Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran

Veteran Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh has published an article in the New Yorker Magazine that asserts that congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to greatly increase funding, to 400 million dollars, for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran. This escalation of these covert and secret activities is meant to destabilize the religious leadership of Iran. Hersh wrote his article based upon information from “current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.” The article notes that covert activities by the United States are not new in Iran–we have been conducting cross-border operations from Southern Iraq since last year.

The request for the $400 million was described in something called a “Presidential Finding”, signed by President Bush, and, under Federal Law, these Presidential Findings “must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees”. The article by Hersh noted later that, “In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.” This is a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy that is certainly not unfamiliar to the politics of the United States.

I hope that we all can now clearly see that the Republican Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists. And I hope that we can now also clearly see that the Democratic Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists, through their aiding and abetting of policies that are as such. I hope that we can now clearly see that both political parties are about policing the world, and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to do so. We are spending 400 million dollars alone on trying to destabilize one single country. That money could have gone to education. That money could have gone to healthcare. That money could have gone to infrastructure. But, out of all of the needy areas of our country, our political leaders, of both parties, decided to direct the money instead towards destabilizing another country. 400 million dollars! That could not be described as “spare change”. Obviously, though, there is no “change” that our leaders can spare. And the small, superficial change that they do provide is worthless.

But Iran is not the only country targeted by the United States. According to Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, “On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of overturning the regime in Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted in then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s book, ‘War and Decision’.” The four other countries in the Middle East were, according to Wesley Clark, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Lebanon.

It is my opinion that the United States has been the interventionist policeman of the world for too long. And especially covert interventions, because that promotes “blowback”, defined as a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Hatred in the Middle East towards the United States as a result of our covert operations targeting Middle-Easterners, and then Middle-Easterners demonstrating their hatred in a terrorist attack, is an example of blowback.

Is it honestly in our best interest to undertake operations such as this, especially when domestic issues are in such dire need of attention? And, ask yourself, do we even have the right to interfere in and destabilize another country, someone else’s country, as such? My personal opinion is that we have neither the right nor the obligation to try to destablize the governments of other countries and throw them into political chaos. Aside from the concerns of blowback and the misplacement of tax money, it is very important to do unto others as you would want done unto yourself.

Kucinich reads Bush Articles of Impeachment on the House floor

I flipped on my television at approximately ten-thirty Eastern time on Monday night, and I was pleasantly surprised to find Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) speaking on C-Span. Kucinich was talking about President Bush and his various crimes against the United States, and I soon became aware that the Representative was introducing Articles of Impeachment against President Bush (also known as House Resolution 1258).

Dennis Kucinich had begun his long trudge through the Articles two hours earlier, and he would continue his reading, to an almost empty House chamber, for nearly another three hours. There were 35 Articles in total, each one detailing a crime that Bush had committed that warranted impeachment. I congratulate Kucinich for having the courage and conviction to undertake this task.

A summary of each offense for each Article, as provided by the index of the Articles of Impeachment, reads as follows: Read more

What’s next for Hillary?

It is certain now that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic Candidate for the election for presidency. Even though Hillary Clinton has lost in her race for presidency, I think she can still be an influential figure in politics.

I hardly think that she should sign up for Vice President. Even though the idea of it is noble, we must consider how the ‘race’ went down. It was a constant stream of attacks from both sides. Not pretty at all. Grudges can and will be held and it will just turn out to be a mess.

However, I think she is the perfect member to serve in the Cabinet. I can see her serving as the Secretary of Health and Human Resources. That way, she can still strive for reforms for affordable health care and other human needs.

2005 Bush Inauguration Violated Protesters Rights

A judge ruled that the Bush administration violated protesters rights of assembly and speech by keeping the protesters far at bay reports the Washington Post:

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the National Park Service violated its own regulations by giving the inauguration’s private organizers preferential treatment and extraordinary control over access to Pennsylvania Avenue. The Presidential Inaugural Committee roped off most of the parade route and allowed only those with tickets inside.

Protesters were limited to small, specific areas, leading to a lawsuit by antiwar activists.

“The inauguration is not a private event,” Friedman said in his ruling. “The National Park Service, on behalf of the PIC, cannot reserve all of Pennsylvania Avenue for itself, leaving only the Ellipse and the northern part of John Marshall Park to protesters.”

This ruling could be overturned if it’s appealed. If it’s not protesters will have greater access to the presidents inauguration.

If you can remember Bush’s 2005 inauguration was more like the induction of communist hardliner. Fences kept everyone except for Bush donors and supporters from being near the event. Meanwhile snipers “guarded” the protesters, and tall metal fences blocked access to many parts of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Inside the event Bush spent tens of thousands on a bomb proof cage thrown. At least we have only 9 more months of Bush’s invasion of American freedoms and his wasteful spending.

Hillary’s original 3 A.M. Ad!

 

Above is the original cut of Hillary Clinton’s (in)famous 3 A.M. ringing phone ad. It was recently discovered on the cutting room floor, and you can only see it here at ThinkYouth.Org!

 

Ralph Nader is the man, contrary to popular belief.

Since Ralph Nader announced that he will once again run for President this morning, the blogosphere has been abuzz with negativity and outright hostility. Glade at Cobalt 6 is quite blunt in stating:

Ralph, you cost Al Gore Florida and the election. You sentenced us to 8 long years of lost rights, environmental damage, misguided war, and the list goes on and on. Ralph you can blast the “liberal intelligentsia” and say Gore should have won Tennessee or that the Supreme Court stopped the vote count. It all sounds hollow. I, for one, will never sign a petition to put Nader on the Virginia ballot.

I couldn’t help but think (respectfully, of course) that the wording of this statement is entirely ambiguous, as it acknowledges the two biggest factors in Al Gore’s 2000 defeat - political thievery and poor showings in states that could easily have gone blue - yet still paints Ralph Nader as the sole culprit. Another major factor not taken into account by Glade is the 250,000 Florida Democrats who jumped party lines to vote for George W. Bush.

I have never subscribed to the theory that Ralph Nader cost anybody anything in 2000. On Meet The Press, Mr. Nader mentioned a GMU professor (Solon Simmons) by name who argues that, by moving Mr. Gore to the left in 2000 with his aggressive, resolutely left-of-center rhetoric, Nader may have actually delivered more votes to the Democrats than he took away.

I have no trouble believing that such was the case, and I expect it to be the case again this year (to what extent, I could not guess). Indeed, that’s the kind of effect that should be welcome by Liberal commentators such as Glade, who has written on Cobalt 6 in support of things like impeachment and single-payer healthcare, but who, on factually unstable grounds, passionately castigates the only candidate for president who supports both impeachment and single-payer healthcare.

I suppose that I’m just too much of a populist to believe that any candidate for any office who raises legitimate issues and makes fair points is anything but an asset to a democratic nation at the end of the day. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I also don’t believe that a vote for such a candidate (regardless of their chances of winning) is a wasted one, as long as whomever is casting that vote does so on the grounds that they genuinely believe they are voting for the best candidate.

Lowell at Raising Kaine, with whom I usually agree, says:

In 2000, Nader helped give us George W. Bush as president. Will he help give us Bush Part Deux this year? Check out Meet the Press for the thrilling scintillating news this morning.

He expounds on his position in a subsequent comment:

[I think it’s pretty much an objective fact] that Ralph Nader’s candidacy contributed to Al Gore’s defeat in 2000. Now, whether it contributed 1%, 10%, or whatever, I don’t know, but still, I think we can all agree that it was a factor. By the way, I say this as someone who greatly admires the work Ralph Nader’s done in his life.

Lowell at least words his criticism of Nader’s candidacy in a way that acknowledges the existence of more than one variable in the negative outcome of the 2000 election. Of course, if you subscribe to the theories of scholars like Solon Simmons, then you don’t believe (like Lowell does) that Nader was a negative factor to even the slightest degree. In fact, you believe that he helped the Democratic party. If you do believe that Nader was a negative factor, I hope you’ll take a look at the big picture and also concede that his impact was so truly minimal when compared to some of the other factors in play, that blaming him for the misery of the last 8 years is complete nonsense.

A blogger who I greatly respect, Anonymous Is A Woman, commented earlier on Vivian Paige’s Nader-themed post:

I remember when Ralph Nader was a serious and extremely respected crusader who took on the auto issue on life saving issues. It’s sad that he is destined to end his legacy as a spoiler and the punch line of late night jokes.

I disagree with a couple of AIAW’s points. The first point is her characterization of Nader as a spoiler. I’ve already discussed in detail why I do not consider this to be an entirely accurate assessment of his past presidential bids. Another portion of AIAW’s comment that I didn’t agree with was her characterization of Ralph Nader as a crusader on life saving issues in the past tense. Criticisms of Nader almost always come attached to praise of his early days as an activist; the halcyon days of Nader, if you will. Days fondly remembered, but existing only in the past.

What seems to be ignored, however, is that fact that the days of Nader’s activism and crusading on behalf of average Americans are certainly not gone, nor has he, in my opinion, devolved into the electoral nuisance and laughingstock that he has been accused by many of being.

Most political scientists would probably agree that that the manner in which America was formed - and the manner in which it has evolved - make a two-party system, not only inevitable, but also necessary. Democracy in America depends upon compromise, and that compromise comes from having two major parties that, essentially, hug the middle of the road on every major issue. The Democrats stay slightly to the left of center, while Republicans stay slightly to the right. This creates enough difference between the two parties to allow for contrasts, but leaves a number of similarities between them sufficient to make compromise possible.

Independents and third parties like Ralph Nader have historically played a very important role in this dynamic. That role, of course, is changing the direction of the overall discussion; pressing major party candidates to talk about controversial “third rail” issues, and presenting ideas, some of which might create so much excitement and support that the two major parties have no choice but to react to them, either by adopting the idea as their own or taking a firm stance in opposition to it.

The fact is, I’m a Democrat; a proud one, and one of the duties that I believe comes with applying that label to myself is making sure that everyone’s voice is heard and everyone’s vote counted. From the party platform:

Voting is the foundation of democracy, a central act of civic engagement, and an expression of equal citizenship. Voting rights are important precisely because they are protective of all other rights. We will call for legislative action that will fully protect and enforce the fundamental Constitutional right of every American to vote — to ensure that the Constitution’s promise is fully realized and that, in disputed elections, every vote is counted fully and fairly.

How it is even remotely in step with the Democratic Party platform to tell 2,882,995 people that they wasted their vote, when the fact is that they overwhelmingly voted for him because they believed he was the best candidate? How is it Democratic to say that Ralph Nader - a candidate capable of receiving nearly 3 million American votes - shouldn’t have even run because he was destined to fail? Quite simply, I don’t believe that it is.

Executive Efficacy Expanded

Many, many people in these united states long for the day upon which George W. Bush will vacate the Presidency. During Bush’s terms in office, he has gotten us into a Quagmire in Iraq (and has engaged in a generally arrogant and foolish foreign policy), deftly removed many of our civil liberties from us, racked up record deficits, exploited the people’s fear of terrorism (which helped him to win elections, achieve his agenda, and rob us of our apparently undeserved liberties), and, most importantly, greatly increased the power and influence of the Executive Branch. The People long for Bush’s exit because they are tired of these repeated abuses and usurpations, and with the hope that, once Dubya leaves, we’ll be able to get a Democrat or at least a moderate in office and get America back onto the right track. This perspective is not in agreement with my own; in point of fact, I disagree with it very strongly. It seems to me that this belief is the product of the very ignorance which allowed Bush to expand his office and worsen the state of the country in the first place. Let me take just a few moments in order to explain my thoughts more clearly on this matter. Read more

McCain assembles a steering committee in my home state of VA; Only I seem to care.

From The Shad Plank:

Here’s the list of lawmakers who have signed on with John McCain’s Virginia campaign:

 

Co-Chairs
Former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore
Delegate Chris Saxman
U.S Senator John Warner

 

Steering Committee
U.S. Representative Tom Davis
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger
Delegate Dave Albo
Delegate Bill Carrico
Delegate Tom Gear
Delegate Phil Hamilton
Delegate Clarke Hogan
Senator Robert Hurt
Delegate Terry Kilgore
Delegate Joe May
Delegate Don Merricks
Senator Ryan McDougle
Delegate Dave Nutter
Delegate John O’Bannon
Delegate Glenn Oder
Delegate Robert Orrock
Delegate Ed Scott
Delegate Bob Tata

The McCain campaign also put out a press release, from which the following snippet was taken:

U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced its Virginia Leadership Team that will lead the growing grassroots organization on behalf of John McCain’s candidacy in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

 

“Thirty-five years ago, when I was Secretary of the Navy during the war in Vietnam, I came to know Commander John McCain well,” said Senator John Warner. “We established a bond of strong friendship and respect that has extended through our many years in the U.S. Senate.”

 

“John has a strong and unwavering commitment to the principles that he has so clearly put forward in this campaign. He is a proven leader. It has been a privilege for me to campaign for him and by his side in both South Carolina and Florida, and I look forward to working with this remarkable leadership team right here in Virginia as Senator McCain campaigns for the Presidency of the United States.”

 

John McCain thanked his Virginia leadership, saying, “I thank Senator Warner for his support and friendship. I am very proud of the team of supporters we have in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I am confident that with their leadership we are well on our way to victory on Super Tuesday.”

Let me just say as a brief aside that I have nothing but respect for Sen. McCain. He’s one of those people whose views are in opposition to my own on issue after issue, but whose views seem to have been reached honestly, and not merely for the benefit of a Liberal Massachusetts electorate political convenience. Furthermore, he has a likable demeanor and a dry sense of humor that once resulted in the near spewing of milk across my living room. With that said, a number of things are worth noting about this newly-minted steering committee:

1. Jerry Kilgore used to be Rudy Giuliani’s Virginia campaign chairman. Giuliani undoubtedly put some pressure on his key state level supporters to get behind McCain, which explains Kilgore’s new position as a co-chair for McCain’s Virginia effort.
2. Del. John O’Bannon has earned a seat on the McCain steering committee. Hopefully, this newfound responsibility will distract him from his unnecessary crusade against trippy plants.
3. Rep. Tom Davis is on the steering committee. Yes, that Rep. Tom Davis. I thought at first that maybe they were referring to Rep. Thomas Davis, a former Congressman. That Tom Davis, however, died in the late 1800’s and wasn’t a Virginia leader; he served in Rhode Island. Therefore, I can say with certainty that the Tom Davis on the McCain steering committee is Virginia’s own 11th District Representative. I can understand why Tom Davis would be politically friendly to the McCain campaign, and they to him, but I can’t understand why anyone would want to tap Tom Davis for his campaign steering skills.
4. Del. Terry Kilgore is listed as a committeeman. This was a smart move on the part of the McCain campaign. No campaign steering committee should be without a pair of twins.
5. It’s nice to see Secretary Eagleburger active in politics these days as one of McCain’s Virginia co-chairs. Let’s just hope this doesn’t mean that he’s putting his plans for an eponymous, politically-themed fast food chain on hold.

Lastly, and in all seriousness, I was genuinely confused by the quote from Sen. McCain at the end of the press release:

“I am very proud of the team of supporters we have in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I am confident that with their leadership we are well on our way to victory on Super Tuesday.”

Is Sen. McCain under the impression that Virginia’s primary is on Super Tuesday, or does he just think that his leadership in Virginia will somehow result in strong showings in the Super Tuesday states? I’m sure he believes the latter. I, however, think that McCain’s Virginia campaign leadership will have minimal impact on the results of the Virginia primary, let alone the primaries and caucuses of Super Tuesday states such as New York and Minnesota, where most of the names on the list above mean nothing to the average voter, just as the backing of one of the Democratic candidates by a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives would mean nothing to me.

WHAT is so different about Iran?

It was recently reported on October 29th that the White House has no objection to the Egyptian nuclear program. Here is one instance of this article.

The White House “said it had little information about Egypt’s plans to relaunch its nuclear power program but declared itself ‘generally supportive’ of civilian atomic power.” White House Spokewoman Dana Perino, speaking shortly after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced Egypt’s plans to build several nuclear power stations, “I don’t know a lot about it. In general, we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy. It’s clean burning. It provides electricity in a clean-burning and affordable way for citizens.”

After decades of Egypt’s nuclear program being frozen, the current Egyptian president is thawing it out, and he SAYS that it will be used for peaceful purposes (which is what the leader of Iran has said). Egypt is an unstable Middle Eastern country. Now, how is this Egyptian nuclear program different from Pakistan’s, also an unstable Middle Eastern country? Evidently, it is not: we are perfectly fine and well with Pakistan having a nuclear program, and, additionally, a nuclear WEAPON. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that Pakistan has built as many as 48 nuclear warheads, while its chief rival, India, is estimated to have built only 30-35. The United States also seems to have few problems with India’s nuclear program. So, we are okay with Egypt, Pakistan, and India, three unstable Middle Eastern or Near East Countries, having nuclear programs and either having or potentially having a nuclear weapon. The same is the case with Israel and countless other countries. No problem with them having nukes, or in starting up a nuclear program. No difference between those countries.

So, what is so different about Iran? It is also an unstable Middle Eastern Country, and it has been accused of developing a nuclear program. George W. Bush, and many 2008 presidential candidates (Democrats too!), have said that they would do everything to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “We must stop Iran!”, they resoundingly say. But what is so different about Iran when it is compared to other countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and India? What is different? And don’t say anything like “Oh, Iran, they are sponsors of terrorism!” because you know just as well as I that the hands of Egypt, Pakistan, India, and others are not clean when it comes to terrorism. Pakistan is where Osama bin Laden is currently supposed to be hiding, and, judging by the fact that he has access to a dialysis machine and abundant black hair dye, he is being well taken care of (and not hiding out in some cave somewhere).

I would like to note that, with Iran, we are just talking about the threat of a nuclear weapon; they are years away from acquiring one, if that is what they truly intend to do (they say, like Egypt, that they are using their nuclear program for peaceful purposes only). And if Iran does indeed develop nuclear weapons eventually, would their nukes even be a threat to us? The United States of America spends the most money on defense out of all of the countries in the world, and we have a HUGE nuclear arsenal. If Iran even hinted that it would hit the United States with a nuke, they could easily be wiped off the face of the map by our extraordinary amount of weapons. Or if a nuke given to a terrorist organization was traced back to Iran, the aforesaid result could also occur. It is just not in Iran’s interest to take any kind of action against the United States, nuclear or otherwise.

And if they do truly intend to get a nuclear weapon, it will probably be used simply as a deterrant, because currently, no doubt, Iran feels threatened by the many countries currently around it that have nuclear weapons and by the various threats from the United States against Iran. For use as a deterrant was the very reason that Pakistan developed nukes: it was afraid of its nuclear neighbor, India.

My conclusion is that these situations with Iran and its fellow unstable Middle Eastern Countries are not different, from the perspective of an unbiased observer. However, from the perspective of a deluded politician who has already lied us into one war and hopes to start another…it may be convieniently different (just like Iraq).

It is my opinion that Iran’s nuclear program is the least of our worries and that this whole pile of rubbish about Iran and its imminent threat to the United States is just a political ploy, by George W. Bush and others, in order to get us into another war with Iran. Or, of course, it could just be another distraction from all of the serious problems (which the politicians just hate HATE to talk about) that are afflicting our country today. Did you notice at the last democratic presidential debate (on Oct. 30, on MSNBC) that there was much less talk about ending the Iraq War and a great deal more talk about Iran?

Please, if you have an explanation for why Iran is different, then absolutely post it here. I am so curious about why on earth Iran is any different from Egypt, Pakistan, or any of the Middle Eastern Countries that have nuclear weapons already or who are threatening to get nuclear weapons in the future. Why is Iran singled out?

And why is it assumed that Egypt’s nuclear program is being used for peaceful purposes, while it is assumed that Iran’s nuclear program is being used for malevolent purposes?

Will Bush Be Like Hitler and Start another World War?

I’m sure you’ve all heard about Bush’s World War Three comments.  In case you haven’t Bush has said “If Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be World War III”

I personally don’t see what would create World War III if Iran gets nuclear weapons. India, Israel, Russia, France, and several other countries acquired nuclear weapons and no war, much less a world war followed.  It seems the only conflict we’d have with Iran was if Bush decided he needed to do a “search and destroy” of nuclear weapons in Iran. Much like his failed operation in Iraq.

Israel and the USA are probably the most dangerous nuclear powers, and have been the only nuclear powers to initiate war since 2001. The US invaded two countries, and Israel bombed civilians in the 2006 Lebanon War. Meanwhile Iran has engaged in zero armed conflict in the same time period.

Besides who is Bush as the mediator of Nuclear/WMDs/Bio Weapons? As commander in chief his military flew nuclear weapons over the United Sates. Even though the nuclear weapons where deactivated, an aircraft crash or other midair disaster could have caused an aerial dirty bomb to be dispersed. If the US can make such mistakes endangering it’s own citizens, how can Bush complain of the possibility of terrorists abilities to steel nuclear material from the Iranian military?

It’s time for a reality check. Any global conflict originating in the Mideast would be a result of Bush’s destabilization of the Mideast.

The first gay President of the United States

The first gay President of the United States

By James Mason

The chances are that when the clock strikes noon on January 20th, 2009, history will be made. Why? Because in the current election for President of the United States, there is a female candidate, a hispanic candidate, an African-American candidate, and a mormon candidate, each with a decent chance of winning the Presidency and each, if elected, would be a first for the United States. But the question is: how about a gay candidate? When will America have it’s first gay President?

 

James McGreevey: Governor of New Jersey, 2002-2004

Congressman Barney Frank: Massachusetts’ 4th District, 1981-present

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin: Wisconsin’s 2nd District, 1999-present

Homosexuality is generally accepted in the United States, and every single Democratic Presidential Candidate supports gay civil unions or gay marriage, ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military, banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and protecting gays against hate crimes by law. Also, a recent poll shows that 55% of Americans would vote for a gay person for President- showing that technically, if a gay candidate was right on the issues and the majority of the American people liked their ideas, they could win.

 Then why is it that there is still so much doubt about the electability of a gay candidate? Why hasn’t there ever been a serious gay contender for the Presidency? The only openly gay candidate for President was David McReynolds, who ran as the nominee of the Socialist Party in 1980 and 2000- gaining approximately 5,000 votes in each election. There are plenty of gay politicians who could mount a decent campaign for the Presidency- people like Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), who is the Chairman of the House Banking Committee, and considered one of the most articulate and intelligent members of Congress.

 Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin is another example, a Democrat from Wisconsin who spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention on the issue of healthcare. Another possibility is former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after coming out as gay and admitting he had an affair with an employee- but has managed to rebuild his reputation and political credibility since. Why haven’t any of these people stepped forward? Even if they didn’t have a real chance of winning, they would still be able to make an impact on the race and on future races as well.

 They might be able to make the idea of a gay President of the United States more realistic, and show the American people that there is no such thing as a “gay agenda”, that gays are concerned about the same issues that straight people are, issues like the Iraq War, healthcare, the minimum wage, and global warming. In 1984 and 1988, Rev. Jesse Jackson was a candidate for President. At the time, people said that he was the first real Black candidate for the White House.

 Now, in 2007, Senator Barack Obama has a real chance of winning, and it’s because 23 years ago, Jackson began building the road towards a Black President. Without Jackson, it’s likely that Obama would have no chance today. Same with Hillary Clinton; in 1972, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm became the first woman who mounted a serious mainstream candidacy for the Presidency. In 2000, Elizabeth Dole made a run for the Presidency, and while Dole’s candidacy may have been shortlived, it still helped make the idea of a female President more realistic for the American people. And in 2004, former Senator Carol Mosley Braun made a run for President too.

 Without Chisholm, Dole and Braun, Hillary Clinton would probably not have a chance of becoming President. It’s all about building towards the White House, and while we may not have a President McGreevey, President Baldwin or President Frank come 2009, their candidacies would build the blocks towards a gay Commander-in-Chief at some point in the future. Some would probably say that their candidacies would be a waste because they’d have no chance of winning, but unlike some people who have already announced their candidacies even though they have no chance, a gay candidate would be serving a purpose.

 Somewhere in America, there’s a teenager dreaming of one day becoming President of the United States. However, they’re not too sure if it’s worth trying because it might not be possible, simply because they’re gay, lesbian or bisexual. Back in the 1940’s, there were Black teenagers thinking the same thing, and female teens might have felt the same way, maybe until even the 1970’s or 80’s. But now, they have people from their community standing up for them by running for the highest office in the land, but what do gay people have? Nothing.

 It’s time for that to change. Governor McGreevey, Congressman Frank, Congresswoman Baldwin, stand up and make history. Be the person who made the difference, who changed America forever and who made the possibility of breaking the glass ceiling, of a gay person becoming President of the United States, a little more true. Millions of Americans are asking for your help and leadership- and now it’s time for you to answer their call.

Tony Snow Resigns.

~White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, who fought for an embattled president while undergoing treatment for cancer, is leaving Sept. 14 and will be replaced by his deputy, Dana Perino. ~ The Politico.

The Tony Snow era is over. All the covering up and the flipping and flopping. This Dana Perino will hopefully speak for herself representing the administration , not a Bush puppet. Who knows he is probably pissed Chris Wallace took over his “old” job.

Read more

Why Hillary Won’t Be Another Bill

I never understood why so many people support Hillary Clinton. But Edwards explained it, by saying it was a nostalgia left from Bill Clinton. I look back on the Clinton era with fondness, I remember how every business had a banner bigger than the business next to it declaring “Now hiring.” I remember it as largely a time of peace.

But we’re living in a different world now. Global terrorism has become a large issue, in part because of legislation Hillary voted for. When Clinton entered office we had just won a war, and most of the world viewed us a hero for freeing Kuwait. Of course the economy was bad due to twelve years of Republican economics, but at least the recession was an American issue. Now because Asia owns so many of our dollars, and our jobs, entry level and blue collar jobs will be harder to create.

And most of all Bill was a uniter. The Republicans did hate him - but it was more hatred because they disagreed with his policies - not because he ran roughshod over the American people like Bush. But I believe Hillary will ram laws through in much the same way as Bush - ignoring the will of the congress, and even more of the American people.

Maybe I’m wrong about all of this, and Bill will be the one running the White House. And if he is that will be a bad trend for America. Instead of each president having eight years in office, they’ll just run their wives (I guess Giuliani would be in office forever) and continue their same policies.

Bush Declares War on Iran, Sort Of

Knowing the congress would not approve of an invasion of Iran, Bush has labeled a segment of the Iranian army as terrorists. This means that anyone who aids the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is aiding a terrorist which is a crime. It also makes it easier for Bush to go after them military.

Of course the DoD (which is becoming more like a campaign machine everyday) has claimed the Revolutionary Guard is supplying weapons and men to the Shia’s Mahida army in Iraq. I suppose we’re all supposed believe that just like we did about those WMDs. And when I say the DoD is like a campaign machine, it seems half of what it does is to improve the Bush administrations image. For example one of my family members works for the NGA, which is part of the DoD. According to that person, they have televisions in every room that plays a steady stream of Bush’s speeches. But I’ll get off that rabbit trail into 1984.
Read more

Next Page »