “Enduring Freedom” used as it is, alone with no explanation, is no less that a psychological ploy to downgrade the connotation of freedom. Because the term “enduring” represents strength the larger connotation of the phrase, on a cognitive level, is generally missed. Please think seriously of all the contexts where you have heard or thought of the term “enduring” where it is used as a verb (as opposed to an adjective). The verb usage of “enduring” is ALWAYS used in connection with something “bad” or “unpleasant.” When is the last time you had the notion you had to “endure” anything that you consider to be a good thing? No, any time the two word phrase, “enduring whatever” enters one’s mind it does so in a context where “whatever” is something bad, something that must be “endured.” Friends, Freedom is not something bad, nor something to be “endured.” Why are we NOT getting it??? Has fear and confusion clouded our thinking to the point that these more subtle issues are no longer perceptible?

The Bush camp, including its fleet of psychologists, (and trust me, psychologists are consulted routinely by all administrations) will dismiss my observation like this. They will say, “because the term “enduring” can be used as an adjective the Bush slogan is meant to be taken (as it has been by most) to simply describe the nature of freedom in our democracy. Don’t buy the White House explanation of this slogan. This slogan is an attempt to twist, ever so slightly our perception of freedom. “W” is the first president to proclaim his vision to basically limit our constitutional and humane freedoms in the name of fighting for our freedom. For example, ask any objective U.S. citizen, having lived through WW I or WW II if he or she gave up even one degree of his or her privacy (excepting military service). Yes, they sacrificed greatly and appropriately but did they give up privacy. Did enormous powerful outside threats cause the government at that time to turn on its own citizens. Yes, Japanese Americans were treated unfairly. Our citizenry and our government has acknowledged that injustice. Yet, Bush proposes to make ALL U.S. citizens prisoners in their own homes. Having advanced technological options, Bush does not need to set up concentration camps. He will simply live in our homes. Everyone recognizes that technology can be used for good or bad. Is it good or bad for George Bush to live in your home? We must each answer this question.

Readers, WWI and WWII were huge historical world events compared to 911. Yes, 911 hit home, but so did 1/27/41 (Pearl Harbor Attack). Glaring distinctions from Hitler’s march and the attack on Pearl Harbor characterize 911. 911 was a bunch of desperados lashing out against the United States, capitalism and the relentless quest for opulence that has become a integral part of the fabric of western democracy. This was not an organized government, bent on ruling the world. In the context of all nations of the world, this was an attack by an incredibly minuscule force that somehow penetrated the United States’ self proclaimed, world’s greatest intelligence agencies and military defenses and struck our capitalistic icons and our military headquarters. No, this is not WW III.

However, Bush is capitalizing on 911 fear in order to have his way, something he is quite used to having. If Bush and his administration can tweak our perception ever-so-slightly that to enjoy freedom, we must give up freedom, privacy, and many of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, they will take freedoms and rights away that we will never enjoy again. Study world history. No example exist where a functional, unchallenged government has given previously expunged freedoms or rights back to its citizens. Only when an oppressive government is replaced by a truly democratic governance have citizens regained lost freedoms and rights. Democracy is just a word. Calling ourselves “democratic” in perpetuity, will not make us “democratic” in perpetuity.

“It is far easier to retain our freedom and rights than to regain our freedom and rights.”

Why has no one questioned the Bush slogan, “Enduring Freedom? This answer is both simple and complex, having to do with the dumbing and numbing of America and evolving social, political and corporate abuses of the English language. Language is an evolving reality. However, when the source of its evolution is driven by a greedy, opportunistic mentality the truth becomes lost in the chasm somewhere between the traditional meaning of a word and its evolved(ing) meaning. Cunning articulaters, who believe taking advantage of the less well-informed is just “good business” or is "politics as usual,” often amass great ill-gotten wealth and power and are honored by those who share their beliefs.

Each of you could give hundreds of examples of words, terms and phrases you have encountered in business contracts, legislation, referendums and so on that you, at some point, discovered did not mean what their “traditional” meaning implied. I’ll give one example. “Unconditional Guarantee” no longer means unconditional or guarantee in the corporate world. Blatant, but legal, marketing abuses of this term are ubiquitous in the business world. There are places on earth where misrepresenting, twisting, or shortfalling truth is still considered to be the same as lying. Not here in the good old USA.

Far too many Americans are too numb and too dumb to consider such linguistic minutiae. This fact is not a condemnation of the American public IQ. This fact is a commentary on the result of decades of opulence, especially among our leaders. As the wealth and education gap continue to widen, the opportunity gap likewise widens.

Rep. Tom Reynolds' Kids... as in Human Shields

2006-10-03T06:09:00.000-05:00

Did you see New York Rep. Tom Reynolds - National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman, in his Monday Press conference as aired on C-SPAN?

He was literally surrounded by a sea of children as the press pelted him with Why? Why? Why? didn't you follow up on Foley. I was sickened by the spectacle of Reynolds standing there among these clearly bewildered kids. I was reminded of how, only weeks ago, rabid Israeli supporters (mostly conservative Republicans) condemned Hezbollah for using innocent men, women, and children as human shields. Sophisticated sleaze uses shields in less violent ways but as shields, nonetheless.

As Rep. Reynolds stood there among literally a couple dozen children (at what would clearly be an adult natured New York press conference!) his abrogation of responsibility was almost as sickening as the sight of all those children standing there like little fidgeting, foot shuffling props (for at least twenty or thirty minutes). As he BS'ed reporters the camera person gradually began to focus on Reynolds, for which I was thankful.

Kids as human shields; what a pity. Western civilization has sophisticated sleaze, irresponsibility, deceit, smokescreening, and outright lying to near perfection. Our Republican mislead Congress and the Bush administration are misleading this nation into the pit of hell.

Rep. Tom Reynolds remained fairly cool throughout the barrage of questions because he knew the presence of the children would give pause to reporters that really wanted to hit him with hard questions. Reynolds' tactic worked to some degree but any astute observer's blood could still reach a boil because the clarity of fact that Foley and the Republican party was being protected was front and center to the Press Conference. Two words describe the Foley saga: Cover Up!

Reynolds' mercurial tap-dancing from one question-dodging statement to the next has become the hallmark of Republican politics. Republicans have become literally incapable of staying on task when it comes to defending a single position, point, or act. They dance around answers to questions with the grace of Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. If the real answer is an obstacle, they hop over or sling themselves around it like it's a mere prop on a fictitious Hollywood or Broadway stage. That's about how seriously they take their indiscretions, lies, and dumb mistakes.

Human shielded or not, Reynolds all but indicted himself, Shimkus, Hastert, and the Republican Party. I am sure Shimkus is about to break up with Reynolds. I wonder if big Dennis Hastert can dance? He can wrestle! This we know.

No... I'm not done, yet. There will be more.

Duane Short
October 3, 2006

Kill to Stop Killing? Dead is Dead

2006-10-02T22:37:00.000-05:00

October 2, 2006

Kill to Stop Killing? Dead is Dead

When on the receiving end... Dead is DEAD - We have become so utterly intoxicated with the game of social, political, and moral debate we have all but forgotten the victim.

It does not matter if I am killed by a bolt of lightning... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by E. coli bacteria... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a speeding bullet... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a psychopathic killer... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a dutiful policeman... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a trigger-happy policeman... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by an axe murderer... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a terrorist... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a drunk driver... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a negligent doctor... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a West Nile infected mosquito... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a heart attack... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a hot dog lodged in my throat... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a lethal injection... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by a Smart or Dumb Bomb... I am dead.

It does not matter if I am killed by state sanctioned hanging... I am dead.

Dead is Dead. Lost in rhetorical debate, have forgotten this most basic fact?

To the Dead... Dead is Dead.

The living find it easy to ignore the Dead. The Machiavellian philosophy, "no man, no problem" is alive and well in our declining western "civilization."

Americans are increasingly creating more sophisticated ways to kill and more sophisticated rationale for killing. I find the most unsophisticated rationale for killing is the ancient "eye for an eye" idea. But then who am I but a dead man? Why listen to me... I am Dead. Why listen to a dead man? No man - no problem... Right?

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
Mahatma Ghandi

Mahatma Gandhi.... when asked what he thought of Western civilization, "I think it would be a good idea."

Horrific crimes naturally make us furious with the perpetrator(s) of those crime and extremely sad for the victims and their loved ones. It is entirely natural to be angry. But is it entirely natural to kill and expect the reactive act of revenge killing to prevent subsequent killing? If ever an oxymoronic and self-perpetuating cycle existed, the conviction or rationale that killing with an expectation that the reactive act of killing will prevent subsequent killing, capital punishment is certainly the cycle of all cycles.

Billions of human beings have been killed in the name of ridding human civilization of evil-doers. The results of this age-old approach slap us in the face day by day. Yet, we keep insisting we kill to show our children killing is wrong. Punish crime? Yes. But why not trouble shoot? I truly wonder if society had been as eager to study the minds of criminals, especially cruel and violent criminals, as its been to kill them if we might be better prepared to identify and prevent heinous acts like happened today in the Amish School in Pennsylvania? Why not study and learn how to help the criminal and simultaneously learn how to better identify and prevent others from committing cruel and violent acts.

In my mind, when we kill criminals or our enemies we reward their hate with hate. When we diminish ourselves to the level of the criminal we validate their hate in the silent, observant minds of others who may be wrestling with hate. When we diminish ourselves to the level of the criminal we validate their hate in the silent, observant minds of our children. Pity.

Charles Carl Roberts, killed himself. Did he administer his own punishment or did he avoid punishment? Did he appease those who would have killed him or did he further infuriate them? Does it matter? If our government killed Charles Carl Roberts would the act bring back those innocent young girls? Would it ease the pain of those girls' loved ones if a policeman or a hangman killed Charles Carl Roberts. Some would argue yes. I can only ask why... why do you say yes?

Most of us have been told by society since old enough to hear, we must have capital punishment if we are to have a safe, law-abiding country. Naturally, if from childhood, we hear a mantra long enough and often enough we tend to believe what we hear. But is it true?

If killing is punishment why did Charles Carl Roberts kill himself when it was the world he said was seeking to punish? Roberts even told his wife, "I cannot take it any more." Why then, did he kill himself if punishment of the world or even himself is the goal? It appears, in Roberts' mind, living was greater punishment than dying. So is killing the killer really punishment? Does not the illogical nature of capital punishment at least warrant consideration? Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to mercy killing than to punishment. Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to exacting that which is God's, revenge. Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to appeasing the hate of the hurt than an administration of justice. I know this last assertion may make one's blood boil. I do understand the emotion. Humans, of faith, are supposed to believe we are something more than animal, something more than a bundle of emotional reactions, something more than instinct.

My faith teaches, I am human and made in the image of God. God made possible our development of brains that allow us to think as well as feel. It is when we exercise one and not the other that we find ourselves in big trouble, individually and/or collectively.

Thinking is not limited to but necessarily includes the prioritization of our emotions. There is hate and there is love. How our thinking prioritizes these emotions determines our position on capital punishment.

I am expecting today's horrific crime at the Amish school in Pennsylvania to re-ignite the endless national debate on capital punishment. I see today's event as a new test case. I am bracing myself for the conservative Republicans to use this tragedy (as they are known to use tragedies) to divide our populous for political gain. I hope our voters are, by now, savvy to the tactics this administration uses to tease out the most votes it can get. We'll see how savvy our voters are, I suppose, in November.

Should this tragedy ignite a new national debate, I wonder what will turn out to be our top priority? Love? Hate? Think about it.

We must face that we will never stop killing, not as long as we have those who accept the circular logic that killing is a valid and effective means to stop killing.

Whether street thug or president of the most powerful nation on earth, those embracing killing as a valid tool to prevent killing will continue the revenge driven oxymoronic practice of capital punishment.

There is no crime in loving our enemies... my faith, in fact, commands me to do so. Yet, many of those of my own faith allow emotions of personal pain and anger cause them to salivate for revenge, in total disregard for some of their most basic commands. My faith teaches, "it is of no particular merit to love those who love you." True obedience to the command to love happens when one loves the unlovable. My faith teaches that loving the lovable is easy and expected. Loving the unlovable is the standard by which God says we will be judged. Society praises us for loving the lovable. Our worship of "lovable" celebrities and even our own "lovable" children demonstrate this clearly. But this is a hollow virtue.

I have heard countless forms of rationale for killing to prevent killing. I do not possess the logic that allows me to accept any rationale heard thus far. But then I should remind those who rely on human wisdom or logic to rationalize killing to prevent killing... my faith commands me not to kill, period. Remember, "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" Remember when Jesus said, "Love your enemies..." I think that implied, as the bumper sticker says, "I think he meant, Don't Kill Them." In the final analysis, the truly faithful don't question God with human logic.... but ya know what? If we do apply logic as perfectly as humanly possible and in a spirit of unconditional love... we can only come to conclusions God has already concluded.

Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Supplemental Gubernatorial Debate

2006-10-01T21:59:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 1, 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE TO FOLLOW IRN DEBATE

CONTACTS:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org
618-528-VOTE (Scheduling)

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org
815-735-6139

A supplemental gubernatorial debate, with Rich Whitney, the Green Party's
candidate for Illinois Governor, will be held shortly following the
Illinois Radio Network debate between Blagojevich and Topinka at Millikin
University on October 2nd.

During the supplemental debate, Rich Whitney will respond to the same
questions asked of the other two candidates. Whitney was excluded from the
Blagojevich Topinka debate, despite having earned a place on the ballot and
polling more than 7% support.

The supplemental debate will be held in the same room as the Blagojevich
Topinka debate, immediately following a press conference in which
Blagojevich, Topinka, and Whitney are all expected to participate.
Approximate start time is 9:30pm in the Albert Taylor Theatre, Schilling
Hall at 1184 W. Main St. on the campus of Millikin University in Decatur,
Illinois.

Representatives of the media are welcome to stay and cover all three
candidates' responses to the questions. In addition, audio copies of the
supplemental debate will be made available for broadcast in MP3 format, at
no cost, to requesting organizations.

A peaceful demonstation is also planned to protest the exclusion of Rich
Whitney from the Illinois Radio Network debate. Demonstrators will gather
at Staley Parking Lot, adjacent to the Albert Taylor Theatre, between 6:30
and 7:00pm.

Devil in the Details: Hugo Chavez's UN Speech

2006-09-30T05:55:00.000-05:00

Source: http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/news/2006unspeech.html

NOTE: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela, and receives its funding from the government of Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.

Venezuela Information Office
733 15th Street NW, Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005
tel: (202) 347-8081 fax: (202) 347-8091

Transcript

HUGO RAFAEL CHÁVEZ FRÍAS
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
REMARKS TO THE UNITED NATIONS
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

Madame President, Excellencies, Heads of State, Heads of Governments, and high ranking government representatives from around the world. A very good day to you all.

First of all, with much respect, I would like to invite all of those, who have not had a chance, to read this book that we have read: Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious intellectuals of America and the world. One of Chomsky’s most recent works: Hegemony or Survival? America’s Quest for Global Dominance. An excellent piece to help us understand what happened in the world during the 20th century, what is going on now and the greatest threat looming over our planet: the hegemonic pretension of US Imperialism that puts at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn about this danger and call on the people of the US and the world to halt this threat that is like the sword of Damocles.

I intended to read a chapter, but for the sake of time, I will leave it as a recommendation. It’s a fast read. It’s really good Madame President, surely you are familiar with it. It is published in English, German, Russian, and Arabic (applause). Look, I think our brothers and sisters of the United States should be the first citizens to read this book because the threat is in their own house. The Devil is in their home. The Devil, the Devil himself is in their home.

The Devil came here yesterday (laughter and applause). Yesterday the Devil was here, in this very place. This table from where I speak still smells like sulfur. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, in this same hall the President of the United States, who I call “The Devil,” came here talking as if he owned the world. It would take a psychiatrist to analyze the US president’s speech from yesterday.

As the spokesperson for Imperialism he came to give us his recipes for maintaining the current scheme of domination, exploitation and pillage of the world’s people. It would make a good Alfred Hitchcock movie. I could even suggest a title: “The Devil’s Recipe.” That is to say, US Imperialism, and here Chomsky says it with profound and crystalline clarity, is making desperate efforts to consolidate its hegemonic system of domination. We cannot allow this to occur, we cannot permit them to install a world dictatorship, to consolidate a world dictatorship.

The speech of the tyrannical president of the world was full of cynicism, full of hypocrisy. It is this imperial hypocrisy with which he attempts to control everything. They want to impose upon us the democratic model they devised, the false democracy of elites. And moreover, a very original democratic model imposed with explosions, bombings, invasions, and cannon shot. That’s some democracy! One would have to review the thesis of Aristotle and of the first Greeks who spoke of democracy to see what kind of model of democracy is imposed by marines, invasions, aggressions and bombs.

The US president said the following yesterday in this same hall, I quote: “everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom.” Wherever he looks he sees extremists. I am sure he sees you, brother, with your skin color, and thinks you are an extremist. With his color, the dignified President of Bolivia Evo Morales, who was here yesterday, is an extremist. The imperialists see extremists all around. No, its not that we are extremists. What is happening is that the world is waking up and people everywhere are rising up. I have the impression Mr. Imperialist dictator that you will live the rest of your days as if in a nightmare, because no matter where you look we will be rising up against US imperialism. Yes, they call us extremists, we who demand complete freedom in the world, equality among peoples and respect for national sovereignty. We are rising up against the Empire, against the model of domination.

Later, the president said, “Today I'd like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East: My country desires peace.” That is certain. If we walk the streets of the Bronx, if we walk through the streets of New York, Washington, San Diego, California, any city, San Antonio, San Francisco and we ask the people on the street: the people of the US want peace. The difference is that the government of this country, of the US, does not want peace; it wants to impose its model of exploitation and plundering and its hegemony upon us under threat of war. That is the little difference. The people want peace and, what is happening in Iraq? And what happened in Lebanon and Palestine? And what has happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and the world and now the threats against Venezuela, new threats against Iran? He spoke to the people of Lebanon, “Many of you have seen your homes and communities caught in crossfire.” What cynicism! What capacity to blatantly lie before the world! The bombs in Beirut launched with milimetric precision are “crossfire”? I think that the president is thinking of those western movies where they shoot from the hip and someone ends up caught in the middle.

Imperialist fire! Fascist fire! Murderous fire! Genocidal fire against the innocent people of Palestine and Lebanon by the Empire and Israel. That is the truth. Now they say that they are upset to see homes destroyed.

In the end, the US president came to speak to the people, and also to say, “I brought some documents Madame President.” This morning I was watching some of the speeches while updating mine. He spoke to the people of Afghanistan, to the people of Lebanon, to the people of Iran. One has to wonder, when listening to the US president speak to those people: what would those people say to him? If those people could talk to him, what would they say? I think I have an idea because I know the souls of the majority of those people, the people of the South, the downtrodden peoples would say: Yankee imperialist go home! That would be the shout that would echo around the world, if these people of the world could speak with only one voice to the US Empire.

Therefore, Madame President, colleagues, and friends, last year we came to this same hall, as we have for the past eight years, and we said something that today is completely confirmed. I believe that almost no one in this room would stand up to defend the system of the United Nations. Lets admit with honesty, the UN system that emerged after WWII has collapsed, shattered, it doesn’t work. Well, ok. To come here and give speeches, and visit with one another once a year, yes, it works for that. And to make long documents and reflect and listen to good speeches like Evo’s yesterday, and Lula’s, yes, for that it works. And many speeches, like the one we just heard by the president of Sri Lanka and of the president of Chile. But we have converted this Assembly into a mere deliberative organ with no kind of power to impact in the slightest way the terrible reality the world is experiencing. Therefore we again propose here today, September 20, [2006] to re-found the United Nations. Last year Madame President, we made four modest proposals that we feel are in urgent need of being adopted by the Heads of State, Heads of Government, ambassadors and representatives. And we discussed these proposals.

First: expansion. Yesterday Lula said the same, the Security Council, its permanent as well as its non- permanent seats, must open up to new members from developed, underdeveloped and Third World countries. That’s the first priority.

Second: the application of effective methods of addressing and resolving world conflicts. Transparent methods of debate and of making decisions.

Third: the immediate suppression of the anti-democratic veto mechanism, the veto power over Security Council decisions, seems fundamental to us and is being called for by all. Here is a recent example, the immoral veto by the US government that freely allowed Israeli forces to destroy Lebanon, in front of us all, by blocking a resolution in the UN Security Council.

Fourth: as we always say, it is necessary to strengthen the role, the powers of the general secretary of the United Nations. Yesterday we heard the speech of the general secretary, who is nearing the end of his term. He recalled that in these ten years the world has become more complicated and that the serious problems of the world, the hunger, poverty, violence, and violation of human rights have been aggravated, this is a terrible consequence of the imperialist pretensions.

Madame President, recognizing our status as members, Venezuela decided several years ago to wage this battle within the UN with our voice, our modest reflections. We are an independent voice, representing dignity and the search for peace, the formulation of an international system to denounce persecution and hegemonic aggression against people worldwide. In this way Venezuela has presented its name. The homeland of Bolívar has presented its name as a candidate for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. Of course you all know that the US government has begun an open attack, an immoral global attack in an attempt to block Venezuela from being freely elected to occupy the open seat on the Security Council. They are afraid of the truth. The empire is afraid of the truth and of independent voices. They accuse us of being extremists. They are the extremists.

I want to thank all countries that have announced your support for Venezuela, even when the vote is secret and it is not necessary for anyone to reveal their vote. But I think that the open aggression of the US Empire has reinforced the support of many countries, which in turn morally strengthened Venezuela, our people, our government. Our brothers and sisters of MERCOSUR, for example, as a block, have announced their support for Venezuela. We are now a full member of MERCOSUR along with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. Many other countries of Latin America, such as Bolivia and all the CARICOM nations have pledged their support to Venezuela. The entire Arab League has announced its support for Venezuela. I thank the Arab world, our brothers of the Arab world and of the Caribbean. The African Union, nearly all of the African Union countries have pledged their support for Venezuela and other countries like Russia, China and many others across the globe. I thank you all deeply in the name of Venezuela, in the name of our people and in the name of truth, because Venezuela, upon occupying a seat on the Security Council will not only bring to it the voice of Venezuela, but also the voice of the Third World, the voice of the peoples of the planet. There we will defend dignity and truth.

Despite all this Madame President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. Hopelessly optimistic, as a poet would say, because beyond the threats, bombs, wars, aggressions, preventative wars, and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning. Like Silvio Rodríguez sings, “the era is giving birth to a heart.” Alternative tendencies, alternative thoughts, and youth with distinct ideas are emerging. In barely a decade it has been demonstrated that the End of History theory was totally false. The establishment of the American Empire, the American peace, the establishment of the capitalist, neoliberal model that generates misery and poverty— all totally false. The thesis is totally false and has been dumped. Now the future of the world must be defined. There is a new dawning on this planet that can be seen everywhere: in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, Oceania. I want to highlight that vision of optimism to fortify our conscience and our will to fight to save the world and construct a new world, a better world.

Venezuela has joined this struggle and for this we are threatened. The US has already planned, financed and launched a coup in Venezuela. And the US continues to support coup plotters in Venezuela. And they continue supporting terrorism against Venezuela. President Michel Bachellet recalled a few days ago… pardon, I mean a few minutes ago… the terrible murder of the former Chilean Foreign Minster Orlando Letelier. I would only add the following: the guilty parties are free. Those responsible for that deed, in which a US citizen was also killed, are North Americans of the CIA. Terrorists of the CIA.

In addition, we here in this room must remember that in a few days it will be the 30th anniversary of that murder and of the horrible terrorist attack that blew up a Cubana de Aviación airplane in mid-flight killing 73 innocent people. And where is the worst terrorist of this continent, who admitted to being the intellectual author of the airplane sabotage? He was in prison in Venezuela for some years, but he escaped with the complicity of CIA officials and the Venezuelan government of that time. Now he is here living in the US, protected by the government even though he was convicted and he confessed. The US government has a double standard and protects terrorism.

These reflections are to demonstrate that Venezuela is committed to the fight against terrorism, against violence and works together with all people who struggle for peace and for a just world.

I spoke of the Cuban airplane. Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist. He is protected here just like the corrupt fugitives who escaped Venezuela. A group of terrorists who planted bombs in embassies of various countries, murdered innocent people during the coup and kidnapped this humble servant. They were going to execute me, but God reached out his hand, along with a group of good soldiers, and the who people took to the streets. It’s a miracle that I’m here. The leaders of that coup and those terrorist acts are here, protected by the US government. I accuse the US government of protecting terrorism and of giving a completely cynical speech.

Speaking of Cuba, we went happily to Havana. We were there several days. During the G-15 Summit and the NAM Summit the dawning of a new era was evident with an historic resolution and final document. Don’t worry. I am not going to read it all. But here is a collection of resolutions made in open discussion with transparency. With more than 50 Heads of State, Havana was the capital of the South for a week. We have re-launched the Non-Aligned Movement. And if there is anything I could ask of you all, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your support to the strengthening of the NAM, which is so important to the emergence of a new era, to preventing hegemony and imperialis.

NOTE: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela, and receives its funding from the government of Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.

