Thank god for the Land of Bigotry.

" Death by stoning for atheists, adulterers, and practicing male homosexuals.

Stoning - or possibly burning at the stake - for atheists, heretics, religious apostates, followers of other religions who proselytize, unmarried females who are unchaste, incorrigible juvenile delinquents, and children who curse or strike their parents.

And, oh yes, death to witches, Satanists, and those who commit blasphemy.

Does this sound like a radical Islamist nightmare, a replay of Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Welcome to the United States of America as Christian Reconstructionists hope to run it. Not as a democracy, which they see as secular heresy. But as a reconstructed Christian nation, complete with biblically sanctioned flogging and slavery."


Sounds like a bunch of nutcases? Well, I wouldn't write them off so fast. They're "Christian Reconstructionists", they're gaining in popularity with groups like Chalcedon.org and RepentAmerica.com, and you can find out more about them here: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/11490

Most of the bloodshed in the world today is brought about by religious fanatics who in my humble opinion are idiots. Most brainwashed politicians fall into this category.

I went into Repentamerica and noticed that they had a voter poll about Judge Alito being confirmed to the Supreme Court, as to whether or not I supported it. Of course, I voted no and was surprised that 80% of the votes were no votes. I was a little surprised that on this site most didn't want Alito on the court. Then I begin to wonder if this was a parody site or what. Anyone know? And a big hats off to Paul Hackett for his action. More power to him. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this election.

THANK YOU!

Paul Hackett is speaking truth to the absolute corrupt power that is attempting to turn our democracy into their secret theocracy.

The Republican party has been hijacked by these neo-conservative religious zealots who seem to think they are not only superior for their chosen faith, but they have deemed themselves as "chosen by god" to be in charge of re-writting our nation's founding principles as they wish to set our nation back on it's alleged course to becoming THE divine kingdom of planet Earth.

I know plenty of Republican's, that are troubled and disgusted by the influence of groups such as Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition.

Theocracywatch.org has in depth information and many articles on their religious agenda for America and they did one article in particular about how Ohio is becoming the training ground for these Christian reconstructionist.

Paul Hackett will be getting my vote in November, not only for standing up for ALL Americans but for his honesty and integrity. He served in Iraq and he will continue to serve us greatly here at home, where he is needed.

Fight them with the truth Paul! You will win.

Politics can be daunting and even overwhelming many times, when attempting to determine who to vote for. I vote by the issue, and am not a party follower, per se. Looking at the structure of the gov't, its apparent the structure was set up for checks and balances. The executive, judicial and legislative branches each looking over each-others' shoulders in order to ensure there isn't one branch stronger than the other. I don't particularly have to know too much, except, when one of those branches gets stronger than any other branch, then, stuff happens and its not about the good stuff.

The same principle holds true in congress, whenever one party has a vast majority and becomes stronger than another, stuff happens, and not all of it good. A strategy some use to vote, is to find out the "mix" of each party, and attempt to ensure there is a balance. This "Makes", each party work together and find some "middle" ground on the topics at hand in the U.S., as opposed to having the ability to run loose without being controlled.

The only reason this nation isn't a total theocracy at the moment, is due to many mid-line and moderate republicans, and the far left democrats that are holding some balance, but even, then, majority wins most times. So, if I knew nothing about who to vote for, just making sure there was a balance between the parties ensures enough "friction", that a balance exists.

Most people are not comfortable with the extremes on either end of the party lines. Extremism leads to attempts to create laws, based on a small minorities' absolutes, and that isn't typically good for the majority. There is a reason our political framework was created in the manner it was, however, its the american people who have to vote and ensure there is a balance.

Many people like voting party line, and typically, that can produce a lop-sided majority in congress, hence what is occurring at this moment. I don't blame those who were elected into office, the people who were elected are doing their parties' bidding. If anything should be learned from this current administration, its to not let a majority take either side, as one party wants big civilian business, and even international bussiness, and the other party wants smaller domestic and international business and bigger gov't. Its similar to hardline capitalism vs. communism, and somewhere in the middle there is a balance between capitalism and a social system that takes care of its citizens.

In the end, one would hope that people that are voting are doing so with a strategy, and a goal. If the goal to is get a majority rule in congress, then we can continue to see these same type events. You'll hear the politicians play off of the ignorance of the people and suggest that there needs to be a majority in order to move the country ahead with new bills, laws, etc, and with a majority they have more leverage.

A vote from a majority party, is going to take the lenience out of the law, and make it more absolute. Anyone who believes the federal law should be more rigid, and remove the states' ability to use their disgression on how to enforce the federal laws, according to their states' culture and people, will be in for a rude awakening if they ever need leneince on right to life, etc., issues and find that they have no legal flexibility. They will be subjected to an extreme on one end or the other. I don't expect much to change on the next vote, as many Americans seem to take the easy road, and vote party only as the going strategy. The presidential party is almost insignificant as long as there is balance in congress.

In my own humble opinion...

It started with Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America". Slimey bastards like Rush Limbaugh (Drug-O) started to emerge. They hijacked the political process, shook the trees until they could find a charge that would stick and crucified Clinton. At one point, he and Hilary were accused of: Whitewater, killing Vince Foster, running drugs through Arkansas, Jennifer Flowers... You name it, they were guilty of it. They're still blaming Clinton for Osama Bin Laden, the tanking economy, the boil on Bush's ass, you name it, Clinton caused it... and Bush ran on the promise to restore decency and responsibility to the Whitehouse.

Then Bush stole the election, with the help of the Supreme Court. The religious wackos became enboldened and started with their bullshit. Pat Robertson can't shut-up. Conservative talkradio became a propaganda tool of the neo-cons. They found an audience of dim-wits stupid enough to believe shit like gay marriage will destroy the family and the instition of marriage and that Christmas needed to be saved (Jerry Falwell rears his ugly head, again). Fox News rambles forth with no one standing-up to call it what it is (a propaganda tool) or what is is not (an actual news network). The legitimate press is cowarded into a corner and is searching for its balls, while the Democratic Party is busy trying to win over "middle America". It's a joke and I'm not laughing.

We are living George Orwell's 1984. Pretty soon the one minute hate channel (Fox News) will be telling us that EastAsia (Iraq) is not the enemy, but that EuroAsia (Iran) is...

