Kucinich Was Always the Best Choice, Here's Why

Some say he's far left of the far left. Some say he is crazy, short, and elfish. Some say he tries to ride off of his wife's good looks. The people who say this only say this because this is all they know about the man who is quite possibly the best politician ever. Of course, an America who makes such superficial and short sighted judgements about their leadership doesn't in any way deserve a president as educated, morally sound, or dedicated to what is right as Dennis Kucinich.

For a moment, forget your party affiliation, forget everything you know about politics (because politics isn't really about knowing anyway, its about opinions). Read the following passage as if it were a story, and you will understand why America needs politicians like Kucinich, who put their moral obligations before their career.


By Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Once they were as gods, but the deities of the American banking system are now in ruins, plunged from their pedestals into the maw of taxpayer largesse. Congress voted to give the banks $700 billion, lifting them temporarily out of their sepulcher of debt, while revealing a deep truth about the condition of America’s financial powers:

They never had the money they said they had as they constructed their debt-based monetary system which now lies in ruins. Their decisions on behalf of depositors, shareholders and investors were lacking in basic integrity and common sense. Green gods bailing out with their golden parachutes.

There was a time when their power was real. Come with me to Cleveland 30 years ago today.

Dec. 15, 1978, Cleveland, Ohio

I awoke to find a curt payment demand that was dropped on my front step by a grandfatherly man who supplemented his Social Security delivering the morning newspaper. The headline plastered across the front page:

Cleveland Trust: Pay Up. Bank would relent if Muny Light were sold, Forbes believes.

One of America’s largest banks, Cleveland Trust, led local banks in demanding immediate payment from the city by midnight, Dec. 15, of $14.5 million in short-term loans.

I regarded the headline skeptically. Having lived in 21 different places by the time I was 17, including a couple of cars, I had come to an encyclopedic knowledge of dun letters, sent to my parents by battalions of bill collectors seeking immediate payment for televisions, cars and a variety of household appliances that never seemed to work. I first came to regard these credit alarms with trepidation, later with impassiveness, with the expectation that as our family grew to two adults and seven children it would soon be on the move again, incurring new delinquencies with each new address. Lack of access to money, housing and credit seemed to be a permanent condition.

Now, having fought through a thicket of consequence to become America’s youngest mayor, elected on a promise to stop the privatization of the city’s electric system, I was faced with paying off loans taken out by the previous mayor, for the financing of municipal projects of dubious value.

The banks refused to extend terms of payment and connived with City Council members to block alternative payment plans, such as the sale of city land or tax revenues. The banks knew the city couldn’t otherwise pay. They demanded instead the sale of the city’s electric system, Muny Light, to an investor-owned electric company, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (CEI). The president of the Cleveland Council, George Forbes, had met with the head of Cleveland Trust bank, who insisted on the sale of Muny Light as a precondition for extending the city credit. This was a case of the bank blackmailing the city, pure and simple.

The alternative to accepting the bank’s blackmail was default. Cleveland could become the first city since the Depression to default on its financial obligations. Cities rely on credit for everyday operations and for meeting long-term financial obligations, such as infrastructure improvements. If banks called in their loans, the city would head toward dire straits. No one knew that better than the law firm of Squire Sanders and Dempsey, which had served as bond counsel for the city of Cleveland while the city entered fiscal peril and was simultaneously, though not coincidentally, the principal law firm for the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Through Squire Sanders and Dempsey, CEI had access to the intricacies of the city of Cleveland’s financial records.

Under the previous administration, the city began using bond funds for general operating purposes. As mayor, I inherited $40 million worth of debt that had to be refinanced before the end of my first year in office. Under my predecessor, the city had illegally spent money it did not have, and yet it had the key to every bank in town and the confidence of the bond rating houses, at precisely the same time it was preparing for the sale of the municipal electric system to CEI.

Cleveland Trust and another bank demanding the sale of Muny Light, National City, were principal stock owners in CEI. Several members of CEI’s board sat on the boards of local banks as interlocking directorates. There was a myriad of bank-utility business relations. Cleveland Trust bank, which handled CEI’s demand deposits, pension funds and other assets, would directly profit from the sale of Muny Light. In a way, the banks were the private utility. With the sale, CEI would have an electricity monopoly in Cleveland and would be able to name its price for electricity and get it. Everyone in the Muny Light territory would receive at least a 20 percent rate increase as the rates would be raised to CEI’s levels.

