the-peoples-patriot, a political Blog

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Bush Administration Scores "F" on Children's Health

The Bush Administration has received a grade of "F" on protecting the health and safety of America's children. On Monday the Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) released the "Bush Administration Report Card 2001-2004," reviewing 16 policy areas ranging from air quality regulation to lead poisoning prevention, to support for children's environmental health programs, and more.

Describing a consistent pattern of actions and inactions, CEHN concluded that "this Administration's track record is toxic to our children." The CEHN report card explores the federal record of the past three years in detail, noting that "this Administration had ample opportunity to do better" in many areas.

In mercury regulation, for example, the Bush Administration received an "F" for its attempts to weaken regulation and reduction of environmental exposure to this neurotoxin. CEHN notes that in a July, 2000 report, the National Academy of Sciences determined that "each year more than 60,000 children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems associated with in-utero mercury exposure. The NAS recommended that every effort should be made to reduce the release of mercury into the environment."

CEHN gave the Bush Administration a "C" for prevention of lead poisoning. Despite the long-recognized neurotoxicity of lead to children, the Bush Administration's proposed FY2005 budget cuts $35 million from lead hazard control grants -- a funding reduction of 20%.

The administration is also seeking to reduce or eliminate funding for Health and Urban Development (HUD) programs that help low-income families find safe and affordable housing, including $50 million in HUD lead hazard control grants.

CEHN assigns an "F" for the Bush Administration's consistent lack of commitment to children's environmental health research and programs. A few examples:

Under President Bush, the Office of Children's Health Protection has been leaderless for over two years.

In October 2001, the administration announced funding for four new research centers into children's environmental health, only to have EPA cut the budgets for the original eight. Congressional pressure restored some of this funding, but the total number of centers will ultimately be 11, not 12.

EPA also cut funding for the National Children's Study, which would follow approximately 100,000 children from before birth to at least age 18, assessing the impact of environmental factors on health.
The Bush Administration also received "F" grades for failing to promote or support other aspects of children's environmental health, such as placing politics above science in setting policy, and consistently impeding the public's access to information.

"Each Administration's actions -- and inactions -- profoundly affect the lives and well-being of children, through childhood and beyond," CEHN states in the executive summary. "Even as this report is being finalized, a number of emerging issues reiterate the overwhelming pattern that children are losing out to other priorities of this Administration."[1]

###

SOURCES:
[1] Children's Environmental Health Bush Administration Report Card, 2001-2004, Children's Environmental Health Network.

MY ADVICE endeavors at keen.com. The number is 1-800-275-5336 (800-ask-keen) + ext. 0329063 for tech stuff, 0329117 for running a small business, and 0329144 on investing. Want to CHAT, I use Yahoo's IM as the_web_ster. View me in the Friends & Family part of webcamnow.com, just click on "view cams", then in the Java window click on WebcamNow Communities drop down arrow & select Friends & Family. Under the live webcams look for & click on me "the_webster".

send comments via Email to me, D

posted by Adam1010

In my 50 years of life on this planet I’ve never seen a larger pile of evasive rambling done by anyone at any place or any time. Over and over, Condoleeza Rice was given simple straightforward questions which she simply refused to answer. Rice reminded me of a clever student bullshitting her way through a book report using her Cliff Notes. She elaborated and obfuscated endlessly in an effort to fill that room with empty words, or as Bob Kerrey accurately described it, ‘a bunch of stuff someone would give at a seminar.’ “Please don’t filibuster me..’ he implored her to no avail, ‘It’s not fair to do that.” She kept going back to the talking points... ‘we did not have a silver bullet’ ... ‘we had a structural problem’ ... ‘we’d have moved heavan and earth’ ... ‘the threat warnings were from abroad’ ... ‘the president was tired of swatting flies.’

I watched this nonsense for nearly three hours, thunderstruck by her endless prattle. Honest to God I expected her to start saying; ‘thousand points of light ... stay the course.’

The first question set her off an a large ramble which included, as did her enormous opening statement, Clinton blaming and the now-suddenly-legendary concept that Bush was ‘tired of swatting flies’ and that he preferred instead to destroy the entire Al Quaeda network. This in spite of the fact that Rice couldn’t or wouldn’t cite one example of policy demonstrating his apparent intentions to destroy that network, or in fact impede it in any way. Nothing substantive was ever offered to back this up, not anything of paper, or other eye-witnesses to this statement - only evasiveness and escuse-spinning. I might be convinced if just one memo or set of minutes were offered proving that Bush actually said, ‘let’s not be swatting at flies.... let’s destroy the entire network.’

There was a terrible methodology being played out in this testimony. One with an ugly partisan stain on it. Condoleeza Rice flatly refused to answer any question posed by Democratic members of the panel, preferring instead to lecture and blather their time away, even to the point of rudely interrupting the committee members, talking over them, and at times even boldly telling them that, ‘your question should instead be this...”

The ONLY questions she would answer concisely and directly were those from the Republican members of the panel. I have heard reports that some of those members were briefed by the White House counsel on what their questions and answers should be. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if it is it gives an air of conspiracy to this thing, one which defeats the entire purpose of these hearings, submerges it entirely in white house political spin-control.

Lee Hamilton asked: What could have we done to be more ready? She dodged that question too, citing expertly for the tenth time the things Bush’s staff tried to do, yet never mentioning anything that was specific. She preferred to use nugatory non-committal phrases like... ‘we were checking those things out.’

And did you hear her play the race-card? On HERSELF! During one of her endless time-wasting dissertations, Rice added this remark: "When our founding fathers said ‘we the people’ they didn’t mean me. So there have been times when we didn’t stand up for our ideals and values." What the hell was that about???

One of the very few direct questions Rice answered all morning was to clearly say ‘no’ when asked if it would have been possible to disrupt or destroy Bin Laden’s terror command network in Afghanistan without first securing Pakistan’s assistance. Yet meanwhile she alleges that Bush wanted to do something major and not minor. For several weeks now, she has been spinning this new mythology that Bush had been saying ‘I don’t want to swat at flies’ anymore. So where does that leave us?

Obviously that Bush had resolved to do nothing. Because if you don’t want to do anything small, and you are strategically prevented from doing anything large, what is left? Clearly, prior to some huge and disastrous event like 9/11 America lacked both the moral authority and political will to do anything major to carry out Bush’s purported agenda to ‘quit swatting at flies.’ Condi Rice has herself acknowledged that such a plan to destroy Al Quaeda would have been untenable in the pre 9/11 world.

