Below are the 6 most recent journal entries recorded in bert_fields' LiveJournal:

Thursday, April 12th, 2007
1:38 pm	Bush Administration February 23, 2007 Beijing,China - For Americans to understand what has in fact happened to our image and actual power in the world, one needs to visit foreign countries and compare the progress of freedom. The Chinese New Year is in its 5th day of a 10-day celebration which includes its Spring Festival. Most of the people returned to their provinces to celebrate with their families, yet productivity is constant. Huge department stores have more people than seem possible to hold. Almost everyone carry bags with new purchases. Can anyone imagine all of the 300 million people in the US having a ten-day holiday at the same time? Fireworks displays are not community-planned events. Millions of individuals have their own displays in every neighborhood. The government tried to ban fireworks because of fatalities and injuries during celebratory barrages, but the people protested that the celebration was not the same and the government rescinded the ban. This contradicts the idea that the Chinese people must do exactly as they are told. It is developing a strong capitalistic economy. The people are too busy becoming millionaires to worry about politics. China is a government by one political party that seems to not interfere in the people’s personal lives unless actions affects the Communist Party and the majority of the population. A well-known example is the one-child policy which has now become a large problem for China’s male youths in finding brides, since many female babies were adopted, most by American families. Food is in abundance at prices that all can afford. The largest red radish I have ever seen (about 3/4 the size of a honeydew melon) cost US 15 cents. Fruits and vegetables have a deeper definitive taste and Chinese variety is endless. Whoever or whatever department is in charge of agriculture and importing foods from Vietnam, Korea, Philippines citrus fruits for example, are performing a most efficient service. On limited farmland, the Chinese produce food for 1.3 billion people daily, and import seasonal produce. Regions are set aside only for growing flowers. In a northern province, when fishing no longer provided a living, it was decided to develop the land. They constructed fish hatcheries introducing new species to the area. on 3,000 hectares, They now provide turbot and salmon for the US. Another new enterprise was started to raise poultry.The area is rejuvenated, with resort-style housing and the miracle of modern conveniences. Old neighborhoods are in the process of rehabilitation, with ancient, mud and clay huts becoming a thing of the past, with new hi-rises for displaced people in Beijing. There are few single-family dwellings here. What is left are older homes. Costly suburban developments with names such as Miami Beach and New York, are housing for newly affluent, young families. Since my first visit in 2003, three identical, office-buildings have been constructed in clear view of my son's large condominium complex. They seem to be an architectural miracle; oval shaped, 30-stories above underground levels for stores and parking. Directly next door is a 40 story building for offices and a four-star restaurant. Throughout all of Beijing there are incredibly imaginative designs of new buildings. One is new television headquarters with two leaning towers that will meet in the center. How does this country accomplish such huge projects in such a short time? The government decides on a project such as an inland nuclear power plant, the largest new ship, the highest railroad in the world, sets and meets the completion date. They have a huge labor force and funds! In watching the one English-language television channel, one wonders if the US or Europe exist. News report are all about China's political achievements. The Six-party talks held in Beijing the first week of my visit, showed well-tailored, broadly-smiling Chinese, Russian and South Korean diplomats shaking hands, while a dour US Christopher Hill in a three second head shot, said, "No more negotiating, they need to make some decisions." The impression was a taciturn American not as eager to solve the North Korea proliferation problem as were the other diplomats. It was also somewhat disconcerting to see how far diplomatic relations between China, India and Russia have advanced, with the US appearing to have no part in the world community. The signing of an agreement of China's financial aid to Mozambique in return for access to a natural resource was big news. It was a short sound-bite and I did not hear a description of the product or material. Also disconcerting is the $33 billion trade that China and Russia achieved in 2006. The US’s enormous trade deficit does not approach the record-breaking economic improvements of Asian nations. However, there is no question that China needs to vastly improve its social services, especially for the 134 million elderly, who live in poverty, with meager pensions. It is obvious that resources are available for the youth in various cultural training programs, primarily sports, with baseball recently becoming high priority. Preparation for the 2008 Olympics is foremost in new construction which will later be turned into publish use. At the end of my visit the Peoples’ Congress had opened in Beijing to urge the party to initiate a social security program. My conclusion is that the new US Democratic Congress and the 2008 presidential candidates must express to the world that the US wishes to become the friendly, helpful nation it was before the Bush administration; that it intends to return to diplomatic resolutions and cease any threat of violence and overpowering tactics to demand that countries first respond to US commands before discussion can take place, which has been the Cheney-Bush policy. We must also be willing to recognize our vulnerability to the ever increasing wealth and alliances among nations not friendly to the western world. For America to continue its relatively short history compared to ancient civilizations having a re-birth in the modern world, a whole new image and approach for the good of the world must be the highest priority. As part of this priority, the US must turn to all nations to have equal