Venezuela Information Office
733 15th Street NW, Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 tel: (202) 347-8081 fax: (202) 347-8091

Whitney to Speak in Monee, IL

2006-09-29T21:36:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – September 29, 2006

MEDIA ADVISORY

GUBERNATORIAL CANDIATE RICH WHITNEY TO SPEAK IN MONEE, IL

CONTACTS:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org
618-528-VOTE

George Ochsenfeld, Directior of Field Operations
Whitney for Governor
volunteercoordinator@whitneyforgov.org
708-534-7319

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org
815-735-6139

WHO:
Rich Whitney
Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor
www.whitneyforgov.org

WHAT:
Campaign appearance including a meet and greet, fundraiser, and speech to
address the proposed Peotone airport, budget, clean energy, healthcare,
clean government, and other issues. Free outdoor event, open to the
public.

WHERE:
George's Farm
28020 S. Crawford
Monee, IL 60449
708-534-7319

WHEN:
Sunday, October 1st, 2:00pm-5:00pm

Whitney to Speak in Charleston

2006-09-29T00:22:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – September 28, 2006

MEDIA ADVISORY

GUBERNATORIAL CANDIATE RICH WHITNEY TO SPEAK IN CHARLESTON, IL

CONTACTS:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org
618-528-VOTE (Scheduling)

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org
815-735-6139

WHO:
Rich Whitney
Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor
www.whitneyforgov.org

WHAT:
Campaign appearance including a meet and greet, fundraiser, and speech to
address the budget, clean energy, healthcare, clean government, and other
issues. Individual candidate interviews will be available by appointment,
prior to the event.

WHERE:
A Citizens' Law Office
516 Monroe Ave.
Charleston, IL 61920
217-345-5291

WHEN:
7:00pm on 9/29/06. Individual candidate interviews available by
appointment between 4:00pm and 7:00pm on 9/29/06.

The Imbalance of Power

2006-09-28T19:39:00.000-05:00

Today, your Republican dominated congress voted to further shackle the judicial branch of our government. A two-point balance (legislative & executive) balances power only in a linear sense. A three point balance (legislative, executive & judicial) offers a three-dimensional balance of power. That third dimension brings into balance not only right and left but front to back and is especially valuable when both right and left are so busy loading up their end of the balance they neglect the front to back aspect of any given issue.

Our treatment of detainees is one such issue and the issue that drove Congress to today's vote that renders our judicial branch one step closer to irrelevance.

Our entrenched two-party system oppresses third parties. I am convinced our two-party system has rendered voters closer and closer to irrelevance. A three-party system could only add choice (dimension) to the balance of power among U.S. voters.

In Illinois, Green Party Candidate for Governor, Rich Whitney, offers a third set of positions for voters to consider. Yet, a two-dimensional two-party system fearful of Whitney's intellect continues to disallow his participation in gubernatorial debates.

In a similar sense a 3-pronged system of governance is valuable especially when the other two branches get too cozy... as is the case today. Our two major parties, Republican and Democrat oscillate from being essentially identical to polar opposites. I see them operating as a "good cop (sheep dog)" - "bad cop (wolf)" team that is herding American voters like sheep. A third branch, like a third party, serves as an additional check and balance to power.

The concentration of power is history's clearest threat to human freedom. Why resist a reasonable dispersion of power?

Our judicial branch of governance is presently on the rocks but, happily, there are signs it will not go down without a fight.

Think about the "Balance of Power."

If building a new home... would you prefer it was constructed on the level from right to left only? I suspect everyone would want their home to be on the level, also, from front to back.

A three-point level is the tool of choice if one desires the most accurate and efficient leveling of that which is being constructed. Our nation's government is a house under constant construction. It is far better to level as we go than to have to rebuild later. Fortunately, our nation's founders provided a three-point balance of power that includes a three-way leveling effect on the government.

Today, we should voice our opposition to the shackling of our judicial branch of government by the executive and legislative branches.

While at it, you might want to think long and hard about a three-party system. A tri-pod is far more stable than a bi-pod. Try climbing a standard ladder without leaning it against a third support. A standard ladder is useless without some outside, third point of bearing. Doesn't this kind of make you wonder just what is that support our two-party system is leaning on? Think Corporate America and the mountain of cash they heap upon both parties. Corporate America was never intended to be a "voter" yet it has become the most powerful voter in today's electorate.

I know one political candidate who absolutely refuses corporate donations.... and he is being refused debate privileges by the the two-party system that eagerly accepts cash from Corporate America. Imagine, in America, a fully legitimate gubernatorial candidate's free-speech, in the most important context of democracy, is not just being stifled but being completely silenced and by an entrenched two-party system that claims to serve the electorate. Is this Democracy? Is this even fair is the most basic sense of fairness?

Rich Whitney, using only individual donations, covered the state of Illinois and collected the required signatures to get on Illinois' gubernatorial ballot. Illinois is, by the way, one of the most difficult states for a third party candidate to get on the ballot. Whitney is a legitimate candidate but the system will not let the voters of Illinois hear his positions be voiced in the same debate format as the two major parties enjoy.

An appreciation of our three branches of government and the benefits of three-party governance are discussed together, in this essay, because of their similar effects toward a healthy balance of power, an essential element of a functional democracy.

I, for one, think stifling the distribution of power and the silencing of third-party candidates are insults to democracy.

Two Party System Oppresses Third

2006-09-28T16:28:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – September 27, 2006

BLAGOJEVICH BEHIND EXCLUSION, SUPPLEMENTAL DEBATE PLANNED

CONTACT:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor, whitneyforgov.org
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org
618-528-VOTE (Scheduling)

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor, whitneyforgov.org
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org
815-735-6139

Patrick Kelly, Media Coordinator
Illinois Green Party, ilgp.org
773-203-9631

Rich Whitney, Green Party candidate for Illinois Governor, responded today
to the Illinois Radio Network's decision to exclude him from the
gubernatorial debate to be held at Millikin University, in Decatur, on
October 2nd.

"When it comes to debating me, Blagojevich seems to want to cut and run. I
think he knows that I have better proposals than he does for the problems
facing Illinois," said Whitney. Blagojevich appears unwilling to confront
Whitney, having already refused to commit to a proposed debate in Marion
sponsored by the Southern Illinoisan and the Public Policy Institute
following their invitation of Whitney to participate.

James Anderson, News Director at the Illinois Radio Network, has noted that
debate invitations were accepted before Whitney was on the ballot. "It was
improper for the Illinois Radio Network to extend the invitations prior to
the official certification of candidates by the State Board of Elections,"
said Tim Tacker, Communications Director for the Whitney campaign.
Publicly, the Blagojevich campaign has stated that it is up to the debate
sponsors to determine who to invite; but Anderson refuted this claim,
noting that the Blagojevich and Topinka campaigns "have no interest in
changing the terms of the invitation."

The Illinois Radio Network appears to have used no pre-existing objective
criteria to determine which candidates were excluded, which may raise a
legal issue for their FCC licensed affiliate stations planning to air the
broadcast. By all indications, the only criteria used to determine
participation was "permission" from the Democratic and Republican
candidates.

In response, the Whitney campaign is planning on hosting a supplemental
debate at Millikin University, immediately following the Illinois Radio
Network debate, where Rich Whitney will respond to the same questions asked
of Blagojevich and Topinka. A recording of this debate will be made
available to the media, and at least one radio station has already agreed
to carry the program live.

"In a democracy we want to have well-informed electorate and that means
that the voters need to hear all points of view in order to choose who is
the best candidate. That's what this should be about," said Whitney.
"Voters should be outraged that the Blagojevich and Topinka campaigns have
decided to go forward with this one-on-one debate rather than permit voters
to hear their ideas pitted against mine as well, in a fair contest."

Should I Disappear

2006-09-28T03:46:00.001-05:00

Friend I did all I knew to do back in 2002. I wrote, among other letters to world leaders, the letters below. Almost four years later we are witnessing a world that no longer respects the USA.

Please read what I wrote back then. Only then will it be clear, should I ever mysteriously disappear, what has happened to me. This present Bush administration represents the resurrection of the dinosaurs most of us thought were laid to rest in the 60's and 70's. Reagan came along to prove these reptilian political creatures were still with us. They believe the USA is destined to rule the planet. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the scaly, leathery, and cold-blooded omnivores have shaken the earth with their pre-human behavior. World leaders have had enough. They are shocked the American people would have re-elected or allowed the re-selection of this rogue regime.

They are predictably taking matters into their own hands. What "We the People" refused to correct they are in process of correcting. China is blocking our satellites as they attempt to spy on their military. Can anyone blame them? Our government gladly accepts their child labor in exchange for cheap Wal-Mart goods. Yet they spy on their military.

Fellow Americans, it's over. Be ready. The fall of the USA will not begin with your grandchildren, or children. Friends, we are in free-fall at this moment. You and I will see the end of our hubris in short order. We have allowed our leader to go too far. The fall is here. The fall may not be perceptible because it is a fall of such a grand scale. When all around you is falling the perception of movement is impossible. As the earth spins and we do not perceive the spin, so it is with the fall of our nation from a position of "only" world power to whatever position fate holds for us.

The extinction of the dinosaur will end, however, with a mighty crash.

Duane Short
September 28, 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...maybe it's too little, too late.

I gave up on "We the People" when "We the People" accepted the (S)election of George W. Bush for the second time. I took matters into my own hands. I sent this letter to UN security Council Members. I also wrote then Canada Prime Minister Chrétien concerning Bush's crass treatment of the Kyoto Protocol.

Today, May 18, 2006, the rest of the world has awaken. Hasn't anyone noticed how nations who once demonstrated respect for the U.S. are now thumbing their nose at U.S. dictates? I am not talking about nations like China, Iran, although they are certainly not shaking in their boots. I am talking about Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, Canada, and so many others.

I pleaded with these leaders (and many other leaders of foreign sovereign nations) to do what "We the People" of the U.S. would not. TAKE A STAND! For better AND worse, so many leaders around the world are taking a stand against the hubris of this administration.

Friends, George W. Bush and our politically inbred congress has not only sold out the U.S. but they have reduced the U.S. to an "also ran" in the global race to adapt to an ever shrinking planet.

We are screwed. There is no turning back. We are about to find out what it is like to be an "also ran." An arrogant #1 makes for a miserable #2 or #3 or #4..... etc.

Duane Short
May 18, 2006
==============

Emailed to addresses below on 10-24-02.

Dear Security Council Representatives,

As a native United States citizen I wish to make clear I believe a preemptive military strike by the U.S. and/or any of its allies violates international law and, in particular, the United Nations Charter.

By threatening Iraq, the U.S. is clearly in violation of the UN Charter and is in violation of international law to which the U.S. is a signatory. Article 2 of the UN Charter requires all countries to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered" and states that they must "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state ..." Article 51 of the Charter is the only article permitting individual countries the use of force, and that strictly for purposes of self-defense.

Should this war become a reality it would be an act of lawless aggression on the part of the United States. More importantly, and more disturbing, than knowing the U.S. is willing to violate international law to achieve its nationalistic objectives, is the knowledge that an unjust U.S. attack on Iraq will unleash violent chaos around the world. We are already witnessing examples of widespread violence precipitated by U.S. "tough talk" on Iraq.

The Bush Administration is repeatedly stating Iraq is a threat to the U.S. This repeated claim contradicts the information provided in an important document that serves as no less than a script for the events we see unfolding as the Bush Administration moves forward.

The following claim is made in a report by the "Project for the New American Century" (Released in September 2000) and is said to be one of the KEY findings that supports its recommendations as found in the excerpt from the section titled:

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES: STRATEGY, FORCES AND RESOURCES FOR A NEW
CENTURY

"IT [THE U.S.] FACES NO IMMEDIATE GREAT-POWER CHALLENGE."

By ALL accounts military strategists agree, "The U.S. faces no immediate great-power challenge."

The Bush Administration, embraces these very findings, yet they are trying to mislead Americans, citizens around the world, and their leaders to believe that Iraq is a major threat to the U.S. and the world.

Saddam Hussein is not a true threat to the U.S. and the entire world (except supporters of George W. Bush’s agenda) understands this to be true. Global reactions to a U.S. invasion of Iraq will elicit widespread and long-lived violence from small groups of citizens and militaries commanded by sovereign governments. Catastrophic death of innocent civilians as well as infrastructural and environmental destruction will befall many nations.

I strongly encourage the U.N. Security Council request the U.S. delegation supply a copy of a U.S. right wing think-tank document known as THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. The think-tank grew out of the New Citizenship Project, which was funded by the conservative Bradley Foundation, a part of Rockwell Automation, a former defense contractor. This plan was published in September 2000, “before” Bush was appointed president by the U.S. Supreme Court. A portion of this document outlines the conservatives’ ambitious military agenda in a section titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses -- Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century."

