archived: 4 - 10 Jun, 2006 Back Next
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
[By Dr. Steven Jonas]
Saw the film yesterday. My review?
Al Gore has got to run for President. He is the only one now on the horizon who might be able to a) save the world from the potential global warming disaster and its consequences for the future of our species and b) save Constitutional Democracy in the United States (not a subject of this film but one about which Gore seems from recent speeches to be equally passionate). If he does, in the primaries it would be Hillary "Half-Measures" Clinton vs. Al "Gets to the Core" Gore.
I cannot see him not getting the Democratic nomination unless the Petro Cartel kills him first, and if he (not any consultants, except us, of course) runs his campaign, he would have a pretty good shot at winning the Presidency unless the Georgites raise their cheating machine to the next level (which they may well have already done).
At any rate, see the movie. It's very well done in terms of accomplishing the goals that were set for it: to raise public awareness about the most important environmental issue on the table, bar none.
_____________________________________________
WILLIAM A FRANKLIN
“KNOW THEM”
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Matthew 7:16
If the Democrats take the House and/or Senate in 2006, here is a list of questions all candidates for national office as well as incumbents not running in 2006. Candidates and officeholders must go on public record or be labeled loudly as too cowardly to say.
1. Will you loudly and aggressively demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and half of the countries in which the US has major facilities and major presence?
2. Will you aggressively demand that US Armed Forces budgets are reduced one third so that another president will not be as tempted to ruin the nation and economy with unilateral wars?
3. Will you act aggressively to repeal the so-called Bush Tax cuts imposed for the benefit of the rich at the expense of middle and lower classes – all of the so-called cuts?
4. Will you act aggressively to repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety, as well as any amendments, restoring our civil liberties?
5. Will you act to repeal the so-called Medicare Drug program and replace it with a system controlled by the Government and not corporations, specifically mandating that all drug providers compete under the same regulations the VA does to sell medicines?
6. Will you act aggressively to repeal the so-called Bankruptcy law, designed to screw the poor and enable the rich and financial firms?
7. Will you demand and participate aggressively in the Congressional hearings sorely needed to investigate the corruption and crimes of the Bush Administration, including all the cronies in the various agencies; all with the simple goal of removing and prosecuting offenders?
8. Will you aggressively and loudly demand the impeachment of George Bush for high crimes and treason, as well as referral to Justice for criminal charges?
9. Will you aggressively invoke the Antitrust Laws to break up large conglomerates and price fixing cartels, imposing punitive taxes on them if they do not concede?
10. Will you aggressively and loudly work to revoke the so-called No Child Left Behind law, removing an unjust and unfair law?
11. Will you undertake to accomplish these in the first six months of 2007? In all of 2007?
Please cite the above actions you will not undertake in the name of the People and your constituents. Why these immediate rescissions are are not proper, now? Please give simple yes or no answers; vacillation is no; no excuses or argumentation wanted or allowed. Don’t call your lobbyists to help answer.
ERIC COX
“THREE NEGLECTED DEMOCRATIC ISSUES”
In this
essay, I'll present three strategic approaches, conservative in nature, that
would benefit Democrats. They are attacking child poverty, returning to support
for international law and global burden sharing. I plan an expanded version of
these three issues that I will mail to all state party chairs and to all
Democrats in Congress.
CHILD POVERTY. Poverty rates among children have hovered between 22 and 18
percent off all children, depending on definitions and years covered. Who can
deny that it is a disgrace for the richest nation known to history to allow such
a large portion of kids at risk to be consigned to poverty? We preach human
rights to the world while neglecting the most vulnerable of our population.
This issue had already been introduced to presidential politics by John Edwards
in his bid for the Democratic nomination by his talk of the two Americas--the
well off and the neglected. Family values are considered a conservative value
and certainly rescuing children at risk is a family value.
RETURN TO SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. Our current president upset much of the
world by trashing treaties negotiated by previous Republican and Democratic
presidents. It is well to remember that the Constitution explicitly states that
treaties are the supreme law of the law. The reason for this is that early
founders such as Madison felt the Law of Nations derived from natural law--that
is law that is above national law. This is a semi-religious concept,
conservative in nature. In my historical novel, Conversations with George
Washington and Benjamin Rush, I adduce considerable evidence from our early
founders on their wish to have the support of the nations of the world by
placing treaties as at least coequal to national law if not above it. I will
leave open the intriguing question that if one agrees with the Constitution
about treaties, then by abrogating treaties ratified by Congress did the
president break the law?
GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING Two recent presidents, a Republican and a Democratic one,
advocated a more robust global approach to serious world problems. The first
President Bush did so in his call for a New World Order based on the rule of
international Law. And President Clinton did also with his concept of global
burden sharing. One key object of both presidents was to spread the costs of
assuring a peaceful and orderly world to all nations as contracted to having the
blood of our youth and the taxes of our citizens bear the blunt of the burden.
Our current president embraces a mostly unilateral approach to global threats with failed results such as the ill-considered war on Iraq, a once secular nation that was no threat to us. Coming with that stance is an immense military budget that hogs over half of funds that Congress is free to allocate. Funds that can be allocated amount are about one-third of the budget with the rest in mandated spending for social benefits, interest on the national debt and other mandates. Few are aware that considering all military costs, including supplementals, that military spending is approaching 57% of available funds. The benighted media is most reluctant to report this largely unknown bite gobbled up by the military. This veteran wants a mean, lean, efficient military budget as contrasted to the sloppy, pork-fed current military outlays. With global burden sharing, more would be available for pressing domestic needs or tax cuts, as favored by many.
__________
Conversations with George Washington and Benjamin Rush is available from Amazon.
___________
Last Update: 06/10/2006