The city was self-sufficient with Muny Light for many years. Muny provided power to 46,000 homes with low electric rates, which contributed to the economic growth of the city. That was until the late 1960s and early ’70s, when a series of suspicious mechanical failures and power outages diminished the system’s reliability. At that time, under heavy lobbying from CEI, the Cleveland City Council delayed the passage of legislation for $9.8 million in repairs to Muny Light’s generators, thereby forcing the city to purchase power at a premium from its competitor, CEI. The city became increasingly dependent on an interconnection between CEI and Muny Light, a high-voltage line over which power could be transferred from CEI to the city, to ensure reliability. The city’s power system began to experience more unexplained power failures. CEI began to make public overtures to purchase Muny Light. The sale of Muny Light to CEI was soon supported by most of Cleveland’s media, business, political and labor interests.

William Ayers Interview on ABC

Very interesting interview indeed. The main thing I learned from this interview is that the Weather Underground never killed anybody. Not really terrorism, in my opinion, if you don't target humans.



The full interview is available at ABC.com.

McCain Supporters Sore Losers

Not only are they losers, they are sore losers, which is why I have no problem gloating towards people such as the ones who can be heard booing and shouting during McCain's concession speech. Even Fox News's local TN affiliate cut to commercial, albeit only showing a few seconds of one commercial, during the time when McCain's supporters were shouting out in the middle of his speech. What they are saying, I can't make out, but regardless, it is inappropriate, and completely devoid of class, and considering the cutaway, I would imagine either it is offensive on the level with "Kill Him" or "Terrorist", or they were taking a precaution in case that this kind of thing was shouted.

Here it is, the first bit of the concession speech. Let me know if you can make out what they are saying.

Intense POV Skateboarding

Below is a video taken by my friend Ed. He is careening down a hill on a skateboard with a camera. Pretty awesome.

Monica Lewinsky + Jenny Craig = Sarah Palin

Daaaamn, this resemblance is eerie! So what's going on, is this actually just some sort of Republican fembot, designed to wreak havoc on the Democrats, but recently having experienced major malfunctions?

Palin Rally: Video of attendee shouting "Obama Bin Laden"

It just doesn't get much classier than a McCain/Palin rally. This must be why I see so many of the mansions here in yuppie areas of Tennessee with McCain/Palin signs on their lawns, or perhaps these people are just tired of being winners, and want to see what its like to be losers.

Regardless, I am thoroughly enjoying the sight of Republicans, having expanded their base to attract voters who know nothing in order to elect Bush twice, being forced to deal with these idiots and their uncontrollable outbursts of stupidity.

Here is a video of the always vapid and substance-lacking Sarah Palin attempting to criticize her opponents, which always is comical to me, and someone in her audience very audibly yells "Obama Bin Laden."



WOW! What an amazing wit this supporter has, well he just blew our minds by switching the "s" to a "b" in Osama, and therefore tying the Illinois senator to the most hated terrorist and enemy to our nation. How DOES he come up with this stuff.

Once again, Sarah Palin just keeps right on talking, doesn't acknowledge the statement, doesn't denounce it, despite the fact that these outbursts are crippling what's left of the campaign. Sarah Palin is apparently under the notion that these are her supporters and that they will be instrumental in her being able to make a decent run for the White House in 2012.

Suuuure Sarah, we all know how attractive it is to Republican voters when you're presence and behavior on the campaign trail effectively demolishes any chance for a Republican victory. Oh yeah, they'll love you. You're just a f'n shoe in!

Enjoy your fame for now, Sarah. Ignore the fact that we are all laughing and pointing directly in your face, and don't worry about the fact that everything you say and do goes directly against what you are trying to accomplish. You were trying to be a beauty queen. Beauty queens are women who have a position, but have no power to do anything at all. That's what you have become. You are a VP nominee, but your rhetoric is still that of someone looking for some diamond studded tiara. So enjoy your status for now, because when your post-fame depression hits later, you'll need something to look back on to carry on, so that you can do what you should be doing, which is taking care of "your" mentally retarded child, whom you weren't sure if you could love as your own child. You don't belong where you are, and that, Sarah, that is why you are being ridiculed wherever you go.

Sarah Palin Humiliated on SNL

I can't imagine what Sarah Palin thought she might accomplish by going on SNL last night, except that she did get the opportunity to say "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!" Other than that, she pretty much got blasted left and right to her face, and also had to sit through their usual ripping into McCain. This part was the best though:

WTF is a maverick anyway, and does it apply to McCain?

Main Entry:

¹mav·er·ick

Pronunciation:

..ˈmav-rik, ˈma-və-..

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Samuel A. Maverick †1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves

Date:

1867

1: an unbranded range animal ; especially : a motherless calf

2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party



So, are John McCain and Sarah Palin a pair of mavericks? Well, lets see if either of these definitions apply...

