"It doesn’t matter who votes. It only matters who counts the votes.” -- Josef Stalin
A bit of wisdom from an historical figure. Wouldn't you agree? I have been getting emails about the 100 days remaining until the election. In fact, I'll be attending such a meeting tonight to discuss what We the People can do about taking our country back. I can only hope that we are successful.
But it occurs to me that no matter how many of us vote, not matter how great a turn out, it only matters how the votes are counted. I recently learned from listening to an Air Amercia interview that in Alaska in the last election, the vote count for George Bush exceeded the registered voter count by something like 50%. I had heard many accusations from the left about voting fraud in Florida and Ohio during the last two presidential elections, but Alaska was something new.
It finally starts to make sense why the right is not too concerned about the fall elections. We hear about some legislators separating themselves from Bush. (The right leaning media seems to point that out) But when I listen to politicians on the News Hour on PBS, the right is just as fixated as they have always been with their hot issues of God, Gays and Gagging free speech in the name of patriotism.
As voters, presented with a choice of selecting a party that stands for War, Spying on its citizens, giving Coprorate Welfare to oil companies, and using Federal Lands to benefit Corporations versus a party that wants to protect individual rights, establish a fair tax structure, and present America's power as a Peacekeeper rather than a War Monger, I think most people would choose the latter. So why does the Republican Right seem to keep winning?
Perhaps they aren't! Perhaps it only matters who counts the votes!
Yes, I understand the Christian Right has their influence but that is, in actuality, a minority. Could it really be enough to swing an election? Could all the right leaning, Personal Responsibility preachers, Neo-con thinking, Anti-Abortion, Make our Constitution like the Bible, single issue voters total up enough votes to set the course of our country?
Truth rings loud and clear! When the philosophy of a political party is that the end justifies the means, then it doesn't matter how they get elected. It only matters that they ARE elected. Voting machines are, for the most part, Corporate owned and operated with proprietary software. The data can be manipulated.
Do you trust the counting to be accurate and honest when the counting is done by a corporation with a philosophy of "The end justifies the means" and are Republican supporters?
Addressing this concern has to start at the grass roots level. We the People must get involved, speak out, and show force to take back the election process and verify that we get accurate vote counts. When enough people stand up for an issue, action gets taken.
That's as I see it . . .
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
"Of the People . . .
By the people and For the people." How does that thought mesh with President Bush using signing statements to get around laws passed by Congress? Since we have a representative government, the representatives have the obligation to make laws and the president can either veto a law or sign it, (See Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution) where does this other option come from? How does it comply with the constitution?
The simple answer is that it doesn’t. Signing statements are the prerogative of a monarch. Prerogative is the "exclusive right, privilege, etc, exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like." George W. Bush does not have that right, that prerogative! Therefore, George W. Bush is not enforcing the Constitution; therefore George W. Bush has violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution; therefore, since his oath of office included the phrase "so help me God,"he has violated a sacred oath to his God.
Perhaps a closer look at an example of his signing statements will shed some light on this principal of Constitutional authority. The signing statements used by Bush have been statements that he will construe the law from his perspective as Commander in Chief (My description, not his). A good example is the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill about torture. From the Boston Globe, January 4, 2006.,''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President. . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote. He added that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President. . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Interpretation of the Bush statement is dependent on a person’s political view. A Bush supporter might say he is looking after the welfare of the country. A Bush opposer might say he is redefining the role of Congress and inserting his own unjust authority. However you interpret it, he is, in actuality, not following the choices mandated by the Constitution to which he has sworn an oath to uphold. He has, in effect, given the office of the president the line item veto on laws.
Regardless of your support for or against signing statements, if you uphold and agree with the constitution, you also must agree that this is an invalid method of governing. If We the People want the president to have the same authority as a monarch, then we must pressure our representatives to initiate a constitutional amendment to allow such authority. Until that happens, George W. Bush is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office.
But then, that wouldn't be government ". . . of the people, for the people and by the people." Would it?
That's as I see it . . .
By the people and For the people." How does that thought mesh with President Bush using signing statements to get around laws passed by Congress? Since we have a representative government, the representatives have the obligation to make laws and the president can either veto a law or sign it, (See Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution) where does this other option come from? How does it comply with the constitution?
The simple answer is that it doesn’t. Signing statements are the prerogative of a monarch. Prerogative is the "exclusive right, privilege, etc, exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like." George W. Bush does not have that right, that prerogative! Therefore, George W. Bush is not enforcing the Constitution; therefore George W. Bush has violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution; therefore, since his oath of office included the phrase "so help me God,"he has violated a sacred oath to his God.
Perhaps a closer look at an example of his signing statements will shed some light on this principal of Constitutional authority. The signing statements used by Bush have been statements that he will construe the law from his perspective as Commander in Chief (My description, not his). A good example is the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill about torture. From the Boston Globe, January 4, 2006.,''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President. . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote. He added that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President. . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Interpretation of the Bush statement is dependent on a person’s political view. A Bush supporter might say he is looking after the welfare of the country. A Bush opposer might say he is redefining the role of Congress and inserting his own unjust authority. However you interpret it, he is, in actuality, not following the choices mandated by the Constitution to which he has sworn an oath to uphold. He has, in effect, given the office of the president the line item veto on laws.
Regardless of your support for or against signing statements, if you uphold and agree with the constitution, you also must agree that this is an invalid method of governing. If We the People want the president to have the same authority as a monarch, then we must pressure our representatives to initiate a constitutional amendment to allow such authority. Until that happens, George W. Bush is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office.
But then, that wouldn't be government ". . . of the people, for the people and by the people." Would it?
That's as I see it . . .
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Chickenhawks
I am enjoying the blog buzz on chickenhawks, at Glenn Greenwald and Mahablog.
I have one experience I would like to share in that regard. I was in the Army during the Vietnam War. I did not serve in Vietnam. Since I was trained to operate missiles, I ended up in Okinawa. We had a "lifer" as we called them, a career soldier who had been in about eight or so years, had never seen combat and had attained the rank of staff sergeant, that's three stripes with one rocker. He was a fat little sergeant, always talking tough and threatening Army regulations. One day he was assigned to lead us in exercise.
Needless to say, he began the exercise and then as the rest of the platoon performed, he would strut around barking out the numbers, "Two, three four.." His breathing would become quite labored as the exercise proceeded so he would take breaks and then join back in, barking the numbers, often to a different count. That is, until it came time to run. He gave the command for the run, barked the count and didn't get past the first "two, three, four." He was so exhausted, a senior sergeant E7, that's three stripes and two rockers, had to take over and finish. The E7 wasn't just senior in rank. He was senior in age by about ten years.
I can still see that fat little sergeant near to collapse, bending over trying to catch his breath as we double timed on by. That's the image I have every time I hear the term "Chickenhawk," A person who expects others to perform that which they can't or won't do themselves.
I know it may not be accurate by the definition being discussed today. But just imagine Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of those Chickenhawks in that position and it will give you a bit of joy!
I am enjoying the blog buzz on chickenhawks, at Glenn Greenwald and Mahablog.
I have one experience I would like to share in that regard. I was in the Army during the Vietnam War. I did not serve in Vietnam. Since I was trained to operate missiles, I ended up in Okinawa. We had a "lifer" as we called them, a career soldier who had been in about eight or so years, had never seen combat and had attained the rank of staff sergeant, that's three stripes with one rocker. He was a fat little sergeant, always talking tough and threatening Army regulations. One day he was assigned to lead us in exercise.
Needless to say, he began the exercise and then as the rest of the platoon performed, he would strut around barking out the numbers, "Two, three four.." His breathing would become quite labored as the exercise proceeded so he would take breaks and then join back in, barking the numbers, often to a different count. That is, until it came time to run. He gave the command for the run, barked the count and didn't get past the first "two, three, four." He was so exhausted, a senior sergeant E7, that's three stripes and two rockers, had to take over and finish. The E7 wasn't just senior in rank. He was senior in age by about ten years.
I can still see that fat little sergeant near to collapse, bending over trying to catch his breath as we double timed on by. That's the image I have every time I hear the term "Chickenhawk," A person who expects others to perform that which they can't or won't do themselves.
I know it may not be accurate by the definition being discussed today. But just imagine Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of those Chickenhawks in that position and it will give you a bit of joy!
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Campaign Financing
We, the People who follow politics and the news from Washington, know about lobbyists. Jack Abramhoff and political finger pointing like "The culture of corruption" comes to mind. Unfortunately, this type of thing has been going on in congress for a long time and with both parties. It's more a culture of normal than any other culture. So what do We the People do about it?
First we have to realize how Congress works and then we have to look for a longer lasting solution to solve corruption. I didn't say permanent solution because we must continually watch and stay active so Congress does what we want them to do.
Congress seems to operate on the cycle of election and re-election. To do that they need money. I heard a congressman on the radio say they need at least a Million Dollars. There are 435 congress people. So that would be 435 Million Dollars every two years. Assuming the same for the Senate (which is a 6 year term but one third of them run for election every two years), that's another 33 Million every two years for a total of 468 Million. Let's be generous and say the National Election process requires 500 Million Dollars every two years at a minimum.
Then there are state political offices. States have the right to make laws of how that is done. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say it equals five times the cost of National Elections for all 50 states and We the People are going to pay for it. That's another 2500 Million Dollars. If you add them together, that is 3 Billion Dollars. Seems like a lot of money, doesn't it?
Now let's look at what the Congress recently did for the oil industry. Congress gave the oil industry 17 Billion Dollars as a subsidy. We the People are paying $3 a gallon for gas and the oil industry is showing record profits. Yet, Congress felt they needed to give the oil companies 17 Billion Dollars. That would be enough to publicly finance campaigns for the next five election cycles, or ten years.
My point is that if we have publicly financed elections, Congress would not be obligated to contributors and lobbyists for campaign costs. Where does their new obligation belong? To us, the People.
If you think that is just another burden on the tax payer, think about the promises and corruption in Congress we DON'T know about. What promises, what obligations are payed off by legislation to repay campaign contributions that only benefit some business or industry?
If we do the math on the 17 Billion Dollars, it comes to approximately $56 for every man, woman and child in the country. And that's just for one year! Our tax burden will decrease when We the People are the primary obligation of Congress.
How do we make this happen? Be active. Get involved in a political party of your choice. Make your voice heard by your representative and make it clear what issues are important to you. We the People (and I will never tire of saying that) need to take charge of our country. We ARE the government. It will not happen over night, but it will happen when we stay involved.
And that's as I see it. . .
We, the People who follow politics and the news from Washington, know about lobbyists. Jack Abramhoff and political finger pointing like "The culture of corruption" comes to mind. Unfortunately, this type of thing has been going on in congress for a long time and with both parties. It's more a culture of normal than any other culture. So what do We the People do about it?
First we have to realize how Congress works and then we have to look for a longer lasting solution to solve corruption. I didn't say permanent solution because we must continually watch and stay active so Congress does what we want them to do.
Congress seems to operate on the cycle of election and re-election. To do that they need money. I heard a congressman on the radio say they need at least a Million Dollars. There are 435 congress people. So that would be 435 Million Dollars every two years. Assuming the same for the Senate (which is a 6 year term but one third of them run for election every two years), that's another 33 Million every two years for a total of 468 Million. Let's be generous and say the National Election process requires 500 Million Dollars every two years at a minimum.
Then there are state political offices. States have the right to make laws of how that is done. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say it equals five times the cost of National Elections for all 50 states and We the People are going to pay for it. That's another 2500 Million Dollars. If you add them together, that is 3 Billion Dollars. Seems like a lot of money, doesn't it?
Now let's look at what the Congress recently did for the oil industry. Congress gave the oil industry 17 Billion Dollars as a subsidy. We the People are paying $3 a gallon for gas and the oil industry is showing record profits. Yet, Congress felt they needed to give the oil companies 17 Billion Dollars. That would be enough to publicly finance campaigns for the next five election cycles, or ten years.
My point is that if we have publicly financed elections, Congress would not be obligated to contributors and lobbyists for campaign costs. Where does their new obligation belong? To us, the People.
If you think that is just another burden on the tax payer, think about the promises and corruption in Congress we DON'T know about. What promises, what obligations are payed off by legislation to repay campaign contributions that only benefit some business or industry?
If we do the math on the 17 Billion Dollars, it comes to approximately $56 for every man, woman and child in the country. And that's just for one year! Our tax burden will decrease when We the People are the primary obligation of Congress.
How do we make this happen? Be active. Get involved in a political party of your choice. Make your voice heard by your representative and make it clear what issues are important to you. We the People (and I will never tire of saying that) need to take charge of our country. We ARE the government. It will not happen over night, but it will happen when we stay involved.
And that's as I see it. . .
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Single Issue Legislation
I hear so much rhetoric ". . That if our Congress was ethical, responsible and selfless, then . ."
It's time we wake up. Congress members will NEVER be completely Ethical, Responsible, or Selfless as long as they have to bargain with other Congress members and Senators to get their cause completed! Spending will NEVER be controlled unless "We the people" do something about it.
The solution is a Constitutional Amendment that disallows a bill to deal with more than one issue. I truly believe it's that simple. Members of Congress that want to give presidents line item veto power just don't get the simple Common Sense of "Balance of Power." Congress has the responsibility for spending, not the executive branch. Congress has to stop the pork barrel politics! The only way to stop it is to prevent them from doing it.
Here's a made up example (and I'm not picking on any state or any similar recent situation): Let's say a Defense Bill is being considered. Then building a bridge in Alaska has nothing to do with defense. Building bridges belongs in a Transportation Bill. So putting bridge financing in a defense bill would be a violation of the Constitutional Amendment. By keeping spending bills to one issue (and I concede that Congress will probably be very creative in connecting their pet issues to a bill under discussion) "we the people" will not be taxed as much and spending will be controlled. Line item veto power in the hands of the president allows too much power to the executive branch of our government. Although the idea seems like a way to control spending, it would be unconstitutional.
Agreed! The Amendment would have to be crafted very well to prevent creative connections. Using my earlier example, a congress member from Alaska could say that a certain bridge would improve traffic to a military base and is, therefore, a defense issue. The Amendment must not allow such connections.
We are, at present, a long way from getting this kind of thinking into Congress. It starts with "We the people" and ends by electing Representatives and Senators that will do what we want them to do!
And that's how I see it. . .
I hear so much rhetoric ". . That if our Congress was ethical, responsible and selfless, then . ."
It's time we wake up. Congress members will NEVER be completely Ethical, Responsible, or Selfless as long as they have to bargain with other Congress members and Senators to get their cause completed! Spending will NEVER be controlled unless "We the people" do something about it.
The solution is a Constitutional Amendment that disallows a bill to deal with more than one issue. I truly believe it's that simple. Members of Congress that want to give presidents line item veto power just don't get the simple Common Sense of "Balance of Power." Congress has the responsibility for spending, not the executive branch. Congress has to stop the pork barrel politics! The only way to stop it is to prevent them from doing it.
Here's a made up example (and I'm not picking on any state or any similar recent situation): Let's say a Defense Bill is being considered. Then building a bridge in Alaska has nothing to do with defense. Building bridges belongs in a Transportation Bill. So putting bridge financing in a defense bill would be a violation of the Constitutional Amendment. By keeping spending bills to one issue (and I concede that Congress will probably be very creative in connecting their pet issues to a bill under discussion) "we the people" will not be taxed as much and spending will be controlled. Line item veto power in the hands of the president allows too much power to the executive branch of our government. Although the idea seems like a way to control spending, it would be unconstitutional.
Agreed! The Amendment would have to be crafted very well to prevent creative connections. Using my earlier example, a congress member from Alaska could say that a certain bridge would improve traffic to a military base and is, therefore, a defense issue. The Amendment must not allow such connections.
We are, at present, a long way from getting this kind of thinking into Congress. It starts with "We the people" and ends by electing Representatives and Senators that will do what we want them to do!
And that's how I see it. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)