http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/category_rss/separationofpowers Sign me up, I'm a "Liberal" If your elected Democrat doesn't talk and think like this, you have a problem and perhaps you should encourage that "Centrist" to switch parties. I certainly wouldn't contribute my money or time to a person just because they use a "D" by their name. People who pretend to be liberal can get elected in Colorado, e.g. Ken Salazar, a liberal Hispanic, Bill Ritter, a liberal, law and order, Catholic kind of guy ("Law and Order" types scare me, they usually consider "prison building" a solution). Ben NightHorse Campbell, a liberal Native American. Liberals can get elected in Colorado, even if they are DINOs. MC "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'Liberal'? If by 'Liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of 'Liberal'. But if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'." John F. Kennedy Wikipedia http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZSM http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZSM/commentary#comments Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:04:19 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZSM Mike Collins http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/bcdcfd97be4d93f8d2_izvrmv8p8.jpg Mike Collins 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZSM/ Tolerance and Truth By Edward M. Kennedy Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:37 AM Editor's note: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy delivered an extended version of this speech at Liberty Baptist College on Oct. 3, 1983. The Post published these excerpts later that week. We republish them today on the occasion of Kennedy's death. A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life--and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at that time: "I believe in an America where there is no (religious) bloc voting of any kind." Only 20 years later another candidate was appealing to an evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15,000 evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: "I know that you can't endorse me. I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing." To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. . . . The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of deep religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone's freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible. As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, "Don't join the bookburners. . . . The right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned--or this isn't America." And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief. Let us never forget: today's Moral Majority could become tomorrow's persecuted minority. The danger is as great now as when the Founders of the nation first saw it. In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations. Today there are hundreds--and perhaps thousands of faiths--and millions of Americans who are outside any fold. Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right; but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to read and to do. . . . The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases-- cases like Prohibition and abortion--the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience. The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example. It is a moral issue; it will be decided by government, not by each individual; and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy. The Catholic bishops and the Rev. Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze-- and Dr. Falwell has every right to stand against it. There must be standards for the exerecise of such leadership--so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition. Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement. In our own time, the Rev. William Sloane Coffin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam. Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel's call to social justice. And Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our national conscience to the evil of racial segregation. . . . President Kennedy, who said that "no religious body should seek to impose its will," also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues. In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate--and at the same time, we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women. There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference. First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself. People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice and even slavery, to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor. I believe that the prophecy--"the poor you have always with you"--is an indictment, not a commandment. I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education--and that a balanced- budget constitutional amendment is a matter for economic analysis, not heavenly appeals. Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue--but not every public issue involves religious values. . . . Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience. Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith. Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits--which I oppose --so other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze. Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority arises not only from its views, but from its name-- which, in the minds of many, seems to imply thattonly one set of public policies is moral--and only one majority can possibly be right. . . . Let me offer another illustration. Dr. Falwell has written: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God." Now, there is no one in the Senate who has stood more firmly for Israel than I have. Yet I do not doubt the faith of those on the other side. Their error is not one of religion, but of policy--and I hope to persuade them that they are wrong in terms of both America's interests and the justice of Israel's cause. Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy-- and the harmony of our diverse society is most at risk--when we re-establish, directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office. That relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, has reappeared in recent years. After the last election, the Rev. James Robison warned President Reagan not to surround himself, as presidents before him had, "with the counsel of the ungodly." I utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service. Two centuries ago, the victims were Catholics and Jews. In the 1980s, the victims could be atheists; in some other day or decade, they could be the members of the Thomas Road Baptist Church. Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that Jimmy Carter should not be president because he was a born-again Christian. We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern on the basis of where they worship, whether they follow Christ or Moses, whether they are called "born again" or "ungodly." Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves. And if that temptation ever comes, let us recall Winston Churchill's humbling description of an intolerant and inflexible colleague: "There but for the grace of God--goes God." Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate. In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regar Jr.,d as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong--or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes--or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible--and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true. The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral--with equal restraints on the United States and the Soviet Union. The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verification. The nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power already have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made. . . . I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds, or moral ones. But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges. They only deflect us from the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed. . . . Fourth and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree. We sorely test our ability to live together if we too readily question each other's integrity. It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake--for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side. Those who favor the Equal Rights Amendment are not "anti-family" or "blasphemers" and their purpose is not "an attack on the Bible." Rather we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal. Indeed, my mother--who strongly favors ERA--would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family. For my part, I think of the amendment's opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character. I could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on both sides. Dr. Falwell is not a "warmonger"--and "liberal clergymen" are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent letter, equivalent to "Soviet sympathizers." The critics of official prayer in public schools are not "Pharisees"; many of them are both civil libertarians and believers who think that families should pray more at home with their children and attend church and synagogue more faithfully. And people are not "sexist" because they stand against abortion; they are not "murderers" because they believe in free choice. Nor does it help anyone's cause to shout such epithets--or try to shout a speaker down--which is what happened last April when Dr. Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard. So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here today. That was not Harvard's finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr. Falwell's right to speak. In short, I hope for an America where neither fundamentalist nor humanist will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls. I hope for an America where no president, no public official, and no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt--or religious belief. I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly--but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion or angry division. I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously--but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity. . . . The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/26/AR2009082600901.html http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZ5R http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZ5R/commentary#comments Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:03:47 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZ5R Mike Collins http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/bcdcfd97be4d93f8d2_izvrmv8p8.jpg Mike Collins 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZ5R/ Can you hear me now? Howard Dean threw the gloves off, you should too. Starting with the economic advisors in the WH, I would start finding real liberals to help run the show. If he continues to surround himself with wimps (Democratic Party retreads) his administration is doomed, they wouldn't know an original thought if it bit them in the ass. Lots of really pissed off LIBERAL women like Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9) can help turn it around. This ain't politics, this is WAR against corporate America, the greatest villains in the history of the world. MC "While the Obama administration offers kind words to unions, reform to ensure workers' rights to organize is not one of its priorities. Too many other liberal interest groups have become Beltway operations, packaged and polite affairs disconnected from the real grass roots." Rage the Left Should Use By Robert Kuttner Tuesday, August 18, 2009 Where are the liberal protesters? Wall Street and the abuses of corporate America crashed the economy, leaving regular people anxious and financially insecure. Yet the far right, not the reformist left, is getting the political windfall. Something is severely off when economically stressed Americans confront members of Congress about "death panels" in the Obama health plan. The rumors, fanned by talk radio with a little help from Republicans, are false and even delusional. Yet the anger, if misdirected, is genuine. People should be plenty angry about their jobs and their mortgages and their health insurance. With health care, however, virtually all of the fears attributed to the Obama health reform efforts more accurately describe the existing private system. Continued: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702363.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZRr http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZRr/commentary#comments Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:35:13 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZRr Mike Collins http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/bcdcfd97be4d93f8d2_izvrmv8p8.jpg Mike Collins 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZRr/ Colorado has a House power ratio of .016 (7 members of 435) a Senate power ratio of .04, equal to all the other 49 states. Seemingly insignificant unless you look at Wyoming's House power ratio of .002. Getting rid of the filibuster might be a giant step in the right direction. If majority rule works in the house, surely it should be applied in the senate. "Add the rise of the filibuster and the fact that small-state senators tend to stick around longer, gaining powerful chairmanships under the seniority system, and you've got today's change-resistant Senate." MC The Gangs of D.C. In the Senate, Small States Wield Outsize Power. Is This What the Founders Had in Mind? By Alec MacGillis Sunday, August 9, 2009 Wonder why President Obama is having a hard time enacting his agenda after sweeping to victory and with large congressional majorities on his side? Look to the Senate, the chamber designed to thwart popular will. There is much grousing on the left about the filibuster, the threat of which has taken such hold that routine bills now need 60 votes. Getting less attention is the undemocratic character of the Senate itself. Why, for example, have even Democratic senators been resistant on health-care reform? It might be because so many of the key players represent so few of the voters who carried Obama to victory -- and so few of the nation's uninsured. The Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal -- without a public insurance option -- represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa. Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people -- less than New Jersey -- and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform. More at the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702045.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZRS http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZRS/commentary#comments Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:30:35 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZRS Mike Collins http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/bcdcfd97be4d93f8d2_izvrmv8p8.jpg Mike Collins 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZRS/ Feel Free to post any info and promote yourself and organization. we are already getting 500 unique visits a day! LeadvilleLifestyle is a 100% interactive website, you can upload videos/pics and blog. free classifieds,free forums and free business pages, also interacts with facebook and twitter! launching coloradomountainlifestyle.com soon which will hopefully free the media in eagle/summit/lake counties and the central mtns of Colorado! the user drives the content of the site! any questions just ask. we encourage folks to get active and post video/pics or blogs!!! Free The Media!!! Stand Up! http://www.leadvillelifestyle.com http://www.coloradomountainmedia.com coming soon coloradomountainlifestyle.com 100% Interactive websites! I hope ProgressNow will use this to help communicate with citizens of colorado and the co mtns!!! http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennygriffin/CZNk http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennygriffin/CZNk/commentary#comments Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:17:30 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennygriffin/CZNk kenny http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/708d965bd2f1f5898a_hbbmv2ap3.jpg kenny 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZNk/ The problem is not and never has been a "liberal" media, it is, was and ever shall be, the lack of a "liberal" media. "Liberal" meaning "open-minded" and "truthful". "Conservative" meaning "narrow-minded" and "clandestine" OPENED-MINDED: Synonyms: unbiased, progressive, unprejudiced, liberal, flexible, tolerant, easygoing, impartial, broad-minded TRUTH: Synonyms: reality, fact, accuracy, genuineness, precision, exactness, legitimacy, veracity, truthfulness. An antonym for "Liberal" is "narrow-minded": NARROW-MINDED: Synonyms: bigoted, prejudiced, biased, insular, intolerant, reactionary, blinkered, parochial, provincial, pigheaded CLANDESTINE: Synonyms: secret, underground, covert, concealed, stealthy, furtive, undercover, surreptitious, illegal, sneaky, sly, underhanded, shifty Good read from Frank Rich regarding the prostitutes that dominate the 4th Estate. MC http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZN2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZN2/commentary#comments Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:45:47 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZN2 Mike Collins http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/bcdcfd97be4d93f8d2_izvrmv8p8.jpg Mike Collins 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZN2/ "The dignity code........It also commanded its followers to be dispassionate — to distrust rashness, zealotry, fury and political enthusiasm." I'm having trouble finding balance, even though we have been blatantly provoked by charlatans in positions of trust MC NY Times July 7, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist In Search of Dignity By DAVID BROOKS When George Washington was a young man, he copied out a list of 110 “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” Some of the rules in his list dealt with the niceties of going to a dinner party or meeting somebody on the street. “Lean not upon anyone,” was one of the rules. “Read no letter, books or papers in company,” was another. “If any one come to speak to you while you are sitting, stand up,” was a third. But, as the biographer Richard Brookhiser has noted, these rules, which Washington derived from a 16th-century guidebook, were not just etiquette tips. They were designed to improve inner morals by shaping the outward man. Washington took them very seriously. He worked hard to follow them. Throughout his life, he remained acutely conscious of his own rectitude. Continued: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07brooks.html?em http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZgJ http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZgJ/commentary#comments Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:15:33 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CZgJ Mike Collins http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/bcdcfd97be4d93f8d2_izvrmv8p8.jpg Mike Collins 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZgJ/ This is my response to Cheney's speech from 5/21/2009 Lies, upon lies, upon lies. Lie #1: Cheney: "Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis." The facts: Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office. In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew. The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order. Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission. The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage. Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios. In August 1998, just after the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, the Clinton administration responded with Tomahawk missile strikes against alleged bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan, and a pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum.According to a State Department official, after a December 1996 report showed heavy security around the plant… "We had previously collected samples from other suspected sites in Sudan," the official said, "but only the sample from the Shifa facility tested positively for chemical weapons precursors. We know of no other factors in the environment that could result in a positive EMPTA signature." (EMPTA O-Ethyl Methylphosphonothioic Acid (VX Nerve Gas precursor)) Not only did the Republicans accuse Clinton of exaggerating the threat, it was they that not only failed to act at all against Al Queda in the first 9 months of the Bush presidency, but they gave the Taliban MILLIONS OF DOLLARS even after they destroyed historically priceless ancient world artifacts. You see, they actually saw eye to eye with the radical theocracy that was overtly protecting Bin Laden with it's sovereignty. Lie #2: "We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy - leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor." He is technically correct, in that 2,402 people died in the attack against Pearl Harbor. The lie is in the mischaracterization of the comparison. You see, the reason Pearl Harbor completed the US's entry into World War 2 (everyone should know this, but it's amazing how I've never heard any of the shill talking heads mention this) is that Japan had substantially hurt the US's ability to DEFEND IT'S WEST COAST AGAINST INVASION! People realized that if Japan had taken the time to set up supply lines and mount a sustained attack, instead of what ended up being a comakaze attack that was not sustainable, then our national security would TRULY be threatened.THERE IS NO COMPARISON! Though 9/11 was undoubtedly a deplorable act, we have NOT BEEN IN DANGER OF INVASION. Our sovereignty has never been at stake! This mischaracteration of our state of national security is nothing but a cowardly lie by those we put in a position of ultimate trust, in order to push their political agenda. Lie #3: "Everyone expected a follow-on attack." The only reason anyone would have to realistically fear another attack is the rhetorical paranoid fear mongering, likely brought on by guilty consciences and political opportunism of the Bush administration. Don't get me wrong, ANYONE who is attacked by surprise will jump at shadows immediately after, however reasonable people see this for what it is and overcome such feelings with reason. There was not one bit of intelligence ANYWHERE, either before or immediately after that suggested that another attack was coming. On the other hand, there was substantial intelligence pointing to the attacks that DID take place.The truth of the matter is (as documented by even the whitewashed 9/11 comission), it was not the intelligence agencies that failed to see danger and report it. It was the executive branch that failed to compile and act upon the data... or act at all in a concerted way against terrorism for the previous 9 months. There are good reasons that domestic and foreign intelligence are separated. It is the Executive branch's JOB to take the information and act upon it. To this day there has been NO public evidence of a credible threat even as serious as 9/11, which as I've already made clear, was no Pearl Harbor. This is not to say that terrorism is not a substantial threat, but especially since Cheney insists on being so militant, let's talk of this in straight military terms: Terrorism is, was, and probably always be a threat of collateral damage. It is NOT a credible threat of invasion. Now, I can hear the empty rhetoric bubbling up now: Would you subject yourself and your love ones to a reasonable risk of unforeseen collateral damage in order to preserve our principles of Freedom as espoused in the United States Constitution? And I would reply, (as any American rightfully should) with a resounding YES! As a matter of fact, coming from a family with a rich military tradition (5 members of my immediate family (out of a total of 7) served in the military during various wars, including WW2) many of them already have been more at risk than the majority of these chicken hawks, especially 5 times deferred Cheney. Lie #4: This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. The first part is factually correct. Of course they were 'seeking' nuclear technology (lots of evil men desire such things, but when it comes to nuclear threats, Al Qaeda at the height of it's power DID NOT COMPARE to Musharraf's Pakistan (who HAS nuclear capabilities) not to mention Korea and China), but again, there has been no credible reason to believe they ever came ANYWHERE NEAR the slightest bit of fissionable materials. In fact, the IAEA said that there have been about 375 cases of nuclear smuggling over the past decade, but none have involved anything close to enough fissionable material to construct a nuclear weapon. (and never mind the HUGE issue of DELIVERING the mythical weapon) This is where the cowardly lies get really thick. If they TRULY believed that this was a threat, WHY DID THEY MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANTIAL MOVES TO SECURE OUR PORTS? Yet he uses this as justification for violating the constitution and US law. As for Khan selling nuclear technology 'on the black market', things get scary funny. (not funny ha-ha) Fact #1: "Nuclear technology" is not a small undertaking. The thought of Al Qaeda setting up centrifuges and other required elements to construct a nuclear weapon is completely LUDICROUS. This is how much credit Cheney gives even his supporters, and yet they still lap it up. I mean this is just idiotic in the extreme. Fact #2: In September 2005, Musharraf revealed that after two years of questioning Khan — which the Pakistani government insisted to do itself without outside intervention — that they had confirmed that Khan had supplied centrifuge parts to North Korea. WE ONLY HAD Musharraf's WORD that Khan was responsible for attempting to trade Pakistan's nuclear technology to Korea. Fact #3: Since 2005, and particularly in 2006, there have been renewed calls by IAEA officials, senior U.S. congressmen, EC politicians, and others to make Khan available for interrogation by IAEA investigators, given lingering skepticism about the "fullness" of the disclosures made by Pakistan regarding Khan's activities. In the U.S., these calls have been made by elected U.S. lawmakers rather than by the U.S. Department of State. You see, the Bush administration made NO ATTEMPT to deal with this potentially HUGE actual (as opposed to the IMAGINED threat of say, Iraq) THREAT, despite being supposed allies with the extremely questionable Musharraf. Fact #4: Khan now says that it was actually our supposed ally Musharraf who was behind the attempts to sell nuclear technology. The supreme audacity of Cheney to make this argument should anger us all. Huge LIE #5: We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists. (SEE LIE #4!!!!) Cheney has no shame, and shame on those who prop up and apologize for this man. Lie #6: You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. I have yet to see or hear ANY facts that support the first conclusion, and I challenge ANYONE and EVERYONE to find some. Come on, I dare you! Lie #7: In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. See the previous lies, as there still has been no CREDIBLE threat of 'catastrophic violence'. The claim of lawful authority is completely empty. Here are the relevant laws, etc.: To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and !! make rules concerning captures !! on land and water. - Article one, section 8 (DEFINING THE POWERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH) This is the 'Capture Clause' This power covers enemy persons as well as property. This alone repudiates the authority claimed by the administration to legalize torture, never mind that their argument was extremely spurious and will not hold up under the scrutiny of the Congress or the courts. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. -Reagan's signing statement on the UN Convention Against Torture (ratified into US law by Reagan) 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. - Article one, section 9 The United States Constitution ...nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, !! nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law !!; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. - Amendment V, The United States Constitution Military code of conduct: It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article two, The United States Constitution, concerning the duties of the President of the United States. Now, on to 'Vital information' even supposing that the OLC had the authority to legalize torture (they didn't), and that it wasn't completely opposed as a matter of principle by the framers of the constitution (it was), and that it wasn't just plain evil sadism and a crime against all humanity (it was), so far as has been testified on in Congress, as well as the public statements by former interrogators, it DID NOT AND DOES NOT PROCURE RELIABLE INFORMATION. I wasn't going to get into this, but as long as I've come this far, let's examine the OLC's spurious argument that these 'enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture'. Please read the relevant memos. This is how I sum up their arguments. Their arguments are based upon two suppositions: Argument 1. Since it is legal to waterboard SEAL trainees in SEER school, then it is legal to waterboard suspected terrorists. a: The US Constitution in regards to due process of law and habeus corpus is quite clear. Feel free to go back and read them. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand them. b: SEAL trainees undergo training VOLUNTARILY. c: The 'techniques' as they were applied to the suspected terrorists bore no resemblance to the extremely controlled conditions in SEER school. d: The SEER instructor that they consulted as an expert on this technique told them in no uncertain terms that this is torture and would be illegal if used in an official capacity. Argument 2. They parse the words 'prolonged' and 'severe', having somehow come to the inexplicable conclusion that pain and fear have to be 'prolonged' in order to be considered severe physical and mental suffering. Actually, parse is too kind. They flat out mutilated the words. Lastly, even if none of these arguments swayed you think about this: When terrorists are held indefinitely in various makeshift and secret prisons, tried in secret tribunals, and refused the due process of law, we make them political prisoners. When they are held in Federal prisons, tried in official US courts, and given the full due process of law, they are Criminals. It is whithin all our power to turn these political prisoners back into the criminals we have good reason to believe they are. I could go on and on, but is there really any point? I continues to astound me that this 'man' has any credibility whatsoever. We need courage and moral principle such as John Adams demonstrated when he defended the soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre despite his disdain for the British occupation. We need for the Republicans to assist in cleaning up the mess they enabled. If we clean our own house, America gets to tell the rest of the world it was just some evil people that subverted the will of the nation. If we don't take responsibility and clean our own house, then the World gets to say that America is at risk of becoming a rogue state, the principles upon which our power rests will be compromised, and WW1 and WW2 and all those that died in those wars will have been for naught. It's that simple. If Pelosi or any other person is guilty of an enabling role (in the use of torture), then by all means they should be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate. If we do not prosecute the individuals, then every single American is guilty of War Crimes. Silence gives consent. Final thoughts and relevant statements of values and principles: "The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine "Is an enemy so execrable that, though in captivity, his wishes and comforts are to be disregarded and even crossed? I think not. It is for the benefit of mankind to mitigate the horrors of war as much as possible." - Thomas Jefferson "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams "Not only your Officers, and Soldiers have been treated with a Tenderness due to Fellow Citizens, & Brethren; but even those execrable Parricides [traitors] whose Counsels & Aid have deluged their Country with Blood, have been protected from the Fury of a justly enraged People." George Washington If there is a man, woman or child in America who can read these depositions (of how Britain treated prisoners) without resentment and horror, that person has no soul, or a very wicked one. - John Adams (Just imagine what he'd think of his America in the 2000's) Military code of conduct: It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. / Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution. -signing statement by Reagan / UN Convention Against Torture (ratified into US law by Reagan) If you made it all the way through this, kudos! I hope it wasn't too incoherent. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelgeist/CZxP http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelgeist/CZxP/commentary#comments Fri, 22 May 2009 18:56:36 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelgeist/CZxP Mike Geist Mike Geist 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZxP/ There are national Petitions in process to ask Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor to lead US Department Of Justice enforcement actions against the Bush appointee Lawyers that advocated felony violations of our Federal Laws on Torture, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Who have addmitted Ordering felony Click on the Image to Sign it Today. This website is a quick way to sign the Petition to have them Indicted and to ask Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor Thanks for your assistance. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CZg7 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CZg7/commentary#comments Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:45:06 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CZg7 John H Kennedy http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/12e758207391a9b236_ggimv2s5d.gif John H Kennedy 2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZg7/ The past few months have provided a dizzying series of messages in the blogosphere praising or persecuting the new President of the United States (POTUS). Thankfully, Salon.com produced an “over the nation” report on the Republican Party today that deserves more attention, and a more in-depth analysis (from yours truly, naturally). Here’s the Salon.com link - The state (by state) of the GOP Once again, Dick Wadhams’ penchant for media attention provides the clue for how to defeat him and continue the GOP decline: "This notion that Colorado has suddenly become a Democratic state is preposterous. I think Democrats who have a grip on reality know that." -- State GOP chairman Dick Wadhams The lesson from Dick is a hard and true fact of politically strategy from today to 2012, and unfortunately, too many high level Democratic leaders are positively oblivious to the concept. While basking in the glory of Barack Obama’s victory, I am seeing too many messages ignoring recent losses and weaknesses going into future ballots. This kind of complacency and false posturing is a formula for a disaster in the 2010 General Election. Salon.com is absolutely correct by highlighting the dominance of the GOP at the county and community level. Even in Larimer County, the Democratic Party leadership is mute on the loss of a seat on the Board of County Commissioners. Reveling in the glory of former Democratic Party Chair Betsy Markey defeating Marilyn Musgrave is apparently too intoxicating to take a clear look at the dangers of the political landscape. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQsd http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQsd/commentary#comments Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:18:24 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQsd Ralph T http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/22970b0cb82ab5861b_e6yymv1de.jpg Ralph T 5 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQsd/ As you probably already know, Republican State Senator Dave Schultheis shocked the public last week by accidentally saying something he really meant out loud. He explained he could not vote in favor (a second time) of a bill that would require HIV testing for pregnant women, because it would help them escape from the consequences of their sexual promiscuity. Well, it wouldn't help them so much as their BABIES, but see, dealing with a sick and probably dying child would teach the mother and her family valuable lessons about the right way to act. What Sen. Schultheis has done, aside from earning the scorn and contempt of anyone with even a modicum of decent human feeling, is give us a sterling example of why separation of church and state is such a good idea. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/neonnurse/CQsC http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/neonnurse/CQsC/commentary#comments Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:19:06 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/neonnurse/CQsC Susan the Neon Nurse http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/4d9f8366c95149b114_4l1gmvoe1.jpg Susan the Neon Nurse 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQsC/ According to an article from Truthout today, several states are challenging the federal government's indeterminate commitment of their National Guard Units deployed in war zones. The right of the executive branch to federalize these units then tie the hands of the legislature by allowing war to be declared but not halted is being questioned as are several other suppositions left hanging by the schizophrenic policies of the previous administration, including the constitutionality of such actions. It would appear that the first hundred days will only be the beginning of the janitorial duties the Obama administration must engage in before it can get down to developing its own policies. Link here: http://www.truthout.org/021109J http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/richardplambeck/CQYZ http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/richardplambeck/CQYZ/commentary#comments Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:16:59 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/richardplambeck/CQYZ Doc http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/7fb070b28e7075984a_06bmv2oev.jpg Doc 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQYZ/ Did it REALLY happen? Is That Cabal of psychopathic neo-cons REALLY GONE? I watched as Bush smirked through Obama's speech; as he gave one final attempt to scam the few fools still listening; and as he flew out waving... The crowd slowly building into song....there were 1.8 million voices out there...hopes high; trying to believe that it is all over.... But it isn't over....not by a long shot http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/Jan/CQkT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/Jan/CQkT/commentary#comments Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:50:09 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/Jan/CQkT The Mad Woman http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/fcb34917d9fd3e3809_u806mvulr.jpg The Mad Woman 2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQkT/ One last effort to Stop The Pardons. Won't you help? http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQfn http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQfn/commentary#comments Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:51:35 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQfn John H Kennedy http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/12e758207391a9b236_ggimv2s5d.gif John H Kennedy 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQfn/ Mesa State College is the to-go place when you are a Republican lawmaker needing a job. The list of Mesa State politicos includes College President Tim Foster, a former legislator; former Sen. Ron Teck; Sen. Josh Penry's wife; and John Marshall, former manager of Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob Beauprez. Over the summer Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, finally got a piece of the action, too. Mesa State hired American National Protective Services -- where King happens to be the chief operating officer -- to audit the college's security plan. According to Monday's story by Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reporter, Mike Saccone, King did not have to go through a bidding process. In the 2009 session, King also plans to introduce a bill that would require all schools, from kindergartens to universities, to have crisis action plans. Looks like King's business could pick up if his legislation becomes law. A note to Mesa County's newly elected Republican legislator, Laura Bradford: remember to send in your resume to Mesa State's Republican Employment Agency -- they know where a job can be created for you. References: http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/12/28/122908_1a_King_contract.html http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2507 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/leslierobinson/CQDs http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/leslierobinson/CQDs/commentary#comments Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:05:13 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/leslierobinson/CQDs Rifle Shots by Leslie Robinson http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/4ff03b14c9ae1d793a_9770mvu15.jpg Rifle Shots by Leslie Robinson 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQDs/ The most recent addition to the GOP dog-pack nipping at the heels of Congresswomen-Elect Betsy Markey, CU Regent Thomas J. Lucero, is having an identity, or at least residency, crisis. According to his CU Regent biography he lives in Johnstown. But, the press release he sent to the Loveland Reporter-Herald includes (R-Loveland) after his name (see the extended text). According to the Managing Editor of the Reporter-Herald those 10-characters between parentheses are sufficient evidence to tout him as the "home town" candidate.  