We'll start with definition 2, as quoted from Merriam Webster's online dictionary. "An independent individual...", OK he's not independent. He's a Republican and he married a rich woman to finance his political career, "...who does not go along with a group or party." Hmmmm.... I am pretty sure he accepts the label of Republican, and he couldn't possibly be running for president as an Independent with any success, so it would sure seem to me that this definition doesn't qualify. McCain may argue that he doesn't ALWAYS go along with everyone in his party, but that's like saying you're a vegetarian, because you don't ALWAYS eat meat.

So lets move on to the other definition, an unbranded range animal. Well, I suppose when he was being worked over in that POW camp, they didn't actually take a branding iron to him, and I suppose one could see McCain and Palin as "range animals", perhaps even "motherless calfs," so I conclude that these two are indeed mavericks, but I am not interested in having a barnyard animal running my country.

A Rant on Bailouts

It started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the nation began to open their eyes, and the masses largely wondered who these institutions were, and why they were being protected by the government. It started to become clear that our free market ideology was fading away, but this was not as interesting to people as making fun of Sarah Palin, or rushing to her defense. I got caught up in it too, because its not too common that someone appears on a presidential ticket that makes George W. Bush seem qualified, or intelligent.

Then comes the market crashing, the nationally ignored gasoline shortage crisis in Tennessee, and now Bush is pushing Congress to pass another bailout of subprime mortgage lenders to the tune of $700 billion dollars. Thats billion with a B.

I struggle to understand the logic behind this kind of thinking. Not only does it completely seem like an anti-capitalist move, but it inherently rewards unnecessarily risky business practices. The whole idea behind free markets is that when you succeed you succeed freely, and when you fail, you crash and burn.

Perhaps its because Bush realizes that his rhetoric, along with the desperate attempts early in his presidency shortly after 9/11 to paint our economy as "strong" by touting how many people were moving into new homes as the highest ever, and urging those people to do so with historically low interest rates, maybe this was perhaps the reason why we are in this mess to begin with.

To bail out the companies who were taking advantage of the ridiculous propaganda of "buy a house, to keep our economy strong, or the terrorists win," is a further smack in the face of the American consumer. The ones who should be bailed out are the people with the foreclosures happening on their homes, the people who truly stand to lose it all. After all, they aren't the ones who are supposed to know better.

Let's for a minute ignore the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae business and focus only on the money which hasn't yet been appropriated, the 700 billion dollars. Should this go to bail out a bunch of corporations, which would have only a stabilizing effect, if that, on our economy?

I am of a different mind. I see that we have an adult population in this nation of roughly 225 million people. These would be the taxpayers who would foot the bill for this bailout, while many of the taxpayers lost their homes. Doing some simple division, that rounds out to a bit more than 3,000 dollars per adult in this nation. As long as you're spending 700 billion dollars to provide economic relief, why not give it to those who know how to use it!

The way I see it, if they took that same money and put it towards a true economic stimulus package of $3,000, not this weak $600 bull, then people would probably be able to make good on these mortgages. If not, there would definitely be a ton of extra money to start flying around in the market, and this outdated concept of "trickle down economics" would be replaced with what I call "gush up economics." You give the middle class a bunch of spending money, it builds business for and goes directly back to the corporations, and stimulates the economy in a real way, and helps people, improving confidence in our nation and our government.

Let these huge companies who screwed up in a major way go down in flames, and make room in the market for smaller corporations and upstarts! I guarantee most Americans would watch it happen with popcorn and a soda, especially if they were getting a few thousand dollars in the mail. We as Americans know that when we make stupid decisions, we deal with the consequences. Its called personal responsibility. We may get government assistance from time to time if we are in poverty, but our assistance doesn't generally cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars apiece.

Of course, the corporate elite would say that would just be socialist and unAmerican. Well, if that's so, crash and burn like you're supposed to, because bailing you out would be even worse. You people don't know how to run a successful business, you got greedy, you got stupid, you belong in the welfare line. Now piss off. America's business market doesn't need losers, and we sure don't like them.

Its Protest Season Again!

The Democratic National Convention is going on, and that means the kickoff of protest season. It starts off with a relatively tame rally at Denver for the DNC, and since most people are protesting the state of affairs of the United States today, many of those who attend are actually liberals and Democrats who are there to be heard, not to protest against those inside the convention hall.

Then undoubtedly, there are to be some libertarian supporters, and supporters of former libertarian and internet Republican superstar candidate Ron Paul in attendance at the DNC protest as well. These militant supporters see the Democrats as evil socialists, communists, Marxists, and enemies of personal liberties and freedom. Ron Paulites, as I call them, actually threw a surprise preseason protest march bash over a month ago which drew many thousands of the candidate's supporters. Paul has suspended his campaign and is putting the millions of dollars raked in from the internet to work in a longer stretched out effort, called the Campaign For Liberty, and many citizens see this effort as a way to adjust the values of what is these days called conservative, but what they call neo-conservative. Critics see Ron Paul as a libertarian masquerading as a Republican, convinced that a 3rd party has no chance of winning, and trying to invade the GOP and claim their platform for the libertarians. Regardless of who is right, he has shown the propensity to raise money on par with top-tier candidates, and to draw marchers to protest on a level with the major conventions.

And then, there are always the anarchists, the fun loving rough bunch who make things interesting by doing their best to look a bit scary, and then provoking the ridiculous riot police who stop them from going into an area not designated as a "free speech zone." Some protesters detest the anarchists, and feel that they sully the peaceful nature of the protest, putting a bad face on the movement. However, the anarchists and other more extreme protesters have been known to make some ballsy moves that have distracted the police long enough so that other protesters are free to make their way towards more visible destinations which the police would have stopped them from going.

During this DNC, there has been an incident where the police blocked a crowd of people from both sides, trapping them in a small stretch of road for hours, and using a bit of excessive force on those who resisted this entrapment. Apparently, they were trying to make their way towards the convention hall, and the police saw this as a threat for some reason. Perhaps, they have heeded several threats against Obama's life by white supremacist groups, and feared that the group would force their way into the convention hall, pandemonium would ensue, and someone could get a headshot on Obama... but wait, he wasn't there at the time, he doesn't arrive to speak until days later. More likely excuse: the police have big batons and canisters of pepper spray, and are itching for a chance to use them.

Next protest scheduled will be at the Republican National Convention. This one got really ugly in 2004, as here is a protest where practically everyone is irate with those inside the convention hall. They met in Central Park, tens and tens of thousands of people, but the gathering was broken up by police. Not a good idea, it turns out, because what resulted is all those thousands of people were now to scatter all around the city in smaller groups, completely befuddling the police as to how to keep track of what was going on. Perhaps the most shocking police footage from this affair was when the police, confused and desperate, simply started to unroll plastic fencing around huge crowds in the streets and detaining them within, aka mass arrests. These people were taken to warehouses which could be referred to as concentration camps (not Hitler gas chamber style, of course), and held without being charged or being allowed phone calls. Many of these people just happened to be walking down the street going about their routine, and were arrested simply because they were there.

An hour and a half of documentary footage of this atrocity is available at http://www.fluxrostrum.com - here is some highlight footage which gives somewhat of an idea of what all footage exists without having to sit through the whole documentary, but I do recommend seeing the whole thing, and realizing just how powerless we can be against paranoid riot police.



Equally as disturbing, however was footage of police bullying a different crowd of demonstrators participating in an event separate from the planned protest march, but occurring during the same RNC. This event was called "Critical Mass," and it was a parade of bicyclers thousands strong, similar to those common in Europe and Asia. These thousands of bicyclers were taking to the streets, claiming the space on the road as their own, and hindering traffic at each intersection they passed for the mere few minutes it took them all to go by. The point? Their chosen mode of transportation uses no gas, requires no oil from enemy foreign countries, promotes good health, never pollutes the air, and almost never causes fatal accidents, however there is no infrastructure of bicycle paths with which they can utilize this harmless mode of transportation.

This concept was lost on the police, who were more concerned with the minor automobile traffic inconvenience and began arresting them. People began to jeer at the police and question them as to why they would arrest these bikers, when there's thousand of them out there, and they weren't hurting anyone. Police got frustrated, police got violent, innocent people got brutally arrested, tased, and so on.

Here is some video of some of these goings on.



This one is from a news broadcast, and this cop blatantly picks a random biker and pushes him, causing him to wreck badly as he wheels by.



Now, if the election turns out favorably for those who protest for peace and liberty, that may be the end of the protest season. However, the last time in 2004, and incidentally in 2000 in which the protests were more of a statement of disapproval with how the election was decided by the Supreme Court, there was a post Election Day gathering for the airing of grievances, and ensuring that Bush's inauguration parade consisted of more than just his adoring fans. The one in 2000 was unknown to most in the nation, but made notable in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" in which millions of Americans realized with joy that Bush's limo had been egged on the way to the White House.

In 2004, proper measures were taken by the Bush administration to make sure there were no eggs this time. But was that what he was really afraid of? This is one protest which I attended, and I can tell you that Bush was afraid of more than just eggs. Police came from all over the nation, and they were everywhere. They stood atop buildings with rifles, helicopters circled above constantly, barricades were everywhere, and as protesters made their way to the parade route to turn their backs to Bush as his limo went by, which was the plan, they met a checkpoint manned by the military where they were searched one at a time before being allowed to proceed.

I was lucky, and was one of the first people to the checkpoint, so I got in and promptly began holding up my angry antiBush signs and walking down the sidewalk to make my presence known to the line of supporters awaiting the parade. There was a human wall of policemen between the sidewalk and the road, and a metal barrier, because I suppose they were afraid that someone would try to kill Bush through his armored limo as it rolled by, or perhaps just block the road.

