Congressman Schiff,
You're an impeachment opponent?? According to the email from Democrats.com, you and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mel Watt are opposed to impeachment hearings, even though "by the end of the hearing [on July 25], even the see-no-evil Republican witnesses admitted Congress should consider impeachment."
We aren't asking you to be another Tom DeLay and railroad impeachment proceedings through Congress. We want you to support looking into the evidence because at this point there is some agreement that the evidence seems "credible and substantial." And you're continuing to oppose looking into what crimes may have been committed by the Bush Administration?? Why?? What have they offered you in exchange for blocking the investigation? When important players like Karl Rove blithely ignore a Congressional subpoena, you know something's up and the Administration has something to hide. And you're not interested in looking into it??
Is something rotten in District 29?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Lieberman's conflicting allegiances
Dear Senator Lieberman,
You need to make a decision about who "your people" are. Are you primarily Jewish? Then you need to be an Israeli. Are you primarily American? Then you need to let Israel stand on its own. Israel is a strong, modern nation capable of handling the repercussions of its invasion of Palestine in 1948. The U.S. doesn't need to be involved anymore as hired mercenaries protecting a fledgling nation. Your love of Israel should lead you to become directly involved in developing Israel's policies and strategies, without maneuvering the U.S. to implement those policies. Follow your heart.
You need to make a decision about who "your people" are. Are you primarily Jewish? Then you need to be an Israeli. Are you primarily American? Then you need to let Israel stand on its own. Israel is a strong, modern nation capable of handling the repercussions of its invasion of Palestine in 1948. The U.S. doesn't need to be involved anymore as hired mercenaries protecting a fledgling nation. Your love of Israel should lead you to become directly involved in developing Israel's policies and strategies, without maneuvering the U.S. to implement those policies. Follow your heart.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
It’s not OPEC’s fault
Dear Congressman Schiff:
I've only recently learned that gas prices are affected by futures traders. I thought OPEC was solely responsible for the high prices. But as it turns out, the bubble in real estate prices (before the subprime mortgage crisis) and the current bubble in gas prices have a lot in common. Investors don't mind high prices if they believe they will continue to rise indefinitely, but eventually every market corrects itself. The bubble bursts and we have a recession until the next bubble.
In the 80s, it was the reckless S&L loans to foreign countries that helped bring about the Black Monday of 1987 ("The 80s are over!!") and precipitated the deep recession of the early 90s. In the later 90s, it was the frenzied speculation in dot-coms that brought about the dot-bomb and the recession that was already in place by 9/11. This time around, we're hit by two bubbles at once, subprime mortgages and oil futures. Obviously investors can't exercise caution when they smell an opportunity to make a killing.
If the CFTC were to raise margin requirements and close loopholes that allow unregulated speculation in energy futures, the speculative excess that has driven gas prices so high would be reined in. Please take action to pressure the CFTC to make the changes that will benefit almost every American. The current extremes in gas prices benefit only a small elite.
I've only recently learned that gas prices are affected by futures traders. I thought OPEC was solely responsible for the high prices. But as it turns out, the bubble in real estate prices (before the subprime mortgage crisis) and the current bubble in gas prices have a lot in common. Investors don't mind high prices if they believe they will continue to rise indefinitely, but eventually every market corrects itself. The bubble bursts and we have a recession until the next bubble.
In the 80s, it was the reckless S&L loans to foreign countries that helped bring about the Black Monday of 1987 ("The 80s are over!!") and precipitated the deep recession of the early 90s. In the later 90s, it was the frenzied speculation in dot-coms that brought about the dot-bomb and the recession that was already in place by 9/11. This time around, we're hit by two bubbles at once, subprime mortgages and oil futures. Obviously investors can't exercise caution when they smell an opportunity to make a killing.
If the CFTC were to raise margin requirements and close loopholes that allow unregulated speculation in energy futures, the speculative excess that has driven gas prices so high would be reined in. Please take action to pressure the CFTC to make the changes that will benefit almost every American. The current extremes in gas prices benefit only a small elite.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Gay marriage in California
The California Supreme Court ruled today in a vote of 4-3 to reject state marriage laws and allow same-sex couples to marry. Maura Dolan writes in her article for the Los Angeles Times "The reaction to today's ruling outside the courthouse in San Francisco was one of jubilation as couples, once denied marriage, hugged, kissed, shouted and shook their fists at the sky."
Ron Prentice of the conservative California Family Council, in reaction to the ruling, said "With the November ballot we will have the opportunity for the people of California to once again define marriage as only between a man and a woman and this time place it into California's constitution which would strengthen it and keep it out of the hands of the courts."