This is the second time that the Reporter-Herald has announced his candidacy in the past two-weeks crediting him as a Loveland resident. Since the newspaper doesn’t seem to understand investigative journalism, or even the need to confirm information sent by politicians in a press release, I made a few checks.  First of all other Colorado newspapers have reported Mr. Lucero’s home as Johnstown.  Then there is the information on his CU Regent biography that lists his home as, surprise, Johnstown. The CU Regent biography goes a little further to specify that Mr. Lucero is a Johnstown businessman and civic leader.  So while it is getting hard to figure out which former dairy farm is now part of Johnstown, or which corn-field is Loveland’s $6 Million dollar investment in the future, a person with ambitions for the US Congress should know what address to go to at the end of the day. When he ran for CU Regent Tom knew that he lived in Johnstown.  The Colorado Secretary of State record shows his campaign committee address from the 1997 campaign season as 1015 WS 1ST ST/PO BOX 921 JOHNSTOWN, CO 80534.  That’s the same Post Office box that’s on the CU Regent Biography. Further evidence of Mr. Lucero’s inaccuracy in the press release to the Reporter-Herald is found through the Dex.com online telephone directory.  No surprise here that there is no listing for Thomas J., Tom or “T” Lucero in Loveland.  This is inconclusive since Dex doesn’t account for the phenomenon of people with only a cellphone and no landline at their home. Next in my bag of tricks is the Larimer County Assessor website for property records.  It’s reasonable to believe that an independently wealthy pizza magnate would own his home.  Curiously, a search for any person with the last name of Lucero owning property in the County doesn’t show a Thomas in Loveland, but there is one in Fort Collins.  Sorry, for dragging that guy into this mess. So, I guess it comes down to this.  Almost a month before Betsy Markey is even provided the respect and courtesy of being sworn-in as a Member of Congress ( “MC” as my former Congressman and professor is known to say) we have the curious case of a GOP wanna-be getting ready for the 2010 contest. The preponderance of evidence points to his home being in Johnstown.  Yet, he sends a press release to a Loveland newspaper claiming to reside in that community.  I can’t tell if he’s really seeking a higher elected office, or merely a different path to succeeding Marilyn Musgrave with an appearance in Newsweek magazine’s “The Dignity Index:  The Biggest Losers.” (http://www.newsweek.com/id/176413?from=rss) http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQDm http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQDm/commentary#comments Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:40:17 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQDm Ralph T http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/22970b0cb82ab5861b_e6yymv1de.jpg Ralph T 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQDm/ Kopel, in his opinion piece today in the Rocky Mountain News KOPEL: Web, not bias, offing papers seems to put all the blame on CraigsList and all of we who use the world wide web. Who or what do you think has caused the probable demise of the Rocky and perhaps the Denver Post as well? Weigh in with your opinion on Kopel's article . Today. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQDD http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQDD/commentary#comments Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:36:28 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQDD John H Kennedy http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/12e758207391a9b236_ggimv2s5d.gif John H Kennedy 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQDD/ You are invited to our “Change is Coming” to Aspen community meeting!!! Progressive Future and Environment Colorado host a “Change is Coming” to Aspen community meeting on Sunday, December 14th at the Eagles’ Lodge in Aspen, Colorado from 4 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. To RSVP, visit: http://www.environmentcolorado.org/action/other-issues/change-is-coming-aspen The event is part of a national effort by the Barak Obama Campaign for Change where activists are hosting community meetings across Colorado and the U.S. to talk about how to bring change to both Washington and their own communities. Americans voted overwhelmingly for change and a new direction this past election by electing Barak Obama. It was an historic victory, but the election was just the beginning. Join Environment Colorado and Progressive Future to reflect on the elections and create a “plan for change” for how we can reach out to our leaders and community to make change possible. Now is an historic opportunity to make progress, but only if communities work together. FULL EVENT DETAILS When: Sunday, December 14th, 2008 4 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. Where: Eagles’ Lodge 700 E Bleeker St Aspen, CO 81611 Hosts: Pam Kiely, Legislative Program Director, Environment Colorado Adam Lioz, Program Director, Progressive Future To RSVP, visit: http://www.environmentcolorado.org/action/other-issues/change-is-coming-aspen   http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/environmentcolorado/CQD2 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/environmentcolorado/CQD2/commentary#comments Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:31:28 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/environmentcolorado/CQD2 Matthew Garrington Matthew Garrington 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQD2/ As of Wed. 11/26 at 6:00 am the responses to this Impeachment OpEd had grown to over 1,246 The right wingers of both the Democrats and Republican parties were doing their best to ruin the discussion and diss the Constitution. They posted garbage using fake names which kept the right wing Dem/GOP messages on top. For instance the message "Blah.. Blah... Blah... this gets old" repeated many times really got in the way of real discussion. Regardless this is a record for comments on that paper for an impeachment discussion. It is a marvel that the Editorial Board allowed the article to be published. Our thanks to everyone who read it and commented at the newspaper. ----------------------------------------------- PLEASE: FORWARD TO YOUR LISTS NOW ! Thanks e. Suggest we all read and comment on this Pro-Impeachment op-ed piece in the Detroit Free Press today. Earlier the better. Getting to 1,000+ comments might help. Interestingly it is placed high on the paper's website. Is the paper now getting behind impeachment??? The comments have tripled to over 500 in 2 hours. Please add your pro-impeachment hearings comment and forward to your lists asap. Thanks John John H Kennedy, Denver CO impeach Colorado Coalition For economy's sake, Pelosi needs to push for impeachment now BY ROCHELLE RILEY Nov. 25, 2008 For economy's sake, Pelosi needs to push for impeachment now Rep. Nancy Pelosi's ineffectiveness became clear the day she became Speaker of the House and immediately announced that there would be no impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Advertisement Guided by politics, she said leading investigations into just how much the Bush administration did - and did wrong - would be divisive. What she didn't express was her worry that too many Democrats faced elimination from the House if they took on the difficult task of proving who knew what, when. But Congress is running out of time to finally make the Bush administration own up to its actions for eight years. If Congress isn't careful, the president who already has issued 171 pardons could also pardon every appointee and employee he has ever had - and their dogs. And then Americans will never find out what happened to our country over the past eight years. Pelosi wouldn't have to start from scratch: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the bravest member of Congress, introduced legislation 11 months ago to impeach the president and vice president. Last January, the House gave a first reading of one of those articles of impeachment. Our own Rep. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, joined 38 other representatives to sponsor HR 635, which would form a committee to look into whether there are grounds for impeachment. Revive that effort! Last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing "pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office." Nadler said in news reports that he was moved to action by the president's "widespread abuses of power and potentially criminal transgressions against our Constitution" and that he wanted to prevent the "undeserved pardons of officials who may have been co-conspirators in the president's unconstitutional policies, such as torture, illegal surveillance and curtailing of due process for defendants." Nadler is storming the beach; others should join him. If Congress moves quickly and forces the president to focus on impeachment, then he won't have so much time to push through last-minute regulatory changes that will continue to hurt our country and our ideals. He already has pushed deregulation that would allow employers to talk directly with employees' doctors and allow power companies to build polluting facilities close to national parks. Anyone worried that our congressional representatives can't tie their shoes and chew gum at the same time, or cannot focus on the economic crisis and impeachment hearings at the same time, will find that many answers to our economic and global defense problems will come from those hearings. The only question I have for Nancy Pelosi is this: What are we waiting for? --------------- If the House Democrats fail to hold Bush and Cheney accountable, they are unlikely to get you Single payer Healthcare or anything else that will take courage to accomplish. --------------- http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQDp http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQDp/commentary#comments Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:02:57 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CQDp John H Kennedy http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/12e758207391a9b236_ggimv2s5d.gif John H Kennedy 233 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQDp/ For several years now the evidence of the Alberto Gonzales gang's manipulation of the Federal Civil Service within the Department of Justice has been well publicized. The fact that right-wing political ideologues were being approved for career professional positions based on social issue orthodoxy, rather than competence and qualifications, is yet another blight on the scandalous legacy of the current occupant of the White House. Today's report in the Washington Post reveals that this practice of burrowing right-wing political operatives into the Civil Service is also in-place in the scientific agencies. Perhaps this is the mis-administration's strategy for making permanent the Republican obsession for combating the truth of science with their twisted political and social priorities. The Center for Public Integrity is soon to release their "Broken Government" study. The fund-raising teaser release promises 120 specific cases. This kind of investigative effort to hold the Bushies accountable as the mis-administration fades into oblivion is crucial.  Revealing and acting on the depth and breadth of this conspiracy is vital to the success of any reforms and corrects to the offenses of the past eight years. The Obama-Biden Administration will be stretched and tested to uncover and flush-out these right-wing activists who have burrowed their way into the Civil Service like so many termites. The evidence of these infestations must be met with quick action. Executive appointees selected for positions above these people must be prepared to take every possible action within the laws and regulations of the Civil Service structure to either get them dismissed, or make it too hard for them to stay and accomplish their nefarious goals. Attention to the selection of the Administrator of the Office of Personnel Management will be a key to success in this area. Various Executive agency inspectors general must be supported in investigating these political opportunists. IF they are found to be substantially unqualified for the job description that they were hired to fill, then it should be clear grounds for dismissal as an unlawful appointment. The Obama-Biden appointees who are saddled with these burdens must enforce clear, precise and enforceable performance standards. When confronted with qualitative requirements to enforce and perform based upon laws and regulations that these infiltrators are likely to hold ambitions to undermine and avoid, could more easily force them to resign. Even in its demise the minions of the current mis-administration are appearing to be increasingly unwilling to follow the current occupant of the White House and the vice out of Washington. This certainly adds to the challenge and urgency of establishing the new administration's executive leadership. Too many months and too many acting, caretaker, leaders in the executive departments will make it all the harder to untangle the tentacles of the Bush parasites. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQDn http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQDn/commentary#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:53:14 EST http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/ralphtrenary/CQDn Ralph T http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/22970b0cb82ab5861b_e6yymv1de.jpg Ralph T 425 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQDn/