Guest Entry: The Late Great Constitution (and the Coming Civil War?)

by Nancy Fulton (blogging from the California Democratic Convention in San Diego)

Here we are at the convention with thousands of delegates, activists and ordinary citizens, all discussing our nation and its future.

I think it might be bleak.

This convention is split between "impeachment" folks and pragmatists. Should we impeach a president/vice president and administration who seem to have broken so many laws we lost count? Or should we be pragmatic and focus on electing a Democratic president so we don't get a guy that makes Bush look good.

Half the folks at this convention, educated, affluent, wealthy, politically active . . . have no idea why impeachment is critical.

They don't understand that if they do NOT exercise impeachment when the crimes are so aggregious . . . we are saying we cannot hold the president and the executive branch accountable for anything. We are effectively eliminating the use of impeachment as a means for controlling a president.

If you don't prosecute a President who has lied you into a war that's killed 500,000 people to the tune of $500 billion dollars, tortured people, given his friends tens of billions, who says he can arrest, torture and hide people, who has done a hundred other impeachable things, . . . you are saying a President can do ANYTHING.

If you don't impeach him because you fear losing an election, how WILL you hold him accountable?

Tell me what will happen when this incestuous relationship between government and industry lets businesses contaminate ground water without repercussion or when it leads to civil suits being dismissed due to "national security".

The people of this nation have to reaffirm that even presidents and vice-presidents will be held accountable for crimes they commit, and that the rule of law founded in the constitution is in full force.

Failure to do this will result in a US without a constitution. And then this nation will be torn apart as we have to try to "reinvent" some kind of social contract and foundation in law.

Some of us won't pay taxes to support a dictatorship that won't guarantee the validity of their elections. I am personally disinclined to pay for a government that tortures and runs secret prison camps. I know soldiers who are telling other soldiers to desert rather than fight an illegal war.

This kind of thing translates into riots.

People will not like having their rights stripped away. As individuals they will try to hold the government (and others) accountable. That, in turn, will result in an escalation of force exerted by the government as the folks running it try to protect themselves and the public. It will create widespread division between communities and populations with differing economic and cultures interests.

See?

We NEED the constitution because it is the only social contract we have that spans the nation. Tearing apart that contract means all of us who must live together must reinvent a new social contract and that is a very bloody process.

I wouldn't be active in SO CAL GRASSROOTS if I weren't a patriot and a progressive. I know 99% of people are intelligent. I know that our constitution was shot to pieces by a bunch of fascists. I know we can tape it back together and it will be STRONGER for all that tape.

But it starts with holding Bush, Cheney and their fascist junta accountable. Because without impeachment they will face no prosecution at all. We absolutely must, as a nation reconfirm our committment to the constitution and to public servant accountability . . . or you can expect some very, very ugly times ahead. Bush was bad. Worse is on the horizon.

Guest Entry: What I learned at the California Democratic Convention

by Nancy Fulton (guest blogger from the California Convention in San Diego)

So, I'm new to "official politics", party conventions and the "back room" but this first convention has been an eye-opener. My favorite e-ticket ride so far has been the Resolutions Committee.

So Groups like So Cal Grass Roots and Progressive Democrats of America write resolutions to propose to the California Democratic party. The resolution committee reviews the resolutions, and the top ones get voted on the floor of the convention and may be adopted. The adoption of those resolutions by the convention can be used by activists and others to lobby congressmen and party members.

So, there were multiple resolutions calling for IMPEACHMENT of BUSH and CHENEY brought by groups to the Resolution Committee. They are supposed to give them an up/down vote. In the case of about nine (of 105 resolutions) they decided not to.

Instead they decided to "refer" them which means that the language of the resolution (which folks like YOU might have voted for if you were member of a grass roots group) was NOT voted on. Instead they pointed to another resolution and said "its basically the same thing". Except, in many cases the language was entirely different in meaning and context.

The rules state that you are supposed to get an up or down vote on your resolution. If it gets voted down, you can collect 300 signatures and take it onto the floor.

Except when it gets referred (as many resolutions were) the Resolutions Committee decided not to give people the forms required to collect signatures. Thus resolutions couldn't be taken to the floor.

So, what I learned is . . . stupid little rules matter. Matters of procedure matter.

Except . . . . I'm sitting in a room with 700 people or so. They are an angry mob. And they are having quite an impact on the Resolutions Committee. We just made them give us our impeachment resolution. In a few minutes we'll decide if its one of the 10 that get to the floor.

So Rules Matter . . . but so does being an angry mob. Its amazing how the 700 people in this room have managed to change the behavior of that little committee.

Now we have to do it to Congress :) It is time to Impeach the President.

Guest Entry: Anger and Fear

By Nancy Fulton

I've been saying for a long time that the problem we
have in this nation is NOT that the people aren't
intelligent, reasonable, or reasonably united. It's
that the Bush Administration honestly doesn't care
what the American People think. They have no interest
at all in doing what the vast majority of us want
done.

The Bush Administration cannot be called "public
servants". They do only what we force them to do by
conducting investigations and issuing indictments.

I think this first person account of an
encounter with Karl Rove at the White House
Correspondence Dinner makes this very clear.

This account demonstrates that when members of this
administration come "face to face" with voters who
want to hold them accountable, they show anger and
fear.

Requiescat In Pace, Ms. Millender-McDonald

Three days after taking leave from the House after being diagnosed with cancer, Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Carson) passed away at the age of 68.

Thank you for your service, Rep. Millender-McDonald.

How about a law enforcement officer who enforces the law?

We have been very impressed with the questioning of both Republican and Democratic US Senators of Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, in the Senate hearings about the political purging of capable US Attorneys by the Justice Department.

This Attorney General, who is supposed to be the Chief law enforcement officer of these United States is a tragic disappointment. While a White House Counselor, he advised that the Geneva Convention protocols were outmoded. With his seat mate in the West Wing, Harriet Meiers; they proposed a political loyalty test that transcends the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. We know this because we read the e-mails; oh right, they have lost the e-mails. Alberto Gonzales also believes that torture is not the usually international standards recognized by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others. He believes in the Abu Grahib standards of interrogation and rendering to foreign countries.

This Attorney General, dishonest, ethically challenged, and unable to remember from one statement to another what he said has to go. After he leaves, the man who appointed him, President Bush needs to follow him out of office. Now is the time as never before.

Did the British talk to Iran covertly - of course they did!

The British Sailors and Marines are on their way home and thank cooler heads for prevailing. They officially say that there were no conversations between governments and no deals were made; I sincerely doubt that and that is allright!

There have always been cut outs; unofficial representatives with portfolio, and human rights being protected above the veneer of official government posturing has prevented a new war in the Middle East. In the days of the Irish struggle for their freedom and self government; there were "unofficial" conversations throughout the years of the "Troubles". During the Cold War there were discussions and meetings that exchanged personnel at the East Berlin gate, or on that county bridge away from the view of most of the world.

Nobel Peace Prizes are given for this type of diplomacy, and lives are saved by this type of shuttle conversation. Why is this important! Because it is a Counterpoint with the Pre-Emptive, Bomb First, Bush-Cheney war mongering. If these had been US forces seized in a possible incursion into Iran territorial waters; does anyone believe that there wouldn't have been bombing, air raids, and a newer conflict igniting the Middle East!

Thank you again for statesmanlike accomplishments by both the Government of Iran and the Government of the United Kingdom! The Bush Administration should take note and learn from this lesson of intelligent backing away from the brink of war!

Congress Tells Bush, "Oh yeah?"

Senate passes war spending bill with withdrawal deadline:

Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

Personally, I have a number of issues with the House bill, which are addressed best by Tim Carpenter, Director of Progressive Democrats of America, "The bad news is that the House bill funds Bush's troop surge and won't bring our troops home until a Sept 1, 2008 "deadline" – with provisions allowing troops to stay in Iraq beyond that on vaguely-defined "training" or "anti-terrorism" missions. (That's why a group of progressive Congress members – including Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, John Lewis and Dennis Kucinich – felt the need to stand firm and vote no.)

"More bad news is the disunity stirred up among antiwar progressives in Congress by the House leadership's arm-twisting and the intervention of MoveOn.org in support of the leadership's arm-twisting."

However, much as I would have preferred that this bill had gotten it right the first time, its passage by the House, with the Senate signing off on it, is a good step. Of course Bush is going to veto it - there's no chance at this stage of the game that he would allow it to go through. But let's hope that progressive Congress members, to quote Representative Pete Stark, "[We] can write a better bill."

Y'all get started on that better bill writing, ya hear?

Selling His Boss Up the River...

Despite Alberto Gonzales' assertions to the contrary, the Attorney General participated in discussions regarding the firing of the eight US attorneys for political reasons:

Former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson told senators his boss took part in the process from early 2005, well before the eight prosecutors were dismissed in 2006.

Gonzales "and I had discussions about it during the thinking phase of the process," Sampson testified. "Then after the sort of more final phase of the process in the fall of 2006 began, we discussed it."

Gonzales is following the Bush administration playbook to the letter: commit ethically questionable - if not downright illegal - actions, lie about said actions when they come to light, then have the lies bite him on the ass when the truth is uncovered thanks to incontrovertible evidence. One would think that mere observation would make one less likely to lie through one's teeth.

No doubt that why Monica Goodling took the fifth yesterday, or why Bush and his cronies were so stubborn about not allowing Karl Rove or Harriet Meiers to testify under oath or with a transcript. As many have said, what are they afraid of? The truth? Only wrongdoers have the truth to fear.

Ah - ha!

Next Up: Pardon!

Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak investigation that reached into the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s. The case brought new attention to the Bush administration's much-criticized handling of weapons of mass destruction intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

This is a good first step, but it is only a step. It's obvious that Libby was covering for his boss, which is why he ended up Cheney's scapegoat. So the next step must be for investigations to start in Cheney's role in this treason against Valerie Plame.

Any bets as to when the presidential pardon will be?

Walter Reed Commander Let Go

General in charge of Walter Reed hospital has been relieved of command:

The Army said Thursday that the two-star general in charge of Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been relieved of command following disclosures about inadequate treatment of wounded soldiers.

The firing of Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command as well as Walter Reed hospital, was announced by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

In a brief announcement, the Army said service leaders had "lost trust and confidence" in Weightman's leadership abilities "to address needed solutions for soldier outpatient care." He had headed Walter Reed since Aug. 25, 2006.

Considering that hospital officials have known about the abhorrent conditions and beauracracy faced by wounded veterans for over three years and that, according to the Army Times, soldiers were told, after the Washington Post expose, to keep quiet, this is the very least that could be done. Because the horrendous treatment of our wounded soldiers is unforgivable.

A Young Boy Dies From An Abcessed Tooth

For Want of a Dentist:

Pr. George's Boy Dies After Bacteria From Tooth Spread to Brain
Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

[...]

Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid patients and accept the incumbent paperwork. And some, including Deamonte's brother, get in for a tooth cleaning but have trouble securing an oral surgeon to fix deeper problems.

In spite of efforts to change the system, fewer than one in three children in Maryland's Medicaid program received any dental service at all in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

. . .The Driver children have never received routine dental attention, said their mother, Alyce Driver. The bakery, construction and home health-care jobs she has held have not provided insurance. The children's Medicaid coverage had temporarily lapsed at the time Deamonte was hospitalized. And even with Medicaid's promise of dental care, the problem, she said, was finding it.

This is the tragedy of our country's broken health care system. Young Deamonte is, unfortunately, not unique. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the "percentage and the number of children (people under 18 years old)without health insurance increased between 2004 and 2005, from 10.8 percent to 11.2 percent and from 7.9 million to 8.3 million, respectively." The higher percentage of children without access to health insurance and health care will ensure a higher percentage of child mortality.

Even from something that starts as humbly as a toothache.

(Tip O' the Hat to John Scalzi)

Won't Somebody Think of the Vegetables?

Those poor defenseless fruits and vegetables have got a champion in the form of California State Assemblymember Audra Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks). For years, whenever some thoughtless critic of conventional farming methods dared to point out that pesticides were deadly to humans as well as pesky insects, or that genetic manipulation of produce might not be entirely healthy for consumers, or that maybe, just maybe, leafy vegetables with E. coli could make some people very sick and, occasionally, very dead, consumable flora have had no one to turn to to defend their rights.

But now Assemblymember Strickland has donned the red cape and leotard with the big "S" (for Super Assemblymember) and leapt to the defense of commercially grown produce (and their big bucks growers), drafting AB 689, the "Perishable agricultural product defamation" bill, which would allow growers to sue anyone who dared libel spinach and tomatoes and squash (amongst other innocent, health-depriving - vegetation) as being not entirely good for the populace at large:

This bill would allow a producer of a perishable agricultural
product, as defined, who suffers actual damages as a result of another person's disparagement of the producer's product to recover those actual damages if certain facts are found to be true. [Emphasis mine] The bill would define "disparagement" for these purposes as a false and unprivileged publication regarding a perishable agricultural product that clearly impugns the safety of the product. The bill would require the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof as to each element of the cause of action.

Should this bill be passed, California would join such forward thinking states as Texas and Georgia (as well as eleven other states) in protecting those who have, until now, had no voice: multi-million dollar agricultural interests.

May the cucumbers bless Ms. Strickland...

From Poverty Matters - Victory at L.A. City Hall!

Today we received this heartening message from Susie Shannon, Vice-Chair of SoCal Grassroots and Executive Director of Poverty Matters:

Dear Group,

We had a major victory today as the Los Angeles City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to oppose Governor Schwarzenegger's $434 million in cuts to CalWorks, an anti-poverty program which provides assistance to the poorest children in California.

Council Member Jose Huizar should be commended for his tremendous leadership in bringing this issue to the council with a 2nd by Council President Eric Garcetti.

Special thanks to the advocates who testified with me today in Council Chambers - Clarissa Woo of the ACLU of Southern California; Yolanda James of L.A. Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness; and Joseph Villela of CHIRLA. And thanks to Nancy Berlin of California Partnership who testified in the IGR Committee.

Warm Regards,
Susie Shannon
Executive Director
Poverty Matters

This is an important victory. With Los Angeles officially on record as opposing the cruel cuts to CalWorks, Schwarzenegger may start to realize that balancing the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it - the poorest of children in the Golden State - will not be tolerated by its citizens.

Contact the governor and tell him you support the City of Los Angeles and oppose his horrendous proposed cuts to CalWorks. Let him know that his actions are unacceptable.

Didja Hear the One About Bush and Tehran?

Bush "calls it irrelevant that no solid evidence links Iranian officials to alleged weapons aid"

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials from President Bush to a top general in Baghdad said Wednesday that there was no solid evidence that high-ranking officials in Iran had ordered deadly weapons to be sent to Iraq for use against American troops, backing away from claims made by military and intelligence officials in Baghdad this week.

But Bush continued to maintain an aggressive posture toward Tehran, saying elite Iranian Quds Force operatives were supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq.

[...]

"When we find the networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq," he said at a late-morning White House news conference, "we will deal with them."

Ooh, here's an even funnier one:

"We're not trying to hype this," [chief military spokesman in Iraq, Army Maj. Gen. William B.] Caldwell said.

I know, I know. Damn near snorted root beer out of my nose. I mean, after the whole thing with "intelligence" re: WMDs and Iraq and that country's connection with Al Qaida, they can't honestly expect us to take them at their word. It's gotta be a big elaborate joke, with maybe a "Gotcha!" on April 1st, right? Am I right here?

:crickets chirp:

Oh crap.

Bush: LaLaLaLa - I Can't Hear You!

Bush hangs back on House debate:

A month after President Bush announced plans to boost troop levels in Iraq, he will largely remain on the sidelines as the House begins the first major debate on the war since Democrats assumed control of Congress after the November election.

[...]

With Democrats in firm control of the House, Bush has little chance of derailing the resolution, which he has said he will ignore.

Since this is a non-binding resolution, the House cannot force Bush to follow its lead. However, ignoring the resolution is idiocy of the highest form.

Then again, considering the resident of the White House and his actions since he moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I can't say that I'm surprised...

Making It Tougher To Become A Citizen

Something that seemed to have been overlooked last week - from the L.A. Times:

Cost of U.S. citizenship likely to rise

U.S. immigration authorities Wednesday proposed hefty fee hikes for citizenship and permanent residency applications, pledging to use the revenue to help shorten processing time and improve service.

But the proposal, which would hike citizenship application fees from $330 to $595, drew immediate criticism that it would put citizenship out of reach for many poor immigrants. The plan also would increase overall fees for green cards, work permits and other benefits an average of 66%.

That hike of sixty-six percent is expected to take effect in June. While it's understandable that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are low in resources and funding and are looking for ways to increase both, it would make more sense to slowly increase fees over the course of several years or to ask Congress to renew the special appropriation that it granted in 2002. Such a steep increase in one shot is outrageous and one that many immigrants to the U.S cannot afford.

Angela Sanbrano of the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles said that many of her immigrant clients struggled to pay the current fee and could ill-afford the increases.

"People will now have to make a decision as to whether to pay rent, buy food or become a citizen," she said. "Exercising your democratic right should not face these obstacles."

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are currently holding a 60-day public comment period that is scheduled to end April 2, 2007. If you'd like to weigh in on this obscene hike of fees, please go to the Regulations.gov and perform a search using the drop-down menu - there is only one open public comment period on the USCIS docket.

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Let's not penalize those who wish to become new citizens just because we got ours.

Court-Martial of Principled Officer Ends in Mistrial

Mistrial ends Watada court-martial:

FORT LEWIS, Wash. (AP) — FORT LEWIS -- The court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in a mistrial Wednesday.

The case's judge, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over after a day of wrangling over a stipulation of facts that Watada had signed before the trial and that would have been part of the instructions to the jury. The judge decided that Watada never intended when he signed the stipulation to mean that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his unit.

Again the issue was Watada's views on the Iraq war -- opinions that kept him from going with his unit to the conflict and that the judge didn't want brought up at the court-martial.

Head is woefully incorrect when he insists that the illegality of the Iraq Occupation is not the issue. It is the central issue. For the Army to insist that its officers and enlisted soldiers follow orders, despite their conscience, is criminal. I'm in danger of invoking Godwin's Law, but one must remember that the Nazis' defense was that they were just following orders.

Watada could have easily filed for conscientious objector status. He didn't because he isn't a pacifist and he is an honorable man. He strongly believes in serving his country by defending it. He sees that serving in an illegal occupation is not defending his country.

According to USA Today, a new trial date has been set for March 12.

Bush Doesn't Care About Poor People...Still

Bush's recently released budget proposal is, yet again, a wonderment in its disregard for those less fortunate as it seeks to hold down desparately needed Medicare growth while making tax cuts to the rich a permanent feature. Yeah, that's the way to erase the national debit.

None of this comes as a surprise to anyone who pays attention to the cold-heartedness of this administration. And anyone who has two brain cells to rub together and a modicum of compassion would be outraged at this.

But it doesn't stop there, my friends. Included in the budget is a Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program:

Drawing the most criticism were proposals to cut the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to about $1.8 billion, from the nearly $2.2 billion expected to be allocated in 2007, and to cut the weatherization program — which helps the poor insulate their homes — from the proposed $242 million for the current fiscal year to $144 million.

Nick Papas, a spokesman for the House Democratic caucus, said Bush was sending a message to families who receive energy assistance: "Stock up on blankets."

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) called Bush's proposed cut in funding for the energy-assistance program "simply unacceptable," underscoring how energy policy often divides along climate zones rather than party lines.

So when families who rely on such programs to keep from freezing end up getting sick because they can't afford to heat their homes, they can just stay sick, because Medicare won't be picking up the cost.

The Democratic majority had better make sure this doesn't go through.

Requiescat In Pace, Ms. Ivins

Today syndicated columnist and best-selling author Molly Ivins passed away after a long battle with breast cancer at the age of 62.

A life-time resident of Texas, Ms. Ivins specialized in skewering politicians of her home state, but her sharply honed talents singled out George W. Bush in such books as Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush - published a month before the 2000 presidential election - and Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America - published in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq.

She - and her well-slung arrows - will be missed.

Rest in peace, Ms. Ivins.

Elect Progressive Democratic Delegates

SoCal Grassroots, Progressive Democrats of America and the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party have joined together to run progressive slates in the upcoming elections for Assembly District Delegates to the California Democratic Party and we need your help!

Please come out on Saturday and Sunday, January 13th and 14th, to support fellow progressives in revitalizing the Democratic Party. Visit Progressive Slate to find out more about these elections, including the slates as they're set and election locations and times by assembly district. If you're unsure about your assembly district, please visit the CDP website.