Now that California has sunk to this unprecedented level of depravity, I expect that conservative Southern states will begin sending missionaries to California to try to help pull these poor lost souls from the tar pits of sin they've gotten themselves mired in. I can picture earnest young people declaring to their churches that they feel that God has called them to be missionaries to California. It's not a bad idea, actually. Living in California with all their expenses paid? It could be worse. God could've called them to Africa or to the rainforests of the Amazon. Or, worse yet, to Afghanistan.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Bush confesses to approving torture
From Democrats.com:
My email to Congressman Schiff:
I don't consider valid the comparison of impeachment proceedings for Clinton and for Bush. Clinton's proceedings were divisive because they were purely partisan. Bush's impeachment hearings, because they would be initiated by allegations of actual war crimes which resulted in thousands of deaths, would be non-partisan by nature, except for the extreme right wing, a minority of the American people.
Impeachment proceedings would not necessarily result in impeachment. They would simply examine the evidence and make it clear to the people what happened and why. And if no impeachable crimes were committed, the people would be shown clearly why what appeared to be war crimes actually weren't. The proceedings would be extremely informative for people regarding how their government operates and how it is structured and balanced.
As a voter who approves and appreciates your activity in Congress, I urge you to change your mind regarding the impeachment of the President and Vice President. I urge you to represent me and the many voters in your district who want to see the right thing done. I would actually accept Bush being exonerated, fairly, of wrongdoing, because I would have learned from the hearings that my impressions had been wrong, that what actions were taken by the Administration leading up to and during the war in Iraq were acceptable in the context of Constitutional and international law.
Impeachment hearings would be cathartic for me and for a lot of Americans. The nation is already divided. Examining the evidence carefully and publicly would provide healing.
Thanks very much.
Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture
On 4/11/08, George Bush told ABC News he personally approved of the approval of torture—including waterboarding—by Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet.
"Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
In the wake of this shocking and appalling confession, we've come to a historic moment where every American—and every Member of Congress—must take a stand.
Either you're for torture or you're against it. And if you're against it, you must support the only Constitutional remedy: impeachment.
We don't need a Special Prosecutor when the President has publicly admitted to approving war crimes!
It's no excuse to say, "We can't impeach Bush because President Cheney would be worse." We know that Cheney directly approved torture, so they must be impeached together. If they were convicted by the Senate (or resigned to avoid impeachment), Speaker Pelosi would become President, as prescribed by the Constitution.
It's no excuse to say, "We don't have the votes to impeach Bush and Cheney." Democrats didn't have the votes to impeach Nixon when they started, but when the House Judiciary Committee reluctantly adopted Articles of Impeachment, Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.
Nor is it an excuse to say, "We don't have time to impeach Bush and Cheney." Bush admitted both his own and Cheney's guilt, and Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet are witnesses. There's no need for impeachment hearings—an impeachment resolution based on Bush's confession could go straight to the floor for a vote, just as it did on 11/6/07 when Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 799, Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney.
And finally, it is utterly immoral for Democrats to say, "We shouldn't impeach Bush and Cheney because it would hurt the chances of electing a Democrat in November." Simply stated, politics should never come before the prosecution of torture.
Dr. Martin Luther King famously said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam."
Thanks to Bush's confession that he approved torture, that time has come for us in relation to Iraq.
My email to Congressman Schiff:
I don't consider valid the comparison of impeachment proceedings for Clinton and for Bush. Clinton's proceedings were divisive because they were purely partisan. Bush's impeachment hearings, because they would be initiated by allegations of actual war crimes which resulted in thousands of deaths, would be non-partisan by nature, except for the extreme right wing, a minority of the American people.
Impeachment proceedings would not necessarily result in impeachment. They would simply examine the evidence and make it clear to the people what happened and why. And if no impeachable crimes were committed, the people would be shown clearly why what appeared to be war crimes actually weren't. The proceedings would be extremely informative for people regarding how their government operates and how it is structured and balanced.
As a voter who approves and appreciates your activity in Congress, I urge you to change your mind regarding the impeachment of the President and Vice President. I urge you to represent me and the many voters in your district who want to see the right thing done. I would actually accept Bush being exonerated, fairly, of wrongdoing, because I would have learned from the hearings that my impressions had been wrong, that what actions were taken by the Administration leading up to and during the war in Iraq were acceptable in the context of Constitutional and international law.
Impeachment hearings would be cathartic for me and for a lot of Americans. The nation is already divided. Examining the evidence carefully and publicly would provide healing.
Thanks very much.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Babies accelerate global warming
I know this one's a stretch for you, but if you sit down and think about it for a little while, you'll eventually be able to connect the dots.
