Yesterday, The Constitution Died

Yesterday, The Constitution died.

Yesterday, the Senate voted to de-criminalize the crimes of the White House and the telecommunication companies.

Yesterday, I lost all the hope that I gained after the Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006.

Yesterday, I lost faith in my country... again.

Yesterday, most people didn't even know about what the Senate did.

Yesterday, the Sensational Media was too busy to inform the public about this attack on our rights and the rule of law.

Yesterday, I sent the following message to Sen. Reid and many other Senators:

If telecom immunity passes, our Constitution will be effectively dead, and its blood will be on your hands.

Have you no shame? No decency? No respect for the rule of law? No respect for your oath to defend the Constitution?

We are lost. The Democrats are lost. They won't stand up for our rights and Bush and the Republicans our trying to take them away.

What hope is left for us? Where do we go now for leadership? Where do we go to restore our country to its former glory?

Yesterday, I wondered why I bother to contact members of Congress.

Yesterday, I started to question why I try to change things.

Yesterday, my hope for impeachment hearings faltered.

Then yesterday, I realized that the fight isn't over.

Then yesterday, I realized that we have to work to get the House to deny amnesty for the telecoms (and, by default, Bush).

Then yesterday, I watched Australia apologize to the Stolen Generation, and I realized that we can't give up no matter how long it takes.

Then yesterday, Donna Edwards defeated Al Wynn, and I realized that we can defeat politicians who choose corporations over the people.

Then yesterday, I saw votes for Democratic candidates outnumber votes for Republican candidates by huge margins, and I realized that we can succeed.

Then yesterday, I began to hope again.

Outrage Overload

There is too much to be outraged about these days, and today is no exception.

I am feeling a little overwhelmed by it all, which makes me just want to take a break from it all, but there are some things I feel the need to mention.

First on my mind are the Democratic presidential candidates who have decided that they are against democracy:

Five Democratic hopefuls pull names off Michigan ballot

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

October 10, 2007

WASHINGTON - Five Democratic presidential contenders yesterday yanked their names off the Michigan ballot, delivering a group snub to a state feuding with the national Democratic Party over its decision to move its primary to mid-January in violation of party rules.

The removals reinforce the authority of the Democratic National Committee to impose order on a tumultuous campaign in which dozens of states have pushed up their nominating contests in hopes of attracting more money and attention from the presidential candidates. The DNC has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that defy the primary rules set by the party.

The candidates' decisions provide a symbolic boost for New Hampshire, which is anxiously trying to protect its historic status as host of the first-in-the-nation primary. DNC rules allow for early contests in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada, but Michigan and Florida defied the DNC by scheduling their primaries for Jan. 15 and Jan. 29, respectively.

[...]Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware - joined by John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - declared yesterday that they would not be candidates in the state's primary. Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut - who, like all of the Democratic candidates, have pledged not to actively campaign in the state - chose to remain on the ballot.

Congratulations to these losers: Obama, Biden, Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich. Their stance against democracy has effectively made it much easier for me to decide who I will be voting for in the primary election because I won't be voting for any ot them.

I am not happy that Clinton and Dodd have stated that they won't campaign in Michigan, but their stance is the much lesser of two evils in this case. As an Ohioan, I will show my solidarity with Michigan (a rare thing for an Ohioan to do) by not voting for anyone who Michigan voters can't vote for.

The DNC and their anti-democratic rules can rot for all I care. They won't be getting a dime from me. My money is much better spent elsewhere like MoveOn.org or some other entity that is willing to fight for democracy and fight against an archaic and unfair system that places Iowa and New Hampshire above all other states.

By the way, before I move onto another topic, there's this article about Kucinich:

Kucinich remains on Michigan ballot after trying to withdraw

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan voters will have a choice of four candidates in the Democratic presidential primary, even though Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich tried to join four other Democrats who have decided not to be on the ballot.

[...]But Kucinich twice filed incorrect paperwork with the Michigan secretary of state's office, and had not filed a notice of withdrawal with his notarized signature by Tuesday's 4 p.m. deadline, said the office's spokesman, Ken Silfven.

