Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Junkies and Compulsive Gamblers Sell the Family Jewels to Feed the Habit, Perpetuate the Denial.
The FY2007 federal budget includes a scheme to raise money by selling off as much as 800,000 acres of America's treasured public lands. I oppose any such sale, and I reject these plans to privatize our national lands.
I am dumbfounded that everything in America, including access to the White House and Congress, our seaports, and now, our natural resources and public lands, seems to be for sale to the highest bidder.
Those lands are national treasures, to be preserved for all, and to be handed on to Posterity.
It would not be conceivable to liquidate public lands, were America not a bankrupt nation. And we would not be bankrupt, had we not squandered our FY2000, $230-billion surplus on an illegal, undeclared war against an unarmed, third-world country, and had we not given several successive, massive tax cuts to multi-national corporations and the people who control them.
I'm going to quit my job. Then I'm going to buy a new car and a big house. Then I'm going on a 'round the world vacation. I'll live on borrowed money -- from China. Why not? That's the kind of book keeping that the whole country seems to be doing these days.
Actually, this land-disposal scheme is analogous to a drug addict or a compulsive gambler who mortgages his home to feed his habit.
Before we resort to selling off our family jewels, perhaps we should consider making the Mineral Industry pay the $7-billion in royalties that we recently waived from them. We might also hold accountable the war contractors who are responsible for the missing $9-billion in Iraq Reconstruction funds. If that won't restore our national solvency, perhaps we should repeal the tax cuts we've enacted during the past five years.
Members of Congress should live up to their charter to represent the People, and publicly declare their opposition to this idea, immediately. Our public lands are not the government's slush fund.
It's time to contact your Members of Congress. Tell them to start doing their job.
For more details about what you can buy, (for the right price), see America for Sale: A Congressional Report on How America Is Being Sold to the Highest Bidder, by the US House Rules Committee Democratic Staff.
[jj]
Friday, February 17, 2006
$400 Billion, and Counting...
The Iraq war would pay for itself, we were told. Three years later, after countless cuts to vital domestic programs, with massive tax cuts and outright giveaways to big multinational corporations and people who live off of inherited wealth, we're up to $400 billion.
There's no end in sight, either. Indeed, our illustrious leaders recently have gone from calling this the War On Terror, to calling it The Long War. How long?
Is this how the USA would prosecute a war?
Numerous military and other strategic experts have said that we don't have enough troops, and we're not adequately supporting the ones we do have. Far from supporting the troops, it often looks like we are abusing them.
Stop-loss orders keep our troops in service long after they have fulfilled their obligation. This imposes unfair, unreasonable hardship and risk to them and their families.
To cut funding for Veterans' services, and to charge veterans for the services they do receive is ungrateful.
Charging combat soldiers for lost equipment is absurd. It is also obscene.
Today's army is not the army in which I served. It sure as hell is not my father's army. I grew up in my father's army, and that army's motto was "The Army takes care of its own." What has happened to us?
Is the USA really at war?
I wonder whether, in spite of all the blood spilled and lives ruined, the huge price tag, as well as the degradation of morale and prestige within the Military Services, indeed, within the whole country; is the United States even really at war?
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. But our forces are in Iraq today because Congress gave President Bush the authority to use force against Saddam, who was falsely accused of an evil plot to launch an Armageddon upon everyone who is free. Is this what Congress had in mind? Did Congress really intend to give the president an open-ended, refillable debit card, with which to endlessly consume our national blood and treasure? I'll bet that if you could get your congressperson to tell the truth for just one second, he or she would say, "No."
I don't think we are at war at all. Were we at war, I don't think that we would have any idea who our enemy would be, much less, how we would know if we had defeated it.
I think we are victims of a very cruel hoax. A hoax that brings enormous rewards to a handful of hoaxters, while it bleeds us and our country dry. The hoax must be stopped, and the hoaxters must be called to account.
Your Congress people need to hear from you today. Tell them to start doing their jobs.
jj
February 17, 2006
Dear Rep. Hefley,
This latest $65 billion supplemental request is the fourth time in three years the Administration has requested off-budget billions to be taken from other critical needs and poured into the unending war in the Middle East.
I am ashamed and angry that we neglect health care, education, scientific and medical research, veterans' support, and other vital programs , while we pour limitless funding into an illegal, undeclared war, that is still being justified by ever-changing lies and misrepresentations; and which only benefits wealthy companies, such as Exxon and Halliburton. Insult adds to our injury as we watch massive tax cuts going to those corporations and the class of people who control them.
(Exxon earned nearly $37 billion last year, as America paid record fuel prices. According to Halliburton's latest quarterly report, their annual operating income more than tripled in 2005, and yesterday, the company declared a 20% dividend hike, a $1 billion share-buyback program, and a 2:1 stock split).
