What is too good for wounded veterans?

This is my first post. I was just invited to post and considering that fighting for veterans with PTSD has been my life since 1982, this invitation couldn't have come at a better time. I blog over at Wounded Times if you are not familiar with me. I'm a Chaplain working with veterans and my husband is a Vietnam vet.

Right now the veterans need your help, especially the veterans with PTSD. There is a Bill sponsored by Congressman John Hall that has just made it thru the VA Subcommittee. Some Republicans voted against it telling me that when it comes to a full house vote, we'll see more Republicans saying "it's too good for veterans" instead of asking is it good enough. It also says that when it comes to the Senate, there will be an ever bigger fight from more Senators thinking along the same lines and saying no. While Democrats will hold the majority, we need to make sure that this Bill gets as many votes as possible. Not just for the sake of the newer veterans but for the sake of all of our veterans as a way of telling them, yes, we are a grateful nation and nothing is too good for them.

The rest is what I posted on my blog.


How can any Republican or Democrat say anything is too good for the troops or our veterans? These are the same people that were in position to send them into combat in the first place right? If a man or woman is willing to set aside "normal" life as a civilian, ask their families to sacrifice for the sake of the nation, then risk that life facing death or life changing wounds, how can there be anything at all that is "too good" for them in return? Think about it.

Think about what we ask of them and what they deliver on. What is it they ask in return? They ask that they be only used as a last resort; they are provided with the plans to carry the mission they are given out; they are trained to do their jobs; they are fed and clothed with uniforms that don't fall apart in the crotch (yes, this happened too) and in the end, they ask their families are taken care of if they pay with their lives, and should they live, they will not have to suffer neglect or financial hardships for surviving. Not a lot to ask for since from every corner of this nation we are able to spout out "Support the Troops" "Freedom isn't free" and use the words "from a grateful nation" yet when you get right down to the bottom of all this talk, talk is cheap but actually doing what we claim is very expensive.

I've been tracking PTSD in this country for far too long to know exactly how bad it is for them and how much worse it's going to get. They have to put up with people saying PTSD is not real and that they are just trying to suck off the system. Lord help these people if they ever encounter a traumatic event that changes the rest of their lives, but in order for that to happen they would have to have a tender soul and feel for others first. So that's unlikely.

They have to carry on with the mission watching over the backs of their buddies, while nightmares and flashbacks are eating them away. They have to then come home, bulldoze past ignorant fools trying to make them feel as if they are responsible for the pain they are carrying with them, and then, then they get to fight the VA to have their claims honored. No easy task either when they have to prove what moment in time did it to them. It's almost as if the VA cannot understand that sometimes it's not one, two or three times, but hundreds of them. Simply being able to show that they were fine when they were in boot camp and not fine after their deployment into hell the first time, the second time or third time and so on, would be honorable but all they have to go thru is just not enough for some law makers who have never once lived with them, talked to them or held them in their arms.

John McCain and Bush whined about the GI Bill being "too good" and would make the troops want out to go to college. Members of congress, guess which side, took to the floor of the congress and said there just wasn't enough money to increase the VA to take care of the wounded when they absolutely no problem at all funding two military campaigns without plans or accounting at the same time both were producing more wounded veterans. Was that really supporting the troops?

Want to use the excuse about money? Well that one doesn't work either because when you consider how much they could be making as a private citizen instead of military pay, you would then understand that they are not in the military for the money. Then consider when they are wounded by body or soul, and they cannot work they receive a lot less than they could working. The VA does not pay bonuses and it does not pay overtime. It does not give merit raises but it does give measly cost of living increases. If you think those increases keeps pace with inflation or what gas prices did last year, you must be living under a rock.

Set aside the over 900,000 claims in the system already still waiting to be processed and denied that they have to wait their turn on. Set aside the fact that between now and the time they begin to be treated, PTSD gets worse and when you add in the extra burden of bills that cannot be paid because they can't work and the VA won't approve their claim, is hell for them and their families. Set aside the fact that for the last 8 years we had people in charge without a clue what to do. Set all of that aside and then please tell me, what could possibly be too good for any of them after all we ask of them?

So please tell me how any member of congress would ever say that anything is too good for any of these men and women? Ever think about how many years lapse between the time a soldier or Marine is wounded by PTSD and they actually sought help? How about over 30 years later and they don't get retro pay for the 30 years they were suffering in silence. Think about how much money they save the government? Then take it a step further and look at the Korean veterans and WWII veterans seeking help for the first time.