Take heart people who use their brains to think...

The neo-cons have become too drunk with power to realize that they are crushing under their own weight. The majority of Americans know that they are lying and have created a "culture of corruption". The religious nuts are too extreme to be believed.

There is a new media outlet that is calling the neo-cons and the religious zealots on their shit, it is: www.airamericaradio.com . They consider themselves to be progressive talkradio. Randi Rhodes, Al Franken (Saturday Night Live - Stuart Smalley) and Janeanne Gorafalo (also Saturday Night Live and movies) are some of the hosts. They have affiliates in just about every major city. They are exposing the neo-cons and their co-conspirators, the christian right, on all their crazy claims and illegal acts.

I have heard Paul Hackett on Air America and also Ed Shultz (Jones Radio Network) and he is a smart guy. He is the kind of American that we can be proud of. If he doesn't win the Senate, he should take over the Democratic National Committee and have them grow some nuts...

http://www.hackettforohio.com/

Donate to his campaign, volunteer to help spread the word, take America back from Big Brother...

Damn, I did another rant (bad Bob, bad Bob)...

I'm passionate, okay?

LOL...not "bad Bob, bad Bob"! Good Bob, Good Bob! Great rant!

"We will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to find those who killed our sailors and hold them accountable." --President Clinton, October 14, 2000
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html

Never happened.

It should be interesting on how the "next" president is going to handle domestic and international terrorism. There will inevitably be a lot of talk about how we are going to bring the troops home, yadda, yadda, yadda, infinitum.

I wonder if the new president will have the balls to protect American lives abroad. No matter, we will be attacked, the only question is how will that president respond. There are two choices, strike back and get in the enemy's face, or, sit back, wait to be hit, pay lip service to parents with lost children, and then say they are going to do everything in their power to find those responsible.

Maybe if the U.S. just pulls all troops back, the terrorists who are religiously motivated will just leave a predominately christian nation (according to some polls) alone. I can't wait to see how the next president is going to enter into their new office. The current administration has taken the fight to the homeland of the terrorists, and kept them busy in their own backyards as a response to 9/11.

If the new president changes current policy, and terrorist attacks increase, the new president owns the bag of stink, the second they keep policy the same, the second I will ask what difference it made to have a new person in office.

Maybe a good candidate will be one who is liberal on social issues, and has the balls to protect american lives foriegn and domestic, even if the use of continual force is necessary. Terrorist attacks will not stop, our country has been attacked since the beginning of its foundation and typically because we have pulled back into an isolationist mode. Even if the U.S. is not out trying to provide peace keeping aid, or humanitarian assistance, we will be attacked because of fanatic religious zealots.

Still, the next president is only going to be as effective as the mix in congress. Its good to see so many people looking at candidates, and their stances. Everyone, should be as passionate.

Politics = donkey and carrot analogy.

People look at what we've become, since Colombus first stepped on American soil, We're a bunch of Lemmings following the Pide Piper.

We have been led to believe that someone with a big college education and a wealthy background has some special gifted knowledge and will lead us into a state of peaceful harmony and bliss.

Look at all the previous presidents that the lemmings voted in, each one resulting to be a pompas fool, they have totally destroyed any confidence that any foreign country has in us, they have made a mockery of civil democracy, most of the presidents after leaving office, have gone into hiding, it's not just the president either, it's the congress members that we pay great sums of money to represent the lemmings, most foreign countries when asked about America along goes the word hate, and I do not blame them, we have proved to the entire world that we as a whole, are not mentally stable, why is that? Of course I do blame religion for most of it, because if a majority of people cannot decipher from what is a lie and what is not a lie, then we become a nation of mindless followers, and that is exactly what America is today, a nation of mindless wondering sheep, we look ahead and hope that the next president, (because we realize that the one we have now is blundering fool), will be better than the previous one, when all the while we all know this is not possible. The only reason that another country has not nuked us to ablivion is because we are so far away from them, if we were closer we would have done been destroyed, but it's coming, probably within the next 20 years, so everybody start making babies like rabbits just like you've been doing and maybe just maybe they will grow up to see the US destroyed by a nuclear bomb, because it's coming and not because the buybull says so, it's because we have no leaders, as long as we hope to vote in a great leader from the bottom of the DNA pool, America will continue to sink into the cess pool of no common sense or logic. And is religion to blame? I say yes, it is because we have been led to believe that there are those whom hold special gifts, when it's so obvious that there is not one person on this planet better than anyone else, but we continue to be led around like mindless sheep.

Politics and religion theres no difference, it's the blind leading the blind, if you go vote the leaders are saying look at what we've done, we've caused a consensus of people to go and vote on one particular day, just like the big smiling preacher, as the sheep file past him in the doorway on Sundays he says look at what I've done, I've managed to get my flock to wonder through the church doors every Sunday, I must truly be called by a God, I have convinced this many people that I am valid and I am special.

I see no change in the future with politics and religion, we will continue down the path of total insanity, because we have lost our way, we have let our leaders destroy our projected path to greatness, the pilgrims came over here to escape religious persecution and now we have armies with guns and bombs and ships and planes constantly ready for war, to wherever god leads us to battle. The United States, yeah
we're united alright, united in insanity. Get ready to vote for your god inspired leader, maybe Benny Hinn will run for president or Pat Robertson, whoever you vote for, be sure he's backed up by a god.

Way to go, Paul Hackett...

100% of U.S. Presidents have had a religious background, with the least dogmatic being the Deists and Unitarians.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

Its not a matter of which person is going to get elected, its a matter of which religion is going to get elected. Still, no matter who gets into office the U.S. will be attacked and a Unitarian or a Southern Baptist still have an obligation to defend the U.S. from foriegn and domestic threat.

36 Lyndon B. Johnson - Disciples of Christ

37 Richard M. Nixon - Quaker

38 Gerald Ford - Episcopalian

39 Jimmy Carter Baptist (former Southern Baptist)

40 Ronald Reagan - Disciples of Christ; Presbyterian

41 George H. W. Bush - Episcopalian

42 William Jefferson Clinton - Baptist

43 George W. Bush - Methodist (former Episcopalian)

Yep, can't wait to see which religiously affiliated nominations get thrown in the hat next round. Wonder if we will get a Jewish or Muslim candidate.