The war in Iraq is not helping the Iraqi people, it is not helping the future of the Greater Middle East, and it certainly is not helping the United States.
If Congress believes that we must wage this war, then Congress should ascend to its Constitutional charter with a legitimate Declaration of War, against an authentic, corporeal enemy that can surrender to us when they are defeated.
Congress should then call for the sacrifices that are necessary to quickly win the war from all American citizens and Industries. Finally, Congress should raise and support appropriate armies, to win.
"Staying the course" in "the Long War" is costing our nation $100,000 a minute. Our soldiers, our children and our nation are not served by continuing to plunge heedlessly ahead. We look to you in Congress to exercise responsibility for our future.
I urge you to vote AGAINST this supplemental appropriation.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Senator Allard: Live Up To Your Oath.
February 10, 2006
Senator Wayne Allard
521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Via Fax: (202) 224-6471
Dear Senator Allard,
I am writing to you in reaction to an article I read in today's Pueblo Chieftain, entitled "Allard backs wiretaps, attacks public disclosure." The article's subject is a floor speech that you made on February 8.
You are quoted in that article, saying that "Most Coloradans are not alarmed by the use of this tool as many of my Democratic colleagues might think," he said. "Most Coloradans see the common sense and know why it is so important to our national security that we conduct such a program."
Senator Allard, this Coloradan is indeed alarmed, not only by the domestic spying, but also of your apparent lack of appreciation for our Constitutional rights, the necessity for Due Process, and the Rule of Law. Please do not count me, nor anyone I know among the Most Coloradans to whom you refer. Furthermore, as most Coloradans are generally perceived as rugged individualists who cherish their privacy and their property rights, I am certain that if you talked to more Coloradans, you would find that your statement is inaccurate.
You are quoted, saying that "This program is not being used to listen to communications of innocent Americans."
How can you be sure of that? How do you define "innocent?" How does the U.S. Government define what is a "terrorist?"
Is a peaceful environmental activist a terrorist? Were the vegan protesters who were subjected to false imprisonment, false arrest and harassment by officials of the Homeland Security Division of DeKalb County, GA terrorists? And what about those who openly criticize the president or the government; are they terrorists?
Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a terrorist?
It may be true that many people would not object to the government listening to their phones or reading their email. However, as our elected representative, you are sworn to uphold and defend our constitutional rights, even if some of us are nevertheless naive enough to surrender those rights out of government-generated fear.
Our Constitutional Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment guarantees our privacy. It explicitly states that the government may not invade our privacy except upon a duly-issued warrant, on Probable Cause, and supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing what the government is looking for.
I realize that modern times require modern methods, and so did the legislators who wrote the 1978 FISA law.
As you may know, FISA permits the government to spy on Americans, provided that the spy agency requests a warrant from the secret FISA court, within 72 hours (or 15 days in time of war), of the conduct of the surveillance activity. I understand that only four, of nearly 2000 such requests have ever been declined. Given that minimal rejection rate, along with the 72-hour grace period to file for a warrant, I don't see why the government cannot spy on whomever, whenever it pleases, while still complying with the requirement to issue a warrant when it believes it has acquired legitimate evidence of terrorist activity.
Here is the difference between the FISA regulation and the president's unwarranted domestic spy program:
Under FISA, the government must demonstrate just cause and reason for spying on its citizens. When incriminating evidence is acquired, charges must be brought and prosecuted through Constitutional Due Process.
On the other hand, if no warrant is required, then the government may spy, without documentation or accountability, on anyone. Such power, when coupled with a vague policy concerning what constitutes terrorism; as well as the fact that so-called "enemy combatants," (another vaguely defined presidential concept of dubious legal merit), may be apprehended, held and even tortured --indefinitely -- without warrant, charges or access to legal counsel; one could only describe the United States of America as an oppressive, tyrannical police state with unfettered governmental powers to abuse its citizens whenever it becomes expedient to do so.
I think that Most Coloradans would strongly object to the president's domestic spy program if they truly understood all that it implies. However, your speech appears to willfully mask those important implications.
All Coloradans expect you to uphold your Oath of Office to defend the Constitution. Your support of the president's warrantless domestic spying activities contradicts that oath, and it encourages the violation of all Coloradans' rights. You should reconsider your position on the matter.
Sincerely,
[Jedi Jew]
PS: It is widely reported that I. Lewis Libby testified before a grand jury that Vice President Cheney directed him to release classified information to discredit critics of the war in Iraq. This may have resulted in the exposure of a covert CIA agent and rendered ineffective whatever operations the agent may have been conducting. It also may have jeopardized life and limb of other friendly covert operatives, as well. Such flagrant disregard for national security in the pursuit of political advantage deeply troubles me. All of those involved must be held accountable.
[jj]
[For more on this, please read Senator Robert Byrd's speech from February 15, 2006.]
