Thursday, December 17, 2009

Joe Lieberman: Prime Time Example Of Congressional Lethal Cynicism.

Joe Lieberman: Prime Time Example Of Congressional Lethal Cynicism.

There is no question that Congressional and Presidential Elections should be totally public funded and that third party PACs and shill committees should be barred from the process. It also time for a citizen initiative Amendment of The Constitution to empower the people to Recall members of Congress. Though there would be all manner of smoke screen spin arguments against such a move our defense would simple and reiterated again and again. With our votes we hired you; if you don’t do the job; we fire you. The members of Congress are our employees. If you don’t do your job, or you refuse to do your job, or you are guilty of corruption or immorality; you’re fired! So should be for the members of Congress!

There must be and put to Congressional arrogance and the financial puppetry of the K Street Lobbyists crowd. The daily cynicism of the members of Congress, their contemptuous disregard for the needs and will of the people is simply lethal when it comes to waging illegal and insane wars and leaving this nation as under insured as it is when it comes to healthcare.

On that score we are damned near a third-world nation with healthcare for the wealthy and fortunate with the healthcare industry sanctioned to commit financial rape and murder. It is time to move of our state legislatures with the call for a Constitutional Convention with the limited agenda of the right of recall of Federally Elected Officials.

No current example speaks as eloquently to those propositions than “Judas” Joe Lieberman. An examination of Lieberman’s Campaign Election Funding reveals the startling fact that he has (Zero/O) self-funding so just where does his vast funding come from, or who “owns Joe Lieberman? Click on the URL below for the full picture)

Cycle Source of Funds, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte only

Individual Contributions



PAC Contributions



Candidate self-financing






Top 20 Industries Contributing To Campaign Cmte

Industry ↓

Total ↓

Indivs ↓

PACs ↓

Securities & Investment




Real Estate








Lawyers/Law Firms








Misc Finance








Health Professionals




Business Services




Pharmaceuticals/Health Products




Misc Manufacturing & Distributing




Electric Utilities




Misc Business




Commercial Banks




General Contractors








Defense Aerospace








Retail Sales








America: It Is Time For A Reality Check!

The Courage Of Our Convictions

Connecticut Colleagues ‘Fed Up’ With Joe Lieberman

Liberal anger at Sen. Joe Lieberman spread across Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with a House Democrat from Connecticut calling for his recall and Lieberman himself acknowledging the angst he has caused.

“No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.

Connecticut has no recall law for state officials, and the Constitution does not authorize states to recall members of Congress, since each house has the authority to police its own members.

DeLauro acknowledged that she didn’t know if it was possible to oust Lieberman from office. But her comments reflected the deep frustration many Democrats felt after Lieberman told Senate Majority Harry Reid that he’d join Republicans in filibustering the Senate health care reform bill if it included either a public insurance option or a provision allowing people ages 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare.

“There’s huge concern that borders on frustration,” Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said of Lieberman’s position.

“It goes beyond frustration in Connecticut in terms of the way people feel,” Larson said. “I have a great deal of respect [for] and I have long admired Joe Lieberman. This goes against the grain of most of what he’s fought for and stood for all of his life. It’s thoroughly frustrating and disappointing for so many of us.”

“People are fed up in Connecticut, and it’s maddening to those of us who feel we have a pretty clear sense of where people in Connecticut are,” said Connecticut Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy.

He added: “I have no idea what Sen. Lieberman’s agenda is. I have stopped trying to be Sherlock Holmes.”

At a White House meeting Tuesday with the Senate Democratic Caucus, Lieberman said he “understood how people were upset with the position I took.”

“But like each of them, I had to do what I thought was right,” he said he told the group. “I didn’t run for reelection — and no one here did — asking the voters of my state to vote for me because I would always do what a majority of members of the caucus did, even if I thought some of those things were wrong. None of us would pledge that to our constituents.”

Lieberman said he told his colleagues that he hasn’t “really had a lot of fun” in recent days.

“One thing he acknowledged, which is important, is how difficult this has been for people on both sides of it,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). “I was struck by how human that moment was.”

Even Lieberman’s wife has become a target, with liberal blogger Jane Hamsher calling on the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation to cut its ties to Hadassah Lieberman because of her prior work for the pharmaceutical industry.

Lieberman has called the attacks on his wife “outrageous and insulting,” and his spokesman, Marshall Wittmann, denied that the senator was trying to block health care legislation.

“The truth is that Sen. Lieberman is seeking to pass a health care bill as soon as possible that will provide coverage to millions of Americans who lack health insurance, Wittman said.”

Asked about his colleagues’ anger, Lieberman said Tuesday: “I don’t like getting attacked personally, but I’m used to it. ... We have a disagreement, but our relations continue to be cordial.”

Liberal blogs and others have argued that Lieberman has flip-flopped on the Medicare buy-in proposal; he supported the idea when he ran for vice president in 2000. But Lieberman issued a statement Tuesday in which he said that the national debt then was less than half what it is now, that Medicare was not on the cusp of going broke and that there was no “viable” proposal like the one being considered on the floor.

He said comments he made to the Connecticut Post in September endorsing the idea were “before we had a bill for consideration on the Senate floor that contains extensive health insurance reforms, including limiting how much more insurance companies could charge individuals based on age and providing subsidies that would specifically help people between the ages of 55 and 65 to afford health insurance.”

Lieberman added: “I look forward to passing a bill that will give the American people genuine health care reform without impeding our recovery from the current recession or adding to our exploding national debt.”

Lieberman’s home-state colleague, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, said the frustration aimed at Lieberman arose mostly out of support for the public option back in Connecticut.

“It’s just people’s frustration for getting a bill done and strong support for a public option,” he said.

North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democratic centrist, said Lieberman has actually made it easier to reach a deal on the health care bill.

“In a curious way, it may make it more possible to get something done,” Conrad said of Lieberman’s position. “Because he wasn’t the only one with these concerns, it’s very clear — he vocalized concerns many were having.”

Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill”

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.

Dean said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview, which is set to air at 5:50 PM today on Vermont Public Radio, political reporter Bob Kinzel confirms to me.

The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal. In an excerpt Kinzel gave me, Dean says:

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

Kinzel added that Dean essentially said that if Democratic leaders cave into Joe Lieberman right now they’ll be left with a bill that’s not worth supporting.

Dean had previously endorsed the Medicare buy-in compromise without a public option, saying that the key question should be whether the bill contains enough “real reform” to be worthy of progressives’ support. Dean has apparently concluded that the “real reform” has been removed at Lieberman’s behest — which won’t make it easier for liberals to swallow the emerging compromise.

Update: The full interview is now up at Vermont Public Radio.

Was Snubbing Dean A Mistake?

Over the past few days, much of the political psycho-
analysis has focused on Joe Lieberman, wondering if his drubbing in the 2004 presidential primaries and ...

Dean Group Steps Up Health Care Assault

Howard Dean Debates Health Care With Mary Landrieu, Chris Matthews ...
By The Huffington Post News Editors
Howard Dean is digging in. The former DNC Chairman appeared on MSNBC's Hardball on Wednesday, getting into a heated health care debate with both host Chris Matthews and senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why Progressives Might Want To Kill The Health Care Bill

Disappointed progressives may be wondering whether their efforts were a waste. They most decidedly were not. The campaign for the public option pushed the entire debate to the left--and, to use a military metaphor, it diverted enemy fire away from the rest of the bill. If Lieberman and his allies didn't have the public option to attack, they would have tried to gut the subsidies, the exchanges, or some other key element. They would have hacked away at the bill, until it left more people uninsured and more people under-insured. The public option is the reason that didn't happen.

This is, however, where political discussion tends to get locked, in the media, to the detriment of effective policy and substantive discussion. Howard Dean and similar-minded policymakers get treated as a passionate activists, but not as "serious" experts. Americablog's John Aravosis makes a smart point about this pernicious dichotomy: "The implied criticism, between the lines (and perhaps not even intentional), is that activists don't know the substance of the debate, so of course 'they' think the bill is bad. But the 'experts' know better."

Similarly, being an activist means never receiving credit for being on the right side of an issue. By contrast, as we've seen time and again, being considered an "expert" allows you the opportunity to be wrong and wrong and wrong again and yet remain the more credible party in how the debate takes place on America's op-ed pages. When activists turn out to be right, this achievement is treated as an amusing coincidence -- based on something the high-toned "experts" just couldn't have foreseen!

White House As Helpless Victim On Healthcare


President Barack Obama makes a statement on health care reform after meeting with Senators, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009, at the White House in Washington. From left are, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; the president; and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev.

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)

Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferous email backlash -- easily -- was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama's occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House -- hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn't pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, said it would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise. Feingold said that responsibility ultimately rests with President Barack Obama and he could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.

"This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold. "I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

Let's repeat that: "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." Indeed it does. There are rational, practical reasons why that might be so. If you're interested in preserving and expanding political power, then, all other things being equal, it's better to have the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry on your side than opposed to you. Or perhaps they calculated from the start that this was the best bill they could get. The wisdom of that rationale can be debated, but depicting Obama as the impotent progressive victim here of recalcitrant, corrupt centrists is really too much to bear.

Yet numerous Obama defenders -- such as Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein andSteve Benen -- have been insisting that there is just nothing the White House could have done and all of this shows that our political system is tragically "ungovernable." After all, Congress is a separate branch of government, Obama doesn't have a vote, and 60 votes are needed to do anything. How is it his fault if centrist Senators won't support what he wants to do? Apparently, this is the type of conversation we're to believe takes place in the Oval Office:

The President: I really want a public option and Medicare buy-in. What can we do to get it?

Rahm Emanuel: Unfortunately, nothing. We can just sit by and hope, but you're not in Congress any more and you don't have a vote. They're a separate branch of government and we have to respect that.

The President: So we have no role to play in what the Democratic Congress does?

Emanuel: No. Members of Congress make up their own minds and there's just nothing we can do to influence or pressure them.

The President: Gosh, that's too bad. Let's just keep our fingers crossed and see what happens then.

In an ideal world, Congress would be -- and should be -- an autonomous branch of government, exercising judgment independent of the White House's influence, but that's not the world we live in. Does anyone actually believe that Rahm Emanuel (who built his career on industry support for the Party and jamming "centrist" bills through Congress with the support of Blue Dogs) and Barack Obama (who attached himself to Joe Lieberman when arriving in the Senate, repeatedly proved himself receptive to "centrist" compromises, had a campaign funded by corporate interests, and is now the leader of a vast funding and political infrastructure) were the helpless victims of those same forces? Engineering these sorts of "centrist," industry-serving compromises has been the modus operandi of both Obama and, especially, Emanuel.

Indeed, we've seen before what the White House can do -- and does do -- when they actually care about pressuring members of Congress to support something they genuinely want passed. When FDL and other liberal blogsled an effort to defeat Obama's war funding bill back in June, the White House became desperate for votes, and here is what they apparently did(though they deny it):

The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.

That's what the White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want. Why didn't they do any of that to the "centrists" who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care? Why didn't they tell Blanche Lincoln -- in a desperate fight for her political life -- that she would "never hear from them again," and would lose DNC and other Democratic institutional support, if she filibustered the public option? Why haven't they threatened to remove Joe Lieberman's cherished Homeland Security Chairmanship if he's been sabotaging the President's agenda? Why hasn't the President been rhetorically pressuring Senators to support the public option and Medicare buy-in, or taking any of the other steps outlined here by Adam Green? There's no guarantee that it would have worked -- Obama is not omnipotent and he can't always control Congressional outcomes -- but the lack of any such efforts is extremely telling about what the White House really wanted here.

Independent of the reasonable debate over whether this bill is a marginal improvement over the status quo, there are truly horrible elements to it. Two of the most popular provisions (both of which, not coincidentally, were highly adverse to industry interests) -- the public option and Medicare expansion -- are stripped out (a new Washington Post/ABC pollout today shows that the public favors expansion of Medicare to age 55 by a 30-point margin). What remains is a politically disastrous and highly coercive "mandate" gift to the health insurance industry, described perfectly by Digby:

Obama can say that you're getting a lot, but also saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. Nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer. I guess you can call that progressive, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, mandating that all people pay money to a private interest isn't even conservative, free market or otherwise. It's some kind of weird corporatism that's very hard to square with the common good philosophy that Democrats supposedly espouse.

Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good --- and doing it without even the cover that FDR wisely insisted upon with social security, by having it withdrawn from paychecks. People don't miss the money as much when they never see it.

In essence, this reinforces all of the worst dynamics of Washington. The insurance industry gets the biggest bonanza imaginable in the form of tens of millions of coerced new customers without any competition or other price controls. Progressive opinion-makers, as always, signaled that they can and should be ignored (don't worry about us -- we're announcing in advance that we'll support whatever you feed us no matter how little it contains of what we want and will never exercise raw political power to get what we want; make sure those other people are happy but ignore us). Most of this was negotiated and effectuated in complete secrecy, in the sleazy sewers populated by lobbyists, industry insiders, and their wholly-owned pawns in the Congress. And highly unpopular, industry-serving legislation is passed off as "centrist," the noblest Beltway value.

Looked at from the narrow lens of health care policy, there is a reasonable debate to be had among reform advocates over whether this bill is a net benefit or a net harm. But the idea that the White House did what it could to ensure the inclusion of progressive provisions -- or that they were powerless to do anything about it -- is absurd on its face. Whatever else is true, the overwhelming evidence points to exactly what Sen. Feingold said yesterday: "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place."

UPDATE: It's also worth noting how completely antithetical claims are advanced to defend and excuse Obama. We've long heard -- from the most blindly loyal cheerleaders and from Emanuel himself -- that progressives should place their trust in the Obama White House to get this done the right way, that he's playing 11-dimensional chess when everyone else is playing checkers, that Obama is the Long Game Master who will always win. Then, when a bad bill is produced, the exact opposite claim is hauled out: it's not his fault because he's totally powerless, has nothing to do with this, and couldn't possibly have altered the outcome. From his defenders, he's instantaneously transformed from 11-dimensional chess Master to impotent, victimized bystander.

The supreme goal is to shield him from all blame. What gets said to accomplish that goal can -- and does -- radically change from day to day.

UPDATE II: I'll be on MSNBC this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. EST with David Shuster/Tamron Hall discussing this post.

UPDATE III: Over at Politico, Jane Hamsher documents how Joe Lieberman's conduct on the health care bill provides the perfect vehicle to advance the agenda of the White House and Harry Reid. Consistent with that, she independently notes media reports that White House officials are privately expressing extreme irritation with Howard Dean for opposing the Senate bill as insufficient, but have nothing bad to say about Lieberman, who supposedly single-handedly sabotaged what the White House was hoping for in this bill.

UPDATE IV: Immediately prior to the MSNBC segment I just did -- video for which I will post when it's available -- an NBC reporter explained how Robert Gibbs used his Press Briefing today to harshly criticize Howard Dean for opposing the health care bill. Why did Gibbs never publicly criticize people like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and the like if they were supposedly obstructing and impeding the White House's agenda on health care reform (this is a point Yglesias acknowledges as a "fair" one)? Having a Democratic White House publicly criticize a Democratic Senator can be a much more effective pressure tactic than doing so against a former Governor who no longer holds office.

Meanwhile, as one would expect, health insurance stocks are soaring today in response to the industry-serving "health care reform" bill backed by the Democratic Senate and White House -- the same people who began advocating for "health care reform" based on the need to restrain on an out-of-control and profit-inflated health insurance industry (h/t Markos).

UPDATE V: Here's the roughly 4-minute segment I did with David Shuster today:

One Last Time…If This March Amounts To Nothing More Than Show And Theater And Does Not Send This City Into Shut Down And Turmoil; I will Not Waste Another Breath On Any Participant Or Participating Organization! In short you can take your token theater of the failed and shove it! The militants will rise to the occasion and they’ll be there.

America: It Is Time For A Reality Check!

March 20th Coalition Planning Committee
Sets Plans for March on Washington

Momentum for the March 20 National March on Washington is growing. The demonstration is expected to draw tens of thousands of people to Washington, D.C. to demand “U.S. Out of Afghanistan and Iraq Now!”

On Saturday December 12, a meeting of the March 20th Coalition Planning Committee was held at the Justice Center in Washington, D.C.

In addition to the ANSWER Coalition, the March 20th Planning Committee meeting was attended by representatives of the Alliance For Global Justice, Anti-War College, Dignity (co-founded and represented by Cynthia McKinney), Goucher Alumni for People’s Solidarity, Iraq Veterans Against the War, March Forward!, Muslim Alliance in North America, Muslim American Society Freedom, National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, National Council of Arab Americans, National Lawyers Guild, Peace of the Action and World Can’t Wait.

In addition to those in attendance at the December 12 planning meeting, over 700 organizations and individuals have endorsed the March 20 National March on Washington. Most recently, United States Labor Against the War (USLAW) passed a resolution to endorse at their 2009 National Labor Assembly.
Click here to add your/your organization’s name to the growing list of endorsers.

People will be coming by bus, van, car, train and plane from across the country to be in D.C. on Saturday, March 20.
If you are interested in organizing transportation, click here to fill out the Transportation Form.

On March 20, there will be coinciding demonstrations in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

March 20 is the seventh anniversary of the criminal war of aggression launched against Iraq. The demonstration will demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing.

The March 20th Coalition Planning Committee discussed a scenario for the March 20th action. People will gather at the White House for an opening rally. During the rally, we will construct hundreds of coffins representing the multinational victims of war. On the march, we will carry and deliver the coffins to various corporate and government entities that have played a role in the promotion of the war and the exploitation of people in the United States.

Get Involved:


Organize Transportation

Download Flyers: color, black & white



Be Prepared To Act Or Get Out Of The Way!


I have long held that the day of polite protest, the barrage of words, and the relentless petition signings would come to an end as this nation, like an alcoholic, hit the bottom.

