Friday, February 22, 2008

The Year in Review, 2007 Person of the Year: Barack Obama

Barack Obama is chosen as the "Person of The Year" for 2007 merely because he has come so far in such a relatively short period of time. He has proven himself to be a master organizer who has managed to raise more funds than any other presidential candidate in either party through the small donation of 20 or 30 dollars. The miracle of his campaign is that he has not made an issue of being the only serious African-American candidate. As a result he is appealing to all Democrats regardless of race , winning primaries in states like Idaho, Iowa and Nebraska that have relatively small communities of African-Americans if any. He has connected with the youth of the United States, promising them something "new" On various occasions I have heard his opponents (McCain, Bloomberg, Clinton) say you can't become President with so called "happy talk" but to this point he is proving them wrong. The same detractors point to his "lack of experience" but the public is well aware of the senators and congresspersons who have little passed legislation to go along with their "experience". It is apparent that the country wants to go in another direction and people are not going continue the failed policies of the seasoned politicians of both parties who continue to extract funds that should be going towards education, health care and protecting the environment instead to a senseless, unjustified and unwinnable war.

The Threat of Martial Law

The rising tide of suspicion over the events of 9/11 continue you to grow, yet you hear nothing about it mainstream media. The number of people who are aware of the PNAC (Project For A New American Century) also continues to grow and once again very little is mentioned about this revolutionary project that espouses the need for a catasthrophic event to rally the public behind the president in the same way that the people supported President Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. Could the destruction the world trade center be just the kind of event the authors of the PNAC anticipated? Why did Tower #7 go down when it was never hit
by a plane? Why was twin tower custodian Willie Rodriguez prevented from giving testimony during the 9/11 hearings when he has been around the world telling interested parties that there were a series of explosions that took place prior to the plane hitting the enormous structure? Why was our sky security system (N.O.R.A.D) down and ineffective for the very first time? (VP Richard Cheney was the man in charge). Who was in charge of overall security of the World Trade Center on that fateful date 9/11, it was none other than President George Bush's younger brother. All the these facts have been ignored or at best underreported by the major news outlets. This could only lead to the conclusion of collusion. They would much rather bombard us with the trials and trivails of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears.
This all leads to the strong possibility of martial law if President Bush decides he just doesn't want to leave office. There are many influencial conservative minded individuals who have made a long term investment in Iraq and I believe they have little regard for the wishes of the people of The United States who oppose the war. If John McCain is "elected" president it will not cause this group of people concern because it is painfully obvious that McCain will follow the same policies of Bush. Why would anyone do this knowing that Bush's popularity ratings are in the toilet hovering at around 28%? If either Clinton or Obama is the new president this will cause great concern for this power elite that wholeheartedly supports this war. It is very likely that they will demand that a "State of Emergency" be invoked and the war will continue. There are those who continue to say "Oh no, that's ridiculous, this is the USA, something of that nature would never happen here" To those people I would say "You probably would have said the same thing years ago if you were told that the day would come when all of our telephone conversations would be monitored too" The vast majority of USA citizens in my opinion are uninformed and it seems as if they don't want to think for themselves. This is the reason why we have millions of God fearing people who are following false religious zealots. The lemmings will find their way to the polls every election day without ever realizing they are voting against their own self interests.
There was another 9/11, the one in 1973 when people in Chile also thought "It would NEVER happen here" Well it did happen there and thousands of people were herded into stadiums and murdered because they opposed the policies of the US installed dictator Augusto Pinochet. In order to prevent something like this from happening the people of the United States must be proactive and not reactive. If nothing is done by the next election day it will already be too late. Just look at what Pervez Musharef did in Pakistan, what is there to prevent the Bush/Cheney cabal from doing the same thing here? I hope that I am wrong about this very real threat of martial law in the United States, but I don't think so.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Republican New Hampshire Legislator Wants Bush and Cheney Impeached and Prosecuted by Dan Dewalt (http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/31214)

