America has 5% of the world’s population but 25% of the prisoners. Drugs are the reason. But not only that, American drug policy disproportionately singles out blacks. Blacks represent 15% of crack users but 85% of the races locked up for crack use, most for minimal possesion. Compared to whites, who make up 65% of crack users, only 5% of them are locked up.

Blacks in this country are 5 times more likely to be locked up that a black in South Africa at the height of Apartheid.

When a black American Citizen is addicted to drugs they go to jail. If they are white, they go to Betty Ford. Does prison really solve social problems more than treatment programs, education or other remedies?

Does the evil of these drugs somehow merit the laws and judgements being passed? Alcohol is a drug, but because it is socially acceptable, we don’t lock people up. Yet it presents a greater danger than any drug on the market. America repealed prohibition for a reason--to keep people out of jail, to allow the government to regulate alcohol, and to help diminish crime. Yet illegal drugs don’t even come close to the damage and death created by alcohol. In fact, casual drugs, like marijuana have been showed to have zero deaths.

"Indeed, epidemiological data indicate that in the general population marijuana use is not associated with increased mortality."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), p. 109.

Here are the facts. Read the following statistics of annual deaths in America and consider the real reason these laws are in place and what races they target:

Source: drugwarfacts.com

The Obama administration quickly jumped when Fox News said jump this week. Without checking sources and viewing the full videos and documents related to the story, the Obama administration shamefully asked for the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, an official of the USDA. What the administration couldn't fathom, is that Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others had blatantly lied in an attempt to oust a black woman from her position in the administration. In the same way they had cut and pasted video tape to lie about Acorn (see link below), this week they lied about Ms. Sharrad by skillfully editing a video to claim she was saying the opposite of what she was actually saying. Even the NAACP fell for the story and denounced her before the facts came out of what FOX NEWS had done. Once they realized they had been duped, they issued another statement (click here to read) and put the unedited video up on their website that they had been "snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart."

Once you see the real video, you see clearly that Ms. Sharrod was giving a talk about her conversion to realizing that her negative feelings she had been raised with about whites were wrong. FOX NEWS also claimed that the statements were current and yet, they were made 25 years ago when she did not work for the government. In the video, she speaks of her struggle to help a white farmer and his wife save their farm. CNN interviewed the coulple, who give credid to Ms. Sharrod for having saved their farm. For her, this story was a turning point in her understanding of helping the poor and not just blacks. But FOX NEWS played none of this part of the speech, but only the part where she was admitting her feelings and the struggle she was having before she made the right decision. This skillful lie, by FOX and its cronies, is just one of a list of many news stories that FOX had chosen to blatantly lie about.

Remember Jane Akre? Fox NEWS admitted that they told her to lie on television, when she refused, she was fired. Although winning the first court case against FOX, FOX won on appeal being told they had the right to lie on television. Jane Akre's case was thrown out because lying didn't meet the threshold of whistle-blowing laws. In other words, any news organization can ask their people to lie to preserve advertising profit. See more about Jane Akre here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/monsanto-forced-fox-tv-to_b_186428.html

To read more on the exposing of FOX's prevarication, click here and watch the broadcast of from the 20th of July, 2010 for Rachel Maddow.

To see more about the Acorn lies and exposé, see the two part youtube video here:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0B0wxt3XYc
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKx-Yvz3iJ8

If anyone is interested in truth, they need to understand that the "free press" is a novel idea, but it doesn't exist in the U.S. in any mainstream form. As long as corporations control the media, profits will control the information you get. If you want a proven pattern of the lies of FOX and those that are featured on FOX, read the above articles, watch the videos above, then truly decide for yourself. In the mean time, perhaps the Obama administration will learn to stop falling for these shameful Republican tricks.

Fox News just (11am, Sat. May 1) had a show about how tough life was for Wal Mart. Steve Forbes, as a guest on the show, lamented how unions forced poor Wal Mart into providing health benefits for its workers. Any guest on the show commenting against the mega-giant corporation was promptly interrupted and shouted down by the host of the show. This is, of course, during the supposed "news hours" of Fox news not the "commentary hours." The pundits raved about how many jobs Wal Mart creates in communities, with no mention of all of the jobs and businesses destroyed when Wal Mart moves into a community. In addition, no mention was made by a single guest about how many jobs are lost because Wal Mart's products don't come from Amercan workers, but rather from outsourced sweat shops and quasi slave labor in other countries. Instead, the broadcast was designed to make Wal Mart a poor victim and villify unions. What is unfortunate, is that so many Americans do not ask the tough questions: Where do these good prices come from? Where do we get our cheap products? These are moral questions.

If you didn't catch it amist the health care debates, the Supreme Court was hearing testimony regarding your election laws yesterday. Mr. Olson, representing the Republican point of view, was arguing that a corporation should have the same speech rights as an individual when it comes to campaign finance. Here is part of the exchange between Ruth Ginsberg and the council:

Ginsberg: Mr. Olson, are you taking the position that there is no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So, is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campain finance?

Olson: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context....is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

Ginsberg: Would that include todays mega-corporations, here many of the investors may be foreign individuals of entities?

Olson: The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation.

Ginsberg: Nowadays there are foreign interests, even foreign governmnets, that own not one share but a goodly number of shares.

Olson is making the argument that a corporation, even if 95% of it is owned by the Chinese government has the same rights as an individual citizen of the United State--but more of a right --because these organizations have hundreds of billions of dollars and an individual citizen has a lot less money. What Olson is arguing is that we need to let the wealthiest people control the political process. Now this is not new, because that is how things operate now--unless the Supreme Court does something. But, because they presently represent a right-wing ideology, they will probably allow these foreign and corporate interests to buy the political process.

Is a corporation an individual? Or doesn't it represent many individuals and constituencies? Doesn't it have obligations to all its shareholders? Or can a corporation spend unlimited funds on an election based upon the political leanings of the person running that corporation? This makes one person up to millions of times more powerful than another in this society just because they run a corporation.

Add this to lobbying, 527s, and other political action groups, and the individual has little say in who actually gets elected.

We are back to blogging! The time has come to get verbal again. We wanted to blog about health care, and will soon, but just wanted to put a quick note out there about Glen Beck, who is out on tour. On the front of his web page, he has a video from that tour where he tries to be funny in front of a receptive audience by telling "jokes" about the poor again. His final joke to an audience of gleeful Republicans on the video is that Republicans don't protest as much as Democrats because Republicans have jobs.

Of course he doesn't mention that blacks are the people he is mostly talking about. They are the ones in the Democratic party (who for some reason that Beck cannot explain) still voted almost as a unified body for Obama in the last election. Why? What Glen doesn't explain is how blacks were kept, not only from having jobs, but from obtaining capital like real estate. Most ended up in ghettos because it was actually illegal for blacks to get a mortgage or even live in white neighborhoods. No, he doesn't talk about how people were afraid that blacks would lower their home values or that his party did everything they could to fight against the civil rights act in the 60's. People are alive today who remember that they couldn't vote, get a job, or buy a house. Beck, the rest of the Republican leadership, just wants them to "get over it." No, actually Beck doesn't even say that. He dealt with the multi-century issue of slavery and racism by just calling the President of the United States a racist "with a deep seated hate for white people." Unfortunately, this doesn't help the dialogue of racism.

People are poor for all kinds of reasons. Those without money in our country have less of a voice that those with money. Everyone isn't like Mr. Beck or his white friends who have made their wealth off of the back of slave labor and sweat shop work in other countries. Mr. Beck should listen to the leaders of his own church as quoted in the Mormon section of this website. All Mormons don't agree with him and many actually feel that his hate speech is immoral and damaging to both America and the church to which he claims his allegiance.

It didn't go unnoticed by anyone who keeps on top of youtube that he completely changed his position on health care after moving to Fox news. Why change his position? Because hate speech pays in this country. But, hate also begets hate just like war begets war and he is only making things worse. If he only would simply express his opinions and ideas, all would be fine. But he doesn't limit himself to that. He incites hatred, bigotry, racism, and hate. When he goes on tour to make jokes at the expense of those who have had less of an opportunity than he has, he's simply not as funny as he thinks.

We appreciate the website protectglenbeck.com that gives us a list of companies that still support this man and this Americans for Morality encourages people to stop supporting companies that do. Although this wasn't the purpose of their site, perhaps it can help those of us who want to make a moral statement against hate-speech.

Remember Erin Burnett of CNBC telling us that poisoning our children may be worth it to keep prices down at Wall Mart? Well she's at it again on a show on CNBC which re-aired Thanksgiving day at noon. In the show, "The Billionaire Inside," she interviews Donald Trump. She says:

"Donald has a story here that going to excite people...that sometimes getting to the top you don't always have to be nice and sometimes when people do bad things to you it's alright to do bad things back"

Trump responds:

"... if you really have a problem with someone, you have to go after them and it's not necessarily to teach that person a lesson it's to teach all the people that are watching a lesson: that you don't take crap. And if you take crap, you're just not gonna do well. ..you can't take a lot of nonsense from people, you have to go after them."

At the end of the show a bullet point list of how to be successful was shown on the screen telling us to remember: Revenge can be good.

As a life long Republican and a true representative of the corporate side of the party, Trump not only has proclaimed publicly that "greed is good." In fact, Republican leaders and spokesmen readily proclaim that the market place is what makes America great. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Just because someone makes millions off of a "pet rock," and yet the marketplace doesn't reward the school teacher, doesn't mean that the pet rock is more valuable to America. In fact, the biggest money maker on the internet is pornography. Does that mean that it is what makes America great?

Unfortunately the Religious Right is in bed with these folks in order to win elections. On the one hand they preach in Sunday School to "turn the other cheek" and remain faithful in marriage, and on the other hand they need those who are actively fighting these ideas in order to support their agendas. In order to do this, the Religious Right took a dangerous turn back in the 70s and began to preach the doctrine that God somehow supports greed. The desire to reconcile the wealth of America (that was originally gained on the backs of slaves, and today, outsourcing--another type of slavery) with their religion became only possible with a change of doctrine regarding money. Preaching in fundamentalist Christian churches took a turn that was based on gaining financial success and prosperity for the few "that God had chosen in the world to be blessed."

However, America is starting to wake up and see the immorality of having such a great divide between the rich and poor, those that have and have not, and the salaries of corporate CEOs verses their company's employees. No, Erin, and no, Donald, America doesn't need to be a country of greed and revenge.

Many of you may remember a few weeks ago when thousands of toys were sent back to China for safety reasons. Some had poisonous paint in addition to other dangers. A number of American businesses who outsource the building of these toys from China were affected. The outsourcing of course is done because we can't find American workers who will work for nine cents an hour. But nonetheless, was there any kind of moral response to what happened?

All one had to do is turn to CNBC, the all day financial channel, that spends most of their time interviewing people with the stock exchange in the background. One of the primary figures on CNBC, Erin Burnett, was commenting on the toy recall and said the following on August 10, 2007 (no I am not making this up):

"I think people should be careful what they wish for on China. If China were to revalue its currency, or China is to start making, say, toys that don't have lead in them or food that isn't poisonous, their costs of production are gonna go up and that means prices at WalMart, here in the United States are gonna go up too."

Again, businesses, are there to make money at any cost. According to the Republican model, if we destroy the environment along the way, or now, according to Ms. Burnett, kill a few kids to keep the prices down at WalMart, that's the price we have to pay. When are people going to wake up to the monster labor markets have created, utterly destroying true capitalism. Consumerism seems to have that kind of blinding effect.

Elvira Arellano has become the new face of undocumented workers from Mexico. She moved out of a church in Chicago where she was hiding out to avoid deportation and separation from her 8 year old son by the Department of Homeland Security. In a moving speech this week, she said that she came to America to work. Why? Aren't there jobs in Mexico? She stated that since the inception of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), she could no longer support her son with a living wage. So in desperation, she came to America to feed her young boy.

Is what she claims about NAFTA true? Studies show that it most certainly is. If you haven't read the section on this site about Economic Morality you should do so to understand the difference between "free trade" of goods and services and "free trade" of labor markets and forces. At the end of last year, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) released a report of the effects of NAFTA on Mexico. Here is some of what they said:

"national manufacturing production capacity has been dismantled and the agricultural industry destroyed."

"The main beneficiaries of the Agreement are the big transnational companies, while the effects on employment and wages have been deeply detrimental to Mexican workers. Indeed, the main competitive advantage of Mexico in the context of the NAFTA lies in the maintenance of low wages and precarious working conditions..."

"The report shows that the destruction of the agricultural industry has driven Mexican families to the urban areas, where they now live in conditions of extreme poverty. Women and children under the age of 16, hired by transnational companies to work in maquilas, in exhausting conditions, and for extremely low wages, are the first victims of this situation."

(to read the rest of the report click here)

So, how many Amercians understand this worsening situation? All Amercians should ask themselves, if they had children and were Mexicans, would they try to cross the border as undocumented to work here? Of course, most would. Unless we can see the world from their perspectives, we can't hope to understand why they do what they do. It easier to just call them "illegals" so we don't have to consider their humanity as equal to ours but rather see them as law-breakers that don't deserve the same respect as any other human being. To see clearly, we must first understand how American econimic policies affect poverty and economic systems around the world. Now that workers (labor forces) are considered a commodity, they can now be treated like big business treats the earth now: as another natural resource to be exploited until we've drained all the money we can from it.

Elvira Arellano was arrested today after speaking out. The government has now separated her from her American born son and will deport her back to Mexico.

For two days now, the news channels have been giving all-day coverage to the Minnesota bridge collapse. On the bridge were about 60 vehicles, and yes there was injury and death. But, even more unfortunate is what this says about the priorities and values of the United States citizens at this point. You can't blame a news media that is supported through advertising because it will only show what people want to see...otherwise advertising wouldn't work as a support system. In other words, there is little free press in America.

The first problem with this tragedy is that President Bush has gotten another pass in the media. He had just exerted executive privilege in not allowing Carl Rove to testify before congress or hand over any documents or correspondence regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys. This, of course, is a huge news story regarding how far executive privilege can go.

But, more disturbing than this is how much Americans care about disasters like this when more horrific things are happening around the world every single day. We have millions of people a year dying of starvation, for example (yes millions, folks), 150 thousand a month of AIDS, 150 million from diarrhea every month, and 200 thousand dying from malaria every month. The malarial drugs exist to stop the deaths but America refuses to send them. If you take the starvation alone, 18 thousand children die EVERY DAY, one every five seconds (and that is just the children). Read about hunger facts at here at www.bread.org. If you add wars and attacks you get another grim picture. In fact, with the 3000 people that died on 9/11, some countries have the equivalent of a 9/11 tragedy DAILY. Do we see any of this on the news, so people can rally together to save all these people? No. Why? It doesn't sell toothpaste. And we think we have a free press? And yet, when 60 American cars are on a collapsing bridge, suddenly we all care. Why? Because Americans think their lives are more valuable that those of the rest of the world. This is why nationalism is so ugly. Why isn't this picture below on the news every day?

The Washington Post today published an an article on the Bush administration's new interpretation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. You can read the full article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The article expounds on the Bush administrations new interpretation on torture that:

"...as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not 'done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual' -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in 'willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.'"

Of course the principle purpose of the Geneva conventions was exactly the opposite--that "gathering intelligence" or "trying to get information out of someone" was not to be done through torture. Thus Bush takes another step, (one of many) that is leading us into totalitarianism and the ultimate destruction of any moral high ground we may have left.

We have already lost all credibility with the rest of the world regarding this issue when it was exposed that we were exporting torture to other countries. In other words, in order to save face and torture anyway, we would outsource our torture to other countries that didn't have any qualms about torturing prisoners.

Read the article "Outsourcing Torture" here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/25/opinion/main619513.shtml

Or read here:

http://hrw.org/campaigns/torture/renditions.htm

Or here:

http://www.president-bush.com/torture-outsource.html

It seems that for our administration, torture has lost its thrill in being outsourced and now wants to experience the excitement of torture for itself. What better way than to utterly corrupt the intentions of the Geneva Convention.

To read some more about the evolutions and convolutions of the President's policies in this Matter, read statements by President Bush and responses to those statements by Human Rights First:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2006/statement/258/

If any thing has shown us that education about pedophilia is necessary in America today, it is the 660 million dollar payoff by the Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles this week to victims of sexual abuse by clergy. Many don’t know that half of the payoff is being paid by insurance companies because the church actually had insurance against pedophilia accusations!

The number of children in America who have been victims of sexual abuse by adults is astonishing. According to the 1998 Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls, 7% of girls in grammar school are sexually abused. 67% of all reported sexual abuse is perpetrated on minors-- One third to grammar school age children.

Because of this, Barack Obama, mentioned this week that young children should be taught about inappropriate touching and how to protect themselves from pedophiles. Of course, Republican Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, immediately shot back in defense of Pedophiles everywhere. He accused Obama of wanting to teach “sex education” in kindergarten. Of course this was the same foundless accusation leveled by Alan Keyes in his failed race against the Senator. Obama has promoted “age-appropriate” education of our young people for their protection, and the right wing has overreacted again. Of course, these are the same people who believe pedophilia is connected to homosexuality. (You can read more about Catholic priests and the debunking of that myth here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/2002-07-15-church-gay_x.htm)

The right wing’s obsessions with sex, may actually be the cause of increased pedophilia, and other forms of sexual assault. Ex-priest and psychotherapist A.W.Richard Sipe, stated “There's strong psychological research showing that sexual deprivation can lead a person to turn to children.” Teaching kids that sex is “dirty, sinful, or depraved” and creating an atmosphere of secrecy in disseminating information about the subject, can put our children at risk both physically and psychologically. So which is more immoral, Obama’s desire to protect our children, or Romney’s desire to once again bury his head in the sand?

If you have not read, Byron York's article, "The Little-Noticed Order That Gave Dick Cheney New Power," at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp

then you probably know very little about what is happening to the Vice Presidency in this country.

Do you know what executive order 13292 is? Most people don't.

It breathtakingly expands the power of the Vice Presidency to something only the President had power to do. This includes being able to both classify and declassify documents independently of the President. The article above goes through the executive order, and then the chilling interview where it was revealed on Fox News to Brit Hume. Read it now.

This power was given to him as a result of the "war on terror" in 2003 right after the "Mission Accomplished" banner was displayed. There was little coverage in the press.

But now with the President's pardon of Scooter Libby this week, Vice Presidential powers have come to the forefront. Not only did Cheney have the power to declassify the status of any CIA agent for any reason (including political), but he also has claimed this week that he doesn't have to tell us that he did it. Why? Because he actually claimed this week that he is not a member of the Executive branch.

What? Yes, that's right. The Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the Executive Branch, has had to appeal to the Justice Department because, not only has Cheney tried to destroy their Office in the government, but Cheney has repeatedly refused to comply with routine annual requests for data on his staff's classification of internal documents, and blocked onsite inspection of records that other agencies of executive branch regularly go through. Why? because he claims he is not a member of the Executive Branch.

No, I am not making this up. Cheney says that he is not part of the Executive Branch but instead part of the Legislative Branch because he can cast his vote to break ties in the Senate (of course that's when he's not there to tell other Senators from up on the podium to go f*** themselves like he did on 22 june 2004 with Sen Leahy).

So, let's put this all together. He has his own branch of government. He is immune to oversight by the executive, he can declassify or classify with the powers of a President. He can basically run the government by himself but has more freedom from checks and balances than the President himself.

And so the President pardons Scooter Libby, a convicted felon, who went through the legal process. In spite of the fact people died to support the rule of law, it was just dealt a huge blow by the Bush administration. And yet the Republicans wanted to Impeach President Clinton because he lied about sex. Where is their outrage now? In yesterdays CNN poll, 72% of Americans said that the President should not pardon Libby, and only 19% said they should. And yet, who cares what the American people think anymore?

As the Constitution hangs by a thread, the American people are closer than ever to letting that thread break. We have given almost unlimited power to the Vice Presidency, something never intended by the framers. Now, how do we get it back? Do Americans have the stomach to do the right thing in the next election?

Bravo to non-partisan Lieutenant General William E. Odom, also former director of the NSA, and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer. Today he delivered a courageous radio address enititled "Bush has gone AWOL."

Read there entire address here:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/28/820

or listen to it by clicking here

Mitt Romney is the new financial front-runner for the Republicans in the 2008 Presidential election. Tues, he gave one of his stump speeches at College Station, Texas outlining his plans for America if elected. He told his audience that we need more military spending, voucher programs for education, and promoted a number of other Republican platforms. During the night he went on and on about how he was a small red dot (a Republican) in a sea of blue--"blue so dark that it is almost black" he stated. Then how did he get elected in Massachusetts? Well, he ran as a liberal. He was completely pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Yet, now he has staunchly affirmed himself to be completely pro-life, and supported the anti-gay marriage amendments and legislation.
No one can watch the videos of his debates and speeches without getting queasy. But we will point you to them here. If ever there has been a Republican that will say anything to get elected it is this man. Here are a couple videos from his debates. The first affirms his pro-choice position and his assertion that he will support gay rights "more than Ted Kennedy":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KlnTZz3ynY&mode=related&search=

Now the next video is not to be missed. Romney gives a hardened 5 minute detailed statement on why he is unshakably pro-choice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&mode=related&search=

He now claims that at some point all he had to do was look into a petrie dish and realize that the embryos there were suddenly alive and needed protection from scientists doing stem cell research.....and voila....he was pro-life.

The Republican administration keeps saying that speaking out against the war and the administration "emboldens the enemy." Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually it does just the opposite. Consider for a moment that we learned that the majority of people in another country was against their administration's hawkish decisions. Would we feel more or less inclined to drop bombs on these people? Speaking out actually tells them we are not all warmongers and that many of us want peace. These creates softer feelings toward our people and not harder. Only one thing "emboldens" and enemy: killing them and their families. That makes people pretty mad from generation to generation.

This week Dick Cheney appeared on Rush to in front of 20 million listeners to continue his misinformation campaign about Iraq. He again tried to make a connection between Al Qaida and Iraq that never existed. Here are his words:

"Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, Al Qaida affiliate...he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the Al Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. ... This is Al Qaida operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
Of course Republican run Senate Intelligence Committee report found, “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”
In addition, of course, Zarqawi had no relationship with Al Qaida but was an enemy to Bin Laden.
Why won't he stop saying these things? His attempts to tie 9/11 with Al Qaida with Saddam still haven't stopped.
"If we're successful in Iraq," he told Russert in September of 2003, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
It is now clear that Cheney knew this wasn't true before the war. For more on this man's history of deceit, read Sperry's article "Tricky Dicky" here, or Bradley's "Top 10 Cheney lies" from the Debates here.
Remember when Cheney Claimed Iraq Was Providing WMD Training To Al-Qaeda Months After Source Recanted? Read here.
Or read "Cheney claimed there was a link" here, listing many times Cheney claimed Saddam was in bed with Al Qaida.
Or read the article by Isakoff and Hosenball from MSNBC called "Rewriting History" here.
Why does he keep doing this? Because it works. He's speaking to a Republican base that will believe anything the administration says without checking for facts. You see, if these facts aren't true, then the foundation set up by the administration for invasion of Iraq crumbles, even among Republicans. But it is already crumbling. Finally. Interestingly Cheney's approval rating In Jan was only 16% which means even the Republican base has turned their back on him. If so, why does Rush keep having him on?

The speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, did it exactly right this week. One of the suggestions on this website from the beginning is that if we are to overcome the terrorist threat, it needs to come from within the ranks of conservative Muslims. Enlisting help from conservative Muslims that do not directly support terrorism is the smartest thing any leader could have done. It is no surprise that the Republican administration frowned on such a visit. Interestingly enough, Iran also released their British prisoners during her visit as an "Easter gift." Bravo Nancy.

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made statements this last week, that from a moral standpoint were offensive for many reasons other than the one's that were reported. When asked about the "don't ask-don't tell" policy of the armed serviced, yes, he said that it was his opinion that homosexuality was immoral. That statement alone is the one on which the media focused and that is unfortunate. Being offended by someone's moral opinion is rather silly and for those who truly care about this country, liberals should have known better than to get sucked into this trap. By debating the "morality" of homosexuality, many made the point for the conservatives. The truly offensive things said by the General were that the purpose of the army is not to"condone immoral acts" and also that he said, "I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." Believing something to be personally moral or immoral is the right of every citizen of this country. But is the General saying that the purpose of the Army is to be moral? Or, is he saying that accepting homosexuals into the service makes the purpose of the army immoral? The purpose of the army is actually not to decide for the public what is moral or immoral. Ironically, since even Rush Limbaugh says that the purpose of the army is to kill and break things, it is clear that an army is often more effective when morally desensitized--An army that can kill without compunction. General Pace could have made a more effective argument if he had simply pontificated on the blight of co-ed shower situations. As it was, his decision to defend the policy on "moral" grounds was a lot like getting a lecture on diet from Luciano Pavarotti (believe it or not he had a chapter in his first book on this subject).

If you want to get a flavor of those who speak for Republican values, read through this list of some of the most prominent quotes of 2006. If you thought you were Republican, but are shocked by these comments, maybe you were never really Republican.....

Jonathan Hoenig, managing member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto: "I think when it comes to Iran, the problem is we haven't been forceful enough. I mean if you -- frankly, if you want to see the Dow go up, let's get the bombers in the air and neutralize this Iranian threat." [6/5/06]

Right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian ... [he] is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?" [12/18/06]

CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck to Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) a Muslim member of Congress: "OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. ... With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " [11/14/06]

Conservative pundit and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan again confusing being gay with being a pedophile: "Look, [Rep. Jim] Kolbe [R-AZ] is gay. He is an out-of-the-closet gay. [Rep. Mark] Foley [R-FL] was gay. The House clerk who was in charge of the pages [Jeff Trandahl] was gay. Foley's administrative assistant, Mr. [Kirk] Fordham, The New York Times tell us, was gay. You hear about a lot of others. What's going on here, Joe [Scarborough, MSNBC host], is basically these, this little mafia in there looked upon the pages, I guess, as their -- sort of their personal preserve. And it stinks to high heaven what was done. And it stinks to high heaven that it was not exposed and these types of people, thrown out by the Republican Party." [10/9/06]

Coulter on Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI): "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln." [8/30/06]

Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage: "That's why the department store dummy named Wolf Blitzer, a Jew who was born in Israel, will do the astonishing act of being the type that would stick Jewish children into a gas chamber to stay alive another day. He's probably the most despicable man in the media next to Larry King, who takes a close runner-up by the hair of a nose. The two of them together look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis." [8/7/06]

Coulter responding to Hardball host Chris Matthews' question, "How do you know that [former President] Bill Clinton's gay?": "I don't know if he's gay. But [former Vice President] Al Gore -- total fag." [7/27/06]

Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on The New York Times' decision to report on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program and a Treasury Department financial transaction tracking program: The Times had done "something that could have gotten them executed, certainly did get [Julius and Ethel] Rosenberg[] executed." [7/12/06]

Fox News host John Gibson: "Do your duty. Make more babies. That's a lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple of days. First, a story yesterday that half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. Why is that? Well, Hispanics are having more kids than others. Notably, the ones Hispanics call 'gabachos' -- white people -- are having fewer." [5/11/06]

CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck: "Blowing up Iran. I say we nuke the bastards. In fact, it doesn't have to be Iran, it can be everywhere, anyplace that disagrees with me." [5/11/06]

Savage: "I don't know why we don't use a bunker-buster bomb when he comes to the U.N. and just take [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out with everyone in there." [7/21/06]

Nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz: "I want you to think for think for a moment of how incompetent and stupid and worthless, how -- that's right, I used those words -- how incompetent, how ignorant, how worthless is an adult that can't earn more than the minimum wage? You have to really, really, really be a pretty pathetic human being to not be able to earn more than the human wage. Uh -- human, the minimum wage." [8/3/06]

Syndicated columnist and Fox News host Cal Thomas on businessman Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut's Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate: "It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing. ... [T]hey have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to 'kill' one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe." [8/10/06]

Beck: "The Middle East is being overrun by 10th-century barbarians. That's what I thought at 5 o'clock this morning, and I thought, 'Oh, geez, what -- what is this?' If they take over -- the barbarians storm the gate and take over the Middle East (this is what I'm thinking at 5 o'clock in the morning) -- we're going to have to nuke the whole place." [9/12/06]

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly (on his radio show): "Do I care if the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other in Iraq? No. I don't care. Let's get our people out of there. Let them kill each other. Maybe they'll all kill each other, and then we can have a decent country in Iraq." [12/5/06]

New York Post columnist Ralph Peters on Iraq Study Group co-chairman James Baker: "The difference is that [Pontius] Pilate just wanted to wash his hands of an annoyance, while Baker would wash his hands in the blood of our troops." [12/7/06]

Conservative syndicated radio host Michael Medved on the animated movie Happy Feet: The film contains "a whole subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality." [12/11/06]

This week Rep Virgil Goode became the bigot of the month in a letter to his constituents in Virginia. Republicans regularly deny that they are racist anymore and yet somehow, pockets of America keep sending representatives to lead our nation that clearly need to be removed from office. His letter responded to the swearing in of a new Congressmen from Minnesota, Rep, Keith Ellison, who happens to be Muslim. Because of his religion, he, of course will not be putting his hand on the Bible for his swearing in, but has requested the Quran. As a result, Rep. Goode sent out a letter warning people that if they "don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran." Regardless of the fact that Rep. Goode doesn't understand the Constitution he should be defending, it seems that Rep Ellison is not an immigrant but can trace his ancestry to the 1700s in this country and converted to Islam in college. In spite of the negative press, Rep Goode will not back down and has caused many others to rear their ugly heads. Republican talk show host, Dennis Prager, for example, said publicly that Ellison should quit if he refuses to use the Bible. Prager continually uses Mormons as his example of choice, stating that they don't request to use the Book of Mormon. Of course, Mr. Prager, obviously doesn't know that Mormons use the Bible too as their fundamental canon as well. Later Rush Limbaugh got into an argument with his own call screener over this issue. Rush, attempting to support Rep. Goode told his screener, "He's voiced a concern that many Americans have. They probably don't have the courage to say it, but (interruption). My own staff, even in the spirit of Christmas, sees fit to argue with me. (interruption) ... as I understand it: If we don't get a handle on immigration, we are going to end up like Europe -- and if you don't think that there are a lot of people that think like that, then that's why you're screening and why I'm hosting because you are out of touch." Now moving on to another Republican talk show host, Sean Hannity, we hear even more vitriolic hate-mongering. Regarding the issue, Mr. Hannity stated, the swearing-in of Ellison "will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones" and suggested that using the Quran for a swearing-in is comparable to using "Hitler's Mein Kampf, which is the Nazi bible."

With all of the shock over the win of the Democrats in the election, little reported was the statements made by the President the weekend before the election. After years of denying that our war in Iraq was over oil and calling anyone unpatriotic for implying so, the President turned the tables and used the idea as part of his repeated stump speeches saying, " You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources and then you can imagine them saying 'we're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following...'" In other words, fighting in Iraq for oil has now moved from being an unpatriotic idea to becoming a platform plank. Of course the Iraqies knew it all along. 95% of Iraqies polled still believe the entire invasion was about oil to begin with.

Shock and awe describe the feelings of Amercians today who care about civil liberties and the power of the Executive Branch. Today, President Bush gave a speech that was frightening and chilling in extending the powers of his office again. Bush spoke of "methods" in which he obtained information from "enemy combatants" without disclosing those methods. He defended secret bases where he help these "combatants." What few on the right may understand is that if everything Bush said was true, meaning, that all the detainees are guilty and all the torture was "legally sanctioned." he is still wrong. Why? Because what if a President of the United States is corrupt? Whether or not you believe Bush is corrupt is not important to the discussion. If he is then there are no checks. There is no way to monitor the Executive powers he has taken upon himself in case he was corrupt. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason. That reason is because people with power can be corrupt. Not because they necessarily are corrupt. Can those on the right see the difference? We have a legal system for a reason. If a cop arrests someone we don't skip the trial process because we all believe the cop is honest. Detailed procedures are in place to protect the innocent. Because someone in the Executive says someone is an "enemy combatant," who checks that? How do we know if we don't have access to them? Now the Bush administration expect us to turn a blind eye to torture again. They want congress to decide what torture is because obviously we did work that out in Geneva. We want to believe torture is a legitamate method of interrogation because someone we trust said this is an "enemy combatant." But what if we don't trust them? Shall we give the same powers to someone who is not of our political persuasion? Fear and "security" will cause most people to easily relinquish their basic civil liberties.

Fox News and Rick Santorum got on their bandwagon this week actually trying to claim that we found WMDs in Iraq. Of course what we found was inert chemicals and and shell housings buried and left over from the war between Iraq and Iran. Pentagon spokesmen confirmed that we already knew about these. Santorum, in a hurry to try to save his failing run for the Senate this year, was only too eager to jump in with the faulty intelligence before it had gone through the proper investigative channels. Read the story at MSNBC's website (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/)

While Senator Inhofe, (Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works) denies the fact that global warming exists, every peer reviewed article published by leading scientists supports it (that is EVERY, ladies and gentlemen)--there is no dissent in peer reviewed journals as much as Republicans would like you to believe there is. Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth may actually make a positive impact. The movie is fantastic because it is clear, concise and presents the facts in a way that even uneducated Americans can understand. This has been the most difficult hurdle for those that want to protect the environment--making the science clear. Kudos to Al Gore! The movie is actually changing Republican's minds. Finally, they realized this is not a partisan issue.

The Supreme Court yesterday decided that the President of the United States cannot take prisoners in Guantánamo Bay and assign his own judges and courts to try them. The fact that the Executive, again, is trying to grab more power by creating kangaroo courts is just another example of why Americans need to fear the direction of the country. Defending the administrations attempt to bypass true courts and issues of habeas corpus, Ann Coulter said yesterday that the Constitution intended that we have checks and balances between branches of government UNLESS we are at war. She said, "In wartime, all of that is reversed. That's why the Constitution vests the entire commander-in-chief powers in one man, not in branches, not with checks and balances." Of course, since we are continuously at war--now and forever--because of the nebulous definition of "war on terror," we no longer can have a system of checks and balances. The Republicans have made a new grab for unlimited executive power. The President has power to declare war without congress, can detain anyone without rights by calling them an "enemy combatant," and now has attempted to disregard military tribunal rules and maintain courts overseen by the President himself. Thankfully, the Supreme Court, has seen the coming danger.

Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader was being interviewed yesterday by Chris Matthews on Hardball and they were discussing the new resolutions in the House and Senate being debated regarding terrorism. The resolutions basically state that Americans must support the war on terror until it is over. In light of growing tension in Iran, Matthews asked Frist point blank if the President now had authority to invade Iran without approval of congress. Frist refused to answer. The President claimed power to invade Iraq based on approval of Congress to go after Saddam specifically the year before. But now, the "war on terror" resolutions seem to be giving the executive even greater power. As long as they can claim an invasion is "terror related" the President can declare war from now until the end of time. Not since the phrase "clear and present danger" was twisted to increase executive authority, has anything given the President so much power. Did the constitutional authors foresee this when they said that only congress can declare war? With the number of American dead approaching the exact number that actually died on 9/11 in the twin towers, how much will Americans put up with to maintain their "way of life?"

At 1:50 eastern time today Rush Limbaugh was at it again with a 13 year old caller. She asked about the constitution and the separation of church and state. Of course he said, "The separation of church and state is a concept that was invented by the far left." Gee, I thought it was Thomas Jefferson. He continued on his diatribe about how the government is keeping all of us from praying in school. Gee, I used to pray regularly in school...oh yeah, that doesn't count. I didn't do it out loud so everyone could see how Christian I was, like Jesus taught....

Wanted to wait before blogging on specific issues but couldn't. It was too humbling to watch the debut of Tony Snow, Bush's new press secretary from Fox News tell the press core that he didn't want to "hug the tar baby" (twice), then hearing John Gibson on May 11th comment on the fact that hispanics in America have more children than white Americans by saying "You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic." Gibson later repeated: "To put it bluntly, we need more babies." (read the full story and watch the documentation by video at http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006). Certainly we wouldn't want them to out-procreate the white folks......With all of the fighting regarding the immigration debate, racism is rearing an ugly head again. On CNN, Lou Dobbs got mad at Democrats for inferring racism has anything to do with the immigration debate, but then he himself, said "I don't believe in celebrating differences, I only believe in celebrating what we have in common." Of course he doesn't understand that diversity is what makes us all learn from one another's perspectives, none of which are perfect.

As soon as the site is no longer under construction, the real blogs will begin.
Completed sections of the site are the Poor, Abortion, the Test (at the bottom),
Mail, the Utah page for Mormons, and obviously this blog. For the moment, the Blogs
will simply let people know what parts of the site are now ready to read.
You can keep informed when they are up by subscribing to this blog by clicking
on the RSS feed and saving the link in your feed-reader or aggregator. Your browser
may already have this ability to read RSS feeds and deal with blog updates.

All blogs will also be archived on the menu to the left as they increase. You will be able to click on a specific topic and only read blogs on one moral topic.