UPDATE: The full video has now been posted at C-SPAN. Clicking the image will now take you to the full length presidential debate featuring Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. 103108

A longer, 16 minute clip has been posted, clicking the image will now take you to that video. I will update again when I find the full debate posted. 103108

Did you miss it? Click now on the image to watch a 5 minute clip. More updates as I come across them. 103008

By Greg Sargent - October 27, 2008

Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

Nina Williams, a stay-at-home mom in Lake County, Indiana, tells us that her daughter recently called her from her job at the center, upset that she had been asked to read a script attacking Obama for being "dangerously weak on crime," "coddling criminals," and for voting against "protecting children from danger."

Click Here for the full story.

These tactics are bottom of the barrel, desperate moves by people posing as Republicans.  As I've blogged in the past, sending out DVD's to voters in swing states showing graphic violence and making threats of violence is defined as terrorism. So is making 'robo-calls' spreading a message of impending doom and danger.

dictionary results for: terrorism dictionary.reference.com

1.The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Third party presidential candidates Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin faced each other in debate today in the Colonial Room at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel. Chris Hedges moderated the debate.

Click on the link below to watch the debate. (click the white 'f' in the red circle on the right hand side once there)               Third Party Presidential Candidate Debate 281952-1 : C-SPAN Video Library | Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.

Breaking the Sound Barrier: Third-Party Candidates Ralph Nader & Cynthia McKinney Respond to Final McCain-Obama Debate

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain met last night for the final debate before the November 4th presidential election, sparring over the economy, tax policy, negative campaigning, trade agreements, abortion and the educational system. As with the other debates, third-party candidates were not invited to participate. We break the sound barrier and hear from Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_third_party

Nothing is going to change until we do something different!

FREE DEBATE - THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008
Washington DC

Call C-SPAN to make sure they will broadcast live - tell them it's right down the street. When you call please please please PLEASE be very nice and polite.
CSPAN 202.737.3220

CALL WASHINGTON JOURNAL IN THE AM
202.628.0205 7-10am est EVERYDAY

THE DNC and GOP Received 4 LIVE PRIVATE DEBATES - ALL These Parties Ask Is ONE WITH SIX
Millions of voters still undecided. Millions more can be persuaded. A few Hundred can make the difference, just ask Florida
Call Barack at 866.675.2008 and Call John 703.418.2008 ask them both to show up, their chairs will be nice and warm. Tell them this debate could make or break this election. Least they forget the silent majority which has morphed into the independent undecided voter

C-SPAN Is This Country's Last Open Media Hope
http://www.cspan.org
http://www.freeandequal.org
VISIT
http://www.opendebates.org
http://thirdpartyticket.com
http://www.opensecrets.org

music
http://www.awakefromyourslumber.org

SPREAD THIS INFORMATION FAST!
TAKE YOUR DEBATES BACK FROM THE CPD CORPORATION!
IT'S THE AMERICAN THING TO DO!

Write CSPAN: viewer@c-span.org                                               
Dear Mr. Lamb and Mr. Scully,
Please broadcast LIVE the DEBATE on the
23 October 2008 at 9:00PM est in WASHINGTON DC.
C-SPAN has broadcast the two parties (DNC & RNC) last four debates live, it is only fair to allow candidates who will surely draw millions upon millions of votes the same opportunity, voters who could change the course of this election, who have tghe potential to win the 270 electoral votes. It is the right thing to do, for the sake of democracy and this nation. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,

Carpe Diem!

Category:  News & Politics

What Adam has to say about himself:

"In November 2006 I was honorably discharged (barely) from the US Marines after my second activation as a reservist. I moved to Washington, DC to get a master's degree in political management at George Washington University. Fortunately, I was unable to secure gainful employment, and stumbled into full-time activism with Iraq Veterans Against the War. You can email me at adam dot kokesh at gmail dot com." 

You can read his blog here: www.kokesh.blogspot.com

Whatever you do, please take the 8.5 minutes out of your busy day to watch this very patriotic and inspiring speech.

Below is a bit of a longer story at Salon.com.  It's full of good points, but the one below is the main interest for me.  I so often hear, to my utter disbelief, people blaming the Democratic party for the current economic crisis. They don't bring up policies and programs from the Clinton administration, or even Carter. No, they are somehow referring to the last 7 or 8 years.

"They've stood in the way!", and more recently "they're in control and they do nothing!". And unless you are really paying attention, and are not relying on ABCNBCCBSFOX media for information, there is no reason to expect you to think any differently.  But once you DO look a little closer, the facts clearly tell a different story.  The one surprise I came across in drudging up information was the increase of Independent and third party candidate names that have been appearing recently (5-20 years), and that reminds me how most of the issues that spur these comments wouldn't exist if there were more competition, ie more political parties.  Much harder to collude and keep secrets, let alone commit crimes, with more eyes on the ball. 

In any case, the Salon article presents easy to understand graphs, my favorite.

As polling data conclusively demonstrates, the mindset of the voting public is infinitely more rational and substance-based than the pundits and the Right fantasize when they lyrically praise the Regular American -- at least it is in this time of perceived (and actual) crisis. What's happening in this country, and in this election, is rather simple and easy to see: (1) the country is in total shambles -- possibly far worse than what people even realize; (2) we have lived for the last eight years under virtually absolute GOP rule; (3) the public knows this; (4) the Republican President and his party are therefore intensely -- historically -- unpopular; and (5) the voting public doesn't want to continue living under the rule of the same faction and same political party that has driven the country into the ground. Having Sarah Palin drop her gerund endings and desperately trotting out the standard, tired GOP attack ads to depict Obama as a radical, fist-pumping, America-hating, unhinged socialist -- when everyone can see with their own eyes that he isn't -- won't change any of that.

That the Right believes in the fundamental stupidity of the American voter while simultaneously pretending to revere and speak for them them is reflected in their belief that they can successfully blame the financial crisis and the country's woes generally on Democrats, who -- while hardly covering themselves with glory -- haven't had any meaningful power in this country for as long as one can remember. Ponder how stupid you must think Americans are to believe that you can blame the financial crisis on the 2004 statements of House Democrats about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when that was a time when the GOP controlled all branches of the Government and nothing could have been more inconsequential than what Barney Frank or Maxine Waters, languishing in the minority in Tom DeLay's tyrannical House, said or did about anything.

In sum, Americans hate the way the country has been ruled, the economic crisis is making them hate that more by the minute, and the country has been dominated by Republican rule for the last eight years -- at least. It's just this simple:

And the reality is even more imbalanced than that graph illustrates: between (1) the tiny margins the Democrats have had when controlling the Senate, (2) the true functional majority of "GOP + Blue Dogs" in the House, (3) the extraordinary centralization of power in the White House, and (4) Democratic complicity and fear, it is GOP policy which ends up prevailing in virtually every instance of alleged "bipartisanship" even during those tiny slivers of ostensible Democratic control.

The overarching reality of the country is that we've lived under unchallenged Republican rule and the country has virtually collapsed on every level. No matter how dumb Rich Lowry and David Brooks fantasize The Regular People to be, those facts are far too glaring to suppress.
UPDATE: In comments, Harksaw suggests adding the Supreme Court to the graph, based on which party appointed the justices. Doing so produces this:

We've been an overwhelmingly Republican-dominated country for the last eight years (at least) and the results of that couldn't be clearer -- or more devastating.

Please Click below to read the entire article, of which this is only a part.

A country in shambles, under GOP rule - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Additionally, here are some numbers to add to the clarity of the picture.