voice to end the violence in Africa; between Israel and its enemies, and for a resolute policy to find and eradicate every terrorist cell or group, irrespective of difference in religious beliefs, using facilities and personnel from all military, intelligence and police agencies throughout the world. A few days ago, I watched on Chinese television, an embarrassed, and usually glib Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice as she stammered through an obvious lie, that the decision of the British coalition to reduce its 7,100 troops to some 5,000, was part of the new Bush strategy in Iraq. He is increasing the number of American troops there by at least 100,000. The general(s) who created this "logic" in military planning surely must be on the same mental level as their Commander in Chief. There is no doubt that a bold, modern foreign policy is absolutely required, without input from the tired, old men who have been in Congress too long, and who have little to show for their decades of incumbency, and from those who blindly supported George W. Bush’s ill-conceived war on Iraq. The new Congress must be led by a younger, wiser, better educated president who has not been tainted by years of obligations to lobbyists and colleagues, and one who puts loyalty to our country, before blindly supporting his political party. Watch for the pre-publication of my book, What a Wonderful World This Can Be: Solutions For a Planet in Crisis, which will be released in this space before May 1, 2007. April 12,2007 Now is the time for a recap of the George W. Bush term in office. Regarding US election procedures, as an election judge for over 15 years, I have not heard of any instance of questionable outcome for any candidate. In my precinct or in my county in Illinopis. We are aware of fraud which has occurred where political parties wield strong influence and some- times the powers that be will try to rectify any honest mistakes. They will seldom fully cooperate if there are signs of vote fraud. However, In the highly questionable Florida results, the state where George W. Bush's brother Jeb Bush was governor; where Kathleen Harris the individual responsible for election procedures had connections to the family, it was left to the Supreme Court of the United States to decide which candidate won. The majority of justices had been appointed by the former Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. "Hanging chads" became a new part of our vocabulary, and the mis- alignment of candidates’ names caused voters to unknowingly check the wrong box, which cost Al Gore votes. Some people were disenfranchised especially in African-American communities. Early in the evening all major networks' anchors obviously dismayed as they were seldom far off from their predictions as polling places close, apologized for their mistake in declaring Al Gore the victor. The court failed to rectify the apparent fraud. George W. Bush was ruled the winner. There is no provision in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the duty and power to influence the electoral process in favor of any candidate. Also, Al Gore appeared on television although disagreeing with the judgment, “accepted” the incomplete result. We know that candidates often have conceded elections before all the votes are counted. This, too, is a violation of the Constitution. No one, not a candidate or supporters, protesters or voters have the right to decide the outcome by conceding. In fact, voters in a sense are disenfranchised when votes have not been counted before the results are announced. Obedient Americans though outraged at the travesty to our sacred election rights, also accepted the outcome. We did not demand a new election in Florida. The Bush foreign policy, specifically regarding the invasion of Iraq and his “war on terrorism,” will long be disputed. If there is cause to believe that his policies were not stupid mistakes in judgment, but a failed plan for a middle-east coup to benefit the Carlyle Group, Bechtel and Haliburton Corporations, or other oil or personal interests, a non partisan investigation must be initiated immediately. The Saudi royal family invested in the oil exploration company founded by son George W. Bush (43). Did they do that because they needed more oil profits? The deal was handled by James A. Bath, "W"s fellow national guardsman, who is connected with the Saudi royal family's financial empire. Both were disciplined for violation of a medical requirement as documented in the Michael Moore film, Fahrenheit 9/11 and other sources. It was also reported that soon after Bush (43) was inaugurated, Bush (41) asked Saudi Prince Bandar, the most protected diplomat in the US, to advise "W" in his new job. Americans seldom try to imagine themselves in the shoes of citizens of foreign nations. Would you be fearful if the strongest nation in the world invaded your country that gained the support of its people by lying to them; that your country had weapons of mass destruction and that they needed to defend themselves against you? Or, if that country declared it's mission was to bring democracy to your section of the world with the use of violence, would that be sufficient reason to fear for your country? Would you accept invasion without protest, bombardment of your cities resulting in loss of life and devastation of your infrastructure, and the onset of a civil war, or would you seek the world court's opinion as to whether a war crime was committed or not? What is as disturbing is that the new president who started a war, declared himself to be the "war president" in the 2004 campaign and then convinced the electorate that there should be no change during a war. Dumbed-down America bought that logic and George W. Bush was elected in 2004. Another factor, was the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York. The president vowed he would find Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, the terrorist group operating from caves in Afghanistan, and bring him to justice. Americans were all for this plan and Congress supported his sending troops to find bin Laden by declaring war on terrorism. However, the Constitution does not give the president or Congress the power to declare war on individuals. How did the president and Congress find a way around the provision that