As the time races by, the Democrats in Congress continue to do nothing to counter the crimes and malfeasance of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Conyers has retreated. Schumer helped give us "I don't know what torture is " Mukasey. Pelosi is still keeping impeachment off the table. Reid says nothing.
A few brave communities, mainly in the Northeast, have voted to express themselves locally against the crimes of Bush, but the Democrats in Washington are holding back.
What are they afraid of?
If it's failure they are worried about, they look much worse by failing to act than failing by not taking action.
It appears they are choosing to fail by not acting.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
QUANDRY: HOW TO COPE WITH A FAILING DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
Now in this, the beginning of the last year of this terrible administration, it appears that the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate will probably not act to address the possible crimes that have been commited.
They (meaning at least Pelosi and Reid, and maybe even Schumer and Conyers) seem not to be willing to use the Constitution and our laws to address the numerous suspected crimes of Bush and his cronies.
This is a great disappointment to those of us who have been loyal Democrats, with long histories of continual support to the Democratic Party and its policies.
It is also a disappointment to those of us who consider ourselves true and patriotic citizens of our country, and who have faith in our national and legal principles.
If there were a viable third party which incorporated the ideals and concepts of the Democratic Party that we thought we knew, I believe many of us would support that party now as an alternative to the Democratic Party as it is currently functioning.
They (meaning at least Pelosi and Reid, and maybe even Schumer and Conyers) seem not to be willing to use the Constitution and our laws to address the numerous suspected crimes of Bush and his cronies.
This is a great disappointment to those of us who have been loyal Democrats, with long histories of continual support to the Democratic Party and its policies.
It is also a disappointment to those of us who consider ourselves true and patriotic citizens of our country, and who have faith in our national and legal principles.
If there were a viable third party which incorporated the ideals and concepts of the Democratic Party that we thought we knew, I believe many of us would support that party now as an alternative to the Democratic Party as it is currently functioning.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
WHO HAS GOTTEN TO KUCINICH AND CONYERS? THE CIA? THE MAFIA?
Why have Kucinich and Conyers backed down from their plans for impeachment?
Who has initimidated them?
Do Bush and Cheney have such frightening allies that they could cause these experienced politicians to withdraw their promises?
What kind of threats could have been made to them, and by whom?
Who has initimidated them?
Do Bush and Cheney have such frightening allies that they could cause these experienced politicians to withdraw their promises?
What kind of threats could have been made to them, and by whom?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
TOO LATE FOR IMPEACHMENT. TIME FOR INDICTMENT!
We've waited too long. It's well past the eleventh hour.
We will never be able to impeach the b*******s now.
It's time for a criminal investigation of at least Bush and Cheney, and possibly Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and who ever else in this abysmal administration who has possibly committed crimes.
The time is now.
Carpe Diem!
We will never be able to impeach the b*******s now.
It's time for a criminal investigation of at least Bush and Cheney, and possibly Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and who ever else in this abysmal administration who has possibly committed crimes.
The time is now.
Carpe Diem!
Friday, November 2, 2007
How the Bush Administration Has Suppresssed Dissent
"Moveon.com Bloggers and Code Pink Protesters" were criticized by the President in a derisive way.
To hear him talk, they were worse than the Taliban, Bin Laden and Al Queda put together.
But they are just American citizens expressing their constitutional right to free speech and the American right to dissent.
Is there a policy to take away their right to dissent?
George Bush, the people who encourage him and tell him what to say, most notably Richard Cheney seem to be acting as though that's what they want.
What do they do to accomplish this removal of civil rights?
They denigrate and insult those who dissent, the way they talk about us.
They sneer and snarl when they refer to the dissenters. They use their facial expressions and body language to try to mislead the American people into thinking that these patriotic Americans are not loyal to our country.
This is only one way they try to stop dissent.
To hear him talk, they were worse than the Taliban, Bin Laden and Al Queda put together.
But they are just American citizens expressing their constitutional right to free speech and the American right to dissent.
Is there a policy to take away their right to dissent?
George Bush, the people who encourage him and tell him what to say, most notably Richard Cheney seem to be acting as though that's what they want.
What do they do to accomplish this removal of civil rights?
They denigrate and insult those who dissent, the way they talk about us.
They sneer and snarl when they refer to the dissenters. They use their facial expressions and body language to try to mislead the American people into thinking that these patriotic Americans are not loyal to our country.
This is only one way they try to stop dissent.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS SUPPRESSED DISSENT?
How does one know if political dissent has been purposely or actually suppressed?
One sometimes has to go by instinct and perception.
Here are some of the observations that dissent from the administration's policies, e.g. the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror", have been suppressed:
There has been the denigrating way the right wing zealots have characterized the Democrats, the group most likely to represent the dissenters.
For example, the Republicans have tried to deny the use of the word "democratic" as an adjective when it applies to the Democratic Party but instead repeatedly use the word "democrat" which is a noun.
How can this seemingly minor use of language be interpreted as suppession of dissent?
It is an imposition of a subtle slur by the ruling Republican party, of the Democratic Party's identity.
In other words, it is a form of name calling.
It implies that the Democrats are not "democratic" and do not deserve to be called "democratic."
In other words, it is a slur, an insult. And an implicit warning, saying, "we are in power and we can even influence your use of language."
There was also a successful campaign to control the use of images:
The refusal to allow the press to photograph the killed in action soldiers coming home in their flag draped caskets was a clear and powerful way that the ruling majority controlled an image that might have aroused popular opposition to a war. Opposition that would have been inconvenient to the rulers.
The attempt to monopolize the "support the troops" concept also was another subtle way to suppress dissent. What they were trying to say was, if you don't support the administration, you don't "support the troops", therefore you are not a good American. If fact you might even be a traitor, the Republicans seem to imply.
The wearing of the American flag in the jacket lapel also was a way to try to impose a form of ostentatious patriotism, to the point that if one didn't have the American flag on the jacket, one could be thought of as less than patriotic.
Of course, at public events, the corraling of protestors in offsite, off camera locations was a blatant way the adminstration successfully suppressed dissent.
One can imagine there was a conscious organized campaign to use these methods, techniques and control of images, to futher the Republicans' political ambitions.
It is reminiscent of what the German leaders did in the run upto WWII, as they manipulated the German people into supporting a horrifying and evil campaign.
And guess what?
The President has now targetted "Move On.Org Bloggers" and "Code Pink Protesters" as more of his enemies.
Could you hear the contempt in his voice as he snarled those comments?
He and his cronies have got to go. They are destroying our country.
One sometimes has to go by instinct and perception.
Here are some of the observations that dissent from the administration's policies, e.g. the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror", have been suppressed:
There has been the denigrating way the right wing zealots have characterized the Democrats, the group most likely to represent the dissenters.
For example, the Republicans have tried to deny the use of the word "democratic" as an adjective when it applies to the Democratic Party but instead repeatedly use the word "democrat" which is a noun.
How can this seemingly minor use of language be interpreted as suppession of dissent?
It is an imposition of a subtle slur by the ruling Republican party, of the Democratic Party's identity.
In other words, it is a form of name calling.
It implies that the Democrats are not "democratic" and do not deserve to be called "democratic."
In other words, it is a slur, an insult. And an implicit warning, saying, "we are in power and we can even influence your use of language."
There was also a successful campaign to control the use of images:
The refusal to allow the press to photograph the killed in action soldiers coming home in their flag draped caskets was a clear and powerful way that the ruling majority controlled an image that might have aroused popular opposition to a war. Opposition that would have been inconvenient to the rulers.
The attempt to monopolize the "support the troops" concept also was another subtle way to suppress dissent. What they were trying to say was, if you don't support the administration, you don't "support the troops", therefore you are not a good American. If fact you might even be a traitor, the Republicans seem to imply.
The wearing of the American flag in the jacket lapel also was a way to try to impose a form of ostentatious patriotism, to the point that if one didn't have the American flag on the jacket, one could be thought of as less than patriotic.
Of course, at public events, the corraling of protestors in offsite, off camera locations was a blatant way the adminstration successfully suppressed dissent.
One can imagine there was a conscious organized campaign to use these methods, techniques and control of images, to futher the Republicans' political ambitions.
It is reminiscent of what the German leaders did in the run upto WWII, as they manipulated the German people into supporting a horrifying and evil campaign.
And guess what?
The President has now targetted "Move On.Org Bloggers" and "Code Pink Protesters" as more of his enemies.
Could you hear the contempt in his voice as he snarled those comments?
He and his cronies have got to go. They are destroying our country.
Monday, October 29, 2007
MY DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK AND NINE ELEVEN STOLE MY SOUL!
"Nine eleven...Terrorism...Al Queda...!"
"Nine eleven...Terrorism...Al Queda...!"
"Nine eleven...Terrorism...Al Queda...!"
Over and over and over and over, the Bushies terrorize us with their bull****.
Until the whole country is hypnotized into passive inaction.
Meantime the hypnotists are secretly at work, dismanteling all of what we thought we held sacred: namely the rule of law and everyone, everywhere deserving fairness.
So nineteen young , educated, Arab wierdos commit a suicidal mass murder, and we allow a small bunch of zealous oligararchs pervert our national values, take the lifeblood of our youth and steal billions of our dollars to enrich themselves, all the while trying to install a permanent Republican hegemony to control the destiny of our country well into the future.
And do we react like the believers in the rule of law that we thought we were? Do we start an investigation, and use our legal process to bring the murderers and their accomplices to justice?
Nooo!
We allowed ourselves to be conned by a bunch of liars, and let them take our us into an unwinnable war, in a mood reminiscent of the Crusades and the Dark Ages.
Will we wake up from our passivity and inaction?
Or will we continue to allow these despots, who are using their own form of terrorism, to control our future?
Time will tell.
"Nine eleven...Terrorism...Al Queda...!"
"Nine eleven...Terrorism...Al Queda...!"
Over and over and over and over, the Bushies terrorize us with their bull****.
Until the whole country is hypnotized into passive inaction.
Meantime the hypnotists are secretly at work, dismanteling all of what we thought we held sacred: namely the rule of law and everyone, everywhere deserving fairness.
So nineteen young , educated, Arab wierdos commit a suicidal mass murder, and we allow a small bunch of zealous oligararchs pervert our national values, take the lifeblood of our youth and steal billions of our dollars to enrich themselves, all the while trying to install a permanent Republican hegemony to control the destiny of our country well into the future.
And do we react like the believers in the rule of law that we thought we were? Do we start an investigation, and use our legal process to bring the murderers and their accomplices to justice?
Nooo!
We allowed ourselves to be conned by a bunch of liars, and let them take our us into an unwinnable war, in a mood reminiscent of the Crusades and the Dark Ages.
Will we wake up from our passivity and inaction?
Or will we continue to allow these despots, who are using their own form of terrorism, to control our future?
Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)