Tonight we're supposed to see conservative compassion at its best at the Republican National Convention. I think that the bigger issue is whether our economy and international alliances can handle four more years of George W. Bush!
Of course, if you've read my previous posts you know that the answer is undeniably, "No, we cannot!" Now we hear about President Bush's inability to say that we can win the war on terror. Then what the heck are we doing there? That is the question we, as Americans, should have asked in the beginning. We were tricked into shifting our focus from the "real" war to allowing a president to finish his daddy's fiasco a dozen or so years back! I'll spare you the rhetoric, but Saddam Hussein was very well contained in his world. He wasn't going to get out anytime soon, nor do I believe he wanted out just yet. He was still reeling from the first Gulf War and living high off of the hog as a result of an international trade embargo.
Just think, if we focused this $40-$60+ billion on the "real" war on terror we would be so far ahead of today! We should have invested $40 billion in our nation's infrastructure, rather than fighting a war that can never truly be won in Iraq! We should have invested this money in our police forces and providing our firefighters with the ability to respond quickly and effeciently to emergencies in our neighborhoods. But no, sadly, we are killing innocent civilians in a far off land. These people never asked for this war. They never understood the consequences. They were never given a chance to express themselves in any meaningful way. Even today, they are led by a government hand-picked by the United States; therefore, I ask you, is it better to trade one dictatorship for another?
I suppose the answer is yes, if you're the dictator! Therefore, things are going swimmingly on the surface. We have a puppet regime in power in Iraq, but we know who the true power behind the throne is! There is no question. But if I were George Bush (thank God I'm not), I'd be crapping in my pants right now. Instead of him correcting his mistakes, he is content to let them fester and grow bigger, day-by-day! I think it takes a big person to say, "I was wrong!" I think it is better to be open and honest with the people, rather than hold on to your crumbling political career so you can stay four more years in the White House. Whether or not George W. Bush has a moral conscience or not, he should be sensitive to the political suicide he is committing by allowing this tragedy to go on playing!
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Thursday, August 05, 2004
US Senator McConnell Writes To Me Today...
It's funny, I just went off on right-wing conservatism in my earlier post today, and then I went to the mailbox and received a letter from United States Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Now, that’s irony!
He writes in reply to my criticism I sent to him regarding the earlier attempt by the Senate to offer an amendment to the Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It's a cute little letter filled with lots of big government ideals. I am going to include the text of the letter here for everyone to view:
"Some commentators have mischaracterized the recent debate regarding the definition of marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the relevant facts surrounding the Senate debate on this issue.
"Due to the court ruling in Massachusetts earlier this year, every other state in the union may be forced to recognize a brand new definition of marriage. It is important to note that this Massachusetts ruling was handed down by a slim majority of un-elected and unaccountable state judges in one of the most liberal states in America. A decision by one small state's court can have such a wide-ranging impact because the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of our Constitution requires the official acts of one state to be recognized by every other state.
"Section I of Article IV of the United States Constitution states:
"'Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'
"Thus, while each state must honor the other's [sic] laws and legal rulings, Congress maintains the right to pass national legislation, and the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will of the people. In order to avoid confusion and upheaval resulting from the Massachusetts ruling being forced on other states, the Senate recently considered a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, as I believe it should be. Two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House must vote for an amendment and then three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment in order for it to become effective. on July 14, 2002, [sic] supporters of the amendment lost a procedural vote when just 48 Senators voted in favor of the amendment.
"Some have criticized the move to amend the Constitution with a simple definition of marriage. I support such a definition and strongly disagree with criticism of the amendment process. Such a process is an appropriate way to conduct this national discussion and to allow the citizens to be heard through their state and federal representatives, rather than having state judges imposetheir views on the people."
Now with all that said, what did the Senator really mean? Basically, his form letter is a rant discussing how it is somewhat acceptable to discriminate, perhaps. Now to be fair, he never came out and said that. He never even mention the homosexual community in his letter. Basically, he took the opportunity to discredit an entire state--Massachusetts! He called them "liberal" and in turn, they must be out of step with the mainstream of American values and traditions.
I must, very pointedly, disagree with the senator's disdain for the United States' judiciary. He calls them "unelected" and almost tyrannical. Perhaps, he should have read beyond Article I, Section IV, of the US Constitution and read the part about the judiciary. He asserts that the judiciary is some outside influence on our nation. I also believe he did a great misjustice to the characterization to the courts of our nation and states. He characterized them as rogue individuals, who are blind to the law, destroying the foundations of our country. Yes, they are not directly elected by the people, but they are indirectly elected by the people. Those elected individuals, such as Senator McConnell, are directly responsible for the confirmation of the president's appointments to fill judicial vacancies! This is something he conveniently left out of his letter. I am not sure, but I know that in Kentucky, certain members of the judicial branch of our state's courts are elected by the people! Perhaps, those "liberal" judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are not so removed from the people as we would be led to believe.
I must object very strongly, Mr. Senator, on this point. The judiciary, both on the federal and state levels, are very necessary. They are instruments with members that are sworn to defend the same Constitution you took an oath to defend! They are not directly elected by the people of the United States, but neither is the president! Your argument would require us to disregard the decisions and impact of both the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.In reference to the senator's comments made about one state's laws being thrust upon the rest of the Union. Perhaps, the framers of the Constitution decided that no one state should be an island upon itself. It does not say that the other states must ratify the law passed in the other state and make it part of their constitution or statutes! Therefore, I believe Senator McConnell misused the reference to Article I, Section IV.
Finally, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly remands all authority not directly invested to the Federal government by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, it is the prerogative of each state to implement and devise laws for itself. It is not the business of the Senate to legislate on the state level. As a result, I believe that the Senate acted inappropriately and abused powers it itself did not have during this particular legislativeprocess.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from Kentucky's other senator, Jim Bunning on this same issue!
He writes in reply to my criticism I sent to him regarding the earlier attempt by the Senate to offer an amendment to the Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It's a cute little letter filled with lots of big government ideals. I am going to include the text of the letter here for everyone to view:
"Some commentators have mischaracterized the recent debate regarding the definition of marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the relevant facts surrounding the Senate debate on this issue.
"Due to the court ruling in Massachusetts earlier this year, every other state in the union may be forced to recognize a brand new definition of marriage. It is important to note that this Massachusetts ruling was handed down by a slim majority of un-elected and unaccountable state judges in one of the most liberal states in America. A decision by one small state's court can have such a wide-ranging impact because the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of our Constitution requires the official acts of one state to be recognized by every other state.
"Section I of Article IV of the United States Constitution states:
"'Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'
"Thus, while each state must honor the other's [sic] laws and legal rulings, Congress maintains the right to pass national legislation, and the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will of the people. In order to avoid confusion and upheaval resulting from the Massachusetts ruling being forced on other states, the Senate recently considered a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, as I believe it should be. Two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House must vote for an amendment and then three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment in order for it to become effective. on July 14, 2002, [sic] supporters of the amendment lost a procedural vote when just 48 Senators voted in favor of the amendment.
"Some have criticized the move to amend the Constitution with a simple definition of marriage. I support such a definition and strongly disagree with criticism of the amendment process. Such a process is an appropriate way to conduct this national discussion and to allow the citizens to be heard through their state and federal representatives, rather than having state judges imposetheir views on the people."
Now with all that said, what did the Senator really mean? Basically, his form letter is a rant discussing how it is somewhat acceptable to discriminate, perhaps. Now to be fair, he never came out and said that. He never even mention the homosexual community in his letter. Basically, he took the opportunity to discredit an entire state--Massachusetts! He called them "liberal" and in turn, they must be out of step with the mainstream of American values and traditions.
I must, very pointedly, disagree with the senator's disdain for the United States' judiciary. He calls them "unelected" and almost tyrannical. Perhaps, he should have read beyond Article I, Section IV, of the US Constitution and read the part about the judiciary. He asserts that the judiciary is some outside influence on our nation. I also believe he did a great misjustice to the characterization to the courts of our nation and states. He characterized them as rogue individuals, who are blind to the law, destroying the foundations of our country. Yes, they are not directly elected by the people, but they are indirectly elected by the people. Those elected individuals, such as Senator McConnell, are directly responsible for the confirmation of the president's appointments to fill judicial vacancies! This is something he conveniently left out of his letter. I am not sure, but I know that in Kentucky, certain members of the judicial branch of our state's courts are elected by the people! Perhaps, those "liberal" judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are not so removed from the people as we would be led to believe.
I must object very strongly, Mr. Senator, on this point. The judiciary, both on the federal and state levels, are very necessary. They are instruments with members that are sworn to defend the same Constitution you took an oath to defend! They are not directly elected by the people of the United States, but neither is the president! Your argument would require us to disregard the decisions and impact of both the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.In reference to the senator's comments made about one state's laws being thrust upon the rest of the Union. Perhaps, the framers of the Constitution decided that no one state should be an island upon itself. It does not say that the other states must ratify the law passed in the other state and make it part of their constitution or statutes! Therefore, I believe Senator McConnell misused the reference to Article I, Section IV.
Finally, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly remands all authority not directly invested to the Federal government by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, it is the prerogative of each state to implement and devise laws for itself. It is not the business of the Senate to legislate on the state level. As a result, I believe that the Senate acted inappropriately and abused powers it itself did not have during this particular legislativeprocess.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from Kentucky's other senator, Jim Bunning on this same issue!
The Risk to the Supreme Court of the United States
This morning, I received an interesting email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). The Bush Administration seems to be pressing the need to appoint even more conservative (is that an appropriate term for these judicial nominees?) individuals for positions on the Federal judiciary.
Among these potential candidates are those lawyers that approved certain documents and correspondence from the Executive branch regarding "appropriate" conduct and rules for prisoners-of-war. Now we all know, today, what these letters contained to a certain degree. We can turn on our televisions and see the reports from soldiers who are being court-martialed for their actions at Abu-Gharib prison in Iraq.
I count us all as fortunate that King George hasn't had the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. I fear that this stroke of good luck will soon wear out as we move toward the next session of the Supreme Court in October. Of course, we cannot allow George Bush a second shot at the presidency. He already took us to decay and ruin during his first term. I don't even want to imagine the route for our future as a nation if he is re-elected!
Now of course, we can overcome this potential hazard by electing a new administration: Kerry-Edwards this November 2! Now of course this post isn't about George Bush, perse, but it is about his politics, if they can even be called that! In the meantime, as the Bush Administration begins to wane, we must look forward to not only returning the presidency to the Democratic Party, but also the United States Senate. The United States Senate is the one body of government that can stop George Bush in his tracks if he should appoint any extreme legalist to the U.S. Supreme Court through the constitutional confirmation process.
The DSCC asked that we sign a petition making our voices heard on this very important issue. If you feel strongly about these issues, then please take a moment to sign the DSCC's petition to keep the Supreme Court from falling into potentially dangerous and conservative hands!
Among these potential candidates are those lawyers that approved certain documents and correspondence from the Executive branch regarding "appropriate" conduct and rules for prisoners-of-war. Now we all know, today, what these letters contained to a certain degree. We can turn on our televisions and see the reports from soldiers who are being court-martialed for their actions at Abu-Gharib prison in Iraq.
I count us all as fortunate that King George hasn't had the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. I fear that this stroke of good luck will soon wear out as we move toward the next session of the Supreme Court in October. Of course, we cannot allow George Bush a second shot at the presidency. He already took us to decay and ruin during his first term. I don't even want to imagine the route for our future as a nation if he is re-elected!
Now of course, we can overcome this potential hazard by electing a new administration: Kerry-Edwards this November 2! Now of course this post isn't about George Bush, perse, but it is about his politics, if they can even be called that! In the meantime, as the Bush Administration begins to wane, we must look forward to not only returning the presidency to the Democratic Party, but also the United States Senate. The United States Senate is the one body of government that can stop George Bush in his tracks if he should appoint any extreme legalist to the U.S. Supreme Court through the constitutional confirmation process.
The DSCC asked that we sign a petition making our voices heard on this very important issue. If you feel strongly about these issues, then please take a moment to sign the DSCC's petition to keep the Supreme Court from falling into potentially dangerous and conservative hands!
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Orange Threat Level for Banks...What's That?
This afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security (or as it is more affectionately known, DHS) raised the threat level from yellow to orange for specific target areas in Washington, DC, New York City, and northern New Jersey (who knew?).
Now I ask you, one American to another, what does these cotton-pickin' colors mean, in all honesty? We've been at the yellow (or elevated) threat level for the better part of three years now. That means very little to me. I wonder what it would take to get us down to one of the other colors, like green? Maybe a global monopolization of all the world's nations by the United States. Of course, then we can be at the green threat level and live in More's utopian society.
After visiting the DHS' website, I discovered that yellow means "elevated." So yeah, that's a nice fancy word, but what does it mean for me as the "average American." Their definition of "elevated" basically requires us to become vigilantes. We should be watchful of our neighbors and neighborhoods to make sure they aren't engaged in illegal, or subversive, activities (such as being active in the Kerry-Edwards campaign).
Now this all might sound nice, like apple pie, but it reminds me of Nazi Germany. In Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler's ever-loveable Gestapo (gestalt staats-polizie), whom even Hitler feared, and the SS (Schuetzstaffel) were loose and terrorizing the German people. These organizations, too, were built around intelligence gathering (deja vu) of the most secret type. Not only did they gather information, they single-handedly destroyed the lives of those that stood in their way, or they deemed as subversive to the Fatherland (i.e., Adolf Hitler). How on earth did we get to this? I know--because both of these Nazi organizations were created for the betterment of the German people. They served as a liason between the people and the highest levels of German government. They sought out plots to overthrow the Nazi regime and then those people were sent to concentration camps (sort of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).
Now I'm not saying our King George is an Adolf Hitler-type (he doesn't have the intelligence really), but some of the ideas are sort of the same. Like the correlation between an ultra-secretative intelligence service (like the DHS) and the Gestapo and SS; all of which are/were dedicated to the security of the homeland!
Now with that said, I don't doubt that the DHS can serve as an honorable and useful governmental agency for our country. This agency, however, must not be allowed to step outside of constitutional and legal considerations. The minute one person begins to use it for their own ill-gain, then it is no longer a viable organization and it must not be allowed to succeed. Perhaps, this all sounds like a conspiracy theory, but maybe not. Who knows? Only time will tell. But the minute they come knocking my door down in the middle of the night for writing this post, then I will be avenged!
Now I ask you, one American to another, what does these cotton-pickin' colors mean, in all honesty? We've been at the yellow (or elevated) threat level for the better part of three years now. That means very little to me. I wonder what it would take to get us down to one of the other colors, like green? Maybe a global monopolization of all the world's nations by the United States. Of course, then we can be at the green threat level and live in More's utopian society.
After visiting the DHS' website, I discovered that yellow means "elevated." So yeah, that's a nice fancy word, but what does it mean for me as the "average American." Their definition of "elevated" basically requires us to become vigilantes. We should be watchful of our neighbors and neighborhoods to make sure they aren't engaged in illegal, or subversive, activities (such as being active in the Kerry-Edwards campaign).
Now this all might sound nice, like apple pie, but it reminds me of Nazi Germany. In Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler's ever-loveable Gestapo (gestalt staats-polizie), whom even Hitler feared, and the SS (Schuetzstaffel) were loose and terrorizing the German people. These organizations, too, were built around intelligence gathering (deja vu) of the most secret type. Not only did they gather information, they single-handedly destroyed the lives of those that stood in their way, or they deemed as subversive to the Fatherland (i.e., Adolf Hitler). How on earth did we get to this? I know--because both of these Nazi organizations were created for the betterment of the German people. They served as a liason between the people and the highest levels of German government. They sought out plots to overthrow the Nazi regime and then those people were sent to concentration camps (sort of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).
Now I'm not saying our King George is an Adolf Hitler-type (he doesn't have the intelligence really), but some of the ideas are sort of the same. Like the correlation between an ultra-secretative intelligence service (like the DHS) and the Gestapo and SS; all of which are/were dedicated to the security of the homeland!
Now with that said, I don't doubt that the DHS can serve as an honorable and useful governmental agency for our country. This agency, however, must not be allowed to step outside of constitutional and legal considerations. The minute one person begins to use it for their own ill-gain, then it is no longer a viable organization and it must not be allowed to succeed. Perhaps, this all sounds like a conspiracy theory, but maybe not. Who knows? Only time will tell. But the minute they come knocking my door down in the middle of the night for writing this post, then I will be avenged!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)