The volunteer that is on our case was one sided, asked questions of my children of abuse, and when my oldest son talked to her and told her how nice it was to live in my home, she did not put that in her report. She did not contact any other persons on my side, she only spent about an hour in my home, and then she is telling every one I am abusive to my children.
I have a child protective case worker in Colorado and in Texas that knows that I am not abusive. They are trying to help me as much as they can, but with the laws they can only do so much.
I have a son who is 14 yrs. old and was mad at me and told his father I was abusing him because I took his phone away and grounded him, he has been abusive to me and bullied my other 4 children, but I have never been abusive towards him. He has tried to tell them he lied but no one will listen to him, they say its over and he can't keep changing his mind, so on and so forth. This has only happened once with him and he knows he has made a bad choice, now his father is going to move him and his brother to the mountains where there is no cell service, so I am unable to keep in touch with them.
The father has been abusive to me and my children, he beat me up when I was pregnant with my son in June 2000, he blamed me and told the police and everyone I ran him over with the car, while he was chasing me down, he put his fist through the driver side window and hit me in the face, then opened the door and drug me to beat on me some more, I fought back and got back in the car, drove to the store pay phone, called police, went to hospital and had my sweet little boy which is 8 now.
He is charming man with all the right words and does all the right things, he convinces most everyone. He is a con artist to perfection, he claims to have a back disease so he does not have to work and he can get social security. He was eight thousand dollars behind in child support, now I owe him. Which this is how it all started this time, he and his girlfriend which is married to now had broke up and asked to come back home, I told him no and he quit his job and completely quit paying his support. Then he wanted custody of all the children, claiming I was abusive to him and claiming I was going to kill him and the children, I had just got out of the hospital from major surgery to rid myself of cancer, I had a complete hysterectomy and I had some church persons over to bless me when he pulled this stunt.
I am not a perfect mother but I am not abusive. I have disciplined all of my children to the action that is not appropriate. I have a permanent protective order from Colorado, which does me no good in Texas. I am trying to get one here in Texas so that my other children he did not get custody of and my self will feel protected in some way.
I really would like some help from someone, I would like my children back home with the rest of the family. We are family and without anyone of my children out of the house there is emptiness in the house and in my heart. I love my children so much; I do not care about the child support from any of the fathers, I do care about my children and they do need to be together as a family, they should have never been separated from each other. I have 3 boys; 18, 14, and 8, I have one girl; 6. The two younger ones are like twins they are only 16 months apart and they have been separated because of a CASA volunteer stating I beat on my children but it only seems her concerns are only on my 2 boys that she placed with their dad. This seems very strange that I am only abusive to the two boys and no one else. I think someone needs to re-evaluate this case or something, because the judge based his decision only on the report of the CASA volunteer.
Bush Officials Condoned Regional Iraqi Oil Deal
Last fall, after the deal was announced, the State Department said that it had tried to dissuade Hunt Oil from signing the contract with Kurdish regional authorities but that the company had proceeded "regardless of our advice." Although Hunt Oil's chief executive has been a major fundraiser for President Bush, the president said he knew nothing about the deal.
Yesterday, however, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released documents and e-mails showing that for nearly four months, State and Commerce department officials knew about Hunt Oil's negotiations and had told company officials that there were no objections. In one note, a Commerce Department official even wished them "a fruitful visit to Kurdistan" and invited them to contact him "in case you need any support."
That guidance contradicted the administration's public posture. The Bush administration made an Iraqi national petroleum law, which has still not been adopted, a top priority last year in the hope it would more tightly bind the country's regions together and open the way for international oil companies to invest in much larger oil fields south of Iraq's Kurdish region. The State Department said, and continues to assert, that it opposes any contract with a regional Iraqi authority in the absence of a national petroleum law.
Colorado Pols opines:
Although this isn't the same contract that Schaffer was involved in, it was in the same period of time and in the same place, and all of these contracts are now the subject of this growing dispute between the Kurdish Regional government and the Iraqi federal government. Most experts regard the settling of the issue of Iraq's oil development and revenue as critical to the country's stability, a key condition for eventual American success and widthdrawal.