The first number is years WITH same party House control, the second Senate. The third number is WITHOUT same party House control and the fourth without the Senate. (the others are, in order; years served, elections won, and wallstreet journal ranking)

The current balance of power, when you consider the White House, tilts right to the GOP=Republican side. Because while the House of Representatives sits a majority of Dems:

110th House of Representatives
Second Session

Democrats: 234
Republicans: 198
Independents: 0
Vacant Seats: 3
Total: 435

The Senate stacks up like this:

110th Senate
Second Session

Democrats: 49
Republicans: 49
Independent Democrat: 1* (Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut)
Independents: 1 (Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont)
Vacant Seats: 0
Total: 100

With the VP and Republican Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, voting to break ties.  Add to that a name followed by "Independent Democrat" who has publicly announced his support of Republican candidate for the President of the United States AND a couple of sick Democrats who are unable to vote, and you can see clearly that there is NOT a Democrat controlled congress. Jan. 2007 marked the first time the Dems had been in control, albeit only technically, since 1994.

Pelosi in an '07 interview posted over at Bravenewfilms:

But having said what you said, I’m as disappointed as you are that we can’t get past the sixty votes in the Senate. But it’s no use to complain about that. We have to take… the court of public opinion is where the sixty vote barrier will come down. We can’t kick it down internally. But we can try to point out what is at stake, the ground truth in Iraq, so that in the districts… You know, I’m responsible for the House. We passed – we can pass a bill any day in the House, but if it can’t get through the sixty votes in the Senate to be heard… to go to the President’s desk… then we have to use our energy in another way and I think that is to focus in a public way, as you all have done.

That interview lays into Pelosi pretty hard, and ends with dubious hopes that her plans will come to fruition, because after all  "She can't even get John Dingell on board for higher CAFE standards... "  Looks like she got her way on that in the end.

Sunday on Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw moderated a debate between McCain strategist Steve Schmidt and Obama strategist David Axelrod on topics ranging from Iraq to the Wall Street bailout. At the end, Tom Brokaw did something strange. He opted to give himself the last word and told the audience:

In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note. And that is that we continue to poll on who's best equipped to be Commander in Chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Gentlemen, thank you very much.¹

We checked, and the latest NBC poll actually has no question about Commander in Chief.² We contacted NBC about this, and it turns out Brokaw was referring to a poll taken weeks ago—right after the Republican convention and well before Friday's big national security debate.³ And in each of NBC's last two polls, Americans chose Obama over McCain.⁴

Can you email Tom Brokaw today? Let him know that this election is very close, and we need journalists to be responsible. Giving himself the last word in the debate, and citing an outdated poll number as if it was current, was a mistake. As a responsible journalist, he should apologize for both.

Here's where to contact him:
Tom Brokaw, Meet The Press feedback form: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/

Every major poll after that debate showed Americans thought Obama won—and a CNN poll said voters trusted Obama over McCain to handle Iraq.⁶ Plus, three major polls released on Sunday showed Americans choosing Obama over McCain.⁷

So Brokaw's insertion at the end of the debate wasn't just random—it painted an inaccurate picture of the race for voters. Can you contact Brokaw today?

1. Video of Brokaw's remarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qzQ0usmc4M

Meet The Press transcript, September 28, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26927711/page/2/

2. NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, September 19-22, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=30545&id=14095-9633372-xHED1.x&t=3

3. NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, September 6-8, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=30547&id=14095-9633372-xHED1.x&t=4

4. NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, September 19-22, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=30545&id=14095-9633372-xHED1.x&t=5

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, September 6-8, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=30547&id=14095-9633372-xHED1.x&t=6

5. ABC News, September 26, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5898364

6. "CBS News / Knowledge Network Undecideds Give Debate To Obama," The Atlantic blog, September 26, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=30534&id=14095-9633372-xHED1.x&t=7

"Debate Reviews Go To Obama," Huffington Post, September 26, 2008 (includes CNN poll)
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=30535&id=14095-9633372-xHED1.x&t=8

MediaCurves poll
http://mediacurves.com/

7. Sunday's polls showing voters preferring Obama over McCain  (via RealClearPolitics.com)
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=30541&id=14095-9633372-xHED1.x&t=9

********************************************************************************

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and

Palin - Workin' the Lie   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7828250

REID: McCain is "Erratic", Lacks Temperament to be POTUS 
 

Allegations resurface that McCain made propaganda statements and tried to keep Viet Cong records about him classified. 
 