This file can be downloaded from URL

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

This document will enlighten the Council to this U.S. administration’s true agenda.

A religious dogma and political philosophy known as “Manifest Destiny” underlie the formulation of the New Citizenship Project. Manifest Destiny is as old as the founding of the United States. It’s momentum has never diminished but its name has changed to reflect its greater level of sophistication.

Following are quotes from the "Rebuilding America's Defenses -- Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century."

“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle Ea, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”
---
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their colleagues are, collectively, seeking world military domination. They propagate, in America, a sense of national superiority and destiny. They convince many they wish to "save" the "inferior" from themselves. They convince third world nations that if they support our efforts they too, will one day be as wealthy and powerful as we. Collectively this administration functions as one pathological liar. Sadly, it seems many Americans and citizens of other nations are being fooled.

I am a U.S. patriot. I love my country and I love democracy. I, like tens of millions of U.S. citizens, realize one nation cannot and should not try to force democracy on any other nation. To attempt to do so is a contradiction and mockery of democracy. With great sadness I confess I believe controlling Iraqi oil and gaining greater military advantage in the middle east is the true motive of the Bush administration. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Please help patriotic U.S. citizens reign in the frightening ambitions of our current administration.

Again, I urge the Security Council to research The Project for the New American Century and the philosophy of Manifest Destiny that serves as its foundation.

With Great Respect and Hope for the Planet,

Duane Short
5255 Marion Road
Metropolis, IL 62960

618-564-3991

woodmist@shawneelink.net

.....................................................................
from the website: www.iraqpeaceteam.org

October 17, 2002

Urgent Action: As the Security Council enters its second day of debate on a new resolution relating to military action against Iraq, Voices would like to generate a huge number of letters to specific members of the SC. I spoke two days ago with Mr. Hans von Sponeck and he concurred that this could be an effective action at this time. Letters should go to three of the permanent members of the SC (France, China, Russia) and to Ireland (currently president of the SC) and to Denmark (currently heading the EU).

Here are the FAX numbers and E-MAILS for the member states we are suggesting:

Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China to the UN

FAX: 212-634-7626
e-mail: china@un.int

Permanent Representative of Denmark to the UN
FAX: 212-308-3384
e-mail: nycmis@um.dk

Permanent Representative of France to the UN
FAX: 212-421-6889
e-mail: france@un.int

Permanent Representative of Ireland to the UN
FAX: 212-752-4726
e-mail:irleland@un.int

Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN
FAX: 212-628-0252
e-mail: rusun@un.int

*note: these addresses have been verified with each office.

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A2
Email Address: pm@pm.gc.ca

Dear Prime Minister Chrétien,

I am writing to strongly encourage you to exercise bold
international leadership by committing Canada to ratifying
the Kyoto Protocol during your trip to Johannesburg next
week for the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD). Should you do so, you will effectively deliver the
protocol to the world community, and you will go down in
history as a global environmental hero.

Your enabling of global climate change policy would
effectively pull the WSSD back from the brink of
irrelevance by delivering a finished international protocol
that was born 10 years ago at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro. Only Russia's ratification will remain - and they
are widely expected to do so soon.

More than 76 per cent of Canadians think Canada should
adopt the Kyoto protocol at the WSSD in Johannesburg. This
is appropriate given that Canada stands to be particularly
hard hit by climate change; including coastal flooding,
loss of permafrost, shifts in natural ecosystems, forest
decline, and more severe droughts and floods.

Your government has spent years consulting Canadians on
this matter, and clearly the vast majority would support
your bold global leadership. Of course not everybody will
be happy when the decision is made - but that is what
leadership is about. Please - for the sake of global
ecological sustainability and the future of all our
children - announce Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol next week.

As an embarrassed citizen of the U.S I would like to add the following comments.

How can Bush be so arrogant as to defy scientific data accepted, globally, by experts in climatology and many other related disciplines? His recent withdrawal of the U.S. commitment to support the Kyoto Treaty is simply "stupid" and politically irresponsible.

Bush, as though the health of billions of present and future people around the globe is secondary to the bank accounts of present day U.S. citizens (voters), infuriates world leaders and the environmentally aware.

Those who know me best know I respect the office of U.S. president and that I rarely use the term ”stupid.”

However, I cannot keep silent. President Bush is totally oblivious to current science. How much evidence of this do we need before we act to block his reckless pursuit of a strong economy at all costs.

Bush observed the power of a great economy when our voting public winked at Clinton’s personal mistakes.

Political analysts were quick to point out the fact that our strong economy was Clinton’s saving grace.

Bush knows he, as much as Clinton did, will need similar political armor.

He is willing to trade the health and welfare of future generations for four more years of prosperity.

U.S. citizens, and in effect, the entire population of this planet, will suffer a great environmental injustice if we wink at Bush’s recent assault on our most threatened natural resource, the air we breathe.

The U.S. makes up about 3% of the worlds human population. We contribute 25% of all the ozone depleting gases to our planets atmosphere. Our waste is a global concern, not just a U.S. issue.

I have always believed each nation should take care of its own “first.”

But who is Bush really taking care of?

Bush is playing his nationalistic sentimental card to further his separatists causes and pad the pocketbooks of his oil & gas cronies.

Why would anyone, especially in a democratic society tolerate this kind of economic tyranny and environmental injustice?

“When no longer remains clean water to drink or fresh air to breathe nothing else matters...not even all the money in the world.”

Please voice Canada's objection to Bush’s Bad Air.
----------

"We the People"

2006-09-20T06:35:00.000-05:00

Friends and Patriots
It is not presumptuous to remind ourselves who is in charge."We the People" are the Government... "We the People" are in charge... but only if "We, that's You and I," have the sense of patriotic duty and courage to be in charge.

I believe it is time to charge forward. Those we have elected haven't the will and/or courage to do what they and all of us know must be done... Impeach George W. Bush! It is time "We the People" stop acting like scared sheep and take control of this rogue Bush administration. We have our U.S. Constitution and an important but little known set of guidelines that have long empowered us to do what we know must be done.

Impeach for Peace, a Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson’s Manual"). This document actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves.

"Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

Feel free to download it, print out TWO copies, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, etc.), and send in two letters today (One to the head of the Judiciary, and the other to John Conyers lead Democrat in the House Judiciary). There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative.

Hold on to the other copy of the two letters until October 12th when we're having everyone send them in.

That's right — to make a big impact, we're having everyone send it in on the same date (Over 165,000 downloads so far representing over 622,000 mailings). We hope to flood the Judiciary Committee and John Conyers office with sacks of mail and cause a newsworthy event to further pressure the Congress to act on the memorials. Although, it's important to keep in mind that in the 1826 precedent, impeachment resulted as a result of a single memorial. Yours might be the one.

Get the PDF to send in, and DIRECTLY initiate the impeachment of Bush:
•Regular Version [pdf]• (html version)

•Extra Credit (your representative) [pdf]• (html version)

•For folks in District of Columbia [pdf]• (html version)

•District of Columbia Extra Credit!! [pdf]• (html version)

Frequently asked Questions and Answers

Concerns over the strategy of pushing for impeachment in this way?
See the 'Arguments Against Impeachment' at the bottom of the main page.

Audio, provided with permission from the "Mike Malloy Show."

EMAIL ALL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THIS!!

We would especially like to thank ImpeachBush.tv for their support, and whose charges related to impeachment we used in the creation of this document.

Also, if you're interested:

Information regarding Impeachment procedure

Precedent: Judge Peck's Impeachment supplied by the U.S. House of Representatives and policyreview.org.
House rules that allow for the submission of the memorial

Jefferson's Manual

Jefferson's Manual is a sort of interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Within the Manual itself, the section covering impeachment is designated Section LIII. Section 603 refers to the section of the entire volume (including the Constitution and Rules) in which you'll find the listing of acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor.

"In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 552); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (April 15, 1970, p. 11941-2); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444)."

Source: U.S. Government Printing Office
Precedents:
Hinds - III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515

Cannon's - VI, 552

Peck and contempt (care of policyreview.org)

There is the case of Judge James H. Peck, an 1830-31 impeachment and acquittal. President Monroe had appointed Peck to the bench in 1822. In 1828, the Democrats swept to power. That met the condition for partisan conflict.

Peck was judge in Missouri in a series of land claim cases in the territory of the Louisiana purchase. The law was complicated, the interests involved huge. In the first such case, in 1825 (the account here draws mainly on Bushnell’s in Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes), Peck ruled against the client of a lawyer named Luke Edward Lawless. Because of the high degree of interest in the case, Peck published his ruling in a St. Louis newspaper in 1826. Shortly thereafter, a detailed rebuttal of Peck’s ruling appeared in another newspaper under the byline, "A Citizen." Peck was furious at the attack. He believed the "Citizen" rebuttal, in addition to its flawed legal reasoning, was replete with errors and misrepresentations of his ruling. Lawless’s authorship soon became known.

Bushnell writes:
Peck held the letter to be a contempt of court, sentenced Lawless to twenty-four hours in jail, and suspended him from practicing in federal court for eighteen months [a serious blow to Lawless’s livelihood as a lawyer specializing in land claims before the federal courts]. As the basis of the contempt ruling, Peck found that Lawless acted "with intent to impair the public confidence in the upright intentions of said court, and to bring odium upon the court, and especially with intent to impress the public mind, and particularly many litigants in this court, that they are not to expect justice in the cases now pending therein."

Lawless felt he was entirely within his rights to criticize a published decision and saw the contempt ruling as a tyrannical affront to the Constitution. He began a long crusade against Peck that ultimately led to impeachment nearly five years later on one article dealing solely with the judge’s treatment of Lawless. The article accused Peck of acting "to the great disparagement of public justice, the abuse of judicial authority, and to the subversion of the liberties of the people of the United States." James Buchanan, who went on to be elected president in 1856, was chairman of the House managers.

Peck maintained that his contempt ruling was within his powers as a judge, and his defenders argued that even if it went too far, Peck did not, as the article alleged, act with bad intent, believing that he possessed sufficient authority for his actions. At a minimum, however, it seems fair to say that Peck’s actions from the bench were harsh enough to meet the test of genuinely dubious conduct.

Peck was acquitted with 21 votes in favor of removal and 22 against. Where was the abuse of the separation of powers here? In this case, not in the statute books but in the common law — the precedents Peck relied on to hold Lawless in contempt and to sentence him harshly. As Bushnell observes, Peck’s defenders "sought to refute the charge of abuse of the contempt power by citing English and American precedents supporting the authority of courts to punish for contempts like Lawless’s." The House tried to hold his conduct to the standard of its more circumscribed view of judicial contempt powers. The Senate was not willing to rely on the House’s assertions to the extent necessary to remove Peck.

But the Senate, like the House, can hardly be said to have found Peck’s conduct salutary. Both chambers amply demonstrated this by approving, within a month of Peck’s acquittal, legislation introduced by Buchanan restricting contempt findings in federal courts roughly along the lines of the terms the House managers had unsuccessfully tried to apply in Peck’s impeachment. Contempt could be found in misbehavior in a courtroom or close enough to it to disturb its proceedings; or in misbehavior in such business of the courts’ as filing motions and briefs; or in the failure to obey a lawful court order. It could not be found in a newspaper rebuttal to a court’s decision. Buchanan’s legislation governs contempts in federal courts to this day.

Lawless' actual memorial: Source-U.S. House Precendents: Hinds III, 2496-2499

More information on Peck's impeachment; Carnegie Mellon University Universal Library

Petitions, memorials, and private bills

[109th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 108-241]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hruletx-69]

[...]
[[Page 593]]
Rule XII
receipt and referral of measures and matters
[[Page 599]]
Petitions, memorials, and private bills
3. If a <> Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has a petition, memorial, or private bill to present, he
shall endorse his name, deliver it to the Clerk, and may specify the
reference or disposition to be made thereof. Such petition, memorial, or
private bill (except when judged by the Speaker to be obscene or
insulting) shall be en
[[Page 600]]
tered on the Journal with the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner presenting it and shall be printed in the Congressional
Record.

At the first organization of the House in 1789 the rules then adopted
provided for the presentation of petitions to the House by the Speaker
and Members, and for the introduction of bills by motion for leave. In
1842 it was found necessary, in order to save time, to provide that
petitions and memorials should be filed with the Clerk. In 1870, 1879,
and 1887 the practice as to petitions was extended to private bills, at
first as to certain classes and later so that all should be filed with
the Clerk (IV, 3312, 3365; VII, 1024). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1
of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

Petitions, memorials, <> and other papers addressed to the House may
be presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV, 3312). Petitions
from the country at large are presented by the Speaker in the manner
prescribed by the rule (III, 2030; IV, 3318; VII, 1025). A Member may
present a petition from the people of a State other than his own (IV,
3315, 3316). The House itself may refer one portion of a petition to one
committee and another portion to another committee (IV, 3359, 3360), but
ordinarily the reference of a petition does not come before the House
itself. A committee may receive a petition only through the House (IV,
4557).