Suddenly, I noticed a big increase in the number of fellow protesters, and found out that the good ol anarchists had decided that the search gates were unlawful and serving only to slow down dissenters from entering the parade route, so they did the logical thing, and all at once rushed the checkpoint barrier and broke it down, most likely getting arrested, yet making space for the rest of the protesters to flood the parade route. Thanks guys!

So at last the Bush limo came by the area I was standing near, and everyone did the peaceful stunt planned and turned their backs to the president as he drove by. I glanced over my shoulder and noticed the presidential limo, which cruised by slowly for the areas of the parade rich with Bush supporters cheering, but when the thundering boos started from a distance up the road, which was our sign that he was coming, the cowardly loser had his limo driver speed up to what seemed like about 20 miles an hour, zipping by us to avoid his own shame, or out of fear of his own people perhaps. It was rich to watch the Secret Service men that normally walk beside his limo running at full speed struggling to try to keep up.

On the way back out, the police searched people once again, and the crowd of people coming from the parade began to loiter in the area outside the checkpoint gate, and the police once again felt it necessary to tell everyone to leave the area. As they were unable to give us a reason, and were generally being jerks about it, we all just decided to sit down in the middle of the road. This was really fun, but it got intense when about forty police lined up in a formation in front of the sitting crowd to intimidate us to move. They put down their protective plastic face covers, pulled out pepper spray cannons and huge telescopic batons, an action to which the crowd responded by chanting "Take off that stupid gear, There ain't no riot here!" for about 2 minutes.

They gave us a final warning, the forty or so of them threatening about 500 people sitting in the middle of the street. So we got up, but not to leave. Everyone in the crowd began to lock elbows with the one beside them, whether or not they knew them. I was about 5 rows back, and pretty frightened about what was about to happen. This 20 row mass of elbowlocked humans stood there facing the police for a minute or so, when someone near the middle of the pack started counting down from 20. At that moment I felt the fear of everyone in the crowd, but noone waivered, and more and more people joined in the countdown.

There I stood, elbowlocked in unity between two people I didn't know, counting down and bracing myself for the pain and following incarceration. I knew we were all supposed to rush these cops and perhaps take it all the way to the checkpoint gate for renegade gate smash #2 of the day, and there was no turning back now. The countdown got down to 10, and much to our amazement and surprise, the police fell out of formation and got the heck out of there, in a single file quickly jogging.

Some of us collapsed, some jumped for joy and cheered, some cried. I along with several others was part of one of the small clusters of people who stood there frozen, remaining elbowlocked tightly with those around us and letting the moment of unity, courage, fear, excitement, and utter insanity hang there for a while.

People slowly snapped out of it, and broke off from their clusters. The person on my left released my elbow, and I glanced to my right to see a female stranger standing there also having lost her other elbowmate, but still clinching hard to my arm and staring blankly forward. I thought to myself, "If we were old style hippies, we'd sooo be about to hook up," but no. I needed to find my friend I had left behind to rush off to the parade route, and so I simply looked over towards her and said, "Wow, that was fucking crazy." She agreed, and finally released my arm, and disappeared into the crowd.

I shall never meet the people I stood with in unity that day again, or at least would never recognize them. But an experience like that just lets you know how passionate people are about freedom, peace, and justice.

Some people at this protest weren't as lucky with avoiding police brutality though. The video below is from this same protest, and when I saw it, I realized that had there been more police there to resist our little "charge" mission, we would have truly gotten messed up, because they were not messing around that day.


Online Videos by Veoh.com

Gigantic Piece of Poop Goes on Flying Crash Course

Yeah, somebody thinks that the above picture represents art that ought to be displayed. What are they? They are gigantic replications of fecal matter (aka poop) which are inflatable. I can only wonder who inflated them, and by which means.

American artist Paul McCarthy created these so called "pieces of art" and had them displayed at a Swiss museum, and perhaps karmatically, the wind blew one large piece away, and led it on a pathway of destruction, destroying power lines, and breaking windows of a childrens home in its path.

Can you imagine walking down the street and seeing a giant piece of shit flying through the air, smashing things left and right? I, for one, think it is retribution for such a stupid stupid piece of art, and I hope this dissuades future artists from "starting shit" in this fashion.

Congressman Robert Wexler has been fighting the fight for impeachment relentlessly from the beginning, and he is being targeted by right wing groups now for doing so. Right wing groups apparently see the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary for impeachment more fitting for perjury related to sexual harassment suits than unlawful wars and lying and misleading the public resulting in thousands of deaths. This is why Republicans have very little possibility of improving their image of ruthless evil idiots, who take their opinions directly from party lines, not from conscience.

In a futile attempt to maintain their pride, they are attacking Wexler, and spending lots of money to try to get rid of him. Here is the email he sent me:

Dear Nicholas,

I need your help:

My strong and vocal stands in favor of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made me a target. I am now under siege by the right wing, who are working hard to defeat me and silence the causes that we believe in.

In the eyes of the right wing, I am seen, along with Rep. Kucinich, as one of the symbols of the impeachment fight. They believe that if they defeat me – they defeat our cause.

For the last week, I’ve been relentlessly targeted by ultra-conservative radio and television hosts, as well as my local media. It has taken a toll. Now more than ever, I need your support to help me stay in Congress to represent your voice in Washington.

Please click here to donate to my re-election campaign.

I am pleased to report that just this week we have made real progress in our fight for accountability for this rogue Administration. Just yesterday a federal court ruled against President Bush's bogus executive privilege claims and ordered Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to testify. In addition, this week the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt for his refusal to testify.

I will make you this promise: No matter who criticizes me, I will continue to aggressively push for genuine accountability for this White House – including inherent contempt for Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Harriet Miers and all of the renegade Bush officials if they do not immediately cooperate.

With your contribution today (click here) you can ensure that I will return to Congress and never back down from the causes in which we believe.

I have been one of the few lonely voices in Congress to demand accountability and now I am paying a price. The truth is I would rather lose my election than back down. But we will win if we stand together, and your contribution today will send a strong message to the right wing that our movement will not be intimidated.

Click here to donate and help me send a message to the right wing.

It’s no coincidence that these attacks are increasing as I continue my outspoken stances, and Election Day approaches.

Right now, I am facing my most difficult re-election ever. While I rely on people like you to support my campaign – both of my wealthy opponents are spending their own personal money to fund their campaigns. One opponent has promised to spend a million dollars to defeat me. Another opponent has ridiculed my stance on impeachment and called for me to be impeached and removed from office.

I need your help: please click here to donate today.

From the beginning of my work on impeachment, I have been dipping into my re-election fund to help pay the significant costs of what has been a national campaign to promote impeachment. Some of you have previously donated to help keep this outreach alive, and for that, I’m thankful. I will continue to promote this cause using my campaign resources.

Now, the right wing is fueling the campaigns against me: Newspapers are reporting that my Republican opponent is seeing a major spike in contributions. We must match his supporters dollar for dollar.

If you're in a position to contribute, please help us win this race (click here to donate).

If not, but you know someone who might want to, please spread the word by forwarding this email and posting it on blogs.

Every two years, Americans get to decide who represents them. Whether I'm your representative or not, I hope you know I will continue to fight to protect our Constitution.

Regardless of whether you can support me financially at this time or not, please know that I have been inspired by your hard work, words of encouragement, and unflagging commitment for our shared causes.

Your friend,

Congressman Robert Wexler

DONATE

P.S. If you prefer to donate via mail, please send a check to:

Wexler For Congress Campaign
2500 North Military Trail
Suite 251
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Why is Miss America always trippin' these days?

I'm not one who really cares about beauty pageants, except for the times when they are funny. Like when Miss Teen USA contestants from South Carolina give ridiculously stupid answers to simple questions, or when Miss USA trips and falls during the Miss Universe pageant.

Amazingly, the latter has now officially happened two years in a row. Last year, 2007 Miss USA Rachel Smith, from my wonderful home state of Tennessee, made this glorious tumble in front of the whole world:




And now, Crystle Stewart, 2008 Miss USA from Texas (how appropriate), won't be outdone by some Tennessean in the lameness department, and repeats this mistake, perhaps continuing a new tradition for Miss USA.




Now heres the question: WTF?!

Pelosi starting to come around on impeachment

I have been recieving updates from Congressman Robert Wexler, one of the key proponents of a Bush/Cheney impeachment, right behind Dennis Kucinich. His latest email update actually shows somewhat hopeful signs, including Nancy Pelosi seemingly backing off from her "impeachment is off the table" stance.

Here's the text:

Dear Nicholas,

Capitol Hill is buzzing today with major developments regarding our campaign for impeachment hearings for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Just today, in what could be described as a perfect impeachment storm:

• Karl Rove once again thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people by brazenly ignoring a lawful congressional subpoena to testify before the House of Representatives;

• Judiciary Chairman John Conyers indicated his willingness to use the power of inherent contempt against Rove if necessary;

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced another article of impeachment on Bush's lies regarding the Iraq war; and

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted today saying that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Kucinich raises in the House Judiciary Committee.

After years of work by so many of you, the time appears ripe to finally hold Bush and Cheney accountable.

DONATE

Conyers Opens Door to Inherent Contempt for Rove

Karl Rove has simply refused to appear, as he is legally required to do. His actions, endorsed by the Bush/Cheney Administration, are a challenge to our system of checks and balances and Congress must respond to this type of outrageous behavior with appropriate severity.

Today, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers courageously stated today that inherent contempt will remain an option for the House of Representatives so long as Rove and this Administration refuses to abide by the law.

We must now bring Mr. Rove (and other renegade Bush officials) in compliance with the law.

This is a defining moment for Congress: Will we continue to allow legislative power to be eroded by an out of control executive branch that ignores the rule of law - or will we finally put an end to this congressional capitulation and properly force Administration officials to testify in full view of the American people?

It is time for Congress to hold Karl Rove in inherent contempt. I congratulate Chairman Conyers' positive move in this direction, and we must work to move other Members of Congress in support of the use of inherent contempt. Inherent contempt properly enables the House Sergeant of Arms to physically take custody of Mr. Rove and bring him to the House of Representatives to testify.

How do you think a state or federal judge would react to a witness refusing to comply with a legal subpoena? The wayward witness would be arrested.

Should the Congress of the United States be shown any less respect than any courtroom in the nation?
Should the Congress react any differently than how any American judge would react? Absolutely not.

We are long past the time for threats and negotiation. We must bring Mr. Rove in front of the full Judiciary Committee, under oath. No administration official - not even the President - is above the law. They cannot be allowed to redefine it at will. We must all appear when called or suffer the consequences.

DONATE

Speaker Pelosi's Shift on Hearings and Rep. Kucinich's New Article of Impeachment

After stating unequivocally that impeachment "is off the table," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated to CBS News today that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Rep. Kucinich's has raised in his impeachment resolution.

Pelosi's words provide genuine hope for our cause of accountability for this Administration. We must use Speaker Pelosi's openness to new hearings in the Judiciary Committee to pursue aggressively the serious allegations against Bush and Cheney relating to lies about the Iraq War, the illegal use of torture, the improper disclosure of the identity of a covert agent, the political firing of US attorneys, and on and on.

I again congratulate Congressman Kucinich on his continued leadership and work on behalf of this vital cause.

This issue now reaches far beyond the substance of the Judiciary Committee's original inquiry regarding the firing of US Attorneys for political purposes. The crisis at hand relates to our most fundamental laws and of our Constitution. It is, in many ways, more serious than the Constitutional crisis surrounding Watergate – yet the national media ignores the facts and ramifications of this renegade Executive.

Congress has a duty to protect the balance of powers. Mr. Rove, Mr. Bolten, and Ms. Miers have taken actions that severely undermine these powers, and we should not rely on a federal court alone.

The political tide begins to be turning and that is why I feel so strongly that we should aggressively push for inherent contempt for Karl Rove and impeachment hearings for President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Thanks you for your work and your commitment to our constitution.

- Congressman Robert Wexler

DONATE

The 2nd Amendment: A Dual Perspective

The 2nd Amendment: Decipherage


People like their guns, there's no doubt about it. Maybe its not possible for one to understand if one doesn't own a gun, has never shot a gun, and generally only hears the negative outcomes of gun use. After all, its hard to get too excited about someone hitting a target with a bullet, but its much more simple to understand the disturbance resulting from gun murders, gun accidents, and gun crimes. So its easy for someone like me, one whom many would call a liberal, to form an opinion about guns that is uncompromisingly negative, but considering the large population of US citizens who are enthusiastic and unwaivering about their Constitutional right to bear arms, someone like me who believes in democracy can see the need to fully understand the facts and opinions at hand.

I think that there is a looming problem in politics today, as more and more ordinary citizens are becoming drawn to the topics of their rights and what is right for the good of our nation. I've found myself guilty of this phenomenon which plagues the collective intellect of the concerned citizens of this great nation, and this problem is polarization. We are a nation extremely succeptible to propaganda, as we search for black and white, right or wrong, yes or no. We hear certain arguments loudly, and they influence us to believe what they are saying, but then when we hear the opposing side, regardless of the validity of the arguments, we tend to see those that make those arguments as misled, stupid, sometimes even evil.

This is blatantly apparent in the argument between those for and against gun control. People who are against gun control like to use the word "liberal" as a derogatory term, and attempt to paint liberals as evil communists who want to take away their guns and trash the Constitution, so the government can exact excruciating control over our lives, and we can be overrun by criminals who go around killing people for fun. On the flipside, liberals of the more radical persuasion forgo the political terms, and just refer to the other side as "gun-nuts." Gun nuts are people who live way out in the country where no crime ever takes place, but they feel the need to arm themselves to the gills. They really just have a good time shooting off guns, like children playing with toys, and it doesn't matter to them how easily a criminal in the inner city can get a hold of a gun, or two, or twelve, and unlimited bullets, and take out as many people as they want... after all, who cares if a bunch of black people get shot?

Neither of these points of view are accurate or helpful in the understanding of the actual situation. Seeing the other side as evil makes way for unwaivering opinions, and its this kind of stubbornness that prevents a real solution, and real enlightenment. So I as a leftist shall now attempt to lean towards the middle as much as I can in order to find the truth and common sense beneath all the rhetoric.

First of all, I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that we should take the Constitution into consideration as the main point of reference, considering we are discussing laws here. And the 2nd Amendment should therefore be disclosed in its original text:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


OK, well no wonder there's confusion here, this is about as vague as it gets.

I've had discussions with avid progunners about the wording of this amendment, and it never fails to amaze me how they always make the same belittling assumption about the question I'm raising. Here's basically how the discussion goes: I say "Well, the word 'arms' doesn't specifically mean 'gun'," and then they say "Well, what do you think it means, these?" and then they wave their arms around. Very funny. I don't really think anyone who cares enough about gun control to try to have a civilized discussion about the Constitution would ever argue that the wording of this amendment referred to one's upper body limbs. Regardless, gun proponents think that lowly of the mental capability of anyone who questions their interpretation of this amendment.

Here's what Merriam Webster's Dictionary says as the definition of "Arm", and yes, I did intentionally leave out the first noun definition, regarding the upper limbs of human beings.


Main Entry:
arm
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date:
13th century

1a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense;


See, now this is why we raise this concern. The amendment guarantees that our right to keep arms shall not be infringed, but some could argue that a sharp stick could qualify as an Arm, or by today's terror standards, I suppose nail clippers could be Arms. On the other end of the spectrum, a nuclear weapon is an Arm, as is any biochemical weapon, bomb, or missile. So I don't think anyone could argue that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and a limit to which types of arms should be legal. After all, the 2nd amendment does not ever state that the people should not be denied the right to have any type of Arm they want, it only states that they should be allowed to have Arms.

Here's where some liberals would see an excuse to outlaw several types of guns, and progunners would feel threatened by this logic, but we must not forget that there is more to this amendment than allowing arms. The portion which should be key in deciding where to draw the line on which Arms should be allowed to the public is the portion regarding the purpose for this allowed ownership, as stated in the 2nd amendment, because "A well regulated Militia, [is] necessary to the security of a free State"

All citizens are potentially members of a present or future militia, should the sudden need arise for one, and therefore we should be allowed to be armed as such in preparation for this event. This is a question of security, according to the text, and so in order to see where to draw the line, the question that should be asked is "what weapons are necessary to protect the security of our free state, and maintain a well regulated militia." Any regulations barring such needed arms, or allowing arms in excess of what is needed, contradict the Constitution, and are therefore invalid as law. The Constitution makes it very clear the reason for such a clause.

So how do we answer the question posed? How can we know what weapons are necessary to protect the security of our free state, and maintain a well organized militia? Some would say we would have to look at each weapon on a one-by-one basis. But even then, one would have to look at the feasibility of using this weapon to protect our nation, and then the question becomes "from whom?" Are we protecting ourselves from an oppressive US government, or from foreign invaders, perhaps aliens from outer space? Let's omit the aliens, because if they're here, and they want to kill us, its time to start hoping the government can pull something off.

That having been said, lets think for example about handguns. What exactly can a handgun do against foreign invaders? If these invaders made it into our nation, through the Coast Guard, unable to be taken down by our own fighter jets, or any of our military, what exactly do you plan to do with a handgun? In the same manner, what if our government is going ballistic on us, and we need to take it down... do you think a handgun is going to help? The government's weapons are so much more sophisticated than any gun we may own, especially some dinky little handgun.

Its time for we the people to make a decision. The technology of weapons has far surpassed the so-called protection we are allowed to carry for the purpose of protecting our free nation. Carrying guns now is only for the purpose of protecting ourselves from criminals, and by asserting our right to carry guns, we are allowing them to do the same, which is why we are afraid. We see stories on the news that make us believe that there are tons of people out there just itching to kill people, but they only hesitate because someone might have a gun. The truth is that people don't kill people for no reason, typically. Also, its very rare that someone is stopped from killing someone by a gun wielding citizen.

Guns alone have no value in protecting the security of our free state, so if we are really concerned with this patriotic noble duty, we should give up the fight solely for guns, and work towards allowing militias to also have things like antiaircraft guns, heat seeking missiles, tanks, and maybe some of those sound rays that the government has that can stop crowds of people in their tracks. Without these things, we are helpless to really protect our nations security, and only adding to the murder rate with these "one at a time" arms, only useful for person to person combat. Together with these larger, more effective weapons, guns may be very useful in maintaining an American insurgency in the case of a hostile takeover, but without them, guns aren't going to save us.