 In the wake of last week’s financial meltdown, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been calling for more regulation and criticizing lax oversight of Wall Street, despite the fact that he and former senator Phil Gramm passed much of the deregulatory reforms that led to the current crisis.

This Bruce Wilson video from last month is the best available introduction to religion Sarah Palin-style, though it will probably make more sense to the uninitiated after reading the glossary.
 

McCain and Palin Are Trying to Take Political Lying to the Next Dimension

Red-faced, Palin Forced to Apologise. Blunders Talks with British Ambassador Ahead of Crucial TV Debate.

Cindy McCains Despicable Lie About Mother Teresa

McCain - Palin, Running on a Lie

I could go on for days, or pages.  Other people have come to the same conclusion, so here is the 'Lie Counter', so you too can play along:

McCainpedia - Count the Lies - http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies

Discussing the Wall Street bailout yesterday during an interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said the failure of Congress to act is “just not acceptable.” Then — presumably making an attempt at humor — McCain added that, if only he were a dictator, then the bill would be just right:

MCCAIN: I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable. […] This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.

Be sure to click through to read the Think Progress article, and  the UPDATE.  Think Progress » McCain: ‘I Always Aspire To Be A Dictator’

Below is a screen shot of a Wall Street Journal opinion article.  If you click to see the full page view, and then click once more on the screen shot you will be able to make out the date.  September 26th, 2008. Note the McCain advert on the right hand side.

 As of the local time here 10:47AM the debates haven't occurred yet and won't for seven more hours.  At the worst, this is a reminder of what this campaign is about.  Lie, deceive, distract and repeat.  At best, it is a reminder that the Republican's 'A Team' has not been placed behind this campaign. That small but important details are being missed.  That the talent, contacts and professionalism are missing due to a fundamental lack of support by the real players in the party, in the face of what must have been every poll, survey and trend report showing that no matter what there would be a Democratic landslide.  Sending out the A Team here, only to try to come back from a defeat next election, would have made things that much tougher.  Whichever the case,  trying to tell the voters what to do and think by subliminal message or ad nauseam repeats of phrases is the same as telling them what to do and think outright, and that is something I've heard Republicans don't take to very well.

 And to top all of this off this is the man who, despite having no practical background in economics, stating he doesn't know the economy as well as he should (but will read Greenspan's book), and has missed more votes than any other representative, wanted to suspend democracy while he headed to D.C. to supposedly fix what career professionals cannot.  The video clip below sums it all up quite nicely for me.  America still holds the hope and expectations of the world, let's not let that slip away. We can do anything, lets start with fixing America. 

 by Stan Goff

I write this open letter to troops, brothers and sisters – of all branches – who profess the faith of Christ. I write you to ask that you remember your baptism, because at that baptism you declared your renunciation of evil.

I came across this posted letter over at lewrockwell. It moved me, so I thought I would highlight it here.  I hope you take the time to click through and read the entire article.

On February 1, 1996, I retired from the United States Army. I had served in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam as an infantryman, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 4th Infantry Division, 2nd Ranger Battalion, the Jungle Operations Training Center, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta, the United States Military Academy at West Point, 1st Ranger Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, and finally 3rd Special Forces Group. I worked all over "hot spots" in Latin America during the 80s and early 90s. I participated in Grenada and Somalia; and I was the team sergeant for a Special Forces A-Detachment during the 1994 invasion of Haiti.

In all that time, I was one of those atheists in the foxholes they say don't exist. I could never have known that I'd find the faith to follow Christ and be baptized on Easter of my 56th year. But I did, even when I'd never grasped for spiritual reassurance as I slogged through the Central Highlands of Vietnam, leapt from airplanes into the night, or had helicopters shot out from under me. I've been taking up residence close to death for a long time. My faith isn't about jumping over death. It's about reconciling with God, who Jesus Christ showed us is Love.

When I was baptized I continued to carry my history; but one identity was sloughed off in the water and a new one born out of it.

I write this open letter to troops, brothers and sisters – of all branches – who profess the faith of Christ. I write you to ask that you remember your baptism, because at that baptism you declared your renunciation of evil.

Click here to read:  Open Letter to Christian US Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by Stan Goff

UPDATE: CNN has posted a handy, side by side chart showing  how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place. You can find it at the bottom.

Recently I landed on yet another article spreading what fact checkers and watchdog groups have called "completely inaccurate" information regarding the differences and details between the Democratic and Republican parties' tax plans.  FactCheck.org- A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern, Even Fox Debunks McCain on Taxes. However FOX also drops the ball, as Media Matters explains. 

So, with a heavy sigh, I opened up notepad, found my 'tax plan' links and prepared to defend the truth yet again.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not voting for either of these candidates.  But the lies being told during this campaign, the disrespect and disregard for party values and members, compels me to do something.  After 8 long Bush years, the events unfolding from the GOP campaign have me wondering if I've suffered a head wound, am lying somewhere in a coma and this is all a horribly twisted fever induced nightmare.  From proclaiming "I Know More!" but not really, his veteran voting record and support, to the media that is doing nothing to wake me from this nightmare.  And then of course there's the lie near and dear to my heart, Drill,  Baby Drill.  I shouldn't have been surprised considering previous abuses of power.  But who could have imagined?  Only my desperate, confused, comatose mind one would think, right?  Well, this one time I was saved.  Someone with faster links, more organized or less weary? I'm thankful in either case, as he has granted me permission to re-post his comment here in my ongoing efforts to be a message force multiplier for truth.  It should make for a good Sunday read in pursuit of the truth:

Keep saying it long enough...and maybe you can convince yourself it's true. You sure won't convince people who actually live in a fact-based world.

Sorry, but this is pretty much just a bunch of hogwash. McCain's plan has been found by experts to cost more and to add even more to the deficit than Obama's will, and at a far greater cost to the middle class.

The independent Tax Policy Center has published A Preliminary Analysis http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans.  Here is part of the abstract:

Here is the bottom line:

Senator Obama’s plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain’s plan would add $4.5 trillion."

According to the report, the deficit would increase by $1.2 trillion more under the McCain plan.

If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States. The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001–06 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center's Tax Vox Blog: http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/6/11/3739543.html

Obama would use the money to provide modest tax cuts to low- and moderate-income people while imposing stiff tax hikes on the very wealthy. McCain would cut taxes a bit for the working-class and a lot for the rich.

...Despite McCain’s recent claim that Obama would raise taxes for all, it turns out that middle-class families would do better under Obama (who would cut their taxes by $1000 in 2009) than McCain (who would cut them by only $300).

...McCain, who once opposed President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cut as a give-away to the rich, but now embraces them, has designed a plan more consistent with the New McCain than the old. It is as Republican a plan as Obama’s is Democratic. The top 20% of taxpayers get a 3% reduction in after-tax income in 2009, while the lowest-earning 60% would get less than 1%.

For the distribution analysis of the respective plans, see here. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?template=simulation&SimID=266&relTTN=T08-0118

-------------------------------------------------------------

On top of all that, Obama has clearly outlined how he intends to pay for his plan, while John McCain hasn't even come close to being able to explain his magic numbers seemingly plucked out of the ether. Economists and fact checkers have repeatedly stated that Obama's spending proposals and tax plans add up.

David Wessel, Wall Street Journal, 2/28/08:

One challenge is to tally up his tax cuts and spending increases to see whether they're matched by tax increases and spending cuts, as he says they are. To skip to the bottom line: Sen. Obama's probably do.

Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe, 7/11/08:

"[Obama] has offered a clearer - and politically braver - idea of how he'd pay for his tax cuts and spending increases and shore up other programs..."Obama has a very ambitious agenda, but he has identified some potential ways of paying for it," says Bixby. "Those may involve some heroic assumptions, but from what I can tell, the McCain pay-fors are all heroic assumptions." So, though Obama is a long way from being a deficit hawk, he deserves credit for giving voters a reasonable idea of how he'd operate. McCain is asking them to buy a pig in a poke."

IT'S MCCAIN'S BUDGET PLAN THAT WILL BREAK THE BANK

Analysts Say McCain's Plan Would Increase The Deficit More Than Obama's.

"Experts say that both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit... But several analysts have said they believe that Mr. McCain's plan would increase the deficit more, because of the size of the tax cuts he is seeking." [New York Times, 6/11/08]

McCain's Budget Figures Don't Add Up:  "Fiction may require a willing suspension of disbelief, but presidential campaigns shouldn't. Yet here's the fanciful proposition John McCain wants us to swallow: that he can extend the Bush tax cuts, pile other tax breaks and revenue reductions atop them - and still balance the federal budget in four years... "I don't think there is any there there," declares Bob Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, who says that in his attempt to portray himself as both a tax cutter and a deficit hawk, the Republican candidate is using "very vague numbers."..."It's preposterous," says Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As a round-number illustration of the difficulty, Horney notes that $400 billion would be more than 80 percent of the amount projected for fiscal year 2013 domestic discretionary spending." [Scot Lehigh Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 7/11/08]

McCain's Tax Cuts Will Explode The Federal Deficit: "Sen. John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs." [Wall Street Journal, 4/22/08]

McCain's Budget Will Add $150 to $250 Billion More To The Deficit Per Year Than the Obama Plan: "The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this, and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain's stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more." [New York Times, 6/18/08]

Just as Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan said in response to McCain's misleading negative ads,

"Yet again, John McCain makes another false, low-road attack while he's offering just more of the same Bush economics that have failed us for eight years. The choice is simple: Barack Obama will give a real tax cut up to $1,000 to 95% of working Americans, while John McCain will follow in Bush's footsteps, adding to the deficit with huge tax breaks for oil companies and other special interests. No matter how many false negative ads John McCain runs, Americans can't afford more of the same Bush policies that John McCain promises."

That greatest champion of liberty, Thomas Jefferson, feared that if a small group of citizens became too wealthy, they would create an economic aristocracy which would cause a polarization between the rich and the poor and democracy would vanish. Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

In an 1825 letter to William B. Giles, Jefferson cautioned that economic powers "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a next best blessing to the monarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest steppingstone to it."

Jefferson also suggested amending the Constitution to "ban monopolies in commerce."

James Madison decried "inequality in fortunes" as a "malignant aspect in republicanism."

Thom Hartmann relates a story about Madison's views on where the responsibility of caring for the poor lay:

...on February 21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill passed by Congress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor. Faith-based initiatives were a clear violation, in Madison's mind, of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and could lead to a dangerous transfer of political power to religious leaders.

In Madison's mind, caring for the poor was a public and civic duty - a function of government - and must not be allowed to become a hole through which churches could reach and seize political power or the taxpayer's purse.

I've gone on long enough, but there is a literal smorgasbord of history and current events that invalidate most every statement you make in this article.

And I want you to know that I am very conservative (in the real definition of "conservatism") when it comes to financial policy. I'm a member of the non-partisan group DownsizeDC, which seeks to end wasteful government spending and make government "smaller." I don't agree with their positions on everything, but I am tired of America being bilked by the government for STUPID stuff, and I'm sick of the rampant corruption and back-room deals made by DC politicians. For me, this does NOT mean destroying the social programs that many depend on to be able to live a life of dignity. It means getting rid of the waste and corruption within the programs, and cutting many of the other ridiculous programs that provide little or no benefit to the huge majority of Americans.

By JC Garrett Sept. 13, 2008

Thanks So Much JC!

 

Untruths Become Facts

From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she had opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.