A campaign manager first signed the paperwork, then the campaign sent in another withdrawal notice signed by Kucinich. But the signature had not been notarized as required.

Either Kucinich's staff is absent-minded or they are being very crafty by pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire while still remaining on Michigan's ballot. Either way, I am still not voting for him.

So it guess it is down to Dodd, Clinton, and Gravel for me. At this point, I am leaning towards Dodd, but Clinton or even Gravel could steal that away by coming out against the anti-democratic Iowa-and-New-Hampshire-always-go-first nomination process. (C'mon, Gravel! What have you got to lose?)

We need a national primary. Period. Anything else is a crime against democracy.

Quickly, (because I don't have a lot of time right now) here are the other things that have recently caused me to be outraged:

Dems Fail Litmus Test

The Washington Post reported today that Sen. Harry Reid ☼ has informed private-equity funds that the Senate will not be closing the obscenely inequitable tax loophole that allows mega-billionaires to be taxed at 15 percent – lower than most working Americans. Harry says there simply isn't time in the busy Senate schedule. Seriously. And the Post points out that if there isn't time in 2007, there almost certainly won't be in 2008 either – "Congress tends to be leery of tax increases in election years."

I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with the private-equity firms and hedge funders putting "more than 20 lobbying firms" to work for them in the Halls of Congress. Nor is Reid's about face a sign of the Wall Street Execs "increasing their campaign donations to members of Congress." It's simply a jam-packed schedule – who has time to address the shafting of revenues for public infrastructure investment? Rebuilding the shredded social contract? funding health care, education, or new sustainable energy programs? Making up for lost revenues due to insane Bush tax cuts?

As I posted previously, this was a litmus test for Democrats – to see whether the party > is capable of truly taking a stand for working people. They have failed it. Rick Perlstein blogged today of Democratic capitulations on this issue and FISA.

Steamier Earth Likely, Due to Global Warming

John Roach
for National Geographic News

October 10, 2007

[...]Scientists expect the rising humidity to cause heavier rains, stronger hurricanes, and increased human heat stress.

[...]Climate scientists have long predicted that a warmer world will allow more water to evaporate, thus making the planet more humid.

Indeed, several studies have shown trends of increasing surface humidity around the planet, but until now scientists were uncertain what was driving the trend.

The new study combined a fresh data set of surface humidity with climate models, "and actually attribute[s] those trends to human influence," said study co-author Nathan Gillett, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England.

Partisanship Accusation Expanded in Alabama

By PHILIP SHENON WASHINGTON, Oct. 10

The son of Alabama’s current Republican governor boasted that a Republican judge would “hang Don Siegelman,”

Sorry, I don't have more of a quote for that last one. I can't access the link right now.

One more thing before I go, this last subject I am outraged about not because former President Carter said these things, but because not enough people are saying it with him:

Carter: US has abandoned 'basic principles of human rights'

Associated Press
Thursday October 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Former US president Jimmy Carter last night told CNN the US tortured prisoners in violation of international law, following an assertion last week from George Bush that the US "does not torture".
The 2002 winner of the Nobel peace prize accused Mr Bush of making up his own definition of torture and the hawkish vice president, Dick Cheney, of being a "militant".

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Mr Carter told CNN.

Mitt Romney: Liar Or Idiot?

My Mormon mother recently asked me if I would consider voting for the Mormon Mitt Romney for President in 2008.

Let me again reiterate that after eight long and destructive years of George W. Bush there is NO chance that I would even think of considering voting for a Republican in 2008. In fact, after George W. Bush, I may never vote for a Republican for president. Republicans like Nixon, Reagan, and especially George W. Bush have proven to me that Republicans care little for humanity, equality, Christian values, the rule of law, our Constitution, and our country.

But I do not want to get into all that right now. Now, I want to talk about Romney, and why he, in two recent debates, has proven a man like him should never be president. In two short statements, he has cemented my resolve to never vote for him in a million years.

Here is the first one:

Romney: ‘We Ought To Double Guantanamo’

As Crooks and Liars noted , former governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) said tonight that instead of shutting the prison at Guantanamo Bay, “we ought to double Guantanamo,” in part so that detainees “don’t get access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil.”

ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

Wow, that's crazy!

I mean it is one thing to support Bush when he is down to a 32% approval rating in the polls, but to come out and be MORE evil than Bush while running for president indicates Romney is either incredibly brave or incredibly stupid.

Romney wants to double that crime against humanity, Guantanamo Bay?! He wants to double that place of evil that is both a symbolic and actual representation of torture, our abuse of human rights, and the degradation of our American values?!

Where are your supposed Christian morals, Romney?!

In my book, wanting to "double Guantanamo" is enough of a dealbreaker, but Romney manages to "double" my disdain for him with this:

Memo to the Media: Mitt Romney doesn’t know “Jack” about Iraq

By: John Amato on Thursday, June 7th, 2007 at 12:15 PM - PDT

CNN: Romney: Well, it’s a setting that’s almost a null set. Which is, if we knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and if he had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn’t be having this conversation…

This statement by Romney is why I titled this post the way I did, because this statement is blatantly false. Hussein did allow the IAEA inspectors into his country, the IAEA inspectors were in Iraq before the war, and they told us that THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ! So Romney is either a liar or an idiot, and it enrages me that the MSM is letting this slip by.

The CrooksandLiars.com post above goes on to link to Matthew Yglesias for the information that proves that Romney's statement is false, and I will link to it also:

Null Set Blogging, Part Three

Almost a null set, eh? Brian also notes that this is "evidence that he didn't just screw up his Iraq history at the debates on Tuesday, but rather that he's in a constant state of either denial, ignorance, or deception."

On March 7, 2003 Muhammed ElBarradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the world, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."

The person who actually ordered the IAEA inspectors to leave Iraq was... (drumroll, please)... George W. Bush! And why did he do that? So that he could begin bombing Iraq.

Does Romney believe Americans have such a bad memory that we would forget all that and believe his inaccurate version of recent history? Well, he may be partially right because the MSM isn't doing its job by rushing to correct him and remove this flagrant deception from the public conversation.

In short, no, I will not be voting for Romney.

I usually take pride in being a Mormon, but deceitful, pro-torture, anti-human rights Mormons like Romney, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and professional bigot Glenn Beck make me ashamed of my religion. (Thank goodness for our Mormon Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who restores some of my lost pride.)

Romney wants to double Guantanamo and lies about Iraq? Hmm. I think we got more than enough of that line of thinking from Bush. We definitely do not need another four years of that from a Bush clone like Romney.

Republican Track Record

I usually write for my blog whenever something inspires me, but sometimes I get inspired to write yet find myself speechless. Fortunately, when that happens, I usually come across another writer's words that say exactly what I would write if I was not stumped.

This time Hunter on DailyKos beautifully articulates my feelings about Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, then we will be more susceptible to more attacks like 9/11:

Not Breaking: Rudy Giuliani Is A Fearmongering Jackass

[...]Yes. If a Republican is elected, they can "anticipate" terrorist attacks. You know, perhaps because staff members with their "hair on fire" are warning them of the high risk of terrorist attacks. Perhaps because staff members are trying to educate them in vain about a recent ongoing history of terrorist attacks. Perhaps because somebody practically staples a memo to the Republican President's forehead dramatically entitled, in a large and bolded font, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S." MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

[...]I was pondering over this last night, as a matter of fact, so let's think about this for a minute. Under six years of President Bush, there have been major terrorist attacks on two American cities, public-safety-threatening electricity blackouts artificially created by major energy corporations in an effort to extort the recipients of that electricity, deficits that have reached crisis proportions, criminal indictments of Republican congressmen nationwide and even of Republican White House staffers, one of Americas "crown jewel" cities was in large part destroyed and its population turned into refugees battling a national government response that ranged from incompetent to absent, the defacto suspensions of habeas and other Constitutional rights, the international diplomatic isolation of America, and there have been two major wars, both ongoing.

I recommend reading the whole post.

I honestly do not understand how the numbers between potential presidential candidates in polls are even close between the opposing political parties. I look at everything... EVERYTHING that has happened during Bush's terms, and I cannot fathom how anyone could even consider voting for another four years of a Republican presidency. (Then again, I cannot fathom how anyone voted for Bush in 2004 after they had four years to experience his incompetence.)

Some moderates may claim, "Oh, all politicians are the same." They are wrong. That might have been true twenty or fifteen years ago, but it just is not true anymore.

I used to be a moderate and an independent before George W Bush became president. From the moment the Supreme Court installed him as president over the will of the majority of the American people, I knew his presidency would be terrible. Even before his inadequacies as a leader became so blatantly obvious, before he even took the oath of office (which he has broken countless times since), I never imagined he could ever be re-elected. Then he not only proved to be the very definition of incompetent but also proved to essentially be an evil dictator.

Because of Bush:

we were attacked on 9/11

we invaded Iraq because of lies.

we did not finish our job in Afghanistan.

we did not capture Osama bin Laden.

we are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

we have not properly aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

we have record deficits and a record national debt.

we have a shrinking middle class.

we have prolonged the fight against global warming.

we have an increase in terrorism worldwide.

we are viewed negatively by the rest of the world.

we are responsible for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other examples of torture and abuses of human rights.

we have the Jack Abramoff scandal.

we the fired US Attorneys scandal.

we have the Valerie Plame scandal.

we had the Enron scandal.

we have evil men like Cheney and Rove in positions of power.

we have incompetent men like Gonzales in power.

we have corporation advocates overseeing their own industries.

we have had corporations writing the laws that affect them.

we have our troops held hostage by a President who ignores the public which he is supposed to work for.

we have an White House that ignores reality and the rule of law.

we have seen an increase in poverty.

we have seen an increase in job-killing Free Trade Agreements.

we have seen an increase in CEO pay benefits and an decrease in pay and benefits for everyone else.

we have an extreme right-wing Supreme Court.

we have a Supreme Court who has begun to dismantle Roe v. Wade at the expense of women's health.

we have had illegal wiretapping of Americans.

we have had illegal searches of our phone records.

we have had the Geneva Conventions violated by the White House.

we have had our Constitution violated by the White House.

we have had the right to habeas corpus violated by the White House.

we have had the breakdown of our system of checks and balances.

we have the most criminal and unethical White House in our nation's history.

The list just goes on and on, and after all that has happened in the last several years, how anyone could even think of voting for another Republican president is beyond insanity.

Giuliani and the other Republican presidential candidates cannot offer any positive change or reform because they agree with almost everything the Bush administration has done.

I cannot take another Republican presidency after Bush. Our country cannot take... cannot afford another Republican presidency after Bush.

We need to restore our country to what it once was, and no current Republican candidate is willing to do that.

All politicians are not the same, not anymore. Things are so unbalanced these days that I do not recognize my country anymore.

Could you imagine if a Republican was arguing against habeas corpus and for torture twenty years ago? They would not be in politics anymore if they did that twenty years ago, but today they can be Attorney General or Vice President.

Everything has been so unbalanced these last several years. I would expect the current political climate from an episode of the Twilight Zone or some Orwellian story, but not in reality in America in the 21st century.

I want my country back.

(I guess I was not so speechless afterall.)

Update: Olbermann did one of his impressive Special Comments on this topic and CrooksandLiars.com has the video. Watch it.

Another FOX Debate Bites The Dust

Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are out of the Fox News Propaganda Channel debate:

Obama, Clinton to Skip Fox-Backed Debate

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not participate in a Democratic debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel this fall, campaign aides indicated Monday.

The decision by the two Democratic presidential candidates follows an announcement last week by John Edwards, another White House contender, that he would forgo the Fox event.

The Sept. 23 debate, set for Detroit, is co-sponsored by the cable news network and by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.

Without Obama, Clinton and Edwards, however, Fox and the CBC institute would be missing three of the marquee contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

F"N"C has been legitimized for far too long by the Democratic targets of the F"N"C attacks, and killing a second F"N"C debate is a good start to rectifying that mistake.

Naturally, I think that Democrats should take this further and freeze out F"N"C entirely. I cannot imagine Dick Cheney agreeing to a one-on-one interview with Air America Radio, so why do Democrats think that it is okay to go on Fox?