In a packed hearing room on Feb 19th, under a carved wooden sign reading "Live Free or Die", the New Hampshire House committee of State-Federal Relations and Veterans' Affairs heard testimony on Representative Betty Hall's HR 24, which calls on the U.S. Congress to begin impeachment hearings for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
What was most notable about the four straight hours of testimony was not that opponents of the resolution could only muster two people willing to testify against it, both Republican stalwarts using selected excerpts from Jefferson's parliamentary manual or from the bill itself, whose arguments were embarrassingly empty.
It was not that Kris Roberts, the committee chair, had taken this hearing seriously enough to have researched the law, history and nuances of the subject, and that he used this to inform the proceedings in a reasonably fair manner.
It was not the fact that after the hearing ended, several pro-impeachment witnesses were approached by committee members and thanked for their clarity and useful testimony.
It was not even the novelty of the interjections by one committee member that would periodically steer the conversation abruptly into Rockefeller/Trilateral Commission territory.
The most remarkable moment came late in the afternoon when Republican House member Steve Vaillancourt strode into the room to testify. After passing out copies of the second chapter of Patrick Buchanan's "Day of Reckoning" as supporting evidence, Vaillancourt opened his remarks quoting "fools rush in where wise men fear to tread", and it sounded like a set up to condemn a rush to impeach. But instead he said that Betty Hall is neither fool nor wise man, but is a model of courage and that her impeachment resolution should be supported.
And then the fun began.
Member Vaillancourt then gave a short history lesson, telling the committee that until Bush/Cheney, America had never engaged in an offensive war [sic.], and pointing out that the Truman, Eisenhower. Kennedy and Reagan "Doctrines" had all been based on defense and had not been offensive in nature. Warming to the subject, he delved into the ramifications of Bush/Cheney's actions, saying that their reckless foreign policy has been anti-American, unconstitutional, and ruinously costly to the nation.
He was fairly thundering by the time that he pronounced that not only should Bush and Cheney be impeached, but also they should be tried as war criminals in a Nuremburg style trial for crimes against humanity. He flatly stated that the war in Iraq has provided grounds for war crimes charges against the President and Vice President. And there was not one word of protest from a single committee member. They may or may not support this resolution to impeach, but there seems to be no one left with a credible argument to defend Bush/Cheney.
Vaillancourt said that he spoke not as a Republican, a New Hampshire citizen or an American, but as a member of humanity. His remarks made a common sense plea for an honest appraisal of our current political situation, for the acknowledgement that we have a duty to act as a decent and responsible people, and that principle be the governing factor of our government's actions. These are all values that should, and once did, cut across party lines. If the current political parties have forgotten this, and become so degraded as to allow the lawlessness and criminality of this administration to go unchecked, the people have not.
And at that hearing the people had their chance to speak. One member of the committee remarked that she had never before seen such a wide range of viewpoints as represented by the witnesses, to be so united on one issue.
After deliberation the next day, loyalty to party leadership proved a stronger pull than reasoned argument, for five committee members voted to recommend the bill, with eleven voting against. Now facing an uphill battle to get it passed in a full House vote in March, Betty Hall was still encouraged by the committee hearing and vote. She has received much more support for this resolution than she did with a similar effort last year, and is already working to get grass roots supporters out between now and the vote to get their legislators' attention.
If the grass roots continue to pour out as they did on Tuesday, and if there were a few more politicians like Steve Vaillancourt and Betty Hall, we might see things begin to change. It's instructive to remember that some politicians who are now leading the charge for impeachment did not want to talk about it only a few short months ago. The spotlight is now on the New Hampshire House, the third largest deliberative body on the planet, and arguably one of the more democratic representative systems anywhere as well. These representatives may listen to an outsider's viewpoint on what to do about the Constitution, but they will be influenced most by the neighbors whom they represent.
The question is, is New Hampshire angry enough and organized enough to convince the legislature to call for impeachment? For those outside of New Hampshire the question is, how can we raise the temperature everywhere else, making it all the more plausible that the Granite State will reach the boiling point.