Welcome to the Democratic Talk Radio Blog
Buy Tramadol Now3 53 Buy Tramadol100mg Buy TramadolTramadol Best BuyTramadol Buy TramadolBuy Tramadol TwinpharmBuy Hydrochloride Tramadol85 Buy TramadolBuy Tablet TramadolBuy Online Tramadol UrlBuy Fl In Online TramadolBlogspot.com Buy TramadolBuy Tramadol HclUltram TramadolIs Tramadol A NarcoticDrug Interaction Of TramadolTramalPainkiller TramadolTramadol TabletsWhich Is Better Vicodin UltramTramadol Hci TabletsTramadol EuphoriaMedication Called TramadolWhat Type Of Drug Is TramadolUltram AbuseTramadol Drug TestsTramadol Caps 50mgReactions To TramadolWhat Is Ultracet Made OfWhat Is Tramadol 377What Is TramacetWhat Is Tramadol Hcl 50mg TabVicodin Vs. TramadolTramadol ForumsTramadol During PregnancyTramadol CheapIdentifying PillsAnalgesic Online TramadolOvernight Tramadol OnlineEffects Online TramadolC D O Online TramadolTramadol Medicine OnlineOnline Propecia TramadolOnline Tramadol CarisoprodolAvesto Online TramadolOnline Tramadol UltramInternational Online TramadolUltram Side EffectsUltracetIs Ultram A Narcotic
Democratic Talk Radio announces the creation of our first blog !
It will supplement but not replace our active Democratic Talk Radio message board.
The blog URL address will be democratictalkradio.com/wordpress and our active message board URL address remains the same.
You might want to consider this RSS feed as well .
Feel free to use ChewinTheFat.com’s RSS 2 Javascript converter to easily post our blog on your website.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 11, 2006
CONTACTS: Toby Chaudhuri of CAF at 202-955-5665 x153 or Rick Beilke of PCAF at 202-293-0222
REP. TOM DELAY THREATENS MEDIA OUTLETS RUNNING ADS LINKING HIM TO CORRUPTION
Campaign for America’s Future and Public Campaign Action Fund Vigorously Protest
DeLay’s Strong-Arm Tactics Against First Amendment Rights
“Rep. Tom DeLay is a central figure in the Jack Abramoff wing of the Republican Party. He is caught in the middle of the worst corruption scandal to hit Washington since Watergate. The dirty tactics that got Rep. DeLay in this mess aren’t going to get him out. Threatening to sue the media and desperately throwing dust in the eyes of his constituents rather than answering the charges against him won’t help Rep. DeLay’s defense. The television ads that link him to the Abramoff scandal are still running on cable stations throughout the Houston area despite threats from Rep. DeLay and his Washington lawyers.” –Toby Chaudhuri, Campaign for America’s Future Communications Director
HOUSTON - Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is threatening to “sue any station” that runs a new television ad that links him to one of the worst congressional corruption scandals ever. The two public interest groups that joined forces this week to run the ads are vigorously fighting back.
The groups, the Campaign for America’s Future and the Public Campaign Action Fund, unveiled $115,000 in new television, radio and billboard ads targeting Rep. DeLay and Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, for their ties to corruption on a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, kicking off a yearlong campaign to clean up Congress.
KHOU-CBS, one of the stations originally scheduled to run the spot, said that Rep. DeLay “threatened to sue any station” that chooses to broadcast the ad, on in its morning news program.
Campaign for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey said Rep. DeLay, known as “the Hammer” in Congress, is trying to intimidate Houston television stations in a pointless effort to prevent public discussion.
“The people of Houston know he has something to hide. We hope their TV stations don’t betray their First Amendment rights and obligations by capitulating,” said Hickey, noting that the two groups have supplied documentation for the ad to each of the stations.
Public Campaign Action Fund national campaigns director David Donnelly noted that Rep. DeLay is suppressing information from his constituents.
“Rep. DeLay doesn’t want the people of Houston to know that Russian interests allegedly gave $1 million to influence his vote. In fact, he doesn’t want anyone back home to know anything he’s up to with corrupt lobbyists in Washington,” said Donnelly. “When powerful lawmakers corrupt the political process and get caught, they often try to bully the media to try to prevent them from doing their job. We can’t let him win.”
The television ads that link him to the Abramoff scandal began airing on cable stations in Houston today despite threats from Rep. DeLay and his Washington lawyers.
**NOTE: Media representatives interested in video of KHOU-CBS’s morning news broadcast can find an electronic clip at http://www.khou.com/perl/common/video/wmPlayer.pl?title=www.khou.com/delay10_060110.wmv. An electronic copy of the ad is available at www.ourfuture.org and www.pcactionfund.org. **
January 11th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
‘Scooter’ Libby’s new job
By Evan Derkacz
Posted on January 11, 2006, Printed on January 11, 2006
_http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/30684/_
(http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/30684/)
Ahhh, community. From Ari Melber comes this item off the newswire. The next
time you see something from the Hudson Institute — a comment from one of
their fellows in the paper perhaps — just remember where it came from.
The Hudson Institute has hired indicted former Cheney aide, I. Lewis
‘Scooter’ Libby, as a “senior advisor.”
According to H.I. Chairman Walter P. Stern: “Scooter Libby brings decades of
experience to Hudson Institute that will strengthen our robust research
efforts. We look forward to drawing on his expertise.”
No comment on what that means exactly.
But a body can’t help but wonder whether the fact that Richard Perle is a
Trustee of the Institute or whether the presence of a number of other Project
for a New American Century sleazeballs has anything to do with this hire,
which, according to Melber pays “Reportedly over $160K annual…”
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/30684
January 11th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Betraying Reagan’s Revolution
By Robert Scheer
January 11, 2006 — Oh what a tangled web these no-longer-young Republicans
weave when first they practice to deceive!
The plumb line that runs down through the cesspool of the festering
Abramoff-DeLay scandal is the conceit that the scions of the Reagan Revolution, a
generation of young Republican activists summoned by God and party, were morally
superior creatures, who had only pure ideological motives for cutting the
country’s social-safety nets in the name of “small government.”
More than two decades before he pleaded guilty to felonies in two
jurisdictions, Jack Abramoff was the hard-nosed chairman of the College Republicans,
and his lieutenants were Harvard graduate Grover Norquist, who rose to
political power as president of the American Taxpayers Association, and a young
Georgia student named Ralph Reed, who would later become the face of the Christian
Coalition.
“Today, our party readies itself to mount the wave of the future,” Abramoff
sermonized as a 25-year-old at the Republican National Convention in 1984, as
cited in Mother Jones magazine. “Will we ride that wave to glory, or will it
send us crashing ashore? If we’re the party of tax cuts, and not the party
of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts,’ then we’re riding our wave. . . . If we try to outspend
big fat Tip O’Neill, or rush to Geneva to cut a deal, we’ll crash ashore.”
Now, however, Abramoff has crashed and he threatens to take down Tom DeLay,
who announced last week he will not attempt to regain his GOP leadership post
in the House, even as he continues to fight his own indictment in Texas,
which an all-Republican appeals court has just refused to dismiss.
Meanwhile, two others who came up through the ranks of Republican youthful
activism, Edwin A. Buckham and Brent Wilkes, can now be added to the web —
growing with each new indictment and investigative news article — of
DeLay-affiliated lobbyists, politicians and public officials who employed or benefited
from a series of what appear to be front groups, slush funds and political
money-laundering operations.
Wilkes is up to his eyeballs in the case of disgraced Rep. Randy “Duke”
Cunningham (R-San Diego), who pleaded guilty in December to accepting $2.4
million in bribes from defense contractors trying to sell stuff to the Pentagon.
Wilkes, in turn, was a client of Buckham, a key figure at the center of an
influence-peddling investigation into his work at the phony front organization,
the U.S. Family Network, which serviced Abramoff’s clients.
On Monday, Buckham announced that due to recent bad publicity, his prominent
Alexander Strategy Group (ASG) lobbying firm was shutting down. It was ASG
that paid Delay’s wife at least $115,000 in consulting fees while selling the
company’s widely proclaimed access to her super-powerful husband. The lobby
firm also provided office space to “Americans for a Republican Majority,”
Delay’s fund-raising organization.
No surprise, then, that when Wilkes wanted to gain influence in Congress in
support of his quest to get the Pentagon to invest in products he was selling
– but for which the Pentagon’s inspector general found no real demand — he
turned to ASG, paying at least $630,000 for the firm’s services.
President Bush, as he did with Enron and its politically well-connected
execs, is reportedly looking to distance himself from these big-time GOP players
going down like a house of cards in a Category 5 hurricane. And, as with
Enron, where company chief Kenneth “Kenny Boy” Lay was tight with Bush and a key
financial supporter of his campaigns, such protests will ring hollow to those
paying attention because of the perpetrators’ prominent work on the
president’s campaigns, transition teams, fundraising and even in his administration.
Abramoff was a “patron” fundraiser for the Bush 2004 campaign, and served on
the Department of the Interior transition team, while Wilkes served as Bush’s
California campaign finance co-chair.
The scope of the scandal swirling around DeLay was perhaps best described by
former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now a lobbyist: “Tom
DeLay sent Buckham downtown to set up shop and start a branch office on K
Street,” Armey told the New York Times, referring to the row of lobby firms
famously headquartered there. “The whole idea was: ‘What’s in it for us?’.”
Sounds accurate enough. But Armey’s candid comment begs the question of why
he and others in the Republican establishment didn’t blow the whistle on this
operation before the indictments came down. After all, bilking the Pentagon
for millions, bribing officials and breaking campaign-finance laws is hardly
small potatoes.
What irony that those once young Republicans, who hectored their elders
about being more vigilant in defending the nation’s taxpayers and security
forces, should now end up accused of deeply betraying both.
See more of Robert Scheer’s work at Truthdig.com
Copyright 2006 Robert Scheer
January 11th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
September 5th, 2005
Killing Americans By Health Care Policy
Over and over, I have heard that America has the greatest health care system in the world. Politicians and pundits have repeatedly bragged about the high quality of medical care and medicine in our nation. I always believed the statements without question until recent years. Facts got in the way.