Source: U.S. Government Printing Office

Impeach Bush - Evidence Warrants Impeachment

2006-09-20T05:51:00.000-05:00

"Iraq War Profiteering: Halliburton Abuses Contracts"
Just One of Many Impeachable George W.Bush's Offenses: Read On

Impeach Bush Yourself!

This is much more than just a petition.

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.

You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.

You have the Power to Impeach Bush but only if you use it! http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.

If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/

If you're concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace."
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Charges and Evidence:
Impeachment of George W. Bush

ILLEGAL WAR

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371;

Click here to See the Evidence

ILLEGAL SPYING *Update - Recently Found Guilty by District Court

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805;

Click here to See the Evidence

ILLEGAL TORTURE *Update -Found Guilty by Supreme Court

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land";

Click here to See the Evidence

ILLEGAL DETENTION *Update - Found Guilty by District Court

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law;

Click here to See the Evidence

ILLEGAL RELEASE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush authorized the leaking classified national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter;

Click here to See the Evidence

Iraq War Profiteering: Halliburton Abuses Contracts

2006-09-19T13:48:00.000-05:00

War profiteering: Just One in a String of Impeachable Offenses Committed by George W. Bush

Please send this video to everyone you can. Direct your attention to Halliburton employee attorney, Alan Grayson's testimony. He nails, by quoting Abraham Lincoln's address on Civil War profiteering, the war profiteering being conducted by Halliburton and other corporations like Bechtel, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), Custer Battles, and others. His testimony will make your skin crawl. You just have to watch this video... you can fast forward to Grayson's testimony is you must... but this is a congressional hearing all Americans should be aware of. Grayson's testimony runs from video minutes 22 to 28. Grayson quotes Lincoln in minute 27 to 28.

***********************************************************************
Video:
Senate Democratic Policy Cmte. on Contract Abuses in Iraq (09/18/2006)

Under "Recent Programs" Click:
Senate Democratic Policy Cmte. on Contract Abuses in Iraq (09/18/2006)

***********************************************************************

Bush, Cheney and the Corporations who reside in the Cayman Islands wrap themselves in the American Flag while defrauding in every possible way the American people who pay them billions of hard earned tax dollars. These people hate your country as they lead it into the pit of hell... and what are we doing? Watching? Waiting? Hoping it will all just go away?

Be mad folks. You should be seeing red. Something is wrong if you are not so mad you're about to explode. Am I trying to incite a riot. Yes I am!

...and if U.S. Intelligence or Bush himself is reading this... I just don't care! You, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, hate this country and the government you parasitize. Those who protect those who are destroying it from within love money and power to the exclusion of loving this nation. I care about this country... you don't! I have children who will not inherit power and prestige. Yes, I care for this country and the well-being of my descendants. I care enough to let traitors throw me in jail. Go ahead! Do me in. Isn't that your policy? No man... no problem. You can silence me only in death... but then there will be more voices. Even voices from the past will haunt you.

Abraham Lincoln said this about war profiteers, but he likely never imagined one of his successors (you, George W. Bush) would not only allow but coordinate and protect the war profiteering criminals.

Lincoln in proposing enactment of the Whislteblowers False Claims Act said, "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains of the South and their countrymen molder in the dust."

Maybe the "we the people" should hope you (big brother) are invading our privacy... this is likely the only way our voices will ever be heard by you. If you won't listen to voices you steal from then you leave us no choice but to vote you out of power. If you have already stolen our elections "we the people" have no choice but to revolt. Let me remind you George W. Bush... nothing in our Constitution states that if any administration fails to recognize "we the people" as the ultimate governing power that "we the people" are, in fact, powerless. To the contrary, our Constitution (not just yours) gives "we the people" the final word. We can impeach you and our military (the people's military) can physically remove you and your regime form office should you refuse to honor the wishes of the people. Yes, I hope you intercept my messages... I have nothing to hide... I am not the traitor.

Duane Short
September 18, 2006

Whitney: Keep the Illinois National Guard Out of Iraq

2006-09-19T13:34:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – September 19, 2006

Contact:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor, whitneyforgov.org
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org
618-528-VOTE

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor, whitneyforgov.org
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org
815-735-6139

WHITNEY: KEEP THE ILLINOIS NATIONAL GUARD OUT OF IRAQ

As governor, Green Party candidate Rich Whitney will work to end the
involvement of the Illinois National Guard in the occupation of Iraq and
will prevent any further mobilization, making him the only gubernatorial
candidate to have a position on this important issue.

As a congressman, Rod Blagojevich voted to authorize President Bush to
attack Iraq. Rich Whitney opposed the war before it began, understanding
that the real goal was to ensure control of Iraq's oil and economy by giant
U.S. corporations - the same corporations that buy the votes of Democratic
and Republican politicians.

“I will not consent to sending our young men and women to fight and die in
the service of corporate greed, in an ill-conceived war that is making us
less safe and more hated around the world and that is starving our state
and local governments of funds to meet human needs at home,” Whitney said.

As commander in chief of the Illinois National Guard, the governor has the
authority to veto deployment of Guard units for federal duty. Whitney
acknowledged that, in response to the refusal of several state governors to
consent to mobilizations for operations in Central America under the Reagan
administration, Congress limited the power of governors to veto a
mobilization “because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or
schedule of such active duty.” However, he argued, this leaves open the
possibility of a veto because of the illegality of the mission.

The invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq is plainly illegal under
international law, particularly the U.N. Charter, which “as a whole imposes
a general prohibition on the use of force to resolve conflicts in
international relations,” Whitney said. The only exceptions are a specific
authorization by the U.N. Security Council or the right of self-defense,
the latter of which did not apply because the U.S. was neither attacked nor
even threatened by Iraq.

As such, Whitney said, the invasion and occupation were and remain acts of
aggression, a war crime under international law. Further, he argued that as
a government official, he would be legally required to not participate in
such a crime by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which states that
“Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a
crime against humanity... is a crime under international law.”

“I will not be even a complicit or passive participant in a crime under
international law," Whitney said. "I will do everything possible to prevent
the sacrifice of any more human life in the service of such a crime."

Defense of Denial: A Strategy

2006-09-17T14:20:00.000-05:00

Tone Deaf Denial
A Defense of Denial

by

Duane Short
September 17, 2006

I've been asked, "Duane, why do you convey various degrees of anger with those who reject your environmental messages?" I answer, "my anger assumes those who disagree are intelligent enough to understand these critically important and easily deciphered environmental issues... if they really wish to understand. Would recipients of my messages rather I assume those who disagree with my messages are too ignorant to understand... or, at least, to offer meaningful repudiation of my messages. Should I assume their ignorance, I could present my messages in a tone of pity rather than anger. Would my conveyance of pity be more desirable than my anger? I suppose only the individual recipient of my messages knows for sure which tone is truly more appropriate."

Some ask me, implying I am not objective, "why use a tone at all?" I answer, "I suppose that would be considerate of the tone-deaf who, if also in denial of irrefutable facts, reject my messages."

I defend my objectivity with cynicism because the seemingly innocent suggestion I tone down my message is, in fact, a cynical suggestion. The suggestion, however subtle, implies my message is not worthy of passion or, at least, emphatic enthusiasm.

This contrived framing of the question is a strategy to defend their denial; a strategy developed by those refusing to face the physical realities of a finite planet . I call it, the framing of their Defense of Denial. Many of those who prefer "I tone down my message" fully accept and even enjoy, infomercials featuring consumers giddy with delight at the wonders of arch supports, face creams, mega-mansions on hurricane-prone beaches, laxatives, get rich quick schemes, sharp knives, herbicides (plant killers) and the like. Then, I am asked to tone down an environmental conservation / preservation message that - if heeded and acted upon - can help prevent or at least delay planetary scale water shortages, carcinogenic and other disease causing pollution, genetic abnormalities, global warming, and perhaps full blown ecological collapse.

I am asked, by some, to speak in monotone. Why don't they just tell me to shut up? Telling me to shut up would reveal their true state... "a defensive state of tone deaf denial."

Whitney to Debate in Marion September 26th

2006-09-13T23:42:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - September 13, 2006

RICH WHITNEY INVITED TO SOUTHERN ILLINOIS GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE
Green Party candidate for Illinois Governor invited to participate in

September 26th Gubernatorial Debate.

Contact:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor
www.whitneyforgov.org
618-528-VOTE

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor
www.whitneyforgov.org
815-735-6139

Patrick Kelly, Media Coordinator
Illinois Green Party
www.ilgp.org
773-203-9631

Phil Huckelberry, Co-Chair
Illinois Green Party
www.ilgp.org
309-268-9974

Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, has
been invited to participate in a gubernatorial debate in Marion,
Illinois, on September 26th, 2006. The debate is co-sponsored by the
Southern Illinoisan, the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at SIUC,
and WSIU Public Broadcasting.

Governor Rod Blagojevich and challenger Judy Baar Topinka orally
committed to this debate, and the Topinka campaign has confirmed that
they are fine with Rich Whitney's invitation; however, Blagojevich has
previously indicated that he may not participate if Rich Whitney is
included. A deadline of September 19th has been established for all
three candidates to confirm their participation in the debate.

The Southern Illinois debate committee's invitation was in response
to a recent Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll that showed Rich Whitney
surpassing the 5% support requirement previously established by the
committee.

"The voters deserve to be fully informed and that is what this debate
should be about. We want a fully informed electorate so they can
select the best candidate, with the best proposals for the people.
The only way to do that is to have all the candidates in the
debates," said Rich Whitney.
--

Have Your Say on Iraq - Here's one of my many "says"

2006-09-01T16:57:00.000-05:00

Dr. David Sanders, candidate for the office of U.S. Representative for the 4th Congressional District of the State of Indiana.

Dr. David Sander's campaign website offers viewers an opportunity to "Have Your Say on Iraq. He poses the questions: What is the United States role in Iraq? What can be done to improve the deteriorating situation in Iraq?

Below are my thoughts; thoughts you may or may not share.
---
Winston Churchill made these statements. Like him or not there is great truth in them.

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” - At least in the five years -

“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.

“If you are going through hell, keep going.”

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ...and I, Duane Short, say "confront... but don't kill them."

In the middle quote Churchill, posthumously, implies we move on... as in, "get the hell out of Iraq."

If we could stay and produce positive outcomes we should stay... but we cannot because we went in illegally and under false pretenses. During our occupation we have made many strategic errors, operational blunders (e.g., Abu Ghraib), and have committed a litany of malfeasances. For example, nine BILLION dollars intended to help Iraqis is gone, utterly without a trace. I could go on but will not, here.

In the end we must admit before we can correct this administration's mistakes and crimes. Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike must share blame as their votes on Iraq issues warrant. We cannot correct course by keeping the same captains at the wheel that took us so terribly off course into such perilous seas of discontent.

Nothing we do will, at this point, will be pretty but in the old days this was referred to as paying for our sins. Unfortunately, innocent Iraqis will pay as well. Bush supporters can keep calling Bush's actions anything they want but there is no worse error than to attempt to cover past sins. We, as a nation, must face our sins, even those of us who (unsuccessfully) fought long and hard to prevent Bush's invasion of Iraq.

The sooner we leave, the sooner the smoke and fog of war will clear. Only then will Iraqis begin to complete their march through and out of their seemingly unending hell.

We can help Iraqis economically and via many humanitarian forms of benevolence, but not from the end of a gun barrel or from high-flying jets dropping so-called smart bombs. Nor can we impose our form of Democracy on them. Democracy of any form can only be self-willed, self-fashioned, and self-imposed. The Bush administration is seeking to impose its narrow political will on the new Iraq. Nothing could be less effective and less smart.

Good News for Mitchell, Indiana & 4th District

2006-09-01T15:47:00.000-05:00

Anonymous said...: NEWS ADVISORY

David Sanders—Democratic Candidate for US Representative (4th District) and the Mayor of Mitchell, Butch Chastain, Discuss Opposition to a Proposed Massive Explosion Near Mitchell

Wednesday, August 30,2006--Dr. David Sanders, candidate for the office of U.S. Representative for the 4th Congressional District of the State of Indiana, and the Mayor of Mitchell, Butch Chastain, appeared at a press conference at 10:00 AM Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at the Mitchell City Hall, 407 S. 6th Street in Mitchell.; “It was reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal that it was proposed that Indiana become Ground Zero for the testing of a massive explosive. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is planning an explosion called “Divine Strake”—the detonation of one million four hundred thousand pounds of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. It was originally scheduled for the Nevada Test Site. After protests from residents and questions from members of Congress from both political parties, it was indicated that the test would be postponed and probably held elsewhere. A quarry near Mitchell and Bedford was suggested as the new potential site.; “Here is the description of the aftermath of the explosion from the head of DTRA, ‘it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons.’; “A spokesman said, "The dust cloud ... may reach an altitude of 10,000 feet.”
Dr. Sanders stated, “Detonating this explosion here would have been completely unacceptable. If it is not safe for the middle of the desert in Nevada, it is not safe for a populated area like Bedford. Negative impacts on the highly valuable limestone of the area and upon groundwater have been discussed.”; “We have been informed that the site here in Lawrence County is not under consideration now. Why it was initially mentioned by a DTRA spokesperson is still a mystery. I believe that we should regard this settlement as a victory for community activists. I was proud to be a part of the opposition. I applaud Mayor Chastain and his efforts. In my judgment ongoing vigilance is nevertheless necessary.; “It is astounding that the incumbent Congressman for this district was apparently not aware of Bedford’s identification as a possible test site despite mentions of this fact in the media. It is even more incredible that his highly condescending response to concerns about the explosion was that Indiana ‘needs to be educated about this project and its possibilities.’; “The people of Indiana did not need to be ‘educated’ about the ‘possibilities’ of Divine Strake. We have been educated about the fact that, according to the owner of the quarry, a spokesperson for DTRA apparently identified a quarry in Mitchell as a potential test site for Divine Strake without notifying the quarry owner. We have been educated about the fact that there were previous DTRA explosives tests at the quarry without any public notification. We have also been educated that Congressman Buyer does not care about the people of Lawrence County. It is evident that Congressman Buyer needs to be ‘educated’ about his responsibility to defend the interests of his constituents. Actually, it is not surprising that a Congressman who wanted to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan (“Put a tactical nuclear device in and close these caves for a thousand years," said Buyer in a 2001 interview with Indianapolis television station WRTV) did not oppose a massive explosion in a part of the district he almost never visits and takes for granted. It is time that the people of the 4th District use their votes to “educate” the incumbent about the proper role of a United States Representative.”; Dr. Sanders is an Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Purdue University. His expertise concerns gene therapy, cancer research, biodefense, and pandemic influenza. His research on the Ebola virus led to his participation in a United States Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention Program. His responsibilities included inspecting a formerly secret bioweapons laboratory in Siberia.; http://www.sandersforcongress.org; Dr. Sanders’ connection with Purdue University is mentioned for identification purposes only and does not imply University endorsement.

Will Blagojevich and/or Topinka Debate Green Challenger Whitney?

2006-08-31T13:44:00.000-05:00

Please Forward to your Illinois Friends, Schoolmates, and Associates
Note: In case you're concerned - A nation of 50 Green Governors would not do one thing to take Democratic Seats from the House or Senate (not that in every case this would be a bad thing). Support both common sense and intellect. Vote for Rich Whitney, Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor.

Reward a system of fair-minded and humane intelligence for the common good of the people... Why vote for the broken and corrupt good ol' boy system of status quo for the good of only those who benefit as power-brokers of status quo! Go Ahead! Rock the Boat by Voting for Rich Whitney - Governor of Illinois!

Vote Whitney for Illinois Governor 2006

Third Party scares Two-Party System to Death
Why would one who has the two-party system in his and her court (and claims to be the best candidate) fear debating a serious third party candidate? Is it because a rocking boat scares them to death? Perhaps they know, in reality, they cannot swim without the protective "floatease" of the two-party system. Could it be that they fear adding an intelligent third party candidate, like Rich Whitney, to their flat-bottom boat might just cause them to fall overboard and sink?

Duane Short
August 31, 2006

WHITNEY AND ILLINOIS GREEN PARTY STATE STATE TO BE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT

This morning, the State Board of Elections voted unanimously to certify the Green Party state slate to appear on the November ballot. The people of the State of Illinois will now have a third, and better, choice of candidates for all state constitutional offices.

The Green Party slate has come a long way to get this far. First, we had to overcome the legal roadblock that the two corporate-sponsored parties erected against all third-party efforts in this state. We had to collect 25,000 signatures in just 90 days – five times the number of signatures that their candidates had to collect – just to qualify to be on the ballot. We accomplished that, collecting well over 39,000.

We had to overcome another roadblock when the Blagojevich machine used its staffing and monetary advantage in challenging our petitions before the State Board. We were forced to hire a ballot defense coordinator and pay for legal services to defend our petitions against the challengers. Apart from that, the rest of our defense lay in the hands of dozens of dedicated volunteers who worked many long hours for several weeks to defend our petition signatures, line by line. While these volunteers did not have to be paid for their time, this obviously diverted their time and energy from the real work of the campaign – which, of course, was just what the Blagojevich machine wanted. Fortunately, some of you in the news media were good and responsible enough to cover the story exposing this underhanded ploy. And, as of today, we beat the Blagojevich machine back, winning this vital battle for ballot access.

We’re two for two so far. Now the next challenge we face on the road to victory is to get into the remaining gubernatorial debates.

Whatever one may think about me or my proposals, I think that we have at least established that I am a serious candidate for governor. We have demonstrated this by making the monumental effort to get on the ballot and beating back the petition challenge. We have also demonstrated this by providing voters with detailed proposals and position statements on all of the major issues facing the people of this state. The voters deserve to hear the points of view of all ballot-qualified candidates in the debates. This would serve the interest of having a fully informed electorate that can choose the best candidate with the best plans for the people of Illinois, instead of the candidate who manages to raise the most money for a barrage of television ads. In addition, I believe that the majority of Illinois voters would prefer to hear all candidates’ points of view represented in the debates. I respectfully request the news media in Illinois join us in calling for all candidates to be included in the debates in order to serve the greater public good and the popular will.

At least one sponsor of an upcoming debate, the Illinois Radio Network, has informed me that, as of now, I am not being invited to participate in a debate scheduled for October 2nd. However, they also informed me that their position could change if the other two candidates agree to include me in that debate. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to get a
straight answer from the Blagojevich campaign regarding whether I should be included in future debates. When asked by reporters, Mr. Blagojevich has repeatedly dodged the question. On the other hand, at least one Blagojevich spokesperson has stated that the decision is up to the debate sponsors. So if a sponsor tells us it’s up to the other candidates and one other candidate tells us it’s up to the sponsors, I hope you can appreciate that this creates quite a dilemma for us.

I can understand why Mr. Blagojevich may not want to debate me, inasmuch as I have an actual plan for dealing with the state’s budget crisis that does not involve skimping on payments to the pension system and delaying Medicaid payments to health care providers. In fact, recent polls have indicated that a majority of Illinoisans support at least some version of an income tax for property tax swap to fund education in Illinois, yet I am the only candidate in this race who is campaigning on behalf of this majority position. I also have a superior plan to deal with the twin crises of global warming and soaring energy prices that involves developing renewable energy resources other than simply ethanol. Undoubtedly, Mr. Blagojevich does not agree with my assessment. But that’s precisely the point of including all candidates in the debate. Let’s put his ideas, and mine, and Ms. Topinka’s, to the test.

I once again publicly call upon both the Blagojevich and the Topinka campaigns to do the right thing and include all ballot-qualified candidates in all future gubernatorial debates. Let’s get all points of view in front of the voters so that they can make the best informed decision.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – August 31, 2006

Contact: Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager Whitney for Governor:
PO Box 3803
Carbondale, IL 62902
618-528-VOTE
www.whitneyforgov.org
Contact: Patrick Kelly, Illinois Green Party Media Coordinator:
773-203-9631
www.ilgp.org
Contact: Phil Huckelberry, Illinois Green Party Co-Chair:
309-268-9974
www.ilgp.org

The Lost Art

2006-08-26T00:06:00.000-05:00

The Thinker

The Trouble with God...

2006-08-25T23:48:00.000-05:00

if a myth ...but ya believe in 'em, ya can't fool 'em

if for real ...but ya don't believe in 'em, ya won't fool 'em

URGENT: Divine Strake - Stop massive explosion simulating nuclear-bunker buster bomb

2006-08-25T22:45:00.000-05:00

See Update: Good News for Mitchell, Indiana & 4th District

Friends:
It is extremely urgent that each and all of us call our Senators immediately to stop Divine Strake, a massive military explosion simulating a bunker buster nuclear bomb. This explosion of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil will create a 10,000 foot mushroom cloud of toxins and pollutants. It will contaminate groundwater.

This test simulates a nuclear weapon -- clearly meant for offensive use in a strike on Iran. Such a strike would shock the world and incite terrorism. It would be criminal under international law.

Originally planned for the Nevada test site, but stopped there by determined activists, Divine Strake is now under consideration for a quarry near Mitchell, Indiana or for White Sands, New Mexico. It must not happen anywhere. If you are in Indiana or New Mexico, your Senator has a special responsibility to stop Divine Strake. If you are in another state and have a Senator with a concern for arms control, peace, or environment, please ask her or him to show leadership. Remember, if we don't stop this test, President Bush will be an important step closer to a nuclear attack on Iran.

We must act immediately. The best chance for Congress to stop it is directly upon us. On September 5th, the Senate will resume its floor debate prior to voting on the Defense Appropriations Bill. (As you know, Appropriations is the second of two processes, and thus is our last Congressional chance.) PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS AND ASK THEM TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT BLOCKING "DIVINE STRAKE." Please call your friends and urge them
to make calls. Please forward this message widely.

Contact information for your Senators

Together, we can stop Divine Strake.
The Defense Department is considering conducting a weapons test near Bedford, IN next year to bolster the U.S.'s nuclear weapons program. Please contact your senators and urge them to block the test, called "Divine Strake." Senators could block the test by offering an amendment to a Pentagon funding bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate Tuesday, September 5.

Take Action
Contact your senators by phone, email or fax and ask them to offer an amendment to block the "Divine Strake" test when the Military Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5631, comes to the Senate floor. (Given the delays in U.S. mail to congressional offices, postal mail will not reach the senators in time.)

Background
The "Divine Strake" test would involve an underground explosion of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate to simulate the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon against an underground target. The test would not involve nuclear material. According to Defense Department officials, it would "send a mushroom-shaped dust cloud 10,000 feet into the atmosphere and release an explosive yield equivalent to detonating 593 tons of TNT." This yield is more than 100 times the size of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

While the Pentagon had planned to conduct the test at the Nevada Test Site, opposition from local residents and environmental agencies in Nevada and Utah forced the Defense Department to look elsewhere. The Pentagon is now considering the use of a limestone quarry outside Mitchell, 70 miles south of Indianapolis. The other site being reviewed is the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

The Defense Department wants to collect data on very large explosions in rock to calibrate the effects of using a nuclear "bunker buster" in Iran or North Korea. According to the Pentagon, its purpose is to "develop a planning tool that will improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage."

This effort to "improve" the U.S. nuclear weapons program comes even as the administration is asking Iran and North Korea to freeze their nuclear programs. The U.S. government is sending the wrong message to those two countries and the world about nuclear weapons: "do as the U.S. says, not as it does."

The military appropriations bill, H.R. 5631, which covers the Pentagon, will be on the Senate floor Tuesday, September 5.

Find Out More
Read FCNL's letter to Senators Lugar and Bayh asking them to offer an amendment to block the "Divine Strake" test.

Read a story on the test done by WTHR, an Indianapolis TV station.

Find more documents about the test on the Federation of American Scientists' website.

Find out more about nuclear disarmament on FCNL's website.
Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330

[keppel]
Louisville Courier Journal
Quarry mentioned as blast test site Environmentalists fear effects of 700-ton bomb

Indianapolis Star:
Military tested explosives at Ind quarry

Ft. Wayne News Sentinel:
Company: Military tested explosives at southern Indiana quarry

Counterpunch
Divine Strake in the Bible Belt

Adapt this simple letter (one I wrote) to send to your Senators

Honorable Senator __________________,

Please continue in your sense of reason and for the sake of all that is humane work to block Divine Strake.

I am sad enough U.S. leaders are still barbaric that bombing our problems is still an option.

I know you are not among them... please resist the politics of fear and republican gamesmanship.

Thank you.

August 20, 2006
==============

(Note: The following letter is to Congressman Mike Sodrel. Be aware, however, that contacting Senator Bayh 202-224-5623 and Senator Lugar 202-224-4814 is our highest priority in the coming days.)
Outside Indiana: Contact your Senators

The Honorable (Your Representative)
House Address
Washington, D.C. (Zip Code)

Dear Congressman _________________________:

We are shocked to learn that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is considering a massive military explosion, code named Divine Strake, for a limestone quarry near Mitchell, Indiana. It is an explosion of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, configured to simulate a 593-ton nuclear warhead. It will produce a 10,000-foot mushroom cloud filled with toxins and pollutants, a hazard to residents from Indianapolis to Louisville. It is also likely to contaminate the vulnerable karst limestone ground-water aquifer that underlies south-central Indiana.

The government now claims that Divine Strake simulates a conventional, not a nuclear, explosion. But its own budget request for 2006 describes the experiment as a "full scale tunnel defeat demonstration using explosives to simulate a low yield nuclear weapons ground shock environment." The 2007 budget request omits the nuclear reference but leaves the experiment
unchanged.

As you know, Congress has blocked funds for low-yield nuclear weapons such as the "Bunker Buster." The Bush Administration is thus in violation of the law in proceeding with this test. Congress cannot allow the President to act in contempt for the Constitution, which he is sworn to uphold. Such contempt must be considered an impeachable offense if we are to remain a
nation of laws.

It is unacceptable that, 61 years after U.S. atomic bombs killed 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Bush Administration is committed to developing "usable" nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Posture Review endorses using U.S. nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear states - undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Vice President Cheney
reportedly approved Israel's bombing of Lebanon, as preparation for a U.S. strike on Iran. The administration's nuclear double-standard spurs isolated regimes such as Iran and North Korea to seek nuclear weapons. Actual use of a U.S. nuclear weapon would unleash global fury and incite nuclear terrorism. It would be nuclear terrorism.

Divine Strake must not take place - in Indiana or anywhere.

(Optional - Adaptable Paragraph)
As the ????? District Representative, you will understand that Divine Strake is unacceptable to your constituents. We respectfully submit that you have a solemn duty to stop it.

Very truly yours,

Name
Street Address
City, State Zip
Phone (opt)
Email (opt)

U.S. Sets Up Spy Operations 'Manager' for Venezuela

2006-08-24T22:56:00.000-05:00

U.S. Launches Anti-Venezuela Spy Desk
The United States has announced that it will consolidate its intelligence activities within Venezuela in the lead up to the December 3 elections. Last Friday, U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, himself a key figure in the Central American civil wars during the 1980s, announced that the State Department would establish a “mission manager” to collect intelligence on Venezuela and Cuba. Currently only Iran and North Korea have specific spy chiefs.

According to a statement from Negroponte’s office, the mission manager “will be responsible for integrating collection and analysis on Cuba and Venezuela across the Intelligence Community, identifying and filling gaps in intelligence, and ensuring the implementation of strategies, among other duties.” The intelligence directorate claims that the office is “critical today, as policymakers have increasingly focused on the challenges that Cuba and Venezuela pose to American foreign policy.”

YOUR HELP IS NEEDED! Speak Out for Venezuela’s Democracy
Venezuela is not a threat to the United States, and by increasing covert activity just months before Venezuela’s presidential elections, the U.S. government may be dangerously interfering with Venezuela’s democracy.

Please, take five minutes today to voice your opinion. Visit our Action Center, where you can make your voice heard on this crucial matter.

Venezuela Elections Update:
Polls: Three weeks ago, Venezuelan opposition parties selected Manuel Rosales as their candidate to run against Chavez, although comedian Benjamin Rausseo remains in the race as a dark horse candidate. This weekend the first polling results since Rosales’ selection was released: Chavez is leading the pack with 57% support. Check out all the latest polling results on our website.

Please visit our 2006 Elections section on our website for all the background you need to get up to speed on the process. We have updated the page this week to include new information on the Venezuelan opposition, as well as statements from International Observers.
-----------------------------------
NOTE: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela, and receives its funding from the government of Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC

Topinka’s Budget Plan Leaves Rich Whitney as Only Candidate Who Opposes Legalized Gambling... the Only Candidate Who Stands for Fiscal Responsibility

2006-08-24T01:53:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 24th, 2006

Contact: Jennifer Rose, Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE, campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

Topinka’s Budget Plan Leaves Rich Whitney as Only Candidate Who Opposes Legalized Gambling – and the Only Candidate Who Stands for Fiscal Responsibility

Gambling Is A Hidden Tax on the Poor and Desperate, says Green Party Candidate Rich Whitney. Replacing Regressive Property Taxes With Regressive Gambling Revenue Is Not a Good Bet to Solve State’s Budget Woes.

by Rich Whitney, Illinois Green Party Candidate for Governor

With the release of Judy Baar Topinka’s Budget Plan today, it now looks like I am the only candidate in the Governor’s race who opposes gambling. I have always opposed legalized gambling as a matter of principle. I thought Judy Baar Topinka did as well. But now she herself is gambling that her dramatic shift in position will help her get elected.

It shouldn’t. Not only is her budget plan a bad idea because it relies on gambling to fund our schools. Her budget projections also rely on an awful lot of guesswork, unsubstantiated projections and generalities (e.g., eliminating $400 million in unidentified "pork") on the revenue side, while making some grandiose promises on the spending side (e.g., "Record Education Funding and School Construction.") In this regard, she very closely resembles her Democratic opponent.

Last January, I criticized Governor Rod Blagojevich for his ill-conceived proposal to finance school construction by bringing Keno to Illinois – breaking his promise not to expand gambling in the State. Now Judy Baar Topinka is following suit. Just like Blagojevich, she is claiming, "No tax increases" – and just like Blagojevich, she is instead looking to meet the budget deficit by getting into the back pockets of working taxpayers in other ways.

The fact is, gambling is a hidden tax on the poor. It preys on the poor by taking advantage of the desperate and the ignorant, who often fail to recognize that "the house always wins." Those who can least afford it – people with household incomes under $10,000 – bet nearly three times as much on lotteries as those with incomes over $50,000, according to a recent report from the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. The rates are undoubtedly similar for casino gambling.

When Judy Baar Topinka assesses the benefits of state-sanctioned gambling, is she also taking into account the economic and social costs of higher suicide and divorce rates, more bankruptcies and homelessness, more broken homes, more abuse and neglect cases? Do any of the advocates of gambling ever consider that if working people hung on to more of their disposable income and expended it on real goods and services instead of giving it away to casino owners, there would be a positive, healthier economic impact?

Our State government needs to be placed on a sound fiscal footing, by enacting badly needed tax reforms to raise new revenue, while at the same time making our tax system more fair to lower- and middle-income taxpayers. And I am the only candidate in this race who is being up-front in pledging to do just that. No more gimmicks. No more hidden costs and fees. No more placing the burden of unpaid pensions on future taxpayers.

I am campaigning explicitly for House Bill 750. The product of a genuine people’s advocacy group, the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, the bill would couple a general increase in the State income tax and a broadening of the sales tax with tax credits for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, to make our tax system more progressive. Under this plan, the bottom 60 percent of wage earners would actually pay the same or lower taxes. Overall, the plan would raise enough funds to eliminate the structural deficit, adequately fund our schools, begin solving the pension mess, getting our social service agencies back on track and allowing us to fund projects that represent genuine progress – like my proposed job-creating "New Deal" to promote sustainable energy production and sustainable transportation in Illinois.

Judy Baar Topinka’s budget plan proposes a property tax freeze for four years – but at the cost of increasing even more regressive gambling revenues. Under House Bill 750, property tax owners would experience real relief, with a dedicated fund providing mandatory property tax abatements of 20-25 percent per school district.

House Bill 750 has been supported by a number of citizens’ groups, like Voices for Illinois Children, the Better Funding for Better Schools Coalition and A+ Illinois, a broad-based coalition supported by such diverse groups as the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Chicago Urban League, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois and a number of labor unions.

This plan is not only fiscally responsible, it is what the majority of Illinoisans want. A recent survey of Illinois voters found that 66 percent would favor a comprehensive plan to cut the portion of property taxes that fund education, broaden the sales tax and increase the income tax in order to provide more money to the poorest school districts.

Yet Rod Blagojevich and Judy Baar Topinka have both rejected this plan. Being "corporate sponsored" candidates, they are too fearful of offending their big-moneyed benefactors to do what the majority of people want. In contrast, as a candidate of the Green Party – a party that refuses corporate campaign money – I am running to serve the public interest. That’s why I alone am standing up for fiscal responsibility in the race for governor.

Contact: Jennifer Rose, Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE, campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

Whitney: For Real Clean and Cheaper Energy, Look to the Green Party Plan

2006-08-24T01:36:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 23rd, 2006

Contact: Jennifer Rose, Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

WHITNEY: FOR REAL CLEAN AND CHEAPER ENERGY, LOOK TO THE GREEN PARTY PLAN

Rich Whitney, Green Party candidate for Illinois Governor, expressed approval of some components of the renewable energy plan recently released by Governor Rod Blagojevich. However, he added, tongue in cheek, that some aspects of the plan sounded "familiar":

"Back on December 22 of last year, when I announced my candidacy for Governor, I stated: 'Illinois has the agricultural and other resources and ability to turn a negative into a positive – to get out on the cutting edge of new, clean energy technologies that the times demand. I will get us on the right track, so that we meet and exceed the goal of 20 percent renewable energy by the year 2020 – a target that will create tens of thousands of new, quality jobs.'"

Both Rod Blagojevich and Judy Baar Topinka have recently come out with energy proposals that frequently refer to "clean" and "renewable energy," with a lot of emphasis on biofuels and "clean coal" technologies. Some of Blagojevich's rhetoric sounds like it came straight from the Whitney playbook. But why should voters support the pale imitations when they can elect the genuine article? Rich Whitney and the Green Party -- a party based on ecological principles -- offer a comprehensive, job-creating "New Deal" on sustainable energy and sustainable transportation, that includes promotion of wind, solar, bio-fuel, geothermal and clean coal energy, as well as energy efficiency in building codes and consumer products, and efficient mass transit, such as high-speed rail.

Whitney does favor clean-coal production through gasification and has previously pointed out that an existing technology -- "Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle," which can burn coal about as cleanly as natural gas -- should be promoted as one part of a comprehensive energy plan. And he applauded the Blagojevich plan for including promotion of coal gasification and sequestering carbon dioxide emissions.

However, according to Whitney, the plan puts too much emphasis on coal gasification and ethanol production alone. "Our experience with petroleum should teach us that it isn't wise to put too many of our energy eggs in one basket. I do support ethanol production, but we need to be much more cautious than the 'full-bore' approach of the Blagojevich administration. There are genuine concerns over ethanol production. For instance, many analysts have concluded that it takes almost as much -- or even more --petroleum-based energy to create the ethanol as the amount of energy contained in it. There are also genuine concerns over both water consumption and water pollution from existing plants."

"Frankly, I have to wonder whether the incumbent Governor's enthusiasm for ethanol might just reflect the $50,000 campaign contribution he received from Archer Daniels Midland on May 24th, rather than him suddenly 'getting religion' about renewable energy."

Blagojevich does not have a good record on keeping his environmental promises, Whitney observed. "Rod Blagojevich promised in 2002 that he would push sustainable energy sources like bio-diesel and wind power - and yet only two-tenths of one percent of our State's energy needs are now being provided by such sources. In fact, he raided the Renewable Energy Resources Trust Fund for $9.5 million and the Energy Efficiency Trust Fund for $3 million, to put into the general fund, so that he can continue to brag that he (supposedly) balanced the budget without raising taxes. So I think Illinois voters are justified in being a bit skeptical over the latest round of grandiose promises."
Whitney's full plan can be found at: http://whitneyforgov.org/articles/EnergyPolicy.htm

Contact: Jennifer Rose, Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE,
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

Whitney Promise to Fight for Full Employment

2006-08-22T17:17:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – August 21, 2006

Contact: Jennifer Rose, Whitney for Governor, 618-528-VOTE,
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org

WHITNEY PROMISES TO FIGHT FOR FULL EMPLOYMENT AND BRING GOOD JOBS TO ILLINOIS

Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney has announced that it will be the goal of his administration to create “genuine full employment” at wages that will “allow every working person to be able to support a family.”

Whitney says that to attain this goal the state cannot continue to rely upon the failed strategies of past governors: offering tax incentives, subsidies, enterprise zones and other forms of “corporate welfare” designed to attract big business to Illinois. “Forty nine other states -- not to mention low-wage competitors like China, Mexico and India – are always striving to outdo us in this kind of ‘race to the bottom’. The only winners in that game are the multinational corporations.”

“I don’t know where politicians got the idea that all businesses care about are tax breaks and giveaways.” Said Whitney. “We need strategies to attract solid, socially responsible businesses to Illinois, but we shouldn’t be giving away the store to do it. We also need strategies that will help us grow our own businesses.”

Whitney is promoting a ten-point plan to help create a beneficial business climate that would create quality jobs in Illinois. His plan includes:

1. Renovating our infrastructure.
2. Building new, high-speed rail systems.
3. Improving energy conservation.
4. Supporting the development of clean, renewable energy.(including clean coal technology)
5. Supporting small businesses — for real.
6. Promoting capital improvement and public works.
7. Creating more, better-paying social service jobs.
8. Raising the minimum wage.
9. Passing a living wage law.
10. Making corporations accountable and encouraging other forms of business ownership

Other proposals, like universal health care and overhauling the outmoded tax system, will save employers enormous amounts over time. While these proposals will cost taxpayer money they will be more than offset by decreases in costs like crime, unemployment insurance and welfare. Whitney claims making prudent investments in the public sector will make Illinois more attractive to businesses. “Businesses will be attracted by having a well-educated and well-trained workforce, higher productivity and a high quality infrastructure.”

Please click to see the entire Whitney Jobs position.

With Labor Day around the corner, the Whitney Campaign encourages you to draw distinctions between the gubernatorial candidates and each candidates' proposals to improve employment and bring better jobs to Illinois workers.

End

Lise Meitner: A Battle for Ultimate Truth

2006-08-21T06:30:00.000-05:00

I am a man. I like being a man. Courage is most often associated with men wearing armor and wielding shock and awe weapons. Those men with the biggest and best weapons are invariably proclaimed, by history’s victorious historians, the most courageous.

"All of you lost your standards of justice and fairness. ... All of you also worked for Nazi Germany, and never even attempted passive resistance. Of course, to save your troubled conscience, you occasionally helped an oppressed person; still, you let millions of innocent people be murdered, and there was never a sound of protest. You had no sleepless nights... you suppressed the injustice of war.

Some will call me a bleeding-heart girly-man for my views. I smile and say, “it’s okay... one has a right to his or her opinion.” Opinions are not necessarily fact, whether my own or anyone else’s.

I believe courage is generally an unheralded virtue... unless in the history-writing hands of victorious warriors. In their hands, bombs dropping relatively safely from 30,000 feet hoping to find targets called enemies is a symbol of courage. As the victorious redefine moral courage, mistakes are sanitized as collateral damage. Innocent victims are called “casualties.” Friends, I find nothing “casual” about the killing of innocent civilians, intended or not.

The truly courageous face down many discomforts... including their own death in lieu of killing another.

This is pacifism. Few are truly pacifists. Most self-proclaimed pacifists make this claim as a matter of faith, having never had their faith tested. Self-preservation is, clearly, a strong and natural instinct. I claim to be a pacifist. I believe I would rather die than take another’s life. I hope the strength of my conviction is never tested. If tested and I, in human weakness, fail my conviction this should not negate the conviction of pacifism but, merely, the strength of my faith. As long as human failures are used to justify subsequent human failures, humans will wallow in their animal past. Why would any spiritual being or humanist want to justify human failure with human failure? Instinct is an animal manifestation in humanity.

As a spiritual person I share with other spiritualist and humanists a belief that while part animal, humanity is called to a higher plane of behavior. I find odd, the religious (anti-Darwinian) resistance to this call. Most humans think and proclaim themselves higher than the beasts. Yet we kill, not only in immediate instances of self-defense but in the highly abstract and foggy contexts of war. We humans will kill viciously, and with a clear conscious for a mere mortal leader, who repeats often enough, loud enough, and successfully enough that we should. It takes little evidence of threat to incite great reactions of fear.

A nation of citizens is quick to outsource or subcontract war. Corporate America has learned the efficient ease of shunting the guilt of injustice. Wealthy corporations often subcontract (farm out) the exploitation of legal and/or illegal immigrants. They outsource child labor. Their human heads sleep well at night convincing themselves their hands are clean... for they have not touched, seen, or smelled the stench of injustice. They use as “human shields“ other humans called subcontractors to absorb any sense of guilt that may arise in connection with unfair labor practices. Their sophisticated form of injustice is sterile... like the bombardiers who never see their victims.

Citizens back in the “Heartland,” like Corporate CEOs sleep well at night, convincing themselves war is maybe not a pleasant thing but it is acceptable. “My hands are clean, the cause is just, is their mantra.” Beneath the mantra is the man or woman. Their comfort is derived from much the same mental gymnastics used by the Corporate CEO. Never will the business, science, and sin of denial stop inventing ways to rationalize away injustice and outright murder.

The pacifist questions proclaimed threats and resists the fear these claims are intended to incite. The pacifist’s reward is social rejection... perhaps the greatest fear of all for many. Those who denounce war as a facade for mass killing often become the killed... if not literally, socially, professionally, politically, religiously, and in ways yet to be invented.

For the truly courageous, courage is its own reward. Courage faces down prejudice, political correctness, personal loss, fear, lies and violence. Courage faces down discomfort and lauds truth in spite of consequences, not in anticipation of them.

The courageous life of Lise Meitner sends chills of appreciation up and down my spine. Fear of dying in personal, professional, scientific, political, religious, and other forms of obscurity is a universal fear. One as accomplished as Lise Meitner naturally has much to lose if credit due is credit never awarded. Yet, she resisted the temptation to sell out her personal convictions to gain social acceptance, professional notoriety and certain fame.

I present you, Lise Meitner, a beacon of hope in a time of peril. Each of us, irrespective of social, economic, professional status are living a life not that far distant from the German citizens of the early 1900’s when Germany was becoming a world power. Busy busy busy, too busy to think, German citizens enjoyed the seemingly “entitled” luxury of simply being German. Amidst the mind-boggling business of the day an ideology of supremacy began to sprout from a fertile landscape of science, technology, and a citizenry saturated with contented apathy. Raining over Germany’s social landscape was an air of denial. Accepting an ever-intensifying nationalistic government as a political whim that would run its course eased minds too busy and too satisfied to think about the inevitable consequences of their apathy.

Lise Meitner was born in Vienna, Austria and later worked closely with German scientists to better understand the physics of atomic nuclei.

I call Meitner “a Beacon of Hope” because, in spite of globally powerful and prejudiced forces determined to dissolve her life’s work and her protests against war into total obscurity she lives on (beyond the grave).

The courageous peacemonger might die in obscurity... but so what? They often, resurrect. Although the victorious write the history of their choosing... truth is true history and true history is truth. White paint covers blood... but eventually the blood bleeds through. White washing a tree’s bark does not silence the bark of the tree. The truth of a tree is in its entirety. Beneath, above, and beyond the white-wash is the bark, a trunk, roots, branches, leaves, and perhaps most important of all, seeds that preserve the legacy of the tree.

In my mind, Lise Meitner was a mighty oak. Her seed lives on. Her courage produces new oaks even today, even though she was cut down years ago.

Lise Meitner: Her Crimes?

1) She was a Woman
2) She was a Jew
3) She became a scientist
4) She protested violence and war

Lise Meitner: Her Professional Plight
A Prejudiced Conspiracy of Lies and Obscurity

Lise Meitner: Her Legacy?
A Testament of Hope for Peace and Humanity

Meitner excoriates her old friend and research partner: "All of you lost your standards of justice and fairness. ... All of you also worked for Nazi Germany, and never even attempted passive resistance. Of course, to save your troubled conscience, you occasionally helped an oppressed person; still, you let millions of innocent people be murdered, and there was never a sound of protest."(p.249). “You had no sleepless nights... you suppressed the injustice of war.” Later she singles out Heisenberg, "They should force a man like Heisenberg, and millions of others with him, to see these camps and the tortured people."(p.250). Heisenberg had come to Bohr’s institute in Copenhagen in 1941 and had delivered a lecture full of propaganda for the regime that had infuriated Meitner.

Friends, these United States of America represent to the world the very threat Nazi Germany represented to the world of that day. Friends, will you wait for that knock on your front door from Homeland Security? I suggest you not wait to speak out loud and clear against this present assault on our civil liberties and our “inalienable rights.”

Do you know the next U.S. census will involve more than completing a mailed honorary/voluntary form to be returned to the U.S. Census Bureau? An new army of Census Bureau officials (armed with global positioning devices) will visit your home, inspect for hidden living quarters, investigate each room for evidence of unclaimed inhabitants and map rooms they consider candidates to have their own addresses.

The world has demonized Nazi Germany (including its citizens who like you and me are just taking care of our personal business). I have to ask... are we really justified in “minding our own business” as we, too, “accept an ever-intensifying nationalistic government as a political whim that will run its course and ease minds too busy and too satisfied to think about the inevitable consequences of our own apathy.”

One man claiming to be God directed led a nation of pathetic followers into one of the worst episodes of human tragedy in recorded history. Friends, we are under the leadership of one such man. Different day. Different man. Same basic premise. Only the methodology has changed. I call it, “The Inevitable Result of the Sophistication of Sin.”

To me, there is no greater sin than to claim, “God is on my (our) side.”

Stand up friends. Risk something. Comfort is a fleeting illusion of well-being. Discomfort is the price of true progress... personal, professional, scientific, social, cultural, spiritual, and universal progress.

Duane Short
August 21, 2006
----------------------

So, who was Lise Meitner?

Biography

A Battle for Ultimate Truth
Lise Meitner
Born: Vienna, Austria, November 7, 1878
Died: Cambridge, England, October 27, 1968

Meitner refused an offer to work on the project at Los Alamos, declaring "I will have nothing to do with a bomb!" (Sime, 305)

Lise Meitner
A Life in Physics
By Ruth Lewin Sime

Chapter One: Girlhood in Vienna

The Woman Behind the Bomb

A Review Essay on "Lise Meitner and the Dawn of the Nuclear Age" by Patricia Rife
Gary R. Goldstein
Department of Physics
Tufts University
Medford, MA 02155 USA
July 13, 2000

Published in Peace and Change: a Journal of Peace Research, vol.26, 95 (2001).
Abstract

The book "Lise Meitner and the Dawn of the Nuclear Age" by Patricia Rife (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1999) is reviewed in this essay for the lay audience. Meitner was a leading nuclear physicist at the time that the nucleus was the most exciting frontier of science. To establish her career, she had to overcome daunting prejudices against women in science and academia. Being of Jewish origin in Germany in the 1930's, she narrowly escaped certain disaster. Meitner was a crucial participant in the discovery of nuclear fission, yet did not share in the Nobel Prize that her collaborator, Otto Hahn, received in 1945. How these events came about, how they were intertwined with contemporary history and how they fit into the evolution of Meitner's social conscience and her abhorrence of war are some of the fascinating subjects discussed in the book and reviewed in this essay.

The war years were difficult for Meitner for many reasons. The news of horrendous destruction and turmoil was depressing. She helped friends fleeing Nazi persecution. She kept in touch with family and was able to communicate with some of her Berlin colleagues, but must have felt quite helpless in the sweep of events. Her nephew Frisch got a position in Birmingham, England and continued to experiment with fission. In collaboration with another German-Jewish émigré, Rudolph Peierls, he figured out how the fission of a rare isotope of uranium (U235) could be used to initiate a "chain reaction" and create a "super bomb" of enormous power. The secret Frisch-Peierls memorandum(5) became the impetus for the start of the Manhattan Project.

Unbeknownst to Lise, her nephew, Peierls and other physicists working in Britain (including Klaus Fuchs) were sent off to Los Alamos, New Mexico to contribute to the making of the bomb. Had she been given the opportunity to participate in that war work, there is little doubt that Meitner would have declined, as her previous history suggests. In a separate discussion, Rife makes the interesting point that the scale of scientific research would never be the same after the "big science" projects became the rule with the infusion of large government budgets into scientifically innovative weapons development. Siegbahn’s institute in Stockholm had become an example of big science that left Meitner out in the cold although it was not directed toward weapons work.

When the war in Europe ended, Meitner was horrified to learn about the deaths and deprivations of the millions of victims of the Nazi concentration camps. She could not forgive her German colleagues for their lack of active opposition to the regime. Rife quotes a remarkable letter to Hahn (that he never received) in which Meitner excoriates her old friend and research partner:

"All of you lost your standards of justice and fairness. ... All of you also worked for Nazi Germany, and never even attempted passive resistance. Of course, to save your troubled conscience, you occasionally helped an oppressed person; still, you let millions of innocent people be murdered, and there was never a sound of protest."(p.249).

Later she singles out Heisenberg:

"They should force a man like Heisenberg, and millions of others with him, to see these camps and the tortured people."(p.250).

Heisenberg had come to Bohr’s institute in Copenhagen in 1941 and had delivered a lecture full of propaganda for the regime that had infuriated Meitner.

Your Participation Welcome

2006-08-19T11:33:00.000-05:00

All are encouraged to contribute to this Blog. Lengthy diatribes or essays are not required. Brief comments or questions are welcome and, in fact, important.

If you have not received an invitation to become a Realitics Contributing Member and wish to participate email me with "Request Formal Invitation" in the subject line of your message.

Thank you.

Your Realitics Host
Duane Short