"In the final analysis, the primary purpose of national security policy must be the narrower one of promoting stability, not the broader goal of extending free-market democracy. U.S. soldiers are not "social workers" equipped to conduct risky regime changes or undertake idyllic humanitarian interventions that are peripheral to our vital national interests. Rather than expend its energies on such futile strategies, this country should focus on the task of eradicating terrorist networks of global reach, while more vigilantly pursuing policies of robust containment and active deterrence that render outlaw regimes impotent."
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35312

Free market democracy, in a global environment creates the 'haves' and 'have nots'. Those who are in control of the resources are able to control the masses. This is a danger to some countries and religions which feel that once a global free market democracy is established, a global theocracy is imminent. If Rome was capable of establishing a state religion, under a theocracy, then why would it be seen any differently by other nations who see the U.S. as the New Rome.

Presidents are elected based on their religious affiliation, the U.S. will continue to be seen as a religious nation, who is pushing its national strategy to create a world where free market democracy reigns.

The U.S. political system, based on the citizen vote of the U.S., has the potential to elect a president and congress who are "all" from the same party and have the exact same religious leanings. In this scenario, the laws, regulations, etc., would likely be tainted with religious rhetoric, the constitution would be ammended to conform to their ideals. In short, the word "theocracy" wouldn't be used, but it would exist in practice, regardless. A simple law saying that prayer is mandatory in public school, doesn't have to be religious specific to alienate those who don't follow certain prayer rituals, etc., therefore, its a theocracy based on "god", and doesn't need to be specific to the religion.

Those nations who see the U.S., globally interferring to spread free market democracy most likely believe the U.S. is attempting to gain global political dominance, and influence. If that is established, then the "intelligence" of the U.S. citizens are the only ones who can protect nations abroad, by voting to keep a president and the congress in check. I don't believe those of foreign countries, from what I have seen, think the average U.S. citizen thinks when they vote, much less understand the global implications.

Those of terrorist factions, use the spreading of free market democracy as the example of the U.S. trying to gain global dominance. We create the "carrot" that religiously affiliated terrorists use to push their cause. Those who are religiously affiliated in foreign nations, who hold power, or want to hold power, consider free market democracy as a threat to their belief system and their control.

There are organizations who don't want to be influenced or controlled by a governing body, whether it be a single nation's governing body or a combined international governing body like the united nations. These organizations exist both foreign and domentic.

The resolution is to remove organizations who are not willing to comply with international law or allow them free reign. If those type organizations are allowed free reign, then historically more genocide, war, etc., will continue as some want the world to be under their own ideaology.

Ugggh, Politics,

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site


Courtesy of: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html

"Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it...?"
"...Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)



Paul Hackett (and many more brave Americans) went to fight this war, this is what he (they) got:


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

"They knew Iraq posed no nuclear threat..."

"They knew the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons..."

"...To date, no chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq."

"They knew Saddam and bin Laden were not collaborating..."

"They knew there was no Prague meeting"

"Conclusion: They knew they were misleading America..."

(http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/899/ "They Knew...
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak"
By David Sirota and Christy Harvey)

see, also: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

Bush defended the war Iraq by trying to make it sound like he was spreading democracy to Iraq.

Bush is not fighting terrorism. It is really hard to tell what he is doing - making money for Haliburton? The earth is going to run out of oil in 30 - 40 years, anyways. Can it really be for the oil. He is a neo-con. He panders to fundamentalists.

See (former President) Jimmy Carter's book, "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis" -

"Carter spends significant time contextualizing his own spirituality, as if to underscore the urgency of his message that fundamentalism in any form is bad, especially when it encroaches on government. Indeed, Carter persuasively links fundamentalism to harmful policy, the subjugation of women, general xenophobia, and a host of other ills occurring all around him. And while George W. Bush in particular and the current administration in general take fewer clips on the chin than might be expected, Carter's arguments for common-sense change are deeply resonant nonetheless." --Kim Hughes review of "Our Endangered Values" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743284577/102-8617726-6790504?v=glance&n=283155

My point: the "War on Terror" is about as bullshit as our "War on Drugs". Enablers helping Enablers. It is all about the United States being in the fast-lane to becoming a theocracy. Enablers helping enablers. I've had enough - how about you?

Bob, You bet I have had enough, I just don't know what the hell to do about it, so I stay frustrated.

You have no idea how much we think alike! You are right on it as far as I am concerned, and I agree with everything you just said in your last and previous posts. You are taking the words right out of my mouth, only you can express them in writing much better than I ever could!

I live in Cincinnati Ohio and I am proud of Hackett for having the balls to speak his mind loud and proud. He lost the last election in a close race with a local woman Jean Schmidt (who is now known for her nasty remarks about Senator Murtha). I am not a dem or rep, but I hope Hackett wins. I can't vote for him because he is not in my district.

The only hope we have now is that the corruption taking place in the government by these power hungry bastards will cause Americans to get off their dead asses and wake up and realize this lopsided government is unhealthy. I have little faith it will happen though, like you said, people have to have something hit them where they live before they start taking notice, and I fear it will take a while before enough stand up and take notice.

I also think Osama Bin Laden is dead and that new audio tape is something pulled out of someone's ass. The man was seriously ill a long time ago, besides, George could care less about old OBL right??? LOL. Ok, I hate to give in to conspiricy theories, but this time it stinks to the high heavens that coincidentally, when there is so much going wrong on capitol hill, this tape comes out just in time to divert attention and is also a huge benefit for campaigning to get that Patriot Act II bill passed that is stalled in congress. Just my warped opinion, and yes, I realize that if this is true we are really screwed if our leaders would go that far. Worse things have happened when leaders get "drunk on power".

Btw, I listen to AirAmerica radio and love it.

The Bush administration used Saddam's ego against him and they tagged him for it, because Saddam didn't want to play the enabler game or be controlled in a free market global economy. Iraq and Kuwait share an underground oil reserve. Iraq attacked Kuwait because they felt that Kuwait was sucking too much oil and selling on the market, forcing Iraq's oil prices down. The U.S. supported Kuwait and their business ethics, and thus backed them when they were attacked.