Obviously, the first question for Schaffer is whether or not he was similarly "discouraged" by the State Department from pursuing local oil contracts in Iraq without laws in place nationally yet to accomodate them. Then, somebody should ask him how this deal he negotiated with the Kurds squares with official American policy of wanting a national oil development strategy for a unified Iraq.
In fact, a whole slew of questions along the same rather distressing line present themselves, for Schaffer especially given the displeasure voters seem to have these days for the words "oil company" or "Iraq war." Imagine the reaction to putting them together, say, "Bob Schaffer cared more about his oil company than he did about winning the Iraq war."
See also:
AT ISSUE: Schaffer's questionable oil dealings
Big Oil Bob -- War Profiteer?
Current mood: inspired
Category: Life
Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
(WAR = EVIL)
THIS IS MY FAVORITE ONE......
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
NO I LIED....these next two are my favorite ones...... I so would go to jail if I had too!!!!
An individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A man can't ride your back unless it's bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
Bottom line: Members of Colorado's Republican delegation are far out of the mainstream of their own party, and are not representing Colorado's interests in the least.
For example: Read More »
Let me say that I'm not shocked that Senator Obama advisors would tell him that once the nomination is "sewn up" then it is time to shift to "the center". However, I question that strategy because what exactly is "the center" of the political spectrum?
Polling by Pew has shown a consistent shift of people who self identify with a political party to skew towards the Democratic Party label. PEW published this on March 20, 2008:
In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.
Rasmussen Reports show that Democrats are more trusted on all ten issues that are polled. From their report, June 21, 2008:
This month, voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on all ten key issues tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The two parties are almost even on two issues, taxes and national security.
Robert Reich wrote in 2001 about "the center":
The political "center" is imaginary, and its recent elevation as a desirable place for politicians to inhabit is dangerously misleading. What's more, the politician who seeks to move there is abdicating any semblance of political leadership...
One cannot lead from the center because most voters are already there, and it is no great accomplishment to lead people to where they already are. That's much more like pandering. In this sense, moving to the center implies a politics responsive to the immediate and unreflective desires of constituents, especially those most likely to vote. That's familiar politics to the legions of Washington strategists and pollsters who make their livings charting and responding to such desires. But it's hardly how politics should be practiced in a deliberative democracy.
If the Wall Street Journal is applauding the move to "the political center" then is are the most recent choices that Senator Obama is making the one which will empower people who believe that change for the liberal and progressive movement which America stands: his support for HR 6304 (to amend FISA and allow unlimited spying on Americans just on the word of a man) and his condemnation of the recent Supreme Court ruling to deny extending the death penalty to adults who rape children.
I will point to a Buzzflash.com editorial from January 29, 2006 which points out that change means just that change. It is not "running to the center" but:
America is always a country that has prided itself on evolving, growing, changing. How could there be a permanent center anyway?
That's the purpose of democracy. Through great public debate we develop governmental policy for the common good of the nation -- and it morphs over time.
To abandon that principle to a myth is a cowardly thing to do.
Schaffer associate sentenced this morning
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 23, 2008
CONTAC Michael Huttner
(303) 931-4547 cell
Denver: ProgressNowAction called on Bob Schaffer to explain five contradictions related to his dealings with Scott Shires who was sentenced this morning in U.S. Federal District Court. Schaffer served as the "Director" of the Board of the National Alternative Fuel Foundation (NAFF). Shires was a fellow board member and also served as Schaffer's campaign treasurer. In addition, the Executive Director of the NAFF was found guilty of 23 criminal counts on May 30, 2008 and is due to be sentenced in October.
1. Why did Bob Schaffer initially deny that he was paid for his service on the Board? Why doesn't Schaffer report the payments in his personal financial disclosures?
On May 30, 2008 Bob Schaffer's campaign told the Denver Post that Schaffer "was not paid for his nearly six months of service."
On June 21, 2008, Schaffer admitted to the Rocky Mountain News that he was paid "$1,500 for his service on the board."