As the presidential campaign moves into a final, heated stretch, untrue accusations and rumors have started to swirl at a pace so quick that they become regarded as fact before they can be disproved. A number of fabrications about Palin's policies and personal life, for instance, have circulated on the Internet since she joined the Republican ticket.

    Palin and John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, have been more aggressive in recent days in repeating what their opponents say are outright lies. Almost every day, for instance, McCain says rival Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000.

truthout|As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts

Failed Conservative Values

Every morning I can't get out of bed until I've heard Jim Hightower on my local NPR radio station. It's my inspiration to face another day. So, it was a real treat to meet him at the Netroots Nation Conference in his home town of Austin, Texas. I asked Jim about the failure of  conservative values.  He said the failure is the ethic of greed and the alternative to this are the progressive values of fairness, social justice and equal opportunity for all people. 

 

  

OpEd News Failed Conservative Values by Edwin Rutsch

Evil: It's the new good!

The devil isn't evil, he just has lousy PR.

Examples? They are legion. Here's one the Powers That Be desperately hope you'll swallow, a nasty piece of marketing gall meant to stab at your intelligence and bitch-slap your intuition, but which is nevertheless being force-fed to you as happy environmental manna, a viciously deformed version of something called "progress."

Here is "clean coal." Isn't it beautiful? Truly, the hell-bound ad agency that coughed up that one even had the nerve to film a commercial featuring Kool and the Gang's "Celebrate" playing over perky scenes of manic Americans sucking down electricity like John McCain sucks down extra oxygen, claiming that coal is America's namesake resource and we should therefore kneel before it and worship it like apple pie and horrible sex-ed and Lindsay Lohan's nipples. Did I mention the coal industry's PR people are going to hell for this? Count on it.

There is, of course, no such thing as "clean coal." It's as impossible as a humanitarian Republican, as insulting as Homeland Security. Even Obama gets it wrong in his support of this lethal oxymoron. There are only two options: Brutally pollutive coal extraction and burning techniques, rapacious strip mining and millions of acres of destroyed forest and contaminated water tables and toxified air and one of the most environmentally destructive energy sources on the planet; or new and slightly less horribly pollutive coal extraction/burn techniques that attempt to rein in a few of the more toxic pollutants, but not including carbon dioxide or, you know, cancer and death. That's about it.

Evil: It's the new good! Shut up and drink your high fructose corn syrup, sucker

You don’t hear often politicians seriously talking about shifting the power from the few to the many, and even less often do they actually do anything to shift the power or promote increased citizen engagement. If the dynamic of citizen engagement is strong, elected officials can be pressured to do what rightfully and justly shifts power to the American people.

As a result, many people may be turned off by a third-party candidacy. You may be wondering why exactly I am supporting Ralph Nader, of all people, for President of the United States. The answer consists of two main aspects: Nader’s career and history serving citizens of the United States (taking on corporations and the powerful time after time, advocating for consumer safety); and his progressive, intelligent, and civic-minded thoughts on the issues. Frankly, these two aspects make Nader completely different from the two major-party candidates. These things make him unique, irreplaceable, independent, worthy of a vote.

 

Why I support Ralph Nader for President : Click to continue reading the article.

Below is a playlist of Various Nader related videos.

Whatever half-hearing convention the Republicans cobble together in Minnesota this week, you’re going to hear the same lies they’ve been peddling for years. Under the weight of the Bush administration’s failures, though, even pretense is collapsing. Let’s finish off the job.

Here are their top five lies:

1. Republicans are Fiscal Conservatives

Bush is leaving office with the deficit through the floor.

2. Republicans are Strong on National Security

Republicans have been running against Jimmy Carter since 1980, despite the fact that Democrats have strong traditions of military service and tactical skill in wartime. So where is the proof that the GOP can win wars or keep our country safe?

3. Republicans Defend Individual Rights

Another good joke. You want to tell me how Democrats might take your gun away? Let me ask you this: what good will the Second Amendment do you without the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth?