Did Saddam have everything that he was said to have had? At this point, they don't seem to have found much, however, Saddam was so infuriated at the whole control game that he kicked the inspectors out, or hindered them to the point that the U.S. could make a case at the U.N. Does the U.N. know what was going on? Probably, they had an idea as a majority. France and Russia were buying oil from Iraq under the table while they had an oil embargo against them. The food for oil program ended up being corrupt at some point.

There are many nations who have leaders who will do what they have to do in order to take care of their citizens - even break treaties, embargos, etc. The question becomes is it right to attempt to force the entire globe into a free market economy? Or, force some countries to engage in trade against their will.

If the oil producing countries of the world cut off the U.S. oil supply by coming together. The U.S. would consider that a National Security threat, and declare open war on the closest nation accessible. Is that ethical? I agree with you, its the manipulation, of the enablers causing the further enabling. However, as long as oil continues to be considered a National Security issue, we are going to be involved in the global market.

We cut off Japan's oil supply just before we were attacked in Hawaii. They considered that an act of war also. Its the same game of supply-demand and global control because of national security. The U.S. is attempting to spread democracy in an effort to ensure there isn't one nut sitting on a throne somewhere that can make a call for an entire nation, and put their nation at risk of war.

Still, if all nations were democracies, it doesn't appear as if it has "slowed" the war effort down from a U.S. perspective. We may have civil rights and even a quality of life that many other nations don't have but since we are at the top of the hierarchy we don't have to work with "any" other nation to get what we want. If we can't get it, we find a way, even if it takes a little manipulation with an egocentric idiot like Saddam.

I suppose I am a true skeptic in politics. I don't see any leader bringing the U.S. out a its current state of affairs. For every situation I can think of which has some pro, I see just as many cons. Its good to see that there are poeple willing to stand up, then leaders overstep their bounds. However, what is overstepping the bounds, when an entire countries' National Strategy is to maintain control of their warfighting and technological dominance in order to control the world.

Is that the best between two evils. We either "control" or "be controlled", I am not sure either one is ethically acceptable. Politicians, pointing out tid bits here and there are great. However, I personally would like to see a solution to the problems that have gone through every administration I have lived through dealing with global control. If that isn't possible, then what is the point of squaking other than to run for political office. Every politician that has run, has promised to solve world hunger, its part of the game.

I agree that war on terror, is just another term to describe a control factor gone awry. I suppose I am just a skeptic, there will always be issues no matter who is in office as the elected official rewards those who go them elected. That means those who didn't support aren't going to be happy.

I don't know the answer Bob, I just try to see if I can keep a balance from either end getting total control. A good mix in congress at least controls two dimensions. "Time", the speed at which a bill or major decision is passed, and the "quality" of the decision as it will get a deeper look by citizens as the issues will be out in the public eye for a longer period. Instead of fast rapid changes, a good balance in congress can create a control where slow steady change and American buy in is better facilitated.

The global issues are not going to go away and this will cause problems. Whoever is in office, is going to make mistakes because they're human and that will be aired on the evening news every night. There will always be the other party to create controversy. The National Security strategy itself pulls the U.S. into foreign matters, which will continue to happen until the U.S. somehow finds alternative resources. Our market rewards companies by beating out the competition. Capitalism inspires companies to beat out the competition, and if a company can't beat out the competition, then they can buy them out. There are engineering solutions to alternative fuels, and companies who hold huge oil shares are buying up the patents to keep their investment protected. Competition was introduced in our capitalistic markets to keep the economy moving and to allow the individual in society to become the next Donald Trump. However, there is such as thing as "legally" desctructive competition. Competition doesn't always create an adversarial environment between the aspiring individual and society in general, but there aren't controls in place to prevent the ill effects of competition gone wrong. Is it a wonder we see the new generation of kids as the 'me' generation.

I know many of these factors are beyond our control most times, as they are the fabric of our economic structure. Possibly, why its easy for me to see past the candidates or presidents and see the true underlying issues and know that there would have to be drastic changes to really make a difference and not only in the person holding office. The finger pointing that goes on, can be done for every election we will ever have. I just want to see a real change where solutions are provided instead of standing on a platform and finger pointing. I am sure there is a lot more criticism that could be thrown around on "W", that is not even out in the open. I just don't see that as beneficial, the dude is gone, he can't be re-elected. Why not focus on the future with solutions, instead of focusing on people who grew up on the ranch.

I am there with ya' Bob, there has to be drastic changes. Not just the people, but major legal and structural changes. And, just because I can't help being the skeptic, once good changes are made, they are not established as a few months later they can be rewritten by a new policy or bill influenced by party politics. In order for there to be any real strides forward, there have to be advocacy groups staring on a daily basis at those in Washington to keep them honest. The real gain will be when real solutions are sought, and they are presented to the public so that party politics takes a back seat to the real issues. Beyond that, as a nation, we just swing left, then right like a nut sack looking for a cool breeze to keep us potent. I think we need radical, long lasting, and consistent focus on the real issues that effect the nation and the global community. So, the best I can do, without ever really knowing the intentions of the politicians and their true agendas, is to vote for a balance that pits a balance between the dems and reps so that drastic changes don't just pop up out of nowhere unchallenged, hence Iraq.

I like the slow methodical scene, where the citizens can get an advocacy group to hawk on the information being presented so that they can get their representatives involved on their behalf if they smell a fish. I just don't like seeing emotionally charged voting, it clouds the issue and the real problems stay around, with just another name and the same excuses. I wish the best for the collective society, I just think there are many powerful individuals who are going to do everything in their power to ensure their interests are protected. It's going to take a lot of effort to identify the root causes of global tension, and its going to come down to the american dream. Terrorism is just the extension of the american dream finding its way into someone elses' backyard. Take care.

MadBuni: "I live in Cincinnati Ohio and I am proud of Hackett for having the balls to speak his mind loud and proud. He lost the last election in a close race with a local woman Jean Schmidt (who is now known for her nasty remarks about Senator Murtha)"

Its all about the finger-pointing that makes me go ugggghhh. LOL

MadBuni: "I can't vote for him because he is not in my district."

Try living down the street from the "W" ranch, uggggghhhh. LOL

Ugggh, yep, frustration is part of my everyday life! LOL.

Enjoyed your comments. You stay on the ball about what is going on, and understand it well, but as a result, just like dealing with the fundies, it's UGGGGGGGH frustration!!! LOL

I think we should all stand behind this candidate and let the rest of them see there ARE people out here who don't want religion in politics.

Hey Ugggh,

You make some salient points in your last post about the current state of politics in the U.S.. I would say that most Americans consider themselves to be "in-the-middle". The pendulum swings left and the pendulum swings right. I agree with Ralph Nader most of the time, and then there are times when I roll my eyes and worry that the right will have scored another point in their favor for Ralph's remarks.

Reform in the political process is in drastic need. Before we can consider reform, we have a more urgent need. We need to restore balance (as you eluded) to the process. We are about to lose the system of checks and balances. They have stolen the executive branch, the legislative branch has been turned into a bunch of "rubber-stampers" and the judicial branch is very close to being completely hijacked.

These are dangerous times. What is at stake (amongst many very serious issues) is separation of church and state. I have a feeling that is why this website and the atheist movement is gaining popularity. The Soviet Union fell almost overnight. If we become a theocracy....

Thanks for you thoughtful and accurate posts.

Madbuni,

Howdy neighbor!

I live just outside of Cincinnati. Most of the people in this town are hard righty republicans, including many of our direct neighbors. We moved in during an election year and they just decided we were not worthy of their neighborly love after seeing our yard signs were endorsing the "dark side" of the moon. (*howling like a wolf*) Lmao...they look at us like we are evil and will not even speak to us.

Oh well. We love lemonade!

You can vote for Paul Hackett this time around because he is running for a U.S. Senate seat. I couldn't vote for him in the last election either because that mid-term election was to fill Ohio's 2nd district rep. seat. Check out www.hackettforcongress.com, if you would like to know more about him.

I vote for whom I see fit to fill the job, but I am a registered Democrat. The last Republican I voted for was Steve Chabot, and that will be the last time that guy gets my vote. I thought he was middle of the road, but I was wrong. Point is, I vote across party lines if I think they may be a better candidate for the job.

Quick question: Do you feel our election system in Ohio needs to be reformed? Just wondering what you think.

I was laughing in total agreement when I read the part of your post that said: "I hate to give in to conspiricy theories, but this time it stinks to the high heavens that coincidentally, when there is so much going wrong on capitol hill, this tape comes out just in time to divert attention and is also a huge benefit for campaigning to get that Patriot Act II bill passed that is stalled in congress"

I thought my "I'm smelling a conspiracy here" about the new OBL tape looking a bit planned was nuts until I read your comments, which were nearly the same thoughts that ran through my mind.

We would never know, thats fo sho.
NSA=Politricks? It could happen!

Take care

Hi Melissa,

Excuse my butting in, but:


"COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election."

(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm)

Do you trust Kenneth Blackwell or your voting machines for a "fair" election...? How about voting irregularities in black and poor neighborhoods...

"Massive irregularities in the November 2 presidential vote count “will probably lead to congressional hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary,” predicts Rep. John Conyers, the committee’s ranking Democrat and longest sitting member of the Congressional Black Caucus. If tampering is found, said the Detroit lawmaker, “there will be prosecutions” under federal law."

(http://www.blackcommentator.com/113/113_cover_stolen_election.html)

I would be surprised if Paul Hackett actually gets elected. Although, I'm sure there is an overwhelming number of Ohio voters who now feel like they voted incorrectly for Jean Schmidt instead of Hackett in the last election:

"Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) today on the House floor, speaking about Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a decorated former Marine:

Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through."

(http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/18/schmidt-shame/)

..."this tape comes out just in time to divert attention and is also a huge benefit for campaigning to get that Patriot Act II bill "(lets take all freedom away from Americans)... is just about as coincidental as the fact that the OBL tape gave Gonzalez (a longtime King George Cronie) the ammunition he needed to defend the pResident's abuse of power in spying on ordinary Americans.

Come-on good citizens of Ohio! I live in a blue state. It feels SOOO GOOOOOD! Help turn Ohio blue for good! Let's bring the Bush Crime family to justice!!!

Bob: "These are dangerous times. What is at stake (amongst many very serious issues) is separation of church and state. I have a feeling that is why this website and the atheist movement is gaining popularity. The Soviet Union fell almost overnight. If we become a theocracy...."

I agree, that as pressure builds in the U.S. regarding politics and religion, sites such as this will continue to gain popularity as most times people speak their mind. The Soviet Union fell, because it bankrupt itself in an arms race with the U.S. Many christian groups claim that the collapse was a moral issue and Atheism was the major belief system at the time. While of course looking past the political and economic structure, which was truly the real cause of the collapse. Reagan had the U.S. building jet after jet, bomb after bomb, forcing the Soviets to maintain their National Security Strategy which was to spread Communism, and so their National Security policy bankrupt their Nation to the point, that individual states pulled away. Still, I agree that not one person or party should be sitting on the throne with a war-hammer and beyond the citizens'ability to challenge corruption.

Regarding the Patriot Act II, its one of those bills that is trying to be stuffed through without a proper review by the American people. The Internet is gaining popularity because citizens are finding more efficient means to "assemble", which is currently a legal right.

There are good supporting reasons for a few of the tenets that I can't go into detail on, that the Patriot Act II covers. I would fully support a few of them, but with mandated oversight by other angencies. However, the package as it stands is very damaging to the rights of citizens and civil liberties.

Basically, it removes the burdon of the gov't to prove their case against a citizen in many instances, and then it broadens the authority of the gov't and law enforcement agencies to covertly enforce the law at their own disgression, thus removing the check and balance between legislative, judicial and executive. The executive branch agencies could conduct operations under legislative law and beyond judicial review.

There are concerns that need to be addressed for sure, especially with proliferation of communication devices, but they should be topics covered in that Act should be taken one item at a time as opposed to a Microsoft bundle paradigm with all provisions included. There does need to be a reshuffling of party members in congress to attain a balance. The church and state issues are also at the front of the issues, as the outgoing party is trying to make good on its promises to their supporters.

If this Act passes, it will take the entire political majority to swing left in order to attempt to remove it from the books years later. Nothing is permanent, but we have yet to remove "god" from the pledge of allegiance after it was stuffed in there as a political statement to the Soviet Union after the U.S. declared Communism to be synonymous with Atheism.

I don't see the Patriot Act II getting through as is, but typically the bills are bundled, so that pieces can be negotiated and trades can be made to the opposition to allow it to ride.

The best we can do is attempt to understand our geographic areas' political views and attempt to get representatives in congress that support those views. Its a shame the congressional terms are so short, however, one would hope that there is more than one candidate capable of bringing the views of their constituents to the floor of congress in any given geographical area. The last time we had really good tension, was during the civil war, and it took that much fighting to get to where we are today, but we have progress.

There needs to be the same tension, politically, and the only ones who can force that tension to consistently remain are the citizens. I know this site is more geared towards the religious view and how it effects individuals in their lives. Politics is a change enabler, though, and many times we have to look at those in office to remove incentives that support ignorance in society. There is much concern however, on how to balance domestic issues with international issues. We have to look at each topic, individually, and hope the representatives listen to their people.

There are many who vote political party only, and typically those who are young and in organizations which promote a certain party, churches are great for giving their point of view on who the congregation should vote for, and of course, the congregation votes accordingly, why not, they blindly follow the words of a preacher anyway. Its why politicians remain religious on paper. Well, I hope that whoever the candidates are, get grilled on both foreign and domestic issues, by their voters. Typically, open debate can shift party hard-liners if the right topics are discussed. Take care.

Bob,

Man, that bit of info has me worried. I think the validity of our elections in Ohio are seriously in question.

What shall we do? We must do something BIG and I personally think we should be contacting all the Ohio reps. every single day about this troubling issue, until they respond.

Hey, how about you write a piece for the major newspapers, in hopes of bringing public awareness to this illegal problem? You have a great way with words and your facts are all legit. I write, but rarely get published.

I am willing to make some noise to get real election reform here, but I campaigned for the Reform Ohio bills in November and it was defeated. Do you remember the opposing ads that were paid for by Cinergy and Chiquita?

The devil is in the details...they use words from the bible to confuse the objective for the voters and the vulnerable people of Ohio bought this shit out of ignorance and fear. All they heard was this:"The devil is gonna get ya if you vote for these reforms!" UGGH! They love causing confusion and using faith to further their fears. Go figure!

They are pathetic all of em'; Blackwell, Boehner, DeWiner, Taft, Nay, are all paid for by Jackoff!

Did you see the pics of Bush and Abromhoff? WHY is the media not putting those out there? WHY is no one asking about the nature of the meeting he had at the White House? This is damning them all, to their own hell.

The Dem. leadership says: We have to talk to our neighbors, but mine our so whacked out and paranoid about terrorism, liberalism, and homosexualism, I don't know where to start. What's a blue girl to do?

Our state is corrupt with red tape and red hate, but I promise to defend my vote and put an end to this CON-JOB-servative nightmare that we are currently stuck in.

I am willing and able to help out in any way I can. Let me know when to report for service Gen.Bob, it is time we prepare the citizen soldiers of this country to fight to protect our own equality and freedom, right here at home in the U.S.A.

If our hard work pays off, then OUR America, the BLUE-tiful will shine once again.

Have a great one!

Uggh said:"Well, I hope that whoever the candidates are, get grilled on both foreign and domestic issues, by their voters. Typically, open debate can shift party hard-liners if the right topics are discussed."

Aman!

May that become a reality for us this year and beyond, we must know exactly where these people stand on critical issues. No more B.S.
Well, maybe that is an unrealistic goal. How about very little B.S ?
Lol...

Hello Ugggh,

I agree that the United States was one of the primary forces that brought about the demise of the Soviet Union. I would say that it wasn't just jets and tanks, but a heavy emphasis on nuclear "doomsday" programs, including "star wars". It also created a record deficit in this country. The Clinton admninistration was able to stop the hemorrhaging and was actually able to pay-down some of the debt.

Bush is taking us on a similar road as the Soviets with Iraq and his suppossed war on "tear-aaaar":

From August 2004, "Project Billboard and the Center for American Progress have released a major new analysis of the cost of the Iraq war, detailing exactly how the $144.4 billion pledged to date could have been spent on multiple projects to make America safer at home and stronger abroad. The report, "Opportunity Cost of the Iraq War," coincides with the unveiling of a major new billboard in New York's Times Square. The billboard, which will go live at 11 a.m. today, will feature a constantly updated clock counting the cost of the Iraq war, similar to the former national debt clock. The clock will start at $134.5 billion and increase at a rate of $177 million per day, $7.4 million per hour and $122,820 per minute. The billboard will be featured in a full page ad in the New York Times on Monday, 30 August."

(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=171440)

I am concerned that the United States could collapse just as quickly. I do not believe that the Soviet Union was the victim of a vengeful God for being Atheist (I do not get a sense that you believe that, either) - I think that the USSR was a victim of hubris, bad economic policy and a general disregard of its citizens - sound familiar?

On the topic of compromise on the Patriot Act - it is not going to happen. The King has a mandate (with his %51 +/- margin) and he feels like he doesn't have to compromise or even consider another viewpoint. He has a bunch of rubber-stampers happy to accomodate his every whim. Thankfully, we have some Congress members with some nuts (NOT - Who Are Nuts, I already hear the jokes) from California (Rep. Stark and Lee and Senator Boxer) who are willing to fight for the rights of ordinary Americans. I suppose his highness will start to compromise after he has his ass handed to him in the next election - kinda like the Governator had to after he got his ass handed to him in the special '05 election (that he insisted on having). He felt like he had a mandate - he is so pacified now I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't change parties for the '06 California Governor election.

You sound like you do this professionally? You know your "stuff".

Hi Melissa,

You're too kind and very passionate in your stand. There are better informed individuals than I am who write better than I do, including members of the mainstream press. For the same reason you can't get published is the same reason the rest of us can't: newspapers are scared shitless of the bush administration. If they don't support his highness, he will cut them off. Then he'll send his pitbulls after them (Rush "El Drug-O" Limbaugh, Sean "InSannity" Hannity and Bill O'"oh, I just can't speak the evil one's name") for being part of the "liberal media" (just ask Dan Rather/CBS News, the NY Times, the SF Chronicle, the LA Times...)


The christians talk about being on a "narrow path". Actually, to stand against the established system and to refuse to be part of the "sheeple" is what requires real courage and the genuine desire to travel "the road less travelled". You are not the only blue girl in Ohio. There are lots of you. You just need to connect.

Have you tried:

www.airamericaradio.com - they also have some great liberal blogs - when the damned freepers don't show up. They also have a "listen live" feature if there is not an affiliate in your area. I highly recommend Randi Rhodes (www.therandirhodesshow.com)


www.quakeradio.com is an Air America affiliate in San Francisco with "Listen Live" but also airs Ed Schultz (Jones radio network).

www.airamericaplace.com for podcast archives of prior broadcasts(you don't need an iPod, they are MP3 files)

www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com a really funny site that keeps-up with the mis-deeds of Bill O'Reilly.

http://www.kpfa.org/ a SF Bay Area progressive station - you can also "listen online"

If you go to these sites you will find links to progressive sites all over the United States (such as: www.americanprogress.org, http://www.motherjones.com/, and http://www.thenation.com/)

You may already know all of this... if you do, then maybe it will help someone else who may be reading this.

Hang in there, "blue girl". The "jackoff" scandal will bring down a lot of those arrogant assholes, especially in your state.

You said: "The devil is in the details...they use words from the bible to confuse the objective for the voters and the vulnerable people of Ohio bought this shit out of ignorance and fear. All they heard was this: 'The devil is gonna get ya if you vote for these reforms!' UGGH!" - they usually send out Pat Robertson to spread that kinda crap... There is the collusion again between the christian-wrong and our current neo-con assholes-in-charge.

Hi Melissa,

You said, "Did you see the pics of Bush and Abromhoff? WHY is the media not putting those out there? WHY is no one asking about the nature of the meeting he had at the White House? This is damning them all, to their own hell."

It actually made it on the 11 O' clock news last night in the SF Bay Area (see: http://cbs5.com/national/topstories_story_023071807.html) Of course, the liehouse had an explanation:

"White House counselor Dan Bartlett acknowledged Monday that Abramoff has attended some events where people "go through receiving lines and get photos with the president." But, he said, "The president does not have a personal relationship with Mr. Abramoff."

Mr. Bush himself has said that he doesn't recall meeting Abramoff, the once powerful lobbyist who recently pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with government prosecutors.

Bartlett told CBS News' The Early Show, "I don't think that would be fair to jump to any conclusions just because the president took a picture with somebody. People understand that the president of the United States goes to events like these all the time in which there will be people who get their pictures with the president. If somebody wants to jump to the wrong conclusion and say something nefarious was happening, they would be very wrong. I think it's much ado about nothing in that regard."

Wow... keep digging that hole deeper...

SAT Question:

How does the President "Talking to God" compare to the President "Not Talking to Jack Abramoff"?

Answer:

The President "Doesn't Really Talk to a Non-Existent Entity That He Has NO Personal Relationship With" and the President "Really Does Talk to an Existent Entity - That He Really Does Have a Relationship With"

Melissa: "May that become a reality for us this year and beyond, we must know exactly where these people stand on critical issues. No more B.S.
Well, maybe that is an unrealistic goal. How about very little B.S ?
Lol..."

I agree with you, there needs to be a committee formed to be non-biased on the issues and present them as the issues of the country and where candidates sit.

The Independent party typically gets rolled, and the best they can typically do is to sway the election one way or another if it will be close. I think the middle ground gets lost in the crowd, and oft times get pulled to each end of the spectrum via political rhetoric. I believe if there were a truly objective on-line web-site, posting current issues, historical facts, and current politicians and their record that Americans would be able to make better decisions on who they elect as representatives. With an objective view, no-one gets swayed either way, its just posting the facts as they stand. I know it would be a nasty pill for those who run their campaign on the promise of ignorance they expect in some parts of society.

Of course, the only downfall, is that it would not make a lot of money from businesses as then those businesses would be considered attached in some way to a party. However, I believe someone could make a decent paycheck from donations on political issues. And, when I mean post the facts out there, I mean, post them out there in plain english without the 342 page Patriot Act legal document that no one is really going to flip through anyway. Just easy speak to the topics, in relation to foreign politics, domestic issues etc.

There are already single individuals out there posting information and lobbying, but from certain advocacy perspectives and thus it gets tainted as agenda biased by an opposition party.

"Although an end-of-the-year report from someone who started her job in the middle of September (as I did) might be expected to be short, thanks to your support I have quite a lot to say. Your money and your calls to Congress have made for a very bright beginning to our new lobbying effort.

Since starting as the first paid staff for the organization on September 19th, 2005, I have been welcomed in more than 40 Congressional offices, lobbying on issues such as our opposition to religious discrimination in Head Start, our struggle against vouchers for private religious schools,and our support of legislation to require that legal prescriptions be filled regardless of a pharmacist's religious beliefs. The question I am most often asked on these lobbying visits is, "Do you represent people in my district?" [More...]"
http://secular.org/

There of course would have to be a network of people working together to bring each politicians' portfolio online for the world to view. The Independents or swing voters would have a much better opportunity to sway the vote for a major election. The swing voters aren't well organized and they are typically spread accross the spectrum based on usually "one" major issue. However, if one could view all the issues at once, they could vote on the politician as a whole package deal, instead of on one issue.

Its like the Patriot Act II legislation, there are a few lines that are almost realistic, however, as a package deal, the entire document as a whole is the epitome of dictatorship waiting to spawn. The mid-liners is where the biggest gain is typically made, as those who blindly vote party line are going to vote like their belief systems typically, blindly. Over time, people may start actually looking at whole package candidates and running on the issues that people want, instead of trying to pander to one special interest group one day, and another the next. If anything, when the candidate gets elected, its not going to be a surprise how the politician is going to perform their duties, as they are just going to support those who got them elected, like "W", seems to be doing fast and furiously.

I think over time, people on the hardline sides, as they become more educated may break party. I know that's a lot to hope for, kinda' like hoping that religious people will finally get enough knowledge, to admit they have no logical foundation for their belief. The information out in the public is sporadic and doesn't show the big picture cause-effects of elections.

I agree, that at the moment, moving the balance back left has to be a start, but I at the same time, don't want to sacrifice domestic comfort for international disaster. Hopefully, there are candidates out there who can pull back left on the social issues, while not dropping the threat level to zero and giving america some false sense of security.