Therefore by Rice’s own admission Bush did NOTHING to prepare America for domestic attacks. Bush did nothing to respond to Clark’s warnings, Tenet’s warnings, Sandy Berger’s warnings, or warnings from foreign intelligence. And obviously no suggestions were given to him by his national security advisor. No alerts went out to any agency that could have protected us, in spite of overwhelming amounts of information that pointed to impending attacks involving domestic air travel. It was enough information to convince John Ashcroft to quit flying on commercial airlines. Why wasn’t it enough of a threat for the rest of the country?

send comments via Email to me, D

A place to find out about Rice Testimony Before 9/11 Commission

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44767

This page will be updated as information is released by the Center for American Progress.
If needed just use www.americanprogress.org and go from there.

send comments via Email to me, D

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

BUSH REFUSES RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9/11 FAILURES

President Bush has told America many times that he
wants to "usher in an era
of personal responsibility" (1). Yet instead of
following former
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke's lead and
admitting some
responsibility for overseeing the worst national
security failure in
American history, the White House has pushed its
allies to unleash a vicious
attack on Clarke. Instead of apologizing to the
families as Clarke did (2),
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said
Clarke's apology "was not his
right, his privilege or his responsibility" (3).
Meanwhile, a Bush official
said Clarke's apology was "bull" (4).

Similarly, the President has told America he wants
a "society in which
people take responsibility for the decisions they
make" (5) instead of
"blaming somebody else." Yet the President still
refuses to own up to
specific decisions he and his Administration made
before 9/11 to
"de-emphasize terrorism" (6) as a priority,
terminate a key program to track
Al Qaeda suspects in the United States (7), and
"veto a request" (8) to put
more money into counterterrorism after the Bush
White House tried to slash
the FBI's counterterrorism budget.

The Administration also refused to take
responsibility for rejecting January
2001 recommendations (9) from the U.S. Government's
bipartisan Commission on
National Security (10) and instead waited five
months to create a
counterterrorism task force (11), which it then
never once convened (12).
When asked about this on CBS' Face the Nation,
Secretary of State Colin
Powell said only "I--I--I can't answer the specific
question" (13).

Sources:
1. "President Bush Discusses Progress in Education
in St. Louis",
01/05/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25354.
2. "Clarke's apology", Newsday, 03/25/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25355
9286.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines.
3. "Frist's Comments on Clarke's Testimony", New
York Times, 03/26/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25356
position=.
4. "The Truth of the Matter", Time, 03/28/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25357.
5. "Remarks by the President at Bush-Cheney 2004
Reception", 01/29/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25358.
6. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25359.
7. "In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department
Curtailed Highly
Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in
the U.S.", Yahoo!,
03/21/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25360.
8. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25359.
9. "We predicted it", Salon, 09/12/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25361.
10. US Commission on National Security,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25362.
11. Statement by the President, 05/08/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25363.
12. Washington Post, 01/19/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25364.
13. Face the Nation, 03/28/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25365.

send comments via Email to me, D

Watchdogs Blast Proposed Bush Forest Policy Overhaul

Officials at Defenders of Wildlife, one of the nation's premiere environmental groups, are expressing increasing frustration over the failure of the U.S. Forest Service to release documents which may confirm that logging industry executives wielded the same kind of influence over proposed forest policy that the energy industry enjoyed with Vice President Cheney's secretive energy task force.

Early in its tenure, the Bush Administration began work on an overhaul of the National Forest Management Act, which governs 200 million acres of publicly owned forests. Seeking evidence that would shed light on the motivations behind the overhaul, Defenders of Wildlife and the Endangered Species Coalition filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in October, 2002.

Defenders charges that Mark Rey, a longtime timber trade association official who is now President Bush's undersecretary for natural resources and environment in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been deliberately dragging his feet in response to requests for the documents.

"Bush's NFMA overhaul is the biggest-ever rewrite of our nation's forest management policies," said Defenders President Rodger Schlickeisen. "These regulations govern every decision that is made about every acre of national forest, and the Bush reforms cater precisely and blatantly to requests that have been made for years by the logging industry." Schlickeisen says the rewritten policies diminish public and scientific input in the planning process, gut many key wildlife protections, and allow increased logging on public land.

"They reverse even the protections that were put in place by the Reagan administration, including basic [National Environmental Policy Act] reviews and biodiversity standards," he added.

Defenders was further irked that Rey's office seemed to come down with a sudden case of amnesia when it told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that it had no records whatsoever -- no transcripts, memos, emails, or calendar records -- documenting meetings between the agency and industry groups (or anyone else, for that matter) during the process of revising the forest policies.

The court agreed with Defenders' claim that USDA did "not meet their burden of conducting a reasonable search and justifying non-disclosure of exempted information." The court requested that Rey's office do a further search for information and give a more reasonable explanation for why certain documents should be withheld.

"We're going to comply with the court order," said Rey, but he insisted that "there's no need to reach beyond that to broader theories of bad faith and conspiracy, because the court didn't find them and they don't exist."

Defenders' Schlickeisen has his doubts. Last month, Rey told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that substantial "modifications" are in the works, and the final draft is likely to be released in the next several months.

"They're probably consulting lawyers to try and make themselves least vulnerable to legal challenge," said Schlickeisen. "Because clearly if these new modifications are anything like what we've seen, they're illegal. And we've made it clear that we'll do what's necessary to prove it."

###

CORRECTION
An article in BushGreenwatch on April 5 misstated the position to which Ann Klee has been nominated at the Environmental Protection Agency. She has been nominated for EPA general counsel; Stephen Johnson, a career employee of the agency, has been nominated for deputy administrator. Ann Klee is currently general counsel to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Defenders of Wildlife press release.

send comments via Email to me, D

Tom Paine.com on "Impeachable Offenses"

John Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston and the author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush (NationBooks-NY, January 2004). Bob Fertik is the co-founder of democrats.com, an independent community of Democratic activists.

President George W. Bush—whose own election was dubious—has seized monarchical powers in sending this nation into war without any legitimate congressional declaration of war or equivalent congressional action. He has lied to the United States Congress and to the American people about the rationale for the war. He has imprisoned American citizens without charges and denied them access to lawyers and the courts. He has thus trampled on the United States Constitution and he has violated his oath of office.

This nation is at a crossroads. These are not simply issues to be debated in a presidential election. These are "high crimes" in the most profound meaning of the phrase, and they require the most serious of legal responses.

Our Constitution lays out a specific process for addressing high crimes committed by a president: impeachment. The time has come for Congress to investigate these crimes and begin impeachment proceedings. Our loyalty to our Constitution requires nothing less.

For the rest of the story:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10176
Have add'd his website to the "List on the Left" as well as Al Franken's blog site. Take a look.

send comments via Email to me, D

Brit Hume speak from Aug. of 03

On August 26, 2003 Brit Hume said on Fox News:
“Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they’re incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day.”
This is a grotesque distortion of fact. As Howard Kurtz reported in the Washington Post, “California has 34 million people, but there are 145,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” As Buzzflash.com calculated, this means that U.S. troops in Iraq at that time were 66 times more likely to die than Californians were likely to be murdered.

When Kurtz asked him about his comment, Hume responded: "Admittedly it was a crude comparison, but it was illustrative of something."

I agree.

It was illustrative of how Hume shills for this administration, playing down the risk to our troops. It’s illustrative of how shameless Brit Hume is, and how shameless Fox News is. It’s been almost seven months since Hume said this, and he hasn’t retracted it.