4. Republicans Represent Family Values

By their own standards, Republicans have failed to live out the values they affirm. A corrupt party full of self-loathing homosexuals (for whom I have pity) and child molesters (for whom I have only anger) can no longer claim to represent anyone’s values - whether it be conservatives or liberals.

5. Republicans Just Want Everyone to Have the Same Opportunities

When Republicans rail against affirmative action, universal health care, or social programs, they claim to want a society where everyone “starts in the same place.” But as we’ve seen above, Republicans always create at least two sets of rules. One for the politicians, another for the voters.                      

Click below to see the complete information on the five biggest Republican lies.

The Five Biggest Republican Lies - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics

 

$50 Million Tax Dollars for Denver to Protect our Government from it's People

 

  

 WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING that the Jewish conquest of Palestine was driven by great need, Zander argues that "we never admitted that our return requires from the Arab a sacrifice of the first order."

  Deploring the fact that the Jews have refused to accept any guilt, he writes:  "We have blamed everybody but ourselves; and very few of us have indeed accepted the full share of responsibility for what has been done."

He continues in a passage that could have been written yesterday: "The main task, as in all periods of the whole movement, remains the solution of the Jewish-Arab problem. It is obvious that ultimately peace with our neighbors is required if the Jewish state is to survive. At present we are trying to achieve this peace by force and to build up in feverish haste the military strength which is to guarantee our security. But under no conditions can force be enough."

Reading and listening to the daily comments by Israeli political leaders and commentators, one cannot help but admit that reliance on force remains a central pillar of our policy and general approach. Against this prevailing attitude, let us consider the wise and courageous words written 60 years ago by Walter Zander, a thoughtful attorney, living in Gerards Cross near London: "It is obvious that this situation creates a particular responsibility and obligation on our side. The spirit of mutual retaliation and vengeance - aiming at subduing the opponent by fear - is not only utterly senseless, but, as far as we Jews are concerned, fundamentally wrong. We Jews should have a deeper insight and should be able to see both sides of the problem. It is we who aim at a change of the existing conditions, and it is therefore our duty to find a solution. The initiative for this task must remain with us."

To read the complete article click: Is this the way? | Op-Ed Contributors | Jerusalem Post

Political Issues that Matter for 2008

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

ExxonMobil Report
Full Report (PDF)
Appendix C (hi-resolution PDFs)
Part 1 (hi-resolution PDF)
Part 2 (hi-resolution PDF)
Part 3 (hi-resolution PDF)

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has :

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
• funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
• attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

Click here to continue reading original article

The HJC just voted 20-14 to hold Karl Rove in contempt!

WHAT THIS MEANS: The decision by the HJC to hold Karl Rove in contempt is a recommendation to the full House, who can now vote to adopt the recommendation with a contempt resolution by a simple majority vote. Should they pass a contempt resolution, the Sergeant-at-Arms for the chamber would be ordered to arrest Karl Rove and bring him to the floor of the House to answer to the charges and to be issued punishment. The case would then be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who would in turn refer it to a grand jury. If convicted, Rove could face between one month and one year in jail.

BACKGROUND: Karl Rove has made a career out of distorting facts to destroy political rivals. In the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, he went even further: he deliberately put a political opponent in prison based on trumped up charges. The GOP couldn’t beat the most successful Democratic politician in recent Alabama history at the ballot box. So instead, at Karl Rove’s direction, the Bush Justice Department used U.S. attorneys to cook up a false criminal case against Siegelman in order to hand the Governor’s Mansion over to the Republican Party.

It’s no surprise that Karl Rove puts politics before due process, democracy and civil rights. That’s why even when faced with a subpoena from Congress, Rove has refused to testify. Unlike Don Siegelman, Karl Rove is breaking the law.

Rove believes that he is not only above the law, but that he controls it. He’s wrong.

Sign our petition. Send Karl Rove to jail.

UPDATE 7/23 8PM ET: 100k signatures!

Send Karl Rove to Jail!