As much as I don't like many of the decisions made by some of the current and past office holders, they do have at least one thing correct from what I have experienced. There are organizations and people who really don't like free market democracy in the world, if it means losing their cultural heritage.

I know we will always have issues, and no one can ever tell who will really be in office, I mean, Gerald Ford was never elected president, and yet, he was made it into the oval office. Just wish we knew more about the people we put into those congressional seats for the betterment of the whole :-) Take care.

Bob: "On the topic of compromise on the Patriot Act - it is not going to happen. The King has a mandate (with his %51 +/- margin) and he feels like he doesn't have to compromise or even consider another viewpoint."

Well, perhaps he will change his tune, when a new administration wire taps his home, and kicks him out of the country for suspicion of treason, without trial.

Bob: "He felt like he had a mandate - he is so pacified now I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't change parties for the '06 California Governor election."

True, a political representatives' job is nothing but being a defense attorney who has a vote on the jury. A politician can flip flop back and forth and state that they are just a representative of the people. I see the problem, many times is the ease in which some people are so easily influenced one way or another on issues as they are inundated with media, etc. Instead of being open minded, and waiting for evidence, they change perspective on a dime, and thus, the political representative changes their tune also in the middle of their tour in office. The only way to overcome such fickleness, is to keep specific issues a constant and in plain view for society to see. The only way to keep a representative stable, is to stabilize the voting population in their area. And the only way to do that, is to create a standardized metric looking at the whole picture, showing cause-effect relationships when voting or pushing a representative to go one way or another on the issues.

I mean, we have fantasy football statistics more complicated than taking a handful of variables into account and showing how moving a domestic variable slightly can dramatically change international policy and national security, and vice versa. Getting the middle america involved enough to see cause-effect relationships in their voting is the only way to take america back from the politicians, and put it back into the hands of the people.

I know people who vote, who barely know how to read. The last election it was about getting the loose change from the car seat, sending out lobbyists to old folks homes, homeless shelters, etc., and paying them to vote for their party.

I believe that many of the red states, are red, due to international terrorism and not having the confidence in another politician to do the job of protecting the people. I live down the street from a hospital that routinely has veterans pass through with body parts missing from terrorist attacks. Although, I would like to believe that if we pulled out of Iraq, things would be fine, I know better. Saddam was theoretically not attached to OBL, and yet, OBL attacked the U.S. It wasn't because of money, it was because of international control of the markets, hence, why OBL hit the economic centers of the U.S., the World Trade Centers.

As long as the U.S. is pushing free market democracy, while sticking to the 'outdated' national security strategy of spreading democracy at all costs, money and lives, there will continue to be those who fight. If one looked at the globe as one political schema, they would find that there are the global right and left sides of the spectrum. The national security strategy is to bring every country, faction, and organization back to the middle. Some countries are more right than left, Prime Minister Blair is of the labour party, which is the equivalent of center-left democrat in the U.S., however, he has the closest connection to the Roman Catholic Church since the reformation.

Religion is used to get into political office, by asserting that the politician will represent their people based on certain values. However, we all know that values are not owned by the religious, PM Blairs' own son has had his share of run ins with police for being publically drunk and disorderly. This same son, Euan, obtained a position as an intern for the House Committee on Rules under David Dreier, a Republican congressman. Favors are being shared between countries, between center-left dems and right wing conservatives. Religion is definitely a factor in choosing a candidate, however, their political history, and power they get in their position from an unbalanced congress, in their favor, does things to people. Power corrupts, Absolute Power, corrupts Absolutely.

Bob: "You sound like you do this professionally? You know your "stuff"."

Hopefully, that isn't asserting I am a professional spinner of rhetoric :-) One might as well call me pastor for that matter. LOL I don't consider myself a professional politician, but, I am an international statesman of sorts. You stated you were in the Army as an MP I believe in one post, correct me if I am wrong. If so, then you could relate me as the equivalent to an international 'advisor'. I make sure I don't say anything that compromises my position, hence, why I tend to stay away from the Ad Hominem attacks. Sticking to the issues allows me a voice, without overstepping my bounds, who knows, someone may be using Patriot Act approved, spider technology to data-mine bloggs such as these. Its possible, I suppose.

______________________________________________________________________

NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance
Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 1, 2006; Page A08

Today's NSA intercepts yield two broad categories of information, said a former administration official familiar with the program: "content," which would include transcripts of a phone call or e-mail, and "non-content," which would be records showing, for example, who in the United States was called by, or was calling, a number in another country thought to have a connection to a terrorist group. At the same time, NSA tries to limit identifying the names of Americans involved."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100808.html

Anyway, this seems to be something that has been happening through all administrations, well, since the 60's & 70's. Its a funny thing, to think of the musicians over the years who have played their newly created lyrics and been admired by an unknown audience swaying back and forth in a little white van a few blocks away. Aren't the peace activists of yester year, the secular of the current year? Seems, there should be a little more, convergence and sharing of information amongst the more secular for their mutual benefit, to prevent rapid changes and to provide information to the general public regarding previously 'restricted' information. Knowledge truly is power, take care

Okay, potty break.

Q) What happens when a politician takes Viagra?

A) They grow taller!

Thanks Ugggh,

Your insight and knowledge on modern politics is impressive. Thanks for remembering that I was an MP, good memory. You're a "good guy", right!?! I guess "good guy" could be taken a lot of ways... Really, thanks for being part of the group.

You said: "Seems, there should be a little more, convergence and sharing of information amongst the more secular for their mutual benefit, to prevent rapid changes and to provide information to the general public regarding previously 'restricted' information. Knowledge truly is power..." At the risk of sounding paranoid, Orwell may have been twenty to thirty years early on his prediction. The secular and progressive organizations do need to be vigilent to prevent a "1984" society. If they can legally spy-upon, jail and torure "terrorists", it becomes a question of "by who's definition?".
Thankfully, we have Air America and NPR to keep the message out there.

In regards to the viagra joke, I suspect that the Jack Abramoff co-conspirators will be cut-off from their viagra rations. Would that turn them into a bunch of "limp dick politicians"? (okay, not my strongest joke)

Good luck and I look forward to seeing your posts.