I went looking for the numbers behind the real situation. My grandfather Crockett often said, “Numbers never lies but liars use numbers.” The real story told by the numbers is very disturbing.
I was shocked during the 2000 and 2004 elections when the Democratic candidates started throwing up the numbers of uninsured Americans. Even the Bush campaign could not diminish the magnitude of the problem. Various estimates place the number of uninsured at between 43 million and 60 million Americans. These numbers do not include the millions of other Americans in inadequate health insurance programs that fail to provide sufficient coverage. Bad health insurance plans are not differentiated from good ones in the numbers.
Lack of health insurance kills Americans. More Americans die from political decisions concerning health care policy on a weekly or monthly basis than died in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The Bush Republicans are the chief reason that only the United States and South Africa do not provide government guaranteed health care to all citizens among the 50 most economically advanced nations globally.
Why do we fail to provide health care to all citizens? The answer is “private profit by a few.” The HMO’s and drug companies make obscene profits because we do not have a government guaranteed health care program. These same companies and sectors provide hundreds of millions of dollars to Republican candidates and organizations.
The degree of political influence of the HMO’s and drug companies in the Republican Party was clearly demonstrated by the selection of Senator Bill Frist to be the Republican Senate Majority Leader. The selection had the clear blessing of the Bush White House. The Frist family is extremely rich because of their control of one of the nation’s largest HMO’s. Frist has by his own efforts played the dominate role in stopping all Americans from having government guaranteed health care. Frist is so powerful in the Republican Party that he is considered a leading candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008.
Jeremy Rifkin in his excellent new book, The European Dream, provides some startling numbers regarding American health care compared to other nations. He writes, “When it comes to evaluating the fairness of countries’ health care, the US ranked…., fifty fourth, or last place among the OECD nations.” The United States has only 279 physicians per 100,000 persons in our population while Europe has 322. American infant mortality rates place us at a mere 26th place among industrialized nations. Our life expectancy is significantly lower than that of the European Union.
The United States spends 10 percent of our entire Gross Domestic Product (the value of all goods and services in the US economy) on health care. It is the highest expenditure on the sector of any nation in the world. For the vast amount of money, the results are frankly terrible! Americans are paying for massive, unnecessary administrative costs and profit taking by financial middlemen in both dollars and deaths.
American companies are at a huge disadvantage with those of other nations as a result of our health care system. American companies provide health care for their workers. In other nations, government provides the health care. The added expense for American companies puts them at an extreme disadvantage.
The vast majority of Americans want universal government guaranteed health care for all Americans. The poor among us should not die because of political health care decisions or private profits. Only the private profit of a few powerful, politically connected companies (and the Republican Party they bought with campaign dollars) stand in the way. As voters, what will each of you going to do about the killing of Americans by health care policy? Are you going to condemn millions of your fellow American citizens to an early death by doing nothing during the 2006 and 2008 elections?
Written By Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence (hosts of Democratic Talk Radio http://DemocraticTalkRadio.com ).
January 11th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
NSA Whistleblower and admitted New York Times story source says illegal NSA spying may have involved millions of American citizens
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889
Bush is lying about the program being very limited!
January 11th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Bush and Republicans vs. Rule of Law
It is amazing that the Republican controlled Corporate Media and the Republican controlled federal and state governments have been able to control the flow of information vital to American Democracy by abusing positions of power. Examples can be found at all levels of government and in the media.
The Bush Administration engaged in blatantly criminal behavior by wiretapping millions of American citizens without a court order. Bush has called the program limited but a NSA Whistleblower and admitted source for the New York Times story that exposed the illegal program stated in an ABC news story that millions of citizens were likely involved. The wiretapping orders and the disinformation on the scale of the program came directly from Bush and Cheney.
Bush and Cheney ignored the law by claiming governmental powers that simply do not exist. The type of “powers” claims made by Bush have been made before and reviewed by federal courts. They were found to be not supported by law.
Most recently, the Reagan Administration made similar claims during the Iran-Contra scandal when White House operatives ignored specific federal laws limiting the scope of Presidential powers in the fields of foreign policy, use of military actions and national security. Like the NSA wiretapping scandal, the actions of the Reagan White House were known to be illegal when undertaken and were hidden from the American public for years.
In both scandals, the White House claimed a higher duty while taking a very low road by breaking federal law. In both cases, the illegal actions proved to be questionably effective. The White House in both cases undermined the rule of law and directly attacked the Constitutional checks and balances system dividing power between the courts, Congress and the Executive branches of the federal government.
As a result of Iran-Contra, senior White House personnel went to jail. The current situation has one significant difference with Iran-Contra. President Reagan denied direct knowledge of the illegal activities concerning Iran-Contra. Bush and Cheney have not denied their active involvement in the illegal wiretapping. Bush has admitted ordering the violations of the law. Basically, Bush claims he is not bound by laws passed by Congress and signed into law.
Readers should read the book Landslide by Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus for a detailed inside look into Iran-Contra. The issues of today are very similar to the darkest days of Iran-Contra and the better known Watergate scandals of the Nixon White House.
The Bush Administration has been known to politicize the Justice Department when doing so advances their political power. The example that most quickly comes to mind is the actions of senior Bush appointees in the Justice Department in approving Tom Delay’s Texas Congressional Re-Districting Scheme that gave Republicans an nearly airtight lock on control of Congress. Career lawyers at the Justice Department had found the Scheme illegal but were overruled by the Bush appointees. Voting rights advocates have found the Bush Justice Department little interested in investigating potential electronic voting machine fraud in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere.
The Bush Justice Department issued an opinion of Bush’s illegal wiretapping that found no violation of law based on Bush’s claim of inherent Executive power. They ignored all federal case law and Supreme Court rulings that stated no inherent Executive powers as claimed by Bush exist. The opinion found that the federal laws controlling government wiretapping did not apply despite the fact that they were written to prevent exactly the type of government actions undertaken by the Bush Administration.
Outrageously, the Bush Administration has announced that they are looking to prosecute the whistleblowers who revealed the illegal spying by the Bush White House to the New York Times. It is clear that the Bush Justice Department is trying to silence insiders from revealing the extent of criminal activities by the Bush White House.
The nation cannot rely on the Bush Justice Department to investigate the abuses of the Bush White House. The nation needs emergency legislation bringing back the institution of Independent Special Prosecutor completely independent of White House control.
American citizens need toi demand that the partisan administration of the Justice Department cease immediately. The Justice Department should be investigated. They appear to be obstructing justice instead of advancing it.
During both the Nixon and Reagan Administrations, the White House attempted to use the Justice Department to hide illegal activities. History appears to be repeating itself.
Already, the Republican partisan media has started supporting the Bush White House spin operation aimed at changing the subject from illegal White House spying to “leaking national security secrets.” Illegal activities should never be protected by national security claims. Following that path eventually takes the nation very close to dictatorship. This tactic was attempted during Nixon and Reagan. Those exposing criminal government abuses are heroes and definitely not criminals!
These governmental abuses of power to control information available to citizens find many forms. In Maryland, Governor Ehlrich has ordered all state employees not to talk to certain Baltimore Sun journalist because he disliked what they were reporting. Although both are Maryland residents, they cannot talk to their own state government by order of the crazed Republican Governor.
In Ohio, an election law is progressing to enactment that will make it highly unlikely that elections will ever be subject to recounts even when massive fraud is alleged. Basic information about voting machine counts will not be available to Ohio citizens. The Computer source code used to count votes from electronic voting machines are not available to citizens or journalists in almost every state.
David Brock wrote in his book The Republican Noise Machine, “… right wing verbal brownshirts of late have used their mighty media platforms to chill free speech of their political adversaries and to neuter aggressive journalistic fact-finding that threatens Republican power.” The current Constitutional crisis sparked by Bush and Cheney are a test for our embattled institutions. Our free press, the rule of law and American Democracy are all under attack by Republican officeholders and their media allies.
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Email:
Feel free to publish at no charge without prior approval. .
January 11th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Dear Stephen,
Gov. Robert Ehrlich is not on the side of working families. He
made that perfectly clear last May when he vetoed the Fair Share
Health Care bill, which requires big companies to provide
affordable, quality health care to their workers. And his veto
of a modest $1 increase to the minimum wage further proved his
commitment to Big Business over Maryland’s working families.
Soon the Maryland legislature will take up Ehrlich’s vetoes and
decide once and for all whether Marylanders deserve a decent
wage and whether companies like Wal-Mart will pay their fair
share of health care costs.
Please write your state delegates and senator immediately and
tell them to overturn Gov. Ehrlich’s vetoes of the Fair Share
Health Care bill and the minimum wage increase:
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/fairshare_md2/dueu2o7w3ten?
The Fair Share Health Care bill would require corporations with
more than 10,000 employees to put a percentage of their payroll
aside to help pay for health care costs. It would force
companies like Wal-Mart to pay their fair share of health care
costs and stop them from pushing costs onto taxpayers.
Write your state legislators in Annapolis today and tell them
you support the Fair Share Health Care bill and the $1 increase
to the minimum wage. Tell them to stand with working families
and vote to override Gov. Ehrlich’s vetoes:
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/fairshare_md2/dueu2o7w3ten?
In solidarity,
Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO
————————————————–
Visit the Web address below to tell your friends about this.
http://www.unionvoice.org/join-forward.html?domain=wfean&r=cpa31_F1UqW7
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
Working Families e-Activist Network at:
http://www.unionvoice.org/wfean/join.html?r=cpa31_F1UqW7E
January 11th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Several notable items on today’s BRAD BLOG. See below.
Also, if you missed it yesterday, please check out our major exposé on Rep. Bob Ney’s direct ties to Election Reform/Cover-Up, Diebold/Abramoff Payoffs and much more!
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002261.htm
- Brad
——————————————————————————–
VIDEO: Russel Tice Admits to Being One of the Sources Who Revealed Illegal NSA Wiretaps on U.S. Citizens
DoJ Attempts to ‘Gag Order’ Him as They Have Sibel Edmonds
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002267.htm
——————————————————————————–
Tom DeLay Threatens to Sue TV Stations Who Air Ad Exposing His Corruption!
Can Bob Ney be Far Behind?
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002265.htm
——————————————————————————–
Feeney in China: Still Carrying Water for the Communist Nation…
Powerful Republican Who Once Ran with Jeb Bush and Worked for a Company That Harbored Chinese Spies, Calls for a More ‘Balanced’ Relationship While Travelling Abroad…Oh, and he also is alleged to have asked a computer programmer to create a vote-rigging software protype!
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002264.htm
January 11th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Neo-Cons Considered Planting WMD in Iraq to Help Bush Avoid Embarrassment
By Larisa Alexandrovna
Rawstory reveals: the notorious Office of Special Plans didn’t just stovepipe cherry-picked “intelligence” to the White House and press. It also sent teams into Iraq after the invasion began, which, after it became apparent that there were no abundant WMDs, examined the possibility of planting such weapons in order to help the president avoid embarrassment.
Citing “three U.S. intelligence sources and a source close to the United Nations Security Council,” Alexandrovna indicates that the OSP planned “off book” missions that were dispatched by Stephen Cambone, Defense Department intelligence chief, from March 2003. (Cambone now occupies the # 3 post in the Defense Department.) Teams sent to Iraq included “CIA, FBI, Green Berets, Delta Force operators, and commandos from the Navy’s Special Warfare Development Group.” Their first priority was to investigate an allegation made by disinformation master Ahmad Chalabi that a USN pilot shot down in 1991 and proclaimed KIA soon afterwards was being held as a POW in Iraq. (That was bogus.) The second was to deal with the WMD issue. The third was to get Saddam.
During the summer and fall of 2004, one unnamed team, according to the UN source, interviewed many Iraqi intelligence officers, telling them, “Our President is in trouble. He went to war saying there are WMD and there are no WMD. What can we do? Can you help us?” The Iraqis understood they were being asked to cooperate with a deception. “But,” the UN source continues, “ the guys were thinking this is absurd because anything put down would not pass the smell test and could be shown to be not of Iraqi origin and not using Iraqi methodology.”
The Senate Select Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to at some point investigate the OSP, has asked the Pentagon’s Inspector-General to probe the office and Douglas Feith’s role in it. Feith and the other neocons have shown themselves shameless purveyors of disinformation again and again. Somebody among or close to them must have fabricated the Niger uranium documents. Jacques Chirac, as I recall, once opined that if the U.S. didn’t find WMD in Iraq it would probably stage a discovery. But the report that they actually considered doing just that to justify their war, to further hoodwink the American people and the world, beats everything I’ve heard so far. Talk about chutzpah.
There’s no end to it. Before the Iraq attack, the disinformationists had succeeded in convincing the majority of Americans that Iraq had WMD threatening the world. Before the Iran attack, they have probably succeeded in convincing most Americans that Iran has become a nuclear threat. They’ve gotten the media to routinely refer to “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” even though IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has repeatedly said he finds no evidence of one. Despite ElBaradei, the Bush administration has been able to organize its allies in the IAEA to find Iran in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on the grounds that it kept aspects of its nuclear program secret up to 2003, despite the fact that it’s opened itself to an unprecedented level of IAEA inspection since. Washington has successfully conflated Iran’s non-binding agreement with the UK, Germany and France with the NPT itself. Thus when Iran ends its voluntary suspension of uranium enriching activities, the administration pretends it’s doing something illegal, even though the Treaty itself specifically allows it to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
The neocons have helped create an environment in which Syria is simply assumed to be responsible for political assassinations in Lebanon, in the absence of decisive evidence. While you’d think “the international community” would recognize and reject U.S. efforts to attack more countries in “the Greater Middle East,” instead we find neocon successes in diplomacy. They’ve brought Europe aboard the program. They may well seek UNSC sanctions against both Iran and Syria, and resolutions that could be construed as allowing U.S. attacks on these countries. These efforts will likely meet with Chinese and Russian vetoes but the Bush administration, expressing disappointment in the UN, will proceed to bomb more Muslim countries on more false pretexts, even while evidence of their Iraq deceptions mounts.
The proponents of an expanded war, including Vice President Cheney, must feel under a lot of pressure to get the project done as soon as possible. The ongoing Franklin/AIPAC and Plame investigations, the indictment of Libby and impending trial, the inquiry into Feith and the OSP, the multiplying revelations about executive lawbreaking at home and abroad, popular discontent with the Iraq War, increasingly serious talk about impeachment hearings — all must lend a sense of urgency to the neocons’ enterprise.
Last month, CIA director Porter Goss visited Ankara, Turkey where he argued to Turkish officials that “Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region.” This is the former Representative Goss who has cooperated with the administration’s efforts to depict the neocon lies leading up to the Iraq War as honest “intelligence failures” and to scapegoat the CIA as somehow incompetent. Once again the experts like ElBaradei, Gordon Prather, Scott Ritter and others say there is no evidence that Iran is anywhere near producing nukes. But those guys are in the “reality mode” so despised by the empire-mode neocons, and as a high official once lectured David Suskind, “We create our own reality.” Have the latter planned better this time? Have they prepared the evidence to plant in the Bushehr rubble?
* * * *
“I don’t have any doubt that at the right time, a time of our choosing, we’re going to go to the Security Council if the Iranians are not prepared to do what they say they want to do, which is to pursue peaceful nuclear energy,” Condoleezza Rice tells the Washington Post, adding confidently, “When it’s clear that negotiations are exhausted, we have the votes. There is a resolution sitting there for referral. We’ll vote it.”
With equal confidence, Jephraim P Gundzik of Asia Times states that, “Facing almost certain veto by Russia and China, any US-EU attempt to impose sanctions on Iran in the Security Council will fail — a situation both Washington and the EU-3 [UK, Germany, France] are aware of.”
These aren’t contradictory statements. Rice is confident that the U.S. will be able to get a slim majority on the IAEA board of 35 members to agree, that since Iran is in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (even though it’s not), to refer Iran to the UNSC for punitive action. The UK, France and the U.S. will vote for sanctions; Russia and China will veto the resolution. U.S. UN Ambassador Bolton will pronounce that the UN has become “irrelevant” while President Bush will emphasize to the American people that our freedom-loving allies (including France) are with us this time in a clear-cut confrontation between good and evil. “The regime of President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map,” he’ll fume. “Iran poses a threat to its neighbors,” he’ll warn, even though Iran has friendly relations with Afghanistan, Pakistan, the current Iraqi U.S.-client government, Syria, Turkey, etc. “Iran hid a secret nuclear weapons program for 18 years!” he’ll preach, failing to note that it came clean on clandestine aspects of its nuclear program, started in the 1970s with U.S. support, in 2003. Since then, it has signed IAEA protocols allowing extraordinary monitoring of a program it says is for purely peaceful purposes, and which IAEA chief and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei says he finds no evidence is a military program.
The point is not to necessarily get a UNSC resolution that would validate new measures against Iran, but to stage a show for the American public. The French were deeply skeptical about U.S. reasons to attack Iraq; so now have Americans become skeptical. But if both the French and Germans on the Security Council are willing to stand with John Bolton in pressing for anti-Iranian action, such action might be more marketable to the American people. Once again the distortion of facts and some allied arm-twisting will pave the way for a criminal attack. Or maybe an awakened American people, outraged at all the uncovered deceit to date (torture, “special renditions,” illegal domestic spying, vindictive moves against opponents) makes it politically impossible for the warmongers to proceed.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Novel Depicts Fighting Democratic Candidate
“Palecek’s greatest talent lies in his ability to depict the
ordinariness of life.” — Meta Hogan, The Voice of Olympia
Hello,
I was the Iowa Democratic Party nominee for the United States House of
Representatives, Fifth District, in the 2000 election. I received
67,000 votes on an anti-military, anti-prison, pro-immigration platform
against an entrenched incumbent, in an conservative district.
I then wrote a novel based on my experiences, about Joe Coffee of Iowa,
who gives it the best he’s got, and then some.
____________________________________
The American people want to see some fight in the eyes of Democratic
Party candidates.
________________________________
“Joe Coffee’s Revolution” is about just that sort of person.
To view the cover, order: iowapeace.com [”Other Books”]
Thank you for your time.
Mike Palecek
Sheldon, Iowa
More of review:
[See review and cover together:
http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archives/2005/3/2]
… The story is substantial and satisfying. The characters’ lives are
full of palpable detail, handled deftly by the author. Palecek’s
greatest talent lies in his ability to depict the ordinariness of life.
Many of the scenes are in real time, grinding along at the pace of the
characters’ days, full of the irrelevant details that mortals must
endure. Coffee cups are handed across tables, food is chewed, doors
slammed, children listened to, movies rented, trucks thrown into
reverse in muddy driveways. After a few chapters of Palecek’s tender
attention to the characters’ small lives, readers will feel the same
itch for revolution that the characters give into. By the end of the
book, we are so familiar with the characters’ bodily space and personal
experience that it is almost physically painful when the [end comes].
It is a good read….
The action in this book is far removed from the powers that govern it,
making the characters even more helpless, not only to effect change,
but even to defend their very lives. People planning to challenge the
status quo should be informed about the difficulties they will
potentially face. They should be aware that powerful, well-organized
opponents await them, and that even their allies have a built-in
resistance to change.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, in Article, Calls for Impeachment Proceedings Against Bush
“Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush — not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.”
For Full Story:
http://ronnmills.blogspot.com/2006/01/impeachment-of-george-w-bush.html
January 12th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
January 12, 2006
Editorial
Judge Alito, in His Own Words
Some commentators are complaining that Judge Samuel Alito Jr.’s confirmation hearings have not been exciting, but they must not have been paying attention. We learned that Judge Alito had once declared that Judge Robert Bork - whose Supreme Court nomination was defeated because of his legal extremism - “was one of the most outstanding nominees” of the 20th century. We heard Judge Alito refuse to call Roe v. Wade “settled law,” as Chief Justice John Roberts did at his confirmation hearings. And we learned that Judge Alito subscribes to troubling views about presidential power.
Those are just a few of the quiet bombshells that have dropped. In his deadpan bureaucrat’s voice, Judge Alito has said some truly disturbing things about his view of the law. In three days of testimony, he has given the American people reasons to be worried - and senators reasons to oppose his nomination. Among those reasons are the following:
EVIDENCE OF EXTREMISM Judge Alito’s extraordinary praise of Judge Bork is unsettling, given that Judge Bork’s radical legal views included rejecting the Supreme Court’s entire line of privacy cases, even its 1965 ruling striking down a state law banning sales of contraceptives. Judge Alito’s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton - a group whose offensive views about women, minorities and AIDS victims were discussed in greater detail at yesterday’s hearing - is also deeply troubling, as is his unconvincing claim not to remember joining it.
OPPOSITION TO ROE V. WADE In 1985, Judge Alito made it clear that he believed the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He had many chances this week to say he had changed his mind, but he refused. When offered the chance to say that Roe is a “super-precedent,” entitled to special deference because it has been upheld so often, he refused that, too. As Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, noted in particularly pointed questioning, since Judge Alito was willing to say that other doctrines, like one person one vote, are settled law, his unwillingness to say the same about Roe strongly suggests that he still believes what he believed in 1985.
SUPPORT FOR AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY Judge Alito has backed a controversial theory known as the “unitary executive,” and argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he installs illegal wiretaps. Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed “very strongly” in “the supremacy of the elected branches of government.” But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court’s critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.
INSENSITIVITY TO ORDINARY AMERICANS’ RIGHTS Time and again, as a lawyer and a judge, the nominee has taken the side of big corporations against the “little guy,” supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled. The hearing shed new light on his especially troubling dissent from a ruling by two Reagan-appointed judges, who said that workers at a coal-processing site were covered by Mine Safety and Health Act protections.
DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE’S HONESTY Judge Alito’s explanation of his involvement with Concerned Alumni of Princeton is hard to believe. In a 1985 job application, he proudly pointed to his membership in the organization. Now he says he remembers nothing of it - except why he joined, which he insists had nothing to do with the group’s core concerns. His explanation for why he broke his promise to Congress to recuse himself in any case involving Vanguard companies is also unpersuasive. As for his repeated claims that his past statements on subjects like abortion and Judge Bork never represented his personal views or were intended to impress prospective employers - all that did was make us wonder why we should give any credence to what he says now.
The debate over Judge Alito is generally presented as one between Republicans and Democrats. But his testimony should trouble moderate Republicans, especially those who favor abortion rights or are concerned about presidential excesses. The hearings may be short on fireworks, but they have produced, through Judge Alito’s words, an array of reasons to be concerned about this nomination.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 12th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Consortiumnews.comAlito & the Ken Lay Factor
By Robert Parry
January 12, 2006
The “unitary” theory of presidential power sounds too wonkish for Americans
to care about, but the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme
Court could push this radical notion of almost unlimited Executive authority
close to becoming a reality.
Justice Alito, as a longtime advocate of the theory, would put the Court’s
right-wing faction on the verge of having a majority committed to embracing
this constitutional argument that would strip regulatory agencies, such as
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications
Commission, of their independence.
If that happens, George W. Bush and his successors would have the power to
instruct these agencies what to do on regulations and enforcement, opening
up new opportunities to punish enemies and reward friends.
The “unitary” theory asserts that all executive authority must be in the
President’s hands, without exception.
The Supreme Court’s embrace of the “unitary executive” would sound the death
knell for independent regulatory agencies as they have existed since the
Great Depression, when they were structured with shared control between the
Congress and the President.
Putting the agencies under the President’s thumb would tip the balance of
Washington power to the White House and invite abuses by letting the
Executive turn on and off enforcement investigations.
For instance, if the “unitary executive” had existed in 2001, Bush might
have been tempted to halt the SEC accounting investigation that spelled doom
for Enron Corp. and his major financial backer, Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay.
As it was, the relative independence of the SEC ensured that the accounting
probe went forward and the fraudulent schemes propping up the Houston-based
company were exposed.
Direct presidential control of the FCC would give Bush and his subordinates
the power to grant and revoke broadcast licenses without the constraints
that frustrated Richard Nixon’s attempts to punish the Washington Post
company for its Watergate reporting.
Bush also would be free to order communication policies bent in ways that
would help his media allies and undermine his critics.
The Federal Election Commission, which oversees political finances, is
another agency that would fall under presidential control.
Hypothetically at least, influence-peddlers like Jack Abramoff who spread
campaign contributions to corrupted lawmakers could get a measure of
protection if the President didn’t want the agency to pursue their
violations.
War Powers
The “unitary executive” applies as well to the President’s authority to
interpret laws as he sees fit, especially in areas of national security
where right-wing lawyers argue that the commander-in-chief powers are
“plenary,” which means “absolute, unqualified.”
So, when Alito assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one, not even
the President, is “above the law,” that palliative answer had little meaning
since under the “unitary” theory favored by Alito the President effectively
is the law.
Since his days as a lawyer in Ronald Reagan’s White House, Alito has pushed
this theory.
At a Federalist Society symposium in 2001, Alito recalled that when he was
in the Office of Legal Counsel in Ronald Reagan’s White House, “we were
strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal
executive power is vested by the Constitution in the President.”
In 1986, Alito advocated the use of “interpretive signing statements” by
presidents to counter the judiciary’s traditional reliance on congressional
intent in assessing the meaning of federal law.
Under Bush, “signing statements” have become commonplace and amount to his
rejection of legal restrictions especially as they bear on presidential
powers.
A search of the White House Internet site finds 101 entries for the word
“unitary” in Bush’s statements and other official references.
In December 2005, for instance, Bush cited the “unitary” powers of the
Presidency when he signed the McCain amendment, which prohibited cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
In a “signing statement,” Bush reserved the right to bypass the law by
invoking his commander-in-chief powers.
“The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner
consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise
the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with
the constitutional limitations on the judicial power,” the signing statement
read.
In other words, since Bush considers his commander-in-chief authority
boundless, he can choose to waive the torture ban whenever he wants, much as
he ordered wiretaps of American citizens without getting a court warrant as
is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“The signing statement is saying ‘I will only comply with this [torture ban]
law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I
think it’s important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading
conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to
stop me,’” said New York University law professor David Golove.
Founding Fathers
Alito has argued that a powerful executive is what the Founding Fathers
always intended. In a speech in 2000, he said that when the U.S.
Constitution was drafted in 1787, the framers “saw the unitary executive as
necessary to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that
may gain control of it.”
Scholars, however, have disputed Alito’s historical argument by noting that
the framers worried most about excessive executive powers, like those of a
king, and devised a complex system of checks and balances with the
Legislature in the preeminent position to limit the President’s powers.
[WSJ, Jan. 5, 2006]
Yet, with Alito seemingly advancing toward confirmation, the next question
may be how many other justices on the nine-member Supreme Court agree with
him about the “unitary executive.”
For one, Chief Justice John Roberts, Bush’s other appointee to the Supreme
Court, has been a longtime supporter of broad presidential powers.
During the Reagan administration in 1983, Roberts said it was time to
“reconsider the existence” of independent regulatory agencies, such as the
Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, and to
“take action to bring them back within the Executive Branch.”
Roberts called these agencies a “constitutional anomaly,” which should be
rectified by putting them under direct presidential control.
Roberts’s deference to presidential power has been a strand that has run
through his entire career - as special assistant to Reagan’s attorney
general, as a legal strategist for Reagan’s White House counsel, as a top
deputy to George H.W. Bush’s solicitor general Kenneth W. Starr, and as a
federal appeals court judge accepting George W. Bush’s right to deny
due-process rights to anyone deemed an “enemy combatant.”
Another “unitary executive” vote is likely to come from Justice Antonin
Scalia, who is considered the court’s most scholarly right-wing member.
He has been associated with the drive to expand presidential powers since
the mid-1970s when he headed President Gerald Ford’s Office of Legal Counsel
and served as assistant attorney general.
Justice Clarence Thomas would appear to be a reliable fourth vote, having
cited the theory of the “unitary executive” in arguing in 2004 that the
Supreme Court had no right to intervene in granting legal protections to
detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
So, how far the court’s right wing can go in implementing its concept of the
“unitary executive” may depend on how Justice Anthony Kennedy votes.
Kennedy, who drafted the opinion in the Bush v. Gore case that handed the
White House to George W. Bush, is considered a less ideological conservative
than Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.
But it is unclear whether Kennedy has the strength of will to resist the rip
tide that is pulling the U.S. Supreme Court toward a historic surrender of
political power to the “unitary executive.”
—————————————————————————-
—-
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek.
His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from
Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com.
It’s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History:
Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’
Consortiumnews.com is a product of The Consortium for Independent
Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization
January 12th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Campaign Update
January 12, 2006
Jean Hay Bright’s U.S. Senate Campaign
Peace, Jobs, Justice, Health Care
Education, Energy and Environmental Sustainability
VOTE for the America You Want to Live In
www.jeanhaybright.us
Topics:
1. Upcoming events
2. Iraq War forum Dec. 21, 2005
3. Letter of support in The Nation magazine, Jan. 2, 2006 edition
4. Maine Things Considered interview Jan. 11, 2006
5. Labor and the American Dream (Jay Democrats, Jan. 4, 2006)
6. Snowe’s Progressive score drops to 9% (Irregular Times)
7. Electoral politics and the Peace Movement (Department of Peace seminar, Jan. 7, 2006)
8. Patriot Act possible amendment is frightening (Waldo County Democrats, Jan. 8, 2006)
9. Collecting nominating signatures
10. Help out with a check! No Clean Election funds for Federal candidates (Congress & U.S. Senate)
——————————————————————————–
1. Upcoming Events
It’s been a busy three weeks since the last Campaign Update, as you will see below. I apologize for the length of this Update, and we will try to make them more frequent so they will not be so long.
But first, here are some upcoming events on my calendar, subject to change (more events are pending). Check out the web page for current list. I will be speaking at some (as designated), simply attending others. But if I’m in your neighborhood and you want to get in touch with me or sign my nomination papers, you can catch me at these events.
Jan. 12, 2006, Thursday — Northern Penobscot County Dems, dinner & meeting, River Drivers Restaurant, Millinocket, 5:30 p.m.