The bottom of the bottle is in clear view. I know many do not like to be reminded that not every battle can be won with words and public protest gathering. Those who would resort me with the words of Ghandi, and plead for “peaceful protest” find in me now profound deafness. “The Pen is Mightier than The Sword” is nice altruistic expression that does not account for the reality of the human experience and human nature.

This nation was born in a Revolutionary War fashioned of “The Word and the Sword”! We were once a nation when the unity and solidarity of the voice of the people meant something because it was fortified by the willingness to ACT! When John L. Lewis said: STRIKE! ... The shovels were heard hitting the bottom of the mine pits and grim, determined faced American workers marched to the picket line and there was going to be hell to pay if someone confronted that line.

I dare say anyone reading this would have fool enough to do so to suggest to those workers that, they should be patient and passive. Sam Adams. “The Grand Incendiary”, Father of the Revolution was no pacifist, not Henry and not Jefferson who declared that:

“Every generation needs a new revolution”; “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”,

“"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.’

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

and “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson—

We are again at the point in our history where a paradigm shift is demanded to merely preserve the foundation of the nation, that is; we are on the verge of revolution, the only question remaining to be answered is whether it shall take the form of blood, fire and steel in the streets or massive upheaval in such a way as this government cannot continue to function in the corrupt fashion of the moment, a massive upheaval that demands that criminally guilty be driven from, resign from power and or to be prosecuted by every applicable law of this land and international law.

Let us assume that you wish the transformation to be accomplished without massive violence and conflagration. Your answer is a national strike of such proportions that this administration cannot survive nor its supporters and collaborators.

What is be offered. Proposed for May 1 is indeed only the first step to such an action. All other avenues have failed and while I will not suggest that anyone abandon their personal and local efforts it is time for a serious change in direction.

It is time to call together the leaders of all activist organizations: peace, impeachment and immigration, all American Labor Unions in marshalling a comprehensive national strike on heretofore unheard of proportions. Failure to do so and to execute such an approach will leave no other course of action but that thought of a traditional revolutionary approach.

The ports and harbors must be closed. Trucks must be parked, there rotor removed blocking thorough fares and bridges across the land. Railroad traffic must cease. Unions must strike and workers disbursed to other meaningful tasks of shutting the nation down. The streets must be filled with the masses so traffic and commerce cannot flow. Those who are now working should surround the offices of every major media outlet in America so that cannot ignore the people. The management and workers of those “institutions” should have to attempt to wade through a sea of humanity to get to their desks and microphones, and they will try as they have the consciences of scabs and the integrity of Judas.

The police powers should be reminded that they are Americans first before they are the Blue Line of puppets, and if they insist on macho enforcement of silly proportions they can expect that they will never see another voter levy to support their salaries for the next twenty years at least. Yes, that is a call to leave their posts and join the masses!

Mall parking lots should be empty, stores, hotels and theaters empty and silent. The teachers of America, public private and collegiate should leave their classrooms and students should join with adults in the demand to restore this land to the people.

The Halls of the Senate and House should bulge with Americans swarming into elected leaders offices delivering a few simple messages. The message: “Shut up and bring our men and women home from the Middle East; plan and execute now…no more talk and excuses about staying another 20, 50 or 100 years until we are satisfied and they are pacified. That is an illusion, a delusion, a lie and a formula for raging terrorism and warfare that must end in a nuclear confrontation sooner or later, a formula for insanity.

They should get the message that if they are not going to abide by and uphold and enforce The Constitution and International Law by bring Bush, Cheney and all other guilty parties to justice, that they will never see another red cent in campaign contribution and will never enjoy your vote again because they will be removed from office. Say it; mean it; do it. Finish them off. Bring the work of the House and Senate to a stop until they are ready to Impeach or they have been charged before The Hague!

We have seen in recent days that actions in DC which disrupt everyday business and traffic get attention, so swarm on DC and bring it to a standstill. Work to get every Metro employee in every major city to strike. Shut down the trains and buses. Enlist taxi drivers to strike. Get to the pilot’s union and airline employees union and get them to strike. Silence the air, silence the roads, silence the rail lines…shut it all down.

While you’re not working swarm on the nearest defense contractor’s office and manufacturing sites; Blockade them. If you have a major store Wal-Mart, Penny’s, Sears. K Mart, Target whatever… that attempts to stay open swarm pickets on and block the parking lots….shut them down.

Resistance, Rebellion, Revolt and ………….. There Is Nothing As Powerful As An Idea Whose Time Has Come.

No comments: