CHANGE IS NEEDED

How many of you out there believe that GWBush has done an outstanding job as president? My guess is that not many of you can argue effectively that he has done a GOOD job, let alone a great job, as president. For that reason, most of you should be thinking about voting for John Kerry. You don't like Kerry? You don't know Kerry? Then find out about him. Or at least realize that it doesn't really matter. The direction that this country is going is the WRONG direction. You know that is true. If our ship is heading in the wrong direction, shouldn't we find a better captain, or at least a different one? One who knows that the ship is going in the wrong direction and can offer us some different alternatives about which direction to take to correct our path? WAKE UP before it is too late. WAKE UP to the reality of the state of the nation and vote to change the direction. That is the beauty of Democracy. WE can decide if the job the incumbent has done is enough to keep him/her in office. If it isn't, then we need to change direction by voting to remove that incumbent from office. It's time to realize that our nation is in dire jeopardy--not just from without, but also from within--and vote to remove the incumbent administration so that we can try a new and different direction.

WAKE UP, GET UP, GET OUT and VOTE!!!!!

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE TO MAKE SOME BUSH TAX CUTS PERMANENT WITHOUT MAKING AN EFFORT TO PAY FOR THEM IN THIS ELECTION YEAR!!

The NYTimes reported on Thursday that Democrats and hold-out moderate Republicans have agreed to make some of the Bush tax cuts permanent without finding ways to pay for them. The federal budget deficit projection for the next ten years increases by $1.9 billion with this move. Charles Rangel, D-NY and ranking Dem on the House Ways & Means Committee, replied to questions about the move by saying that, "I wish we could pay for them, but this is a political problem and we have people up for re-election.... If you have to explain that you voted for these tax cuts because they benefit the middle class and against them because of the deficit, you've got a problem."

It seems to me that we ALL have a problem when our lawmakers refuse to make decisions based upon sound reason and foresight, but rather make decisions based on how it will affect their chances at re-election. Dems do not want to appear to be raising taxes just weeks before the election, and Republicans have taken advantage of that stance to push through the more permanent tax cuts. Of course, most of the cuts that were allowed to remain actually benefit lower- and middle-income families, but give the GOPers some time and they will make the top tax rate even lower--they have to take care of their benefactors!

I have come to believe that the Republican Party, at least the far-right wing, has set out to bankrupt the federal government. If the government has no money, then there can be little reason to maintain social security, medicare, the education department, the labor department, the energy department, etc. Are we to believe that the neo-cons really think that the Reagan voodoo economics really work? Even Reagan raised taxes after the tax overhaul that is considered the hallmark of his administration. Not only did he raise taxes, but it was the LARGEST tax increase in the history of the United States, including both tax increases during the Clinton administration. The Republicans would have us all believe that they are the party of financial restraint and economic prosperity. THEY ARE NOT. Both the stock market and domestic GNP have increased by greater amounts under Democratic administrations in the last one hundred years than under Republican administrations. Furthermore, during the Clinton administration, every income level increased their annual income while under Bush43 over 3 million more people have moved into poverty and 4 million more people have lost their health insurance.

Over 1000 soldiers dead in Iraq and that country is in worse turmoil than at any time in its last fifty years. More people below the poverty level. Borders remain unsecured. Constitutional rights and freedoms are continually ignored and questioned. American continual dependence on oil drives our interest in the Middle East, and the current administration has done NOTHING to change the level of dependence.

WAKE UP, PEOPLE! CHANGE IS NEEDED!

JULY NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ON IRAQ'S FUTURE MOSTLY NEGATIVE

According to today's NYTimes, a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate presented to the President by the CIA Intelligence Council at the end of July discusses three scenarios for the future of Iraq--none of them good. According to unnamed officials who have been briefed on the NIE, the worst scenario would be one in which civil war develops in Iraq while the best-case scenario presented by the NIE would be a situation in which the Iraqi government is able to sustain its current level of control. Even under this best-case scenario, elections would not be possible at any time in 2005 according to the analysis of the Intelligence Council.

National Intelligence Estimates are typically requested by the President, but this NIE was commissioned by George Tenet as one of his final acts as Director of Central Intelligence. It is interesting that this document discusses many of the same conclusions reached by Britain's premiere intelligence think-tank, Chatham House, which was released last week. Chatham House also concluded that three scenarios were the most likely. In their analysis, one of the most likely scenario seems to be civil war within the next year, likely with the U.S. caught in the middle.

And yet, our illustrious president and vice-president continue to insist that the situation in Iraq is improving. How can either of them possibly have the information presented to them by the NIE and look at the American people each day on the campaign trail and lie to them? Some people might argue that they are not lying. If not, then what should we call it? Suppose, if you will, that I were told by a mechanic that my car's engine would have a serious mechanical failure within the next year and I decide to sell my car. When prospective buyers call to ask about the car that I am selling, I tell them that the car is in top shape and runs like a brand new car. Am I lying to them? YES! Because I have been told by experts that the situation is dire and yet I insist to the buyer that the situation is much must better. Is that not what Bush and Cheney are attempting to sell to the American people? Should we not call that a lie? This administration has been one of untruth, secrecy, obfuscation, misleading statements, and what I can only call outright lies.

WAKE UP!!

U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN SAYS THAT U.S. WAR IN IRAQ WAS IN VIOLATION OF U.N. CHARTER

When asked in an interview with the BBC if he felt the war in Iraq was illegal, Annan responded in the affirmative, and added, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal." This is the first time that Annan has spoken out against the U.S. action in Iraq, although it has been suggested that he saw the U.S. attack as a violation of the U.N. charter.

VLADIMIR PUTIN TAKES DRASTIC ACTION CLAIMING TO DEFEND RUSSIA FROM TERRORISTS

Actions taken by Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday certainly appear to be unconstitutional. Putin declared that he would suspend the elections process for certain governors and deputies and replace the elected officials with his appointees. He argued that he needed to make these changes in order to continue the fight against the Chechen rebels. His argument presented a justification of pre-emptive action against the Chechen 'terrorists', an argument similar to the one made by GWBush in the lead up to the Iraq war. The U.S., however, has taken a position that appears to be non-supportive of Putin's actions and in defense of constitutional authority. One Russian legislator was quoted by the NYTimes as saying that these actions by Putin are more consistent with Tsarist Russia than with the Communist Soviet Union, and certainly not in line with a modern democratic Russia.

KRUGMAN WRITES THAT THE DISHONESTY OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REACHES CONTINUALLY NEW HEIGHTS

Citing February's budget projections, Paul Krugman writes about the dishonest accounting practices of the Bush administration. In February, the White House budget office released projections for the expected yearly deficit, overestimating the eventual results in many economists minds. Krugman, and others, assert that this was a plan by the Bush administration that would provide the opportunity when the deficit numbers were actually lower to be able to say, "Wow! We are doing so much better than we had anticipated. See how much better the economy is getting!" While in reality, the deficit this year, regardless of whether it is higher or lower than anticipated, will be the largest single-year deficit of all time, eclipsing Reagan-era deficits two-fold! I'm sure the Bush-heads will attempt to spin these numbers in the best possible way. It just amazes me that their spin continues to fool the average American. let alone the average 'investigative journalist'!!

COLIN POWELL QUOTED IN NEW BOOK CALLING CHENEY, RUMSFELD, & WOLFOWITZ, "[BLEEP]ING CRAZIES" TO U.K. FOREIGN SECRETARY JACK STRAW

The book's release in the U.S. is set for this week. Apparently both Straw's office and Powell's office has contacted the American publisher, Public Affairs, to say that they would vehemently deny the alleged conversation. However, no threat of lawsuit or accusations of libel followed; and so, the publisher plans on releasing the book in the U.S. this week as planned. Other British journalists verify the quote and reporting as accurate from the book, The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency, by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie. Read a complete report on the Guardian Online here (caution: language not suitable for children--but Dick Cheney would be comfortable!).

IN MEMORIAM--

TODAY, LET US REMEMBER ALL THOSE WHOSE LIVES WERE LOST ON 9-11-2001.

LET US ALSO REMEMBER ALL THOSE AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES, WHO HAVE BEEN INJURED, AND WHO HAVE BEEN AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES SINCE THE EVENTS OF 9-11-2001.

LET US REMEMBER THE FAMILIES OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THE EVENTS OF 9-11-2001 AND ITS AFTERMATH.

LET US REMEMBER ALL THOSE INNOCENTS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AS A RESULT OF WAR.

LET US REMEMBER OUR ENEMIES AND THEIR FAMILIES THAT SOMEDAY WE MIGHT ALL COME TOGETHER IN PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING--UNAFRAID OF ACTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES.

LET US HOPE THAT GOD LOOKS DOWN ON ALL OF US BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN, AND NOT BECAUSE WE ARE CHRISTIAN, JEW, OR MUSLIM.

LET US HOPE THAT GOD WILL FORGIVE ALL PARTIES IN THE WAR FOR THE LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, AND FOR THE PAIN AND HURT THAT HAS BEEN LEFT FOR FAMILIES TO OVERCOME.

LET US PRAY THAT GOD WILL WATCH OVER EVERY PERSON ON THE EARTH, REGARDLESS OF FAITH, CREED, COLOR, RACE, NATIONALITY, CHOICE OF FOOD, OR CHOICE OF CLOTHING--IRRESPECTIVE OF ALL THINGS EXCEPT THAT WE ARE HUMAN.

MAY EACH OF US FIND THE BEAUTY IN OUR FRIEND AS WELL AS OUR ENEMY, AND MAY WE EACH FIND THE LOVE THAT COMES THROUGH PEACE OF MIND AND PEACE OF HEART.

BLESSINGS TO YOU ALL--MAY THE DEITY KEEP YOU SAFE IN THE EMBRACE OF PEACE AND LOVE.

AMEN.

BUSH SAYS THAT KERRY IS 'LIVING IN THE PAST' IN NOT SUPPORTING A MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD

This amazes me! Bush even suggests that the missile shield was envisioned by Ronald Reagan, and he asserts that his administration will see it to fruition. What he doesn't mention is that in all missile shield tests EVER conducted there has never been success on more than 3 of 11 key indicators that a missile shield could work. Furthermore, he attempts to suggest that Kerry and others who are opposed to this type of missile defense are 'living in the past,' even though the idea was supported originally by the Reagan administration during the height of the Cold War when missile attacks were actually a threat. More significantly, even former members of the Reagan administration have suggested that the missile shield plan was more important as a counterthreat to the continuing nuclear proliferation of the era. It was not as significant that we could actually achieve a missile shield as it was that the Soviets perception was that we could achieve it. Today, I do not see how the promise of a missile shield holds any significant deterrent to terrorists, or any other current threat that the United States must face. My question must then be: Who is REALLY living in the past?

This quote from one of Kerry's key national security advisors sums up the Bush administration's continuing lack of understanding of post-Cold War international relations--

Kerry foreign policy adviser Rand Beers said in a statement that in the months before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "Bush and his closest advisers were preoccupied with missile defense, and their misunderstanding about the threats we face continues to this day." He said Kerry was committed to developing an effective missile defense.

MEDICARE PREMIUMS TO RISE BY 17.5%--BIGGEST INCREASE IN 15 YEARS

I hope everyone read my little rant yesterday. Things that I predicted would happen after Bush was re-elected (God forbid) are already starting to happen--just days after Bush's convention came to an end, might I add! Medicare premiums are going up more than at any time since Bush41 was in office (following the Reagan years of deficit spending), and more people are being encouraged to enroll in a Medicare managed plan--certainly it benefits doctors more than it does the elderly! See the truth before it is too late!

Even members of his own party are not pleased with Bush's economic and foreign policy. Shouldn't this tell the American people something?

ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE SAYS ECONOMY ISN'T GETTING BETTER FOR WORKERS

In a report issued (see the BBC News) by the DC think tank, the EPI says that although business is improving, working families are feeling no benefits--"average wages have fallen, job satisfaction has declined, ...the rich-poor gap widened....And in terms of recouping jobs since the start of the recession, the US is in a worse position 'than any business cycle since the 1930s'." According to the State of Working America 2004/05 report of the non-profit non-partisan group, average wages in industries that have lost jobs were $51,270 a year, while the average wages in industries that have added jobs were $30,368--a difference of nearly 41%. This means that even the jobs that have been added in the last six months are lesser paying jobs--this leads to job dissatisfaction and decreased buying power of the middle class. The Census Bureau reported last week that an additional 1.3 million people were now classified as 'poor' bringing the total in the US up to 35.9 million people. This is in a country of 270 million people--a 13% ratio of 'poor' to the total population. Does this seem reasonable for a first-world, industrial economy? Keep in mind that a large number of the people labeled 'poor' are actually working two and three jobs!

ADVICE TO EACH OF YOU WHO WANTS TO VOTE FOR GWBUSH--READ!

Read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous, The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke, Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips, House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger, A Pretext for War by James Bamford, Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It by Peter Peterson, Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer, Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Overseas by Lou Dobbs, and What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank.

Anonymous and Baer are self-described conservative hawks--both of them work or worked for the CIA, one an analyst in the bin Laden station, and the other an agent serving in Afghanistan during the 1980s. They both have deep criticisms of the Bush administration for playing right into bin Laden's hands by invading Iraq--Anonymous asserts that this result was exactly what bin Laden sought in directly attacking the U.S. because it would lead to a similar situation to that the mujihadeen faced in Afghanistan in encountering the Soviet invasion (a great recruiting tool).

Lou Dobbs argues in his book that it is unpatriotic for American companies to send jobs overseas where wages are lower because the cost of living is lower. It is unfair practice to ask American workers to compete against workers than have huge advantages. This is a fairly conservative commentator saying that American companies are disloyal to American workers, that they are operating unfairly by moving jobs and offices out of the U.S.

ARE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA TRULY SO SHALLOW?

I have just finished reading the latest Times/CNN poll that shows Bush up by 11 points among likely voters, and I find it mind-boggling. The Republican National Convention--including hate toward those who disagree with them, vile rumor and innuendo about John Kerry, and the most extreme form of money-worship one can imagine--ended this week with GWBush listing a litany of things he hopes to achieve in his second term that have so far failed to be implemented in his first term. Nothing new. Nothing original. Nothing innovative. Promises to continue the failures that have done nothing to improve the economy, that have done nothing to make us more secure, that have done nothing to provide better health insurance for those who have none. Bush's most significant moments came when he made fun of himself--there's nothing that he said that we can disagree with.

"You know what I stand for," Bush said at one point--yes, we do; and that is what scares many of us more than threats of terrorism. I live in a small rural community. I do not foresee terrorism directly affecting this area in any possible future, but I know very well that Bush's continued policies will undoubtedly affect me and my family. He proposed reforming the tax code and I said to my wife, "That's great. I've been in favor of that for 15 years. Simplify the code and remove ALL the tax breaks except personal exemptions and first mortgages--make the tax code fair." Then in the next paragraph of his speech, Bush proposed to create new tax breaks for Health Care Savings Accounts to protect people from catastrophic health-care costs. Does no one else see the irony here? 'We will reform the tax code to eliminate breaks and then we will add some new breaks.' The Health Care Savings Accounts, by the way, will not benefit my family. Most of my family live paycheck to paycheck. I have a minimal retirement savings above and beyond Social Security, and some members of my family do not even have that, because I have to pay college tuition loans, rent, insurance, health-care costs, and buy food. I received the biggest raise this year that I have ever gotten, and still my expendable income is minimal. The people who will make use of the Health Care Savings Accounts are those people who make much more money than I do--to call them 'rich' or 'wealthy' continues to be impolitic. (Did you hear what Bush said about Kerry's plan to revoke the tax cuts on people making over $200,000 a year? He said that was a silly plan because the 'rich know how to avoid paying taxes.' I wish I had a link to this--it was in a Hampton Roads newspaper after Bush made the comment on August 9 at a rally in Newport News, but the link is now dead.)

The new jobs figures were released yesterday--144,000 new jobs were created in the month of August. Not quite enough jobs to keep up with the number of new workers entering the job market, but enough jobs for Bush to claim that his policies are improving the economy--and people believe him!!! Bush wants our workers to compete with workers in foreign countries who are willing to accept much lower pay because the cost of living in those countries is significantly lower. Does that seem fair to anyone other than big businesses? Does that seem fair to the American worker? I appreciate the ideal of a free market economy, but we continue to have a trade deficit with every other first-world nation--does that make sense? Why does free trade mean that our corporations can move their offices out of the country and no longer pay taxes? If Bush wins re-election, he WILL begin talking again about ending payroll taxes, starting CONSUMPTION taxes, and completely privatizing Social Security. (In the meantime, let's ask some seniors if they like the new prescription drug coverage. I bet most of them will say that it isn't what they were promised, and yet it will cost the federal government more money than the Bush administration claimed.) Let's ask wage earners if more of them are getting paid overtime--as the Bush Labor Department claimed would happen with their new regulations. I bet wage earners are not only NOT getting paid for more overtime, but I bet they are working FEWER hours--thus taking home LESS money!

I am completely disgusted with the American people. Bush has destroyed in his first four year term everything that the Clinton administration established economically. He could have saved Social Security, but instead he gave money back to Americans--the ones who got the most back didn't even spend it, while the ones who got the least back spent theirs in a matter of days! Did this help the economy? NO! Will another tax cut help the economy? NO! Will the deficits that the government continues to run up help the economy? NO! To whom will we owe all of this debt that continues to accumulate? Mostly to the CHINESE--the one remaining national power that could mount a serious threat to American interests worldwide.

The saddest thing is that the negativity of the Bush campaign continues to work. The convention last week was about how terrible John Kerry and John Edwards are; very little was said by any speaker about what Bush has DONE for America. The Republicans criticize Kerry for centering his convention on the four months he spent in Vietnam, and yet they spent their convention centered around a couple of hours that George W. Bush spent at Ground Zero in New York City on Sept 14, 2001. I'll take my chances on a guy who spent time in combat--hearing the bullets flying by, facing threats from both shores of the river, knowing what our soldiers and marines face every day in Iraq. Bush hasn't been on the front lines of any battle. He has never smelled death and destruction. Even in New York on Sept 14, 2001, he came afterward--when things were safer, when scents and sights were different. I realize that Kerry may have a complicated record in his life, in the Senate, but AT LEAST HE HAS A RECORD. We know what George Bush stands for, but we aren't sure where he comes from!

If Bush wins this election, I am going to make some very serious decisions about leaving the United States--Canada, maybe? New Zealand or Australia....somewhere it doesn't matter quite so much that GWBush is an international asshole and proud of it.