2. Why does Schaffer contradict his own disclosures on when he served on the Board?
According to Schaffer's own disclosure form, he served as the NAFF "Director" from "10/04" to "03/05." (Source: Schaffer's personal financial disclosure forms)
Now Schaffer claims he began his duties Dec. 1, 2004. Schaffer said he "toured the research facility, talked to scientists and read reports." (RMN, 6/21/2008)
3. Why did Schaffer resign from the NAFF Board?
On May 30, 2008 Schaffer denied any knowledge of fraud to receive the earmark and said he left the nonprofit when he found out Orr was under investigation. (Denver Post, May 30, 2008)
Yet Schaffer now claims he left the board at the same time the investigation became public knowledge, not before. (RMN, 6/21/2008)
4. Why would Schaffer make Shires the treasurer of his State Board of Education Campaign after Shires had been charged on three federal counts?
Schaffer claims that he left the NAFF after he learned that Shires and others were under investigation for possible criminal charges in March 2005. (RMN, 6/21/2008)
Yet in 2006 Schaffer made Shires his campaign treasurer for his State Board of Education Campaign after he was charged. (Schaffer's 2006 Campaign Disclosure, Colorado Secretary of State)
5. If Bob Schaffer did not get the $3.6 million dollar earmark for the NAFF, who did? Why would an out-of-state Congressman care about pushing for money for a local foundation?
Schaffer claims he had nothing to do with the $3.6 million dollar Congressional earmark for the NAFF and that it was just coincidence that he later served as the "Director" and his campaign treasurer, Scott Shires, served on the Board during the earmark.
Shires stated that the earmark was inserted into the bill by a key House committee staffer at the direction of a non-Colorado congressman, and that a "very expensive bottle of whiskey" changed hands. (RMN, 6/21/2008)
Why would an out-of-state Congressman care about the NAFF, when it was located in Denver, Colorado and had only a small Board which included a close associate of Schaffer?
# # #
BUT Udall vs Schaffer
get your tix now and ask questions--all info on this link:
http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=94369
I could not agree more with Duncan Black's statement from his Eschaton blog:
As I've written before, Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an "abuse of power" scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention.
There is nothing that has changed with the right wing leaning judiciary when Mr. Bush leaves office. Those right wing judges on the federal bench will be then willing to hamstring and actively pursue lawsuits against President Obama and his administration.
Remember that the oldest Supreme Court judges are liberal. If he has to replace judges then President Obama will merely be replacing the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.
With the tools of facism still on the table, due in part to the active complicity of the Democratic Congressional leadership, there will be the temptation to use those powers. Need I state those tools? Unitary Executive theory. Commander-in-Chief powers, the use of "executive privilege", executive "signing statements", USA PATRIOT Act, Protect America Act, AUMF, MCA, etc.
Remember that Gandolf when offered the Ring of Power by Frodo said "No! The ring would be too great a temptation. The temptation to use it would be through Gandalf's good intentions which would lead to corruption. (It would take a George Washington strength of character to resist such temptation.)
An open letter to Nancy Pelosi:
To Nancy Pelosi:
TIME to leave your position in disgrace - YOU are a disgrace to your office and your gender. You were the FIRST to break that glass ceiling and you have become a joke. A sad, cruel joke for those of us who had so much hope.
A change that was to be brought in with the election of 2006
But that all changed. We hear it over and over and over again. Any challenge to the cruelties, the evils, the horrors brought by this administration is met with the same standard; Any response or action that is morally correct or ethically right. You take it "off the table" or it is "not an option". Read More »
UNAFRAID is the title of my latest book. Its subtitle is A NOVEL OF THE POSSIBLE, and it's my effort to lift up our absurdly low level of expectations about politics. It's possible, and if we don't we are NOT going to take our country back, no matter how many campaigns and candidates say we will.
What do I mean? Well, for starters, please spend a minute sampling the book. You'll get it in an instant. Then tell me what you think...
After the May 22, 2008 Notice was sent;
1. May 28, 2008. Attorney Alison (Sunny) Maynard, filed among other Responses and Requests, a Motion To Continue And For Limited Stay. She states that she is still answering and defending grievances filed against her with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), by attorney Victor Boog and some "unnamed person."
Gee, I was told by the Attorney Regulation Counsel that they DO NOT ACCEPT ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS.
She goes on to say: "The point is that it is Boog who chose to move the dispute from this court to a new forum (disciplinary proceedings). I am being forced to litigate my client's issues there-to show the evidence and legal authority I have-to defend against the disciplinary charges. OARC's entertaining these charges while this litigation is pending obviously creates a conflict for me."
Gee again. The OARC, specifically Louise Culberson-Smith, told me that they can not investigate complaints while the case is still in litigation. She also told me that no one can "litigate" their case with the OARC, and that by my asking them to investigate the violations of law and code of conduct, I was asking them to litigate my case. Can you explain yourself Ms. Smith? Why were my complaints considered to be "litigation," and their's is not?
Ms. Maynard also states: "I certainly believe that what I (and, obviously, my clients) are fighting is a criminal racket, involving not only Victor Boog and his clients, but Glenn Porzak and his clients, and at least three judges."
NO KIDDING!!!! Why is it a "criminal racket" Ms. Maynard? Is it because you know that Judge Lass never had jurisdiction to act then, and still does not today? Is it because you know that it was illegal for Judge Lass and the new Association to force me into contracts, and that everyone including you, are still unlawfully upholding the invalid contracts? Is it because you know that Judge Lass gave Glenn Porzak's clients title to Homeowners water rights without a trial? Is it because you know that Judge Lass established for Victor Boog and his clients, an Association foreign to all founding documents of Spring Creek Ranch, and which violates members rights?
This should show everyone how defendants' (plaintiff's in this case), lose their case and their rights, and how the truth is buried. Ms. Maynard, as did all the attorneys I hired, purposely put out true statements but without backing them up with the facts. The statements are then ruled as frivolous or unsupported claims, and Victor Boog and his clients win another one. Had Ms. Maynard really been defending her clients, she would have submitted a Motion to Cease and Desist, not a Continuance.
2. June 6, 2008, Judge Lass ruled on a Summary Judgement Ms. Maynard submitted on October 17, 2007.
3. June 6, 2008, Ms. Maynard files a Motion For Contingent Extension Of Time
4. June 6, 2008, I sent a 2nd NOTICE to all mentioned in my public account at
www.coloradoopencourt.blogspot.com. Because the Colorado Supreme Court and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, are vested with the supervisory and disciplinary powers and duties over all Colorado judges and attorneys, and because they ignored the 1st Notice, I sent the 2nd Notice via certified mail no. 7003 2260 0003 7134 9401. Now anyone can confirm that the Colorado Supreme Court knows about the corruption and criminal activity within our court and legal system, and is doing nothing to stop it.
5. June 10, 2008, Judge Lass issues a Preliminary Order Regarding (Maynard's) Requested Continuance Of Trial. Because no response had been filed yet, Judge Lass doesn't rule for or against the continuance, but he does encourage everyone to keep going ahead with all plans for the trial set for July 25 - 30, 2008. He wrote: ". . the Court also notifies the parties that they should carry on with their very best efforts to timely and diligently prepare for all upcoming trial events, including mediation.
6. June 12, 2008, attorney Victor Boog responds to the Motion for Continuance.
Why are they able to ignore me, the truth and the Law? Because they know that no one will hold them accountable. Indeed, even though I sent the 2nd Notice via certified mail, I still have not been contacted by anyone from the Colorado Supreme Court, and it only confirms that the corruption comes from the top down. It confirms their arrogance and their contempt for our Laws. It also confirms their true character, and that they should never have been trusted to be Judges and Justices in our Courts, as well as that the named attorneys should never have been allowed into the legal profession just because they are able to pass a test.
This is not my test, it's yours.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Let's consider the facts of the matter. This case was about whether or not individuals being held by the United States have the right to challenge in a court, their imprisonment. It's called habeas corpus and it is only suspended under the most dire of circumstances. Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, was reprimanded by the Supreme Court, then granted that power by Congress shortly thereafter as the situation called for it. We have threats to this country. But we do not have rebellion nor invasion. Habeas corpus isn't something to be fooled with. It's a cornerstone of a just society. We as a country do not, rather should not, be in the business of snatching people and holding them indefinitely. That's what the soviets did, and what the Chinese do. We treated Nazis better than the individuals being held now in Guantanomo.