Jan. 13, 2006, Friday — MECEP conference, Augusta Civic Center, 8:30 - 3 Jean will be attending only, is not a presenter
Jan. 13, 2006, Friday — Maine Homeland Security Task Force public hearing, Bangor City Hall, 6 p.m.
Jan. 14, 2006, Saturday — Aroostook County Democratic Committee, NMCC, Presque Isle, 10 a.m.
Jean will be giving a campaign update
Jan. 15, 2006, Sunday — Cumberland County Democratic Committee, Stimson Hall, 4 Shaker Road (Route 26), Gray, 6:30 p.m.
Jean will have campaign materials and will be collecting nominating signatures, will not be speaking.
Jan. 16, 2006, Monday — Martin Luther King breakfast, Holiday Inn, Portland, 8 a.m.
Jan. 18, 2006, Wednesday — Auburn Democratic Committee, Police Station conference room, Auburn, 7 p.m. Jean will give update
Jan. 19, 2006, Thursday — Hancock County Democratic Committee, Ellsworth City Hall, 7 p.m. Jean is a speaker.
Jan. 22, 2006, Sunday — Maine Democratic Party State Committee, Augusta, 1 p.m.
Jan. 22, 2006, Sunday — Franklin County Democratic Committee, UMF Student Center, Farmington, 4:30 p.m.
Jean will give a campaign update
——————————————————————————–
2. Dec. 21, 2005 — Iraq War forum, sponsored by 2nd District Congressman Mike Michaud, Bangor Theological Seminary
I was the second of about 20 speakers at this forum, which drew about 150 people just a few days before Christmas. Only one of the 20 speakers, a veteran whose son was serving in Iraq, supported the Iraq War. The rest of us expressed our opposition to the war from very different, but all very valid and heartfelt, perspectives.
I’ve posted the text of my address on my web page: War, like Torture, does not work
Excerpt:
…But beyond the moral and ethical arguments is the overriding reality that TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. Information gleaned from tortured prisoners cannot be trusted. We can’t expect to save the world based on statements made by tortured prisoners.
Likewise, people are starting to key into the fact – the reality – that WAR ALSO DOES NOT WORK. We are beginning to consider that war itself is bad, is obsolete, is not the answer. …
——————————————————————————–
3. Letter in The Nation, Jan. 2, 2006 edition
Several of my supporters responded with letters to the The Nation magazine after its pronouncement that it “will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the American war in Iraq a major issue in his or her campaign.” That national magazine reported that it received a record-breaking outpouring of mail, and published this letter from Kathleen Hacker (who has just moved to Kennebunk) in its Jan. 2, 2006 edition.
Biddeford, Me.
Here in Maine we have a progressive, pro-peace candidate, Jean Hay Bright, running a grassroots campaign against Olympia Snowe for her Senate seat. Snowe, despite a reputation as a moderate, has consistently supported the Bush war. Jean is pro-peace, anti-torture, anti-surrendering our rights to government fearmongering and for taking back the country (www.jeanhaybright.us). And thank you for your work to save our country.
Kathleen Hacker
Thank you Kathleen, and all those others who let me know they sent The Nation a letter of support on my behalf!
——————————————————————————–
4. Jean interviewed on Maine Things Considered, Jan. 11, 2006
Sara Nics of Maine Public Broadcasting interviewed me last week, and the excerpt from that interview was aired statewide on Maine Things Considered last night (Wednesday evening, Jan. 11, 2006), and again this morning. If you can get Windows Media Player to work, you can hear this at: http://www.mpbn.net/radio/ondemand/mainethings.html
The excerpt from that interview comes after the news report on the Reading of the Names of the Iraq War Dead in Portland, and the update on the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. Maine Democratic Party Chair Pat Colwell also made some good comments about this U.S. Senate race.
——————————————————————————–
5. Labor and the American Dream (Jay Democrats, Jan. 4, 2006)
I used the occasion of a talk before the Jay Democrats, held at Roland and Bonnie Samson’s lovely home, to talk about a broad range and overview of labor issues, from the minimum wage to foreign trade. I’ve posted my prepared remarks online: On Labor and the American Dream
Excerpt:
Labor issues define who we are as Americans. There are many issues involved, and they are all connected. It is not just union versus non-union. It is the minimum wage and illegal immigration on one end of the spectrum, and corporate outsourcing of high-paying jobs on the other. It is pensions and Social Security. It is education and national health care, NAFTA and CAFTA. It is also a national recognition that the workers of America are the driving force in this country….
——————————————————————————–
6. Snowe’s Progressive score drops to 9% (Irregular Times)
The online site Irregular Times has ranked Olympia Snowe’s voting record on progressive issues, and put her score at a mere 9 percent. Her ratings last Fall (2005) was 10 percent, so she is still going in the wrong direction. Likewise, her Reggressive Score has risen to 71 percent, from 67 percent last Fall. A Regressive Score of 71 means that Senator Snowe has acted to support 71% of a slate of conservative, wrongheaded policies in the 109th Congress.
“Moderate” Olympia Snowe’s Progressive Score drops to 9%, Regressive Score rises to 71% (Analysis per Irregular Times)
——————————————————————————–
7. Electoral politics and the Peace Movement (Department of Peace seminar, Jan. 7, 2006)
Advocates for creating a cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace, which would work to find diplomatic solutions to international conflicts as well as reduce domestic violence at home, met in Brunswick Saturday, in conjunction with a national day of events focusing on the Iraq War. While many events across the country Saturday dealt solely with the Iraq war, Lynn Ellis, Department of Peace/Maine Campaign State Co-Coordinator, said their group’s efforts are focused beyond the current conflict, looking forward to a day when war is not seen as inevitable. The Saturday session, held at the Curtis Memorial Library, featured a video discussion between Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, who introduced the Department of Peace bill, and Walter Cronkite, who since retiring from CBS News several years ago has devoted his life to working for peace and environmental causes.
Ellis and Co-coordinator Shelley Schweizer told the group that as the Maine campaign gathers momentum it is important that citizens are aware of the details of the bill (H.R. 3760), and that they also urge Maine’s members of Congress to join with the 62 members who have already agreed to co-sponsor the bill. The proposal, Ellis said, “is a timely response to governmental leadership in the 21st century.” More information on the proposal can be found at http://www.mainedop.org
I was asked to participate in this program, to explain how peace candidates and the peace movement can work together toward common goals. The bulk of my comments are posted online: Electoral Politics and the Peace Movement
Excerpt:
…Peace is not just the absence of war. Peace is an active verb, not a passive verb. Diplomacy is difficult, particularly across cultures and national boundaries. Conflict resolution is an art and a technique that does not come naturally to most people. Domestic violence must be confronted directly, in our courts and in our schools. Bullying must be dealt with as the violent and anti-social behavior that it is. My part of this program is to talk to you about how electoral politics fits into all this.
——————————————————————————–
8. Patriot Act possible amendment is frightening (Waldo County Democrats, Jan. 8, 2006)
As part of my Campaign Update, I talked with the Waldo County Democrats about a possible amendment to the Patriot Act, which is up for revision and reauthorization in the U.S. Senate next month, that would make the holding up of an unauthorized sign at certain political events punishable by a year in prison. I’ve posted the text of may remarks: Patriot Act addition is frightening
Excerpt:
…I just learned this morning that the revised Patriot Act, postponed from before Christmas to a vote in early February, contains a couple of clauses that are truly frightening. The worst one would allow a person to be thrown into prison for a year for holding up an “unauthorized sign” at a Democratic or Republican national convention, at an appearance by the President or Vice President, or at any other event designated by the Secret Service as a “national security event.”
How fast will our jails fill up with political prisoners whose only crime was holding up a sign that said something our President or Vice President did not like? Ask the 19 peaceful protesters who got arrested outside Olympia Snowe’s Bangor office last month.
Of course, being thrown in prison for holding up a sign that is offensive to our government is a blatant violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. But if these clauses added to the Patriot Act revision are allowed to become law, will the Supreme Court, with Judge John Roberts and possibly Judge Samuel Alito on board, uphold that First Amendment right of ours? At this point in time, I wouldn’t count on it.
——————————————————————————–
9. Collecting nominating signatures
It is that time in the campaign cycle where we need your help
According to Maine election law, I need 2,000 verified, certified signatures from registered Democrats to get my name on the June Democratic Primary ballot. The time-frame for collecting these signatures is short — we couldn’t collect any before Jan. 1, 2006, and we have to have them all collected, certified, verified, and processed, and submitted to the Secretary of State’s office, by March 15, 2006. These petitions are legal documents, and we need to get it done properly. (Unfortunately, signing up for my campaign updates or mailing list, as hundreds of you have done last summer and fall, doesn’t count as far as this process is concerned.)
We’ve gotten a good start already. I am collecting signatures myself, and several volunteers across the state have petitions and are actively collecting signatures for me. So if you are a registered Democrat and come across one of us, I would be honored if you would grace me and my campaign with your signature. We need a separate petition form for each town (each petition form can hold up to 45 names), so you will be asked where you are registered to vote.
And if you want to help out by collecting signatures for us, just let us know. Email us at . We will send you as many petition forms as you think you will need (we’ll help you decide what that number is), and we’ll be checking back every week to see how you’re coming.
Collecting and submitting these signatures is the ONLY way for a candidate to get on the ballot. All other campaign activity is secondary to this process, so we are really focusing on it at this point in the campaign. Thanks in advance for all of you who will be helping us, with signatures or as circulators.
——————————————————————————–
10. From the Treasurer: Help out with a check! No Clean Election funds for Federal candidates (Congress & U.S. Senate)
Unlike Olympia Snowe, Jean’s campaign has no paid staff, no paid fundraisers, or office rent. But we still have campaign expenses — for flyers, pamphlets, postage, envelopes, phone, travel expenses to all the events Jean goes to all over the state.
We know many of you are not in a position to make a sizeable contribution. But Jean is not a traditional candidate, and most of her contributions to date have been between $10 and $100. Even small donations add up, though — if there are enough of them. To run an effective campaign, Jean needs your help — at whatever level your budget will allow.
If you like what you see in Jean’s campaign, and if you want her to win the primary in June and go on to win in her race against Maine’s entrenched Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, please do what you can to help out with the bottom line. Consider it your year-end Peace Dividend.