Mr. Hume should apologize to our troops and their families for his deliberately misleading statement. Write Brit Hume and demand that he apologize at Special@foxnews.com, or call Fox News at 1-888-369-4762. I don’t want to harass them or jam their phones--be polite, but clear.
END and taken from The Al Franken's blog of 4-07-04.

send comments via Email to me, D

CAl Gov. Calls Reformers' objectivity called into question

SACRAMENTO - To fix California's strife-ridden prisons, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has turned to some longtime correctional officials who helped create the very system he has vowed to change.

Another turncoat? SOME OFFICIALS PICKED BY GOVERNOR ARE PART OF PROBLEM, CRITICS SAY

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/8365685.htm

send comments via Email to me, D

Buffoon...

Bush Compares a Guest to His Mother
Tue Apr 6, 6:23 PM ET Add Strange News - AP to My Yahoo!

EL DORADO, Ark. - President Bush (news - web sites) has a penchant for dishing out good-natured insults, and usually the victim laughs along. But Sammie Briery didn't seem much amused when Bush fired one at her Tuesday.

Bush was wrapping up a town hall-style appearance at South Arkansas Community College when he let the jest fly. It was a mother joke, a blonde joke and an insult all in one.

"You and my mother go to the same hair-dye person," Bush said to Briery, whose blondish bob bore little resemblance to Barbara Bush's shock of white hair.

The audience in the gymnasium laughed, and Briery smiled, but replied firmly: "President Bush, I'm a natural blonde."

"Oh, yes," Bush agreed.

"I'm just a natural blonde," she repeated.

"I couldn't help myself, sorry," Bush shrugged.

With that, Bush moved quickly to end the session. He turned to Bob Watson, superintendent of the El Dorado Public Schools — who had opened the meeting by inadvertently insulting Bush.

"Governor — excuse me, President," Watson said.

Bush muttered, "How quickly they forget."

When Watson offered to shake Bush's hand, the president shot back: "Just don't hug me."

send comments via Email to me, D

Powell rebukes Kennedy in rare political foray

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell rebuked a leading Democratic senator for comparing the war in Iraq to Vietnam and suggesting President George W. Bush's policies had incited hatred against the United States.

In a rare foray into politics, Powell said Senator Ted Kennedy, an outspoken Bush opponent and supporter of Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites), should be "more restrained and careful" when discussing Iraq and the war on terrorism.

The rest of the story

And by the way, agree with Powell here, Kennedy should not have said that. He should have say that Bush is acting just like Hitler. Go read your history books again on prewar Germany. If you dare. Hitler suspended his people's rights and took them to war. Bush is just doing the same things only in a differant order. WE'll never get these Rights back people. We are being taken over. sheep!

send comments via Email to me, D

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

BUSH CAN'T PROVIDE PROOF TO SUPPORT HIS JOBS CLAIM

As President Bush tours the country touting his
economic record, he is
trying to shift the blame for the more than 2
million jobs that have been
lost since he took office (1). Specifically, he has
repeatedly claimed,
"over a million jobs were lost because of the
[9/11] attack" (2). But a new
report shows that there are no statistics to
support this assertion, and
that the White House itself cannot provide any
evidence that this is the
case.

According to the Bureau of National Affairs,
"White House officials were
unable to point to any specific information that
supports a direct link
between massive job losses and the attacks" (3).
While one White House
spokeswoman claimed that the President's statements
were "supported by the
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)," that agency's
associate commissioner "said BLS has not compiled
any specific study on jobs
which were lost specifically because of the Sept.
11 attacks."

Sources:
1. "Bush Record on The Economy and Jobs", Committee
on Education and the
Workforce, 02/26/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25618.
2. President Bush Discusses Job Training and the
Economy in NY, 03/11/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25619.
3. Bureau of National Affairs, 03/22/2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

New Evidence Bush Pushed Iraq War Right After 9/11

The White House continues to deny that the
president immediately began planning an invasion of Iraq in
the days after 9/11, calling such charges
"revisionist history" (1) and claiming Iraq was "to the
side"(2) immediately after the attacks. But new
revelations by a former top British official confirm
that, immediately after 9/11, President Bush started
planning to use the terrorist attacks as a
justification for war in Iraq, despite having no proof that
Iraq had any connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. (3)

According to a report in the new edition of Vanity
Fair, former British Ambassador to the United
States Christopher Meyer said that President Bush made
clear at a dinner (4) with Prime Minister Tony Blair
nine days after the 9/11 attacks that he wanted to
confront Iraq. The assertion is corroborated by the
Washington Post, which reported that President Bush
personally signed a two-and-a-half page directive
on September 17th, 2001 ordering the Pentagon to
begin drawing up Iraq invasion plans. (5) The
assertion is also corroborated by CBS News, which reported
on September 4, 2002 that, five hours after the
9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was
telling his aides to come up with plans for striking
Iraq."(6) The account by the former British
Ambassador confirms similar accounts by former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill.

The result of President Bush's preoccupation with
Iraq has been dramatic: the diversion of critical
resources to Iraq and away from the hunt for Osama
bin Laden/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As reported by USA
Today, "In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces
Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled
out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan
to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." (7)
Similarly, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) reported that,
in February 2002, a senior military commander told
him, "We are moving military and intelligence
personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready
for a future war in Iraq." (8) That has left many
dangerous terrorists still at large, and the UN now
reporting that the country is "in danger of
reverting to a terrorist breeding ground." (9)

Read More about Bush Administration Distortion at
Misleader.org »
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26544

Sources:

1. White House Press Briefing, 3/23/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26545.

2. "Neither Silent Nor a Public Witness,"
Washington Post, 3/26/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26546.

3. " Doubts cast on efforts to link Saddam,
al-Qaida," Knight-Ridder, 3/2/04,

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26547

4. "Report Details Bush-Blair Meeting on Iraq,"
Associated Press, 4/4/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26548

5. "U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past,"
Washington Post, 1/12/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26549

6. "Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11," CBS News,
9/4/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26550

7. Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA
Today, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26551

8. Senator Bob Graham Remarks to the Council on
Foreign Relations," Council on Foreign Relations,
3/26/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26552

9. "UN warns on Aghanistan reverting to terrorism
," Financial Times, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26553

send comments via Email to me, D

Free Speech in Danger: FEC Rule Change Would Silence Hundreds of Activist Groups

Last month the Federal Elections Commission voted 5-1 to consider rule changes that could drastically alter the legal status of many activist nonprofits, including environmental organizations.

If the proposal rules are approved, groups across the political spectrum may be forced to give up their core advocacy work or conform to stringent fundraising and financial reporting requirements usually reserved for political committees.

Further, the FEC could apply the rule change retroactively, in the middle of the election year, throwing the legality of nonprofit program, fundraising and reporting efforts into chaos.[1]

According to People For the American Way, "The chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be overstated. Merely expressing an opinion about an officeholder's policies could turn a nonprofit group overnight into a federally regulated political committee with crippling fund-raising restrictions."[2]

The FEC is considering this change in response to pressure from a Republican political committee, "Americans for a Better Country."[3] The group was organized last year specifically to establish "an aggressive voter-mobilization and issue ad campaign to out-raise and out-spend ... the liberal groups whose stated mission is the defeat of George Bush."[4]

The proposed FEC rule change comes amidst continuing actions by the Bush Administration to suppress dissenting views, including a prosecution of Greenpeace in federal court.

As reported by BushGreenwatch, the Ashcroft Justice Department dredged up an obscure 1872 law against "sailor-mongering" to indict Greenpeace on federal felony charges after activists boarded a ship carrying illegal mahogany from Brazil to Miami and hung a banner reading, "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." The case is considered a bellwether for the future of free speech and peaceful protest in the U.S.

Greenpeace filed for a dismissal of the case in December. A ruling is expected by April 9. Greenpeace has also filed a motion for a trial by jury should the case go to court, rather than having the case heard only by a judge, as requested by the Justice Department. "We want the public to hear the whole story," says Greenpeace's Nancy Hwa.

###

TAKE ACTION!
Send a comment opposing the rule change to the FEC. Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel, and must include the full name, electronic mail address, and postal service address of the commenter. The comments period ends on April 9: politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov.

###

SOURCES:
[1] MoveOn.org action alert.
[2] People for the American Way FEC Working Group.
[3] Common Cause Press Release.
[4] "Conservative Spotlight: Americans for a Better Country," Human Events Online.

send comments via Email to me, D

Monday, April 05, 2004

BUSH REFUSES TO FULLY FUND FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISTS

President Bush has repeatedly said he is committed
to doing whatever it
takes to "cut off terrorist finances" in order to
win the War on Terror (1).
But according to a new report, the president is
trying to kill a desperate
request by his own officials to increase the number
of investigators needed
to disrupt the finances of Al Qaeda.

The New York Times reports the president is trying
to eliminate a $12
million request by the IRS, which says it needs the
small injection of new
money "to increase by 50% the number of criminal
financial investigators"
necessary to do its part in the fight against
terrorism (2). The president
could easily fund the program by reducing the tax
cuts he wants to give to
the 200,000 millionaires in America: instead of
giving these millionaires an
average tax cut of $88,326 he could simply reduce
that tax cut by $60,
giving them instead $88,266, while using the
savings to fully fund the IRS
request (3). Instead, President Bush is pushing
more than $1 trillion in new
tax cuts, while ignoring the request (4).

The effort to deny the IRS needed counterterrorism
funds is just the latest
example of the president grossly underfunding the
protection of America. The
Washington Post reported last week that immediately
after 9/11, the White
House "cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency
request for counterterrorism
funds by the FBI" (5).

Sources:
1. President Recaps Historic Week in Domestic and
Foreign Affairs,
11/23/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25857.
2. "I.R.S. Request for More Terrorism Investigators
Is Denied", New York
Times, 03/31/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25858.
3. "HOYER ON THE HOMELAND SECURITY BILL: A One
Billion Dollar Trade-Off",
06/24/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25859.
4. "Bush wants tax cuts to stay", Washington Times,
01/20/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25860.
5. "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington
Post, 03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25861.

send comments via Email to me, D

EPA Deputy Administrator Nominee Brings Checkered Record

Ann Klee, general counsel to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, has been nominated by the Bush Administration to become deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If approved she would become second-in-command, under EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt.

Klee is a Washington veteran with a long history representing conservative interests on environmental issues. After working as a lawyer in Washington for several years, Klee became environmental counsel to Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) in 1995. Now governor of Idaho, Kempthorne is an outspoken opponent of many federal environmental laws and programs.[1]

In 1997, Klee joined the staff of the powerful Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee (EPW), where she was a central figure in a 1998 attempt to rewrite (i.e. weaken) the Endangered Species Act. Klee became chief counsel of EPW in 1999, and went on to lead the Bush Department of Interior transition team after the 2000 election. In 2001 she was appointed to her current post at Interior.

Klee's name surfaces in connection with controversial actions by the Bush administration.

In 2001, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) named Klee and several other Interior staffers in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filing related to Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. NRDC sought appointment calendars, correspondence, notes and minutes of meetings between Interior officials and energy industry representatives. The FOIA was denied. NRDC again named Klee when it appealed the decision in 2002.
That same year, Interior Secretary Gale Norton delivered misleading testimony to a Senate committee about the impact on caribou if drilling were to occur in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It turned out that Klee and a colleague had edited out scientific data provided by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.[2]
In October 2002, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), requested an investigation into possible conflicts of interest amongst Interior officials after Secretary Norton approved the Glamis Imperial Project -- an open-pit gold mine in southeastern California that had been blocked by Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior under President Clinton.[2] Boxer's request to DOI Inspector General Earl Devaney noted that "Counsel to the Secretary Ann Klee worked for the American Mining Congress and is married to a partner in the law firm that represents Glamis Gold Ltd."[3] However, Devaney cleared the officials in 2003.
Klee's most public role to date has been as chair of the South Florida Task Force working on Everglades restoration, where she earned praise from Florida Audubon's April Gromnicki. "As an environmental advocate I wouldn't say we've always agreed, but under her leadership we've seen a consistent commitment to Everglades restoration."

On the other hand, "Klee appears personally responsible for several "no jeopardy" decisions under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [official Interior Department opinions which allow industrial development in habitats crucial to endangered species] that put animals such as the Florida panther, the woodland caribou, and the Sonoran pronghorn antelope at the brink of extinction," William Snape, general counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, told BushGreenwatch.

Jaime Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Clinton, encountered Klee often during the late 1990s. "Ann Klee is bright, she listens, and she can navigate politics and push direction," Clark told BushGreenwatch. "It's hard to remember or imagine any time when I've agreed with Ann on a conservation issue. But I can't say she's unqualified for the job at the EPA, under the current administration."

Klee's appointment to EPA is currently up for confirmation by the Senate. But Vermont Independent Jim Jeffords and several Democratic senators plan to block hers and other pending EPA nominations. The senators are concerned that more than two years' worth of information requests to EPA regarding various Bush administration environmental policies have gone largely unanswered.[4]

###

SOURCES:
[1] “Dirk Kempthorne, the Dems’ Godsend,” Slate, Aug. 5, 2003.
[2] "Norton's ANWR portrait faulted," Washington Post, Oct. 21, 2001.
[3] "Boxer Calls For Probe of Mine Permit," Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2002.
[4] "Bush's New Assault on Sacred Lands," Christopher McLeod, Earth Island Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2003.
[5] "Wyden to block EPA nominee; Dems consider more holds," Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire, Mar. 11, 2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Bush Opens Door to More Coal Burning

The second story in a two part series.

In a little-noticed development with potentially devastating consequences for energy consumers, public health and the environment, the Bush Administration has been laying the groundwork for a resurgence of coal-fired power generation across the nation.

Many of the Administration's actions to roll back the Clean Air Act -- such as its weakening of New Source Review rules (rules requiring better emission controls) and its retreat on regulating mercury emissions -- are custom tailored for the coal industry. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of mercury and greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.[1]

With these key regulatory victories under its belt, the coal industry is leading a gold rush to acquire federal permits for coal-fired power plants before it loses control of the White House to a more public-health-friendly administration. Since Bush took office, more than 94 new coal-fired power plants have reached the planning and permitting stages, according to government sources and media reports.

"I think most Americans would be shocked that utilities are dragging the 19th century into the 21st century," says Dan Becker, director of global warming and energy program at the Sierra Club.[2]

Industry lobbyists, many of them working from inside the administration, claim that the resurgence of coal will be good for consumers. They point out, correctly, that North America sits on abundant coal reserves. Electricity generated from burning coal has been the cheapest domestic source of power since the industrial revolution; roughly 50 percent of the power produced in the U.S. still comes from coal.

But what industry officials fail to mention is the certainty that the federal government will eventually have to enact carbon and mercury regulations. According to the EPA, eight percent of American women of child-bearing age have enough mercury in their blood to pose a significant risk of nervous system damage to their children. And roughly 630,000, or 15 percent of all babies born in the U.S. each year, are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb.[3]

While President Bush has abandoned a Clinton-era proposal to virtually eliminate mercury emissions from coal plants, political pressure from health advocates will inevitably force the issue. Once mercury regulations are enacted, all coal facilities -- both newer, more efficient plants and the old polluting behemoths -- will be forced to invest in expensive technology to remove mercury from their smokestack emissions.

The upshot: if the White House enacts strong mercury regulations before the new slate of coal-fired power plants is approved, plant proponents will have to include the costs of compliance in their applications to rate-setting agencies. But if the plants are approved before stronger mercury rules are enacted, the eventual costs of removing mercury from smokestack emissions will be passed on to consumers in the form of escalating electricity costs.

The tragedy is that, with meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology, the U.S. could avoid building any new coal generation facilities -- and could begin to shut down some plants currently in operation. But unless President Bush undergoes a miraculous change of priorities, American consumers can count on getting burned.

###

SOURCES:
[1] "How industry won the battle of pollution control at EPA," New York Times, Mar. 6, 2004.
[2] "America's New Coal Rush," Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 26, 2004.
[3] "Estimate of Fetuses Exposed to High Mercury Doubles," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6, 2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

Saturday, April 03, 2004

REVERSING PLEDGE, BUSH LETS OPEC BILK AMERICANS

As a presidential candidate in 2000, George Bush
pledged to use his
"political capital" to influence OPEC when gas
prices soared, saying that
during a crisis, a president, "ought to get on the
phone with the OPEC
cartel and say, 'We expect you to open your
spigots" (1). But with gas
prices soaring in the United States (2), newspapers
report the White House
now says the president refuses to "personally lobby
oil cartel leaders to
change their minds" (3).

With the president refusing to do anything about
the situation, OPEC opted
this week to cut supply to further inflate gas
prices and bilk American
consumers (4). While Saudi Arabia's ambassador told
the White House
yesterday that his country supposedly opposed
higher oil prices, the
president's refusal to use his close relations with
the Saudi government
gave the Saudis a pass to support the OPEC
production cut (5). Despite the
Saudi effort to keep American energy prices high -
and despite their ties to
terror groups (6) - the President continues to
insist that the Saudi Arabia
is "our friend" (7).

During his term, the president has pursued other
policies that help enrich
the oil industry, which has given him more than $3
million since 2000 (8).
For instance, his tax legislation actually created
a massive tax incentive
for consumers to purchase gas-guzzling SUVs over
fuel efficient hybrid cars
(9). Meanwhile, the first budget President Bush
introduced after taking
office tried to cut 37%, (almost $200 million), out
of federal research on
renewable energy and energy efficiency programs
(10).

Sources:
1. "OPEC to cut back despite high prices",
Washington Times, 04/01/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26079.
2. "Surging Gas Prices Pump Up Political Debate"
Los Angeles Times,
03/31/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26080.
3. "Bush Refuses to Lean on Oil Cartel" Miami
Herald, 04/01/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26081.
4. "OPEC cut to oil output likely to keep prices
near record levels", Dallas
Morning News, 04/01/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26082.
5. "Saudi envoy plays nice with White House on oil
supply", USA Today,
04/02/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26083.
6. "The Saudi Connection", US News and World
Report, 12/15/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26084.
7. President Bush Vows to Bring Terrorists to
Justice, 05/15/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26085.
8. OpenSecrets.Org,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26086.
9. "SUV, truck owners get a big tax break", Detroit
News, 12/18/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26087.
10. "Proposed Bush Budget Cuts Renewables and
Energy Efficiency Programs",
Resources for the Future, 04/11/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26088.

send comments via Email to me, D

Friday, April 02, 2004

Is there anyone we can like? Maybe, Maybe not

From a friend of mine, She won't enter directly, so I copy her emails in for all to see...

John Kerry, man of the common folk.... he understands your pain,
really... trust him - lol, yeah - right

The many homes of Democrat Presidential candiate,
John F. Kerry.

Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania (Assessed value: $3.7
million)

Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway/vacation home (Assessed
value: $4.916 million)

Washington, D.C - Georgetown area (assessment: $4.7
million)

Nantucket, Massachusetts waterfront retreat on
Brant Point (Assessed value:
$9.18 million)

Boston, Massachusetts - Beacon Hill home (Assessed
value: $6.9)

oh, and he sold this estate in Italy to activist
actor George Clooney, just
before announcing his running for president. I
guess he thought it might
not sit well with the common man. ($7.8 million)

other foreign property ownership by John Kerry is
unknown... because he
denied repeated requests for this information.

These are the people we'll get till we make them do something about how Money get to them. Down with PACs and the money that the Bussiness world gaves to our Public Servants.

send comments via Email to me, D

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Environmental Pioneer Decries Bush Environmental Damage

A major new book explains why global efforts have failed to curb the world's most serious environmental threats -- and lays a large share of the blame at the feet of the Bush Administration.

"I think the biggest problem we have in facing these issues is the lack of U.S. leadership. In fact, what we've had is negative leadership," said longtime environmental leader Gus Speth, author of Red Sky at Morning. Now dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Speth offers eight approaches that can deter global environmental deterioration, as well as an analysis of why most efforts thus far have failed.

One of the pioneers of the modern environmental movement, Speth was co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental advisor to President Jimmy Carter, founder of the environmental think tank World Resources Institute, and CEO of the UN Development Programme.

Speth described to BushGreenwatch a pattern of obstructionist policies throughout the Bush tenure that have impeded global efforts to address pressing environmental issues such as climate change, renewable energy development, fossil fuel emissions, population measures and depletion of the ozone layer.

Rather than join with European nations to forge agreements on how nations can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, combat global warming, thwart further depletion of the ozone layer or reduce exposure to toxic chemicals, the Bush administration has chosen policies that curry favor with industry, Speth said.

"I think they've been more concerned about their own future from the outset," he said, "their own political future, rather than the public's future and our country's future. In my judgment this is really reprehensible."

Specifically, Speth criticized the Bush administration for:

Backing out of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce man's contribution to global climate change, and breaking "his own campaign commitment to a bill that would have regulated carbon dioxide emissions," a major contributor to global warming.
Opposing multinational efforts to reach goals on renewable energy development at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Attempting to water down an international treaty to strictly limit or eliminate exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and "dragging its feet" on getting the treaty ratified.
Opposing legislation put forward by Senators McCain and Lieberman that would establish a federal goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Blocking support for international population program measures because of pressure from the right to life movement.
Seeking massive exemptions from a successful international treaty to reduce production of methyl bromide (a potent ozone-depleting chemical). This would reverse U.S. progress on the problem, and has caused international anger.
Perhaps the most egregious acts of the Bush Administration have been in the area of U.S. energy policy and the failure to support the Kyoto Protocol, Speth said. Not only did the U.S. pull out of this historic agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but doing so has delayed Russian ratification, and will likely deter European nations from participating in the latter phases of the treaty, he said.

"This is huge in historic terms," said Speth. "We are rapidly losing our chance to prevent extremely serious and costly climate disruption. We haven't acted on this problem, and the U.S. is the biggest culprit. If we don't tackle this problem now we will reap very serious consequences."

send comments via Email to me, D

Al Franken hits the AIR TODAY for Liberal America

Get ready for a new concept in talk radio: liberals. A new company, Air America Radio, said Wednesday it will go live March 31 @ noon in the nation's FIVE largest markets, including the Bay Area, with an unprecedented left- leaning, round-the-clock talk radio network, featuring outspoken comedians Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher. The show name may be called "The O'Franken Factor"

New York - WLIB 1190 AM
Los Angelis - KBLA 1580 AM
Chicago - WNTD 950 AM
PORTLAND, OR - KPOJ 620 AM
Inland Empie, CA - KCAA 1050 AM
San Francisco - Coming Soon
XM Satellite Radio Channel 167
Steaming on the web at www.airamericaradio.com/ Set up to play on Real Player more than anything else.
And just added today (3-31-04) at the website Minneapois MN - WMNN 1330 AM

I've added the AirAmericaRadio.com link to the link list to the left for ya...

Air America's program lineup will be broadcast live on the East Coast, and tape delayed on the West Coast. Franken's show -- called "The O'Franken Factor" in a deliberate tweak at Fox News rival Bill O'Reilly -- will air from 11 AM to 2 p.m. (east coast times), while Garofalo's "The Majority Report" will run from 8 to 11 p.m. The shows will be repeated between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., the only hours when Air America won't have original programming.

Franken had great success last year when Fox News Channel sued him over the phrase "fair and balanced," and the resulting media attention helped make a best-seller out of his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." That experience led him to claim Wednesday, "We're going to be baiting (O'Reilly) as much as we can."

Jack Swanson, a self-proclaimed "screaming liberal" who started conservative talk station KSFO (560 AM) in San Francisco, said Air America is going about its business all wrong. "I don't think anybody's going to notice they're there," said Swanson, operations manager for talk stations KSFO and KGO (810 AM), owned by the Walt Disney Co.
In addition, he said, "I don't think there's a demand for it. ... (Air America's backers) are influential wealthy Democrats. It's a charity in a strange kind of way."

Swanson said Air America would need to spend $2 million on advertising in San Francisco alone in its first year to attract a sufficient audience.
Some have questioned whether liberals can succeed at all in the realm of talk radio. Conservatives, the argument goes, see the world in black and white, and offer more-entertaining points of view, while liberals tend to debate shades of gray and put audiences to sleep. In addition, corporate advertisers may favor conservative hosts who are friendlier to their points of view.

"If you're promoting SUVs, you're more likely to get an SUV commercial than if you're bashing them. That's pretty elementary," said Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, a liberal who had a talk show for several years on Pacifica Radio, including Berkeley's KPFA (94.1 FM). "The fact of the matter is, the liberal in American terms is offering correctives to capitalism, whereas the conservatives are singing the praises of capitalism, unfettered and unabashed and unapologetic. So, right there you have an order of magnitude difference in terms of corporate favorability."
Some liberals have had success in local markets, such as Miami's Randi Rhodes, who will be joining Air America. In addition, while some people say the failure of shows like one hosted by Jim Hightower of Texas prove that there's no market for left-wing talk, Hightower contends that his radio show was canceled not for lack of ratings, but because Disney bought ABC, which syndicated the program.

"My populist viewpoint didn't fit Disney's agenda," Hightower said.
Others in the radio business see some potential for Air America. Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of Talkers magazine, said, "Talk radio works best when it serves people who feel disenfranchised. Maybe now with a conservative president, a conservative government and the war, maybe the time is right for someone to be critical of the president."

Michael Jeary, president of the New York advertising agency Della Femina Rothschild Jeary and Partners, said the demand for a liberal point of view could attract an audience, and for advertisers, "it's going to be all about the ratings."
He said the station would naturally attract "green products," and should scoop up a good share of this year's copious political advertising dollars.
Contributor: Dan Fost of sfchronicle.com through www.sfgate.com
END

With those remarks, "It's going to be great", me.

send comments via Email to me, D

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Troubled Waters: Bush Team Works to Weaken Clean Water Protections

Between January 2002 and June 2003, more than 3,700 facilities across the U.S. violated their Clean Water Act permits for discharging pollutants into the nation's waters, according to a new study from U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG). Some facilities exceeded their permits repeatedly, and for multiple pollutants. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has weakened both protections and enforcement under the Act, putting public health at risk.

The report, "Troubled Waters: An analysis of Clean Water Act compliance, January 2002-June 2003," details extensive violations of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA). USPIRG notes that in the 18-month period covered in the report,

35 facilities exceeded their permits during every reporting period.
436 major facilities exceeded their CWA permit limits for at least 10 of 18 reporting periods.
There were more than 32,000 total violations of CWA permits.
On average, facilities that exceeded their permits had violations in excess of six times the amount of allowed pollution discharge.
Meanwhile the Bush Administration has persistently worked to weaken protections for America's waterways, resisted clean-up of dirty waters, and undercut enforcement of the CWA.

In January 2003, the Bush Administration announced an intended rule change that would exclude numerous waterways from protection under the Act, including 20 million acres of wetlands, comprising 20% of all wetlands in the contiguous 48 states. Simultaneously the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers instructed staff to stop enforcing the CWA in "isolated" waterways such as small streams and non-navigable ponds. Responding to an angry outcry from the environmental community, EPA announced in December, 2003 that it would not go forward with the rule change. However, agency staff must now apply for "formal project-specific approval" to protect these waters. Formerly, mining companies, developers, and other polluters had to apply for exemptions under the CWA.

Last November the Bush Administration issued a draft of revised guidelines for sewage treatment by publicly owned facilities. The changes would allow these plants to divert filtered sewage from secondary, biological treatments and mix it with fully treated wastewater before discharge. The risks to public health from this relaxed guideline could include increased outbreaks of pfisteria, giardia, and hepatitis A.

The Bush Administration's proposed EPA funding for fiscal year 2005 slashes over $600 million from the agency's budget, reducing the agency's ability to monitor and enforce federal clean water laws. The proposed budget also reduces by 37% funds made available to states for improvement of wastewater treatment facilities.