Last December, ABC News reported that there is a baby boom occurring in the US. "In 2005, there were two children born for every American woman. Last year, the so-called 'fertility rate' rose to 2.1 children for every woman." Fortunately, the rate is no higher than that. "That's still nowhere near what it was during the height of the baby boom, when the rate hovered somewhere between three and four kids per family."
Between 3 and 4 kids?? Which means that the families having 1 to 2 kids back then were offset by families having 5 to 6 kids. And the families having 0 kids were offset by families having 7 or more kids. Seven kids?? What were they thinking? The logistics alone of feeding and clothing that many kids is staggering. (Crash Ow! Mom! Bang Thump Stop throwing your food! Waaaaaa Hurry up, we'll be late! Whooooooosh Bonk Mom! Bangbangbangbangbang Waaaaaaaa Stop it! Crash)
"Okay," my hypothetical Jennifer says, "maybe those people who have like 17 kids are sort of dumb, but why would my having a baby affect global warming? That's caused by greenhouse gases from factories and cars and herds of cattle. What does that have to do with my baby sitting in a highchair eating mashed peas? My baby won't produce that much greenhouse gas." No, you're right. But do babies stay babies? Generally they grow up and buy SUVs and newspapers and groceries, live in buildings constructed at least partially of wood, and watch TV and turn lights on in the evening. "Okay..." Jennifer concedes, unconvinced. Yes, you're right, one adult's carbon footprint isn't really that big, if that person recycles, turns unnecessary lights off, buys a fuel-efficient SUV, consolidates road trips for running errands, uses public transit to get to work, stuff like that. "My child would grow up knowing how important those things are." That's great. But multiply your adult child's conservative carbon footprint by 300 million Americans and collectively you get a giant carbon footprint.
I believe the fertility rate should drop to 1.5 or even 1 so that the population actually decreases over the years. That alone would significantly slow global warming and reduce some of the urgency for finding new landfills for the trash we generate.
However, from an economic standpoint, a reduction in population isn't always beneficial, since a smaller population produces less revenue overall. Statistically, the higher the IQ and level of education people have, the fewer children they generally produce, and so a reduction in population would likely result in a greater reduction of those with higher levels of disposable income, and less of a reduction among those with less spending money and a greater need for government services. Economies can thrive in huge populations because the more people there are, the more revenue they generate. Substantial revenue can be generated even from people with very low incomes, provided there are enough of them.
For a reduction in population to be as much of a benefit economically as environmentally, there would need to be a greater reduction at the lower end of the income scale, and less of a reduction at the higher end. Jennifer snorts. "So only rich people should have kids?" Actually no, because (theoretically) most "rich people" are lower-income people with insatiable appetites. We don't need more of them. But people with higher levels of education and higher salaries generate revenue more efficiently. One middle-class person might generate revenue equal to what 10 working-class people might generate. With fewer people generating more disposable income per person, the environment and the economy benefit.
But it's difficult to suggest to a community that they encourage educated people to have more kids and less-educated people to have fewer kids. The self-worth of those encouraged to have fewer kids would be significantly affected. They would feel rejected by their own communities. If that encouragement had been a familiar, congenial custom all along in our communities, we would have the environmental and economic benefits of the custom now and there would be no hard feelings. But asking a community to begin encouraging professors and architects to have kids and discouraging hairstylists and truck drivers from having kids would be seen as an attack on our natural right to have a family.
I understand those feelings of rejection and have no foolproof remedy for them, but financial compensation might help those people feel a little better. If a low-income family has 1 child instead of 5 children, their need for government services is greatly reduced, and their tax liability should be reduced proportionately. Currently, a family's tax liability is reduced for each of the children they produce, and it could be argued that these tax breaks are an unconscious encouragement to have more kids. Conversely, if a family's tax burden increases with each child they have because their need for government services increases, a new idea like having fewer kids would be easier to adopt.
Last December, ABC News reported that there is a baby boom occurring in the US. "In 2005, there were two children born for every American woman. Last year, the so-called 'fertility rate' rose to 2.1 children for every woman." Fortunately, the rate is no higher than that. "That's still nowhere near what it was during the height of the baby boom, when the rate hovered somewhere between three and four kids per family."
Between 3 and 4 kids?? Which means that the families having 1 to 2 kids back then were offset by families having 5 to 6 kids. And the families having 0 kids were offset by families having 7 or more kids. Seven kids?? What were they thinking? The logistics alone of feeding and clothing that many kids is staggering. (Crash Ow! Mom! Bang Thump Stop throwing your food! Waaaaaa Hurry up, we'll be late! Whooooooosh Bonk Mom! Bangbangbangbangbang Waaaaaaaa Stop it! Crash)
"Okay," my hypothetical Jennifer says, "maybe those people who have like 17 kids are sort of dumb, but why would my having a baby affect global warming? That's caused by greenhouse gases from factories and cars and herds of cattle. What does that have to do with my baby sitting in a highchair eating mashed peas? My baby won't produce that much greenhouse gas." No, you're right. But do babies stay babies? Generally they grow up and buy SUVs and newspapers and groceries, live in buildings constructed at least partially of wood, and watch TV and turn lights on in the evening. "Okay..." Jennifer concedes, unconvinced. Yes, you're right, one adult's carbon footprint isn't really that big, if that person recycles, turns unnecessary lights off, buys a fuel-efficient SUV, consolidates road trips for running errands, uses public transit to get to work, stuff like that. "My child would grow up knowing how important those things are." That's great. But multiply your adult child's conservative carbon footprint by 300 million Americans and collectively you get a giant carbon footprint.
I believe the fertility rate should drop to 1.5 or even 1 so that the population actually decreases over the years. That alone would significantly slow global warming and reduce some of the urgency for finding new landfills for the trash we generate.
However, from an economic standpoint, a reduction in population isn't always beneficial, since a smaller population produces less revenue overall. Statistically, the higher the IQ and level of education people have, the fewer children they generally produce, and so a reduction in population would likely result in a greater reduction of those with higher levels of disposable income, and less of a reduction among those with less spending money and a greater need for government services. Economies can thrive in huge populations because the more people there are, the more revenue they generate. Substantial revenue can be generated even from people with very low incomes, provided there are enough of them.
For a reduction in population to be as much of a benefit economically as environmentally, there would need to be a greater reduction at the lower end of the income scale, and less of a reduction at the higher end. Jennifer snorts. "So only rich people should have kids?" Actually no, because (theoretically) most "rich people" are lower-income people with insatiable appetites. We don't need more of them. But people with higher levels of education and higher salaries generate revenue more efficiently. One middle-class person might generate revenue equal to what 10 working-class people might generate. With fewer people generating more disposable income per person, the environment and the economy benefit.
But it's difficult to suggest to a community that they encourage educated people to have more kids and less-educated people to have fewer kids. The self-worth of those encouraged to have fewer kids would be significantly affected. They would feel rejected by their own communities. If that encouragement had been a familiar, congenial custom all along in our communities, we would have the environmental and economic benefits of the custom now and there would be no hard feelings. But asking a community to begin encouraging professors and architects to have kids and discouraging hairstylists and truck drivers from having kids would be seen as an attack on our natural right to have a family.
I understand those feelings of rejection and have no foolproof remedy for them, but financial compensation might help those people feel a little better. If a low-income family has 1 child instead of 5 children, their need for government services is greatly reduced, and their tax liability should be reduced proportionately. Currently, a family's tax liability is reduced for each of the children they produce, and it could be argued that these tax breaks are an unconscious encouragement to have more kids. Conversely, if a family's tax burden increases with each child they have because their need for government services increases, a new idea like having fewer kids would be easier to adopt.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Carpe Cranium Political Tees
Political T-shirt designs offering the discerning wearer the opportunity to inject subtle irony into public discourse.
Iraq: Six Months At a Time
From MoveOn.org:
Endless war on the installment plan
This video makes it clear: No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush Administration and John McCain always have the same answer: 6 more months.
They're at it again this week, asking for six more months. But six months won't change anything—except the body count and the price tag.
So please forward this video to your friends, and let's keep the pressure on to bring our troops home.
Endless war on the installment plan
This video makes it clear: No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush Administration and John McCain always have the same answer: 6 more months.
They're at it again this week, asking for six more months. But six months won't change anything—except the body count and the price tag.
So please forward this video to your friends, and let's keep the pressure on to bring our troops home.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
10 mind-boggling reasons not to vote for McCain
From MoveOn.org:
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't)
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned."4
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10
Sources
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html
"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007
"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80
"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home
7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/
8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/
"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't)
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned."4
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10
Sources
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html
"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007
"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80
"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home
7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/
8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/
"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Can we get a re-vote?
From the Facebook group: Can I get a re-vote? Protest the DNC and mail in a can
To Howard Dean and members of the DNC
CAN WE GET A RE-VOTE IN MI AND FL?
We Americans cannot let it stand that FL and MI voices will not be heard at this year's democratic convention, that they will not have a voice in the nominating process for our presidential candidate. Approximately 9% of the electorate is being ignored and left out of this historic democratic process. The country and the world is watching how we proceed. In protest of the DNC's decision to strip the delegates of Florida and Michigan for doing what the first four states in the primaries were allowed to do without penalty, fellow Americans and supporters of the democratic process are launching a mail-in protest. CAN WE GET A RE-VOTE? Get ready, the cans are on their way to the DNC.
This is a monumental decision, whether to include these very important states in this process. Please make the choice that enhances democracy in the U.S.
Thank you.
Send your beer, soda pop, juice, vegetable, fruit, nut, pie filling, condensed milk, baking soda, tuna, Spam, coffee cans (please wash them first, then personalize them) to:
Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington DC 20003
Nancy Pelosi
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Harry Reid
Office of the Majority Leader
528 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
GUIDELINES FOR SENDING CANS:
1. Make sure they don't have any sharp edges. Nothing that could be perceived as dangerous or hazardous.
2. Please decorate them. They need to be "presents", not trash.
Please focus your decorations on the support of voters' rights. The Democratic leaders will not listen to us if we act like we are trying to divide the party. We need their support. We already have some slogans that you are more than welcome to use.
This is not a protest in favor of one candidate over the other. Anyone who supports democracy and voters' rights is free to join and participate.
Our only common support is for the voters of FL and MI.
To Howard Dean and members of the DNC
CAN WE GET A RE-VOTE IN MI AND FL?
We Americans cannot let it stand that FL and MI voices will not be heard at this year's democratic convention, that they will not have a voice in the nominating process for our presidential candidate. Approximately 9% of the electorate is being ignored and left out of this historic democratic process. The country and the world is watching how we proceed. In protest of the DNC's decision to strip the delegates of Florida and Michigan for doing what the first four states in the primaries were allowed to do without penalty, fellow Americans and supporters of the democratic process are launching a mail-in protest. CAN WE GET A RE-VOTE? Get ready, the cans are on their way to the DNC.
This is a monumental decision, whether to include these very important states in this process. Please make the choice that enhances democracy in the U.S.
Thank you.
Send your beer, soda pop, juice, vegetable, fruit, nut, pie filling, condensed milk, baking soda, tuna, Spam, coffee cans (please wash them first, then personalize them) to:
Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington DC 20003
Nancy Pelosi
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Harry Reid
Office of the Majority Leader
528 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
GUIDELINES FOR SENDING CANS:
1. Make sure they don't have any sharp edges. Nothing that could be perceived as dangerous or hazardous.
2. Please decorate them. They need to be "presents", not trash.
Please focus your decorations on the support of voters' rights. The Democratic leaders will not listen to us if we act like we are trying to divide the party. We need their support. We already have some slogans that you are more than welcome to use.
This is not a protest in favor of one candidate over the other. Anyone who supports democracy and voters' rights is free to join and participate.
Our only common support is for the voters of FL and MI.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sins of the President
Five years of occupation, five years of war crimes
A message from Ramsey Clark on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion
...
1. The April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair magazine contains an investigative report entitled “The Gaza Bombshell” supported by “confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials,” which shows that after the Bush Administration pushed for Palestinian elections in January 2006, then, having failed to anticipate a Hamas victory, urged President Abbas to remove the fairly elected Hamas officials. Thereafter, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an “action plan” to provide the means to develop an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan “to crush the inevitable resistance,” which failed, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and the violent consequences since with Hamas rockets striking Israel and Israeli assaults killing hundreds of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank. Congress was told only non-lethal aid as required by law, was being supplied to Fatah, while Secretary of State Rice raised cash to buy weapons for Fatah from which “at least 20 million of such lethal assistance got through.” The entire enterprise involved a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.
Far more dangerous than the Iran-Contra escapade of the Reagan Administration, in which Elliot Abrams himself was convicted, the Bush Administration has destroyed any chance for a united Palestine in the near future and peace in the Middle East. For his legacy Bush now hopes to impose a peace agreement between Israel and a Palestinian government without Hamas, both parties still reeling from the consequences of Bush’s planned violence. But a divided and traumatized Palestine is not capable of achieving a peace agreement that can win the support of the Palestinian people and secure peace. The U.S. has never denied the factual accuracy of this devastating report. Its only response was a self-righteous reiteration of US opposition to terrorism without addressing the statements in the story.
2. President Bush has vetoed Congressional legislation prohibiting torture by the CIA. Congress failed to override the veto by the required 60% of the voting members in the House, all in March 2008. This tells US intelligence agencies and military forces as well as the world at large that the US will continue its criminal practice of torture in violation of international and US law, a continuing impeachable offense.
3. President Bush is pressing the Government of Iraq, that his policies created, for a binding bilateral treaty recognizing a permanent US military presence in Iraq and a major share of oil exploration, development, production, distribution and control rights in Iraq for US oil companies. The new $700 million US Embassy in the heart of Baghdad will be the center of power in Iraq. Both are continuing impeachable offenses.
4. President Bush continues to threaten, among others, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and most of all Iran with the use of force, a violation of the U.N. Charter equal to the actual use of force. The threats are impeachable offenses. Considering his history, it would be naive and negligent to fail to act to prevent President Bush from further military aggression. Impeachment is the only sure way.
5. On March 11, 2008, the early retirement, effective March 31, 2008, of Admiral William J. Fallon, the commander of all US forces in the Middle East, was announced. Admiral Fallon replaced General John P. Abizaid only last year, with great fanfare from the Bush Administration. Admiral Fallon failed to meet their expectations. He emphasized diplomacy over force in dealing with Iran, supported additional troop withdrawals from Iraq and expressed the view that the US had not given sufficient attention to Afghanistan. Thomas P.M. Garnett, a respected military analyst, wrote a profile of Admiral Fallon for Esquire magazine earlier this year entitled “The Man Between War and Peace,” in which he quoted the Admiral as saying the “constant drumbeat of conflict” from the Bush Administration directed at Iran was neither helpful nor useful. The removal of Admiral Fallon to facilitate further aggression in Iraq and threats or assaults against Iran is an impeachable offense.
All of these activities of the Bush administration involve new impeachable offenses committed within the last few months. How many more impeachable acts will occur if we fail to achieve impeachment now?
Speaking before the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville, Tennessee on March 11, 2008—the first of three speeches President Bush has planned on the subject of his war and terrorism in advance of the testimony of General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker before Congress next month—he insisted, “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency” to a standing ovation. “It is the right decision at this point in my presidency, and it will forever be the right decision.”
Will President Bush tell the world when the decision “early in his presidency” was made to remove Saddam Hussein? Was it before or after September 11, 2001? January 1, 2003? Why did he claim his “Shock and Awe” aggression was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections with Al Qaeda and not mention his purpose was to remove Saddam Hussein when he ordered that aggression? Does he believe as the “Decider” he had authority to remove Heads of Foreign Governments of his choice?
In the speech to Religious Broadcasters, President Bush frequently spoke of his desire to spread freedom and democracy, arguing, “The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries... It will show others what’s possible." Does President Bush believe Iraq and Afghanistan are free and democratic? Does he believe any country in the world would want to trade its condition for the present condition of Iraq or Afghanistan? Does he know of a village that wants to be destroyed so it can be saved?
“And we undertake this work because we believe every human being bears the image of our Maker. That’s why we’re doing this,” he told the Religious Broadcasters. If President Bush believes every human being bears the image of our Maker, why does he send young Americans and spend trillions of dollars to destroy the image of human beings across whole nations? Why do his policies seek always to empower the rich and impoverish the poor?
Do not the poor also bear the image of our Maker?
On March 14, 2008, three days after the federal reserve offered the biggest investment banks on Wall Street $200 billion in cash loans in exchange for hard to sell mortgages, backed securities as collateral, resulting in jubilant bankers and the greatest one day rise in the Dow Jones average in five years, President Bush appeared before grateful bankers on Wall Street to assure them there will be no recession, that his tax cuts for the rich early in his presidency were right and his economic policies will forever be right.
The probability that President Bush will strike Iran with missiles before the end of his presidency is a high risk. Perhaps he will act in the fall to make military concerns dominate the November elections. Then will he say “The decision to prevent a madman from possessing nuclear bombs was the right decision late in my Presidency...and it will forever be the right decision”?
(To learn more, visit http://www.impeachbush.org)
A message from Ramsey Clark on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion
...
1. The April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair magazine contains an investigative report entitled “The Gaza Bombshell” supported by “confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials,” which shows that after the Bush Administration pushed for Palestinian elections in January 2006, then, having failed to anticipate a Hamas victory, urged President Abbas to remove the fairly elected Hamas officials. Thereafter, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an “action plan” to provide the means to develop an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan “to crush the inevitable resistance,” which failed, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and the violent consequences since with Hamas rockets striking Israel and Israeli assaults killing hundreds of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank. Congress was told only non-lethal aid as required by law, was being supplied to Fatah, while Secretary of State Rice raised cash to buy weapons for Fatah from which “at least 20 million of such lethal assistance got through.” The entire enterprise involved a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.
Far more dangerous than the Iran-Contra escapade of the Reagan Administration, in which Elliot Abrams himself was convicted, the Bush Administration has destroyed any chance for a united Palestine in the near future and peace in the Middle East. For his legacy Bush now hopes to impose a peace agreement between Israel and a Palestinian government without Hamas, both parties still reeling from the consequences of Bush’s planned violence. But a divided and traumatized Palestine is not capable of achieving a peace agreement that can win the support of the Palestinian people and secure peace. The U.S. has never denied the factual accuracy of this devastating report. Its only response was a self-righteous reiteration of US opposition to terrorism without addressing the statements in the story.
2. President Bush has vetoed Congressional legislation prohibiting torture by the CIA. Congress failed to override the veto by the required 60% of the voting members in the House, all in March 2008. This tells US intelligence agencies and military forces as well as the world at large that the US will continue its criminal practice of torture in violation of international and US law, a continuing impeachable offense.
3. President Bush is pressing the Government of Iraq, that his policies created, for a binding bilateral treaty recognizing a permanent US military presence in Iraq and a major share of oil exploration, development, production, distribution and control rights in Iraq for US oil companies. The new $700 million US Embassy in the heart of Baghdad will be the center of power in Iraq. Both are continuing impeachable offenses.
4. President Bush continues to threaten, among others, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and most of all Iran with the use of force, a violation of the U.N. Charter equal to the actual use of force. The threats are impeachable offenses. Considering his history, it would be naive and negligent to fail to act to prevent President Bush from further military aggression. Impeachment is the only sure way.
5. On March 11, 2008, the early retirement, effective March 31, 2008, of Admiral William J. Fallon, the commander of all US forces in the Middle East, was announced. Admiral Fallon replaced General John P. Abizaid only last year, with great fanfare from the Bush Administration. Admiral Fallon failed to meet their expectations. He emphasized diplomacy over force in dealing with Iran, supported additional troop withdrawals from Iraq and expressed the view that the US had not given sufficient attention to Afghanistan. Thomas P.M. Garnett, a respected military analyst, wrote a profile of Admiral Fallon for Esquire magazine earlier this year entitled “The Man Between War and Peace,” in which he quoted the Admiral as saying the “constant drumbeat of conflict” from the Bush Administration directed at Iran was neither helpful nor useful. The removal of Admiral Fallon to facilitate further aggression in Iraq and threats or assaults against Iran is an impeachable offense.
All of these activities of the Bush administration involve new impeachable offenses committed within the last few months. How many more impeachable acts will occur if we fail to achieve impeachment now?
Speaking before the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville, Tennessee on March 11, 2008—the first of three speeches President Bush has planned on the subject of his war and terrorism in advance of the testimony of General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker before Congress next month—he insisted, “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency” to a standing ovation. “It is the right decision at this point in my presidency, and it will forever be the right decision.”
Will President Bush tell the world when the decision “early in his presidency” was made to remove Saddam Hussein? Was it before or after September 11, 2001? January 1, 2003? Why did he claim his “Shock and Awe” aggression was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections with Al Qaeda and not mention his purpose was to remove Saddam Hussein when he ordered that aggression? Does he believe as the “Decider” he had authority to remove Heads of Foreign Governments of his choice?
In the speech to Religious Broadcasters, President Bush frequently spoke of his desire to spread freedom and democracy, arguing, “The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries... It will show others what’s possible." Does President Bush believe Iraq and Afghanistan are free and democratic? Does he believe any country in the world would want to trade its condition for the present condition of Iraq or Afghanistan? Does he know of a village that wants to be destroyed so it can be saved?
“And we undertake this work because we believe every human being bears the image of our Maker. That’s why we’re doing this,” he told the Religious Broadcasters. If President Bush believes every human being bears the image of our Maker, why does he send young Americans and spend trillions of dollars to destroy the image of human beings across whole nations? Why do his policies seek always to empower the rich and impoverish the poor?
Do not the poor also bear the image of our Maker?
On March 14, 2008, three days after the federal reserve offered the biggest investment banks on Wall Street $200 billion in cash loans in exchange for hard to sell mortgages, backed securities as collateral, resulting in jubilant bankers and the greatest one day rise in the Dow Jones average in five years, President Bush appeared before grateful bankers on Wall Street to assure them there will be no recession, that his tax cuts for the rich early in his presidency were right and his economic policies will forever be right.
The probability that President Bush will strike Iran with missiles before the end of his presidency is a high risk. Perhaps he will act in the fall to make military concerns dominate the November elections. Then will he say “The decision to prevent a madman from possessing nuclear bombs was the right decision late in my Presidency...and it will forever be the right decision”?