Our on-line PayPal link for credit card donations is available for your convenience. Or you can print out the contribution form on the web. Make checks out to Jean Hay Bright U.S. Senate 2006, and mail your check or credit card information to:
JeanHayBright.US Senate 2006
4262 Kennebec Road
Dixmont ME 04932
And thanks.
David Bright, treasurer
P.S. The FEC’s maximum individual contribution limit is $2,100 per election cycle. Donations are NOT deductible for federal income tax purposes. FEDERAL CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS AND U.S. SENATE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MAINE’S CLEAN ELECTION FUNDS
——————————————————————————–
You have been sent this email because you have provided your email address to the JeanHayBright.US Senate campaign, or to Jean Hay Bright herself in years past (maybe you’re part of an organization Jean also belongs to), or your email address is publicly available in your official capacity, whatever that may be.
If you have received this message in error, and/or if you do not wish to receive any further updates or announcements, please send an email to with “Remove” in the subject line. If you were forwarded this message and would like to get on our email list, send an email to Contact information (name, address, phone) would be appreciated. Thank you.
——————————————————————————–
Authorized and paid for by JeanHayBright.US Senate 2006, David Bright, treasurer
4262 Kennebec Road, Dixmont ME 04932
Dixmont Phone 207-234-4224 Portland Phone 207-321-2776
Web page: http://www.jeanhaybright.us
January 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Attorney General Gonzales Called to Testify at Congressional Hearings on NSA Spying!
Citing Bush Statement that Such Hearings are ‘Good for Democracy’, Ranking Minority Member of House Judiciary Extends Invitation
Former Deputy AG, Ardent Administration Defender, Architect of Torture Memos, John Yoo Also Called to Testify
In response to George W. Bush’s statement yesterday that hearings on the NSA program are “good for democracy,” Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), on behalf of the minority members of the U.S. House Judiciary committee, has today sent invitations to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to testify at planned hearings next Friday on the matter of warrentless NSA spying on United States citizens.
In the letter to Gonzales, obtained by The BRAD BLOG, Conyers quotes from Bush’s comments yesterday at a Town Hall Forum in Kentucky in apparent support of such hearings…
COMPLETE LETTERS and FULL STORY
(along with complete 14-page memo from former CIA Counsel Director Jeffrey Smith):
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002269.htm
—
January 12th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Democrats to hold own hearings on warrantless wiretaps
John Byrne
Published: January 10, 2006
Reps. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Bobby Scott (D-VA) and
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) will hold a Democratic hearing
next Friday to consider the legal ramifications of
President Bush’s warrantless surveillance on
international calls, RAW STORY has learned.
The Jan. 20 Democratic hearings come in the wake of a
request from House Judiciary Committee Democrats to
hold official Congressional hearings on the matter.
The Republican chairman, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner
(R-WI), has not responded to Democrats’ requests.
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen
Specter (R-PA) said he would hold hearings on the
taps, but has not officially scheduled a session.
Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary
Committee, said he felt the need to hold his own
hearings after his Republican counterpart demurred.
“Last month all 17 House Judiciary Democrats called on
Chairman Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to
investigate the President’s use of the National
Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S.
citizens on U.S. soil, in apparent contravention of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Conyers
said in a statement. “As our request has since been
ignored, it is our job, as Members of Congress, to
review the program and consider whether our criminal
laws have been violated and our citizen’s
constitutional rights trampled upon.
“We simply cannot tolerate a situation where the
Administration is operating as prosecutor, judge and
jury and excluding Congress and the courts from
providing any meaningful check or balance to the
process,” he added.
Conyers and Sensenbrenner have tangled on several
occasions, most notably when Sensenbrenner ordered
that a microphone be turned off for a Democratic
congressman during a meeting on the Patriot Act.
Sensenbrenner, outraged that Democrats were using time
dedicated to discussion of the Act to talk about
detainee treatment, walked out of the hearing.
Conyers also released a letter from Harvard University
constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe, who
asserted that the NSA program was illegal and violated
the separation of powers provision under the
constitution.
“The technical term for [the Bush Administration’s
legal arguments] I believe is poppycock,” Tribe said.
RAW STORY hopes to post Tribe’s letter soon.
Those attending Conyers’ hearing include: former
Reagan Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein,
George Washington Law School Professor Jonathon
Turley, former CIA General Counsel Jeff Smith and
Caroline Frederickson from the American Civil
Liberties Union.
House Judiciary Democrats held their last party-line
hearing on the Downing Street Memos, minutes of a
conversation between British intelligence and Bush
Administration officials which quoted the Director of
British Intelligence MI6 director Richard Dearlove as
saying the intelligence was being “fixed” around a
policy to attack Iraq.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_to_hold_own_hearings_on_0110.html
January 12th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Bush to criminalize protesters under Patriot Act as “disruptors”
http://www.bushflash.com
Bush wants to create the new criminal of “disruptor” who can be jailed
for the crime of “disruptive behavior.” A “little-noticed provision” in
the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to
charge protesters with a new crime of “disrupting major events
including political conventions and the Olympics.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/
AR2005121201448.html
Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with
“breaching security” and to charge for “entering a restricted area”
which is “where the President or other person protected by the Secret
Service is or will be temporarily visiting.” In short, be sure to stay
in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.
Read More, here… Because the linked version contains more hyperlinks.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/11/212726/954
Bush to criminalize protesters under Patriot Act as “disruptors”
by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 07:27:26 PM PDT
Bush wants to create the new criminal of “disruptor” who can be jailed
for the crime of “disruptive behavior.” A “little-noticed provision” in
the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to
charge protesters with a new crime of “disrupting major events
including political conventions and the Olympics.” Secret Service would
also be empowered to charge persons with “breaching security” and to
charge for “entering a restricted area” which is “where the President
or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be
temporarily visiting.” In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced
containments or free speech zones.
Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse’s diary :: ::
Who is the “disruptor”? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an
American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a
T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights,
environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush
policies; or a person who invades Bush’s bubble by criticizing his
policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone
else’s activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a
press conference or during an interview.
What are the parameters of the crime of “disruptive behavior”? The
dictionary defines “disruptive” as “characterized by unrest or disorder
or insubordination.” The American Medical Association defines
disruptive behavior as a “style of interaction” with people that
interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as “foul
language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of
patients and family members.”
What are the rules of engagement for “disruptors”? Some Bush Team
history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this
administration will treat disruptors in the future.
(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from
events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.
In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected
from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the
events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the
disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush’s post election
campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as
informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove
to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush’s
policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors
who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged
in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan
defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons
who may disrupt an event: “If we think people are coming to the event
to disrupt it, obviously, they’re going to be asked to leave.”
(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those
persons who it deems having “disruptor” potential and then blacklist
those persons from events.
The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be
“disruptive” to an eventand then blacklists those persons from
attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush
not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as “enemy
combatants” in the global “war on terror,” but to unilaterally
designate Americans as “disruptive” in the domestic war against free
speech.
(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against
disruptors.
Bush’s war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance,
monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI
conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its
database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups
(e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and
Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).
This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional
rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities
surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National
Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor
political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence
gathering is “intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at
demonstrations, not to quell free speech.”
Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as
a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public
events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and
legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before
grand juries based on the FBI’s “intent” to prevent “disruptive
convention protests.” The Justice Dept. opened a criminal
investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by
Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a
protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.
So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure
to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it
also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt
President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is
enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the
type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities
that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in
jail.
Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
January 12th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Gore_to_deliver_scathing_speech_Monday_0112.html
>
> Gore to deliver scathing speech Monday on
> ‘constitutional crisis’ in Washington
> John Byrne
> Published: January 12, 2006
>
> Former Vice President Al Gore will deliver a scathing
> speech Monday at Constitution Hall in Washington –
> just blocks from the White House — at which he will
> declare America is faced with a constitutional crisis,
> RAW STORY has learned.
>
> The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day speech is set to take
> place at noon at the Daughters of the American
> Revolution’s Constitution Hall. Gore will be
> introduced by onetime Georgia Republican congressman
> Bob Barr.
>
> A source close to the erstwhile vice president related
> details of Gore’s expected speech to RAW STORY
> Thursday. The source noted that Gore prepares the
> final editions of his speeches just before he delivers
> them, but that the tenor of the speech would focus on
> what the Tennessee Democrat has described as a
> President acting above the law.
>
> The aide related how Gore was framing his address.
>
> “We are at a point of constitutional crisis,” the aide
> said, relating how Gore has articulated his speech.
> “The president who has violated the law is acting
> above the law. It’s a wakeup call for Congress, the
> American people and the courts. If we continue down
> this road we will have a different constitution.
>
> “Nixon’s quote about if the president does it it is
> legal, it’s kind of like Bush saying, if it’s about
> national security, it’s legal. This is going to be
> called transpartisan; it’s not about who your party
> is, it’s about what America stands for.”
>
> Gore, the source said, will talk about the framers of
> the constitution.
>
> “You can’t defend freedom while abandoning it at
> home,” the source said, speaking of Gore’s planned
> remarks. “The founders thought about this. They didn’t
> want a king, that’s why they didn’t set up a system to
> annoint a king. We have checks and balances in this
> country and we cannot abandon them.”
>
> DEVELOPING…
http://www.draftgore.com
January 13th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Dear Stephen Crockett,
Democracy for Maryland members lobby for Fair Share Health Care.
What if Wal-Mart was required by law to pay for its employees’ health care? Thanks to your efforts, in Maryland it’s becoming a reality.
Yesterday afternoon, the Maryland legislature voted to override the Governor’s veto of the Fair Share Health Care Bill. The Fair Share Health Care Act will level the playing field in Maryland by forcing any employer with more than 10,000 employees to pay its fair share for health care. There are only four companies in Maryland that large, and only Wal-Mart fails to cover an acceptable amount of health care coverage for its employees.
We won yesterday’s vote by just a handful of votes in both the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate. Democracy for America members in Maryland were on the front lines.
DFA members made dozens of phone calls to their legislators asking them to support the override.