"At a time when our leaders should be working with the states to address this illegal pollution and make all of our waterways fishable and swimmable, the Bush Administration suggested, proposed, or enacted numerous policies that would weaken the Clean Water Act and threaten the future of America's rivers, lakes, streams, and oceans," writes USPIRG's Alison Cassady.[1]

###

TAKE ACTION
Email your U.S. Representative and ask them to protectect U.S. waters from polluters by supporting the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act.

send comments via Email to me, D

Join the Roadtrip for Ralph!?

There's less than 11 days to go get Ralph on the ballot in George Bush's backyard (better known as Texas)!
We're looking for volunteers to come to Texas by plane, train or automobile (or boat or scooter or on horseback!) to help us collect signatures. Dozens of folks have made the journey and are currently hard at work ... but we need dozens more to get the job done. If you'd like to join the Roadtrip as one of our volunteers, click here or if you'd like to hear more, keep reading.

46% of Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq "as quick as possible." Ralph Nader has a three-point proposal to bring our troops home within six months. Bush and Kerry support sending more troops. One important way you can help bring an end to our involvement in Iraq is by volunteering to collect signatures. (To read more about Ralph's proposal, click here).

If you're ready to volunteer to collect signatures in Texas to get Ralph Nader on the state's ballot, click here. If you need more information, keep reading.

Want to help break the lock that the entrenched two-parties have on our elections? Want to expand the election debate to include issues the party machines don't want on the docket? Want to help knock down the anti-democratic hurdles placed in front of political "outsiders?" Then now is the time to come to Texas and help put Ralph Nader on the ballot. Click here for more details. Or, if you live in Texas and want to download a petition form and start collecting signatures right away, click here.

If you can't join us in person, please consider a donation to sponsor someone else in their journey to bring true democracy to this election. Our goal is to raise $20,000 by May 10th . With your help, we can do it! Click here to Contribute.

Finally, if you know people in Texas family, friends, relatives, co-workers, business associates give them a call and let them know they can make a difference! You can forward this email or send them a link to the Texas Ballot Access page to help them get started. We need the help of committed people like you!

And finally, as always, thank you for your support.

As always, we need your help to make this campaign happen! You can make a difference:
Contribute!
Get Involved! -- take a Roadtrip For Ralph!
Petition in Texas.

send comments via Email to me, D

Ralph Nader CNN's Crossfire

Ralph on Crossfire, Tues. March 30

Ralph Nader will appear on CNN's Crossfire, on
Tuesday March 30 between 4:30 and 5:00 PM EST.

send comments via Email to me, D

Monday, March 29, 2004

Bush Continues Push for Anti-Environment Circuit Court Nominee

The U.S. Senate will vote later this week on whether to give a lifetime seat on the federal bench -- with substantial influence over environmental laws affecting 485 million acres of public land in Alaska and the American West -- to a man judged barely qualified for the position by the American Bar Association (ABA).

Despite opposition from members of the California State Legislature and more than 70 legal scholars and professors, President Bush is urging the Senate to confirm William Myers, his former chief attorney for the Department of Interior, to the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. The ABA gave Myers its lowest possible rating, with only a "slim majority" finding him "qualified." More than a third rated him "unqualified" and no one rated him "well qualified."[1]

Myers' nomination has generated opposition from more than 160 environmental, Native American, civil rights, labor, disability rights, women's rights and other organizations, many of whom "have never before opposed a judicial nominee by any President," said Sugameli.

"There is no good reason why any Senator should support Myers" nomination and lots of reasons why Senators should exercise their advise and consent duty to just say no to Myers, who has the most anti-environmental and most anti-tribal record of any of President Bush's appeals court nominees," Glenn Sugameli, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice told BushGreenwatch.

In a letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, members of the California Legislature said Myers appeared to be "a singularly poor choice" for the bench and urged her to "do all [she] can to ensure he is not confirmed."

"Mr. Myers is neither qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit nor has he demonstrated the ability to be fair and impartial as an appellate judge," the letter states. "Throughout his career he has single-mindedly worked to advance the interests of grazing and mining industries at the expense of the environment and acted against the interests and rights of Native Americans and tribal governments. His record as Solicitor of the Department of the Interior indicates that if confirmed, he would be a threat to California's strong environmental laws."[2]

Opponents have criticized Myers for helping to weaken protections for endangered species and public lands, for helping to tilt Administration policies in favor of extractive industries and for loosening protections against overgrazing public lands. Myers is a former lobbyist for the National Mining Association and a former executive director of the Public Lands Council, a trade association that promotes the interests of ranchers who graze sheep and cattle on public lands.

He angered Native Americans when, as chief attorney for the U.S. Department of the Interior, he reversed his predecessor's opinion to clear the way for a cyanide heap-leach gold mine in California that could cause irreparable harm to an important spiritual site for the Quechan Indian Tribe. He has also been the subject of two ethics investigations while serving at Interior.

###

TAKE ACTION
Oppose Myers' nomination on Earthjustice's website.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Sign-on Letter to Chairman Orrin Hatch, Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, from Richard L. Abel, Connell Professor of Law, UCLA, et. al.
[2] Letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein from the California Legislature, Mar. 15, 2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

From Barbra Streisand's blog

The Myth of Bush as Hero" ...Barbra Streisand's blog

Posted on March 29, 2004
Finally ... finally we can talk about what's really going on. Rather than accept the myth that 9/11 turned President Bush into a "hero" ... former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke has bravely spoken out to tell us the real story - that Bush did not treat terrorism as an urgent issue. And that going to war in Iraq, in addition to tragically costing us so many lives, has diverted money and resources away from where they should have been focused - on dismantling al Qaeda and strengthening our homeland security.

We now know that the Bush White House never made counterterrorism a priority leading up to September 11th. In fact, on April 30, 2001, the new administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, with a noted change: extensive mention of bin Laden, which previous terrorism reports contained, had been left out. A Bush State Department Official reportedly told CNN at that time that the U.S. government under Clinton had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.

In fact, Bush never even held a cabinet level meeting devoted to terrorism until the week before the attack. While FBI agents were fielding concerns about non-citizens in flight school uninterested in learning how to land planes, and the CIA was aware that potential terrorists had entered the United States, because terrorism was not a priority in the high levels of the federal government these discussions were never elevated to a place where the information could be shared across departments, where the appropriate people would have an opportunity to connect the dots...

Here is a brief timeline (much of the information is from the Center for American Progress) of some of the more egregious warnings of looming terrorism that Bush overlooked as he spent the first eight months in office planning tax cuts for the wealthy, devising a way to invade Iraq, and taking long vacations out at his ranch in Crawford, Texas:

1) A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council specifically theorized that al Qaeda could fly airplanes into buildings - so we know that the scope of the attack was not entirely beyond anyone's imagination.

2) In early 2001, a surge of al Qaeda activity and plans for attacks against American "interests" were noted, including by Israeli intelligence agencies.

3) Also in early 2001, the Bush administration departed from Clinton's policy of tracking money to terrorist organizations. (Was Bush trying to protect the Saudi royal family?)

4) In July 2001, U.S. and Italian officials were warned that al Qaeda may use planes as missiles at a Genoa summit of industrialized nations.

5) On August 6, 2001, while on vacation in Crawford, the president received a one and a half page briefing advising him that al Qaeda was capable of a major strike against the U.S., and that the plot could include the hijacking of American airplanes. And then what did the president do with this important information? He went fishing - bringing new meaning to the phrase, "Gone Fishin'"!

6) In July, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines because of a "threat assessment."

7) Newsweek has reported that on September 10th, 2001, a number of Pentagon officials canceled travel plans for the next morning due to security concerns, and "that as many as 10 to 12 warnings" were issued before 9/11 - "more than two of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of hijackings."

8) Also on September 10th (as I posted in a statement on November 21, 2002), Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected the FBI's request for a $58 million increase for their counterterrorism budget to pay for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. He did that despite the fact, discovered later by a Congressional investigation, that the FBI had only one analyst monitoring al Qaeda and a severe shortage of Arabic translators.

Soon after September 11th, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." And now Bush says, "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." Did he really say this? I heard it on the radio but I couldn't believe my own ears. Indeed, the scope of the horror of 9/11 is beyond the realm of what even the most savvy threat assessors may have thought possible.

However ... as the brief timeline above shows, THE PRESIDENT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED that al Qaeda was planning some sort of attack, and that the attack may involve airplanes. So these are my questions:

-WHY DIDN'T OUR GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO BEEF UP SECURITY AT AIRPORTS AND ON AIRPLANES?

-WHY WEREN'T WARNINGS ISSUED TO THOSE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT OUR FLIGHT SECURITY?

-ISN'T LEADERSHIP ABOUT ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, ANTICIPATING THE UNFATHOMABLE, HEEDING WARNINGS AND FIRMLY ACTING UPON THEM?

-WHEN THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED A MEMO THAT HIJACKINGS OF AMERICAN PLANES MIGHT OCCUR, SHOULDN'T HE HAVE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN ACTION?

I DO BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT TRULY CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY, AND LEARNS THE FACTS, WOULD HAVE TO SERIOUSLY ASK THESE QUESTIONS ... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN NOVEMBER!
END

send comments via Email to me, D

Bush Continues Push for Anti-Environment Circuit Court Nominee

March 29, 2004

The U.S. Senate will vote later this week on whether to give a lifetime seat on the federal bench -- with substantial influence over environmental laws affecting 485 million acres of public land in Alaska and the American West -- to a man judged barely qualified for the position by the American Bar Association (ABA).

Despite opposition from members of the California State Legislature and more than 70 legal scholars and professors, President Bush is urging the Senate to confirm William Myers, his former chief attorney for the Department of Interior, to the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. The ABA gave Myers its lowest possible rating, with only a "slim majority" finding him "qualified." More than a third rated him "unqualified" and no one rated him "well qualified."[1]

Myers' nomination has generated opposition from more than 160 environmental, Native American, civil rights, labor, disability rights, women's rights and other organizations, many of whom "have never before opposed a judicial nominee by any President," said Sugameli.

"There is no good reason why any Senator should support Myers" nomination and lots of reasons why Senators should exercise their advise and consent duty to just say no to Myers, who has the most anti-environmental and most anti-tribal record of any of President Bush's appeals court nominees," Glenn Sugameli, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice told BushGreenwatch.

In a letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, members of the California Legislature said Myers appeared to be "a singularly poor choice" for the bench and urged her to "do all [she] can to ensure he is not confirmed."

"Mr. Myers is neither qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit nor has he demonstrated the ability to be fair and impartial as an appellate judge," the letter states. "Throughout his career he has single-mindedly worked to advance the interests of grazing and mining industries at the expense of the environment and acted against the interests and rights of Native Americans and tribal governments. His record as Solicitor of the Department of the Interior indicates that if confirmed, he would be a threat to California's strong environmental laws."[2]

Opponents have criticized Myers for helping to weaken protections for endangered species and public lands, for helping to tilt Administration policies in favor of extractive industries and for loosening protections against overgrazing public lands. Myers is a former lobbyist for the National Mining Association and a former executive director of the Public Lands Council, a trade association that promotes the interests of ranchers who graze sheep and cattle on public lands.

He angered Native Americans when, as chief attorney for the U.S. Department of the Interior, he reversed his predecessor's opinion to clear the way for a cyanide heap-leach gold mine in California that could cause irreparable harm to an important spiritual site for the Quechan Indian Tribe. He has also been the subject of two ethics investigations while serving at Interior.

###

TAKE ACTION
Oppose Myers' nomination on Earthjustice's website.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Sign-on Letter to Chairman Orrin Hatch, Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, from Richard L. Abel, Connell Professor of Law, UCLA, et. al.
[2] Letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein from the California Legislature, Mar. 15, 2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

The Corporate Paymasters and the Parties and other items

Both The Democratic Party, and the Rep. Party and thier Pres. Administration in varying extremes, are putting the interests of their corporate paymasters before the interests of the people.

Corporations should not be given equal rights with humans
A national debate is needed regarding the necessity to reverse the dicta in the 1886 Supreme Court Case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that first awarded the corporation constitutional status as a person and in subsequent decision. Corporations are not human beings, they do not vote; they are artificial entities which should be subordinated to the rights of human beings There can be no equal justice under the law if General Motors or Exxon has all the rights of humans plus all the privileges and immunities to concentrate enormous power and escape responsibility in ways unavailable to the wealthiest of real people.
A Ralph Nader statement.

Even if you will NEVER vote for Nader go read what he has to say. You may find that what he is talking of is something that you'd want to hear your "GUY" talk to.

Some of his other thoughts:

Wants to make health care universally available
We need to get the insurance companies out of administering health care, increase patient choice, expand coverage and save money. The United States spends far more on health care per capita than any other country in the world, but more than 45 million Americans have no health insurance. A single-payer program, with full medical coverage, should provide health care that provides comprehensive benefits with quality care and cost controls to all Americans throughout their lives.

Wants to create jobs by investing in America's future, invest in Americans
Since January 2001, 2.7 million jobs have been lost and more than 75% of those jobs have been high wage, high productivity manufacturing jobs. Overall 5.6% of Americans are unemployed while 10.5% of African Americans are unemployed. Unemployment among Latinos is nearly 30 per cent higher than January 20, 2001. By requiring equitable trade, investing in urgently needed local labor-intensive public works (infrastructure improvements), creating a new renewable energy efficiency policy; by fully funding education and redirecting large bureaucratic and fraudulent health expenditures toward preventive health care we can reverse this trend and create millions of new jobs.

See what your guy has to say. More subjects at Naders website www.votenader.org

send comments via Email to me, D

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

Monday, April 05, 2004

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Saturday, April 03, 2004

Friday, April 02, 2004

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Monday, March 29, 2004

Agree or not, talking it over is better...

Saturday Night Live - Palin / Hillary Open

Live feed from my webcam via www.stickam.com

Blog Archive

Links

About Me

Other places you can find me or that I use.

Links

archives