Voter On A Mission

I saw my wife off to work and my daughter off to school this morning from our home in the hill country North of San Antonio, Texas. I donned a sweater, got in my pickup and headed out for the Volunteer Fire Dep't. station where I could cast my vote. I was highly motivated for the 5 mile drive, having written about American politics and this Election Day for over a year now. I arrived and got in line. I was the 41st person in line at 7:15 AM. I wondered how long I would have to wait.

Your vote - What it Will Mean

Vote! I can't get too excited about going to vote for Kerry or Bush, but, there are a number of other offices on the ballot and some state issues and candidates that are very important close to home. If the Presidential election has turned you off, don't let it stop you from going to vote on all these other ballot initiatives, local issues, and federal, state, and local officials. It really is a very important election even if Bush and Kerry both lost to Mickey Mouse.

Clinton as Secretary General of the U.N.

A vote for Bush is a vote for Koffi Annan remaining the head of the U.N. or his being replaced by another nation's nominee. A vote for Kerry is a vote that opens the potential of former President Bill Clinton being nominated to lead the United Nations as its new Secretary General. I have had a hard time finding any really important reason for supporting Kerry aside from sending Bush back to Crawford. But, now that there is some reliable scuttlebutt from United Press International about Clinton going for the U.N. position, supporting Kerry just got a whole lot more palatable.

Korbach: A Commendable Agenda

Kris Kobach (R) has come out in support of a policy I have advocated since before the invasion of Iraq. Kobach is calling for putting troops on our borders and shutting out potential terrorists and a huge drain on the American economy through illegal immigration. Finally, a Republican who has taken up the right side of an issue which I can wholeheartedly support.

American Confusion vs. Common Sense

In these days of great change, challenge, and tumult, it is understandable that Americans are confused by the dizzying amount of news and counter-news, legislation and counter-amendments, and the too often complete disconnect between what we expect of government and what we get from government. A great deal of this confusion stems from our incredible degree of dependence upon what others tell us about what to think and how to think about it.

Is God Voting For Bush?

Four years ago, God likely noticed that George W. Bush wasn't too bad as Texas Governor despite his love of death penalties, and he too was a 'born again'. So, God was surely pleased to see George become President with a little help from the Supreme Court, though it was touch and go there.

Four years later, God might be conceding that his faith in George wasn't enough to keep George on the straight and narrow. God was surely proud of how George responded to 9/11. While God does not condone war, he surely turned an understanding eye to George's invasion of Afghanistan. After all, God must believe in democracy too, and most of the world cheered George on in going after the terrorists and their sponsors, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. But, did George then lose his way on the path of righteousness?

Election About Bankrupting America

On November 2, you can vote for Sen. John Kerry and bankrupting America. Or, you can vote for Bush and bankrupt America twice as fast. This is according to new research and reports from government agencies and other institutions who are adding up the numbers of Kerry and Bush campaign promises. In the final analysis, if Bush wins, our national debt will reach over 11 Trillion dollars and under Kerry about 9 trillion dollars, so far.

Why This Election Can't Be Predicted

Polls simply cannot predict this presidential race. Below are comments from voters that demonstrate why that is. Two examples from Republicans follow:

"We were given the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction, but where are they? They said they were so sure. When I was over there I looked. I was on an intelligence gathering team, we all looked. We found nothing. It was just a lie. That wasn't a proper use of American troops. It wasn't a proper use of my life, my friends' lives, or the Marines I saw die around me."-- Lee Buttrill, Sergeant, USMC, Iraq War Veteran

Vote for Change, or Vote for Worse

The month of August was a robust month for political campaigning in America. Many of us were focused on what the candidates and campaigns had to say. Though more difficult, it is as instructive and educational for making a rational vote to listen for what isn't said. What isn't said is usually what campaigners want to hide from voters.

Kerry-Bush Both Win!

Kerry wins popular vote, Bush wins Electoral College! It is really starting to look like this is going to be the headline on November 4, 5, 6, or 7. It won't be on November 3 due to likelihood of protests over vote counting and allegations of voter fraud. There are 7.2 million Americans living overseas and more of them are likely to vote this year than in 2000. That will delay results a bit as well.

National Debt: The All Important Vote

Let's begin with a background number not often discussed, the total American debt is now 37 trillion dollars. That is the sum total of business, personal, trade, and national government debts. 24 of the 37 trillion dollar debt have accrued since 1990. This number is growing at a phenomenal rate. The total labor force is 147.9 million (Bureau of Labor Statistics). That 37 trillion dollar total American debt equals $250,169.00 give or take a few dollars, for every working man and woman in this country. In other words this is a quarter million dollar debt for each and every working man and woman and spiraling. On November 2, voters can elect to do something about a large portion of this debt.

U.S. Reinventing Itself

A glance at the headline political stories this last week could lead one to wonder if we'd had a revolution and were reinventing America from scratch. It seems everything is being rehashed, debated, and even recreated. President Bush commented about looking into a regressive sales tax which would mean reinventing the IRS. His aides quickly pulled him away. Our voting system is so broken, the State Dep't. has agreed to bring international observers in to monitor our elections on Nov. 2.

GOP: Racist Party Still

One of our conservative visitors is fond of referencing Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd as a former KKK member in the Senate. Sen. Byrd reformed himself half a lifetime ago and today is the most knowledgeable historian of the Senate and a champion of equal rights and racial equality. In other words, Byrd's history of being a KKK member is ancient history and has not been true of the Senate Historian for many decades. But this article is not about Senator Byrd. It is about the Grand Old Party and racism.

Terror Alert: What it really means!

The terrorist alert announced Sunday contained much more specific information about targets and even time frame. Unfortunately for the administration, it was discovered that the basis for information regarding the alert was several years old. This prompted skepticism and doubt as to the motives of the Whitehouse in issuing the alert, with some claiming it was a political ploy to scare voters into staying the course with Bush in November's election.

Poll Analysis: Bush still losing ground.

A post convention poll analysis at Zogby portrays darkening clouds over the Bush campaign. Many of his strategies are failing their intended goals, and some key constituencies Bush must have are losing ground. His job approval numbers refusing to climb is a particularly dark cloud over the campaign.

Will Osama bin Laden's Dream Come True?

In the past, when wars were won, the vanquished were as relieved as the victors, especially if their nation was vanquished at the hands of the Americans. Humbled, and even humiliated by their loss, such emotions were short-lived as the vanquished saw the restoration and opportunities for an even better and more bountiful future open before them with the assistance and even guidance of the United States. Such was the history of wars between nations and regular armies.

Rise up you disenfranchised!

Only a few decades ago, the electoral map showed 40 states up for grabs, demanding the candidates fight for votes in each and everyone of those states. This year only 16 to 17 states are up for grabs, called swing states. That means votes in 32 to 33 'solid' states are going to be completely taken for granted in this election cycle. In fact, your vote in any of these solid states won't even count in determining the election outcome. This constitutes a subtle form of disenfranchisement brought about by the electoral college which predetermines the race in the majority of states.

We Quit! No Johns! And More...

Apparently the city hosting the Democratic Convention did not invite enough Johns. Of course Boston invited John Kerry and John Edwards, and a whole slew of other Democrat cheering members named John, Joe & Barbara. But, someone forgot to call the most important John of all. With an estimated 38,000 to 380,000,000 folks to enter the downtown area, no one called the John Company. That's right, there wasn't going to be enough port-a-johnnies by far to accommodate the crowds to be drawn by the event. City officials are looking into the matter and one hopes they come up with a solution or they will be knee deep in matter all around the convention. The next day's headline could read, Democratic Convention full of crap!

U.S. Faces 2 Immense Ethical Dilemmas

Dilemma One: Whether to keep a President who cannot lead the rest of the world.
Dilemma Two: Whether to end Aids transmission to newborns or permit nature to govern.

Kerry-Dem.Party: Undemocratic

Many have argued that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Until this week, there has been little objective support for that argument. But two events this week have given concrete credence to Kerry and the Democratic Party having little fidelity with democracy. The two events were an interview this week with Kerry in which Kerry played dumb about the presidential debates and the other is a story coming out of Arizona regarding actions of the Democratic Party.

Bush: Win or Lose on News - Not Media

There are many who still blame the media for news content critical of President Bush’s administration, claiming liberal bias. To the extent that bad news sells and good news doesn’t (so well), there is a bias against Bush’s candidacy. But the factual basis for stories prominent in the news today have little to do with media bias one way or another. Abu Ghraib torture, workers living on less, a 50% increase in deaths from terrorism since the Iraq invasion, environmental criticism, the Medicare Rx drug card revolt among seniors, and many more stories are not a result of bias. They are real events which capture public interest in news.

Britain may predict November elections?

An article entitled, Blair takes drubbing over Iraq in local elections, reports how President Bush’s sidekick in the invasion of Iraq has just paid a huge political price for supporting Bush’s plan. The article is by Sarah Lyall of the N.Y. Times.

Presidential Debate Fraud - Pt.1

Subtitle: Why Bush & Kerry's debates will be a waste of viewer time. Would you be surprised to learn that the Presidential debates are conducted by a private corporation? Would you be surprised to learn that the Presidential Debate Commission is controlled by the Democratic AND Republican Parties? Would you be shocked to learn that funding for the Presidential debates comes from major corporations and your taxpayer dollars? If the answer to any of the above is yes, you probably want to read on.

Bush & 9/11: Responsible and Negligent

by David R. Remer PoliWatch.Org

Dick Cheney is reported to say this war on terrorism will be with us for decades. How bloody convenient for the hawks and military industrial complex. And how extremely unfortunate for America's sons and daughters who choose to enter the military, or, are drafted if they choose en masse not to. If the U.S. worked closely with other nations to stamp out terrorism and set a goal of 3 years or 5 years to get the job done, there is no doubt in my mind the international community could have and would have accomplished that goal since it would serve the interests of all nations. Who was served by the alienation of the U.N., France, Germany, Russia, and the E.U.? Who stands to gain from a war on terrorism that lasts decades?

If Americans by a majority do not ask and perceive the answer to this question, we will get a perpetual war, both hyped and propped up in the media as well as real with torn limbs, disemboweled bodies, and headless U.S. military victims. Why will we get this perpetual war? Because it will be good for the economy, it will be profitable for R&D companies, it will be profitable for energy companies, it will be profitable for arms and munitions manufacturers, and it will good for the Republican Party.

Polls show the public trusts the Republicans on security and military issues more than they trust any other party. There could be no better insurance policy for the Republican Party to retain power than a perpetual war overseas that is designed to protect us here at home from an invisible enemy. An enemy our Intelligence community was, and is, unable to detect, follow, or capture in whole. The 9/11 investigative commission has discovered that the dots were there to connect and they were huge DOTS. The dots screamed for increased security of American domestic and American bound aircraft. Many in our government and in the intelligence community warned of the DOTS and the picture they drew, and either their views were dismissed out of hand. The DOTS, information pieces from different intelligence sources, when connected, predicted a terrorist attack against the U.S. using aircraft as weapons. Intelligence agents connected these dots and spelled out the picture and they were dismissed. There is no excuse, no rationale, no way to understand why the U.S. did not beef up airline security prior to 9/11 unless there was a deliberate design to allow an attack to occur or a gross negligence on the part of this administration.

What intelligence officials did not know, and probably could not know, was just how devastating such an attack could be. Had this administration and intelligence leadership had any idea of the potential devastation of using planes as weapons, in all likelihood, airline security would have been implemented. But, this does not, in anyway, negate the fact, that airline security should have been beefed up based on reports by intelligence officials who did in fact connect the DOTS.

There is no doubt in my mind, that this Bush administration felt a bit cheated that Clinton had the first trade center attack on his watch. This administration no doubt viewed it as a wasted opportunity: If only it had happened on this administration's watch, it would have provided the justification and sales pitch they needed to carry out their predefined plan to establish a military presence in the middle east, to take out Saddam Hussein, to expand American military around the globe, and reap the benefits of those trillions of dollars of military buildup and spending, and demand for energy sources such expansion would create. Then 9/11 occurred, and an ironic "stroke of luck" gave this administration what they wished for.

In the end, it will be found that there is no evidence the Administration knew when or how the planes would be used as weapons for a terror attack on the U.S. Too, it will be found that this Administration did know there was a likelihood that planes would be used at some point as a means of terror attack upon the U.S. The only conclusion to draw from this is that the Administration was responsible for knowing there was a pending threat by aircraft, and they chose to not respond to that threat by beefing up airline security. That makes this Administration partly responsible for the attacks, and negligent in its duty to protect and defend the security of the United States and its people.

Will The People Turn on Bush?

by David Remer PoliWatch.Org (Dec. 19, 2003)

Last night on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the Republican jugular was exposed. Chris Matthews repeatedly asked Peggy Noonan, a most eloquent conservative spokesperson and top media champion for President Bush, a question which she simply could not answer. Recent polls were being discussed, specifically the bump in the President's ratings after the capture of Saddam Hussein. All was looking good for the President, when Chris Matthews took note of the fact that 52% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

It has been unequivocally established that there in is no evidence at all that links Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and the other panelists agreed. Peggy Noonan took exception and Chris Matthews asked Noonan whether she believed Hussein was responsible. She gave an evasive answer; Matthews asked again; another evasive answer; and 3 or 4 more times Matthews tried to get Noonan to state the fact. She couldn't. And in not being able to admit the fact in public for reasons outlined below, and by evading and redirecting the subject numerous times, she appeared to be a person without credibility, without honesty, and this she did on prime time TV.

This is the jugular of the Bush Administration. The polls showing more than half of Americans are still misinformed by the President and the Vice President as to the absence of any connection between Hussein and 9/11 and therefore, they are interpreting the capture of Hussein as a victory over the terrorists who caused 9/11. Hence, the bump in the polls.

If the opposition spends its money and expertise in educating the public on the facts, in very much the same manner as Matthews did for his audience with Noonan, support for the President will drop like a stone. Why? Because upon learning the facts and accepting the truth, they will be embarrassed for having been so gullible and have only the President to blame for the embarrassment. Then, they will have to ask why the body bags and tens of billions of tax dollars were spent in a, go it alone if need be, invasion into Iraq? Finally, they will have to ask how much safer would we be had we spent those military lives and monies going after the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11.

The enjoyment by the Bush Administration of their bump in the polls is a direct result of a lie held by half of the American people. A lie deftly designed by this Administration and one it has spent virtually no effort to rectify in the minds of the American people. The Bush Administration will have to answer the question in the debates, 'Was Hussein responsible for the 9/11 attacks?' If he tells the truth, those 52% will feel duped. If he lies, every person who holds facts and evidence to be the cornerstones of reality will pounce upon the President as a liar and a cheat.

Ralph Nader's testing of the waters may not be as absurd as it first seemed. Ralph Nader is almost always ahead of the curve when it comes to exposing government's pulling the wool over the eyes of the people. He knows he cannot win, but, if he can expose the deceipt, he can seriously impair the President's reelection bid. The Green Party and Democratic Party should also follow that lead if defeating this President is the first goal.

The Washington Post notes in an article yesterday entitled, White House Web Scrubbing, that the Administration has been observed scrubbing former statements which no longer look good, accurate, or truthful. This won't make a dent in the public's awareness simply because it is not newsworthy enough to permeate the media.

It will be impossible for the President to avoid the no win answer to the Iraq - 9/11 link, unless he avoids debate altogether. I would not be surprised if that is in fact the strategy the President follows. He will probably state as President he has not the time for politics, he has a country to run. This President is shrewd and politically saavy, and must avoid having to answer for the misunderstanding by the American public which he fostered and nursed for political gain.

A Vote For Revolution

Under our current system of government, we no longer have a democracy. Sounds like an outrageous statement doesn't it? But, consider the following. A democracy is a government of the people, whose decisions are made by the people and for the best interests of the majority of the society's people. But what we have today does not meet that definition. The reason is that 1/2 of the eligible voters don't vote, and 1/3 of registered voters are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party, therefore, the Democratic and Republican voters don't even add up to one half of the eligible persons to vote.

I vote. I won't vote Democratic or Republican. Like the majority of Americans, I will not vote to support the two party system that fails to represent me. I will vote, as I have for decades, with hope. Many would argue that my vote will be wasted, since a vote for a third party or not voting at all, simply results in the maintenance of the two party system with help from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) controlled by the two major parties.

The winning candidate never represents a majority decision of the people anymore. A plutocracy is a government run by the wealthy. An oligarchy is a government run by a small number of the population. Given that our government's officials are elected by a minority of adults in the country, and their decisions are bought and sold through compromise of wealthy special interest lobbyists and donors as a few hours spent watching C-Span makes evident, we have a plutocratic oligarchy, not a democracy. We talk democracy to get votes, but, make no mistake; our government's decisions and lawmaking are based on plutocratic lobbyists representing an oligarchy of corporate, business and wealthy individual's interests.

So, why bother to vote if you are not a Democrat or Republican, eh? My reason is that I believe in democracy and democracy demands of its citizens that they be informed and that they vote. I feel a responsibility to the future of my daughter's generation to do my part to further democracy regardless of how futile it may be. Also, as long as I vote, I can hope that others will too.

However, I am convinced that our growing plutocratic oligarchy will collapse under its own weight of corruption and failure as democracy. Precisely because 1/2 of the eligible voters don't vote, and 1/3 of registered voters are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party, the minority Democratic and Republican parties will be successful and their very success in elections will insure their inability to change their non-democracy ways.

This plutocratic oligarchy will fail, in time, and then, and only then, can we reinvent democracy that will work in these modern times. The current system of the worst government that special interest money can produce cannot be undone as long as the two party strangle hold on the election system (FEC) remains. However, if the Democratic and/or Republican party recognizes that the system is headed toward collapse and revolution, they may "see the light" and reform their non-democratic ways. That would likely be too late, however, for once they realize it, so will the majority of citizens in the country and then, why should the citizens believe either of the two major parties who brought the system to the brink of revolution?

Chinese history, especially in the 20th century, teaches that revolution and servicing the interests of the majority of the population are the only options for a government. Mao Tse Tung reined over the revolution that was necessary to unify the nation. Subsequent leaders have diligently worked to represent more and more of the people's interests to the point of now endorsing democratic changes at a measured pace. They know that if the future of China does not rest in some form of democracy, it will result in yet another revolution.

Our government under the two party system must choose to reinstate democracy of, by, and for the people, or face revolution in the end. I can find no viable third parties that could return, through acquisition of office, democracy to the American people. Therefore, I can only look forward to the two parties changing their successful winning strategies (extremely unlikely) or revolution. By voting Green or Independent candidates, I further the cause of one or the other of the possible outcomes for our system returning to the principle of government of, by and for the majority of the people.

Revolution in America? Not possible, right? Not with a middle class. That has been the thinking of scholars and philosophers in the 20th century. But, this is the 21st century and the middle class that believed in, supported, and were largely fulfilled by, the two party system, no longer exists. The majority of adults are frustrated with government, and its constant reversals of policy which provide no long term stability, planning, or implementation of solutions which can only be fulfilled by long term adherence to those solutions. In addition, more and more middle class Americans fail to see any positive return from their taxes that even comes close to the value of the work they put in to earn those tax dollars.

This kind of frustration, lack of faith and belief in the government, and disappointment which is becoming a majority sentiment, will only grow. Revolutions are not born on a day when millions wake up on the same morning and say, that's it, I have had enough. Revolutions are like a garden. Frustration, disappointment, and anger are the soil, fertilizer, water, and sunlight. All that is left to make something grow, is a seed. The seed will be a spokesperson with access to a mass audience, who taps into the soil and says, today is the day. Today we plant. Like Mao Tse Tung, the right person, at the right time, with access to enough disenchanted population, is all that is needed to start a revolution when the people are ready to demand change. Whether it be peaceful or violent, it will come if the soil bed is prepared. And we are preparing it today.

In my daughter's generation, or her daughter's generation, if the two party system does not alter it's selling of government to the highest bidding special interests, if the government does not find a way to unite a majority of citizens behind it, over the next generation or two or three, a revolution will be inevitable.

Thus, my vote for Green or Natural Law Party, or simply not voting at all, is a vote to further either a wake up call to the two party system to act as a democracy, or a revolution. And that is a vote I believe is very worthwhile casting, either way.

2004 Election Issues: One Party vs. Multiple Party Government

by David Remer - PoliWatch.Org

We usually associate one party government with fascism, authoritarianism, or fantasy utopia wherein all persons are healthy, happy, and equal in all ways that matter. In a democracy however, it is very possible to have a one party government which does not meet any of the above criteria. We are witnessing it now in large part. A one party government is not necessarily a cause for alarm about our democracy. Today, however, the stage is set for a potential threat to our democracy as great as that witnessed by the Civil War.

The U.S. currently has a Republican President and a Republican majority in both the houses of Congress, though by a slim margin in the Senate. It is only the slim margin in the Senate which still permits filibuster power by the Democrats, and the split Supreme Court with equal liberal and conservative Justices and one swing Justice who votes on either side depending on the issue, which prevents the U.S. from factually being a one party government. This is not historically unique in the U.S. however; during periods in the 20th century when Democrats constituted a near one party government, the Democratic Party itself was healthily diverse with its own conservative, centrist, and liberal wings of the party.

Beginning with the Reagan years and accelerating through the Clinton years, a polarization has taken place between the Conservatives and Liberals. This polarization has resulted in large part with the loss of the more liberal wing of the Republican Party and the conservative wing of Democratic Party. In addition, there has been a growth in two minor parties, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, as well as a significant growth in what is termed Independent voters who do not constitute a party at all. To the Green Party many ultra liberals who abandoned the Democratic Party have migrated. And to the Libertarian Party some of the ultra conservatives who abandoned the Republican Party have migrated.

The current state of all this migration has resulted in roughly 1/3 of registered voters being Democrat, 1/3 being Republican, and 1/3 falling into the Libertarian, Green, third party, and Independent camps. Also, it has left the Democratic Party with little more than very liberal and somewhat liberal makeup. And similarly this has left the Republican Party with little more than somewhat conservative and very conservative supporters. One other significant group of citizens should be mentioned here, namely, the disaffected non-voters who for a variety of reasons do not participate in the political process. This non-voters group is rapidly approaching equal numbers with all registered voters. But for the purpose of examining one party vs. multiple party government, they are relatively of little consequence save for their growing numbers.

Thus, when it comes to elections, the U.S. has only two predominant parties vying for office, the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans. And issues such as abortion, socialized programs like public education, health insurance, and social security, regulation of industries and business, foreign affairs, and wealth distribution or accrual through taxation have become very polarized issues between the two parties. This polarization between two such equally represented parties sets the stage for a scenario which could constitute a very real threat American democracy.

Whether Democrat or Republican, one party domination in the executive and legislative branches of government will represent the views, and satisfy the requirements of government, by little more than 1/3 of the citizenry of the nation. This is not majority rule. Currently, the Republican Party fails to satisfy the expectations of government by almost all Democrats, all Greens, most Libertarians, a significant portion of independent voters and a significant number of non-voters. The situation would be the same today if the Democrats held control of government instead of Republicans. This fact alone however is insufficient to result in a threat to democracy. Two other components are required to convert this situation into a threat to democracy

The first is sustained one party domination for a period of 8 or more years, Should the Iraq situation improve, even modestly by summer of 2004, and should the economy show improvement, even if only marginally, the Republicans may easily hold control of government for an additional 4 years. This is significant, because the tension and frustration level by non-Republicans will swell. Partisanship will become ever more vitriolic, and bitter. With a minority party ruling for another presidential election cycle, the fear of no end to such one party rule will manifest itself in a host of ways all to the detriment of unseating the ruling party.

The Democratic Party will incur internal dissent as competing views and strategies for overcoming in the next election cycle reach a fevered pitch. Contributions and affiliation with the Democratic Party will drop off as more and more citizens view the Democratic Party as ineffective and even obstructionist. While this may result in growing defections to third parties and independent voter status, the effect will only entrench the Republican hold on government in following election cycles. Thus the ability through the democratic election process to unseat a minority ruling party will diminish.

The second and final component required to constitute a real threat to democracy in our land is for government through action or inaction, to cause, or be held responsible for, a serious blow to the quality of life of a large minority of citizens outside the party holding power. It does not take a crystal ball to recognize a myriad of situations, economic, international, or domestic which could bring this about. Following are only a few examples. North Korean escalation of nuclear militarism. Outbreak of U.S. developed biological weapon like the anthrax released not long ago. Prolonged escalation and growth of terrorism. Growth of the American anarchist movement. Failure by the American system to successfully make the transition away from manufacturing. Attempts by the U.S., EU, Russia or China to militarize responses to changes in economic trading inequities. A series of serious terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens. Or something as simple as the growth of a black market based on identity theft from citizen's mailboxes all across America.

With a one party government which we already have in large part and are likely to continue for another 4 years, and any events like those listed above, we could generate the kind of patriotic movement by unrepresented Americans who demand revolution to take down the one party unresponsive government in the hopes of installing one which will be far more representative and responsive to majority demands and needs. Since the electoral process will be unable to change the one party system, only one option will be left to those demanding change. That option may only be that chosen by the colonialists to throw off the yoke of the British one King system of rule.

The stage is set. November of 2004 will tell if the one party actors remain on that stage. And all that remains for a revolutionary demise of our democracy will be an ill fated event that demonstrates to a large minority of citizens that the one party system has failed and will continue to fail generations to come, if citizens do not take action to alter the course of a minority one party rule in America. The British regarded the colonialist activists as terrorists. American history judged them great patriots. No doubt, if this play is presented as written above, the activists will be called both, and the polarization in America will be devastating until resolution is brought forth.

Bush and Constitution at Odds

Secrecy in government is antithetical to democracy. Our Constitution carefully attempts to make government employee's actions, from the President on down, accountable to the people, or their elected representatives. Yet, in this complicated world where evil intentions are planned and executed in secret, our government must have secrecy as a tool to be used to fend off harm planned for American citizens, both at home and abroad. Thus, the issue of secrecy in government is not whether our democracy should permit it or not; the issue is how much secrecy and how much oversight?

In the headlines this week is a BBC article entitled 'Justice denied' at Guantanamo. This article raises the issue of whether the Supreme Court of our land should review the legality of holding 100's of individuals, incommunicado and indefinitely, without being charged with any crimes, without judicial review of the justification for their being jailed, without legal representation, and without speedy trial and determination of their fate. U.S. law permits such events to take place during times of war. Currentlythe detention is legal. But, as our history shows many times over, legal does not mean right, nor does legal mean that a law conforms to the checks and balances designed into our Constitution.

The recent issue of leaks allegedly from the Whitehouse, exposing a CIA undercover operative as a means of obtaining political retribution, seriously raises the stakes in the issue of government secrecy. For if the serious leaks like this now occur, the argument will and is being made that secrecy must be even more secret. That is to say, that even fewer representatives of the people, if any, should have access to what is secret. If this argument is acted upon, the government will become less accountable to the people for its actions and pose a serious undermining of the Constitution of the U.S.

In the 103rd Congress, a study was done on secrecy in government, and the PDF summary of that document is highly recommended reading for all voters in America. In the summary, our representatives conclude,

The best way to ensure that secrecy is respected, and that the most important secrets remain secret, is for secrecy to be returned to its limited but necessary role. Secrets can be protected more effectively if secrecy is reduced overall.

The Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA) was signed into law on July 4, 1964, by President L.B. Johnson. A short and easily read history of the FOIA through 1996 was issued by the Society of Professional Journalists. Following is an excerpt of great importance to the subject of government secrecy:

The act had only one day to go before dying of presidential neglect in the form of a pocket veto.

Hardly an auspicious beginning for a law that spawned parallel "sunshine laws" in all 50 states. A law that has served as a model for nations around the world trying to make government more accessible and accountable to their citizens. A law that set out to make manifest the Jeffersonian principle of an informed citizenry.

Thirty years later, the friends of FOIA in official Washington remain few and far between and the complaints familiar: The FOIA is an unwelcome drain on scarce resources. It is overused by prisoners and aliens to overtax the system. It is abused by lawyers to circumvent court discovery rules. It is employed by businesses to gain unfair advantage over competitors. It is exploited by journalists to invade personal privacy and endanger national security.

Those complaints aside, the FOIA has compelled federal agencies to yield millions of documents relating to government operations and performance. Every week, a news organization, scholar or public-interest group somewhere reports information of significance to public health or safety or good governance - based on material gleaned from FOIA requests.

The history of the FOIA reveals an interesting political fact regarding secrecy in government. A Democrat signed the bill into law. In the link above it is reported that the FOIA

worked more fitfully and slowly during the 1980s, when administration policy confounded much of the act's intentions.

Then, in October of 1993, President Clinton issued a memo to department and agency heads mandating a new attitude toward the FOIA. "The act is a vital part of the participatory system of government," Clinton said to the officials. "I am committed to enhancing its effectiveness in my administration."

At the same time, Attorney General Janet Reno reversed a Department of Justice policy established in 1981. She said that the department no longer would defend an agency's denial of an FOIA request merely because there was a "substantial legal basis" for doing so.

Today, again under a Republican administration, Eweek reports on the Privacy Threat Index (PTI) stating: "Used to track the growing threat to privacy from expanding government surveillance, the PTI level currently is at orange--or "high"--because of ongoing invasive search techniques used by the government." Concluding Eweek's article is the following statement: "When government employees are able to cloak their work in secrecy, the threat not only to privacy but also to civil rights must be made a top priority."

Under President Bush's administration, The Patriot Act, and it's proposed enhancement Patriot Act II, reflect a greater role for secrecy in government, less accountability by the people's representatives, and therefore, a greater potential threat to American liberties. With secrecy comes abuse of power. What is the one thing all perpetrators of crime seek? Keeping their identity secret, is the answer. Under the Patriot Act, government employees are to varying degrees free to pursue the application of the powers of their office while cloaking their identity and their actions with the Patriot Act. Already journalists are uncovering alleged abuses of the Patriot Act by government officials. CBS News reports in an article entitled Patriot Act Abuses Seen,

Over the six-month period that ended in June, the Justice Department's inspector general found 34 complaints of rights violations that appeared credible, reports The New York Times. Some of the charges have yet to be fully investigated. Not all the complaints concerned physical abuse.

The report has been provided to Congress and will soon be publicly released. The complaints concern the way the Justice Department has enforced the 2001 Patriot Act, a law passed in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks that granted wider powers to federal law enforcement officers to conduct surveillance and detain immigrants.

An 2600 News article reporting a photographer's tale of abuse under the Patriot Act provides an eloquent example of how abuse of the Act can take place. Whether one believes the photographer's account or not, his story highlights perfectly how safeguards against such abuse are needed. For if his account is true, the powers of the Patriot Act provide the means for abusers to conceal their abuses. It is no safeguard that the Inspector General for the Justice Department, charged with investigating abuses of the Patriot Act, is employed by the very Justice Department that exercises the powers of the Patriot Act. The potential for cover up of abuse constitutes a real threat to civil liberties of American citizens.

The threats posed by growing secrecy in our government may be very long-lived. The war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks and which spawned the Patriot Act, is one that the U.S. will be fighting for decades. The root causes of terrorism like fundamentalism, patriotism, a global marketplace for small arms and explosive devices, poverty, lack of education and sustainable living standards, will not be quickly or easily eradicated if they ever are. Therefore, the war on terrorism is one we will be engaged in for at least the next generation or two of young Americans. Therefore, the threats and potential for abuses of our liberties and civil rights enjoyed prior to 9/11, shall be with us for decades.

Americans are divided on this issue. Many feel that some liberty lost is a small price to pay in the prevention of catastrophic lethal and maiming attacks upon American citizens. Others feel that life is inherently dangerous, driving vehicles, walking the neighborhood, spending time in a hospital, or visiting a local convenience store at the wrong time while a robbery commences. These may argue that there never can be such a level of security as to protect Americans from harm and that the threat of abuse toward, and loss of, civil liberties, constitutes as great a threat upon their sense of security in America as terrorist acts do for those willing to sacrifice freedom.

If history since the signing of the Freedom of Information Act is any indication, those who vote on this issue alone, and who fear terrorists will likely want to vote Republican. Those who fear abuse of power and threat to American freedoms and civil liberties will likely want to vote Democratic or Green. There is no question secrecy can enhance police power. There is also no question that secrecy is the most sought after goal of those who would circumvent laws and abuse power. It is an issue Americans may want to consider in the voting booths in November of 2004.

by David R. Remer PoliWatch.Org

Politicians may exploit China to the brink of war!

by David Remer PoliWatch.Org

I received an email regarding a news item I posted elsewhere, entitled Chinese Girl's Toil Brings Pain, Not Riches. The story reflects inequities between standards in the work force in the U.S. and the plight of Chinese workers. The email claimed we should start making plans for war with China to free those people under that horrible Communist system.

Absent a history of the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. and rise of the super capitalists from the close of the Civil War through to the stock market crash of 1929, it is easy to view the oncoming interaction between the U.S. and China in such black and white simplistic terms as exemplified by the author of that email. Absent an understanding of the cultural and demographic differences between the U.S. and China, it is possible to view China now and in the future as a greater threat than the USSR during the post WWII era. Should a President today, or in the future, fall prey to such ignorance, the world as we know it may be lost.

China has over 1 billion people, more than 3 times the U.S. population. Just a few decades ago, China was largely agricultural with 100's of millions of self sustaining farms and villages. Life expectancy was far lower than in the U.S., life was hard and the monetary system did not even reach the majority of those self sustaining farms. In just 60 years China has come from virtual medieval standards of living into the 20th century. This kind of growth in the U.S. was accomplished through sweatshops in the garment district that spanned decades. Through sharecropping labor that just met subsistence living standards. The U.S. brutalized children in the labor force, breaking their backs and their spirits during the industrial age of the North and in the coal mines of the South.

This history was all part of the transition in the U.S. from an agriculturally based economy to an industrial based economy. Such a history of industrialization was not unique to America. Great Britain and most of the modern free European nations on the west side of the iron curtain experienced similar exploitation of the work force in their transition to an industrial economy.

While it is heartbreaking to read of child labor in China especially through the eyes of a young girl, we must not forget that our own prosperity and burgeoning middle class with comfortable 41.2 hour work weeks and two cars, home, DVD players and PC's, resulted from moving the agricultural workers into industrial jobs and using labor as a cheap consumable to grow the capitalist enterprises that would employ ever more and more farm workers in the cities. It is just such a transition that is taking place in China but at an accelerated rate, since, they have almost a magnitude of order more people to move from the farm into productive industrial and technological positions than the U.S. had during its industrial growth period.

China has no other option but to make this transition from agricultural to industrial/technological economy. Millions of Chinese were starving a little more than a decade ago. China faced another revolution and civil war had it not laid plans to move the people in China into the 21st century with all of the benefits that a modern economy can offer. The people of China are demanding more freedom, more prosperity, and more security. China's government has made believers of its people and for the most part, the people have faith and trust in their government to guide their nation into the 21st Century world marketplace. It is difficult, but, the Chinese people are seeing more democracy in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore. And more democracy is promised. They are seeing more jobs and money is becoming common place even in many rural villages.

It is a mistake, a very great and grave mistake, for Americans to superimpose their current worker and work place values on China as it experiences the same transition today that the U.S. has now placed deep in its history books. There is no question, that current trade imbalances between the U.S. and many nations undergoing this transition from agriculture to industrial and technological economies are hurting the job growth in America and forcing the U.S. to give up its hold on manufacturing for the world marketplace. To politicize and base foreign policy on the negative trade imbalances in America is easy game for politicians. It is seductively easy for politicians to use the trade imbalances as a means of creating the illusion of predatorial third world nations and painting American workers as victims. Such an illusion will not however lead to any solution for American workers. The third world's only resource to enter the global marketplace and the 21st Century is cheap labor. They must exploit it or cease to exist economically.

Further, if such an illusion is used to create a hostile foreign policy toward China, which has a well developed nuclear arsenal and is eyeing military objectives in space, a new era of nuclear brinkmanship will inevitably result; one which the world may not survive. Americans must make intelligent choices at the ballot box in November of 2004 and beyond. And American political leaders must yield manufacturing to other growing countries since, we can no longer be competitive in that arena. The U.S. must make its own transition from manufacturing to technology, innovation, and services which can be marketed globally.

It is one thing for the American people to elect political pundits who have no experience in government or Hollywood stars with lots of money to be Governor of California. The world will survive a poor choice there. It is quite another issue should the American people so cavalierly vote in a President with a similar lack of credentials. The world, including the U.S., may not survive it.

2004 Election Issues (The Economy)

This article might be more aptly entitled 'A Perfect Economic Storm in the making'. A quick look at the economy of the past and present paints a picture of the future for the economy in which 3 current dynamics shall converge sometime around 2015 to deal a devastating blow to the American economy. Nothing taking place at the levels of government today indicate that America is trying to alter the course or even prepare for the storm ahead.

Past, present, and future.

PAST. President Reagan stimulated the economy in the 1980's on the back of huge deficits and large national debt according to the Office of Management and Budget. (See Table 1 at end of article.) President G.H. Bush had to renege on his promise of "No New Taxes" in order to stem the mushrooming deficits and debt which portended stagflation if left unabated. During the Clinton years, the deficits were brought down to zero and even began producing a surplus, when global recessionary pressures such as high interest rates, speculative investments, massive accounting frauds, and the bust of the technology stock market bubble occurred near the end of President Clinton's term.

President G.W. Bush entered office facing the exposure of the accounting frauds, a stock market already in decline, and a mild world wide recession nearing its end. He was later dealt a war on terrorism which he arguably could not avoid. President Bush however, unwisely expanded miltary activities into Iraq ballooning the defense budgets and creating a hugely expensive need for nation building at American expense that need not have been undertaken at all, or, at least could have been shared at some future time with the other nations of the world.

PRESENT. Today, the recession is well behind us. The Federal Reserve acted quickly enough and repeatedly enough in lowering interest rates to not only stall the recession, but, today its effects in conjunction with corporate downsizing and improved productivity gains have actually produced an economy which is growing at a modest rate of between 2.3 and 2.7 percent. Fourth quarter 2002 rate was 1.4%, first quarter 2003 , was 2.4%, and third quarter results are expected to show even more improvement. The 2002 and 2003 growth rates were also modestly stimulated by the Republican tax cuts, though a measure of how much is yet to be determined. Economists generally agree that consumer demand and growth in exports are the key ingredients to any further growth in the economy from this point forward.

However, the end of the recession did not end the job losses. MoneyCNN.com reports:

Payrolls shrank by 93,000 jobs outside the farm sector, the Labor Department said, after falling a revised 49,000 jobs in July. Economists had expected payrolls to grow, according to a Reuters poll. The number of jobs lost was the biggest since 151,000 in March.

Without an end to payroll losses, the end of the recession is meaningless to the 8.79 Million unemployed workers in America, today. Note the following from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

2004 Election Issues - War Powers

The Congress exercised legal and Constitutional authority in giving President Bush the power to wage war on whomever, wherever, and whenever the President deemed persons had any role in supporting or harboring the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. However, such a move was, in the opinion of some, not in the best interest of the American people. To his credit, President Bush sought the support of Congress before invading Iraq in full force. To have done otherwise would have invited Supreme Court review of presidential powers to usurp congressional power to declare war, and court review of congressional authority granted by the War Powers Resolution passed in 1973.

While there has been a great deal of scholarly review of these issues and even a few lawsuits intended to limit President Bush's war making powers granted by Congress, there has been little debate among the citizenry in America. Polls show the American people have, and continue, to support the powers granted to the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and their supporters, and wage war in Iraq. Perhaps it was the wisdom of some congressional members who forced compromise upon the President's initial request for war powers that has left the public supportive. The President asked for the power to war against any he deemed may enact future acts of terrorism; Congress wisely deleted such sweeping military freedom from the President's discretion.

The threat of involvement of military troops in circumstances not acceptable by Congress or the people, however, still exists. The historical tug of war between the executive branch and the Congress is a never ending battle. This tug of war stems from the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution states, "Congress has the power to declare war." Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,..." In addition to these powers, Congress shares powers with the President in areas like framing U.S. foreign policy and controlling the military. For example, while the President negotiates treaties, the Senate must approve them. While Congress can declare war and approve funds for the military, the President as commander-in-chief of the military has the power to direct military hostilities throughout the world using already appropriated military funding.

The President may introduce forces onto foreign soil claiming preemptive action to curtail aggression against the U.S., all the while, keeping secret from the Congress and the people the intelligence suggesting such potential aggression exists except in the most general terms. This precedent was established by President Bush in the solicitation to Congress for approval to invade Iraq. While he did acquire congressional approval, the facts supporting his rationale for invasion were kept secret in the name of national security; facts which have not been substantiated in the aftermath of the invasion. Yet, Congress has done nothing in reaction to the lack of substantiation of the premises for invading Iraq.

In effect, the President, may strike anywhere without having to disclose any facts supporting the decision. President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union,

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.

The President has made the case for preemptive strike policy. And such preemptive strikes require the element of surprise to minimize American casualties. It is then reasonable to conclude from the President's own words, that he is willing to engage America in war without notice and without congressional review if he can politically withstand such a move. Once our troops are engaged, the Congress and the American people are left with only two choices should it become apparent that the attacks were baseless on the stated premises. First, is the option to withdraw the forces prior to victory, or defeat. The cost of such a move in prestige, credibility, and face for both the government and the people would be staggering. The second choice, as has been witnessed in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, is to don the patriotic rhetoric of standing by our troops and justify the attacks on other premises.

The major political parties have varying positions on the war powers allocation between Congress and the President. In as much as these parties represent various portions of the American people, the voters do have a choice in November, 2004 on this, and many other issues. There is no greater and burdensome issue facing the American public, than this issue of government's authority to spend the lives of American youth and 100's of billions of dollars of tax payer money in the pursuit of war. Below, as best as can be ascertained by the parties' web sites and news releases, are the war powers issue stand of the various political parties.

Democrats and Republicans: In light of the overwhelming congressional support for sharing war powers with President Bush in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, it is safe to say that both of these parties support broad war powers under some constraints, being issued to the office of the President. In fairness, it must be said, that the Congress did choose to retain key provisions of the War Powers Resolution unto themselves.

The Green Party 2000 platform calls for a strictly defensive military. Further, it calls for a non-interventionist military role in foreign affairs. These statements would suggest that the Green Party would take necessary measures to fight terrorism against the U.S., but, not sanction regime change, nation building, and war on terrorism throughout the world. Thus, the Green Party would not sanction any delegation of Congress' war power to the office of the President.

The Libertarian Party 2000 Platform states the following: "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- ..." and "The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration." It is clear from these words that the Libertarian Party would support military pursuit of the terrorists who attacked the U.S. and their infrastructure. However, the LP would not have sanctioned the invasion of Iraq until confirmation of the Iraqi threat to the U.S. had been evidenced and confirmed. The LP obviously would not grant Congress's delegation of its war power to the executive branch.

The Constitution Party (CP) platform is difficult to pin down on this issue. On the one hand, the CP calls for making the U.S. military superior to all others on land, air, water and in space. On the other hand, the CP holds an isolationist foreign policy stance. Nothing clearer can be construed from their 2000 platform. However, on their web site is a resolution passed in the Spring of this year which states: "Be it resolved by the Constitution Party National Committee, that we publicly demand that no further expansion of the use of U.S. military force occur without a full and complete debate and consideration of the matter by Congress that results in a positive vote that declares war on a specific foreign enemy or enemies." There is a clear choice here for American's who believe that no war powers should ever be delegated to the executive branch except upon imminent threat to America or Americans.

The Natural Law Party which endorses Dennis Kucinich, while not addressing the issue on their web site, can safely be represented by Kucinich's platform found on his web site. There Kucinich states: "America will return to its role as the most admired-not hated-nation. The doctrine of "pre-emption" will be retired, as will an aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy that makes our homeland less secure, not more." Thus, the Natural Law Party would in all likelihood, oppose delegation of war power to, or exercise of war power, by, the executive branch.

The America First Party web site states the following: "The America First Party has reaffirmed the Party's strong stand that this war against Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States.... We have reaffirmed our love, support, and respect for our brave sons and daughters who are being misused by President Bush to fight a war that violates our Constitution and the principles so many have fought and died to protect." It is clear the America First Party does not stand with empowering the presidency with the power to engage America in war without the people's consent.

2004 Election Issues (Public Debt)

by David Remer August 8, 20