We worked with WakeUp Wal-Mart, SEIU, Wal-Mart Watch, and Maryland for Health Care to organize customized appeals to individual legislators. In addition, we phone banked and canvassed in targeted districts.
On Wednesday, over a dozen DFA members from around the state rallied at the capital with Maryland for Health Care and lobbied their Senators and Delegates.
In the end, Wal-Mart pulled out the big guns. They hired the biggest cadre of lobbyists in recent history to try to influence this legislation. But you showed that good ‘ol fashioned shoe leather can overcome the special interests.
In the months ahead, Democracy for America is going to continue to work with our progressive allies to pass Fair Share Health Care legislation in other states. We have an opportunity to continue the momentum that you started and pass Fair Share legislation in at least 20 more states.
Thank you for all you do. Today is a good day for working people in Maryland and across the country.
Tom Hughes
Executive Director
Democracy for America
January 13th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
It sounds unbelievable—but did you know that anyone can go online and purchase cell or home phone records of people like you?
Today, AMERICAblog was able to buy Gen. Wesley Clark’s personal cell phone records with no problem. Phone companies and congressional leaders have known about this problem, but they’ve failed to address it.
Even at a time when our right to privacy is under attack on multiple fronts, the idea that someone can simply go online and buy another person’s phone records seems beyond possibility—but it is true, and it must be stopped immediately.
Please sign this emergency petition to your congressional representatives today.
http://civic.moveon.org/phonerecords/?id=6637-1243806-opEPicyN2QlES3EyhxRQ8w&t=2
The petition reads:
“Congress and phone companies have dealt a stunning blow to the privacy rights of everyday Americans by allowing cell and home phone records to be sold online to anyone. Congress must immediately pass a law that strictly prohibits these unauthorized sales, and begin enforcing this law now.”
January 13th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Pacific Research Institute Carries Fresh Water for the Electronic Voting Machine Industry and Takes on California’s Debra Bowen in the Bargain
Who is PRI? Are They the Latest Incarnation of the ACVR? And Just Who Do They Think They’re Messing with by Attacking the Pro-Democracy Movement with Easily Discredited Info-ganda?
It looks like the Rightwing may have found a replacement for the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR), the GOP front group set up to smokescreen against true election reform and transparent democracy. The ACVR has been mighty quiet of late, which we might like to attribute to their having been thoroughly discredited and rendered mostly impotent due to some longterm, airtight, crack reporting by The BRAD BLOG about their attempted democracy-hating scam.
But now, a West Coast “non-partisan” conservative think-tank called Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) may be stepping in to fill at least part of the void in the person of TechNews World columnist and PRI Director of Technology Studies, Sonia Arrison. Arrison has been op/ed’ing and releasing “white papers” lately rallying against voter-verified paper ballots for electronic voting machines. Her reasons for being against transparent democracy are both bizarre and seem freshly pulled out of her hind quarters (or out of those of Diebold’s).
PRI seems to be little more than yet another dirty dot in the massive now-metastasized matrix of “conservative” think-tanks, phony trade-associations, lobbying firms, consultants, columnists, politicians, “reporters” and other media pimps who are part of a wickedly tentacled network of people and organizations meant to prop up wingnut causes in the press while firing up the unquestioning, lockstep “grass-roots” believers…
FULL STORY:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002273.htm
January 13th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
ES&S reneges on Leon County
deal 2 days before HAVA deadline
After pursuing Leon County for a full year, sending a contract, and
as the final test conducting a Leon County election on its equipment,
two ES&S executives shook hands on a $1.8 million deal with Leon
County Election Supervisor Ion Sancho. Right before the HAVA deadine
though, Election Systems & Software (ES&S) CEO Aldo Tesi abruptly
aborted the Leon County contract.
Leon County’s Ion Sancho shook up the voting industry in December
when he authorized a security test which proved the Diebold system
can be hacked. In short order, Volusia County (FL) dumped Diebold,
hastily signing an agreement to purchase ES&S; St. Louis County (MO)
dropped its Diebold contract, the state of California refused to certify
Diebold (sending its machines back to federal testing labs) and the
state of Pennsylvania decertified the Diebold optical scan system.
California and Pennsylvania acted on the advice of their own
independent voting system examiners, who confirmed problems with
the code exploited by Finnish computer expert Harri Hursti to hack the
system in Leon County.
PRIVATIZATION & HAVA PUT ELECTIONS OFFICIAL’S HEADS IN A VISE
Privatization of the voting industry puts election officials in a tough
spot.
Florida has authorized only three vendors to sell voting equipment (ES&S,
Sequoia and Diebold). However, because the vendors are private
corporations, they can choose to sell to whomever they want, refusing
customers at will.
Sequoia Voting Systems decided not to sell to customers in Ohio, saying
the number of sales available was not enough to make a profit. Hart
Intercivic
chose not to sell to customers in North Carolina, forcing elections
officials
there to buy only from ES&S.
ES&S decided to sell its machines to Volusia County, a new customer
about the same size as Leon County, while denying its machines to Leon
County. Nothing prevents a vendor from refusing to sell to counties deemed
too small to turn a profit, or to jurisdictions they simply don’t like.
The federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) denies funds to counties that
don’t purchase voting machines, states dictate which vendors are approved,
and vendors dictate to whom they will sell.
WHO’S FIGHTING FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS?
“It looks like I’ve got two bad actors to deal with [ES&S and Diebold], and
neither one of them is acting responsibly in my opinion. What do I do to
serve
the best interests of the citizens of Leon County?” says Sancho. “HAVA has
forced us to purchase systems that in my opinion are not appropriate for
citizens
to be voting on, but as Dickens says, ‘The law is an ass.’”
BREACH OF CONTRACT OR EXTORTION?
Sancho’s problems with Diebold accelerated after he allowed security tests,
revealing a problem with the GEMS central tabulator and the optical scan
memory card design. Dr. Herbert Thompson demonstrated on Feb. 14 and
May 2 last year that he was able to gain control of the “mother ship” - the
central tabulator that counts votes from all the precinct machines. Finnish
expert Harri Hursti demonstrated on May 26 that he was able to alter results
tapes using a rigged memory card, and on Dec. 13, rigged an entire mock
election from start to finish using a memory card.
ES&S had solicited Mr. Sancho in December 2004, but Sancho did not offer
an affirmative response. However, with HAVA deadlines looming, Diebold
was hitching their wagon solely to touch-screen voting, and in Florida,
touch-
screens do not provide a paper trail. Sancho favored the AutoMark, a
disability-
approved technology distributed by ES&S which does produce a paper ballot.
In June 2005, shortly after the May security tests by Thompson and Hursti,
Sancho approached ES&S to inquire about purchasing the AutoMark.
“I called ES&S and said, ‘Can I get deep discounts over the price if I go
with
AutoMark?’ They crowed about it [the opportunity to do business]. They said
‘Absolutely, both on our M100s [optical scan machines] and on the
AutoMark.’”
Sancho began thinking even more seriously about dumping Diebold when, on
July 13 at 11:09 a.m. he received a letter warning him that Diebold would
not
support his system if he purchased Automark for the disabled. In the state
of
Illinois, Diebold apparently has not made the same threat, and on Jan. 9
this
year Illinois certified the AutoMark for use with Diebold optical scanners.
Matters got worse. Leon County was paying $6,000 a year for an active
contract
with Diebold to provide software upgrades. The state of Florida had
certified a
central tabulator upgrade, GEMS 1.18.19, in March 2005.
In August, Sancho was notifed that the city of Tallahassee was going to
conduct
a referendum.
“I contacted Diebold and asked, ‘Why haven’t we receved 18.19?” Sancho says.
“I was placed on hold and then shifted to Michael Lindroos [the attorney for
the
Diebold, Inc. board of directors].
“I asked Mr. Lindroos, I said ‘We have a contract with you for the software,
there
seems to be some stalling for the receipt of this software.’ He directly
told me
we would not receive the new software unless we signed a new contract.
“Now, I have a signed check here, Diebold cashed the check. They’re in
breach
of their contract.”
ES&S WAITS TILL THE LAST MINUTE TO DITCH
ES&S and Leon County proceeded ahead for the transition from Diebold to
ES&S.
As the last step for the sale, Sancho told ES&S, “We’re going to require one
test.
We’ll use your equipment on November 17, and if it performs satisfactorily
we’ll
proceed. It performed well, and we received the contract. I spoke with Al
Benek
(VP Operations) and Dick Fox (VP Accounting). ES&S invited our staff to join
the
ES&S users group. We were treated as if we were already a member of the ES&S
community.”
“Everything seemed copacetic. I told them we had their estimate and would
they
cut off $50,000 off their estimate. Mr Fox said not a problem, Mr. Benek
said not a
problem. We shook hands on the deal. They sent the contract back to ES&S for
the adjustment, and I waited to get it so I could cut the check.
Near the end of December, Sancho received a call from the Florida
representative
for ES&S, telling him there was a problem.
“He said, ‘You need to talk to the president,’” Sancho says. “I said
certainly, I
volunteered to fly to Nebraska to directly talk to him face to face.”
They ended up setting up a conference call. And on Dec. 29, just two days
before the HAVA deadline, Sancho got the final decision by way of a message
left on his voicemail.
Gary Crump, from ES&S, said in the recorded message that ES&S had made a
decision not to sell to Leon County, claiming that the resources of ES&S
were
stretched to the limit and therefore they had decided only to sell to
existing
customers, and customers they had been pursuing and involved with for a
long time.
Whatever. That doesn’t explain why they just sold a system to Volusia
County,
when it dumped Diebold on Dec. 17, nor why ES&S sold their system to a
number of other jurisdictions in the U.S.
“They praised Leon County as recognized as an industry leader but said ‘We
just can’t provide you the equipment,’” said Sancho. “Coming as it did at
the
eleventh hour of the eleventh day, we are now subject to losing almost
$600,000 of HAVA monies, and ES&S chose not to fulfill approximately 1.8
million in sales.”
This includes a decision to decline to sell the AutoMark, which may violate
ES&S’s
agreement with the makers of AutoMark.
EVIL FLOURISHES WHERE GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING
What’s next? Sancho admits he’s been on the front lines, and that it’s no
fun to
take bullets from the voting industry while he stands his ground on behalf
of the
voters of Leon County. He’s playing his cards close to the vest.
“We have made preliminary contacts with legal representatives of Diebold
pursuant to a number of issues,” he says.
Ion Sancho is to be credited not only with taking a stand on behalf of his
voters.
He has forced the voting machine vendors to show their true colors, and
honest
elections officials throughout the country are struggling with untenable
options.
America, if ever there was a time to stand shoulder to shoulder, and show
support of an American hero, this is the time.
The time has come for a congressional investigation with subpeona power and
testimony under penalty of perjury. This can be state or federal. Whoever
gets
Diebold and ES&S and key figures in the certification process under oath
first
will join Sancho in the history books.
—————————————————————————-
—-
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW:
(1) All American Paper Chase
(2) Waste Archeology Watchdogs
(3) Candid America Project
HOW TO DO IT:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
Black Box Voting is fighting for your right, as a citizen, to oversee your
elections. We are working on issues of voting machine security and accuracy,
timely production of key elections public records, and providing training
and
consultation for citizens who want to get involved.
In 2006, we are emphasizing decentralized, autonomous citizen actions. It is
important for American citizens to re-learn how to act independently of any
organization. This is the best way for true citizen oversight to become a
national habit.
Do not expect any group, coalition, master plan or agenda to oversee your
local election. YOU are “We, the People.” And take courage: There can be
nothing more daunting to any corrupt public official than an autonomous
ordinary citizen using his/her own common sense.
—————————–
Black Box Voting is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer protection group for
elections, funded solely by citizen donations. To support this work, click
here:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html or mail to:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98055
Black Box Voting is not affiliated with any vendor, political party, or
political point of view. Our work has been covered by CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC,
Fox
News, MSNBC, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and most major news outlets
in
the U.S.Black Box Voting
Peace,
Liz
January 13th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
_____
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:10 PM
Subject: New Mexico goes for all paper ballots!
Thanks to the many supporters, organizations and active citizens who worked
tirelessly on this issue and helped make the following possible. We are very
close to achieving our shared goals and are committed to seeing this through
to a final and successful conclusion. Three cheers for democracy and New
Mexico!
Plaintiffs applaud Governor’s decision.
Lawsuit remains until the plan is fully implemented.
January 13, 2006, Albuquerque - On Thursday, January 12, 2005,
New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson and Attorney General Patricia Madrid
demonstrated bold leadership by announcing a plan to make New Mexico an
all-paper-ballot voting state. This is a great day for New Mexicans because
it means that we will be able to cast our votes with confidence that a
mechanism is in place that will allow all votes to be counted and tallied
and the results verified.
The Governor said that he will introduce legislation next week, at the
beginning of the 30-day 2006 state legislative session that, if adopted,
will accomplish two things: 1) it will mandate the use of optical scan
paper ballots in all New Mexico elections, and (2) it will provide $11
million in state funding to purchase the necessary voting systems. If the
legislation is adopted by the legislature and implemented before the next
election, inaccurate, unreliable and insecure electronic voting machines
that produce no voter-verifiable and auditable paper record will be a thing
of the past.
This Governor’s proposal is a great victory for the many concerned citizens
and organizations who have tirelessly advocated the change to paper ballots.
And it is a great victory for the plaintiffs in Lopategui v. Vigil-Giron, a
lawsuit in which the plaintiffs sought this very result. The lawsuit, filed
in January 2005, seeks an injunction barring future use of the same
unreliable, paperless electronic voting machines that will be replaced under
the Governor’s plan if the legislature adopts it. A catalyst for the
Governor’s decision was the Lopategui plaintiffs’ recent and successful
effort to temporarily restrain the Secretary of State and county clerks from
beginning the purchase of additional unreliable touch screen machines.
New Mexico’s next statewide election is in June, 2006. Thus it is critical
that the Governor’s proposal be implemented immediately so that all New
Mexico voters will have confidence that their votes and will count and can
be verified. For this reason, the Lopategui plaintiffs intend to press
forward with their lawsuit, particularly with their efforts to gather
evidence needed to obtain judicial relief if the legislature does not adopt
the Governor’s plan , or if the statutory changes and funding adopted are
too little or too late.
In the Lopategui litigation, Plaintiffs have already obtained critical
evidence in discovery about the untrustworthiness of touchscreen voting
systems and the serious inadequacy of the Secretary of State’s process for
auditing election results. By gathering more evidence through depositions
and inspection of voting systems, plaintiffs will be in a position to seek
timely judicial relief should the Governor’s plan not be implemented. As
soon as New Mexico can assure that all voters, regardless of the color of
their skin, where they live, or their physical ability are able to cast
their votes on verifiable, auditable paper ballots, plaintiffs will give
final, hearty congratulations to Governor Richardson, Attorney General
Madrid, and the state legislature for protecting our democracy.
Voter Action is a project of the International Humanities Center.
http://www.voteraction.org/
January 15th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Spector on NSA Spying: ‘Remedy is Impeachment’
On ABC’s This Week, when asked about the remedy for illegal NSA wiretapping of U.S. citizens, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), head of the Senate Judiciary Committee set to hold hearings on the matter, answered: “…Impeachment is the remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution…”
VIDEO: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002282.htm
—
Brad Friedman
THE BRAD BLOG - The uprising continues…
http://www.BradBlog.com
VELVET REVOLUTION - The revolution has begun…
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us
*** The BRAD SHOW On the Air via RAW RADIO!
*** http://www.BradShow.com
*** Broadcast coast-to-coast and around the globe!
January 15th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Senate and Citizens: Save Our Constitution
This writer cannot count the number of deep expressions of worry about the future of our Constitutional Democracy received in the past year from worried American citizens.
Citizens are worried about the voting process in America and for good reason. Voting rights have been manipulated by Republican partisans in government office to keep many citizens from voting. Legally cast votes have gone uncounted. Laws have been passed to force state and local governments to use voting machines that can be hacked or programmed in ways to facilitate vote fraud.
Voting rights issues have been deeply explored by voting rights activists and widely documented on the Internet. Bev Harris of Black Box Voting.org ( see: http://www.blackboxvoting.org ), Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman at Free Press.org (see: http://www.freepress.org ), investigative reporter Greg Palast (see: http://www.gregpalast.com ) and Brad Friedman of Brad Blog ( see: http://www.bradblog.com ) are just a few of these voting rights activists.
Unfortunately, elected Democrats and most journalists are not paying enough attention to this issue. We should be seeing all of the voting rights activists listed above and many others almost nightly on network news and cable news channels. Major newspapers and magazines should be doing serious investigative journalism on voting rights and voting machines. Why are Democrats in the United States Senate not holding public hearings on the voting machine issue? No issue is more important than voting and free, honest elections to American Democracy and freedom.
Just as important to preserving Constitutional Democracy in America is the strength of an independent judiciary in the “checks and balances” system of federal government power devised by our Founding Fathers. Senate Democrats are demonstrating a very serious lack of spine by not filibustering the Supreme Court nomination of Alito. Alito has clearly shown a lack of respect for Constitutional rights of individuals and a tendency to support government power favoring the governing elite over the common man.
The Bush Republicans seem to have gained control over the federal government with the backing of huge corrupt corporations. Election fraud can be concealed and legalized by a Republican partisan Supreme Court. Other illegal abuses of government power by the Bush Administration can be ignored or legalized in a similar manner including imprisonment without trial, illegal wiretapping, opening the private mail of citizens, blacklists among others.
Senators of both major political Parties do not seem willing to stand against abuses of power by the Bush Administration that clearly threaten the Constitution. This can be understood from the Bush Republicans but not from seemingly moderate Republicans and all Democratic Senators.
Citizens must demand a return to a working Constitutional Democracy with a working “checks and balances system” that includes a real independent Supreme Court and a free, honest, open voting system of fair elections. We must demand all elected officeholders, especially members of the U.S. Senate, work tirelessly and vigorously to achieve these goals.
Written by Stephen Crockett ( co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Email: .
January 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
We now have the complete video of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech from Aug 28, 1963 posted here:
VIDEO: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002287.htm
But currently breaking…
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002288.htm
GORE: ‘Bush Broke Law Repeatedly and Persistently’
And Other Highlights from an Extraordinary Speech to a Bi-Partisan Audience…
Calls for Special Counsel, Exec Branch Whistleblower Protection, Comprehensive Congressional Hearings to Immediately Investigate Constitutional Crimes by the Executive Branch…
Al Gore’s speech, to a bi-partisan audience, on our “Constitutional Crisis” has just concluced. We hope to have a link to the video shortly, and will update this item with it.
An early highlight: “The President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.”
MORE HIGHLIGHTS…
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law.
…
The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real…Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.
…
It is this same disrespect for America’s Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties.
…
This shameful exercise of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has been observed by every president since then - until now.
…
But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power.
…
The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch.
…
In the 70’s and 80’s, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the Executive Branch to the fire - no matter which party was in power. Yet oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today.
…
It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.
I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you’re supposed to be. [standing ovation received after this section]
…
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment’s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens’ right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President’s apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.
I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, “The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.”
A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President.
…
new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing — especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.
Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
…
As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.
As Dr. King once said, “Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.”
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002288.htm
January 17th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Demand that Republican Senate Leadership Let the Truth Out
President Bush has said over 100 times that Congress was shown the same pre-war intelligence he was. Senator Kennedy submitted an amendment in December to an intelligence bill asking the White House to turn over to the Senate Intelligence Committee the President’s daily briefings, beginning with the last term of the Clinton Administration and ending on first day of the war in Iraq in 2003. In response, an anonymous Republican Senator blocked the bill and is still blocking it. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6818
Email and phone these three members of the Republican leadership and demand that they have the hold taken off the bill:
SENATOR BILL FRIST, Phone: 202-224-3344, Fax: 202-228-1264
http://tinyurl.com/2dnol
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL, Phone: 202-224-2541, Fax: 202-224-2499
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
SENATOR PAT ROBERTS, Phone: 202-224-4774, Fax: 202-224-3514
http://roberts.senate.gov/e-mail_pat.html
____________
November 14th, 2007 at 1:58 am
BB King Blues
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..