(To learn more, visit http://www.impeachbush.org)
Monday, March 17, 2008
House Democrats reject telecom amnesty
Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "House Democrats reject telecom amnesty,
warrantless surveillance" (March 14, 2008)
As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive—until today. One Democrat after the next—of all stripes—delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.
...It's hard not to believe that there's at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them. Quite the opposite: an outspoken opponent of telecom amnesty, warrantless eavesdropping and the Iraq War was just elected to the House from Denny Hastert's bright red district, and before that, Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda.
Virtually every one I know who has expended lots of efforts and energy on these FISA and telecom issues has assumed from the start—for reasons that are all too well-known—that we would lose. And we still might. But it's hard to deny that the behavior we're seeing from House Democrats is substantially improved, quite commendably so, as compared to the last year and even before that. It's very rare when there are meaningful victories and I think it's important to acknowledge when they happen.
Read the full story here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3498&id=12324-6402300-BOfNid&t=61
warrantless surveillance" (March 14, 2008)
As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive—until today. One Democrat after the next—of all stripes—delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.
...It's hard not to believe that there's at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them. Quite the opposite: an outspoken opponent of telecom amnesty, warrantless eavesdropping and the Iraq War was just elected to the House from Denny Hastert's bright red district, and before that, Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda.
Virtually every one I know who has expended lots of efforts and energy on these FISA and telecom issues has assumed from the start—for reasons that are all too well-known—that we would lose. And we still might. But it's hard to deny that the behavior we're seeing from House Democrats is substantially improved, quite commendably so, as compared to the last year and even before that. It's very rare when there are meaningful victories and I think it's important to acknowledge when they happen.
Read the full story here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3498&id=12324-6402300-BOfNid&t=61
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Hillary freeing her inner comeback-kid
My email to Versen (Hugo Zoom):
JV, yeah I'm all like "So" and there was this like thing and I just like finished watching the latest gnooze broadcast and I'm all like "Whoa..."
Funny. She is clever.
I'm drab. How are you? I'm surprised at how I felt about Hillary taking three of the states tonight. I was all like "Whoa..." A little disappointed. I suppose the media has painted Obama as such a darling that my brain started perceiving him as the sympathetic protagonist under attack by the strident Hillary. It, of course, is all scripted professional wrestling, so I shouldn't become emotionally involved either way. I did vote for Obama in the California primary, but I felt silly because I was so noncommittal about my choice and was just following what I sensed was the flow.
I didn't think your voting for Ron Paul today was a bad idea and I didn't make a face. I heard that Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary, so the crossover vote must be useful strategically, and your reasoning sounded logical to me.
As far as McCain mutating into a hawk after his experiences in Vietnam, I think it's because he doesn't remember much. In a documentary, a fellow soldier reminiscing about those days said that being with McCain on liberty was "like a train wreck." Hard drinking, hard partying all night. So apparently McCain spent a good portion of the Vietnam War hungover. (Do you think that anecdote is too cynical?)
JG
JV, yeah I'm all like "So" and there was this like thing and I just like finished watching the latest gnooze broadcast and I'm all like "Whoa..."
Funny. She is clever.
I'm drab. How are you? I'm surprised at how I felt about Hillary taking three of the states tonight. I was all like "Whoa..." A little disappointed. I suppose the media has painted Obama as such a darling that my brain started perceiving him as the sympathetic protagonist under attack by the strident Hillary. It, of course, is all scripted professional wrestling, so I shouldn't become emotionally involved either way. I did vote for Obama in the California primary, but I felt silly because I was so noncommittal about my choice and was just following what I sensed was the flow.
I didn't think your voting for Ron Paul today was a bad idea and I didn't make a face. I heard that Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary, so the crossover vote must be useful strategically, and your reasoning sounded logical to me.
As far as McCain mutating into a hawk after his experiences in Vietnam, I think it's because he doesn't remember much. In a documentary, a fellow soldier reminiscing about those days said that being with McCain on liberty was "like a train wreck." Hard drinking, hard partying all night. So apparently McCain spent a good portion of the Vietnam War hungover. (Do you think that anecdote is too cynical?)
JG
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Dear Senator Feinstein
Thank you so much for voting to approve Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. This courageous action by you and your colleagues will reverberate for decades around the world as our government restructures itself from a tripartite system to a unilaterally powerful executive branch subjected to no checks and balances provided by the greatly diminished legislative and judicial branches. The need for this type of governmental structure in the economic realities of the 21st century could not possibly have been foreseen by the authors of the Constitution in the 18th century. I understand how difficult it is to make decisions that fundamentally change the Constitution, and I commend you and thank you for taking this bold step.
Gratefully,
John Garvey
Gratefully,
John Garvey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)