Conservatives want us to believe our government has the right guys and we should afford them the benefit of the doubt. We should consider it patriotic to trust them, not question them and to not show any moral outrage at the potential innocent individuals rights being trampled on. Because we are at war. They must all be guilty and who really cares anyway as long as it saves lives?
Here's the rub. Hundreds have been freed from Guantanomo without any charges, without any trial. An acknowledgment that some of them were actually innocent. And an acknowledgment our government was willing to free some of them because their home governments requested it, despite their still being a national security threat. And lastly, the most obvious and glaring fault in the logic of the right wing nut case on the teevee and radio is: if their guilty, get proof, charge them, try them, jail them and potentially execute them.
This recent smack down of Bush is the latest of 3 rulings expressing the same sentiment. People in our custody are to be held under our rule of law. That we are bound Constitutionally to do so. Liberals respect it despite the threat of terrorism, conservatives abhor it in fear of terrorism. This is not a new phenomenon.
Liberals point to the Constitution. Conservatives run from it. When judges rule against their rigid ideology they cry "activist judge!" As is evidenced by recent court rulings in the states of California and Massachusetts recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. In both cases the Constitution was interpreted correctly. There was nothing that prevented gay marriage and equal protection provided. It would have been activist to re-write the law to deny a group of people rights others had protected under the law. Just as it would be activist of the Supreme Court to re-write the Constitution to allow the suspension of Habeas Corpus or to grant the government the right to mistreat prisoners according to our own Constitution or treaties.
Conservatives claim if they don't get their way, they are being oppressed. It is their moral code and only theirs that is permissible and they are willing to try and change the law of the land to enact it. Liberals recognize the law as protecting the rest of us from that oppressive and unoriginal moral code if we don't want to adhere to it. We believe the Constitution makes the government obligated to ensure equal protection and opportunity. We believe the Constitution not only prevents government from encroaching on our liberties but also obligates our governments to ensure them.
There should be a top down investigation into how drug companies are bending, if not breaking, ethical rules on human studies testing of new drugs. If drug company officials are liable then they should be criminally prosecuted for their use of dangerous drugs that harm their unknowing human subjects. Withholding information on such side effects is outside the boundaries of human subject testing. Congress should begin investigations immediately especially with the use of our veterans for such studies is simply wrong.
Brian Ross and Vic Walter, ABC News journalists, write:
Mentally distressed veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are being recruited for government tests on pharmaceutical drugs linked to suicide and other violent side effects, an investigation by ABC News and "The Washington Times" has found...
"This didn't justify an emergency warning at that level," said Dr. Miles McFall, co-administrator of the VA study...
Dr. McFall says the VA decided to continue the Chantix study because "it would be depriving our veterans of an effective method of treatment to help them stop smoking."
Caplan, one of the country's leading medical ethicists, said he was stunned by the VA's decision to continue the Chantix experiment.
In order to make a profit the drug companies are willing to place veterans in harm's way. This is immoral and the study using our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans should be halted immediately. The people who run the Veterans Administration should safe guard our veterans and not place them in danger for the bottom line of drug companies. Our men and women who have served our country should not be our drug companies frontline human experiments.
It's About Time We Awoke To The Oil Industry's Double Talk
Opening sentence: "We wholeheartedly endorse the ultimatum given by Governor Thornton and the chairman of the State Legislature's special oil tax committee to the oil industry to come up with a "fair and equitable" plan for its own taxation or take what the Legislature will hand it."
A little Googling showed me that Gov. Thornton had gotten tired of waiting for the oil industry to quit whining about how more taxation would kill the industry in Colorado. (Gosh, doesn't THAT sound familiar?) They had promised to come up with a plan everyone could live with, on their own, if the voters would just kindly not vote in an oil severance tax bill on the fall ballot.
Well, of course once the election was over the oilies didn't live up to their promise. So Gov. Thornton put his cowboy boot down in January and said they had THREE DAYS to come up with something, or the Lege would do it for them! And that's exactly what happened.
I will have to leave it to economists and/or historians to fill in the blanks of what happened between those days and now. Makes you wonder, though. Will someone in 2063 be looking back and marveling at how our elected officials stepped up to do the right thing for the state and the people way back in 2008?
We can only hope.
Other critics claim they don't know what all this change and hope business is about. I suggest a listen to any of his stump speeches to find out but in a nutshell, he wants to change Washington. He wants to move towards less corporate influence. He also wants to change political discourse and he has proven he can. He understands that we are currently divided and we need to come together to solve the problems we face. He also gets that it's a bottom up process not top down. In other words if elected, he expects we the people to actually get engaged and help bring about the changes we need to. He is asking us to lift ourselves and our country up. As voter turn out and excitement surrounding his campaign illustrate, he can motivate people. Right now this country needs motivation.
All this being said, obviously there are other facets of being President than motivational skills and the ability to communicate effectively. He has exhibited better judgement in the past on foreign policy issues than John Mc Cain. He was against invading Iraq when it was unpopular to do so. He understands that the mission in Iraq has been accomplished and it's time to begin withdrawing our troops. He wants to focus on routing the resurgent al Qaeda forces. Even if that means stepping on the toes of our ally Pakistan. The list of military commanders who support him are long; both in the tooth and in numbers. John Mc Cain however has flipped. He was adamantly opposed to torture. But eventually abandoned his own principles to support President Bush's use, or "redefinition" of it. He can't keep straight Sunni or Shia sects or who is killing our soldiers. He overstates Iran's influence in Iraq and goes on photo ops that include dozens of soldiers, several helicopters and sporting a flak jacket on the streets of Baghdad and tells us things are just great there. He, sadly, has become nothing more than a cheer leader for Bush's failed policies in Iraq. Last week he was praising safety gains in Iraq cities as 3 more suicide bombing occurred. Critics from within his own party question his ability to keep it together. He's actually struck fellow Senators before. His temper is legendary. John Mc Cain doesn't seem to grasp what he used to tout only 8 years ago. He simply isn't the same "maverick" or "straight talker."
A President must also understand their oath of office. It's to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Many Constitutional scholars and US. historians (http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html) agree the current President has seriously breached the limits of the executive laid out in that radical document, that blueprint for democracy. Wiretapping illegally, ignoring provisions of treaties like the Geneva Conventions, signing statements, propaganda etc. (Liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich outlined 35 separate reasons as he entered articles of impeachment into the Congressional record this week) And it's safe to say, based on his own statements that a Mc Cain Presidency will most likely continue the abuses of this administration. Barack Obama however was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (they have an amazing web site called "The Founder's Constitution" that includes letters and speeches of our founding fathers, check it out) and has vowed upon entering office, reviewing executive orders and signing statements of the Bush Administration as well as law to scale back those powers to the way our founders intended.
Most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction the Republican's have taken us, some are just as disappointed at a do-little Democratically controlled congress. The country wants to change course. John Mc Cain does not offer any change of course however. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He has no intention of looking at NAFTA and has changed his mind on illegal immigration which leads me to believe he won't do anything about it. In other words he offers little in the way of any real change or hope. If he assumes the powers Bush assumed of the presidency, at best, we will be stuck in neutral while our standard of living declines. At worst we will be further down a path that most Americans would prefer to turn away from. Barack Obama at least gives us a hope for the kind of change we need. A return to the Constitution as more than law or limits on government, which should be limited of course, but a way of life for all Americans. Obama gets it. Say what you want about motives, his lack of experience, or his idealism, he gets it. We and only we the people are going to the right the ship. He can provide us an opportunity and offer encouragement like few can.
The America of the future needs to return to it's status as the "city on the hill." It is not enough to be feared or clever, we need to be respected as well. We should be leading the world in industry, in education and freedom. If we need to enact tariffs, pass laws, raise taxes or better yet spend the revenue wiser, then so be it. The current path of de-regulaiton of industry and putting corporate interests and share holders interests ahead of actual people as a matter of political policy is shown to be a failure. Political discourse must be embraced and divisive drivel masquerading as such needs to cease. Our military needs to heal and re-commit. Our veterans need care, our cities need bailing out after natural disasters. The focus of government must change and Barack Obama is the best candidate to facilitate that. John Mc Cain won't come close.
Well, here we go again...time for another Secretary of Veterans Affairs to resign. This time we find that another arm of the George Bush mis-administration has made a dubious legal interpretation, trampled on the rights and benefits of veterans and is denying any wrong-doing.
You have to read the entire New York Times story to believe the depths of this tragic scenario.
This is a bizarre and deplorable action on the part of the mis-administration of the current occupant of the White House. Refusing to facilitate voter registriation is definately not prohibited by the Hatch Act. It's really disappointing that former Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) remains silent on this controversy.
I realized that this is a very positive development. I'm looking for more "lasts" of anything and everything for the coWH. The case against the mis-administration regarding Iran is particularly damaging.
It's clear that since entering office that the coWH has acted against the best interests of the United States on relations and policies towards Iran; the jumbled focus of his European tour sound bite script. Rather than advancing the best interests of the US, the current mis-administration has consistently played to the advantage of Ahmadi-Nejad and the ruling Iranian radicals. Read More »
On June 10, KBDI Channel 12's Aaron Harber uncritically allowed his guest -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer -- to suggest that 2007 legislation introduced by his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, would allow U.S. energy companies exploring in Cuban waters to abide by environmental standards no higher than those set by "the Cuban Environmental Protection Agency, if there is such a thing." In fact, H.R. 3182 -- the U.S. Participation in Cuban Energy Exploration Act of 2007 -- specifies that exploration and extraction activities of companies operating under the legislation "shall be subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations for the protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment that are applicable to such activities within the exclusive economic zone of the United States."
Well, yes, that's right. The exact opposite of the truth is a lie, isn't it? Hang on, I'm looking up the appropriate genteel euphemism for "lie."
On second thought, why bother?
Heads-up Colorado Springs and Northern Colorado. Beyond the fact that I've been working pretty hard for months to get this off the ground, it's just gonna be great! This issue has been ignored (or at least danced around the edges) for too long.
A Conversation with Rand Beers Tuesday, June 17th, 2008
Keeping Our Promises: Veterans, Soldiers and their Families
Rand Beers, President and Founder of the National Security Network, former senior White House national security staffer and Vietnam-era Marine, will be the featured speaker at two town hall forums on issues facing the military community: repeat deployments for members of the active-duty Armed Forces, Guard and Reserves, the needs of a growing new population of disabled veterans, and the burdens on military families. Beers combines front-line experience (Rifle Company Commander in Vietnam and 10 years in the White House) with years of briefing our nation’s political leaders and, with the National Security Network, trains and advises candidates and advocates on how to address these issues in today’s political environment. A question and answer session will follow.
1:00 – 3:00pm
UCCS: The Upper Lodge
1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918
6:30 – 8:30pm
Bill Reed Middle School
370 West 4th Street
Loveland, Colorado 80537
RSVP: rkeenan@nsnetwork.org
Read More »
Posts
If you have any kind of insite on my case Please CONTACT ME!!!!
Posted Jul 05, 2008 10:34pm
Comments (0)
Sincerest success
Posted Jul 05, 2008 2:54pm
Comments (1)
Schaffer wasn't the only one profiteering in Kurdistan
Posted Jul 03, 2008 6:31pm
Comments (0)
Fighting on two fronts- with the vote coming up July 8th
Posted Jul 03, 2008 1:53am
Comments (0)
Why not concealed hand guns at the airport?
Posted Jul 02, 2008 8:17am
Comments (1)
The reason we need new rules
Posted Jul 01, 2008 9:34am
Comments (0)
The Gundamentalists THINK They Won, but…
Posted Jun 30, 2008 12:56pm
Comments (0)
Stop sitting on your keyboard- Act NOW- to remind Obama
Posted Jun 30, 2008 9:49am
Comments (0)
Lovely little war
Posted Jun 30, 2008 9:47am
Comments (1)
Martin Luther King Jr
Posted Jun 29, 2008 5:31pm
Comments (1)
All Network Posts >
