Protesting illegal immigration laws

Watching the news the past couple of days I witnessed lots of Latin people protesting the proposed new federal legislation that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. Massive protests have been taking place in Wisconsin, Arizona and California just to mention a few. Thousands upon thousands have taken to the streets, sidewalks and courthouse squares in protest. It is amazing. It is impressive. And it reminds me of America done past.

These Latin immigrants are marching, protesting and standing up for "their" America.
You probably remember it don't you? You know the land of the free and the home of the brave.
A country full of hope instead of fear. A country where the citizenry are engaged. Wait a second that's not us that's them.

My position on illegal immigration is firm. I am against illegal immigration. But I am for less bureaucracy concerning legal immigration. It should not be so cumbersome to become a legal immigrant. Our national security can be put at risk with illegal immigration. And our working class jobs are put at risk by employers who hire cheaper waged illegal immigrants like you know, Bush's friends corporate America does. Bush is the one pushing for a guest worker program. He says illegal immigrants will do the jobs that Americans won't do. Hogwash! Pay American wages and American workers will do American jobs. I would not posit that Latinos are a big threat to our national security. But with unfettered illegal immigration it is possible that fundamentalist Islamic jihadist may enter to harm us.

The previous paragraph touches on the two things that Americans actually seem to be engaged about. Illegal immigration and national security. Although many stupid Americans don't follow the national security issue through far enough to realize that the Democrats have offered 6 pieces of legislation to strengthen port security since 2001 and the republican controlled congress keeps shooting them down. Stupid Americans don't realize that the Democrats have called for guarding our nuclear power plants, protecting our borders, checking all airline cargo, checking cargo that enters our ports, refuse to sell our ports to terrorists nations like Bush tried etc. to keep us safe. The republican controlled congress with all of its power and chairmanship of all committees won't even let the Democrats bring these proposals to vote. The republicans are great about claiming the Democrats don't have a plan. The Democrats have lots of ideas and a solid plan. You just don't here about it because the republicans won't let you hear them. And the media is just a mouth piece for the republican party these days. Enough on that for now I digress.

Back to the protesting of the Latinos here in many major U.S. cities that has been and still is taking place over the past couple of days. What a novel idea it seems to me to exercise free speech and the right to assemble. What next? Will they attempt to exercise a right to petition our government? The next thing you know they will be expecting the Bill of Rights to protect them from warrantless wiretaps and illegal searches and seizures. Where in the hay do they think they are anyways, Old America? I can just see what the next few days and months may hold. Illegal immigrants acting like Americans standing up for their rights, well Americans the way they used to act. You know when they actually cared about free speech and the right to assemble. Americans used to be proud to live in a country with free speech, the right to assemble, the right to petition government where they could be free from illegal wiretaps and illegal searches and seizures. I thought that is what was meant by "proud to be an American." I didn't realize that it meant proud that we could invade sovereign nations that posed no threat to us, had no links to 911 or weapons of mass destruction and murder innocent babies, children and women.

We American citizens have been apathetic and have done nothing while our civil liberties have been stripped of us. We allowed a president and his people to Lie us into an illegal war so we could kill and maim thousands upon thousands of innocent babies, children and women and we don't even protest. Instead we re elected the bastard and his republican congress. We Americans don't care about free speech, the right to assemble, the right to petition our government or the fact that we are being illegally wiretapped and suffering illegal searches and seizures. Free speech zones replaced free speech and Americans don't protest. Our right to peacefully assemble has been narrowed down to "zones away from the government official and out of the public's eye" and Americans don't protest. Bush has been breaking the law with his warrantless wiretaps and illegal searches and seizures and Americans don't protest. The Bush administration left thousand upon thousands of Americans stranded on roof tops in New Orleans without water or food for five days and left to die and Americans did not protest. The Bush administration outed a CIA covert op for political gain and absolutely jeopardized national security and Americans did not protest.

Why in the world do you Americans care about the illegal immigration of the Latinos? Are you afraid that they may have the moxy, the humphspa to stand up for our Constitution. Are you afraid that they might resurrect the Bill of Rights? Are you afraid that they might show us like they are showing us now that Americans have a right to question their government. Are you afraid that they will insist upon checks and balances in our government like our forefathers intended and allowed for? Are you afraid that these illegal Latino immigrants just might be better Americans than you? Are you afraid that their actions prove that they are better custodians of our democracy than you?

Maybe we need these illegal Latino immigrants to save us from ourselves and our apathy.
Maybe, just maybe, we should start fighting for our democracy before it is taken from us not by the illegal Latino immigrants but by the right wing republican fascist that are in complete control now.

Open letter to Ms. Scofield

I recently read an article in the “Scout” Brown County Democrat Wednesday March 15, 2006 edition entitled “Protecting our children versus free speech rights.” The article’s title in and of itself implies that we can not do or have both. This is hogwash. Immediately the writer of the article claims that free speech allows pornography which as she claims “it’s not suitable or even good for anyone.” She writes “self-appointed guardians of free speech who block any attempts to protect our children.” Apparently she is the self appointed Constitution interpreter. I’ve got news for her. You can have free speech and protect your children from pornography. It is simple. Don’t buy any pornography. Don’t watch pornography with your children. Throw out your television if you can’t keep yourself or your children from watching pornography. Pornography does not offend me because I don’t watch or read it. I find Fox News to be right wing propaganda as offensive as pornography therefore I don’t watch it either. They have no value to me but I am not about to think I have any right to tell others how to live there lives. I am not God and neither is she. Laws protect us from most of the bad in society. I am tired of people like her claiming they want smaller government and then expect our government to raise their children. Good parenting starts and ends with good parents.

She goes on to say “liberals hate authoritarianism except, apparently, when they are at the helm.” According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Liberal: a. one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways.
She makes liberal sound like a four letter word. Seems pretty good to me by definition.
Authoritarian: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.
Wow! Now that seems bad by definition. But there you have it. She is exposed. Her own words prove that she believes that our children should not be open minded free thinkers. Her own words prove that she supports authoritarianism. She supports a concentration of power in a leader or an elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the people. Has she forgotten that we are supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people? The mere fact that our government was set up with three separate branches is proof that our forefathers were trying to protect us against authoritarian rule. Shame on her. She used to be a teacher? I guess hate and intolerance can be taught long after the classroom days are over.

She also pontificates “how valid is the argument that the free speech clause in the Constitution protects such things as violence, sleazy art, flag burning and obscenity, anyway?” As for the violence, sleazy art, and obscenity, once again maybe she should not participate in them. I don’t. I don’t find any of them in my world. I don’t look for them and I don’t support them. Maybe she is an example of “she who screams the loudest” being the guilty party? Furthermore, I recently noticed a television commercial which offended me. I wrote about it on my blog. Two pretty young ladies were sitting on opposite sides of a young man making suggestive gestures and motions toward him. I changed the channel and got to thinking. Hollywood did not make this commercial. The commercial was made by corporate America not liberals. Corporate America and the wealthiest people in our society have benefited the most from this Bush administration and the republican controlled congress. So there you have it. The people that this writer votes for and supports is actually the people who are producing this “pornography” that she apparently can’t seem to do without. “Liberals” do not produce the “pornography” on television, corporate America does. As far as flag burning is concerned, this one particularly amazes me. People like her believe that the flag is sacred because it stands for our freedom. I agree it does. It stands for our freedom as long as people are not free to express there disapproval of our government. It stands for freedom as long as we accept “free speech zones” in place of free speech. It stands for freedom as long as we allow our President and his party to illegally wiretap innocent American citizens like you and me and claim it is only terrorists they are spying on. The lie. It stands for freedom as long as you have no problem with illegal searches and seizures of businesses and residences. Many of our fellow men and women have died defending these freedoms that she and so many others today are willing to surrender to an “authoritarian” ruler who does not have constitutional responsibility to the people. It is us “liberals” who are doing everything within our power to simply stand up for our Constitution and Bill of Rights before they become obsolete. Our democracy is worth fighting for. It is dangerous to be apathetic but even more dangerous to be complicit in the demise of our democracy.

What civil liberties will Joann Scofield posit that we surrender next? Which of the Bill of Rights does she and her fellow hate filled, intolerant, narrow minded fundamentalists think we should actually be allowed to have? Let’s see. Are not the terrorists fundamentalists? How do we separate the two types of religious fundamentalists? Which religious fundamentalists are more harmful to society? God is love. God is not hate and intolerance. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said “when I was hungry you fed me, when I needed shelter you took me in, when I need clothes you clothed me, when you did it to the least amongst you, you did it for me.” This is very important because people like Ms. Scofield, who continue to vote for this murderous, anti Christian but call themselves Christian, regime that supports big business corporate America over the working class poor and middle class are a brainwashed, party done left them behind, threat to our democracy. This is smaller government? This is fiscal responsibility? This is compassionate conservative? Get a clue people before it is too late!

Ms. Scofield closes her ranting about “self interests.” This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Her self interests and closed mindedness she wants to force on everyone else and cast judgment when others do it. If she is so interested in “self interest” why is she so eager to surrender the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? The Bible says in Revelation that the false church and the state will marry. She better make certain that hers is the “false church” or the very same authoritarian government that she is helping to install its fascism could eradicate her along with the rest of us non chosen disposable proletariat.

Final word to Ms. Scofield. Put down the pornographic magazine or book. Turn off the pornographic vhs tape or dvd. Turn off that sleazy television show you can’t help yourself but to watch. And pick up some books or magazines with history, art, education and culture in mind and read them instead. Open your mind just enough to realize that this country was not founded for you and you alone. America belongs to all of us American citizens. Realize that there are other “types” of people in our world and that is o.k. Realize that “liberals” like me don’t want protect or interfere with your right to view or not to view pornography. I/we want to make sure that although you do not place any value on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that we will continue to fight for you to have them anyway. I /we have forgiven you for your intolerance and hate and I/we love you as Jesus loves you. May God bless you and yours.

Sandra Day O'Connor warns of fascism

Why have we not heard more about former Supreme Court Justice (Republican) Sandra Day O'Connor's March 9, 2006 speech at Georgetown University? Many of you may have not heard anything about the speech at all.

"She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans." Legal Affairs, "O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts", by Nina Totenberg March 10, 2006.

In paraphrasing she said that the republican controlled congress and the Bush administration by their proposals and appointments to the bench are leading us on a course to fascism. She said to avoid these endings we must stop its beginnings.

Sandra Day O'Connor is no liberal. She is no Michael Moore. She is no Randi Rhoads. She is not even a Democrat. Sandra Day O'Connor is a republican appointed to the United States Supreme Court by republican Reaganld Regan. She was a member of the gang of five that handed the Presidency to George W. Bush in 2000. From the tone of her speech and its message she seems to be having regrets. Her warning must be heard. When your mother tells you that your poem is good that is one thing. But when your English professor tells you that your poem is good that is another thing. Sandra Day O'Connor is your English professor in this scenario.

The message about the fact that we are heading down a path to fascism should be alarming and should scare us to death. Bush says that the terrorists hate us for our freedom but he and his party are trying everything they can to take our freedoms away. If you don't think our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are under attack you are crazy.

However, the point here is not to address the issue concerning losing our democracy to fascism (see previous blog neoconFascism trilogy), but to give a reason why we have not heard more about Sandra Day O'Connor's March 9, 2006 speech at Georgetown University. In reality the two are actually a cause and effect relationship. The media largely owned by big corporations directly controls what is reported. News stories are reported and not reported based on the effect they would or could have on the right wing, neoconFascism agenda which in turn could negatively effect the financial bottom line of the corporate owned media.

It would be incredulously damaging to the neoconFascism agenda if American citizens were privy to O'Connor's speech. It would only be damaging if the American citizens actually know what fascism is and if they care about their democracy. Knowing that O'Connor believes that the republican controlled congress and the Bush administration are taking steps to destroy our democracy should make even the republican voters protest against losing it.

Lies about smaller government

It used to be said that conservatives stand for smaller government. Hogwash....
Our government under Bush and the republican controlled congress is bigger than it has ever been in history.
The additions of the Department of Homeland (insecurity) Security and the Department of Faith (only Christians need apply) Based Initiatives are two examples of how much larger our government has become.

In an attempt to make our military less "government" Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have tried to privatize it. There are actually mercenaries hired as private contractors in Iraq. These mercenaries do not take any kind of oath concerning code of conduct. So basically we have non military American citizens hired by our government over in Iraq torturing and killing Iraqis. Our government opted for the mercenaries instead of sending the proper number of real U.S. troops which could have insured that the job got done right. Of course for political reasons Bush didn't want too many U.S. troops deployed. It might have been more difficult for him to have gotten re elected. And that assumes he was actually "elected" in2000 and also assumes that if the voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004 had not happened he still would have won Ohio.

There is a second issue, as I see it, about not sending enough troops to get the job done right. That is that Bush and Cheney could let their close friends at Haliburton make even more profit off this war by allowing them to hire the mercenaries. More money in friends pockets and less political risk to Bush/Cheney. Of course if they could completely privatize our military it would be to them as if they had reduced the size of government.

If they were able to reduce the size of government through their desired means we would suffer. Getting rid of regulatory agencies like the EPA, FDA and the SEC just to mention three and expecting clean air, safe food and ethical CEO's is like outlawing abortion and expecting a zero abortion rate or; cutting funding for education and expecting more middle and lower class students to attend college or; like invading a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, had no weapons of mass destruction, had no ties to 911 and expecting that there would be no future negative repercussions.....Hogwash!

Left wandering what is right

A couple of months ago while in New Orleans for Christmas I was inspired to write a poem addressing the issue of teen suicide as it relates to sexual orientation. That it happens at all is heartbreaking.

My poem follows:

How many more teenagers have to die
In hopes that they can fabricate your lie
How much more suicide must there be
Before society says o.k. let’s set them free

Will you stop teaching intolerance and hate
Or will death continue to be their fate

You judge and pull from the bible what works for you
But have you really studied the bible all the way through
You call yourself Christian but that can not be
Your hate and judging will never let that be

He who is without sin cast the first stone
You stand there with your rock all alone
My how wonderful it must be
For perfect like Jesus are ye

But it’s a choice, it’s a choice you proclaim
Give me a minute I’ll prove to you that’s lame

When did you get to make your choice
Do you remember the day
Who gave you the choice and what was their vocation
Did it come in grade school while on summer vacation
Was it your preacher, your Sunday school teacher
Your doctor, your mother, dad, sister or brother
Was it your lawyer or rabbi, captain Kirk or the jedi
Was it old saint nick, aunt Mary or uncle Rick
Could it have been peter pan or dumbo
Or did it come to you as you ate a bowl of gumbo
Or did your choice come to you in a dream
As a strawberry sundae
Topped with whipped cream
Or was your choice in your inbox and at first you thought it was spam
Or was it over the Easter Sunday ham
How difficult of a choice was it for you
Did it take long hours, many days of pain and suffering
Did you contemplate suicide over and over again
That must not have been easy because death by your own hand meant going to hell
OH Well?
How difficult of a decision was it for you
Was it based on what others would think you should do
I’m really curious to know
Just how did your whole choice process go
When did you have to make your choice
Do you remember the day
You chose to be straight instead of gay?

Food for thought 3-10-06

If life actually begins at conception which is what the right wing conservatives believe, why can't a pregnant woman or her husband get life insurance on the fetus? Why can't the pregnant woman or her husband claim the fetus as an exemption or dependent on their taxes? If children under the age of 8 years old and under 40 pounds must be in a child restraint seat in the back of the vehicle then why is an exception made for the unborn fetus? I mean by their definition life has already begun at conception.

Should pregnant woman who smoke, eat unhealthy food or engage in unsafe behavior of any kind be charged with attempted murder or attempted manslaughter? Using their definition life begins at conception.

I wish I had the time and the money to research how many churches here in America have adoption programs. And what percentage of each church's congregation have adopted children.

And then there is this whole concept of love the fetis but hate the child thing that is so apparent in this Bush administration and republican controlled congress. Free and reduced hot lunches have been cut as has education funding and after school program funding.

Another thing...

We constantly hear about the movie industry and Hollywood being immoral. Tonight while watching some of the Big Ten Men's Basketball Tournament I saw a commercial about some chewing gum. In the commercial there are two attractive sexy young women sitting on opposite sides of a young man. The commercial is provocative. I got to thinking. The party responsible for this immoral suggestion (trying to think like a conservative here, stick with me) of two women with one man at the same time is the chewing gum company. You know, corporate America. And who/what has benefited most from this republican President and republican controlled congress? Corporate America and the wealthy have benefited most. So it seems apparent to me, at least in the chewing gum commercial, that right wing conservatives put these republican demi gods into power to protect themselves from moral decay and low and behold look who is promoting immoral behavior. It is non other than the benefactors of the right wing agenda, corporate America. Seriously, many commercials promote sex to sell their product. Corporate America is cashing in big by promoting immoral behavior. That is if we use the conservatives definition of immoral.

Bush and the republican controlled congress have sold our morality to the highest bidder. Go figure. Maybe Hollywood should make a movie about it.

D.P.W. deal dead? Wait and see.

Is the Dubai Ports World deal really dead? Some Democratic members of the Senate like Chuck Schumer of New York are skeptical and so am I. The latest rumor which will likely not be followed closely by our right wing media is that D.P.W. (owned by the United Arab Emirates) will transfer fully the operations of the ports to a soley U.S. owned company. Rumor has it that KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root) a construction and engineering company of none other than Haliburton is the company being chosen. The problem with this possible deal is KBR's link to the U.A.E. through other interests. Haliburton is still reaping the benefits of their No Bid Contract with our federal government in Iraq. Haliburton got no bid contracts to help with Katrina recovery instead of hiring local workers to rebuild. I'm sure you are aware of how little "recovery" has actually been accomplished now more than six months after Katrina.

Haliburton is clearly war profiteering. Some estimates claim that Haliburton has over charged the U.S. people in excess of $1.7 billion. It is reported by Pratap Chatterjee, managing director of CorpWatch.org, "Haliburton has a subsidiary called Service Employees International. If you work for Haliburton of Houston, your contract is signed with a company in the Cayman Islands and it's a tax dodge." Haliburton, Vice President Cheney former CEO, is corrupt and bilking the American people according to reports like the one leveled by CorpWatch.org. It would be easy yet time consuming to do an extensive blog just on Haliburton as it relates to cronyism and corruption. Cronyism and corruption is now synonymous with the republican party. The republican controlled congress will not investigate or do any type of oversight of Haliburton.

For now we will just have to wait and see what comes of this "dead Ports deal." I think what will eventually happen is that D.P.W. will not actually totally divest itself from the company that ends up in charge of port operations. But since the deal is being labeled dead the republican controlled congress will try to use this "dead Ports deal" as a false example of how they stood up to their own republican President. My guess is that going through the back door the U.A.E. will
still end up in complete control of our Ports. Access to visas into the United States which could possibly lead to terrorists getting into our country is the big issue here. Terrorists could bring a nuclear weapon into the country and use it on us. After all, we can't repeat it enough, 2 of the 911 hijackers were from the U.A.E. Nearly all if not all of the money used to fund 911 came through the banks of the U.A.E. The U.A.E. was one of only three nations to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. In 1999 Clinton had a chance to take out Osama bin laden but the CIA advised against the bombing because half of the U.A.E. royal family was visiting him at that time.

What really irks me is that today when speaking amongst newspaper reporters Bush said he worries about how this "dead Ports deal" will make us look to the Arab world. How convenient is this? Bush didn't care what the Arab world thought about the U.S. envading a sovereign Arab nation who posed no immediate threat to us, had no links to 911, had no weapons of mass destruction and killed hundreds of thousand innocent babies, children and women. Furthermore, Bush attacked John Kerry for "believing we should make decisions that pass the Worlds test." It is obvious that he don't care that 75% of the American people disapprove of the D.P.W. deal. Then again, most dictators don't care what their "proletariat" think or want. This deal stinks worse than McKay Bay in Tampa where we used to catch jelly fish when we were kids. Furthermore, for Bush to even contemplate the notion of selling our Ports to a Terrorist Nation like the U.A.E. seems incredulous like pre 911 thinking.

Democrats have proposed six separate pieces of legislation since 2002 to fund port security. The republican controlled congress have shot them down every time. Republican Rick Santorum voted against it six times. He also voted against a comprehensive bill that would have had real lobbyist reform on March 7, 2006 vote #35. Republicans Kyle (AZ) , Chaffe (RI), Tallen (MO), George Allen (VA) and Norm Coleman (MN) voted against the same six pieces of legislation proposed since 2002 by the Democrats 6, 5, 5, 4 and 5 times respectively.
Democrats keep trying to secure our ports and make our Nation more secure. The republicans keep getting in the way. Which party is strong on national security?

Politics make strange bed fellows

A friend sent me an article that appeared recently in The Lima News. "What's behind the pastor's messages?" by Leonard Pitts Jr. who writes for The Miami Herald. My friend has spent years working in local government doing his civic duty. In the article Pitts makes his claim that 1: Fred Phelps is actually gay. Phelps is GodHatesFags.com and is currently traveling to military funerals with his followers celebrating the death of fallen soldiers by yelling and holding signs that say things like "Our soldiers are dying in war because the United States supports gays!"
2: As despicable as his behavior is, Phelps has the right under our constitution to free speech and we should be careful not to restrict Phelps or anyone's rights under our constitution.

It kind of reminds me of the saying "politics make strange bed fellows." I strongly believe that Fred Phelps is a sore on the ass of mankind. His views are egregious and abhorring. He is out of touch with the God that he professes to worship.
But.....
I agree that he should have the right to free speech. Our democracy is weakened by States like Wisconsin that recently enacted legislation limiting free speech. I understand Wisconsin's desire to protect the right to grieve for families of fallen soldiers. However, if more and more restrictions are placed on the Bill of Rights, before we know it, we will not have any rights remaining. Our Federal government, thanks to George Bush, has already paved the way to the destruction of our civil liberties. After all, it was George Bush who created "free speech zones" to replace "free speech."
George Bush has and still is illegally wiretapping innocent American citizens.

In January I purchased a copy of our constitution. I wanted to have my own personal copy before it becomes completely obsolete. In a recent poll only 1 in 20 people surveyed could list all five rights guaranteed in Article One of the Bill of Rights (1.freedom of religion, 2.freedom of speech, 3.freedom of press, 4.freedom to assemble, 5.freedom to petition the government).
However in the same survey 5 in 20 people could list all five members of television's Simpson family (Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and I forget the baby girl's name). I take from this survey that the American people don't really care about their guaranteed freedoms. It could just be that they take them for granted.

When we hear or see stories of abhorrent behavior such as the behavior of Fred Phelps at military funerals we must recognize Phelps' constitutional right of free speech. When we become aware that our government is illegally spying on us we must never claim "as long as you are not doing anything wrong, why should it matter?" The right of privacy guaranteed in Article 4 of the Bill of Rights is a guarantee for all of us American citizens especially when we "are not doing anything wrong!"

Wake up to what is happening around you before it is too late.

Taken Directly from Democrats.org

The following Article was posted today on Democrats.org
This is the first piece on my blog that isn't my original work; opinion or listing of facts as I know them. The information contained herein is clear documentation of how the Democrats do have a strong plan for National Security but the republicans won't let them make us safe. The next time you hear some neocon falsely claim that the Democrats don't stand for anything, refer them to this article/document.

The article covers things from Bush lying about there being no security concerns from any agency/group prior to the Port deal with the U.A.E. which should have started a 45 day review, to actual legislation the Democrats introduced in Congress only to have the republicans shoot them down like the 911 hijackers planes would have been if we actually had a President that cared about National Security.

The article from Democrats.org follows and is in green text. I have added some comments which will be in black text.

As more details emerge about President Bush's bungling of a deal to allow a foreign government-owned company to run some of our nation's largest seaports, his failure to protect our homeland becomes clearer. This deal also turns the spotlight on the Republican Congress's repeated moves to block funds needed for vital homeland security projects since 9/11, including Democratic efforts to close gaps in port security.

According to an internal report released yesterday, the Coast Guard "warned before Dubai Ports World was given clearance to take over five US port terminals that 'intelligence gaps' about the company made it impossible to assess whether the deal posed any threats to national security." [Financial Times, 2/28/06] The report contradicts statements by the Bush Administration officials that no concerns were raised about the deal prior to its approval by federal officials.

Monday February 27, 2006 when this story of Bush selling our Ports to a Terrorist Nation and before he knew of these potential intelligence gaps which could put our National Security at risk, Bush arrogantly stated that he would Veto any attempt by Congress to nix the deal.

Also, four years after 9/11, "the maritime industry is still waiting for the federal government to deliver on its promise of an identity card for port workers." The program is two years behind schedule and won't be ready until Spring 2007 – or later. [Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/28/06]
"The failure of the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration to secure our homeland becomes clearer every day," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Luis Miranda. "With their inability to secure our ports and their repeated broken promises four years after 9/11, the American people know that the Republican Congress and President Bush are not taking America's security seriously."

Speaking of the Maritime....follow the money like sharks follow the fishes.
Recently President Bush appointed David Sandborne as Head of U.S. Maritime. David Sandborne was a Chief Officer for Dubai Ports World in charge of overseas U.S. Port Operations.
Dubai Ports World is owned by the United Arab Emirates. The United Arab Emirates was home to 2 of the 911 hijackers, laundered all of the money used to fund the 911 attacks, refused to help the United States government shortly after 911 and through their ports allowed the illegal shipment of nuclear proliferations to Libya, North Korea and Iran. The Emirs and their families were at a "gathering/cookout" with Osama bin laden on a day that we planned to bomb/take out Osama bin laden. Because of the political repercussions (from a nation of only 5 million) from killing half the royal families of the Emirs, Bush opted not to bomb. I posit that the "political repercussions" were more likely financial repercussions. After all, the Port deal is worth $6 billion.

Republicans In the House Vote Against Securing America's Ports
Republicans Killed A Vote On An Amendment That Would Have Added $250 Million For Port Security Grants. Republicans killed the vote on the Obey, D-Wis., amendment that would add $2.5 billion for homeland security, including $800 million for first responder grants, $250 million for port security grants, and $150 million for research to develop capabilities against chemical weapons. [HR 1559, Vote #104, 4/3/03] NOTE: Every Republican present voted to kill this amendment.

The 911 Commission found that with better communications from first responders many lives would have been saved.
Our Ports are very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Less than 5% of all cargo is inspected.
Chemical Weapons is what they said Sadam was about to use against us. You know the imminent threat Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice lied about. Chemical Weapons and Nuclear Weapons brought through our ports is a likely scenario for terrorists. Yet as you can see from the above actions taken by the republicans to squash the Democrats plan to secure the ports, that threat is more likely to happen.
Cranes remove the cargo from the freightliners. Funds requested by the Democrats for R&D capabilities against chemical weapons could have been used to create detection devices that could be attached to the cranes so that each cargo container would be inspected.

Republicans Voted Against $400 million Increase in Port Security. In 2005, Republicans voted against an alternative Homeland Security Authorization proposal that would commit $41 billion to securing the nation from terrorist threats - $6.9 billion more than the President's budget. The proposal called for an additional $400 million in funding for port security, including $13 million to double the number of new overseas port inspectors provided for in the President's budget. The proposal addressed the holes in securing the nation's ports by requiring DHS to develop container security standards, integrate container security pilot projects, and examine ways to integrate container inspection equipment and data. [HR 1817, Roll Call #187, 5/18/05]

Republicans In The Senate Vote Against Securing America's Ports
Republicans Voted Against Restoring Homeland Security Funding For Ports. In 2005, Washington Republicans voted against an amendment to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.[ S.Amdt. 220 to S.Con.Res. 18]

Republicans Voted Against $150 Million In Additional Funding For Port Security. In September 2004, Republicans voted against a bill which would appropriate an additional $150,000,000 for port security research and development grants. [S.Amdt. 3580 to H.R. 4567]


Bush and the republicans were in control on 911.
Bush and the republicans were in control before, during and since Katrina.
We are still not protected.
We are still not safe.
Which party is strong on National Security?
I think it is obvious.
Democrats are stronger on National Security.
It is time for new leadership.

Military Poll released Monday

The most disheartening thing that I have heard in the past 5 years likely happened Monday.
Let there be no mistake that I have been very passionate about the illegal war, the unnecessary loss of life and mistreatment concerning Katrina, the illegal wiretaps and so on but.....

90% of Soldiers recently polled said that they are fighting in Iraq "in retaliation for Saddam Hussein's role in 911."

This is so Orwellian it is sadder than sad, scarier than scary. Bush and his clan have our heroes, our soldiers brainwashed into thinking Saddam actually had some involvement with 911.
Bush has even publicly admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. But of course since he uses Saddam and Osama in nearly every sentence together it is no surprise that he has forced the military to brainwash our soldiers.

Oil and water.....Saddam and Osama.....mixing the two just does not work.
To think that Saddam a non secular dictator and Osama a secular fundamentalist fanatic would cohort is asinine.....that would be like
A Black Man becoming Leader of the KKK
A Female Prostitute becoming the Next Pope
A Donkey that actually Flies....you get the idea,
It ain't gonna happen!

If this pathetic Bush and republican administration is going to continue to put our troops lives at risk, the least they could do is give them the respect of the truth.

If you have any loved ones, friends etc. serving in Iraq please let them know that the 911 Commission and Bush himself have determined publicly that Saddam had no link to 911.

Bush caught in another Lie

The AP released a video today showing a pre Katrina conference on August 28, 2005 with George W. Bush in attendance. The video clearly shows that Bush was fully aware that the levees would likely fail causing water to flood, devastate and kill many in New Orleans. Bush has repeatedly stated since Katrina that there was no way he could have known or that anyone could have known the levees could break. LIAR!

The video is PROOF!

This lie exposes him just like the other lies, especially the other huge lie that has directly caused hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq both American and Iraqi. At least 1,400 American citizens dead from Katrina and still many missing. George went on vacation shortly after learning first hand from the National Weather Center that Katrina was going to hit New Orleans hard and likely cause lots of death.

I thought he was our Commander in Chief. He uses that to spy on us innocent American citizens without a warrant. I know he is really only Commander in Chief of the Military but he doesn't know that. So should he not have been hunkered down somewhere in the White House, there for the ready, leading up to, and the several days after Katrina hit?

He was on vacation while American citizens just like you and me were on rooftops not one, not two, not three but four and five days without water or food. Compassionate conservative my ass! Bush does not care about any one who is not a part of his oligarchy.

When will it end? When will the American people realize that this republican one party rule must end? Will there be anything left? Will there be anyone left alive that is not filthy rich?
Who in the hay are these ignorant 34% approving of his job? They must be the wealthiest of all of us who actually benefit from his unprecedented in a time of war tax cuts.

In a nut shell.....Clinton lied about oral sex and got Impeached....Bush lies us into an illegal war killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent babies, children and women and there is no Impeachment, no outrage. Bush totally ignored the devastating natural disaster, Katrina, costing 1,400 plus American lives and there is no Impeachment, no outrage.
Instead of focusing on catching Osama bin laden and making him pay for attacking us on 911 Bush decided to sell 21 of our ports to the U.A.E. the country who helped fund 911, where 2 of the 911 hijackers came from. And there is no Impeachment, no outrage.

If the Democrats do not get voted back into control in at least either the House or the Senate in November 2006, I think I will sell everything and move to another country like Croatia or some other country I don't know anything about because this just doesn't seem like America anymore.

Save our democracy!

FEMA just needed help from the bottom up

Rosie's for all kids foundation.....Rosie.com
Wow!
A few minutes earlier I watched Rosi O'Donnell on AC360 talking about her Rosie's For All Kids Foundation. Through her foundation she has been able to raise over $2million for Kids, survivors of hurricane Katrina. From FEMA trailers set up as Head Start to Fun Day events almost from the moment Katrina passed Rosie had a support program up and running in Baton Rouge. To hear about the help she and her foundation have brought to these vulnerable children caused my eyes to water up.

I couldn't help but to remember just a few years ago casually following the court battle that she and her partner had in their attempt to adopt kids. All she wanted was a couple children of her own that she could love, nurture and support. The Christian right and most republicans came against her hard. She was a low life lesbian in their eyes. She was the bottom of the rung. Like many gays and lesbians are treated she was treated with hate and intolerance. To them, she was unfit to be a mother.

At the bottom where they tried to push her is where her resolve stood firm. A good foundation is necessary for many things in life, buildings, love and trust to mention a few. Like a rock she anchored her family and held firm to her heart, her desires and her humanity.

By her own admission FEMA has been very helpful in her post Katrina efforts. While she acts as Jesus would have acted when a devastating hurricane hit, many on the right are still judging and hating. I can hear Jesus scolding these same so called Christians...."when I was hungry you.....when I needed shelter you....when I needed......"Oh....Wait a minute it was that woman over there, the lesbian feeding the least among us, giving shelter to the least among us, clothing the least among us....being like Christ!

Tonight I applaud the lesbians. Tonight I wish I were a lesbian. Well I am o.k. not being a lesbian but it sounds like Rosie has more character, love and humanity than most "Christians" and republicans I hear casting aspersions.

FEMA just needs a little more help from the bottom up I guess.