My father-in-law had a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart because of serving this country in WWII, but never sought one dime from the VA. We had to pay to bury him. My husband came home in 1971 and knew he brought home an enemy inside of him but he thought he could work and the VA was for the "guys missing legs" so he didn't receive a dime until 1999, six years after PTSD was full blown and killing him. He knew something was wrong in 1971 but he didn't cost the government a dime all that time. He sucked it up as PTSD got worse. He had a job and made good money, worked overtime, got longevity bonuses and raises along with promotions for when he learned to use another piece of equipment. PTSD got so bad, his doctors told him he had to stop working. That, well that came two years shy of 20 years on the job. That cost us money as well as the lost overtime and raises but I still had my husband living instead of in the ground with a very early death. Then we had to go without any income from him while we fought to have his claim approved. All he had was a decreased pension coming in instead of the pay check we were used to living off of. His retroactive pay only went back to the time he filed his claim and not back to Vietnam. Think of how much money he saved the government and what it cost him to do it.


If you want to try to tell me that making it easier to have a claim for PTSD approved is "too good" for the men and women serving this country, you better be prepared for an ear full because when you consider that civilians like you and me would get workman's comp if we suffered from trauma on the job and they can't just walk off the job and go to a trauma center or make an appointment with a psychologist, you'd know what they have to go thru. They have to still pick up their weapon and risk their lives the next day and the next day until they can do it no more. They have to stay until they are ordered back home. Everything they do from the time they enlist until the time they are discharged is for the sake of all of us. So why aren't we asking will we ever be good enough to them instead of what's too good for them?

Make sure your congressman votes to approve this bill and get it done for their sake!

Subcommittee approves bill easing PTSD compensation for vets
By Otto Kreisher
CongressDaily June 4, 2009
The House Veterans Affairs Disability Assistance Subcommittee on Wednesday approved a bill that would make it easier for veterans to receive financial compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill was referred to the full committee on a voice vote, despite votes against it from at least two of the three Republican members.

Sponsored by Disability Assistance Subcommittee Chairman John Hall, D-N.Y., and 16 other Democrats, the bill would allow a veteran to qualify for the monthly compensation for combat-related PTSD just by demonstrating that the psychological disorder was caused by something that happened while he or she was serving in the "combat theater" as defined by the Defense secretary. Currently, the Veterans Affairs Department requires proof that the stress occurred during "combat with the enemy."
go here for more
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/060409cdam1.htm

Green's good...

Ask your members of Congress to pass a Cap and Trade system to regulate greenhouse gases today!

Flood Leave Deregulate Equality...

1.

Tens of thousands of us have marched, hundreds of thousands have signed petitions -- now let's send a flood of messages, asking leaders to push the G20 to rise to this global challenge!

2.

Tell your Congressperson to support Family Leave Insurance!

3. 

Affordable Car & Home Insurance
Tell Geithner Not to Deregulate Insurance Companies!

4.

Close The Gap: Demand Indigenous health equality!

TAKE TWO (now!)

1.

A panel of federal judges has ruled in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a controversial mountaintop removal mining legal case.

The ruling will permit mining companies to conduct devastating mountaintop removal coal mining operations without acting to minimize stream destruction or conducting adequate environmental reviews. 

Take ACTion!

2.

"Congress should change its rules to require that non-emergency legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before debate begins." READ THE BILL - ACTion!

 

Tomar medidas ahora!

UNO

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that in 2005, almost 95,000 Americans developed a MRSA (an antibiotic-resistant strain of "staph") infection, and 19,000 of them died from its symptoms, such as inflammation of the heart lining and pneumonia.

What's more shocking is that 85 percent of those infected with MRSA contracted it in health care facilities, largely due to inadequate sanitation procedures.

Congress must pass pending legislation that would lower the rate of MRSA and other deadly infections, including a bill that would require hospitals to publicly report infection rates. Tell your elected officials in Congress to vote to keep MRSA and other deadly superbugs out of our hospitals and communities.

DOS

The one click form here will send your personal message to all your government representatives selected below, with the subject "Investigate Cheney's Private Assassination Ring." At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper if you like.

TODAY & TOMORROW 1-4

1.

A New Foundation for Growth

President Obama submitted a budget to Congress that challenges the status quo and directly confronts the long-term threats to our prosperity.

But it's up to us to make sure Washington knows that Americans across the country stand by the President's plan to invest in energy, health care, and education.

Watch President Obama's message and get involved in the effort to make this plan a reality by calling your elected representatives and by joining a canvass this weekend.

2.

Today, the head of American International Group (AIG), the beleaguered insurance firm that has received $170 billion from the federal bailout to date, will testify before Congress. AIG Chief Executive Officer Edward M. Liddy will certainly be grilled by lawmakers about the $165 million AIG paid out in performance bonuses last week.

A large portion of the bonuses went to managers in the Financial Products division – the same division that created and marketed credit default swaps and other vehicles that inflated the financial bubble and exacerbated the ongoing financial crisis.

We, the undersigned, demand that executives return all of the bonuses and that Mr. Liddy answer the following questions: Your name here...

3.

Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest and 2,000 pro democracy monks and activists are being held in inhumane conditions in Burmese prisons. Their crime: peacefully calling for democracy.

Click here to sign a petition to Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to call for their release.

4.

Over $100 million to AIG execs? Help get federal stimulus money to the people who really need it.

Your state needs to pass laws to update its unemployment insurance programs so that it will be eligible for all the available funding to help families.

Contact your Governor and state legislators today urging them to bring stimulus money to Main Street now!

Money, Families, Wall Street, Dr. Wicklund, Humanitarian, Darfur, Iraq/Afghanistan, Veterans

 1.

Tell your Senators to pass the "Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act"

2.

Tell Congress -- no more money for banks until they tell us where it has all gone. 

3.

CNBC: Hold Wall Street accountable!

4.

Thank Dr. Wicklund...Thanks to the tireless work of Dr. Susan Wicklund, an abortion provider, Montana’s women and their families have choices. She’s provided abortion care for more than 20 years, and she frequently goes to work in a bullet-proof vest and often faces a mob of protesters.

Take a moment to write a thank-you note to Susan Wicklund and her dedicated staff.  -Your letters will be compiled and delivered to her directly.

5.

Help Restore Humanitarian Aid to Millions in Darfur...

 6.

Can you take a minute to help Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America with their newest television advertisement before they release it to the public?

7

7 Areas Where Your Voice Will (and should) Be Heard

Wild Action!

Time again to take action(s)!

+

petition your reps for

the wilderness

Health Care (single payer)

Sign the Petition to Congress 

to support single payer health care!

While Rome Burns...

TELL CONGRESS- STIMULUS NOW!

TELL CONGRESS- STIMULUS NOW!

THE LION IN SENATE

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

(a howling wage)

The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping out on Iraq

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history.” While this may be true, I believe there is a deeper explanation for Reid’s timidity.

Democrats cower in fear of being called “soft on terror/national defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is political suicide because they are confirming the Republican charges.

This doesn’t make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could shove the charge of softness down the Republican’s throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is that they are afraid, “George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying that the Democrats betrayed the troops.”

Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war, and that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused them of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real threat to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld’s doctrine was that an army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up?

And you dare accuse us of not supporting the troops!

You have allowed a cabal of bilious old men, who are nothing more than Pollyannas with PMS, to hijack our foreign policy so they could pursue their demented fantasies of power and world domination. In doing so, they have violated every precept that has made this country a beacon of decency and freedom to the world.

And you dare accuse us of disloyalty!

You have degraded and shamed our brave men and women in uniform by sending them off on an ill-fated war of aggression that violates international law just to enrich your wealthy cronies. The shedding of their blood to improve the corporate bottom line is a shameful act driven not by patriotism, but by ego, greed and stupidity.

Your accusations ring hollow, Mr. President. We stand firm in our commitment to end the military disaster you have visited upon the land. We will fund no more madness; we will fund no more slaughter; we will fund no more pipe dreams.

Okay, maybe they might want to tone it down a bit, but the above shows that it would not be that difficult to kick the sand right back into Bush’s face. The reason the Democrats won’t do this has to be more than mere timidity.

Contrary to appearances, the United States Congress is not an elected body; it is a corporation. Its shareholders are the corporate benefactors who fund reelection campaigns. A majority shareholder in this corporation is the Military-Industrial Complex.

To the Military-Industrial Complex, peace is not a profit center. Its survival and health depends upon war, or the threat of war. Iraq is the hen that is laying golden eggs at a prodigious rate. The first rule of the Complex is that you don’t make chicken soup out of the hen. This means the main thrusts of this Congress has been to keep the war going as long as possible. It was an embarrassment when the Democrats took over the Congress with the expectation that they were going to end the war. Fortunately, Reid and Pelosi came to the rescue and have been heroic in their efforts to keep the war in good running order.

Tragically, it does not make any difference who wins the 2008 election, nor would it make any difference if the Democrats achieved a veto-proof majority in Congress. As long as their majority shareholder wants this war to continue, it will, and the public be damned.

The general tone of this statement was suggested by Drew Weston, author of The Political Brain, when I heard him speak at the Daily Kos convention last August.



Political satirist Case Wagenvoord blogs at http://belacquajones.blogspot.com/.

HEY, CONGRESS!

Petraeus the Magnificent

In the United States, as opposed to Pakistan or some banana republic south of Texas, the military is told what to do by civilians, and that dynamic alone, established well before wars in Korea and Iraq could have been imagined, has kept this form of government legitimate throughout several quagmires like the one we’re in now. The reasons for setting it up like this are many, but whoever’s not acquainted with the concept, read up on Rome and how Caesar came to power. By their very nature, warriors are accustomed to getting their own way, and unless there’s enough muscle within the capital to keep it from happening, the military so cherished today, can and will cut off a government’s head for the sake of winning an argument tomorrow.

When I hear about General Petraeus, as Republicans tell it, the guy is definitely the first officer to have a clue of what he’s doing over in Iraq, and when he speaks, it’s like being one of those people who were lucky enough to see John Lennon sing before he was murdered. So saith Petraeus, on right-wing radio, satellite feeds and scribbled inside the Trapper Keepers of all these pathetic clowns calling themselves Republicans today. The emperor having been naked for a couple years, is now content to fondle himself until 2009, these cowards are literally lining up for a chance to shine this General’s shoes. How far we’ve fallen, when the party of Eisenhower turns into this, a group of confused cyborgs yearning to be taken advantage of by a strong, authoritative man wearing a uniform.

Now there was a President who was hip to the flip, and well understood the fact that if you allowed a military general to waltz into DC with the type of clout being handed to Patraeus, it was like hiring junkies to run methadone clinics. Indeed, you’ll inspect the place one day and half the employees aren’t well enough to work, half of the drugs have gone missing, the paperwork is impossible to decipher and the one in charge is telling you to take it easy, calm down, it’s not that bad. What else would they tell you? The recent headline said that Patraeus might be able to let go of 4,000 troops by next spring.

So the question now is, whether or not there are some Democrats who are prepared to put this guy in his place. I doubt there are, but I am holding out hope for Russ Feingold or Chuck Hagel to rise above the middle-management funk crippling the Senate so far in 2007. Carl Levin and Harry Reid are perfect examples, a couple of guys who would definitely buy timeshares from Shelly Levine. Tweedle-dumbfuck and tweedle-dumberfuck, blocking for all their “good friends” who decided to run for President, like this is a student council meeting over when to hold the bake sale. The whole situation is to history what diarea is to a toilet bowl.

What’s left is Petraeus himself, a wanna-be cut from the same cloth as Peter Pace. Never able to appreciate that while given a whole lot of lip service by the President, it’s still a situation where too much has to be done with not enough, just like it was from the start. A ridiculous war put on the credit card by a handful of stupid people, all of whom Petraeus voluntarily covers for, lies for. In fact, the only people who understand the role of a General are occupying the White House, and it shows. Watch this idiot take one for the team he’ll never be a part of next week, at the expense of a team he actually does belong to! You know, that Army we used to have.

http://deadissue.com/archives/2007/09/07/patraeus-the-magnificent/

No More Bleed and Win

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Political schemes are afoot as congress anticipates the report to be delivered by David Petraeus this Monday. Our pitiful and pathetic democracy has been reduced to outsourcing its national security policy to a general with a history of erroneous assessments about progress in Iraq. This is what Petraues wrote in his opening paragraph for an op-ed in the Washington Post on September 26, 2004:

“Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.”

Think about it. Three years ago he claimed tangible progress was being made inside Iraq and this very same man’s testimony is being anticipated with more reverence than Moses upon his return from Mt. Sinai.




It has come to this because nobody believes a word President Bush says anymore while the so-called opposition Democratic Party suffers from battered wife syndrome. Meanwhile, Republicans in congress are desperate for cover yet still hoping they can turn their jingoism knife into Democrats as they did after Vietnam. Hence, Bush needed a new medals wearing puppet to serve as his mouthpiece while members of congress are poised to either exploit the veneer of Petraeus’s medals or cower behind the weasel words of "bipartisanship."

It’s a sick kabuki dance. Congressional Republicans want to save face and ensure their survival in the post Bush era. If they can sign onto bipartisan legislation that establishes a force reduction as a goal without a mandated target date for withdrawal, they will have the cover and save face. And later they can always turn on the Democrats with their jingoism knife when the moment is right for “losing Iraq.”

Democrats are hoping to implement a strategy of bleed and win. They oppose the war rhetorically but don’t have the nerve to follow through where it counts and cutoff funding. The Iraq war has served Democrats well, driving down Bush’s ratings and filling up party coffers. I’m not so sure they really want it to end at this point.

So after Petraeus delivers his report, enough Republicans will likely join Democrats on legislation that won’t end the war. Yes some forces will be reduced next year out of logistical necessity and the Democrats will claim they forced “a change.” But the war will go on still and more will die for no good reason. A political solution with regional input that also includes Iraq’s neighbors contributing to reconstruction is the only way to go and can’t happen with our toxic presence.

Watching this insanity I can’t help but think of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone, along with his wife and daughter tragically died in a plane crash on October 25, 2002. Five years ago the political climate was very different. Yet Wellstone, with the political winds in his face during a tough re-election fight didn’t waver. Prior to voting against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, Wellstone simply said,

“I’m not making a decision I don’t believe in.”

Sadly, too many members of congress don’t possess the Wellstone standard about their decisions. Most are content to let the war go on and score political points to their advantage as best they can. They care little for the blood that is shed. Unlike Wellstone, the prestige and perks of power matter more to them. Both parties are hoping to implement a strategy of bleeding in Iraq while winning at the ballot box.

I worked my butt off to elect Democrats in 2006 but to this point they only seem to care about “bleeding and winning.” They're not inclined to make policy decisions based on what’s right like Paul Wellstone. But hopefully there are enough Democrats who can be forced to acknowledge the will of the people. Perhaps not but we still have to try.

Most Republicans of course are beholden to a crazy constituency that wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the face with an exploding cannon ball. Sadly, too many Republicans are feculent and completely beyond redemption. Some of their senators however may serve in states with enough blue leaning voters that they can’t simply dismiss antiwar sentiments. A few house Republicans are feeling heat too.

Click here to contact your senator and here for your representative in the House of Represenatives. Let them know you've had enough of their "bleed and win" gambits. It's time to bring the troops home.

How the Ship of State Became the Ship of Fools

Via The Existentialist Cowboy


The US has caught a nasty virus the symptom of which is running punditry. It's like cruise ship diarrhea without the satisfaction at the end of ordeal or even panic. Some quick notes: Barack Obama is the most shallow, non-descript, boring politician to ever come down the pike --an intellectual lightweight whose soul has been coached out of him by media consultants. In Barack Obama, I find the vacuous echoes of Ronald Reagan, a previous lightweight who had mastered the art of reading buzzwords off a cue card. My skin crawls.

I have stopped listening to what passes for debate these days. It's become a matter of stringing meaningless platitudes together such that they sound like real human speech. Or is it a Japanese robot?

More quick notes: I wish John Edwards were uglier. Hillary Clinton is damaged goods. Ron Paul, still a Republican, has many more scales to shed before he can change his repitil..uh...Republican skin.

God help us --the only intelligent politician in the field is Dennis Kucinich who has only a snow ball's chance in hell of ever becoming President. It's our loss. Watching Democrats is akin to medieval debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I am sick to death of tedious debates about the conduct of the war of aggression against the people of Iraq. The "conduct" of the war is not the issue. Why we continue to stay is! Why we haven't impeached, tried, removed and imprison George W. Bush is! Why a grand jury has not been convened to investigate the GOP crime syndicate is! Why corporations rule the US government is! The validity of the electoral process is! Why bother going through the motions until paper trails are mandated at the polls?

I am sick to death of Congress kowtowing to a President who has the support of little more than 25 percent of the American people. Carl Jung predicted our malaise in 1957 in his "The Undiscovered Self", decrying "...apocalyptic images of universal destruction" brought on by WWII and an atomic age ushered in when the United States dropped weapons of mass destruction on two cities in Japan. In its wake, Jung was fearful that 40 percent of the population —called a "mentally stable stratum" —might not be able to keep the lid on mass psychosis; it might be unable to restrain the spread of "dangerous tendencies", presumably: fascism, fanaticism, militarism, and intolerance. Jung seems to have been less concerned with external threats. The more dangerous tendencies he feared were home grown. There are some real issues to be addressed but all have taken a back seat to punditry.

The theme of collapse seems to have reverberated around the world, now manifesting its symptoms in the scientific community's latest dramatic reports on global warming, the issue of Peak Oil coming further out of the closet — being discussed openly in mainstream media, and the bursting of the US housing bubble that now finds 1 out of every 264 homes in the nation facing foreclosure as each day the value of the dollar decreases and the value of precious metals soars.

--The Cycle of Time

In the meantime, Democrats have failed to challenge Bush's exploitation of the ultimate strawman: terrorism. Bush owns the issue of "terrorism" even if he had to make it all up. As long as Democrats buy into the paradigm, they have no place from which to launch a counter-attack. Democrats too easily conferred legitimacy upon an illegitimate usurper, credibility when, in fact, Bush lied about everything. They are now paying the price for having played Bush's game. The spectre of terrorism has been of greater benefit to Bush than "real" terrorists who share with O.J.'s "real killers" all the characteristics of a phantom menace.

Political rhetoric is just more of the same when, in fact, nothing is the same. How could the Democrats have missed the sea change that has taken place, the fundamental challenges to Constitutional government? What are the implications? Simply, the Bush junta has challenged not only the Constitution but almost 1,000 years of progress. Principles mouthed by Bush simply fly in the face of the Magna Carta, the English Petition of Right, the Mayflower Compact, The Virginia Declaration of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, The Nuremberg Principles, and every US Supreme Court decision that has upheld the right of persons to be free of arbitary rule, to be secure in their homes, to be free of unreasonable arrest in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Significantly, totalitarian states have their philosophical roots in Hegelianism, a straight road to both Nazism and Stalinism. There is, by contrast, another road that runs straight from Magna Carta to our own Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

If the Magna Carta is not the birth certificate of Democracy, it is the death certificate of despotism. It spells out for the first time the fundamental principle that the law is not simply the whim of the king. The law is an independent power unto itself. And the King could be brought to book for violating it!"

—Simon Schama, History of Britain

Bush's demogoguery is an issue and the Democrats should be on the offensive. Instead, most members of Congress lined up behind what Gore Vidal called an "un-American" administration.

Instead of bullshit and platitudes from Obama --nonsense talk about attacking Pakistan, Barack should have been screaming about America's enemies inside the White House --George W. Bush and his every supporter. Do the Democrats get it? Have they not understood what Bush has done? Is Congress without a clue?

The Constitution itself is explicit when it establishes the sovereignty of the people. But, if that were not enough to dispel notions of the "state as absolute", a Bill of Rights was insisted upon and ratified by the people. In the 1960's Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas believed that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are absolute —beyond the power of Congress or the executive to modify or infringe in any way. We could use someone like Douglas today. As his friend Tommy Corcoran pointed out, Douglas had "wanted the Presidency worse than Don Quixote wanted Dulcinea" and Franklin Roosevelt believed that Douglas would have been the strongest running mate in 1944. It was Democratic bosses who persuaded Roosevelt to pick Harry Truman instead. Oh well! "To err is Truman!"

Democratic "opposition" to Bush seems less naive than irrelevant, locked into the GOP paradigm when Democrats should be forcing a defensive GOP to debate on Democratic turf, on Democratic issues, indeed, the very future of Democracy in America. Tragically, the Democrats will get suckered into debating the "conduct" of a war that should never have begun, a war that is itself a crime, a war that has, in fact, no good end, a war that is, in fact, lost!

Democrats are in danger of blowing the last chance they will ever have to forge a new and better future. It's become a cliche that the Chinese character for "crisis", literally translated, means "dangerous opportunity". If the Democrats fail to make the most of this opportunity, the people of the US will be no better off, nothing will have been gained for the ordeal we have suffered, nothing true, lasting or valid will have been affirmed. What a waste if this should all turn out to be the most irrelevant presidential debate in this nation's history!

CLEAN ENERGY

The U.S. right now gets only 2% of our electricity from clean energy sources like solar and wind?
We have the technology.
We know people want it.
We just haven't had the political will.

But Congress is voting this week on H.R. 969, a bill that will dramatically boost solar and wind energy. If it passes, it'll be like taking 37 million cars off the road.1 Along with the rest of the energy package, it'll be the biggest step in two decades toward a clean planet and affordable energy.

Big oil and coal are fighting the bill hard, because it would undercut their stranglehold on our economy. That's why Congress needs to hear from the public that clean energy is a priority. So, today we're launching a petition:
"Congress must act now to move our country toward a clean energy economy based on solar and wind power by voting yes on H.R. 969, the Federal Renewable Energy Standards Act."

Can you sign this petition today?
Clicking here will add your name:
http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergyfuture/o.pl?&id=10885-5185068-GVGHVf&t=3