the president must defend against sovereign nations that threaten or attack the US? No one gave thought to gather all of the law enforcement resources of every nation to capture the murderers of 3,000 people. The collected wisdom of both branches of our government accepted the meager “coalition” of the United Nations and deployment to Afghanistan began. There were no troops from the neighboring nations of Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Israel was told their involvement would complicate the process. Instead of following through where coalition troops were gaining ground in Afghanistan and winning the war on terrorism, the "decider" accused Sadam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda, and that he was a threat to the US. Bush refused to acknowledge the UN’s report that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. To defend the US against Hussein, he and Tony Blair, Britain’s Prime Minister, declared a “preemptive war”and invaded Iraq. The war against terrorism was no longer high priority, so that the nearly defeated Taliban regained strength, and that war is still in progress. Now over 3,000 American troops are dead, thousands more maimed for life, thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq killed or injured. Their country is in a civil war, with religious Shiites and Sunnis zealots in daily attacks with no peace in sight. Among many remaining questions, is puzzlement over the choice of this president's staff and cabinet. Did he not have any contemporaries who might have had some value when he was governor of Texas, or did he not know any former classmates who might have majored in international policy or government service? Isn't is at all odd that this president had only his father's cronies as his major advisors, namely Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, a failed National Security Advisor who said the warning left by the Clinton administration that al Qaeda was planning an attack on the US were "too vague." Apparently since she was not provided with details of dates and time, or where and how they would accomplish this, she did not see this threat as a priority. The other most vexing question is why Iraq was this president's second highest priority before he was even inaugurated? Former president Bill Clinton said in his book, My Life, that when George W. visited him in the White House after the Supreme Court decision, he had pointed out there were nine issues higher, including North Korea and Iran's nuclear proliferation and al Qaeda, Did Bill Clinton tell his wife Senator Hillary Clinton about this conversation? She voted for the Iraq invasion Could this revelation have saved thousands of lives lost in this war if Clinton had let the public know as Bush was gaining support? On the domestic front, this president turned an historic highest budget surplus left by the Clinton administration, into an historic budget deficit repeating he had "inherited a recession," which Democrats failed to challenge. The Constitutional provision "Equal under the law" is ignored with special tax cuts for oil companies and wealthy individuals, as the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Loopholes for the wealthy prevail, when the income tax amendment, simply states, "Income from whatever source derived shall be taxed." New jobs are abundant in fast food chains, but not for college graduates.The housing industry has been devastated so that sales are at a 20-year low with repercussions in related industries. High-tech jobs and manufacturing of materials and goods has been out sourced. Education is failing to produce math and science majors needed to compete with foreign competition, and corporate executives are earning 400 times the amount of their employees. Medical costs are soaring, food costs are rising and environmental issues have been ignored. Must we allow conditions to become even worse until January, 2008, or is there someway for the almost equal number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress to put aside their partisan and personal ambition and show their loyalty to the country by controlling this lame-duck president or seeking his resignation? Despite the massive Iraqi demonstration on Easter Sunday for “American occupiers” to leave their country immediately, and the majority of Americans demanding an end to this war, it was annnounced yesterday, that the 12 month deployment of troops in Iraq is increased to 15 months. Republicans, led by Senator McCain who himself was imprisoned in the Vietnam war, is seeking the presidency in 2008, and is the most adamant about “winning” the war. Powerful supporters of the Bush war have yet to explain just what that means. Was the banner proclaiming victory aboard a naval carrier a lie? Does it mean a trophy of some sort declaring the US the victor will bring our troops home? Did they not achieve the Bush goal to depose Sadam Hussein? Did they not succeed in causing dmocratic elections in Iraq? What more designates a victory? The most important question, is whether or not it is the constitu- tional duty and power of the executive and legislative branches to “bring democracy to the world?” Watch for the pre-publication of my book, What a Wonderful World This Can Be: Solutions For a Planet in Crisis, which will be released in this space before May 1, 2007. (Comment on this)
Sunday, April 2nd, 2006
2:41 am	Members of Congress TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Something terrible is happening in our country and it started when the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush would be our president. It is the government vs.the people. More than ever, Republicans are exhibiting a greater loyalty to their party than to their country. Democrats are leaderless, exhibiting little backbone, no voice but to "support" the president, despite the 70 percent of us who do not approve of his actions. Democrats seem to fear being accused of not supporting the president. Therefore, they focus less on initiating solutions germane to deepening concerns of the people. History will conclude that you have failed in your duty to your constituents and by that have lost your legitimacy. Did you know or forget that your job is to balance the power of the executive branch? You are the lawmakers. It is not your job to support a president who has expanded his power and led us on a path of destruction. In the eyes of the world, America has become a nation to fear. Through lies and subterfuge, for the first time in our history we invaded another nation. We have lost over 2,300 of our young soldiers, with thousands more wounded. Innocent civilians in Iraq have been killed and maimed, and we opened the door to civil war in a foreign country. According to Bill Clinton's book MY LIFE, George W. Bush visited him after the tainted “election,” and before his inauguration. September 11, 2001 was yet to come. He told Clinton that Iraq was his second priority (missile defense first). Why did the former president fail to tell the American people and Congress about that visit before they voted to support the invasion of Iraq? Did Bush have information or a premonition that there would be an attack on September 11, 2001? Any student of political science knows that when George W. Bush declared war on terrorism after 9/11, he gave Osama Ben Laden legitimacy as the head of a government. Ben Laden and his gang should have been charged with the murder of 3,000 people, and with all of the resources of the world’s police departments and special agencies, could have been brought to justice. What are the true reasons that Bush was determined to invade Iraq? Why did the Republican Congress, with support of Democrats, including Senator Hillary Clinton, agree? Did members of Congress question why he was acting with such irrational speed, excluding the diplomacy of the United Nations, and choosing to ignore their report that there were no weapons of mass destruction. If the reason was to “bring democracy to the middle east,” do you know of any clause in our Constitution that states the president has the duty and power to bring democracy to a foreign nation? Was it not possible for the world’s intelligence and special agencies capable of implementing a plan to seize one man, Saddam Hussein, and bring him to justice? It is mortifying to think it took an army to capture him. Even worse is that “justice” is taking too many years to prevail, while Hussein lives in better jail conditions and safety than his victims. As reported in the April 3, 2006 edition of U.S. News & World Report, "that after he (Bush) decided to invade he told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to carry out the mission as they saw fit." The article said he then blindly followed Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney's recommendations. Where was the Congress to monitor this ill-planned and senseless war? If you had known these facts, would you have voted to support the invasion of Iraq? Are you prepared to approve funds for a similar World War II Marshall Plan requested by Iraq's new leaders at the January, 2006 World Economic Forum in Davo, Switzerland? Is their vast oil supply in production? If it is, will they be expected to pay at least part of the restructuring? If it is, where is the revenue and how is it distributed? If not, why are they not producing? Has our government located all of Hussein’s financial and material assets aside from the $6 million cash found earlier? Senators McCain and Biden's solutions to end the war in Iraq as reported in the Readers' Digest, are so lacking in wisdom as to be an embarrassment. They agree that this “democracy” is not workable as long as there is internal conflict. McCain suggests we ‘cage’ the people in safe areas so that insurgents can’t get to them. Does that mean the ‘open’ zones will be ruled by the insurgency? Did it occur to any one of you, that the only way to end this war is to separate the Sunnis, Shi'as and Kurds into three countries and divide the profits from oil production according to the population in each country? We have seen in our lifetimes the division of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Bosnia and others, into individual nations. If the British and other European empires in relatively recent history forcefully carved up whole continents to take land as their own colonies, wouldn't it be more beneficial and moral to stop a war between people of the same background? Are members of Congress knowledgeable in the history of Islam? Do you know that Muhammad left no instructions as to his successors, and since his death the Sunnis and Shi'a have been at war based on which of two dynasties should lead. Shi'a believed that succession should come only through the line of Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. Did you know that the seat of Islam was once in Damascus and moved to Baghdad because of this conflict? These groups have lived apart for centuries, with limited integration in some city neighborhoods, and wisely, the Kurds live separate from both. Is it possible for these people to live together without conflict? It was, but only under the dictator Saddam Hussein who killed his countrymen to augment his brutal repression. Some 30,000 Iraqis have already fled, most to Syria, since the U.S. invasion, leaving behind their homes and possessions rather than endure our occupation and the daily killings. The president says there is no civil war in Iraq, while their newly elected prime minister said a civil war is in progress. Which one is to be believed? Shame on all of you for allowing September 11 to make you so fearful that you are willing to trade our freedom for "homeland security." Have you thought to investigate who at our embassies are screening applications for visas to enter the United States? Who carefully checks their visas before they board a plane or ship? Who checks their visas when they arrive at our air or sea ports? Does anyone know where these people stay when they enter? Are they tracked down if they overstay their visa date? How many of these people are unaccounted for in the United States who might actually be a security risk? How many of these middle east immigrants are undocumented? Even when they were given information before 9/11, the F.B.I. failed to investigate. In bringing democracy to the middle east, what thought have you given to Iran’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map?” Have you looked at a map of that area recently? You would need a magnifying glass to find Israel. Note the size of Iran compared to Israel. Note the location of Iran which does not border on Israel and is separated from it by Iraq, Jordan and Syria. How will Iran or any other mid-east country benefit from the destruction of Israel and its democracy? On an enlarged map, please note the two territories given over to the Arabs in Gaza and the ridiculously indefensible West Bank border. Was it Kissinger who negotiated this separation? If the Hamas permits a legitimate Palestine to exist, how will they transport themselves from one part of their country to the other? Will they build a highway over Israel, or subways? At this moment, CBS Face the Nation, is talking about illegal immigration from Mexico. They are considering building a wall to prevent these “criminals” who are willing to work for low wages, from entering the United States. Israel, defending itself from suicide bombers is criticized by the world for building a wall. The Republicans were smart enough to keep the focus on security when the Dubai farce was recently uncovered. What you should have investigated is how long has the government been paying Dubai and a British corporation to manage our ports and why did they keep it secret? How did it help the U.S. economy to pay them $6.59 billion? For that huge payment, did they initiate any security measures? Did they put a large part of the profit into our economy or did they add to their Swiss bank accounts? None of you asked how these port contracts could have been awarded without bids from American companies. Why was the sub-government bureaucracy, non-elected staff permitted to make this decision? Was it unlawful to conceal the contract? In learning of the Dubai contract, did any one of you have an intuitive, if not educated awareness of "hali burton tosis"? One of the executives of the British company (not named) on C-Span a few weeks ago said, "we have to pay our stockholders." Senator Frist’s response that the president is "probably right" in making the deal, is a shameful abdication of Frist's duty to question the president's misuse of power. It suggests his pandering to the president's family dealings with mid-east oil interests. Perhaps, too, it is the reason Ben Laden attacked the twin towers only eight months after Bush took office. Only Wisconsin Senator Feingold has the courage to seek censure of a president who has broken the law starting with secret wire-tapping. Who knows what other secrets will be discovered during and after this administration? For the sake of homeland security, Congress has given this president the power to investigate our library book selections - equally insidious. Does anyone know how many more of our liberties will be compromised for the sake of “security?” If you don't have the courage to seek censure, than ask for this president's resignation with the understanding that he take along with him all of his father's cronies who carried out his orders. According to the article in U.S. News and World Report, April 3, 2006, it appears that they have actually been running the government, with the president as a figurehead. It describes his “hands-off style,” quoting him, "I put a lot of faith and trust in my staff...I look for people who are smart and loyal and who share my conservative philosophy. My job is to set the agenda...and then delegate much of the process to them. The final decision often rests with me, but their judgment has a big influence........... I am loyal to my friends, so it is sometimes hard to say no." How does that statement relate to his duty and loyalty to his country and its citizens? Equally astonishing in yesterday’s (March 31, 2006) C-Span coverage of the resolution for censure, is the dumbing-down of Senators Specter, Hatch, Sessions and Graham, just as the people have been.They are as confused as the president as to the difference in the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. Do you know whether these are separate wars or were you influenced to believe it is all one cause? Senator Graham’s attack on a witness who didn’t say what he wanted to hear was improper. Senator’s Hatch body language, facial expression and his quiet remark to Senator Specter clearly indicated his anger at opposing witnesses. This blind obedience to the president’s wishes, placing him above the law, is clearly a violation of this body’s Constitutional duty to prevent the executive branch from seizing power. It is frightening to contemplate that Republicans might plan a huge campaign for right wing fanatics and ‘cowed’ conservatives to demand that Bush remain in power at the end of his term. Will the military remove him from the White House? Is this a far-fetched fear in view of current damage to our democracy? Can Congress assure U.S. citizens that we need not have that fear? Sunday TV pundits are thinking that, but apparently fear asking. Senator Leahy in frustration said,“they wouldn’t tell us,” “we don’t know,” referring to recent hearings seen on C-Span, when this same committee was so ineffective. Their partisan questioning and acceptance of refusals to answer, indicated they were all merely going through the motions. In fact it is obvious they did not really expect answers. The arrogance of the appointed attorney general who was privy to secrets, above that of elected members of Congress, was rewarded with your insufficient probing. Attorney General and the president score - Congress 0. On this third anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, the president is still under the illusion that he has brought democracy to Iraq, as he proclaimed on the White House lawn upon returning from a weekend at Camp David. As the civil war rages, despite elections, a government has yet to be formed and American forces are still in charge. If Congress does not fully regulate or outlaw the influence and practices of lobbyists, especially to enrich their weapons-manufacturer clients, you could well be considered war criminals and we will never achieve global peace. “PEACE” is the word you are avoiding or have not even given that possibility any thought. I have listened carefully and have not heard it uttered even once by the president or any members of Congress in public hearings or news programs. The war on terrorism is a diabolical way for the president and Congress to evade important domestic issues. Quite likely, the reason is that their true intention to remain in power will become known to voters. How do tax cuts for the wealthiest, comply with our right to equality under the law? Common sense is that if equal, upper and lower middle-class tax payers would immediately put the money back into our economy by paying huge gas-heating bills and automobile fuel, credit card debt, mortgages, property taxes, insurance for home, auto, liability, life, and health care, as well as utilities, groceries, school supplies, and children's needs, instead of filing record-breaking bankruptcies. The obvious sham by the president and Congress in passing his plan to relieve the burden of the cost of medicine for the elderly will resonate for years to come. It is not only unconstitutional for a federal program to provide unequal and different benefits from state to state, but is so blatant a reward for insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, as to suspect payback for campaign contributions or is even more sinister. What appears on its face is criminal concessions to pharmaceutical corporations that do not permit the government to negotiate for lower prices, harking back to price-fixing days - in return for what? It is easy to predict that the next step will be the outlawing of individuals to choose to purchase medication from Canada and Europe which is currently about one-third to one-half the prices the pharmaceutical companies will receive from the government and co-payers. Their claim that high prices are due to the cost of research is a lie. Americans have generously and voluntarily contributed billions to medical research for many years. Have any members of Congress called the insurance companies listed in literature explaining Plan D, for information and clarification? You will discover different prices, and even fraud by a company who lists specific drugs, and state the amount of the premium, but will not in fact have the drugs. What happens when monthly premiums are deducted from social security but the drug is “not available” from the company one chooses? What happens when one reaches the “doughnut” (if you know what that is)? You are advised here, that a better plan is needed by May 15, 2006 or come November, senior citizens who are the highest number and consistent voters, will not forget why they might need to choose death by lack of medication, or death by starvation or malnutrition. Where in the Constitution does it grant the power to the president to award funds for scientific research based on his religious belief? Do you truly believe that we should not have stem-cell research that could improve the quality of life as we enter old age, because of the religion or personal beliefs of elected or appointed officials? Do you remember the slogan “As GM goes, so goes the nation?” It has come to pass. When will you become aware of huge markets that are developing in China, India and South Korea. They are wisely inviting peasants to share the new wealth,. who will receive higher wages and better education. As new consumers, they will create the wealthiest markets and will need no trade partners. While our revenue is spent on war, they are growing into large labor forces, graduating 500,000 highly educated engineers and technologists in all fields each year. Then we will wonder how we deteriorated to the fourth wealthiest country in the world, if not even lower. It is impossible to respect your positions as representatives of the people when in blind obedience not one of you speaks out to contradict the president's statement that he "inherited a recession." It is repeated often enough - only a few days ago in the resignation speech by Bush's friend, Andrew Card, so that dumbed-down America believes it. Few of you fail to repeat that this president inherited the largest surplus in our nation's history, which in less than six years he has turned into the highest deficit in U.S. and world history. Did members of Congress forget that funds were allocated for Representative Henry Hyde to chair the committee to reform the judicial system? He was instead conducting the House's impeachment of Bill Clinton's immorality which any Republican knows was far more important, and at the same time sanctimoniously forgave Hyde’s own "youthful indiscretion." He is now retiring and will probably leave with awards and honors. What has he accomplished in his many decades in the House? Has our current system anything to do with truth and justice? How many cases have we heard and read, about the miscarriage of justice, especially in Texas? George Ryan, former Republican governor of Illinois, pardoned capitol crime convicts based on improper police actions and prosecution of their cases that might have put to death the wrong criminal. Ironically, he is a defendant in a mishandled Federal Court case and at this moment is awaiting a decision as to whether he participated in corruption during his administration. It is beyond understanding that representatives of a civilized people accept the building of more prisons without any significant preventive and treatment programs as seen in the recividism rate of some 75 percent of released convicts. The unoccupied state-of the-art prison recently completed, is an embarrassment. How could so much money have been spent on the structure with no funds remaining to operate the facility? Judiciary Committee, is it your duty to initiate an F.B.I. Investigation? Lawyers are the only beneficiaries of final judgments. They are all familiar with the courthouse statement, "the worst settlement is better than a trial." Who received the largest lump-sum payments in settlement of the tobacco industry ruling? How can Americans protect their property rights without losing that very property to pay legal bills? Their opponents could be real estate corporations with staff attorneys or tax deductible fees. Most important is the silence these many decades regarding the enactment of a limited term for the presidency, but not for the legislature. Congress looked away from this imbalance because it enabled you to remain in office long past your effectiveness. Your careful avoidance of campaign reform is blatantly self-serving. Most of your terms are spent fund-raising to remain in office. It is much more difficult for your opponents to raise millions of dollars to campaign against you, which on its face is a travesty in a democracy. Citizens need to be wealthy to seek public office. You have allowed this democracy to erode. We need to amend the Constitution to limit the term of the Congess and require complete resumes and I.Q. scores, as well as verification that candidates for the presidency and Congress are not brain-damaged or have psychiatric problems. There are countless other problems. People are still displaced from Katrina, huge contracts issued to friends of the administration to rebuild New Orleans, education, run away corporate fraud, etc. The government failed to guard our borders, and immigrants entered illegally from Mexico to work at low pay, menial jobs Americans won’t accept. Congress is now threatening to deprive them of a living, even those undocumented children when they were brought to the U.S. My question to Senator Sensebrenner is in your 37 years in Congress what have you done to help Mexico develop its own economy so that these hard-working people, desperate to support their families won’t die in the desert to reach the nearby U.S.? We were once a humane nation. If you truly loved our country, the House should censure the Senate, and the Senate should investigate the House, and remove from office those who blindly followed their party line, and compromised their constitutional duties. As for the survival of the planet, why has the president and Congress denied the fact of the existance of global warming? Is it too late to reverse the disappearing glaciers? And do you believe the planet could survive another world war, whether nuclear and/ or conventional weapons are used? How much more of Iraq will be destroyed because of our governments violent actions? What are you doing to alleviate the terrible hunger in Africa? For the record, please respond with answers to the following questions: 1. What was your schedule this past week that was of benefit to your constituency? ____________________________________________________________ 2. Since you have been a U.S. Senator which bill(s) did you author and which was your most significant contribution and when did that occur? ____________________________________________________________ 3 How much money do you have in your next election campaign funds? ____________________________________________________________ 4. How much time do you expect you will spend from now to November for fund-raising and campaigning? ____________________________________________________________ Any comments from readers would be appreciated. BFields747@aol.com (Comment on this)
Wednesday, October 20th, 2004
1:46 pm	2004 Election DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA: Since casting my first vote in 1948, no other election has been as crucial to the immediate and future needs of our country. In 2000, the United States Supreme Court's ruling allowed Mr. Bush to become what should be considered, "acting" president. Republicans apparently agree with this assumption, as only once in this campaign has the word "re elect" been used in connection with this president. Only days away, it is amazing that supporters of Mr. Bush, media pundits, well-educated, former leaders and experienced men who have been in the Congress too long, have not understood how badly our country has been damaged these past 4 years. None have had the courage to question Mr. Bush's mental ability and analytical skills to make the monumental decisions that will be needed to bring about the changes so carefully detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report. Anyone who has read or even scanned the contents should know that this "acting" president will not be able to safeguard this or any other country, or repair the harm he has done to domestic conditions. Mr. Bush has dumbed down America to his intellectual level measured by his inarticulate speeches, accepted as "gaffes", and in his apparent inability to 'think on his feet'. He has been unable to communicate or explain his own positions when responding to his opponent's ideas, not even in defense of his dogmatic and failed war in Iraq. He only repeats that he will stay the course, and that Senator Kerry will not. His gaffes are fodder for late-night show comedians. In his use of the word "feces" when he surely meant "fetuses" in an anti-abortion speech, and in his response to Senator Kerry's reference to a possible draft, pounding the lectern, "there will be a draft" which was opposite to what he wanted to say. There was an embarrassed silence while someone told him he mis-spoke. He denied in one of the debates that he said he "wasn't concerned and didn't think about Osama bin Laudin", then television ran a tape of him saying exactly that. Did he really not remember? If so, how comforting is that, knowing he must deal with world leaders and complicated problem solution. What other gaffes has he made during meetings with his own staff and our military which might have led to misunderstandings of what he was ordering them to do? We are accustomed to reports of a candidate's physical health. Are we not entitled to hear the opinion of psychologists as to what Mr. Bush's body language and facial expressions signify, and how they evaluate his mental health? This "acting" president inherited excellent conditions which he squandered during this four-year term, as authenticated in former President Clinton's book, "My Life" [P. 891] - "My last State of the Union address was a joy to deliver. We had more than 20 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment rate and smallest welfare rolls in 30 years, the lowest crime rate in 2 years, the lowest poverty rate in 20 years, the smallest federal work-force in 40 years, the first back-to-back surpluses in 42 years, seven years of declining teen pregnancies and a 30 percent increase in adoptions and 150,000 young people who had served in AmeriCorps. Within a month we would have the longest economic expansion in American history and by the end of the year we would have the three consecutive surpluses for the first time in more than 50 years." What did Mr. Bush say when he took office, and repeats in this campaign? "I inherited a recession." The billion dollar surpluses left to Mr. Bush, were depleted, and defense spending increased by 50 percent, from $354 billion to about $547 billion according to the 9/11 Commission Report, [p. 361] creating a record deficit. How did this happen? In President Clinton's book, [page 935], we learn that the day after Mr. Bush's 'election' "Bush came to the White House for the same meeting I had had with his father eight years earlier.He was putting together an experienced team from past Republican administrations who believed that the biggest security issues were the need for national missile defense and Iraq. I told him that based on the last 8 years, I thought his biggest security problems in order, would be Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda; the absence of peace in the Middle East; the standoff between nuclear powers India and Pakistan, and the ties of the Pakistanis to the Taliban and al Qaeda, North Korea; and then Iraq. He listened to what I had to say without much comment, then changed the subject to how I did the job". Can it be more clear that long before 9/11 Mr. Bush decided to invade Iraq?. There are many questions that voters need answered before they step into the booth to make their choice for president on November 2, 2004, and to consider who is really running this administration. Mr. Bush did appoint his father's staff, including Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, to name a few. Do these Republicans have more loyalty to their party than to their country? 1. Why, when we were so close to finding Osama bin Laudin and ending his reign of terror, did Mr. Bush leave this monumental task to the Afghans, reducing our participation, and instead used our military resources to invade Iraq? Would a few more weeks of U.N. inspection, reveal what we now know to be a lie regarding weapons of mass destruction controlled by Saddam Hussein? Are Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and Egypt among the coalition countries and how many of their troops are fighting this threat of mass destruction in their own neighborhood? Why would Mr. Bush put our young troops in harm's way, causing the deaths of more than a thousand, injury to thousands more, along with the destruction and unreported number of casualties and suffering of the iraqi people? This "acting" president creates a war and then enthusiastically proclaims himself to be a "war president" as though it were a badge of honor. The 9/11 Commission reports that "polls in 2002 show the support in our fight against terrorism plummeted.... 50 percent of our friends in Egypt decreased to 15 percent, and in Saudi-Arabia to 12 percent, two thirds of countries from Indonesia to Turkey were fearful that the United States may attack them. By 2003, polls showed that the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. ...Since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61 percent to 15 percent in Indonesia, and from 71 percent to 38 percent among Muslims in Nigeria." Does this indicate that Mr. Bush is correct in claiming "we are safer now"? 2. Has Mr. Bush read the U.S. Constitution, specifically in relation to the powers of the presidency? Does it say anywhere that his job is to bring democracy to the rest of the world, whether they ask for it or not? What was the cold-war about and can he analyze what brought about the change in the Soviet Union's ideology? 3. Does our Constitution give Mr. Bush the power to decide the areas of research scientists are allowed to conduct, especially limiting discovery of stem-cell applications? 4. Does our Constitution give Mr. Bush the power to decide personal relationships such as same-sex marriage? 5. Does our Constitution give Mr. Bush the power to impose his views as to what a woman is allowed to do with her own body. Does his pro-life view coincide with the number of lives lost due to his mistakes in not learning more about possible terrorist activity and by launching a war against one-man, Saddam Hussein who remains alive, receiving better medical care than children and many elderly people in the United States? 6. Can anyone really believe that the tax cuts for the rich who could make global investments, were better than if middle and lower-income families could increase daily expenditures to improve their local economies? Does this decision reflect his MBA education? 7. Does Mr. Bush understand that the Constitution specifically separates Church and State and that whether or not he is a God-fearing man has nothing to do with the power of the presidency? Is his morality on a higher level in waging an unnecessary, catastrophic war than that of President Clinton's personal behavior? Mr. Bush has made so many mistakes, including the motivation to increase gasoline consumption by granting tax incentives for people to buy SUVs, notwithstanding record-setting prices, and increased environmental problems, which do not seem to exist in Mr. Bush's oil-producing world. Suburbia's "Security Moms", formerly called "Soccer Moms," say on television that they intend to switch their vote to Mr. Bush because he will better protect them from terrorists than Senator Kerry. ....Da....moms, and who will protect your children better from the enormously influential National Rifle Association lobby that refuses to ban the automatic weapons that deranged adults can bring to your schools and kill your children; or help people to buy handguns that their children bring to school and randomly kill and injure your children or accidentally kill themselves or friends while playing at home? Is this question a scare tactic or reality? Of gravest concern is that we elect a president who will understand and follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, that it be the responsibility of the presidency to completely reorganize all of our security agencies, at the same time preserving our civil liberties. . When you vote, ask yourself whether or not you and our country are better off today than 4 years ago? It was a question I asked in the Grass Roots Public Opinion Poll which I conducted for a national newspaper chain during the Reagan administration. Please answer "yes" or "no" and make any comments. Look for continuing journals about the extent of what we can do to make our government accountable for our security and general welfare. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, August 21st, 2004
11:02 am	test 3 book review (Comment on this)
10:47 am	2nd Test This is a test. bf (Comment on this)
10:38 am	Greeting's This is my News Blog Hello I'm Bert Fields (Comment on this)